It's no longer a secret that WotC has conceded that their idea of what a controller class should be able to do has changed. Fine. They recognize that the wizard class doesn’t match that idea and it needs a boost, especially in the At-will department. Also fine. They have also admitted – and shown us – that the invoker, the wizard’s divine counterpart in the Player’s Handbook II, has been designed according to this new controller paradigm, and therefore has (among other things) an At-will power that is strictly superior to the wizard’s Scorching Burst. Fine again, looking forward to it.
But here’s the problem: the wizard and her At-wills are now visibly inferior to the new controller classes coming out in the PHB II; how, where, and when are they going to fix her?
If WotC is smart and respects the intelligence of its customers the updated At-wills and anything else that needs a boost will be right there in the PHB II. That way casual players who don’t check message boards and errata (like most of my players) won’t be left scratching their heads and trying to read WotCs’ minds when they compare the wizard and invoker. If WotC isn’t so smart but still respects us they’ll put the update in an online errata.
However, if WotC wants to treat me like a fool, they’ll put the fixes in the Arcane Power splatbook like some people on these boards have speculated. Now THAT, that would seriously give me pause as to the direction 4th edition is going in. I’m in favor of a living system that can be updated and modified as long as all I have to buy are core books: splatbooks must remain optional for the sake of my sanity. I refuse to lug around (physically, on my back) nine core books, a binder of errata, and a dozen splatbooks just to maintain a coherent and internally balanced system!
So what do you all think?
That way casual players who don’t check message boards and errata (like most of my players) won’t be left scratching their heads and trying to read WotCs’ minds when they compare the wizard and invoker.
I have a hard time believing that casual players, who don't check message boards or errata will actually care about a power discrepancy between two classes sharing the same role.
That being said, it'll probably end up in Arcane Power as that's the best place for it.
I have a hard time believing that casual players, who don't check message boards or errata will actually care about a power discrepancy between two classes sharing the same role.
Generally you would be right; the kind of casual player I deal with doesn't crunch the math enough to realize how +1 to hit is better than +1 damage for instance, BUT they always cross-reference powers and such, and they will definately notice that a power is IDENTICAL between two classes except that the invoker's is obviously a little better. In my experience that sort of thing generates a lot of tough questions and undermines faith in the system, which is something they do need.
That being said, it'll probably end up in Arcane Power as that's the best place for it.
And you're OK with this?
A CORE book shouldn't require an OPTIONS book to function as intended. The only option books I want at my table are the ones I've specifically selected to be a part of my campaign themes. These things cost money! They take up table and shelf space! They weigh a ton! They're confusing to reference in the heat of the moment!
And you're OK with this?
A CORE book shouldn't require an OPTIONS book to function as intended. The only option books I want at my table are the ones I've specifically selected to be a part of my campaign themes. These things cost money! They take up table and shelf space! They weigh a ton! They're confusing to reference in the heat of the moment!
You're never 'required' to buy anything, it really is still up to you. But would you prefer they release "4.5 Edition PHB1!" or put **** in AP?
You don't need anything to be errata'd. If you find a class underpowered, just make it more powerful. Rules are just a suggestion, you know.
Why bother playing D&D then? Just make up your own rules as you go along.
If WotC thinks Wizards need to be errata'd, they should be errata'd. They shouldn't release more powerful spells in a Splatbook because that means an entire class from the PHB is pretty much useless and we're basically using a new class from a Splatbook.
Having said that, I haven't read about the Invoker yet.
Arcane Power is just as core as PHB 2.
Apparently, somone is missing the new definition of core.
Arcane Power is just as core as PHB 2.
Why does it matter if its Core? If you mean its Core as in you need to buy all the Core books to run D&D, that's ridiculous. Core simply means setting-neutral. It doesn't mean you must buy it so you can run a D&D game.
Since the DMG2 will include fixed skill challenges, it's possible that the PHB2 may include a few spruced up powers from the PHB.
Same goes for PHB2, though. So my statment that they are equally core (and conversly, equally splat) still stands.
So you're saying that its reasonable for me to have to buy Splatbook X if I ever want to get any of the future PHBs?
Even though Splatbook X isn't related to PHB 3, PHB4, PHB5, etc, etc?
If WotC is going to going to make me pay for something twice (basically a useable Wizard class when compared with other controller classes), I should get a refund of a portion of the PHB.
If WotC is going to going to make me pay for something twice (basically a useable Wizard class when compared with other controller classes), I should get a refund of a portion of the PHB.
you have a useable wizard class...it just has slightly weak atwills and slightly off focus...nothing game breaking...heck orb Mastry is 10xs the issue
We've already seen some feats like this. The Shadar Kai article introduced some at will boosting feats. None were for Scorching Burst (shadar kai aren't known for their flame powers), but they suggest a particular route things might take.
But here’s the problem: the wizard and her At-wills are now visibly inferior to the new controller classes coming out in the PHB II
Really? Maybe this has been beaten to death in the forums (most of which I don't read), but I just don't see this. While a couple of the new At-Wills for the new classes are certainly good (Flame Seed is the only one that comes to mind) they certainly weren't OMG dese pow3rz R teh r0xxor5!
On an overall basis, even WotC devs stated that the Wizard needed some extra lovin'. Just based off At-Wills though... meh. Not that big a difference between them.
Really? Maybe this has been beaten to death in the forums (most of which I don't read), but I just don't see this. While a couple of the new At-Wills for the new classes are certainly good (Flame Seed is the only one that comes to mind) they certainly weren't OMG dese pow3rz R teh r0xxor5!
Thanks. Not having read the Invoker, my post was based on the assumption that the initial post was correct (which hadn't been disputed when I made my posts).
Illusory Assault, Cloud of Daggers, and Thunderwave are fine, and Ray of Frost is at least debatable as being okay.
I was actually running a level 11 game at a con, and one of my players was going on about how wizards are totally underpowered... until the wizard pulled a 70+ damage nova on a dragon.
Why does it matter if its Core? If you mean its Core as in you need to buy all the Core books to run D&D, that's ridiculous. Core simply means setting-neutral. It doesn't mean you must buy it so you can run a D&D game.
Actually in 4E core means every official WotC D&D book. The Forgotten Realms Campaign/Player's Guides are CORE, the upcoming Eberron Campaign/Player's Guides are CORE, and all future Campaign/Player's Guides will be CORE. Now none of that means that anyone is required to buy anything. Those who want to play using only the original Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide are more then welcome to do so.
However, if WotC wants to treat me like a fool, they’ll put the fixes in the Arcane Power splatbook like some people on these boards have speculated. Now THAT, that would seriously give me pause as to the direction 4th edition is going in. I’m in favor of a living system that can be updated and modified as long as all I have to buy are core books: splatbooks must remain optional for the sake of my sanity. I refuse to lug around (physically, on my back) nine core books, a binder of errata, and a dozen splatbooks just to maintain a coherent and internally balanced system!
That hardly makes any sense. Of course new and expanded options for the wizard class will be in Arcane Power because that's the precedent WotC seems to be moving towards. Release class in PHB, add new options in power book, additional support to be provided by Dragon magazine. There might be a splatter of new stuff in other books, but such will be the exception not the rule. Personally, I'm very glad that in order to play a wizard a mere two books (Player's Handbook and Arcane Power) is all that's required. Why muck up the system by adding a third book just because the initial class was a little under powerd.
I think the idea of feats could be fun, but only if they're not simply 'make Scorching Burst Better' feat and actually offer a strategic option. I'd love a feat that let you switch between two 'bonus' effect for Scorching Burst! Like say... either increase damage by a point for each enemy you get in the burst OR select to target only 1 creature and weaken him for a turn.
That sort of thing you know? Wizards have a sort of 'versatility and flexibility' thing going on with their spells. Heck you could throw the 'metamagic' label on a similar feat if you wanted.
I could also see a feat to turn Ray of Frost into a basic attack.
A lot of the effectiveness of powers can be situational, simply comparing stats won't always give you the full picture.
If you go to the Product Listings and the link "2009 Core D&D Products", you'll find it only includes adventures and dungeon tiles. :P
Generally you would be right; the kind of casual player I deal with doesn't crunch the math enough to realize how +1 to hit is better than +1 damage for instance, BUT they always cross-reference powers and such, and they will definately notice that a power is IDENTICAL between two classes except that the invoker's is obviously a little better. In my experience that sort of thing generates a lot of tough questions and undermines faith in the system, which is something they do need.
Are your players really going to have a crisis of "faith" in a RPG system, because a couple of at-wills from one class are slightly underpowered?
And you're OK with this?
A CORE book shouldn't require an OPTIONS book to function as intended. The only option books I want at my table are the ones I've specifically selected to be a part of my campaign themes. These things cost money! They take up table and shelf space! They weigh a ton! They're confusing to reference in the heat of the moment!
Don't panic.
1) Arcane power will not be required. The Wizard is functioning fine as of this moment at tables across the land.
2) Spending money on books is an intrinsic part of this hobby.
3) Again, you're playing a roleplaying game and having trouble with table and bookshelf space?
4) Say goodbye to confusion with powercards. Free to download, links available in the sticky in General.
So you're saying that its reasonable for me to have to buy Splatbook X if I ever want to get any of the future PHBs?
No, I'm not saying that. No one is.
Not even WoTC.
I'm not even sure what that has to do with this discussion.
If WotC is going to going to make me pay for something twice (basically a useable Wizard class when compared with other controller classes), I should get a refund of a portion of the PHB.
The Wizard class is completely functional.
The Wizard class is completely functional.
My post was made with the premise that the OP's assertion that Invoker (and all future controllers) will be more powerful then Wizards, making the Wizards as written in the PHB significantly less useful at a table.
Your post appears to be made in the same vein, that Wizards as written in the PHB are underpowered compared with future controllers. If so, I'd have to disagree with the claim they're completely functional.
HOWEVER, others here are saying they aren't underpowered when compared with the PHB2 controllers, so I'm reserving judgement until I look at the book itself.
I'm sorry *sniff* Don't mind me as I swap out my Dailies and have more rituals than anyone else. *chuckle* I mean all I have are these toolkit tastic Cantrips or such.
:D4) Say goodbye to confusion with powercards. Free to download, links available in the sticky in General.
This right here is an incredibly good point. Buy a pack of wizard power cards when they make a set available for Arcane Power. It should include every wizard power from that book, will only cost you $9.99 (US), and will be as portable as a deck of common playing cards.
My post was made with the premise that the OP's assertion that Invoker (and all future controllers) will be more powerful then Wizards, making the Wizards as written in the PHB significantly less useful at a table.
Your post appears to be made in the same vein, that Wizards as written in the PHB are underpowered compared with future controllers. If so, I'd have to disagree with the claim they're completely functional.
HOWEVER, others here are saying they aren't underpowered when compared with the PHB2 controllers, so I'm reserving judgement until I look at the book itself.
Wizards are very slightly underpowered, but the problem is supposed to be limited to their at-will powers. The designers have said something to the effect that they won't make any changes to the PHB wizard's powers, but that future wizard power (such as those appearing in Arcane Power) will be written with WotC's new understanding of what a controller should be.
As other posters have commented, the wizard isn't broken. It's still perfectly playable, even alongside it newer kin (who have the benefit of being designed based on feedback from nearly a year of people playing the wizard class).
So what do you all think?
You're wrong.
Some elemental damage feats would be nice, but that's about it.
You're wrong.
Huh? How can I be wrong? My concern is based on facts:
1. The invoker's At-will have been officially revealed.
2. The invoker's "Vanguard's Lightning" is identical to "Scorching Burst” (not comparable, identical) except for some extra damage dealt to creatures who try to use opportunity attacks.
3. The designers have said, in their own blogs and on various forums, that the wizard if slightly underpowered and off focus, and needs a fix.
You can’t say that any of this is “wrong.” Are you saying I’m “wrong” to be annoyed by the idea that simply buying a book labeled and marketed as the logical follow-up to the first player’s handbook might to leave a whole class and archetype in the dust?
Are your players really going to have a crisis of "faith" in a RPG system, because a couple of at-wills from one class are slightly underpowered?
Yes.
They played Warhammer and Warhammer 40k when they were younger. Being burned by those mismanaged systems has left them sensitive to being treated like suckers.
2. The invoker's "Vanguard's Lightning" is identical to "Scorching Burst” (not comparable, identical) except for some extra damage dealt to creatures who try to use opportunity attacks.
Oh noes. My faith is gone. My wizard doesn't have an extraordinarily minor discouragement for creatures to take OAs on his careless party members bult into one power. The wizard is unplayable until WOTC fixes it for free or shoves it into a book which is about eight completely different classes.
2. The invoker's "Vanguard's Lightning" is identical to "Scorching Burst” (not comparable, identical) except for some extra damage dealt to creatures who try to use opportunity attacks.
And it deals damage of a different type. One that's often less useful than fire.
So it's really not worth getting riled up about.
But that's not the point...there's a philosophical issue to be addressed!
There's already a wand that inflicts extra damage to the target at the centre of a scorching burst, but many will likely turn that wand down for something like a Staff Of Ruin which does almost the same thing, except to all of their powers.
Fixes vs Options.
But that's not the point...there's a philosophical issue to be addressed!
By that logic Warlocks shouldn't be shackled with E-bolt because it's less useful. Or why should a Sorcerer take Acid Orb, etc.
There will always be underpowered attacks and options, lack of raw power doesn't undo their viability in combat. Scortching Burst is still 9 squares of damaging fire. Few starting characters have that...ever. Sure the Invoker's at-will has a nice side effect, but it was built and tailored to the Invoker. Given time I'm sure the Wizard's at-will will be replaced with other options, but if I'm playing one I'm 75% of the time going to take Scortching Burst just to have the area of damage.
... Given time I'm sure the Wizard's at-will will be replaced with other options...
Right, and this leads us right back where we started: When, where, and how will the wizard be fixed, and why doesn't it bother you that we might have to buy an extra book to fix the first PHB after buying a second PHB?
Maybe I've been spoiled by video games, where patches are generally free and convenient when they involve things they have already given you. Any expansion you buy for a video game generally includes all the patches to the first version to date, and usually adds stuff to the older material as part of the total package. Is it so wrong for me to have hoped the PHB II would work in such an intuitive manner?
I thought that the major difference between Vanguard's Lightning and Scorching Burst were that VL only targetted enemies.
HOLY HELLFIRE, SERIOUSLY!? That's the nail in the coffin of this side-debate if true.
I could have sworn that I remember reading that on the first preview...but it's not the current power on DDI.
I'm sorry for the confusion. I just double checked the power and I must have been remembering an earlier incarnation of VL.
I could have sworn that I remember reading that on the first preview...but it's not the current power on DDI.
*sigh of relief*
Right, and this leads us right back where we started: When, where, and how will the wizard be fixed, and why doesn't it bother you that we might have to buy an extra book to fix the first PHB after buying a second PHB?
You're overreacting... Seriously. So what if a few of the Wizard's at wills are sub-optimal. Big Deal.
I've played wizards that Orb-locked elites and solos into a stun. I've pushed enemies into positions where they get eaten alive by the rogue. I've used Zones and Walls to split enemy groups into more manageable bits. I've immobilized enemies which allowed the Warlock & Ranger to safely kill them. My Orb wizard did plenty of control. My current char, a Staff wizard, wades into the melee with the fighter which is also a lot of fun (though, he's more of a blaster)
Honestly, you don't HAVE to buy an extra book to "fix the wizard". You can run a perfectly fine Wizard with the current material.
You're overreacting... Seriously. So what if a few of the Wizard's at wills are sub-optimal. Big Deal.
I could go into a war zone armed with my great-great-grandfather's musket instead of a modern gun, and you know what, I really could make a difference despite obsolete technology. I'll get lucky a few times, or my own natural skill will ensure my effectiveness. Some will think it's pretty cool that I'm badass enough to risk fighting with inferior weaponry and still come out on top. Heck, in my corner of the conflict I'll probably be a legend...
... but everyone, including me, will know that it certainly wasn't the musket that won the day, and we'll all quietly wonder how much better I could have done with a real weapon.
I could go into a war zone armed with my grandfather's musket instead of a modern gun, and you know what, I really could make a difference despite obsolete technology. I'll get lucky a few times, or my own natural skill will ensure my effectiveness. Some will think it's pretty cool that I'm badass enough to risk fighting with inferior weaponry and still come out on top. Heck, in my corner of the conflict I'll probably be a legend...
... but everyone, including me, will know that it certainly wasn't the musket that won the day, and we'll all quietly wonder how much better I could have done with a real weapon.
The point we're making is that the Wizard isn't nearly so low as a musket. I'm not a gun nut, so I can't come up with a good example. But if there were two modern guns near-identical in performace, with one gun that, say, was imperceptibly less accurate, or was a tiny bit more difficult to reload, then that one would be the Wizard. Nobody would really care which one you were using because they're practically the same.
Now, even ignoring the fact which everyone is ignoring even though I've pointed it out twice...:P namely that fire is a heck of a lot more useful than lightning... comparing at-will powers is essentially pointless.
If you log any significant time playing a Wizard, playing in a group that includes a Wizard, or DMing a group that includes a Wizard, you will realize that they assert control over the battlefield mainly with their daily powers. It's those persistent conjurations and zones that are a real PITA for the enemies, and can shape the way an entire encounter plays out.
So the only real way to compare control ability is to compare dailies. How do the Druid and Invoker stack up in that department? Oh, that's right, WE DON'T KNOW. We've only seen their 1st level dailies so far, and that is in no way enough material for a comparison.
And if I were to go ahead and just compare the level 1 dailies anyway, even though it's useless for predicting the remaining 29 levels, I would have to give the edge to the Wizard. The new guys simply don't have anything that's even close to being as annoying as the Flaming Sphere...
Now, even ignoring the fact which everyone is ignoring even though I've pointed it out twice...:P namely that fire is a heck of a lot more useful than lightning...
We're ignoring it because it's too variable to matter. How useful one energy type is over the other is highly dependent on which monsters each individual party faces during their career. For what it's worth (which I'm arguing is very little), in my experience fire resistance comes up more often than any other energy resistance.
If you log any significant time playing a Wizard, playing in a group that includes a Wizard, or DMing a group that includes a Wizard, you will realize that they assert control over the battlefield mainly with their daily powers. It's those persistent conjurations and zones that are a real PITA for the enemies, and can shape the way an entire encounter plays out.
Wasn't one of the promises of 4th ed that the wizard would no longer function this way? "Alright guys I'm going to use my REAL abilities now *unloads her major effects* there, I'm used up. Back to shooting my subpar crossbow (3.5)/At-Wills (4)"
And if I were to go ahead and just compare the level 1 dailies anyway, even though it's useless for predicting the remaining 29 levels, I would have to give the edge to the Wizard. The new guys simply don't have anything that's even close to being as annoying as the Flaming Sphere...
If that's what ends up being true then maybe I can relax a little. It helps being able to say to irate players "Yes the wizard's At-wills are inferior, but on the whole their encounters and dailies are superior!" It's not ideal, but I could live with it.
I could go into a war zone armed with my great-great-grandfather's musket instead of a modern gun, and you know what, I really could make a difference despite obsolete technology. I'll get lucky a few times, or my own natural skill will ensure my effectiveness. Some will think it's pretty cool that I'm badass enough to risk fighting with inferior weaponry and still come out on top. Heck, in my corner of the conflict I'll probably be a legend...
... but everyone, including me, will know that it certainly wasn't the musket that won the day, and we'll all quietly wonder how much better I could have done with a real weapon.
That's a terrible analogy.
The difference between SB and VL is negligible. And as has been pointed out, the wizard has by far the best level 1 dailies in the game and will probably be competitive with other controllers at all levels.
This is seriously like complaining that Dual Strike is strictly inferior to Twin Strike. This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that DS and TS are still two of the best at-wills in the game.
I could go into a war zone armed with my great-great-grandfather's musket instead of a modern gun, and you know what, I really could make a difference despite obsolete technology. I'll get lucky a few times, or my own natural skill will ensure my effectiveness. Some will think it's pretty cool that I'm badass enough to risk fighting with inferior weaponry and still come out on top. Heck, in my corner of the conflict I'll probably be a legend...
... but everyone, including me, will know that it certainly wasn't the musket that won the day, and we'll all quietly wonder how much better I could have done with a real weapon.
That was funny, I must have missed that memo. Someone, please inform my wizard he's outdated!
Here's a thought: If ONE at will bothers you this much... pick a different one... or play something else with at-wills more to your liking.
Right, and this leads us right back where we started: When, where, and how will the wizard be fixed, and why doesn't it bother you that we might have to buy an extra book to fix the first PHB after buying a second PHB?
I play a Wizard as my main. i have looked over the new controller previews extensively. I don't feel underpowered. I contribute quite well on the battlefield. No, I'm not a striker and I don't try to play as one and don't expect striker like damage except on occasion on a daily or a crit roll.
I know WotC said they felt that the wiz was a little underwhelming. That's fine. It's still fine as is and isn't outshined other than the fact that new classes have some new shiny bits to them.
I'm not so good at evaluating the "Controlling aspects" of powers, but the damage for OA doesn't seem like a huge deal. Is there something about the other at wills that comes out "Less Controlling"?
Okay I've read through this and the point of contention seems to be at-wills. And Scorching Burst seems to be the at will held up as an example.
I'm not so good at evaluating the "Controlling aspects" of powers, but the damage for OA doesn't seem like a huge deal. Is there something about the other at wills that comes out "Less Controlling"?
Well look at the other At-Wills... Ray of Frost and Illusory Ambush give out a condition, which is controllerish enough. Cloud of Dagger blocks off a square of the field, and is automatic damage (great against high defense enemies or minions) so it is also a controller power. Magic Missile gives you incredible range and a basic ranged attack, all the other controllers have this (and the Warlock and Sorcerer) as well so while its not very controller-ish, it has strategic application as usually you'll have better range than the opponent you're using it on so they'll have to waste action getting in range of their powers to retaliate.
Thunderwave pushes the targets so it lets you control the enemy formation better.
Scorching Burst on the other hand...just kills lots of minions or weakens multiple enemy. Its good but not very controller-ish and a tad...drab. It really comes down to it if you ask me. Its just not a fun power!
Scorching Burst on the other hand...just kills lots of minions or weakens multiple enemy. Its good but not very controller-ish and a tad...drab. It really comes down to it if you ask me. Its just not a fun power!
I think most people find it extremely fun. Its an at will explosion, after all.
It may have a problem, but lack of fun doesn't seem to be it.
If that's what ends up being true then maybe I can relax a little. It helps being able to say to irate players "Yes the wizard's At-wills are inferior, but on the whole their encounters and dailies are superior!" It's not ideal, but I could live with it.
The way the multiclassing system works makes this option suspect. Since players can trade powers with multiclassing feats, making one class's powers better than another means multiclassing becomes a great option. An Invoker can be Wis/Int focused (and starting with two 16s is possible; 16, 16, 13, 11, 10, 8 is a valid if not slightly one sided array), and thus could spend multiclassing feats to pick up the "stronger" wizard dailies. Likewise, a wizard could pick up an Invoker daily and end up weakening themselves.
This is an issue that we showed the designers in the Barbarian playtest by having melee Rangers and str Rogues pick up the Barbarian's superior damaging powers.
The real issue is this: if Vanguard's Lightning and Scorching Burst were both Wizard at-wills, would anyone take Scorching Burst?
The real issue is this: if Vanguard's Lightning and Scorching Burst were both Wizard at-wills, would anyone take Scorching Burst?
Tiefling Hellfire blood, trollslaying, and the epic feat that allows you to ignore Fire Resistance.
We're ignoring it because it's too variable to matter. How useful one energy type is over the other is highly dependent on which monsters each individual party faces during their career. For what it's worth (which I'm arguing is very little), in my experience fire resistance comes up more often than any other energy resistance.
FWIW yes, fire resistance does come up more if you're fighting, say, demons or devils or whatnot, but by then you'll have more choices. And the coin has two sides: vulnerability to fire (or not-quite-vulnerability-but-it-amounts-to-the-same-thing, like trolls) also comes up more often. But I already said this wasn't a big part of the argument, so, moving on...
Wasn't one of the promises of 4th ed that the wizard would no longer function this way? "Alright guys I'm going to use my REAL abilities now *unloads her major effects* there, I'm used up. Back to shooting my subpar crossbow (3.5)/At-Wills (4)"
OK, so now you're shifting ground from "how the game works mechanically", which was the basis for all arguments up to this point, to "how I interpreted statements of design philosophy." Sneaky.
Personally, I just recall the promise being that magic-using classes would not have to fall back on non-magical options. Specifically, that Wizards would always be able to cast Magic Missile instead of throwing a dart or whatnot.
And that Magic Missile certainly is a lot more effective than using some ranged weapon the poor Wizard doesn't have the stats to effectively hit something with, so your comparison falls apart in any case.
FWIW though, yes, in my experience the Wizard still has more invested in daily powers than other classes. But that's because they're so much better than other classes' dailies. With a few exceptions (Consecrated Ground comes to mind) nobody else has the game-changing impact the Wizard does.
If that's what ends up being true then maybe I can relax a little. It helps being able to say to irate players "Yes the wizard's At-wills are inferior, but on the whole their encounters and dailies are superior!" It's not ideal, but I could live with it.
That's a relief. Would hate to see you keel over and die from apoplexy.
I could go into a war zone armed with my great-great-grandfather's musket instead of a modern gun, and you know what, I really could make a difference despite obsolete technology. I'll get lucky a few times, or my own natural skill will ensure my effectiveness. Some will think it's pretty cool that I'm badass enough to risk fighting with inferior weaponry and still come out on top. Heck, in my corner of the conflict I'll probably be a legend...
... but everyone, including me, will know that it certainly wasn't the musket that won the day, and we'll all quietly wonder how much better I could have done with a real weapon.
That's about the stupidest thing I've read today.
The difference is not as large as you're making it out to be.
Would hate to see you keel over and die from apoplexy.
That's about the stupidest thing I've read today.
Well... uh... thanks for keeping it classy guys...
The way the multiclassing system works makes this option suspect. Since players can trade powers with multiclassing feats, making one class's powers better than another means multiclassing becomes a great option. An Invoker can be Wis/Int focused (and starting with two 16s is possible; 16, 16, 13, 11, 10, 8 is a valid if not slightly one sided array), and thus could spend multiclassing feats to pick up the "stronger" wizard dailies. Likewise, a wizard could pick up an Invoker daily and end up weakening themselves.
This is an issue that we showed the designers in the Barbarian playtest by having melee Rangers and str Rogues pick up the Barbarian's superior damaging powers.
I am intrigued by this and wish to know more. Did they adjust the barbarian since you brought up the issue? Doesn't the feat cost balance this sort of thing out on the optimization side? Have the designers actually stated anywhere that some classes are being designed with a deliberate imbalance between their At-wills/encounters/dailies?
Is it too much to ask for a perfectly balanced system that has written rules to relegate all social, physical, spiritual, hypothetical, and scientific interactions into simple die rolls! You want me to actually PAY MONEY for your crappy system that wasn't perfect! What's more is that I hear you want MORE MONEY for additions to the flawed system I ALREADY PUCHASED! Thats like paying for ketchup for the fries I have already purchased. I simply expect flawless design from day one without any mistakes, and regular content additions to keep up with inflation, free of charge. Its clear you only want my money. Your corporate greed has nullified the houndreds of hours of entertainment I have had with D&D, and the countless thousands I was probably going to have. GOOD DAY SIR!
Right, and this leads us right back where we started: When, where, and how will the wizard be fixed, and why doesn't it bother you that we might have to buy an extra book to fix the first PHB after buying a second PHB?
No, your trying to lock my comment to the circular logic train. Just because newer options present themselves doesn't' make the old ones unviable. That's what I really said.
You don't need anything to be errata'd. If you find a class underpowered, just make it more powerful. Rules are just a suggestion, you know.
I say this about 3.5 all the time, and I will say it about 4e too:
"If you need a good DM to fix the rules of the game for them to work, then the game does not work in the first place."
Its a little harsh, but the fact of the matter remains the same: The rules, as written, should work, be balanced, and all that jaz. If you want things more powerful, as the DM you are allowed to do that. But, as written, the rules should achieve what they want the players to understand, and should not need the modification of a DM to work properly.
Right, and this leads us right back where we started: When, where, and how will the wizard be fixed, and why doesn't it bother you that we might have to buy an extra book to fix the first PHB after buying a second PHB?
Whether the wizard needs tobe fixed is an opinion. yes I know the devs said that they felt they could have done better and I have my own theories on why it turned out the way it did. I play a wizard as my main and do not feel broken, underpowered, overshadowed by other controller classes, or in need of a major "fix."
Maybe I just have mad skillz. :P
I'm just happy for more Illusionist spells in the vain of the first Class Acts article of 4e (and how those spells got reprinted in AP).
Wizard didn't need fixing. Thunderwave and other moving powers, Cloud of Daggers and other zone powers, and then the big AoE spell powers all contribute to being a good controller. Arcane Power will not equalise the Invoker and the Wizard, it'll make the Wizard a better choice than the Invoker - until Divine Power comes out and equalises them with more Invoker options.
Wizard doesn't need errata; what it can vastly benefit from is a larger spell pool, as well as extra class features, implements(/weapons), and magic items, and the Power books provide this for all classes.
Power books are Core. Dragon is Core. Everything is Core now. PH, DMG, and MM are somewhat more core than others, but no more core than PH2, DMG2, and MM2, and their future sequels as well. But just as you can play with just the PH, DMG, and MM, the Power books are going to make the game filled with more options, that'll make classes better and maybe slightly more balanced (once all the Power books come out, and only because you have more options to choose from).
And you're OK with this?
A CORE book shouldn't require an OPTIONS book to function as intended. The only option books I want at my table are the ones I've specifically selected to be a part of my campaign themes. These things cost money! They take up table and shelf space! They weigh a ton! They're confusing to reference in the heat of the moment!
They're not confusing to reference, at all. These are the simplest books I've ever seen for referential purposes. My freshman college books were more confusing when referenced.
Your campaign "theme" isn't WotC's problem - you control it, but you don't sound very in control.
No one's forcing you to buy this game, if you're gonna get this heated about it, it sounds like you need a little break. If you can't just fudge over the numbers so you feel they're balanced, then it also sounds like you could use a break.
What would be a good control touch to add to Scorching Burst?
It's already an AoE attack... no more controller features are needed.
I mean, dealing an extra 3-5 damage if the target makes an Opportunity Attack is interesting, but it's hardly worth making yourself sick over...
It's already an AoE attack... no more controller features are needed.
A few people suggested if it bothered the original poster that he could touch it up himself. I wondered what the thoughts on that were.
I understand the minute annoynace in having a statistically better at-will come out for another class. I agree that the difference is entirely insignificant but out of an overdeveloped sense of parity I'd like to put a little touch on the spell. One that I don't believe should require you taking a feat to improve. This isn't a big deal, it's a little deal. A very little deal, but a deal none-the-less.
My thoughts fall along the lines of Wis fire damage if you shift or charge. Probably charge because shifting happens more often.
The difference is minor, and the difference is between two classes.
WIZARDS ARE UNDERPOWERED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE BARDIC KNOWLEDGE!
The classes are built differently. Every class in this game is different. I do not complain when the Rogue does more damage than my avenger, because I can hit better than him. And WOTC never said the wizard is underpowered. They just said the wizard doesn't fit the controller role as well as they liked.
The wizard is fine as is. His at wills are fine. You are turning a speck in an eye into a eye gouged stick.
Please, take a deep breath, calm yourself, relax, and play a Paladin instead.
I've seen this happen in so many games. People interpret "Slightly less powerful than another option" as "Completely useless and should never be taken." Then there's the whole examining of an individual element in a vacuum. So what if scorching burst is a little less powerful than other at-wills. Legion's Hold is incredibly more powerful than nearly everything in the game.
Yeah, the wizard at-wills are terrible and underpowered. It's not like you get six of them. Or seven if you're human.
I've seen this happen in so many games. People interpret "Slightly less powerful than another option" as "Completely useless and should never be taken." Then there's the whole examining of an individual element in a vacuum. So what if scorching burst is a little less powerful than other at-wills. Legion's Hold is incredibly more powerful than nearly everything in the game.
Six or seven at-wills? You confused me by saying you get 7 as a human. You know you only get 2, 3 as a human, right?
Six or seven at-wills? You confused me by saying you get 7 as a human. You know you only get 2, 3 as a human, right?
I think he is trying to remind us of the cantrips though I think that still only brings us up to 5 or 6
CURSE YOU WIZARDS OF THE COAST!!!
Is it too much to ask for a perfectly balanced system that has written rules to relegate all social, physical, spiritual, hypothetical, and scientific interactions into simple die rolls! You want me to actually PAY MONEY for your crappy system that wasn't perfect! What's more is that I hear you want MORE MONEY for additions to the flawed system I ALREADY PUCHASED! Thats like paying for ketchup for the fries I have already purchased. I simply expect flawless design from day one without any mistakes, and regular content additions to keep up with inflation, free of charge. Its clear you only want my money. Your corporate greed has nullified the houndreds of hours of entertainment I have had with D&D, and the countless thousands I was probably going to have. GOOD DAY SIR!
Its not actually unreasonable to expect a game without massive and obvious flaws.
Mistakes like the Orb of Imposition and static save ends penalties are far less reasonable than issues which involve combining several powers.
I think he is trying to remind us of the cantrips though I think that still only brings us up to 5 or 6
Mage Hand
Light
Ghost Sound
Prestidigitation
2 attack
1 human attack
Equals seven at-wills total. Granted only two or three are attack powers, but you'd be surprised how often cantrips are useful.
That's how wizards will always be good, if you even just take the spellbook into account, Wizards have more versatility than any other class in the game.
From the Arcane Power preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20090403) we've got Arcane Fire which lets you grant cold vulnerability with all you fire powers. Combo that with Wintertouched for free combat advantage the round after using Scorching burst.
In paragon you can combo Surging Flame (+5 damage to fire resistant enemies) with Arcane Admixture (add a damage type to the target power). If I remember right if an attack does more than one damage type you use the lowest applicable resistance. So just make a cold-fire scorching burst to do 5 extra damage to foes who are resistant to fire but not cold.
Vanguard's Lightning can take advantage of Oncoming Storm and Lightning Arc. However, Oncoming Storm provides a +1 to hit vs Combat Advantage's +2 and it requires a thunder power follow up. Lightning Arc does give you another hit, but you have to sacrifice a crit for it.
As such right now Scorching Burst way start weaker, but it seems to have stronger upgrade options.
Anyway, I did learn something from all this, and my new table policy is thus:
1. I drop the hammer on anything overpowered (as defined by the official errata and the best argued threads on these boards) but ONLY if it actually comes up in game.
2. I will increase the power of any character option my players ask me to IF they notice it is underpowered AND can prove it (subject to board verification). I'm always amazed by what players do manage to overlook: they still haven't noticed the expertise feats!
Yeah, some of you will mock me for treating these two obvious ideas as a grand revelation. Sorry, we can't all be natural experts right out of the gate.
I still stand by my assertion that it's a pretty underhanded thing to put necessary game patches in tertiary products. Sadly I'll put up with this the way my buddy puts up with the Games Workshop's baloney, simply because it's still the best game in town.
they still haven't noticed the expertise feats!
maybe they just aren't feeling they aren't hitting...