Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5626039" data-attributes="member: 63763">True. However, unless you can kill a goblin THIS TURN, a wizard that puts an enemy out of the fight for turn is better than a wizard that helps to make a monster dead a couple turns from now. The roles are important. Strikers try to eliminate monsters fast. If they can get 1 monster out of the fight on the first turn, that's 1 less monster to fight the whole battle.  The defender/controller try to make some monsters useless (in some cases). If you can make 1 or 2 monsters useless for a couple of turns, while the party kills off 1 or 2 of the other monsters, a 5 on 5 fight becoes more of a 3 on 5 for the whole battle. The leader is mostly a force multiplier, giving the rest of the party extra actions or more effectiveness. You do ultimately want to kill everything. However, how many people have done a 'wave' encounter? Where you fight say half the baddies, and about 3 rounds in, the other half show up. Generally speaking, unless you are wasteful with encounter/dailies, it's much easier than a full encounter. The 'defenderih' controller powers can make that happen. Unless you are putting a control effect on a creature you could have killed, it's not a waste. As long as someone kills the monster before it gets a turn, it doesn't matter if the monster was killed by the first PC to act or the last. So, there ARE some situations where pure damage is better than control effects, but rarely is the controller the only person that can finish the job. The flaming sphere example ... the damage is 1d4+Int mod. Even with all the extra bonuses you get, a monster still has to be VERY near death for that to kill them. So you are talking about an extremely small corner case. The original version was more like ongoing damage than a 'do what I want you to in order to avoid taking damage' effect. The latter is a control effect, the former is a striker effect if anything. The goal of the errata isn't to make the power better, but to have it fit the role better, which is does.  Damage that you can control is 'better' than damage the enemy can decide to avoid, especially in the case of say, the Avenger's censures (since as a striker, you rather be a striker than a controller). BUT, damage the enemy can't avoid isn't going to cause the enemy to change it's actions, and thus, it isn't control. Yes, the 'last' turn, it's better to kill the enemy than to control it's actions. But for every other turn ... is making the enemy die in 4 more turns vs. 3 more turns better than making the enemy do nothing for a couple turns?</blockquote>

Verification