I want to make a kick-butt high-damage summoning wizard.

[Deathtongue]

The old wizarding guides seem inadequate. In particular, discussion of the summoner seems to omit items I have a vague memory of such as a tapestry that lets monsters take extra basic attacks.

1.) I'm okay with making a wizard|whatever hybrid and I'm also okay with certain paragon classes but the majority of powers have to be wizard. I'm aware that druid is the best 'high damage' summoner, so I'm willing to hybrid with wizard to pull some tricks. I'm also okay with trying out something unusual such as a wizard|warlord hybrid that buffs their own summons.

2.) I'm also okay with delaying the feel of the character for a few levels, but by level 8 or so I want there to be a payoff.

3.) I lean more towards glass cannon. I'd rather be high offense/low offense than a balance. And I'd rather be a balance than a low offense/high defense.

4.) If it's in the CB, it's good.

5.) I want a good fallback option for when summoning doesn't quite work out or I just don't have enough daily powers. The fallback option, while I do like high damage, I'm more willing to compromise on.

Anyone willing to help out or at least point me in the right direction?

[Yakk]

The last summoner I made was a Druid (the one with the built-in companion for yet another body on the field. I think I also MC's shaman for a spirit companion).

It deployed multiple creatures on the board making the board *more crowded*. Enemies either attacked the summoned creatures or suffered OAs.

Summons typically use player defences (plus modifiers), so "glass cannon" is tricky; you want your summons to be beefy to soak up blows.

Instinctive actions are also key. When you have 4+ attackers on the field, you cannot afford to burn your actions on them acting (and I could manage 4 with 1 use of a daily power; built-in feature companion, shaman companion, druid itself, then a daily summon).

Conjurations are often as effective or more for wizards (like the flame ball at level 1). Are they summon-ish enough for you?

[Kurald Galain]

Genasi pure wizard with summoning spells is a solid combo. Take only summons that have an intuitive attack, so you can do something else while your summon hits stuff. Numerous summons have an elemental type, meaning they qualify for the genasi +str bonus. Take a theme that further boosts damage, and a few good control encounter powers.

For instance, try the following nova at level 5.
Free action: scholar's lore (theme ability). It will usually connect, giving another +int to damage against one enemy. If it doesn't, attack someone else.
Move action: use that Acid form racial power to move through the enemy, getting another damage bonus.
Minor action: summon magma beast and immediately attack with it with those two damage bonuses.
Standard action: Fire shroud.
Next turn your two damage bonuses are still up and you haven't even spent an action point yet. Yeah, wizards can do just fine as a damaging summoner :)

[Wasteomana]

Yakk pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problems with a summoner are usually action economy, needless board clutter and using your defenses. Honestly a Summoner isn't ever going to be 'great' no matter how you build it. It might make it to 'ok' but the "wall of fur" build is the best version of it I've seen in play. I think that was Feybeast Tamer Shaman|Sentinel with. Had a lot of dudes on the board but was mostly just frustrating to deal with / keep track of rather than fun.

If I were to make a summoner in 4e, I'd probably do it with liberal amounts of refluffing and zone creation. Make a zone and describe it as being the aura / work of a powerful summoned creature or conjuration. Either that or use a Shaman companion as base with FBT and/or arcane familiar, mount or something similar.

[Deathtongue]

I'm not really interested in refluffing, sorry.

That said: I know that making a glass cannon style summoner is somewhat at odds with the summon providing a brick wall of meat. That's fine by me and is in fact a balancing factor for what I really want to do. What intrigues me about a glass-cannon style summoner is how 4E D&D introduces quite a few ways for summons to get extra actions (minor action attacks, instinctive actions, multi-summons commanded with one action, 'summons' that are dominated like with that cleric, that one Tapestry I can't find now, etc.). It feels like a shame that you can't combine these things together to make your summoner into a striker rather than an off-defender.

Also, is my memory playing tricks on me, or is there some way to use the wizard's ability to select out certain squares in an AoE with, say, a summon's AoE attack? I haven't read the rules compendium in a good while but I can't remember what quite gets transferred from the caster to the summon. If I remember right, it's 'everything that's not a contradiction'.

Only putting one summon out on the board like a Pokemon trainer is okay, though.

[Wasteomana]

I'm not really interested in refluffing, sorry.

That said: I know that making a glass cannon style summoner is somewhat at odds with the summon providing a brick wall of meat. That's fine by me and is in fact a balancing factor for what I really want to do. What intrigues me about a glass-cannon style summoner is how 4E D&D introduces quite a few ways for summons to get extra actions (minor action attacks, instinctive actions, multi-summons commanded with one action, 'summons' that are dominated like with that cleric, that one Tapestry I can't find now, etc.). It feels like a shame that you can't combine these things together to make your summoner into a striker rather than an off-defender.

Also, is my memory playing tricks on me, or is there some way to use the wizard's ability to select out certain squares in an AoE with, say, a summon's AoE attack? I haven't read the rules compendium in a good while but I can't remember what quite gets transferred from the caster to the summon. If I remember right, it's 'everything that's not a contradiction'.

Only putting one summon out on the board like a Pokemon trainer is okay, though.

The issue is mostly that it has a bunch of misc problems. Your summons being weak, with low defenses, low hp AND they take a surge from you when they get killed is pretty painful. Wizards don't have a ton of surges overall. They are also controllers so they don't have good striker summons (and not a lot of good striker powers either) because that isn't what their class is really designed to do. So you end up being a glass box rather than a glass cannon with pretty low damage, bad defenses and a problem with surges if your summons are getting taken out. Summons also have to worry a lot more about bursts/blasts compounding all of the other issues because a single target attack being used on a summon can be a benefit to the party cause the enemy is choosing to attack something that isn't a character, but being able to just include summons in bursts/blasts means that those abilities are effectively super effective on the summoner.

Summons are also much harder to enable with large group things because they don't get any temporary bonuses the summoner gets so any sort of group bonus has to make sure it hits the summon instead of being granted to the Summoner which can be pretty annoying. Examples like the +2 attack from Battle Cleric's Lore and other similar abilities just don't get applied to your summon.

And yeah, you really can't combine them together to do very much. The few summoning style builds I've seen in play (including Wall of Fur) have not been played long because its annoying to the whole team and way more fun in concept than in practice. Kinda like the idea of a stealthy assassin who stacks shrouds up to 4 and then jumps someone for a big hit. It sounds cool, the mental image is great, but in actual play it is very underwhelming just because of the ebb and flow of combat as well as other factors. The summons that DO have good instinctive or non-standard action attacks typically don't do that much damage and offer a small amount of control. Not to mention most of the good summons are daily powers and it means your controller character is choosing to take low damage low control daily powers instead of very controlling powers like Sleep, Visions of Avarice or Slumber of the Winter Court.

The reason I mentioned the Refluffing bit is because I find a useful tool and building a summoner without it is likely to run head-first into one of the big problems mentioned earlier. Without it a 'kick butt high damage summoning wizard' is not really going to be a thing as you are combining one of the weaker elements of the edition with a class that doesn't do much damage on its own.

[Deathtongue]

RE: Summon budget. That's fine. I can build around it by gunning for effects that give me extra healing surges/stretch out the ones I do have, even building around INT/CON. I did say glass cannon, right?


Your summons being weak, with low defenses, low hp AND they take a surge from you when they get killed is pretty painful.How weak are we talking about, here? Like, the summon goes down in one-or-two attacks weak? It's been awhile, but IIRC, players worry less about being taken down by hit point damage as the game goes on.


The summons that DO have good instinctive or non-standard action attacks typically don't do that much damage and offer a small amount of control. Not to mention most of the good summons are daily powers and it means your controller character is choosing to take low damage low control daily powers instead of very controlling powers like Sleep, Visions of Avarice or Slumber of the Winter Court.It's okay to me if my controller class does not actually control, so long as they're contributing by doing damage. The TWF Fighters, especially before the nerf, made awesome strikers if you built them that way even at the cost of defending. It didn't matter, because they put out so much damage that they contributed in other ways.

And yes, I'm aware that summons aren't great out-of-the-box on damage. None of the wizard spells are. However, I still want to know that if I more-or-less ignore the control aspect and just gun for damage pluses from outside sources if I can make striker-style summoning viable. You know, go for things like Frost Weapons + Siberys Shards/Radiant Mafia/Firegods instead of looking for status effects and saving throw penalties.

To that end, I'm willing to dip into hybrid-classing or multiclassing.

As an aside, don't worry about it being annoying to the party. I've played summoners in other editions, and they're WAY more annoying and babysitting involved than in 4E D&D. This will be cake.

[Wasteomana]

RE: Summon budget. That's fine. I can build around it by gunning for effects that give me extra healing surges/stretch out the ones I do have, even building around INT/CON. I did say glass cannon, right?

The problem isnt the glass part, its the cannon part.




How weak are we talking about, here? Like, the summon goes down in one-or-two attacks weak? It's been awhile, but IIRC, players worry less about being taken down by hit point damage as the game goes on.

The summon has half of your hp which, as a wizard, is pretty low. Also damage actually tends to scale up at very high levels faster than HP because there are so many situational bonuses/interrupts/come back from 0 / come back from death effects involved and those go a long way towards helping players live but not nearly as far helping summons survive. Summons likely get two hits before death, maybe a single hit at higher levels due to scaling / crits / 'free damage' from being an extra target in a burst or blast.


It's okay to me if my controller class does not actually control, so long as they're contributing by doing damage. The TWF Fighters, especially before the nerf, made awesome strikers if you built them that way even at the cost of defending. It didn't matter, because they put out so much damage that they contributed in other ways.

Yep, but the problem is being an extra squishy sub-par striker that likely cant make benchmarks instead of a controller. Granted if the entire party is playing weak things, the DM can (and should) scale things down for you. A large part of whether you will be 'kick-butt high damage' depends on what you are comparing yourself to in the party.


And yes, I'm aware that summons aren't great out-of-the-box on damage. None of the wizard spells are. However, I still want to know that if I more-or-less ignore the control aspect and just gun for damage pluses from outside sources if I can make striker-style summoning viable. You know, go for things like Frost Weapons + Siberys Shards/Radiant Mafia/Firegods instead of looking for status effects and saving throw penalties.

To that end, I'm willing to dip into hybrid-classing or multiclassing.

As an aside, don't worry about it being annoying to the party. I've played summoners in other editions, and they're WAY more annoying and babysitting involved than in 4E D&D. This will be cake.

Assuming non of your fellow party members know what they are doing you can make a 'not quite striker' out of a summoner. But you aren't going to be comparing to a sorcerer even with minimal attention paid to making the character.

Basically if the answer is "I'm playing with a bunch of people who are running characters with 14/14/14/14/14/12 as an array and the 12 went in their attack stat", then yeah anything is viable. If you compare it to anything else that actually is a striker, its going to be a glass box.

[Kurald Galain]

And yes, I'm aware that summons aren't great out-of-the-box on damage. None of the wizard spells are. However, I still want to know that if I more-or-less ignore the control aspect and just gun for damage pluses from outside sources if I can make striker-style summoning viable. You know, go for things like Frost Weapons + Siberys Shards/Radiant Mafia/Firegods instead of looking for status effects and saving throw penalties.

Yes, that'll work just fine.

See, the sorcerer does great as a striker. And the key is that everything the sorcerer can take to boost his damage, the wizard can also take.

Just try it. Don't argue how in theory it might not work, just put a build together that multitaps (via instinctive summons) and see how big its damage is.

[Wasteomana]

See, the sorcerer does great as a striker. And the key is that everything the sorcerer can take to boost his damage, the wizard can also take.

This is just, frankly speaking, not even close to being true.

[Kurald Galain]

This is just, frankly speaking, not even close to being true.

Really now. Can you name a single counterexample? Because so far you haven't :smallamused:

[Yakk]

The sorcerer gets an extra stat to damage as a class feature.

So nya.

[Kurald Galain]

The sorcerer gets an extra stat to damage as a class feature.

So nya.

Elemental Empowerment says hi.

So nya nya.

[masteraleph]

Elemental Empowerment says hi.

So nya nya.

The fundamental problem with Wizards vs. Sorcerers as strikers isn't the bonuses, it's the fact that Wizards have far more limited multi-tap powers. Also, Promise of Storm only triggers on a hit, whereas Sarifal's Blessing is vulnerable to "your attacks that deal X damage type."

Basically: give wizards an INT version of Flame Spiral and Demonskin Adept and then we're talking.

[Wasteomana]

The fundamental problem with Wizards vs. Sorcerers as strikers isn't the bonuses, it's the fact that Wizards have far more limited multi-tap powers. Also, Promise of Storm only triggers on a hit, whereas Sarifal's Blessing is vulnerable to "your attacks that deal X damage type."

Basically: give wizards an INT version of Flame Spiral and Demonskin Adept and then we're talking.

Aleph hit the nail on the head. Sorcerers have a power selection and class features that clearly make them strikers. Even if you want to just consider elemental empowerment, half or more of all sorcerers already have a class feature that triggers off of STR. They basically have a better version of Elemental Empowerment build into the class without taking the feat for it and if they DO qualify for the feat they will get it twice. Promise of Storm and Sarifal can go on either class chassis, but power selection is the big thing. Wizard encounter powers are lackluster for damage compared to sorcerer with smaller mods and very few multi-tap powers. Sorcerers also have, usually, built in damage penetration which can be especially nice if you focus in an element (read: for whatever element you focus in).

[Yakk]

Elemental Empowerment says hi.

So nya nya.
Not a class feature!

and if they DO qualify for the feat they will get it twice
It only works on Wizard powers. So you can MC wizard and double-dip as a sorcerer using Wizard powers, but your sorcerer powers only get one stat-to-damage bonus.

The fundamental problem with Wizards vs. Sorcerers as strikers isn't the bonuses, it's the fact that Wizards have far more limited multi-tap powers.
I'd be very cautious with this claim. Wizard multi-tap often consists of damaging zones without "first time per turn you enter", then slide a foe in and out and in and out.

Basically, Wizards have so many feats and powers that it is really hard to argue that Sorcerers have a better power selection, even if they have a couple of great ones.

Wizard encounter powers are lackluster for damage compared to sorcerer with smaller mods and very few multi-tap powers
The fact that most wizard powers are lackluster compared to most sorcerer powers damage-wise only matters if you pick powers at random.

Wizards have a ridiculously broad set of powers.

Compare the *best* powers of each. Now compare them after accounting for power-swap options and wizard feat advantage over sorcerers (wizards and fighters get the *best* set of feats in 4e, it is just ridiculous).

---

In fact, I'd argue that the tendency for 4e to splat out wizard and fighters is an argument for fewer classes.

[Wasteomana]

It only works on Wizard powers. So you can MC wizard and double-dip as a sorcerer using Wizard powers, but your sorcerer powers only get one stat-to-damage bonus.

I am aware. I've written some sorcerer guides, played a sorcerer for 40ish levels and am currently playing a Genasi Wizard. The point I was making is that it is difficult (Hence the capitalization of the DO). I didn't go into further details as I assume everyone has access to a compendium or some other method of accessing the source materials.



I'd be very cautious with this claim. Wizard multi-tap often consists of damaging zones without "first time per turn you enter", then slide a foe in and out and in and out.

Sorcerers tend to have similar things, only their 'zones' are the style of flame spiral rather than Cordon of Bones.


Basically, Wizards have so many feats and powers that it is really hard to argue that Sorcerers have a better power selection, even if they have a couple of great ones.

Power in general, yeah I agree. Wizards have amazing powers. Multi-attacking damage powers? Not really hard to argue that the sorcerer is going to beat them there.


The fact that most wizard powers are lackluster compared to most sorcerer powers damage-wise only matters if you pick powers at random.
Wizards have a ridiculously broad set of powers.

Ok, show me the Wizard Flame Spiral and I'm there. Yeah they have some amazing powers, but their damage output isn't great. Especially because, and this is REALLY important here, the context of this entire discussion isn't all Wizard Powers but rather Wizard Summoning Powers. We are talking here about the damage output of a summoner, not the potential damage output of all wizards in all areas.


Compare the *best* powers of each. Now compare them after accounting for power-swap options and wizard feat advantage over sorcerers (wizards and fighters get the *best* set of feats in 4e, it is just ridiculous).

Again, context matters. This whole thread is about making, and I quote "a kick-butt high-damage summoning wizard". Which means I'm not really comparing the entire class to an entire different class. I'm comparing how effective a particular build (a wizard summoner focusing on damage) is to other examples of the role they are trying to fill (striker). I chose Sorcerer because you chose sorcerer to use as an example. Also, I know sorcerers quite well.


In fact, I'd argue that the tendency for 4e to splat out wizard and fighters is an argument for fewer classes.

I would argue the opposite honestly. They have a lot of good options, other classes got left to the wayside. It would be really nice to see the other classes supported and it is really nice to see what they can do given enough support. See Clerics and Paladins once they got a magazine article and a V split on stats. If they kept up along that line it would have been nice to see. I will certainly agree that some things were significantly under supported, but I think the answer to that is 'more support' rather than 'less classes'.

All that being said, if you want to make a Summoning Wizard that is a functional striker... go for it. I'd love to see what it can do. Hell I'll save you a spot in a guild game you to play it if you like.

[Yakk]

Support tends to follow the popular, and popular tends to follow the support.

It would be great to wave a magic wand and say "that won't happen", but I'm not sure what kind of system could pull that off.

The "Essentials" style classes are often more viable than the middle and later era non-essentials classes, because almost every Essentials class was based off an early 4e class with lots of feat and power and paragon and the like support. Meanwhile, the later 4e classes got zilch in the way of additional support.

Fan support was even worse, as evidenced by the myriad of Fighter/Wizard Dragon magazine articles.

If Fighter was a Martial Defender Subclass of the Champion class, maybe more of the feat support for Fighter would be instead restricted to say Martial Champions.

And then, when the Berserker was created, it would be a Champion Subclass that switched between a Martial Defender and a Primal Striker. Instead of having zero support, it could grab a whole pile of Fighter feats that don't lock into specific Fighter features.

[Wasteomana]

Support tends to follow the popular, and popular tends to follow the support.

It would be great to wave a magic wand and say "that won't happen", but I'm not sure what kind of system could pull that off.

The "Essentials" style classes are often more viable than the middle and later era non-essentials classes, because almost every Essentials class was based off an early 4e class with lots of feat and power and paragon and the like support. Meanwhile, the later 4e classes got zilch in the way of additional support.

Fan support was even worse, as evidenced by the myriad of Fighter/Wizard Dragon magazine articles.

If Fighter was a Martial Defender Subclass of the Champion class, maybe more of the feat support for Fighter would be instead restricted to say Martial Champions.

And then, when the Berserker was created, it would be a Champion Subclass that switched between a Martial Defender and a Primal Striker. Instead of having zero support, it could grab a whole pile of Fighter feats that don't lock into specific Fighter features.

An interesting sidebar and one I don't completely disagree with. Doesn't really have much to do with a high-damage summoning wizard, but interesting.

[MwaO]

If you're okay with hybriding, you might want to try Artificer. Dancing Weapon and Animate Arbalester curiously both do minor action attacks which are not limited by 1/turn use limits. If you use Wizard forced movement powers, you can direct targets next to the Dancing Weapon. Take Shocking Feedback+Mark of Storm to 1/enc protect your Summons.

But generally, Summons have a lot of problems, both in fragility and annoyance level at the table.

[Kurald Galain]

The fact that most wizard powers are lackluster compared to most sorcerer powers damage-wise only matters if you pick powers at random.

Wizards have a ridiculously broad set of powers.

Compare the *best* powers of each. Now compare them after accounting for power-swap options and wizard feat advantage over sorcerers (wizards and fighters get the *best* set of feats in 4e, it is just ridiculous).
Yes, that. Given the ridiculous number of options for wizards, it should not be a surprise that you can build a wizard (including a summoner) as a competent striker. "Blaster wizard" was probably the most popular way to play one. It doesn't matter that the wizard has 100+ powers that aren't multitaps, as long as he has three or four that are.

And it so happens that most of the wizard's best multitap powers are summon spells. Genasi Summoner with elemental empowerment has solid DPR that meets all the benchmarks. After all, the OP asked for a viable character, not the theory op DPR champion.

[Highfeather]

If you're okay with hybriding, you might want to try Artificer. Dancing Weapon and Animate Arbalester curiously both do minor action attacks which are not limited by 1/turn use limits. If you use Wizard forced movement powers, you can direct targets next to the Dancing Weapon. Take Shocking Feedback+Mark of Storm to 1/enc protect your Summons.

But generally, Summons have a lot of problems, both in fragility and annoyance level at the table.

The general rule for summons is that minor action commands can only be given once per round, so those powers don't need any additional restrictions to function correctly. And in that context, I'm not sure those summons bring more to the table than the Intrinsic Nature of Wizard summons already do.
That isn't to say there aren't any upsides to hybrid Artificer, but I wouldn't try it with a summoning 'striker' focus. Mostly because the Genasi Wizard wants Str as high as it can get, and Artificer wants Con or Wis as high as it can get.

And really, the stat distribution and race-limiting factors is the reason why I hesitate to recommend a 'high-damage summoning wizard'. Even though I still want to try and build a summoner myself. I mean, you're locking in your race with Genasi, locking in at least 2 feats for class/race-specific damage bonuses. And then you need to take the usual damage boosts on top of that (Focus or an elemental equivalent, DIS). As for stats, you want Int as high as it can get, Str secondary... Con for surges, Dex for DIS, and likely either Wis/Cha (or both) for the amazing Wizard feat prerequisites and your Will defense. Oh, and you have to work on your defenses if you don't want your summon to die instantly, because you only have a few each day. I doubt I'd play a summoner under Paragon unless I knew I would only get 2 encounters a day, and that's not exactly common.

In the end the build takes a while to get going in every single encounter, and even then I hope you don't have workdays of 4 or more encounters before Epic. You'd be investing far too much for a few Daily powers that die very easily if you don't defend them.
It'll work at the end of Heroic because you're still playing a class with ridiculous support and a race with arguably even more ridiculous striker support. I just end up looking at a normal control-invested Wizard as well as a Sorcerer (presuming they both have planned out their power selection properly) and cry. The Sorcerer's power lies in its Encounter powers which are available in every battle. The Wizard still has strong Encounters but encounter-ending dailies. A Summoning Wizard is going to give up most of those high-control Dailies (with some exceptions) to emulate what a Sorcerer can do. Except with its Dailies instead of Encounters, whilst also investing more feats.

Note: I don't hate summoner builds. I just hate how they work. The best way to go about it in my eyes is to pick up some companion (Shaman MC, |Sentinel, Fey Beast Tamer) and pretend your spells come from your "summon".

[Kurald Galain]

TAnd then you need to take the usual damage boosts on top of that (Focus or an elemental equivalent, DIS). As for stats, you want Int as high as it can get, Str secondary... Con for surges, Dex for DIS, and likely either Wis/Cha (or both) for the amazing Wizard feat prerequisites and your Will defense. Oh, and you have to work on your defenses if you don't want your summon to die instantly, because you only have a few each day.
You're allowed to make tradeoffs to meet your character concept. After all, the OP's goal was not to make the best control wizard, or the best striker in the game, but explicitly to make a summoner that deals good damage. You clearly don't need wis and cha, so dump cha. Elemental Echo and high strength will net you more damage than lower strength + 13 dex + DIS. That makes it more doable.

Then play to the summoner's strength more. Summon Imp and Summon Hell Hound both give +1d6 damage to all your attacks, including their own. Since summons are dailies, they benefit from the Long Battle Tattoo. Since most good summons are fire-based, pyromancy is another damage boost. Rimetongue Caller + Arcane Fire + Gloves of Ice is another fun combo. Plus Tome Expertise gives free CA to your entire party.

But yes, the main downside of summons is that you only get three per day. In other encounters, you'll have to contend with regular blasting (like, oh say, Fire Shroud).

[Wasteomana]

Yes, that. Given the ridiculous number of options for wizards, it should not be a surprise that you can build a wizard (including a summoner) as a competent striker. "Blaster wizard" was probably the most popular way to play one. It doesn't matter that the wizard has 100+ powers that aren't multitaps, as long as he has three or four that are.

And it so happens that most of the wizard's best multitap powers are summon spells. Genasi Summoner with elemental empowerment has solid DPR that meets all the benchmarks. After all, the OP asked for a viable character, not the theory op DPR champion.

The point I am making is "Show me the power that is Flame Spiral but as a Wizard Summoning power" and I'm game to agree with you there. The issue is that there isn't one and using the definitions I would use for Striker, the Wizard won't actually be one.

If we are going to add Benchmarks into this, the most common benchmark used for a 'striker' are that they can kill a standard monster of their own level on average in 2 rounds with encounter resources and an AP. The summoner won't do that. The summoner's damage is going to be so low that it is effectively as much of a 'striker'.

You are right to point out the level of optimization though. In a very low op group it could be a striker if everyone plays poorly and picks options that aren't good. But if you have a striker that takes a minimum amount of effort on their character, the summoner wizard won't count as a striker.

It is like saying "A Wizard can be a leader if they focus on Hypnotism and using healing potions on others". No, not really. They can kinda do some things that a leader can do (grant attacks and heal) but the way they go about it is so much worse than an actual enabling leader that if they get into a party where a player can use their class feature to heal and not have to hit their party member with an attack to be able to grant attacks, the 'leader wizard' is gonna be really lackluster.

[Wasteomana]

You're allowed to make tradeoffs to meet your character concept. After all, the OP's goal was not to make the best control wizard, or the best striker in the game, but explicitly to make a summoner that deals good damage. You clearly don't need wis and cha, so dump cha. Elemental Echo and high strength will net you more damage than lower strength + 13 dex + DIS. That makes it more doable.

Then play to the summoner's strength more. Summon Imp and Summon Hell Hound both give +1d6 damage to all your attacks, including their own. Since summons are dailies, they benefit from the Long Battle Tattoo. Since most good summons are fire-based, pyromancy is another damage boost. Rimetongue Caller + Arcane Fire + Gloves of Ice is another fun combo. Plus Tome Expertise gives free CA to your entire party.

But yes, the main downside of summons is that you only get three per day. In other encounters, you'll have to contend with regular blasting (like, oh say, Fire Shroud).

Fire Shroud is not a good damaging power nor is it a good wizard power. Its 'meh'. Its 'ok' in the grand scheme of things. It isn't even close to being on par with Flame Spiral or other real striker powers.

And yeah, you give up things to get other things, but opportunity cost is a big part here. Highfeather's post was pretty spot on about the problems of making this character. Ultimately he comes to the same 'best answer' that I would give which is to refluff things and call it a day.

I also don't hate summoners, but 'high damaging summoner wizard with no refluffing' isn't something you can do well enough in the edition to be worth even a cursory recommendation of playing one.

[Yakk]

Well it depends on what you mean by "high damage".

You can create a wizard who does nothing but run at things and bonk them with a quarterstaff that outpaces the damage expectations of 4e.

It won't be the highest damage character (or even highest damage charger) in 4e, but it will be "high damage" and a "wizard who charges".

[georgie_leech]

Well it depends on what you mean by "high damage".

You can create a wizard who does nothing but run at things and bonk them with a quarterstaff that outpaces the damage expectations of 4e.

It won't be the highest damage character (or even highest damage charger) in 4e, but it will be "high damage" and a "wizard who charges".

That was the build you could staple onto a Commoner, right? The one that often gets referenced to point out the importance of optimisation? If So, would happen to have a link? I lost my bookmark and my google-fu has been weak of late.

[neonchameleon]

The old wizarding guides seem inadequate. In particular, discussion of the summoner seems to omit items I have a vague memory of such as a tapestry that lets monsters take extra basic attacks.

What you're looking for is powers from Dragon #385. Most summoner wizards are terrible because most of the original summons use up your standard actions to make their attacks (which are honestly no better than yours - see Summon Fire Warrior). Dragon 385 had a collection of summons like Dust Devils and Dretches with intrinsic natures - so if you don't pay attention to them they do their own thing (normally attacking the nearest creature) and you take a minor penalty.

Most wizarding guides were written loooong before Dragon 385 came out.

Also if you want to litter the battlefield look at Conjuration spells like Storm Pillar (awesome in cramped spaces) or Shock Beetle Swarm.

And Summoners work well with Tomes - the Tome of Arrest and Tome of Forty Steps both stand out as obvious.

[masteraleph]

That was the build you could staple onto a Commoner, right? The one that often gets referenced to point out the importance of optimisation? If So, would happen to have a link? I lost my bookmark and my google-fu has been weak of late.

Sorry, I forgot about this post. The classless damage miniguide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472017-When-Everyone-is-Super-a-Miniguide-to-Classless-Damage-Boosts-by-Svenj) is good for that. In particular, anyone with a functional melee basic attack (strength based PC or has some other power that functions as one) can take appropriate charge augmentations.

[georgie_leech]

Sorry, I forgot about this post. The classless damage miniguide (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472017-When-Everyone-is-Super-a-Miniguide-to-Classless-Damage-Boosts-by-Svenj) is good for that. In particular, anyone with a functional melee basic attack (strength based PC or has some other power that functions as one) can take appropriate charge augmentations.

Excellent! I'm going to assume that's the right link because the EN World forums are down for maintenance, but excellent nonetheless!