Mearls says: We made more fail!

[Voss]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-ed ... lance.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To sum up:
This controller role... yeah, we didn't know what we were doing with it. So the wizard ended up being a damage dealer rather than what we wanted, but thats OK, because future classes are just going to be *better*!

And yeah, he tries really, really hard not to say that they utterly boned this one. But they did.

Discuss!

[shau]

The controller role is perhaps the one that took the longest to really develop. There's a reason why there's only one in the PH. For a long while, the role was defined by its ability to attack multiple foes.

How could you even do that? Does anyone really list fireball as a control spell?

[koz]

This is Mike Mearls we're talking about here. He's genetically predisposed to making classes which fail. Epically.

[Talisman]

Wow, so that blaster mage I made way back when was actually a controller! Who knew? I guess killing someone (however inefficiently) does, indeed, control them.

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

Now, this may seem pretty annoying - WotC released stuff that was too weak! However, I think it's actually a strength of the meta systems of 4e.

Yeah, it does...wait; what? Mike, there's a Mr. Logic on the line, and he seems upset.

We've never before had the ability to so clearly compare classes/roles and, when necessary, make adjustments. It's a lot easier to listen to feedback, gather hard data, and make comparisons between powers when we have a unified power scale.

Is this gibberish, or is it just me?

[koz]

It is gibberish. It's also fail-explaining gibberish, which makes it twice as bad.

[TOZ]

Spin control! Black is white! White is black! Saddam had WMDs!

[Psychic Robot]

ENWorld delivers retarded.

The wizard in our 4e game is stunningly ineffectual. I think the "Nerf wizards!" meme went way too far. We have a melee-heavy party (rogue, ranger, paladin, wizard, bard) and we are in an urban campaign, which means a lot of tight alleys, small rooms, and interior spaces.

Playing a 4e wizard in this kind of setting is like playing a 3e mounted paladin on a barge.

Wrong character in wrong place.

Apparently, an entire character class isn't suitable for a setting.

[Kaelik]

Even better the character is not viable in any situation in which you might run into a lot of "a lot of tight [corridors], small rooms, and interior spaces."

Like, for example. A dungeon.

[Voss]

The fun part of this, is this is mearls attempting spontaneous damage control. The new (pay for it, bitches!) preview of a new controller (invoker, a divine summoner/blaster/fuck up the enemies class) got put up on the abomination that is online-dragon. And apparently the at-wills were strictly better than the wizard's at-wills. As in, they got a power exactly like scorching blast, but with a secondary effect. And people started bitching.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rp ... eview.html


As to the gibberish- no, actually, it isn't. It says what it means- they released the playtest rules, the customers are stuck with that shit, and they're slowly going to fix things based on the whining. The power scale part is just a red herring- its a reference to the fact that all powers (regardless of class) are more or less identical, and certain effects are restricted to certain levels. But mostly that its an admission that they're shooting in the dark, and sometimes they're going to have to crank shit up to make it 'equal', and sometimes they're going to have to tone shit down. But whichever way they need to tweak it, the fix isn't going to come for about a year, and will involve selling a new book.

Essentially, since they don't have to compare dominate person to cloudkill and cone of cold, its a lot easier for the designers.

[Bigode]

Wow, so that blaster mage I made way back when was actually a controller! Who knew? I guess killing someone (however inefficiently) does, indeed, control them.

"I believe that the only place people can truly have consensus is in the grave." - Stalin. Came to know of it as a courtesy of Sinister.

Also: Google it hard enough (not very), and you'll see druid and invoker previews both in full.

[Voss]

Also, this:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1125385
or here
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4591941-post131.html

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

Moar POWAH! But it isn't, power creep, honest!

Somehow. In an alternate universe where publishing more powerful stuff later, and then adjusting old stuff upwards to match it is defined as 'power edging' rather than 'power creep'.


Also in the gleemax post:

It’s difficult playing a class that is still in a development cycle. Your powers and class abilities are changing every week. Still, each week the class improves, even if that improvement means getting a severe beating with a NerfTM bat.

Playtesting is hard. Even if its your fucking job. Surprise!

His post is actually worth reading, just for sheer mindboggling insight into how little they understand what their jobs are, or what they're supposed to be doing. Playtesting, strangely enough, doesn't involve running through campaigns.

[Bigode]

Voss, you're late. (Though, to be fair, I stumbled upon that and didn't even remember the origin until now.) And it's actually not power creep if the class' behind the others in PHB 1. Of course: a) it's not, and b) read what they say, don't be retarded, and you'll come to the conclusion that not even they think they know how to compare different-role classes, so "there's nothing to compare the wizard to from PHB 1" - which leaves us square on power creep. And, in more sensible games (though most definitely ... not the game in question), playtesting does involve campaign ... setting abilities, you know? Of course, 4E doesn't have those.

My favorite of what little I read:

Astral terror does a measly 1d6+wis, but it's a close burst 3 - that's going to hit most people on the battlefield, (...)

[koz]

My favorite of what little I read:

Astral terror does a measly 1d6+wis, but it's a close burst 3 - that's going to hit most people on the battlefield, (...)

So... 4E is meant to be played in a closet? Or something the size of my Japanese apartment?

[Voss]

I did figure it was old news, but so much of it seemed so chock-full of fail, I couldn't resist.

I do particularly like the assertion that the invoker was a controller/leader/striker. Even if its 'not as much' now, thats still an absurd starting point. *I* understand what they wanted to do with these roles, even though it was stupid since they aren't distinct, and the small array of power effects makes them even less distinct, but I absolutely can't fathom why they absolutely can't define them. (much less make them useful).

[koz]

Lol, so even WotC are beginning to realise the roles are bullshit? Wow, and I thought they never learned.....

[Josh_Kablack]

So... 4E is meant to be played in a closet? Or something the size of my Japanese apartment?

Call me crazy, but my usual group plays 4e on the exact same 4' by 8' table we played 3.0, 3.5 and the occasional retro OD&D game on.

With the massive nerfs to AoEs and ranges in 4e, longbow+mount gets to win again, but without having to track distances off the edges.

[Bigode]

So... 4E is meant to be played in a closet? Or something the size of my Japanese apartment?

I did figure it was old news, but so much of it seemed so chock-full of fail, I couldn't resist.

Worry not. I wouldn't know D&D's now about sacking Japanese buildings without that.

[Josh_Kablack]

I do particularly like the assertion that the invoker was a controller/leader/striker. Even if its 'not as much' now, thats still an absurd starting point. *I* understand what they wanted to do with these roles, even though it was stupid since they aren't distinct, and the small array of power effects makes them even less distinct, but I absolutely can't fathom why they absolutely can't define them. (much less make them useful).

It really wouldn't have been hard, just make it clear what is unique to each role:

Striker - your damage powers all involve multiple attacks. (Not [2W], not merely AoEs, but actual multiple attacks for every power).
Defender - you get hit point healing and damage magnet abilities (Either better AOOS and/or challenge-type psuedo-aggro management stuff).
Leader - your attacks all give your allies bonuses and remove harmful status effects (ie buffing).
Controller - your attacks all give your enemies penalties and harmful status effects (ie de-buffing)

even within the small array of power effects that's pretty easy to make workable and keep things distinct.

[Talisman]

We've never before had the ability to so clearly compare classes/roles (which we arbitrarily and illogically defined) and, when necessary, make adjustments (actually we've been doing this for years - it's called errata and splatbooks). It's a lot easier to listen to feedback (of people telling us we're great), gather hard data (ha! ha! Not really), and make comparisons between powers (it's easy when they're all basically the same) when we have a unified power scale (where everyone sucks about the same).

My clarifications in italics.

And it's actually not power creep if the class' behind the others in PHB 1. Of course: a) it's not, and b) read what they say, don't be retarded, and you'll come to the conclusion that not even they think they know how to compare different-role classes, so "there's nothing to compare the wizard to from PHB 1" - which leaves us square on power creep.

I never get tired of this - 4 roles, 8 classes in the PHB1, hmm...two defenders, two leaders, three strikers and one controller! How does even a chimpanzee mess that up?

[Elennsar]

I favor the explaination they didn't even try this time. They just published the first string of gibberish from the Monkeys With Typewriters.

[koz]

That, and the fact that the warlock is not a striker, but a controller.

[Username17]

So let me get this straight: The Wizard is underpowered because all they get is Orb Mastery and Cloud of Daggers? What the hell dude? Cloud of Daggers, even with the least effective possible reading is still one of the most potent offensive weapons in the game as far as damage dealing goes. And their other at-will is Ray of Frost, which is a one-hit-Tekken Juggle on any opponent without a ranged attack.

Yeah sure, all their other at-wills suck ass, but you only get to choose two anyway, so what's the problem?

-Username17

[shau]

So let me get this straight: The Wizard is underpowered because all they get is Orb Mastery and Cloud of Daggers? What the hell dude? Cloud of Daggers, even with the least effective possible reading is still one of the most potent offensive weapons in the game as far as damage dealing goes. And their other at-will is Ray of Frost, which is a one-hit-Tekken Juggle on any opponent without a ranged attack.

I wonder if ray of frost is that good. 4e seems to assume that you are fighting opponents in a closet.

[RandomCasualty2]

I wonder if ray of frost is that good. 4e seems to assume that you are fighting opponents in a closet.

Well, 4E assumes that you're going to be playing with a casual party, which includes some melee and some ranged. Ray of Frost is actually pretty terrible in a party like that simply because the fighters are up close anyway, and you rarely even have an opportunity to stay out of range.

RoF is just really powerful if you have an all ranged party or something. 4E is based on the premise that you'll all make different characters of varied classes. You can actually totally break it if you make a themed party.

[Username17]

Well, 4E assumes that you're going to be playing with a casual party, which includes some melee and some ranged. Ray of Frost is actually pretty terrible in a party like that simply because the fighters are up close anyway, and you rarely even have an opportunity to stay out of range.

RoF is just really powerful if you have an all ranged party or something.

Pretty much. 4e has no melee/ranged synergy to speak of. In fact, those effects are largely anti-synergistic. Every character who is aspected to melee reduces the amount of people able to provide escape routes for the archery characters and every character aspected to archery reduces the amount of melee characters that damage is being divided amongst.

In short: the two best parties are the "melee party" which is composed of Fighters and Clerics, and the "ranged party" which is composed of Rangers and Wizards. When you mix parties together you either decide that the melee guys are not resilient enough to be pulling their weight getting smacked in the face or you decide that the ranged guys are not pulling their weight in DPS.

So the head cheeses have decided that the problem with their set up is that you don't want a Wizard spamming Ray of Frost because enemies tend to be able to close with the Fighter anyway and the RoF DPS is so low that you'd way rather have another Fighter on the front lines beating on things for more damage and sharing more of the counterattack damage so the team can spread out healing surge uses and fight more battles. That's a valid interpretation, but they could have just as easily decided that the problem with their set up is that the Wizards can lock down melee opponents indefinitely so there's no advantage in having a Fighter go put himself into harm's way at all when you could just put another controller on the back rank instead.

The problem is that they gave each character type self-synergy and didn't give any character type cross-synergy. If melee guys threw down slow effects so that the ranged attackers could stay safe and ranged guys through down melee de-buffs so that the front liners could cleave through them then you'd want both groups in some kind of ratio. But since it's the other way, you just want to grab one tactic and super specialize the entire party to do it super hard.

-Username17