# Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview



## Shroomy (Dec 15, 2008)

Its up.

D&D Invoker, Levels 1-3


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Dec 15, 2008)

Well... that's certainly not what I was expecting. Wasn't expecting them to have more than cloth armor, nor would I have ever thought that holy symbols _wouldn't_ be implements for them... huh.


----------



## Hawke (Dec 15, 2008)

Not much summoning before level 3... and would be VERY easy to build one that ignored summoning. Wasn't expecting that, but it seems on par with Fighter stances. I wonder if there will be a single summon maximum and how other things might work - do they count as allies in every sense of the word? 

Why is "Wall of Light" not a zone? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the zone keyword is supposed to represent.


----------



## DandD (Dec 15, 2008)

So the Invoker's a Controller? How do these invocations or spells or however they are called affect the battlefield?


----------



## bert1000 (Dec 15, 2008)

Hmm.  Pretty different in fluff, but when I look at the powers and class features, not sure what their thing is suppose to be besides controller.

Maybe it's clearer with the full 1-30 levels...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Chainmail? Damn. That actually is a shame. But it seems Divine characters always are about The Armor. 

I dislike the fluff about Invokers being all old school, and all about Primordials vs. Gods; that's the first fluff I'd squash in my games. As I read though, I notice that the class has a warlock vibe to it, how close the individual is with the god. I could see this as the Divine version of the warlock, although I'm not sure how best to represent Invokers of the Fey, etc. It's easy for me to see specific ArchAngels giving Invokers power. 

However, one thing is certaion: these guys scream *Prophet*, operating outside the church, with a direct link to their God.

I notice Channel Divinity doesn't say out loud "Hey, you. You have to pick ONe of these encounter abilities to use in an encounter". Also, Preserver's Rebuke doesn't scale with level. 

Thunder of Judgement is badass. 

None of the Dailies do it for me. However, the utilities are badass. 

I notice that the Angel summoning doesn't actually have an AC or HP. It's more like a Flaming Sphere that can do OAs. 

Something else that occurs to me. This class isn't as... well, it doesn't have any real "Wow" that the Druid and Wizard does. The druid has flexibility and finesse, the Wizard has cantrips and choice of dailies. This is rather vanilla, as class designs go.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 15, 2008)

Hawke said:


> Not much summoning before level 3... and would be VERY easy to build one that ignored summoning. Wasn't expecting that, but it seems on par with Fighter stances. I wonder if there will be a single summon maximum and how other things might work - do they count as allies in every sense of the word?
> 
> Why is "Wall of Light" not a zone? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the zone keyword is supposed to represent.



Zones are basically lingering area of effects.  Most of the zones I see in the PHB last until the end of the encounter.  A wall isn't necessarily a zone, it has more in common with a blast or burst effect.  Most walls seem to last only as long as they are maintained.


----------



## bert1000 (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Something else that occurs to me. This class isn't as... well, it doesn't have any real "Wow" that the Druid and Wizard does. The druid has flexibility and finesse, the Wizard has cantrips and choice of dailies. This is rather vanilla, as class designs go.




Yeah, that's what I meant by "their thing".  Class features are Channel Div and ritual casting, which others get.  And then a generic slide or +.

What's the archtype they are trying to fill here?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

Just looking at levels 1-3, this class hits harder than the Wizard or Druid do with At-Wills and encounters. The Wizard wishes he had At-Wills like this. As was said above, the Dailies are less flashy than what the Wizard gets. I can't see chosing something other than the summon.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> Zones are basically lingering area of effects.  Most of the zones I see in the PHB last until the end of the encounter.  A wall isn't necessarily a zone, it has more in common with a blast or burst effect.  Most walls seem to last only as long as they are maintained.



You mean like Stinking Cloud, which is 'sustain minor' but still is a zone?

Although, looking at 'Wall of Fog', it is also not a zone, and is another sustain minor wall.


----------



## Hawke (Dec 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> So the Invoker's a Controller? How do these invocations or spells or however they are called affect the battlefield?




Prayers  Divine Controller

As far as level 1 encounters, one pushes targets, one helps allies AC, one ranged immobilizes, one targets up to 3 and dazes them. 

The most exciting/new part of the whole thing I think has to be with the different fluff (Invokers are more friendly to gods that aren't theirs and don't use holy symbols as they channel the gods energy but can use staffs/rods/nothing) and the Summon Angel of Fire (Daily 1), my guess is more summons will come as dailies. 

Of the other 3 dailies, one targets a single guy with some nasty ongoing damage and the other two are pretty nice *close* bursts. Compare to his at-wills which are all ranged of some sort. 

I was kind of bummed that he doesn't get extra power choices (druid's extra at-will, wizard's extra daily). Cause with that, it'd be hard as heck for me not to choose the summon just to play with it anytime soon. I guess I could retrain as I level to try out the others.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

bert1000 said:


> What's the archtype they are trying to fill here?



Honestly, I'd think the cloistered cleric/archivist, with a book in one hand, pointing his implement and summoning a flamestrike.

Except this guy gets armor (just like the cleric). 

He's basically a cleric that doesn't heal, and instead gets more boom. 

That's rather disappointing.


----------



## Hawke (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I notice that the Angel summoning doesn't actually have an AC or HP. It's more like a Flaming Sphere that can do OAs.




I didn't even catch that! A bummer, really... other than flavor of saying there's a giant fire angel fighting on your behalf, how is summoning any different than what could be done with a sustained zone or something of that effect?

So far, the invoker doesn't seem nearly as cool as the Wizard or Druid. My player that favors divine characters previously likely will see this as just a _potential_ multiclass. I wonder if the Sorcerer will have a similar reaction. 

Or perhaps I'm just missing the big key to the whole thing! :-D


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> So the Invoker's a Controller? How do these invocations or spells or however they are called affect the battlefield?



They have a 3rd level encounter "Binding Invocation of Chains" that's close burst 10 and, on a miss, can make enemies slowed until the end of the invoker's next turn.  On a hit, it makes enemies slowed (save ends).

They also have some denial abilities, such as doing damage if someone makes an OA, taking damage if the move, immobilization etc.  In addition, there are a lot of push effects.  They also have a fair number of 



Rechan said:


> Chainmail? Damn. That actually is a shame. But it seems Divine characters always are about The Armor.



I didn't notice that at first, but I think it's neat.  Given their good Int, preserving invokers may opt for lighter armor, but, unlike wizards, who get good AC via high Int, I think it's okay for invokers to get *some* way to get decent AC. 



> I notice Channel Divinity doesn't say out loud "Hey, you. You have to pick ONe of these encounter abilities to use in an encounter". Also, Preserver's Rebuke doesn't scale with level.



Well, it augments attack, which is always nice.  It's like Furious Smash in that way.



> Something else that occurs to me. This class isn't as... well, it doesn't have any real "Wow" that the Druid and Wizard does. The druid has flexibility and finesse, the Wizard has cantrips and choice of dailies. This is rather vanilla, as class designs go.



It is pretty straightforward, but the impression I get from the class is that they think they are the bee's knees, and that's pretty much what I was hoping for from a divine controller  .


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

The class's encounter powers are very intriguing. Astral terror does a measly 1d6+wis, but it's a close burst 3 - that's going to hit most people on the battlefield, and push them 2. That is a nice little effect, especially in a pinch or ambush. 

As I said above, Thunder of Judgment is _sweet_. Target up to 3 enemies (or target one for extra damage), daze them all, and push extra if you are of the Con build. 

Offering of injustice is a very curious power. It reminds me of the opposite of the Dark Pact warlock; instead of a monster deciding to do damage to itself to end an effect, this allows a monster to not attack in exchange for getting temp HP. Although the temp HP are measly compared to the damage the monster is going to take for not wailing on folks.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> He's basically a cleric that doesn't heal, and instead gets more boom.
> 
> That's rather disappointing.




I'd have to agree.  The whole thing just feels a bit..."meh."  Sure, they seem to be good at controlling, but this class would definitely benefit from just a bit more fluff to give us an idea what they're all about.

But really, I felt the same way about the Wizard.  Maybe Controllers just don't lend themselves to having that certain something.  (shrug)


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm intrigued by the class.  I do wish we got a definition of the "Summoning" keyword, which would probably illuminate a lot of the mechanics behind that daily.  I have a feeling it kind of works like the "Beast" keyword (i.e. it counts as an ally, it has a generic set of stats, etc.).

BTW, did anyone else get the feeling that the favored soul was the 3e antecedent to the invoker?  I certainly did.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> Well, it augments attack, which is always nice.  It's like Furious Smash in that way.



True, but the Paladin's divine strength augments an attack too. I'm just saying, the cleric and paladin have channel divinity, and both have the "Use one of these in an encounter" stipulation. 

The more I look, the more I want as many At-Wills as possible. They are like the Druid class; so many are very good, but also are only situational.


----------



## Engilbrand (Dec 15, 2008)

Angel Summoner. Now all that we need is a BMX Bandit.    
I really like the class and look forward to actually trying one.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

I also notice something. Two powers (one At-Will, one Encounter) have a stipulation that "If a bloodied allie is adjacent/in the area", a benefit is gained. 

This is a nice trick to handle "grind", or encourage players to hold onto their encounter powers for the middle of the fight.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Engilbrand said:


> Angel Summoner. Now all that we need is a BMX Bandit.



Made me laugh.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> You mean like Stinking Cloud, which is 'sustain minor' but still is a zone?



I had Web and Ice Storm in mind, but yeah, Stinking Cloud is one of those "sustain minor zones" (of which there are a few more, such as Evard's Tentacles or Cloudkill).  It's not as cut and dry as I made it out to be.



> Although, looking at 'Wall of Fog', it is also not a zone, and is another sustain minor wall.



Wall of Ice, though, lasts for a while.  I guess the main difference between zone and wall is that a zone is generally an area while a wall is, well, a series of squares that must share a side but share no more than two sides.  So You could duplicate an area reasonably well with a wall, but it has the benefit of "stretching out".


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Hawke said:


> I didn't even catch that! A bummer, really... other than flavor of saying there's a giant fire angel fighting on your behalf, how is summoning any different than what could be done with a sustained zone or something of that effect?



To be fair, the summoning that the cleric does is also similar. They are sustain effects that basically provide help. So it's at least precedent with what we have.

To be honest, I want to play one of these guys for the sheer thrill of roleplaying a guy that walks around going "I HAVE A GOD'S POWER IN ME, SUCK IT *Blast/Burst*"

But when it comes down to it, I think Controllers on par are just weaker. Looking at the various powers between controllers, they are on par relatively, but controllers compared to everyone else are kinda eh. I do think the Druid is more intriguing than the Invoker, but I like both more than the wizard.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 15, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> BTW, did anyone else get the feeling that the favored soul was the 3e antecedent to the invoker?  I certainly did.



Ah, that's it!  I was wondering why the class felt familiar to me and I think it's because I got a strong favored soul vibe.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> BTW, did anyone else get the feeling that the favored soul was the 3e antecedent to the invoker?  I certainly did.



The Favored Soul was more about combat, though, and they got wings (?). 

I think a 3e version of the Invoker would likely be a Sorcerer that picks divine spells, and has access to a domain.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

Looking at the Invoker, it seems on the surface to be a combination of Blaster Wizard and Tactical Warlord.


----------



## bert1000 (Dec 15, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> I'd have to agree. The whole thing just feels a bit..."meh." Sure, they seem to be good at controlling, but this class would definitely benefit from just a bit more fluff to give us an idea what they're all about.
> 
> But really, I felt the same way about the Wizard. Maybe Controllers just don't lend themselves to having that certain something. (shrug)




It's not fluff for me.  The fluff is actually pretty different.  But this class doesn't seem to have any new mechanic to call its own:

Druid: beast mode
Barbarian: rage
Articifer: infusions or whatever they are called in 4e
Bard: multiple multi classes

Maybe it's lots of summons, but not much to indicate that in L1-3.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

bert1000 said:


> Articifer: infusions or whatever they are called in 4e



I think the artificer differs in one way: its healing functions by making a token before combat, and handing it to someone, who can then use it. Similar to making a temporary healing potion. 

Also, it looks like the artificer has summon-like abilities (creationg temp allies and things that he moves around the battlefield). 

Interestingly, the artificer seems to be Leader(Controller), with some of his effects.


> Bard: multiple multi classes



Also, out-of-combat powers. And a lot of 'slide ally around'.


----------



## Kishin (Dec 15, 2008)

Neat concept. Fun stuff. Attack names sound like tracks on a Rhapsody of Fire album.

I have a hard time getting into Controllers though. They're just a little limp wristed and dull compared to everything else. Druid was a nice spin on it, but the Invoker is fairly straightforward.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 15, 2008)

bert1000 said:


> It's not fluff for me.  The fluff is actually pretty different.  But this class doesn't seem to have any new mechanic to call its own:




Yeah. Mechanically, it feels like a lot like a re-badged wizard. I would like to see summoning take much more of a role.

(And as someone playing a wizard, seeing both the new controllers getting leather and hide prof for free is extremely irritating! I call on all wizards to protest the leather armour feat-tax!)


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 15, 2008)

I am way-digging the fluff on this guy, and I can't wait to play one!


----------



## Hawke (Dec 15, 2008)

I wonder if maybe Summoned creatures might use some derivation of the summoner's stats for attacks. Perhaps use the  summoner's defenses and work similar to minions? Have a feat (or more) that let you up those defenses (say +2 to AC for summoned creatures) or maybe certain higher level summons will have that built in to the power? 

I think maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. In previous editions, I felt that your heavy spellcasting classes had their own THING compared to others. Maybe that hasn't changed as much as other classes have developed some cool mechanics to be on par, but the spellcasters are pretty much just doing their same thing as always. It's balanced, but since I'm seeing how different things are like rogues and fighters... I'm expecting similar leaps forward for Wizards that simply isn't going to happen.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

Controllers are very underrated, as what they do isn't sexy and is easy to miss. It depends on how you look at things. Do you look at the damage of a single attack against a single enemies HP, or do you look at the damage of an attack that hits multiple targets against the total HP of the enemy party. If you look at Controllers in the second fashion, they are dealing more damage to the enemy party than any other player role, though in smaller doses. You don't kill specific enemies faster or more efficiently, but where the controller starts to shine is on the back end of the encounter, when you find that the second half of the enemies are already softened up and easier to kill. Controllers shorten the back end of encounters, which while not sexy, is something you only see and really miss when you don't have it. From personal experience, we played a game at 9th level with a pure blaster Wizard. One week, that Wizard's player couldn't make it, so we played through the game without him. Saying that the blaster was missed would be an understatement. 

There is also the control aspect, which when you combine it with multiple targets and terrain control(Thunderwaving things back into the Zones for Web/Stinking Cloud), can often stack the deck in the party's favor to a degree unattainable by non-controllers. 

On a final note, a pair of Wizards in an 8-9 person party fighting large groups of 7-20 enemies is a sight to behold. It was almost like witnessing 3E Wizard dominance in a 4E game. This was a one-shot game with three players home for Thanksgiving, but the Wizards owned the whole night.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 15, 2008)

bert1000 said:


> It's not fluff for me.  The fluff is actually pretty different.  But this class doesn't seem to have any new mechanic to call its own:
> 
> Druid: beast mode
> Barbarian: rage
> ...




Well, I re-read the wizard and I suppose you're right about the fluff.  Still think Wizards are boring, though.  

As for your second point, I concur.  Hopefully Summons become more and more common at higher levels, because that would definitely help the class stand out.  For right now, they just seem to...dabble.

Those Divine Covenants are great, though.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a lot more summoning. This isn't much different from a laser cleric.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2008)

I liked the part about Dwarves and Devas being suited for the class.  This seems a lot like how a Dwarven Cleric might feel.


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 15, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:


> I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a lot more summoning. This isn't much different from a laser cleric.



As in, "It's a Divine class, and it attacks from a distance,"? Because that's pretty much where the similarities end, I think.


----------



## yesnomu (Dec 15, 2008)

Uh, Vanguard's Lightning-- hax? It's Scorching Burst++, and in a less-often resisted energy type. What's the deal, WotC?

Class looks pretty cool otherwise. I like Offering of Justice, that's a neat power idea.

Divine classes still don't really do it for me, and I liked the druid much more, but the Invoker ain't too bad.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Hawke said:


> I wonder if maybe Summoned creatures might use some derivation of the summoner's stats for attacks.



"Summon Angel of Fire" is an implement power, where the Angel uses 'Wisdom vs. Reflex' to attack, and does wisdom bonus to damage. So yes, I assume it's using the Invoker's stats. 

I think it would suck very hard if the summoned critters are used as dailies - and get hit points, meaning that a monster could easily kill a summon, and the Invoker just wasted a daily to conjure a minion.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> As in, "It's a Divine class, and it attacks from a distance,"? Because that's pretty much where the similarities end, I think.



Well. That and the armor choice.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

One of my players wants to play this class, and since we're at level 1 in that class I'm inclined to indulge them. They're going to take the summoning power, so I'm going to have to make a ruling on how summoning works. Without seeing exactly how the mechanic(keyword) works, this is the most sensible interpretation I can think of:

1. Summoning has a duration of until end of encounter
2. Summons have HP equal to your HP at full, and use your defenses.
3. When you move, your summon can also make a move action.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Controllers are very underrated, as what they do isn't sexy and is easy to miss. It depends on how you look at things. Do you look at the damage of a single attack against a single enemies HP, or do you look at the damage of an attack that hits multiple targets against the total HP of the enemy party.



Except that in my experience, the enemy isn't willing to stand in a bunched up little combination. Usually they're spread around the battlefield, so you're lucky to get more than 2 in an attack. 

I honestly think controllers should be king of the status effect, and the zone or persistent effect. The thing I love the most about controllers is pointing to an area of the map and saying 'You walk here, you're screwed'. Being able to keep that going round after round, or longer than just two rounds, is very awesome to me. Same with status effects.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 15, 2008)

I like the fluff of this one, but as many others, I was hoping for a new mechanic the class could call his own. Still, I do not find it necessary to enjoy the class. Just getting another class that uses Wis to attack is great, it opens up possibilities via multi-classing.





Shroomy said:


> I'm intrigued by the class.  I do wish we got a definition of the "Summoning" keyword, which would probably illuminate a lot of the mechanics behind that daily.  I have a feeling it kind of works like the "Beast" keyword (i.e. it counts as an ally, it has a generic set of stats, etc.).



 Ditto



> BTW, did anyone else get the feeling that the favored soul was the 3e antecedent to the invoker?  I certainly did.



Yep


Rechan said:


> I think a 3e version of the Invoker would likely be a Sorcerer that picks divine spells, and has access to a domain.



Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have always described the Favored Soul in 3.5 as a divine sorcerer - fairly close.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Except that in my experience, the enemy isn't willing to stand in a bunched up little combination. Usually they're spread around the battlefield, so you're lucky to get more than 2 in an attack.
> 
> I honestly think controllers should be king of the status effect, and the zone or persistent effect. The thing I love the most about controllers is pointing to an area of the map and saying 'You walk here, you're screwed'. Being able to keep that going round after round, or longer than just two rounds, is very awesome to me. Same with status effects.




I agree with you on status effects and zones, and in the hands of a smart player these are the most devastating Wizard powers. On the other hand...

Most of the time a burst 1 isn't going to hit more than two targets. Burst 2 is where you can start getting three targets reliably. That Blaster I spoke of uses Firey Burst and Blood Pulse regularly, and consistently manages to hit 3+ targets with their Burst 2 areas. The Paragon Feat War Wizard which makes attacks against allies -5 to the attack roll and half damage also goes a long way towards getting more enemies in blasts.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> One of my players wants to play this class, and since we're at level 1 in that class I'm inclined to indulge them. They're going to take the summoning power, so I'm going to have to make a ruling on how summoning works. Without seeing exactly how the mechanic(keyword) works, this is the most sensible interpretation I can think of:
> 
> 1. Summoning has a duration of until end of encounter
> 2. Summons have HP equal to your HP at full, and use your defenses.
> 3. When you move, your summon can also make a move action.



Honestly, I would use the Conjuration keyword. That's the keyword on the Cleric's various summoning effects.

#3 is good. It mirrors the Beast actions for Rangers.


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> But when it comes down to it, I think Controllers on par are just weaker. Looking at the various powers between controllers, they are on par relatively, but controllers compared to everyone else are kinda eh. I do think the Druid is more intriguing than the Invoker, but I like both more than the wizard.




I could not disagree more.

As someone who DMs a game that has nearly completed Heroic tier, I can say that anyone who says that Wizards (or Controllers in general) are underpowered needs some in-play experience with a well-built one.

The Wizard in this game is considered by all of the players to be the most powerful character in the campaign. Said Wiz is min-maxed, but then so are all of the other characters. 

It is really funny to watch the Wizard in my game kick ten kinds of ass every week, then go onto online discussion boards where people are talking about how weak the class is.

People must immediately stop saying that Controllers are weak. WotC might hear you, think you are right, and buff them even further...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Dionysos said:


> It is really funny to watch the Wizard in my game kick ten kinds of ass every week, then go onto online discussion boards where people are talking about how weak the class is.



That's what experiences are. Of the occasions we've had a wizard, he's been categorically subpar. 

In my humble opinion, wizards don't do enough status effects, have enough vs. will attacks, nor persistent/sustained zone effects to really pull their weight. Area effects that do small damage just doesn't seem to do it.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Another frustrating thing about seeing these new classes: Few if none of the current implements are a good choice for them. 

I was going to play a Druid in a game last week, and I was looking through the magical items for "What I wanted", and wow, there weren't a lot of staves that suited the Druid, mechanically. And we have no idea what Totems are. Same with Artificers who use Rods. Same with (now) Invokers using Staff or Rod. None of them seem keyed in to those classes' mechanics.

Also, no feats! Grr.  

PHB2 can't get here soon enough.


----------



## The_Fan (Dec 15, 2008)

Given that Int is a key skill, I'm seeing a lot of them opting out of chain and going for hide instead. Which then gives you the archetype of the hide-wearing holy man, leaning on a staff, and inflicting horrible divine wrath on his enemies. Overall I get a very Old Testament vibe from them. Even their implements are rod and staff (try putting "thy" before it).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

I wonder if there's going to be a class in PHB 2 that has two attack stats like the Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock. All classes that have been released since PHB 1 have used a single stat for attack rolls: Swordmage(Int), Artificer(Int), Barbarian(Str), Bard(Cha), Druid(Wis), and now Invoker(Wis).


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> That's what experiences are. Of the occasions we've had a wizard, he's been categorically subpar.
> 
> In my humble opinion, wizards don't do enough status effects, have enough vs. will attacks, nor persistent/sustained zone effects to really pull their weight. Area effects that do small damage just doesn't seem to do it.




Off the top of my head, the Wizard in my game has Sleep (talk about a status effect!), Stinking Cloud (5x5 persistent zone that blocks line of sight, damages and can be moved), Ice Storm (7x7 area immobilize with some damage, and turns area to difficult terrain for encounter), and Wall of Fog (wall 8 that blocks LOS).

That's without looking at the sheet or thinking about it for very long, so I know he has a bunch more stuff too.

Anyway, even in the Heroic tier, this Wizard has a potentially crippling Daily vs. Will (always gets the Orb penalty, too), big persistent battlefield control spells and many ways to give status effects in a wide area. Which, I suppose, is why your points are a but weird to me.

"Area attacks that do small damage" are fine, but the Wizard does so much more.

As for the enemies not "bunching up", I recommend not playing most encounters on an open plain. Even 3x3 is big enough to catch multiple enemies that are not adjacent to one another. And 5x5 and 7x7 are simply huge on the battlemat. Add a modicum of terrain to the mix, and these spells are incredibly potent.


More to the topic of this thread, I really dig rhe Invoker so far. Some people are bothered by the fact that it is the least "gimmicky" controller so far, but I don't mind. They wield undiluted divine power; a bit of directness seems called for. And not all classes need the same level of complexity; they just need a to be reasonably balanced in terms of power level.

As it is, it looks like the Invoker will be good for people who want to just blow stuff up with the Wrath of God, and not have to think quite so hard. And there is nothing wrong with that


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 15, 2008)

I like this class. 

I love that "old school believer" flavor. 
I also can't help but think of the Ori from Stargate. As much as I disliked that plotline, their "Priests" were intriguing. (I am looking at Shroud of Awe and Emissary of the God specifically here)

The balance of the At-Wills is interesting. Their basic attack powers have some extra effects more then the Wizards Magic Missile (which as none  ). But they lack the range. There have been many scenarios where that 20 squares of range made a difference in my experience. (One of the most dangerous foes on the battlefield can be Artillery monsters that strike from distance while the party is busy dealing with Soldiers or Brutes.)
_Avenging Light_ also has the disadvantage of attacking Fort, from my experience one of the typically highest defenses in the game.

_Offering of Justice_ is a neat power. Always "hits", but only affects if the target does something specific. 



Nitpick:
They should describe the _Summoning_ Keyword somewhere in that article, otherwise you can't really test all of the class.

What I suspect: 
- Summoned creatures have simply determined hit points, probably something like your healing surge value or _n_ hit points per tier.
- They have your defenses.
- You can spend actions to make them move (possibly minor actions, but maybe also move actions).
- Specifics like how they attack, their damage, their speed and similar things will always be found in the power description.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 15, 2008)

Rods have some of the best implements for inflicting damage.  I seem to recall that Star Warlock article had a rod with criticals of 18-20 for powers with the fear or radiant keywords, with a pretty high critical damage die.  In the hands of an Invoker, that could also be quite powerful.

And I do detect a hint of the Truenamer inside the Invoker along with the Favored Soul.  Certainly the bit about using Words of Creation, I see some true name fluff creeping in.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like this class.
> 
> I love that "old school believer" flavor.




This.

The invoker has a nice old testament fire and brimstone, wrath of God, style priest feeling too it, none of this pansy healing stuff.  

Interesting to see that one of the utility powers has a skill challenge specific ability.

Should be a fun class to play as an alternative to the Wizard as a controller.

Edit:
Just had an interesting idea for a campaign, basic premise: The players are a vanguard for a dwarven crusade, leading the assault on a goblinoid empire to reclaim an ancient dwarven city.  All characters must be Dwarf with only martial and divine power sources allowed.

Maybe it was just the thought of a dwarven cleric and a dwarven invoker combining to lead the party in a fight against ancient enemies.

Phaezen


----------



## Baumi (Dec 15, 2008)

As a Wizard I envy the Invokers At-Wills and the fact that he targets only enemies (sometimes even benefits allies).


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 15, 2008)

> *Races:* Dwarves and devas make particularly good invokers; both the dwarven devotion to the gods and the devas' heritage lend themselves to the invoker's worldview. Ancient and long-lived, eladrin and elves have a racial memory that keeps alive the legends of the first wars between the gods and the primordials, and the two races often follow in the paths of the first invokers. Invokers can be found among all races, however.




Dwarves (+2 CON +2 WIS) and Devas get mentioned here as good invokers.
Next mentioned are races with a single attribute matching the needed ones, elves (WIS) and eladrin (INT).

As such it could be save to assume that the bonuses of the deva race are +2INT +2WIS, right?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 15, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder if there's going to be a class in PHB 2 that has two attack stats like the Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock. All classes that have been released since PHB 1 have used a single stat for attack rolls: Swordmage(Int), Artificer(Int), Barbarian(Str), Bard(Cha), Druid(Wis), and now Invoker(Wis).



 I think bard's other build may be dex for some attacks...but don't quite me on that



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like this class.
> 
> I love that "old school believer" flavor.
> I also can't help but think of the Ori from Stargate. As much as I disliked that plotline, their "Priests" were intriguing. (I am looking at Shroud of Awe and Emissary of the God specifically here)



 You know that was the first thing I said "Hollow are the Ori"



> The balance of the At-Wills is interesting. Their basic attack powers have some extra effects more then the Wizards Magic Missile (which as none  ). But they lack the range. There have been many scenarios where that 20 squares of range made a difference in my experience.



 I think of that as the effect of MM...unlike Eldritch blast is is long range..



> Nitpick:
> They should describe the _Summoning_ Keyword somewhere in that article, otherwise you can't really test all of the class.



I bet it will be a hybrid of the conjuration and Beast key words...



Phaezen said:


> This.
> 
> The invoker has a nice old testament fire and brimstone, wrath of God, style priest feeling too it, none of this pansy healing stuff.



 I love the smiteing enimies angle myself




Shadowsong666 said:


> As such it could be save to assume that the bonuses of the deva race are +2INT +2WIS, right?



 that would be freaking metal...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Shadowsong666 said:


> Dwarves (+2 CON +2 WIS) and Devas get mentioned here as good invokers.
> Next mentioned are races with a single attribute matching the needed ones, elves (WIS) and eladrin (INT).
> 
> As such it could be save to assume that the bonuses of the deva race are +2INT +2WIS, right?



Yeah. I had a similar thought. Although I was hoping that Deva would get +2 Wis/+2 Cha. (Yes, I know that both of those go to the same Defense, but so do the +2 Str/Con of WF/Minotaur/Orcs (likely) and +2 Dex/Int of Eladrin; +2 Wis/Cha would make Deva clerics and paladins kick major ass.)


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

One thing is for certain:

No invoker should be without the Astral Fire feat.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> PHB2 can't get here soon enough.




This reaction, presumably, is why they give us these tidbits.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

Starfox said:


> This reaction, presumably, is why they give us these tidbits.



Well really was clamoring for it after I bought PHB1. This just adds questions to the pile.


----------



## avin (Dec 15, 2008)

I would buy an "ecology" monster manual. No rules, just images, habits, society, kinds of the same specie... etc


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

avin said:


> I would buy an "ecology" monster manual. No rules, just images, habits, society, kinds of the same specie... etc



AT this point, I have so much inspiration, ideas, sources of info, and such, I don't _need_ buckets of ecology. I just need the hard work done for me (see: stats). 

Really, if WotC could just come to my house and copy the stats from the book onto 4x6 cards, my prep would be done.


----------



## Baz King (Dec 15, 2008)

Is it just me or is the picture they've used... Kang the Conqueror?


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Honestly, I would use the Conjuration keyword. That's the keyword on the Cleric's various summoning effects.
> 
> #3 is good. It mirrors the Beast actions for Rangers.




The key difference is that powers with the Conjuration keyword can be dispelled.


----------



## Admiral Caine (Dec 15, 2008)

Baz King said:


> Is it just me or is the picture they've used... Kang the Conqueror?




Heh. Perhaps.

This preview does have me interested, but I agree with some of the previous sentiments.. that this one appears to possibly come into it's own much later in the career. Leaving you kinda wanting more, or unsure of what we've seen thus far.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Really, if WotC could just come to my house and copy the stats from the book onto 4x6 cards, my prep would be done.




They have, it's called the compendium. It's all right there.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 15, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder if there's going to be a class in PHB 2 that has two attack stats like the Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock. All classes that have been released since PHB 1 have used a single stat for attack rolls: Swordmage(Int), Artificer(Int), Barbarian(Str), Bard(Cha), Druid(Wis), and now Invoker(Wis).



Well, I for one welcome our new single attack stat overlords.   I do hope the trend continues, and that maybe Wizards will revisit the other classes someday.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm posting this BEFORE I read this thread.  That way I can go back and see how many people agree or disagree with my unvarnished initial impressions.

1. It uses wisdom.  Kind of expected Int.  This isn't a big thing.

2. It uses chainmail!  I really didn't expect this, but I like it.  Know what this means?  "Wears heavier armor" is basically a sub-characteristic of the divine power source.  Expect to see the Avenger in chainmail or better.

3. I feel like their channel divinity powers are better than the cleric's.  Practice makes perfect, I guess?

4. Interesting Covenant powers.  I like them.  Simple, but interesting, and you'll see them a lot since they work on every encounter and daily power.  I hope the Covenant of Wrath power doesn't get wacky at high levels.  If there are a lot of Close Burst 8 type powers at higher levels, that could be an awful lot of additional damage.

5. 5 at wills is nice.  They're all fairly useful.  Vanguard's Lightning is useful, but only if you are really slick tactically.  Otherwise, it doesn't do enough damage to make up for part of the damage being situational.  Divine Lightning is pretty nice.

6. Blades of Astral Fire.  Nice, but in general, I'm not a fan of AC or Attack bonuses that scale with level.  They don't need to!  +2 is just as good at level 1 as at level 10.  At least it doesn't scale very much.  These don't unbalance 4e, they're just unnecessary.

7. Angelic Echelon.  Its themed like a summons, but is basically just a spell.  Still, if the overall class has a lot of these, and has one or two summons that stick around for a while, a summoning flavor will be possible.  We can't really know until we see more, unfortunately.  This sort of "summons as theme for otherwise regular spells" thing will feel inadequate to me without at least some wizard style summoning with Sustain Minor.

8. Binding Invocation of Chains!  Ok, I really like this one.  Its different.  No damage.  HUGE area of effect.  Decent action denial if you catch your foes in the first round of combat and you over power them in ranged versus ranged attack.

9. Purging Flame has really high damage.  I wonder how many players will notice, since realizing it takes a little math.

10. Summon Angel of Fire.  Ah.  Now we get to the real thing.  The only unclear bit is movement.  I assume the angel moves on its own, on your initiative?  The angel is unkillable, which I guess is a necessary concession to not including full stat blocks in powers.

11. Emissary of the Gods is the first power I can think of to explicitly reference the skill challenge rules.  I think I'm cool with this.  I don't use explicit skill challenges often, but the power still works, and I can roll with it thematically.  "You don't gain a failure" will just mean "the target doesn't get upset at what you said."

12. Shroud of Awe is Shroud of Awesome.  I have this mental image of a desert city with minarets, and every day at noon, Invoker Initiates climb each minaret and bellow out a call to prayer using the actual Voice of God.

13. Wall of Light is extremely good.  Like, really, really good.  Maybe too good?  Its got some of the good things from Consecrated Ground, except in a bigger area of effect, and three levels earlier.

Overall thoughts?

I like it.  Its playable.  It wasn't something I was dying to play, because I like clerics more and they're similar in archetype, but it looks like a fun class.

Should hopefully satisfy those who want to play spellcaster clerics with more offensive spell selections.

Kind of wish they used holy symbols, so that there would be more multiclass synergy with the cleric, but that was probably a conscious design choice.  Otherwise the classes might run together a little too easily.  And its not like spellcaster clerics don't have a free hand to hold a staff or something.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> No invoker should be without the Astral Fire feat.




"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor."

Gandalf was totally an invoker.  I like when he used rebuke undead on the Ringwraiths.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 15, 2008)

Hawke said:


> I didn't even catch that! A bummer, really... other than flavor of saying there's a giant fire angel fighting on your behalf, how is summoning any different than what could be done with a sustained zone or something of that effect?



It makes opportunity attacks.

I know that's a far cry from having a full stat line, but its something.


Hawke said:


> I wonder if maybe Summoned creatures might use some derivation of the summoner's stats for attacks. Perhaps use the summoner's defenses and work similar to minions? Have a feat (or more) that let you up those defenses (say +2 to AC for summoned creatures) or



That's the solution I used for my Illusory Double mechanic in my hexblade revision.  Here's what I encountered with it- basically, you can only use the "has the caster's stat but is a minion" solution if you expect the summoned creature to have a very, very, VERY short lifespan.  That was perfect for me- I was creating a class specialization called the "path of splinters" that was themed after the hexblade splintering off shadowy doubles of himself during combat.  It was an explicit design choice to make the illusory doubles short lived, and I balanced around it.  But believe me.  They end up very, very short lived.

You could also give them hp equal to a healing surge.  Or require you to spend a healing surge to cast the spell, and give them hp equal to your bloodied value.  That's actually the solution I like most, but I'm not sure its going to be used.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 15, 2008)

Summons don't need a statblock if they use your AC, Fort, Ref, and Will and they have some sort of variation on your HP total, as in they start play with HP equal to your surge value, your bloodied value, or your full HP total. They could also share your HP total, but Invokers are a little on the fragile side.

For movement, I expect summons to work like Ranger beast companions in that they move when you move.

As for duration, depending on if they have HP and can be attacked, I wouldn't be surprised if they stuck around until killed. While that wouldn't surprise me, I think its going to end up lasting until the end of the encounter.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> One thing is for certain:
> 
> No invoker should be without the Astral Fire feat.



But that requires dexterity and charisma, both of which are disfavored stats.


----------



## rowport (Dec 15, 2008)

I am a bit surprised that most folks are comparing the Invoker to (cloistered) cleric.  I can see the divine soul influence.  But, divine summoning says "druid" to me.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the Insightful Preservation feat improves your Preservation Covenant Manifestation from 1 to Int spaces.  That fits naming conventions and previous design decisions.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 15, 2008)

I think Invoker's gonna be one of those classes that looks kinda bland in theory, and then awesome when used in-game. Combining any of these powers with the covenants makes for some very interesting and unique powers. 

Overall, I think the class is at least an 8 out of 10, and that's before we see the rest of the levels.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Dec 15, 2008)

Several of the at-wills of this class are insane...

*Grasping Shards* - This one's the biggest offender IMHO. Take the best part of Ray of Frost (the slowing effect), make it an area burst 1 instead of single target, change the damage type to one that's less common as a resistance and MUCH more common as a vulnerability... and reduce the damage ever so slightly.

Like anyone ever used Ray of Frost for the damage. Even worse, at epic tier, the gap between the damage gets a lot shorter thanks to the 1d10+Wis damage upgrade (compared to 2d6+Int at epic for Ray of Frost, to only a single target to boot).

*Divine Bolts* - Comparable to Scorching Burst, in a way... does the same damage, similar range. Scorching Burst has the potential to hit more targets, but it's a heck of a lot easier to make maximum use of this power, and you never have to worry about collateral damage to boot. The Wizard doesn't get a chance for anything similar until Lightning Bolt... which is a level 7 encounter power...

Still, Scorching Burst/Divine Bolts are fairly even in my book... at least until...

*Vanguard's Lightning* - Ugh. WTH? This is a blatant Scorching Burst++ power. Same range, area, damage, and everything... but it deals a damage type that shows up less as a resistance/immunity... AND it does additional damage to the targets if they make opportunity attacks. Sure, that's pretty situational... but it's _still_ something _extra_ on top of the already fairly useful Scorching Burst... 

So... not only do Invokers get a more "accurate" version of scorching burst... they also get a just _plain better_ version of it too... *shakes head*

The last two powers that count as basic attacks also rub Magic Missile (and Eldritch Blast) the wrong way too...

Overall, I like the Invoker (the silly anti-primodial attitude, heavy armor, and not using holy symbols, notwithstanding, of course...)... but the At-Wills just... rub me the wrong way, I guess.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 15, 2008)

BarkingDeathSquirrel said:


> but the At-Wills just... rub me the wrong way, I guess.



That's a trend I've noticed, particularly with the Swordmage.

Newer classes seem to get beefier at-wills, but weaker Encounter/Daily powers.

-O


----------



## gribble (Dec 15, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Newer classes seem to get beefier at-wills, but weaker Encounter/Daily powers.



Yes and no. While some at-wills are definitely better than others under certain circumstances, and some are even mathematically better than others (careful strike vs twin strike I'm looking at you), I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've seen an *exact* copy of another classes power which has an additional effect. I.e.: it's *strictly superior* under all circumstances.

And I'm not sure I like that... it's the first 100% undeniable power creep in 4e. You can't really argue that it's balanced because the class gets weaker encounter/daily powers, because with multiclass feats a character can easily negate that disadvantage.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> One thing is for certain:
> 
> No invoker should be without the Astral Fire feat.



I disagree, at least from an optimisation perspective. In order to get this feat an Invoker would have to neglect boosting his primary or secondary ability scores. I wouldn't do that for +1 damage on some powers... especially given that boosting the primary/secondary stats will likely provide +1 damage on just as many powers _and_ provide other benefits...

From a fluff/background perspective though it seems entirely appropriate.


----------



## mearls (Dec 15, 2008)

When comparing at-wills for controllers, the wizard has some issues. His at-wills focus more on damage than control. The consensus is that controllers need a little more, well, control in their at-wills than we've handed out so far.

Vanguard's lightning is what I'd see as a baseline controller at-will, with scorching burst slightly *below* baseline. That little extra bit on vanguard's lightning is precisely the kind of thing that makes controllers go - they limit/mess up the enemy's plans.

Now, this may seem pretty annoying - WotC released stuff that was too weak! However, I think it's actually a strength of the meta systems of 4e. We've never before had the ability to so clearly compare classes/roles and, when necessary, make adjustments. It's a lot easier to listen to feedback, gather hard data, and make comparisons between powers when we have a unified power scale.

The interesting thing is that this issue really only rests in the at-wills. Encounter and daily powers are fine for the wizard.

The controller role is perhaps the one that took the longest to really develop. There's a reason why there's only one in the PH. For a long while, the role was defined by its ability to attack multiple foes. That definition never sat well, since it clearly steps on other roles and archetypes. We'd never want to prevent rangers from firing multiple arrows, or a fighter from striking everyone adjacent to him.

Over time, the controller definition morphed into the opposite of the leader. If the leader sets up his allies and encourages teamwork, the controller screws up his enemies and hinders their ability to work together. The area damage aspect of the controller does play into that (it makes bunching up a bad idea) but in practice controllers need a little more to embrace their role.

It's a subtle point, and in the grand scheme of things I don't think a PH 1 wizard is crippled compared to the PH 2 classes, but it is a sign of the subtle adjustments we're likely to make to the game going forward.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 15, 2008)

mearls said:


> When comparing at-wills for controllers, the wizard has some issues. His at-wills focus more on damage than control. The consensus is that controllers need a little more, well, control in their at-wills than we've handed out so far.
> 
> Vanguard's lightning is what I'd see as a baseline controller at-will, with scorching burst slightly *below* baseline. That little extra bit on vanguard's lightning is precisely the kind of thing that makes controllers go - they limit/mess up the enemy's plans.
> 
> Now, this may seem pretty annoying - WotC released stuff that was too weak! However, I think it's actually a strength of the meta systems of 4e. We've never before had the ability to so clearly compare classes/roles and, when necessary, make adjustments. It's a lot easier to listen to feedback, gather hard data, and make comparisons between powers when we have a unified power scale.



So, any suggestion on how to "Improve" the Wizard's at-wills? 

Can we expect to see this "fixed" with Arcane Power, introducing new Wizard At-Wills?


----------



## gribble (Dec 15, 2008)

mearls said:


> It's a subtle point, and in the grand scheme of things I don't think a PH 1 wizard is crippled compared to the PH 2 classes, but it is a sign of the subtle adjustments we're likely to make to the game going forward.



Interesting insight. It wasn't until I got to the last sentence that I realised you were one of the D&D design team!


From what I've seen in local play, most players think that Scorching Burst is one of the better wizard at-wills - certainly it's usually one of the two that first level wizards take (while Thunderwave is better stats-wise, it has the downside of usually being harder to use effectively and putting your wizard in harms way). Can you comment on what Scorching Burst being considered sub-par means for the other wizard powers?

Are we likely to see errataed wizard at will powers (or just wholesale better/replacement powers in Arcane Power)? Or will the wizard just languish at the bottom of the controller at-will totem pole as more controller classes are released with better at-wills?

IME, your at-wills really determine the relative power of classes, as they're the powers which are always available and generally always useful in a particular encounter...

Oh, and I agree wizards aren't "crippled" per-se, but I think they can be noticibly weaker under most circumstances... and I can see it getting worse once Druids and Invokers hit the gametable for real!


----------



## Ktulu (Dec 15, 2008)

Rechan said:


> So, any suggestion on how to "Improve" the Wizard's at-wills?
> 
> Can we expect to see this "fixed" with Arcane Power, introducing new Wizard At-Wills?




[edit] like the guy above me, I didn't realize you were speaking to Mearls.  My thoughts aren't really that important or informative, by comparison [/edit]

Ktulu


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks so much for the insights into the design thought-process, Mr Mearls!

It would be really nice to get an assurance that the Wizard will be brought up to speed in Arcane Power, so that we can know that this class won't just be left low on the power curve. Are you able to speak to that point at all?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 16, 2008)

mearls said:


> It's a subtle point, and in the grand scheme of things I don't think a PH 1 wizard is crippled compared to the PH 2 classes, but it is a sign of the subtle adjustments we're likely to make to the game going forward.



Thanks for the insights!  While I understand the need to focus on the road ahead as opposed to what's been done in the past, I do hope that at some juncture the wizard at-wills get revisited.  Here I think DDI is great, as it offers an easy way to quickly update the game (even if this makes the books go out of date!).  Indeed, part of me hopes that 5e is completely electronic, so that when things are updated everyone who subscribes can get the current version.  

I think it might be neat if Wizards offered a contest or article space or something to update the wizard at-wills.  I'm not saying *I* could do it, but if Wizards wants to move ahead while still keeping an eye on where they've been, they do have a host of obsessive fans who would do that work for them.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 16, 2008)

While they wouldn't be updates. I am sure we are likely to see some more controller-oriented At-Wills come Arcane Power for the Wizard.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> While they wouldn't be updates. I am sure we are likely to see some more controller-oriented At-Wills come Arcane Power for the Wizard.



Hey FS! As soon as I saw the Invoker fluff, I thought "Hmm, I wonder how FS is going to implement this into his Voodoo setting."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Hey FS! As soon as I saw the Invoker fluff, I thought "Hmm, I wonder how FS is going to implement this into his Voodoo setting."



I have to admit this one seems like it may be a bit tougher then some to implement. But I shall, oh I shall.

I am thinking right now Invokers are going to be viewed by the common folk as, "those crazy guys in the swamps" since they will know the truth about the Loa. They will reside in the swamp away from the watchful eyes of the other fake-Loa faiths.

I am thinking refluff wise for the Powers. All the radiant energy stuff will probably be depedent on the Loa (or more likely the House of Loas), the summoning... I am not sure yet... Need to figure out some good embodiments that each Loa could take.


----------



## Ander00 (Dec 16, 2008)

I'm liking the trend for at-will powers, though I would've hoped for a few more at-wills in martial power.


cheers


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 16, 2008)

Aaaah... I love house rules. I think I'll edit a few of the wizard at wills to make them more controller-ish. Adding more targets for some powers, tacking on some additional effects, etc.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

This might also explain why Greenfire Blade is more potent than cleave, as some say.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> One thing is for certain:
> 
> No invoker should be without the Astral Fire feat.



Heh. Guess it's just me, but I've never gotten why folks would regard a +1 damage feat as a must-have. Superior weapons effectively increase the entire die type used, but just a +1 when 4e enemies have so many HP? There's gotta be a better angle.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> Heh. Guess it's just me, but I've never gotten why folks would regard a +1 damage feat as a must-have. Superior weapons effectively increase the entire die type used, but just a +1 when 4e enemies have so many HP? There's gotta be a better angle.



Exactly how would superior weapons help implement users?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> Superior weapons effectively increase the entire die type used, but just a +1 when 4e enemies have so many HP?




In most cases, those are functionally the same thing. The _average_ difference between rolling a d4 vs. a d6, or a d10 vs. a d12, is 1 point of damage.

Now, I realize that's not the case with _every_ weapon, since some use multiple dice, or jump by some degree other than the next direct die size, but taken as an aggregate, they really are the same thing more often than not.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Dec 16, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> In most cases, those are functionally the same thing.



For single [W] powers, sure, they are basically the same thing. But... (as I'm sure you are aware) the real value of the increase weapon die comes from the fact that it is multiplied by the many multi [W] powers... a flat +1 will still only be +1 on a 2[W] or 3[W] power, but increase a daily power from 3d8 to 3d10 (ie: longsword to bastard sword) increases the average damage from 13.5 to 16.5. And there isn't exactly a shortage of these powers. 

Plus, rolling higher dice just... feels better, no? 

But, hey, let's not forget the fact you can always stack Superior Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus together for even more damage.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

Again, I like the extra damage feats because the implement users don't get [W]. They can't increase the die. 

Hell, I don't even think there's a feat to increase Warlock Curse damage from d6 to d8.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Again, I like the extra damage feats because the implement users don't get [W]. They can't increase the die.
> 
> Hell, I don't even think there's a feat to increase Warlock Curse damage from d6 to d8.




Only the Vicious Rod does that, I believe.


----------



## Drakhar (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Again, I like the extra damage feats because the implement users don't get [W]. They can't increase the die.
> 
> Hell, I don't even think there's a feat to increase Warlock Curse damage from d6 to d8.



Nope just a rod


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Exactly how would superior weapons help implement users?



Oh, not saying they would, just that I can see the appeal of boosting the die more than the +1. 


Mouseferatu said:


> In most cases, those are functionally the same thing. The _average_ difference between rolling a d4 vs. a d6, or a d10 vs. a d12, is 1 point of damage.



As long as you're doing 1[W], with an attack, that's true. But when you're doing 4{W], there's an incremental gain, whereas the +1 is just +1.


Rechan said:


> Again, I like the extra damage feats because the implement users don't get [W]. They can't increase the die.



Yep, they just gotta make do with feats like Astral Fire, but personally, I look to other feats first, like Armor Proficiency, or Toughness, or Skill Training. 



> Hell, I don't even think there's a feat to increase Warlock Curse damage from d6 to d8.



Nope, bizarre lack of parity there. I guess the pact feat are supposed to compensate.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 16, 2008)

BarkingDeathSquirrel said:


> For single [W] powers, sure, they are basically the same thing. But... (as I'm sure you are aware) the real value of the increase weapon die comes from the fact that it is multiplied by the many multi [W] powers... a flat +1 will still only be +1 on a 2[W] or 3[W] power, but increase a daily power from 3d8 to 3d10 (ie: longsword to bastard sword) increases the average damage from 13.5 to 16.5. And there isn't exactly a shortage of these powers.




Damn it! You're right, of course. I've spent so many years equating the two that I still mentally default to it.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> This might also explain why Greenfire Blade is more potent than cleave, as some say.




There is the other element though that being flanked by opponent's is likely, in which case you can cleave but not get to use Greenfire Blade to hit both. It is possible to hit more enemies than normal, or enemies you wouldn't otherwise be able to with Greenfire, but that does require odd formations (i.e. 3 or more monsters adjacent, or one "behind" the other). Also, arguably if you can get more use out of Greenfire Blade than cleave ... you could probably go with the close burst 1 attack of the swordmage as well. Also, a creature is more likely to be resistant to fire than uptyped damage.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> There is the other element though that being flanked by opponent's is likely, in which case you can cleave but not get to use Greenfire Blade to hit both. It is possible to hit more enemies than normal, or enemies you wouldn't otherwise be able to with Greenfire, but that does require odd formations (i.e. 3 or more monsters adjacent, or one "behind" the other). Also, arguably if you can get more use out of Greenfire Blade than cleave ... you could probably go with the close burst 1 attack of the swordmage as well. Also, a creature is more likely to be resistant to fire than uptyped damage.



I've been saying this for a while, but the general Conventional Wisdom is that GFB is far superior to Cleave.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2008)

Obryn said:


> That's a trend I've noticed, particularly with the Swordmage.
> 
> Newer classes seem to get beefier at-wills, but weaker Encounter/Daily powers.
> 
> -O




We've only seen the first 3 levels of invoker, but i'd say those encounter and dailies are as good or better than most.  And there at wills are clearly just better than the wizards.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> Heh. Guess it's just me, but I've never gotten why folks would regard a +1 damage feat as a must-have. Superior weapons effectively increase the entire die type used, but just a +1 when 4e enemies have so many HP? There's gotta be a better angle.




I don't get it either.  doing 2d6+11 instead of 2d6+10 is low on my must have list.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> I don't get it either.  doing 2d6+11 instead of 2d6+10 is low on my must have list.




You suck at powergaming! You'd rather take Skill Training in Bluff or what?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 16, 2008)

I can definitely see some attempts at improving the Wizards at-wills when the Adventurer's Vault specifically had wands that improved certain at-will spells.

Somehow I suspect a lot of Arcane Power will also have options to improve those at-wills.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 16, 2008)

gribble said:


> Yes and no. While some at-wills are definitely better than others under certain circumstances, and some are even mathematically better than others (careful strike vs twin strike I'm looking at you), I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've seen an *exact* copy of another classes power which has an additional effect. I.e.: it's *strictly superior* under all circumstances.



We have seen a new power that's strictly inferior though: Dual Strike. It's a fighter at-will from Martial Power that lets you use two weapons to make two separate attacks against the same foe, each doing [W] damage. This is strictly inferior to the ranger's Twin Strike, because (a) Twin Strike works both with ranged and melee weapons, and (b) Twin Strike can make the attacks against different foes.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Dec 16, 2008)

Staffan said:


> We have seen a new power that's strictly inferior though: Dual Strike. It's a fighter at-will from Martial Power that lets you use two weapons to make two separate attacks against the same foe, each doing [W] damage. This is strictly inferior to the ranger's Twin Strike, because (a) Twin Strike works both with ranged and melee weapons, and (b) Twin Strike can make the attacks against different foes.




Not sure if that is really the same case since Fighter and Rangers are supposed to be filling different combat roles. It would be a problem if they were both meant to be strikers or both defenders, but I do think that it would have been nice if the Fighter power could target multiple people to increase the number of marked enemies.


----------



## infocynic (Dec 16, 2008)

Dual Strike almost certainly doesn't work on two enemies just BECAUSE of that--the fighter's not supposed to mark a lot of enemies at once (Dragonborn aside, and that seems like an oversight more than anything). Defenders very much have the attitude of pick a monster, occupy that monster's attention, which is why all of them have a hard time marking more than one at a time without encounter / daily powers.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Dec 16, 2008)

infocynic said:


> Dual Strike almost certainly doesn't work on two enemies just BECAUSE of that--the fighter's not supposed to mark a lot of enemies at once (Dragonborn aside, and that seems like an oversight more than anything). Defenders very much have the attitude of pick a monster, occupy that monster's attention, which is why all of them have a hard time marking more than one at a time without encounter / daily powers.




I know that for the most part defenders have the built in single target mark, but I would like to see the Fighter be the class who has the option to keep more people marked. It would especially make them the iconic defender since when combined with their movement stopping class feature they would become the best at holding the line.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sigh. Adding some new at-wills in Arcane Power would be great. 

Wish the Controller role had been completely designed before 4E was published though. 

So how long before we get a revised Player's Handbook?


----------



## Obryn (Dec 16, 2008)

gribble said:


> Yes and no. While some at-wills are definitely better than others under certain circumstances, and some are even mathematically better than others (careful strike vs twin strike I'm looking at you), I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've seen an *exact* copy of another classes power which has an additional effect. I.e.: it's *strictly superior* under all circumstances.



Greenflame Blade is an example of an at-will which is clearly superior to an existing at-will (Cleave).  There are circumstances where you might want Cleave, but I can't figure out too many.  Maybe fire-resistant foes?  Getting flanked by a Minion?



> And I'm not sure I like that... it's the first 100% undeniable power creep in 4e. You can't really argue that it's balanced because the class gets weaker encounter/daily powers, because with multiclass feats a character can easily negate that disadvantage.



That comes at a non-negligible cost of at least two feats, though.



Rechan said:


> So, any suggestion on how to "Improve" the Wizard's at-wills?



I know this wasn't asked of me, but have you looked at the various Master's Wands in AV?  Equipment is hardly a patch, but they directly improve Wizards' At-Wills.



BarkingDeathSquirrel said:


> For single [W] powers, sure, they are basically the same thing. But... (as I'm sure you are aware) the real value of the increase weapon die comes from the fact that it is multiplied by the many multi [W] powers... a flat +1 will still only be +1 on a 2[W] or 3[W] power, but increase a daily power from 3d8 to 3d10 (ie: longsword to bastard sword) increases the average damage from 13.5 to 16.5. And there isn't exactly a shortage of these powers.



On the other side of the coin, though, the Elemental properties are more likely to affect multiple opponents at once.  Increasing the die size for a Superior Weapon is likeliest to affect only one or two foes.  Increasing elemental damage by 1 point is likely to hit multiple foes at once, in many circumstances.

-O


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

[







BarkingDeathSquirrel said:


> Well... that's certainly not what I was expecting. Wasn't expecting them to have more than cloth armor, nor would I have ever thought that holy symbols _wouldn't_ be implements for them... huh.





Rechan said:


> Chainmail? Damn. That actually is a shame. But it seems Divine characters always are about The Armor.



I'm surprised many folks in this thread expressed surprise that the invoker gets chainmail. It seems to be a staple of class design that if you don't have Dex or Int as your numero uno stat, you're likely to get medium armor. The couple of exceptions that spring to mind--warlock and swordmage--use Int as a secondary stat, and then get some defense boost as a patch.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Baumi said:


> As a Wizard I envy the Invokers At-Wills and the fact that he targets only enemies (sometimes even benefits allies).



This little heretofore overlooked post from a few pages back underscores what really makes the invoker outshine the wizard. In my group, I've seen a lot of folks skip right over the distinction between "Target: each creature in burst" and "Target: each enemy in burst" as if it were some minor nuance. It's huge. It's the difference between groaning in impotent frustration because the defender and striker are moshing with the bad guys and tossing AoE's with wild abandon. 

The wizard has way too many "each creature" AoE's, while in contrast the invoker has AoE's that harm only enemies while buffing allies. 

That's the sweetest plum.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 16, 2008)

Unlike some in this thread, I'm glad WotC is adjusting things and fixing them as they go. Nothing is perfect out of the box, and I'm glad they are learning and improving the system as they go.

I appreciate that Mearls came here and posted also.

But, yeah, the invoker looks a little better in the at-will area right now. But, I suppose, if it is a huge issue for your game, give the wizard the option of choosing the invoker's at wills. That wasn't too hard (you may want to change the specifics of some of the attacks, if not the effects).


----------



## Zsig (Dec 16, 2008)

So, I'm not sure I got how Covenant of Wrath's power thing works:

Do you get +1 to damage for each enemy caught with the power (ie, 3 enemies = +3 damage to each)?

Or do you simply get +1 to damage to each enemy caught up with the power?


I've seen people saying one thing here, and then somewhere else people saying another...

But either way, if the right one is the former than I think it's too powerful, if it's the latter then it's probably too weak, Heh, kinda tricky uh?


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Obryn said:


> On the other side of the coin, though, the Elemental properties are more likely to affect multiple opponents at once.  Increasing the die size for a Superior Weapon is likeliest to affect only one or two foes.  Increasing elemental damage by 1 point is likely to hit multiple foes at once, in many circumstances.



Granted, we don't have a martial controller, but other than that, I don't see where you're going with that. There are plenty of ways to hit multiple targets with martial powers, and aside from the wizard's big AoE's, they're about as good as anyone else's powers. Certainly Sweeping Strike and Dire Wolverine Strike see plenty of use in the games I play. 

And heck, the wizard's big AoE's have a nasty tendency to target "all creatures" rather than all "all enemies", which kind of handicaps the utility of having a big AoE in the first place.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 16, 2008)

Zaukrie said:


> Unlike some in this thread, I'm glad WotC is adjusting things and fixing them as they go. Nothing is perfect out of the box, and I'm glad they are learning and improving the system as they go.



I'm very glad they're doing this, too.  I just hope they decide to go back at some point and update old at wills.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Zaukrie said:


> Unlike some in this thread, I'm glad WotC is adjusting things and fixing them as they go. Nothing is perfect out of the box, and I'm glad they are learning and improving the system as they go.



Nothing is perfect out-of-the-box, but the stuff folks expected WotC to get right out-of-the-box is far short of perfection (*cough*Careful Strike*cough*). But that's water under the bridge. 

I'm glad to see them willing to fine-tune as they go, but we haven't actually seen how they're going to fix things that require a patch, like Wizards. Personally, I'd be fine with PHB2 featuring revised powers.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> Granted, we don't have a martial controller, but other than that, I don't see where you're going with that. There are plenty of ways to hit multiple targets with martial powers, and aside from the wizard's big AoE's, they're about as good as anyone else's powers. Certainly Sweeping Strike and Dire Wolverine Strike see plenty of use in the games I play.



I'm not saying there are _zero_ ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks.  I'm saying there are _fewer_ ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks.  Yes, sweeping strike is certainly one exception, and Rangers get to attack two enemies every single round.  OTOH, the Wizard has a lot more Blasts and Bursts in his arsenal, including several At-Wills.  Thus, they will get a lot more mileage out of +1 damage per enemy hit than weapon-based classes would.



> And heck, the wizard's big AoE's have a nasty tendency to target "all creatures" rather than all "all enemies", which kind of handicaps the utility of having a big AoE in the first place.



I'm just arguing about the damage bonus, not about how much better All Enemies is.

-O


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I'm not saying there are _zero_ ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks.  I'm saying there are _fewer_ ways to hit multiple targets with [W] attacks.



I know well what you're saying, and I'm saying that the difference isn't really that great. Take the wizard out of the equation, and what are we comparing really? The warlock to everyone else in the PHB?



> I'm just arguing about the damage bonus, not about how much better All Enemies is.



Well, they're not unrelated; opportunities to spread around that +1 amongst multiple targets are reduced by the likelyhood of hitting allies. I got a paargon wizard in my campaign who sits on his fireball a lot more than he'd like.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> I know well what you're saying, and I'm saying that the difference isn't really that great. Take the wizard out of the equation, and what are we comparing really? The warlock to everyone else in the PHB?



Why are you taking the Wizard out of the equation?  He's the best character for most of those feats!

If you take the Wizard out of consideration for the Burning Blizzard, et. al feats, you'd need to take the Fighter and Ranger out of consideration for Superior Weapon feats.



> Well, they're not unrelated; opportunities to spread around that +1 amongst multiple targets are reduced by the likelyhood of hitting allies. I got a paargon wizard in my campaign who sits on his fireball a lot more than he'd like.



That's an issue with the wizard AoEs in general.  It doesn't make a bit of difference for these feats.  I doubt your main concern when an ally happens to be in your burst will be +1 damage from a feat.  OTOH, if you can catch 8 enemies in it, it's +8 damage total, and that's not negligible.

-O


----------



## andarilhor (Dec 16, 2008)

Some thoughts about the invoker:

I agree with many here as the class lacks flavor, and hope thats is just a preview, not the entire class.

I believe the summoning keyword makes a creature with stats based on the level of the invoker or the level of the summoning power.

It´s possible the ritual Hand of Fate, is some kind of invoker-only summoning ritual. Without his description, I think it´s hard to know the class a whole, the same way it´s difficult to evaluate the bard preview without at least one bard ritual.

My 2 cents...


----------



## 1of3 (Dec 16, 2008)

Zsig said:


> So, I'm not sure I got how Covenant of Wrath's power thing works:
> 
> Do you get +1 to damage for each enemy caught with the power (ie, 3 enemies = +3 damage to each)?
> 
> Or do you simply get +1 to damage to each enemy caught up with the power?





It's the first one.

You generally make a single damage roll with  and , so the question could occur for  or . But different effects for different attacks would be awkward.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Why are you taking the Wizard out of the equation?  He's the best character for most of those feats!



Aha. Right there. Hold your brain still a second before re-engaging the bickering imperative, because you've got it right on the money.  That's what you should have said initially. "A +1 damage feat is a little more useful to the wizard than other classes because he can hit more targets than other classes". That's true, and would have obviated the entire threadjack. Saying that the damage boost from feats that provide a +1 will get used against more targets than a superior weapon feat, OTOH, lacks qualification. It won't, for instance, apply equally to both a wizard and a warlock. 



> That's an issue with the wizard AoEs in general.  It doesn't make a bit of difference for these feats.  I doubt your main concern when an ally happens to be in your burst will be +1 damage from a feat.  OTOH, if you can catch 8 enemies in it, it's +8 damage total, and that's not negligible.



OK, you win. At this point I must regretfully abandon appeals to reason. You've exhausted my ability to reiterate a not-too-difficult correlation between mitigating friendly fire while maximizing the number of enemies affected.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

andarilhor said:


> Some thoughts about the invoker:
> 
> I agree with many here as the class lacks flavor, and hope thats is just a preview, not the entire class.
> 
> ...



Hand of Fate is a ritual out of the PHB. It's the 4e version of _augury_, IIRC. It's actually quite nifty that they can use it for free once per day.

The invoker is a little bland, I agree. If they would have backed off of the monotheistic angle altogether, it would have felt more distinct. Maybe use the ecumenical angle to portray invokers as the guys who work to control or rebuke demons, angels, and other extraplanar interlopers on our plane.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm surprised many folks in this thread expressed surprise that the invoker gets chainmail. It seems to be a staple of class design that if you don't have Dex or Int as your numero uno stat, you're likely to get medium armor. The couple of exceptions that spring to mind--warlock and swordmage--use Int as a secondary stat, and then get some defense boost as a patch.



Don't forget Druids, they don't get Chain, but they can choose to use their Con mod for their AC...
Probably more expectations than anything. I personally was expecting (well... more hoping, I suppose) the Invoker to be a 4e version of the Archivist. The notion of what a controller is (and with only the wizard to compare to) sort of made me expect cloth armor only as well. 

Still, I can just replace the heavy armor with the ability to use Wis instead of Dex/Int if wearing cloth armor... 



Felon said:


> Hand of Fate is a ritual out of the PHB. It's the 4e version of _augury_, IIRC. It's actually quite nifty that they can use it for free once per day.



They also can use it 3 levels earlier than anyone else too 

I consider it their replacement for the wizard's cantrips, more than anything, though... too bad the druid didn't get anything that nifty


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

mearls said:


> The controller role is perhaps the one that took the longest to really develop. There's a reason why there's only one in the PH. For a long while, the role was defined by its ability to attack multiple foes. That definition never sat well, since it clearly steps on other roles and archetypes. We'd never want to prevent rangers from firing multiple arrows, or a fighter from striking everyone adjacent to him.
> 
> Over time, the controller definition morphed into the opposite of the leader. If the leader sets up his allies and encourages teamwork, the controller screws up his enemies and hinders their ability to work together. The area damage aspect of the controller does play into that (it makes bunching up a bad idea) but in practice controllers need a little more to embrace their role.



I like that interpretation of the controller role a lot better. I actually have long thought that the rogue would have made the ideal martial controller, serving in exactly the capacity you describe: the guy who harasses enemies with his little bag of dirty tricks and traps. 

While I saw the 3e rogue as being a major improvement upon the thief of preivous editions, I also noticed that a lot of the folks playing the character were the very kind of players that hated sneakyness. They liked the damage output, didn't care about anything else. And carrying the rogue over into the striker perpetuated the archetype of the rogue as a little knife-wielding nuker. In my personal version of the D&D movie, the knight shouldn't be hollering desperately for the halfling to come over and stab the dragon in its back to finish it off. My ideal rogue would be handy with a blade, but he'd also be the guy tossing out caltrops, smoke bombs, and the like. Tripping and strangling and gouging as well as alpha-striking. Maybe I'll sit down and write it up someday. It's probably better than it sounds.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> Aha. Right there. Hold your brain still a second before re-engaging the bickering imperative, because you've got it right on the money.  That's what you should have said initially. "A +1 damage feat is a little more useful to the wizard than other classes because he can hit more targets than other classes". That's true, and would have obviated the entire threadjack. Saying that the damage boost from feats that provide a +1 will get used against more targets than a superior weapon feat, OTOH, lacks qualification. It won't, for instance, apply equally to both a wizard and a warlock.



That was kind of the point behind the whole sidebar?  My point was that elemental attacks are _likelier_ to be area and close than weapon attacks, and thus more often hitting multiple targets.  Sorry I didn't make it clearer that wizards make more area attacks, but that distinction wasn't made by the person I was originally replying to.



> OK, you win. At this point I must regretfully abandon appeals to reason. You've exhausted my ability to reiterate a not-too-difficult correlation between mitigating friendly fire while maximizing the number of enemies affected.



Could you spare the condescending martyr tone?  I mean, really.

I'm arguing that a +1 to damage is quite good when you're hitting more than one enemy, since it helps against every enemy in the effect.  You seem to want to talk about how Wizard AoE effects are less useful in many circumstances, because they target both friend and foe.  _I'm not disputing that.  _I will note, however, that if you're landing a 3d6+6 fireball that one of your buddies happens to be caught in, the extra +1 from the feat is the least of your worries.

I didn't comment on these feats to get involved in a referendum on the Wizard's AoE's in general, only the feats in specific.

-O


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 16, 2008)

Keep it polite, folks.


----------



## gribble (Dec 16, 2008)

Interesting tidbit from a WotC staff blog:


			
				WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> So is the wizard underpowered compared to the invoker? Perhaps, but I believe that’s something we acknowledge and are taking steps to fix in Arcane Power. No, this isn’t power creep. I think there’s a general opinion that the wizard needs a little bump to bring it even with the other classes, and with hope, you’ll see that in the upcoming months.




I think that confirms that we'll be seeing stuff in Arcane Power which ramps up the Wizard's at-wills (surely they wouldn't ramp up the encounter/daily powers...).


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

gribble said:


> Interesting tidbit from a WotC staff blog:
> 
> 
> I think that confirms that we'll be seeing stuff in Arcane Power which ramps up the Wizard's at-wills (surely they wouldn't ramp up the encounter/daily powers...).



Yeah, it's not power creep. It's a power...bump. Bumping is very distinct from creeping. 

I kid, I kid. Let's wait and see.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

Felon said:


> [
> I'm surprised many folks in this thread expressed surprise that the invoker gets chainmail. It seems to be a staple of class design that if you don't have Dex or Int as your numero uno stat, you're likely to get medium armor. The couple of exceptions that spring to mind--warlock and swordmage--use Int as a secondary stat, and then get some defense boost as a patch.



Druid. 

Druid gets hide. And then a concession ability that boosts AC. 

Also, Swordmages have Int as their primary, not secondary.


----------



## Felon (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Druid.
> 
> Druid gets hide. And then a concession ability that boosts AC.



Don't have DDI, but it fits the formula. Rangers have hide, but they also use Dex, so no consolation prize for them. 



> Also, Swordmages have Int as their primary, not secondary.



Don't they switch-hit, like a warlock with Cha and Con? I guess I'll go look them up. So far, it looks most classes are set to have roughly similar AC's, shields notwithstanding.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

From WotC's staff blog:


> I am not a cleric-playing person. I don’t like being devoted to one deity. I’m probably afraid of commitment. That is why I like the invoker. I fought hard for a few lines in PH2. The lines that say, “More than most other divine characters, invokers offer prayers to and call on favors from the entire pantheon, for all the gods, whatever their alignments, fought together against the primordials.” With this feature, I feel the invoker’s flavor really comes out. I frequently make up flavor text on the spot, changing what my prayers appear to do. Recently, we were fighting Firbolgs, so I did a Religion check, found out they worshiped Sehanine, and then called upon that deity for aid. When crossing the ocean, I invoke the name of Melora, and suddenly my binding invocation of chains power becomes a wave of water and kelp that spills across that battlefield, slowing my enemies.



I find it interesting that the same fluff can excite one person, and turn the other off.

For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard. If an Invoker really holds no allegiance to any God, and can just ask any deity for help, then it makes me wonder who would ever endow Invokers with their power to begin with. Why would you give someone access to divine power if they're not going to pray to you? What does a God get out of giving an Invoker a piece of divinity if the Invoker goes "Thanks! Now, watch as I go give a prayer to the deity you have sworn as your nemesis!" And why would a God grant that prayer, when the Invoker owes him jack? 

The Invoker comes off as a spell begger, a religious hobo with no allegiances, mooching off the scraps of the Gods' pity. Which may make an intriguing concept for _a character_, but not, imho, a whole _class_ around. I could see it if the Invoker was asking lower-rung beings (Saints, Demon princes, Angels, Exarchs/Demi-Gods, Ancestors/Legendary Heroes), or Spirits (even though that is likely the Shaman's bag), or stealing power from esoteric sources or finding loopholes in the Divine power (the Archivist's bag), but not directly asking the _Gods_. 

It feels utterly lacking in focus, from a character perspective. There's also no real repercussions. So what, the Invoker violates 3 deity's religious tenants; who's going to punish him? No one, because he answers to no particular deity. I would expect Corellan to get fairly pissy if he found out an Invoker was asking him to do a favor by answering a prayer, and then that same Invoker turns around several seconds later and asks Lolth for the same.

And while you could take the Invoker and call him an Archivist, there is that lack of knowledge powers in there that have the same feel.


----------



## Alikar (Dec 16, 2008)

gribble said:


> Interesting tidbit from a WotC staff blog:
> 
> I think that confirms that we'll be seeing stuff in Arcane Power which ramps up the Wizard's at-wills (surely they wouldn't ramp up the encounter/daily powers...).




I wonder if they will simply print update at wills in Arcane Power. It would be easy for future printings of the PHB to contain an update, and putting it in Arcane Power shouldn't take too much room. Not to mention when they release the power cards it will be easy to simply have the update on their. I'd rather see that, then having them stay the same.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard. If an Invoker really holds no allegiance to any God, and can just ask any deity for help, then it makes me wonder who would ever endow Invokers with their power to begin with. Why would you give someone access to divine power if they're not going to pray to you? What does a God get out of giving an Invoker a piece of divinity if the Invoker goes "Thanks! Now, watch as I go give a prayer to the deity you have sworn as your nemesis!" And why would a God grant that prayer, when the Invoker owes him jack?




On the other hand, priests of many historical religions did exactly the same thing: taught reverence of the entire pantheon, not an individual deity. So they offered up prayers to whatever god best suited the situation. Even the common man did this in day-to-day life. Religion was not about worship of a particular god among many; that's just the usual D&D model.

So it isn't that hard to envision a fantasy religion with an religious figure that draws power from the existence of the deities in general rather than a specific god.

One could almost think of it more like a warlock's pact, but with the whole pantheon rather than an individual patron. Such pacts where created when the gods fought the Primordials, and they are still required to honor the pact.


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> From WotC's staff blog:
> I find it interesting that the same fluff can excite one person, and turn the other off.
> 
> For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard. If an Invoker really holds no allegiance to any God, and can just ask any deity for help, then it makes me wonder who would ever endow Invokers with their power to begin with. Why would you give someone access to divine power if they're not going to pray to you? What does a God get out of giving an Invoker a piece of divinity if the Invoker goes "Thanks! Now, watch as I go give a prayer to the deity you have sworn as your nemesis!" And why would a God grant that prayer, when the Invoker owes him jack?




Watch Cleric work.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> On the other hand, priests of many historical religions did exactly the same thing: taught reverence of the entire pantheon, not an individual deity. So they offered up prayers to whatever god best suited the situation. Even the common man did this in day-to-day life. Religion was not about worship of a particular god among many; that's just the usual D&D model.



In many pantheons though, the deity roster is rather small. Norse, Egyptian, etc; you had maybe what, 8-10 gods? 

In D&D, you can have a _metric buttload_. 

Worshiping a small pantheon, I can understand. Eberron does this with the Soverign Host (a pantheon of 6 deities). But not a smorgusboard of 'any god that wants to step up'. Especially when you have the mortal enemy situation (see: Corellan and Lolth).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> From WotC's staff blog:
> I find it interesting that the same fluff can excite one person, and turn the other off.
> 
> For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard. If an Invoker really holds no allegiance to any God, and can just ask any deity for help, then it makes me wonder who would ever endow Invokers with their power to begin with. Why would you give someone access to divine power if they're not going to pray to you? What does a God get out of giving an Invoker a piece of divinity if the Invoker goes "Thanks! Now, watch as I go give a prayer to the deity you have sworn as your nemesis!" And why would a God grant that prayer, when the Invoker owes him jack?
> ...



Honestly, considering that the default assumption of D&D is that religion is polytheistic, I find your complaints a little strange...

The default assumption that a cleric of a polytheistic religion would be entirely devoted to one god, that the churches of different gods within the same pantheon would be different organizations, and many other such things of traditional D&D are the oddities. What you describe, a person who offers prayers to the god that is most important and relevant to him at the moment, is what would be considered to be a normal polytheistic priest. It is not like the Invoker is Christian one minute and Zoroastrian the next. Instead, he is offering prayers to Odin one minute and Thor the next. Nothing really odd about that. Things like different religious tenants and such probably would never come into it.

Anyways, I really like the fluff of the Invoker, at least as I am aware of it. It gives the vibe of the holy man who lives outside of the established order, who has received divine revelation and goes forth to directly serve the will of the gods, rather than the ideals of mortal clergy. It is the kind of figure who may find himself at odds with the doctrine of his religion, which he may consider corrupt or tainted by ideals other than those of the gods, and thus would try to change said doctrine.

An Eberron Invoker of the Silver Flame would be a _lot_ of fun to play...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 16, 2008)

I imagine though generally a Invoker would while respecting the whole pantheon would probably only work with/gain power from a select number. So lets say... 

A Invoker who is nature-oriented he would seek out the gods from across the pantheon that deal with nature (which would actually be sorta neat, for peaceful circumstances one god is worshipped for war another, etc).


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> The default assumption that a cleric of a polytheistic religion would be entirely devoted to one god, that the churches of different gods within the same pantheon would be different organizations, and many other such things of traditional D&D are the oddities. What you describe, a person who offers prayers to the god that is most important and relevant to him at the moment, is what would be considered to be a normal polytheistic priest. It is not like the Invoker is Christian one minute and Zoroastrian the next. Instead, he is offering prayers to Odin one minute and Thor the next. Nothing really odd about that. Things like different religious tenants and such probably would never come into it.



But to use your example, the Invoker is praying to Odin one minute, and Bast the next, then Zeus the third, because D&D has "The Elven Pantheon, the Orc pantheon, the Dwarf pantheon..." In 4e, you have a shorter list of gods, but still, you're going to have 'that God from the other continent that the Orcs and savage humanoids pray to'.

And in most of your pantheons, you didn't have Mwahaha Evil deities. Zehir, Lolth, Vecna, and Asmodeus. If you consider a Pantheon a living, breathing thing, then I don't think the "Good"-ish deities would let the bad guys into their Pantheon clubhouse.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> In many pantheons though, the deity roster is rather small. Norse, Egyptian, etc; you had maybe what, 8-10 gods?
> 
> In D&D, you can have a _metric buttload_.
> 
> Worshiping a small pantheon, I can understand. Eberron does this with the Soverign Host (a pantheon of 6 deities). But not a smorgusboard of 'any god that wants to step up'. Especially when you have the mortal enemy situation (see: Corellan and Lolth).



Real world religions have 8-10 gods? Are you kidding? A real world polytheistic religion like Norse myth, Greek myth, Shinto, or Hinduism can have _hundreds or thousands_ of gods, and that is just counting those that are global to the religion. The number of minor local gods and such can easily push that number into ridiculous levels.

Actually, I am willing to bet that there are more canonized saints in various Christian sects than there are D&D gods (for every setting combined), and they each have their own names, crafts or towns they are patrons of, their own holidays, etc. And that is for a _monotheistic_ religion.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> Real world religions have 8-10 gods? Are you kidding? A real world polytheistic religion like Norse myth, Greek myth



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Norse having that many Gods. 

Also, the business of Gods is a muddled mess. Take Egyptians; Bast was a War god in one African region, before it got taken over or adapted by another region, and the god gets changed because they all ready have a War god or something, so you have a lot of recycling, rebranding, and the same "Idea" gets reinvented. This can lead to an inflation of the number of Gods. 



> Shinto, or Hinduism can have _hundreds or thousands_ of gods, and that is just counting those that are global to the religion. The number of minor local gods and such can easily push that number into ridiculous levels.



 I wouldn't count these. Shinto and "Lminor local gods" is encrouching more on what I would consider Animism/spirits, which is the Shaman's bag. When you have "The god of the local river and the god of that forest next door", that's not the traditional cleric thing, that's druid/shaman territory, at leaset in D&D terms. 

 Also, Hinduism is a real muddled mess. Because many of the Gods are just avatars/manifestations of the three chief gods (and, depending on who you talk to, some Hindus think that two of the three gods are just aspects of the other!).



> Actually, I am willing to bet that there are more canonized saints in various Christian sects than there are D&D gods (for every setting combined), and they each have their own names, crafts or towns they are patrons of, their own holidays, etc. And that is for a _monotheistic_ religion.



Again, I mentioned saints, angels, and a host of minor things working with an Invoker, but I do not think that _fits_ with specific, unrelated Gods.


----------



## 1of3 (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> In many pantheons though, the deity roster is rather small. Norse, Egyptian, etc; you had maybe what, 8-10 gods?




That's just plain wrong.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> But to use your example, the Invoker is praying to Odin one minute, and Bast the next, then Zeus the third, because D&D has "The Elven Pantheon, the Orc pantheon, the Dwarf pantheon..." In 4e, you have a shorter list of gods, but still, you're going to have 'that God from the other continent that the Orcs and savage humanoids pray to'.
> 
> And in most of your pantheons, you didn't have Mwahaha Evil deities. Zehir, Lolth, Vecna, and Asmodeus. If you consider a Pantheon a living, breathing thing, then I don't think the "Good"-ish deities would let the bad guys into their Pantheon clubhouse.



Well, the fact that 4E does explicitly do away with racial pantheons hurts your claim... In 4E, Moradin is just as much the patron of human blacksmiths as he is the god of the dwarves.

Besides, in real world old-school polytheistic religion, people didn't have a problem with praying to Bast one minute and Zeus the next. In his _Histories_, Herodotus wrote at length about the similarities between his native Greek/Roman religion and Egyptian religion, and considered the Egyptian gods to merely be the Greek gods by another name. And then there are the matters of Isis being accepted as-is into Roman worship, and the Buddha's acceptance into Hinduism as one of the reincarnations of Vishnu... Ever more extreme than that is the religious syncretism that pretty much defines East Asian religion, where you find Shinto gods in Buddhist temples and Taoism, Confusionism, Buddhism, and generic animism blend together seamlessly.

Edit: Almost forgot to address the evil thing... Well, it is a bit problematic for there to be pure evil gods (I never quite liked that in D&D, honestly), but it has some precedent with the worship of gods like Loki, Saturn, etc. It can just be as easily explained as the Invoker trying to placate or ward off the influence of the evil gods anyways. Besides, the gods of 4E do have a common enemy and some common goals, regardless of individual differences (which is more than could be said of Loki and Saturn at some points).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 16, 2008)

1of3 said:


> That's just plain wrong.



Thank you for making that point.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

1of3 said:


> plain



This is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Looking at the link, the entry offers:



Regional pantheons during the Old Kingdom
Later regional pantheons
 List of deities of Ancient Egypt
See? So you have different regional pantheons. So you have the Invoker praying to 1 god in one regional pantheon, and then to another god in another regional pantheon, instead of staying in the pantheon! 

And more to the point of "Large list of gods in a pantheon", you have different lists for different _periods of time_. So yes, the number gets inflated.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Dec 16, 2008)

I just realized that since Divine is the power source of the god's servants, isn't it very possible that the Elemental power source will be for the servants of the primordials. It would make sense in regards to why it is getting its own power source instead of being rolled into Primal or Arcane, and it would also create an interesting roleplaying dynamic between Elemental and Divine characters.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> Well, the fact that 4E does explicitly do away with racial pantheons hurts your claim...



Which is why I said "In 4e, you have a shorter list of gods, but still, you're going to have 'that God from the other continent that the Orcs and savage humanoids pray to'."

But okay. Let's crack open the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It spells out on page 80 the 'Pantheons of the World'. Five different Pantheons: The Greater Gods, the Gods, the Exarchs, the Primordials, and the Archdevils. An Invoker could pray to any of those (even the Primordials, who the gods Battled).



> Besides, in real world old-school polytheistic religion, people didn't have a problem with praying to Bast one minute and Zeus the next.



Yeah, well as a DM and a Player *I* have a problem with it. And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it. I

To your second point, I don't consider that valid. Yes, two pantheons might have a God of the Sun, but you don't have people jumping between pantheons and using the other God's name, they're using _theirs_. To put it another way, the Priests of the Soverign Host would go into a region, say "Your gods are really our gods, so you worship the Host," one of those priest of the Host isn't going to use the established Host name in a prayer one minute in the middle of a fight, and the Goblin name for that same deity in the next fight; he's just going to consistently pray to Dol Dorn.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Which is why I said "In 4e, you have a shorter list of gods, but still, you're going to have 'that God from the other continent that the Orcs and savage humanoids pray to'."



And which god is that? Based on how 4E has been handled so far, that "god some savage orcs pray to" is likely to be a different name for an existing god. If they are good/unaligned orcs (not possible by RAW, but whatever), they might be worshipping Kord or Melora by another name. If they are bad orcs, they might be worshipping Asmodeus by a different name. No reason whatsoever that it is an entirely different pantheon, or that it is a totally irreconcilable one (considering how flexible most polytheistic religions tend to be).



> But okay. Let's crack open the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It spells out on page 80 the 'Pantheons of the World'. Five different Pantheons: The Greater Gods, the Gods, the Exarchs, the Primordials, and the Archdevils. An Invoker could pray to any of those (even the Primordials, who the gods Battled).



Sorry, I don't have that book, so I can't really comment. It doesn't seem to address your original concern, though, since all gods are lumped together in that structure.



> Yeah, well as a DM and a Player *I* have a problem with it. And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it. I
> 
> To yoru second point, I don't consider that valid. Yes, two pantheons might have a God of the Sun, but you don't have people jumping between pantheons and using the other God's name, they're using _one_.



You are a bit incoherent here... I don't even see how what you are saying is relevant to either of our points.

At this point, all I can say is that if you want to ignore the way things have actually been perceived in real polytheistic religions and do your own thing for your own D&D game, that is fine, but that is a far cry from saying that the concept of the Invoker is inherently absurd. It may be absurd based on your own preferences and historically-inaccurate interpretations, but that does not mean it will be the same for the rest of us.


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Yeah, well as a DM and a Player *I* have a problem with it. And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it. I




Sounds like a personal problem. Go ahead and change it to suit your taste in your game.

In the real world, the Romans had no difficulty adopting the Greek gods and identifying many of those deities as being the same entities as their own gods. It was very common in polytheistic societies for different people to share gods as part of larger cultural exchanges. Isis  at one point had more temples in the city of Rome than did Jupiter! 

Caesar identified the Gallic gods as being essentially the same as the gods of Rome. There are scores of examples.

From a polytheistic point of view, there is always room for more gods, and there is no reason not to worship as many as you want.

Again, if you don't like it working that way in Dungeons and Dragons, go ahead and change it. But your distaste does not make your position instrinsically right, or the polytheistic assumptions of 4th edition fundamentally wrong.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 16, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it.




Where do you derive this interpretation from? The PHB is pretty clear on this issue, and seems to contradict your assertion that the gods have a problem with it.



> *Most people revere more than one deity, praying to different gods at different times.* Commoners in a small town might visit a temple that has three altars, where they pray to Bahamut for protection, Pelor for fertile crops, and Moradin to aid their skill at crafting. Clerics and paladins more often serve a single deity, championing that god’s particular cause in the world.




Clerics and paladins are essentially fanatics, while the rest of society acts far more normally. And it makes sense. Even if I consider Gruumsh to be a supreme god over others, why wouldn't I pray to a goddess of life and childbirth to ask that my wife produce healthy kids? The god of slaughter isn't really the one to be asking for those things.

As people have pointed out, it's no different than real world pantheons have been for a long time. If you wanted your son, the soldier, to return from war, you prayed to Mars. If you wanted to gain greater wealth, you sacrificed to Pluto. D&D has always been weird in its application of monotheistic values (worship of a single god) to a supposedly polytheistic pantheon.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2008)

> Sounds like a personal problem. Go ahead and change it to suit your taste in your game.



No, it sounds like an _opinion_, and yes, that's the plan. 



> And which god is that?



Any other god that pops up! 



> No reason whatsoever that it is an entirely different pantheon, or that it is a totally irreconcilable one (considering how flexible most polytheistic religions tend to be).



No reason that it _isn't_ an entirely different pantheon, either. The core rules is intentionally brief on Gods. In fact, the Gods have little influence on the setting besides 'well, there are Gods, and they fought the primordials'. 



> It doesn't seem to address your original concern, though, since all gods are lumped together in that structure.



But it _does_ because an Invoker could just go to all the pantheons, instead of staying under _one_. The pantheon issue doesn't matter for the issues that I have pointed out. 



> but that is a far cry from saying that the concept of the Invoker is inherently absurd. It may be absurd based on your own preferences and historically-inaccurate interpretations, but that does not mean it will be the same for the rest of us.



Thanks for the condescention and insult there. I didn't say that the Invoker is absurd. I said that _I_ dislike it because _this_ is the impression that _I_ get. In fact, my comment was:


> For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard.



I never stated fact: Invoker is absurd. I even said, in the initial post, that:


> I find it interesting that the same fluff can excite one person, and turn the other off.



So even before you felt the need to comment, I was all ready acknowledging that some feel differently about something, based on opinion and taste.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 16, 2008)

I agree with Rechan in that the polytheism exhibited in the staff blog fluff is not how polytheism has been traditionally portrayed in D&D.  In D&D, it's always been "this is the god you serve, now serve them."  I also don't feel that a character who "prays" to Bahamut one moment then "prays" to Tiamat the next is very compelling, but, meh, it's not my character I guess.

But you're talking to someone who doesn't require divine characters to have the same alignment as the deity they serve.   So I guess all divine characters are like invokers IMC.

IIRC there's supposed to be a Dragon article in the next couple of months that talks about how there might be evil worshippers of good gods, or non-evil worshippers of evil gods.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 17, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I also don't feel that a character who "prays" to Bahamut one moment then "prays" to Tiamat the next is very compelling, but I'm not willing to declare badwrongfun here.




I find it most compelling. You have a man, a merchant perhaps, who prays to the Platinum Dragon to ask for protection over his servants and possessions... and then he turns and prays to the Chromatic Dragon Queen to ask for wealth beyond avarice, as she is the goddess of greed... and then turns and offers sacrifices to Bane to ask for the war between the elves and the humans of the borderlands to continue, as this merchant sells weapons and profits from the continued conflict.

It portrays a far more nuanced and compelling person than "I love Bahamut and only Bahamut."


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Dec 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I find it most compelling.



By "compelling," I mean "a character I would want to play."  So when I said "I don't find it compelling," I'm not saying it's objectively bad or anything like that, just that I wouldn't want to play it.  I could have been more clear.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Where do you derive this interpretation from?



From the way interpret things? 

I'm not talking about Farmer Joe that in general gives proper reverence to Pelor, but occasionally will give a nice thank-you to the Nature Deity when it comes time for planting or harvest. Farmer Joe is giving respect and tribute. He is, to put it another way, writing a thank-you card or a request to that deity, submitting it to a clerk, and hoping that it eventually makes its way up to the big guy's desk and that the God will be nice enough to agree to it, or accept Joe's thank-you letter.

I'm talking about *Invoker* Bob who prays to Pelor, who Pelor gives _*direct power*. _Invoker Bob is directly calling Pelor and saying "Hey, send an air-strike down here, ASAP" or "Hey, gimmie some divine juice _right now_ to re-attach my friend's arm." 

I determine a big, fat, bold line between tribute and respect and _tangible, irrefutable, immediate magical power_. Pelor isn't faxing down any divine purification when Farmer Joe says grace - Joe can still die of food poisoning or choke to death on his food, after all. But he is faxing down that divine mojo on behalf of the Invoker. So they _are different_.

In Real World pantheons, priests aren't calling down flame from the heavens with their voice with immediate, quantifiable results. They aren't healing people with the snap of their fingers in an instant, and none can deny it. They are asking very nicely if the God might intervene in some hopeful fashion, and that maybe fate will work out in their favor. The same way that Farmer Joe is asking for a good harvest. It's not the same as "BAM, I rose you from the dead."

It flabbergasts me that the two are being considered as the same.

Given that I draw this distinction, my issue is that the Invoker can just call up any God he pleases and get divine interventione/power, and this just isn't a problem with any of the other Gods. Not only that, but he has no repercussions, he doesn't have to _give_ anything; the Cleric has to dedicate himself to that God, or that church, or whatever, but the Invoker? He is beholden to no God.


----------



## Stogoe (Dec 17, 2008)

BarkingDeathSquirrel said:


> too bad the druid didn't get anything that nifty



I hope you're joking.  An extra at-will and Wild Shape (including shift as a minor action) make them plenty good without also giving them cantrips.



Sir Brennen said:


> On the other hand, priests of many historical religions did exactly the same thing: taught reverence of the entire pantheon, not an individual deity. So they offered up prayers to whatever god best suited the situation.



Indeed.  If your divine characters aren't at least a little bit henotheistic, that seems odd to me.



Jonathan Moyer said:


> I agree with Rechan in that the polytheism exhibited in the staff blog fluff is not how polytheism has been traditionally portrayed in D&D. In D&D, it's always been "this is the god you serve, now serve them."



Well, no.  It's not how polytheism has been 'traditionally' portrayed in D&D.  But it does better reflect how polytheism was actually practiced in ancient cultures.  In my opinion, breaking polytheism in D&D out of the framework of monotheism can only be a good thing.


----------



## DandD (Dec 17, 2008)

I don't know. Isn't getting divine powers more now like being imbued with it, and (practically) irrevocable? I mean, 4th edition clerics don't get accepted by their gods, but rather, they get initiated into the church by another cleric in a ritual, for example, aren't they? At least, that's what the player's handbook says, I believe.


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard. If an Invoker really holds no allegiance to any God, and can just ask any deity for help, then it makes me wonder who would ever endow Invokers with their power to begin with. Why would you give someone access to divine power if they're not going to pray to you? What does a God get out of giving an Invoker a piece of divinity if the Invoker goes "Thanks! Now, watch as I go give a prayer to the deity you have sworn as your nemesis!" And why would a God grant that prayer, when the Invoker owes him jack?



Well, first, every description of how gods work in D&D tells us that they are neither omniscient nor omnipresent. They are not capable of evaluating every spell cast in their name on a case-by-case basis, and probably wouldn't if they could as most uses would be too minor to merit their attention. If the invoker knows how to invoke the prayer, it works without the god in question reviewing and stamping the petition. It's basically a pool of power set up for casters to attune themselves to. Since the invoker holds genuine faith in the gods why can't he attune himself?

Second, in the invoker's description it's made clear that all gods at some point in the ancient past made pacts to work together against the primordials. Think of the invoker's spell ability stemming from comprehending and invoking those pacts. 

Third, gods make it possible for mortals to invoke their power because it promulgates their power and authority on the material plane, which is something a lot of gods in D&D seem to find important. If you shut yourself off from invocation, there are other fish in the sea, and those are the ones whose power will be proclaimed. 



> The Invoker comes off as a spell begger, a religious hobo with no allegiances, mooching off the scraps of the Gods' pity. Which may make an intriguing concept for _a character_, but not, imho, a whole _class_ around. I could see it if the Invoker was asking lower-rung beings (Saints, Demon princes, Angels, Exarchs/Demi-Gods, Ancestors/Legendary Heroes), or Spirits (even though that is likely the Shaman's bag), or stealing power from esoteric sources or finding loopholes in the Divine power (the Archivist's bag), but not directly asking the _Gods_.



See, I think the invoker's description places him in a similar arena to the archivist. He's a spell-beggar if you please, or a spell-lawyer, or a spell-opportunist. Just so, a cleric or paladin could be considered spell-syccophants or spell-slaves.


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I'm talking about *Invoker* Bob who prays to Pelor, who Pelor gives _*direct power*. _Invoker Bob is directly calling Pelor and saying "Hey, send an air-strike down here, ASAP" or "Hey, gimmie some divine juice _right now_ to re-attach my friend's arm."
> 
> I determine a big, fat, bold line between tribute and respect and _tangible, irrefutable, immediate magical power_. Pelor isn't faxing down any divine purification when Farmer Joe says grace - Joe can still die of food poisoning or choke to death on his food, after all. But he is faxing down that divine mojo on behalf of the Invoker. So they _are different_.



See, there's the issue. You _do_ operate under the notion that Pelor is omniscient and omnipresent, personally reviewing every situation where his name's invoked, and stamping (or not stamping) every spell cast in his name. That's a level of direct involvement that D&D gods don't exhibit.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

DandD said:


> I don't know. Isn't getting divine powers more now like being imbued with it, and (practically) irrevocable? I mean, 4th edition clerics don't get accepted by their gods, but rather, they get initiated into the church by another cleric in a ritual, for example, aren't they? At least, that's what the player's handbook says, I believe.



That's the Fluff As Written in the PHB, yes.

But the PHB also implies that Warlocks get their power with no cost, no drawbacks, no strings attached, and they owe jack to the source of their power, even if they asked a Devil for it. Also the fluff as written allows a Wizard to just stand there, stock still, and shoot magic without saying or doing anything (and he could even do it blindfolded; LoS isn't necessary, even though Line of Effect is; he's just at a -5 to hit because he has no LoS).

So the issue being argued is a matter of Opinion over the Fluff presented.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

Felon said:


> See, there's the problem. You _do_ operate under the notion that Pelor is omniscient and omnipresent, personally reviewing every situation and stamping (or not stamping) every spell cast in his name. Which is kind of bizarre, since we'd be in the realm of every prayer being divine intervention, rather than something based on the caster's own spiritual strength and understanding.



And I have every right to that interpretation or opinion. Regardless on if this jives with any precedence, or how you run your game or how everyone else does.

The simple fact is this: I state that _I_ am turned off by the fluff for the Invoker, how it makes me feel, and why. Everyone else just seems to want to prove my feelings are badwrongfun.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And I have every right to that interpretation or opinion. Regardless on if this jives with any precedence, or how you run your game or how everyone else does.
> 
> The simple fact is that the fluff of the Invoker turns me off. Everyone else just seems to want to prove my dislike of the fluff badwrongfun.




Hrmm... I don't think anyone is purposefully trying to say you're doing anything "wrong." 

What I do think is that you're stating you dislike something, and why you dislike it. Others are pointing out that your premis for disliking it is based on incorrect assumptions (about how the gods in 4e opperate as per the book) and pointing out those incorrect assumptions. (Probably in an attempt to maybe show why they DO enjoy it.)

In the end, I don't think anyone here thinks you HAVE to like it.

I could be completely wrong though, and maybe people do think you have to like it or soemthing. I don't, but I do agree your basic assumptions are incorrect.


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And I have every right to that interpretation or opinion. Regardless on if this jives with any precedence, or how you run your game or how everyone else does.
> 
> The simple fact is that the fluff of the Invoker turns me off. Everyone else just seems to want to prove my dislike of the fluff badwrongfun.



You didn't state your issues with the invoker as just being incongruent with your homebrew campaign. Obviously, if your cosmos differs from the norm, and you don't have gods forming ancient pacts to unite against the primords, then the invoker's fluff text is a no-sale.

And it's not badwrongfun, just...bizarre if you're using divine powers as-is. For instance, let's say a Pelor cleric needs to do some healing urgently. Now, in this particular world Pelor personally evaluates every use of his power, from petty to epic. So, Pelor reviews the petition and sees that the intent is good and true, but there's some "ding" related to the caster's level, or maybe he's already healed twice in the last five minutes, so he doesn't meet the criteria and Pelor stamps his petition denied. What kind of good guy is he then? Shouldn't he just help his legions of proxies whenever and however they need it? Powers schmowers. 

"Flanders to God, Flanders to God, get off your cloud and save my Todd."
"Okely-dokely."

That's half-facetious, but really, why doesn't it pan out that way?


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

So, anyhoo, I like the invoker so far. It actually syncs up like up no other class has for a character concept I had while playing Fantasy HERO back in the eighties (right after Darkman came out). I created a character who was part of a sect known as demon-binders. This guy hated demons for possessing him and setting his home and family ablaze. His obsession led him to seek out any weapon any weapon he could to destroy demons wherever he might find them. He mortgaged his sould to the hilt, learned names and symbols of power both holy and profane. 

When I drew the guy I basically adorned in all manner of runes and symbols; a pentagram pendant hanging alongside a crucifix. And his chief implement was even a staff, replete with ram-horned demon skull on top. Never really made him work in HERO (too many points) or other systems, because he wasn't a priest per se. I will try him out as an invoker.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

I realize this is a threadjack. So for the sake of convenience, I'll put this stuff behind a cut.

[sblock]







Scribble said:


> Hrmm... I don't think anyone is purposefully trying to say you're doing anything "wrong."
> 
> What I do think is that you're stating you dislike something, and why you dislike it. Others are pointing out that your premis for disliking it is based on incorrect assumptions (about how the gods in 4e opperate as per the book) and pointing out those incorrect assumptions. (Probably in an attempt to maybe show why they DO enjoy it.)



Well, I don't see them as "assumptions" (i.e. saying how they just _are_ in RAW and in everyone's game) and more "This is a conscious choice of how I run/interpret this stuff for me." 

We all know what the PHB fluff says. We all know what the rules are. That doesn't stop us from _changing_ it.



> You didn't state your issues with the invoker as just being incongruent with your homebrew campaign.



Not just my homebrew campaign, but the way I _feel_ that things _are_, in D&D. I acknowledge that's different from you and the next guy, but it goes beyond "Setting" and just "This is how I believe it _should be_ or _is_ for _me_." Similar to how you would answer the question, "To you, what is a wizard? What makes a wizard? What is their relationship to magic?" This is just _how gods are_ to me. 



> Not badwrongfun, just...bizarre if you're using divine powers as-is. For instance, let's say a Pelor cleric needs to do some healing urgently. Now, in your world Pelor personally evaluates every petty use of his power. So, Pelor reviews the petition and sees that the intent is good and true, but there's some "ding" related to the caster's level, or maybe he's already healed twice in the last five minutes, so he doesn't meet the criteria and Pelor stamps his petition denied. What kind of good guy is he then? Shouldn't he just help his legions of proxies whenever and however they need it?



Considering that the rules say Clerics can only use healing word twice in an encounter, it's not Pelor's fault unless one decided to make it Pelor's fault: Pelor is personally penalizing the Cleric because the cleric has used Healing Word twice this encounter, and thus Pelor says "Sorry, you tapped out your Five Minute allotment of petty healing. Please wait 5 minutes and heal again."  

I didn't say that I personally consider the Gods as head bureaucrats and every single action is an executive decision (This isn't Exalted, where prayers _are_ literal paperwork and the Gods _are_ a literal giant Bureaucracy). I was trying to explain that a prayer for a blessing is different than _raw divine magic_ in an analogy. 

[sblock=Amusing Tangent]Not to get too close into people's religion, but I have seen the Catholic belief system in Saints explained like this: imagine Heaven as a big city. The Saints are in charge of various departments. Take Saint Jude for instance, who is the Patron of Hospitals and Desperate Situations, and they handle those related issues. When you pray to a Saint, the saint receives the prayer, and then he's supposed to take it to God, and this has some significance because the Saint is jockying for you. So if your kid is in the Hospital, you pray to Saint Jude, and Jude takes it to God, lobbying for you.[/sblock]
But the way I see Fluff As Written on Gods is also silly. So Pelor is this good guy, and he allows a cleric to bless another cleric, endowing Pelor's power into this other cleric, and then that cleric can go off and murder babies with Pelor's divine Magic, and Pelor isn't supposed to know about it or have any say about it? If Pelor can't receive prayers from farmers praying for safety from undead roaming the countryside, or doesn' tknow, then how is he supposed to ever be able to send help to those farmers seeking Aid? 

In my interpretation, worship and prayer is power. Gods gain power from having worshipers; the more worshipers giving prayers or tribute, the more power they get. It's literal divine energy. A prayer isn't so much a note, as it is a chunk of energy with a context attached that filters up. Even Farmer Joe asking Pelor for a sunny day is power, because Farmer Joe _wants_ it to happen and believes Pelor can do it. That's power.

I forget which FR novel it is, but it was said that Elminster knew when someone spoke his name, and he could hear what they said when they did it. I think this method is reasonable when it comes to Gods: They know when someone speaks their name. Further, they know the context of when someone invokes their name, and they know if some divine power of the God is being used in their name. To get around this knowledge takes some serious mojo or preparation (In the TV show "Reaper", the devil can hear anything, unless you are inside a circler structure at the time, because the Devil has no corner for his influence to enter.)

So a Cleric has the Divine Power in them, and it is fed from above (much like electricity in your house is piped in, ready for when you flick the switch). The Cleric doesn't need to get permission to use anything, _but_, the God knows when the Cleric uses that power, and why. So if the Cleric of Pelor is using the power inside of him to kill babies, then Pelor knows because those prayers are in his name.[/sblock]


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> In my interpretation, worship and prayer is power. Gods gain power from having worshipers; the more worshipers giving prayers or tribute, the more power they get. It's literal divine energy. A prayer isn't so much a note, as it is a chunk of energy with a context attached that filters up.



So why then, does the fluff behind an Invoker not work for you? You said it was because the Invoker could just use a gods power and not give anything back. If every power an Invoker uses is just a quick prayer to the appropriate god, why would they turn down that prayer/energy just because the Invoker wasn't a dedicated follower? 

If anything, it seems to me that the Invoker fluff fits your interpretation pretty well...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

[sblock]







gribble said:


> So why then, does the fluff behind an Invoker not work for you? You said it was because the Invoker could just use a gods power and not give anything back. If every power an Invoker uses is just a quick prayer to the appropriate god, why would they turn down that prayer/energy just because the Invoker wasn't a dedicated follower?
> 
> If anything, it seems to me that the Invoker fluff fits your interpretation pretty well...



Because of this:



> So a Cleric has the Divine Power in them, and it is fed from above (much like electricity in your house is piped in, ready for when you flick the switch). The Cleric doesn't need to get permission to use anything, _but_, the God knows when the Cleric uses that power, and why. So if the Cleric of Pelor is using the power inside of him to kill babies, then Pelor knows because those prayers are in his name.



And this:


> Pelor isn't faxing down any divine purification when Farmer Joe says grace - Joe can still die of food poisoning or choke to death on his food, after all. But he is faxing down that divine mojo on behalf of the Invoker.



The Invoker is acting like a Divine mercenary. He'll pray to anybody as long as they give him what he wants (blowing up doods and whathaveyou). The power his prayers are giving the God isn't, in my opinion, worth the juice he's asking for. The Cleric works for the God, spreads the God's word, he has an intimate relationship with that God; he _deserves_ the God's divine power fresh, on tap.

If the God is going to give the Invoker that divine mojo for a simple prayer, why don't the gods give Farmer Joe that mojo to make his crops grow, instead of asking the Gods for a good harvest? And why become a Cleric, having to deal with the Church, and following strict rules of one God, when you can just become an Invoker and ask any convenient God for your power?[/sblock]


----------



## EasyT (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> When comparing at-wills for controllers, the wizard has some issues. His at-wills focus more on damage than control. The consensus is that controllers need a little more, well, control in their at-wills than we've handed out so far.
> 
> Vanguard's lightning is what I'd see as a baseline controller at-will, with scorching burst slightly *below* baseline. That little extra bit on vanguard's lightning is precisely the kind of thing that makes controllers go - they limit/mess up the enemy's plans.




Mearls, thank you for posting. Always good to see devs participating in a discussion and giving us a peak behind the scenes.

But I have a hard time getting behind your argument. While I really like the idea that a controller is the opposite of a leader, I don't see support for the belief that Scorching Burst might be slightly below baseline. It seems widely regarded as the best Wizard at-will power, nearly reaching "must have" status and generally accepted as one of the best 1st level at-will powers in the game. And while it's good that Vanguard's Lightning provides incentive for enemies to behave in a certain way, thus playing more towards the new vision of what constitutes a controller, why must this incentive take the form of extra damage on top of the kind of damage already dealt out by another controller's at-will power?  Said another way, if Wizards were made to deal damage over an area, and it was decided that this is not what should define the role of controller, why give a new controller even more damage over an area than a Wizard? Why not instead have the new power deal less damage up-front? Or have a range of 5 instead of 10? Or basically let Scorching Burst shine over Vanguard's Lightning in any single way?

I can't help but compare to the Druid's at-will powers Chill Wind and Call of the Beast. Both are area powers that do more to control the enemy's actions than Scorching Burst, but they balance this by dealing less direct damage (or even no direct damage in the case of Call). They do a great job of meeting the new definition of controller without taking away from or overshadowing the Wizard. 

I applaud these Druid powers for this accomplishment. As a general rule of thumb, I would think and hope that a new class's powers would be created with an eye towards not completely overshadowing an existing class's powers. Every class should be able to shine in their own way. And while the idea behind the role of controller may change, it seems that this could be done without taking anything away from the Wizard. Perhaps the Wizard is the controller the specializes at doing area damage from a distance, and does this better than any other controller? Wouldn't this allow the Wizard to retain his own unique style while leaving plenty of space for other controllers to grow into the new vision for that role?


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 17, 2008)

EasyT said:


> Mearls, thank you for posting. Always good to see devs participating in a discussion and giving us a peak behind the scenes.
> 
> But I have a hard time getting behind your argument. While I really like the idea that a controller is the opposite of a leader, I don't see support for the belief that Scorching Burst might be slightly below baseline. It seems widely regarded as the best Wizard at-will power, nearly reaching "must have" status and generally accepted as one of the best 1st level at-will powers in the game. And while it's good that Vanguard's Lightning provides incentive for enemies to behave in a certain way, thus playing more towards the new vision of what constitutes a controller, why must this incentive take the form of extra damage on top of the kind of damage already dealt out by another controller's at-will power?  Said another way, if Wizards were made to deal damage over an area, and it was decided that this is not what should define the role of controller, why give a new controller even more damage over an area than a Wizard? Why not instead have the new power deal less damage up-front? Or have a range of 5 instead of 10? Or basically let Scorching Burst shine over Vanguard's Lightning in any single way?
> 
> ...




I hadn't considered this point before, but you are absolutely right. Rather than decide "Scorching Burst doesn't have a control component, so we will revise this power later", it would be much better to lower the damage or range on Vanguard's Lightning (thus giving Scorching Burst a raison d'etre) and add in a control oriented AoE or two for the Wizard in Arcane power. 

This is a much more elegant solution, as it invalidates nothing and simply adds more options.  I sure hope Mr. Mearls sees your thought and considers that option. After all, it is not too late to revise Vanguard's Lightning before the book sees print.


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> The Invoker is acting like a Divine mercenary. He'll pray to anybody as long as they give him what he wants (blowing up doods and whathaveyou). The power his prayers are giving the God isn't, in my opinion, worth the juice he's asking for. The Cleric works for the God, spreads the God's word, he has an intimate relationship with that God; he _deserves_ the God's divine power fresh, on tap.



You see, I just don't see that in the fluff that has been presented. Seems to me there are 2 types of Invoker, one that is devoted to a single god, and one that is more devoted to a pantheon or group of gods.

In either case I can't see anything that says the Invoker is less devoted than a Cleric, it's just that they have a different kind of devotion. As described, an Invoker's connection with their god(s) is a very primal, personal thing, whereas a Cleric's is much more dogmatic, and seen through the lens of an organised mortal religion. I see a Cleric learning specific rituals to perform and offerings/bargains to make to tap into a gods power, whereas an Invoker just intuitively knows how to tap into the same power. But I certainly don't see anything that says an Invoker is less devoted or deserving or that paints a picture of a "divine mercenary"...

Heck, it even says in the PHB that a Cleric can worship a pantheon as well! To put it in a human perspective, let's imagine a guy with a group of friends. One of them is always good to talk to when he has a problem. Another is really good for going out drinking with and having a fun time. A third is a fellow sports fanatic who enjoys watching sports with him. Can you honestly claim that he must be more devoted to one of these friends than the others? No, even though he gives (and receives) different things to/from each one, he can still be equally devoted to them all. 

Actually, I like that analogy - it even describes an Invoker who worships a good and and evil god (such as Bahumat/Tiamat). The same guy could have two friends who dislike each other, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get on with them both. Of course, the three of them wouldn't likely hang out together, but he could still be equally devoted to them both and hang out with them individually.

And, in fact, contrasting the two class descriptions I'd say if anything the Cleric reads as the less devoted / more mercenary class...

Well, that's the way I see it anyway.


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Dionysos said:


> This is a much more elegant solution, as it invalidates nothing and simply adds more options.  I sure hope Mr. Mearls sees your thought and considers that option. After all, it is not too late to revise Vanguard's Lightning before the book sees print.



I agree, this would have been a much better approach. Unfortunately, I think it probably *is* too late to revise the power - the reason why the article was published as a _preview _and not a _playtest_.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

If you guys think this is a better solution, I suggest emailing that feedback to dndinsider@wizards.com, so that they can see the suggestion much faster than combing through all this arguing.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

[sblock]







gribble said:


> You see, I just don't see that in the fluff that has been presented. Seems to me there are 2 types of Invoker, one that is devoted to a single god, and one that is more devoted to a pantheon or group of gods.



I definitely get the Divine Mercenary approach from the quote I quoted from the staff blog from the guy who insisted his fluff be put in the PHB2. He didn't seem to have any primal affection for any deity.

Given the way he plays his character, and that he was the one pushing for that line of text, it comes off as that's his vision of how they are.
[/sblock]


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And I have every right to that interpretation or opinion. Regardless on if this jives with any precedence, or how you run your game or how everyone else does.
> 
> The simple fact is this: I state that _I_ am turned off by the fluff for the Invoker, how it makes me feel, and why. Everyone else just seems to want to prove my feelings are badwrongfun.



I never once stated that your views are "badwrongfun", or anything of the sort. Right at the very beginning, I just said that I disagree with you and that I simply have no basis for understanding _why_ you think that the way you do. I then gave reasons why.

Go ahead and do things the way you want. Have as much fun as you want the way you want. It doesn't matter to me at all. However, don't expect me to agree with you, since I simply don't share those opinions and assumptions behind your dislike (not that I ever thought you were trying to get me to think your way).

After that point, it mostly became a matter of me defending my statement that the alternative was the historically accurate way polytheistic religions behave, while you tried to demonstrate otherwise, which I gave a rebuttal to (I have no idea how effective that was). There was also a bit of a matter of you trying to convince me that what I said didn't apply based on how Gods in D&D should and do behave, but that conversation didn't parse at all because we have totally opposing assumptions and ideas about how Gods in D&D work.

To make things more clear, I prescribe to the idea that there is a single, unified and finite pantheon of gods in a D&D campaign, and each individual culture simply worships these same gods, just under different names and in different ways. One group may hold Bahamut as the highest god and act almost totally monotheistic, and another group may list him as one of the many vassal gods serving Pelor, but either way they are worshipping the same Bahamut. What is more, the people of the world pray to the gods in the hope of earning the gods' favor, and this prayer is not inherently beneficial to the gods (other than appealing to their egos, I guess). The Gods possess a power in of themselves, and do not depend on the worship of mortals to sustain their divine might. A cleric, paladin, or invoker is given power because that individual _having power_ and using it in a certain way furthers the goals of one or more gods, and such individuals are given power solely on their own suitability in the eyes of the gods, not because they prayed hard enough.

Under that context, Invokers work perfectly well, and a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense to me. I can understand that you might have a problem if you use different assumptions, but I don't really share those assumptions. I still disagree with you, but now at least I understand why you disagree with me (though I wish you didn't try to argue that historical religions didn't work the way they actually do).


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2008)

I absolutely _love_ the Invoker flavor.  While I've always liked the thought of clerics who worship a pantheon rather than a single god, this has a different tone even from that.  It fits in with the gods-vs-primordials back-story, which I'm starting to like more and more.

I'm hoping they get more Summons.  I've been waiting for a good Summoner class.

-O


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I definitely get the Divine Mercenary approach from the quote I quoted from the staff blog from the guy who insisted his fluff be put in the PHB2.



Yep, just went back and re-read it, and I definitely agree with you there. I take it you haven't read the full Invoker preview yet then? All I'll say is that my reading of it was what I described above and was very different from the WotC guys. I definitely didn't get any "lack of commitment/devotion" vibe from the class description, and re-reading it I'm not even sure that what he wrote in his blog is really supported by the fluff!

Here are a few sentences from the Invoker fluff:

Through rites of investiture, avengers, clerics, and paladins gain the ability to manifest echoes of that power. You, however, channel your god's power directly
You are among the gods' most trusted servants, bound to a covenant in which you swore to use divine power with great care

Does that sound like a divine mercenary to you?

I'm fairly certain that if you're ok with the Cleric fluff from the PHB in your cosmology then you'll be ok with the Invoker fluff as well.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

[sblock]







gribble said:


> Yep, just went back and re-read it, and I definitely agree with you there. I take it you haven't read the full Invoker preview yet then?



I did, before I read the designer's comments. My first post (back on page 1) I said:


> I dislike the fluff about Invokers being all old school, and all about Primordials vs. Gods; that's the first fluff I'd squash in my games. As I read though, I notice that the class has a warlock vibe to it, how close the individual is with the god. I could see this as the Divine version of the warlock, although I'm not sure how best to represent Invokers of the Fey, etc. It's easy for me to see specific ArchAngels giving Invokers power.



The main thing I disliked was how they're all 'old school' and the emphasis was on the Primordials battle. When I first read it, I was instead envisioning Invokers as prophets, operating outside the church, the ones who live alone on a hill and then come and nail a letter to the church door, or stomp up to a Pharaoh with divine justice in their eyes.  



> I'm fairly certain that if you're ok with the Cleric fluff from the PHB in your cosmology then you'll be ok with the Invoker fluff as well.



I actually don't like the PHB fluff for clerics either. As I said earlier, I dislike the 'Clerics don't really have any connection with their god; their powers are endowed by a little ritual another cleric grants, and then the cleric's power can't be revoked or has no reprecussions from their god'. For instance, a cleric of Pelor using his prayers to kill babies, and Pelor getting no real say in that. 

I personally don't see clerics the way you do, mired in Church Bureaucracy and seeing it all as just ritual rather than a personal diefic connection. I personally find it difficult to be a getting divine power from a god if you don't have a personal connection to them. (This is different from archivists, mind you).

But I still like my preference for Invokers being more concerned with lower rung groups; Angelic Choirs, Exarchs/Demi-Gods/Saints, Arch Devils/Demon Princes, etc. Or possibly the Archivist's method of stealing power (although, they suck as Archivists; no dark knowledge powers).



TwinBahamut said:


> I never once stated that your views are "badwrongfun", or anything of the sort.



I know you didn't state it. But that was the impression I was getting from you and a few others. Sorry I accused you of it. Words lack Tone, and that's pretty significant.



> However, don't expect me to agree with you, since I simply don't share those opinions and assumptions behind your dislike (not that I ever thought you were trying to get me to think your way).



Thanks for that parenthesis bit. I do appreciate it.



> To make things more clear, I prescribe to the idea that there is a single, unified and finite pantheon of gods in a D&D campaign, and each individual culture simply worships these same gods, just under different names and in different ways.



My one problem with this is that what defines a "pantheon"? Does _every_ god exist in the pantheon?

There are a _lot_ of things that the existing gods in The Pantheon don't have dominion over, that doesn't fit in their portfolio. So that means that either no one is responsible for this thing, a God in the pantheon control it and no one acknowledges it, or something else is responsible for it.

If Something Else is responsible for it, then you have to define it. Either as a God, or something Else, and you need to figure out what that Else is.

Suddenly, you have to mark everything down and make a bunch of more Gods. Or you need to give Pelor dominion over doors and cook fires, or wine, or any other minor things that people would want to pray about, so that everything under the sun has some reperesentation by the Gods.

And then you have things like Demi-Gods, Demon Princes/Arch Angels/Archfey, Primoridals, Ancestors, Spirits... do _they_ fit in the pantheon?

Or, what if Culture A thinks that God 1 is responsible for Portfolio X, but Culture B and C have God 1 (by another name) who is not responsible for X (they don't even HAVE X.) Is God 1 now responsible for X, and Culture B and C don't know it? Or is something Else responsible?

Or what happens when you have a situation where Pelor is the God of the Sun, and he's a good god. But this culture over here, they think the God of the Sun is _evil_ and he does terrible things; is Pelor really a bad guy to some people and a good guy to others? Or if it's just an Evil god being re-interpreted, then how come Pelor is letting him represent the Sun?

Now your pantheon is really freaking bloated. Sure, it may be on par with historical real world religions, but it's really not neat or tidy or easy to work with.

It comes off as a big muddled mess.[/sblock]


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I personally don't see clerics the way you do, mired in Church Bureaucracy and seeing it all as just ritual rather than a personal diefic connection. I personally find it difficult to be a getting divine power from a god if you don't have a personal connection to them.



And that's fair enough. Not everyone has to agree...


Although I wouldn't say that I see Clerics as "mired in bureaucracy" or lacking a "personal deific connection", IMC a Clerics perception of their god (and how best to serve/worship/draw on power from their god) is definitely coloured by "church-tinted glasses". While Clerics very strongly believe they have a connection to their god, it is via the rituals they are taught are the proper (and possibly only) way to maintain and draw upon that connection.

So as I see it, Invokers fit a very real niche - the Moses, Joan of Arc, Gandalf type of characters who have a very strong connection with one or more deities without also having a strong connection with a church (and hence an organised way of worshipping said deities).


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

gribble said:


> Although I wouldn't say that I see Clerics as "mired in bureaucracy" or lacking a "personal deific connection", IMC a Clerics perception of their god (and how best to serve/worship/draw on power from their god) is definitely coloured by "church-tinted glasses". While Clerics very strongly believe they have a connection to their god, it is via the rituals they are taught are the proper (and possibly only) way to maintain and draw upon that connection.



Hm. I can dig that. It's a decent point; that 'The God won't answer the prayer unless you wave your hands _this_ way. Can't offend her.'  

Actually, it reminds me of certain Chinese practices, about how very ceremonial they are. I remember seeing a documentary where a Buddhist (or was it Taoist?) priest did a dance that represented him descending into the Underworld to retrieve the soul of a departed loved one and bringing them up to Heaven. I could imagine such a thing, with the assumption that 'well, if the Cleric _doesn't_ do the ritual, then the soul won't get where it's going...' Similar to the notion that if you don't give a body a proper burial, the soul would wander the earth, or rise as an undead of some type.

But I would think it depends on the deity, too. Some are likely more about ritual than not. The Goddess of the Wilderness and Frontier may not really have many "Churches" to begin with, but wandering preachers. Same with the God of Doorways and Roads. And I can't imagine a whole lot of ritual involved in a God of War; punching the other guy in the face is the proper method of prayer.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You suck at powergaming! You'd rather take Skill Training in Bluff or what?




I know it was a joke.  But if it fit the character then yes.  Though my general preference in feats is to take feats that give me an ability, not feats that give me a small bonus to what i do.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 17, 2008)

Obryn said:


> That's an issue with the wizard AoEs in general.  It doesn't make a bit of difference for these feats.  I doubt your main concern when an ally happens to be in your burst will be +1 damage from a feat.  OTOH, if you can catch 8 enemies in it, it's +8 damage total, and that's not negligible.
> 
> -O




It is not 8 damage it is 1 damage to 8 opponents, and yes that is still negligible.  There is a big, huge, whopping difference between 8 damage and 1 damage to 8.  8 damage has a decent shot of meaning something, I think it is fairly rare for 1 point of damage to actually pan out as making a difference.  How often are foes dropped by knocking them to exactly 0?  How often are they knocked to just 1 HP, that is how often 1 HP to 8 dudes matters, like on the fist of almost never.


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> But I would think it depends on the deity, too. Some are likely more about ritual than not.



Yep, definitely. For some churches, the "ritual" may be little more than "if you don't spend at least one day in ten in the woods communing with <nature god>, she will stop answering your prayers", whereas clearly others would be a lot more rigorous.

And I see Invokers as more "Bah, humbug. I know that if I talk to <war god> and he wants to answer me he will, regardless of how I hold my sword or whether or not I've been to church services this week!".

That, I believe, is the real difference between Clerics and Invokers, and is unrelated to how devoted the individual is to their god or whether they are devoted to one god or many. It doesn't even have to be related to the battle between the Primordials and the Gods.

Invokers are also a pretty new concept in D&D (even when you consider 3.5 Favoured Souls), and I imagine they'll cause some people to reconsider a lot of the religious background of their world/campaign. I could see the followers of some gods - especially those gods not overly concerned with ritual - consisting almost exclusively of Invokers, wheres the followers of other gods would be almost exclusively Clerics.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

[sblock]One thing that I don't see explored much in settings are different sects/followings within the same Deity's church, with different approaches or avenues. One could explore this with invokers and clerics too, but just in general, I see less 'Well, we worship the same God, but we are _radically different_ in our approach!" 

Most settings generally have 'Everybody of X behaves pretty much like Y', across the board. And that's also when it comes to specific religions. But perhaps that's a little more deep than most are willing to plunge.



> I could see the followers of some gods - especially those gods not overly concerned with ritual - consisting almost exclusively of Invokers, wheres the followers of other gods would be almost exclusively Clerics.



Well hell, I can see some religions with more Warlocks than either (even if it's another power source).[/sblock]


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

Incidentally, I'm very curious about seeing the Avenger.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> But to use your example, the Invoker is praying to Odin one minute, and Bast the next, then Zeus the third, because D&D has "The Elven Pantheon, the Orc pantheon, the Dwarf pantheon..."



Not in 4e, you don't. 4e just has "the gods", which include both Moradin, Corellon, and Gruumsh in the same pantheon. They've taken care to point out that while many eladrin worship Corellon, that's mostly because Corellon's portfolio matches up pretty well with what eladrin like (arcane magic, fey, beauty). You'll find plenty of eladrin worshiping other gods as well (like Bahamut or Kord for eladrin warriors, or Ioun for eladrin scholars), and you'll find lots of non-eladrin worshipping Corellon (like mages and artists).



> And in most of your pantheons, you didn't have Mwahaha Evil deities. Zehir, Lolth, Vecna, and Asmodeus.



Loki. Hades.



Rechan said:


> But okay. Let's crack open the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It spells out on page 80 the 'Pantheons of the World'. Five different Pantheons: The Greater Gods, the Gods, the Exarchs, the Primordials, and the Archdevils.




That's, at best, three different pantheons. "Greater gods", "Gods", and "Exarchs" are just three different power levels, but they're all part of the same pantheon.

Primordials are different, and I probably wouldn't have Divine classes involved with them. That sounds like something for the Primal or Elemental power source.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

Staffan said:


> Not in 4e, you don't.



I've answered that all ready multiple times in this thread.



> Loki. Hades.



Not evil.

Hades was at best a Neutral deity. He just was in Charge of the underworld. He wasn't a cackling, bad man who was blamed for evil things that happened, no one was afraid of him, and he wasn't conspiring to hurt the other gods/go after people/etc. Hades was, at the end of the day, the guy in charge of the jail for souls. 

Loki was CN. Trickster deity. He didn't do anything overtly _evil_. 



> That's, at best, three different pantheons.



Except that the FRCS categorized them differently.


----------



## Vendark (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Loki was CN. Trickster deity. He didn't do anything overtly _evil_.




He conspired to have Baldur murdered.


----------



## Savevsdeath (Dec 17, 2008)

Vendark said:


> He conspired to have Baldur murdered.




Correction: He succeeded at having balder murdered. He also directly and indirectly committed a number of evil acts, including fighting against the gods during ragnarok, giving birth to the midgar worm and the freakin' fenris wolf, and some more stuff i cant even recall off the top of my head. He was evil. Pure, Chaotic Evil by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

Savevsdeath said:


> Correction: He succeeded at having balder murdered. He also directly and indirectly committed a number of evil acts, including fighting against the gods during ragnarok, giving birth to the midgar worm and the freakin' fenris wolf, and some more stuff i cant even recall off the top of my head. He was evil. Pure, Chaotic Evil by any stretch of the imagination.



Then, if he was Evil, I am certain the other gods wouldn't let Loki in their clubhouse and be totally kosher with giving Divine Power to a guy who was then turn around and ask Loki for some power.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Then, if he was Evil, I am certain the other gods wouldn't let Loki in their clubhouse and be totally kosher with giving Divine Power to a guy who was then turn around and ask Loki for some power.




If it served a greater purpose that only that God could see, then why not?

These are gods.  They can be as petty or as open as you want 'em to be.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 17, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> If it served a greater purpose that only that God could see, then why not?



Eh?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Then, if he was Evil, I am certain the other gods wouldn't let Loki in their clubhouse and be totally kosher with giving Divine Power to a guy who was then turn around and ask Loki for some power.



Well, as punishment for the death of Baldur, the Aesir did imprison Loki in the underworld (I think) and bind him so that the poison of a terrible snake will drip in his eyes for all of eternity, so I wouldn't say that they would "let him in the clubhouse"...

That said, if Loki decided to use his powers to support someone who was doing great deeds in the name of the rest of the gods, I don't think they would mind. Ultimately, it just means that Loki is helping the other gods indirectly. Arguably, it should be Loki who might be the most ticked off about that (unless it served him too, of course). If we are talking about an evil Invoker calling upon the aid of the good gods, though, it is a different situation (and a fairly complex one).

Also, if it helps at all, try looking at the figure of Saturn/Cronus in myth, particularly in the way he is seen as both the enemy of the gods, the bringer of a golden age to mankind (as the Roman saturn), and as a complex trickster figure who often distorts the prayers of mankind in ways they were not intended (as in "The Knight's Tale" from Chaucer's _The Canterbury Tales_). He wanders between patron to man and arguably evil tyrant of the gods in fairly complex ways.

Finally, I agree that Hades is not an example of an evil god at all. Other than the kidnapping Persephone/bringing winter to the world thing, he is pretty much the just judge of the dead. He gave a surprisingly fair deal to Orpheus (the lesson of that one was to trust the gods, not that Hades was a bad guy), and he helped fight against the Titans.


----------



## mearls (Dec 17, 2008)

EasyT said:


> As a general rule of thumb, I would think and hope that a new class's powers would be created with an eye towards not completely overshadowing an existing class's powers.




Hey man,

I don't have time for an in-depth answer, but I can at least address the basics of your concerns.

Shoring up areas of the game while keeping everything usable is a very tricky process to manage. Since I'm now a designer rather than a developer, I'm not in charge of that any more, but here's how I think we'll approach it.

Scorching burst is a power that we'll leave alone, and going forward I'd be surprised if we just created a better version. Of the at-will wizard powers that I know of that are in the pipeline, none of them are simply scorching burst with more bells and whistles.

On one hand, within a class we don't want to invalidate a perfectly serviceable power. On the other, there is a lot of design space for different styles of at-will.

I'd expect that as we do more at-wills, we'd use the PH ones as a baseline and create an obviously better one only if a power was clearly to weak.

So, I wouldn't expect us to overwrite scorching burst any time soon.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 17, 2008)

[sblock]







Rechan said:


> My one problem with this is that what defines a "pantheon"? Does _every_ god exist in the pantheon?



I think by the very definition of the word (the combination of the greek words for "all" and "gods"), I will say yes to that. Every god is part of the pantheon, or else it really isn't a _pan_theon. I mean, Greek myth makes some distinction between the Olympians (the gods of Mt. Olympus, primarily the famous ones) and the other gods, but every god would be part of the pantheon. The only place where a distinction between multiple "pantheons" is really made that I am aware of is Norse myth, with the split between the Aesir (who are worshipped) and the Vanir (who are not), but that is fairly complicated oddity in its own right (though one that has really helped my ideas for the gods in a setting with multiple inhabited planets).



> There are a _lot_ of things that the existing gods in The Pantheon don't have dominion over, that doesn't fit in their portfolio. So that means that either no one is responsible for this thing, a God in the pantheon control it and no one acknowledges it, or something else is responsible for it.
> 
> If Something Else is responsible for it, then you have to define it. Either as a God, or something Else, and you need to figure out what that Else is.
> 
> Suddenly, you have to mark everything down and make a bunch of more Gods. Or you need to give Pelor dominion over doors and cook fires, or wine, or any other minor things that people would want to pray about, so that everything under the sun has some reperesentation by the Gods.



Yeah, that is a problem. If you want the pantheon to be even reasonably complete, then you need something a _lot_ more detailed than what the PHB gives you. Yet, if you make it that complete, you get a bloated mess that is practically unplayable. I suppose the only choice I think works well is to just _pretend_ it is complete (and that there are a lot of minor gods filling the temples that you haven't named), and just work with a basic set of primary gods for playability's sake.



> And then you have things like Demi-Gods, Demon Princes/Arch Angels/Archfey, Primoridals, Ancestors, Spirits... do _they_ fit in the pantheon?



Well, this is fairly complicated...

The big problem is that things like angels, spirits, fey, demigods, saints, ancestors, and such are all pretty much just different names for the same concepts as far as the real world goes. Actually, the term "god" is almost indistinguishable from all of the above as far as real world polytheism goes. The line between spirit or demi-god and actual "gods" is pretty vague and fuzzy, after all. However, D&D doesn't really assume this is true, which leads to a bit of schizophrenia (in much the same way that the distinction between the Druid and Cleric leads to a lot of flavor schizophrenia). I suppose you could distinguish Fey as separate (being more alien than divine), and you could put possibly put Ancestors, Saints, and weaker Angels or Spirits as a tier below actual divine beings in the pantheon, but gods, demi-gods, angels, and spirits are all part of the broader pantheon.

Primordials, Demons, and Devils makes this a lot trickier, really. I would happily exclude Primordials and Demons from being in the pantheon, particularly since they are described as directly opposing the gods and fill a certain mythological niche, but I can't as easily dismiss the Devils from the pantheon thanks to that accursed Asmodeus... I wish I could, but I can't.

This is why I always use custom cosmologies whenever I really get into worldbuilding. Default cosmologies make my head hurt...



> Or, what if Culture A thinks that God 1 is responsible for Portfolio X, but Culture B and C have God 1 (by another name) who is not responsible for X (they don't even HAVE X.) Is God 1 now responsible for X, and Culture B and C don't know it? Or is something Else responsible?
> 
> Or what happens when you have a situation where Pelor is the God of the Sun, and he's a good god. But this culture over here, they think the God of the Sun is _evil_ and he does terrible things; is Pelor really a bad guy to some people and a good guy to others? Or if it's just an Evil god being re-interpreted, then how come Pelor is letting him represent the Sun?



Yeah, this would be a headache. I actually built a cosmology around a conflict between two gods, with one culture holding one up as good and the other culture holding up its rival god as good (and I am very proud of that cosmology), but I only did so by making the conflict between the gods a battle of ideals rather than morals and keeping the history and role of the gods the same for both cultures. Anything more complex than that is probably too much to bother with in a game...



> Now your pantheon is really freaking bloated. Sure, it may be on par with historical real world religions, but it's really not neat or tidy or easy to work with.
> 
> It comes off as a big muddled mess.



Yep, it would be a mess. This is why I believe that, while things in a game should not _contradict_ the important things of the real world, and should draw inspiration from the real world, direct emulation of every aspect of the real world down to the last detail is _far_ more trouble than it is worth.[/sblock]


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Hey man,
> 
> I don't have time for an in-depth answer, but I can at least address the basics of your concerns.
> 
> ...




Hi Mr. Mearls,

How do you feel about EasyT's idea to lower the damage or range of the Invoker's Lightning Vanguard power (even if only slightly) just so that Scorching Burst is not overshadowed by it completely, then just introducing more control-oriented at-wills for the Wizard in Arcane Power? It seems like a great solution to the problem, as it does not leave behind any completely obsolete powers. I would love to hear what you think of that.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> It is not 8 damage it is 1 damage to 8 opponents, and yes that is still negligible.  There is a big, huge, whopping difference between 8 damage and 1 damage to 8.  8 damage has a decent shot of meaning something, I think it is fairly rare for 1 point of damage to actually pan out as making a difference.  How often are foes dropped by knocking them to exactly 0?  How often are they knocked to just 1 HP, that is how often 1 HP to 8 dudes matters, like on the fist of almost never.



Speaking only for my campaign, I'd say it happens somewhere around once per session, or every other session.  You're artificially limiting it, though; over the course of multiple spells, those single points add up.

Basically, I think the dual-element feats are very comparable to Weapon Focus.  Yes, Weapon Focus increases damage by +1 per tier, but as I mentioned before, there are more element-based Close and Area attacks than there are Weapon-based Close and Area attacks.

-O


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Hey man,
> 
> I don't have time for an in-depth answer, but I can at least address the basics of your concerns.
> 
> ...



IMO, it seems that 4e's annual PHB strategy seems the perfect place to distribute revisions (like, say, the revisions to using stealth). If you're willing to say "hey, here's a new wizard at-will that's different from the old ones, and likely much more appetizing" you might as well be willing to say "hey, here's a new version of that old at-will that's much more appetizing". Either way, an issue's being addressed by releasing a book.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2008)

Heh. "Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" indeed.


----------



## Squizzle (Dec 17, 2008)

Savevsdeath said:


> Correction: He succeeded at having balder murdered. He also directly and indirectly committed a number of evil acts, including fighting against the gods during ragnarok, giving birth to the midgar worm and the freakin' fenris wolf, and some more stuff i cant even recall off the top of my head. He was evil. Pure, Chaotic Evil by any stretch of the imagination.




To be perfectly fair, a lot of this is Prose Edda content. Loki was a far more minor and less archvillainous figure before Sturluson (a Christian) banged the myths into a shape that more fit his religious worldview.


----------



## mearls (Dec 17, 2008)

Dionysos said:


> Hi Mr. Mearls,
> 
> How do you feel about EasyT's idea to lower the damage or range of the Invoker's Lightning Vanguard power (even if only slightly) just so that Scorching Burst is not overshadowed by it completely, then just introducing more control-oriented at-wills for the Wizard in Arcane Power? It seems like a great solution to the problem, as it does not leave behind any completely obsolete powers. I would love to hear what you think of that.




Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO. I think at that point, you really have to rely on the target to make an opportunity attack to get half-decent damage, and there are plenty of situations where an opportunity attack isn't really in play.

It also takes enough of the sting out of the attack that a target might as well make the opportunity attack and take that damage. Especially at high levels, the damage on opportunity attacks is low enough that it's hard to justify reducing the power's overall damage.

IME, on a fight by fight basis the invoker doesn't come out too far ahead of the wizard. I'd wager there are plenty of fights (at least half) where the damage output between the two powers is identical.

The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.




my half elf swordmage tells our wizard to blast him with scorching burst all the time...especialy when i am surrounded...or in a swarm...or both (bad day for him...don't ask)

in another game I use to joke that my wizard just keep locking onto our fighter with all my AOEs....


     In both cases shutting down opp atts would change my tactics...neatther blasting nor saying to blast me...


----------



## Staffan (Dec 17, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Basically, I think the dual-element feats are very comparable to Weapon Focus.  Yes, Weapon Focus increases damage by +1 per tier, but as I mentioned before, there are more element-based Close and Area attacks than there are Weapon-based Close and Area attacks.



There are three things that IMO make the dual-element feats inferior to Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.


Stat requirements. Astral Fire requires Dex/Cha, Burning Blizzard requires Int/Wis, Dark Fury requires Con/Wis, and Raging Storm requires Con/Dex. Weapon proficiency doesn't require anything.
Scope. There's very little incentive for a weapon-user to diversify his weapon skills - things like skeletons being resistant to edged weapons are pretty much gone. As such, the extra damage (or other benefit) you get from a superior weapon is going to apply to pretty much all your powers. But there is plenty of incentive for a wizard to diversify his spells - you have monsters with resistances, and different status effects will likely be linked to different damage types. So any given dual-element feat will probably only apply to, say, half your spells unless you go out of your way to only select powers that match up (in which case you're limited in another fashion).
Scaling. Sure, you have the per-tier scaling on the dual-element feats. But you don't have the per-power scaling that superior weapons have. With Tide of Iron, your damage gets upgraded from 1d8 to 1d10 when using a bastard sword instead of a longsword, but when using Brutal Strike it gets upgraded from 3d8 to 3d10. A wizard's Scorching Burst gets upgraded from 1d6 to 1d6+1 with Astral Fire, but Burning Hands only goes from 2d6 to 2d6+1.
I'm not sure what to do about the first two, but the last one could be fixed by removing the per-tier scaling and replacing it with a per-die bonus instead.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 17, 2008)

Are there ANY per die bonuses, in all of D&D?

I don't think we're going to get per die bonuses.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 17, 2008)

Staffan said:


> There are three things that IMO make the dual-element feats inferior to Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.



Sorry to cut off your reply - but I agree, 100%, that they're weaker than a Superior Weapon proficiency for increasing damage.  Then again, as far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything is.  I have a thread elsewhere wherein I mention that almost every single weapon-using PC in my game (save the Rogue) has a superior weapon.  Once AV opened up the playing field to more weapons than spiked chains & bastard swords, it became a clear choice.

I'm arguing they're similar to _Weapon Focus_ in potency, where the lack of a damage increase by tier is offset by more (power-based) opportunities to affect multiple foes.

-O


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO.



How about a more subtle change, such as making it target Fort instead of Ref? I think it's generally considered that attacks targeting Fort are "weaker" than those targeting Ref, and it also helps to reinforce the mechanical distinction between Invokers (most attacks target Fort but have extra effects) and Wizards (most attacks target Ref).


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 17, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Eh?




Aheh.  That's what I get for posting while tired.  

Basically, I was saying that a good god could have every reason to give divine aid to an Invoker who is also using another, more sinister god's help.  Gods have long-term plans that most mortals can't fathom, and the Invoker could be playing a role in many gods' schemes.


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 17, 2008)

mearls said:


> Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO. I think at that point, you really have to rely on the target to make an opportunity attack to get half-decent damage, and there are plenty of situations where an opportunity attack isn't really in play.
> 
> It also takes enough of the sting out of the attack that a target might as well make the opportunity attack and take that damage. Especially at high levels, the damage on opportunity attacks is low enough that it's hard to justify reducing the power's overall damage.
> 
> ...




I definitely see your point. Gribble's idea (just a couple posts above) to have Lightning Vanguard target Fortitude instead of Reflex is also intriguing.

All that aside, I think it is excellent that you have been addressing this fan feedback directly. Even if we end up not agreeing on the outcome, it speaks really well of your respect for the fanbase that you have taken time from your schedule to give us insight into your thinking on these matters of game balance. Thanks!


----------



## Felon (Dec 17, 2008)

gribble said:


> How about a more subtle change, such as making it target Fort instead of Ref? I think it's generally considered that attacks targeting Fort are "weaker" than those targeting Ref, and it also helps to reinforce the mechanical distinction between Invokers (most attacks target Fort but have extra effects) and Wizards (most attacks target Ref).



Hmm. I don't know how "generally-considered" that is, or how valid such a consideration is even if a lot of people believe it, but it's not a basis for balance because even if high-Fort creatures currently outnumber high-Ref creatures, that number will not be reliable over time. Indeed, if a defense discrepency was consistently the case, it probably bears rebalancing itself.

For Vanguard's Whatever, I'd consider just using a different method of damage allocation, like adding in an ability score other than Wisdom, or perhaps just use a big die for damage with no ability score mod tossed in.


----------



## gribble (Dec 17, 2008)

Felon said:


> Hmm. I don't know how "generally-considered" that is, or how valid such a consideration is even if a lot of people believe it, but it's not a basis for balance because even if high-Fort creatures currently outnumber high-Ref creatures, that number will not be reliable over time. Indeed, if a defense discrepency was consistently the case, it probably bears rebalancing itself.



Well, I think it's more a case of "statistical analysis shows". While I haven't done the analysis myself, I believe some people have and (based on the MM) Ref defences are usually lower than Fort.

I agree that it isn't necessarily a great balancing point if this is just a statistical anomaly and not something inherent to the rules, but unfortunately only the D&D design/development team know whether it's something inherent or not!


----------



## Ander00 (Dec 17, 2008)

I think it's unfortunate that Scorching Burst isn't all it could've been (and the same goes for some other at-will powers), but Vanguard's Lightning is fine, and not so much better that wizard players should lose much sleep over the issue.

If it was up to me, I'd say full steam ahead into a brighter future with at-will powers that actually give you something interesting to do every turn.


cheers


----------



## Dionysos (Dec 17, 2008)

Ander00 said:


> I think it's unfortunate that Scorching Burst isn't all it could've been (and the same goes for some other at-will powers), but Vanguard's Lightning is fine, and not so much better that wizard players should lose much sleep over the issue.
> 
> If it was up to me, I'd say full steam ahead into a brighter future with at-will powers that actually give you something interesting to do every turn.
> 
> ...




I don't think we disagree with that. We are saying that it is possible to add more interesting Wizard at-wills in the future, even as Scorching burst retains its own niche vs. the powers of other controllers.


----------



## Vael (Dec 18, 2008)

Another way would be to leave the wizard's at-wills, but introduce augmenting feats that enhance them.

For example, "Enhanced Ray of Frost" allows you to apply the slow effect to enemies adjacent to the target of the power.

"Enhanced Scorching Burst" would leave a zone that does extra damage to those that linger within it's effect. IOW, any target that is hit by the Scorching Burst that doesn't move out of the zone before the end of it's next turn takes more damage.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 18, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> Aheh.  That's what I get for posting while tired.
> 
> Basically, I was saying that a good god could have every reason to give divine aid to an Invoker who is also using another, more sinister god's help.  Gods have long-term plans that most mortals can't fathom, and the Invoker could be playing a role in many gods' schemes.



So that then depends on the God's scheme. That also doesn't answer the issue of petty gods who take offense to that, too. Now you're rebuffing based on situational and/or plot related schemes.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 18, 2008)

Vael said:


> Another way would be to leave the wizard's at-wills, but introduce augmenting feats that enhance them.
> 
> For example, "Enhanced Ray of Frost" allows you to apply the slow effect to enemies adjacent to the target of the power.
> 
> "Enhanced Scorching Burst" would leave a zone that does extra damage to those that linger within it's effect. IOW, any target that is hit by the Scorching Burst that doesn't move out of the zone before the end of it's next turn takes more damage.



On the other hand, you're forced tot ake a feat just to improve your at-wills compared to the next guy who starts the game with superior at wills to you.

It's a feat tax.


----------



## EasyT (Dec 18, 2008)

mearls said:


> Scorching burst is a power that we'll leave alone, and going forward I'd be surprised if we just created a better version. Of the at-will wizard powers that I know of that are in the pipeline, none of them are simply scorching burst with more bells and whistles.




Mearls,

But isn't Vanguard's Lightning essentially Scorching Burst with an extra whistle tacked on, albeit a small one?



mearls said:


> Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO. I think at that point, you really have to rely on the target to make an opportunity attack to get half-decent damage, and there are plenty of situations where an opportunity attack isn't really in play.




I generally agree with your take that VL isn't much more powerful than SB. But I don't think you've made the case for why it should be even slightly more powerful in the first place. SB is, again, widely accepted as one of the best at-will powers, and I've heard no argument against that. So why is the Invoker given a power that is basically "SB plus a little more"?

You seem against reducing the up-front damage of VL, a point which I think is debatable, but for the sake of argument let's say that you're right and that up-front damage should not be reduced. But while you addressed that one specific angle, I haven't heard any reason why other adjustments could not be made. You could replace "Area attack" with "Range attack" (which would allow concealment to still apply), or change "bust 1" to "1 square" (perhaps while increasing up-front damage), or you could reduce range. Or you could even have the Invoker unable to make OAs themselves for a turn after casting VL. Or any number of other possibilities that would differentiate VL from SB without simply making it flat always better. 

I'm not actually advocating any of these changes specifically, nor do I really expect you to address any of them specifically. These are all simply examples of the general question: why take an at-wil power that is already regarded as excellent, and make another power that is strictly better? Why not find a way to allow the original power to continue shine in some particular way?

I understand that you're a designer and not a developer, and I respect that this sort of thing isn't really your direct responsibility. But I nevertheless want to bring my opinion to the table. That VL is "only a little better" is not an explanation that I find satisfying. I'd rather that VL be only a little better in some situations, while being only a little worse in others.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 18, 2008)

Rechan said:


> So that then depends on the God's scheme. That also doesn't answer the issue of petty gods who take offense to that, too. Now you're rebuffing based on situational and/or plot related schemes.




Hey, buddy, didn't mean to offend.  Just offering potential ways to make the Invoker fluff a bit more fun for all.  Tog e go bog e, hakuna matata, etc. etc!  

Although aren't all character backgrounds situational/plot related, usually?  Perhaps the Invoker's fluff just lends itself to a close discussion with the DM regarding how they're going about doing that voodoo they do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

Rechan said:


> On the other hand, you're forced tot ake a feat just to improve your at-wills compared to the next guy who starts the game with superior at wills to you.
> 
> It's a feat tax.



There's nothing inherently wrong with having inferior at-wills. As long as your encounters/dailies/utilities are superior enough to make up for it, there's no issue. You can't just look at one type of power.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 18, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> Hey, buddy, didn't mean to offend.



No offense taken.  

I can just be a little... zealous, in defending my opinions.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Dec 18, 2008)

mearls said:


> The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.



I don't understand.

If you're not shutting down OAs - if you're just blowing up enemies safely sepparate from your allies, day - then V'sL and SB perform identically, as burst 1s doing the same damage. If you are shutting down OAs with V'sL, by targetting a smaller number of enemies in contact with your party, then SB won't hit any /more/ of those enemies, and won't shut down any OAs. One power does what another does, and some more.  That seems the definition of 'strictly superior.'

Is it the risk of shutting down your own guy's OAs? Because, if you're trying to shut down the enemies' OAs, they're probably /not/ engaged with the fighter, because fighters have little need to provoke - it's the striker who wants to run away or the ranged combatant who's stuck in melee provoking OAs. If you're worried about shutting down your enemies' OAs, your allies' OAs probably aren't a priority.

What am I missing?


----------



## gribble (Dec 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with having inferior at-wills. As long as your encounters/dailies/utilities are superior enough to make up for it, there's no issue. You can't just look at one type of power.



I don't agree with this, when 4e multiclassing is taken into account. It makes it too easy to "cherry-pick" the best encounter/daily powers from another class for the above to be true, IMO.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 18, 2008)

gribble said:


> Fifth Element said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think 5th meant "superior enough to be on par with other classes". I think. "Superior enough" is a strange turn of phrase, though. 

But it's pretty clear by Mr. Mearls statement that it's not necessarily OK to have inferior at-wills. The wizard is a tad weak and not quite as controller-y as he should be. Not _horribly_ weak, but enough that they're going to address it in an upcoming book. If you're not a serious optimizer you probably won't even notice the slightly subpar abilities.

I think part of the problem with nailing down the wizard's role was in carrying over many of the spells from previous editions which don't necessarily support that role.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> I think 5th meant "superior enough to be on par with other classes". I think. "Superior enough" is a strange turn of phrase, though.



That's correct. If your at-wills are inferior, your other powers (or your class features) have to be superior to balance the class. But they have to be superior enough to make up for the inferiority of the at-wills, not too superior, but _not_ not superior enough. I'm not helping, I'll stop now.



Sir Brennen said:


> But it's pretty clear by Mr. Mearls statement that it's not necessarily OK to have inferior at-wills. The wizard is a tad weak and not quite as controller-y as he should be. Not _horribly_ weak, but enough that they're going to address it in an upcoming book. If you're not a serious optimizer you probably won't even notice the slightly subpar abilities.



I think that's true. It's better to have balanced at-wills across classes, but like you say I don't think the differences are really that significant.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

gribble said:


> I don't agree with this, when 4e multiclassing is taken into account. It makes it too easy to "cherry-pick" the best encounter/daily powers from another class for the above to be true, IMO.



Eh, some would argue that the power-swap feats are underpowered anyway, since it costs you a feat and the power is a slightly lower level. There's a lot of things to balance here and I don't think you can just point at an at-will that's better than another and decide it ruins the balance.


----------



## gribble (Dec 18, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> The wizard is a tad weak and not quite as controller-y as he should be. Not _horribly_ weak, but enough that they're going to address it in an upcoming book. If you're not a serious optimizer you probably won't even notice the slightly subpar abilities.



I definitely agree with that. It's not so big a bump as to have a huge impact or break the game or anything - I don't think anyone is saying that.

It's more that it seems to set a dangerous precedent that I'd rather not see. As one of the D&D designers said in reference to this - it's not power creep, it's just that it's a slightly more powerful version... 

Still, someone else did point out that Dual Strike is a _strictly inferior_ version of Twin Strike, so I suppose that precedent had already been set (albeit in reverse).


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 18, 2008)

At the level my party is at, for them at wills are most of the fight and lots of time the entire fight.  Disparity of at wills even small disparities can have a large impact.  Where I think it can be felt most if a class with the same role has strictly superior at wills.

The invoker is a spellcaster and a controller.  That makes the invoker very similar to the wizard.  If the invoker is better, but only slightly better, it is bad.  Unless someone has a real issue with divine vs arcane magic they just wont play the wizard over the invoker.  If there is a problem, it should be fixed.  They should change scorching burst is vanguards lightning goes out like that.  Or heck change a wizards class abilities, they could use some love.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 18, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Speaking only for my campaign, I'd say it happens somewhere around once per session, or every other session.  You're artificially limiting it, though; over the course of multiple spells, those single points add up.
> 
> Basically, I think the dual-element feats are very comparable to Weapon Focus.  Yes, Weapon Focus increases damage by +1 per tier, but as I mentioned before, there are more element-based Close and Area attacks than there are Weapon-based Close and Area attacks.
> 
> -O




I'm not massively impressed with weapon focus either, though I think you will usually get slightly more out of it since spell casters usually mix up there elements over a fight, and weapon users rarely change weapons over  a fight.  Though the ranger in my game does all the time, so maybe I am wrong about that.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 18, 2008)

gribble said:


> Still, someone else did point out that Dual Strike is a _strictly inferior_ version of Twin Strike, so I suppose that precedent had already been set (albeit in reverse).




It might be dangerous to compare at-wills across roles.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 18, 2008)

Not to mention that both at wills function differently because they're both part of classes that have inherent bonuses to all attacks.

The ranger version has secret text: "if at least one attack hits, deal an additional 1d6 damage."  The fighter version has secret text, "effect: the target is marked and subjected to the penalties imposed by your Combat Challenge class ability if it makes an attack that does not include you as a target."


----------



## Xris Robin (Dec 18, 2008)

Does anyone else think Covenant of Wrath's Manifestation has the potential to be really good?


----------



## gribble (Dec 18, 2008)

Christopher Robin said:


> Does anyone else think Covenant of Wrath's Manifestation has the potential to be really good?



Yep. Especially in combination with the close burst 3 power and a staff of the warmage... <shudder>


----------



## gribble (Dec 18, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> It might be dangerous to compare at-wills across roles.



Good point. Still, it does show that this isn't _entirely_ without precedent.

I do agree it's much worse when a class in the same role has a Power++.


----------



## Talaeden_Denthiir (Dec 19, 2008)

If Controller = screwing up your enemies, why not just have scorching burst do ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends) and call it a day?


----------



## Felon (Dec 19, 2008)

Talaeden_Denthiir said:


> If Controller = screwing up your enemies, why not just have scorching burst due ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends) and call it a day?



That's too good for an at-will, not to mention annoying. You could just keep dowsing the bad guys and snowballing the DoT. The DM would have to keep track of each set of DoTs for each monster. That promises to be a real bookkeeping nightmare.


----------



## Talaeden_Denthiir (Dec 19, 2008)

Felon,

   You make a good point.  Then, how about just have it burn 1 one round?


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 20, 2008)

maybe you could say that the target schorched could be Dazed until the end of the next turn (Dazed seems in line with fire)


----------



## Rechan (Dec 20, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:


> maybe you could say that the target schorched could be Dazed until the end of the next turn (Dazed seems in line with fire)



Dazed is second only to Stunned as 'best status effect evar'. So giving that to an at will is too good.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 20, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Dazed is second only to Stunned as 'best status effect evar'. So giving that to an at will is too good.




better then damage don't you think?

blinded is worse IMO


----------



## Rechan (Dec 20, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:


> better then damage don't you think?



So much better that it would make Scorching Burst an encounter power at least. 

Look at the PHB. The lowest level power that grants daze is Dazing Strike, a rogue Encounter power that dazes _one_ target. You are proposing an At-Will that dazes _all targets_.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 20, 2008)

Rechan said:


> So much better that it would make Scorching Burst an encounter power at least.
> 
> Look at the PHB. The lowest level power that grants daze is Dazing Strike, a rogue Encounter power that dazes _one_ target. You are proposing an At-Will that dazes _all targets_.




maybe slowed like the invoker power? or a -2 on attacks?


----------



## Evanta (Jan 7, 2009)

Just make it 1d8 damage. I'm happy with 1d8+INT damage for scorching burst.

Make the other Wizard at-wills more controlly, though. Ray of Frost could use 'pierce' for example (i.e. affect multiple targets in its line of effect)


----------

