How good is the new MM? (Thread split)

[KarinsDad]

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.

Yes, one can.

But, let's look at your math here. One won't have the types of reductions that you imply.

Let's take the -2. In a ~7 round encounter with 5 foes (the 30 attacks by the monsters that you indicate, some of those will be area effects, but some monsters will be dead by round 2 or 3, so fewer attacks from them), the low level Wizard (3 to 6) will have 2 Encounter powers to use. So, that's 2 rounds out of 7.

On average he can do is 5 attacks at -2 each with single target At Will powers (assuming he does not use an Action Point for an extra one of these). If by the time he gets around to doing this the monsters have used up most of their area effect encounter powers, it means that if he hits 60% of the time, or 3 monster counterattacks, he will give -2 to a foe.

The odds here then are:

The -2 made a difference for all 3 monster attacks: 0.1%
The -2 made a difference for 2 of the 3 attacks: 2.7%
The -2 made a difference for 1 of the 3 attacks: 24.3%
The -2 made a difference for 0 of the 3 attacks: 72.9%

Note: these percentages are only concerned with the -2 debuff, not with the attack doing damage and contributing to the death of the foe.

As can be seen, the -2 by itself typically doesn't do squat.

In almost 3 encounters in 4, it doesn't change the outcome and prevent any monster damage.

And this assumes that the -2 at will attack is used 5 times per encounter. That typically doesn't happen in most encounters (where some rounds, other At Will powers are used). In a more reasonable 3 times per encounter, it only stops monster damage one encounter in six (or 1 in 9 if used 2 times per encounter).

In most encounters, you won't be eliminating a single monster attack damage with the -2 debuff, let alone multiple ones like your conclusion.


It's actually often better to use a -2 debuff power early in the encounter when a monster still has an area effect power remaining to force the monster to either use the area effect at -2, or to not use it right away.

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.

Yes it can happen, but you appear to be remembering the times when it worked out well and forget the times it didn't change anything.

I too have used TWave to great effect on occasion, but the times it changed little far outweigh the times it saved the day.

As humans, we tend to remember the 3 times it saved the day and forget the 40 times that it only did some extra damage and the forced movement part of it was more or less negated by the abilities of the foe.

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.

No doubt. Synergy is extremely important and useful. But a Storm Pillar anywhere on the map??? The monster typically has to be in a corridor or at the edge of a room to do more than a single dose of extra damage. Storm Pillar is more of a rare bird to use well than Magic Missile unless the DM plays most NPCs like total idiots. Sure, put Storm Pillar 5 feet above a monster and have the PC it is attacking shift back a step. It does the extra auto-damage in that case IF the monster has no ranged or 2 square area or reach. But, that's damage (just like MM), not control.

Putting it 5 foot above and in front of the monster and having the ally PC shift back 5 feet can be more control, but a monster can often just move out the back and around the effect in that case.

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.

You also design Wizards with high Wisdom which not everyone does. It really depends on the flavor of the Wizard and the makeup of the overall party.

I've used it to great effect in nearly every encounter (sometimes multiple times per encounter) for my Wizard since they changed it to auto-hit.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, KD, obviously we have different tactical analysis of the situation. I disagree with your numbers. You say the -2 does little, mainly because it doesn't come up much, but any "doesn't come up much" argument cuts both ways. Tactical advantage is made up mostly of small little incremental advantages and I'd also point out that at low heroic where this kind of thing matters at all it will be more significant since you WILL be using at-wills all but one or two rounds per fight. In a 6 round fight at 4th level you have 2 encounter powers, that's it. Maybe you pop your daily and that makes 3 non-at-will power uses. So you WILL be making 3-4 at-will attacks in each of those encounters at that level (say 7 encounters). Some encounters will go more than 6 rounds too. I'd say you generally make 30 at-will attacks per level, declining to maybe 20 at low paragon. If one in 10 of those is able to foil an attack due to a -2, that's 2-3 times per level right there. If the added control effect will stop an attack even ONCE every 10 uses, which I think is quite low, you will again save 2-3 attacks per level. That's significant.

Lets put this in perspective, if a character gets attacked say 5 times per encounter vs AC a +1 AC is only going to help 1 time in 4 encounters. So by your measure it is basically worthless. I don't think there is anyone out there who would leave a +1 AC lying on the table. Not unless they got something reasonably good for it. Again, it is small advantages that add up. 4e doesn't put giant hunks of meat on the table where you get huge benefits from any one thing and if you do it is usually considered broken.

And with things like Storm Pillar, you really underestimate the utility. It isn't about dropping it to do damage. I mean that's great and all and it has utility in that respect, but the fact that you can block a square is actually pretty valuable. Remember, the damage is enemy-only AND it blocks a square. So I can drop it into a spot that prevents an enemy from flanking my ally ALMOST ANY TURN. Beyond that even in open terrain if I drop the thing in front of an advancing foe I can force him to go around it, and unless he wants to take a serious amount of damage he's going WAY around. That's excellent. It takes him 3 extra points of movement on a blank field to get around that, which makes it as good as slow. ANY amount of terrain at all, a couple of bits of difficult terrain, or dropping it at a corner the enemy has to go around makes it MUCH better than that. I don't need a corridor to use it effectively for control, that is a total myth. I hear all these 'marginal control' arguments about many at-wills, but the argument basically always amounts to 'on a blank map it doesn't do much in many situations', which is true, but it is also not nearly the typical situation.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, KD, obviously we have different tactical analysis of the situation. I disagree with your numbers. You say the -2 does little, mainly because it doesn't come up much, but any "doesn't come up much" argument cuts both ways. Tactical advantage is made up mostly of small little incremental advantages and I'd also point out that at low heroic where this kind of thing matters at all it will be more significant since you WILL be using at-wills all but one or two rounds per fight. In a 6 round fight at 4th level you have 2 encounter powers, that's it. Maybe you pop your daily and that makes 3 non-at-will power uses. So you WILL be making 3-4 at-will attacks in each of those encounters at that level (say 7 encounters). Some encounters will go more than 6 rounds too. I'd say you generally make 30 at-will attacks per level, declining to maybe 20 at low paragon. If one in 10 of those is able to foil an attack due to a -2, that's 2-3 times per level right there. If the added control effect will stop an attack even ONCE every 10 uses, which I think is quite low, you will again save 2-3 attacks per level. That's significant.

Significant?

I agree that with your model here, it will stop some attacks per level, not just 2 to 3. If the Wizard uses this debuff power 30 times per level, it will stop 1.8 attacks per level: 60% chance to hit * 30 times per level * 10% chance -2 lowers damage = 1.8 times per level it stops an attack.

I just disagree that a -2 debuff single target attack power will be used on average 4 times per encounter for 7 encounters when there are area effect At Will powers that will be used whenever reasonable. You cannot argue that Storm Pillar is a good power with one paragraph and then say that it won't be used often in another paragraph.

Most Wizards would probably stop at most one attack per level on average with this At Will power because it won't be used 4 times per encounter on average. Especially since many players of Wizards go out of their way to find ways to do area effect attacks as often as possible.

Even stopping 2 attacks per level is the equal of what? 2 healing surges per level? And later in the encounter when the Wizard is pulling out the minor -2 single target At Will attack power, the NPCs have typically used up most of their good Encounter powers as well.

I wouldn't exactly use the word "significant" to describe that.

Lets put this in perspective, if a character gets attacked say 5 times per encounter vs AC a +1 AC is only going to help 1 time in 4 encounters. So by your measure it is basically worthless. I don't think there is anyone out there who would leave a +1 AC lying on the table. Not unless they got something reasonably good for it. Again, it is small advantages that add up. 4e doesn't put giant hunks of meat on the table where you get huge benefits from any one thing and if you do it is usually considered broken.

No doubt. Small advantages add up. But, the control aspect of the single target At Will powers is not one of them. They do help on occasion, but they often do nothing significant.

Even in your example above, doing something once or twice per level is not really doing a lot. It's doing a little.

And with things like Storm Pillar, you really underestimate the utility. It isn't about dropping it to do damage. I mean that's great and all and it has utility in that respect, but the fact that you can block a square is actually pretty valuable. Remember, the damage is enemy-only AND it blocks a square. So I can drop it into a spot that prevents an enemy from flanking my ally ALMOST ANY TURN. Beyond that even in open terrain if I drop the thing in front of an advancing foe I can force him to go around it, and unless he wants to take a serious amount of damage he's going WAY around. That's excellent. It takes him 3 extra points of movement on a blank field to get around that, which makes it as good as slow. ANY amount of terrain at all, a couple of bits of difficult terrain, or dropping it at a corner the enemy has to go around makes it MUCH better than that. I don't need a corridor to use it effectively for control, that is a total myth. I hear all these 'marginal control' arguments about many at-wills, but the argument basically always amounts to 'on a blank map it doesn't do much in many situations', which is true, but it is also not nearly the typical situation.

The going "way around it" that you claim is often illusory since diagonal movement doesn't increase the distance.

The distance from point A to D is the same six squares going straight through the Storm Pillar as around it.

To attack PC D, NPC B only needs to move 5 squares, ditto for NPC C.

The outer squares of Storm Pillar are not blocking terrain or an obstacle. A creature can move diagonally around it at will without harm (unless you have a rule somewhere that disputes this, I have never found one).

. . . . . . .
. . x x x . .
A B C x x D E
. . x x x . .
. . . . . . .

There are diagonal scenarios where it presents a slight increase in distance:

Attacking PC Z with NPC Q does require 6 squares of movement instead of 3. But, even with difficult terrain, this wouldn't really stop most foes. The myth is that there are enough scenarios where it "significantly" alters the outcome.

Are you really claiming that most encounters have a lot of difficult or hindering or blocking terrain in most of the squares in order to make this more effective???

Cause if they do, they will be hindering PCs as well.

. Q . . . . .
. . x x x . .
. . x x x . .
. . x x x . .
. . . . . Z .

 

[Kingreaper]

Okay, KD, you keep saying that -2 to hit is irrelevant compared to the fact Magic Missile autohits.

Well, let's use your own numbers. At level 4, a wizard with +2 implement, 20/21 int, and, oh, expertise (because they clearly like hitting things)

If they don't have combat advantage then they have +5 int, +2 level, +2 implement, +1 expertise=+10 to hit

A level 4 monster has it's lowest defense as something between 14 and 16 most likely.

So magic missile is between a +4 and a +6 boost to hitting.

But +2 is irrelevant, right? So that +4, that's not exactly amazing is it....

And of course, when they have combat advantage, that's only +2 for MM.

I will admit if you face a Deep Goblin Wretch, with it's reflex of 26, and 1 hp, you're better off using magic missile.
But that's clearly just someone putting something into adventure tools incorrectly.

 

[Kingreaper]

The going "way around it" that you claim is often illusory since diagonal movement doesn't increase the distance.

The distance from point A to D is the same six squares going straight through the Storm Pillar as around it.

To attack PC D, NPC B only needs to move 5 squares, ditto for NPC C.

You assume there is no difficult terrain. No defender who can take OAs if they go around the wrong side (hence allowing the control of a 6 square, rather than 3 square width)
None of the monsters are dazed, nor are any of them slowed, hence they can all happily go via indirect routes, not wishing to charge.

In other words you assume that it's the least effective possible encounter setup for storm pillar.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm looking at as you want to all the way around the pillar zone. Say you are on one flat side and want to get to someone on the other side of the zone. Normally straight line that's 3 squares. It is 5 squares if they avoid the zone. It could be 5 vs 2 if the target is in the zone. This isn't insignificant. If there is say a wall on one side and a square of difficult terrain near one corner that adds at least one more square. If the target is 2-3 more squares back, then they are now out of nominal 6 square movement range either way. As KR says, one side could be threatened by a defender, who is now a lot more effective as he is basically controlling 3 squares to one side of himself. It is quite possible that the blocked square was also the best one to go through for other reasons, like some zone, walls, difficult, hindering etc. This stuff happens ALL the time. Sure there are open areas in most encounters, but they aren't totally predominant. Even in an outdoor setting there are trees, rocks, slopes, water, etc on top of the defender to think about. Even if all you do is force the enemy to charge that can be a useful result. At least in games I run if the party thinks about positioning much at all they should be able to create some of these opportunities.

So yeah, I think Storm Pillar is pretty darn useful and in the rounds that it is useful I can avoid needing to drop an encounter power, which I can then use in a better spot sometimes. There are going to be some very limited situations where just doing damage is better, but for those we have many other spells like TWave or even just something as basic as Scorching Burst which might easily hit 2 targets and blow the doors off MM for damage output. I just find MM to ALWAYS be a marginal choice of power to use. If I have it free I may use it once in a great while, sure, but I'd never choose it and lose access to something that can have a bigger effect and does on average over the long term more damage (and is almost surely more tweakable).

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay, KD, you keep saying that -2 to hit is irrelevant compared to the fact Magic Missile autohits.

Well, let's use your own numbers. At level 4, a wizard with +2 implement, 20/21 int, and, oh, expertise (because they clearly like hitting things)

If they don't have combat advantage then they have +5 int, +2 level, +2 implement, +1 expertise=+10 to hit

A level 4 monster has it's lowest defense as something between 14 and 16 most likely.

So magic missile is between a +4 and a +6 boost to hitting.

But +2 is irrelevant, right? So that +4, that's not exactly amazing is it....

And of course, when they have combat advantage, that's only +2 for MM.

-2 for 3 attacks in 6 with a 60% chance of occurring so that it is the equivalent of -0.6 is fairly irrelevant compared to the boatload of constant bonuses that you added for your example against the lowest defense of the monster?


Yes, one can game the system by taking as many bonus to hit options as possible.

A +2 implement at level 4 (like what occurs on the PBP games, but typically not in table games)

Taking Expertise, the purpose of which is to fix the math bug starting at level 5, so taking it at level 4 is getting an extra boost.

Even taking Superior Implements.


But, let's look at your same example at level 10 (or level 11 with a +3 implement) against a typical range of monsters:

+2 Implement (assuming that one gets +1/+2 in Heroic, +3/+4 in Paragon, etc.)
+1 Expertise
+6 Int
+5 Half Level
And no combat advantage every single round.

Illusory Ambush

Will is typically the easiest NAD to hit with a range of Level+9 through Level+14 (for will resistant elites) and a typical average of Level+11.

Level 10: 55% to 80% of the time, average 70%.
Level 11: 50% to 75% of the time, average 65%.
Level 12: 45% to 70% of the time, average 60%.
Level 13: 40% to 65% of the time, average 55%.

So yes, the wimpiest monster PCs generally face gets hit with the equivalent of a +4 bonus with magic missile as you claim (+2 with combat advantage or power bonus, etc.), but the tougher higher level Elites get hit with the equivalent of a +12 bonus with MM.

Even for this relatively decked out (but not maxxed) to hit Wizard though, using Ray of Frost against Fort means a delta of +6 to +14.


And note: I did not say that it was irrelevant. I said that attacking with it rarely causes the monster to miss. That's apples to oranges to what your example illustrates.

In order for the -2 to occur, the PC has to hit. For the -2 to have an effect, the monster attack has to be 1 of the 2 to hit numbers out of 20 where the outcome is changed.


That is totally different than a constant +2 implement that happens on every single attack in a round.

+2 * 100% of attacks = +2.
-2 * 3 attacks in 6 * 60% that the attacks hits = -0.6. Even if you attack with the power every single round of an encounter, it's still only -1.2 cause the power won't hit every time.

 

[Aegeri]

You assume there is no difficult terrain. No defender who can take OAs if they go around the wrong side (hence allowing the control of a 6 square, rather than 3 square width)
None of the monsters are dazed, nor are any of them slowed, hence they can all happily go via indirect routes, not wishing to charge.

In other words you assume that it's the least effective possible encounter setup for storm pillar.

This is essentially true. It's like KarinsDad is arguing that the game is played on a CharOp like assumption of planet bowling ball. It is very difficult to just move where you want when slowed, dazed, difficult terrain and similar factors that pop up regularly in a battle. It also seems we aren't using the same definition of control either. Forcing an enemy to do something it didn't want to do is by definition control. If you make it waste its move action to take some long route around, then you've won an important battle.

Take the example of a storm pillar placed just in front of a melee brute (for example).

XEEEXXX
XBSEPXX
XEEEXXX

The brute at B and has been slowed. The wizard doesn't have to be the one to impose the slow condition either, many characters can inflict slow (many at-will, for example a Knight with his hold the line stance). The brute has only three options and all of them suck. He can charge or move towards the player at P, taking damage from the storm pillar that he cannot avoid.

He can move back, but he still has to go into the storm pillar and take damage to charge the PC. This also requires his move action, which could have been used for something else - many monsters have move action powers or attacks.

He can run to get to the PC, gaining a -5 penalty to attacks and conceding CA. This is not a good option by any means.

But here we can quickly see how SP is a control power and why MM isn't. In this case the monster is forced to do something it didn't want to do on its turn. Especially as it is denied the ability to move directly to the PC while it is slowed and so cannot really do a lot to the PC. Likewise, tactical placing of the storm pillar can be brutally effective even in larger areas. Take a fighter and a storm pillar like this:

WXXXXXXW
WEEEOOOW
WESEOFOW
WEEEOFOW
WXXXXXXW

This is a 6x6 corridor, or just area on the battlefield. More than sufficient room for many typical 4E dungeons (probably a bit above). But here we see the sheer power of storm pillar. The storm pillar occupies the entire opposite side of the fighter, giving every creature in the encounter an absolutely crappy choice. It either moves through the storm pillar, taking automatic damage or it risks absorbing a fighters OA and completely losing its turn. If it's really smart, it could delay its turn but that has its risks as well (as your trigger can't be "When that guy starts his turn", it has to be a viable observable event and the PCs can out-metagame you here if they we're going to start doing that).

Ultimately if placed correctly and well - considering what your allies are doing - SP provides hard control forcing enemies to have to take bad choices (or no choice) to avoid it. It also does far more than MM does, because as I keep saying it's actually a genuine control power. Whereas MM does not control anything whatsoever. This is again, a key argument here.

If the Wizard uses this debuff power 30 times per level, it will stop 1.8 attacks per level: 60% chance to hit * 30 times per level * 10% chance -2 lowers damage = 1.8 times per level it stops an attack.

And yet when you calculate DPR, you find that your point is wrong and that the damage a -2 penalty reduces, especially stacked onto a mark or another penalty becomes significant quickly. You still have not answered that argument, particularly again when considering proper tactics. A -2 penalty actually turns into a more resilient defender, because as my calculations proved it reduces the total damage the monster does.

Also a level 1 Human Wizard with 20 int (not a bad investment for a human), a +1 accurate staff and staff expertise has a +7 to hit at level 1. That's nothing too shabby whatsoever, especially against a monsters NADs. Something like Illusory ambush is going to have a lot bigger than a 60% chance of hitting as well. After looking through many monsters, they have a general trend of being strength and con - especially high damage brutes. They dump stat will. So at best many of these monsters will have a 13-14 (minimum 12 in a stat) for will. Monsters NAD defenses are level + 12 + stat mod, hence the variation in their NADs. This means that you're hitting on a 7+ or 65% chance to hit with Illusory Ambush against these monsters, 5+ or 75% of the time with combat advantage. Did I mention that staff expertise means you don't provoke OAs so you can get CA by flanking if needed (especially with a defender)? No? Then consider that mentioned.

So even your own maths isn't quite based on the actual realities of the game in many cases (in fact the above vs. Will is going to be better in more cases than even my assumption). It is not hard to build a super accurate wizard attacking Will, but fort and reflex are harder. Fort because most brute/soldiers are strength/con and reflex because most of them tend to have dex or int as a secondary. Cha/Wis fall behind on a lot of creatures - hence leading to poorer will.

In any event, crunching the numbers shows clearly that a -2 penalty does more to a monsters actual effective DPR than you claim. Every round a monster suffers a -2 penalty, the creatures effective damage is reduced. When it's attacking say your defender, the effect on the damage it puts out is obvious (as the calculations show). When that penalty combines with a defenders mark, that monsters damage is heavily reduced compared to hitting the defender - because that -2 immediately turns into -4. And a -4 penalty is nothing to scoff at for any monster except one vastly over the PCs level.

The fact is that your statements just don't match the reality of the game. I've never in the entire time I've played 4E over something like 6 campaigns now seen penalties and CA not matter regularly. They matter a lot and often especially when that prized daily misses by 1, which is nearly always the difference between having or not having CA. No PC refuses CA if they can get it. Nobody argues with imposing a -2 penalty onto a creature, especially at will. For example consider a Paladin and a Wizard in the same party. A Paladin who hits a creature with enfeebling strike and the wizard with Illusory Ambush imposes a -4 penalty. That creature now can't hit the paladin worth a thing and as my DPR calculation on page 1 shows, it won't do jack to anyone else either (due to having a -6 penalty).

A +2 implement at level 4 (like what occurs on the PBP games, but typically not in table games)

Hate to tell you this, but the Goliath Wizard in my IRL game (yes I know that's hilariously unoptimal, but he was amazingly hard to kill) had a +2 orb by level 3. The wizard in Dark Prophecy has a +2 staff. The mage in my Dark Sun game is the only one who lacks a +2 implement, this is because Dark Sun uses inherent bonuses. But mostly I tend to give +2 weapons to controllers and others first out of habit, because they tend to find them most important. So this is hardly an unreasonable assumption that Abdul makes to me.

but the tougher higher level Elites get hit with the equivalent of a +12 bonus with MM.

Elites no longer get bonuses to defenses anymore, so they are exactly the same as normal creatures. Same with solos. So I am genuinely confused what your point here is.

 

[KarinsDad]

This stuff happens ALL the time.

This stuff happens sometimes. Not every single encounter and definitely not every single round.

Are you being honest with yourself here?

Even if there are other difficulties in the way, a monster can usually get around them, especially with a Charge worse case scenario.

Even if the player of the Wizard wants to drop a good Storm Pillar, there are also times when the Defender is in the wrong spot, or the Wizard doesn't have time to drop a Storm Pillar (e.g. there are 3 foes bunched up and the Wizard's better option is to drop a 3x3 on them), or the Wizard knows that dropping it won't do anything other than waste an action. So, the monster doesn't go around it to attack the Cleric, the monster goes the opposite way and attacks the Avenger.

It definitely has its uses. One simple way is to drop it 1 square above a monster that doesn't have ranged attacks and have the other PCs shift back away from that monster. Course, that tactic only definitively works against Medium or Smaller monsters (that cannot range attack or teleport or phase under the floor). Large+ monsters can sometimes just squeeze under and away from it, taking no damage and often not being significantly slowed down or penalized at the right time by the squeeze.

But even here, if it is used against a standard monster, that means that the Wizard gave up his action in order to take away the action of a single foe. That's parity. And that's only when the monster cannot avoid the situation.

It's just not "ALL of the time" like you claim. That's an exaggeration. From my experience, it's not even often. Maybe once per encounter, the situation is just perfect that it sets up something good. There's even cases where it's more than once per encounter. But usually, the monster has an out of some type.

I've seen Storm Pillar used three rounds in a row to block a doorway where the players thought an extra tough monster was going to come out and fight them while they were already in combat. It turned out that the creature in the room was a non-combatant and the Wizard effectively wasted his actions for three rounds in a row which made the N+3 encounter they were in even tougher (they thought the tough monster was in the room, it turned out that they were already in combat with it).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I just find that the controlling at-wills are very nice. They are like 'hamburger helper' for your wizard. Maybe you drop an encounter power one round that creates some obnoxious zone for the the monsters to deal with, leveraged with a bit of fixed terrain, then drop something like SP the next round, keeping them from moving how they would like.

You have to also consider that again using SP, that you can do a LOT of flanking prevention with it. Got a mob on one side of the fighter? Drop an SP on the other side and he's got a spot to keep his back to. This stuff just adds up, like Aegeri says. He's right about +/-2 buff/debuff too, it does figure in a good bit, especially if you can stack it on top of a mark or something like that, which CERTAINLY happens quite a lot.

Example: level 1 Brute has roughly DPR of .5 * 13 = 6.5. With a -2 that's .4 * 13 = 5.2 or a 1.3 point decrease in DPR, which is almost 20%. Drop another -2 on that and it is now .3 * 13 or 3.9 DPR, another 1.3 point DPR decrease and the monster is now at around 55% effectiveness. That is not trivial. Especially when you figure that you're doing MORE damage on average, or only slightly less, with most of these powers than the MM is doing. Sure, you CAN miss, but your clean-room to-hit numbers are also pessimistic. Given that you coordinate with other PCs and take advantage of existing buffs and debuffs, and given a +6 to-hit at level 1 you can get 65% as about an average if your leader is competent. Even with the lousy 50% shots you are barely behind MM. Given that you will have 2 at-wills and picking the best of the two every round things work out pretty well in my experience.

I mean the true test of this kind of thing is purely doing it. I'd sure like to see the writeups for a set of encounters that spans a level where you rarely get to use terrain plus an at-will to do this kind of thing. It certainly isn't at all likely in my game.