Arcanist playtest

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, it has been published as a playtest, so it could (and in my view should) get a buff - preferably a boost to the EoT effect.

Actually I think any defender would work. Place the sphere two squares from a Paladin that is marking an enemy to keep the enemy away. Fighters (including knights) are the optimum, but most defenders should allow some nasty "gotchas". Remember, too, that you can't go through the actual sphere square (it "occupies" its square). Edit: putting the sphere just covering where the enemy could charge to seems to work a treat, too. Charging has to be on an "always closer" basis and ends your turn, so it's quite possible to make FS really inconvenient, there.

On the "you lose the initial attack if you place the sphere to block" issue, just use a standard action to conjure the sphere and damage with it (as usual) and then a move to place it in the blocking position. Nothing says you can't move it on the same turn as you conjure it.

The original FS gave you more mileage out of the spell because you could attack with it and then move it over to another group of enemies and they take damage when their turns came up. They would then move because of the sphere and because they were probably going to move anyway.

The main problem is you really don't know when a creature is moving because he has to or because he was going to anyway. Mostly from my experience they would move because they didn't want to get burned again and they were moving anyway. With EOT to the FS the creatures aren't taking damage and thus the whole point of the spell isn't working.

Damage spells should not be EOT because it pretty much makes the spell useless. If you aren't damaging enemies then there is no point to the spell.

 

[Raikun]

Damage spells should not be EOT because it pretty much makes the spell useless. If you aren't damaging enemies then there is no point to the spell.

Lots of spells have a point without damaging the enemy. As does Flaming Sphere with EoT damage...I see lots of use out if it.

It's a 9 square area that enemies REALLY don't want to move into. I just can't see how anyone would be unable to find use for that.

 

[keterys]

Status effects, like slow, can be SoT... but yeah, damage should always be EoT. If you're really not sure about that, imagine it from the reverse angle. Do you want to start your turn and take 20 (or 40, or 60) damage from enemy zones and auras... I've seen an adventure with 40hp people where a round go wrong could mean taking 40 autodamage at the start of a PC' turn, for example.

Or do you want to know that if you end your turn, you'll take that damage (or more) and have a choice in what to do about it?

 

[Kinneus]

Status effects, like slow, can be SoT... but yeah, damage should always be EoT. If you're really not sure about that, imagine it from the reverse angle. Do you want to start your turn and take 20 (or 40, or 60) damage from enemy zones and auras... I've seen an adventure with 40hp people where a round go wrong could mean taking 40 autodamage at the start of a PC' turn, for example.

Or do you want to know that if you end your turn, you'll take that damage (or more) and have a choice in what to do about it?

This would be a more compelling point if there weren't SO. FRICKIN'. MANY. monsters that already do this sort of thing. Often with auras, and not Daily powers they have to sutain. So we'll take away players' ability to do SoT damage, leave the monster's ability to do so intact, and then argue it's about fairness?

 

[keterys]

Check out Monster Vault. They already errata-ed 57 monsters to end of turn... and I didn't see a whole lot of griping about that. But, Flaming Sphere?

Oh yeah, that's where it really mattered

I'll lose any number of Flaming Spheres, and count it a blessing that I never have to deal with an autodazing and damaging Mad Wraith again, thanks.

 

[Kinneus]

Check out Monster Vault. They already errata-ed 57 monsters to end of turn... and I didn't see a whole lot of griping about that. But, Flaming Sphere?

Oh yeah, that's where it really mattered

I'll lose any number of Flaming Spheres, and count it a blessing that I never have to deal with an autodazing and damaging Mad Wraith again, thanks.

I'm in agreement with you on this, actually, but I just kind of think the ship has sailed. Are they going to change every single Zone power in the game?

I will also admit that I just plain don't like errata. Invalidating every Zone power in the game will just ensure that my hard copy of the PHB continues to collect even more dust. Besides, I don't think they intend on doing this any way (though I wouldn't be surprised if all future Zone-like powers are designed to be EoT). I mean, they left good ol' Wall of Fire SoT.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well in our games the Wizard is going to stay the same. We have already tried these changes that the designers apparently didn't playtest all the way through and they failed.

My Wizard doesn't have to sacrifice anything because he already has outstanding control capabilities along side some decent damage.

 

[keterys]

I'm in agreement with you on this, actually, but I just kind of think the ship has sailed. Are they going to change every single Zone power in the game?

Is that more than like 40 powers? Most classes don't have more than a few of those.

*searches Compendium for zone, start(s), damage... and gets 105 powers* Looking closer, about half of them aren't actually even problematic (they trigger on the start of the PCs' next turn, or give a bonus to damage rolls, or deal damage, but create a zone that slows, that kinda thing)... so about 52 powers, many of which were already hit in the warlock and wizard playtest rollups.

And people playing Essentials only, of course, already made that change

 

[MrMyth]

Well, it has been published as a playtest, so it could (and in my view should) get a buff - preferably a boost to the EoT effect.

Oh yeah - and, honestly, is the sort of advice that is most useful to WotC. Not "I hate this change and you should ignore those asking for it!" but instead, "Hey, I feel like the power is now too easy to dismiss, and I think some sort of compensation might result in it becoming balanced but still appealing to take."

A

ctually I think any defender would work.

Yeah, I was pretty much using Fighter as short-hand for 'Defender'. Elements that let you make good use of the new version without it just automatically burning down encounters on its own:
1) Defenders or anyone who can punish someone for moving;
2) Ranged characters in environments where you can position the sphere so that enemy's have to burn in order to engage in melee;
3) Any characters who can daze enemies or knock them prone.

All of those do what I feel 'control' should do - force the enemy to decide between two bad choices. "Do I take damage from the sphere or provoke from the defender?" "Do I engage the archer if it means I burn?" "Do I spend my one action getting away from the sphere or attacking my enemies?"

For me, all of that is far more interesting than simply, "All choices result in me automatically being burned by the sphere, so I might as well ignore it entirely."

Place the sphere two squares from a Paladin that is marking an enemy to keep the enemy away. Fighters (including knights) are the optimum, but most defenders should allow some nasty "gotchas". Remember, too, that you can't go through the actual sphere square (it "occupies" its square). Edit: putting the sphere just covering where the enemy could charge to seems to work a treat, too. Charging has to be on an "always closer" basis and ends your turn, so it's quite possible to make FS really inconvenient, there.

On the "you lose the initial attack if you place the sphere to block" issue, just use a standard action to conjure the sphere and damage with it (as usual) and then a move to place it in the blocking position. Nothing says you can't move it on the same turn as you conjure it.[/QUOTE]

 

[MrMyth]

Well in our games the Wizard is going to stay the same. We have already tried these changes that the designers apparently didn't playtest all the way through and they failed.

My Wizard doesn't have to sacrifice anything because he already has outstanding control capabilities along side some decent damage.

And that's totally your decision to make! And it is worth offering your feedback to WotC - that is how they can make informed decisions.

I do still feel your dismissal of other folk's concerns is poor form - not just disagreeing with them (which is entirely your right to do), but this persistent outlook that if a problem didn't exist for you, it could not exist for others, and that any changes made that you disagree with isn't the result of addressing someone else's concerns, but instead simply 'bad playtesting'.

Similarly, the argument that changes don't need to be made because your wizard is really awesome at both control and damage... well, isn't really an argument that helps your side of the debate, honestly. Being a bit too good at bother categories was a large part of the rational behind the change!