Do wizards suck? / multiple attacks

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

As for my second point about multiple attacks, why exactly is this not possible? Or rather, why is it that all characters can only attack once, except perhaps for special encounter or daily powers? This is what I mean by 4ed having a heavily "gamist" tone: rules seemed to cater more towards game balance than towards realism (simulationism). For example, it is not realistic that an 18 DEX rogue with two daggers in hand and an 8 DEX wizard with a staff can both attack once per round. At the least it would seem that there should be a feat or something for the rogue to be allowed to attack twice if the second weapon is light.

There's a reason that people mostly only fight with two weapons in the movies and not in real life.

Both attacks are massively impaired by the second attack. Try hitting two tennis balls at once with separate rackets. If it's not at once, and it's just once every six seconds with each you'll find it's a lot faster to recover one weapon and strike again than swing with a weapon that's out of position because of the first weapon.

DnD never accounted for a lot of real life issues(or at least not very well). Trust me that having two daggers is going to put you at a massive disadvantage to one sword, so lets not try and apply a simulation argument here. even the wizard staff argument is pretty flawed because a two handed grip on a staff will allow you to attack with the opposite end quite naturally as you recover from the first attack.

high DEX rogues can't attack twice.

high dex rogues attacking twice is/was fun but it was never based upon anything realistic. It's unbalancing because it allows the multiple application of things like str damage (you would do less than your normal str dmg with either dagger attacks in real life) and it's falsely giving advantage to what in reality is the weaker position. give me a pole arm and give you two daggers and lets test the number of attacks we each get. The pole arm should grant an OA for every attack the dagger guy makes.

None of this is realistic, and balance considerations are far more important than "simulation" in a fantasy game.

 

[Mercurius]

snip...

Thanks, good arguments and I can accept the lack of two-weapon fighting, although it seems rangers still get it, which goes against everything you said...sure, it is a special power rangers get but why not rogues? Fighters? Is Drizzt Do'Urden's influence really that powerful?

give me a pole arm and give you two daggers and lets test the number of attacks we each get. The pole arm should grant an OA for every attack the dagger guy makes.

This is arguable, because the dagger guy could be out of reach from the pole arm guy by being too close--he wouldn't necessarily have to jump in and out of range but just stay close, and too close for the pole arm guy to attack effectively...you could argue that the dagger guy should be granted an OA every time the pole arm backed away to get a swing in.

None of this is realistic, and balance considerations are far more important than "simulation" in a fantasy game.

Yes and no--I think a balance is possible between game balance considerations and simulation; it really depends upon the individuals playing the game, what they require for the game to be fun. Some like it to have a sense of realism, some balance, some just want a good story, some don't care, some a combination of all of the above and more. But to make a statement as you did--that "balance considerations are far more important than 'simulation' in a fantasy game"--already is taking a particular position or bias, what GNS theory would call "gamism"; nothing wrong with that, but it isn't necessarily how a fantasy game should be played...there are other approaches; everyone has their preferential mix.

 

[KlassyReborn]

My take on the wizard:

If you're complaining that he/she does not have enough hp, that's because you're playing it wrong. As with all previous editions of a wizard, the point is to let the fighter up front while you control from the back. Melee wizards = bad. If you think that wizards are bad, you should have my friend Jonathon in your party. His wizard is a complete asset to our group, and without him, certain things couldn't be accomplished. We ended up flanked by archers on two sides of a canyon, and with his fog spell, allowed us to focus on one set of archers at a time. Also, getting to their at-will powers, thunderwave: keep enemies away from you, like a good wizard should. Ray of frost: slow them so you can run away from them, their cantrips are nice too. Light? I mean sure it's not as good as a sunrod, but hell it's cheaper, and i know i know, 2gp isn't a lot, but it adds up! Mage hand has murky wording so it can be use for many useful things. Like signalling someone. Yeah i'll stop if a spectral hand is waving me down.

I think my point is, if you think wizards are bad, you're just bad at playing them. Stick to the simple things like fighter, who are more straight foward.

 

[Mercurius]

My take on the wizard:

If you're complaining that he/she does not have enough hp, that's because you're playing it wrong....

I think my point is, if you think wizards are bad, you're just bad at playing them. Stick to the simple things like fighter, who are more straight foward.

You have awesome abilities. Spend less time complaining about their suck and more time not sucking at using them.

I just don't get unwarranted snippy comments like these two; it must be some variant of Nerd Rage (nerd outrage?). Are you both really so identified with the wizard class that you take offense when someone criticizes it and feel the need to insult them? Or are you just outraged when someone doesn't know the rules inside and out, how D&D Really Is?

By the way, I don't play a wizard--someone in my group does. I'll pass along your, ah, criticisms to him.

Hey Klassy, I didn't say anything about the lack of HP wizards have but their relatively low damage output.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think my point is, if you think wizards are bad, you're just bad at playing them. Stick to the simple things like fighter, who are more straight foward.

Coming 40 mins after I've put a warning in the thread, you're just asking for trouble. As a recent sign-up to ENworld I would hope that the rules are still clear in your mind.

Banned for 3 days.

 

[Obryn]

As for my second point about multiple attacks, why exactly is this not possible? Or rather, why is it that all characters can only attack once, except perhaps for special encounter or daily powers? This is what I mean by 4ed having a heavily "gamist" tone: rules seemed to cater more towards game balance than towards realism (simulationism). For example, it is not realistic that an 18 DEX rogue with two daggers in hand and an 8 DEX wizard with a staff can both attack once per round. At the least it would seem that there should be a feat or something for the rogue to be allowed to attack twice if the second weapon is light.

Well, two-weapon fighting isn't really awful, imho. If you pick up the feat, it's actually not bad at all - especially once you get two-weapon defense, as well.

No, it doesn't give you two attacks, but the rogue is probably one of the most reliable hitters in the game. They get crazy-high attack bonuses with daggers, and have an at-will that lets them attack Reflex with a weapon.

Now, with that said, a brutal rogue can very easily pick up a Ranger multiclass and start taking some of the two-weapon powers. (Or, a Fighter multiclass, and start taking the Tempest's two-weapon powers, if you prefer.) While they're not attacking twice every round, they can do it pretty often over the course of a fight. They're still limited to one sneak attack per round, but there are enough ways to get combat advantage that sneak attack is almost always better than Hunter's Quarry.

I don't think it would be game-breaking to give the rogue an at-will such as...

Two-Dagger Slice (At-Will, Weapon)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W]

I think it's a kind of boring power, and kinda useless if you're not sneak attacking (or a Ruthless Ruffian with a mace), but I don't think it's broken. Functionally, I think targeting Reflex and getting your Dex bonus to damage (which you can already do) and buffing that with the two-weapon feats would usually be a better option.

-O

 

[evilbob]

Mercurius: Definitely missing something. But don't feel bad: it was easy to miss.

The truth is, wizards are incredibly powerful, but only if you pick the right powers. Their at-wills are, in fact, slightly inferior to the new controller classes: it's true. However, I have yet to see any class (including PHB2 classes - well, except maybe barbarians) that can compete with wizard dailies.

Not all wizard dailies, mind you: in fact, most are flat out horrible. But the ones that are good are SO good that you'll realize that wizards really can be "strikery" controllers that can do very good damage to multiple foes. For example: stinking cloud is the most powerful ability in the game at level 5, and probably remains so through at least paragon tier. It's that good. In a recent game, I was playing a wizard who coupled this power with the shadowfel gloves, and I realized that I was doing just as much damage per enemy as our striker (rouge with combat advantage), except I could hit 2-4 foes each round. Granted, it's not every single battle that this can happen, but when it does the damage output from stinking cloud can easily put a striker to shame.

All that said, I am certainly looking forward to Arcane Power, as the developers have basically said that this will finally give some real options to the wizard class and help it come into its own.

 

[keterys]

Eh, the double attacks are actually overpowered in general (Twin Strike and Dual Strike both)... if you were doing it, I'd almost rather something like:

...
Target: One creature
Attack: Dex vs. AC (main hand)
Hit: 1W and you gain +2 shield bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Miss: Make a secondary attack on the target.
Secondary Attack: Dex vs. AC (off hand)
Hit: 1W

Effectively you still only hit once per round no matter, but if you hit with the main your off hand is parrying, say.

 

[Goumindong]

Not sure how this can possibly be 45 damage at level 6 (it's 3 possible damages) d6+IMP+INT and 2*(d10+IMP+INT) Int should be no more than +4 for a dwarf by this level and IMP should at most be +2 as well so that's 18+d6+2d10 = 44 max and only 1 time in 600 assuming you hit with thunderwave and the monster fails his save so call it 1 chance in over 2000. You're still looking at 32 avg dmg in this kind of scenario. I still agree that the sustainable daily powers with automatic dmg are the serious power in a wizards arsenal, just not quite as good as your post implies.

I had acquired a +2 staff of ruin so my max damage for that was actually 47(+2 for each damage roll from the staffs item bonus, 17 int). I did still roll very well on my damages, but it wasn't quite that good as well 45 might have been an exaggeration, it was a while ago. It was just what i remembered it being at the time.

 

[keterys]

If you also had weapon focus (staff), would've been even easier to do that damage. Anything that lets you roll multiple damages per round really gets up there fast.