Do wizards suck? / multiple attacks

[Mercurius]

Is it just me or do wizards suck? I have been underwhelmed with their combat utility--the burst spells are nice, but the max HP damage seems rather small, especially compared to strikers. Then you have a 7th level spell like Lightning Bolt only being worth 2d6 + INT...sounds more like Static Electricity That Kinda Hurts a Bit. But seriously, why is a major attack spell of a 7th level wizard no better--in some sense, worse--than 1st level attack powers of strikers? Or am I just missing something?

If it isn't just me, has anyone house-ruled this? For example, attack spells cause +1HP of damage per caster level, or +d6 per three levels. Or there are Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tier versions of different spells, so that Fireball does 3d6 from a Heroic caster, 6d6 from a Paragon caster, and 9d6 from an Epic caster. Of course the problem with this last one is that it makes the difference between a 10th and 11th (or 20th and 21st) level character quite striking.

My sense is that the "power curve" in 4ed is much more gradual in previous editions; while 1st level characters are much more powerful in 4th edition, 30th level characters are much less--it is almost as if the curve is, in 1ed equivalencies, 3rd to 15th. I kind of like this (it is more realistic, after all), except for the fact that the level scale is not open ended and 30th level is the highest you can go--and it just isn't that powerful anymore.

On a side note, are there any rules for multiple attacks in 4ed? The rogue in the party I've been DMing for a few sessions has been attacking twice per round and I just assumed he had some feat for it, but upon investigation I couldn't find anything.

 

[Mort_Q]

Is it just me or do wizards suck?

Probably not just you... but I don't agree.

I have been underwhelmed with their combat utility--the burst spells are nice, but the max HP damage seems rather small, especially compared to strikers.

More targets though.

Then you have a 7th level spell like Lightning Bolt only being worth 2d6 + INT...sounds more like Static Electricity That Kinda Hurts a Bit. But seriously, why is a major attack spell of a 7th level wizard no better--in some sense, worse--than 1st level attack powers of strikers? Or am I just missing something?

3 targets... 1 at 2d6 + INT and 2 at 1d6 + INT. On par with level 7 striker encounter powers.

On a side note, are there any rules for multiple attacks in 4ed? The rogue in the party I've been DMing for a few sessions has been attacking twice per round and I just assumed he had some feat for it, but upon investigation I couldn't find anything.

All multiple attacks in 4e are from powers that give multiple attacks. What level rogue? From memory, I don't think they have any multiple attack at-will powers.

 

[Rafe]

How many enemies can a Rogue hit with one attack? Now ask yourself how many a Wizard can. That's typically the strength of a Wizard: to control the battlefield and strike multiple targets.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

A Wizard is not a Striker. A Wizard is a Controller. It is not supposed to do tons of damage to things. It is supposed to use its spells to control the battlefield.

Get a fork, shove it up your nose and swish it around until you get all of the ideas and thoughts about the previous D&D editions out of your head. Dont try to apply how things were in previous editions to this one.

Ok seriously dont shove a fork up your nose. But its best to go into this with a blank slate. The days of the high level Wizard making the rest of the party obsolete are gone.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

Is it just me or do wizards suck? I have been underwhelmed with their combat utility--the burst spells are nice, but the max HP damage seems rather small, especially compared to strikers. Then you have a 7th level spell like Lightning Bolt only being worth 2d6 + INT...sounds more like Static Electricity That Kinda Hurts a Bit. But seriously, why is a major attack spell of a 7th level wizard no better--in some sense, worse--than 1st level attack powers of strikers? Or am I just missing something?

definitely missing something. I'm sure there are other players thinking of wizards as massive damage dealers as in previous editions but that would break the game. Wizards can distribute more damage per round than any other pc by far they just can't take advantage of it in the same way strikers using focus fire can do. This creates differences without breaking the game. Sphere is by far the most powerful level 1 daily. Cloud is in the top 3 or 4 at level 5. Automatic damage is nothing to shake a stick at and wizards are frequently as valuable as any class in the game.

If it isn't just me, has anyone house-ruled this? For example, attack spells cause +1HP of damage per caster level, or +d6 per three levels. Or there are Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tier versions of different spells, so that Fireball does 3d6 from a Heroic caster, 6d6 from a Paragon caster, and 9d6 from an Epic caster. Of course the problem with this last one is that it makes the difference between a 10th and 11th (or 20th and 21st) level character quite striking.

9d6 would be pretty broken over a 25 square area. Play the wizard and you'll see it's not broken and doesn't suck.

My sense is that the "power curve" in 4ed is much more gradual in previous editions; while 1st level characters are much more powerful in 4th edition, 30th level characters are much less--it is almost as if the curve is, in 1ed equivalencies, 3rd to 15th. I kind of like this (it is more realistic, after all), except for the fact that the level scale is not open ended and 30th level is the highest you can go--and it just isn't that powerful anymore.

the game is much more balanced than before. Powerful in what sense? You want some optimized combo with splat book spells and feat that did infinite damage?

On a side note, are there any rules for multiple attacks in 4ed? The rogue in the party I've been DMing for a few sessions has been attacking twice per round and I just assumed he had some feat for it, but upon investigation I couldn't find anything.

multiple attacks mostly just exists in specific powers. The ranger having the most of these. your rogue appears to be manipulating the system in some way.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

So far, my wizard usually does the most total damage in a fight as long as there are at least four opponents on the field. The more, the merrier.

Regarding Lightning Bolt : It's surgical. It pretty much guarantees three target if they are available without endangering (or needing help from) your buddies. Three hits would mean 4D6 + 3*[Int + Implement + feat] which is more total damage than a striker power of equivalent level.

I've done monster damage with the lowly Burning hand but you can't fit five enemies or more in it every fight.

My sense is that the "power curve" in 4ed is much more gradual in previous editions; while 1st level characters are much more powerful in 4th edition, 30th level characters are much less--it is almost as if the curve is, in 1ed equivalencies, 3rd to 15th. I kind of like this (it is more realistic, after all), except for the fact that the level scale is not open ended and 30th level is the highest you can go--and it just isn't that powerful anymore.

That's absurd. Power is a relative concept. So, PCs are less powerful relative to what? The monsters? When you are at the end of the scale, you can kill Orcus. That's as powerful as ever.

 

[mlund]

The Wizard suffers from some conservative design out of the gate. The Invoker and Druid showcase what the Controller is supposed to be capable of better than the Wizard. Arcane Power should help the Wizard catch up, though.

He's never going to be the go-to guy from dealing 250HP in damage to a single enemy. That's not the Controller's shitck.

He will, hopefully, not be the guy that has to drop Area of Effect damage on his own front-line just to get more than one enemy in the area for much longer, though.

- Marty Lund

 

[Sunglare]

I'm interested in hearing how the Rogue thinks he's getting two attacks a round.

 

[Josep]

The experience with wizards seems to vary greatly between groups. In general, I consider their at-wills pretty weak, although they have amazing daily powers. At low levels, a striker often seems like a better choice, especially if the monsters don't clump so that only 1-2 are good choices for the wizard each round.

The controller role seems to have been poorly defined by WotC when PH1 came out, and the wizards definitely suffer for it, I think.

Rogues have a few ways of getting multiple attacks (3rd and 7th level encounter powers come to mind), but usually they only get one attack.

 

[Mercurius]

OK, I get it: the wizard is a controller, not a striker, and thus better at doing moderate amounts of damage to larger numbers rather than high amounts to one. Fine. My main issue, then, is that it seems to put the cart (role) before the horse (class), and seems to favor game balance over simulationist realism or narrative flexibility, and is thus more of a "gamist" RPG than a "simulationist" or "narrativist" one. I am not saying this is wrong, just...limited to a certain vein and style of RPGing. But at least it seems like it is a conscious choice.

I'm interested in hearing how the Rogue thinks he's getting two attacks a round.

Yeah, so am I!