PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Why both the Warlock and Wizard?



Aahz
2008-06-24, 07:40 PM
To start with, though I haven't actually played a session yet, I like the 4e rules. With some exceptions, of course...

I was always bugged by the silly duplication of arcane casters in 3e into Wizards and Sorcerors. I know what the difference was, but IMO it was a pointless one. Pick one or the other and include it in the core game; if you want more classes, put it in an add-on.

So now in 4e the Sorceror is gone but instead we have the Warlock. What's the point? Was it really that necessary to have another arcane caster?

Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric--all of these you know pretty easily what they are just based on their name. There's a clear distinction between each one of them. What's the semantic difference in English between a Warlock, a Wizard, and a Sorceror? Nothing, really. Picking distinctions like "one casts without a spellbook" or "one makes demonic pacts" is silly for the core rules. The core classes and races should be simple and straightforward and obvious.

Which is also why I don't like Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings in the core rules. Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, these will all fit in nearly any fantasy setting. Dragonborn seem like something you'd find in a custom setting like Eberron. In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

I guess I just like simplicity.

Goober4473
2008-06-24, 07:47 PM
Warlocks are pretty differant from wizards. A lot moreso than wizards and sorcerers in 3.x. There are two divine classes, and four martial classes. Why not two arcane classes? Rogues and rangers are probably about as distinct as warlocks and wizards.

The races are just for the spice of something new, which I encourage. Remember that back in the day, most people thought of little people that work for Santa when they thought of elves, and dwarves were at best midgets. Orc was a nonsense word to msot people until Lord of the Rings made it popular. I think the new races pretty well mark 4.0 as something new. Not just like every fantasy game ever.

RTGoodman
2008-06-24, 07:49 PM
Wizards and Warlocks have completely different roles. Wizards are Arcane Controllers, meaning their focus is on crowd-control, battlefield-wide powers, and stuff like that. Warlocks are Arcane Strikers, focusing on tons of damage and/or status effect against one target. Completely different roles and playstyles.

Regarding Dragonborn and Tieflings, if you don't like them, don't play them and/or don't let them in your campaign. It's not going to make a big difference.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-06-24, 07:55 PM
Why do they have so many martial and divine characters? Let's just have fighters, clerics, and wizards, nothing else is necessary.

For completely different reasons though, I agree that they shouldn't have put warlock into the first book. Right now we have two defenders, two leaders, three strikes, and only one controller. Does anyone else sense an imbalance in the Force?

The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

Goober4473
2008-06-24, 07:59 PM
I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

Daracaex
2008-06-24, 08:28 PM
In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

Warforged are already in the 4E base books. :smallwink:

monty
2008-06-24, 08:35 PM
I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

Meh, I think it's more fun to buff the BSF into the stratosphere and watch the DM's eyes widen as he starts adding up the damage. Why do the job yourself when you can get some idiot to do it for you?

Indon
2008-06-24, 08:37 PM
Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric--all of these you know pretty easily what they are just based on their name. There's a clear distinction between each one of them. What's the semantic difference in English between a Warlock, a Wizard, and a Sorceror? Nothing, really.

Paladin - special guard for Charlemagne?

Ranger - Special Forces?

Both sound like fighters to me.

erikun
2008-06-24, 08:47 PM
A fighter sounds more like someone who should be getting into fistfights that swinging a sword - that's a warrior's job, or maybe a warlord's. A rogue is just someone who likes to get into trouble, and a ranger is the guy who makes sure bike paths are kept clear in parks. I think you're not saying "Warlock and Wizard are too similar" as much as "Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are classic D&D classes". I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just pointing out that "fighter" doesn't mean a sword swinging, knight in shining armor to everyone.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-24, 10:40 PM
Why do they have so many martial and divine characters? Let's just have fighters, clerics, and wizards, nothing else is necessary.

When I first read the thread I was going to post something along those lines, myself. Really, martial characters are the main focus of the book; half of the classes (4 of 8) are martial. This is especially interesting when you take into consideration that the first 4e class splatbook will also focus on martial characters (perhaps because they already have such a large foundation to build off).


For completely different reasons though, I agree that they shouldn't have put warlock into the first book. Right now we have two defenders, two leaders, three strikes, and only one controller. Does anyone else sense an imbalance in the Force?

The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

No, having two arcane controllers would have been redundant1, especially when the wizard and sorcerer, in 3.5, have virtually identical spell lists. They held off on making the sorcerer for now so they could figure out a way to re-work it so it doesn't end up being the wizard's red-headed step-child like it is in 3.X. I'd expect it'll make an appearance when WotC gets around to making the Elemental power source book. I'd expect the sorcerer to be the elemental power-source striker. The 'summoner' (or something like that) will be the elemental controller.

The warlock was probably included because it seemed an obvious fit for the arcane striker slot.

Maybe it's just opinion, but I see the controller role to be the hardest one of the four to balance, which is likely part of the reason why WotC only released one - they'll publish more when they puzzle out how to make more of 'em. :smallwink:


I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

I couldn't agree more2. The bard would have been a much better class to include than the warlord, for a variety of reasons. However, I appreciate WotC not including the bard in the hopes that they'll take their time and build the class so it doesn't suck when it's finally published.

1 We already have redundancy in the case of rogue and ranger both being martial strikers. Maybe a little redundancy like this is okay, but having 4 classes filling 2 roles may have been too much redundancy.
2 Although, the warlord isn't exactly a new class, just a re-named, 4e version of the 3.X marshal.

Mewtarthio
2008-06-24, 11:01 PM
When I first read the thread I was going to post something along those lines, myself. Really, martial characters are the main focus of the book; half of the classes (4 of 8) are martial. This is especially interesting when you take into consideration that the first 4e class splatbook will also focus on martial characters (perhaps because they already have such a large foundation to build off).

I imagine it's mostly the novelty of the concept. People have been designing arcane and divine spells for as long as DnD has existed, but the use of a similar system for martial abilities is a relatively new idea. I think that they just want to see how many creative ways they can make totally mundane fighters compare to wizards.

Crow
2008-06-24, 11:04 PM
I am really happy that they have a martial striker other than the rogue. If you're a rogue, you will only ever use light blades, because your powers won't work otherwise.

The ranger is nice for those who want a little versatility. I think they could have made Rogues and Rangers variants of one or the other though.

SmartAlec
2008-06-25, 03:34 AM
Paladin - special guard for Charlemagne?

Even with that definition, you've hit on it. A retainer to a powerful lord, and a protector and bodyguard? Sounds like a Defender/Leader to me. And that's just what the 4th Ed Paladin is!

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 07:13 AM
Which is also why I don't like Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings in the core rules. Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, these will all fit in nearly any fantasy setting. Dragonborn seem like something you'd find in a custom setting like Eberron. In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

I guess I just like simplicity.

You do realise that the *reason* that you get elves, half-elves and dwarves in "nearly any" Fantasy setting, is because those races were promoted as standard by ... well ... D&D.

(And before anybody says anything, yes of course I know they have their origins in Tolkein, but the modern incarnations of the "fantasy races" owe *far* more to D&D - often explicitly in the case of writers like Feist - than they do to the Don).

Jarlax
2008-06-25, 09:09 AM
The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

i disagree for two reasons

1) stripping out the draconic element of the class which evolved over the lifespan of 3.5 a core sorcerer is effectively a "wizard clone" that shares an identical spell list in 3.5, and that would not change in 4e. since we are already low on classes in core 4e it would not make sense to put in a class which is effectively identical to another. in fact that is the original premise of this thread.

2) the warlock fills a striker role, not controller. with its high popularity from 3.5 and its trademark eldritch blast it makes a logical choice as an arcane striker. it also has that similar fluff element to the sorcerers draconic heritage in the pacts element to its mechanics.


I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

the barbarian, bard and cleric have taken one for the team along with a slew of iconic monsters. if you listen to the D&D podcast you will be aware that many iconic monsters were purposely left out of the MM to be held for MMs 2+ to help reinforce that ALL MM's, ALL DMGs and ALL PHB's are going to be "Core" in 4e. including former core classes in PHB 2 and onward helps to reinforce this.

i encourage Wizards decision to include a mix of new and old classes and races in 4e. and they haven't done it on a whim, most of the new stuff represents some of the most popular non-core game elements from 3.5 like the Tiefling, the Dragonborn, the Warlock, the intergrated Scout element of the ranger and the more ToB feeling fighter.

Frost
2008-06-25, 10:15 AM
I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

I think the reason is that even though players hate dealing damage, controller's suck in 4e, and so WotC had a hard time finding ways to make interesting controller classes without actually letting them control. Not to mention everyone and their mother can just stunlock as well or better then a Wizard except the 1/encounter where a Wizard uses his orb.

Person_Man
2008-06-25, 12:27 PM
I think that this is just another case of crunch defeating fluff in 4E. As others have pointed out, mechanically Warlocks are quite different from Wizards. But thematically and semantically, there's not a huge difference between them, unless you're really into the internal history and fluff of D&D.

Of all of my criticisms of 4E though, this is the least of my worries. Virually every DM house rules fluff. The "default world" (formerly Greyhawk) was useful in that it gave new players a starting place. But after your first few campaigns, virtually everyone creates their own campaign world, or gravitates to the world that fits their style best (FR, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc).

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-25, 12:44 PM
Not different? A wizard is a person who spends years of his life studying old dusty tomes written by the races of old to acheive his magical abilities. A warlock gets his powers by making pacts with extreamly powerful beings, whose rituals could only be described as terrifying.

So lets see, a studier of old arcane tomes who casts spells through sheer intellect and knowledge, or a devil touched being who uses demonic powers with sheer force of will. Sounds different to me.

Using your definition, Paladin and Cleric would hardly be different at all. I mean, do we really need two people who get powers from the gods? Noooo.

I think your more holding on to old D&D icons.

Morty
2008-06-25, 12:52 PM
Using your definition, Paladin and Cleric would hardly be different at all. I mean, do we really need two people who get powers from the gods? Noooo.

Well, paladins and clerics are rather similiar to each other in both editions. They're people who whack stuff with the power of their gods, except the paladin is more about whacking and cleric is more about power of the god.


I think your more holding on to old D&D icons.

And this is wrong is exactly what way?

Crow
2008-06-25, 12:52 PM
Not different? A wizard is a person who spends years of his life studying old dusty tomes written by the races of old to acheive his magical abilities. A warlock gets his powers by making pacts with extreamly powerful beings, whose rituals could only be described as terrifying.

So lets see, a studier of old arcane tomes who casts spells through sheer intellect and knowledge, or a devil touched being who uses demonic powers with sheer force of will. Sounds different to me.

Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.

wodan46
2008-06-25, 05:23 PM
Warlocks serve a completely different role than Wizards. 1 is an Arcane Striker, the other an Arcane Controller.

Warlords was indeed an odd choice, but was done to emphasis that healing/supporting leader types can be martial.

Controllers are going to be a lot more common once PH2 and the other power sources show up. Controllers could include Druid(Primal), Sorcerer(Elemental), Psion(Psionics), Necromancer(Shadow). Bards are almost certainly Arcane Leaders, Monks Ki Strikers, and Barbarians Primal Defenders.

Controllers have probably been delayed cause they are the hardest to balance, and they wanted to see how the Wizard panned out first.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 05:26 PM
Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.

This is, in part, because powers in 4E tend to be mechanically similar. Wizards get more area effect, moving-people-around type spells, while Warlocks get more damagey, stunney spells.

The New Bruceski
2008-06-25, 06:35 PM
This is, in part, because powers in 4E tend to be mechanically similar. Wizards get more area effect, moving-people-around type spells, while Warlocks get more damagey, stunney spells.

And that's mechanically similar? I would say similar in format; they can vary quite a bit in effects.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 06:40 PM
And that's mechanically similar? I would say similar in format; they can vary quite a bit in effects.

It's mechanically similar compared to 3.X, in that they're all using the same powers model and the format is almost always "take X damage of [type] and [effect]". There's also the fact that 4E uses a more limited range of effects.

Personally, I like this. A lot of people think it's the work of Satan.

Talya
2008-06-25, 06:46 PM
Yes, because we all know what 4e needs is less choice and complexity. Yeah.

If you really want to complete the dumb-down from 3.5, you should only have one class. Each character in that class should only have one statistic. One feat. Since the powers all do the same thing, let's give them only one of each anyway. Let's remove all choice altogether. That will be perfectly balanced, and there won't be any of that pesky optimization. That'd make the game perfect.

Yakk
2008-06-25, 08:01 PM
Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.
*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

monty
2008-06-25, 09:01 PM
*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

I think Crow meant that their differences in fluff don't have anything to do with the differences in their powers.

Crow
2008-06-25, 10:03 PM
I think Crow meant that their differences in fluff don't have anything to do with the differences in their powers.

Thank you :smallwink:

Frost
2008-06-25, 10:19 PM
*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

Attribute vs Ref
Close Blast 5
4d8+Attribute damage, and push 3 squares

Attribute vs Reflex
Ranged 20
4d6+Attribute damage
Secondary attacks at two nearby targets
Attribute vs Reflex
2d6+Attribute damage

Which is which?

Rockphed
2008-06-25, 11:19 PM
At first glance, the first is a very Wizardy power, and the second is a Warlock power, however, you left off at least one bit of information. The second one is Chain Lightning, which has a Tertiary Effect against all enemies in range who were not targeted by the first two effects that deals 1d6 damage on a hit.

I have not been able to find the first power, but I suspect it is a warlock power just because you thought you were being sneaky. I suspected such from the beginning which is why I got out the book.

Frost
2008-06-25, 11:51 PM
At first glance, the first is a very Wizardy power, and the second is a Warlock power, however, you left off at least one bit of information. The second one is Chain Lightning, which has a Tertiary Effect against all enemies in range who were not targeted by the first two effects that deals 1d6 damage on a hit.

I have not been able to find the first power, but I suspect it is a warlock power just because you thought you were being sneaky. I suspected such from the beginning which is why I got out the book.

I believe that is the point. Wizard powers seem warlocky and warlock powers seem wizardly, and Laser Cleric Powers seem Wizardy and Warlocky, and pretty much anything could be mistaken for anything else because most any character that isn't martial has a wide assortment of area attacks, single target attacks, secondary target attacks, and can inflict nearly any status condition.

No character has a monopoly on any specific thing, and so to claim that you can differentiate powers based on class without first knowing all the powers each class has is silly.

If I told you my character could lockdown an enemy so that no one else could attack them, and they couldn't attack us, and they took damage each turn, am I a Warlock or a Cleric? If I have a spell that deals damage in an area and can be suspended with a minor action to keep doing damage, am I a Wizard, Cleric, Warlock? What? The answer is of course all three.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-26, 12:22 AM
Just looking at a Level 1 Wizard and a Level 1 Warlock, you can tell the difference.

The Wizard - cantrips, AOE spells, slows/sleeps people, makes parts of the map bad to go into, etc.

The Warlock - blasts single targets, blinds people, is nigh-invisible as long as he's moving, curses people, slides people around, sucks their hitpoints, etc.

They play completely oppositely: the Wizard looks to clump up targets, do damage to groups, controls space by keeping enemies away, and the like. The Warlock focuses on a single target, does all their damage and debuffs to that target, and controls his own space with mobility powers.

Frost
2008-06-26, 08:11 AM
I never thought I'd see the day, but 4th Edition seems to have created a new fallacy all it's own. For lack of a better name, I'll call it the level 1 Fallacy.

Not to pick on viking too much, this has been boiling for a long time. But everyone treats the game as if level 1 is the only level that exists.

There have been two play by post games that start at any level besides 1, one started at 2, the other was created by me. No one in this whole forum has ever played past level 10, and in every discussion people talk like level 1 is the only level that exists. Why did 29/30ths of the game just disappear? I mean, I know Epic sucks because WotC never intended anyone to actually play at that level, so they didn't playtest, or write any good material for it, but even in the Epic discussion thread, people talk about level 1 more then 21. And even though the Wizard and Warlock have nearly identical powers, people point to the differences at level 1 as how different they are. (I don't have any problem with the Warlock class, there are really only 4 styles of play, and they aren't the 4 core "roles" because Strikers and Controllers both have the same type of abilities.)

The New Bruceski
2008-06-26, 07:26 PM
I never thought I'd see the day, but 4th Edition seems to have created a new fallacy all it's own. For lack of a better name, I'll call it the level 1 Fallacy.

Not to pick on viking too much, this has been boiling for a long time. But everyone treats the game as if level 1 is the only level that exists.

There have been two play by post games that start at any level besides 1, one started at 2, the other was created by me. No one in this whole forum has ever played past level 10, and in every discussion people talk like level 1 is the only level that exists. Why did 29/30ths of the game just disappear? I mean, I know Epic sucks because WotC never intended anyone to actually play at that level, so they didn't playtest, or write any good material for it, but even in the Epic discussion thread, people talk about level 1 more then 21. And even though the Wizard and Warlock have nearly identical powers, people point to the differences at level 1 as how different they are. (I don't have any problem with the Warlock class, there are really only 4 styles of play, and they aren't the 4 core "roles" because Strikers and Controllers both have the same type of abilities.)
Fine. For purposes of this breakdown "controller" and "striker" abilities will be decided by me, based on whether I feel their intent is large damage against one target or small/no damage against many. Added effects that debilitate or move the enemy will probably put it into the Controller category.

Wizard:
Level 1:
3 controller 2 striker at-wills
3 controller 2 striker encounter
3 controller 1 striker dailies
Level 11:
Wall of Fog and Arcane Gate could be considered controller utility powers.
no new at-wills
4 controller 4 striker new encounter
6 controller 2 striker new dailies
Level 21:
No new at-wills
No new utilities of a definite type.
7 controller 1 striker new encounter
6 controller 2 striker dailies, and I have no idea how to count Prismatic Beams.
Note that all the Wizard abilities favor AoE effects.

Warlock:
Warlock's Curse is a definite Striker ability, extra damage against cursed targets.
Level 1:
I'd call it 4 striker at-wills, though Dire Radiance could be considered Controller.
4 striker encounter powers, Diabolic Grasp could be controller, but only one target.
1 striker 1 controller dailies, Curse of the Dark Dream could be a controller
Level 11:
Fey Switch could be considered a controller Utility.
5 striker 3 controller new encounters
5 striker 3 controller new dailies
Level 21:
No new Utility of any type
5 striker 2 controller new encounter
3 striker 2 controller new dailies, and 2 at level 19 I'm not sure how to quantify ("thrust into the star realm" I'd count as a controller, except it's simply MASSIVE damage.)

Note that most of the Warlock's abilities favor single-target attacks.

From this I conclude that it is not just at level 1 that Wizard and Warlock feel and play differently. Wizard favors AoEs, particularly ones that create obstacles or dangerous terrain. Warlock favors single-target burn, especially compounded with his curse. Most controller abilities for him affect only one target.

Each class has a bit of dip into some talents of the other role, but EVERY class has a dip into some talents of a role it doesn't major in.

Crow
2008-06-27, 12:12 AM
Wow that totally explains how their fluff ties into the mechanics! Thanks! I guess nobody who doesn't make pacts with powerful entities has ever bothered to try and damage just one guy.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 01:10 AM
I never thought I'd see the day, but 4th Edition seems to have created a new fallacy all it's own. For lack of a better name, I'll call it the level 1 Fallacy.

Not to pick on viking too much, this has been boiling for a long time. But everyone treats the game as if level 1 is the only level that exists.

Yes. everyone does that.

I would post the uber-rolleyes jpg (the one that is a huge rolleyes barfing a stream of smaller rolleyes) right now, but I don't feel like getting an Infraction over this.

Edea
2008-06-27, 01:41 AM
At first glance, the first is a very Wizardy power, and the second is a Warlock power, however, you left off at least one bit of information. The second one is Chain Lightning, which has a Tertiary Effect against all enemies in range who were not targeted by the first two effects that deals 1d6 damage on a hit.

I have not been able to find the first power, but I suspect it is a warlock power just because you thought you were being sneaky. I suspected such from the beginning which is why I got out the book.


I believe the first power is Spiteful Darts (Warlock Encounter 23).

The second is indeed closest to Chain Lightning. I wonder why Thunderclap wasn't used instead?

Frost
2008-06-27, 01:55 AM
Yes. everyone does that.

I would post the uber-rolleyes jpg (the one that is a huge rolleyes barfing a stream of smaller rolleyes) right now, but I don't feel like getting an Infraction over this.

You know what, you are right. I should go jump off a cliff right now. How dare I use hyperbole! And look more closely, I also claimed that, "No one in this whole forum has ever played past level 10." Even though I have claimed previously that I myself have played past level 10. I can feel myself being sucked into a timespace vortex as I type this, I have ceased to exist on this forum do to my own claims and fluctuate in and out of reality annihilating myself and then recreaeting myself from the very fabric of time!

Please Saaaavvveee MEEEEEEEE! AAHHHHHHH!

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 02:05 AM
You know what, you are right. I should go jump off a cliff right now. How dare I use hyperbole! And look more closely, I also claimed that, "No one in this whole forum has ever played past level 10." Even though I have claimed previously that I myself have played past level 10.

I can't account for every nonsensical/nonfactual comment you make on the forums, obviously. Please try to keep it to a minimum in the future.


I can feel myself being sucked into a timespace vortex as I type this, I have ceased to exist on this forum do to my own claims and fluctuate in and out of reality annihilating myself and then recreaeting myself from the very fabric of time!

Kind of like reaching the 10th level of Dragon Disciple in 3e.


Please Saaaavvveee MEEEEEEEE! AAHHHHHHH!

Stop the theatrics, please.

Hawriel
2008-06-27, 02:08 AM
why not just get rid of the warlock (or wizard) and have one class able to choose between eather power set? You can be blaster or controler or do a little of both. Come to think of it. just get rid of the warlock, there is nothing in its fluff that you cant just call backstory or RP choicess for the wizard later in life.

Helgraf
2008-06-27, 02:13 AM
Wow that totally explains how their fluff ties into the mechanics! Thanks! I guess nobody who doesn't make pacts with powerful entities has ever bothered to try and damage just one guy.

Ahh, snark. Like a saltine coated in tabasco sauce, but with less nutritional value.

Wizards have powers that hit single units, that's already been pointed out, so your over the top commentary has no bearing here.

Plugh.

Crow
2008-06-27, 02:45 AM
why not just get rid of the warlock (or wizard) and have one class able to choose between eather power set? You can be blaster or controler or do a little of both. Come to think of it. just get rid of the warlock, there is nothing in its fluff that you cant just call backstory or RP choicess for the wizard later in life.

This imho would have been a better way to do things.

Rockphed
2008-06-27, 02:50 AM
Because then you end up with batman, and there are several overlapping but worse powers. Compare Magic Missile to Eldrich Blast.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 02:52 AM
why not just get rid of the warlock (or wizard) and have one class able to choose between eather power set? You can be blaster or controler or do a little of both.

Warlock/Wizard or Wizard/Warlock accomplishes this already.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 02:57 AM
why not just get rid of the warlock (or wizard) and have one class able to choose between eather power set? You can be blaster or controler or do a little of both. Come to think of it. just get rid of the warlock, there is nothing in its fluff that you cant just call backstory or RP choicess for the wizard later in life.

But Warlocks really are hugely different from wizards. Pacts, people, Pacts. These include a curse that allows you to do extra damage, and a Pact-specific effect that is triggered on killing someone. Believe you me, a Fey Pact Warlock that is dancing around the battlefield plays much different than an Infernal Warlock slogging up front, riding a cushion of temporary HP. Neither of those are wizards - heck, even the Astral Warlock (who has a lame, yet possibly exploitable Pact bonus) is going to be cursing and sucking souls like everyone else.

Wizards though? No curses, no special effects for killing folks... they just sit back and manage the battlefield. They're interested in maintaining zones, pegging uppity baddies with Rays of Frost so that they can be swarmed by meatshields, and generally picking off stragglers.

I'm frankly surprised that people could confuse the two, considering the unique powers each get (like Shadow Walk and Cantrips!) which seriously impact their play. I suppose you could collapse them into one class, but why the hell would you? Did the PHB include too many classes for you or something?

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 03:01 AM
But Warlocks really are hugely different from wizards. Pacts, people, Pacts. These include a curse that allows you to do extra damage, and a Pact-specific effect that is triggered on killing someone. Believe you me, a Fey Pact Warlock that is dancing around the battlefield plays much different than an Infernal Warlock slogging up front, riding a cushion of temporary HP. Neither of those are wizards - heck, even the Astral Warlock (who has a lame, yet possibly exploitable Pact bonus) is going to be cursing and sucking souls like everyone else.

Wizards though? No curses, no special effects for killing folks... they just sit back and manage the battlefield. They're interested in maintaining zones, pegging uppity baddies with Rays of Frost so that they can be swarmed by meatshields, and generally picking off stragglers.

I'm frankly surprised that people could confuse the two, considering the unique powers each get (like Shadow Walk and Cantrips!) which seriously impact their play. I suppose you could collapse them into one class, but why the hell would you? Did the PHB include too many classes for you or something?

I couldn't agree more. Warlocks and Wizards play completely differently.

There's quite arguably more similarity between Warlocks and [Cha] Paladins than there is between Warlocks and Wizards, for pete's sake.

Starsinger
2008-06-27, 03:42 AM
Or Charisma Paladins and Laser Clerics. Or Melee Clerics and Strength Paladins. I mean gosh! Why not just make one class called "Divine Servitor" and have you pick from any prayer?


Because there's a difference.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-27, 10:37 AM
I never thought I'd see the day, but 4th Edition seems to have created a new fallacy all it's own. For lack of a better name, I'll call it the level 1 Fallacy.

Not to pick on viking too much, this has been boiling for a long time. But everyone treats the game as if level 1 is the only level that exists.

There have been two play by post games that start at any level besides 1, one started at 2, the other was created by me. No one in this whole forum has ever played past level 10, and in every discussion people talk like level 1 is the only level that exists. Why did 29/30ths of the game just disappear? I mean, I know Epic sucks because WotC never intended anyone to actually play at that level, so they didn't playtest, or write any good material for it, but even in the Epic discussion thread, people talk about level 1 more then 21. And even though the Wizard and Warlock have nearly identical powers, people point to the differences at level 1 as how different they are. (I don't have any problem with the Warlock class, there are really only 4 styles of play, and they aren't the 4 core "roles" because Strikers and Controllers both have the same type of abilities.)

Granted, it's been a while since I took Logic and Rhetoric, but I don't see a fallacy here. Level 1 is used as a baseline, nothing less, any other level would work as well, but a comparison would be more complicated, due to the number of powers and the like involved.

And I'll post later as to what the Warlock and Wizard look like at levels 11 and 21 just to prove my point.

Frost
2008-06-27, 11:13 AM
Granted, it's been a while since I took Logic and Rhetoric, but I don't see a fallacy here. Level 1 is used as a baseline, nothing less, any other level would work as well, but a comparison would be more complicated, due to the number of powers and the like involved.

And I'll post later as to what the Warlock and Wizard look like at levels 11 and 21 just to prove my point.

My point being this is a direct counterpoint to 3.5 arguing about level 20 and ignoring every other level. Level 1 isn't being used as a baseline, it is the only thing anyone knows or cares about, it's the reason people talk about not needing to at-will grind for 20 rounds, even though you absolutely have to after level 10.

Yes level 1 Warlocks and Wizards are different, that doesn't change that every single character after level 15 does the exact same thing, stuns the enemy for one or two turns while everyone else wails away with at-wills.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 11:24 AM
My point being this is a direct counterpoint to 3.5 arguing about level 20 and ignoring every other level. Level 1 isn't being used as a baseline, it is the only thing anyone knows or cares about, it's the reason people talk about not needing to at-will grind for 20 rounds, even though you absolutely have to after level 10.

Yes level 1 Warlocks and Wizards are different, that doesn't change that every single character after level 15 does the exact same thing, stuns the enemy for one or two turns while everyone else wails away with at-wills.

That hasn't been my experience, so no need to make blanket statements about the post level 10 game.

Demonix
2008-06-27, 11:33 AM
Attribute vs Ref
Close Blast 5
4d8+Attribute damage, and push 3 squares

Attribute vs Reflex
Ranged 20
4d6+Attribute damage
Secondary attacks at two nearby targets
Attribute vs Reflex
2d6+Attribute damage

Which is which?

Didnt read the whole thread before responding, but here are my answers:

First one is a wizard power: it is area of effect (to take care of minion swarms) and it manipulates the enemy position on the battlefield (hence, controller)

The second one is a warlock power: it is a specifically targeted attack, with the secondary attacks able to be directed at other nearby targets. (striker)

Still, there is more to a character than their stats. even if warlock and wizard are more or less the same, you can make them unique in the way you play them.

The New Bruceski
2008-06-27, 11:49 AM
Yes level 1 Warlocks and Wizards are different, that doesn't change that every single character after level 15 does the exact same thing, stuns the enemy for one or two turns while everyone else wails away with at-wills.
You're doing it wrong.

The New Bruceski
2008-06-27, 12:02 PM
Didnt read the whole thread before responding, but here are my answers:

First one is a wizard power: it is area of effect (to take care of minion swarms) and it manipulates the enemy position on the battlefield (hence, controller)

The second one is a warlock power: it is a specifically targeted attack, with the secondary attacks able to be directed at other nearby targets. (striker)

Still, there is more to a character than their stats. even if warlock and wizard are more or less the same, you can make them unique in the way you play them.

Good intuition, except that Frost intentionally picked spells to mislead. They are the level 23 spells Chain Lightning and Spiteful Darts, though Chain Lightning had it's tertiary effect removed because that makes it also an AoE (any enemies in 20 squares who you didn't target for bigger damage take 1d6+int damage). Frost couldn't be fair here. Chain Lightning is actually an excellent example of a Wizard-flavor striker spell; less damage than warlock striker spells (all warlock ones at 23 are comparable damage BUT +3d6 vs cursed targets (any target will be) and an interesting debuff as well.) but a very large AoE of less damage to other enemies.

But hey, who needs to be fair? This is the internet, we can make any claims we want and we're automatically right!

Frost
2008-06-27, 12:02 PM
You're doing it wrong.

No I'm not. Never letting your enemies take actions is the way to win, period.

You don't have enough encounter and daily powers to actually finish encounters using them, so you are much better off, just stunning every enemy for 1-2 rounds, and having everyone else use at-wills. Then you start over again. You hardly ever take damage, you enemies rarely even get turns, and you finish the fight with most of your dailies left and all you encounters gone.

The only other way is to spam as many damaging encounter/dailes as possible, and then when you run out of all of them, you start spamming at-wills for the next 10-20 rounds to finish them off. Or you can take advantage of the Infernal Lock Draconian to Intimidate all your opponents to run away as soon as they hit bloodied, but then you face the same encounter over a hundred times as they keep coming back.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 12:03 PM
But hey, who needs to be fair? This is the internet, we can make any claims we want and we're automatically right!

I'm the new King of Canada. :smallbiggrin:

Frost
2008-06-27, 12:08 PM
Good intuition, except that Frost intentionally picked spells to mislead. They are the level 23 spells Chain Lightning and Spiteful Darts, though Chain Lightning had it's tertiary effect removed because that makes it also an AoE (any enemies in 20 squares who you didn't target for bigger damage take 1d6+int damage). Frost couldn't be fair here. Chain Lightning is actually an excellent example of a Wizard-flavor striker spell; less damage than warlock striker spells (all warlock ones at 23 are comparable damage BUT +3d6 vs cursed targets (any target will be) and an interesting debuff as well.) but a very large AoE of less damage to other enemies.

But hey, who needs to be fair? This is the internet, we can make any claims we want and we're automatically right!

Or I could have presented the Wizard striking power and the Warlock control power to demonstrate my point that both characters have both abilities in about the same amounts.

And as for "unfairly removing abilities to be deceptive" I removed the Pact part of the Warlock power, and the Tertiary effect of Chain lightning specifically because they give away the answer without changing the fundamental nature of the ability. Warlocks and Wizards have nearly equal amounts of "striking" and "controlling" it's especially funny that you think doing more damage is somehow more controlly.

I can understand talking about Frost Cloud as control, it at least encourages enemies to not enter an area, but how does hitting a bunch more enemies with minor damage do anything but "strike" it certainly doesn't change any of their future actions in any conceivable way.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-27, 12:11 PM
My point being this is a direct counterpoint to 3.5 arguing about level 20 and ignoring every other level. Level 1 isn't being used as a baseline, it is the only thing anyone knows or cares about, it's the reason people talk about not needing to at-will grind for 20 rounds, even though you absolutely have to after level 10.

Yes level 1 Warlocks and Wizards are different, that doesn't change that every single character after level 15 does the exact same thing, stuns the enemy for one or two turns while everyone else wails away with at-wills.

I was using it as a baseline. I will soon provide baselines for levels 11 and 21.

And in general, your overuse of hyperbole makes it very hard to tell what is a good-faith argument and what is not. How about bolding the parts that you mean?

Vikingkingq
2008-06-27, 12:15 PM
No I'm not. Never letting your enemies take actions is the way to win, period.

You don't have enough encounter and daily powers to actually finish encounters using them, so you are much better off, just stunning every enemy for 1-2 rounds, and having everyone else use at-wills. Then you start over again. You hardly ever take damage, you enemies rarely even get turns, and you finish the fight with most of your dailies left and all you encounters gone.

The only other way is to spam as many damaging encounter/dailes as possible, and then when you run out of all of them, you start spamming at-wills for the next 10-20 rounds to finish them off. Or you can take advantage of the Infernal Lock Draconian to Intimidate all your opponents to run away as soon as they hit bloodied, but then you face the same encounter over a hundred times as they keep coming back.

That's an epicly poor way to play. Stuns are not reliable nor plentiful enough for this to work.

In general, spamming is also a poor way to go. Why? Because abilities can chain off of eachother, so that there are specific combinations of attacks that are better than just spamming. Moreover, spamming ignores the critical team-based nature of abilities. On its own, a Rogue ability that lets you slide the target two squares isn't worth much - until you slide the target into range of the fighter who can mark it and prevent it from leaving his threatened area.

Yakk
2008-06-27, 01:35 PM
Or I could have presented the Wizard striking power and the Warlock control power to demonstrate my point that both characters have both abilities in about the same amounts.

And as for "unfairly removing abilities to be deceptive" I removed the Pact part of the Warlock power, and the Tertiary effect of Chain lightning specifically because they give away the answer without changing the fundamental nature of the ability. Warlocks and Wizards have nearly equal amounts of "striking" and "controlling" it's especially funny that you think doing more damage is somehow more controlly.

No, you lied. The area effect of the Wizard power changes the characteristics of the power significantly.

The pact? Sure -- if you aren't a member of that pact, the power doesn't have that feature. So give the with-pact or without-pact version, either is fair.

The level, and encounter-vs-daily-vs-at-will, nature of the powers would have also been "fair", as strikers and controllers have different tendencies.

In any case, skipping "and does damage to every other enemy within 20 squares" is blatant dishonesty. Have a nice life. :)


I can understand talking about Frost Cloud as control, it at least encourages enemies to not enter an area, but how does hitting a bunch more enemies with minor damage do anything but "strike" it certainly doesn't change any of their future actions in any conceivable way.

You don't seem to understand that "strike" in 4e refers to killing one target dead, while "control" implies dealing with many different targets at once.

Wizard is Control sub Striker.
Warlock is Striker sub Controller.

One should expect that the Striker powers of Warlocks are more powerful and more common at the same level compared to a Wizard. And similar for the Control powers of Wizards compared to Warlocks.

Frost
2008-06-27, 01:44 PM
That's an epicly poor way to play. Stuns are not reliable nor plentiful enough for this to work.

In general, spamming is also a poor way to go. Why? Because abilities can chain off of eachother, so that there are specific combinations of attacks that are better than just spamming. Moreover, spamming ignores the critical team-based nature of abilities. On its own, a Rogue ability that lets you slide the target two squares isn't worth much - until you slide the target into range of the fighter who can mark it and prevent it from leaving his threatened area.

You really aren't paying attention: It's either stuns or spamming, you don't have a choice, if you spamming your at-wills is what happens after you run out of everything else, that's inevitable in this game.

Stuns are easily replaced with immobilization, daze, ect. Anything to prevent them form getting to attack you. By level 15 you should have all stuns/immobilize/prone/daze powers for encounters and dailies. Then you face a bunch of enemies and you throw out your stun and slow and immobilize attacks so they can't close or attack, and the once the first two characters have stunned everyone, everyone else uses their pretty little at wills to do as much damage as possible. Then you rotate out who uses the stuns until half the enemies are dead, then you just throw whatever you want around because most enemies are dead and it's a foregone conclusion.

The New Bruceski
2008-06-27, 01:51 PM
You really aren't paying attention: It's either stuns or spamming, you don't have a choice, if you spamming your at-wills is what happens after you run out of everything else, that's inevitable in this game.

Stuns are easily replaced with immobilization, daze, ect. Anything to prevent them form getting to attack you. By level 15 you should have all stuns/immobilize/prone/daze powers for encounters and dailies. Then you face a bunch of enemies and you throw out your stun and slow and immobilize attacks so they can't close or attack, and the once the first two characters have stunned everyone, everyone else uses their pretty little at wills to do as much damage as possible. Then you rotate out who uses the stuns until half the enemies are dead, then you just throw whatever you want around because most enemies are dead and it's a foregone conclusion.
And in 3.x you throw out a save-or-die or save-or-suck and do the same. Was there a point to your argument?

Crow
2008-06-27, 01:52 PM
That's an epicly poor way to play. Stuns are not reliable nor plentiful enough for this to work.

In general, spamming is also a poor way to go. Why? Because abilities can chain off of eachother, so that there are specific combinations of attacks that are better than just spamming. Moreover, spamming ignores the critical team-based nature of abilities. On its own, a Rogue ability that lets you slide the target two squares isn't worth much - until you slide the target into range of the fighter who can mark it and prevent it from leaving his threatened area.

Stuns are plenty reliable, as long as you hit. You are guaranteed at least one round.

Still, it sounds like you haven't actually tried high level 4e combat (though I may be wrong), because every high level combat I have run has had a lot of At-Will spam. You just don't have enough powers, and if you blow your load on power chaining, your team ends up spamming even more At-Wills later that day if your group does more than one encounter per day. That said, many of the At-Wills do lend themselves to team tactics, so you don't entirely lose the team-based nature of combat. PC's still need to work together to defeat the enemy, even if they are spamming at-will powers.

Frost
2008-06-27, 01:54 PM
In any case, skipping "and does damage to every other enemy within 20 squares" is blatant dishonesty. Have a nice life. :)

And saying "attribute" instead of "Intelligence" is blatantly dishonest of me as well, and I defend that as well.

"Contorlling" is dealing damage to multiple enemies and not doing anything to, oh I don't know, "Control" their actions. Yeah suddenly I don't really care about your opinion on anything. I bet defending consists of damaging enemies in a defensive way to you.

No, controlling means effecting your enemies options, by forcibly taking them away or making some better then others, striking means doing damage. Both characters can do both things, in fact, all classes can do both things.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 01:55 PM
And saying "attribute" instead of "Intelligence" is blatantly dishonest of me as well, and I defend that as well.

"Contorlling" is dealing damage to multiple enemies and not doing anything to, oh I don't know, "Control" their actions. Yeah suddenly I don't really care about your opinion on anything. I bet defending consists of damaging enemies in a defensive way to you.

No, controlling means effecting your enemies options, by forcibly taking them away or making some better then others, striking means doing damage. Both characters can do both things, in fact, all classes can do both things.

Erm, no.


Role: Controller. You exert control through magical effects that cover large areas—sometimes hindering foes, sometimes consuming them with fire.

In fourth edition, control = aoe, wether it's damage or status effect.

Frost
2008-06-27, 02:00 PM
And in 3.x you throw out a save-or-die or save-or-suck and do the same. Was there a point to your argument?

I'm not arguing that it's a terrible travesty, or anything else, I'm just stating that that is what you do.

As for 3.5, you can easily defend against most save-ors both by a better save chance then the chance of your enemies missing in 4e, and by having immunity to it, since you can be immune to most of these things. However the fact that it is harder to land a stun (or at least that it requires a higher investiture of resources) is compensated for by increases durations.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-27, 03:24 PM
You really aren't paying attention: It's either stuns or spamming, you don't have a choice, if you spamming your at-wills is what happens after you run out of everything else, that's inevitable in this game.

Stuns are easily replaced with immobilization, daze, ect. Anything to prevent them form getting to attack you. By level 15 you should have all stuns/immobilize/prone/daze powers for encounters and dailies. Then you face a bunch of enemies and you throw out your stun and slow and immobilize attacks so they can't close or attack, and the once the first two characters have stunned everyone, everyone else uses their pretty little at wills to do as much damage as possible. Then you rotate out who uses the stuns until half the enemies are dead, then you just throw whatever you want around because most enemies are dead and it's a foregone conclusion.

That just doesn't work. Assuming you're fighting as many monsters as you have in the party (which is a conservative assumption, given minions), you're going to need to stun each of them or get wrecked. Now, there simply is no way to reliably stun/immobilize/prone/daze all those targets every round.

Vikingkingq
2008-06-27, 03:28 PM
Stuns are plenty reliable, as long as you hit. You are guaranteed at least one round.

Still, it sounds like you haven't actually tried high level 4e combat (though I may be wrong), because every high level combat I have run has had a lot of At-Will spam. You just don't have enough powers, and if you blow your load on power chaining, your team ends up spamming even more At-Wills later that day if your group does more than one encounter per day. That said, many of the At-Wills do lend themselves to team tactics, so you don't entirely lose the team-based nature of combat. PC's still need to work together to defeat the enemy, even if they are spamming at-will powers.

Hitting and saving, hitting and saving. Presuming that the monster doesn't have some sort of resistance or an interrupt ability to shake it off.

Really? So at level 15, with 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers, you shouldn't be using your at-will more than three rounds total, since most combats should last about 10 rounds. I just don't see that much spamming.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 03:49 PM
Also... page 16 of the PHB


Controller (Wizard)
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.

Frost
2008-06-27, 03:53 PM
That just doesn't work. Assuming you're fighting as many monsters as you have in the party (which is a conservative assumption, given minions), you're going to need to stun each of them or get wrecked. Now, there simply is no way to reliably stun/immobilize/prone/daze all those targets every round.

Yes there is, you just slap down some AoEs, not to mention that if minions are actually any serious source of enemies you kill them in the first round.

Wizard uses Mesmeric Strike, hits most or all, or uses Sleep, same thing. One left over gets Stunning Striked by the Rogue, then everyone attacks that character with at wills. Next turn someone else, like the Cleric stuns it, the Wizard keeps everyone else immobilized, or slows the few enemies that got out of the immobilization on the first save, or whatever depending on rolls. Then after the first enemy is pounded into submission, they move on and pick a new target.

Or you have all ranged characters and you can just beat on the group of immobilized enemies the whole time.


Hitting and saving, hitting and saving. Presuming that the monster doesn't have some sort of resistance or an interrupt ability to shake it off.

Really? So at level 15, with 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers, you shouldn't be using your at-will more than three rounds total, since most combats should last about 10 rounds. I just don't see that much spamming.

This might be your problem here, if you take the developers word for it, then sure everything works out perfectly, but if you play it, you'll see that no combat past level 15 actually lasts only ten rounds. If you use 1 daily, and all your encounters against a solo, and so does every single other member of your party, and you all hit on every single attack (not going to happen) then you do half his HP in damage. Then you get to churn at-wills until they do the same amount of damage as all your encounters and a daily, which is why it will certainly take more rounds to do that damage with your at-wills.

That's not 10 combat rounds, maybe you should look at the numbers before making such incredibly ridiculous numbers as 10 rounds up. (I know you took that right from the devs mouth, but the devs also only played and balanced level 1.)

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 04:23 PM
That's not 10 combat rounds, maybe you should look at the numbers before making such incredibly ridiculous numbers as 10 rounds up. (I know you took that right from the devs mouth, but the devs also only played and balanced level 1.)

You must be doing something wrong... all of our paragon level combats last between 5 and 8 rounds. Four of those are encounter powers, one or two dailies, depending on the fight... so this "at-will" spamming is hogwash.

That's right. I said Hogwash.

Crow
2008-06-27, 04:25 PM
Hitting and saving, hitting and saving. Presuming that the monster doesn't have some sort of resistance or an interrupt ability to shake it off.

Really? So at level 15, with 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers, you shouldn't be using your at-will more than three rounds total, since most combats should last about 10 rounds. I just don't see that much spamming.

Dude, most powers that inflict status effects inflict the status until they save. So you're going to eat up their one action most times anyways.

4 encounter powers and 3 dailies only accounts for 7 rounds of your hypothetical 10-round combat. So if you have only one encounter that day (BTW, very nice how you completely ignore my point about multiple encounters...very nice), then only 30% of your attacks are going to be At-Will powers. But after that, with all your dailies used up, you're still relying on At-Will powers 60% of the time in subsequent encounters.

*********************************************

Divorce this section from the reply above. I am just including this for the hell of it.

Suppose you run 4 encounters of 10 rounds average each;

3 daily powers
16 encounter powers
21 at-will powers

53% At-Will rate

53% is quite a bit, but we still use encounter powers quite a bit, which is why I place more value (as a player) in encounter powers rather than dailies. The 53% At-Will rate only climbs a little as you stack on more encounters, but if you stack on more rounds, as in the case of combats with solos and multiple elites (Having played some higher-level encounters, they do take a while to get down, especially if party members start falling), it climbs much faster.

12-round average encounter, 1 encounter

3 daily powers
4 encounter powers
5 at-will powers

42% At-Will rate

12-round encounter, 4 encounters

3 daily powers
16 encounter powers
29 at-will powers

60% At-Will rate

15-round average encounter, 1 encounter

3 daily powers
4 encounter powers
8 at-will powers

53% At-Will rate

15-round average encounter, 4 encounters

3 daily powers
16 encounter powers
41 at-will powers

68% At-Will rate

Our group ran one encounter (A big bad dragon) that lasted 23 rounds. To the system's credit, it only took about an hour and a half. The group had some poor luck with the dice. We were at level 25 (IIRC) for this, but let's suppose your CR15 group has poor luck with their dice against a similar opponent.

23-round encounter

3 daily powers
4 encounter powers
16 at-will powers

70% At-Will rate

So anyways, just throwing that out there...This is also dependent upon the makeup of the encounters you throw at the party. Minions are highly overvalued in experience points for building an encounter at higher levels.

Frost
2008-06-27, 05:17 PM
You must be doing something wrong... all of our paragon level combats last between 5 and 8 rounds. Four of those are encounter powers, one or two dailies, depending on the fight... so this "at-will" spamming is hogwash.

That's right. I said Hogwash.

Whoopdee do, I've beaten an entire encounter by myself in just one round, because our DM thought hordes of minions might be fun to try. Then he changed his mind and realized that fights that actually have some small percentage chance of us losing are better, and so he put us up against a solo, guess how long that took. Guess how many attacks were ever made against us.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 05:38 PM
Whoopdee do, I've beaten an entire encounter by myself in just one round, because our DM thought hordes of minions might be fun to try. Then he changed his mind and realized that fights that actually have some small percentage chance of us losing are better, and so he put us up against a solo, guess how long that took. Guess how many attacks were ever made against us.

Ah, okay, so your very limited experience is based off of your DM going from one extreme to the other instead of using the Encounter Templates suggested by the DMG, in which you have multiple roles of monsters and don't encounter Solo monsters all that often.

I don't need to "guess" how long it took or "guess" how many attacks were made against you, I've played and run the game myself and know how the combats run at nearly all the levels, very rarely do you have at-will spamming unless you've been stricken with bad rolls on all your other powers... or your DM is just being sadistic.

The_Werebear
2008-06-27, 06:31 PM
@ Crow

One thing that your math fails to take into account is movement. I have been in several encounters where much of what I did was getting into a position for a good strike, or setting up my allies. Standing in place and whaling on your foes doesn't work so well in this edition, as many of the monsters have ways to shift you into disadvantageous positioning. It also doesn't include the use of magic items or different combat abilities like grabbing or bull rushing.

Keep in mind that at-wills were added so you have at least some tactical ability choice beyond basic attacks. The fact that they get used more isn't bad.

Crow
2008-06-27, 06:40 PM
Let's be honest here; How much grabbing and bullrushing do most groups see? A majority of the time, you can move and still make an attack, and some movement is even included in many of the attacks. Feel free to take into account team members who never even see melee like the laser cleric or archery rangers.

But where did I say the at-will powers were bad?

Frost
2008-06-27, 07:04 PM
Ah, okay, so your very limited experience is based off of your DM going from one extreme to the other instead of using the Encounter Templates suggested by the DMG, in which you have multiple roles of monsters and don't encounter Solo monsters all that often.

I don't need to "guess" how long it took or "guess" how many attacks were made against you, I've played and run the game myself and know how the combats run at nearly all the levels, very rarely do you have at-will spamming unless you've been stricken with bad rolls on all your other powers... or your DM is just being sadistic.

No you apparently don't. I've run the DMG encounter guidelines. The result in the vast majority of your attacks being at-wills. Stop insulting my "limited knowledge" without any idea what it consists of, it isn't very limited at all.

The fact that you claim your encounters are usually ten rounds in length at levels where even 5 strikers physically cannot kill an encounter's worth of enemies in ten rounds makes me question your experience.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 07:13 PM
No you apparently don't. I've run the DMG encounter guidelines. The result in the vast majority of your attacks being at-wills. Stop insulting my "limited knowledge" without any idea what it consists of, it isn't very limited at all.

Yet you're insulting everyone else's? Yeah, well played.


The fact that you claim your encounters are usually ten rounds in length at levels where even 5 strikers physically cannot kill an encounter's worth of enemies in ten rounds makes me question your experience.

And the fact that you can't manage to run encounters properly makes me question yours.

Frost
2008-06-27, 07:51 PM
And the fact that you can't manage to run encounters properly makes me question yours.

See I don't know how you can keep saying this, what I am saying is:

X>Y where X is the Hp of your enemies and Y is the maximum amount of damage you can do in 10 rounds not counting blade cascade. It's not an issue of running poorly, it's genuinely being capable through any means of actually killing enemies.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-27, 08:01 PM
See I don't know how you can keep saying this, what I am saying is:

X>Y where X is the Hp of your enemies and Y is the maximum amount of damage you can do in 10 rounds not counting blade cascade. It's not an issue of running poorly, it's genuinely being capable through any means of actually killing enemies.

Again, that hasnt been my experience and you're doing something wrong, missing damage somewhere.

The New Bruceski
2008-06-27, 09:25 PM
Frost, did you forget to give the party magic items? That would be a major factor in +hit and damage, plus they give extra dailies and such.

I would be very interested in seeing your five strikers that cannot take down an encounter given no need to do anything but whale on them.

The_Werebear
2008-06-28, 01:41 AM
Let's be honest here; How much grabbing and bullrushing do most groups see? A majority of the time, you can move and still make an attack, and some movement is even included in many of the attacks. Feel free to take into account team members who never even see melee like the laser cleric or archery rangers.

But where did I say the at-will powers were bad?

Sorry, the second quasi-paragraph was aimed more at Frost.

Anyway, maybe I just have an off group, but we do a lot of random mucking about in combat like that. Not necessarily the specific actions like bull rushing, but we do our fair share of random maneuvers that make the DM weep.

Frost
2008-06-28, 08:10 AM
Frost, did you forget to give the party magic items? That would be a major factor in +hit and damage, plus they give extra dailies and such.

I would be very interested in seeing your five strikers that cannot take down an encounter given no need to do anything but whale on them.

I'm not talking about forgeting magic items, I;m not making some huge mistake here, it's mathematically impossible to do enough damage to finish encounters without using more at-wills then encounters.

An all striker party doesn't even have the math to do it, not that there is any such thing as an all striker party.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-28, 09:07 AM
I'm not talking about forgeting magic items, I;m not making some huge mistake here, it's mathematically impossible to do enough damage to finish encounters without using more at-wills then encounters.

An all striker party doesn't even have the math to do it, not that there is any such thing as an all striker party.

Maybe in your funny world of math not working.

I'm not gonna keep going... as this more than proves what I was saying.

First encounter in the MM


Level 17

Slime Mage: 128
Lasher: 200
Lasher: 200
9 Minions

Total Hp: 537

Level 17 Cleric
+6 Wisdom, +4 Implement

Encounter Powers
Enthrall: 2d10+10 in Burst 3 (hits all), Average 21 = 63 damage
Mantle of Glory: 2d10+10 blast 5 (hits all), Average 17 = 63 damage
Break The Spirit: 2d8+10 damage, Average 18 = 18 damage
Solar Wrath: 3d8+10 damage Close Burst 8 (hits all), average 22 = 66 damage

Total from Cleric Encounter: 210

So the cleric, who isn't even a striker, has nearly done half the required hp damage on average rolls. Sure, I picked the laser cleric with area of effect attacks... but that's what a laser cleric should be doing.

Care to tell me again that it's "mathematically" impossible? I -only- used encounter powers.

If you want, I'll fill out the party of 5 with a Fighter, Warlock, Ranger and Wizard and that encounter will probably be over using -only- encounter powers.

Edit:

Here's the fighter


Level 17 Fighter
+6 strength, +4 Vicious Maul, Power Attack, Weapon Focus

2d6+6+4+6+2 = 2d6+18 damage base

Encounter Powers
All Bets are off: 4d6+18 and 1d6+6 damage, averages of 32 and 9. Total: 41
Mountain Breaking Blow: 6d6+18 damage, average of 39
Anvil of Doom: 4d6+18 damage, average of 32
Sudden Surge: 4d6+18 damage, average of 32

Total: 144

Total of 354 damage done so far.

Wizard:


Level 17 Wizard
+6 Int, +4 Implement

Encounter Powers
Storm Cage: 4d6+10 damage, burst 2 (hits all). Average 24, total: 72 (Secondary effect of 10 damage adjacent to the wall or moving through the wall unaccounted for)
Force Volley: 3d6+10 damage, 3 targets (hits all), average 20.5, total: 61
Thunderlance: 4d6+10 damage, Close blast 5 (hits all), Average 24, total: 72
Fire burst: 3d6+10 damage, burst 2 (hits all), average 20.5, total: 61

Total Damage: 266

Damage so far: 620.

I've just ended that encounter using 4 rounds with only 3 characters. Sure, i assumed all the attacks hit at their most optimal... but a tactical player will ensure that happens.

At-Will Spamming: MYTH

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 09:13 AM
I've not followed this whole "spamming" discussion, but it strikes me that even if you *are* using your at-wills more than 50% of the time that's not "spamming".

Spamming, to me, is when you just use your best attack over and over again. If you do something else as little as one time in three, that's still not "spamming" IMO.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-28, 09:36 AM
Also, the level 17 "solo brute"... Elder White Dragon... 820 hit points.

With the 12 encounter powers listed above... I've given 232 damage to him. That still leaves nearly 600 hit points to plink through. Time to calculate how much a striker can do with 4 encounter powers.

Warlock and Rogue


Level 17 Warlock
+6 Con, +4 Int, +4 implement (+2d6 for curse)

Soul Scorch: 3d8+10+2d6 damage, average 23.5+6, total: 29
Warlock's Bargain: 3d10+10+2d6, average 26.5+6, total: 32
Soul Flaying: 2d8+14+2d6, average 22+6, total: 28
Infernal Moon Curse: 2d8+14+2d6, average 22+6, total: 28

Total: 117

Level 17 Rogue
+6 Dex, +4 Rapier (+3d6 sneak attack)

Cat Burglar's Gambit: 3d8+10+3d6, average 23.5 + 10.5, Total: 34
Hounding Strike: 3d8+10+3d6, average 23.5 + 10.5, Total: 34
Unbalancing Attack: 3d8+10+3d6, average 23.5 + 10.5, Total 34
Rogue's Luck: 2d8+10+1d8+10+3d6, Average 33.5 + 10.5, Total: 44

Total: 146

Total Damage: 495 damage.

That leaves our Solo Brute with 325 hit points, without using any at will powers. Each character would have 2 at-will, 4 encounter, 3 daily and 5 utility powers. Not including any racial or feat based powers that have been added.

I think you have been proven wrong, sir... and to that I say Good Day.

Frost
2008-06-28, 12:26 PM
Oh this is rich, you used an AoE character, (the best AoE damage character in the game mind you, might as well be a striker), assumed that every single attack hit every single enemy, and an encounter with 9 minions to claim that HP isn't that big a deal. I already said that minions really don't even count since any Cleric or Wizard can clear them all out in just one round.

Then, for even more fun, you assumed that when facing the Solo, your Laser cleric, and everyone else who hits multiple enemies, would hit the Solo 3 times per attack? Are you even trying to be honest?

Let's try this again with the solo, and not lying:

Cleric Encounters: 82 damage total
Fighter: 144 damage
Wizard: 89 damage
Rogue: 146
Warlock: 117
Total: 478 damage

So that's 3someodd Hp left for the at-wills.

How long do you think it takes to burn through 300hp with at wills? More or less time then 6 rounds?

So congratulations, if you hit on every single attack every single time with all your encounter powers, you still have 300 more HP to churn through with at-wills. And if god forbid you missed on half those attacks (even though you'd probably have missed on more then half against a solo) you are looking at not even bloodying it with all your encounter powers used up.

Thanks for proving me right. I didn't want to do the math again, since I had to do it before, but you proved me right for me.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-28, 12:28 PM
No, I didn't say the AoE hit the Solo 3 times. Read that again.

You came to the same total for the damage that I did. In fact, I added incorrectly... its actually closer to 600 damage



Cleric

Enthrall: 21
Mantle of Glory: 17
Break the Spirit: 18
Solar Wrath: 22

Fighter

All Bets are Off: 41
Mountain Breaking Blow: 39
Anvil of Doom: 32
Sudden Surge: 32

Wizard

Storm Cage: 24
Force Volley: 20
Thunderlance: 24
Fire Burst: 20

Warlock

Soul Scorch: 29
Warlock's Bargain: 32
Soul Flaying: 28
Infernal Moon Curse: 28

Rogue

Cat Burglar's Gambit: 34
Hounding Strike: 34
Unbalancing Attack: 34
Rogue's Luck: 44

Total:

21+17+18+22+41+39+32+32+24+20+24+20+29+32+28+28+34 +34+34+44 = 573

Which leaves a mere 237 hp to get through. Seeing as its a big dragon, you can expect to use 1 if not 2 daily powers... which at this level we're looking at... 4d10+wis (cleric), 2 attacks of 3[w]+str (fighter), 5[w]+str+dex and crit on a 17+ (Rogue, when the target is bloodied), 4d8+con and sustain minor for 2d8 (warlock), 6d6+int (wizard)....

Not to mention Opportunity Attacks, Free attacks/damage from marking, Auras, secondary effects from the Wizard Attacks. Also, on a critical, these characters all deal an additional 4d6 damage form their weapon/implement. 4d12 if its vicious.

Oh, and saying this:


Oh this is rich, you used an AoE character,

Proves that you're doing it wrong.
{Scrubbed.}

Frost
2008-06-28, 01:17 PM
Not to mention Opportunity Attacks, Free attacks/damage from marking, Auras, secondary effects from the Wizard Attacks. Also, on a critical, these characters all deal an additional 4d6 damage form their weapon/implement. 4d12 if its vicious.

That's great, you are still assuming you hit on every single attack, and you still don't kill it. How hard is this to understand, if you hit on every single attack, you still wouldn't kill it, since you hit on less then half your attacks, half your damage comes from at-wills, which means significantly more attacks.


Oh, and saying this:

Proves that you're doing it wrong.

You, sir, fail at fourth edition.

Yes, amazing how when you quote out of context you can insult me.

Yes, Lazer Clerics are good. No claiming that because a single Lazer Cleric can down an encounter of 20 minions on his own in 1-3 rounds doesn't prove anything.

1) You don't hit every enemy with every attack, sometimes enemies spread out and you don't get to hit them all.
2) If you have an encounter with 12 enemies, most minions and then claim that it means you don't need to at-will grind when you face real enemies like a group of 5 enemies, or 3 or a solo, yes you are being dishonest.

The fact is that even with maxed damage you still can't kill a solo even if all your attacks hit. They don't all hit. And then you get to grind away with your at-wills against the remaining 400hp.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-28, 02:41 PM
Yes, amazing how when you quote out of context you can insult me.

How was that out of context? You mocked me for using an AoE character, one of the best AoE characters in the game. You mocked me for being efficient? No, sir, THAT is rich.


2) If you have an encounter with 12 enemies, most minions and then claim that it means you don't need to at-will grind when you face real enemies like a group of 5 enemies, or 3 or a solo, yes you are being dishonest.

Do you even know how encounters in 4e work? You get a budget for XP based off of the standard level of monster for the party level. It doesnt matter WHAT the encounter is made up of, as long as you stick to your XP budget. 3 Monsters + 8 Minions = 5 Monsters = 1 Solo.



The fact is that even with maxed damage you still can't kill a solo even if all your attacks hit. They don't all hit. And then you get to grind away with your at-wills against the remaining 400hp.

As I said, you're doing it wrong and have given my evidence. Using an at-will three times isnt spamming... despite what you may want to believe.

I'm done debating this, you're not going to see it differently until you have a better experience playing. I'll go back to playing the game how its intended to be played and you can go back to having every encounter be against a Solo monster.

Have fun in your little world that you've made up.

Crow
2008-06-28, 02:47 PM
The game is obviously intended to be played only with optimized characters, otherwise you fail at 4th edition. :smallamused:

You two need to settle this in the Deathball Arena.

Frost
2008-06-28, 03:00 PM
How was that out of context? You mocked me for using an AoE character, one of the best AoE characters in the game. You mocked me for being efficient? No, sir, THAT is rich.

No, I insisted you were wrong for claiming that an AoE character against a horde of minions represented an average challenge, and that somehow means that at-will spam isn't needed in any encounters because you can kill a bunch of minions.


Do you even know how encounters in 4e work? You get a budget for XP based off of the standard level of monster for the party level. It doesnt matter WHAT the encounter is made up of, as long as you stick to your XP budget. 3 Monsters + 8 Minions = 5 Monsters = 1 Solo.

Yes, and the point is that you can spend that whole budget on minions and end the encounter in one round. Or you can spend it on a solo and use at-wills for 20 straight rounds. Or you can spend it on an elite and a few monsters and at-will for 10 rounds straight.


As I said, you're doing it wrong and have given my evidence. Using an at-will three times isnt spamming... despite what you may want to believe.

Using an at-will 3 times doesn't happen, using it 10 times does. Using it 20 times does. I'm not playing it wrong, you are if you hit on every single attack. And you are playing hilariously if you face hordes of minions all the time, thought I admit that is probably the best way to not get bored.

Roland St. Jude
2008-06-28, 04:01 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: That's about enough of the insulting tone and claiming to be insulted tone and all around unkindly manner. Please be friendly in here.

Frost
2008-06-28, 08:17 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: That's about enough of the insulting tone and claiming to be insulted tone and all around unkindly manner. Please be friendly in here.

You sir, {scrubbed}

Sequinox
2008-06-28, 09:19 PM
Feist

Would that be Raymond E Feist? If so, I'm just reading the serpentwar now...

And earlier someone mentioned that you could just take tieflings out of the game? Done already. Dragon born I might add in later... As a npc race.