[4e] Some Controller Data

[Gralamin]

So, because I could, I went through the compendium (and primal power) and checked on different controllers number of powers that target allies as well as enemies.

Included in the following are: closes and bursts that don't specify they effect only X beings in the burst, Walls that damage allies as well as enemies, and effects such as Force orb that splash on a hit. Summons are never included, though conjurations are.

{TABLE="HEAD"]|Druid|Invoker|Wizard|Psion*|Seeker*
Friendly Fire|47|61|69|14|1
-At-Will|4|4|3|4|0
-Encounter**|25|26|25|9|1
-Daily|17|27|31|1|0
-P_Encounter|1|1|6|0|0
-P_Daily|0|3|4|0|0
[/table]
{TABLE="HEAD"]|Druid|Invoker|Wizard|Psion*|Seeker*
Non|22|40|27|9|5
-At-Will|0|0|2|2|0
-Encounter**|5|16|5|4|0
-Daily|9|9|11|2|4
-P_Encounter|3|6|3|0|1
-P_Daily|5|9|6|1|0
[/table]
{TABLE="HEAD"]|Druid|Invoker|Wizard|Psion*|Seeker*
Total|69|101|96|23|6
-At-Will|4|4|5|6|0
-Encounter**|30|42|30|13|1
-Daily|26|36|42|3|4
-P_Encounter|4|7|9|0|1
-P_Daily|5|12|10|1|0
[/table]
{TABLE="HEAD"]|Druid|Invoker|Wizard|Psion*|Seeker*
Percent|||||
-Friendly|68.12%|60.40%|71.88%|60.87%|16.67%
-Non|31.88%|39.60%|28.13%|39.13%|83.33%
[/TABLE]
*: Unfinished Class
**: For Psion, Augments are listed here

What do you think of these trends? I find it to be kinda distressing, since leaders almost never attack friends, while controllers frequently do.

Edit: Split up to make it easier to read

[Break]

It's trends like these that make me happy for the common "Controllers Aren't Very Nice At All Punks" houserule.

[Kurald Galain]

What do you think of these trends? I find it to be kinda distressing, since leaders almost never attack friends, while controllers frequently do.

A well-played controller doesn't hit his friends unless they want him to.

For instance, thunderwaving your allies can be very useful. So is casting scorching burst on a tiefling, or any ally with fire resistance. And then there's feats like war wizardry. I've also had the opportunity to cast color spray over an ally that was already dazed anyway.

Most controllers are probably more difficult to play than most strikers. But if you're seriously impeding your allies (or doing nothing much useful out of fear that you might hit your allies), then You're Doing It Wrong (tm) and you can't blame the class for that.

[Gralamin]

A well-played controller doesn't hit his friends unless they want him to.

For instance, thunderwaving your allies can be very useful. So is casting scorching burst on a tiefling, or any ally with fire resistance. And then there's feats like war wizardry. I've also had the opportunity to cast color spray over an ally that was already dazed anyway.

Most controllers are probably more difficult to play than most strikers. But if you're seriously impeding your allies (or doing nothing much useful out of fear that you might hit your allies), then You're Doing It Wrong (tm) and you can't blame the class for that.

The problem is, a lot of the time you will choose a strictly worse option to make sure that you are not impeding your allies, while a Cleric, Artificer, or Similar class will not have such a problem and just take the better option. This is a problem. Controllers can't do their job effectively in situations where secondary controllers can do their job just fine. This is not a good thing.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem is, a lot of the time you will choose a strictly worse option to make sure that you are not impeding your allies,

I've played a wizard for twelve levels, relying solely on the biggest area effects I could find, and this does not even remotely match my experience. Through delaying, readying, asking allies to move out of the way, and casting jump on them, I've rarely if ever been in a situation where I would have acted differently had I had an "enemies only" spell.

[Gralamin]

I've played a wizard for twelve levels, relying solely on the biggest area effects I could find, and this does not even remotely match my experience. Through delaying, readying, asking allies to move out of the way, and casting jump on them, I've rarely if ever been in a situation where I would have acted differently had I had an "enemies only" spell.

It is difficult to compare game experiences, since we are obviously not at each other tables. However, I've seen these situations crop up enough times to tell you they do exist, even if you have never seen them. There is nothing more annoying then having to do something like target a single enemy while your allies have been pulled around a bunch of guy's and they won't have time to move until it has acted again. And, for whatever reason, damaging your allies is bad (as most normally think it is).

Meanwhile, the cleric who goes right after you will hit them, inflict a status condition, and buff your allies all at the same time.

[Asbestos]

I'm going to second KG here, I've never found myself particularly constrained by the fact that a number of my Wizard's powers don't ignore allies. Honestly, AoEs hurt allies in the older editions, did people really have that hard of a time with it? And when I played DDM, AoEs similarly effected everyone in their radius... but I still got them off often enough.

[Edea]

Honestly, AoEs hurt allies in the older editions, did people really have that hard of a time with it?

No, because older editions have SoDs, and you can actually be a pure buffer/debuffer; in fact, AoE is the absolute WORST thing to be doing as an older-edition spellcaster, and was virtually always avoided (especially in 3e). You can't do that in 4e.

I've played a wizard for twelve levels, relying solely on the biggest area effects I could find, and this does not even remotely match my experience. Through delaying, readying, asking allies to move out of the way, and casting jump on them, I've rarely if ever been in a situation where I would have acted differently had I had an "enemies only" spell.

"Asking allies to move out of the way," what? You must've really cowed the other players at the table, when I used to ask that (with a please, might I add) as a wizard, the general response was either 'Screw You' or 'I can't :/'. Then both types got SUPER pissed when I blasted them anyway. Quickly learned to favor non-AoE and, thus, strikers.

Delaying and readying do not work; the former amounts to stunning the character since no one else's going to listen to that player whining about not being able to get a clean shot (hence lost turn), and the latter requires you to declare your intent to the DM, resulting in metascrew. Jump is in the same slot as Shield (i.e. yeah, THAT'S going to be prepped), and only affects one character once per encounter. These problems are -constant-, every turn.

This pile of dog bowels is easily avoided with one simple character decision: play a Cleric or Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

[Asbestos]

No, because older editions have SoDs, and you can actually be a pure buffer/debuffer; in fact, AoE is the absolute WORST thing to be doing as an older-edition spellcaster, and was virtually always avoided (especially in 3e). You can't do that in 4e.



"Asking allies to move out of the way," what? You must've really cowed the other players at the table, when I used to ask that (with a please, might I add) as a wizard, the general response was either 'Screw You' or 'I can't :/'. Then both types got SUPER pissed when I blasted them anyway. Quickly learned to favor non-AoE and, thus, strikers.

Delaying and readying do not work; the former amounts to stunning the character since no one else's going to listen to that player whining about not being able to get a clean shot (hence lost turn), and the latter requires you to declare your intent to the DM, resulting in metascrew. Jump is in the same slot as Shield (i.e. yeah, THAT'S going to be prepped), and only affects one character once per encounter. These problems are -constant-, every turn.

This pile of dog bowels is easily avoided with one simple character decision: play a Cleric or Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

Wow. So, how do you REALLY feel?

In older editions AoEs are in fact STILL USED! even if you're playing the optimal non-blaster Wizard of 3.x. Glitterdust, the 'Cloud' spells, and Evard's Black Tentacles are all AoEs off the top of my head.

As for Jump being the same level as Shield... I'd say that Jump is superior to Shield. Wizards can have pretty decent AC normally and if the party is semi-competent the Wizard shouldn't be taking too many hits, preparing Shield is paranoid and egotistical. Jump is at least useful.

[Grynning]

I think that WotC is intentionally trying to tone down the tendency for Controllers to hit allies, as is evidenced by the lower numbers on the Psion and Seeker, but neither of those classes are finished yet so we don't have complete data. I don't see it as a "problem," as is evidenced by the differences of opinion here people will still play the other controllers because, well, they like them.

It's also worthy to note that any class with heavy AoE focus will have some friendly fire powers. The Sorcerer (a striker) in particular has this issue, and they have to worry about allies even more since they do more damage. However, after taking War Wizardry on my Sorc it really hasn't been too much of an issue; that's what the feat is for. Now if I could only get my DM to do bigger fights so I can 'splode more heads (he's been on a "one or two really nasty enemies" kick the last few sessions).

[Gralamin]

I think that WotC is intentionally trying to tone down the tendency for Controllers to hit allies, as is evidenced by the lower numbers on the Psion and Seeker, but neither of those classes are finished yet so we don't have complete data. I don't see it as a "problem," as is evidenced by the differences of opinion here people will still play the other controllers because, well, they like them.

It's also worthy to note that any class with heavy AoE focus will have some friendly fire powers. The Sorcerer (a striker) in particular has this issue, and they have to worry about allies even more since they do more damage. However, after taking War Wizardry on my Sorc it really hasn't been too much of an issue; that's what the feat is for. Now if I could only get my DM to do bigger fights so I can 'splode more heads (he's been on a "one or two really nasty enemies" kick the last few sessions).

Damage is less important then Riders, a lot of the time. In addition, War Wizardry only comes in paragon, causing you to wade through an entire tier of possible problems. And if you have a Tactical Warlord, well their bonus may very well override the penalty, making APing a bad idea... Which is strange.

In addition, one of the main issues I have with Controllers as presented currently is that Leaders are better at controlling then them a lot of the time, because they never have to worry about friendly fire, and often buff allies in the process. I've seen this happen multiple times, and it frankly annoying. Leaders aren't expected to hit allies though, and yet for some reason, controllers are. It's perplexing .

[Moff Chumley]

From a verisimilitude standpoint, it makes sense. And to support what others have said, I've played a PHBI-only wizard all the way through Heroic Tier, using lots of AoEs (almost exclusively), and I barely hit any allies the entire time. We came to an unspoken agreement that melee-ers would always stay on the outside of an enemy relative to other enemies. Good tactics in every way.

[Gralamin]

From a verisimilitude standpoint, it makes sense. And to support what others have said, I've played a PHBI-only wizard all the way through Heroic Tier, using lots of AoEs (almost exclusively), and I barely hit any allies the entire time. We came to an unspoken agreement that melee-ers would always stay on the outside of an enemy relative to other enemies. Good tactics in every way.

The problem might be that I'm partially judging from my own encounters, and I like enemies to be tactical. Alternate movement modes, group attacks, and such are fairly common under me

[Gametime]

"Asking allies to move out of the way," what? You must've really cowed the other players at the table, when I used to ask that (with a please, might I add) as a wizard, the general response was either 'Screw You' or 'I can't :/'. Then both types got SUPER pissed when I blasted them anyway. Quickly learned to favor non-AoE and, thus, strikers.

Delaying and readying do not work; the former amounts to stunning the character since no one else's going to listen to that player whining about not being able to get a clean shot (hence lost turn), and the latter requires you to declare your intent to the DM, resulting in metascrew. Jump is in the same slot as Shield (i.e. yeah, THAT'S going to be prepped), and only affects one character once per encounter. These problems are -constant-, every turn.

This pile of dog bowels is easily avoided with one simple character decision: play a Cleric or Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

I don't mean to be rude, but if your players respond to a request for teamwork with "Screw you" and your DM responds to readied actions with "Bwahaha, now I can destroy his strategy"...maybe the problem isn't the class you're playing.

[cupkeyk]

I don't mean to be rude, but if your players respond to a request for teamwork with "Screw you" and your DM responds to readied actions with "Bwahaha, now I can destroy his strategy"...maybe the problem isn't the class you're playing.

Ditto sentiment. 4e was built around teamwork and allies who cannot respond correctly to that are not allies. We would like to believe that our party as a strike force,w here in which we make each other more efficient (hence party roles), its not a dpr contest.

[ZeroNumerous]

I have to agree with Edea. My experiences as a wizard were terribly unfun. The choice usually boiled down to: Magic Missile, hit an ally and three enemies or hit just one enemy and no allies. However, my experiences as a warlord were radically different and loads of fun precisely because I never had to worry about blasting allies along with enemies.

[TheDarkOne]

One important fact is that if the monsters are assuming certain formations to prevent you from hitting a group of them with an AOE, then you've already had an effect on the battle with out even using an attack. It won't always work, but your group should be able to leverage the monster's unwillingness to assume certain positions to gain an advantage in the battle. (ie, they'll be less able to protect their artillery, or maybe they'll be easy to get flanking on etc.)

Also, there are some situations where hitting allies with an AoE is acceptable. It's not always clear, but hitting one alley to get an extra 2 or 3 monsters in your attack is definitely worth it.

Having played a wizard since release, I haven't seen any major problems with the AoEs. Of course there have been situations where I wanted a power to not hit allies, but it hasn't been a frequent concern. (although I have one or two powers that don't target allies, so this could be why)

[Edea]

I have to agree with Edea. My experiences as a wizard were terribly unfun. The choice usually boiled down to: Magic Missile, hit an ally and three enemies or hit just one enemy and no allies. However, my experiences as a warlord were radically different and loads of fun precisely because I never had to worry about blasting allies along with enemies.

Exactly. Warlord's one of the best leader classes XD.

I WILL say, though, that the very latest Wizard Essentials article finally provided some real bennies for the class (in particular, an ALLY-FRIENDLY at-will burst, that targets Will defense to boot; the only one of its kind). However, this is extremely recent; up until now my experience with the class is exactly as what I stated in my original post. And also note the SHEER NUMBER of Wizard Class Act/Essential articles we've gotten: at least three. The other classes have either one or zero; most have zero :/. This tells me the class needed some work.

[Gralamin]

I'm finding it odd that so many people are suggesting hitting allies. Do you not take powers with riders or something? I mean, last I checked, Shielding Swordmages are disliked a lot of the time since they can only prevent damage, and not the riders that go around with it. Last I checked A LOT of wizard powers have riders. So, its okay to put a rider on an ally if its an ally who does it, but not if its a monster?

[HMS Invincible]

Exactly. Warlord's one of the best leader classes XD.

I WILL say, though, that the very latest Wizard Essentials article finally provided some real bennies for the class (in particular, an ALLY-FRIENDLY at-will burst, that targets Will defense to boot; the only one of its kind). However, this is extremely recent; up until now my experience with the class is exactly as what I stated in my original post. And also note the SHEER NUMBER of Wizard Class Act/Essential articles we've gotten: at least three. The other classes have either one or zero; most have zero :/. This tells me the class needed some work.

Are you talking about chilling cloud? Because that targets fort, and does only set damage.

[Gralamin]

Are you talking about chilling cloud? Because that targets fort, and does only set damage.

No, She is talking about Winged Horde.

[Sir Homeslice]

I used to think Gralamin, Break, Edea, and the people in their camp were paint chip huffing sodomites with an overarching penchant for cradlerobbing.

And then I had an unfortunate encounter where my Tiefling Reslord/Bard/Daring Blade was made an utter mockery of by my allied wizard who, by dint of being an AoEmonkey and the DM's disturbing fascination for forced movement and immobilization effects, was blasted from roughly max HP to nearly nothing, bounced back up, and then was slapped back around like a red-headed stepchild.

Now whenever I see a target line that mentions creatures, and an area burst/close burst/blast range that belongs to a controller, I twitch because it makes war wizardry so much more of a hated feat in the sense that you needed it or else you'd invariably screw your teammates and not in the awesome way that needs a cigarette afterwards and breakfast in bed.

So yeah, to you blokes (Gralamin, Break, Edea, etc. etc.), I apologize.

[Kurald Galain]

damaging your allies is bad (as most normally think it is).

Of course it is. However, damaging allies that resist e.g. fire, using fire magic, is good planning. Wizards also get a spell that makes their allies resist fire Also, hitting one ally and two additional monsters may be worth it, depending on the situation.

Regarding riders, it depends on what the rider is. For instance, dazing an ally who's already dazed? No problem. Immobilizing an ally who can teleport? Acceptable. Pushing an ally? Useful, and it breaks enemy grabs.

"Asking allies to move out of the way," what? You must've really cowed the other players at the table, when I used to ask that (with a please, might I add) as a wizard, the general response was either 'Screw You' or 'I can't :/'.

It's called "teamwork". It's just like the rogue asking the fighter for a flank, really.

Delaying and readying do not work;

Sure they are. Example? Warlock charges forward and is swarmed by enemies. I ready an action to cast flaming sphere. Warlock teleports, flaming sphere appears in the square he just left, enemies hurt.

Jump is in the same slot as Shield (i.e. yeah, THAT'S going to be prepped),

Yes, it is. That's teamwork again. Jump is an oft-overlooked but extremely useful spell, and your allies will love you for taking it. And if the party tank is doing it's job (you know, because of teamwork) then you won't be needing Shield all that often.

In addition, one of the main issues I have with Controllers as presented currently is that Leaders are better at controlling then them a lot of the time,

Really? Can any leader duplicate a simple level-1 combo like Enlarged Grasping Shadows + Thunderwave?

[Starsinger]

This pile of dog bowels is easily avoided with one simple character decision: play a Cleric or Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

Sorcerers, who are the most "controlly" of all the strikers, ever, have a lot of AoE that also harms allies, your statement confuses me.

In addition, one of the main issues I have with Controllers as presented currently is that Leaders are better at controlling then them a lot of the time, because they never have to worry about friendly fire, and often buff allies in the process.

It depends on what you want from a controller. If you're just after AoE minion stomping, then yes. Artificers and Clerics do it better since they tend to buff allies in their attack zones. If you want a plethora of debuff riders your choice tends to be Shielding Clerics (That is the new build name right?) or Controller/Sorcerer.

Also as a note, Leaders (atleast Clerics, I'm not entirely sure on Warlords cuz I don't touch them) have a lot of useful utilities that rely on their standard action, so your Leader isn't always available to blast something.

Furthermore, I suspect that harming allies is part of the "balance" of controllers amongst each other. A lot of people claim that Invoker is an infinitely better controller than a Wizard, part of which is based on an asinine rumor that Invoker AoEs don't have friendly fire at all. But another part of it is that they're ignoring "must have" Wizard feats which really help. War Wizardry? Wow, -5 to hit allies and then they deal half damage if you somehow do hit? Seems nice to me. Enlarge Spell? Very nice. Spell Focus? For all the complaining people do about the save system, a simple "Doesn't actually break it but helps" feat seems to slip their notice. So yes, Invokers have more "I don't stab my friends" AoE powers. But Wizards can have larger, "I don't hit my allies as hard or as often", and harder to save against AoE powers.

[Master_Rahl22]

I'm going to agree with KG here. 4E is all about tactics and teamwork, so why should Controllers be any different? You need good tactics and teamwork to manage stuff he mentioned like dazing a bunch of enemies and one ally who happened to be already dazed or whatever. I also agree that I think it's part of the balance of being able to entirely shut your enemies down that occasionally you hurt one of your allies.

[LibraryOgre]

I will say that our Wizards INABILITY to use any powers that hit single targets made us twist his arm until he turned one of his At Wills into a single target attack (he went from Scorching Burst to Magic Missile and we were happy), there's also a number of times where our defenders (or tough leaders) will say "Hit me." My warforged cleric (multi'd fighter, with plate armor and now shield proficiencies) will regularly soak hits, especially fire or necrotic ('cause he resists those, thanks to his armor). Why? He's got a big bag of HP, several powers that heal him, and a couple powers that let him ignore or remove conditions. Hitting him, especially if he's dancing with a number of partners, is great strategy.

[Artanis]

The way I see it, Controllers have two jobs:
1) Screwing enemies (namely via debuffs)
2) Restricting enemy tactical options, namely via forced movement, area denial (e.g. walls), and the threat of AoE.

At that point, the balance comes in cost:benefit and versatility. The Wizard and Druid have an awful lot of ways to hurt their buddies, but that's an awful lot of ways to hurt the enemy as well. There's got to be something in their combined 165 AoEs that's worth it. Meanwhile, the Seeker won't be hurting allies much, but it also doesn't have many AoE options to start with*.




*This holds even if the final class has ten times the number of AoEs and triple the friendly fire rate.

[Fax Celestis]

2) Restricting enemy tactical options, namely via forced movement, area denial (e.g. walls), and the threat of AoE.

The problem with this is that playing what amounts to an embodiment of the Cold War isn't fun.

[Artanis]

The only "cold war" stuff I mean is enemies seeing a Wizard and spreading out to avoid having a Fireball dropped on their heads - which removes the option of bunching up. Other than that, being able to Thunderwave somebody into lava is going to keep them from going near the lava, letting you use something even nastier on them while they stay well away from the edge. Or how the entire point of walls is to keep people from going to a certain spot via blocking/slowing movement altogether and/or setting them on fire if they try it.

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, but when a specific function of your class is avoidable by your DM either playing intelligently (if your opponents know you're a wizard) or metagaming (when they don't), and while it does mean your foes are going to have to make some tough decisions, it also means that the majority of your time is going to be spent using options that aren't your best ones merely by virtue of the fact that you can't use them in a fashion towards their intended purpose.