Sorcerers too powerful?

[bert1000]

I'm not sure about too powerful, but I don't like the fact that sorcerers get an at will ranged burst and a bunch of other ranged bursts too (mostly from arcane power). Just steps on the controllers toes too much. The close powers are fine.

 

[Nail]

I'm confused...why are some claiming Sorcerer's have poor defences? Poor compared to what, exactly?

Frex, a either Sorcerer build is liable to have an 18 in an AC stat. One feat later, they have AC 16...right in the same ballpark as other strikers and controllers. Where's the poor-ness?

 

[Mengu]

Frex, a either Sorcerer build is liable to have an 18 in an AC stat. One feat later, they have AC 16...right in the same ballpark as other strikers and controllers. Where's the poor-ness?

Those are some unfortunate conditions. It means every sorcerer needs to pick a Str/Cha or Dex/Cha race, they must use 16/16 starting stat array, and they need to spend their first feat on leather.

As a class with numerous close attacks, it's not the best design. A ranged sorcerer could probably get by at first level with AC 12-14, but for a close sorcerer, the investment in two 18 stats and a feat are almost mandatory.

 

[baberg]

FWIW, we've been using Interpretation 1 for our game. My warlock player didn't even consider the second interpretation as a possibility. When in doubt, I multiply first, then add.

Our Warlock immediately told me about the ruling as soon as he could so he could get the additional bonus to his rolls. But he's a powergamer that way.

I guess the question is "What triggers Fate of the Void" and "What triggers Improved Fate of the Void"? Assuming 3 cursed creatures die, if FotV is a single-target affect, then Interpretation 2 (+6) is correct because each creature dying triggers FotV for +1 and IFotV adds +1 to each of those. But if FotV is a general thing that happens at the start of your turn, say, then FotV triggers once for a value of +3 and then IFotV triggers off for +1.

I'm inclined to agree with CustServ in this case because I can't see FotV being some sort of cumulative "Get a total creatures dying between your turns" thing and treat it more as an individual status effect on each creature which grants the bonus when the creature's HP reaches 0.

 

[Kinneus]

All in all, the damage output won't be as sexy as the Sorcerer's, but the Warlock can really mess up some of those Elite and Solo monsters out there a lot better than the Sorcerer can.

The problem with that, though, is that everyone can mess up Elites and Solos. Solos, generally speaking, do too little damage to actually be challenging. They often turn into boring grind-fests, and the Solo is quickly contained with chains of dazes, prones and stuns. Do we really need a class that shuts down solos when solos are shut down in pretty much every fight anyway?
And then there's the simple fact that most fights won't be against a solo. Nine times out of ten, the Sorcerer will be more useful. Once in a while, the Warlock will be more useful... but it'll be during fights wherein the party wasn't in any real danger, anyway.
It's the same problem with defining Controller as somebody who can attack multiple enemies at once. Why specialize in wiping out Minions when Minions already pose no threat?

 

[Victim]

It's the same problem with defining Controller as somebody who can attack multiple enemies at once. Why specialize in wiping out Minions when Minions already pose no threat?

Because most fights aren't against solos, so there's usually 5 or so enemies. Hence hitting most them can be pretty good.

 

[Kinneus]

Because most fights aren't against solos, so there's usually 5 or so enemies. Hence hitting most them can be pretty good.

I'm aware of that, especially considering I made the same argument in my first post. I didn't explain that last bit about Wizard very well there, though. I threw it in with an edit, and it probably wasn't clear what I meant. I apologize... let me explain.
In PHB1, the definition given for Controller is:

Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the same time. They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse or delay foes.

About 2/3 of that definition focuses on how Controllers attack multiple foes; this makes them ideally suited to fight Minions, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the Wizard (especially with powers like Scorching Burst) was originally designed to foil Minions, since they're the type of monster most 'vulnerable' to multi-attack powers.
The only problem is this doesn't work. Those 'powers that weaken, confuse or delay' ended up being far, far more useful, simply because Minions have a negligible effect on combat after level 3 or so. Another problem is that more and more characters are able to comfortably attack multiple foes (some even get At-Wills to do this), so it simply doesn't hold up as a character's shtick.
That's why the Invoker and Druid all have At-Wills that do things -other- than attack multiple foes. You'll see no Magic Missiles or Scorching Bursts here; the designers learned from their mistakes. And though I haven't read it yet, I'm willing to bet the new Wizard At-Wills in AP do more than attack multiple foes, as well.

Anyway, that's my 'evidence' as to why Wizards were initially thought of as Minion-poppers, and why that made their At-Wills so very, very crappy. They were designed to take out an already non-threatening foe... much like how Warlocks are designed to take out toothless, stun-locked Dragons. It'd be like creating a class with a class feature that says, "You do +5 damage on attacks against creatures that are five levels lower than you." Do you really need a character that specializes in killing things that already posed very little threat?
Warlocks need a gimmick beyond "singe-target controller" just as bad as Wizards needed a gimmick beyond "guy who can attack more than 1 opponent a round".
Being a proper Controller is about spreading nasty debuffs and statuses over multiple foes, which the Warlock cannot effectively do. A Striker is about dealing reliable damage or damage with high spikes, which the Warlock is not able to do as effectively as other Striker classes. I'm not saying Warlocks are useless... I enjoy playing them myself. But I think it's clear they have some issues.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The better the bonus, the less you need it. Good odds there won't even be anything standing if 3 cursed targets died!

Minions die by the swagload in any fight.

 

[Nail]

I'm confused...why are some claiming Sorcerer's have poor defences? Poor compared to what, exactly?

Frex, a either Sorcerer build is liable to have an 18 in an AC stat. One feat later, they have AC 16...right in the same ballpark as other strikers and controllers. Where's the poor-ness?

Those are some unfortunate conditions. It means every sorcerer needs to pick a Str/Cha or Dex/Cha race, they must use 16/16 starting stat array, and they need to spend their first feat on leather.

As a class with numerous close attacks, it's not the best design. A ranged sorcerer could probably get by at first level with AC 12-14, but for a close sorcerer, the investment in two 18 stats and a feat are almost mandatory.

#1) Picking a race that gives you high Primary/Secondary stats is already strongly encouraged in 4e. No big news there. (Wanna be a guardian Druid? Be a dwarf. Predator Druid? Switch to Elf.)

#2) Other PC options are similarly hurt if you don't put a high stat in the AC ability score. ...So again, Sorcerer's have no worse AC than other similar classes.

#3) I agree that a class with numerous close attacks should be "front line capable", which means (often) higher AC and higher hp. Constitution would've fit the bill better, IMO. Sorcerer is strange that way...why does Strength add to their arcane attacks, again?

 

[Nail]

Being a proper Controller is about spreading nasty debuffs and statuses over multiple foes, which the Warlock cannot effectively do. A Striker is about dealing reliable damage or damage with high spikes, which the Warlock is not able to do as effectively as other Striker classes. I'm not saying Warlocks are useless... I enjoy playing them myself. But I think it's clear they have some issues.

FWIW: Warlocks do have a design issue -- but it's not their role. They play fine as a Strriker/Controller, IME.


The design issue is their Primary/Secondary ability score structure. They're a "V" class; and we all now know that "A" design classes are best. Poor Warlocks (and Pallys, and Clerics, and Rangers).....