Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4698421" data-attributes="member: 82732">My DM came up with a theory that different classes were created by different designers and the people who edited for "play balance" and put the stuff together weren't particularly good.  It appears as if the person who edited cleric was a lot more generous than other designers.  Compare shield of faith to sacred circle, or consecrated ground to pretty much any level 5 daily.  Clerics though slightly unglamorous from a damage and domination standpoint are arguably the most powerful class in PHB1.  Thanks for this.  All good points though I disagree with a few of them at least partly.  Both powers are situational to a roughly equivalent amount.  Daze points In order:A) CA is very good but a lot of characters can gain this is they need it especially vs an immobilized creature.  Keeping an attacker out of combat for a round has to be as good or better than this advantage 75% of the time.  B) no OA can be important as can preventing him from participating in flanking, but both are also situational.  C) preventing a fancy attack is an incremental gain in many cases.  Most monsters basic attack is their standard melee attack anyway so charging actually gives them a small benefit (+1 to hit). If they have an encounter power then dazing them for a round prevents them from discharging it this round but that just flip flops their actions from encounter/at-will to at-will/encounter.  Admittedly this can have a significant impact in certain situations (i.e. you prevent the creature from hitting as many pc's with it's burst because the pc's maneuver away from each other during the daze or several other possibilities)Immobilize in order:A) stopping flying is very situational agreed but still can be pretty powerful.B) Obviously if the creature is in damaging terrain immobilize has a huge upside, agreeably situational but being in damaging terrain is not exactly a "rare occurrence" in 4e.  I would rate the chance to immobilize someone in damaging terrain as more valuable than preventing OA since as a rule I try to avoid giving up OA's as much as humanly possible.    C) even if you have no ranged attacks at all, you've prevented a creature from participating in combat for a round.  There are a lot of creatures that are melee only or have vastly weaker ranged powers compared to their melee powers.  Since you get to control who is targeted you'll more often than not pick a creature(s) that suffers significantly from being immobilized.Yes charge needs to move 2+ squares in a straight line.  If you're 1 square away he can't attack you (pretty situational that you'll be exactly one square away) but he can charge another member of the party.  Based upon my experiences with dazed creatures charging more often then not it's hard to make me believe this will frequently prevent the attacker from getting in an attack.  Most creatures move 6, so in order for there to be no targets he can charge there needs to be a 15 square box centered on the dazed guy that has no opponents in it other than those precisely at range 1.  Extremely situational.  Also, you're assuming that the dazed creature also is melee only.  If he has ranged attacks he still gets his normal attack.  You can just as easily shift 1 square away from an immobilized creature as you can from a dazed creature so I don't actually see any benefit to daze in this case.  The real advantage of daze is almost exclusively centered in CA.  I think this is more than offset by the increased possibility of preventing him from attacking and the times you immobilize in unfavorable terrain.  Clearly there's room for debate here but in my experience immobilize prevents a lot more attacks than daze.</blockquote>not sure I agree, though denying reactive powers to elites and solos is pretty powerful I also think this is pretty situational.(we haven't faced a lot of solo encounters in any of the campaigns I've played in. So my experience is limited to slaying two dragons in two different campaigns.) I went back at the email my dm sends out after every session with a recap and experience.  I would roughly estimate that 85-90% of encounters have targets that immobilize would prevent them from attacking.  Their are many monsters where this could be encounter changing in terms of the advantage of immobilize vs daze.  Ghouls are a good example. Possibly one of the most brutal 200 exp monsters in the game. Dazing a ghoul has almost no impact (CA) in comparison to preventing a ghoul from engaging with a player.Thanks for this as well. Other than the argument that each attack is a separate attack (which I've seen made for other powers) this makes sense.  I pondered this for a bit and I think actually that it would be 3 separate attacks given that if you were under the power of a +2 to next attack bonus, I wouldn't give you +2 all 3 times.  it's not critical to game play by any stretch but poses an interesting question.[/QUOTE]

Verification