Static Charge: How Soon Will This One See Errata?

[Shatteredtower]

Static Charge is one of the at-will attack powers available to an air elementalist sorcerer (or any other elementalist of 9th or higher level) in Heroes of Elemental Chaos. It targets only enemies within a small close blast, and it doesn't apply the character's Charisma bonus to the damage done to targets it hits.

It does, however, state that, "...one creature adjacent to the target takes lightning damage equal to your Charisma modifier," when you hit a target.

This means that a sorcerer with 20 Charisma with three adjacent targets can get the standard +5 damage against one target, and +10 against the target in the middle. In the unlikely event you'll be able to hit nine targets with the effect, that poor enemy in the middle of the burst could wind up taking 40 lightning damage in addition to the base die of damage plus Constitution modifier from a 1st level sorcerer.

I admit you're unlikely to ever hit even a line of three targets for the spell, but if you're allowed to pile the extra damage onto one target, it's difficult to find another elementalist power that matches this. Even if errata makes it clear that an adjacent creature can only be subject to the damage once, you've still got a spell that can do a modest amount of damage to creatures standing adjacent to the burst, which is still pretty good, even without the assistance of Elemental Escalation.

Thoughts?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not convinced there is a problem here, given how very unlikely it is for this power to deal more than normal damage. Sorcerers aren't top-tier strikers anyway, and so far it seems that elementalists rank below regular sorcerers.

But to answer your question of when this will be errata'ed, the answer is probably "never". WOTC has not so far errata'ed any of the 4.4 books, and is known to be working on 5E now. It strikes me that errata for 4E is a very low priority for them.

[Yakk]

That seems like a way to make the power more interesting, rather than over-abusive. The sorcerer gets a single-target damage bonus by careful manipulation of the position of the other targets.

Compare it to a 1d6+primary attack stat attack on 3x3, with secondary stat push. It looks like it will do slightly higher focus-fire damage, be better at minion-clearing (as you can use the secondary damage to drop the minions), and generally be a reasonably strong striker-worthy at-will area attack power.

Note that secondary stat flat damage will never be top-end charop worthy, because it doesn't scale.

Hmm. Well, you could have some fun with multi tap vulnerability. Add radiant and cold keywords (however), apply radiant (1) and cold (5) vulnerability to folks you hit, apply 5-10 points of cha damage multiple times over to the target of your choice, each time getting +15 on top of it...

That starts being half decent charop territory.

Still, it requires a fair amount of investment, and tightly packed enemies (or hitting your allies).

[Shatteredtower]

Interesting I'll grant you, but is that one in "forty" (for a metaphorical value of forty) chance excessive in comparison to what the other elementalist powers can do? Good is fine, as long as it's not better on too consistent a scale.

As for 4.4 errata, I count four entries for HotFL, two for HotFK, and nine for HoS. There were also several in the Monster Vault and one for the DM's kit, though none for Rules Compendium. Pretty sparse, I admit, but it's there.

[Zaq]

All I'm seeing is yet another way for dragonborn Sorcerers to hit themselves and recharge Dragon Breath. Because, you know, that wasn't totally boring and is definitely a good thing that we should keep doing.

[Shatteredtower]

All I'm seeing is yet another way for dragonborn Sorcerers to hit themselves and recharge Dragon Breath. Because, you know, that wasn't totally boring and is definitely a good thing that we should keep doing.

I get that you can be considered an adjacent creature, but what option lets dragonborn recharge breath? If it works, nobody is forcing a player into the option if deemed boring. It hardly sounds like it breaks the race/class combination, so if that's what a player envisions for a draconic character, I'm not sure derision is merited.

Wanting equivalent options for other races makes sense, though.

[MeeposFire]

I get that you can be considered an adjacent creature, but what option lets dragonborn recharge breath? If it works, nobody is forcing a player into the option if deemed boring. It hardly sounds like it breaks the race/class combination, so if that's what a player envisions for a draconic character, I'm not sure derision is merited.

Wanting equivalent options for other races makes sense, though.

Basicly there are a number of feats and PPs that allow you to make dragon breath an arcane power (so sorc damage bonuses) and let you recharge your breath f you get hit by an elemental attack of the same type. THere are then various ways (such as taking a feat to make your breath an area attack) so you can catch yourself in the burst and ake damage to recharge giving you a minor action attack all encounter long on a sorc which is very nasty.

[Blackfang108]

Basicly there are a number of feats and PPs that allow you to make dragon breath an arcane power (so sorc damage bonuses) and let you recharge your breath f you get hit by an elemental attack of the same type. THere are then various ways (such as taking a feat to make your breath an area attack) so you can catch yourself in the burst and ake damage to recharge giving you a minor action attack all encounter long on a sorc which is very nasty.

It's a lot less boring than "I twin Strike that guy again."

"you know you DO have other powers, some of which do the same thing as Twin Strike, but more damage, right?"

"I use Twin Strike"

[Ryuujin]

So how does Static Charge interact with the Lyrander Wind Rider paragon path? Specifically the part that adds con modifier to lighting or thunder damage. Does it add the con modifier only to the main hits, does it add to the cha modifier damage done to an enemy adjacent to a hit target, or does it actually add both to the initial hit and the cha mod damage done to an adjacent enemy?

[Surrealistik]

This is tame.

As at-wills go, Howling Wall has Static Charge easily beat.

Once again, the wizard reigns supreme over its derpy intuiting counterpart, arms crossed, nose upturned, wearing an indelible look of sheer, obnoxious smug.

[ImperiousLeader]

Basicly there are a number of feats and PPs that allow you to make dragon breath an arcane power (so sorc damage bonuses) and let you recharge your breath f you get hit by an elemental attack of the same type. THere are then various ways (such as taking a feat to make your breath an area attack) so you can catch yourself in the burst and ake damage to recharge giving you a minor action attack all encounter long on a sorc which is very nasty.

The feat that recharges dragonbreath, Ancient Soul, is not available to Elementalists, as it only applies to Dragon Soul Sorcerers. You need the Dragon Magic class feature, which Elementalists don`t get. That`s not to say you can`t get Elementalists with insane dragonbreath damage, Ninefold master is solid for them, but the auto-recharge trick is out of their reach.

[Shatteredtower]

Thanks for the tips, ImperiousLeader.

Surrealistik, I'm not sure a comparison between beguiling strands' little sister and any of the elementalist powers is valid. You may as well argue that it's a better controlling power than any of the at-will rogue powers. If you want to argue that any of the rogue at-will powers are better striker powers than the elementalist at-wills, that's another matter.

[Surrealistik]

Oh, I'm simply saying that the wizard once again got stuff that puts the sorcerer's additional options completely to shame when it is already inundated with powerful choices. Merely relative to their existing options and roles (intraclass), not even featuring a cross comparison (interclass, though Howling Wall is still superior vis a vis Static Charge for example) a lot of the wizard's new toys are better.

Further, yes, I think it's easily possible to make a comparison between two powers with different roles and declare one pretty much objectively better. Beguiling Strands vs Probing Strike for example. It's only ambiguous when both are strong within their own roles.

That said, given that Howling Wall's control (as well as abuse via Agile Opportunist) potential is so much greater than Beguiling Strands', it can hardly be called its 'little brother'.

[Shatteredtower]

I disagree. The wizard's new toys are pretty, but they're still just serviceable control spells. When I called howling wind the little sister, it was a valid comparison, not a dismissal. Beguiling strands came first, and there is valid comparison between the two.

The elder spell can cover up to 25 squares in a 121 square area, while the latter gets up to a half dozen adjacent squares within a 441 square area. The former pushes, while the other slides. (A small mark in it's favour to be sure.) The former targets Will, generally the weakest defense, while the latter goes after Fortitude. The former does damage (and thus kills minions), while the latter slows targets (and may set them up to be knocked prone, in case your paragon-level allies don't already do that just fine on their own). Conclusion: new dog, old trick with a few twists.

(What's the deal with changing "sister" to "brother" anyway?)

If the new sorcerer spells don't elevate the class' reputation as a striker to equal the power of the rogue or ranger or warlock (or any other pre-Essentials striker), well, so be it. Status quo is maintained for both wizard and sorcerer. If the elementalist is weaker than the PHB2 sorcerer, these spells aren't where they fall behind. I'm not even sure they're sucker-punched by their encounter powers either: attacking an extra target for a tier-based boost to damage is striker appropriate. It's all down to the dailies, and the game might be better off with less of those anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

FWIW, we just got the january/february errata from WOTC. It's mostly about reclassifying about a hundred items to common (which they should have done a year and a half ago when rarity was first introduced).

[Surrealistik]

I disagree. The wizard's new toys are pretty, but they're still just serviceable control spells. When I called howling wind the little sister, it was a valid comparison, not a dismissal. Beguiling strands came first, and there is valid comparison between the two.

The elder spell can cover up to 25 squares in a 121 square area, while the latter gets up to a half dozen adjacent squares within a 441 square area. The former pushes, while the other slides. (A small mark in it's favour to be sure.) The former targets Will, generally the weakest defense, while the latter goes after Fortitude. The former does damage (and thus kills minions), while the latter slows targets (and may set them up to be knocked prone, in case your paragon-level allies don't already do that just fine on their own). Conclusion: new dog, old trick with a few twists.

You don't seem to recognize that there are actually quite a few spells that are competitive with or better than existent front running Wizard options. The status quo for the Wizard is preserved only in so far as that it's still the best controller, and there's no powers that are head and shoulders superior to what the class already has. To dismiss (and yes, dismiss is the correct word here) the best of HotEC as merely 'serviceable' is wrong.

Second, your analysis is flawed:


Slide 2 > Push 3. This isn't a minor advantage either, it's a significant one. I'd conservatively rate a point of slide as being at least twice as valuable as one of push due to its flexibility edge. This gap obviously expands with forced movement enhancers.


Howling can target friendlies. Given Howling features a slide, deals no damage, the potential synergy with Agile Opportunist, and how eminently controllable Howling's area is, this is actually a significant _advantage_.


On Will vs Fortitude, I'm sure the former has an edge (I've never done a comprehensive statistical analysis of mob defenses), but you are probably overestimating it given that all NADs are scaled identically as per contemporary monster design. The game has come a long way since the MM where Fortitude defenses were indeed substantially higher on average. Beguiling wins here, but it's probably not by much.


On square coverage, though Howling lacks the raw area of Beguiling, its vastly superior flexibility and range 10 help it remain competitive here.


Finally, on slow vs damage, World Serpent's grasp is what makes Howling competitive to superior on this front (even if you factor in Beguiling Enchantment or Psychic Lock). The combination of Slide 2+, slow, and prone equates to a stun for close range exclusive mobs that lack substantial teleportation speeds, which are especially common in the Heroic tier. It should be noted that World Serpent proning also grounds flyers in the worst way possible.


Overall, with World Serpent's Grasp, Howling definitely outperforms Beguiling from Heroic to late paragon at least where non-ranged mobs are overwhelmingly dominant and teleportation is almost non-existent. If you have party members with Agile Opportunist, Howling clearly outperforms period.


Lastly, it's interesting to note that overall, just having performed a somewhat involved examination of the body of official mobs, even when the epic tier is factored, melee or otherwise close range exclusive mobs comprise roughly 65% of all mobs (I haven't accounted for teleportation however).

[Shatteredtower]

To dismiss (and yes, dismiss is the correct word here) the best of HotEC as merely 'serviceable' is wrong.

No, it is accurate. No character -- no party -- requires it. It performs control. Therefore, it serves.


Slide 2 > Push 3.

Arguing with something I never disputed does not help your case. Yes, being able to move a target in (for simplicity's sake) four directions gives you more flexibility than the option to move in one (again, for simplicity's sake). Your conservative estimate, however, is inaccurate: 24 choices does not translate into twice as many options as 15 choices. Most of those choices are going to be no choice at all.


Howling can target friendlies.

Would you want your allies to be reliable targets for attacks against their Fortitude defense? Would you want to pin your hopes on unreliable attacks against allies?

Neither of those answers is satisfactory, though the latter does lend itself well to the "Capable of Anything" Fortune card.

I won't deny that Agile Opportunity is useful, but relying on a strategy that slows your allies is a request to get your hindquarters chewed off.


The game has come a long way since the MM where Fortitude defenses were indeed substantially higher on average. Beguiling wins here, but it's probably not by much.

The range tends to be about the same as you'd find between having an Expertise feat at paragon level and beyond and doing without it, so perhaps you are correct.


On square coverage, though Howling lacks the raw area of Beguiling, its vastly superior flexibility and range 10 help it remain competitive here.

Competitive is what makes Little Sister serviceable as a controller spell.


Finally, on slow vs damage, World Serpent's grasp is what makes Howling competitive to superior on this front (even if you factor in Beguiling Enchantment or Psychic Lock). The combination of Slide 2+, slow, and prone equates to a stun for close range exclusive mobs that lack substantial teleportation speeds, which are especially common in the Heroic tier.

So what you're saying is that if you hit a creature twice, doing damage to it at most once, you might render it incapable of fighting back? This is not the equivalent of dazed or immobilized, let alone stunned.


It should be noted that World Serpent proning also grounds flyers in the worst way possible.

Sure, the combination of two attacks, one power --such as ice prison-- and a feat against a single opponent is useful. I'll keep that in mind the next time I build a Fortune deck as well.

It's still just another drinking cup, not some holy grail.

[Kurald Galain]

For what it's worth, the writer of the Wizard's Handbook on the WOTC forums rates eighteen of the new HOEC wizard spells as poor to awful, eight as average, zero as excellent, and only two as good: Watery Sphere and Flowing Evasion. Nobody seems to be contesting these ratings in the thread.

So calling the book "serviceable" for wizards strikes me as an overstatement.

[Chambers]

For what it's worth, the writer of the Wizard's Handbook on the WOTC forums rates eighteen of the new HOEC wizard spells as poor to awful, eight as average, zero as excellent, and only two as good: Watery Sphere and Flowing Evasion. Nobody seems to be contesting these ratings in the thread.

So calling the book "serviceable" for wizards strikes me as an overstatement.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the thread?

[Surrealistik]

For what it's worth, the writer of the Wizard's Handbook on the WOTC forums rates eighteen of the new HOEC wizard spells as poor to awful, eight as average, zero as excellent, and only two as good: Watery Sphere and Flowing Evasion. Nobody seems to be contesting these ratings in the thread.

Most of the ratings I personally agree with. The only ones I find off-base are Howling Wall's (which I'm largely in agreement with barring the maximum rating provided; easily light blue material with World Serpent's) and Watery Double's, which I innately contested by already providing my own contrasting ratings along with their rationale.

Furthermore, I claimed only that the best of HotEC for Wizards was better than 'serviceable'. Having since reviewed a lot of the higher level material for Wizards, I'm pretty unimpressed.


No, it is accurate. No character -- no party -- requires it. It performs control. Therefore, it serves.

'Serviceable' connotes mediocrity. The best of HotEC for wizards is not mediocre.


Arguing with something I never disputed does not help your case. Yes, being able to move a target in (for simplicity's sake) four directions gives you more flexibility than the option to move in one (again, for simplicity's sake). Your conservative estimate, however, is inaccurate: 24 choices does not translate into twice as many options as 15 choices. Most of those choices are going to be no choice at all.

First of all, the idea was to demonstrate that Howling Wall cannot be correctly thought of as a 'little sister' to Beguiling Strands in that the title implies inferiority. To highlight a considerable relative strength of slide vs push certainly does help 'my case' in this respect.

Second, you're completely wrong on the relative value of push vs slide. Let's look at this more soberly:

Push allows movement in 3-9 directions (contingent on whether the target flies/is underwater).

Slide allows movement in 8-26 directions, but assuming 3 vs 8 (2D movement), thus we have 2.66 options to 1.

Indeed, not all 8 of these choices will be viable/meaningful or even possible all the time, though this is likewise true concerning the 3 options push has. Furthermore, all of these choices will be viable/meaningful and certainly possible at some point in time, and slide will _always_ let you move the target in the way that is most optimal.

That said, it can be concluded that slide is roughly 2.66 times as valuable as push, and even more valuable when 3D movement is involved. Confounding this however, is that some directions probably tend to be more valuable than others. Moving the enemy away can easily be argued as being more valuable than drawing them towards you on average as an example, which is where my conservative estimate comes into play. Assuming we value push options at 2 : 1, lateral movement at 1.5 and pull at 1 : 1, we end up with 12 vs 6 or an overall ratio of 2 : 1 for Slide options vs Push options. I see nothing glaringly wrong with this analysis, though yes, it does rely on some presumptions on the relative value of options, though certainly none that are undue.


Would you want your allies to be reliable targets for attacks against their Fortitude defense? Would you want to pin your hopes on unreliable attacks against allies?

Neither of those answers is satisfactory, though the latter does lend itself well to the "Capable of Anything" Fortune card.

I won't deny that Agile Opportunity is useful, but relying on a strategy that slows your allies is a request to get your hindquarters chewed off.

It is not at all unreliable when your attack relative to your allies defenses tends to be actually quite high (unless you take things like War Wizardry, which you would not in this case). Your hit rates will probably be comparable to (or better than) those against mobs _by default_, barring allies that consciously optimize their Fort defense (even for those Str/Con specced), which means that you are very likely to succeed, without actually requiring sacrifices by your party members (optimizing Fort isn't generally a priority for most builds).

Further, no, when you work consciously with allies to exploit Agile Opportunity with stuff like Howling Wall, the whole idea is to arrive at a net profit in efficacy. In otherwords, the benefits and yield of the tactic will be substantially greater than your liabilities. It's not 'asking' to get your hindquarters chewed off, it's making a calculated trade-off that ultimately works out in your favour which is exactly why you do it.

Lastly, I'm not going to deign to include the impact of 4e trading cards in my analysis (even if it would benefit me).


The range tends to be about the same as you'd find between having an Expertise feat at paragon level and beyond and doing without it, so perhaps you are correct.

If by 'range' you mean the range of to-hit difference between targeting Fortitude and Will is comparable to +2 or +3 to hit, that is so incredibly, hilariously wrong and off-base that I don't know where to begin. If you mean that was the case with MM1 (assuming the difference is averaged out to +2.5), that's still wrong, only less so.

Presently Will doesn't receive anywhere near the excessive special treatment it used to in the earlier MMs, and the differential is nowhere near even +2 to hit on average between it and Fortitude.


Competitive is what makes Little Sister serviceable as a controller spell.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by 'Little Sister' and 'serviceable' you are neither dismissing nor trying to assert inferiority so as to spare you the embarrassment of being wrong.


So what you're saying is that if you hit a creature twice, doing damage to it at most once, you might render it incapable of fighting back? This is not the equivalent of dazed or immobilized, let alone stunned.

You will _probably_ render _multiple enemies_ incapable of fighting back, and for roughly half that remain capable of doing so, their attacks are going to be weaker. It should also be noted that the lower tier you play in, the higher this probability is; as mentioned the average between all tiers is ~65% give or take a few % (1-2) at best for teleporters which are restricted almost exclusively to high paragon and Epic. But let's say you come across the minority you can't straight up shut down, or abuse in the ways mentioned in the following paragraph; the solution then is to use your second at-will and/or your slew of encounter/daily powers. I don't think you comprehend just how powerful an at-will that can AoE stun the majority of mobs in the game when it's far from your only option actually is.

The multitarget turn negation is in addition to bunching enemies, wasting their move action (great when it comes to those enemies with minor action attacks/powers), inflicting automatic fall damage vs fliers, potentially zone/area/trap ping ponging/abusing multiple enemies (to the point of doing substantially more net damage than the striker as you control) and the like.

Granted, you have to hit twice to trigger proning (excepting effects imposed by allies), but given that the effect chains on subsequent hits, Wizard accuracy tends to be 70% or higher (not including CA), that by Paragon/Epic you have multiple contingencies that help guarantee a hit, that so many good encounter/daily powers slow and/or immobilize (again, quite a few that auto-hit or apply as effects), and with Orb Expertise support move + charge movement is almost straight up negated anyways, this isn't a deal breaking liability.


Sure, the combination of two attacks, one power --such as ice prison-- and a feat against a single opponent is useful. I'll keep that in mind the next time I build a Fortune deck as well.

Completely inapplicable and disingenuous comparison; Ice Prison lacks the forced movement that makes Howling Wall so potentially crippling.


It's still just another drinking cup, not some holy grail.

With a single feat (that already synergizes with tons of strong existing encounter powers and dailies) it's amongst the very best options of the very best controller in the game. If that's not a 'holy grail' by at-will standards in 4e, I don't know what is barring Twin Strike.

[Kurald Galain]

Interesting. Do you have a link to the thread?

Certainly (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28817645/Archmages_Ascension_-_The_Wizards_Handbook?pg=1).

Of note is that with two or three exceptions per book, every single wizard power from HOEC and HOTF rates average, poor, or awful. HOS is slightly better, with about half a dozen good powers.

This should tell you something about the 4E design team these days. Of course it's not just the wizard powers either; several other classes from these books are generally regarded as a mechanical failure. I truly get the impression that support for 4E these days is only lip service.

[Shatteredtower]

Of note is that with two or three exceptions per book, every single wizard power from HOEC and HOTF rates average, poor, or awful. HOS is slightly better, with about half a dozen good powers.

This should tell you something about the 4E design team these days.

Sure. It tells me they're offering an array of powers to people who would rather not use "good" controller powers. As much as some players find those powers a healthy part of a party's slugfest, others find they spoil the meal. It's all well and good for the encounter with a dragon to come down to stun, immobilize, prone, daze, prone, stun if that's your idea of fun, but to some folks that results don't simulate epic battle all that well. What's so epic about fighting wheelchair-bound waterfowl?

Giving new monsters the power to ignore the great control game is not a solution, because you're still left with closets full of monsters you'll either need to overhaul or ignore. It's better to let the players decide whether or not the power settings they are best optimized to create an enjoyable game for the table.

As much as I'd appreciate if WotC better acknowledged power curve for such abilities, having such options is good. I'll agree that "awful" is bad, but isn't that mainly defined by things that make themselves useless? (Examples include superior rods with the shielding property or any game that allows for both the Badge of the Berserker and the Lesser Badge of the Berserker.) As much as creating difficult terrain in a zone of burst 1 size until the end of your next turn is nowhere near as effective as push 6 or slide 3, it is still something certain players can see benefit and enjoyment in doing.

[Shatteredtower]

Well, this is embarrassing. I do not know how I overlooked this reply. Sorry about that.


'Serviceable' connotes mediocrity. The best of HotEC for wizards is not mediocre.
Considering the arguments and delays I've witnessed every time "push 1" comes up, let alone "slide 4", I'll agree the results aren't mediocre. They're downright tedious.


Second, you're completely wrong on the relative value of push vs slide. Let's look at this more soberly.

Don't waste my time on pretense, okay? Your slide x will occasionally offer more than push x+y, but it's generally a non-issue. Distance and area matter less than useful squares here, as you admit. The number of those squares is not measured in terms of percentage, but quantity. The numbers you cite have no bearing on what is possible, let alone likely.


Further, no, when you work consciously with allies to exploit Agile Opportunity with stuff like Howling Wall, the whole idea is to arrive at a net profit in efficacy. In otherwords, the benefits and yield of the tactic will be substantially greater than your liabilities. It's not 'asking' to get your hindquarters chewed off, it's making a calculated trade-off that ultimately works out in your favour which is exactly why you do it.

As long as your allies don't like having mobility, I'm sure it's fine.


Lastly, I'm not going to deign to include the impact of 4e trading cards in my analysis (even if it would benefit me).

It would have reflected better on you to avoid mention of the subject entirely.


If by 'range' you mean the range of to-hit difference between targeting Fortitude and Will is comparable to +2 or +3 to hit, that is so incredibly, hilariously wrong and off-base that I don't know where to begin.

How about by cracking open a book? A look through the Neverwinter Campaign Setting shows that controllers tend to favour Will over Fortitude by that range, and that artillery and skirmishers can be pretty even (sometimes even favouring Will), but soldiers still maintain higher Fortitude scores, and it's much worse for brutes. Even if only half of your encounters feature the latter creature type, you're still setting yourself up for a fall. Also, I suspect that your standard for a decent controller at paragon level handles being slowed fairly well, yes?


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by 'Little Sister' and 'serviceable' you are neither dismissing nor trying to assert inferiority so as to spare you the embarrassment of being wrong.

Then do so, but enough with the passive aggressive sniping.


You will _probably_ render _multiple enemies_ incapable of fighting back, and for roughly half that remain capable of doing so, their attacks are going to be weaker.

In order for the Agile Opportunist to work against multiple enemies, you have to target (and hit) an equal number of allies. At best, you're hitting two. On a good day, you send them and artillery off four squares in one direction and a unit defending the artillery slides four squares in another direction. Very nice, when it works. Assuming you'll hit 80% of the time, someone in that group is not going to cooperate with your plan.

If you're just going after enemies, you might sometimes double those numbers, maybe even without including minions within the effect. That can sometimes be good too.


I don't think you comprehend just how powerful an at-will that can AoE stun the majority of mobs in the game when it's far from your only option actually is.

That's because you don't appreciate what a well-run mob can do. Yes, you will inconvenience them, but a creature that can stand up and employ total defense is not equivalent to stunned. Assuming you feel that "does not attack this turn" amounts to the same thing, you've got improvised attacks and bull-rushing advancing tactics. As you note, such things reduce the efficacy of your enemies. It is still not equivalent to stun.

WotC nerfed most ping-ponging strategies, though contain-and-push still works out pretty well.




Your teammates can cover both the forced movement and slowing effects just fine for you without having to sacrifice damage output.

[QUOTE=Surrealistik;12836838]With a single feat (that already synergizes with tons of strong existing encounter powers and dailies) it's amongst the very best options of the very best controller in the game. If that's not a 'holy grail' by at-will standards in 4e, I don't know what is barring Twin Strike.

It's hyperbole. With so many other options for a party that all select World Serpent's Grasp, this is one of them.

[Kurald Galain]

The thing is, HOS/HOF/HOEC really don't contain decent wizard spells but at a lower power level than earlier books. They mostly contain spells that are so badly written that they're useless in practice (with 2-3 exceptions per book as noted above). For example, spells like Flame Arrow or Witch Bolt are just utterly pointless.

And it's not just about the wizard spells either, but about content in general: these books also contain classes like the Binder. Is WOTC doing this on purpose? Well, that's hard to say, but they haven't said they're lowering the power level on purpose, and they have said they are working hard on 5E. So it's probably that they're just not spending a lot of time on playtesting.

Incidentally, HOEC appears to be the last and final crunch-based 4E book.

[Surrealistik]

Considering the arguments and delays I've witnessed every time "push 1" comes up, let alone "slide 4", I'll agree the results aren't mediocre. They're downright tedious.

In otherwords, you're wrong and don't want to admit it. Understandable.



Don't waste my time on pretense, okay? Your slide x will occasionally offer more than push x+y, but it's generally a non-issue. Distance and area matter less than useful squares here, as you admit. The number of those squares is not measured in terms of percentage, but quantity. The numbers you cite have no bearing on what is possible, let alone likely.

Where's the 'pretense'? This is a detailed, sober analysis that makes extremely reasonable and conservative assumptions where it absolutely must.

Slide X is indisputably more valuable than push by a substantial margin in that it offers nearly 3 times the options, and every one of those additional 5 squares (more in 3-dimensional movement) is going to be more useful at some point while slide always allows you to pick what is most optimal. My analysis even factored in the likelihood of certain squares being substantially more useful than others on average, and even though the assumptions involved generally favour push significantly (giving 2x weight to their squares), Slide is still demonstrated to be about twice as valuable.

While quantity is obviously an important metric, so is quality, and my attempts to assign a valuation are certainly logical. You should try presenting a reasoned argument instead of dismissing mine as 'pretense' and furthermore going on to make blind, nonsense and above all arbitrary assertions.



As long as your allies don't like having mobility, I'm sure it's fine.

I'm sure slowed UENT isn't really much of a consideration vis a vis Slide 4 + a free attack, especially when your allies have consented, and you've assessed the tradeoff as advantageous.



How about by cracking open a book? A look through the Neverwinter Campaign Setting shows that controllers tend to favour Will over Fortitude by that range, and that artillery and skirmishers can be pretty even (sometimes even favouring Will), but soldiers still maintain higher Fortitude scores, and it's much worse for brutes. Even if only half of your encounters feature the latter creature type, you're still setting yourself up for a fall. Also, I suspect that your standard for a decent controller at paragon level handles being slowed fairly well, yes?

Let's see some statistical analysis and concrete numbers, or at least some meaningful, quantified sampling. That said, I can straight up guarantee that you will not find an average differential between the two defenses even approaching +2.5.



In order for the Agile Opportunist to work against multiple enemies, you have to target (and hit) an equal number of allies. At best, you're hitting two. On a good day, you send them and artillery off four squares in one direction and a unit defending the artillery slides four squares in another direction. Very nice, when it works. Assuming you'll hit 80% of the time, someone in that group is not going to cooperate with your plan.

If you're just going after enemies, you might sometimes double those numbers, maybe even without including minions within the effect. That can sometimes be good too.

As long as this power is hitting, it's working, and therefore either wrecking Team Monster's action economy and/or resulting in lots of AO damage.

That said, I'm not sure where you're getting assumptions like you'll hit two allies at best, or that someone is 'not going to cooperate'. The former's nonsense, especially where attack boosters and miss contingencies are concerned. Of three targets as an example, the chance of hitting all 3 at an 80% hit rate for example is 51.2%.



That's because you don't appreciate what a well-run mob can do.

Absurd. When I DM, I run my mobs about as brutally and tactically as possible (within the constraints of their Int/Wis scores). It doesn't matter how well run a mob is, if it can't attack as its enemies are out of range, and can only minimally reposition, there's nothing to be done.


Yes, you will inconvenience them, but a creature that can stand up and employ total defense is not equivalent to stunned. Assuming you feel that "does not attack this turn" amounts to the same thing, you've got improvised attacks and bull-rushing advancing tactics. As you note, such things reduce the efficacy of your enemies. It is still not equivalent to stun.

To call an enemy denied an attack and most of its movement for a round 'inconvenienced' is a gross understatement. Forcing multiple enemies to use something as laughable as total defense with an at-will is huge. Yes, it's obviously not a hard stun (I should think that to be clear and obvious), but it's close enough in that it denies your opponent the ability to do anything meaningful for a turn, or at worst, forces your opponent to resort to desperate and inefficient maneuvers like sacrificing a mob's standard action to bullrush you into the range of another (which it may not even be able to do in the first place, and requires 2 attack rolls to do anything meaningful).


WotC nerfed most ping-ponging strategies, though contain-and-push still works out pretty well.

No it didn't. It nerfed a handful of powers, but most of ping-ponging is alive and well.


Your teammates can cover both the forced movement and slowing effects just fine for you without having to sacrifice damage output.

Slowing and forced movement are _your job_ as a controller. Damage is a secondary if not tertiary concern. Why on earth would you have another teammate cover these elements?

As a striker, obviously you'll want to be dealing damage, but I'll take denying multiple mobs a meaningful turn over an area burst 1 passable damage + slowed any day, especially when I don't have to rely on one or more teammates to accomplish this.


It's hyperbole. With so many other options for a party that all select World Serpent's Grasp, this is one of them.

It clearly isn't. There are lots of other elements that WSG synergizes with, but this is one of the best as I've repeatedly and clearly shown. It's an at-will that is able to deny roughly 65% of the mobs in the game meaningful actions, while relegating about half of the remainder to use inferior secondary attacks. In the meanwhile it can also save you and your allies from bad situations (zones/grabs/hazardous terrain/flanks), and/or even output massive damage via an Agile Opportunist party.

In summary, there is no way you can look at this power, soberly and comprehensive assess it and its implications, and somehow come to the conclusion that it isn't one of the best controller at-wills going and be credible.

[Shatteredtower]

Kurald Galain, I'll admit that the binder's main weakness is that its at-will and encounter powers do little to single targets. I'd say there was some worry that wider range options would make other warlocks too powerful, and that design should not have gone forward if that obstacle was considered insurmountable.

Beyond that, I'm not so sure. For example, there's a consumable item that replaces a sustain action, offering witch bolt more flexibility at little cost.


In otherwords, you're wrong and don't want to admit it. Understandable.

Interesting revelation.


Where's the 'pretense'? This is a detailed, sober analysis that makes extremely reasonable and conservative assumptions where it absolutely must.

Sober and pompous are not the same thing. Sober sticks to its point. It doesn't need to puff itself up with claims of being "reasonable" or other claims "clearly" being wrong.

Sober lets the argument speak for itself. Pompous speaks on the argument's behalf.


Slide X is indisputably more valuable than push by a substantial margin in that it offers nearly 3 times the options...

Taking this number as a given for a moment, take a look at this diagram:

OOX
XOO
OXO

Nine squares, but only three of them offer you an X. Another image:

OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOXOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO

Here, X represents your target, and O is every square around that target. There's certainly a lot of potential on an open field, but the best advantage you'll find most of the time consists of pushing your enemy away from you. A little difficult terrain won't hurt, and it tends to be more common than hazardous terrain.

As for push 5


While quantity is obviously an important metric, so is quality, and my attempts to assign a valuation are certainly logical. You should try presenting a reasoned argument instead of dismissing mine as 'pretense' and furthermore going on to make blind, nonsense and above all arbitrary assertions.




I'm sure slowed UENT isn't really much of a consideration vis a vis Slide 4 + a free attack, especially when your allies have consented, and you've assessed the tradeoff as advantageous.


Let's see some statistical analysis and concrete numbers, or at least some meaningful, quantified sampling. That said, I can straight up guarantee that you will not find an average differential between the two defenses even approaching +2.5.

You can't guarantee anything, as you haven't offered the sort of meaningful, quantified sampling you demand. While I didn't give you the numbers, I gave you a rundown of creatures from the first book I opened, and pointed out the creature types that favoured your preference in terms of defense, as well as those that did not and to what degree the advantage lay with Fortitude over Will. The winds tended to favour you with controllers and artillery, veered closer to level with skirmishers, spun away from you with soldiers (to about a +1-2 difference, the level that makes Expertise mandatory in some eyes), and veered away with brutes to the point that it typically surpassed AC.

You didn't feel I sampled widely enough? Well, let me refer to the only book I have on hand. Quoted from front to back, it indicates that more than 70% of all monsters you'll face have a Fortitude at least 2 points higher than their Will, and 20% of them exceed that difference by another 2 points. The remaining 30% are evenly split between matching defenses and higher Will (a difference of 2 points).

I'll admit upfront that this is in no way a fair sampling. One adventure cannot speak to the entire game. Having said that, why should I indulge your efforts to raise the bar? First you declare MM1-2 inadequate reference materials for the argument I put forth, stating that they don't meet the new paradigm. (Never mind that they're both still valid source material for the game.) Then I run down listings I had from a post MM3 source, but that was not adequate to your needs--and you wish to dismiss any difference less than 10% as insignificant as well.

Why should I indulge your attempts to keep moving the goalposts?


That said, I'm not sure where you're getting assumptions like you'll hit two allies at best, or that someone is 'not going to cooperate'.

Oh, sure, you can target five tightly bunched teammates if you want, but that leaves only one monster to be targeted. You're likely to miss one of those creatures, but it should work out, no? Not much for lockdown, however.


Of three targets as an example, the chance of hitting all 3 at an 80% hit rate for example is 51.2%.

So slightly better than half the time if all you're aiming for is three allies. Still a reasonable gamble for three allies and an enemy, but not the lockdown you were advertising.


Absurd. When I DM, I run my mobs about as brutally and tactically as possible (within the constraints of their Int/Wis scores).

I get the feeling the constraints of Int/Wis score means one thing for players and another for monsters. If it's humanoid, it's more than capable of working out the idea of improvised ranged weaponry. If it understands territory, it knows how to exploit that. If it's got leadership, even without the descriptor, it can be even more dangerous.

Most of the things that can't work with this aren't going to give you trouble in any case.


It doesn't matter how well run a mob is, if it can't attack as its enemies are out of range, and can only minimally reposition, there's nothing to be done.

Two slowed creatures that have an action left after standing up can put more than six squares between them. You've bought a round against both of them in which they'll grant combat advantage. I won't deny that's useful, but for the resources you require, it better be.


To call an enemy denied an attack and most of its movement for a round 'inconvenienced' is a gross understatement.

This presumes it must have been denied an attack. And who said anything about multiple enemies doing the same thing? With your assumed 50% chance of hitting three targets, this spell is still best left to the final moments of a fight.


No it didn't. It nerfed a handful of powers, but most of ping-ponging is alive and well.

No, the message was pretty clear: the practice is not acceptable. Now you can insist that it's alive and well until every single loophole for it gets closed, or you can admit it's just a jerk move with no place in a social game.


Why on earth would you have another teammate cover these elements?

Isn't that self-evident? You're all playing individuals, not roles. If you're all doing the same thing you do every night, it's not going to hold your interest for long.

Also, your strategy for using this spell all circles around having your teammates take World Serpent's Grasp. In effect, you're asking them to all play the part of controllers to a lesser extent. You want them all to take Agile Opportunist in the paragon tier, and are thereby volunteering for part-time leadership as well. In other words, you already having people do what you claim you don't expect them to do.


It clearly isn't. There are lots of other elements that WSG synergizes with, but this is one of the best as I've repeatedly and clearly shown.

Except that you still think it's also compatible with Agile Opportunist when combined with this spell. The opportunity attack isn't against a slowed target. You may get around that by giving up the first square of that sliding by moving allies and enemies adjacent to one another, but good luck running that quickly. For the sake of convenience, it's just better for a DM to make everyone part ways and leave the WSG opportunities to next round, when it's no longer convenient to any teammate that enjoys melee combat.


It's an at-will that is able to deny roughly 65% of the mobs in the game meaningful actions...

Is there any reason that number should not be considered any more of a fabrication than the use of "meaningful" in this sentence?


In the meanwhile it can also save you and your allies from bad situations (zones/grabs/hazardous terrain/flanks)...

So can rope.


In summary, there is no way you can look at this power, soberly and comprehensive assess it and its implications, and somehow come to the conclusion that it isn't one of the best controller at-wills going and be credible.

This summary is merely a long-winded version of the, "Inconceivable!" exclamation. The spell can be useful for all of the reasons you list. It isn't remotely essential.

[Surrealistik]

Sober and pompous are not the same thing. Sober sticks to its point. It doesn't need to puff itself up with claims of being "reasonable" or other claims "clearly" being wrong.

Sober lets the argument speak for itself. Pompous speaks on the argument's behalf.

Incidentally, I do both.


Here, X represents your target, and O is every square around that target. There's certainly a lot of potential on an open field, but the best advantage you'll find most of the time consists of pushing your enemy away from you. A little difficult terrain won't hurt, and it tends to be more common than hazardous terrain.

You don't seem to realize (or have ignored) that I awarded push squares a substantial premium in my estimates over other directions of forced movement.

That said, that push is often the best choice has already been accounted for. Even when this premium is assigned, Slide still comes out ahead by a substantial margin of 2 : 1. You may choose to assign a higher premium to push, but there is nothing you have argued that seems to warrant this at all. You can argue that useful directions may be blocked off, but the fact remains that

A: Push is likewise subject to blockage.
B: Slide can always opt for the most optimal direction of the choices provided period, and is substantially less likely to be detrimentally affected by blockage (8 choices vs 3 assuming 2-d only, and you're forced to always move in a given direction, which increases the likelihood of blockage). For example, a push 5 may simply just slam a mob against a wall, accomplishing nothing, whereas a slide 3 allows me to move an enemy through a zone and then into a flank in the opposite direction several squares to the right.



You didn't feel I sampled widely enough? Well, let me refer to the only book I have on hand. Quoted from front to back, it indicates that more than 70% of all monsters you'll face have a Fortitude at least 2 points higher than their Will, and 20% of them exceed that difference by another 2 points. The remaining 30% are evenly split between matching defenses and higher Will (a difference of 2 points).

I'll admit upfront that this is in no way a fair sampling. One adventure cannot speak to the entire game. Having said that, why should I indulge your efforts to raise the bar? First you declare MM1-2 inadequate reference materials for the argument I put forth, stating that they don't meet the new paradigm. (Never mind that they're both still valid source material for the game.) Then I run down listings I had from a post MM3 source, but that was not adequate to your needs--and you wish to dismiss any difference less than 10% as insignificant as well.

Why should I indulge your attempts to keep moving the goalposts?


What attempt to move the goalposts? You are the one making the absolutely ridiculous assertion that Fortitude exceeds Will by an average of 2.5+ points, and naturally, if you wish to make ridiculous assertions, the burden of proof is clearly on you, not the person challenging them. I disregard MM1 (not MM2, though its design quality was roughly comparable), because back then, 4e design was notably immature (and in some cases flat out terrible, see the Tarrasque, Orcus and Balhannoth) and, as I recall, Fortitude increases for Brutes were actually systemic! Obviously it's a bad, deeply biased source.

But that in mind, let's consider MM1, because some in-depth analysis has been actually done here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/229092-lots-statistics-monster-manual.html

As you can see, the differential between Fortitude and Will in terms of advantage is actually _less than two_ (1.92). This is in probably the most Will defense biased, anti-Fortitude book in the entire library of 4e material with monster stats; not looking so good for you.



Oh, sure, you can target five tightly bunched teammates if you want, but that leaves only one monster to be targeted. You're likely to miss one of those creatures, but it should work out, no? Not much for lockdown, however.

If I can lock down a monster, reposition my allies, and get several free attacks in via AO on an at-will, that's a pretty good deal.


So slightly better than half the time if all you're aiming for is three allies. Still a reasonable gamble for three allies and an enemy, but not the lockdown you were advertising.

If I want lockdown, I'll target three enemies and an ally. Obviously choice of targets determines lockdown and choice of targets is determined by combat context (though generally, I prioritize lockdown/turn denial). That said, if team monster and PC are bunched together in CQC, it's very much possible that I won't even _have_ to make a tradeoff.


I get the feeling the constraints of Int/Wis score means one thing for players and another for monsters. If it's humanoid, it's more than capable of working out the idea of improvised ranged weaponry. If it understands territory, it knows how to exploit that. If it's got leadership, even without the descriptor, it can be even more dangerous.

Most of the things that can't work with this aren't going to give you trouble in any case.

Assuming you both fiat in improvised weapons and they're available (in some cases you won't even have a pebble to throw), this is what a monster is reduced to:


Potential minor action to sheath a melee weapon (or free to drop it, consigning you to constant improvisation until retrieved; very bad idea when at-will slow + slide is involved).
Minor to pick up a thrown object (if it exists). You could also throw your melee weapon as an improvised attack, but this is probably an even worse idea than dropping it.
-2-3 to hit (no proficiency).
-0-6 to hit (based on expected Enhancement Bonus for the level)
1d4 base damage (all thrown improvised).


Even assuming you just use the standard monster attack progression, the damage is utterly negligible beyond perhaps low Heroic.

Of course, you can use even more fiat to make the attack not totally suck, but that's not at all fair to the players.


Two slowed creatures that have an action left after standing up can put more than six squares between them. You've bought a round against both of them in which they'll grant combat advantage. I won't deny that's useful, but for the resources you require, it better be.

A slowed creature that stands up can only move a maximum of 4 squares even with running barring teleportation; just one square more than the distance you can slide them with Orb Expertise, and the same # of squares if you have another enhancer like the Orb of Forceful Magic. In otherwords, as long as you can hit, you can pin down a CQC mob about indefinitely.


This presumes it must have been denied an attack. And who said anything about multiple enemies doing the same thing? With your assumed 50% chance of hitting three targets, this spell is still best left to the final moments of a fight.

~65% chance of that for an average mob. Obviously it is a minor inconvenience if you're stupid enough to use it on an enemy that has an attack with appreciable range (this is why Knowledge checks are good, which you excel at as a Wizard).

And while the spell is at its best later (not late; I'd say early-mid/mid is best) when melee enemies have bunched, it's still great even early. Why? Because you have more targets (none are dead by this point), and because your opponents haven't had as much of a chance to spread out and narrow the number of targets.

Lastly, it's important to note that you have a 70-80% hit rate overall, meaning you will incapacitate 70-80% of the targets on average. For 3 targets you have 2.51 hits. For 6 targets, 4.8. For the average of 3.5 targets, 2.8. Assuming this average of 3.5 targets, and we specifically target one mob without ranged capabilities, and the rest are subject to the 65% chance of not having ranged capabilities, that's ~2 turn denials (effectively/virtually, not literally) and average a 75% hit chance per use of Howling Wall on average: [1 + (2.5 * 0.65)] * 0.75 = 1.97. Again, ridiculously strong as at-wills go.



No, the message was pretty clear: the practice is not acceptable. Now you can insist that it's alive and well until every single loophole for it gets closed, or you can admit it's just a jerk move with no place in a social game.

While it may be cheese when taken to its extreme (cursory utilization is just clever), acceptability obviously depends on the DM and the expected power level of the PCs. Personally I use the house rule when DMing that ping ponging is limited to 1 iteration per turn (and it's still very strong regardless of this limitation). This is far more stringent than WotC btw which explicitly stated they did not want to make a blanket rule in order to avoid destroying creative strategies.


Isn't that self-evident? You're all playing individuals, not roles. If you're all doing the same thing you do every night, it's not going to hold your interest for long.

No, it's not self-evident, because I can have plenty of fun doing _my job_ controlling mobs, destroying their action economy, and otherwise turning a combat on its head without switching it up to hand out buffs or deal damage. This is precisely why the Controller is my favourite role, and the Wizard/Mage is my favourite class.


Also, your strategy for using this spell all circles around having your teammates take World Serpent's Grasp. In effect, you're asking them to all play the part of controllers to a lesser extent. You want them all to take Agile Opportunist in the paragon tier, and are thereby volunteering for part-time leadership as well. In other words, you already having people do what you claim you don't expect them to do.

Lol, no it doesn't. And while I wouldn't straight up _expect_ my party members to take Agile Opportunist (I don't _expect_ my party members to take anything as a rule), it is a powerful synergy that needs to be considered in order to correctly assess the strength of the power.


Except that you still think it's also compatible with Agile Opportunist when combined with this spell. The opportunity attack isn't against a slowed target. You may get around that by giving up the first square of that sliding by moving allies and enemies adjacent to one another, but good luck running that quickly. For the sake of convenience, it's just better for a DM to make everyone part ways and leave the WSG opportunities to next round, when it's no longer convenient to any teammate that enjoys melee combat.

As stated, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I expect my allies to burn a feat for WSG. Not the case. WSG on your character is all that is necessary. If your allies see fit to take it (and it really isn't a bad choice if you intend to slow/immobilize spam most of a combat) then that's even better.


Is there any reason that number should not be considered any more of a fabrication than the use of "meaningful" in this sentence?

So in otherwords, it's not a fabrication? Further I've actually done my homework here and looked it up in the online compendium using quotation marks + keywords to control my search results (melee/ranged/close burst 5 or less I consider to be CQC). 65% is roughly the portion that was tallied up. You will find similar results if you do so yourself.


So can rope.

It's too bad that the use of rope to save/reposition allies requires preparation, occupying a hand, an ally, likely a move or standard action to affect a single ally, and DM fiat to work, and even in a best case can only ever pull.


This summary is merely a long-winded version of the, "Inconceivable!" exclamation. The spell can be useful for all of the reasons you list. It isn't remotely essential.

You mean this summary is true. Who said it was 'essential' btw? Talk about 'moving the goalposts'; loving the irony. My argument was never that the spell was essential so much as that it is amongst the very best at-will controller powers in the game with WSG.

[GreyICE]

Tome Expertise+Mage hand is probably the best thing to come out of the book for Wizards. Permanent combat advantage in a 3x3 grid is a tad wonky.

That being said, the idea that Wizards need new toys is... silly. Wizards are really the ultimate toy class in 4E, and they are already arguably the strongest controller.

[Kurald Galain]

Tome Expertise+Mage hand is probably the best thing to come out of the book for Wizards. Permanent combat advantage in a 3x3 grid is a tad wonky.

Yeah, wanna bet that WOTC hadn't thought about Mage Hand when they wrote that feat?

[Daftendirekt]

This is tame.

As at-wills go, Howling Winds has Static Charge easily beat.

Once again, the wizard reigns supreme over its derpy intuiting counterpart, arms crossed, nose upturned, wearing an indelible look of sheer, obnoxious smug.

Howling Winds Ranger Utility 16
You call forth the primal spirits of wind and storm, sending them howling over the battlefield to harass your enemies.
Daily Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you are surrounded by howling winds. Once on each of your turns, you can take a free action to slide an enemy within 10 squares of you a number of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier.

...Huh? :smallconfused:

[Chambers]

I think he meant Winged Horde, but I'm not certain.

[Surrealistik]

Howling Winds Ranger Utility 16
You call forth the primal spirits of wind and storm, sending them howling over the battlefield to harass your enemies.
Daily Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you are surrounded by howling winds. Once on each of your turns, you can take a free action to slide an enemy within 10 squares of you a number of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier.

...Huh? :smallconfused:

Sorry, meant Howling Wall. Will fix.

[Shatteredtower]

You don't seem to realize (or have ignored) that I awarded push squares a substantial premium in my estimates over other directions of forced movement.

The relevance of all forms of forced movement are measured by terrain and the mobility of the instigating party. The advantage of a slide is most felt by instigators with no or very limited movement options. It's a useful backup for desperate times, sure, but otherwise tends to be superfluous.


What attempt to move the goalposts? You are the one making the absolutely ridiculous assertion that Fortitude exceeds Will by an average of 2.5+ points...

After scanning the thread, I don't see where I claimed the number. You're the one claiming it only becomes signficant at a difference of 2.5+ points. I see where I noted that the difference was comparable to the benefits of an Expertise feat, averaging out to a 2 point difference over any game that runs from level 1 to 30, or just 0.08 points higher than the average you cited, rather than the 0.58+ point difference you suggest. Should I instead have said that the difference against mobs was better than you'd get from an Expertise feat at heroic tier, roughly equal at paragon, and about 5% less at epic?

Sure, point out that this figure comes from the book most slanted in my favour. By all means, note again that is only the result of design errors. In return, let me draw your attention to the forest again: the total number of listings matters less than the total number of monsters. How often do you see four identical artillery or controllers accompanied by a single brute, skirmisher, or soldier?

Your math doesn't acknowledge that, and I don't feel like haggling over those numbers any further.


...and naturally, if you wish to make ridiculous assertions, the burden of proof is clearly on you, not the person challenging them.

If you're going to make a challenge, you're responsible for your own work. If you don't want to do any work, it's irresponsible to attempt the challenge. If my assertions are as ridiculous as you claim, it's folly to give continue your argument against them beyond one statement.


Assuming you both fiat in improvised weapons and they're available (in some cases you won't even have a pebble to throw)...

And in some cases the wizard is unconscious, or the player has become allergic to peanuts, or the DM isn't being creative.

When the DMGs recommended the first rule of improv, it wasn't just meant to apply to the players.




Potential minor action to sheath a melee weapon (or free to drop it, consigning you to constant improvisation until retrieved; very bad idea when at-will slow + slide is involved).
Minor to pick up a thrown object (if it exists). You could also throw your melee weapon as an improvised attack, but this is probably an even worse idea than dropping it.
-2-3 to hit (no proficiency).
-0-6 to hit (based on expected Enhancement Bonus for the level)
1d4 base damage (all thrown improvised).



This is only an issue if the enemy has a heavy shield, something most of your enemies don't have. Since it doesn't affect their AC or Reflex defense, about the only use it has is to point out enemies with higher than average Fortitude scores: brutes and soldiers. Skirmishers rarely have this problem, controllers tend to have a built-in ranged attack, and this isn't an issue for artillery at all.
The minor action is a commodity many monsters rarely get to spend anyway. If they have a regular opportunity to use this action but are out of range to do so, we're still not seeing a wasted action.
A look at the difference in the attack bonus for equal level opponents wielding swords and axes shows that proficiency bonuses don't apply to monster attacks. I may apply a penalty to the attack roll, if the party needs the break, but it's not required of me.
The expected enhancement bonus for a monster is innate to the monster. Only equipment superior to this level exceeds this. Now a 6th level orc a +3 battleaxe should see a dip in accuracy and damage when reduced to throwing shoes at you--because this opponent was already exceeding expectations for both.
Monster damage is based on level, not equipment used. I'd certainly scale brute damage down, and perhaps use the damage table for attacks affecting multiple targets most of the time. After all, the goal is to keep the party challenged, not to deny them any benefit from their actions.


Much of this was covered in the two DMGs.


Of course, you can use even more fiat to make the attack not totally suck, but that's not at all fair to the players.

Sure, it is: DM doesn't stand for Door Mat. The DM is expected to adapt, challenge, and improvise according to the situation. In cooperation with your players, the goal is to build an entertaining story toward its conclusion, not to indulge some Mary Sue's court. Some days enemies back off when you push them around like this. Some days they'll go so far as trying to bring the ceiling down on top of you. If this sort of thing is your standard strategy, it is your DM's responsibility to adapt to it without invalidating the strategy. Barrel-hunted fish don't offer a good steady diet.


A slowed creature that stands up can only move a maximum of 4 squares even with running barring teleportation...

That's true in general, but note the wording of the run action as listed in the Rules Compendium on page 248: "Speed +2: The creature moves its speed plus two additional squares."

Then go back to page 234, where the description of the slowed condition notes, "The creature cannot benefit from bonuses to speed, although it can use powers and take actions, such as the run action, that allow it to move farther than its speed."

That "speed +x" is not a bonus, unless stated otherwise.


...just one square more than the distance you can slide them with Orb Expertise, and the same # of squares if you have another enhancer like the Orb of Forceful Magic. In otherwords, as long as you can hit, you can pin down a CQC mob about indefinitely.

Even if your combat doesn't take place in 4 square wide corridors, two adjacent enemies that are both prone and slowed can still put more than six squares between them... at heavy cost, to be sure. Even a gathering of six enemies left slowed and prone (the sort of task best suited to a second wizard...or a sorcerer) can spread out enough so that you'll have no more than two targets for a second attempt.

If you don't knock all of your enemies down, they will spread out. If you do knock them all down, you aren't focusing fire. Fair deal either way, but you still have to choose, just as both you can't use the properties of the architect's staff and the orb of forceful magic at the same time.


And while the spell is at its best later (not late; I'd say early-mid/mid is best) when melee enemies have bunched, it's still great even early. Why? Because you have more targets (none are dead by this point), and because your opponents haven't had as much of a chance to spread out and narrow the number of targets.

While that merits consideration, does the wizard lack encounter powers that are also good at discouraging those same enemies from spreading out?


While it may be cheese when taken to its extreme (cursory utilization is just clever), acceptability obviously depends on the DM and the expected power level of the PCs. Personally I use the house rule when DMing that ping ponging is limited to 1 iteration per turn (and it's still very strong regardless of this limitation). This is far more stringent than WotC btw which explicitly stated they did not want to make a blanket rule in order to avoid destroying creative strategies.

Isn't the standard for new powers identical to your house rule, with a limit of one application of damage per turn?


No, it's not self-evident, because I can have plenty of fun doing _my job_ controlling mobs, destroying their action economy, and otherwise turning a combat on its head without switching it up to hand out buffs or deal damage. This is precisely why the Controller is my favourite role, and the Wizard/Mage is my favourite class.

So... because you can do this well, it's all you should do and no one else should ever dabble in it?


Lol, no it doesn't.

Really? I guess I just read too many words I could have skipped over, then. Good to know for next time.


As stated, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I expect my allies to burn a feat for WSG. Not the case. WSG on your character is all that is necessary.

Giving enemies a round to spread out (barring use of minor action attacks and action points) seems a tad impractical here. I suppose it will have to do if you can't persuade an ally to take the feat, but your controller isn't the optimal choice for it.


So in otherwords, it's not a fabrication?

You claim that hitting every creature targeted 65% of the time is the same as rendering 65% of mobs incapable of what you define as meaningful actions, where I assume you meant for the CQC aside to indicate the bar for your definition of meaningful.

Don't get me wrong. I accept that you did run the numbers and pull up this result. What I'm not seeing is where you think meaning ends in the stat block.


You mean this summary is true. Who said it was 'essential' btw? Talk about 'moving the goalposts'; loving the irony. My argument was never that the spell was essential so much as that it is amongst the very best at-will controller powers in the game with WSG.

No, that was not my meaning. As for your argument, your position was that this wizard spell was important enough to derail a discussion about sorcerer spells. (That's not just moving goalposts; it's switching fields--Kanye West style.) Very well, my fault for assuming that you'd hijack the discussion for anything less than the capstone of wizardly achievement, and for going along with it for this long.

Now if your point had been, "This spell is more in need of errata than the one you mentioned, and here's why," okay, I'm considering the point. Otherwise, I'd like to get back to the issue of the sorcerer at-will spells, particularly static charge.

[Surrealistik]

The relevance of all forms of forced movement are measured by terrain and the mobility of the instigating party. The advantage of a slide is most felt by instigators with no or very limited movement options. It's a useful backup for desperate times, sure, but otherwise tends to be superfluous.

Again, you fail to even attempt to quantify the advantage of push squares over others, always retreating to nebulous, unproven accusations of 'desperation' or exceptionalism. Again, you fail to actually acknowledge and counter the detailed points I've made in support of slide vis a vis push, and my assessment of its relative value.

The bottom line is that slide is _always_ optimal, and slide will _never_ feature wasted movement due to a target being obligated to move in undesired ways or not at all, whereas there are plenty of instances where push will either be subpar, pointless or wasted, especially when it comes to flanks and zone/trap/hazard/aura pinging, and it is further more prone to have its movement be wasted given the lack of directional control. Given that no arguments were actually and specifically levelled against my rationale, it continues to stand.




After scanning the thread, I don't see where I claimed the number. You're the one claiming it only becomes signficant at a difference of 2.5+ points. I see where I noted that the difference was comparable to the benefits of an Expertise feat, averaging out to a 2 point difference over any game that runs from level 1 to 30, or just 0.08 points higher than the average you cited, rather than the 0.58+ point difference you suggest. Should I instead have said that the difference against mobs was better than you'd get from an Expertise feat at heroic tier, roughly equal at paragon, and about 5% less at epic?

Sure, point out that this figure comes from the book most slanted in my favour. By all means, note again that is only the result of design errors. In return, let me draw your attention to the forest again: the total number of listings matters less than the total number of monsters. How often do you see four identical artillery or controllers accompanied by a single brute, skirmisher, or soldier?

Your math doesn't acknowledge that, and I don't feel like haggling over those numbers any further.

The irony is that I _am_ looking at the forest in considering the _average_ difference between Fortitude and Will. If the most slanted book in the game with a systemic anti-Fortitude bias features a difference of less than 2, what chance is there of you being right when looking at the game as a whole? Zero to none.

By the way, the quote I'd deduced a differential of ~2.5 from:


The range tends to be about the same as you'd find between having an Expertise feat at paragon level and beyond and doing without it, so perhaps you are correct.

The differential of Expertise vs non-Expertise at Paragon is +2. At Epic +3. Averaging these out we get +2.5.

Further, I personally never stated a to-hit difference of +2.5 to be the threshold of relevance; even a difference of +1 is relevant; I simply disputed the ridiculous above magnitude of difference you asserted.



If you're going to make a challenge, you're responsible for your own work. If you don't want to do any work, it's irresponsible to attempt the challenge. If my assertions are as ridiculous as you claim, it's folly to give continue your argument against them beyond one statement.

No, that's not how it works. But I've humoured you, and referenced a comprehensive, damning sample.



And in some cases the wizard is unconscious, or the player has become allergic to peanuts, or the DM isn't being creative.

When the DMGs recommended the first rule of improv, it wasn't just meant to apply to the players.


Sure, it is: DM doesn't stand for Door Mat. The DM is expected to adapt, challenge, and improvise according to the situation. In cooperation with your players, the goal is to build an entertaining story toward its conclusion, not to indulge some Mary Sue's court. Some days enemies back off when you push them around like this. Some days they'll go so far as trying to bring the ceiling down on top of you. If this sort of thing is your standard strategy, it is your DM's responsibility to adapt to it without invalidating the strategy. Barrel-hunted fish don't offer a good steady diet.

It wasn't meant to screw over players making good use of their powers and tactics either. I take it you come up with 'creative' ways to invalidate the dominated and stunned conditions too? That said, it is actually quite likely that suitable improvised thrown weaponry cannot be found beyond one's own weapon.

Obviously no one expects you to be an utter prisoner to the RAW, fun is what matters, but there is nothing fun about having a tactically used at-will ruined by fiat.



This is only an issue if the enemy has a heavy shield, something most of your enemies don't have. Since it doesn't affect their AC or Reflex defense, about the only use it has is to point out enemies with higher than average Fortitude scores: brutes and soldiers. Skirmishers rarely have this problem, controllers tend to have a built-in ranged attack, and this isn't an issue for artillery at all.
The minor action is a commodity many monsters rarely get to spend anyway. If they have a regular opportunity to use this action but are out of range to do so, we're still not seeing a wasted action.
A look at the difference in the attack bonus for equal level opponents wielding swords and axes shows that proficiency bonuses don't apply to monster attacks. I may apply a penalty to the attack roll, if the party needs the break, but it's not required of me.
The expected enhancement bonus for a monster is innate to the monster. Only equipment superior to this level exceeds this. Now a 6th level orc a +3 battleaxe should see a dip in accuracy and damage when reduced to throwing shoes at you--because this opponent was already exceeding expectations for both.
Monster damage is based on level, not equipment used. I'd certainly scale brute damage down, and perhaps use the damage table for attacks affecting multiple targets most of the time. After all, the goal is to keep the party challenged, not to deny them any benefit from their actions.


Much of this was covered in the two DMGs.

Monster damage guidelines and to-hit are in actuality concerned with monster creation. There are no rules in place that specify that they are to be used in place of improvised weapon/attack rules.

As for most of the rest, yes, thank you for pointing out the specific instances in which the penalities I clearly stated as being 'potential' would not apply (btw, losing a minor _definitely_ sucks for most elites/solos).


That's true in general, but note the wording of the run action as listed in the Rules Compendium on page 248: "Speed +2: The creature moves its speed plus two additional squares."

Then go back to page 234, where the description of the slowed condition notes, "The creature cannot benefit from bonuses to speed, although it can use powers and take actions, such as the run action, that allow it to move farther than its speed."

That "speed +x" is not a bonus, unless stated otherwise.


It's speed + 2 = 4 as all non-teleportation move speeds are now 2 due to the slowed condition.


Even if your combat doesn't take place in 4 square wide corridors, two adjacent enemies that are both prone and slowed can still put more than six squares between them... at heavy cost, to be sure. Even a gathering of six enemies left slowed and prone (the sort of task best suited to a second wizard...or a sorcerer) can spread out enough so that you'll have no more than two targets for a second attempt.

If you don't knock all of your enemies down, they will spread out. If you do knock them all down, you aren't focusing fire. Fair deal either way, but you still have to choose, just as both you can't use the properties of the architect's staff and the orb of forceful magic at the same time.

The power doesn't need AS or OoFM to be top tier. Orb Expertise alone is good enough. Personally I use it on a wizard which features the Orb of Heightened Imposition, and it shuts mobs down admirably.

Keep in mind that enemies have to be smart enough to know to immediately run and spread besides in the first place.

Further, it generally works like this; you use a power that immobilizes then you follow up. That said, even in the event of a slide 3 + slow without Prone, when enemies try their best to spread out, you generally will net at least 2-3 (they can move 4 squares apart at most assuming they start together and have enough space to move a full 2 squares in opposite directions after standing) unless running is involved, in which case I hope they enjoy their -5 to hit, and CA in addition to not doing anything for a turn. Mission accomplished.


While that merits consideration, does the wizard lack encounter powers that are also good at discouraging those same enemies from spreading out?

Naw, but the problem with encounter powers is that there are precious few which offer both AoE control and eminently controllable (teleportation or slide) forced movement.


Isn't the standard for new powers identical to your house rule, with a limit of one application of damage per turn?

The problem is that there are still tons of powers where ping ponging still works with brutal efficiency.


So... because you can do this well, it's all you should do and no one else should ever dabble in it?

Players should obviously do whatever they find most fun obviously. Doing pretty much pure control (which includes minion sweeping) I find fun. That said, the controller should never _rely_ on his non-controller teammates to do his job and apply forced movement. That's just ridiculous.


Giving enemies a round to spread out (barring use of minor action attacks and action points) seems a tad impractical here. I suppose it will have to do if you can't persuade an ally to take the feat, but your controller isn't the optimal choice for it.

Lol, wut? The Wizard isn't an optimal choice for World Serpent's Grasp? Y'know the class that features some of the strongest slowing/immobilizing powers in the game? There is probably no single better class out there. Further, you're making the assumption that your opening powers don't prevent, impede or even reverse spread (which they almost certainly do).


You claim that hitting every creature targeted 65% of the time is the same as rendering 65% of mobs incapable of what you define as meaningful actions, where I assume you meant for the CQC aside to indicate the bar for your definition of meaningful.

Don't get me wrong. I accept that you did run the numbers and pull up this result. What I'm not seeing is where you think meaning ends in the stat block.

No. That's not what I claimed at all. The math looks at the average # of turns effectively denied assuming an average # of targets, and that you specifically target at least one creature who would be denied a turn, with the other targets each having a 65% chance of being CQC (and therefore denied a turn on hit).

The actual odds of hitting are assumed at 70-80% averaged to 75%.

In otherwords, we are looking at the overall, and average expected effective turn denial when we consider expected accuracy, target counts and the body of official mobs as a whole.


No, that was not my meaning. As for your argument, your position was that this wizard spell was important enough to derail a discussion about sorcerer spells. (That's not just moving goalposts; it's switching fields--Kanye West style.) Very well, my fault for assuming that you'd hijack the discussion for anything less than the capstone of wizardly achievement, and for going along with it for this long.

Now if your point had been, "This spell is more in need of errata than the one you mentioned, and here's why," okay, I'm considering the point. Otherwise, I'd like to get back to the issue of the sorcerer at-will spells, particularly static charge.

My point is that it is ridiculous to complain about what is a complete non-issue, passable power when the best controller in the game also ended up enjoying one of the best controller at-wills in the game in the same book.

To address your original question btw, the answer is as simple as probably never.