Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview

[Felon]

I'm not saying there are zero ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks. I'm saying there are fewer ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks.

I know well what you're saying, and I'm saying that the difference isn't really that great. Take the wizard out of the equation, and what are we comparing really? The warlock to everyone else in the PHB?

I'm just arguing about the damage bonus, not about how much better All Enemies is.

Well, they're not unrelated; opportunities to spread around that +1 amongst multiple targets are reduced by the likelyhood of hitting allies. I got a paargon wizard in my campaign who sits on his fireball a lot more than he'd like.

 

[Obryn]

I know well what you're saying, and I'm saying that the difference isn't really that great. Take the wizard out of the equation, and what are we comparing really? The warlock to everyone else in the PHB?

Why are you taking the Wizard out of the equation? He's the best character for most of those feats!

If you take the Wizard out of consideration for the Burning Blizzard, et. al feats, you'd need to take the Fighter and Ranger out of consideration for Superior Weapon feats.

Well, they're not unrelated; opportunities to spread around that +1 amongst multiple targets are reduced by the likelyhood of hitting allies. I got a paargon wizard in my campaign who sits on his fireball a lot more than he'd like.

That's an issue with the wizard AoEs in general. It doesn't make a bit of difference for these feats. I doubt your main concern when an ally happens to be in your burst will be +1 damage from a feat. OTOH, if you can catch 8 enemies in it, it's +8 damage total, and that's not negligible.

-O

 

[andarilhor]

Some thoughts about the invoker:

I agree with many here as the class lacks flavor, and hope thats is just a preview, not the entire class.

I believe the summoning keyword makes a creature with stats based on the level of the invoker or the level of the summoning power.

It´s possible the ritual Hand of Fate, is some kind of invoker-only summoning ritual. Without his description, I think it´s hard to know the class a whole, the same way it´s difficult to evaluate the bard preview without at least one bard ritual.

My 2 cents...

 

[1of3]

So, I'm not sure I got how Covenant of Wrath's power thing works:

Do you get +1 to damage for each enemy caught with the power (ie, 3 enemies = +3 damage to each)?

Or do you simply get +1 to damage to each enemy caught up with the power?

It's the first one.

You generally make a single damage roll with and , so the question could occur for or . But different effects for different attacks would be awkward.

 

[Felon]

Why are you taking the Wizard out of the equation? He's the best character for most of those feats!

Aha. Right there. Hold your brain still a second before re-engaging the bickering imperative, because you've got it right on the money. That's what you should have said initially. "A +1 damage feat is a little more useful to the wizard than other classes because he can hit more targets than other classes". That's true, and would have obviated the entire threadjack. Saying that the damage boost from feats that provide a +1 will get used against more targets than a superior weapon feat, OTOH, lacks qualification. It won't, for instance, apply equally to both a wizard and a warlock.

That's an issue with the wizard AoEs in general. It doesn't make a bit of difference for these feats. I doubt your main concern when an ally happens to be in your burst will be +1 damage from a feat. OTOH, if you can catch 8 enemies in it, it's +8 damage total, and that's not negligible.

OK, you win. At this point I must regretfully abandon appeals to reason. You've exhausted my ability to reiterate a not-too-difficult correlation between mitigating friendly fire while maximizing the number of enemies affected.

 

[Felon]

Some thoughts about the invoker:

I agree with many here as the class lacks flavor, and hope thats is just a preview, not the entire class.

I believe the summoning keyword makes a creature with stats based on the level of the invoker or the level of the summoning power.

It´s possible the ritual Hand of Fate, is some kind of invoker-only summoning ritual. Without his description, I think it´s hard to know the class a whole, the same way it´s difficult to evaluate the bard preview without at least one bard ritual.

My 2 cents...

Hand of Fate is a ritual out of the PHB. It's the 4e version of augury, IIRC. It's actually quite nifty that they can use it for free once per day.

The invoker is a little bland, I agree. If they would have backed off of the monotheistic angle altogether, it would have felt more distinct. Maybe use the ecumenical angle to portray invokers as the guys who work to control or rebuke demons, angels, and other extraplanar interlopers on our plane.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

I'm surprised many folks in this thread expressed surprise that the invoker gets chainmail. It seems to be a staple of class design that if you don't have Dex or Int as your numero uno stat, you're likely to get medium armor. The couple of exceptions that spring to mind--warlock and swordmage--use Int as a secondary stat, and then get some defense boost as a patch.

Don't forget Druids, they don't get Chain, but they can choose to use their Con mod for their AC...
Probably more expectations than anything. I personally was expecting (well... more hoping, I suppose) the Invoker to be a 4e version of the Archivist. The notion of what a controller is (and with only the wizard to compare to) sort of made me expect cloth armor only as well.

Still, I can just replace the heavy armor with the ability to use Wis instead of Dex/Int if wearing cloth armor...

Hand of Fate is a ritual out of the PHB. It's the 4e version of augury, IIRC. It's actually quite nifty that they can use it for free once per day.

They also can use it 3 levels earlier than anyone else too

I consider it their replacement for the wizard's cantrips, more than anything, though... too bad the druid didn't get anything that nifty

 

[Felon]

The controller role is perhaps the one that took the longest to really develop. There's a reason why there's only one in the PH. For a long while, the role was defined by its ability to attack multiple foes. That definition never sat well, since it clearly steps on other roles and archetypes. We'd never want to prevent rangers from firing multiple arrows, or a fighter from striking everyone adjacent to him.

Over time, the controller definition morphed into the opposite of the leader. If the leader sets up his allies and encourages teamwork, the controller screws up his enemies and hinders their ability to work together. The area damage aspect of the controller does play into that (it makes bunching up a bad idea) but in practice controllers need a little more to embrace their role.

I like that interpretation of the controller role a lot better. I actually have long thought that the rogue would have made the ideal martial controller, serving in exactly the capacity you describe: the guy who harasses enemies with his little bag of dirty tricks and traps.

While I saw the 3e rogue as being a major improvement upon the thief of preivous editions, I also noticed that a lot of the folks playing the character were the very kind of players that hated sneakyness. They liked the damage output, didn't care about anything else. And carrying the rogue over into the striker perpetuated the archetype of the rogue as a little knife-wielding nuker. In my personal version of the D&D movie, the knight shouldn't be hollering desperately for the halfling to come over and stab the dragon in its back to finish it off. My ideal rogue would be handy with a blade, but he'd also be the guy tossing out caltrops, smoke bombs, and the like. Tripping and strangling and gouging as well as alpha-striking. Maybe I'll sit down and write it up someday. It's probably better than it sounds.

 

[Obryn]

Aha. Right there. Hold your brain still a second before re-engaging the bickering imperative, because you've got it right on the money. That's what you should have said initially. "A +1 damage feat is a little more useful to the wizard than other classes because he can hit more targets than other classes". That's true, and would have obviated the entire threadjack. Saying that the damage boost from feats that provide a +1 will get used against more targets than a superior weapon feat, OTOH, lacks qualification. It won't, for instance, apply equally to both a wizard and a warlock.

That was kind of the point behind the whole sidebar? My point was that elemental attacks are likelier to be area and close than weapon attacks, and thus more often hitting multiple targets. Sorry I didn't make it clearer that wizards make more area attacks, but that distinction wasn't made by the person I was originally replying to.

OK, you win. At this point I must regretfully abandon appeals to reason. You've exhausted my ability to reiterate a not-too-difficult correlation between mitigating friendly fire while maximizing the number of enemies affected.

Could you spare the condescending martyr tone? I mean, really.

I'm arguing that a +1 to damage is quite good when you're hitting more than one enemy, since it helps against every enemy in the effect. You seem to want to talk about how Wizard AoE effects are less useful in many circumstances, because they target both friend and foe. I'm not disputing that. I will note, however, that if you're landing a 3d6+6 fireball that one of your buddies happens to be caught in, the extra +1 from the feat is the least of your worries.

I didn't comment on these feats to get involved in a referendum on the Wizard's AoE's in general, only the feats in specific.

-O

 

[Eridanis]

Keep it polite, folks.