Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5432720" data-attributes="member: 78116">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).XEEEXXXXBSEPXXXEEEXXXThe 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:WXXXXXXWWEEEOOOWWESEOFOWWEEEOFOWWXXXXXXWThis 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.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).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.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.</blockquote>

Verification