The Gaming Den

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some guy wrote: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.

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

Wrong character in wrong place.

Talisman wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

Bigode wrote: My favorite of what little I read:

Some idiot on EN World wrote: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?

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

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

Voss wrote: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).

Mearls wrote: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).

Bigode wrote: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.

FrankTrollman wrote: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.

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

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
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.