Secondary ability benefits - why the wizard inconsistency?

[Plane Sailing]

When I was reading through the powers, I started to notice that in most cases there are a number of powers which had a secondary benefit which was modified by an ability which was different to the attack ability in question.

Except for wizards.

I was interested enough to go through and tabulate the powers by class. How many powers per class of each type gain a secondary benefit from another ability score?

Cleric (all Cha)
1 at-will
10 encounter
2 daily

Fighter (5 Con/8 Dex)
0 at will
11 encounter
2 daily

Paladin (all Wis)
2 at will
14 encounter
0 daily

Ranger (14 Wis, 1 Str)
0 at will
13 encounter
2 daily

Rogue (12 Str, 10 Cha)
2 at will
15 encounter
5 daily

Warlock (all Int)
0 at will
19 encounter
1 daily

Warlord (12 Int, 14 Cha)
2 at will
16 encounter
8 daily

Wizard (both Wis)
2 at will
0 encounter
0 daily.

What a disparity, eh?

Now the Rogue, Warlock and Warlord totals are inflated slightly by having some benefits which only apply to certain builds, so the maximum powers with these secondary benefits is reduced for any given individual, rather than the full 22/20/26 possibles.

The cleric, fighter, paladin and ranger still have solid totals of 13, 13, 16 and 15 powers their way.

The wizard? 2 at wills.

It is strange. It is almost as if the wizard powers were written by someone who "didn't get the memo" about including secondary ability benefits in a certain number of powers!

Cheers

 

[Switchback]

Good point.

Making a Wizard, if you are not that interested in maxing out your sleep/orb combo you can kind of be left scratching your head looking for a reason to up a 2nd stat.

My 2nd high stat is Dex due to being Eladrin. But outside of a few feats, initiative and wand accuracy, there is pretty much no benefit to having a high stat there. And 2 of those 3 are not even directly class related bonuses.

It really gives you no incentive like some other classes have to synergize your powers with your high secondary stats.

The lack of needing a 2nd stat might make the Wizard an appealing class to multiclass out from, but not many others have need of INT. And it seems easier for another class to devote a 2nd stat to INT to pick up a few Wizard powers than it does for the Wizard to delve into another class powers, seeing as he often lack the defenses, armor, or weapons to properly take advantage of them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The wizard's secondary stat is prettymuch dictated by his implement mastery, and, ultimately, not all that important (but, remember, you can get a second implement mastery at Paragon tier).

There also seem to be some very different schools of class design with respect to stats. Rogue & Warlord, for instance have builds differentiated by secondary stat choices with very clear class features and power benefits based on those choices. In contrast, the Ranger & Cleric have builds based on different /primary/ characteristics, with the runner-up assumed to take a secondary status. The Warlock does a bit of both, with split primary stats and special benefits based on the choice. The wizard seems to do neither, the builds are based on implement mastery, and the secondary stat affects little beyond the encounter freebie granted by that feature.

 

[WhatGravitas]

This and other small inconsistencies of the wizard (*cough* Fire/Astral Storm *cough*), plus the two incarnations of the Design & Development articles about the wizard and the Golden Wyvern/Emerald Frost traditions make me think that the wizard was one of the classes that got the highest amount of broad rewrites up to the very end.

I also have the feeling that this sort of prevented some polishing - most other classes somehow look more finished.

I'd love to see what the wizard looked like pre-rewrites.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Andor]

This and other small inconsistencies of the wizard (*cough* Fire/Astral Storm *cough*), plus the two incarnations of the Design & Development articles about the wizard and the Golden Wyvern/Emerald Frost traditions make me think that the wizard was one of the classes that got the highest amount of broad rewrites up to the very end.

I also have the feeling that this sort of prevented some polishing - most other classes somehow look more finished.

I'd love to see what the wizard looked like pre-rewrites.

Cheers, LT.

Not gonna happen. Apparently the playtesters are still under NDA not to discuss the differences between playtest and printed versions.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, it definitely feels like the Wizard gets the "One of these is not like the others" award, whether it's for class features, feat selection, paragon paths, etc.

 

[Switchback]

It would be interesting to see how the stat related powers of other classes match up power wise with the Wizard's more flat choices.

I mean are they balanced around having a +2 for their secondary stat, more/less?

Not being forced to branch off in a way keeps the Wizard's options opens. You can build any kind of mix of AoE, Single Target, Terrain effecting, etc Wizard and still be very feasible in your primary role. You don't have to declare a path in the way a Paladin might say with STR vs CHA powers.

But of course you can't specialize or min/max powers to be more effective to any noticeable degree.

Perhaps because the Wizard deals in so many AOE and lasting effects, they wanted to be extra careful about stacking on bonuses to damage or penalties, as once they are hitting 4 or 5 creatures at once, the power would reallly multiply.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Not gonna happen. Apparently the playtesters are still under NDA not to discuss the differences between playtest and printed versions.

Yeah, sadly yes. I'm rather hoping for some more in-depth Design & Development articles in Dragon at some point. Or some designers weighing in (which is also quite unrealistic).

But yeah, there's a lot of stuff going on with the wizard - like having a specific almost must-have epic destiny, lack of a controller-type class feature (which makes multiclassing into wizard *very* enticing), being the only controller, but sharing his shtick (AoE effects and status effects) with a number of other classes, stat inconsistencies, specific feats (I'm looking at you, Spell Focus).

All of that really leave me shrugging and make me wonder if the artificer isn't a better fit for the wizard role (role as in archetype) with some mashing up (less crossbow action, more shooting from wand/staff).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Malicea]

Actually I find that a variation in the 'structure' of a class reduces the supposed 'sameyness' that some people have complained about 4E. I don't find that lacking a secondary stat is a weakness for the wizard. In fact the opposite: lacking a secondary stat makes a starting 20 for Int much more viable, and results in a higher attack bonus on average. The fact that Int adds to AC as well is just gravy.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Considering the Battle Wizard build says "take powers which do more damage and make the most of your dexterity score" when none do, I'd say thay, yes, something strange is going on there.

My Wizard player was actually complaining about this, since a low level Wizard gets no real reason to enhance any stat except int (exageration, but compared to 3.x, somewhat fair).