How good is the new MM? (Thread split)

[Neonchameleon]

It still blocks off a corridor. If you want to get past, you take D6+stuff damage. That's a choice and if the DM chooses to have the NPCs take the damage, it's also auto-hit for the Wizard. Who doesn't want a small area power that does auto-hit for normal damage?

The damaging Wizard Wall spells start at level 9. I don't think a first level At Will should be doing 3D6+3*stuff damage per foe. For an At Will, that's too much damage.

The point is they don't have to take that much damage. They just avoid the damn thing.

As for the way it is written today, there are Immediate Interrupt powers that could slide a foe right back through 3 or more squares today for xD6+x*stuff damage on that foe's turn. That's too powerful for an At Will combined with an Encounter that doesn't use up a Standard action.

Agreed. Here's another place where RAW doesn't work with RAI (and I'm pretty sure a Momentous Polearm Gambler could do some hideous things here). My house rule is that the pillar only triggers on elective movement as I believe that to be RAI.

Nearly all first level At Will powers are D6+stuff or D8+stuff for the damage portion. Allowing D6+stuff with auto-hit if the foe is forced into it per foe is way powerful enough. There is no need for 3D6+3*stuff in that scenario.

Agreed. IMO the intent of the errata was to remove tricks where people were forced into the storm pillar. The power needed nerfing in one direction or the other. And I do think one lightning strike per monster per turn would have been the better way. What I think is overboard is nerfing in both directions - one lightning strike per monster per turn on its turn.

With the "damage more than once per round, anytime in the round" type of house rule:

Standard Action Round One: Storm Pillar
Standard Action Round Two: Beguiling Strands

That could be as much as 5D6+5* stuff per enemy for an Enchanter if it were not damage once per round.

Not if it's one lightning bolt per turn. Then it would only be 1d6+stuff because the beguiling strands only work on the one turn. Now you could set up the rest of the party with push powers for extra damage and that would work well. But that would take all your standard actions.

He not only locks down foes on round one and possibly does damage to them, he also can do serious damage to them on round two. With just two At Will powers. This does not even take into account an Action Point.

And that's why they nerfed it - they just got the nerf slightly wrong. If you're metagaming, you can use big slide powers and readied actions to once more play "ring around the storm pillar". Low damage power + slide 4? Or Visions of Avarice + Orbmaster's Extended Pillar?

Even damage once per turn could get abused.

A little. But you're giving up one standard action to allow other people to do extra damage on their standard actions. Given that SP does no direct damage and the difference between slayers or thieves and warlords in to hit/damage output, you'd need at least two allies to hit with push powers before you were even measuring up to Direct the Strike.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except that every time you level, your range of potential hp for each monster shifts, and the differences get more and more extreme as you get higher level. This discussion about MM is really only relevant at level 1 - it doesn't take long before it definitively falls behind on the damage scale, while simultaneously the opportunities for enemies to be in instant kill range grow fewer.

Although what you say is true eventually, I was curious whether it is true shortly after level 1 like you claim.

So, I did an analysis of one of my LEB PBP games where I am DM and have each round of attacks recorded.

These are PCs that are level 4 in the first few encounter, level 5 in the middle encounters, and level 6 or 7 in the last set of encounters (PBP levels about 3 times faster than a table game).

I listed damage as: L = Light damage, 1 to 10 hit points, M = Moderate damage, 11 to 20 hit points, H = Heavy damage, 21+ hit points

I assumed a 19 or 20 starting Int Wizard with a +2 implement (at level 4 in LEB, +2 implements and weapons are the rule instead of the exception) or 9 MM hit points of damage (i.e. single digit damage). When one looks at foes for which it can be determined (i.e. the foe was bloodied and either killed without being in single digits, or not yet killed while being in single digits), a very high percentage of those monsters end up with hit points in the single digit range.

15 bloodied monsters in single digits (it happened twice for one monster)
16 bloodied monsters not in single digits
16 monsters never bloodied without instantly dying or fleeing

For this set of 9 encounters (one of which ended way prematurely due to negotiations), nearly half (48%) of the bloodied monsters ended up in single digits. And, it happened in every single encounter (with the exception of the one that ended early).

Granted, the Wizard doesn't know that the monster is definitively in single digits, nor might it be the Wizard's turn to attack.

But one can definitely see patterns (i.e. hit once medium or hard after bloodied, the monster is often in single digits). And, nothing stops the player of the Wizard from calling another player off when he thinks he can one shot a monster (or the other player missing and the Wizard still one shotting the monster).

I think that your opinion that Magic Missile becomes less relevant shortly after first level is in error. The data doesn't support that POV.

And there is a mathematical reason for this. The number of hit points that a foe has before being killed by any PC is between 1 and max possible damage for the party. On average, it will be average damage for a party. At low level, party average (non-striker) damage will be about 10 points at level one (especially at the end of a fight when everyone is using At Will powers) and about 14 at level six. The odds of the foe being in single hit points for the last killing blow are reasonable high. Striker damage raises the average party damage, so that is why it is happening about half of the time in the data and not more often.

You are saying "Hey, first level, MM is 25% of damage, second level, MM is 20% of damage, therefore, the odds of single damage one shotting significantly decreases". Total hit points are not the numbers that are important. The important numbers are: when a foe is bloodied and hit once or twice afterwards, how hard were they hit? If they are bloodied and hit hard after being bloodied, the odds of them going into single hit points are pretty darn high.

Will a foe go into single digit hit points after getting hit once or twice after being blooded every time? Nope. It just happens quite often. The Wizard has a very good clue as to the state of his foes and when to use Magic Missile and when not to.

And, since the DPR of Magic Missile will be similar to other single target At Will powers at low to mid-heroic, it's often good to just use it on the last few foes in an encounter every single round anyway. It doesn't matter too much if the Fighter hits the bloodied foe and then the Wizard one shots him, or the Wizard hits the foe and then the Fighter one shots him.

Unlike your earlier claim, it's not that rare for NPCs to be in single hit point ranges and with the damage clues for the NPCs before they are bloodied and after they are bloodied, it's not that hard for a player to be right about whether the foe is in single hit points or not.

Early on in an encounter when there are more foes and more opportunities to use Encounter Powers and more opportunities to use area effect powers, the Wizard should concentrate on using those powers with harm/hinder the most number of foes. In the second half of the encounter, Wizards should concentrate on one shotting foes unless a multi-foe opportunity arises. At low level, one of the best ways to one shot a foe if the player of the Wizard is paying attention to what type of damage bloodied foes are taking is Magic Missile. Played intelligently, this can save party resources more often than using a different single target At Will power. Sometimes, a different power is better. The Wizard should use a different power when it appears to be better. But, Magic Missile is often the power of choice in many circumstances in the latter part of an encounter.

1 HHBLMM, 1 hit point remaining
2 MMBH, dead
3 Fled before determination
4 LMHBH, dead
5 LLHBM, 4 hit points remaining
6 LLMBM, 5 hit points remaining

7 Solo, hit 7 times, not bloodied, combat ended before determination

8 Fled before determination
9 LMMBHM, 5 hit points remaining
10 LMLBHM, 4 hit points remaining

11 M same PC same turn HM, dead
12 LLLBH, dead
13 MMBM, 1 hit point remaining
14 MLBM, 8 hit points remaining
15 MMBH, dead
16 LMBLM, dead
17 LLLBH, dead
18 MLLBH, dead
19 MHBM, dead
20 MLBL, 9 hit points remaining

21 MMB, 9 hit points remaining
22 LHBH, dead
23 MMBH, dead
24 MLBM, 3 hit points remaining
25 HBM, 2 hit points remaining
26 LLMBM, dead
27 HH, dead
28 LLMBH, dead
29 Fled before determination

30 MLHB, 9 hit points remaining
31 MHBMH, dead
32 HLBM, 8 hit points remaining
33 natural 20 on zombie

34 Fled before determination
35 LMMHBM, 2 hit points remaining, raised back up, BMML, 1 hit point remaining
36 HMMBLMH, dead

37 Combat ended before determination
38 Combat ended before determination
39 Combat ended before determination
40 Combat ended before determination
41 Combat ended before determination
42 MLHBMHH, dead
43 Combat ended before determination
44 Combat ended before determination

45 MMMMBMM, dead
46 MLLBMM, 8 hit points remaining
47 Fled before determination

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And, since the DPR of Magic Missile will be similar to other single target At Will powers at low to mid-heroic, it's often good to just use it on the last few foes in an encounter every single round anyway. It doesn't matter too much if the Fighter hits the bloodied foe and then the Wizard one shots him, or the Wizard hits the foe and then the Fighter one shots him.

Eh, but the heart of the counter argument really isn't about this, though the poster you are responding to certainly made that argument. The heart of the argument is that the best way on the average over all encounters to defeat the monsters most quickly on the average is to do more damage to them. MM has already been demonstrated to be at least slightly lower damage output than the higher quality at-wills, AND it lacks any control aspect on top of that. It is also much less likely to be buffed or useful in way that amplify damage.

So basically a policy where you consistently use say CoD vs MM will end encounters a bit faster. Not much, but on the average over time the difference will exist. Does your tactic of trying to 'game' hit points really tip the scales in the other direction? Given that the differences are small and the actual math is complex (you'd have to make a number of sums over averages of damage to establish the contention) AND you have to actually succeed in your guesses better than threshold it is a tenuous theory at best.

Maybe more to the point it ignores the countervailing advantages of other at-wills. Maybe when I hit the monster with CoD I roll low and don't kill it, but if my attack has other positive consequences, even potentially, then I'm likely better off using that other at-will. This is especially true where the advantages of an at-will like Storm Pillar are pretty clear-cut and no to-hit roll is even involved.

Inarguably having an extra at-will MM as a Mage is some sort of benefit. The question is really is it appreciable enough to actually be significant. Personally I'd say meh, not really. It is a very very small advantage. It certainly seems pretty clear that having a free MM is one of the weakest class features out there. Iconic perhaps, but almost unnoticeable.

 

[Aegeri]

And, since the DPR of Magic Missile will be similar to other single target At Will powers at low to mid-heroic, it's often good to just use it on the last few foes in an encounter every single round anyway. It doesn't matter too much if the Fighter hits the bloodied foe and then the Wizard one shots him, or the Wizard hits the foe and then the Fighter one shots him.

Except where the remaining creatures are flanking the fighter and you slide them out of CA (but are still marked so a shift won't work to regain CA easily). Possibly due to the higher potential damage, the monster doesn't even get a turn to attack that fighter in the first place (let alone his friend). When you just MM the monster pelts the fighter unconscious on its next attack because the +2 bonus from CA matters quite a lot for many creatures to hit a defender, you've failed your role in being a controller. So the slide 1 at-will is vastly superior choice to the MM, because it keeps your ally alive to finish off the monster (denying them a +2 bonus effectively, just as good as a negative 2 penalty). For that matter a psychic bolt will also have the same -2 penalty, negating the CA at least. Not to mention once again, that the higher damage might mean that the creature doesn't get a next turn to begin with.

All factors you don't consider, but are situations that occur extremely often and so make those important slides/penalties that normal Wizard at-wills impose more valuable.

For this set of 9 encounters (one of which ended way prematurely due to negotiations), nearly half (48%) of the bloodied monsters ended up in single digits. And, it happened in every single encounter (with the exception of the one that ended early).

The key argument here is if they are like this on the wizards turn and the wizard doesn't have something else to do. Like controlling an important enemy who might be threatening elsewhere. All of this comes back to the fact unless the PC is actively able to tell a creature is on less than 10 HP (or so) MM is a poor choice. Monsters have considerable variation in HP, meaning reliably trying to determine what their HP is not 100% reliable (especially when many creatures boost strength/con as their primary attributes). Then we have the final variable, which is that it actually has to be the wizards turn in the first place, when the creature is at sub 10 HP and that there isn't a more important target to deal with. A creature on sub 10 HP who is prone, immobilized and 5 squares away without a ranged attack is an irrelevant target for MM when there is a fully active monster about to knock you unconscious on its next turn adjacent to you.

The really simple counter argument here is that standard wizards can take the current MM as well. If MM was so efficient at this as you claim, why is it nearly always never taken over other at-wills? There is simply a good reason for this: It's not that good and is a poor control power. It's a nice bonus for a mage, but is rarely worth it for a normal wizard who isn't going to abuse wizards fury to ever consider taking.

Inarguably having an extra at-will MM as a Mage is some sort of benefit. The question is really is it appreciable enough to actually be significant. Personally I'd say meh, not really. It is a very very small advantage. It certainly seems pretty clear that having a free MM is one of the weakest class features out there. Iconic perhaps, but almost unnoticeable.

This is the entire crux of the original argument that spawned this thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except where the remaining creatures are flanking the fighter and you slide them out of CA (but are still marked so a shift won't work to regain CA easily). Possibly due to the higher potential damage, the monster doesn't even get a turn to attack that fighter in the first place (let alone his friend). When you just MM the monster pelts the fighter unconscious on its next attack because the +2 bonus from CA matters quite a lot for many creatures to hit a defender, you've failed your role in being a controller. So the slide 1 at-will is vastly superior choice to the MM, because it keeps your ally alive to finish off the monster (denying them a +2 bonus effectively, just as good as a negative 2 penalty).

Your counterargument is trying to prevent CA?

The foe has a 50% chance to hit the Fighter with CA and a 40% chance to hit without CA.

So, the 60% chance of the Wizard to hit the foe * a 10% chance of decreased damage by the foe or a 6% increased chance of not hitting the Fighter. That helps what? One encounter in six (obviously, the Wizard is not using his At Will Slide power every single round)?

A 100% chance of damaging the foe vs. a 60% chance of damaging the foe and a mere 6% extra chance of not hitting the Fighter.

Versus the 40% chance of not changing the outcome at all.

The flawed assumptions with the "you should use controlling powers" later in the encounter argument are a) that the controlling power will hit, and b) if it does hit, it will actually do something significant with the control.

That's actually rarely the case when discussing Wizard At Will powers. Encounter powers and Dailies? Sure, they often have a more significant amount of control.


On top of this, you are also assuming that late in the encounter, the Fighter has both foes marked and that the one marked foe cannot delay (if required) while the other unmarked foe shifts into flank. CA all over again for both of the NPCs.

Your counterargument here is a bit of a corner case, even when it works.

 

[Aegeri]

Your counterargument is trying to prevent CA?

The foe has a 50% chance to hit the Fighter with CA and a 40% chance to hit without CA.

And yet it's a higher chance to hit is a higher chance to hit. When that chance to hit knocks the fighter unconscious and ends marks - it's suddenly a very important difference.

That helps what? One encounter in six (obviously, the Wizard is not using his At Will Slide power every single round)?

Consistently. In fact I keep track of this and thus far, having combat advantage has let monsters hit my Eberron games AC 21 paladin approximately 9 times. Without the +2 bonus from CA he would have been missed nine additional times. So +2 bonuses make a significant difference.

Not to mention the higher damage of any of the other at-wills provides a chance of killing the creature outright, completely removing any chance of another attack whatsoever. While MM, unless the creature is precisely within the game of damage it does will do absolutely nothing.

Your argument is just not considering the tactical realities of how 4E plays.

A 100% chance of damaging the foe

But not in any way killing it, or preventing it from potentially hitting by denying it a bonus that can very well be the difference between the fighter getting his next to finish it off or being unconscious.

That's not an insignificant difference.

The flawed assumptions with the "you should use controlling powers" later in the encounter argument are a) that the controlling power will hit

So? If it prevents the enemy from hitting it's done a better job than MM which has done nothing to stop that.

and b) if it does hit, it will actually do something significant with the control.

As much as you try to avoid this point, denying an enemy CA or imposing a -2 penalty is significant. Especially if we're looking at the bloodied leader adjacent to a creature that is marked (but not punishable by the defender). When you stick on a further -2 penalty with illusory ambush you are doing a better job for your team than pinging away at it for seven damage.

That's actually rarely the case when discussing Wizard At Will powers.

And yet I constantly see the mage and wizard PC in my games make significant differences to combat on a consistent basis. With their at-wills. The only time that they fail to do so is when they get MM happy.

On top of this, you are also assuming that late in the encounter, the Fighter has both foes marked and that the one marked foe cannot delay (if required) while the other unmarked foe shifts into flank.

They are both marked, fighters can AoE mark and dual strike lets you mark two creatures at once. Additionally if the other creature delays you've won, because now the fighter can get his turn and kill it (or someone else can kill it before the other creature can act).

Congratulations, you're a controller because you've just forced the enemy to do something on its turn it didn't want to do. Whereas before? You've not accomplished anything or made the monster change its turn in any significant manner.

Incidentally the example I am using? It's a real one. The monster missed by 1. That 1? Precisely the difference CA would have made.

Checking my stats (I run my games in maptools, so keeping track of things is easy), the number of times that CA made a difference last session was 4 times. My level 5 controller with a +10 attack attacked the AC 21 paladin a total of ten times (it's an elite with a natural double attack). Against the paladin it rolled as such:

Round 1: 17, 10 (Total 29 and and 22, both hits)
Action Point: 14, 8 (Total 26 and 20, one hit and one miss)
Round 2: 11, 9 (Total 23 and 21, both hits - significantly misses without CA and the paladin remains distinctly conscious)
Round 3: 20, 10 (Critical hit, 32 and 22, both hit again - paladin rendered unconscious once more!).
No Combat advantage after this round. Paladin was no longer dazed and his flanking buddy was dead.
Round 4: 6, 10 (16, 20 one is a clear miss but the other would have hit, knocking the current 6 HP paladin unconscious again).

I looked at the previous combat.

The Ankheg in the farm (level 3 lurker, attack bonus +8) waited until it had CA with an ally deliberately before using its double attack on the paladin. When it attacked it rolled 18 for damage and got 11 on the attack roll. 11+8 is a miss (AC 21 remember), but oh wait, combat advantage. So it hit and knocked him unconscious. You can even read my game session notes to see I made a special note of that at the time.

It is easy to see how being able to deny a creature - at-will - bonuses like combat advantage over an entire combat rapidly add up. As my DPR calculations from a few pages clearly show.

Whereas as I've already repeatedly argued, all MM does is an insignificant amount of damage and is only really useful when you know a creature is near death. Any other time another control power is a better option.

 

[KarinsDad]

The key argument here is if they are like this on the wizards turn and the wizard doesn't have something else to do. Like controlling an important enemy who might be threatening elsewhere.

How often does this happen in the second half of the encounter when most of the PC Encounter powers are used up, foes are becoming bloodied, and most foes are no longer bunched up for an area attack, the point in time where Magic Missile frequently becomes more important?

You seem to be assuming that low level Wizards do significant control right and left with their At Will powers?

-2 to hit?
Slow?
Extra damage?
Slide 1?

Do any of these really "control an important enemy who might be threatening elsewhere"? Is Storm Pillar really going to stop a Brute from pounding on the Ranger that he pounded on last round in most scenarios?


None of this is hard control. Stun is hard control. Blocking Terrain is hard control.

Most of this other "control" that you are supporting is not control at all. It's mostly debuffing or increased damage, and a low percentage chance that the debuffing actually does something real.


As for it being or not being the Wizard's turn, remember that the Wizard can typically target any foe on the map, especially with Magic Missile. Melee PCs tend to be limited to whomever they are currently fighting. And any PC without an autohit can have a fair chance of missing, even if they are targeting the same bloodied foe as the Wizard. It's not always possible or even desirable for someone else to take out a given foe.

So not only can the player of the Wizard say "I got that one" when a bloodied foe gets heavily damaged and might be in single digit hit points, there are often circumstances which can lead to him being one of the few PCs capable of targeting the bloodied foe. For example, if the Striker hits the blooded NPC for a lot of damage and the NPC is still standing, it will often be an entire round before the Striker can hit that foe again (shy of using an Action Point or getting an Opportunity or Immediate Action).


The premise that "the Defender must be defending every round, and the Leader must be buffing/healing every round, and the Striker must be doing a lot of damage every round, and the Controller must be controlling every round" is in error.

Yes, the Striker should often be doing a lot of damage, but it sometimes makes sense for the Striker to take out a foe with very few hit points remaining, wasting all of that extra damage. Ditto for every other role.

Roles are jobs that each PC should often be doing. But, they aren't straightjackets, preventing any given PC from helping in multiple different ways.


I sometimes send my Wizards into the middle of an encounter, just in order to suck up some of his healing surges instead of the Defender's healing surges. I've seen a lot of parties where the Defender have virtually none of his healing surges remaining and most of the rest of the PCs with a lot of their surges, just because some people got it into their minds that the Defender should always be up front and everyone else should always hang back. Err, no. It's better if the entire party use up their healing surge resources at approximately the same percentage rate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Checking my stats (I run my games in maptools, so keeping track of things is easy), the number of times that CA made a difference last session was 4 times. My level 5 controller with a +10 attack attacked the AC 21 paladin a total of ten times (it's an elite with a natural double attack). Against the paladin it rolled as such:

What you rolled in a single encounter doesn't matter.

10% is 10% chance. It doesn't matter if it happens 4 times in a given encounter or 10 times in a given encounter or 0 times in a given encounter. Overall, it's going to happen 10% of the time.

If it requires a hit to prevent that CA, it's 10% * whatever the chance to hit is chance of it affecting anything. That's typically 6% or 7% of the time.

 

[Aegeri]

How often does this happen in the second half of the encounter when most of the PC Encounter powers are used up, foes are becoming bloodied, and most foes are no longer bunched up for an area attack, the point in time where Magic Missile frequently becomes more important?

Never. Because at the end of the combat if the combat is close, if the enemies can attack you at whim because your controller is doing a poor job 7 damage is not significant. Forcing a creature to do something that it didn't want to do, like plunge off a cliff or fall prone from a slide? That's significant.

That's the point.

You seem to be assuming that low level Wizards do significant control right and left with their At Will powers?

With good tactics, yes they can indeed.

With poor tactics, 7ish damage is indeed better.

Do any of these really "control an important enemy who might be threatening elsewhere"?

Yes.

A slide 1 back into the fighter for a marked enemy? That's control.
A slide 1 away from a flanking position? That's control.
A slide 1 away from a character with ranged attacks? That's control.
A slide 1 between two allies to gain CA? That's control.
A slide 1 out of reach of the creature to break a grab? That's control.
A slow on a melee enemy that is too far away to charge? That's control.
A slow on an artillery enemy in difficult terrain? That's control.
A slow on an enemy that is marked by a fighter? That's control.
A slow on an enemy that is in difficult terrain? That's control.
A -2 penalty on any enemy? By default, this is control (indisputably).
A -2 penalty on a marked enemy? That's major control.
A -2 penalty on an enemy that has CA? That's bringing things back to even.
A -2 penalty on an enemy that has any kind of other penalty? That's just making them even more useless = more control.

Is Storm Pillar really going to stop a Brute from pounding on the Ranger that he pounded on last round in most scenarios?

Yes, because you can make the brute take an entirely different route or suffer damage to reach the ranger.

None of this is hard control. Stun is hard control. Blocking Terrain is hard control.

And magic missile has zero control of any kind whatsoever. It literally does nothing except a small amount of insignificant damage. A point that you continue to ignore.

As for it being or not being the Wizard's turn, remember that the Wizard can typically target any foe on the map, especially with Magic Missile.

He can't when it's not his turn, making this point absolutely irrelevant. Because during the time it is not "his turn" the enemy can do a lot of things, including finishing off the character. Things that if it is slowed, has a penalty or was shifted into a difficult position it could not do on its own turn.

I sometimes send my Wizards into the middle of an encounter, just in order to suck up some of his healing surges instead of the Defender's healing surges.

You know, my first ever near-TPK in 4th edition started with a wizard doing this. Without a controller to well, control the monsters the party ended up being manipulated precisely where the monsters wanted. The result was not pretty whatsoever and only one PC left the encounter alive (the other 4 were all dead).

I've seen a lot of parties where the Defender have virtually none of his healing surges remaining and most of the rest of the PCs with a lot of their surges

I agree with this, but this is because the defender now has to pick and choose his targets more than they did before. In my current games, I am burning through the surges of just about everyone in the party. That's more the damage and powers of current MM3+ monsters though.

What you rolled in a single encounter doesn't matter.

Out of 15 encounters thus far I can give you around 45-60 examples of combat advantage of any sort making a huge difference if a PC or monster hit or missed.

That's pretty consistent to me. Also a monster that gets CA over multiple attacks will increase its damage considerably - just like one with a penalty will have the opposite effect. My example showed just how powerful a creature becomes with constant CA. Your argument that it's a mere "10%" rings hollow when creatures attack multiple times - like pretty much every single solo in 4E (also, a time where MM is especially useless btw). A single chilling cloud that slid the creature away would have made a bigger difference - even if it could miss - than when the wizard choose to use MM instead. Keeping the CA from flanking for 2 rounds made a massive difference to the creatures damage output. It would never have got many of those hits if the PCs didn't let it stand in CA. A "mere" 10% difference adds up to the paladin doing nothing for two entire rounds of the combat by being unconscious.

I have hordes of these examples as well from the 2 years I've been running games if you'd like more btw. One of the best feats that I can think of, that has prevented more hits than I can think of is uncanny dodge. Not granting that +2 bonus from CA over an entire game adds up to a lot of missed hits. So too does applying a -2 penalty to an enemies attacks, especially when you stack these penalties.

There is simply no way, unless I knew MM would kill the creature - disputable as has already been argued - that MM is better than using an actual at-will unless you have a massive penalty to hit or your enemy is a wraith (which is uniquely vulnerable to the force damage of MM).

Edit: Incidentally for what it is worth in the game where the Paladin got hammered by a monster that had CA against him, the party finished with HP totals in single digits except for one of them. An entire character was basically eliminated for most of the combat due to being unconscious and the persistence of the monsters to attack whom they wanted took its toll on the party. That's why "Not being hit" is the best form of control other than killing something, so when you can prevent an enemy from hitting you it matters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, gotta agree. The thing with CA and -2 penalties and such is that for any one given attack they're not a really huge deal by themselves, but when you start adding up the fact that the monsters generally get many attacks in a combat, then if you can keep applying a -2 or keep avoiding or granting CA it does make a pretty big difference. Even if you figure in an average battle the monsters swing say 30 times (and often it is more, especially in the tough battles where it really matters) if you can eliminate 2 of those attacks and reduce 3 more of them by -2 that alone will save the party a surge per fight. In some cases you can do much better than that.

I had 2 fights almost back to back where the wizard effectively eliminated 3 standard monsters in one fight and a nasty lurker in another fight for the entire fight with TWave. That's kind of the extreme end, but any wizard should be able to knock an enemy a turn out of position with 50/50 success with at-wills pretty much all the time.

You also have to count synergy. There are a lot of situations where just slowing someone down or preventing an OA or whatever minor effect will enable another character to more reliably attack or force an enemy into the spot where they can be caught in an AoE etc. Remember, the argument that the Wizard is often the only guy that can drop on any old foe wherever needed works for all powers with any significant range too, not just MM. If I can drop Storm Pillar, I can put it most anywhere on the map and mess with a trouble making monster.

Sure, if I have MM I'd use once in a great while as a Mage, but I doubt it would even be once an encounter.