Wizards: Already Too Strong?

[eamon]

shocking grasps being a melee attack isn't much of a disadvantage. The mage doesn't want to be in melee, but you can move, use the spell and move away in the same turn, and without any mechanic that allows the frontline combatants to lock enemies in place or discourage them from moving or attacking elsewhere, it's almost impossible to stay away from any enemy that wants to attack you in melee. The only way is to remain out of their range.

It's a huge disadvantage because the wizard has terrible AC and low hitpoints. At first level the difference might not be huge, but with that hit-dice difference it's going to be quite significant, quite soon.

Compare it with a fighter's attack: it's going to do less damage, less reliably, and be tactically much more risky. Which is fine, as it's not supposed to replace a fighter, but it's hardly very powerful.

 

[eamon]

Except that I don't consider a magic dagger in a secret compartment in a locked file cabinet in a disuse lavatory with a sign saying BEWARE OF LEOPARD to be "designed to be hidden"
[...]
If they do clarify before launch that it only works on things you can see directly, I will still think its very powerful, but I probably won't think its game-breaking. And I'm fully aware I'm playing a playtest and things can and will be clarified.

It's a cone. You need line of effect, which you don't have through a file cabinet's walls. However, a clarification (e.g. a reminder) still isn't a bad idea. Might be in the the spell itself, or preferably (since after playing for a few months the reminder will be pointless noise) in a separate FAQ.

 

[Someone]

It's a huge disadvantage because the wizard has terrible AC and low hitpoints. At first level the difference might not be huge, but with that hit-dice difference it's going to be quite significant, quite soon.

Compare it with a fighter's attack: it's going to do less damage, less reliably, and be tactically much more risky. Which is fine, as it's not supposed to replace a fighter, but it's hardly very powerful.

Sure, the wizard won't want to be attacked, in melee or at all, but the means the group has to avoid that are very limited, mechanics wise. It doesn't matter much to be attacking at range or in melee when, as explained in the post you quoted, you can move, use shocking grasp and retreat in the same turn, and melee monsters can just move up to the wizard's position and attack him without penalty if they want. The only ways to avoid that is to be far enough from the monsters that they can't reach you, or have some obstacle or ah-hoc formation, like the front line fighters bodily blocking a door or other chokepoint. Otherwise positioning is nearly meaningless and doesn't really matter if the wizard is in melee or not.

 

[Walking Dad]

This is always the problem with the no map/no minis approach. One cannot really bind someone in melee. The ogre for example can always ignore the heavy armored fighter and get rid of the pesky wizard with the autohit spell.

 

[Teataine]

This is always the problem with the no map/no minis approach. One cannot really bind someone in melee. The ogre for example can always ignore the heavy armored fighter and get rid of the pesky wizard with the autohit spell.

Well, the Ogre could do that even in 4E, in most instances. He just got penalized for it.

I see a number of options that the PCs have here:
-the Wizard can Ray of Frost the brute, immobilizing him
-the fighter can position himself between the enemy and the Wizard and ready an attack/tackle/whatever, this becomes much better when he gets the Fighter's Surge
-the Wizard can try to move as far as possible and use cover (half or 3/4) - hiding behind tables and rocks and so on
-the fighter (or someone else) can use an ability check to protect the Wizard and put the attacker at a Disadvantage
-the Fighter can make a strength contest versus the ogre (this is going to be pretty tough) to push the ogre back, away from the wizard, or maybe a dexterity contest to trip him or something

Also note that the Fighter in the playtest is a Slayer, he's built to kill, not protect. Switch it for the Cleric of Moradin's Defender Theme and he can also defend the wizard with his shield.

 

[eamon]

Ranged characters and mages might well (attempt to) stand back more than 30 feet; the ogre's speed is only 25. However, using shocking grasp to hit-then-retreat means being no more than 15 feet away, within easy movement distance.

Also, if diagonal squares cost a bit of extra movement (or hexes are used), it's a little less easy to walk around obstacles than it is currently.

I agree that melee characters don't seem very sticky, but I'll need some more play time (and more different PC's) to see if that's really a problem. In cramped areas I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be hard to keep a wizard out of reach of an ogre; not all encounters will be cramped, and in hallways the ogre might not be able to pass at all. And keeping fragile wizards out of melee could just be another level of tactical gameplay.

 

[Argyle King]

Here's an experiment to try...

Swap some of the backgrounds and themes around for the characters. While we don't technically have rules for making your own characters, we do know what each background and theme gives/does. It shouldn't be too difficult to make "new" characters and try how some different combos would work.

How this relates to the wizard is that you can experiment with seeing how good cantrips are with some of the other characters. I've noticed a few interesting results with the other characters (especially the rogue) having the Slayer theme.

 

[DogBackward]

This is always the problem with the no map/no minis approach. One cannot really bind someone in melee. The ogre for example can always ignore the heavy armored fighter and get rid of the pesky wizard with the autohit spell.

Honestly, I'd rule that the Ogre simply wouldn't notice a piddly 1d4+1 damage per round. Ogre's are stupid (Int. 6) and not that perceptive (Only 10 Wis.) I'd say that it takes a hefty amount of damage to get the Ogre's attention. The Fighter will easily be able to show himself as a threat, but the Wizard? The Ogre might swat at the air a bit, trying to get rid of that pesky bug that keeps stinging him (that he barely notices). But he won't be too worried about it.

In the end, an Ogre like that is going to be thinking "Only tiny hurt, no problem." He won't have the mental capacity to think "Lot of tiny hurts makes one really big hurt, better stop squishy guy."

Now, when the Wizards hauls off and hits him with Arc Lightning, then he'll notice.
And the Wizard, if he's smart, will turn tail and run.

 

[eamon]

Concerning shocking grasps power...

It doesn't matter much to be attacking at range or in melee when, as explained in the post you quoted, you can move, use shocking grasp and retreat in the same turn.

There's the issue of how close you have to stay which makes shocking grasp unattractive. In any case, let's not lose sight of the thread context: whether or not shocking grasp and the wizard are too strong. Clearly shocking grasp isn't - the fact that it's not easy to be very sticky makes it weaker, not stronger. After all, that means you'll need to maintain a somewhat larger distance than in 4e to be safe.

 

[Argyle King]

Concerning shocking grasps power...

There's the issue of how close you have to stay which makes shocking grasp unattractive. In any case, let's not lose sight of the thread context: whether or not shocking grasp and the wizard are too strong. Clearly shocking grasp isn't - the fact that it's not easy to be very sticky makes it weaker, not stronger. After all, that means you'll need to maintain a somewhat larger distance than in 4e to be safe.

Can a rogue sneak attack with spells? A rogue could pick up shocking grasp with the same theme the pregen wizard has, right?

I imagine the ogre would notice when the rogue leaps out of the darkness and hits with a *sneak attack* shocking grasp.