Why the desintegrate nerf?

[Marcloure]

In my PHB, the 19th level Wizard's power Desintegrate deals 5d10 if it hits or 3d10 if misses. But in the Character Builder, it states that it deals 4d10 on hit or 2d10 on miss. Was this nerf really necessary? Back in the day, was this spell so dominant?

[Kurald Galain]

That was completely unnecessary; even as initially printed, disintegrate was one of the worst wizard spells for its entire tier. It gets the lowest possible rating in every handbook I can recall, and I've never seen any wizard use it.

[MwaO]

R&D(and players) consistently overestimates how useful ongoing damage is. Everyone remembers how they, playing a PC, missed 3 saves in a row. But very few people remember how the monster that might have missed 3 saves in a row actually ended up dying after the 1st missed save.

[Kurald Galain]

R&D(and players) consistently overestimates how useful ongoing damage is. Everyone remembers how they, playing a PC, missed 3 saves in a row. But very few people remember how the monster that might have missed 3 saves in a row actually ended up dying after the 1st missed save.

Yes, but even if you tripled its ongoing damage, it would still be a poor excuse for a spell. Why on earth would a controller need a single-target damage-only spell as a daily, anyway?

[MwaO]

Yes, but even if you tripled its ongoing damage, it would still be a poor excuse for a spell. Why on earth would a controller need a single-target damage-only spell as a daily, anyway?

Players under +10/round ongoing damage often do strange things. That's the soft control and presumably they thought DMs running monsters would do it as well.

But they don't because they typically have zero options to do anything about it other than make saving throws.

Not saying it was a smart decision. But these are the same people who think a 9W is a powerhouse melee daily attack and Twin Strike is an at-will...

[Kurald Galain]

Players under +10/round ongoing damage often do strange things.

That's a good point. PCs are supposed to have comparatively low HP and deal high damage, whereas monsters have high HP and deal low damage. So having both deal the same amount of ongoing damage was a design flaw.

[ThePurple]

That's a good point. PCs are supposed to have comparatively low HP and deal high damage, whereas monsters have high HP and deal low damage. So having both deal the same amount of ongoing damage was a design flaw.

I just treat ongoing damage as any other source of damage, subtracting an additional 50%, such that ongoing 10 damage is treated the same as 15 immediate damage. The ongoing damage is going to be *slightly* better on average, but that's the advantage you get for having your damage be delayed a bit.

Of course, PCs tend to avoid abilities that deal ongoing damage like the plague because the enemies that live long enough to actually see decent returns from ongoing damage (like elites and solos) have those rank driven bonuses to all saving throws that render them irrelevant so very quickly. I've houseruled those tweaks such that they *don't* apply to ongoing damage effects (but only if the entirety of the ongoing effect is the ongoing damage so the bonus applies to "ongoing 10 lightning and dazed" but not "ongoing 10 lightning"), but it's still not doing much to make those abilities more appealing.

[MwaO]

That's a good point. PCs are supposed to have comparatively low HP and deal high damage, whereas monsters have high HP and deal low damage. So having both deal the same amount of ongoing damage was a design flaw.

Right. But not just that. The other problem is that PCs have to outright die or save for ongoing to stop and monsters simply have to go below 0 or save for ongoing to stop.

Meaning it is a tactically good thing to keep focus firing the PC taking ongoing(and adds tension of 'uh oh!'). The leader just heals him and he can take even more. I've seen PCs take 50-60 ongoing damage that way occasionally.

If you're trying to disintegrate someone, you want them dead asap, and so no one is going to wait to see if your ongoing kills it. They're going to keep attacking it until it drops. And I've seen scenarios where a big helping of ongoing hit a target and it never had a chance to go off, because the rest of the PCs ended up killing it before its turn happened...

[stk3702]

Personnaaly I rarely pick power which has ongoing damages because I have a principile : "Enemies always succed their save rolls".

[Delicious Taffy]

Well, I'm glad I found this thread before I rolled up any wizards. Shouldn't a spell called "Disintegrate" basically be the Avada Kedavra spell in all but name?

[MwaO]

Well, I'm glad I found this thread before I rolled up any wizards. Shouldn't a spell called "Disintegrate" basically be the Avada Kedavra spell in all but name?

Wizards don't really do that in 4e. Sorcerers and Warlocks are the arcane strikers of 4e - and even then, insta-kill is hard for any of them to pull off with a single spell unless fighting a minion.

[ThePurple]

Shouldn't a spell called "Disintegrate" basically be the Avada Kedavra spell in all but name?

Avada Kedavra is more like Finger of Death, which is still comically underpowered in 4e (10d6 necrotic damage on a hit and an extra 20 if the target is bloodied by the attack and/or survives with 20 or fewer hp remaining). Disintegrate is *intended* to be a functional "destroy objects" spell too (e.g. disintegrate the wall) like the spell was in previous editions, but utility functions like that don't really translate well into combat powers as far as 4e is concerned.

Keep in mind that 4e was designed specifically to *avoid* "save or die" effects like Finger of Death has been in the past (and Avada Kedavra is presented as in the the HP universe). Sadly, while it's cool to have save or die effects in literature, they don't really *play* well in games since they place a *lot* of power on a single die roll. The closest I'd get to implementing something as "save or die" would be ongoing damage that lasts until the end of the encounter so it's less "save or die" and more "kill or die" (or, at most, against players, a "your character dies at the end of the encounter" effect so they at least get to finish off the fight).

Into the Unknown *does* add some Power Words, Wish, and a few other of the more obscene game breaking spells to 4e, but they're added as quest/story components rather than normal spells/abilities that players can actually elect to take as part of their builds, which makes a lot more sense when considering how they're used in narratives. They're basically treated as quest items or consumables with extremely specific applications.

[MwaO]

Keep in mind that 4e was designed specifically to *avoid* "save or die" effects like Finger of Death has been in the past (and Avada Kedavra is presented as in the the HP universe). Sadly, while it's cool to have save or die effects in literature, they don't really *play* well in games since they place a *lot* of power on a single die roll. The closest I'd get to implementing something as "save or die" would be ongoing damage that lasts until the end of the encounter so it's less "save or die" and more "kill or die" (or, at most, against players, a "your character dies at the end of the encounter" effect so they at least get to finish off the fight).

I'd also note that Avada Kedavra in HP doesn't see a lot of use in actual fights. It is more of a 'hahaha, now that I've defeated you, you will die painfully and slowly.' spell.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, I'm glad I found this thread before I rolled up any wizards. Shouldn't a spell called "Disintegrate" basically be the Avada Kedavra spell in all but name?

Yes, but one-hit-you're-dead is more like what strikers do in 4E.

The wizard is more about weakening, dazing, or blinding half of the battlefield all at the same time.

[georgie_leech]

I'd also note that Avada Kedavra in HP doesn't see a lot of use in actual fights. It is more of a 'hahaha, now that I've defeated you, you will die painfully and slowly.' spell.

Seems a bit weird to use an instant, unblockable, 100% effective spell for that purpose. Are you sure you're not thinking of one of the torture spells?

[MwaO]

Seems a bit weird to use an instant, unblockable, 100% effective spell for that purpose. Are you sure you're not thinking of one of the torture spells?

I'm both slightly confused and not?

Just in general, it doesn't get used in combat except by 'high CR opponents' such as Voldemort and Lestrange and one other death eater(who actually gets defeated rather easily in the cafe)

Usually blasting away seems a better choice, even for the death eaters.

[Yakk]

I could imagine a fun disintegration ray controller spell.

Ray of Disintegration + Daily Ranged Spell Attack
Evocation, Implement
Range: 10
Target: One creature or object.
Attack: Int vs Fortitude
Hit: 1d10+Int damage. If this reduces the target below its blooded value (half max HP for objects), the creature must make an immediate save or be utterly destroyed.
Effect: The target and all creatures offering cover to the target take 20 ongoing damage (save ends).

Sustain: Each turn until the end of the encounter, or until you fail to repeat the attack on your turn, you may repeat the attack once as a move action. You may not do this the turn you first use the power.
Special: This does double damage to unattended objects.

Now we have a Wizard shooting a beam of death crossing the battlefield. Foes are forced to spread out to avoid being sliced up by it.

Not balanced: I don't even know the level of Distintegration. But the idea is that instead of a one-off damage burst (on a controller?), you get a situation-changing beam that forces the foe to change their tactics. Sustain standard might be a bit much, as it shuts down your options afterwards; I'm tempted by sustain move (which makes it hard to move).

[MwaO]

I'd make it like this:
Daily Arcane, Evocation, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature or object
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex. You automatically hit an unattended object with this power.
Hit: 4d10 + Intelligence modifier damage, and the target takes ongoing 10 damage and is stunned (save ends both). The target before taking ongoing damage on its turn, can choose to ignore Stunned on its turn, but if it does so, the ongoing damage increases by 20 and does not get to save at the end of its turn.

Miss: 2d10 + Intelligence modifier damage, and the target takes ongoing 5 damage and is dazed (save ends both). The target before taking ongoing damage on its turn, can choose to ignore Dazed on its turn, but if it does so, the ongoing damage increases by 10 and does not get to save at the end of its turn.

---------

Makes for interesting soft control. Take 30 damage or take 10 damage and be stunned. And for the creature who took 30? They can then take 50 damage or be stunned the next turn. Then 70. And so on.

[ThePurple]

I'd make it like this:

I would probably keep it as a sustain standard that allows you to repeat the attack, with no saving throw at all (the target just has to gotta keep hitting each round) to represent it being a continual beam rather than a single shot with a continual effect: the target either has to brace themself against the damage (and be stunned) or leave themself open to the full effects in order to avoid it.

[tiornys]

I'm both slightly confused and not?

Just in general, it doesn't get used in combat except by 'high CR opponents' such as Voldemort and Lestrange and one other death eater(who actually gets defeated rather easily in the cafe)

Usually blasting away seems a better choice, even for the death eaters.

I suspect this is because most wizards and witches can't reliably kill with Avada Kedavra. This would make it similar to the Crucio spell, which doesn't work properly unless the caster really means to cause pain.