# Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 25, 2008)

I've been trying to figure it out, and I can't. Clerics have hands down the best control spell at this level. Evard's can potentially keep people tied down if you keep pushing them back in, but its huge area makes it unwieldy, since it affects your allies. The rest of the spells really don't even come close. Firestorm does more damage, more ongoing damage, it has the largest area, and it *doesn't affect your allies*.

What does the community think about this?


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 25, 2008)

I disagree, mainly because I don't consider Firestorm "control". It does damage, pure and simple. Evard's Black Tentacles is a very nice spell from what I can tell (haven't played with it). It stops the opponent's movement until a succesful save and does okay damage to them while they are immobilized, and you can try to re-immobilize creatures that end up there (whether because they couldn't escape the difficult terrain or because they were pushed back in). Sure, it doesn't do as much damage (I have to admit, Firestorm does a crap ton of damage), but it has control to it.

Example of use: Stop 3 melee creatures in their tracks (dealing damage to them), and deal with the rest of the encounter before plinking at them at range and waiting for them to die, and pushing them back in when they happen to get out.
Thunderwave is a very nice spell when combined with area effects like this IMO. Hell, if the enemies in the encounter are placed well enough, you can just push _all_ of the enemies into the area. The spell also gets a lot better with Spell Focus and/or orb mastery.

I agree Firestorm is good, perhaps better, but it is not control.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 25, 2008)

For the same reason that Clerics have the best 29th level area damage spell too? Compare Astral Storm with Meteor Swarm and remind me which one is _supposed _to be the controller and which is _supposed _to be the leader, eh?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 25, 2008)

The thing is, the PHB defines controllers in large part by their ability to deal damage to many enemies at once (as opposed to strikers, who deal damage to single targets). As such, massive AOE damage spells are more-or-less defined by the game as control spells.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 25, 2008)

From the article http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a

"Like a few other classes, the 4E wizard has a narrower range of power options than the 3rd Edition wizard. Some of these powers are coming later (summoning and illusions, for example), while others simply aren’t appropriate for the character role. Wizards don’t have a lot of party-buffing spells, for example; that’s more appropriate for leaders than for controllers. Taking those spells off the wizard list helps keep that class from overshadowing other characters in the party (see the Cleric, above)."

And then, from the PHB:

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

So yeah, Wizards can't have buffing spells anymore because that would step on the Cleric's toes and his precious leader role. How dare a Wizard want to do such a thing! But it's perfectly okay for a Cleric to not only have plenty of AoE spells (a defining part of the Wizard's "controller" role), but the Cleric's AoEs are often better than those the Wizard gets! Not a single Cleric AoE has the risk of hitting allies, so the Cleric has an easier time being a "controller" than the Wizard does, who often has to hold off on or carefully aim his spells, at least until he's epic level and can get the Spell Accuracy feat so that he doesn't blow up his friends. And what about the other part of the "controller" role? Weakening, confusing and delaying enemies? Well guess what, Clerics can do those things too.

Yeah. This makes alot of sense. /sarcasm


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 25, 2008)

There is nothing different from Dnd 3.5 where the cleric got firestorm at level 8.

The cleric has good area damage spells, just like the wizard, but fewer of them. I don't see the problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 25, 2008)

Blackbrrd said:
			
		

> There is nothing different from Dnd 3.5 where the cleric got firestorm at level 8.
> 
> The cleric has good area damage spells, just like the wizard, but fewer of them. I don't see the problem.



Well, the problem is that they are still better then the options for the Cleric.

The question - maybe do they actually have to be better? After all, the Cleric picking these powers loses actual leading power, and if he can't heal or improve his allies defenses or attacks, he is not fulfilling his original role? 

Still not an argument for letting him have this powers in the first place.


----------



## theNater (Jun 25, 2008)

Firestorm is the best 19th level area damage spell.  But let's compare it to the two level 19 zones wizards can produce, Evard's Black Tentacles and Cloudkill.

Size/range:  Firestorm is a burst 5 within 10, Evard's is a burst 4 within 10, and Cloudkill is a burst 5 within 20.  Cloudkill wins here for its largest range, with Firestorm taking a close second.  Evard's smaller size at the closer range puts it in third.

Targets:  Firestorm wins this category hands down, as the only one of the three that won't hit allies.  Cloudkill comes in a distant second, as the wizard will have the opportunity to move it off of any allies before they begin their turn in it.

Initial damage:  5d10 for Firestorm, 2d10 for Evard's, 1d10 for Cloudkill.  Another solid win for Firestorm.  Firestorm also does half damage on a miss, and is the only one which does so.

Additional effects on hit:  Evard's will immobilize those it hits.  This category goes to it, as the only status effect available.

Ongoing damage:  Firestorm and Cloudkill cause 1d10 damage to each target in the zone each round.  Evard's causes 1d10 to immobilized targets each round, and has a 50% chance to cause 2d10 to non-immobilized targets.  Call it a tie.

Zone:  Evard's wins here, as it is the only zone that has any effect other than damage.  It turns the zone into difficult terrain.

Escapability:  Most creatures can get out of Firestorm easily.  A concerted effort on the part of the enemies can move the conflict point to a part of the battlefield not in the zone.  Evard's is much harder, as a creature with speed 6 in the center cannot get out with a single walk action.  They can run, granting combat advantage, or use their standard action for more movement.  And that assumes that they aren't subject to the immobilize effect on their turn.  It's easy to get out of Cloudkill, but hard to stay out, as the wizard can move it up to three spaces on his turn.  Note that a creature at the center with 6 speed can't get away from it with even with a run.  They must double move to be certain to be clear of the effect.  Even if they do get clear, they have to keep moving if they don't want the zone to catch up to them.  The immobilization effect makes this go to Evard's, but Cloudkill is a close second.

So which is best?  Well, Firestorm is best for blasting the snot out of the enemy.  Cloudkill is the best at keeping the enemies from entrenching into a defensive position.  Evard's is the best at creating a region of sticky, tentacular horribleness.  It's all a matter of taste, really.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm tempted to say that Evard's Black Tentacles is the better Controller spell between the choice of Evard's and Firestorm, especially if you have fighter style help.

Firestorm does 5d10+Wis to an 11x11 area of enemies only, followed by 1d10+Wis damage when the enemy starts their turn in the zone.  The 11x11 zone can be sustained by a minor action to allow enemies in the zone to take another 1d10+Wis damage on the start of their next turn again.

Evard's does 2d10+Int and immobilize(Save Ends) to a 9x9 area, enemy and ally alike.  The zone is difficult terrain, and when you sustain the power with a minor action, you either do 1d10 damage to creatures currently immobilized or repeat the original attack against creatures currently not immobilized.

While Evard's is harder to use to not hurt your allies, it is basically insane when trying to escape it.  Not only do you have to make a saving throw to escape immobilize, but you have to dodge the attack that comes in between your next turn as well to escape being immobilized again.  Then you have to escape the zone of difficult terrain that basically halves your movement with no shifting techniques unless you are an elf or have the Epic feat.  Thats just trying to deal with the spell, since a Rogue or a Fighter can intercept you on the outside and keep sliding/pushing you either back into the effect or further back into the effect.  Drop it on a melee bunch of enemies, and they become sitting ducks.  Ranged classes can still attack back, but they are unlikely to move due to immobilization and will most likely loose any stealth as they do not make a stealth check with their lack of movement.

Firestorm does more damage, but does nothing to stop the enemy from leaving the effect.  Melee are still a problem, Ranged classes can still move and hide or even leave the effect, and so on.  Nice damage, but the Leader role suddenly becomes much more tempting to attack to stop the effect.  And its easy to get to the leader compared to a bunch of enemies in Evard's.

It also doesn't hurt that if the enemies in Evard's do break out of it and go after you, a Wizard can still push them right back in with Thunderlance or Thunderwave.  If they even know where you are as a Wizard could use his Utility spell Blur and be invisible when 5 or more squares away from his victims.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 25, 2008)

Remember that saves are made at the end of a creature's turn.
Therefore, you can pass the save vs. evard's, but your turn is over, and you don't get a chance to walk out before it gets an attack to re-grab you.


----------



## Atanatotatos (Jun 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> For the same reason that Clerics have the best 29th level area damage spell too? Compare Astral Storm with Meteor Swarm and remind me which one is _supposed _to be the controller and which is _supposed _to be the leader, eh?




If you want to see what a 29th level controller can do, don't look at the laughable damage of meteor swarm. Look at legion's hold. Then go win huge battles.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 25, 2008)

Legion's Hold + Archmage = @#$%!


----------



## OakwoodDM (Jun 25, 2008)

Also, this comes at a point not too many levels away from when you get to pick up that feat that used to be called Golden Wyvern Adept whose new, dull, functional name I can't remember.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 25, 2008)

Atanatotatos said:
			
		

> If you want to see what a 29th level controller can do, don't look at the laughable damage of meteor swarm. Look at legion's hold. Then go win huge battles.




Yes. I agree. Of course, you also use your orb on the boss, and of course have spell focus, so a little more than half are going to stay stunned, and the boss will probably stay that way for a while (-11 to the saves will do that)...


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Jun 25, 2008)

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> Also, this comes at a point not too many levels away from when you get to pick up that feat that used to be called Golden Wyvern Adept whose new, dull, functional name I can't remember.



Spell Accuracy, which all wizards should pick up at 21st level, only two levels after gaining black tentacles.

Spell Focus also makes it more likely that opponents will remain trapped in the black tentacles for longer.

Also consider that the wizard can be standing in front of the zone casting Thunderwave every round, to push opponents back into it.


----------



## Kitirat (Jun 25, 2008)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> Spell Accuracy, which all wizards should pick up at 21st level, only two levels after gaining black tentacles.
> 
> Spell Focus also makes it more likely that opponents will remain trapped in the black tentacles for longer.
> 
> Also consider that the wizard can be standing in front of the zone casting Thunderwave every round, to push opponents back into it.



Having played around a bit, I think thunderwave is my favorite wizard at-will.

See ya,
Ken


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 25, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:
			
		

> Legion's Hold + Archmage = @#$%!




Not sure I wouldn't rather have one of the more potent utilities as an encounter. Or Prismatic Spray. A big ol int vs will is nice. But an int vs will, fort, ref is better.

Also, thunderwave is easily the best wizard at will and i haven't even had a chance to play yet.

If you can get reasonable wisdom, int, dex, and cha and pick up spell focus, arcane reach(close blasts can be flung from behind the defenders now!) its just nasty. Especially with the Gauntlets of the ram and the solid sound feat. You can really get a lot of use out of it.

Human, Elf and Eladrinm, and Dwarves make the best options with stats that are closest to say

16 int, 16 wis, 12 cha, 14 dex, +as high con as you can get and low strength. Only problem is getting your to hit up when you haven't pumped int(-10% to hit is a pretty big penalty over a 20 int wizard), but you thunderwave really hard(4 squares at level 8, 5 with gloves, 6 at level 14 with gloves, 7 at level 21 with gloves, 8 at 28) and can make any one save/encounter pretty much impossible to make.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm not so sure Firestorm is the best. It does more initial damage than Cloudkill, but fire resistance is one of the most common types, and Firestorm can't be moved. Cloudkill also does damage when they enter the zone, rather than waiting for their turn, meaning there are a few tricks you can play while moving it around (such as jigging one square left to kill a minion before putting it where you really want it). I'd say these two are a wash depending on how common fire resistance and poison immunity are in your campaign.

Evard's Black Tentacles also looks to be close in power, trading some damage for a less common damage type, a status effect, and terrain. If Fire resistance 10+ shows up a lot, the tentacles start to look nicer.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 25, 2008)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure Firestorm is the best. It does more initial damage than Cloudkill, but fire resistance is one of the most common types, and Firestorm can't be moved.



Firestorm doesn't _need_ to be moved. Plop it right on top of the party. Voila, the vast majority of creatures have to stand in it to have any hope of winning the encounter.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 26, 2008)

Zurai is thinking like I am. Moving Cloudkill is necessary because it hurts your allies. Firestorm is restriction free, and it does the most damage, over the largest area. And a leader has it. 

And yes, a pure damage spell is considered control. That's why clerics having access to it is malarkey, when it deals more damage to more targets (this is control) than any wizard spell. You don't see fighter powers dealing 50% more damage than rogue powers. I guess CoDzilla is back?

The thing is, this spell is so good that it really wouldn't bother me one bit to sink 2 feats into a cleric multiclass to get it for my wizard if I had decent Wisdom (not exactly a stretch for a wizard anymore). And that means it's broken.


----------



## DLichen (Jun 26, 2008)

While firestorm gives clerics a good control option, we have to ask, does it make the Cleric a better controller?

The answer is no since the Wizard has more control spells across the levels. Where the Cleric is pretending to be a controller once a day, the Wizard is the controller all the time. It's not like 3e where the Cleric now memorizes it with every spell slot he has and casts it all day.

Is it worth multi-classing to Cleric for a Wizard? Maybe, but I think Divine Oracle is more than enough reason to multi-class to Cleric for a Wizard already.

Is it overpowered compared to other spells of the level? Not significantly, Cloudkill and Evard's are worse, but Evard is better at keeping dudes occupied and Cloudkill is sweepable. It's not blade cascade.

So I would say that it's very good, but not broken.

If you want broken, look at Seal of Binding. Now that's power.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 26, 2008)

Goumindong said:
			
		

> Not sure I wouldn't rather have one of the more potent utilities as an encounter. Or Prismatic Spray. A big ol int vs will is nice. But an int vs will, fort, ref is better.




Yeah, prismatic spray is awesome ... but if I'm turning one daily into an encounter, I'm going to make it an opener.
At burst 20 with a stun effect, it's gonna add a distinct flavour to every encounter ..

Sure, I'm still going to prep prismatic spray. Can't have too much stun-locking fun.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 26, 2008)

DLichen said:
			
		

> The answer is no since the Wizard has more control spells across the levels.



The Cleric only needs 4 encounters and 4 dailies to be equal to the number of control spells a wizard can put out. It doesn't matter that the wizard has _more_ options as long as the cleric has _enough_ options.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 26, 2008)

Personally, I like Cloudkill.  It is the only one where the wizards can literally keep moving the enemy out of any area he doesn't want them in.  This is very nice.  Also, it simply does not miss as long as its around.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 27, 2008)

I think in my increasing list of house rules I'm just going to shift it across to the wizard list.

I was fed up with 3e clerics having more powerful spells than the wizard, I'm not going to let them start off in 4e with bigger, more effective and more tactically useful boom spells too. I don't think it is relevant whether or not the wizard has a wider range of inferior boom spells, if they can't ever match a clerics big boom spell.

In my campaigns Firestorm and Astral Storm are both moving over to the wizard list. I'll make up some new, thematically appropriate things for the clerics when I need to.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

Yeah, Firestorm:Black Tentacles is debatable, but Astral Storm:Meteor Swarm is ludicrous. Especially when Astral Storm is easily expanded to burst 6 through the paragon increase-thunder-radius feat.


----------



## Chowder (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> Yeah, Firestorm:Black Tentacles is debatable, but Astral Storm:Meteor Swarm is ludicrous. Especially when Astral Storm is easily expanded to burst 6 through the paragon increase-thunder-radius feat.




I don't understand the Astral Storm:Meteor Swarm thing, either.  Astral Storm is better than Meteor Swarm in every conceivable way, which would be bad even if the Cleric and Wizard were both controllers.  But the Cleric isn't supposed to be a controller...

Has anyone asked Customer Service about this?  I wonder if this is simply a mistake, but it hasn't shown up in the errata yet.

-Chowder


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 27, 2008)

Chowder said:


> I wonder if this is simply a mistake, but it hasn't shown up in the errata yet.
> 
> -Chowder



I think it's that way, because somebody in the team loves clerics. I cannot explain that severe role-infringement in any other way.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## theNater (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> Firestorm doesn't _need_ to be moved. Plop it right on top of the party. Voila, the vast majority of creatures have to stand in it to have any hope of winning the encounter.



What keeps the enemies from fleeing around a corner and setting up an ambush while the PC's are waiting for them to come back to the zone of death?

Cloudkill prevents that by letting the wizard sweep the zone into the new combat site.  Evard's prevents that by keeping the enemy from making a clean withdrawal.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> The Cleric only needs 4 encounters and 4 dailies to be equal to the number of control spells a wizard can put out. It doesn't matter that the wizard has more options as long as the cleric has enough options.



Okay, let's count.  For purposes of this count, control functions consist of area damage, enemy-penalizing zones, single target major negative conditions(blinded, dominated, helpless, petrified, restrained, stunned, or unconcious), or multiple target negative conditions.

Cleric at-wills that perform control functions: 0.

Cleric encounters that perform control functions(by level):
1: Cause Fear, Divine Glow(2)
3: 0
7: Searing Light(1)
13: Mantle of Glory(1)
17: Blinding Light(1)
23: Healing Torch(1)
27: Sunburst(1)

Cleric daily powers that perform control functions(again, by level):
1: Beacon of Hope, Guardian of Faith(2)
5: Consecrated Ground, Rune of Peace, Spiritual Weapon(3)
9: Astral Defenders, Blade Barrier, Divine Power, Flame Strike(4)
15: Holy Spark, Purifying Fire, Seal of Warding(3)
19: Fire Storm, Holy Wrath, Knight of Glory(3)
25: Sacred Word, Seal of Binding, Seal of Protection(3)
29: Astral Storm(1)

Cleric paragon paths with both attack powers performing control functions:2(radiant servant, warpreist)

I admit, when I started this count, I didn't expect these results.  It turns out a cleric can fully load up on control powers.  In at least some situations, a cleric's daily control power will be more advantageous than a wizard power of equal level.  Let's look at encounter powers, as they will be used more often than dailies, and clerics seem more limited there.  Assume a top-level character has a 17, a 23, a 27, and a paragon path power.

Level 17:  Blinding Light:  If the cleric is wielding a two-handed weapon, he can beat out the damage of force volley to a single target, and blind it for one round.  With level 17 spells, the wizard can do more damage to each of multiple targets, or more damage to a single target within 20 squares and remove it from combat for one round.

Level 23:  Healing Torch:  The wizard can create a smaller burst that does roughly the same initial damage, with the added effect of creating a zone of 10 automatic damage for one round.  Alternately, he can stun a target within 20 squares or use Chain Lightning.

Level 27:  Sunburst:  The wizard can create an equally sized blast of significantly more damage, or take control of a foe for one round.

The trend in controller capability I'm seeing here is that while a cleric's daily powers can match or, under the right conditions, slightly exceed a wizard's daily powers, the wizard has the advantage when it comes to encounter powers.  This says to me that a wizard is a better controller overall, but a cleric who really tries can come close.  That doesn't seem too horrible if you consider a cleric to be a leader with controller options, like a fighter can be considered a defender with striker options.


----------



## theNater (Jun 27, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You don't see fighter powers dealing 50% more damage than rogue powers.



Actually, you do.  Compare Reign of Terror(fighter 25) with Ghost on the Wind(rogue 25).  Both of them say 6[W] damage, but the fighter can use a two-handed weapon, while the rogue is restricted to light blades.  Say the rogue has a 1d8 weapon and the fighter's using a 2d6 weapon.  For the damage from the dice, we get:

Fighter:
Min: 12
Avg: 42
Max: 72

Rogue:
Min: 6
Avg: 27
Max: 48

Note that the rogue does half damage on a miss, while the fighter is guaranteed full damage eventually, as his power is reliable.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

A few things:
Why does everyone decide to compare Meteor Storm and Astral Storm? How about comparing Meteor Storm and Godstrike. One is much better, and I'll give you a hint, it's not Godstrike. Every level has crappy options and good options, and that's going to continue. As has been said (and should be obvious), only the best power in any level matters.

Legion's Hold is (IMO) the best Wizard lvl 29 daily by far. I believe it is hugely better than Astral Storm. Yes, Astral Storm does more damage, and yes, it is a large AoE (but not as large as Legion's Hold), but it doesn't do anything other than damage. Is it a good daily? Hell yes. Is it as good as completely disabling anything you hit for *at least *one turn in a burst 20? NO! Stun is essentially giving at least one full turn to your allies, including yourself.

How is the ridiculous advantage of this overlooked? 4d10 more damage and 2d10 in subsequent rounds when using a minor action? Ask yourself which is more valuable for control: 1) depriving opponents of actions or choices, or 2) doing damage. If you answered 2, congratulations, you have no idea what control is. Doing damage is an extremely inefficient way of trying to exert control over your enemies. Death is the ultimate debuff, but with the padded sumo effect, death is not something that is achieved quickly. Depriving your opponents of multiple actions is ridiculously more valuable than doing some extra damage.

This is why I say Firestorm is overrated by many of you, and that Evard's Black Tentacles is clearly the better control spell: because it *is* control. Unless dealing with minions or very low level creatures, damage does not exert control in any timely manner, and thus is mostly ignored by a true controller.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 27, 2008)

theNater said:


> This says to me that a wizard is a better controller overall, but a cleric who really tries can come close.



And that's role-infringement. Which wouldn't be bad, if the wizard wouldn't be so firmly in his controller role. The cleric is a leader that can try to be a controller occasionally - but the wizard is pretty much a controller - his damage will never get close to that of a striker (since even the cleric is occasional better at it), and the defender and leader roles are basically completely barred (with the notable exception of Mass Fly).

And I think that's the crux of the matter: Cleric can go controller if pressed, wizards can go... well, only controller.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Chowder (Jun 27, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> A few things:
> Legion's Hold is (IMO) the best Wizard lvl 29 daily by far.




I agree that, on balance, the best Wizard lvl 29 controller daily (Legion's Hold) is better than Astral Storm.  However, that still doesn't explain why Meteor Swarm is so ridiculously bad compared to Astral Storm.  Really, I wouldn't expect a Wizard to _ever_ use Meteor Swarm when Legion's Hold is available, and when you have such a situation, it means that something is broken...

-Chowder


----------



## Larrin (Jun 27, 2008)

I have a theory on why some wizard spells don't seem to really out class clerics's prayers on some fronts.

When a cleric chooses a daily prayer, he'd better choose one he can use, and it'd better be pretty, its the only one he gets.

A wizard gets to choose 2 or three dailies.  Meteor swarm won't out class astral storm.  But the option to have meteor storm OR another spell (legions hold, or whatever that other wizard 29 is) kinda makes up for it. 

 A cleric with astral storm will only have the choice to do damage, so it'd better be pretty swanky damage.

A wizard can just do damage OR he can do a legions hold on his foes OR maybe even option 3.   I can see designers feeling that these 2-3 options easily make the wizards 29th level daily equal to a really good clerics level 29 daily.

Just a theory, not claiming it actually WORKS, but i can see a designer using this sort of logic.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> A few things:
> Why does everyone decide to compare Meteor Storm and Astral Storm? How about comparing Meteor Storm and Godstrike. One is much better, and I'll give you a hint, it's not Godstrike. Every level has crappy options and good options, and that's going to continue. As has been said (and should be obvious), only the best power in any level matters.




Meteor Swarm isn't compared to Godstrike because Godstrike isn't a control ability, it's a striker ability (and yes, it's rather amusing that Clerics get zero _Leader_ abilities at their top tier). That's like comparing Fireball to Cure Light Wounds - completely irrelevant.

They compare Astral Storm to Meteor Swarm because the spells carry out _exactly_ the same function: deal a lot of damage to a lot of creatures. The Wizard is *supposed* to be King at that, because dealing a lot of damage to a lot of creatures is one of the definitions 4E uses for Controller.

Yes, Legion's Hold is a better crowd control spell than Astral Storm. Maybe you don't want to play a crowd control wizard. One of the two types of wizard recommended by the PHB is the War Wizard that focuses on damage damage damage!! and, frankly, since that fits within his defined role, he should be clearly better at it than any non-Controller class.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> Meteor Swarm isn't compared to Godstrike because Godstrike isn't a control ability, it's a striker ability (and yes, it's rather amusing that Clerics get zero _Leader_ abilities at their top tier). That's like comparing Fireball to Cure Light Wounds - completely irrelevant.
> 
> They compare Astral Storm to Meteor Swarm because the spells carry out _exactly_ the same function: deal a lot of damage to a lot of creatures. The Wizard is *supposed* to be King at that, because dealing a lot of damage to a lot of creatures is one of the definitions 4E uses for Controller.
> 
> Yes, Legion's Hold is a better crowd control spell than Astral Storm. Maybe you don't want to play a crowd control wizard. One of the two types of wizard recommended by the PHB is the War Wizard that focuses on damage damage damage!! and, frankly, since that fits within his defined role, he should be clearly better at it than any non-Controller class.




Okay, I guess if we take the PHB definition of a controller to be true, then yes, the cleric can, at least on some levels, be a better "controller" in that aspect.

However, *I* don't consider dealing damage in an AoE control unless it kills or imposes another very nasty side-effect. The wizard is much better than the cleric at my definition of control.

Also, I was being somewhat facetious when I asked why they kept comparing the two, and then comparing it to Godstrike. My point was basically that some powers are clearly better than others, essentially regardless of circumstances. IMO, there is almost no situation where I'd prefer using Godstrike to Meteor Storm, assuming the proper stats in both circumstances. You can potentially do more damage with Godstrike, but only on a single creature, and even then, not very much more damage.

Legion's Hold does a bit less damage (6d10~33 avg) for a ridiculously better effect, and the fact that so many people seem to ignore this annoys me. Even against a single creature, Legion's Hold is better. Why? It deprives them of their action. This is essential to winning. Many people try to deprive enemies of their actions simply by doing as much damage as fast as possible. That is one way, but it takes a long time, and they get many chances to hurt you in between. I'd rather keep the number of actions they can take to a minimum. After all, the rest of the party is better suited for hitting individual things for damage. If they can provide debuffs to the enemy, that's great too. It's all about action advantage.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 27, 2008)

Well, what about comparing Astral Storm to say, Closing Spell?  Gained 9 levels earlier for choosing Battle Mage as your Paragon Path.  Is there a reason Archspell or Spell Recall of Archmage won't work with Daily Spells gained from a Paragon Path?

How about options with Meteor Swarm?  Such as a Wizard/Spellstorm Mage/Archmage at level 29 can throw down 3 Meteor Swarms back to back turns?  Choosing to dump all three on the same spot, or spread them out of 3 Burst 5 areas.

What about earlier level AoE style combos?  Say Wall of Fire and Elemental Maw in the same turn with an action point.  That can be extremely painful.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 28, 2008)

WOLead said:


> Well, what about comparing Astral Storm to say, Closing Spell?  Gained 9 levels earlier for choosing Battle Mage as your Paragon Path.  Is there a reason Archspell or Spell Recall of Archmage won't work with Daily Spells gained from a Paragon Path?



No - and that makes Meteor Swarm even more piddly. However, Closing Spell is nice, but has two huge flaws compared to Firestorm - very conditional and less useful area. I don't think it stacks up well, unless you're out of other spells and in the midst of a group of monsters - but then, if this happens, you are still worse than the cleric simply because you are too squishy in that situation - not enough hit points.


WOLead said:


> How about options with Meteor Swarm?  Such as a Wizard/Spellstorm Mage/Archmage at level 29 can throw down 3 Meteor Swarms back to back turns?  Choosing to dump all three on the same spot, or spread them out of 3 Burst 5 areas.



Or he could just use Legion's Hold, which *is* a better control spell. Furthermore, I don't think the special abilities of the Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies should influence the power choice that much. If they're so powerful that the entire class has to be changed, they're too powerful and destroy design space - because if they're already taken into account, it's hard to create more Paths/Destinies later on.


WOLead said:


> What about earlier level AoE style combos?  Say Wall of Fire and Elemental Maw in the same turn with an action point.  That can be extremely painful.



Well, yes - but then you could also talk about Blade Barrier + Firestorm. Also very painful, because you can potentially force people to stay within the firestorm. And if people don't do that, you can still push them back with Thunderous Word (which, by the way, does more "controllish" movement of _enemies_ than most wizards).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> For the same reason that Clerics have the best 29th level area damage spell too? Compare Astral Storm with Meteor Swarm and remind me which one is _supposed _to be the controller and which is _supposed _to be the leader, eh?



Yeah I wondered the very same thing. It's been bugging me for a while now. I think it's in need of a house ruling


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 28, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> No - and that makes Meteor Swarm even more piddly. However, Closing Spell is nice, but has two huge flaws compared to Firestorm - very conditional and less useful area. I don't think it stacks up well, unless you're out of other spells and in the midst of a group of monsters - but then, if this happens, you are still worse than the cleric simply because you are too squishy in that situation - not enough hit points.
> Cheers, LT.



Actually, check out Arcane Rejuvenation. It makes them much sturdier than clerics, especially with Toughness.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 28, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> Actually, check out Arcane Rejuvenation. It makes them much sturdier than clerics, especially with Toughness.




No it doesn't. It means that once per day, you can keep yourself from dying by gaining some hp. You still have less hp than a cleric, less healing surges than a cleric, less access to healing than a cleric (they can heal themselves with their spells), and less access to non-provoking powers. And don't mention Toughness, as anyone can take it, which includes anyone you would compare against.

If you want to be "sturdy", don't play a wizard. This doesn't mean you can't survive as a wizard, simply that you won't stand up to hits without a lot of serious effort, and you'll still not be "sturdy", just _less_ squishy. You can bring yourself up to about striker level squishiness, but you're still a squishy.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 28, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> Actually, check out Arcane Rejuvenation. It makes them much sturdier than clerics, especially with Toughness.



Let's see - if we have a cleric and a wizard with equal Con... and say that we "factor in" the Arcane Rejuvenation as hit points:

Cleric: 12 + Con + 5 * level
Wizard: 10 + Con + 4 * level + level + Int mod = 10 + Con + Int mod + 5 * Level
=> Difference: The wizard with Arcane Rejuvenation has Int mod - 2 more hit points than the cleric, since the wizard will easily have +6 - +8 in Int, it means 4-6 hit points more, right? That's nice - but that's only a peak performance. Let's see the _total_ hit points:

Cleric: (12 + Con + 5*level)*11*Con mod
Wizard (10 + Con + 4 * level)*6*Con mod + level + Int mod

...and now you see that the wizard is still squishy - he can only - in a bad spot - rise to the cleric's level to save himself once per day.

Whereas the cleric can _outperform_ the wizard in control several times per day. And that's my problem with it - doing somebody else's job in a bad spot? Cool, because it means no class is "needed". Being better than him in a bad spot? Bad, because that's the time, where a player really deserves to shine with his role.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 28, 2008)

I still disagree with you that clerics can be better controllers than wizards in a tight spot. They have plenty of buffing and debuffing, but almost exclusively on one creature. Let's examine the powers of the cleric.

Powers that have AoE:
Encounter 1: Divine Glow
Daily 5: Consecrated Ground
Daily 9: Blade Barrier, Flame Strike
Encounter 13: Mantle of Glory
Daily 15: All, to an extent
Encounter 17: Enthrall, Thunderous Word
Daily 19: Firestorm, Holy Wrath
Encounter 23: Healing Torch
Daily 25: Sacred Word, Seal of Protection
Encounter 27: Sunburst
Daily 29: Astral Storm

This looks like quite a list. However, let's look at what really makes a controller a controller. Not AoE alone, but the ability to "guide" or "control" the enemies actions.

Powers that have control (providing some sort of deterrence or barrier, forced movement, and effects that stop actions, not just damage)
Daily 9: Blade Barrier, Astral Defenders (AD is somewhat weak deterrence)
Daily 10: Knights of Unyielding Valor
Daily 15: Holy Spark, Seal of Warding (in both, control is weak)
Encounter 17: Enthrall, Thunderous Word (these are both quite nice, and a wizard might like to pick one of these up)
Daily 25: Sacred Word

As you can see, the list of what actually exerts control is much smaller, and mostly within the dailies. I could go into what control spells the wizard has, but that would be a long list. Suffice it to say that he has one on most levels that he gains a power. He even has minor control in his at-wills.

An argument could be made for the other conjurations being considered control, but they provide even less deterrence, as they can be moved through or even into without penalty.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 28, 2008)

How is "If you stand here you take damage" not deterrence?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 28, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> (these are both quite nice, and a wizard might like to pick one of these up)



I think, for me, that's summing it up - if you, as controller, look at powers of other classes and can perhaps do better control by multiclassing, something is askew.

And the more I think about it, I think the problem isn't that the cleric gets equally good or somewhat better control powers, but that the wizard doesn't get anything to really make him more than the sum of his powers.

If you're playing a cleric, you'll have Healing Lore, Channel Divinity, and Healing Word to ensure that - even if another class snags your powers - you keep being the best leader. Strikers have their striker features (Quarry, Curse, Sneak Attack). The wizard, however, has nothing driving that control home - he's only his powers.

Also: The damage spells are also sort of control: Minion control is important, as well as softening up targets to allow the strikers to work optimally. Plus: The cleric has stuff he can sustain over a long term - that's serious control by allowing you to set up no-win situations (stay here and get whacked by damage or go out, hence scatter, and get whacked by us).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 28, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> I think, for me, that's summing it up - if you, as controller, look at powers of other classes and can perhaps do better control by multiclassing, something is askew.
> 
> And the more I think about it, I think the problem isn't that the cleric gets equally good or somewhat better control powers, but that the wizard doesn't get anything to really make him more than the sum of his powers.
> 
> ...




Okay, I guess if the wizard has mastery over the wand or the staff, the bonuses are either easy to duplicate or not very useful for maintaining your role, but the orb is amazing at doing that. There is no other way to duplicate a *you fail your saves... forever* effect. There are also the feats that you can get, which are quite useful.

The more you say, though, the more I realize that I may just be comparing what I consider to be the best wizard with clerics, and not the wizard in general. I guess you're right, the wizard class as written can have its job (2 out of 3 paths) duplicated by the efforts of the rest of the team. I'd say that the wizard still maintains the best power selection for doing his job, but many parts of his job can be duplicated by others with certain powers.

However, if the wizard is built for the control I was emphasizing, there aren't enough powers to duplicate that effect, and the orb makes him all the more potent. 

I think that the Spellbook class feature would be infinitely more interesting if it made the wizard more like a sorcerer; They have two options, and they can only cast one, but they can choose which one at the time of casting, not at the start of the day when they prepare spells. Or maybe allow them to cast one additonal spell per day or something to make it actually useful.  The spellbook was useful in 3.5 partially because you had tons of spell slots. If you only have 3 spell slots, there's not much versatility gained from the spellbook. 

In any case, most of the features do seem pretty useless. The wizard still does have the best power selection to do his job, but with effort and the right powers, yeah, the party can do a reasonable job of duplicating a controller.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 28, 2008)

The problem with this line of argument is that control is defined as dealing lots of damage to lots of bad guys. Plus if you've got enemy-only fire cooking in an 11x11 area (easily half the area of your average battlefield size) that is _really good_ control, even if you're not immobilizing something. You're cutting off 110 squares from enemy movement _only_; your friends can walk through it just fine, cast spells out of it, whatever they want. If that's not control, nothing is.

At this point the only reason I can see to go wizard over cleric is to twink an orb wizard and pass out -7 on saves in the paragon tier. After further analysis, staff and wand are somewhat laughable compared to the orb.

I'm just confused, I mean, what is the balance reason for a cleric to get not only control powers, but _really awesome_ control powers? The wizard doesn't have a single heal in its entire arsenal, and very few party buffs.

In PHB 2 there is supposed to be a class that's like cleric but "more spellcaster-y"; so I can't even imagine how much better than the wizard that class is going to be.

Long live CoDzilla.

EDIT: PS, clerics can just multi wizard and take Archmage.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 28, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> No - and that makes Meteor Swarm even more piddly. However, Closing Spell is nice, but has two huge flaws compared to Firestorm - very conditional and less useful area. I don't think it stacks up well, unless you're out of other spells and in the midst of a group of monsters - but then, if this happens, you are still worse than the cleric simply because you are too squishy in that situation - not enough hit points.



Why would you have to be in the midst of a group of monsters with Closing Spell?  Yes, the spell is conditional, in the fact it needs to be the last Daily Spell available to use though.  I just don't get why you say it has a less useful area?  And for competing with a Cleric's survivability?  Blur, Greater Invisibility, Fly.


> Or he could just use Legion's Hold, which *is* a better control spell. Furthermore, I don't think the special abilities of the Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies should influence the power choice that much. If they're so powerful that the entire class has to be changed, they're too powerful and destroy design space - because if they're already taken into account, it's hard to create more Paths/Destinies later on.



On Legion's Hold, one of the arguments for Clerics being a better Controller then a Wizard was about damage.
The special abilities limited to just one class should be addressed though.  Say Archmage which is only available to Wizards, and not MCed Wizards.  I cannot find a way for a Cleric to regain or reuse a Daily power, while the Wizard has built in ways limited to themselves.  Varying from Spellstorm Mage's level 11 Storm Spell, Archmage's Spell Recall, Archspell, and Shape Magic, and the Epic level feat Arcane Mastery.
You don't start being able to regain use of Daily spells as a Wizard Controller, but the options come by often as a choice for them.


> Well, yes - but then you could also talk about Blade Barrier + Firestorm. Also very painful, because you can potentially force people to stay within the firestorm. And if people don't do that, you can still push them back with Thunderous Word (which, by the way, does more "controllish" movement of _enemies_ than most wizards).
> 
> Cheers, LT.



I mentioned the Elemental Maw and Wall of Fire specifically for the damage it could do.  If its the effects a Controller grants over an AoE area is what makes a Controller a Controller, then you can ignore.  A few people think that AoE damage and killing a target hard and fast is the way things should go for a controller.  Setup correctly, an enemy at most can take 3*(3d6+Int) + (6d6+Int +3d6+Int) damage and at minimum another 3d6+Int damage on their next turn as they start prone and dazed in a cell of Wall of Fire.  Unfortunately, only creatures in a 5x5 area have a chance of taking that much damage.
Blade Barrier can't prevent a person from leaving Firestorm's Sustained Effect.  At best, the Cleric may get a chance to use Thunderous Wave on an enemy to blast them once back into the Firestorm effect and possibly through Blade Barrier.  Just once though.
Thunderous Word is an encounter power, while Thunderwave is At-Will.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 28, 2008)

WOLead said:


> I just don't get why you say it has a less useful area?



Sorry, my fault - mental mix-up, I thought it was a close, not an area burst.


WOLead said:


> You don't start being able to regain use of Daily spells as a Wizard Controller, but the options come by often as a choice for them.



But a lot of these things is tied up in Paragon Paths, the Epic Destiny, and feats. So the wizard gets worse powers because they get these very good things, meaning these things are making the wizard a true controller?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 28, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> The problem with this line of argument is that control is defined as dealing lots of damage to lots of bad guys.



Okay, with this definition of control, yes, the cleric has some nice control spells. They hardly have a full list of them, but they do have plenty of AoE. 



> Plus if you've got enemy-only fire cooking in an 11x11 area (easily half the area of your average battlefield size) that is _really good_ control, even if you're not immobilizing something. You're cutting off 110 squares from enemy movement _only_; your friends can walk through it just fine, cast spells out of it, whatever they want. If that's not control, nothing is.



Again, at this point (at least level 19), I don't consider 1d10+Wis+other stuff to be a sufficient deterrence, especially for the elites and solos. Elites at this point have around 350-450 hp, and solos are around 900. This does around 15 or so damage per round. Piddly.

If you consider the action advantage produced from *stopping* opponent's actions being essentially that your team gets more turns, (an abstraction to demonstrate the advantage that is not entirely analogous, as you rarely stop all of the enemies' actions with control) your party can crank out _a lot_ more damage than this.

I am *not* saying that Firestorm sucks. It is in fact quite good against minions, and as I said _does_ provide _some_ deterrence. It also gets better the more enemies you face. It is a good damage power, one of the best in the PHB. However, it is not, IMO, a control power.



> EDIT: PS, clerics can just multi wizard and take Archmage.



Not that it matter that much, but no they can't. The multiclassing section states that they count as a member of the class for the prerequisites of feats and paragon paths. It says nothing about Epic Destinies.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 28, 2008)

This is not the first (nor I doubt the last) thread I've seen about clerics stealing the wizards' thunder.  Hopefully play experience demonstrates something different than what's on paper.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jun 28, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> PS, clerics can just multi wizard and take Archmage.




Well, no they can't(see demonlord's post). Not that it would help them much. All the Archmage and even wizard Paragon Path abilities that give extra powers or regain them specify either spells, or arcane powers(with the exception of Soul Burn, the blood mage utility, which regains an encounter power). The epic feat arcane mastery specifies wizard spells.

While this doesn't necessarily balance these issues, it is a point in the wizard column and pretty much only the wizard column.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 28, 2008)

I simply decided to lower Firestorm's initial damage to 3d10, and Astral Storm's to 4d10.  Along with certain other changes (such as Meteor Swarm knocking a target prone on a hit), I think it helps balance out the Wizard and Cleric.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 28, 2008)

The cleric doesn't have enough movement disabling abilities to abuse  AOE.   Ranged AOE is  near useless at higher level without slow, immobilize, difficult terrain, prone, and grapples and lots of it. Them high level enemies have too many HP and AOE doesn't scale like 3E.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 28, 2008)

Minigiant said:


> The cleric doesn't have enough movement disabling abilities to abuse  AOE.   Ranged AOE is  near useless at higher level without slow, immobilize, difficult terrain, prone, and grapples and lots of it. Them high level enemies have too many HP and AOE doesn't scale like 3E.




There should be other characters in the party that can disrupt movement, the Cleric doesn't have to do it.

I'm just trying to balance the spells a bit against each other. 

 8-48+stat in an area, that also hits any friendlies there without a feat, 

vs 

6-60+stat, in the same area, that only hits enemies, that autotargets worst of 4 resistances/vulnerabilities, and that continues each round for another 2-20+stat.

I think anyone can see which is the clearly better spell, hands down.

But adding knockdown to the former, and reducing initial damage on the latter to 4-40 instead of 6-60, and now they are more competetive.  The Wizard spell does slightly more initial damage and can knock down targets, while the Cleric spell is sustainable, autotargets weaknesses, and ignores friendlies.  That is much more balanced, IMO.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 28, 2008)

Samurai said:


> I think anyone can see which is the clearly better spell, hands down.



You forgot that it has a lot of keywords, meaning you can increase the size with Resounding Thunder and induce cold vulnerability with Lasting Frost as well.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 28, 2008)

Samurai said:


> There should be other characters in the party that can disrupt movement, the Cleric doesn't have to do it.




You mean, like the wizard?

Also, if doing AoE damage is what makes a controller a controller, the Wizard wins hands down.

E.G. Bigbys Grasping hands, 4d10+int to two enemies AND it grabs them as a MOVE action per round. Daily

Prismatic Beams: 4d6+2x int + 4d10 + control(save ends) + 10+4d10 ongoing(save ends), Burst 5.

Wall of Ice: 2d6+2d10+int/round + 2d6+2d10 against anything that attacks it.

Frostburn: 3d6+2d10+int+5 AOE; Encounter: W/ Orb ability 3d6+4d10+int+10

Evards Black Tentacles: 4d10 + int + Control(save ends) +3d10 + int/round on controlled + 4d10+int+control(save ends) on anything entering or leaving the area.

Necrotic Web: 4d6+2d10+int + Immobilized + Difficult terrain + 4d6+2d10/ongoing with no save if starting in the web + immob for any creature ending its turn in the web

And not only do you get these massive AoE damages, you get to thunderwave enemies into them, stun enemies inside of them, slow enemies inside of them, make movement in them difficult, exclude your friends from the area of effects.

And you can get massive single target damage out of them too[especially if you dump]

E.G.

Necrotic Web, time stop, wall of ice(completely around the target, not an attack), wall of fire(on top of the target, not an attack), + action Point(Ice tomb)

You take 6d10 damage your self and spend a LOT of resources, but the enemy takes 7d10+2x int + 8d10+5d6/round +10 dmg/round(save ends)(with a free extra round from the ice tomb, which only prevents line of effect from attacks and these aren't attacks ). Is immobilized, cant move much anyway since the difficult terrain costs 3 extra squares of movement to go through(so 5 squares of movement per square) and he has to do 50 damage to the wall(taking 2d6+2d10 every attack against it) before he can even attempt to move out of the way while making saving throws against immobilization.

All subsequent turns the wizard slows via an at will(2 squares movement = totally immobile, as 1 square is 5 movement and target is reduced to 2 squares movement via slow). And if he does manage to make it out, he can be thunderwaved back into the maelstrom. That is 122 damage with 71 damage/round each subsequent round until the end of the encounter.[you can bolster again for 133 damage with 82 damage/round, but that last one is a save ends and probably isn't worth it will all the damage sitting in there anyway]


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 28, 2008)

What I have learned from many games of different genre is that AOE damage is only good if

1) It kills its targets quick

or

2) It is constant and can't be avoided

In 4E, non-strikers can't kill in 1 blow. Especially with AOE.  And only the wizard can slow down enemies while dropping a pile of AOE damage.

Because clerics have few ranged speed debuffs, firestorm can't be used for control. It's just an area damage power. Good for killings minions and softening other enemies.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 29, 2008)

Samurai said:


> But adding knockdown to the former, and reducing initial damage on the latter to 4-40 instead of 6-60, and now they are more competetive.  The Wizard spell does slightly more initial damage and can knock down targets, while the Cleric spell is sustainable, autotargets weaknesses, and ignores friendlies.  That is much more balanced, IMO.




The thing is since AoE damage is one of the controllers niches it should not be balanced or competitive.  The controllers AoE should be clearly superior with some other classes being able to come in with a not-sucky in comparison second.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> You mean, like the wizard?
> 
> Also, if doing AoE damage is what makes a controller a controller, the Wizard wins hands down.




I don't think the argument is that the cleric is an overall better controller than the wizard.  Just that there are multiple examples where the clerics spells at certain levels come either to close or exceed the wizard in his role.  It would be like if the wizard had a level 2 daily called cure wounds that healed the entire party as if they had used a healing surge + wizard int in HP.  And then looking at the clerics cure light wounds daily and wandering why it only did it to one person.  

AoE damage is the wizards thing, the cleric a leader should not be exceeding or even equaling that damage especially when it comes with the auto no friendly fire mode.


----------



## Destil (Jun 29, 2008)

Sorry. D&D, despite claims to the contrary, is not an MMO yet. The classes aren't overspecialized to the point they are required to rely on a single power. The cleric having some good AoE is fine. Otherwise why would they even take their area powers? If you're getting a power is should be good enough. And some outliers where you may have a power that's slightly better than someone who focuses in that role are a good thing. It means the system hasn't forced everyone to just do the one 'good' thing they are allowed to do over and over.

I'm surprised some of the higher level ranger archery powers have yet to be mentioned...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 29, 2008)

Destil said:


> The cleric having some good AoE is fine. Otherwise why would they even take their area powers?




The cleric having some good AoE is fine. 

The cleric have some AoE spells which spank wizard AoE spells at equivalent levels is the problem.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 29, 2008)

Destil said:


> Sorry. D&D, despite claims to the contrary, is not an MMO yet. The classes aren't overspecialized to the point they are required to rely on a single power. The cleric having some good AoE is fine. Otherwise why would they even take their area powers? If you're getting a power is should be good enough. And some outliers where you may have a power that's slightly better than someone who focuses in that role are a good thing. It means the system hasn't forced everyone to just do the one 'good' thing they are allowed to do over and over.
> 
> I'm surprised some of the higher level ranger archery powers have yet to be mentioned...




Why did tensers transformation disappear again?  

Heck tensers is fine in comparison to these cleric spells because you transform into a inferior fighter and lose access to your spells.  These spells go past the wizard equivalents.  Apparently the 4e designers think its cool to step on a niches toes when its the wizards toes being stepped on.  

Do I want overspecialization, well no.  And yes it is fine for a cleric and heck basically every other class to have some AoEs, which they basically all do.  But, unless the class is another controller the AoEs should not equal the wizards in damage.


----------



## Destil (Jun 29, 2008)

But a controller doesn't just do damage. Just like a fighter isn't some WoW Warrior who contributes only trivial damage to a fight while soaking 100% of the hits.

Every class dabbles in other areas: Fighters deal great damage while Paladins soak hits for allies and heal. Clerics can either melee and deal and soak good damage in the front line, or stand back and blast as their healing.

The big advantage of the wizard as a controller is with proper planning he gets to choose the right spell for the job. Either of their level 19 ranged AoEs can be far better at shaping a battlefield if utilized properly. And if the wizard really wants damage there's acid blast. Clerics choose flamestrike and have to stick with it unless they retrain. The wizard gets to choose two (or three) and go with what's best for the day.



Ahglock said:


> Why did tensers transformation disappear again?
> 
> Heck tensers is fine in comparison to these cleric spells because you transform into a inferior fighter and lose access to your spells.  These spells go past the wizard equivalents.  Apparently the 4e designers think its cool to step on a niches toes when its the wizards toes being stepped on.



I really agree with you here, though. Tenser's and a melee polymorph spell or two would have been fine for the wizard.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> AoE damage is the wizards thing, the cleric a leader should not be exceeding or even equaling that damage especially when it comes with the auto no friendly fire mode.




So i guess Shield makes Clerics obsolete and should be nerfed?

AoE damage is not the sole reign of wizards, not even control is. All classes meld slightly between defending, controlling, striking, and leading. Wizards gets some striking(mainly AoE striking), rangers get some defending, rogues get some leading, fighters get some striking, and controlling, warlords get some defending and controlling, clerics get some controlling.

Its the "some" part that is important. Just because a cleric has a power that is slightly better at AoE damage than the Wizard is no cause for alarm. Great, he can pick one AoE damage power over a power that keeps him and his friends alive.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> The cleric having some good AoE is fine.
> 
> The cleric have some AoE spells which spank wizard AoE spells at equivalent levels is the problem.




What spell are you talking about? I haven't found it yet.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jun 29, 2008)

theNater said:


> Targets:  Firestorm wins this category hands down, as the only one of the three that won't hit allies.  Cloudkill comes in a distant second, as the wizard will have the opportunity to move it off of any allies before they begin their turn in it.




That was a pretty good analysis.

I'd just add that by level 20, just one level later, wizard have access to the feat Spell Accuracy.  

By that point, most wizard will have taken it and be able to exclude at least one ore two square form the area of effect which is usually enough to catch all the enmies you want without hurting your defenders. It is so useful that the designers probably should have made it a class feature.

Anyway, in practice, by the level 20 you can read all wizard spells as 'Target Enemies only' too.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Except that those wont spare a moving friendly.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> You mean, like the wizard?
> 
> Also, if doing AoE damage is what makes a controller a controller, the Wizard wins hands down.
> 
> ...




No one is arguing that the wizard can't control or that he can't lay down some damage. In fact, thats just about all he _can_ do.

The issue is that a _cleric_ has a better AoE striking option over a _wizard_ at some given level/s.



Goumindong said:


> So i guess Shield makes Clerics obsolete and should be nerfed?




I think we can find at least a couple level 2 cleric utilities that are superior to Shield.



Goumindong said:


> AoE damage is not the sole reign of wizards, not even control is. All classes meld slightly between defending, controlling, striking, and leading. Wizards gets some striking(mainly AoE striking)... clerics get some controlling.




And clerics get AoE striking powers too, sometimes even better than what a wizard can choose from.



Goumindong said:


> Just because a cleric has a power that is slightly better at AoE damage than the Wizard is no cause for alarm. Great, he can pick one AoE damage power over a power that keeps him and his friends alive.




And lets point out absurdity with absurdity.

*absurdity start*

Wizards should get a couple AoE heal/buff powers. In fact, the powers should be better than what the cleric gets at the same level, but only by a little bit.

If anybody complains about the new superior wizard AoE heal/buff powers I'll just state that:
1. That the cleric has 15 heal/buff powers and the wizard only has 2
2. That the cleric can lay down 6 powers that can heal 700 hit points and buff all defenses by 5 points.
3. That the cleric heals are only _slightly_ inferior to the wizard heals
4. That all classes do the meld thingy
5. That by choosing a heal/buff power, the wizard is not choosing a control power, and therefore he's not controlling the battlefield.
6. And that it's *only* one maybe two heal/buff powers. (That's only like 25% of his total daily/encounter potential... big deal!!!)

And for those reasons it's OK for a wizard to have (a couple) better heals than a cleric...

*absurdity over*

No one is saying that the cleric shouldn't AoE strike at all. What we are saying that he shouldn't do it better than a wizard... not even once.

Unless you are a believer that wizards should be allowed to AoE heal/buff better than a cleric... at least once.

Should they?


----------



## DLichen (Jun 29, 2008)

Wizards have the best utility buff at level 6 - invisibility

All cleric powers at level 6 heal.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 29, 2008)

DLichen said:


> Wizards have the best utility buff at level 6 - invisibility
> 
> All cleric powers at level 6 heal.




Invisibility isn't that good... it requires a standard action every round to maintain, and you can't attack while invisible.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 29, 2008)

Like I said before. Its okay tht Cleric AOE deals more damage and hits only enemies because:

1) they lack the ranged debuffs to hold and push enemies together
2) Damage AOE is the weaker and less effective option most of the time. 
3) It gives the cleric a reason to take the power (we don't want second class powers in this edition too)

It's like taking the sniper rifle from the man with steady hands (wizard) and giving it to the one with shaky hands (cleric). Use he can use it, just not as effective as the other guy.


I'll take knocking 4 guys into a wall, slowing them, then slamming 3 slightly weaker AOEs on them 
over 
hoping the more than 1 guy stand still and dropping a slighlty stronger AOE on them.

But that's me.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Minigiant said:


> Like I said before. Its okay tht Cleric AOE deals more damage and hits only enemies because:
> 
> 2) Damage AOE is the weaker and less effective option most of the time.
> 3) It gives the cleric a reason to take the power (we don't want second class powers in this edition too)





The Problem is is that Clerics have a number of AoE's that damage and control just as well as a wizard.

Then why do Clerics have to have the best AoE striking powers too?

And as far as "second class powers" go, if you really look at some of the cleric attack powers, the cleric single target powers do fall into that second class category.
 



Minigiant said:


> I'll take knocking 4 guys into a wall, slowing them, then slamming 3 slightly weaker AOEs on them
> over
> hoping the more than 1 guy stand still and dropping a slighlty stronger AOE on them.
> 
> But that's me.




 
Lets see, by my estimation your example above requires 5 or 6 powers to pull off.

Now lets take at what a single cleric power can do:

*Seal of Warding* (cleric 15th daily)
1. It does AoE damage (like a Wizard can)
2. It slows enemies (control effect 1)
3. It modifies terrain (control effect 2)
4. It protects party members (leader effect 1)
5. It persists (prolonging control and leader effects)
6. And lastly, It only affects enemies (the bad stuff at least)

Wow, just wow.  All this in one small package.

I wouldn't even touch the other cleric single target daily of the same level (it's 2nd or even 3rd class compared to this power).

Looking at the 17th level encounters, the cleric AoEs are clearly superior to the single attack powers.  They damage and control just like a wizard can  with the added benefit of only effecting the baddies in the areas.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 29, 2008)

Minigiant said:


> I'll take knocking 4 guys into a wall, slowing them, then slamming 3 slightly weaker AOEs on them.



Then tell me, what is the best spell to hurl people? If it's about frequency, the wizard with Thunderwave wins.

If it's about effectivity... it's Thunderous Word with push of 3 + Cha mod for the cleric. As encounter spell, enemies only. The wizard will never have anything, not even a daily, that has something that even touches that hurling power.

But wait, it isn't a "real" controller power, it's a leader power, because it also gives allies the ability to shift one square - so the cleric's leader power helps allies and out-controls the wizard's battlefield control as well? What?

The wizard will never reach this level of pushing power, even as archmage.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> I think we can find at least a couple level 2 cleric utilities that are superior to Shield.





I don't think you can, I don't think you can find a level 6 cleric spell superior to shield. Oh wait, what is that, its the cleric shield spell at level 6 and the wizard has it at level 2!

Well, the wizard one only works on itself and is a shield bonus instead of a power bonus, but still, that is kinda like saying "firestorm is better than Evard's black tentacles or Cloudkill" ignoring that Cloudkill can be moved and the Evard's black tentacles has control(and really strong, ongoing control that can be re-applied once someone saves against it)

No, Clerics do not have control anywhere near Wizards. Wizards have ranged 2 close blast 4's that push 5+ at will! 

Every level of encounter power they have an ability that will take at least one enemy out of the fight for a full round. You get to daze enemies as an encounter power at level 3.

Prismatic Beams(AoE against three defenses! With status effects and two ongoing damage types.), Wall of Ice. Both better control than Seal of Warding.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> Then tell me, what is the best spell to hurl people? If it's about frequency, the wizard with Thunderwave wins.
> 
> If it's about effectivity... it's Thunderous Word with push of 3 + Cha mod for the cleric. As encounter spell, enemies only. The wizard will never have anything, not even a daily, that has something that even touches that hurling power.
> 
> ...




The question is not "is Thunderous Word a better pushing power than Thunderwave?" The question is "Is Thunderous Word a better controlling power than Thunderwave and Ice Tomb or Force Volley"

Asking whether or not a lv 17 push is going to be stronger or weaker than an at will is a bit like complaining that Thunderous Word does more damage twin strike.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> I don't think you can, I don't think you can find a level 6 cleric spell superior to shield. Oh wait, what is that, its the cleric shield spell at level 6 and the wizard has it at level 2!




You can't be serious, have you even read the cleric powers?

Lets look at level 2 utilities...
Wizard's: Shield (+4 to your AC and ref for a single round, or less)
vs.
Cleric's: Shield of Faith (+2 to AC for ALL ALLIES and WHOLE ENCOUNTER)
Cleric's: Sanctuary (+5 to all defenses, one or more rounds)

The choice seems clear to me, cleric wins...

As far as the level 6 utilities... don't even go there.  The cleric can heal one guy half his full hit points or grant a third wind for every party member.  Those are massively superior to the wizard's Shield power.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Well, the wizard one only works on itself and is a shield bonus instead of a power bonus, but still, that is kinda like saying "firestorm is better than Evard's black tentacles or Cloudkill" ignoring that Cloudkill can be moved and the Evard's black tentacles has control(and really strong, ongoing control that can be re-applied once someone saves against it)




Yeah but the whole party can move and engage freely within a Fire or Astral storm.

The party can't do that in an evard's or cloudlkill.  Not even Arcane Mastery will work well in this case, unless your own party members are willing to immobilize themselves.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> The question is not "is Thunderous Word a better pushing power than Thunderwave?" The question is "Is Thunderous Word a better controlling power than Thunderwave and Ice Tomb or Force Volley"



Neither. The questions are:

1) Is forced movement control? Personally, I think "yes."

Then:

2) Which of these to classes have access to better forced movement abilities?

Lets' see:

*The Cleric:*
At-Will:
None

Encounter:
_Cause Fear (1)_ - noteworthy is the chance to trigger OAs, moves speed + Cha (usually 6 + Cha), but no forcing into hazards
_Command (3)_ - Daze and slides 3 + Cha OR knocks prone, no damage
Thunderous Word (17) - Damage, slides allies and 3 + Cha push

Daily:
None

The Wizard:
At-Will:
_Thunderwave_

Encounter:
_Spectral Ram (7)_ - damage, prone and 3 squares
_Thunderlance (13)_ - damage and 4 squares

Daily:
_Elemental Maw (25)_ - pull 2, draws them into a place of hurt

Bottomline: The wizard has Thunderwave, which sets him apart, as it's an at-will. Outside of at-wills, the cleric gets options much earlier, which are more effective, though lack the attached damage.

The wizard is better at spamming such effects due to thunderwave, but the effects the cleric gets to move people more squares, i.e. wizard gets quantity, cleric gets quality.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

You're doing it again. You ignore that Shield of Faith is a daily and Shield is an encounter. You ignore that Sanctuary forces the target to not attack anyone or the effect ends and both are standard actions instead of interrupts.

And i was wrong, the cleric shield equivalent is level 10.

Clerics simply are not better at control than wizards, they aren't close to better at control than wizards and the overlap is minimal.

When there is a benefit that makes a wizard power better than another, you ignore it. When there is a penalty that makes a wizard power weaker than another, you harp on it. 

Also, that cleric power will only grant a second second wind, not third.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> No, Clerics do not have control anywhere near Wizards. Wizards have ranged 2 close blast 4's that push 5+ at will!





This is true, but Cleric can control just about as good as a wizard, although a wizard can do it more often.

If you read through the cleric lists, you will find plenty of powers that blind, stun, immobilize, daze, and push enemies.  And they can do most if not all of these controlly things in an AoE form, without hurting allies, and sometimes getting a nice group buff out of it to boot.





Goumindong said:


> Every level of encounter power they have an ability that will take at least one enemy out of the fight for a full round. You get to daze enemies as an encounter power at level 3.





Yes, I get it, wizards have more control powers, infact, thats just about all they have.  

I just wish wizards can group buff half as well as clerics can group control/strike.




Goumindong said:


> Prismatic Beams(AoE against three defenses! With status effects and two ongoing damage types.), Wall of Ice. Both better control than Seal of Warding.
> [/font]





AoE against 3 defenses is not necessarily better than an AoE against one defense, it's an illusion.

If you attack 2 defenses with 22 points damage each attack  (44 total)  vs attacking one defense with 34 points damage, one could conclude that the double attack vs 2 defenses is better.

But if you delve deeper you will find that thats not necessarily the case, especially in 4e.  

Browsing through the monster manual you will see that the fort defense is the superior defense.  More so because most fighter and brute types have very high fort saves (sometime up to 3 to 8 points higher than will defense) not to mention that brute/fighters make up most combatants in DnD battles.

Therefore since one of the attacks of Prismatic Beams targets fort defense, it will hit less often, therefore your DPS is gimped somewhat.

The cleric power Seal of Warding attacks Will defense.  You will hit more times for full damage because it's a great defense to target.

And for the best part of all, with Seal of Ward, even if you miss every attack roll vs. every enemy in the AoE, you still get the difficult terrain and cover for every party member (effectively +2 to defenses).

If you miss with Prismatic Beams, you get.... umm.... nothing.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Now you're just flat out lying. There are not a significant number of cleric attacks that have control, they almost all fall on the same level or are encounter level strength for wizards (while taking up a Cleric Daily) and half of them are melee attacks forcing your cleric to dump the charisma in favor of strength which makes its other two pushing powers not nearly as strong.


----------



## Goumindong (Jun 29, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> Neither. The questions are:
> 
> 1) Is forced movement control? Personally, I think "yes."
> 
> ...




If
A -> B
B -> C

Then 
C =/= A
may or may not be true

Try again.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> You're doing it again. You ignore that Shield of Faith is a daily and Shield is an encounter. You ignore that Sanctuary forces the target to not attack anyone or the effect ends and both are standard actions instead of interrupts.
> 
> And i was wrong, the cleric shield equivalent is level 10.
> 
> ...





1. I'm not ignoring that Shield is an interrupt and you can use it per encounter.  I still think that a +2 AC to every member all encounter is superior to +4 AC/ref for a single guy for one round or less.

2. Yes Shielding Word is not as good as Shield.  But then again, the cleric has better level 2 utilities than level 10 Shielding Word too. Also, the OP was comparing level to level powers, and thats where I kept my comparisons.  Your suggestion that Shield is superior to any cleric power of similar level is ludicrous. 

3. So, for the 2nd time... I did not ignore Shield

4. The cleric power grants a _*2nd*_ second wind if you have already used a second wind that round.  Therefore I called it a "third" wind.  My mistake, I thought you would have picked up on that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> What spell are you talking about? I haven't found it yet.




You're in this thread, are you not?

I don't know why you are trying to argue that "wizards are better controllers than clerics are". 

The point of this thread is (glances up at title) the Firestorm spell. Best way of doing damage to multiple foes (not even taking into account that it doesn't hurt allies) at that level, and it is a cleric spell.

We've also mentioned astral storm vs meteor swarm for the 29th level area damage spell.

In both cases the cleric power spanks the wizard damaging burst power at appropriate levels.


----------



## Theziner (Jun 29, 2008)

*Oppertunity cost of shield vs shield of faith*

If your going to argue that cleric shield utility spells are better than the Wizard's Shield spell then you have to take into account the oppertunity cost involved.

Lets look at the positives and negatives of the Wizard's Shield spell vs the Cleric's Shiled of Faith.

Shield
Positives - Immediate Interupt, Encounter power, +4 ac
Negatives - Personal, only until end of next turn.

Shield of Faith
Positives - Close burst 5 each ally in burst, +2 ac untill end of encounter
Negative - Standard Action, Daily power

Both are very useful to their respective classes but are useless to each other and here is why. 

Wizards need to act first. Period. Delaying their control for one round to cast a buff on the first turn could ruin any chance of getting off good control before the rest of the party swarms into melee. Shield works for them because its fast, its reusable and lets them get to doing their jobs. Shield of faith or any of the Cleric Utilities would be a bad choice for the Wizard.

Clerics can afford a standard at the beginning of the encounter to buff. Its in their job description. They are there to keep the party alive.

So when people compare Wizard's utilities vs Cleric's utilties they need to keep in mind that the power level of each individual power as a whole has been optimized for the class specificly. It works with the type of role and pace each class keeps. So you can't numericly compare the powers without taking into account more factors than most people spout out when trying to prove their fallicious points on how clerics are better than wizards. The classes balance in the big picture dispite any discrepancies of one single power.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Now you're just flat out lying. There are not a significant number of cleric attacks that have control, they almost all fall on the same level or are encounter level strength for wizards (while taking up a Cleric Daily) and half of them are melee attacks forcing your cleric to dump the charisma in favor of strength which makes its other two pushing powers not nearly as strong.





Clerics can AoE control at levels 1, 5, 9, 15, 17, 19, 25, 29.
Clerics can AoE strike at levels 1, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29.

And every one is a Wisdom attack power... so you can go to town with your Cha stat.

Seems like a significant number to me.

Plus you are implying that the Cleric control/strike dailies (like Fire Storm in the OP) are worse than the Wizard encounters?  Who's the one lying now?


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 29, 2008)

I've come to the conclusion that Wizards are still better controllers then Clerics. Frequency of control in conjunction with better control powers overall but not in every single instance. 

I also agree with the people who think that Clerics have too much control ability in comparison to the Wizard's low amount of "leader-esque" abilities.


----------



## bardolph (Jun 29, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I've been trying to figure it out, and I can't. Clerics have hands down the best control spell at this level. Evard's can potentially keep people tied down if you keep pushing them back in, but its huge area makes it unwieldy, since it affects your allies. The rest of the spells really don't even come close. Firestorm does more damage, more ongoing damage, it has the largest area, and it *doesn't affect your allies*.
> 
> What does the community think about this?



I would call Firestorm a terrific spell, but I wouldn't call it the best "hands down" control spell.

Evard's Black Tentacles creates difficult terrain, can immobilize, and can repeat attacks with a minor action.

Cloudkill can move (up to 6 squares per turn).

Fire Storm does spectacular damage, but the persistent effect doesn't offer much in the way of "control."

As a straight-up attack, Fire Storm is a definite winner, but the Wizard spells offer more combinatorial effects.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 29, 2008)

Theziner said:


> If your going to argue that cleric shield utility spells are better than the Wizard's Shield spell then you have to take into account the oppertunity cost involved.





Well said Theziner, your comparisons of Shield vs Shield of Faith are right on.

You mentioned opportunity costs and it got me thinking.  You are right, a wizard has to control, it's his job, so a power like shield works for him because it keeps him controlling.  On the whole though, the typical Wizard has to choose between control powers and damage avoidance powers or he has to burn 2 powers in a single round to get both at the same time.

But if you look at the Cleric, he can have his cake and eat it too.
1. He has the best all out AoE damage strikes in the game, period.
2. He doesn't have to choose between doing damage and healing, there are plenty of powers that do both at the same time.  Some even do damage, control, and buff all in one power.
3. All his AoE's work around friendlies
4. All his AoE's can be buffed using a single damage buff feat: Astral Fire.
5. He has a free feat at level 21 compared to the wizard.

The typical wizard will take at least 2 damage buffing feats if not more (i.e. cold, thunder, fire, etc) plus the Spell Accuracy feat to stay competitive.

Heck, just having 2 or 3 extra feats is a major advantage.  Calculate the opportunity cost in that.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 29, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Try again.



Okay: Forced movement is control, yes? So forced movement abilities represents a part of the different abilities to control, among other things, like AoE damage, status effects, and battlefield shaping. By comparing these abilities, we get to see how the classes stack up in these particular aspects.

From the comparison: The cleric has higher quality ones, but can use them less often - this is very similar to the situation in the AoE effect department, which leads to this, since the wizard has better status effects and battlefield shaping:


Lucas Blackstone said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Wizards are still better controllers then Clerics. Frequency of control in conjunction with better control powers overall but not in every single instance.
> 
> I also agree with the people who think that Clerics have too much control ability in comparison to the Wizard's low amount of "leader-esque" abilities.



Which is probably the main point - sure, the wizard will always remain a better controller, simply due to his access to controllish powers at-will, unlike the cleric.

But, as with the quality of firestorm compared to the wizard's spells, it's at least a reasonable position to say that cleric and wizards have some overlap - and the crux is: How much overlap can you have without stepping on each other's toes, especially if the toe stepping is one-directional.

Of course, the leader role, unlike the other roles, is a bit lacking all on its own - hence it must have other abilities. The warlord does that by being a "defender-light", whereas the cleric is a "controller-light". However, looking at these points of comparison, it's possible that the cleric is more "controllerish" than the warlord is "defenderish".

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lamoni (Jun 29, 2008)

I like the fact that each class can do a little bit in each role.  I don't want adventures with only 3 PC's to be impossible to play.  I also agree that a class should not get a power that fills another's role better than a class specializing in that role.  From this thread I can see three problems:

1. Firestorm is too good for a non-controller class
2. Astral Storm is also too good for a non-controller class
3. The Wizard gets too few powers that can fill any other role.

You might still disagree that the above are actually problems, but if you do agree, what are the best fixes?

My initial ideas are:
1. Reduce Firestorm damage from 5d10 to 4d10 initial damage.  This leaves the cleric with the ability to control, but reduces the power slightly to prevent jealousy from the wizard.
2. Change the Astral Storm sustain from minor to standard.  It will still be a very good initial damage spell, but be more difficult to sustain the effect.  I'd also raise the meteor storm damage from 8d6 to 9d6 to make it slightly more appealing when compared to Legion's Hold.
3. I don't know if I would care to fix this... at least not without a whole lot of playtesting to see if it was actually necessary.  

Are there better fixes that you'd recommend?


----------



## Samurai (Jun 29, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> Well said Theziner, your comparisons of Shield vs Shield of Faith are right on.
> 
> You mentioned opportunity costs and it got me thinking.  You are right, a wizard has to control, it's his job, so a power like shield works for him because it keeps him controlling.  On the whole though, the typical Wizard has to choose between control powers and damage avoidance powers or he has to burn 2 powers in a single round to get both at the same time.
> 
> ...




And on top of all that, there's still the better weapons proficiencies, much better armor proficiences, better hit points, etc that a cleric gets.  Previously, that was because the Wizard was meant to be a glass cannon... best offensive power in the game, balanced by the worst defenses in the game.  That is no longer the case.  All classes can now do a great deal of damage, and several classes can do MORE damage than the Wizard, such as the Ranger and, at times, the Cleric.  Now, if the offensive powers were merely equal between these classes and the Wizard, you'd still then have to ask why shouldn't the wizard then get equally good armor, weapons, and hit points?  No, the point is, the Wizard is supposed to do MORE damage than any other class, in order to make up for those deficiencies... otherwise, why not let them start with better HP, armor, and weapons like all the other classes get?


----------



## Samurai (Jun 29, 2008)

Lamoni said:


> I like the fact that each class can do a little bit in each role.  I don't want adventures with only 3 PC's to be impossible to play.  I also agree that a class should not get a power that fills another's role better than a class specializing in that role.  From this thread I can see three problems:
> 
> 1. Firestorm is too good for a non-controller class
> 2. Astral Storm is also too good for a non-controller class
> ...




Personally, my fixes include:

1)  Reduce Firestorm's initial damage to 3d10.
2)  Reduce Astral Storm's initial damage to 4d10
2a)  Rebalance some other spells in the game to help even things out, strengthening some (knockdown on Meteor Swarm) and weakening others.
3)  Right now, I'm not going to try giving Wizards powers that step on other classes toes, for several reasons.  First, I think the Wizard's flexibility lies mainly in their Spellbook rather than powers that cross roles.  Second, I'm sure that before long we'll have more Wizard spells added to their list, some of which might well help in other roles.


----------



## Marshall (Jun 29, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> A few things:
> Why does everyone decide to compare Meteor Storm and Astral Storm? How about comparing Meteor Storm and Godstrike. One is much better, and I'll give you a hint, it's not Godstrike. Every level has crappy options and good options, and that's going to continue. As has been said (and should be obvious), only the best power in any level matters.





Absolutely correct.
And the Strikers should have the best Striker powers, the Leaders should have the best Leader powers, the Controller should have the best Controller powers, etc. When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 29, 2008)

Marshall said:


> Absolutely correct.
> And the Strikers should have the best Striker powers, the Leaders should have the best Leader powers, the Controller should have the best Controller powers, etc. When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.




I actually disagree. I wouldn't care if the paladin had the most powerful leader power in the game. Or a fighter with the highest damage "move and smackdown" power. As long as they couldn't do it often.  I would say the classes of a role would have the MOST (in frequency and versatility) powers of that role.   

A cleric has 2 of the strongest AOE he can fire once a day each and no good way to hold enemies in it. Good for him.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

Marshall said:


> <snip>
> When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.




They _don't_ have the best Controller power at any level. They have the best AoE damage power at two levels. AoE damage is not what the wizard should be doing. A competent wizard will use actual control, (Legion's Hold is awesome) just like a competent cleric will choose Astral Storm instead of Godstrike. Doing damage, for the last time, *does not constitute control*.

Let's go over why pure damage is ineffective by looking at roles and what they are supposed to do: (btw, my definition of debuff = imposing negative effects on enemies)
Leader - buff (includes healing) team, possibly debuff enemies as well, with a little control
Defender - make the enemies not attack your teammates, through marking, defender features, and debuffing.
Striker - do damage to the weak enemies, while debuffing them.
Controller - control the battlefield, do AoE effects, including debuffing.

Now, why does every class have debuffing powers? Because they are how you help accomplish your role, regardless of what it is. Defenders slow enemies, mark them, and impose penalties on them when they attack other people. Leaders help their teammates out by buffing and by debuffing. Wizard being attacked? Daze him, and the wizard can escape freely. 

Strikers and Controllers have the most potent debuffing powers because they are the ones whose role depends on them. Strikers disable a potent enemy who would otherwise be hard to get at from the fight. How? Killing while imposing negative effects. They can't accomplish much while dazed, weakened, and -5 to attack rolls. Controllers use debuffs to control the battlefield, to keep the enemies from doing what they want to and making them go where a controller wants them to. They do this in an area, which can effectively change a potentially challenging encounter into simply two easy encounters with little time in between, or (even better) one very easy encounter (enemies stunned).

You could, of course, decide to go the damage route as a controller. That way, you could start off an encounter by doing an extra 10 or so damage to the enemies with 300 hp, but still leave them able to fight effectively instead of dazing or immobilizing them... Congratulations...

I do agree, though that Fire Storm is a good damage spell. Damage has its place, since you *do* need to kill your enemies. It's just that a controller should not be focusing _at all_ at doing damage, since it is not control. Thus, Firestorm is *not* the best control spell of its level.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> Doing damage, for the last time, *does not constitute control*.




In 4e D&D yes it freakin does for the last time.  Read the dang PH pg 16, the first paragraph it describes what a controller does.
Heck I will quote it part of it, since were not supposed to quote large swaths.  
"They favor offense over defense, *using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, *as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay there foes."  

So yes, slow effects, bad terrain mods are control effects, but in 4e D&D so it out right area of effect damage.  

Lets look at the leader role, two paragraphs down.
"Leaders have good defense, but there strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on."

Heck by that description Leaders should barely step on the controllers toes since they are supposed to be focusing on specific targets making them more back up strikers than back up controllers.  So AoE damage is totally out of there role, and is a complete secondary task to them while being a primary task given to the controller.  At no point should they exceed the controller in damage from AoE, adding in that there is no friendly fire is just an additional kick in the pants.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> In 4e D&D yes it freakin does for the last time.  Read the dang PH pg 16, the first paragraph it describes what a controller does.
> Heck I will quote it part of it, since were not supposed to quote large swaths.
> "They favor offense over defense, *using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, *as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay there foes."




I don't care what the PHB says, damage in and of itself is not efficient and not control. If they define control to include that and you refuse to accept the word control to mean what I use it to mean, then when I refer to control, substitute it with what I use control to mean.

Wizards doesn't exactly make the best evaluations about what is or should be a lot of the time. They did a remarkably good job this time, but that is an incorrect evaluation of what constitutes control past the first few levels, IMO. After you get through a few levels, damage from a single AoE simply isn't enough to do a significant portion of an enemies health in damage, and thus is not effective at control.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

Irregardless, it seems monsters get classified as controllers just 'cos they have a power that deals damage to multiple targets.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> I don't care what the PHB says, damage in and of itself is not efficient and not control. If they define control to include that and you refuse to accept the word control to mean what I use it to mean, then when I refer to control, substitute it with what I use control to mean.
> 
> Wizards doesn't exactly make the best evaluations about what is or should be a lot of the time. They did a remarkably good job this time, but that is an incorrect evaluation of what constitutes control past the first few levels, IMO. After you get through a few levels, damage from a single AoE simply isn't enough to do a significant portion of an enemies health in damage, and thus is not effective at control.




Well okay, but I thought we were talking about 4e D&D.  But hey aparently we are talking about the DemonLord57 game where control means something else.  Look zippy you think of something else when you think of control.  Great for you, but in 4e D&D they invented a definition of control and it includes AoE damage.  So when discussing 4e D&D I think that maybe I will stick with there defintion of control and not the DemonLord57 definition.  If it makes you feel better don't think it as the definition of control but the definition of the controller role.  And AoE damage is specifically under the purview of the controller role and it is not under and is not found under and other roles.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

Well, Demonlord57 does have a point, though.
I may acknowledge that firestorm is a control spell, but evard's is heaps better.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

*Firestorm is better?*

Why is it better?  Why is Astral Storm better?  Damage?

Is Astral Storm better than Meteor Swarm?  It depends.  It depends on what Paragon Path and Epic Destiny you took.  In short, it depends on all the factors that eventually end up on these powers when they're used.  You can't say that a pizza is good until you actually eat it.  Comparing pizza quality from pizza stores based on the size of their ovens is silly.

Why can Meteor Swarm be better than Astral Storm?  Well, Meteor Swarm can be doubled up on or made into an encounter power using the Archmage destiny, and you can add damage to it from Bloodmage.  Moreover, a Wizard has no second primary attribute, so he can raise Int as much as he likes with fewer repercussions.  If you take Wis or Con or Dex or whatever, you'll be about the same as a Devoted Cleric seconding Cha, but your defenses are better.  A Devoted Cleric doubling up on Wis and Cha is junking 2 attributes and none of his primaries deal with AC.  He needs chainmail just to keep close to your AC, and he'll probably be inferior anyway.  His Ref defense is going to be abysmal and there's just no helping that.

Well then, incidental attribute thingies aside, what CAN you do with Meteor Swarm?  Let's twink it a little bit just to see how far it can go.  A "normal" level 30 monster should have about 300 HP.  We don't know because there aren't actually any standard level 30 monsters yet.

Let's burn an AP, use Bloodmage, and Bolstering Blood for 2d10.  We'll also use Spell Recall to double up on Meteor Swarm, and Astral Fire to boost the damage by +3 more.  We'll cede Spell Accuracy - one feat, to be able to use it easily, though that's not really necessary all the time.  We can twink it more with Staff of Fiery Mastery, but that's a little hard to figure, so let's leave that out.

With just this, we deal 16d6+26+6+4d10+10 (ongoing).  That's about 120 damage to the AoE effect - nearly enough on its own to bring every enemy within the target area to bloodied status.  You can regain Meteor Swarm with Shape Magic, too.  Or, you can make Meteor Swarm into an encounter power with Archspell and then regain it within the round with Soul Burn and blast the enemy twice using that combination.  Then use Shape Magic to regain Soul Burn and do it again next encounter, then use Destructive Salutation and Meteor Swarm on the encounter after that.


I can imagine that using these factors, a Wizard can solo a level 30 encounter with Standards and minions all by himself.

Same with Firestorm.  Closing Spell is comparable, and a Wizard can combo his Closing Spell with Evard's to layer on some serious AoE pressure, and he can choose his element type to get by resistances.  A Wizard's AoE suite is unrivaled.  Without using another daily power, he can layer Closing Spell, Combust (or whatever), Frostburn, and Winter's Wrath to get some serious AoE damage pressure going on, and then keep it on in between casting these spells with boosted Thunderwaves and Scorching Bursts

For a Devoted Cleric, we get Firestorm, Enthrall (or Thunderous Word), Mantle of Glory, and nothing (because none of the 7th level encounter powers for Clerics have AoE options).

Seriously, the Cleric's lagging here.  Firestorm's good, but it's not good enough to make that up.


----------



## keterys (Jun 30, 2008)

Roxlimm... I may be misunderstanding, but those don't sound like any reason that meteor swarm is better. They'd all be just as effective, if not more effective, using astral storm.

That is to say, if you gave the wizard an Int-based Astral Storm, would anyone 'prepare' Meteor Swarm over it?


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

If you gave Wizards an Arcane Astral Storm, it would be borderline broken, possibly completely broken.  Did you see what I did?  I made Meteor Swarm an encounter power recoverable twice a day!  Can you imagine Astral Storm as an encounter power you can double-use twice a day?

Let's plug in the values.

12d10+26+6+4d10+10 (ongoing).  You would deal 130 damage that isn't even easily resistible over a wide area, and every turn you sustain minor twice and get another possible 108 damage a turn on that.  Why don't you just write "I win" on the power?  And you do this twice a day?  And you can Astral Storm every encounter on top of Legion's Hold daily, Blackfire, Acid Storm, and Combust?

That's insane.

Astral Storm as an encounter power.  I shudder just thinking about it.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Well, Demonlord57 does have a point, though.
> I may acknowledge that firestorm is a control spell, but evard's is heaps better.




Evards is usually a little better for what a wizard will want to do, but firestorm is a better AoE damage spell and while its continuing damage is relatively small since it does not effect the party they can sit in it and either the opnents have to retreat and trade ranged attacks or its a AoE damage over time spell hitting them fairly hard.  

   Evards sounds cool and in some situations is better but it effectively blocks an area for the party as well.  If played right the effect will be worse on the opposition than on the party, but it can really turn against the party in a dynamic fight.  

  Thing is most people aren't arguing that wixards are worse controllers over all, just that the cleric having better AoE damage spells when not a controller seems screwy.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> If you gave Wizards an Arcane Astral Storm, it would be borderline broken, possibly completely broken.  Did you see what I did?  I made Meteor Swarm an encounter power recoverable twice a day!  Can you imagine Astral Storm as an encounter power you can double-use twice a day?
> 
> Let's plug in the values.
> 
> ...




  While impressive its totally lame that you need a specific build in order to beat out a class with another role in one of your primary roles, dealing AoE damage.  And also its level 30 you can turn these things into encounter powers.  The game is kind of over at level 30.


----------



## bardolph (Jun 30, 2008)

Why not actually build a 19th level Wizard and a 19th level Cleric, and compare their "Controller" capabilities as _whole character,_ rather than fixate on a single power?

I think a good test is to assume that you already have a party consisting of 19th level Paladin, Warlord, and Rogue, and try to figure out which character would make the best 4th: a 19th level Cleric, or a 19th level Wizard?


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> Evards is usually a little better for what a wizard will want to do, but firestorm is a better AoE damage spell and while its continuing damage is relatively small since it does not effect the party they can sit in it and either the opnents have to retreat and trade ranged attacks or its a AoE damage over time spell hitting them fairly hard.
> 
> Evards sounds cool and in some situations is better but it effectively blocks an area for the party as well. If played right the effect will be worse on the opposition than on the party, but it can really turn against the party in a dynamic fight.
> 
> Thing is most people aren't arguing that wixards are worse controllers over all, just that the cleric having better AoE damage spells when not a controller seems screwy.




Well ... most people don't realise just how evard's works.

1) It doesn't block stuff for the party. Really. It only tries to grab people when you sustain it, so you can walk through the difficult terrain just fine. You don't want to base an immobilised mob anyhow. They'll just shrug and hit you.

2) Saving throws happen at the end of a creature's turn. So .. after they make the save, you sustain the effect and grab them again. That means you'll have to miss for them to be free of the effect. Sustain the evard's first ... if you miss, _ready_ a thunderwave for when they come out (your initiative then gets set to _before_ their turn) ... they get to see daylight momentarily before ending up back in the middle of the effect. If they use their standard action to get out, thunderwave them back in next turn, then sustain.

3) So some mobs get free. You don't care ... denying half the opposition their attacks for a _single_ round > firestorm.

On a build that maxes int, evard's can one-man an entire encounter.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Well ... most people don't realise just how evard's works.
> 
> 1) It doesn't block stuff for the party. Really. It only tries to grab people when you sustain it, so you can walk through the difficult terrain just fine. You don't want to base an immobilised mob anyhow. They'll just shrug and hit you.
> 
> ...




Well it creates a area of difficult terrain which means the party gets slowed moving into it, and if you sustain it the party will be attacked if they go into it.  If for some reason the party needs to or wants to get past that area it has just had a negative effect on the party.  Any time a party member is somehow moved into the zone the wizard has to decide whether to drop the spell just leaving it as difficult terrain for a turn or attacking a party member.  

I'm not saying it isn't bad assed because it is fairly cool, just that any time you lay down terrain and effects in a area that sticks around it is a fairly situational use since the party needs to move around as much as the enemy does.  You can build a party who capitalizes on this with ranged attacks a plenty but if you have a melee striker and a defender, they kind of need to move into position to do there job and now a hentai monster is blocking there path.  

Maybe I play in weird games but the party is trying to get to the monsters as often as the monsters are trying to get to them and many times the party is trying more often.  Wall spells and other blocks can help but they frequently just get in the way of the party.  

  I guess we will need more eladrin.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

*Ahglock:*

Did you or did you NOT read what I posted and the context of it in the previous post?
I didn't have to use "an entire build" to "beat" Astral Storm.  I showed that Astral Storm as a spell would be insanely strong, so that's probably why it wasn't made into one.  While I could make it into an encounter power by level 30, the nova power of the build is in evidence starting level 21.

Reading is tech.

Regarding Evard's Black Tentacles and Walls: If you don't know how to use the most powerful spells in the game to spell, "I win," then the problem is with your spelling, not with the spells.  They're extremely strong.

*DanceofMasks:*

I agree with Evard's power.  It's a very strong AoE spell.  In many ways, it's stronger than Firestorm.  What Firestorm does better is damage.

I showed that a Devoted Cleric's list of available AoE effects, optimized for damage and AoE, still doesn't compare to what a Wizard can do.  Firestorm makes up some of that, assuming that the Cleric's Wis and implements are competitive, but it doesn't make the Cleric a better controller than the Wizard.  It just kind of takes a little of the slack.

If we do weird single power comparisons, we might compare Disintegrate to Wrath of Acamar and conclude that the Wizard is a better Striker than the Warlock.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

That's why every melee character needs a ranged backup plan. Just the same as if you're fighting a hovering mob.
A barely-enchanted heavy thrown weapon will do.

Edit: that was @Ahglock

@Roxlimn
It's not a weird comparison at all. Pure damage wise, Evard's > Firestorm.
Your foes can't move .. ever .. so 15 rounds later ... damage = buckets.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

Well, they CAN move.  You're not going to hit them all the time and some foes can teleport.  Speaking only of pure nova potential with the aim of obliterating a group of enemies ASAP, Firestorm is the superior power.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

*Ahglock:*

Did you or did you NOT read what I posted and the context of it in the previous post?
I didn't have to use "an entire build" to "beat" Astral Storm.  I showed that Astral Storm as a spell would be insanely strong, so that's probably why it wasn't made into one.  While I could make it into an encounter power by level 30, the nova power of the build is in evidence starting level 21.  [/quote]  

Lets see you had a specific paragon path for extra damage a specific epic destiny for double usage, used a couple feats and an AP.  Is there something I am missing because that seems like a fairly specific build.  All of which is primarily reliant on taking a specific epic destiny.  



Roxlimn said:


> Reading is tech.




I got an idea why don't you read what you wrote instead of asking me if I did.  Now read what I wrote and point out where I said an entire build, last time I checked specific and entire were different in meaning.  They may have some similarities but they are not the same and are used for different purposes.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> That's why every melee character needs a ranged backup plan. Just the same as if you're fighting a hovering mob.
> A barely-enchanted heavy thrown weapon will do.
> 
> Edit: that was @Ahglock
> ...




Sure I am not saying it stops the party cold I am saying it limits options available.  And I am not even arguing its not an awesome power, I just think pure damage is useful in all situations while evards is something that can backfire on you.  And heck overall I do think it is superior to firestorm, and a heck of a lot superior for a wizard given the role the they have.

Again this may be just due to how my players build there party's but they are fairly heavily melee focussed and wizards dropping terrain in the way sucks for them.  In the right situations where its blocking off a group of enemies and they still have plenty of targets it is virtually penalty free, when they are fighting in relatively confined spaces it kind of sucks.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Well, they CAN move. You're not going to hit them all the time and some foes can teleport. Speaking only of pure nova potential with the aim of obliterating a group of enemies ASAP, Firestorm is the superior power.



You only need to hit them when they pass their save (you should have spell focus).
Besides, if a few get out at a time, the party can stack on them.
Same goes if one of 'em teleports out.
Firestorm is a great power .. but isn't this thread's title "Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?"
Well, it isn't .. not by a longshot. It's not even a spell (which matters for stuff that allows you to recover spells etc).


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

*Ahglock:*



> Lets see you had a specific paragon path for extra damage a specific epic destiny for double usage, used a couple feats and an AP. Is there something I am missing because that seems like a fairly specific build. All of which is primarily reliant on taking a specific epic destiny.




We're talking about a specific spell - Meteor Swarm.  Naturally, it's going to be a specific build just because we're talking about a specific build to begin with - a Wizard with Meteor Swarm!

Why would you take Meteor Swarm in any case if you're not going to abuse the heck out of it?

If you object to my use of "specific" in this instance, then we're back to the previous.  I use "entire" and "specific" interchangeably in that case, because I can't imagine a "specific" build that is not considered in its entirety.  If we only set a few variables into order, then that is NOT a specific build because much of it is changable.

Either you meant "entire" in my sense, or your assertion makes no sense.

What kind of epic destiny would you be talking about?  Is there any specific combination of Cleric powers and features that would make Astral Storm deal this much damage?

It is NOT "totally lame" that I "had" to factor in a common Wizard Paragon Path and the only Wizard-specific epic destiny to figure out what can be done with Meteor Swarm.  That's like complaining that Rogue powers are a lame way to judge daggers and rapiers on, because it's "obvious" that daggers are inferior weapons to greatswords.

Really.  Whatever else are you going to do with a Wizard?

Sheesh.


*Danceofmasks:*

Well, given that I'm not even considering Firestorm to be the equal of EBT in terms of control, I don't see why this is an issue.  The thread's title is "Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell," but I think that that's been dealt with appropriately.

Now people are saying that Firestorm makes Clerics better at dealing area damage than Wizards.  It does not.  That was my point.  Do you contest that?


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 30, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> You only need to hit them when they pass their save (you should have spell focus).
> Besides, if a few get out at a time, the party can stack on them.
> Same goes if one of 'em teleports out.
> Firestorm is a great power .. but isn't this thread's title "Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?"
> Well, it isn't .. not by a longshot. It's not even a spell (which matters for stuff that allows you to recover spells etc).




There is a reason I've been focusing on the AoE damage comparisons.  I do think evards is the better spell overall, just not by a massive margin.    I also think firestorm is much better than the pure damage equivalent for the wizard at this level, which given the role of the wizard and what that role is supposed to encompass I have a problem with.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 30, 2008)

Actually, I'm still undecided between Demigod and Archmage for wizs.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jun 30, 2008)

*Danceofmasks:*

*If* you're going to do Demigod, then I see a solid case for not taking Meteor Swarm.  It's not like you're forced to take it or anything.  If you HAD to take Meteor Swarm, would you still aim for Demigod?


----------



## keterys (Jun 30, 2008)

I really can't comprehend taking Meteor Swarm over Legion's Hold. Under almost any circumstance.

Even if you can make it passable with a paragon path, epic destiny, and three feats. Legion's Hold still kicks its butt.


----------



## Puggins (Jun 30, 2008)

Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900.  If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?

This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions.  I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm.  Both take out minions equally well.  Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat.  That's a no-brainer to me.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 30, 2008)

Puggins said:


> Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900.  If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?
> 
> This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions.  I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm.  Both take out minions equally well.  Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat.  That's a no-brainer to me.




Because it also keeps your party out of the combat, or it hurts them as much as your enemies.  In my party of 4, I'm the only real ranged attacker.  One other character has a few ranged attacks, but then has to stitch to melee, and the other 2 characters are 100% melee.  Preventing the rest of my party from using their abilities/powers leads to my party getting pissed off with me, and on multiple occasions charging through my damaging zones just to get at the foes, even though they suffer just as much as the enemies.  The other characters have threatened to attack me if I put up another damaging zone in their way again, as they consider it to be "helping the enemy!"  

The real major benefit of the Cleric spells, besides their greater damage, is the fact that they automatically only target enemies.  You can throw an Astral Storm on top of a furious melee battle between the rest of your party and a half dozen enemies and neither you nor your allies has to worry 1 bit about collateral damage.  The Wizard doesn't get that choice far too many times, even after taking an epic feat which leaves a few squares out of the effect (because an enemy might push, pull, or slide your ally into the effect and out of his "safe square", taking his place there instead!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> I don't care what the PHB says, damage in and of itself is not efficient and not control.




If you're not prepared to accept the PHB definition of control, I'm not sure what common ground there is to discuss on here!

Control as per 4e includes AoE damage. 4e couldn't be more plain on that matter.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jun 30, 2008)

Puggins said:


> Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900.  If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?




You can answer your own question by comparing what damage the wizard spells do of the same level. You may then realize what all the hub bub is about.



Puggins said:


> This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions.  I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm.  Both take out minions equally well.  Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat.  That's a no-brainer to me.




The problem with using a power like Evard's at epic levels is that you will be fighting epic level monsters, many of which can push, pull, and slide your party members into you own Evard's just as easily.  

Just think about it, if you saw an enemy cast an Evard's what would you do?  I'll tell you what you would do, you would push pull and slide to use the power against the enemy.

At this level, if the defenders, leaders and strikers in your party can't control the battlefield then you probably shouldn't bother using Evard's cuz it will just make a bad situation even worse.  If on the other hand your party can handle the situation, well then Evard's will just get in their way.

The beauty of Fire Storm is that it can never be used against you.  It will work just about in any situation.  And don't dismiss the damage, 40 points plus 18 points per round against to 6 to 10, 180 hit point, n-2 monsters should not be dismissed so easily.

In an epic level fight, where a push, pull, and slide can come just as easily from both sides of the battlefield, I choose *Fire Storm* over Evard's or Cloudkill any day or any place.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 30, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Control as per 4e includes AoE damage. 4e couldn't be more plain on that matter.



To expand on that: In 3E, damage spells weren't control, because there were so many spells that simply shut down targets, whereas damage doesn't deny any actions before it kills the target - and actions are vital in D&D, i.e. action economy-wise, damage spells often did nothing.

In 3E, control is the denial of actions.

In principle, that hasn't changed in 4E - BUT: 4E shifts to a team effort and there are less hard status effects. Due to this, you don't have as much other spells to shut down targets completely. In 4E, you can usually hinder them but not deny your opponents actions (Legion's Hold is an impressive exception is hence probably the best control spell around - and more powerful than Astral Storm, as encounter spell even more so).

In 4E, control is more about making the actions of the enemy group less good or the actions of your group better.

The status effects achieve that rather impressively, damage does it more subtly:

You soften up targets for the strikers - in 3E, that wasn't necessary as the frontline hitters had enough damage output AND because shutting down complete is so much more useful. In 4E, monsters have a lot of extra hit points - even a dedicated striker will need several attacks to bring it down.

If you soften it up, you sort of get "extra actions" for the striker (and possibly high-damage defenders), because he can kill targets with less attacks.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 30, 2008)

You know, I keep seeing people go on and on about Legion's Hold... it really isn't that great except in the rare occasions you are literally facing a massive army of creatures that stretch to the edge of the battlemat and beyond.

Most large area spells are "Burst 5 within 20 (or 10)".  That means an 11 x 11 square of effect.  How many times have you really faced opponents where large numbers of them were more than 11 squares away from each other?  In my experience, not very often at all, especially not in dungeons and such.  Many buffs also have a range of 10, meaning creatures 12+ spaces away from the leader aren't getting any benefits, heals, etc.  So even if there were room for creatures to spread out 12+ spaces from each other, doing so may not be beneficial.  

So, with that in mind, just how often will a 41 x 41 square of effect really be needed?  How many additional targets will you be able to catch that an 11 x 11 square would miss?  Is doing only 1/3 to 1/2 the damage expected of a spell that level worth the increased area, which may well not even be needed?  Ok, it stuns or dazes targets, which is nice, but there are other powers which can do that too.  Legion's Hold is an ok spell, it has its place, but you'll very seldom need the huge area, meaning the level 20 Destructive Salutation (which is 10 levels lower, does twice as much damage and stuns in a 7 x 7 sq. area) might work just as well if not better, as might other similar powers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 30, 2008)

Samurai said:


> You know, I keep seeing people go on and on about Legion's Hold...



It is the best among the level 29 spells.

The advantage over Destructive Salutation is: Better area - it will almost always hit all opponents in the combat, the salutation may miss some (for example if some are behind you, even if that shouldn't happen). Furthermore, it is a Close burst, so no OAs.

And it has a "save ends" effect on a _miss_ unlike the salutation, with spell focus that's possibly an extra turn of combat advantage, no OAs, and flanking.

But you're right - Destructive Salutation is nothing to scoff at!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 30, 2008)

People are forgeting how the cleric and wizard use AOE damage and can'y see why Firestorm and Astral Storm aren't control.

Short answer: Clerics have to drop their AOE on enemies currently attacking their allies.

Long answer: There is 2 ways to use AOE damaging in 4E.

1) Target the enemies around your allies.

2) Target any group of enemies

Clerics are good at type 1 and can rarely perform type 2. Their AOE doesn't harm allies so they can drop it right on top of allies in melee with enemies. 

Wizards are good at type 2 and type 1. Unlike the cleric they can slow and bunch up enemies. this allows them to hit a group again.

Once you cast firestorm, the enemies might move away from each other. Now you can't do AOE damage anymore.And they beat up on you. Since the cleric can't slow, he must rely on allies to hold his targets in the fire.

Wizard don't need help. While his allies take the right flank, the wizard has the left flank in a painful loop of AOE damage and Movement conditions (damage, immobilized, damage, prone on difficult terrian, damage, slow). Let's see them get out of Web, then Icy rays, then Icy terrain, then Scorching Burst (action pointed Ray of Cold on the guy who makes save) before their buddies die. Or Necrotic Web (or legion's hold), Thunderclap, then Titan's Fist.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> To expand on that: In 3E, damage spells weren't control, because there were so many spells that simply shut down targets, whereas damage doesn't deny any actions before it kills the target - and actions are vital in D&D, i.e. action economy-wise, damage spells often did nothing.
> 
> In 3E, control is the denial of actions.
> 
> ...




Ah, that's what I meant when I said control. Hmm, interesting idea as to why damage constitutes control. So using a higher damage spell gives your party the effect of an "extra action" worth of damage on each target. I still don't see that as as good as actual, bonifide control, though. Control in the sense of denying/limiting enemies' actions takes away those enemies' turns, or at least limits  their actions, and if you hit a significant enough portion of enemies, or a significant enough enemy, that can be like giving half of your team another action, even with an "until the end of your next turn" effect.

I also think that it's less like an extra action for the striker because he will likely use something with a nice, debilitating status effect instead of purely damaging the opponent (not to mention that the difference in damage between a "control" spell and "pure damage" spell is likely half or less of his damage)

I think I may see now what the PHB was talking about. Yes, if you are hitting 3 or more enemies, you can easily outstrip the damage of the striker. However, using a pure damage spell does too little extra damage over a control spell to justify using it. So yes, doing area damage _is_ part of your job, but *not* (IMO) the most important part... 

Lemme see if I can explain this differently... Let's call "potential damage" the sum of your actual damage and the damage you've effectively created through denying opponents actions. Control spells often do less actual damage, but create more "potential damage" through their effects. This is why they are better than pure damage spells. The point of denying/limiting actions isn't simply to stand there and laugh, it's to smack them in the face while they're down.






Samurai said:


> Because it also keeps your party out of the combat, or it hurts them as much as your enemies. In my party of 4, I'm the only real ranged attacker. One other character has a few ranged attacks, but then has to stitch to melee, and the other 2 characters are 100% melee. Preventing the rest of my party from using their abilities/powers leads to my party getting pissed off with me, and on multiple occasions charging through my damaging zones just to get at the foes, even though they suffer just as much as the enemies. The other characters have threatened to attack me if I put up another damaging zone in their way again, as they consider it to be "helping the enemy!"



Well that sucks... I guess your party doesn't want to play like a team, then yeah, Wizard has a huge disadvantage... though, you are unlikely to freeze all enemies in the effects. If you do, you are hugely controlling the battle already, and the actions of a couple of your teammates *may* not be too harmful to your overwhelming victory. If they decide to move next to the immobilized melee monsters inside an Evard's.... get some new teammates...


----------



## Zurai (Jun 30, 2008)

Minigiant said:


> Clerics are good at type 1 and can rarely perform type 2.




The spells in question in this thread are just as viable at type 2 as any wizard spell bar Legion's Hold.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 30, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> Well that sucks... I guess your party doesn't want to play like a team, then yeah, Wizard has a huge disadvantage... though, you are unlikely to freeze all enemies in the effects. If you do, you are hugely controlling the battle already, and the actions of a couple of your teammates *may* not be too harmful to your overwhelming victory. If they decide to move next to the immobilized melee monsters inside an Evard's.... get some new teammates...




I think the frustration comes from the players and is simply expressed through the characters.  It's like, "Ok, combat time!" and everyone pulls out their powers sheet to decide what they want to lead off with... and then 1 player starts throwing zones in front of them, preventing them from using any of their own cool powers or abilities unless they are willing to step into it and take the same damage as the foes.  Yeah, they could plink away with a basic ranged attack, but why have all these cool powers (that only work at melee range) if you don't get to use them?  Even if the battle is going your way because the Wizard is doing well, how fun is it for the players of melee combatants to just stand in a line and wait, round after round, for someone to come through, or to just use basic ranged attacks?  Wasn't the point of 4e to give every class cool powers and abilities they can use?


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jun 30, 2008)

Samurai said:


> I think the frustration comes from the players and is simply expressed through the characters.  It's like, "Ok, combat time!" and everyone pulls out their powers sheet to decide what they want to lead off with... and then 1 player starts throwing zones in front of them, preventing them from using any of their own cool powers or abilities unless they are willing to step into it and take the same damage as the foes.  Yeah, they could plink away with a basic ranged attack, but why have all these cool powers (that only work at melee range) if you don't get to use them?  Even if the battle is going your way because the Wizard is doing well, how fun is it for the players of melee combatants to just stand in a line and wait, round after round, for someone to come through, or to just use basic ranged attacks?  Wasn't the point of 4e to give every class cool powers and abilities they can use?



Well my point was that if the wizard _did_ manage to get all of the enemy combatants trapped, then either he wasted way too many of his resources  (dailies) or he got lucky, but either way the battle will be significantly easier. I'd rather not use my powers and win easily than do something reckless and jeporadize the entire party. I don't care about hitting with powerful powers, I care about winning. Maybe I'm just more team oriented than others, but I think of the party as a group that works together efficiently and effectively to win a combat, not a bunch of people trying to show off their cool powers. Again, my group could be quite different from others' groups/feelings, and again, I'm not saying there would be anything wrong with that if you _do_ play like that, just that I don't play like that, and the concept seems foreign to me.

If the wizard has it handled, I'll save my cool powers for when an enemy escapes. The wizard shouldn't manage to do this with any real frequency, and if he is the DM is likely doing something wrong.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jun 30, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> It is the best among the level 29 spells.
> 
> And it has a "save ends" effect on a _miss_ unlike the salutation, with spell focus that's possibly an extra turn of combat advantage, no OAs, and flanking.
> 
> ...




Oddly you might prefer to miss with Destructive Salutation if you have Orb mastery & the Orb of Continuance. That guarantees 3 round stun on a given mob, using your enc & daily orb powers. If you hit saves at -9 say with the orb encounter penalty on an Archvillain er Solo are only 65% likely to stick so 27% ish of getting 3 rounds.  Against an Elite it's good odds (well 50%) & normals are buggered. 

I believe that Wizards have access to item abilities & Archmage factored into their powers. They get a single target encounter stun at level 23 while rogues & fighters get one at level 13. The wizards one is easily extended to 2 or 3 rounds. They geta stun but you cant attack teh target at level 17 too.

This might apply to Astral fire or Fire Storm vsd the Wizards analogues but if so I think they went too far & the damage Archetype for Wizards is not quite good enough. (guessing ofc not really played level 20+)


----------



## Puggins (Jun 30, 2008)

Samurai said:


> Because it also keeps your party out of the combat, or it hurts them as much as your enemies.  In my party of 4, I'm the only real ranged attacker.  One other character has a few ranged attacks, but then has to stitch to melee, and the other 2 characters are 100% melee.  Preventing the rest of my party from using their abilities/powers leads to my party getting pissed off with me, and on multiple occasions charging through my damaging zones just to get at the foes, even though they suffer just as much as the enemies.  The other characters have threatened to attack me if I put up another damaging zone in their way again, as they consider it to be "helping the enemy!"




This is a classical problem facing the control wizard.  Two things need to occur:

(1) Your group-mates need to recognize that dividing the enemy is very, very effective.
(2) You need to make sure you have a back-up plan for when zone effects are not necessary or desirable.



> The real major benefit of the Cleric spells, besides their greater damage, is the fact that they automatically only target enemies.  You can throw an Astral Storm on top of a furious melee battle between the rest of your party and a half dozen enemies and neither you nor your allies has to worry 1 bit about collateral damage.  The Wizard doesn't get that choice far too many times




... because the effects produced by the wizard spell are so absolutely deadly.  Necrotic Web placed in the proper spot will immobilize half an enemy force for at least two rounds and inflict a minimum of 12d6+int damage on a hit.  By the time they get out of the web- slightly weakened by the damage, no less- their allies will have been destroyed by your party.  The cleric gets to damage them- wonderful, except they are capable of dealing damage in return.  The wizard doesn't permit the return damage.


----------



## Puggins (Jun 30, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> You can answer your own question by comparing what damage the wizard spells do of the same level. You may then realize what all the hub bub is about.




I realize what the hub-bub is all about, I simply disagree with it.



> Just think about it, if you saw an enemy cast an Evard's what would you do?  I'll tell you what you would do, you would push pull and slide to use the power against the enemy.
> 
> At this level, if the defenders, leaders and strikers in your party can't control the battlefield then you probably shouldn't bother using Evard's cuz it will just make a bad situation even worse.  If on the other hand your party can handle the situation, well then Evard's will just get in their way.




In other words, Evard's can work against you if (a) the circumstances aren't right, or (b) your fellow adventurers suck.  Absolutely agree.  Still doesn't make Evard's a worse spell.  It's simply situational.  In the right situation, it will win you the encounter, virtually outright.



> The beauty of Fire Storm is that it can never be used against you.  It will work just about in any situation.  And don't dismiss the damage, 40 points plus 18 points per round against to 6 to 10, 180 hit point, n-2 monsters should not be dismissed so easily.




You're overstating the damage.  It's actually 28 up front and 11.5 per round.  Certainly not bad, but they're unlikely to stay in that area.  If They're FORCED to stay in that area, then you're describing a situation where yes, fire storm is plain better than evard's, because evard's main strength is that it FORCES creatures to stay in its area for a long, long time.  I n most cases, I'm betting that 6 to 10 180hp creatures will not be forced to stay in that area.



> In an epic level fight, where a push, pull, and slide can come just as easily from both sides of the battlefield, I choose *Fire Storm* over Evard's or Cloudkill any day or any place.




This is all theory right now- no one has played those levels, so hell, you might be right.  But Evard's ablity to constrain practically anything inside of it for a long period of time is remarkably effective.  Firestorm will be a mere pin-prick against, say, an adult blue dragon, but evard's will hold it for a couple of rounds while the party deals with the trash surrounding the dragon AND it'll do a healthy amount of damage too.  Sounds pretty good to me,


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

keterys said:


> Roxlimm... I may be misunderstanding, but those don't sound like any reason that meteor swarm is better. They'd all be just as effective, if not more effective, using astral storm.
> 
> That is to say, if you gave the wizard an Int-based Astral Storm, would anyone 'prepare' Meteor Swarm over it?



Because when you look at Warlock and Ranger powers you have to add 3d6 damage/round on top of what is listed.



Zurai said:


> The spells in question in this thread are just as viable at type 2 as any wizard spell bar Legion's Hold.




Not nearly, they also aren't nearly as good at causing damage.

Damage in 4e is technically control. But only because minions exist. And when dealing with minions the amount of damage is not very significant. If you are tossing control effects around you need to be doing two things.

1. Keeping enemies from taking actions

2. Setting up Coup-de-grace for your strikers to unload their encounter/daily powers into an auto-crit.

Clerics have a few powers decent at clearing minions. Clerics do not have many good at keeping enemies from taking actions or setting up auto-crits.

And if you are really worried about minions, what matters is being able to do that AoE damage consistantly(excuse my while i pimp my at will, ranged 2 burst 4 AoE which also knocks back non-minions to be dealt with later), rather than in large amounts.

AoE damage is control, but you only need 1 point.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> (excuse my while i pimp my at will, ranged 2 burst 4 AoE which also knocks back non-minions to be dealt with later)



I hope you mean blast, and are talking about a Resounding Thundered, Arcane Reached, Thunderwave. Otherwise, did they come out with another Dragon magazine? (lol)



> AoE damage is control, but you only need 1 point.



Agreed. (though more damage never hurts... well actually, I guess it does...)


----------



## keterys (Jul 1, 2008)

> Because when you look at Warlock and Ranger powers you have to add 3d6 damage/round on top of what is listed.




Not when comparing to other powers you don't. Comparing to other classes, sure.


----------



## Victim (Jul 1, 2008)

Pickles JG said:


> Oddly you might prefer to miss with Destructive Salutation if you have Orb mastery & the Orb of Continuance. That guarantees 3 round stun on a given mob, using your enc & daily orb powers. If you hit saves at -9 say with the orb encounter penalty on an Archvillain er Solo are only 65% likely to stick so 27% ish of getting 3 rounds.  Against an Elite it's good odds (well 50%) & normals are buggered.




Orb Mastery only extends the duration of at will powers.  You can't use it to extend a missed Destructive Salutation.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

keterys said:


> Not when comparing to other powers you don't. Comparing to other classes, sure.





If the powers from from different classes then you do. If i am comparing the striking ability of a Wizard with Warlock you have to compare the curse on top of it.

Comparing powers accross classes and then ignoring what those classes can do with those powers by combining them with other abilities is certified retarded.



> Orb Mastery only extends the duration of at will powers.  You can't use it to extend a missed Destructive Salutation.




Indeed, i went back and checked, and this is true. The auto extend is only for at-wills.



Pickles JG said:


> That guarantees 3 round stun on a given mob




2 round.

Miss -> Stun till end of next turn
Extend 1 round
Miss -> End of second turn

Wizard attacks: Misses, Enemy is stunned
Enemy Loses Action
Wizard Extends via Orb, Wizard takes second turn
Enemy loses Action
Wizard does something else, Wizard takes second turn, effect ends



DemonLord57 said:


> Agreed. (though more damage never hurts... well actually, I guess it does...)



It does help when you are hitting enemies that are resistent or immune. But these powers ought to be doing enough to avoid that most of the time, minions with very high resistance are rare, you will usually have many different types of AoE damage, and there are at least two feats available to increase an enemies vulnerability to a damage type.

Astral Storm is great at clearing out minions however(since you have to resist all of it to not take damage), but i doubt many of the Other AoEs are going to fare much worse once you know have deduced their resistances.


> I hope you mean blast, and are talking about a Resounding Thundered, Arcane Reached, Thunderwave. Otherwise, did they come out with another Dragon magazine? (lol)



I do indeed mean blast.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

Puggins said:


> It's actually 28 up front and 11.5 per round.
> 
> Firestorm will be a mere pin-prick...




A pinprick you say...

 The theory:
"War Wizard - Your delight is in powers that deal damage-lots of damage, to many foes at a time." - PHB 4.0, page 157.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Who needs control_ with damage output like that?


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

Then he makes camp for an extended rest...


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

Continue on for a milestone...


Did someone say pin-prick?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2008)

Area damage is control because it gives compelling reason to the enemy not to bunch up. Which makes anyone surrounded by them happy, and makes life easier for Strikers.
It's particularly strong against Minions, but it is also effective against regular monsters. You deal more damage if they don't scatter, and they are more vulnerable against other characters attacks if they do.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Area damage is control because it gives compelling reason to the enemy not to bunch up. Which makes anyone surrounded by them happy, and makes life easier for Strikers.



If you follow that line of thought, cleric area damage control is much better - because when do you *really* want your enemies to spread out a lot? If they're surrounding you. This can easily happen with some sneaky minions.

Sure, one could argue that that becomes the defender's job (which he can do remarkably well!), but... then, why can the cleric do that?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2008)

Those are some weird powers you picked for comparison. Meteor Swarm sucks. Hurricane of blood is an encounter power.

A war wizard picks Greater Ice Storm and drops Blackfire  and/or Acid Storm on their immobile butts next urn.

But if you're a war wizard, you're doing it wrong. War wizards nuke solos and elites. Ranged 20, man.


----------



## keterys (Jul 1, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> If the powers from from different classes then you do. If i am comparing the striking ability of a Wizard with Warlock you have to compare the curse on top of it.




Then you're comparing classes.

You can, however, compare meteor swarm to astral storm without factoring what class it comes from, at all. In such a comparison, meteor swarm compares horribly. Unfortunately, there are many powers that show signs of poor balancing. The most amusing (and useful for proving a problem) are things like Steel Serpent Strike and Dance of Steel. 



> Comparing powers accross classes and then ignoring what those classes can do with those powers by combining them with other abilities is certified retarded.




Or, it's a really good way to ensure power balance. Hint: Read Eternal Seeker. Also, multiclassing rules. Also, consider power balancing for every class that will come in the future. Powers should roughly balance against each other. It's implicit in the system design.

As a suggestion, don't call people on messageboards retarded. Either they're not, and you're basically guaranteed to come off in a less than complimentary fashion (and might quite possibly be making some major mistakes yourself) or they _are_, in which case there's a better term for it.



> No, you can orb mastery any "effect ends at end of next turn" and any wizard power that has an effect that a save can end.




You can only extend an at-will effect. p157 PHB.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


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



Hurricane of Blood is an encounter power.  If you compared the Damage to Assassin's Point you would have a Rogue that did upwards of 250pts of damage or more in a single hit.

Other than that I completely agree with you.  Clerics can out perform Wizards in controlling with quite a few of their spells.  It saddens me that this slipped through the playtesting cracks.  I think Plane Sailing has it right in moving Fire Storm and Astral Storm to the Wizard Spell lists and give Clerics access to something else (like Meteor Swarm ).  Those two spells put Wizards out of business for Controller damage spells - period.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 1, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Comparing powers accross classes and then ignoring what those classes can do with those powers by combining them with other abilities is certified retarded.




Don't be rude to other people here with remarks like that.

Thanks


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

Minigiant said:


> Those are some weird powers you picked for comparison. Meteor Swarm sucks. Hurricane of blood is an encounter power.
> 
> A war wizard picks Greater Ice Storm and drops Blackfire  and/or Acid Storm on their immobile butts next urn.
> 
> But if you're a war wizard, you're doing it wrong. War wizards nuke solos and elites. Ranged 20, man.




1. I chose Hurricane of Blood to establish what typical striker damage is at 29th level, which happens to be 60ish damage.  Yes a rogue could get more damage to a single opponent with some dailies, but the Cleric will still do more damage overall in an AoE to multiple opponents.

2. I chose Meteor Swarm because its the most damaging single shot wizard spell in his arsenal.  Greater Ice Storm, Black Fire, and Acid Wave all do less damage.

3. you say: Greater Ice Storm +Black Fire -or- Greater Ice Storm +Acid Wave?  So a _*29th level wizard needs to stack 2 spells to equal the damage output of a single Fire Storm cast from a 19th cleric*_?
3a. 2 rounds of Fire Storm (round1 +round2) = 59 +18.5 = 77.5 damage.
-vs-
3b. Greater Ice Storm +Black Fire = 36 +39 = 75 damage.
-or vs-
3c. Greater Ice Storm +Acid Wave = 36 +45.5 = 81.5 damage.

Conclusion: I'd rather use a single Fire Storm & a single action rather than two powers & two actions for the same damage, wouldn't you?  And be 10 levels lower to boot  

4. Are we reading the same message boards?
4a. Wizards suck against Solos
4b. Wizards marginally suck against Elites
4c. Wizards are good with playing footsie against Normals
4d. Wizards are great against 1hp Minions


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> 4. Are we reading the same message boards?
> 4a. Wizards suck against Solos
> 4b. Wizards marginally suck against Elites
> 4c. Wizards are good with playing footsie against Normals
> 4d. Wizards are great against 1hp Minions



lol, whut?

No, you are wrong. Wizards can destroy solos and elites. All they need is a good status effect and an orb. Oh sorry, you're out of the encounter for... 2 or 3 rounds, that okay? Sure, we might all coup de grace you during that time, but I'm sure it won't hurt too much.

Besides that, you can use the Bigby's hands, which I think are quite nice. A staff mage is best with them, and can be a rather effective wizard, just not a typical (superior IMO) "control" wizard.

Why do you insist that controlling is "playing footsie"? Do you honestly think that when the Wizard puts nasty effects on the enemies, all of his allies just sit down and say, "Oh, you seem to have some people with status effects, let me stop attacking them so you have to do all the damage yourself and waste multiple dailies on them. I'll take a rest." The point is that you are in a team. You do not do everything on your own. This is a crucial point that you seem to miss. If you are alone and facing enemies, you run away. You are a squishy, and should not attempt to face enemies alone.

When you give enemies status effects, it is not simply for your benefit, it is to the party's benefit. If you hadn't locked those melee guys down, the Defender would've had to engage them, leaving the Controller and Artillery free to hit your party in the face until the Striker managed to get there. Instead, you bypass the melee enemies entirely, and annihilate their more damaging comrades before getting back to them. Which would I prefer, doing 10 more damage to each of the enemies or this? Hmm, that's a hard choice. /sarcasm


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Comparing powers ... is certified retarded.






Plane Sailing said:


> Don't be rude to other people here with remarks like that.
> 
> Thanks




I agree with Plane Sailing.

To Grumindong: we are a calm and civil bunch here.  A heated debate is always welcome, just without the name calling. And if you are who I suspect you are, DnD style forums are not anything like the SA or EvE-O forums.

P.S. Long live the Nano-HAC


----------



## ST (Jul 1, 2008)

So, assume I put Fire Storm as available to wizards as well as clerics at 19, as a houserule.

Can anyone see any particular problems with doing that? If that wouldn't break anything, it seems like the easiest change.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> lol, whut?
> 
> No, you are wrong. Wizards can destroy solos and elites. All they need is a good status effect and an orb. Oh sorry, you're out of the encounter for... 2 or 3 rounds, that okay? Sure, we might all coup de grace you during that time, but I'm sure it won't hurt too much.




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

Fire Storm guarantees damage.



DemonLord57 said:


> Besides that, you can use the Bigby's hands, which I think are quite nice. A staff mage is best with them, and can be a rather effective wizard, just not a typical (superior IMO) "control" wizard.




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

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



DemonLord57 said:


> Why do you insist that controlling is "playing footsie"?




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

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

Or

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

See, no need for control.



DemonLord57 said:


> When you give enemies status effects, it is not simply for your benefit, it is to the party's benefit. If you hadn't locked those melee guys down, the Defender would've had to engage them, leaving the Controller and Artillery free to hit your party in the face until the Striker managed to get there. Instead, you bypass the melee enemies entirely, and annihilate their more damaging comrades before getting back to them. Which would I prefer, doing 10 more damage to each of the enemies or this? Hmm, that's a hard choice. /sarcasm




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

In conclusion, wizards play footsie.

War clerics get the job done fast and move on.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


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



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



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



Let's examine this, shall we.
1. No, you don't. You need to hit again if they manage to escape, and they wasted their action to do so.
2. Yes, but you don't lose your attack if you miss, (like you would with almost all other attacks) and you can easily get some boosts to attacks.
3. Yes. They are immobilized, though. That is the important part.
4. See above.



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



See above, and really? Your strikers do that crappy damage with their dailies? They kind of suck, then.




> Yes, I still insist controlling is playing footsie vs. normals, here's why.
> 
> You can spend 8+ rounds stunning, blinding, pushing, blah, blah, blah. Denying your opponents of 50% their actions.
> 
> ...



Wow.... you have no idea what you are talking about. If you alone can actually take out all of the enemies, your DM is doing something incredibly wrong. If you think that the difference in damage you do is enough to drop the number of rounds by even more than 1, you are almost assuredly wrong. Do some math. Show me how you would do enough damage to make up for 4 rounds of your party's attacks. Show me how _not_ giving your party all sorts of combat advantage around the battlefield through status effects, while allowing them to move and attack freely makes the party damage output even close to that of the control wizard's party. Oh, and then show me how _not_ denying your opponents actions makes it so your party takes less damage (hell, I'll take equal).

The point of control is to allow your party to deal with the encounter more easily. It doesn't kill the enemies on its own. That's the point. YOU stop the enemies. THEY kill the enemies. Trying to play a striker as a wizard is a guaranteed way to be less effective.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 1, 2008)

59 AoE damage once a day?!?!?  You're crowing about that?  It's good, but it's not enough to bring a Cleric up to speed.  At level 20, typical Standards have about 200 HP or so.  59 is only about a fourth of that, and this is a Daily - as in you only do it once a day.

To compare, a Wizard can use his _15th_ level Daily - Wall of Ice to seperate an encounter in two, essentially halving the difficulty each in exchange for longer duration, plus damage shenanigans, of course.  That's an I WIN power, because half an encounter is very easy.  Very, very easy.

_When you finish doing your 59 points of damage_, the baddies will still be standing.  Now what?  You're holding it as a minor action now - you'll have to sac move actions to use healing powers or you kiss their applications goodbye.

Alright.  The crowd wants damage.  You want damage?  I'll give you damage.

Bolstered Prismatic Beams: 2d6+7/4/2 + 2d6 +7/4/2 + 2d10 + 10 (total ongoing) + daze.  Total 1st round: 61 damage.

That's a lower level daily, and I'm not even maxing it.  I'm just applying one feature from a common Wizard PP.

You don't want that?  Well, what PP are we talking about?  Battle Mage?  Alright, let's do Closing Spell: average 57 damage all impact (damage on point).

You don't want that?  Let's do Spellstorm Mage with Extra Damage Action! +9 damage to standard actions on action point.

We're not even tapping encounter powers here.  What kind of damage pressure can a Cleric put on already damaged dudes after the first round?  18.5 damage?  Decent for a minor action, but a Wizard will get the job done before that's gotten anywhere.


Is Firestorm the best control spell for level 19?  No.
Is it the best damage spell for the spread? No.
Can a Cleric upstage a Wizard for AoE damage using this spell? No.

Here's a challenge.  Mongolia Jones here is saying that Firestorm is good because a Cleric can use it to nuke an enemy in 3-4 rounds and kill them all.  I'd like to see anyone try that.  Nuke enemies worth 200 points of AoE damage in 4 rounds using a 19th level Cleric.

Go!


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


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




Logic equation 1:
Control -> Denies opponents actions
Denying opponents actions -> less damage to party
-therefore-
Control -> less damage to party

Logic Equation 2:
Damage -> Eliminates opponents faster
Eliminating opponents faster -> less damage to party
-therefore-
Damage -> less damage to party

-when you combine the two equations above-
Damage = Control




DemonLord57 said:


> Let's examine this, shall we.
> 1. No, you don't. You need to hit again if they manage to escape, and they wasted their action to do so.
> 2. Yes, but you don't lose your attack if you miss, (like you would with almost all other attacks) and you can easily get some boosts to attacks.
> 3. Yes. They are immobilized, though. That is the important part.
> 4. See above.




1. It takes a MOVE action to escape, grabbed opponents can still attack you with a ranged attacks using the STANDARD action, or try to escape a second time, in the same round.  This makes the hand spells that much crappier.
2. But still, you will be hitting solos less that 50% of the times, so not so great.  To move the hand to a different square costs you a move action
3. They are immobilized yes, but they are still alive for you to continue playing footsie with.



DemonLord57 said:


> Your strikers do that crappy damage with their dailies? They kind of suck, then.




Firstly, these are not MY strikers as we are all playing the same game.
Secondly, if you feel that 60 damage for a striker sucks that's your deal, but it is what it is.
Thirdly, if YOUR strikers can consistently do A LOT more that 60ish damage to a group of opponents, I'd like to see that.

Show me YOUR math, I seem to be the only one putting any numbers up.




DemonLord57 said:


> Wow.... you have no idea what you are talking about. If you alone can actually take out all of the enemies, your DM is doing something incredibly wrong. If you think that the difference in damage you do is enough to drop the number of rounds by even more than 1, you are almost assuredly wrong. Do some math. Show me how you would do enough damage to make up for 4 rounds of your party's attacks. Show me how _not_ giving your party all sorts of combat advantage around the battlefield through status effects, while allowing them to move and attack freely makes the party damage output even close to that of the control wizard's party. Oh, and then show me how _not_ denying your opponents actions makes it so your party takes less damage (hell, I'll take equal).




I never said a cleric can take out enemies alone.  But an enemy brought down to half hit points goes down a lot faster.

Fire Storm does about 1.5x to 2.5x more damage vs any other wizard daily of the same level.   It also allows you to cast the spell on top of allies.

If you can't figure out on your own what 3 or 4 rounds of Fire Storm (115 damage AoE) does to 160-200 hit point normals, then I can't help you.

How long does it to kill 8 opponents:
who start with: 180 hit points? (1440 in group)
after Fire Storm, round 1: 120 hit points? (960 in group)
after Fire Storm, round 2: 102 hit points? (816 in group)
after Fire Storm, round 3:   83 hit points? (664 in group)
after Fire Storm, round 4:   65 hit points? (520 in group)

Now how long will it take with a wizard playing footsie with the same 8 opponents:
opponents start: 180 hit points. (1440 in group)
after Evard's, round 1: Hit 4 for 24 damage - 4@156 hp, 4@180 hp (1344 in group), depend on party for damage
play footsie, round 2: depend on party for damage, your contribution -> (1284 in group)
play footzie, round 3: depend on party for damage, your contribution -> (1224 in group)

Looks like a loooong battle

you get the picture...




DemonLord57 said:


> Trying to play a striker as a wizard is a guaranteed way to be less effective.




They why on page 157 of the PHB does it say what it says under WAR WIZARDS?  I guess all that stuff about "lots of damage" is just fluff.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 1, 2008)

The weird part here is why anyone would compare a nondamage-oriented Wizard power for damage!  That's just plain bizarre.  Hey!  Disintegrate does more damage than Warlock 19 powers!  It does more damage than Rogue 19 powers.  It's even better than the Ranger's Wounding Whirlwind! That's sacrilegious!  Wizards are totally strikers, too!

Lesee...  180 damage?  Not even 200?

Alright.  
Round 1: Bolstered Prismatic Beams, use AP: 71 damage+daze
Round 1: Bolstered Combust: 41.5 damage
Round 2: Bolstered Thunderlance: 38 damage + push
Round 3: Winter's Wrath: 29 damage

Total: 179.5 damage in 3 rounds.  Even if you only ever hit 4 out of 8 with all these powers, you will have taken out half the opposition by yourself in 3 rounds.  Ownage.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> How long does it to kill 8 opponents:
> who start with: 180 hit points? (1440 in group)
> after Fire Storm, round 1: 120 hit points? (960 in group)
> after Fire Storm, round 2: 102 hit points? (816 in group)
> ...



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

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

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

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



> They why on page 157 of the PHB does it say what it says under WAR WIZARDS?  I guess all that stuff about "lots of damage" is just fluff.



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


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> 59 AoE damage once a day?!?!?  You're crowing about that?  It's good, but it's not enough to bring a Cleric up to speed.  At level 20, typical Standards have about 200 HP or so.  59 is only about a fourth of that, and this is a Daily - as in you only do it once a day.




Yes, I realize it's once a day, but your strikers will be hard pressed to even do 59 damage at 20th.  And you do it in a burst 5 AREA



Roxlimn said:


> To compare, a Wizard can use his _15th_ level Daily - Wall of Ice to seperate an encounter in two, essentially halving the difficulty each in exchange for longer duration, plus damage shenanigans, of course.  That's an I WIN power, because half an encounter is very easy.  Very, very easy.




I agree, no one can control like a wizard.  

You can post another 50 control powers of the wizard, I will still agree with you.  Mongolia yells from the mountaintop: NO ONE CAN CONTROL LIKE THE WIZARD!!!

It's all patty cake, patty cake in the end.  Someones get down and dirty and apply the damage to eliminate the threat.



Roxlimn said:


> _When you finish doing your 59 points of damage_, the baddies will still be standing.  Now what?  You're holding it as a minor action now - you'll have to sac move actions to use healing powers or you kiss their applications goodbye.




Clerics have do have AoE powers that damage and HEAL all in one.  Mantle of Glory and Purifying Flame come to mind.

Plus you still have a MOVE action free once you spend your STANDARD on an attack/utility and the MINOR on your Fire Storm.



Roxlimn said:


> Alright.  The crowd wants damage.  You want damage?  I'll give you damage.
> 
> Bolstered Prismatic Beams: 2d6+7/4/2 + 2d6 +7/4/2 + 2d10 + 10 (total ongoing) + daze.  Total 1st round: 61 damage.
> 
> That's a lower level daily, and I'm not even maxing it.  I'm just applying one feature from a common Wizard PP.




Ooh, that's cheating, you added a PP... and if I add a PP to my cleric, I'll wipe the floor with your wizard.

War Priest, Pit Fighter, and Angelic Avenger PP's are tremendous for the AoE war cleric.  You don't want to mess with one of those.

Btw, Prismatic Beams is a beautiful spell, one of my favorites for a wizard.  Good choice Roxlimn.

But I'll bite and play your game:
 Bolstered Prismatic Beams vs Fire Storm (no PP applied for the cleric)
for starters BPB is range 0 and Fire Strom is range 10 
1. Both spells do about the same damage, BPB doing ever slightly more upfront and FS looking better over time.  Still not bad for a 15th daily vs a 19th daily.

BPB: round (1, 2, 3, etc): 61 +10.0/r (61, 71, 81, etc) +daze -cause wizard 11 damage
FS: round (1, 2, 3): 59 +18.5/r (59, 77, 96, etc)

2. but if you delve into the numbers further you will find that it's even worse for the wizard BPB.  You have to consider those that you miss and those that you hit.  After all it's just as easy to roll a 15 and hit as it is to roll a 5 and miss.

3. assuming a 50% hit/miss rate for all opponents.  Note that most of the opponents you will be fighting grouped up in melee are fighter and brute types.  These opponents have better fort defenses than reflex defenses and therefore will be harder to fully affect with BPB.  

4. Fire Storm hits vs reflex.

5. Lets be nice to BPB and assume all defenses are the same number...

Bols Pris Beam on a miss does = 0 +0/r damage.
Fire Storm on a miss does 40.5/2 +18.5 = 39 +18.5/r damage.

6. We will now average the damages over the group when we factor 50% hit/miss.  That is to say the average damage you will inflict per opponent (although some will take full, some, or none the average will be the same):

Bolstered Prismatic Beams: 30.5 +5/r (ave of 61 & 0 +ave of 10 & 0)
Fire Storm: 49 +18.5/r (ave of 59 & 39 +ave of 18.5 & 18.5)

In conclusion:
On average, Fire Storm over Bols Pris Beams will do 60% more damage initially and 470% more per round.
 


Roxlimn said:


> You don't want that?  Well, what PP are we talking about?  Battle Mage?  Alright, let's do Closing Spell: average 57 damage all impact (damage on point).




You have me there, Closing Spell is a great spell, but...

You are limited by when you can use it those (when you run out of dailies), which can be a drag especially if you have a daily that you want to hold on too.



Roxlimn said:


> You don't want that?  Let's do Spellstorm Mage with Extra Damage Action! +9 damage to standard actions on action point.




Ya, cleric gets that too: Warpriest or Pit Fighter



Roxlimn said:


> We're not even tapping encounter powers here.  What kind of damage pressure can a Cleric put on already damaged dudes after the first round?  18.5 damage?  Decent for a minor action, but a Wizard will get the job done before that's gotten anywhere.




At 1st and from 9th level on, clerics can choose AoE powers just like the wizard can.  High level clerics won't pick any 3rd, 5th or 7th level powers anyway, so they can fill up all dailies and encounters with AoE effects.

Fire Storm is a bigger damage spell than any 1st thru 29th power a wizard has at his disposal.

The cleric at 29th level has a better power than Fire Storm, its called Astral Storm.  He can choose both powers when he reaches 29th.

At 25th level the cleric has the daily: Sacred Word: 40 damage +stun (did someone say control?)

The line up goes:
19th daily choice: Fire Storm (2nd best nuke in PBH 4.0)
25th daily choice: Sacred Word (damage +stun)
29th daily choice: Astral Storm (1st best nuke in PHB 4.0)
pp daily choice: varies

Encounter powers you ask? theres at LEAST one AoE nuke per level upgrade.

Just for kicks:
Astral Storm (pimped out with the right PP and Symbol of Battle)
Practically _UNRESISTABLE_: 112.5 AoE damage initial +ongoing

That's what you call the nuclear option


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 1, 2008)

*Mongolia Jones:*

Coolness.  It's on!



> Yes, I realize it's once a day, but your strikers will be hard pressed to even do 59 damage at 20th. And you do it in a burst 5 AREA




The Striker powers really are problematic, IMO.  They just don't do as much damage as they ought.  The only one that comes close is Blade Cascade.



> Clerics have do have AoE powers that damage and HEAL all in one. Mantle of Glory and Purifying Flame come to mind.
> 
> Plus you still have a MOVE action free once you spend your STANDARD on an attack/utility and the MINOR on your Fire Storm.




Sure, no prob.  Let's see what you can do with a Cleric.



> On average, Fire Storm over Bols Pris Beams will do 60% more damage initially and 470% more per round.




An interesting percentage.  Of course, I am using an Action Point and an Action Surge for a Human, plus whatever other bonuses I can scrounge up.  As we increase the probabilities, Fire Storm's advantage in Ref targeting and miss damage decreases.



> You have me there, Closing Spell is a great spell, but...
> 
> You are limited by when you can use it those (when you run out of dailies), which can be a drag especially if you have a daily that you want to hold on too.




Naturally.  And Fire Storm is limited by the fact that it's fire damage, can't be moved, and competes with healing actions.  They all have limitations.



> Ya, cleric gets that too: Warpriest or Pit Fighter




Touche.  Raise you Maelstrom for positioning?



> At 1st and from 9th level on, clerics can choose AoE powers just like the wizard can. High level clerics won't pick any 3rd, 5th or 7th level powers anyway, so they can fill up all dailies and encounters with AoE effects.
> 
> Fire Storm is a bigger damage spell than any 1st thru 29th power a wizard has at his disposal.
> 
> ...




Nah.  Prior to Firestorm, the Cleric's options just don't measure up.  Heroic nuking is just a no-go for the Cleric.  Fire Storm, Astral Storm, and Sacred Word are certainly formidable dailies, but they ARE dailies, and the Cleric has only a limited option for boosting or recovering them.  They HAVE to be potent because there's not much else you can do with them.

What encounter effects does an Epic level Cleric have?  Probably not that much, especially since we're not really emphasizing it that much.

My bid is Prismatic Spray.  I contend that this is the better nuking power.  Loses out on range, but more than makes up for it in control and boostability.

Question: if one of the attacks of a Prismatic Spray hits, do I add a Bolstering Blood again?  I was only counting it once, though.


Why is this power better as a nuking power?  Well, once you're done with Astral Storm, that's it - you're done.  Next power on the AP is Firestorm, and you can sustain both, but you'll only have a Standard left after (and you'll be tapped for the day).

Using Archspell, we can make Prismatic Spray into an Encounter power.  On the first round, we burn the AP and nuke the enemy with it twice, using Soul Burn to regen.  That's 80.5 damage average per power plus the stun.  If I can boost my to-hit appreciably, I can meet your 112.5 eventually since the max damage here is 161 damage on the first round.

Then Spell Focus comes into effect and the stun and 15 fire ongoing kick in.  If I have a Doomsayer ally, so much the better!  That's an insta-win already, as long as I can get my to-hit high enough.

Best of all, he can do it again!  Use Shape magic to regen Soul Burn and do it again next encounter!  Then use Destructive Salutation and Prismatic Spray!

I'm not even getting into the encounter powers here, and we have some really powerful options at the Epic levels - stun is a nonstarter.  There are so many Wizard stun powers at Epic it's hard to avoid them.

You want a nuke option?  THAT's a nuke option.  Pump the to-hit and hit hard with the Sprays then go to town with Blackfire, Acid Storm, and Combust.  Do it all the time.  Every encounter.  Paint the town ROYGBIV.

You just can't do this with a Cleric.  Heck, with a Cleric and Wizard acting together, most measly 300 hp critter shouldn't last 3 rounds!


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


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




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

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



DemonLord57 said:


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




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

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

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



DemonLord57 said:


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




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



DemonLord57 said:


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




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

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



DemonLord57 said:


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




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


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

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

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


Yep, I will agree with that.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 1, 2008)

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


----------



## ST (Jul 1, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Puggins (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> A pinprick you say...
> 
> Set-up:
> 19th level cleric with 19th level power, stats, magic, and feats
> ...




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

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

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


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


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



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



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



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




> Your right, the "artillery" opponents will probably get hit once with the Fire Storm, then run away.  But at least I will do striker damage, and artillery types don't have as many hit points to boot.  They say ouch to Fire Storm.
> 
> Besides, it's much easier to kill an artillery type with 110 hit points than 160 hit points.  Ask any striker.
> 
> A far as I'm concerned, the ongoing damage of Fire Storm is gravy, the first round damage alone make it a great power.



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




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



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



> Why you shouldn't use Evards on Solos
> 1. You have to roll to hit (he has high defenses)
> 2. Solos/Elites have high saving throws (they can jump out easier)
> 3. Once out of the Evards (very likely) you have to
> ...



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



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



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



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



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



> So what your saying is, that WoTC has designed a game where:
> 
> A wizard can be a:
> -Control Wizard (footsie ftw) - page 157
> ...



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


----------



## Zurai (Jul 1, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


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




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


----------



## Puggins (Jul 1, 2008)

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




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



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




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



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



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



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




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

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



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




You most certainly do not.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

keterys said:


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




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Puggins (Jul 1, 2008)

Zurai said:


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




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


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


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




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

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






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



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

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






> Yes, I still insist controlling is playing footsie vs. normals, here's why.
> 
> You can spend 8+ rounds stunning, blinding, pushing, blah, blah, blah. Denying your opponents of 50% their actions.
> 
> ...



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

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




> Read my post above.  Eliminating opponents faster saves your party resources and denies opponents actions.
> 
> In conclusion, wizards play footsie.
> 
> War clerics get the job done fast and move on.



And then are useless the rest of the day.

Here, ill put it another way.

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

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

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

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


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

People have been talking about striker damage, and been comparing Firestorm to Striker-level damage. Let's see how much damage Strikers can do, eh?
Bugbear Ranger/Pit Fighter,
Using Cruel Cage of Steel (19 daily) w/2 oversized +4 bastard swords. Has Lethal Hunter, WF: Bastard Sword, and Two-Weapon Fighting. 24 Str and 21 Wis
3 attacks at Str+2 vs. AC: 5d12+3*(4+7+5+2+1)+2d8 = 32.5+3*19+9 = 98.5 avg. damage
Also, if any attacks hit, they're dazed, if two, stunned, all three, weakened and stunned, all until the end of your next turn. That's with a daily. 

They can do very nice damage just with normal attacks, though. Let's use an encounter power. A low level one, too. Okay, level 7 encounter power: Claws of the Griffon. 
3d12+2*19+9 = 66.5. 60ish damage is good? This is a level 7 encounter power...
How about an at-will? Twin Strike, damage = 46. Could be higher if Wis were raised.

Rangers are the damage kings. Once this hits level 21, (and goes Demigod) Claws of the Griffon does 79 damage. Twin Strike does 56.5. Cruel Cage of Steel does 115. I'm not even using Blade Cascade. Iterative attacks are ridiculous when you can get such massive boosts to the damage rolls.

edit: oops, forgot that Twin Strike goes to 2[W] at 21st level. It actually does 69.5 average damage.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

They do more than that, they are criting since the wizard is laying down stunning encounter powers.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 1, 2008)

Tell you what Roxlimn, I'll challenge you to a War competition.  We'll need some ground rules, the ones that come to mind for me are.

You build a War Wizard, I'll build a "War Wizard" Cleric.

Pick and post all powers 4x daily and 4x encounter, PP and Epic Destinies.

We will add up all the potential damage of all of our bad boy daily and encounter powers we have.

The highest damage dealer takes the "War Wizard" title.

What do you say?


If you agree, some ground rules off the top of my head:
-Two encounters for the day (so we give more weight to them)
-1 action point
-We will assume a 50/50 hit/miss rate
-We only count the damage from AoE powers
-We should put limits on Bolstering Blood as typically a wizard will not use it every time, the damage from it and enemy fire would be too much.  If you want to use it, let's say you add a "minor wound" (+d10) for each AoE casting.
-Bolstering Blood will only trigger once in a power, such as Prismatic Spray
-Any powers that have a single full round of effects, can be counted.
-Any powers that have extended damage (either by Minor actions, or by save) should only continue for 3 extra rounds
-All magic items should be of basic sort (i.e. Staff +6, Not Staff of Thunderous Might +6, etc)  We are comparing classes, not magic items here.

And any you can think of...


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> -We should put limits on Bolstering Blood as typically a wizard will not use it every time, the damage from it and enemy fire would be too much.




What damage from enemy fire? We are going to be stunning them every other round, what are they going to do, drool on the wizard?



> Bolstering Blood will only trigger once in a power, such as Prismatic Spray



That is not the way the power works. It triggers each time the effect does damage



> -Any powers that have a single full round of effects, can be counted.



What?



> -All magic items should be of basic sort (i.e. Staff +6, Not Staff of Thunderous Might +6, etc) We are comparing classes, not magic items here.



While not quite "a man is his what he wears" from 3e, limiting items to basic doesn't really make much sense.

ed: Anyway, as evidenced by my two round combo that lays to waste your 4 round combo(120+80/round, no save end effects that cannot be re-applied) I am going to have to give it to the wizard. You can't top that with a cleric dipping into any abilities.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> <snip>
> -Any powers that have a single full round of effects, can be counted. <snip>



What does "counted" mean? Are you going to assess the effective damage caused by the effect?

edit: ninja'd


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 1, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> 3. you say: Greater Ice Storm +Black Fire -or- Greater Ice Storm +Acid Wave?  So a _*29th level wizard needs to stack 2 spells to equal the damage output of a single Fire Storm cast from a 19th cleric*_?
> 3a. 2 rounds of Fire Storm (round1 +round2) = 59 +18.5 = 77.5 damage.
> -vs-
> 3b. Greater Ice Storm +Black Fire = 36 +39 = 75 damage.
> ...





I think you missing my point.

You don't use AOE damage attack for pure damage like you'd use a Single target damage spell.

AOE damage powers are used to :

1) Damage a large group of enemies
2) Keep a group of enemies together so you can do (1) and have your allies ignore them.

Wizards can also:

3) Push and put enemies into groups.

So a wizard could use a 3 power, then unload a couple of 2s, and finish with a 1. I call this the Control Combo Chain. War wizard focus on 1 and 3 powers (the beginning and end).  Control wizards focus on 2s (the middle). 

Low level chains are like

Thunderwave(3), Force Orb(1)
Thunderwave(3), Icy Terrain(2), Scorching Burst(1)
Web(3), Icy Terrain(2), Icy rays(2), Scorching Burst(1)
Sleep(3), Icy Terrain(2), Ray of frost twice (2), Fireball (1)

During this time, the creatures caught are damaged and (if not artillery or controllers) unable to deal decent damage. Enemies not caught are ganged up on by the wizard's allies.

Clerics don't have many 3 powers (if any), almost no 2s, and a few 1s.
Clerics can only unload a 1 power and hope someone else holds them still for another 1. That's why they need their powers to ignore allies.

Pure damage AOE are the end of the control combo chain. Clerics only have the end.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

*Mongolia Jones:*

Sure.  Allow me to make amendments:

2 Encounters.  1 Daily Each, all Encounter powers; cannot be the same Daily unless the class features provide for it.  Nondamaging Dailies can be used between Encounters

50% miss rate
Damage only, status effects not in evidence
Bolstering Blood used max but only 4 times an encounter (compromise)
Bolstering Blood works as written, triggering once for each instance of damage
Round effects counted, damage only
Extended damage counted for 3 rounds, +20% for Wizard Spell Focus
Minor action extension must be accounted for, can be done until all powers expended (but cannot artificially prolong rounds to increase damage)
Basic Items only.


In truth, I'm already ceding a lot here, but let's run with this.  You sure about this, though?  These are the rules as they are, but they heavily favor Wizard damage to the tune of 1 Orcus, nearly.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 2, 2008)

Puggins said:


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




No. "Masters of melee combat" was descriptive fluff that had no real design intent behind it. "Controllers excel at these things:" is a definition. Like it or not, in 4E, Area of Effect damage is one of the primary jobs of the Controller archetype. It doesn't matter whether you want to call it Control or Fluffy Bunnies - it's still the Wizard's job. The point in this thread is that classes that do _not_ have AoE damage as part of their archetype definition are unarguably better at AoE damage than the class that does.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

Zurai said:


> No. "Masters of melee combat" was descriptive fluff that had no real design intent behind it. "Controllers excel at these things:" is a definition. Like it or not, in 4E, Area of Effect damage is one of the primary jobs of the Controller archetype. It doesn't matter whether you want to call it Control or Fluffy Bunnies - it's still the Wizard's job. The point in this thread is that classes that do _not_ have AoE damage as part of their archetype definition are unarguably better at AoE damage than the class that does.




Does "excelling at AoE" damage mean you do a lot of it, or you can do it consistently? Because as we have already mentioned, lots of AoE damage is not all that valuable so long as you do 1 damage.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 2, 2008)

There seems to be this misconception that AoE damage only hurts minions. I frankly don't understand it. Especially when you're talking about no-friendly-fire AoE, it adds up to a significant portion of all the damage dealt in an encounter unless you're fighting a very small group of enemies.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 2, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> The weird part here is why anyone would compare a nondamage-oriented Wizard power for damage!  That's just plain bizarre.  Hey!  Disintegrate does more damage than Warlock 19 powers!  It does more damage than Rogue 19 powers.  It's even better than the Ranger's Wounding Whirlwind! That's sacrilegious!  Wizards are totally strikers, too!
> 
> .




Disintegrate may be too good of a striker power IMO for a controller.  Its hard to say since virtually all of the striker dailies have additional effects outside of damage.  Wounding whirlwind is actually a burst the rest seem to push, blind, daze, stun etc.  Two in one shot is the only example where it only does damage, and I flat out think that power sucks for a 19 daily.  Still disintegrate looks better to me than two in one shot and I don't like that.  

I don't think it is relevant that with a certain path with a certain destiny its damage might blow disintegrate out of the water.  A non striker should have to work for it, like take an appropriate path and destiny in order to match a non specced striker at striking.  A striker should not have to work to beat out the controller in strikeing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 2, 2008)

Zurai said:


> There seems to be this misconception that AoE damage only hurts minions. I frankly don't understand it. Especially when you're talking about no-friendly-fire AoE, it adds up to a significant portion of all the damage dealt in an encounter unless you're fighting a very small group of enemies.




I agree with this about no-friendly-fire AoEs.

I don't quite think it is as true with friendly fire AoEs. Typically, at least for my PC Wizard, I can get maybe two or three AoEs in during an encounter, but I usually have only two, maybe three at the most enemies in the area. The rest of the time, my Wizard is relying on single target attacks because the enemies are interspersed with the PCs (trying to flank the Defender for example).

The PC Ranger, on the other hand, gets two attacks per round almost every round (he typically only doesn't if he targets a single foe with two attacks and kills it on the first one). For the small amount of damage that the Wizard does extra on the AoE rounds, the Ranger easily makes up for on rounds that the Wizard cannot do AoEs.

That's not true of no-friendly-fire AoEs as you state.

People don't seem to get HOW very potent Clerical no-friendly-fire AoEs really are.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

Zurai said:


> There seems to be this misconception that AoE damage only hurts minions. I frankly don't understand it. Especially when you're talking about no-friendly-fire AoE, it adds up to a significant portion of all the damage dealt in an encounter unless you're fighting a very small group of enemies.




Not really, no. Unless the combat goes significantly longer than it ought to be. And by then you are losing.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

Goumindong said:


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




Yes, you can, and even should, to maintain power balance. 

I suspect that understanding that will be one of the steps that takes a while, however. It's not like previous editions of the game where class A might have better powers than class B, because class B had better base attack, or saves, or more extra special abilities.

Everyone is on the same powers template. Multiclassing and Eternal Seeker mean that you need to consider that anyone can get any ability from any class.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> Yes, you can, and even should, to maintain power balance.
> 
> I suspect that understanding that will be one of the steps that takes a while, however. It's not like previous editions of the game where class A might have better powers than class B, because class B had better base attack, or saves, or more extra special abilities.
> 
> Everyone is on the same powers template. Multiclassing and Eternal Seeker mean that you need to consider that anyone can get any ability from any class.




1. No, you can't. If you maintain "power balance" you will screw everything else.

2. No, they can only get class abilities from any class if those class abilities are transferred from the original when multiclassing. E.G. you can multiclass to rogue or ranger and get sneak attack/hunters quarry one round/encounter.

They can get paragon abilities but they may or may not be useful. E.G. Blood Mage powers which specify wizard spells.

They also suffer from MAD[pumping at least two stats to get good attack rolls] and multiple implement/weapon syndrome.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 2, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> Two in one shot is the only example where it only does damage, and I flat out think that power sucks for a 19 daily.  Still disintegrate looks better to me than two in one shot and I don't like that.




Level 19 ranger: +6 dex mod, +4 bow, +2 weapon focus, +3 sly hunter, +2d6 hunter's quarry. Two shots at 40 range for 4d10+2d6+30 damage, average 59. One miss yields 2d10+2d6+15+0.5*(2d10+15), average 46. Two misses yields 0.5*(4d10+30), average 26.

Level 19 wizard: +6 int mod, +4 implement. One shot at 10 range for 5d10+10 and a minimum of 15 damage from ongoing damage, average 52.5. A miss yields 3d10+10 and at least 5 damage from ongoing damage, for 31.5 average damage.

So Two-in-One Shot has a much longer range and does more damage unless both shots miss or the ongoing damage for Disintegrate goes on a long time (don't forget that it's a Daily spell, so you're likely to save it for the Elites or Solos which so happen to have save bonuses).


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> 1. No, you can't. If you maintain "power balance" you will screw everything else.




Let's just agree to disagree then. I'm sure we can both be quietly convinced the other is completely wrong without bringing it up again.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

Sly Hunter doesn't always apply, though.  Two in One Shot is hard to average because it's got lots of fiddly bits. Assuming 50% chance to miss for both:

0.5 x 16 + 0.5 x 0.75 x 16 + 0.5 x 0.25 x 8 = 15

+

0.5 x 8 + 0.5 x 0.5 x 16 + 0.5 x 0.5 x 8 = 14

+ 0.75 x 7 = 5.25

average appears to be 34.25 (includes Sly Hunter bonus)

For Disintegrate (assuming Solo with great saves)

0.5 x (37.5 + 12.5 (+small amount) + 6.25 (+small amount))
+
0.5 x (18.75 + 6.25)

average appears to be 40.625


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> Let's just agree to disagree then. I'm sure we can both be quietly convinced the other is completely wrong without bringing it up again.




How about this. You tell me in what situation a wizard having Astral Storm and the Cleric having Meteor swarm would be balanced given what the Wizard could do with Astral Storm.

Tell me in what situation firestorm would be reasonable if you could bolster it and use other control to keep enemies in it?

Tell me in what situation, given the powers of the wizard any of this makes sense?


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

I do believe you just summarized the problems people have with astral storm and firestorm being so much better


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

Double Astral Storm in the first round?!?!?  Yowzers.  It's good for a Cleric, but double Astrals is just so, so, strong.  This prayer would be super powerful as a spell.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> I do believe you just summarized the problems people have with astral storm and firestorm being so much better




Wait, so the problem is "these spells would be broken but they aren't because you cant combine them with things that make many wizard spells really strong?"


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

I find it amusing that you think that the paragon paths and epic destinies in the PHB are all that you're going to see.

Pretend that there's a 'High Hierophant' epic destiny that is exactly like Archmage, but for clerics. Does the world end?

Hint: If it does, the problem isn't with the epic destiny, it's with the power.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

Having just picked out Disintegrate out of a hat, I just figured out that Bigby's Grasping Hands is actually a better Striker power.

(No, actually, that's not true.  I've known for a while, but since Disintegrate is being contested, I'll bring out a more optimized power).  It's actually lower level than Disintegrate - 15th.  You get two hands that each attack for 2d10+Int damage.  Bolster that and you can get two attacks for 4d10+Int damage.  On two hits, the average damage with the same setup as Two in One Shot earlier is 64 damage.  Best of all, _if any of them miss_, you get to attack again in the next round for the cost of a minor action!

It's actually _best_ if you hit two targets separately - then you're doing 32 ave damage to each one on your first turn as well as immobilizing them.  That's using a basic +4 implement on 22 Int only.  If they fail to escape, you can use a Standard Action to slam them, doing auto 32 damage to each.  Imagine stacking that on a zone damage effect.  Ownage again.

*keterys:*

I think that the Wizard spell Meteor Swarm (and others) was balanced with the class structure and features of Wizard paths in mind, which is probably why they specify "spell" and "wizard power" so often.  At the heart of it, a Wizard and a Cleric are not the same, and the manner in which their powers interact with their features cannot be overlooked.

I would no sooner dismiss Strikers without considering their Quarry, Sneak Attack, and Curse features.

If such a cleric class were to become printed, then I think the problem is with that class, not with the powers themselves.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> I find it amusing that you think that the paragon paths and epic destinies in the PHB are all that you're going to see.
> 
> Pretend that there's a 'High Hierophant' epic destiny that is exactly like Archmage, but for clerics. Does the world end?
> 
> Hint: If it does, the problem isn't with the epic destiny, it's with the power.




In some ways I think the epic destiny is a problem, since apparently its the patch to fix the wizard so it can actually perform its role of doing AoE damage better than a leader can.  

I love spakle but you know sometimes its just better to fix the problem and not just patch it up.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

*Ahglock:*

No, that's not true, either.  Paragon Battle Mage has Closing Spell - competitive with Firestorm for the daily, encounter spells better.  Bloodmage has Bolstering Blood which pretty much pimps every damage spell he throws.  It gets downright sick with Blood Pulse and ongoing damage effects like Stinking Cloud and Evard's.  I haven't checked out Spellstorm Mage yet, but Maelstrom looks like a great setup spell, and his features are decent.

Storm Cage looks good, too.

You have to have tried to actually MAKE a Devoted Cleric into an AoE spammer to see why it just won't measure up.  Please try.  Don't be shy.  It can't possibly have anything like the broken insta win that Bolstering Blood + Blood Pulse is.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> I find it amusing that you think that the paragon paths and epic destinies in the PHB are all that you're going to see.
> 
> Pretend that there's a 'High Hierophant' epic destiny that is exactly like Archmage, but for clerics. Does the world end?
> 
> Hint: If it does, the problem isn't with the epic destiny, it's with the power.




So the problem was with power attack and not frenzied berserker, leap attack, or shock trooper?

No, everything always has to be considered as part of a whole. Not alone. This is even more true in 4e where tactics are much more important and easier to realize. 

You have to figure that nearly each and every hit by a wizard power at later levels is going to result in a coup-de-grace by a rogue, ranger, or warlock and the cleric powers aren't. You have to figure that each hit takes an enemy out of the fight at least one round in some capacity. I mean, the rogue might come in and hit an assasins point for [7d6+10d8+9+6+6+12d12 damage(viscious +6 dagger for a dagger master)] 221 damage[possibly much more if that is a vorpal dagger and depending on how you read vorpal] or, if they spend an action point and then follow up with critical opportunity and Deep Dagger Wound that 221 adds another 18+9+6+6+6d12, and 24+9+6+6+6d12 for 381 damage +20 damage/round(Save ends) so a minimum of 401 damage[I am sure there are more potent combinations for rogues, but this is the one i will look at for now] which is over a quarter of the amount of hit points a level 30+ solo monster.

Or even better yet, a ranger which can take advantage of the huge penalties to hit many different attacks for mucho damage(since the ranger gets more advantage from power attack/weapon focus/etc as it can make multiple attacks easier. E.G. Ranger/Fighter - Pit Fighter with +dmg from wisdom and +1/2 level dmg when using an action point. Or Kensai for +4 dmg with the weapon of choice)

And this doesn't even include the punishment that can be put on because others use the opportunity to lay on stunning attacks or the damage that they can dish out as well. E.G. a pit fighting fighter could Force the battle, then Supremacy of Steel[60+6+9+6+8+12d12], and action point into cruel reaper[60+18+12+12+4+6d12+30], then when the enemies turn came up, get another at will for another [30+6+9+6++46d12] and a total of 432 damage.

Get another guy right next to him and its game over.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

At least until they update Blood Mage to close that loop 



Goumindong said:


> So the problem was with power attack and not frenzied berserker, leap attack, or shock trooper?




Wasn't the problem with _all_ of them?



> No, everything always has to be considered as part of a whole. Not alone. This is even more true in 4e where tactics are much more important and easier to realize.



No, everything has to be considered . You shouldn't design a power that is wildly more powerful than another, nor should you design a class that makes it so you can't include powers of the proper strength.

If you fail the basic power vs power comparison, you've already failed. If you fail the destiny vs destiny comparison, hey, you've failed. If you don't fail until you combine power and destiny? Well, guess you failed there too.

A class that gets the ability 'You deal 20 damage for every square you push someone with an at-will' and no at-wills that pushed could be declared balanced, but it isn't if you do a multiclass paragon path and start pushing people 8 squares with thunderwave. 

Meteor Swarm vs. Astral Storm shows _very clearly_ that there is a problem somewhere. Of course, the problem may well just be with how bad the wizard is, but I think Legion's Hold is a very good daily so clearly it's okay to give the wizard good dailies. So which is the problem - Meteor Swarm or Astral Storm?



> You have to figure that nearly each and every hit by a wizard power at later levels is going to result in a coup-de-grace by a rogue, ranger, or warlock and the cleric powers aren't.



Umm. Sleep lets you CdG... that's it for wizard powers on last skim I did.

I am loving the 'Well, because wizards have archmage' or 'blood mage' stuff, though. That's going to make a ton of sense in two years when we have 400 paragon paths and 100 epic destinies.

Clearly, then, the base class or base power will be balanced, because Necromancer Games put out the Player's Guide 7 and it has a cool power that 1/day lets the Wizard really shiny or makes Meteor Swarm ungodly.

Or maybe, just maybe, you should actually balance each piece of the puzzle. Level 29 daily should compare to level 29 daily.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 2, 2008)

It may also be worth noting that Fire Storm is at its most effective when _combined_ with control spells like Evard's Black Tentacles.

Remember, this game is not about Wizards versus Clerics.  It's about Wizards and Clerics (and others) teaming up to defeat a common enemy.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> Wasn't the problem with _all_ of them?




No



> If you fail the basic power vs power comparison, you've already failed. If you fail the destiny vs destiny comparison, hey, you've failed. If you don't fail until you combine power and destiny? Well, guess you failed there too.



"because you say so" is not a valid justification. You need to actually have a reason that power vs power comparison is necessary rather than whether or no the system is balanced on a whole. 

If the system is balanced on the whole, who cares if a few powers are out of line.



> Umm. Sleep lets you CdG... that's it for wizard powers on last skim I did.



I was under the impression that stunned creatures did as well. Which is why the majority of stuns don't allow anyone to hit the creature.[When stunned you cannot take any actions, which is helpless.]



> I am loving the 'Well, because wizards have archmage' or 'blood mage' stuff, though. That's going to make a ton of sense in two years when we have 400 paragon paths and 100 epic destinies.



Yes, anyone can choose to introduce unbalanced material. I am not sure what the point of saying "anyone can introduce unbalanced material if you let them" is.

Is archmage and blood mage imbalanced? Does it make the class imbalanced? No, on both accounts. Why? Because the end result doesn't end up imbalanced.



> A class that gets the ability 'You deal 20 damage for every square you push someone with an at-will' and no at-wills that pushed could be declared balanced, but it isn't if you do a multiclass paragon path and start pushing people 8 squares with thunderwave.




Only if you could attain the combination power that made it broken. If you cannot then there is no problem. People do not complain that Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered because it grants combat advantage and attacks so with sneak attack its 2d10+5d8/round, because you can't sneak attack with Bigby's crushing hand and there is no way of attaining the power to do so.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

*keterys:*

No.  That kind of design philosophy leads to failure.  Remember caster level and BAB?  You know, the bits of design that seemed to make sense on their own but together trashed whatever equal Fighter/Mage you tried to make out of core 3e classes?

On the face of it, all classes progressing at equal attack bonus _looks_ unfair for the Fighter.  It SEEMS as if that Wizards are just as good in melee combat as a Fighter.  That's how it is for these myopic viewpoints.  It seems like something, when really, it's not.

*Goumindong:*

Actually, most stuns do allow you to hit the guy.  That's how you kill Orcus - you stunlock him into oblivion.

Stun condition is not the same as Helpless condition.  They're separate entries on the condition list.


----------



## Samurai (Jul 2, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Double Astral Storm in the first round?!?!?  Yowzers.  It's good for a Cleric, but double Astrals is just so, so, strong.  This prayer would be super powerful as a spell.






Goumindong said:


> Wait, so the problem is "these spells would be broken but they aren't because you cant combine them with things that make many wizard spells really strong?"




For a few feats, the Cleric can multiclass to Wizard and get a Wizard Paragon Path (say, Bloodmage) and the Archmage Epic Destiny.  He can heal, he can use the best spells from both Wizard and Cleric, Bolster them, and repeat them thanks to Archmage, all while wearing heavy armor.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> I find it amusing that you think that the paragon paths and epic destinies in the PHB are all that you're going to see.
> 
> Pretend that there's a 'High Hierophant' epic destiny that is exactly like Archmage, but for clerics. Does the world end?
> 
> Hint: If it does, the problem isn't with the epic destiny, it's with the power.



The problem with this reasoning is that the non-wizard got actual class abilities that improved their ability to fulfill their role (marking, healing word, curse/quarry/sneak attack and so on), the wizard, however, has no true abilities in this vein (the implement powers are nice, but they're more add-ons like channel divinity, not an always active ability).

So, their "shtick" is AoE - and since there's multiclassing, they had to reduce the power, just like picking up other classes powers don't serve you that well, because you lack the synergies with the class abilities.

To give the wizard something back, however they seemingly have their real meat in feats (spell focus, second implement) and, of course, their epic destiny (archmage).

The obvious problem with this is, of course, that they're locked down in their feat/destiny selection.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 2, 2008)

This "Meteor Swarm vs. Astral Storm" annoys me a little. I don't knot about you  but if my wizard could cast Astral Storm, he'd still pick Greater Ice Storm or Legions Hold. Lower damage plus effect beats Pure damage in my spellbook. Damage ain't my job. And I'm sure when cleric get a decent leader 20 daily, they would be using Astral Storm either. Pure damage AOE stinks.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

*Samurai:*

1. You need to reread the Blood Mage PP and the Archmage Epic Destiny
2. High Int characters don't want to use heavy armor in the first place


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

So... the argument is that everyone else's powers are allowed to follow a semblance of balance, but the wizard's powers aren't, because they designed it in such a way that they can't, because the wizard doesn't get actual class features.

Yeah, I'm back to the let's agree to disagree.

This discussion totally reaffirmed my desire to see some more controller classes made, though.

I did make one mistake earlier, though - if the High Hierophant might break the game like that, there's a decent chance the problem is with _Archmage_, not just the power.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

That's like saying that needing to balance Rogue powers with the fact that they can acquire CA and Sneak Attack makes Rogues broken.

Wizard powers HAVE to be considered in light of _class features_ - things like implement mastery, Battle Mage Action or Bolstering Blood.  This is EXACTLY the same as balancing a cleric healing power with his Healing Lore in mind, or designing a Rogue power with Sneak Attack in  mind.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

Rogue powers look fine to me that I've seen so far. For example, compare Dazing Strike and Thundering Wrath.

Battle Mage Action and Bolstering Blood aren't wizard class features. Implement Mastery is, though  

I feel bad for the poor cleric if all his healing powers heal Wis less compared to the Warlord because the cleric has healing lore. Except, they don't seem to. I'm sure there was some way that tied into 'Wizard AoE deals less damage' though.

It doesn't really matter, though - I'll never take meteor swarm or expect to see a wizard take it. That's fine. Better to have a few duds than crazy overpowered stuff. There are lots of other good choices. I think Legion's Hold compares fine to Astral Storm, much like Evards compares to Fire Storm. They're very different, but they're close enough.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

Bolstering Blood in particular, is a feature that only works on Wizard and Bloodmage powers.  Yes, I kind of think that that's relevant.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

It's totally relevant. It's just not a wizard feature. Not all wizards take that paragon path. You can't argue a case for a wizard power under the assumption it has that path, nor declare a power unbalanced if you have that path.

All that says is that the path may have a problem.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

Um, yeah.  I think that IF I can make a power kill Orcus with one class feature and one power application, yes, that makes that power/feature combination unbalanced.  One or the other has to go.

Not all Wizard take Bloodmage, but they all have to take _something_, and I think it's a safe assumption to say that they'll take Paragon Paths that will mesh well with their powers, one way or another.  My comparisons work regardless of whether you take Blood Mage or Battle Mage.  You want us to take Divine Oracle on Orb Wizard?  Yeah - that won't work for supporting damage for very obvious reasons.  Basing damage output for Wizard powers on that is like saying that Lead the Attack sucks for a Warlock, so it must not be a good power.

If we want to do damage estimates it's _reasonable_ to look for and use damage boosters that War Wizards will want to take, just as it's reasonable to say that they'll all max Int as much as possible and have a good implement.  If you can do the same for Cleric, then by all means do so!  If we can max Astral Storm or Firestorm to ridiculous enough levels with common Paragon Path features that a Cleric actually gives the Wizard a sound thumping, then let's have that out.

A War Wizard, as I've shown, does ridiculous amounts of damage on a hit.  AND he sweeps the minions as well.  A Bloodmage can clear a room of minions automatically just by using his second wind.  Bloody a Spellstorm Mage and the same thing happens.  And he's thumping the enemies with massive AoE damages.

And they've both still got decent single target options in Disintegrate and Bigby's to name but a few.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 2, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> People have been talking about striker damage, and been comparing Firestorm to Striker-level damage. Let's see how much damage Strikers can do, eh?
> Bugbear Ranger/Pit Fighter,
> Using Cruel Cage of Steel (19 daily) w/2 oversized +4 bastard swords. Has Lethal Hunter, WF: Bastard Sword, and Two-Weapon Fighting. 24 Str and 21 Wis
> 3 attacks at Str+2 vs. AC: 5d12+3*(4+7+5+2+1)+2d8 = 32.5+3*19+9 = 98.5 avg. damage
> ...



Did anyone actually look at this post? You guys are still talking about striker damage, and where exactly it'll be when you get Firestorm. Here you go. Again.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 2, 2008)

Let it go, DemonLord57 ..

Battlefield manipulation is more complicated, hence some people (casual players who play just for fun especially) will do better with damaging powers than powers such as walls and evard's.
In the hands of a casual player, I would prefer a wizard to be made of blam.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

That looks fairly depressing, actually.  It's not Firestorm low, but it's definitely less than what I was hoping for.  And on a Bugbear, too.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 2, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> That looks fairly depressing, actually.  It's not Firestorm low, but it's definitely less than what I was hoping for.  And on a Bugbear, too.



Almost 100 damage is low? Without crits?



Danceofmasks said:


> Let it go, DemonLord57 ..
> 
> Battlefield manipulation is more complicated, hence some people (casual players who play just for fun especially) will do better with damaging powers than powers such as walls and evard's.
> In the hands of a casual player, I would prefer a wizard to be made of blam.



Yeah, you're probably right... I'm going to stop posting here... (I tell myself)


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 2, 2008)

*DemonLord57:*

Yes.  It's low.  Bear in mind that this is a Daily - a Striker would usually be using this on a Solo or an Elite some time during the day, maybe on a slightly overleveled monster if we don't have Elites or Solos that day (n+2 or something).

What's Standard HP for level 20?  About 200.  400 for Elites.  After you expend this Daily, what then?  Do you have more powers that do this much damage?  How many per encounter powers do this much damage?

Frankly, this kind of damage is only barely acceptable for a Striker Daily against Standards and underleveled Standards.  Scratch that.  It's low.  I want more.

Why do I expect more damage on a hit?

A Wizard is an AoE and status effect guy.  At level 20, minions aren't even an issue for him.  He eliminates them almost just by being there.  His stock in trade is doing lots of damage through multitargeting, just as Ranger does lots of damage by multiattacking.

Force Volley is a target-selective level 17 _Encounter_ power.  I will assume 18 Int to start, normal implements, Bolstering Blood.  No more.  No race munchkinning.  No special implements.  No additional optimization.  The Range on this is 20.  If you have the targets, you WILL get 3 of them.

It does average 30.5 damage on a hit or about 91.5 damage in all.  This is an Encounter power.  The Wiz is doing this much damage, barely optimized, as a second thought.  If you can catch 3 opponents in a Thunderlance's 5x5 area, it does even more than this, without even using Raging Storm.  Blast of Cold will do 40.5 damage each.  Disintegrate does nearly 80 damage to a single target using only this much optimization.  More on critical, naturally, as always.  Prismatic Beams can do about 65 damage each for hits in an 11x11 area with no friendly fire.

And you're excited by 98.5?

I'm thinking something like 150 would be more appropriate.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 2, 2008)

Zurai said:


> No. "Masters of melee combat" was descriptive fluff that had no real design intent behind it. "Controllers excel at these things:" is a definition. Like it or not, in 4E, Area of Effect damage is one of the primary jobs of the Controller archetype. It doesn't matter whether you want to call it Control or Fluffy Bunnies - it's still the Wizard's job. The point in this thread is that classes that do _not_ have AoE damage as part of their archetype definition are unarguably better at AoE damage than the class that does.




This is pointless- we're going 'round and 'round because you are getting hung up on a design description.  The point isn't "do clerics do more AE damage than wizards do?"  The point is "do wizards excel in parties as much as clerics do?"  The answer to the former is "yes, very likely."  The answer to the latter is not known yet.  This reminds me of the "monk is overpowered" threads during early 3.5e days.  On paper, the monk looked friggin' awesome.  Only when people tried to play it did they realize that advantages on paper sometimes don't translate well into practice.

So the cleric does more damage in AE than the wizard- I'll certainly grant that as a very strong possibility.  The question now becomes whether that particular advantage is so important that the wizard becomes superfluous.  If you are intellectually honest, you'll admit that you have no clue, since high level play simply hasn't been observed enough to draw a conclusion.  You currently claim that high AE damage will trump everything else that the wizard brings to the table, making a cleric the equivalent of a leader+controller.  The same situation exists in strikers, you know- the ranger certainly does far more damage than a rogue on a consistant basis.  Does that make the rogue obsolete?  I'd hope not, but who in the nine hells knows?


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 2, 2008)

Samurai said:


> For a few feats, the Cleric can multiclass to Wizard and get a Wizard Paragon Path (say, Bloodmage) and the Archmage Epic Destiny.  He can heal, he can use the best spells from both Wizard and Cleric, Bolster them, and repeat them thanks to Archmage, all while wearing heavy armor.




1. No he cannot, if he uses a paragon path he is limited to one daily, one utility, and one encounter. That is hardly "All the best spells". He can indeed use archmage, and Bloodmage, but only on those powers(and he is missing out on thunderwave, the quintessential wizard at will). If he wants more spells he has to paragon multiclass and while he then does get thunderwave, he loses the paragon path features(but does end up with 2 dailies, 2 utilities, and 2 encounters)

2. A wizard can do all of that in heavy armor by spending two feats, Leather Proficiency and Chainmail Proficiency(and scale if he wants). And he still has two more feats advanced over the Cleric. Feats he could use for Scale Proficiency and Scale Specialization. This gives him better armor than the cleric wih no movement penalty. Alternately he could pick up chain spec if he didn't want the extra move(or was a dwarf) and lightning reflexes/great fort/iron will. Or toughness to make up for the hit point differential.[Alternately, he could pick up leather, hide, shield, heavy shield]

3. Now the cleric is suffering from a slight MAD, MID, can only use his multi-classed abilities half the time, and has less defense than the wizard.



keterys said:


> I feel bad for the poor cleric if all his healing powers heal Wis less compared to the Warlord because the cleric has healing lore. Except, they don't seem to. I'm sure there was some way that tied into 'Wizard AoE deals less damage' though.




Because clerics are the healing leaders and warlords are the useful leaders.

Because wizards don't actually do less AoE damage, do more useful AoE effects, and do it more often.



Roxlimn said:


> *DemonLord57:*
> 
> Yes. It's low. Bear in mind that this is a Daily - a Striker would usually be using this on a Solo or an Elite some time during the day, maybe on a slightly overleveled monster if we don't have Elites or Solos that day (n+2 or something).





90 damage to a single target is ~twice as strong than 90 damage spread amongst three targets. 

Proof.

3 enemies have 400 hit points, 90 damage to single target/round
Round 1: 400,400,310
Round 2: 400,400,220
Round 3: 400,400,130
Round 4: 400,400,040
Round 5: 400,400,dead
Round 6: 400,310
Round 7: 400,220
Round 8: 400,130
Round 9: 400,040
Round 10: 400,Dead
Round 15: dead

Total Enemy Actions taken: 30, This is sub-optimal for the party assuming that they were tossing multiple attacks out they would take them down 2 rounds earlier, which is 13 rounds and 26 Enemy Actions.

3 Enemies have 400 hit points, 30 damage to each target/round
Round 1: 370,370,370
Round 10: 100,100,100
Round 14: Dead, Dead, Dead

Total Enemy Actions Taken: 42

You need to be doing a lot better than 1/3 damage or have a lot more enemies to make AoE valuable. Once the minions are cleared unless you can get everyone AND reduce enemy actions taken its just not valuable over taking enemies out of the fight.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 3, 2008)

DemonLord57 said:


> Did anyone actually look at this post? You guys are still talking about striker damage, and where exactly it'll be when you get Firestorm. Here you go. Again.




You mean this one below? I will paraphrase...



DemonLord57 said:


> Bugbear Ranger/Pit Fighter, w/2 oversized +4 bastard swords. Has Lethal Hunter, WF: Bastard Sword, and Two-Weapon Fighting. 24 Str and 21 Wis
> 
> Using Cruel Cage of Steel = 98.5 avg. damage
> Claws of the Griffon = 66.5 avg. damage
> ...




Yep, I did.

What I wanted to do was to establish what the average damage you could depend on from a striker in a typical battle.  What's the damage i can expect, round to round, if I had a typical 19th level striker in a party.  Can I expect 98 damage/round? ...80? ...70?

What is striker damage?  It's the average damage that I can expect from him/her over time.

So what is that damage?  What can a 19th level striker _*deliver *_realistically over time?   Let's say a battle that lasts 10 rounds.

I think you said:



DemonLord57 said:


> Claws of the Griffon.  3d12+2*19+9 = 66.5. 60ish damage is good? This is a level 7 encounter power...




Well the average damage output of a Fire Storm, for the 1st round, over a group of opponents, lets say 8, (considering a 50% hit rate, and the 100% auto-hit rate on the opponents turn), is 392 damage or 49 average.  Half take 39 damage, the other half take 59.

So you could say that I feel 50ish damage is _good_... actually I _*know*_ it's _*great...*_

I assume by your above comment you feel that 60ish damage is sub par for a striker at 19th?  You even gave an example of two powers, one doing about 98 points and the other doing 66, averaging them out thats 82 damage.

Interesting how all attacks hit, btw...

Can your uber-oversized-bastard sword wielding-bugbear damage king deliver 82 points of damage per round for 10 rounds?  Heck, can he even deliver 60ish?

I think not... no, in fact... I KNOW he can't...

My gut is telling me that my estimation is a good one.  Your striker will be LUCKY to do 60ish damage a round for 10 rounds.  

I gave your striker a decent number... 60... don't make me go crunch some numbers, revealing even a lower damage level, thereby depressing your bugbear into giving up his profession.

There's not enough bugbears in important positions as it is...


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 3, 2008)

Did you even bother to read the post above the one you just let off? 50 damage AoEs are not spectacular, 11 average damage/round to a bunch of enemies is not spectacular as a daily.

A 20st lvl ranger will be doing about 27.5 average damage with twin strike assuming it has a 50% hit rate and 35.5 with a 100% hit rate(which is easier to get due to proficiency (+3) and the ability to get combat advantage against enemies(unlikely for the cleric using an AoE for another +2). That is after he has expended all his encounters and not including any interrupts, opportunity attacks, or anything else.

So, lets assume he gets an average of 1 opportunity attack every round(sometimes more, sometimes less, but it can be up to 8 opportunity attacks/round if conditions are right), hits 65% of the time(proficiency+combat advantage-power attack), and has heavy blade opportunity.

That is 18.5 damage/round before attacks are made.

He burns 4 encounters and a Daily[as you are burning a daily] and is level 20 and we will ignore AoE powers for the purpose of this discussion since it inflates real damage values. But he uses no action points. That is 5 rounds of Regular Twin Strike and 5 rounds of daily/encounters. Twin strike does 18.75 damage with an average of 8.6 damage for the hunters quarry(It only needs to hit one of the attacks and one attack will land 95% of the time each round* and change assuming no opportunity attacks are made, so this is a slight advantage to you). Which is 27.25 damage. So for rounds 5-10 he is averaging 45.4 damage with the opportunity attack(which probably came earlier in the fight which is why we aren't giving it the hunters quarry advantage).

Now we have to figure the 4 encounters and 1 daily. 

For our daily we will use Slashers Mark(we are not going to use Stormwarden, because the extra 10 damage/round to all adjacent targets is unfair, as well is Blade Cascade when used with effects that add + to hit). Anyway, this gives us a single attack and then a secondary attack each round until the end of the encounter. Our secondary attack is made at 65% and 2d10+6+1+4+4+2 which adds another 18.2 damage/round.

Now our total for rounds 6-10 is 63.6.

Slashers Mark averages 27.3 damage so for round 1 we do 72.25 damage.
Round Two We Twin Strike and Wrong Step(immediate interrupt) and slashers mark secondary 78.225 damage.(well, we can jsut assume a wrong step will happen at some point.
Round three we two weapon eviscerate for 73.92
Round four we nimble defense or Pinning Strike for 73.3
Round five we claw of the griffin for 73.3 damage
Round 6-10 is standard.

Average is 68.89 damage/round(688.9 damage total) in a more efficient manner(its all on single targets which reduces incoming damage faster), produces status effects on many of them, and is probably sub-optimal anyway because I used power attack.

Clerics aren't competing with strikers.

*3 attacks at 65% chance to hit/round due to slashers mark.

ed: Forgot to figure criticals. 

Criticals happen 1/20 attacks, and this ranger has made 50 attacks during this time. So he will have, on average, 2.5 criticals. Criticals roughly double the damage a power gets +4d12 damage. But because of the way that hunters quarry works, it also is will almost always increase the hunters quarry damage. So 2.5 criticals is 10d12 extra damage, 17.5 extra hunters quarry damage and on average another(assuming all crits were 1[w] attacks]) 11.25 damage for a total of 93.75 damage.

That brings our average to 78.26 per round for the lvl 20 ranger. 782.6 damage total.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 3, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Sure.  Allow me to make amendments:
> 
> 2 Encounters. 1 Daily Each, all Encounter powers; cannot be the same Daily unless the class features provide for it. Nondamaging Dailies can be used between Encounters
> 
> ...




2x Encounters each, check
1x Dailies each, check
Non-damage dailies between, check

So that there's less confusion let's do damage in encounter 1 (choosing whatever dailies you want), rest, use non-damaging dailies, then do damage in encounter 2 (choosing the remaining dailies).

*Bolstering Blood
*My feeling about this power is that it would apply damage once, per opponent, per casting of power.

_"When the power you use damages the target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt to yourself"_

It doesn't matter if you damage an opponent with just fire, or fire and poison.  It just matters that you _damage_ the opponent.  Considering how quarry, sneak attack, and curse work, I'm pretty sure the devs meant for this to work just once per casting of power.

We can always start a new thread and ask the community, alas, you may be right and I may be wrong.

*Extended (or "Save or else" damage)
*You said:  "Extended damage counted for 3 rounds, +20% for Wizard Spell Focus"

btw, Spell Focus: +2 on d20 is *+10%*, not +20%

I'll do one better, for your Wizard (save on 12+ d20) lets say you affect opponent for *3 rounds*, and my cleric (save on 10+ on d20) affects them for *2 rounds*.

_Math: Cleric casts a save or damage spell, assume 100 opponents, (55% save per round)_
Round 1: cleric damages 100 opponents (55% make save, they will not be damaged next round)
Round 2: cleric damages 45 (55% of them save)
Round 3: cleric damages 20 (55% of them save)
Round 4: cleric damages 9 (55% of them save)
Round 6: cleric damages 4 (55% of them save)
Round 7: cleric damages 2 (55% of them save)
Round 8: cleric damages 1 (end)
Total rounds of damage: 181 rounds of damage per 100 opponents
For Cleric, thats *1.81* rounds per opponent (so we round up to *2 rounds*)

Doing the same math for the Wizard, (45% save per round), yields 222 rounds of damage per 100.
For Wizard, thats *2.22* rounds per opponent (so we round up to *3** rounds*)

Better deal for wizard.. bigger round-up...

* Minor action extension
*You said:  "Minor action extension must be accounted for, can be done until all powers expended"

Agreed, but lets account for all our actions (standard, move, minor) per round.  That way no one will be able to run 3+ minors in any given round.

Still, I'd like to limit minor extended AoE powers to a set number of rounds (maybe 5?) as combat is movement fluid and combatants may move to a different area than where the damaging AoE is located.

Also, another argument for limiting for extended minors to a set number of rounds; in combat, you may very well get hit by a power that dazes you (1 action only that round), or even stuns you (no actions that turn).  Obviously, those would be detrimental for keeping extended minors.

What do you think?


*You said: "In truth, I'm already ceding a lot here"*
I don't want you to feel like your giving up stuff thats due a wizard of 30 levels.

If there's something that you want on the table then just suggest it.  After all, we want to see what a War Wizard really can do, otherwise what's the point of the contest.

If it's Bolstering Blood that's bothering you, it is difficult for me to think a wizard will damage himself for more that 50 points in any given combat, considering he has about 150+/- hit points max with all the other damage that he can potentially take during combat.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 3, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> It doesn't matter if you damage an opponent with just fire, or fire and poison.  It just matters that you _damage_ the opponent. Considering how quarry, sneak attack, and curse work, I'm pretty sure the devs meant for this to work just once per casting of power




And then on the next round the power deals damage _again_....

I mean how are you going to deal with the wizard that does 4d6+2d10 damage per round for 50 rounds?[or hell, 4d6/round for 50 rounds]. Necrotic web is no action. It just continues.

The two encounter powers are likely to be Blood Pulse, and then Wall of Ice as an Encounter power(hello archmage).

Necrotic Web will be used twice(archmage again, otherwise if you end up with the power left you aren't really considered using it). And since its damage and not damage over time from the same source, you are looking at 8d6+4d10 per round, automatic, with no save, and no sustain necessary.

Blood pulse will be used then the wizard will thunder wave them into the wall of ice so that they start their turn there. The blood pulse will do 2d6+8d6(plus any other movement), and the wall of ice will do  2d6+2d10+8+6 damage/round about 90% of the time(Its tough to figure when the save ends on the immob they take while in the two necrotic webs by the chance they will get thunderwaved back to the ice wall.

So for a rough estimate you are looking at 82 damage/round before considering anything else the wizard does[another 35 damage on blood pulse, taking the second wind will deal another 10 damage or so with 5 damage ongoing, so 3 rounds is 15 damage].

So 88 damage/round +2d6+int+6 round from your at will. Plus 35 from the blood pulse plus 45 from your second wind. Ignoring the 4d6+2d10 for the initial necrotic webs, but adding in the int and implement bonus that is 109 damage/round plus 114 damage.

Over 10 rounds that averages 120 damage/round per enemy.

ed: The above is in error, you only get 1 necrotic web since the zone overlaps(wall are a conjuration and does not, and you could use wall of fire/wall of ice with necrotic as your daily to get what i am listing above minus 3.5 average and about 20 damage from the extra necrotic web hit). Which means while you can do this 2 encounters/day, you only get 84 damage/round total and some 900 damage to all enemies over 10 rounds.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 3, 2008)

*Goumindong:

*I was gonna to deal with you tomorrow, but you just rub me the wrong way. *Sex with wife will have to wait*


1) As far as _*stunned*_ opponents go, you cannot coup de grace them!!

2) Post #170, you said: "You need to hit with firestorm to do damage" - No you don't!!

3) Post #170, you said: "ewar" and "ECM" - I get the analogy, but this is not EvE-Online, others are reading our posts, stick with DnD terminology.
 
4) Post #174, you said: "What damage from enemy fire? We are going to be stunning them every other round, what are they going to do, drool on the wizard?" - Unless you can hit 100% of the time (i.e. roll 11+ on d20 all the time), you will not stun everyone.

5) Post #174, you said: "That is not the way [Bolstering Blood] works. It triggers each time the effect does damage" - Wrong again, it only works on the initial cast of the power.  This has been answered and demonstrated numerous times in wizard builds on the WoTC boards. http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=889

6) Post #174, you said: "...as evidenced by my two round combo that lays to waste your 4 round combo" - Please point to said two round combo.  I never posted a 4 round combo... showing what Fire Storm can do on it's own for 4 rounds, a combo does not make.

7) Post #179, you said: "...lots of AoE damage is not all that valuable so long as you do 1 damage" - This is a joke, right?

8) Post #183, Zurai said: "AoE, it adds up to a significant portion of all the damage dealt in an encounter" - to which you answered: "Not really, no." - Your so misguided. In a few days, both Roxlimn and I will demonstrate what AoE warriors can really do.  I'll deal with your and DemonLord57's striker soon enough.

9) Post #197, you said: "You have to figure that nearly each and every hit by a wizard power at later levels is going to result in a coup-de-grace..." - Wrong, see answer to #1 above.

10) Post #200, you said: "People do not complain that Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered because it grants combat advantage" - Firstly there is no Bigby's Crushing Hand, only Icy Grasp and Grasping Hands.  And they do not grant CA.

11)  Post #218, you said: "90 damage to a single target is ~twice as strong than 90 damage spread amongst three targets." - I will agree with you here 

12) Post #220, you said: "Did you even bother to read the post above the one you just let off?" - yes, believe it or not, I read most of your posts, I just don't usually agree, as I will demonstrate in the next points coming up.

13)  Post #220, you said: "11 average damage/round to a bunch of enemies is not spectacular as a daily." - You are referring to Fire Storm I assume, it's damage per round (after the big initial blast) at 19th is 18.5, not 11.

14) Post #220, you said: "[Rangers vs. clerics/wizards hitting opponent's] is easier to get due to proficiency (+3)" - No!! AC is typically higher than the other defenses.  Cleric AoE typically hits Ref Def, which is usually much lower than AC. (Examples: Ice Devil ac36 ref31, Fire Giant ac34 ref28, Human Mage ac17 ref14, Tarrasque ac43 ref38, Orcus ac48 ref46)

Advice: Just stick with the 50/50 hit/miss rule, it works.

15) Post #220, you said:  "So, lets assume [the ranger] gets an average of 1 opportunity attack every round..." - For over a year of our DnD 3.0/3.5 gaming we did not have more than 1 or 2 OA per member per encounter, _if any. _OA are harder to come by in 4e than 3e, they toned them way down.  Secondly, the typical 19th level encounter offers many large+ sized opponents.  That means reach 2+.  _*You*_ will be the one more likely getting OA'd not them.  Plus with all the slides, pushes, and teleports, at 19th level, it's easy for opponents to get around.  Thirdly, enemy fighters and brutes (many with reach 2+) aren't going to run away from you (which usually triggers OA), they will run _*at*_ you.

Note: Don't count on getting OA in any large frequency in 4e, it's not going to happen.

16) Post #220, you said:  "[Twin Strike] will land 95% of the time each round" - Using the 50/50 rule, Twin Strike will land at least 75% (25% two attacks hit, 50% one attack hits, 25% all miss)

17) Post #220, you said: "[Slasher's Mark] gives us a single attack and then a secondary attack each round until the end of the encounter" - No it it doesn't.  Marking makes it so the *Marker* gets an AO on the _*Markee*_ only if the *Markee* targets someone other than the *Marker*. Fighters who mark get aggro, hence the defender role. If a ranger wants aggro, mark away, but I wouldn't recommend it, your a striker, not a defender. Use this power if the defender is down and you want to keep aggro off the wizard.

18)  Post #220, you said: "Criticals happen 1/20 attacks" - Leave crits out of the math, everyone crits, not just rangers, and it just complicates the math.  Besides, AoE warriors roll more to-hits than strikers, you don't wanna go down that road.

*In conclusion:
*I have no problem comparing damage potential with your 19th level ranger or wizard, once we fix all your custom house rules, like the OA's-r-us, Coup de Grace on demand, and the Bolstering Blood exploits.

I could have picked on you more, maybe 25 points in all, but it's late, and I'm feeling merciful.  

If I misunderstood any of your previous points, forgive me as it's late.

g-nite.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 3, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> *Goumindong:
> 
> *I was gonna to deal with you tomorrow, but you just rub me the wrong way. *Sex with wife will have to wait*



Well, I'm not Goumindong, but I'll respond, mostly because this is a bizarre argument.  Fire Storm is indeed one of the best AE spells in the game at 19th.  It is replaced by Elemental Maw at 25th, which keeps the mantle even once you take 29th level spells into account.

Still, I agree with you- Firestorm is the single most damaging AE spell in the game at 19th.  How it translates into the best *control* spell, is what I disagree about.  You and a couple of your allies are harping on WotC's mention of AE damage as the definition of control.  People recognized that definition as fallacious even before 4e was released, and there was a good deal of fear that 4e would remove what truly made wizards into the control specialists they were in 3.x: the ability to take away actions from the enemy.

Thankfully, it turned out that the definition released by that specific designer was inaccurate and incomplete- Wizards did indeed keep the control elements that made them so powerful in the hands of a knowledgeable player in 3.5e.

So wizards can be out-damaged by clerics in AE.  This is nothing new- high level clerics had better AE damage that wizards in 3.5e using spells like... well, look at that-_fire storm_!  Clerics, however, couldn't out-control the wizard, who could use the old _force cage_, _Otto's Dance_ and similar spells to incapacitate powerful monsters.  Thus, there was legitimate argument over whether the Batman Wizard or CODzilla really ruled the roost.

You are trying to narrow the definition to a specific type of control and then claiming that Clerics are better controllers than wizards because clerics excel at the particular brand of control.  You can't lose this argument if you are at all competent, because you are rigging the entire comparison.  If you disregard the fact that Elemental Maw leaves melee specialists virtually worthless for one round and everyone else virtually immobilized and rearranged to your taste, then Astral Storm is only marginally- if at all- worse.  Once you 
factor the fact that it leaves opponents prone, dazed and teleported virutally anywhere on the battlefield, though, Elemental Maw becomes much, much better than a Cleric spell that is four levels above it.  

You cannot ignore the other control elements, mostly because none of us truly know just how the "typical" high level battle will play out- we simply don't have enough evidence.  Discounting pure control elements or damage may actually work in the long run, once we know how epic play works, but it's foolish to make sweeping generalizations like "control is just playing footsie."  If 3.5e control is any indication of how important such spells as Evard's will be in 4e, you may wind up regretting ever posting that.


----------



## DemonLord57 (Jul 3, 2008)

Puggins said:


> ...Thus, there was legitimate argument over whether the Batman Wizard or CODzilla really ruled the roost....



And that was mostly due to Divine Metamagic cheese. Or the Cheater of Mystra. Without that, clerics were still much better than any non-casting class, but didn't get as ridiculous as wizards, IMO. Druids were the most ridiculously overpowered class in 3.5, IMO, especially with Planar Shepherd. 

(DM: ok, combat starts
Druid: I get 10 rounds for one, so I cast a few save or dies... anyone left? If so, I sic my pet Fighter on them. (Fleshraker Dinosaur) Then go hit them myself, because I'm already a Fleshraker. Oh, and while I'm at it, I might as well summon an Efreeti for some free Wishes.
DM: wtf...)


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

*Mongolia Jones:*



> 2x Encounters each, check
> 1x Dailies each, check
> Non-damage dailies between, check




Nono.  That's not what I meant.  I meant we expend all encounter powers and 1 daily for each of 2 Encounters.  Obviously, you can't use the same daily for those two encounters.  This simulates the exhaustion of dailies as the day wears on.  You can use Astral Storm only once a day, after all.



> It doesn't matter if you damage an opponent with just fire, or fire and poison. It just matters that you damage the opponent. Considering how quarry, sneak attack, and curse work, I'm pretty sure the devs meant for this to work just once per casting of power.
> 
> We can always start a new thread and ask the community, alas, you may be right and I may be wrong.




That's not correct at all.  It says, "When you damage an opponent with a power, you deal damage to the target equal to the damage you dealt yourself."

When you hit with a power twice, you damage an opponent twice and each of those is an instance of damaging an opponent with a power.  It doesn't specify that you only apply the damage once a round, which is specified in other powers that are limited in just such a fashion, such as Sneak Attack.



> You said: "Extended damage counted for 3 rounds, +20% for Wizard Spell Focus"
> 
> btw, Spell Focus: +2 on d20 is +10%, not +20%
> 
> I'll do one better, for your Wizard (save on 12+ d20) lets say you affect opponent for 3 rounds, and my cleric (save on 10+ on d20) affects them for 2 rounds.




Amusingly enough, 120% of 1.81 is 2.172, which is close enough to your result of 2.22.  Spell Focus extends save effects by about 20% because save effects have a 45% base chance of continuing.  10% is 22% of 45% so that's how much more effect the save ends condition gets.

Obviously, this gets better if the opponent gets better saves.  A Solo has +5 to saves so save ends effects only have a 20% chance of continuing.  For Solos, Spell Focus extends the possible duration by 50% (because 10% is 50% of 20%) - not that that gets noticed much because of granularity.

This is why people THINK that Orb Impedance is broken.  With a Wis of 20 and Spell Focus, Orbs improve the success chances of save conditions by 35% - That's a 275% improvement over 20%

Anyways, 3 rounds is okay.



> You said: "Minor action extension must be accounted for, can be done until all powers expended"
> 
> Agreed, but lets account for all our actions (standard, move, minor) per round. That way no one will be able to run 3+ minors in any given round.
> 
> ...




That's reasonable.  5 rounds seems too many, I think, especially for a Cleric, since he'll typically have better things to do with minor actions - like use his excellent Healing Word class feature.

By my estimates, even high level combats shouldn't be lasting much longer than 6 rounds.  Postulating 5 rounds is way too much.

This points to one of the weaknesses of the Laser Cleric - he's action conflicted.  He wants to heal, but he also wants to maintain Firestorm.  What do you do?

You do as you think is best, but I think it's bad for the Cleric to be ignoring healing - he might as well just throw away that power.  Shame.



> I don't want you to feel like your giving up stuff thats due a wizard of 30 levels.
> 
> If there's something that you want on the table then just suggest it. After all, we want to see what a War Wizard really can do, otherwise what's the point of the contest.
> 
> If it's Bolstering Blood that's bothering you, it is difficult for me to think a wizard will damage himself for more that 50 points in any given combat, considering he has about 150+/- hit points max with all the other damage that he can potentially take during combat.




Well, if you really want to hear the cheese, this is how it works.  It's been asked of CustServ and all we got were shocked gasps of astonishment:

Blood Pulse damages an enemy _every time he *leaves* a sqaure._  A Large opponent leaves *2 squares* every time he's moved horizontally, and *3 squares* every time he's moved diagonally.  Each instance does damage - 1d6, but gets +2d10 also when we add in Bolstering Blood.

Thus, the combination damages an opponent 14.5 points for _every square it leaves_.  I can hear the gasp of horror already.

We can use Orcus if you like, but it's horrid enough just with a couple of Large opponents.  Cause Fear is usually the power of choice to make the opponent move (Cleric ally or multi into Cleric), but you can use Thunderwave or Thunderlance if you like, then add whatever move powers the rest of your team can do.

Let's see.  Diagonal is 3 squares so that's 42.5 damage for each square pushed x 4 for the push of Thunderlance = 170 damage just for the push effect + Blood Pulse + Bolstering Blood.  Damage from Thunderlance is 40 on a hit, plus Blood Pulse hit damage is itself about 33.  243 damage to a Large creature on the first round.

Yes, you can kill Orcus with this.  On round 1.

*Puggins:*

Actually, that's not strictly true.  I don't think a Laser Cleric can outdamage a Wizard in AoEs.  Firestorm makes up some of the advantage Wizards get in terms of Encounter Powers, but they retain advantages on the other Dailies, too.

Each one of the Wizard Paragon Paths boosts damage significantly.  Battle Mage is strange because it's a Wizard who wants to be a Striker, and he can do a good semblance of it, too.  Between Battle Mage Action and Action Surge, a Human can really nail a good single-target power (like Thunderclap) and then extend the duration of the status effect with Orb of Continuance (magic item, not implement mastery).

Blood Mage pimps the damage of every spell.  Firestorm looks decent until you add +2d10 to each damage instance of every spell in the Wizard menu.

SpellStorm Mage gets Extra Damage Action - +10 damage at level 20, but a respectable +5 even at level 11.  Warpriest matches this damage for damage, but SpellStorm Mages gets Storm Cage against Battle Cry - a poor AoE effect if you're looking for damage, and Maelstrom of Chaos vs. Battle Pyres.

You might think that Battle Pyres is a win for Warpriest until you look closer.  Area is less, and the secondary effect is damage to 1 target within 5 squares.  Sustaining this damage is a Standard action.  In contrast, the initial impact of Maelstrom of Chaos might look less impressive until you start thinking about the truly evil things you can do by clumping all your enemies within a 21x21 square into a nice little clump.

Just look at the Encounter Powers.  None of them can match a Wizard's powers for damage and status effects.  Firestorm and Astral Storm are singular stars in a powers list that strike me as otherwise completely mediocre as far as AoE damage and status inflicting are concerned.  You _could_ make a Devoted Cleric that might fill in for a missing Wizard, but you're going to have to make the difference by using healing effects.  In terms of completely owning enemies, the Wizard power list is extremely good.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 4, 2008)

*Leaves a square*

Large creatures take up more than one square. If they had ruled, for example, that, regardless of size, Leaves a square simply means Moves 1 square, it would be fixed: shunting Orcus a few squares gives damage for each square shunted, not for all the squares Orcus takes up.

As it stands, ruling the other way makes shunting diagonally different from shunting horizontally. Wasn't the main point of 1-1-1 that moving diagonally is no different from moving vertically?


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

The rule is ironclad.  "Leaves a square" is "leaves a square."  I admit that the power combination is ridiculous and requires errata rather than clarification.  For that matter, Bolstering Blood requires clarification as well.  I'd hate for it to end up weaker than Extra Damage Action because you ARE taking damage to use Bolstering Blood, but I would like it to be a little clearer.  Doubling up damage on Prismatic Burst or multiplying it multiple times through Evard's or even Bigby's isn't a real problem.  Blood Pulse is.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 4, 2008)

*the problem*

When something large moves, they are leaving multiple squares simultaneously. And when they move diagonally, they are leaving even more squares for the same move. I'm guessing thats not the way its supposed to work, given how they have gone out of their way to make diagonals as similar as possible to straignt lines. Maybe there should be an errata for it. Or a clarification: even if you are large or larger, you can only leave one square at a time, not multiple simultaneous, for Blood Pulse purposes.

3rd ed sometimes stressed that effects that targeted multiple squares could only hit a monster once, ven if it filled multiple squares. Like Firebrand from Magic of Faerun


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 4, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> *Goumindong:
> 
> *I was gonna to deal with you tomorrow, but you just rub me the wrong way. *Sex with wife will have to wait*
> 
> ...




yes, welcome to two pages ago.



> 2) Post #170, you said: "You need to hit with firestorm to do damage" - No you don't!!





No, i said you need to hit with firestorm to do significant damage. 1d10+int/round when you can't move the control area is pretty weak




> 3) Post #170, you said: "ewar" and "ECM" - I get the analogy, but this is not EvE-Online, others are reading our posts, stick with DnD terminology.





You get the analogy but still continue to profess how right you are? The analogy is for you, because you know you're wrong.




> 4) Post #174, you said: "What damage from enemy fire? We are going to be stunning them every other round, what are they going to do, drool on the wizard?" - Unless you can hit 100% of the time (i.e. roll 11+ on d20 all the time), you will not stun everyone.





And the rest get sucked up by the defenders(or get wasted by an inevitably continued destructive salutation)




> 6) Post #174, you said: "...as evidenced by my two round combo that lays to waste your 4 round combo" - Please point to said two round combo. I never posted a 4 round combo... showing what Fire Storm can do on it's own for 4 rounds, a combo does not make.





Please read the thread. Also you have no 4 round combos to pull off.




> 7) Post #179, you said: "...lots of AoE damage is not all that valuable so long as you do 1 damage" - This is a joke, right?





No, most AoE damage is only valuable to the point where it kills minions. Many minions have resistances to damage types, such a high amount of damage on those is only really valuable if its going to pierce the resistances of the minion where as a lower damage spell will not.




> 10) Post #200, you said: "People do not complain that Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered because it grants combat advantage" - Firstly there is no Bigby's Crushing Hand, only Icy Grasp and Grasping Hands.  And they do not grant CA.





Only if you do not know how to use them.




> 13)  Post #220, you said: "11 average damage/round to a bunch of enemies is not spectacular as a daily." - You are referring to Fire Storm I assume, it's damage per round (after the big initial blast) at 19th is 18.5, not 11.



How do you get a 13 for your wisdom modifier?



> 14) Post #220, you said: "[Rangers vs. clerics/wizards hitting opponent's] is easier to get due to proficiency (+3)" - No!! AC is typically higher than the other defenses. Cleric AoE typically hits Ref Def, which is usually much lower than AC. (Examples: Ice Devil ac36 ref31, Fire Giant ac34 ref28, Human Mage ac17 ref14, Tarrasque ac43 ref38, Orcus ac48 ref46)





Sometimes yes, sometimes no, more powers reduce AC than others IIRC.




> 15) Post #220, you said:  "So, lets assume [the ranger] gets an average of 1 opportunity attack every round..." - For over a year of our DnD 3.0/3.5 gaming we did not have more than 1 or 2 OA per member per encounter, _if any. _OA are harder to come by in 4e than 3e, they toned them way down. Secondly, the typical 19th level encounter offers many large+ sized opponents. That means reach 2+. _*You*_ will be the one more likely getting OA'd not them. Plus with all the slides, pushes, and teleports, at 19th level, it's easy for opponents to get around. Thirdly, enemy fighters and brutes (many with reach 2+) aren't going to run away from you (which usually triggers OA), they will run _*at*_ you.





Its much much much easier to get OAs in 4e. You can make one per enemy per round. You don't need any dex modifier to do it. The main thing keeping OAs down in 3e were

1. People would only use one or two big monsters because no one wants to deal with multiple enemy combats.

2. Characters could only OA once per round which means that once a character had spent his anyone could keep going through it.




> 16) Post #220, you said:  "[Twin Strike] will land 95% of the time each round" - Using the 50/50 rule, Twin Strike will land at least 75% (25% two attacks hit, 50% one attack hits, 25% all miss)





That is not what I said. I said that Hunters Quarry will land 95% of the time each round, because twin strike, landing 65% of the time for each hit, and the secondary attack from the daily the ranger used mean that at a 35% hit rate you will hit at least once 95% of the time(and quarry is handed after all rolls are made)




> 18)  Post #220, you said: "Criticals happen 1/20 attacks" - Leave crits out of the math, everyone crits, not just rangers, and it just complicates the math. Besides, AoE warriors roll more to-hits than strikers, you don't wanna go down that road.



 No AoE do no roll more to-hits than strikers, at least, not compared to rangers. You roll a bunch of to-hits once and then do nothing. Strikers keep rolling these to hits on multiple high damaging powers. Their at wills do more damage than you do with most of your powers(and even more when they crit since they get to apply their now maximized sneak/quarry/curse damage to that crit and you do not)




			
				Roxlimn said:
			
		

> Blood Pulse damages an enemy _every time he *leaves* a sqaure._  A Large opponent leaves *2 squares* every time he's moved horizontally, and *3 squares* every time he's moved diagonally.  Each instance does damage - 1d6, but gets +2d10 also when we add in Bolstering Blood.
> 
> Thus, the combination damages an opponent 14.5 points for _every square it leaves_.  I can hear the gasp of horror already.




Not quite. Blood Pulse damages an enemy every for every square he leaves, not every time it leaves a square(though its easy to understand when custserv was answering the question of why it was worded the way it was). Since powers happen "instantaneously" It will only deal that damage at the end of each move. A bolstered blood pulse onto a diagonally pushed large monster for 8 squares of movement will only do 24d6+2d10 and NOT 24d26+16d10

Of course if you want to get really technical and pendantic you would blood pulse, then action point an Elemental Maw 2 squares from the things head, it pulls him 2 squares in[6d6], then you drop him 20 squares above and adjacent to you(or over a cliff). It leaves 4 squares each movement and so takes 76d6 on the fall, then you thunderwave him at the end for another 24d6[if you're really pendantic its 12d6 for the first movement, and 48d6 for the thunderwave(for 476 average damage.

Now, bolstering bloodpulse is not a bad idea because everyone and their mother can stack on some forced movement powers for another 2d10, and the enemies will want to move themselves and so with a 5 person party you can run upwards of 6-7 forced movements against an enemy for another 12-14d10 damage on top of the movement damage from the blood pulse.


----------



## keterys (Jul 4, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> How do you get a 13 for your wisdom modifier?




I'm assuming it's more like a 7 wis modifier, +4 enhancement to weapon, +2 feat bonus, or something similar.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 4, 2008)

keterys said:


> I'm assuming it's more like a 7 wis modifier, +4 enhancement to weapon, +2 feat bonus, or something similar.




I always forget to add weapon enhancement to damage on ongoing spell damage.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 5, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Nah.  Prior to Firestorm, the Cleric's options just don't measure up.  Heroic nuking is just a no-go for the Cleric.  Fire Storm, Astral Storm, and Sacred Word are certainly formidable dailies, but they ARE dailies, and the Cleric has only a limited option for boosting or recovering them.  They HAVE to be potent because there's not much else you can do with them.




Thats the point. As a Cleric you shouldnt be doing them. If WotC wants to design a Divine Controller class then these are the types of powers that should be there.

But even if they do decide to go that route, they shoudnt vastly outclass the powers of the other class(es) in the controller role.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 5, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *Mongolia Jones:*
> This points to one of the weaknesses of the Laser Cleric - he's action conflicted.  He wants to heal, but he also wants to maintain Firestorm.  What do you do?




You use your move action for a minor and do both?


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 5, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Nono. That's not what I meant. I meant we expend all encounter powers and 1 daily for each of 2 Encounters. Obviously, you can't use the same daily for those two encounters. This simulates the exhaustion of dailies as the day wears on. You can use Astral Storm only once a day, after all.




I understood what you meant originally, we basically run two separate encounter battles that take place in a single day.  Therefore, daily attacks will be used only once between the two battles, unless you have an ability (like the archmage) that gets around that.





Roxlimn said:


> That's not correct at all. It says, "When you damage an opponent with a power, you deal damage to the target equal to the damage you dealt yourself."
> 
> When you hit with a power twice [such as with Prismatic Spray], you damage an opponent twice and each of those is an instance of damaging an opponent with a power.




*Bolstering Blood* makes no mention that it will inflict damage based on how many times a power hits or damages an opponent.  It's only requirement is that the power _damages a target_.

It doesn't matter that the power _hits a million times, two times or misses completely_.  As long as the power, in one fashion or another, causes damage, you can apply the *Bolstering Blood* to each target you damaged.

*Sneak Attack* is different to *Bolstering Blood* in that _*SA* requires a "hit"_, _*BB* does not require any "hit"_ of any kind.

*Sneak Attack* is the same as *Bolstering Blood* in that their damage is _independent of the damage roll_.  In other words both _*SA* and *BB* do not in any way increase the __inherent damaging power of the attack or power that they are associated with at the time that they are used_.  *SA* and *BB* are "powers" in their own right that can cause damage on their own.  Unlike an ability score of 28, a +5 weapon, or the feat Burning Blizzard, all of which do increase the inherent damage potential of the powers that they are associated with.  

You can think of *BB* as special interrupt power that goes off when all the right criteria are met and causes damage of 1d10 or 2d10.  The same can be done for any of the strikers extra damaging features.

*A closer analysis of damage enhancements
*When you look at any item, ability, or power that increases damage, it's very important to read the text and see in what way the enhancement is applied.

Examples of damage enhancements:
>Kensai Mastery: +4 unnamed _"bonus to damage rolls"_ (PHB pg 87)
>Astral Fire feat: +1, +2 or +3 feat _"bonus to damage rolls"_ (PHB pg 193)
>+3 Flameburst Longbow _"adds_ +3 _to all_ attack and _damage rolls"_ (PHB 232)

There isn't any mention for a "damage roll" anywhere in the *Bolstering Blood* description.  It is a power that causes damage in it's own right (once the right criteria are met) and therefore does not increase any power's damage potential in the short or long term.




Roxlimn said:


> [Bolstering Blood] doesn't specify that you only apply the damage once a round, which is specified in other powers that are limited in just such a fashion, such as Sneak Attack.




Bolstering Blood also doesn't specify that you can't summon 20 dancing girls in bikinis when you cause extra damage as well.

Powers like Meteor Swarm and Black Fire don't specify that they are limited to 1 round either.  Just because a power specifically doesn't specify that you *can't* do something does mean that you _*can*_ do it.

It is just the opposite of your thinking on this matter.  It is a _*given*_ that powers only run once or once a round.  Powers that run for more are specified in a save or else, minor action usage, end of encounter or 5 minutes duration.

Whats more, the devs made an extra effort to mention, that for Sneak Attack, it's to be limited to "once a round."  Just in the same way that the devs limited Bolstering Blood to "once per turn".  The devs made these special mentions so as to make sure players are clear not to abuse these powers.  Unfortunately Bolstering Blood is not written clear enough for some people to understand this limitation even though it was clear to me the first time I read it.

Another perspective: *Envisioning Bolstering Blood in action*
DMs and player's sometimes try to grasp what a power's or ability's intention is by imagining how it works.  This can help determine how to use the power in game terms.

Lets look at Sneak Attack, it's an especially easy power to imagine because most of us have played 3e and had enough real gaming experience with it. 

*Example of Sneak Attack:*
Frank the fighter desperately tries to keep an enraged troll focused on himself as Randy the rogue carefully shifts around the beast looking for an opening.  Frank hits the troll once, it's only a superficial wound, but he taunts and laughs at the troll enraging the beast which causes it to focus fully on the fighter.  This in turn helps Randy position himself better.  Randy finds an opening in the sickly green hide, and the rogue acts quickly. The rogue's dagger hits, but this time the dagger sinks especially deep due to the fact that he was able to get a good position on the beast.

*Now an example of Bolstering Blood:*
Willy the wizard is in a desperate situation.  He is facing off against three birdlike demons quickly approaching his location.  The "Vrock" are known to tear flesh from bone with unnaturally sharp claws while the victim is still alive.  Willy is desperate and has to act now.  He focuses and calls forth a blast of elemental cold; it's a cold thats so cold it can literally freeze opponents in their tracks.

As Willy readies to cast the spell, the "Vrock" seem to lurch toward the wizard.  This startles Willy, and as he was trained in the ways of the Blood Mage, the frightened wizard howls in pain just as he purposely inflicts a wound on himself as he casts the spell!

A vortex of cold rushes out of Willies outstretched hand, engulfing the three demons.  The demons reel from the extreme cold, but theres more, because of with wizard's self-inflicted wound, he was able to immediately transfer the exact same pain he suffered, psychically, to each of the three demons as if he had wounded them individually.

Willy was able to stop cold two of the demons.  But one of the birdlike horrors is still moving, albeit too slowly to catch the now fleeing wizard...

*In conclusion, Bolstering Blood is a power:* 
1. that can only be used once per turn.
2. where you choose to damage yourself a minor or severe wound.
3. that must be used as a free action just prior to casting a spell.
4. that psychically damages targets the same wound you caused yourself as long as the spell itself was able to cause any kind of damage on its own.

Note that it is important to note the exact criteria for BB to take effect.  Criteria: "When the power you use *damages a target*, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt to yourself."

It 's pretty darn clear....
1. BB doesn't care if you "hit" or "miss".
2. BB doesn't care if you damage/"hit" thrice/twice/once or "miss" for half.  
3. BB doesn't add directly to any damage roll, therefore it doesn't add to the damage potential/power of the spell.
4. BB doesn't do any additional psychic damage-transfer beyond the initial casting of the spell (or else it would say so.)
 

Sorry for being repetitive and long winded here, but since the description wasn't clear enough for some, I wanted to be crystal clear.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 5, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> That's reasonable.  5 rounds seems too many, I think, especially for a Cleric, since he'll typically have better things to do with minor actions - like use his excellent Healing Word class feature.
> 
> You do as you think is best, but I think it's bad for the Cleric to be ignoring healing - he might as well just throw away that power. Shame.




Tell you what, I'll require that that my cleric use his healing word thrice per encounter (using up 3x minor actions), the maximum he can use it.  As a matter of fact, I'll track the total healing potential through the use of all the clerics powers, standards and minors throughout the whole fight.

I won't leave my party members wanting, I'm a cleric that can blast better than a wizard and heal everyone all at the same time.

I will have my cake and eat it too...



Roxlimn said:


> By my estimates, even high level combats shouldn't be lasting much longer than 6 rounds.  Postulating 5 rounds is way too much.




Well then lets agree to suspend disbelief then and imagine that our battles take 6 to 10 rounds (as long as we have encounters, dailies to burn).

Although I do think some high level battles will in fact take more than 6 rounds, but that's just me. 





Roxlimn said:


> Well, if you really want to hear the cheese, this is how it works.  It's been asked of CustServ and all we got were shocked gasps of astonishment:
> 
> Blood Pulse damages an enemy _every time he *leaves* a sqaure._  A Large opponent leaves *2 squares* every time he's moved horizontally, and *3 squares* every time he's moved diagonally.  Each instance does damage - 1d6, but gets +2d10 also when we add in Bolstering Blood.
> 
> ...




If you apply the same techniques I used for the analysis Bolstering Blood for Blood Pulse you should be able to answer your own question about the proper way to use the power.

What do you think the devs were thinking when they made the power?
How would you write it to be more clear?
How would DMs you know allow the power to work?

In the end if you really think this "cheese" is something that your war wizard needs to beat my cleric, then go ahead, it's all yours.

Note that my cleric will not use or accept any "cheese" at all, thank you very much.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 5, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> *Bolstering Blood* makes no mention that it will inflict damage based on how many times a power hits or damages an opponent. It's only requirement is that the power _damages a target_.
> 
> It doesn't matter that the power _hits a million times, two times or misses completely_.  As long as the power, in one fashion or another, causes damage, you can apply the *Bolstering Blood* to each target you damaged.




To start:

Bolstering blood deals its damage when the power deals damage. So you ask yourself "when does the power deal damage". If the power deals damage twice, then the "when" is "twice, after these different hits" if the power deals damage three times the "when" is "three times after these different hits. *Its the same logic that you use to add your weapon enhancement bonus to multiple damage rolls originating from the same power and at the constant damage effect of fire storm*

When you bolster a prismatic beam it adds the 2d10 damage roll to the ref and fort portions and to both the "save ends" effects. Just as if you had a +4 wand adding that damage.(except when the power deals damage later it would also apply)

I will get to the rest later.



> There isn't any mention for a "damage roll" anywhere in the *Bolstering Blood* description. It is a power that causes damage in it's own right (once the right criteria are met) and therefore does not increase any power's damage potential in the short or long term.



Man What? It increase the damage as a FREE ACTION (while depleting no explicit resources) of any power its used in conjunction with by 2d10 each time the power does damage! What do you mean it doesn't increase any power's damage potential in the short or long term?



> Bolstering Blood also doesn't specify that you can't summon 20 dancing girls in bikinis when you cause extra damage as well.
> 
> Powers like Meteor Swarm and Black Fire don't specify that they are limited to 1 round either. Just because a power specifically doesn't specify that you *can't* do something does mean that you _*can*_ do it.
> 
> It is just the opposite of your thinking on this matter.  It is a _*given*_ that powers only run once or once a round. Powers that run for more are specified in a save or else, minor action usage, end of encounter or 5 minutes duration.



Bolstering Blood is not a power. You do not select it as a power it takes no action to achieve, it does not have a level... *It works just like the wizards orb specialization which works for multiple rounds on any effect*.

It works on the power for as long as the power applies, just like every other ability in the game that is applied to a power. If the power persists and keeps doing damage the bolstering persists and keeps doing damage. 



> Whats more, the devs made an extra effort to mention, that for Sneak Attack, it's to be limited to "once a round." Just in the same way that the devs limited Bolstering Blood to "once per turn". The devs made these special mentions so as to make sure players are clear not to abuse these powers. Unfortunately Bolstering Blood is not written clear enough for some people to understand this limitation even though it was clear to me the first time I read it.



The "once per turn" is not a limitation on how often you apply the damage. The "once per turn" is a limitation on how often you can use the bolster so that you do not bolster a blood pulse, action point, then bolster a thunderwave, get granted a standard action from your warlord(using an item) and then bolster an evard's black tentacles. But bolstering any one of those is perfectly fine.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 5, 2008)

Another point about Bolstering Blood.

When a power "misses" and does half damage, Bolstering Blood still does it's full damage (instead of being halved with the damage roll).


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> To start:
> 
> Bolstering blood deals its damage when the power deals damage. So you ask yourself "when does the power deal damage". If the power deals damage twice, then the "when" is "twice, after these different hits" if the power deals damage three times the "when" is "three times after these different hits. *Its the same logic that you use to add your weapon enhancement bonus to multiple damage rolls originating from the same power and at the constant damage effect of fire storm*




Wrong.

There is no game mechanic that determines how many times a power deals damage.
 
How many times can you "damage" a target with a single to-hit attack roll?

Does a Blade Barrier damage a target with a single swipe or many little cuts and stabs?

Does Frostburn (lvl 13 wizard) damage two times due to cold and fire components?

Does a Blood Pulse damage each time you move a target 1 square distance?
 
Is a sneak attack (a separate damage roll to the attack roll it's associated with) a second damage?

If your argument is that Bolstering Blood damages each time you roll a damage roll, you would be incorrect.  Thats NOT how it works.  Bolstering Blood does NOT add to any damage rolls.

Bolstering Blood is like Sneak Attack, these are extra damages that are tacked onto the spell or attack damages _not to the damage roll itself_.



Goumindong said:


> When you bolster a prismatic beam it adds the 2d10 damage roll to the ref and fort portions and to both the "save ends" effects. Just as if you had a +4 wand adding that damage.(except when the power deals damage later it would also apply)




Again, Bolstering Blood is NOT AN ENHANCEMENT TO DAMAGE ROLLS.  A +4 wand does directly add to damage rolls.  They are different beasts altogether.

Secondly, the "save ends" effects are considered 'ongoing damage', and nothing gets added to that damage. EVER.





Goumindong said:


> Man What? It increase the damage as a FREE ACTION (while depleting no explicit resources) of any power its used in conjunction with by 2d10 each time the power does damage! What do you mean it doesn't increase any power's damage potential in the short or long term?




Again for the upteenth time, Bolstering Blood does not add to damage rolls.  If you hit for half damage with a power, BB will still cause full damage because the criteria "damages target" was met.  Therefore it is independent of the damage roll.

You can roll 500 damage rolls with a single power, but you will still only apply one Bolstering Blood wound.

Bolstering Blood says you cause damage if you "damage the target"... not for "each time you damage the target"






Goumindong said:


> Bolstering Blood is not a power. You do not select it as a power it takes no action to achieve, it does not have a level... *It works just like the wizards orb specialization which works for multiple rounds on any effect*.




Sorry, it's a "Paragon Path feature", same difference.  Path features act similar or identical to powers in some cases.



Goumindong said:


> It works on the power for as long as the power applies, just like every other ability in the game that is applied to a power. If the power persists and keeps doing damage the bolstering persists and keeps doing damage.




No it doesn't.  Read above.  I've stated why it doesn't numerous times.

 



Goumindong said:


> The "once per turn" is not a limitation on how often you apply the damage. The "once per turn" is a limitation on how often you can use the bolster so that you do not bolster a blood pulse, action point, then bolster a thunderwave, get granted a standard action from your warlord(using an item) and then bolster an evard's black tentacles. But bolstering any one of those is perfectly fine.




Yes but everything... and I mean EVERYTHING... that's supposed to work more than one round says so.

Bolstering Blood does not say anything of the sort.

Magic items and feats are different because they specifically say "_add to damage rolls_."

You are reading things into Bolstering Blood which are not there.  The feature is simple, if you damage the target with a power, you do 2d10 damage, you don't damage the target, you don't add 2d10 damage.

Don't make it into something it's not.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 6, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> There is no game mechanic that determines how many times a power deals damage.





Yes there is, its the "definition of the power". Maybe you should read some of them.




> Does a Blade Barrier damage a target with a single swipe or many little cuts and stabs?





No, how many hit sections does the power have? What does the effect describe?




> If your argument is that Bolstering Blood damages each time you roll a damage roll, you would be incorrect. Thats NOT how it works. Bolstering Blood does NOT add to any damage rolls.




Its a good think I am not arguing that. Bolstering Blood adds its damage whenever the power does damage.

So just figure out when the power does damage. Prismatic Beam/Spray does damage twice on the first round, one for each hit. So it gets +4d10 on the first round. And on the second round it deals damage twice....




> Bolstering Blood is like Sneak Attack, these are extra damages that are tacked onto the spell or attack damages _not to the damage roll itself_.





how about you actually read sneak attack. The only reason that rogues do not add sneak attack damage to every single hit they put down is because Sneak Attack specifically says they cannot. Sneak attack is added to a one successful hit/round(after hits have been rollled) and not to a power.




> Again, Bolstering Blood is NOT AN ENHANCEMENT TO DAMAGE ROLLS. A +4 wand does directly add to damage rolls. They are different beasts altogether.
> 
> Secondly, the "save ends" effects are considered 'ongoing damage', and nothing gets added to that damage. EVER.





So when ongoing damage deals damage its not actually dealing damage? Oh wait, no its dealing damage and so qualifies for "when the power deals damage".

Its very simple, did they take damage? Yes? Was the damage from the power that was bolstered? Yes? Add the result of the 2d10 roll that you applied to bolster the spell. 




> Again for the upteenth time, Bolstering Blood does not add to damage rolls. If you hit for half damage with a power, BB will still cause full damage because the criteria "damages target" was met. Therefore it is independent of the damage roll.
> 
> You can roll 500 damage rolls with a single power, but you will still only apply one Bolstering Blood wound.
> 
> Bolstering Blood says you cause damage if you "damage the target"... not for "each time you damage the target"





Uhhh, actually it does, its right there in the text of the power. "when you damage a target".

When do you apply damage? "when you damage a target with the power". If you damage a target with the power twice what is the answer to "when you damage a target with the power"? Twice, you damaged a target twice, once on each hit.

So when do you apply damage? When you damaged a target, which was twice, once for each hit.

So you apply damage twice if you deal damage twice.




> Sorry, it's a "Paragon Path feature", same difference.  Path features act similar or identical to powers in some cases.





No they do not. Unless they say they do, they do not. All powers and properties that have durations shorter than "all the time" say so explicitly. Bolstering Blood is very explicit in its duration, which is the duration of the power it is used for.




> No it doesn't.  Read above.  I've stated why it doesn't numerous times.




Just because you say it is true does not make it so. You need a cogent argument to get anywhere near that, and you have none.



> Yes but everything... and I mean EVERYTHING... that's supposed to work more than one round says so.





Lord, do you even read what people write? In the post you are quoting a just *gave you an example of a power that works more than one round without explicitly saying so. You are confusing a rule about powers with a rule about abilities. Specifically that powers are instantaneous unless otherwise described*

But i guess corellions implement only works once ever and that spiral tower action only gives you an action point till the end of your turn




> You are reading things into Bolstering Blood which are not there. The feature is simple, if you damage the target with a power, you do 2d10 damage, you don't damage the target, you don't add 2d10 damage.





Yes that part is very simple. Which is why I am so perplexed at how you are able to read into the power that this can only happen once ever and does not extend the duration of the power [even when it implicitly says it does and all other abilities work in the same way] and does not apply whenever the power does damage as the power says it does.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Yes that part is very simple. Which is why I am so perplexed at how you are able to read into the power that this can only happen once ever and does not extend the duration of the power [even when it implicitly says it does and all other abilities work in the same way] and does not apply whenever the power does damage as the power says it does.
> [/font]




Just as a point it does not say whenever a power deals damage.  For it to be clear that your position was correct it would need to say something like, every time that use of a power causes damage the target takes damage equal to the damage you suffered.  

It says when the power you use damages the target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt to yourself.  

That can be read as whenever you deal damage, or it can be read as the first time it does damage the when has occurred and therefore the power has been used up.

Both are valid readings and until there is a FAQ or errata no one is is really going to know what the answer is.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Yes there is, its the "definition of the power". Maybe you should read some of them.




You are confusing "hits" with "damages".




Goumindong said:


> So just figure out when the power does damage. Prismatic Beam/Spray does damage twice on the first round, one for each hit. So it gets +4d10 on the first round. And on the second round it deals damage twice....




Again, Bolstering Blood does NOT damage on a "hit".

So by your logic, a target under the influence of Blood Pulse and Bolstering Blood who is pushed 7 squares takes 14-140 damage (+2d10 BB damage for each square) since each square is a separate automatic "hit" for 1d6. 

Good luck with that.




Goumindong said:


> how about you actually read sneak attack. The only reason that rogues do not add sneak attack damage to every single hit they put down is because Sneak Attack specifically says they cannot. Sneak attack is added to a one successful hit/round(after hits have been rollled) and not to a power.




And I never said otherwise




Goumindong said:


> So when ongoing damage deals damage its not actually dealing damage? Oh wait, no its dealing damage and so qualifies for "when the power deals damage".




I never said it wasn't damage, but the PHB explicitly states that you CANNOT add damage through modifiers to ongoing damage, it's right there if you bother reading the book.




Goumindong said:


> Its very simple, did they take damage? Yes? Was the damage from the power that was bolstered? Yes? Add the result of the 2d10 roll that you applied to bolster the spell.




Wrong yet again.

Please point to the passage that says that the "power was bolstered".

Nowhere on page 169 is there anything about Bolstering Blood enhancing or increasing any aspect of any power.  When the right criteria are met, Bolstering Blood causes damage on it's own. Period.

Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, and Warlock's Curse essentially are the same as Bolstering Blood.

Sneak Attack is "extra damage" (pg 117)
Hunter's Quarry is "extra damage" (pg 104)
Warlock's Curse is "extra damage" (pg 131)
Bolstering Blood is "extra damage" (pg 169)

What you are erroneously thinking is that BB is a bonus or increase to damage rolls. It's not.




Goumindong said:


> All powers and properties that have durations shorter than "all the time" say so explicitly.




Show me where it says that a Meteor Swarm only functions once a round.




Goumindong said:


> Bolstering Blood is very explicit in its duration, which is the duration of the power it is used for.




Bolstering Blood is not "used for" any power just as Sneak Attack is not "used for" any attack.




Goumindong said:


> Just because you say it is true does not make it so. You need a cogent argument to get anywhere near that, and you have none.




I'm not making anything up. It's all there in the PHB.

Your the one making stuff up.  You say that Bolstering Blood "bolsters a power", yet it's not there.  You say powers that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly, yet it's not there.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even have the right book.




Goumindong said:


> Lord, do you even read what people write? In the post you are quoting a just *gave you an example of a power that works more than one round without explicitly saying so. You are confusing a rule about powers with a rule about abilities. Specifically that powers are instantaneous unless otherwise described*




But you are incorrectly assuming Bolstering Blood effects work for more than a single round.

Every other feature, ability or power that works longer than once or once a round explicitly says so.  What you are telling me is that Bolstering Blood is the exception to that rule, and by giving me the example of Bolstering Blood instead of some other power, feature, ability that it must be true.

That makes no logical sense.

If you want to show that it's intended for Bolstering Blood to work for more than once or once a round without the text explicitly saying so, you should point to another power, feature, ability other than Bolstering Blood which does the same thing (i.e. works for more than one round w/o saying so) to support your argument.



Goumindong said:


> But i guess corellions implement only works once ever




No, wrong analogy again.

Did I say Bolstering Blood can only be used only once EVER? Using a feature once a round and having the effect last more than once or once per round are two different things... *Mongolia scrolls up to see if he has*  Nope... I never said that.

Corellon's Implement can be used round to round just as Bolstering Blood can be used round to round.... try again.



Goumindong said:


> and that spiral tower action only gives you an action point [did you mean "encounter power"?] till the end of your turn




No, again you messed up on yet another analogy.

You use an action point to gain an encounter power ONCE.

Power usage: Burn an action point.
Power effect: Gain ONE spent encounter power.

If I decided to abuse Spiral Tower Action like you want to abuse Bolstering Blood,  I would  spend an action point one round and get a new encounter power each and every round till I regained all my spent encounter powers.

Try again...

I'll give you a hint; try to look for a power, feature, or ability which _*effects*_ work for more than once or once per round w/o explicitly saying so.  It's one thing to USE a power multiple times during an encounter and it's another thing that the power effects run for more than once a round.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 6, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> So by your logic, a target under the influence of Blood Pulse and Bolstering Blood who is pushed 7 squares takes 14-140 damage (+2d10 BB damage for each square) since each square is a separate automatic "hit" for 1d6.




No, blood pulse deals damage equal to 1d6 for every square it leaves. But powers are instantaneous, so it only deals damage once, *unless multiple push, pull, or slide powers or effects are enacted upon the enemy as specified by the power*.

When you blood pulse an enemy every separate push power is another +2d10.



> You are confusing "hits" with "damages".



No, i am not. Maybe i should have continued and not figured that you would understand the implied portion of that. If a power deals no damage on a hit(I.E. sleep) then blood pulse would not enhance that.



> And I never said otherwise



Yes you did say that all applications of abilities were only for one round as the basic understanding. 



> I never said it wasn't damage, but the PHB explicitly states that you CANNOT add damage through modifiers to ongoing damage, it's right there if you bother reading the book.



Blood pulse is not a modifier, its better than a modifier, it applies when the power does damage.

When a power deals ongoing damage is it dealing damage? Yes it is, so blood pulse adds damage.



> Nowhere on page 169 is there anything about Bolstering Blood enhancing or increasing any aspect of any power. When the right criteria are met, Bolstering Blood causes damage on it's own. Period.



Page 169.

"When the power you use damages a target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt yourself."

When does it work? When the power damages a target. On what powers does it work? Only on the power you used(I.E. you cannot use it to add to multiple powers in one application). What happens? Extra psychic damage is applied.

How can you not figure this extra damage as damage? Does it not exist? Is it a figment of our imagination? Is it temporary damage that can't bring an enemy past 0? Is it fake in some way? 

No, it makes powers better, it has to be considered and it has to be considered correctly.



> What you are erroneously thinking is that BB is a bonus or increase to damage rolls. It's not.



No, i am not saying its a bonus or increase to damage rolls, i am saying that the extra damage is applied when the power deals damage as the freaking description says!



> Bolstering Blood is not "used for" any power just as Sneak Attack is not "used for" any attack.



Yes it is. You use Bolstering Blood just before you use a power, it only applies to that power, and it applies when that power deals damage.

Your semantic argument is irrelevant here, there is no question of semantics. It doesn't matter if there is a formal definition of "used for" because the ability explicitly says what it does and you do what the ability says.



> Your the one making stuff up. You say that Bolstering Blood "bolsters a power", yet it's not there. You say powers that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly, yet it's not there.



*Good lord no, i said that abilities that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly. Powers that have durations greater than instantaneously say so explicitly, not durations.* Pg 58 and 278 for more info.

Show me an ability(not a power) that has a duration of less than "all the time" without saying so explicitly. Show me.

P.S. I love how the fighter only gets +1 to attack for the first roll he ever makes with his weapon because the power only functions once(your argument) and only functions when he makes an attack with the weapon choice he chose.(and not whenever, which incidentally means the same thing in this context because its an ability and not a power.)



> Show me where it says that a Meteor Swarm only functions once a round.



Pg 58 and 278

"Unless otherwise noted a power is instantaneous and has no lasting effect"

Bolstering Blood is not a power, it is an ability or class feature.



> I'll give you a hint; try to look for a power, feature, or ability which _*effects*_ work for more than once or once per round w/o explicitly saying so. It's one thing to USE a power multiple times during an encounter and it's another thing that the power effects run for more than once a round.



*This is the second freaking time i have said orb specialization, oh, and every other freaking class feature and ability in the game*

There is no problem with with WoST gaining an encounter power using an action point and my argument. With my argument you would gain the encounter power and continue to have it. With yours you would gain the encounter power and then the next round when the effect ended you would no longer have it.

Its like a property on a weapon, its a class feature that has effect on the power, it modifies the power.

When does it deal damage? When the power does damage? Why would it not do damage when the power dealt damage without an explicit description of when it would not like all the other class features and abilities that do so?


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

Alright, alright.  Let's not get sidetracked here.

For the moment, let's accept that "when the power you use damages a target" does only a single instance of damage when the power damages a target.  Let's say that Prismatic Spray "damages a target" only once in the first round.  What about the subsequent rounds?  Does Bolstering Blood apply there, as well?  Each instance of ongoing damage is tracked separately.  Does that mean that they're separate instances of damage?

Good catch on miss damage, *Mongolia Jones*.  I'll be sure to figure that in.

I'm not interested in pushing all manner of cheese here.  I'm just trying to establish ground rules for assessment with Mongolia Jones, and _this is only to prove that Wizard do better multitarget damage_.

*Mongolia Jones:*



> Tell you what, I'll require that that my cleric use his healing word thrice per encounter (using up 3x minor actions), the maximum he can use it. As a matter of fact, I'll track the total healing potential through the use of all the clerics powers, standards and minors throughout the whole fight.




That's not necessary.  We're not assessing overall class power here and it would be pointless anyway, since I won't be counting status effects, either.  This is just about damage.  Damage, damage, and only damage.

Two Encounters.  1 AP, use of all Encounter Powers, 2 Dailies (1 per encounter), and then the damage estimate ends for that character.

If we figure 1 daily power and 4 encounter powers for the Cleric, he's got 5 rounds, 4 when he uses the Action Point.  Of those rounds, he'll spend 1 minor action every round for 3 rounds doing healing. So 1-2 rounds of minor action continuance per encounter on the part of the Cleric?

Does that do it for the ground rules?  You do your optimized Cleric first; do you mind?  I like having a target to shoot for.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*Old Gumphrey:*

One the problems with that is that shifting now is a move action, so if you're converting your move actions into minor actions for sustaining effects, you're basically nailed to the mat, without even shifts.  I hope you can appreciate how bad that is.

*Marshall:*

A Devoted Cleric essentially IS part Controller.  Look at the Wisdom powers - most of them look like they're toned down Wizard powers.  This is much like a Wizard is part Striker.  Some of his powers tread exceedingly close to Striker territory.

Firestorm doesn't "vastly outclass" Closing Spell.  They're about the same.  Likewise, Astral Storm doesn't "vastly outclass" the Wizard's damage favorites: lower level powers Elemental Maw and Prismatic Spray.  It's just a little bit better in the damge department (and much worse in almost every other way).

Equal level powers Legion's Hold and and Greater Ice Storm are fantastic action-denial powers.

Those are at-par assessments.  We're NOT tacking on Wizard and Wizard Paragon Path class features, nor Archmage class features.  Once those figure in, these powers do not compare at all.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 6, 2008)

It's becoming more and more clear that many Wizard mass damage spells are simply being outdone by Clerics. For starters, those that disagree are playing an avoidance game. They say:

*Multiple Target Damage isn't a Controller Ability* - Simply absurd. You could also say that Wizards are do not have access to the Arcane power source but that would be incorrect as well. The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook provides the only definitions that are legitimate. All other definitions are as valid as House Rules in this forum.

*What about other Class Features like Orbs?* - The class feature game is not part of this discussion. This discussion focuses on a single _facet_ of the Controller - Multiple Target Damage. The definition of Controller in the PHB on page 16 lists the combat roles of a Controller and Multiple Target Damage is one of them. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not Wizards are best at fulfilling all facets of their role as a Controller.

The more the topic strays the more convinced I am that Wizards are in need of a good house ruling to make their multiple target damage spells more competitive with Clerics. As it stands the opposition of late is providing a list of diversions rather than a comparison of like powers that fulfill the combat role of a Controller.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 6, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> *Multiple Target Damage isn't a Controller Ability* - Simply absurd. You could also say that Wizards are do not have access to the Arcane power source but that would be incorrect as well. The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook provides the only definitions that are legitimate. All other definitions are as valid as House Rules in this forum.





Whether or not AoE damage is valuable as control is not something that can be defined by the PHB, but only defined by how the game plays.

It is also false that the cleric does more multiple target damage than the Wizard.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*AtomicPope:*

Excuse me, but you're quite wrong.  I'm not participating in distractions here.  In fact, I've already provided estimates that show how much better a Wizard is in terms of _dealing damage as a sole means of control_.  I'm also moving that this Blood Pulse discussion thing be either stopped or forked, so that's not a fair accusation to be leveling,

I am NOT playing an avoidance game.  I'm taking the bull squarely by the horns and wrestling it to the ground.  If you want you can do the same.

So far, the only multitarget spells that the Cleric can show that's in any way competitive with Wizard powers in terms of multitarget effects are two dailies: Firestorm and Astral Storm.  Even *Mongolia Jones* who's doing this comparison with me going on the Cleric side believes that while these powers do damage well, they are nowhere near the same level of power as their Wizard counterparts.

If you want to show new data or make a comparison we haven't seen yet, please do so.  Otherwise, you are not contributing meaningfully.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 6, 2008)

The misstep in the Development stage was to look at Wizard Spells through a two dimensional lense.  The WotC developers overcompensated for too many editions of Wizards simply running the game.  It becomes apparent when you compare spells that are suppose to "improve."  Compare Stinking Cloud(5) and Cloud Kill(19):
1)  Damage - Their damage is exactly the same.  In fourteen levels the damage hasn't improved one bit.  That is unacceptable.  In fourteen levels a monster's HP will have increased over 4 times as much.  Furthermore, it still affects your allies.
2) Area - The area of the spell has increased by 3.  However, the movement of the spell's cloud effect has decreased by 3.  Therefore, the spell has grown larger and more clumsy.
3) Additional Effects - The Stinking Cloud blocks LOS which is good for controllers because their AoE can still target them w/o penalty (AoE's ignore concealment penalties).  Blocking LOS provides an additional benefit to counter enemy artillery.  Cloudkill provides no additional effects.

As is stands the improved version of a Controller multiple target damage spell hasn't improved much at all.  There is nothing unique about this either.  In fact, there is a distinct trend among Wizard MT damage spells that their "improvements" vary from non-existant to minor. For Example: Fireburst (7) to Combust (17) sees an increase in damage by a mere 2D6 with no increase in size whatsoever.  There are no effects added either.  Just a 66% increase in damage while Monster hitpoints are quadrupling.

The real problem is that Wizards are best at maintaining spell effects but their pure damage spells do not incorporate any damage over time.  If maintaining spell effects is the purview of Wizards then Wizards should have the best DoT.  Currently the Cleric AoE damage spells have three very distinct advantages:
1) More base damage
2) More damage over time
3) Only targets enemies

Being safer and more effective is a valid cause for concern.  If Wizard AoE damage spells are capable of hurting party members they will always be less effective because it requires leaving enemies out to leave party members out.  When a spell is capable of hitting enemies and friendlies alike it should be more powerful ala Risk vs Reward.

This is not the forum for House Rules but my own will address Damage Over Time, Targets, and Effects as compared to Clerics.  Wizards need to be the best Controllers otherwise what's the point?


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Whether or not AoE damage is valuable as control is not something that can be defined by the PHB, but only defined by how the game plays.



Wrong.  Absolutely, unequivocally wrong.  It _is_ defined by the only valid source of 4e Class information in existence.  You are in a hopeless state of denial to think that the PHB cannot define something it created.  Whether or not it plays out in the game is irrelevant.  Game play has nothing to do with definitions.  Game play is indicative of how well the developers followed those definitions during the design process. 



Goumindong said:


> It is also false that the cleric does more multiple target damage than the Wizard.



Also wrong.  Flame Strike does 2D10+Wis plus an additional 5+Wis in ongoing damage.  A Wizard spell won't do equivalent damage for another 6 levels with Prismatic Burst.  That's a long time to play catch-up.  It starts at 9th level and doesn't stop.  Next it's Firestorm.  Finally, Astral Storm.  Pure damage goes to Clerics.  Flame Strike average damage scales higher because some developer thought it would be a good idea to incorporate Attack Stat + Implement Damage with ongoing effects.

Flame Strike:
+5 Wis (starts with 18 and raises twice)
+2 Implement Bonus
2D10 averages to 11
Ongoing 5+5+2
Average Damage = 30pts of fire damage _only to enemies_

It does more damage than Ice Storm and is easier to use because it only affects enemy targets.  Easier to use goes a long way.  It means, more often than not, you'll attack more enemies simply because you don't have to rely on a high initiative to target them before they swarm your party.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *AtomicPope:*
> 
> Excuse me, but you're quite wrong. I'm not participating in distractions here.
> 
> ...



Don't be so touchy fella.  If you are so sure it doesn't apply to you then there's no reason to get your panties in such a twist.  Right?


It's fairly obvious that you were not participating in distractions when you said:


Roxlimn said:


> Alright, alright.  Let's not get sidetracked here.



Hmm?


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 6, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> Wrong.  Absolutely, unequivocally wrong.  It _is_ defined by the only valid source of 4e Class information in existence.  You are in a hopeless state of denial to think that the PHB cannot define something it created.  Whether or not it plays out in the game is irrelevant.  Game play has nothing to do with definitions.  Game play is indicative of how well the developers followed those definitions during the design process.




So basically you are saying that your description is useless. Well, thanks for being useless.

Also, please tell me whether or not high damage is valuable or high frequency, noting that the description does not differentiate and high frequency is what is valuable against minions and well, everything else.





> Also wrong.  Flame Strike does 2D10+Wis plus an additional 5+Wis in ongoing damage.  A Wizard spell won't do equivalent damage for another 6 levels with Prismatic Burst.  That's a long time to play catch-up.  It starts at 9th level and doesn't stop.  Next it's Firestorm.  Finally, Astral Storm.  Pure damage goes to Clerics.  Flame Strike average damage scales higher because some developer thought it would be a good idea to incorporate Attack Stat + Implement Damage with ongoing effects.



Besides Prismatic Burst doing much more damage than Flame Strike you might want to look at fire burst(lvl 7 encounter power), Winters Wrath(lvl 7 encounter), wall of motherfreaking fire(lvl 9 daily that does 3d6+int/round  OR MORE with NO SAVE ENDS), Stinking Cloud(lvl 5 daily that does 1d10+int TWICE and continues to do so ongoing with NO SAVE ENDS), or Force Orb(lv 1 Encounter)



> Flame Strike:



Lets use a level 5 daily since comparing it to wall of fire will just be unfair(3d6+int whenever they enter and at the start of their turn and their movement costs 3 squares AND the wizard has an at will knockback at his disposal? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha that is 36 average damage on one round, let alone any further ones)

A hit with Stinking Cloud is 2d10[avg 11]+12 damage for 33 average damage(on the first round), A miss is 1d10+6 damage on the first round.

Second round its another 1d10+6, third round its another 1d10+6...

So if we assume that attacks are hitting(since your cleric said average of 33 damage and not an average of half that) and we average over 3 rounds(saves) where your guy averages 2 failed saves(which is a bit better than he would actually be doing since you don't have access to spell focus). Then Flame Strike does 33 average damage and Stinking Cloud averages 46 damage over that period.

If we figure a 50% hit rate then Flame Strike averages 21.5 damage and Stinking Cloud averages 40.25. Nearly _twice as much_ before we figure that Stinking Cloud won't end until someone stuns the wizard. ED: Oh, and i can move the Stinking Cloud around to damage more enemies(and they will get hit twice on that move when they enter the zone, and when they start their turn in the zone increasing my damage farther)

Oh, and before you bring out Blade barrier, remember that ongoing damage of the same type does not stack, only the most damaging one applies, remember that blade barrier does not deal damage to adjacent enemies, remember that blade barrier is twice as easy to cross as a wall of flame, covers 3 less squares(I.E. wall of fire has 3 more squares to place before its extra damage on adjacent enemies), and doesn't block line of sight.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*AtomicPope:*

Post arguments, not adhominems; whatever delaying tactics or ignoring tactics might be occuring is obvious - you do not have any need to comment on it.



> Also wrong. Flame Strike does 2D10+Wis plus an additional 5+Wis in ongoing damage. A Wizard spell won't do equivalent damage for another 6 levels with Prismatic Burst. That's a long time to play catch-up. It starts at 9th level and doesn't stop. Next it's Firestorm. Finally, Astral Storm. Pure damage goes to Clerics. Flame Strike average damage scales higher because some developer thought it would be a good idea to incorporate Attack Stat + Implement Damage with ongoing effects.




Ah, no.  It doesn't do that.  It only does 5+Wis damage ongoing.  It's not a damage roll so implement bonuses don't apply to that.

Bear in mind that this is a Daily.  For every instance of Firestorm the Cleric applies, the Wizard is applying some 4 or 5 applications of Fire Shroud, Lightning Bolt, and Force Orb, all of which also do not do Friendly Fire.  Divine Glow's damage are range are inferior to Force Orb's (though it has other advantages) and it's just less powerful as a damage inflictor than Burning Hands (though it's easier to use).

Level 7 Encounter Powers and level 3 Encounter Powers don't feature area damage for Devoted Clerics.  Does Firestorm do enough damage to make up for that, I wonder?  If we layer on all level 1-7 Encounter Powers as area effects plus the level 9 Daily, who will win?


----------



## Marshall (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Wizard powers HAVE to be considered in light of _class features_ - things like implement mastery, Battle Mage Action or Bolstering Blood.  This is EXACTLY the same as balancing a cleric healing power with his Healing Lore in mind, or designing a Rogue power with Sneak Attack in  mind.





No. Thats like saying that you have to balance a wizard power with the fighters mark in mind, or a warlock power with the warlords inspiration in mind.
That leads to insanity and puts so many handcuffs on the designers that creativity goes out the window. 

If you balance each piece of the puzzle with all the other comparable peices of the puzzle then it shouldnt matter what peice you place, you'll still get a balanced picture.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*Marshall:*

You're so not getting it.

The Rogue's entire power suite SHOULD be balanced around the fact that he can gain Sneak Attack.  If you don't include add-on powers like that, the actual play numbers will be off your estimates.

Likewise, considering BAB in a vacuum as a _theoretical_ indicator of fighting prowess worked fine _until you actually tried to make a Fighter/Wizard_ and then everything went to hell in a handbasket.

There's no substitute for playtesting but barring that, considering the big picture and making sure all the components interact correctly is the next best thing.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 6, 2008)

Marshall said:


> No. Thats like saying that you have to balance a wizard power with the fighters mark in mind, or a warlock power with the warlords inspiration in mind.
> That leads to insanity and puts so many handcuffs on the designers that creativity goes out the window.
> 
> If you balance each piece of the puzzle with all the other comparable peices of the puzzle then it shouldnt matter what peice you place, you'll still get a balanced picture.




I could accept class features as a balancing factor if they were built into the base class.  So I do not mind adding in things like a mark. I generally think things should be balanced separately, I just could accept the argument that you can balance things looking at the whole class if you were talking about the core class and not optional features. I don't accept it when you are talking about builds like paragon or epic paths. 

 Unfortunately wizards have virtually nothing built into there base class that helps with the fight,.  Orb is about it and that helps vs a single target, which is the exact opposite of what a wizard is supposed to be focusing on.  

  If the class is supposed to be the king of AoE damage they should beat out all other classes without taking a paragon path or epic destiny.  Another class should have to take a paragon path and epic destiny in order to come close to equaling a wizard who hasn't focussed on this at all.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *Marshall:*
> 
> You're so not getting it.
> 
> ...




I disagree.  Sure for balancing things overall you have to look at all the things that go together.  So in order to check that a combination of powers isn't too good, sure look at how everything works together.  

But if a striker is supposed to be the best at single target damage, that is supposed to be what they are best at.  Classes which aren't strikers should not have powers that beat the rogue in single target damage at there base.

  So yes a rogue might have some ability that pushes it past a fighters X move in damage, but the rogue might not.  And if the rogue doesn't you have a non-striker without any mods beating a striker without any mods at single target damage, and that is wrong.  

  Also when you try to go and look at everything at the core like you suggest you end up unbalancing things by a much larger margin down the road.  What happens when they add a single dude smack down path to the fighter, now his single target damage out classes every class in the game.

   So sure always pay attention to what is there so some loophole isn't found in uber damage cheat#37.  But balance things independently so down the road you have more flexibility in adding new powers, feats, paths, and destines.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*Ahglock:*

That kind of design philosophy is doomed to failure.  Parts that aren't designed to take other parts into account are MORE likely to fail just at the outset, never mind expansions.

When you design Rogue powers, you take Sneak Attack into account because _every Rogue is going to have Sneak Attack_!  When you design Wizard powers, you _specifically_ see how each of them work with each of your release Paragon Paths, Powers, and Epic Destinies, else you risk _none of them working as planned_.

Should a Wizard have a base power that can deal more damage than a Rogue base power?  Why not?  As long as the Wizard doesn't outclass a Warlock or Rogue in striking (and he doesn't), then you don't have a problem.  It's not the power that counts.  It's how you're using it.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *Ahglock:*
> 
> That kind of design philosophy is doomed to failure.  Parts that aren't designed to take other parts into account are MORE likely to fail just at the outset, never mind expansions.
> 
> ...




I think your method is doomed to failure actually.  I don't disagree with looking at everything when balancing things, I just think you have to balance the individual parts as well in order for that to work.  

If something is balanced only because of a delicate web of abilities its much harder to see where the balance is and mistakes in balance in future supplements are easier to create.  

So no a wizard should not have a base power that deals more damage to a single target as a rogue power.  Since you are relying on some web of abilities to make the rogues abilities competitive, you limit rogue options when someone is trying to perform its base role.  And you make it harder to balance future wizard abilities since you have to compare it to the web of possible rogue builds instead of just its powers.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *Old Gumphrey:*
> 
> One the problems with that is that shifting now is a move action, so if you're converting your move actions into minor actions for sustaining effects, you're basically nailed to the mat, without even shifts.  I hope you can appreciate how bad that is.




Not very. You're standing in a firestorm that doesn't hurt you. As long as enemies remain in the firestorm, it is worthwhile to stand in it without moving. If they leave the firestorm, you stop sustaining your power. It's really simple. Laser clerics are _awesome_. 

If you need to shift so badly that using a move to sustain firestorm or pass a heal is not acceptable, then your allies weren't doing the best job protecting you, anyway. In that clutch situation you can use your standard to shift if it means life or death.


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 6, 2008)

I think the designers intended for Blood pulse to work so that it wasn't how many squares on the battlemat a large or larger creature left in terms of its overall space, but actual movement.  An ogre doesn't have some crazy movement rating to it can move its 2x2 butt 16 squares or whatever diagonally somewhere.  Instead it just moves 4 squares or whatever.  Blood pulse I'm sure was meant to say that, so the ogre would get 4d6 damage, not the astronomical figures you guys are coming up with.  It just makes common sense.

Tellerve


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*Old Gumphrey:*

Laser Clerics also have pathetic range for their at-wills, and their AoE options are generally worse for damage and status.  Not that they're not awesome or anything, but staying put inside a Firestorm - I don't know if that's such a hot idea.  At the very least, I'd like to move around to keep myself within Cover and probably outside the reach of deadly attacks of the short ranged variety.

*Ahglock:*



> If something is balanced only because of a delicate web of abilities its much harder to see where the balance is and mistakes in balance in future supplements are easier to create.
> 
> So no a wizard should not have a base power that deals more damage to a single target as a rogue power. Since you are relying on some web of abilities to make the rogues abilities competitive, you limit rogue options when someone is trying to perform its base role. And you make it harder to balance future wizard abilities since you have to compare it to the web of possible rogue builds instead of just its powers.




Not at all.  You make this power, you playtest it.  If it checks out, it can then be used as a marker or benchmark - THIS much damage is more or less okay for this template of power.

It's not like there's some arcane formula of damage that contributes here.  We have Weapon Focus, Sneak Attack, Backstabber, melee Leader powers, and some odds and ends like Light Blade Precision.  No rocket science happening here.

There's no delicate web of abilities here.  It's all quite obvious.  When you design a Rogue power, you take Paragon Paths (all of them), Rogue powers, feats, and other such things into account.

YOU NEED TO DO THIS NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

You seem to think that creating a microcosm of isolated relationships between the components of several comparative wholes will work.  That's insane.  That almost never works.

If I emphasize Fighter competence in combat over 4 spheres of influence and increase relative competence linearly in each of them, when combined, they increase logarithmically (and very quickly, too).

This was, in fact, the case for Wizard power progression and spell power scaling.

This does not work.  Experience has shown designers that this does not work.  We've ALL seen how catastrophic it can be.  So no, it doesn't work like this, it shouldn't work like this, and it'll never work out well like this.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 6, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> No, blood pulse deals damage equal to 1d6 for every square it leaves. But powers are instantaneous, so it _only deals damage once_, *unless multiple push, pull, or slide powers or effects are enacted upon the enemy as specified by the power*.




But Goumindong said: "Not quite. Blood Pulse _damages an enemy every for every square he leaves."_ (your post #230).  Looks like separate damages... tastes like separate damages... smells like separate damages..._

_Now you are saying damage from powers is instantaneous... so what does that do for your Prismatic Spray argument doing separate damage?  Or is that Prismatic Spray _*not*_ instantaneous?
 



Goumindong said:


> No, i am not. Maybe i should have continued and not figured that you would understand the implied portion of that. If a power deals no damage on a hit(I.E. sleep) then blood pulse [do you mean Bolstering Blood?] would not enhance that.




So what if you do damage on a "miss".  What then.  Is Bolstering Blood halved with the halving of the power damage, or is it not?




Goumindong said:


> Blood pulse [again, do I assume you mean Bolstering Blood] is not a modifier, its better than a modifier, it applies when the power does damage.




So we agree then, Bolstering Blood is not a modifier to damage.  Woo Hoo 



Goumindong said:


> When a power deals ongoing damage is it dealing damage? Yes it is, so blood pulse [again, Bolstering Blood] adds damage.
> 
> Page 169.
> 
> "When the power you use damages a target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt yourself."




No!

Bolstering Blood makes no mention of any ongoing damage at all.  All it says is at that "instance" if your power damages the target, you add your Bolstering Blood damage.



Goumindong said:


> *This is the second freaking time i have said orb specialization, oh, and every other freaking class feature and ability in the game*




Your "Orb of Imposition" example specifically states: "_...that has an effect that lasts until the subject succeeds on a saving throw._" (pg 157)

The Bolstering Blood text makes no such references to it being more than an instantaneous effect.




Goumindong said:


> How can you not figure this extra damage as damage? Does it not exist? Is it a figment of our imagination? Is it temporary damage that can't bring an enemy past 0? Is it fake in some way?




I don't follow you.  All damage is damage, but the way you apply the damage is different depending on the damage.

If you subdivide damage types everything will become clear:
1. Instantaneous Damage: damage that a power or attack initially deals or instantaneous damage at a specific time in subsequent turns
2. Ongoing Damage: a fixed damage amount, no die rolls
3. Enhancement/Bonus Damage: an amount to modify a damage roll
4. Extra Damage: damage you apply if a set of criteria are met

The Prismatic Spray's static 15 damage/round (ongoing damage) cannot be modified in any way at all, it's a hard rule.  When you were erroneously treating Bolstering Blood as an enhancement damage and adding it to the static 15 points/round you were breaking the rule of no modifications allowed on ongoing damage.

Bolstering Blood is extra damage, therefore you can use other extra damage abilities, such as Sneak Attack, to help guide you as to how the ability works.
 



Goumindong said:


> No, i am not saying its a bonus or increase to damage rolls, i am saying that the extra damage is applied when the power deals damage as the freaking description says!




Yes, and you want to apply that damage more than once, when you yourself said: Goumindong said: *"Powers that have durations greater than instantaneously say so explicitly..."

Bolstering Blood* does not say so explicitly anywhere in the text.



Goumindong said:


> You use Bolstering Blood just before you use a power, it only applies to that power, and it applies when that power deals damage.




No.  Bolstering Blood applies to the targets of your power, not to the power itself.

An enhancement bonus applies to a power.

A sneak attack applies to the target of your attack, not the attack itself.  but you cannot use sneak attack without the attack as a carrier.

Bolstering Blood is like a Sneak Attack (both extra damage types), they need a carrier power/attack to function themselves.




Goumindong said:


> Show me an ability(not a power) that has a duration of less than "all the time" without saying so explicitly. Show me.




There is none.  The durations are assumed to be instantaneous or once.

Arcane Riposte: 
-Use: every time you make an opportunity attack
-Effect: cause damage once (assumed once)

Burning Blood:
-Use: every time you use a second wind
-Effect1: cause Con damage once (assumed once)
-Effect2: possible cause +Int (assumed once) and 5 ongoing (duration: save ends)

Spiral Tower Action:
-Use: every time you use an action point
-Effect: you gain a spent encounter power (assumed once)

and now for BB

Bolstering Blood:
-Use: once/turn you deal wound to self
-Effect: cause damage to targets (assumed once)



Goumindong said:


> P.S. I love how the fighter only gets +1 to attack for the first roll he ever makes with his weapon because the power only functions once(your argument) and only functions when he makes an attack with the weapon choice he chose.(and not whenever, which incidentally means the same thing in this context because its an ability and not a power.)




That is an enhancement damage bonus, just like a pit fighter gets +wis to damage rolls.

Bolstering Blood is extra damage, it doesn't modify any damage roll, therefore you need to know the criteria of when to apply the damage.

Criteria for:
-Fighter Weapon Talent: add +1 when you roll a damage roll using weapon of choice.
-Bolstering Blood: add psychic damage when you injure self and cause damage with power.

What YOU want to do is cause extra damage with Bolstering Blood in successive rounds without causing more damage to yourself. The Bolstering Blood text doesn't say anything of the sort.  There is not even slightest reference to any continuance to damage anywhere in the text.



Goumindong said:


> There is no problem with with WoST gaining an encounter power using an action point and my argument. With my argument you would gain the encounter power and continue to have it. With yours you would gain the encounter power and then the next round when the effect ended you would no longer have it.




No.

What you are talking about in your flawed analogy is the lingering effects of the effect itself.  If a paragon feature causes damage (effect) the damage stays on does not disappear the next successive rounds (lingering effect).

In WoST, the you get a spent encounter power (effect), the power stays till the end of the encounter (lingering effect).

With Storm Fury, you get to damage targets 5+wis (effect), the damage stays till end of encounter/permanent (lingering effect)



Goumindong said:


> Its like a property on a weapon, its a class feature that has effect on the power, it modifies the power.




Nope, Bolstering Blood is "extra damage".  Extra damage does not modify powers, they get added in addition to the damage of powers.


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Let's say that Prismatic Spray "damages a target" only once in the first round. What about the subsequent rounds? Does Bolstering Blood apply there, as well? Each instance of ongoing damage is tracked separately. Does that mean that they're separate instances of damage?




Well this is what we know about Bolstering Blood:
1. It's a add-on damage effect (extra damage) which deals damage independent of the power thats its carrier,  just like hunter's Quarry.
2. Because BB doesn't increase the inherent power of the spell (i.e. it's not a enhancement bonus), then it doesn't matter what the spell or power does after you use it for the first time.  BB is a one shot deal, just like every other extra damage ability.
3. It seems patently obvious to me that BB transfers damage "psychic-ly" _*only*_ at the moment you wound yourself -> you also wound the targets.  It's kinda like a voodoo doll, stick a needle in a doll, and instantly harm the guy that the doll represents.  Wanna harm him again, stick another needle in.  I can't see a wizard cause extra damage with BB, on successive rounds.   There's nothing to suggest that BB fuels the power itself with psychic energy.

On _damage:
_There's no in game mechanic that you can point to that determines how many times a power damages opponents.  You can only determine if you _*do*_ cause damage (by the number of hit points lost) or _*don't*_ cause damage.

Therefore, you can only apply BB when:
Criteria 1: You cause a wound to yourself just as you cast a spell (i.e. free action just b4 the power is used)
Criteria 2: a spell/power you use "damages" the target




Roxlimn said:


> Two Encounters. 1 AP, use of all Encounter Powers, 2 Dailies (1 per encounter), and then the damage estimate ends for that character.
> 
> If we figure 1 daily power and 4 encounter powers for the Cleric, he's got 5 rounds, 4 when he uses the Action Point. Of those rounds, he'll spend 1 minor action every round for 3 rounds doing healing. So 1-2 rounds of minor action continuance per encounter on the part of the Cleric?




I assume you are saying that I can use dailies and encounters as long as I have them available.  That is to say, for example, if i have access to a paragon path feature that allows me to burn a AP for a spent encounter power, then I can use a 5th encounter power for that encounter, yes?

You gave an example of 1x daily and 4x encounters for a single battle, but I will have 4x dailies available total.  For the second battle, will I be able to use the remaining unspent dailies, that is: 3x dailies and 4x encounters?  Or is it going to be 1x daily (one of the 3 unspent ones) and 4x encounters? Another words, are you saying that i can only use 2 of my clerics 4 dailies that whole day?



Roxlimn said:


> Does that do it for the ground rules? You do your optimized Cleric first; do you mind? I like having a target to shoot for.




I think I need to clear up a few more but I have to go out for dinner.  I'll be back later.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 7, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> So basically you are saying that your description is useless. Well, thanks for being useless.



You are failing to comprehend that it is _not_ my definition.  I'm not claiming ownership at all.  You are claiming that definition comes from another source, which is demonstratably incorrect by merely reading the fourth edition Player's Handbook.  I am simply acknowledging sole propriety of WotC concerning their intellectual property known as Dungeons and Dragons(tm).  You said that WotC cannot give any definition for Controller and you are wrong.  They can and have already given a definition (it's found on page 16 of the fourth editon Player's Handbook).

If you want to deny their right as sole proprietor then I suggest you take them to court.  Don't have any illusions on the outcome.  You don't stand a chance.  It's their IP and they maintain control over all of the rights.  You have none and control nothing.

So get your facts straight.  The only valid definition for a Dungeons and Dragons(tm) Controller role has already been defined by Wizards of the Coast.  No amount of flaming or trolling will grant you any legal powers over the Dungeons and Dragons(tm) gaming system.




Goumindong said:


> Besides Prismatic Burst doing much more damage than Flame Strike you might want to look at fire burst(lvl 7 encounter power), Winters Wrath(lvl 7 encounter), wall of motherfreaking fire(lvl 9 daily that does 3d6+int/round OR MORE with NO SAVE ENDS), Stinking Cloud(lvl 5 daily that does 1d10+int TWICE and continues to do so ongoing with NO SAVE ENDS), or Force Orb(lv 1 Encounter)



Your comparisons are demonstratably incorrect.

Prismatic Burst (3D6+int)
Int +5
Implement +2
3D6 +10 (always round down, basic rule page 11 PHB)
That's 17pts damage

Flame Strike (2D10+wis)
Wis +5
Implement +2
2D10 +11
That's 18pts *before* ongoing damage.

You mentioned Winter's Wrath.  It's the same range, same AoE, affects friendly targets (which means you'll just help out the enemy), and also does less damage both in dice and ongoing.  Flamestrike is 2D10+Stat+(5+Stat Ongoing) opposed to Stat+2D8+Stat.  Flamestrike causes more damage initially and more damage over time.




Goumindong said:


> A hit with Stinking Cloud is 2d10[avg 11]+12 damage for 33 average damage(on the first round), A miss is 1d10+6 damage on the first round.
> 
> Second round its another 1d10+6, third round its another 1d10+6...



Do you actually play D&D?  You realize that monsters can move right?  There is nothing in the spell that prevents a monster from leaving.  Furthermore, if a monster leaves before it's turn (Leaders can do this BTW) then they only take 1D10+Int+Implement.  Also, all they have to do is hug a PC and they're safe.  Stinking Cloud affects friendlies.  A fact about Wizard Spells that you conveniently ignore time and time again.  When spells affect allies the Monsters can seek refuge among them.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 7, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Not at all.  You make this power, you playtest it.  If it checks out, it can then be used as a marker or benchmark - THIS much damage is more or less okay for this template of power.




Exactly! You balance the power against other powers of its role and level. Period. Thats it. If the power matches that category _it will be balanced no matter what class/paragon/feat features you tack on to it_.



> It's not like there's some arcane formula of damage that contributes here.  We have Weapon Focus, Sneak Attack, Backstabber, melee Leader powers, and some odds and ends like Light Blade Precision.  No rocket science happening here.




You're right, because the system applies those same bonuses to what should be a similar level of power.

The problem with _Firestorm_ is that it gives a leader the ability to, not only, step into the controllers role, but do it better than the controller does at that level or below.



> There's no delicate web of abilities here.  It's all quite obvious.  When you design a Rogue power, you take Paragon Paths (all of them), Rogue powers, feats, and other such things into account.
> 
> YOU NEED TO DO THIS NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.




As long as they never publish anything beyond the PHB, that works. 
We've got what? Two months before that paradigm collapses?


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 7, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> *AtomicPope:*
> 
> Post arguments, not adhominems; whatever delaying tactics or ignoring tactics might be occuring is obvious - you do not have any need to comment on it.



You should take your own advice.



Roxlimn said:


> Level 7 Encounter Powers and level 3 Encounter Powers don't feature area damage for Devoted Clerics. Does Firestorm do enough damage to make up for that, I wonder? If we layer on all level 1-7 Encounter Powers as area effects plus the level 9 Daily, who will win?



Area of effect is not the only facet of controllers.  As described on page 16 of the PHB they also, "weaken, confuse, and delay" which would include:
Command - Lvl 3 Enc that dazes and either slides the target or knocks it prone.
Searing Light - Lvl 7 Enc causes Blindness.

By win I assume you mean controlling?  D&D isn't a game that can be "won."  That fact hasn't changed since its inception.  Since you brought up Lvl 7 Enc powers it's important to point out that Wizards don't get access to Blindness powers until 13th level, six levels after Clerics.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 7, 2008)

Mongolia Jones said:


> Lies, damn lies, and statistics



The instant you quote me saying the exact same thing as what I am talking about and then say it means something else is the instant where it becomes clear that you are not interested in having a meaningful debate on the issue at hand.

You just quoted me saying the exact same thing, literally the exact same thing and claiming they mean different things. You quoted me correcting Roxlimn in how he tallied the damage from bolstering blood and then said that that quote agreed with Roxlimn.

Go back to COAD, it suits you well.



> You are failing to comprehend that it is _not_ my definition



Its irrelevant whether or not its "your" definition, "Wizard's" definition, or "Walt Disney's" definition. What is only relevant is whether or not its effective. Throwing out a bunch of legal  about ownership means nothing.

Wizards both have more frequency and severity in AoE damage and status effect creation.



> Prismatic Burst (3D6+int)



I am sorry, i was talking about the prismatic power that you were referencing, the one that dazes, does 2d6+int twice +5 ongoing damage twice.

But Prismatic Burst is a fine example since it slams flame strike. Where flame strike will do 33 average damage once per day, Prismatic burst will do 17 average damage 4 times per day, once each encounter.




> You mentioned Winter's Wrath. It's the same range, same AoE, affects friendly targets (which means you'll just help out the enemy), and also does less damage both in dice and ongoing. Flamestrike is 2D10+Stat+(5+Stat Ongoing) opposed to Stat+2D8+Stat. Flamestrike causes more damage initially and more damage over time.



All the other ones i mentioned are _encounter_ powers. I get to use them each and every _encounter_, that is roughly 4 times as frequently as you get to use your dailies. 





> Do you actually play D&D? You realize that monsters can move right?



Yes, you realize that that is one of the things that make Wizard AoEs so strong and Cleric AoEs so terrible right? You can _move_ Stinking Cloud up to 12 spaces per turn(double move action, which loses you your normal attack unfortunately). You can move it around your friends and hit your enemies. When enemies run away you can move it to follow them.

And all the other Wizard AoE's offer area control in the form of _immobilization, dazing, stunning, difficult terrain_ in both their dailies and encounters. Which means enemies are less likely to be able to get out of range.



			
				Magnolia said:
			
		

> Yes, and you want to apply that damage more than once, when you yourself said: Goumindong said: *"Powers that have durations greater than instantaneously say so explicitly..."
> 
> Bolstering Blood* does not say so explicitly anywhere in the text.




BOLSTERING BLOOD IS NOT A POWER IT IS A CLASS FEATURE. GOOD LORD HOW HARD IS THIS TO COMPHREHND?

For more information please see the preface to the section "Classes" where it defines what a power is and how to read them.


----------



## Ahglock (Jul 7, 2008)

Wow, this thread feels really ugly now.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 7, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> Wow, this thread feels really ugly now.




Sorry, but i will not sit back and let someone lie, distort the truth, and ignore relevant points over and over again without bringing it up. If you don't want to get called out for doing those things, the solution is to not do those things.

E.G. There is nothing wrong with your posting, you place a different and oft perceived erroneous value on product scalability, but you aren't lying and distorting the truth. Such, we can have a reasoned debate.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 7, 2008)

*Marshall:*



> The problem with Firestorm is that it gives a leader the ability to, not only, step into the controllers role, but do it better than the controller does at that level or below.




No, it doesn't.  If you want to say that this is a problem, then you have to prove that it actually does what you say it does.

*AtomicPope:*



> Area of effect is not the only facet of controllers. As described on page 16 of the PHB they also, "weaken, confuse, and delay" which would include:
> Command - Lvl 3 Enc that dazes and either slides the target or knocks it prone.
> Searing Light - Lvl 7 Enc causes Blindness.
> 
> By win I assume you mean controlling? D&D isn't a game that can be "won." That fact hasn't changed since its inception. Since you brought up Lvl 7 Enc powers it's important to point out that Wizards don't get access to Blindness powers until 13th level, six levels after Clerics.




Area of effect damage and status effects are not the only facet of controllers, but it is rather important.  Single target debuffs are really the purview of Strikers.  The Rogue and Warlock lists are chock-full of single-target debuffs - presumably because that's what a Striker is supposed to be doing.

Searing Light does blindness to 1 target.  Good for the level.  Prismatic Burst does blindness to an area - a range of targets.  That's multi-target action denial.  We can't possibly argue that Searing Light is a generally better power, which is why it's lower level, but of the two, Prismatic Burst is the controller power.

I didn't just bring up level 7 Encounter powers.  I'm bringing up whole-character performance.  You can't say that Wizards are better strikers just because Disintegrate happens to be competitive with Rogue damage powers of the level.  Likewise, you can't say that Clerics do good AoE control just because a daily power or two happens to fall near Wizard-level effectiveness.

It just doesn't work that way.  It's a myopic and mistaken way to assess class relationships.

Flame Strike is a _decent_ Daily power for AoE damage, but if you're looking for damage, Wall of Fire is a better resuable damage zone that Wizards, Warlords, and Rogues can exploit over and over, and Ice Storm is comparable, immobilizes enemies, and THEN creates a zone of difficult terrain for the duration of the encounter.  Flame Strike does decent damage, but it's just not on the same level, and the rest of the Cleric's control suite at that level just isn't going to cut the mustard.

He can contribute in other ways, but can't act like a Wizard can.

*Paging Mongolia Jones:*

I think we better get on with that comparison.  I'm willing to concede every assertion you have on Bolstering Blood.  I will use it only as you dictate its use.  Good enough?


----------



## Mongolia Jones (Jul 7, 2008)

*Goumindong* erroneously quoted *Mongolia*:



Mongolia said:


> Lies, damn lies, and statistics <- [I never said that]





*Goumindong* then proceeds to beat on *Mongolia* with a vengeance (post #268)



Goumindong said:


> The instant you quote me saying the exact same thing as what I am talking about and then say it means something else is the instant where it becomes clear that you are not interested in having a meaningful debate on the issue at hand.
> 
> You just quoted me saying the exact same thing, literally the exact same thing and claiming they mean different things. You quoted me correcting Roxlimn in how he tallied the damage from bolstering blood and then said that that quote agreed with Roxlimn.
> 
> Go back to COAD, it suits you well.




*Goumindong:*

My last relevant post to you is post #263, I never posted anything you quoted in #268

It's funny you mention COAD, an EvE-Online forum.  It is people like you who post there day in and day out... or should I say "poasts" as thats the standard terminology of your Goonswarm buddies.  You are still part of Goonswarm, yes?

Goonswarm members have also stated in the past that they intend to destroy EvE-Online.  I think you should take a long hard look at the kind of company you associate with.

If anyone does a search on EvE-Online forums in general, they will find a high level of animosity towards *Goumindong, *and a high level of respect towards *Mongolia Jones.

**Mongolia wonders why that is*

And don't even get me started on SomethingAwful.com forums, a cesspool and the wretched birthplace of Goonswarm spawn.




Goumindong said:


> BOLSTERING BLOOD IS NOT A POWER IT IS A CLASS FEATURE. GOOD LORD HOW HARD IS THIS TO COMPHREHND?



 

No need to shout, we already "comphrehnd" this...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 7, 2008)

You'd think it would be possible to step away from a thread for a few days without it collapsing into a train wreck, but here we are.

Thread closed


----------

