Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?

[Mongolia Jones]

Okay, let's examine your example. So, you say 8 standard monsters. No elites or solos, and a large number of low hitpoint enemies. So in other words, a very nice group for Firestorm. I'll assume, as you did, that all attacks hit.

180 hit points for normals is not low hit points. At 19th your average fighter will have 160 hit points, 175 with Toughness.

Assume half hit and half miss, thats 59 or 39 damage (average 49). Still more than a wizard can do on a 100% rate rate with his most devastating spell.

Okay, so after you hit them the first time, let's assume that 2/3 of them have ranged attacks, so they retreat to outside the range. Let's assume the others attack you normally, and so take the Firestorm damage. Then the 2/3 use ranged attacks on you. You and your party completely mops up the 1/3 enemies in 1 or 2 rounds, with some assistance from your Firestorm. No more damage from Firestorm.

Your right, the "artillery" opponents will probably get hit once with the Fire Storm, then run away. But at least I will do striker damage, and artillery types don't have as many hit points to boot. They say ouch to Fire Storm.

Besides, it's much easier to kill an artillery type with 110 hit points than 160 hit points. Ask any striker.

A far as I'm concerned, the ongoing damage of Fire Storm is gravy, the first round damage alone make it a great power.

Okay, same situation but with Evard's. You trap about 4 enemies, (like you said) and since you can tell which ones are melee and which aren't (most likely), the ratio is more like 1/2 melee or more (probably more). So, you and your party mop up the rest of the encounter while they sit there, and the ranged guys inside also get some plinks at you and your party. Then, you all focus fire the ranged guys inside, before killing the melee guys. Some enemies could be pushed in the field or could escape, but these factors weren't considered.

But then again, your Evards is completely USELESS in dealing with ranged opponents, as they will still use their standard actions to attack your party. Boo, to the wizard for not controlling.

We could instead consider a situation with elites and/or solos as well, where Evard's would have even more advantage.

Why you shouldn't use Evards on Solos
1. You have to roll to hit (he has high defenses)
2. Solos/Elites have high saving throws (they can jump out easier)
3. Once out of the Evards (very likely) you have to
---a) successfully roll an attack with a push power
---b) successfully roll an attack with Evards with your minor
---c) assuming a 30% success to hit (roll 15+ on d20) on both means a measly 9% hes back in the Evards (only to save on a 5+ and jump back out next round)
4. If the solo isn't in the Evards (very likely), you have to blow a Minor action for nothing to keep it active

Fire Storm vs Solos Elites: (not recommended as this power is designed for a group)
Guaranteed 39 damage, possible 59 damage.
If the solo stays (like a demon would), guaranteed 18.5 damage.
If the solo leaves, make note to self and cast power on a group next time.

Er, no. It's Wizards (the company) making a bad design choice, since the War Wizards aren't very good at their role (either Controller or what a War Wizard is supposed to do). If you are comparing a "pure damage" War Wizard to some cleric spells, yes the cleric has some pretty ridiculous advantages at some levels. But even then, it's only on a few levels, and it's with a suboptimal (IMO) path.

IMO I don't think you really know if it's a suboptimal path. I think your only saying that to say it. It looks pretty good to me.


So what your saying is, that WoTC has designed a game where:

A wizard can be a:
-Control Wizard (footsie ftw) - page 157

And a Cleric can be a:
-Battle Cleric (Melee) - page 61
-Devoted Cleric (Heal) - page 61
-War Wizard (AoE damage God) - page 157 (as I have demonstrated well enough)


Yep, I will agree with that.

 

[Roxlimn]

Nope. Sorry, I won't. Firestorm and Astral Storm as one-ofs. You do one each and you're done. Sacred Word is competitive, but it's no Prismatic Spray and it's not even a per-encounter power.

 

[ST]

I don't think War Wizard is bad at all, but a lot of people are down on it because you have to boost Int and Dex, whereas other wizards can ignore Dex (since they use Int for AC bonus anyway).

If somebody really wants their wizard to have access to Firestorm and Astral Storm as dailies, I wouldn't see a problem with it, or even by the RAW it seems like it's just a few multiclass feats away regardless (apart from the stat dependency issue, of course).

But as has been said before, two AOE dailies don't make you a full-fledged AOEr.

 

[Puggins]

A pinprick you say...

Set-up:
19th level cleric with 19th level power, stats, magic, and feats
vs
29th level wizard with 29th level power, stats, magic, and feats
vs
29th level rogue with 29th, blah, blah, blah

Math 1:
29th level wizard casts Meteor Swarm (quintessential "war wizard" spell): 28 base +9/+6/+3 = 46 damage AoE.

Math 2:
19th level cleric casts Fire Storm: On initial cast: 27.5 base +7/+4/+2 (stat/implement/feat) = 40.5 damage. Cycle to enemy's turn, inflict auto damage: 5.5 base +7/+4/+2 = 18.5 damage. Total 1st round damage = 40.5 +18.5 = 59 damage AoE. (or 39 damage on a miss)

Math 3:
29th level rogue uses Hurricane of Blood +5d8 sneak attack: 58 damage vs a single opponent (trust me on the math, or do it yourself).

Compare data:
-29th level "war" wizard does 46 points AoE (57 w/bolster blood)
-29th level "striker" rogue does 58 points w/SA to a single guy
-19th level cleric does does 59 points AoE + ongoing damage

In conclusion:
-A 19th level cleric out damages 29th level "war wizard" doing 29th level striker damage AoE!!

Who needs control with damage output like that?


Evard's you say... while the control wizard is "fighting" his opponents, blinding 'em, dazing 'em, stunning 'em, pricking 'em here and there... He wastes 8, 9, 10+ rounds worth of powers playing footzie with the beasties.

Then he makes camp for an extended rest...


Your better off trading in that wizard for a second cleric, bask in your twin cleric healing potential, cast a second Fire Storm, and pulverize the 200 hit point padded sumos in 3 or 4 short rounds.

Continue on for a milestone...


Did someone say pin-prick?

Hmm, maybe you oughta read up on the Batman wizard of 3.5e. Your opinion of control is at odds with its impact in the game. The wizard isn't playing footsie- the wizard is arresting two of the four level 25+ creatures, nullifying their damage and weakening them while his compatriots are slaughtering the other two. In essence, he is "healing" the party by preventing damage in the first place. The cleric simply cannot do that.

And I'm afraid that yes, 59 points of damage simply isn't high-impact when the average level 25 monster has 220+ hp. The cleric has just sacrificed one of his dailies to deal less than 30% of the damage to each creature. It's certainly nice, but it hasn't affected the immediate battle situation. The wizard using Evard's though, can sew two of the monsters up for 3+ turns while the party takes care of the rest.

Also, meteor swarm almost counts as a straw man. It's horrible- no one is denying that. Look at 25th level for the true king of war wizard spells, Elemental Maw. Under your math (which I think is wrong- I don't believe you add the implement damage to the auto damage), the damage would be (using the same figures that you give the cleric) 21 + 13 + 11 + 13 = 58 damage + teleported anywhere within 20 of the wizard + knocked prone and dazed for one turn. Far, far better than fire storm or astral storm.

 

[DemonLord57]

180 hit points for normals is not low hit points. At 19th your average fighter will have 160 hit points, 175 with Toughness.

Yes, but PCs have much less health than appropriate challenges for those PCs.

Assume half hit and half miss, thats 59 or 39 damage (average 49). Still more than a wizard can do on a 100% rate rate with his most devastating spell.

Where'd you get 39? It's half damage, which I assume means half of everything.

Your right, the "artillery" opponents will probably get hit once with the Fire Storm, then run away. But at least I will do striker damage, and artillery types don't have as many hit points to boot. They say ouch to Fire Storm.

Besides, it's much easier to kill an artillery type with 110 hit points than 160 hit points. Ask any striker.

A far as I'm concerned, the ongoing damage of Fire Storm is gravy, the first round damage alone make it a great power.

Yes, for damage, even the first round is good. I'll agree to that.

But then again, your Evards is completely USELESS in dealing with ranged opponents, as they will still use their standard actions to attack your party. Boo, to the wizard for not controlling.

Relatively small damage every round is useless? Ah, an admittance! The damage is about half that of the Firestorm every round if immobilized, otherwise it makes an attack that deals damage greater than that of Firestorm's secondary damage.

Why you shouldn't use Evards on Solos
1. You have to roll to hit (he has high defenses)
2. Solos/Elites have high saving throws (they can jump out easier)
3. Once out of the Evards (very likely) you have to
---a) successfully roll an attack with a push power
---b) successfully roll an attack with Evards with your minor
---c) assuming a 30% success to hit (roll 15+ on d20) on both means a measly 9% hes back in the Evards (only to save on a 5+ and jump back out next round)
4. If the solo isn't in the Evards (very likely), you have to blow a Minor action for nothing to keep it active

1. Yes, and that is why you get attack boosts. Besides that, it doesn't matter if you miss, they still have to get out of it, and you can try again next turn if they are in it again.
2. No, they can end the save relatively easily. You have a list of the things you can do in 3, which can either get attack roll boosts or help from teammates (pushing back in). Besides the various ways to increase your chances of keeping him in there, a Solo being taken out of a battle for even a single round likely means that everyone else is either dead, or close to it. (assuming a solo of around your level) Then you just have the solo to deal with. Your teammates then gang up on him and hopefully help push him back in.
4. And a minor action does what for a Controller? I know why minor actions are especially useful to Clerics, though.

Fire Storm vs Solos Elites: (not recommended as this power is designed for a group)
Guaranteed 39 damage, possible 59 damage.
If the solo stays (like a demon would), guaranteed 18.5 damage.
If the solo leaves, make note to self and cast power on a group next time.

lol, agreed: You shouldn't cast on solos unless a large group is present (perhaps minions).

IMO I don't think you really know if it's a suboptimal path. I think your only saying that to say it. It looks pretty good to me.

Comparing an entire path to another isn't exactly the easiest thing to do without extensive typing... Let's just say that for nearly every Wizard power I looked at, the control route was better (IMO) because the status effects outstripped the potential extra damage.

So what your saying is, that WoTC has designed a game where:

A wizard can be a:
-Control Wizard (footsie ftw) - page 157

And a Cleric can be a:
-Battle Cleric (Melee) - page 61
-Devoted Cleric (Heal) - page 61
-War Wizard (AoE damage God) - page 157 (as I have demonstrated well enough)


Yep, I will agree with that.

I wouldn't say that a Cleric can be a War Wizard. I would say that they have some good AoE damage powers. They can focus on AoE, but they can't do as much damage as a War Wizard's spells could. (overall, because clearly Firestorm and Astral Storm outstrip Wizard damage spells of their levels)

 

[Zurai]

Damage. Is. Not. Useful. For. Control.

Saying something doesn't make it true. No matter how often you say it. This is especially true when you're trying to say alter a technical definition that is already clearly defined.

 

[Puggins]

Why you shouldn't use Evards on Solos
1. You have to roll to hit (he has high defenses)

Well, I'm afraid that applies to Fire Storm too.

2. Solos/Elites have high saving throws (they can jump out easier)

Indeed they do. Fortunately, that's why an orb wizard specializes in making sure that save is much harder to make than usual. A 19th level wizard with a +5 wis bonus (very easily reached) and spell focus forces a -7 save penalty on a creature. Solo creatures will save on a 12+, which is just a bit better than break-even, but elites are in trouble- they have only a 30% chance of breaking the Evard's each round.

3. Once out of the Evards (very likely) you have to

"very likely?" How about "not probable" for solos and "very unlikely" for elites?

---a) successfully roll an attack with a push power
---b) successfully roll an attack with Evards with your minor
---c) assuming a 30% success to hit (roll 15+ on d20) on both means a measly 9% hes back in the Evards (only to save on a 5+ and jump back out next round)

Where in the world are you getting 30% chances to hit? It's versus reflex. Take a look at the reflex defense of most of the high level monsters relative to their other defenses.

A solo or elite will not be saving on a 5+. It will be a 12+ or a 15+.

4. If the solo isn't in the Evards (very likely), you have to blow a Minor action for nothing to keep it active

You most certainly do not.

 

[Goumindong]

You can, however, compare meteor swarm to astral storm without factoring what class it comes from, at all

No, you cannot. If you do this you will get results which tell you nothing about the game. If you want results which tell you nothing about the game then go right ahead and compare the powers.

If you want results which you can use to either determine if the game is balanced, or if you want results which you can use to determine which class you want to take, you have to consider what the class can do with the power and not what the power does by itself.

E.G. In 3e it is not reasonable to compare "Power attack" to "Spell Focus" without comparing what they will be applied to and used in combination with.

It is the same in 4e. Powers are not powers unto themselves, they operate in conjunction with class features, abilities, and feats in specific ways that produce a final result.

This is why no one complains that strikers don't get better striking powers than defenders. Because strikers have abilities that complement those striking powers which make them better at the job and which makes those powers in their application better.

 

[Puggins]

Saying something doesn't make it true. No matter how often you say it. This is especially true when you're trying to say alter a technical definition that is already clearly defined.

You are quoting a technical definition that matters not at all during game play. That's like claiming that fighters were the masters of 3.5e melee because the PHB said so.

 

[Goumindong]

And if you miss with your Sleep +Orb effect then you better come up with Plan B. Oh ya, Solos/Elites have great defenses too. Plus sleep does no damage on a miss, that's a footsie.

Fire Storm guarantees damage.

Sleep is a level 1 daily. Fire Storm is a level 19 daily...

A sleep that hits will still do more damage than firestorm will. It does top level striker damage never. Strikers will be using special abilities to increase their damage. It does guaranteed damage each round, yes. But its still less than a striking at will that hits every other attack(I.E. damage per round of a striking at will)

Bigby's hand spells vs Solos & Elites:
1. You need to hit every round opponent is out of hand
2. Solos/Elites are hard to hit (high defenses)
3. Solos/Elites still have standard and minor actions available when held/immobilized
4. Does crappy damage vs Solos/Elite (footsie)

Fire Storm auto-hits every round after the initial casting, does top-level striker damage.

You need to hit with firestorm to do damage that isn't worse than a striking at will.
Solos/Elites are hard to hit
Soloes/elites have move actions available to them which let them use their standard and minor actions better when in a firestorm.
Does crappy damage vs solos/Elite

I would much rather have a chance to immobilize the creature and do less damage each round than have him swinging his encounter standard actions at the Cleric.

Yes, I still insist controlling is playing footsie vs. normals, here's why.

You can spend 8+ rounds stunning, blinding, pushing, blah, blah, blah. Denying your opponents of 50% their actions.

Or

You can spend 3 or 4 rounds and nuke them all. This way you deny your opponents of any more than 3 or 4 rounds of actions and save your party from using too many dailies.

See, no need for control.

So your argument is "by using up all my dailies i can AoE the enemy enough that they don't have to use their dailys on this group of monsters we would have killed with encounter powers"?

When you spend this time denying actions your friends are not sitting still, they are coup-de-gracing the enemy, and ganging on ones that cant use their friends to gain and negate combat advantage.

Read my post above. Eliminating opponents faster saves your party resources and denies opponents actions.

In conclusion, wizards play footsie.

War clerics get the job done fast and move on.

And then are useless the rest of the day.

Here, ill put it another way.

There is a reason ewar is so strong and its not becuse it does a lot of damage. The smaller the gang and the more hit points things have, the more powerful ECM becomes.

Wizards are like Rooks that make the enemies they target take twice as much damage.

ed: Lets put it another, its a reasonably sized fight, 20 vs 20 going at it in ships of various sizes. Who wins, the one who concentrates fire or the one who doesn't?

Wizards let you concentrate fire easier, reduce incoming DPR better, and still do comparable AoE damage to the cleric.