Ranged Defender: Doable?

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you for sharing the defender wizard. It looks like you put some work into creating it. Have you tried it in actual play?

It's a vague idea I toyed with in the past. Using the Essentials 'school' template, though, it was easy enough to bang out - about two hours.

[*]At low levels, the wizard does not have much in the way of avoiding allies when casting area spells, so allies will take collateral damage if they want to be in the zone of protection.

Depends on the available spells. Beguiling Strands, for instance, would work really well for the Abjurer. But he'd definitely need a couple of new at-wills of the Abjuration school to round out his abilities. I was thinking of a possibility on my way to Encounters today... hmm...

Warding Force (Wizard at-will 1)
at-will * Arcane, Abjuration, Force, Zone
Standard Burst 1 w/in 10
Target: One enemy in Burst.
Attack: INT v FORT
Hit: 1d6+INT Force damage and the target is pushed two squares from the origin of the burst.
Effect: The Warding Force leaves a zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. Allies within the zone gain a +2 shield bonus to AC and REF.

[*]The punishment damage is too low and a brute will gladly take the damage to pummel a squishy into the ground.

Yep, it's low. But, it's automatic and not an action on the part of the Abjurer.

[*]The build seems to protect the defender more than his allies, which is hardly conducive to keeping the bad guys off your allies.

There's a certain amount of 'the abjurer and his ward are one.' It's a tad convoluted, though, I'm not entirely happy with it.

[*]Having an attackable zone just means that enemies with multiple attacks or area attacks get more bank for their buck.

Same could be said of a pet.

[*]The wizard does not have the hit points or surges to survive long once the ward is drained of its hit points.

Between the hps of the Ward and 'Eldritch Surges,' and his regular hps and surges, the Abjurer has at least the total hp absorbtion ability of a traditional defender.

[*]The way it is written, the ward automatically recovers all its hit points when it is summoned during the next encounter. That is too powerful. If that was not intended then the hit point tracking should be clarified.

Yep, that's intentional. It's not particularly more 'broken' than a PC having access to regeneration, though.

[*]You can nullify other zones as a free action with your Ward with your Master Mage Feature? Since when did ANY class get to do something so effective as a free action every turn? Maybe because it requires an attack every turn, it is not so bad, but that would require extensive testing.[/LIST]

Partially nullify(just the overlapping area), with a successful attack roll, yes. It's hell on encounter-power zones that can't be moved, but only mildly inconvenient to auras and moveable zones, since the creator can just move away and back to force another roll.

Maybe it will be a good defender and maybe not but it doesn't feel right to me.

It definitely shouldn't feel like a regular defender. I have a number of misgivings about it. That it doesn't use marking, for instance, since that means it can double-up it's penalties with another defender's mark. Also, the math to get hps/surges + Ward+E.surges about right in a way that 'flows' is a little shakey - an Eldritch Surge or healing surge used as one, to restore the Ward, is a solid defender-level surge. A regular healing surge, if the Abjurer takes damage, himself, though, is decidely sub-par. The Abjurer does have a rediculous number of surges, though: 9 + CON bonus + INT bonus, for an INT-primary/CON-secondary class.

 

[WalterKovacs]

It definitely shouldn't feel like a regular defender. I have a number of misgivings about it. That it doesn't use marking, for instance, since that means it can double-up it's penalties with another defender's mark. Also, the math to get hps/surges + Ward+E.surges about right in a way that 'flows' is a little shakey - an Eldritch Surge or healing surge used as one, to restore the Ward, is a solid defender-level surge. A regular healing surge, if the Abjurer takes damage, himself, though, is decidely sub-par. The Abjurer does have a rediculous number of surges, though: 9 + CON bonus + INT bonus, for an INT-primary/CON-secondary class.

There is wording for "marks that aren't marks" with the knight/cavalier's defender auras, so you can always copy the language for those in order to prevent the "marked by two sources" problem ... since say, a fighter, in the ward marking an enemy in the ward would mean the monster gets a -2 against anyone (-4 against some) and suffer punishment unless it didn't attack (or shift) at all.

 

[andy3k]

While I lay in bed, another concern came to me with regards to that abjurer ward. I'm picturing a wiz with the ward on himself (invincible ward), the party is adjacent (so they are all protected by the ward), and the ward is neutralizing (almost for free) the enemy aura that should be having an unkind effect on the party. And all of that is happening while still in the heroic tier.

Even at first level, a party wrapped around the wizard and his invulnerable ward are already better protected than any other defender could possibly manage at first level.

MUCH too powerful, in my humble opinion.

As a side note, you mentioned that attacking your ward and another person with area attack is no different than for my pet. I disagree. My pet never became invulnerable while your ward does if wrapped around the wiz. Also, the ward is bigger than my pet so it is easier to hit. The one does not balance the other, though.

 

[mneme]

???? doesn't need to be much - you've already succeeded at defending, because the monster came to you.

Yep.

Seriously, you could just take the existing fighter, give him a new mark punishing mechanic that works at range and some powers that work at range and you're done.

My issue is that the ability to enforce at a distance is a big deal, as it ups your defenses relative to a typical defender.

But I think a fighter build with, say, prof in hide and striker HP but with a mark that could punish on range (but not trigger on shifts), plus a bunch of ranged powers, could work well. I'd probably have it mainstat Dex -- so as to deliberately silo the melee fighter from the ranged fighter while still letting you do both if you wanted to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm picturing a wiz with the ward on himself (invincible ward), the party is adjacent (so they are all protected by the ward), and the ward is neutralizing (almost for free) the enemy aura that should be having an unkind effect on the party. And all of that is happening while still in the heroic tier.

As a player, I hate auras, and that prejudice may just have crept through in making them too easy to deal with. Also, dealing with auras and zones is more a controller function. It's just that the tradition of Abjuration magic includes dispelling stuff, so it was tempting to include.

Even at first level, a party wrapped around the wizard and his invulnerable ward

I'm not sure what you mean by 'invulnerable ward.' The Ward is meant to be an extension of the Abjurer's own hps, so that he can do the damage-absorbtion function at range. When he's within his own ward, the separate hps just combine, and he is attacked directly instead of through the proxy of the ward.

 

[mneme]

I like the idea of an Abjurer defender wizard; nicely done.

But I don't see any reason the ward needs to be attackable--at all. If it is, the system for making it attackable is far too complicated.

But really, for a wizard defender, his weakness is really simple: it's the wizard. All the foe needs to do to mess with the wizard's defensive ability is walk over to the wizard and proceed to kicking the crap out of him or her. Since the wizard still has wizard defenses, he -needs- the extra defense of "I'm too far away for you to conveniently hit me" in order to do his job.

That said, I'd probably want to also include a class feature that improves the wizard's defenses against ranged attackers--and drop the wizard's controller powers down a bit (Abjurer's Shell: Your spells inflict half damage. While you are conscious, you take half damage from ranged and area attacks). Because while distance is a useful defense against melee enemies, it's -not- a useful defense against ranged enemies; an abjurer who attracts their attentions and doesn't have any defenses against them will find himself a non-defender in -very- short order.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like the idea of an Abjurer defender wizard; nicely done.

But I don't see any reason the ward needs to be attackable--at all. If it is, the system for making it attackable is far too complicated.

Yeah, that's one of my downfalls, I always make stuff too complicated. I feel it needs to be attackable because it takes the Abjurer from wizard hp/surges to defender hp/surges, while leaving it seeming wizardy.

But really, for a wizard defender, his weakness is really simple: it's the wizard. All the foe needs to do to mess with the wizard's defensive ability is walk over to the wizard and proceed to kicking the crap out of him or her. Since the wizard still has wizard defenses, he -needs- the extra defense of "I'm too far away for you to conveniently hit me" in order to do his job.

And that's not really a defender anymore.

That said, I'd probably want to also include a class feature that improves the wizard's defenses against ranged attackers--and drop the wizard's controller powers down a bit (Abjurer's Shell: Your spells inflict half damage. While you are conscious, you take half damage from ranged and area attacks).

Nod. I did have the Abjurer's Ward reduce the area of non-abjuration spells, making them less controllery. I couldn't think of much to do about single-target spells, but as the Abjurer's premier class features revolve around AE spells, I don't think that's too big a hole. Still, an abjurer with the right spell choice could very nearly turn from a defender to a controller overnight via his spellbook.

Though, to be a 'ranged defender,' you don't have to be vulnerable in melee, just less able to influence the enemy in melee than at range.

 

[mneme]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] Re "and that's not really a defender anymore" -- sure it is. Think about what a defender -actually- does, not the way they typically work.

A defender (in addition to anything else they may be doing) has a limited control ability that focuses on superior defenses -- and forces the enemy to either ignore them and face both greater difficulty and consequences -- or to address their defenses and thereby spend greater effort for less of a result.

Do you disupte this definition?

If you don't, then it's not hard to model a defender without superior -numerical- defenses. All you need is enough other barriers in the way of addressing you that the choice that the enemy has -- of spending a greater effort to address you vs the greater penalty for ignoring you -- is a real choice. Being at a distance is a barrier. Being hidden is a barrier. Having attack-nullifying utilities (something the wizard -can- pack if they want in spades) is a barrier. And, yes, having high HP is a barrier and having high numerical defenses is a barrier (and having Font of Life style status defenses is a barrier). [also, having a wall between the enemy and you is a barrier ]. By the same token, I think your "you can attack my warding" abjurer is way too vulnerable. You've got a "defender" who is automatically tactically lose/lose -- if it's better to attack his allies, the enemy will do that. If it's better to attack his ward, they'll do that. But most often (particularly against artillery), they'll just attack him, and since he's a fragile controller with no particular defenses against ranged/area attacks and he is trying to pretend to be a defender, he'll go down.

My problem was, particularly if I wanted to make the Abjurer have better defenses in general (particularly against ranged/area attacks), that I needed a reason for someone not to build an Abjurer Controller -- who ignored the warding abilities entirely and just played controller for a whole fight while benefiting from superior defenses. So if Abjurer comes with some big defenses so you can do your job, it also needs a big drawback so people don't take the package if they aren't going to use it properly; I thought the inability to play striker (given that almost all wizards are secondary strikers) was good here, although it makes enchanter/abjurers absurdly good. Probably the defense should only work when you've got a ward up, and the damage penalty should work all the time. (the problem with the "the ward reduces the area" is that most spells you cast aren't ward spells).

Regarding being vulnerable in melee -- you don't, but it's the easiest way to keep you tactically interesting, and you need something big to balance out aribitrary mark/punish lengths. Note that my fighter hack in #104 isn't particularly vulnerable in melee -- but he does have lower HP overall in exchange for being a ranged build rather than a melee build (and he can only wear Hide -- but given that he's probably Dex/[Con, Wis, orStr], that's not that much of a drawback).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Re "and that's not really a defender anymore" -- sure it is. Think about what a defender -actually- does, not the way they typically work.

A defender (in addition to anything else they may be doing) has a limited control ability that focuses on superior defenses -- and forces the enemy to either ignore them and face both greater difficulty and consequences -- or to address their defenses and thereby spend greater effort for less of a result.

Do you disupte this definition?

Defenders have all done that by drawing attacks to themselves. Drawing attacks to a different ally, or simply giving the enemy attack penalties would seem to fall more over towards the controller role. So, yeah, I guess I have to dispute it, a bit, because that's really just a not-very-good-controller. The Defender also provides the hps and bigger/more numerous surges, on top of the higher defenses, to further reduce the effectiveness of enemy attacks.

But most often (particularly against artillery), they'll just attack him, and since he's a fragile controller with no particular defenses against ranged/area attacks and he is trying to pretend to be a defender, he'll go down.

Yeah, that's a problem. I'm thinking maybe his ward has to be active on him whenever it's up, rather than having separate rules for being within his own ward...?

My problem was, particularly if I wanted to make the Abjurer have better defenses in general (particularly against ranged/area attacks), that I needed a reason for someone not to build an Abjurer Controller -- who ignored the warding abilities entirely and just played controller for a whole fight while benefiting from superior defenses.

Some defenders to have quite potent secondary roles. The Greatweapon Fighter, for instance, hits almost as hard as a striker, while having defender hps and defenses. Heck, the Slayer crosses the line and has defender hps/defenses and is a full-on Striker.

I'm currently trying to keep the Abjurer from playing Controller by linking it's class feature to smaller areas and lower damage with controller spells (any that's not abjuration). If he doesn't use a spell that puts the Ward up, he has no defender toughness, at all.

Regarding being vulnerable in melee -- you don't, but it's the easiest way to keep you tactically interesting, and you need something big to balance out aribitrary mark/punish lengths. Note that my fighter hack in #104 isn't particularly vulnerable in melee -- but he does have lower HP overall in exchange for being a ranged build rather than a melee build (and he can only wear Hide -- but given that he's probably Dex/[Con, Wis, orStr], that's not that much of a drawback).

Nod. The take I took with a ranged fighter was to make his mark-punishment useful at range, but not in melee. He's not vulnerable in melee, he even still marks, he just doesn't have the punishment to go with it, so less effective rather than vulnerable. The Abjurer slides too easily into vulnerable, I think...

 

[mneme]

@Tony Vargas:

Obviously, the ranged controller needs to draw attacks to themselves. But my approach -still- draws attacks to the ranged controller; it just means some of the difficulty is them getting out of melee with the other party members to do that. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're able to stand outside a reasonable range. Hell, the Swordmage does that now; mark and run away. As long as the damage over time (and prevention over time) is more or less typical for a defender, it's good.

Also, keep in mind that the roles are -far- more important as inspiration than they are as concepts to be followed. A viable 4e character will do some of (defend, control, strike, lead) and will do what they do well enough to be viable. But as long as the character does a good enough at their role, however one defines it, it doesn't really matter that they don't do it in a traditional manner or their style feels more like another role -- as long as they're neither too potent nor too weak.

Also, keep in mind that controllers are special. Other roles get their role with a class feature, and get things that -trend- to their role with their powers. But all controllers get their role with their power selection (particularly their at will power selection, but the others are important as well) and get minor benefits [and maybe a secondary role] with their class features. So you can't deny a controller full use of the "control" aspect just by changing their features; you have to hit their powers in some way. This is why the Sentinel is very vulnerable to be turned into a full leader/controller by mostly ignoring melee, and why the Binder is a very weak controller because she doesn't get enough real controller powers [and gives up a striker feature to not get them]. Note that the wizard is very potent even with wizard defenses; give a wizard a way to get fighter defenses while keeping wizard potency and you're opening things up for players to use your ideas as a better staff wizard than the staff wizard.