I'm a sorcerer with Acid Orb and Dragonfrost. I tend to use Acid Orb because it has a greater range and does more damage, but Dragonfrost is preferred when I need to push my target. I find myself in a not-uncommon situation where the monster has resistance to acid (greater than the amount I can ignore) and pushing it won't help at all. Suddenly I'm faced with being forced to use my lesser damaging attack, that won't be able to kill the monster. I took the power (Acid Orb) to deal extra damage, and yet I was easily stuck in a situation where I need extra damage and can't use it! If you don't like this example, take the one of a monster with very high Reflex but low Fortitude.
We're talking about the construction of the enemy choice feature, not the specifics of the power. If we bring System Mastery into this, the entire conversation is completely irrelevant anyway, since the value of each power is based on the sum total of the build that can be attached to it rather then any of the intrinsic values of the feature in question.
So you might say, "then isn't this entire conversation meaningless since System Mastery is at the core of D&D?"
To which I would resond, "It indeed might be, but I hold on to the hope that System Mastery is not one of the core values of D&D 4e, as was noted by the designers during the development process. Obviously System Mastery is a part of any game, but my hope is that one can play 4e D&D by judging each part of one's build on its individual worth and not worrying about non-obvious intra-character combinations, instead focusing on interesting tactical oppurtunities between one's character, the monsters, the environment and the other characters within specific situations that arise during gameplay."
The battlefield is just too easy to setup so that guardian harrier's escape clause is more devastating than taking the damage.
Ah, I finally figured out what you're getting at.
Yes, as long as there is a single melee fighter with a strong basic attack in the party, the vast majority of the time this fighter will be adjacent to an enemy, who you then can use Guardian Harrier on and be exactly as effective as Acid Orb (barring resistance and defense differences).
But there are also a great many enemies you can't use Guardian Harrier on who you would like to. The populations "enemies I want to use Guardian Harrier on" and "enemies I want to use Acid Orb on" are both exactly the same size as "enemies I can use acid orb on" (ignoring resistance, because this is theory), but both are larger than the population "enemies I can use Guardian Harrier on".
This makes Guardian Harrier exclusively weaker than Acid Orb in every situation, because there's no situation it can be stronger in.
(ignoring resistance, because this is theory) This makes Guardian Harrier exclusively weaker than Acid Orb in every situation, because there's no situation it can be stronger in.
I don't understand how ignoring potential resistance makes any sense at all.
I have a new idea; how about we compare Guardian Harrier to a much more appropriate power: the Psion's Mind Thrust. Mind Thrust can be used as a ranged basic attack and deals 1d10 damage. It has a range of 10, less than Guardian Harrier with a bow or crossbow, but more than GH with a dagger or heavy thrown weapon. Unlike GH, Mind Thrust can't be used as a melee attack.
So, how does Guardian Harrier look now, as a controller (not striker) power? At the very worst, when you use it against an isolated target that is free to move, it will be the same as Mind Thrust. However, there will be times when the monster does not want/can't move, and will take extra damage. And there will be times when the monster moves to avoid damage when it ordinarily would not want to move. The psion power, on the other hand, comes with an augment 1 that gives the target a penalty to Will. I am ignoring the augment 2, because that turns the power into an encounter power.
But there are also a great many enemies you can't use Guardian Harrier on who you would like to. The populations "enemies I want to use Guardian Harrier on" and "enemies I want to use Acid Orb on" are both exactly the same size as "enemies I can use acid orb on" (ignoring resistance, because this is theory), but both are larger than the population "enemies I can use Guardian Harrier on".
Out of curiosity, are you strictly speaking of situations where you do not have a melee ally adjacent to the enemy?
(ignoring resistance, because this is theory) This makes Guardian Harrier exclusively weaker than Acid Orb in every situation, because there's no situation it can be stronger in.
I don't understand how ignoring potential resistance makes any sense at all.
I know that there are a lot of posts in this thread so it can be helpful to skim, but please make sure your questions haven't already been answered before you ask them; it will stop this thread from going in circles.
there are three separate, closely related but nonetheless distinct arguments going on in this thread,
The first debate is a mathematical one. The question is, are powers that offer enemy choice mathematically inferior to powers that force equivalent effects on monsters with no choice? This involves game theory. It also a hypothetical version of Guardian Harrier that is identical to Acid Orb in all respects save the existence of enemy choice, ignoring range, defense, and damage type. GH was definitely the wrong choice of an example for this debate, but as I said earlier, I realized that five months too late.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
(ignoring resistance, because this is theory) This makes Guardian Harrier exclusively weaker than Acid Orb in every situation, because there's no situation it can be stronger in.
I don't understand how ignoring potential resistance makes any sense at all.
The conversation with Jerboa is still on the "mathematical theory" side. If you start taking "real life" into account (debate 2) I can point out that the sorcerer in my campaign carries around both a frost and a flame dagger (dual-implement spellcaster), which allows him to pick from 3 different elements for Acid Orb. The only way something can resist his Acid Orb is if it has Cold and Fire and Acid resist.
I have a new idea; how about we compare Guardian Harrier to a much more appropriate power: the Psion's Mind Thrust. Mind Thrust can be used as a ranged basic attack and deals 1d10 damage. It has a range of 10, less than Guardian Harrier with a bow or crossbow, but more than GH with a dagger or heavy thrown weapon. Unlike GH, Mind Thrust can't be used as a melee attack.
So, how does Guardian Harrier look now, as a controller (not striker) power? At the very worst, when you use it against an isolated target that is free to move, it will be the same as Mind Thrust. However, there will be times when the monster does not want/can't move, and will take extra damage. And there will be times when the monster moves to avoid damage when it ordinarily would not want to move. The psion power, on the other hand, comes with an augment 1 that gives the target a penalty to Will. I am ignoring the augment 2, because that turns the power into an encounter power.
This is an excellent point in a combination of Debate 2 and Debate 3: comparing powers in "real life" and asking what it means for something to be a qualified "controller" or "striker" power. Mind Thrust is an obviously weaker power than Guardian Harrier, as long as you use a d10 or better weapon with GH, MT will never deal more damage. But MT has mitigating circumstances:
1) It's the Psion's only RBA, while the Seeker has multitudes. This means a psion who's never planning on augmenting MT is taking it specifically for the RBA (if there's a Warlord in the party, say). This means it's weakened one way for a benefit in another. Balance? Yes. 2) It can be agumented to be a very good Encounter Power (and actually two if you want to be selfish or have lots of allies who can target Will defense). Arguably one of the best single-target Controller encounter powers, in fact. The initial at-will effect is weak becaus the Encounter Level effect is strong.
There are a lot of other things I can address, like how the Seeker's ability to use GH as a melee attack is nearly irrelevant, since his AC will be in the toilet and it requires he use a Dwarven Thrower or Farbond Spellblade to keep the damage at d10 or above (which means dropping the range to 5/10). But my answer would be "Even comparing GH to MT in a real-life situation and exclusively as a controller power (whatever that means) it fails as a controller power compared to Mind Thrust."
Out of curiosity, are you strictly speaking of situations where you do not have a melee ally adjacent to the enemy?
Not at all. I'm speaking about any situation where a melee ally is unable to make a basic attack against the target, which includes a positioning problem (not close enough to target) as well as a status effect problem (daze, blind, stun). I'm also talking about any situation where the enemy would take less damage from moving (opportunity attack from ally has an average of 2 damage, say), has an ability to move 2+ squares without provoking an OA, or has damage resistance that can be applied twice to GH but only once to AO. I'm sure I've missed other situations, but they are legion.
1) It's the Psion's only RBA, while the Seeker has multitudes. This means a psion who's never planning on augmenting MT is taking it specifically for the RBA (if there's a Warlord in the party, say). This means it's weakened one way for a benefit in another. Balance? Yes.
I don't think I follow here. Are you suggesting that Mind Thrust is balanced because the Psion has a lack of options, while GH is underpowered because the Seeker has other options?
2) It can be agumented to be a very good Encounter Power (and actually two if you want to be selfish or have lots of allies who can target Will defense). Arguably one of the best single-target Controller encounter powers, in fact. The initial at-will effect is weak becaus the Encounter Level effect is strong.
I agree that augmented, it is a great, great Controller power. But we aren't talking augmented. If that were the case we could say that a class can have a weak At Will because he has a superior Encounter power.
There are a lot of other things I can address, like how the Seeker's ability to use GH as a melee attack is nearly irrelevant, since his AC will be in the toilet and it requires he use a Dwarven Thrower or Farbond Spellblade to keep the damage at d10 or above (which means dropping the range to 5/10). But my answer would be "Even comparing GH to MT in a real-life situation and exclusively as a controller power (whatever that means) it fails as a controller power compared to Mind Thrust."
That doesn't make any sense though. Both can be used as a RBA. GH has twice the range (4 times at an attack penalty) and can deal more damage. There is no single way that Mind Thrust as an At Will power is better.
Not at all. I'm speaking about any situation where a melee ally is unable to make a basic attack against the target, which includes a positioning problem (not close enough to target) as well as a status effect problem (daze, blind, stun). I'm also talking about any situation where the enemy would take less damage from moving (opportunity attack from ally has an average of 2 damage, say), has an ability to move 2+ squares without provoking an OA, or has damage resistance that can be applied twice to GH but only once to AO. I'm sure I've missed other situations, but they are legion.
The thing is that much of this doesn't really fly since it is freely admitted that GH is a situational power. It will never be used in a situation where a good setup is not in play.
The other part though introduces the concept of resistance which I thought was being left out of the discussion since it is an endless loop. The Halfling Artful Dodger Rogue vs the Ooze for instance.
Mind Thrust is an obviously weaker power than Guardian Harrier, as long as you use a d10 or better weapon with GH, MT will never deal more damage. But MT has mitigating circumstances:
1) It's the Psion's only RBA, while the Seeker has multitudes. This means a psion who's never planning on augmenting MT is taking it specifically for the RBA (if there's a Warlord in the party, say). This means it's weakened one way for a benefit in another. Balance? Yes. 2) It can be agumented to be a very good Encounter Power (and actually two if you want to be selfish or have lots of allies who can target Will defense). Arguably one of the best single-target Controller encounter powers, in fact. The initial at-will effect is weak becaus the Encounter Level effect is strong.
There are a lot of other things I can address, like how the Seeker's ability to use GH as a melee attack is nearly irrelevant, since his AC will be in the toilet and it requires he use a Dwarven Thrower or Farbond Spellblade to keep the damage at d10 or above (which means dropping the range to 5/10). But my answer would be "Even comparing GH to MT in a real-life situation and exclusively as a controller power (whatever that means) it fails as a controller power compared to Mind Thrust."
I was actually referring to the theoretical comparison of two powers, looking at nothing other than damage and effect. It doesn't matter how many conditional situations can contribute to MT being useful, we are just looking at the basics of the math.
Ok, lets talk theoretical. We will ignore everything other than the innate damage/effect of the power. That means ignoring range, defense attacked, damage type, and all class features (because we aren't talking about striker vs. controller here, just theoretical comparison of two hypothetical powers in a vacuum. Power 1: deals 1d10 + primary stat mod + secondary stat mod Power 2: deals 1d10 + primary stat mod. If the target does not end its next turn at least 2 squares away from its starting position, it takes damage equal to your secondary stat mod.
Given this, Power 1 is indeed mathematically superior to Power 2. However, we have made a mistake...as there is no power that deals 1d10 + primary stat mod + secondary stat mod. There is a power that deals 1d10 + primary stat mod, an at-will power of a class that gets to add its secondary stat mod to damage. A class that is a striker, and this extra damage it one of its mechanics that allows it to be a striker. If we are truly talking pure theory here in terms of power design, we can't include any class mechanics.
This gets to my point, long winded though it may be: theoretical discussions of power design in a vacuum are interesting, but also pointless. Powers are balanced by considering all aspects of a character: class traits, potential interaction with feats, and class role. The initial version of Dual Strike was two attacks against one creature, melee only. I think we can all agree that this is mathematically weaker than Twin Strike, which lets you attack 1 or 2 creatures and can also be used as a ranged attack (note I don't say Twin Strike is far better because it deals an additional 1d6 damage per tier). This exerpt is from the Martial Power errata: Dual Strike Page 7: Replace the power’s Target, Attack, and Hit lines. This revision updates the power’s format for clarity, and it revises the Hit line to exclude “Strength modifier” in damage so that the fighter is not achieving striker level damage with this attack.
It looks like the designers take class role into consideration when designing a power. Giving a controller an at-will attack that always did as much damage as a striker would be too good. Giving a controller an at-will attack that, when used correctly, will nearly always deal as much damage as a striker is a very nice power.
@Rey: Ok, now you did admit that Guardian Harrier was a poor choice for your poster power, and I respect that, given that you are a self described stubborn person. What I hope you will also admit, is that when trying to identify if a monster choice power is too weak, you should compare it to other powers within the same role. So let us try to find out whether some of the other monster choice powers are too weak. The other power often mentioned was the level 17 encounter, Flesh-Tether Shot. It is a ranged weapon attack that targets AC. It deals 1[W] + Wis mod damage, and if the target moves before the end of your next turn, it takes 5 damage and is dazed until the end of its next turn. In addition, if you have the Bloodbond class feature, the target also grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn. I think it is safe to say that anyone taking the power will have the Bloodbond feature, so we can include that as an effect of a hit. The theoretical power that this was compared to would be one that does equivalent damage and immobilizes the target. F-TS grants combat advantage, which is a plus over immobilized. However, it lets the target move if it desires, putting immobilized ahead for when you really want to stop a creature from moving. However, the negative effect from moving is quite severe: some extra damage (not much at that level I'm sure) and dazed. The daze effect lasts longer than the combat advantage, effectively extending the duration of that aspect. Being dazed prevents you from flanking, protecting the PCs from many harmful effects. Best of all, being dazed gives you one action. At best, the monster used its standard and minor actions before moving. But most likely, F-TS was used in the same was as an immobilizing power: against an isolated target. Its only option would be to charge (and even then it would have to be close enough), and then be dazed until the end of its next turn. You will notice I am not saying which one is better. I do know that any monster with a subpar ranged attack will think twice before moving so that it can use its strong melee attack. I will admit that F-TS is a weaker power of its level, but not because it is monster choice. It is weak because it only targets 1 creature. Force Volley (Wizard encounter 17) targets up to 3 creatures for 3d6 + Int mod damage and dazed. In addition, if you target a single creature you get +4 to the attack roll. So while F-TS has the potential to make a creature not move at all, it is much weaker in that it only targets a single creature.
I was actually referring to the theoretical comparison of two powers, looking at nothing other than damage and effect. It doesn't matter how many conditional situations can contribute to MT being useful, we are just looking at the basics of the math.
I'm tired of this. You make a post where you say that a theoretical consideration is invalid because it's theoretical and practical considerations must be made, and then you ask for a comparison of Mind Thrust and Guardian Harrier. At which point I admit that Guardian Harrier is theoretically superior to Mind Thrust but there are practical considerations that allow Mind Thrust to be balanced.
You then proceed to agree with me and show that a theoretical comparison of two powers can show that one is superior, but that there are practical considerations to account for.
You then declare that your agreeing with me makes me wrong.
There's something extremely painful going on here. I am trying my best to sort my arguments into three different topics.
Topic 1) Is it possible to prove mathematically that an Enemy Chooses power is inferior to a power that is identical except it guarantees an exactly equivalent effect to one of the choices the enemy gets to choose from.
Corollary 1a) How do you theoretically balance powers that allow for enemy choice with powers that guarantee an effect? This is a subset of Debate 1 because you have to come to consensus on Debate 1 before this conversation can even take place. This debate is still taking place in a vacuum.
Topic 2) How do you take the theoretical evaluation of two powers and apply the practical consideration of how a power interacts with the class abilities and power selections of the class that has it? This topic is very closely related to Corollary 1a, but the two are distinct.
Topic 3) What does it mean for a class to be a striker or controller? Can you compare things that a striker can do to things that a controller can do in any valid way?
Corollary 3a) WTF is up with the Seeker? Why does he suck so much as a controller and suck as a striker?
Given this, Power 1 is indeed mathematically superior to Power 2. However, we have made a mistake...as there is no power that deals 1d10 + primary stat mod + secondary stat mod. There is a power that deals 1d10 + primary stat mod, an at-will power of a class that gets to add its secondary stat mod to damage. A class that is a striker, and this extra damage it one of its mechanics that allows it to be a striker. If we are truly talking pure theory here in terms of power design, we can't include any class mechanics.
Or we can include any and all class mechanics that directly impact powers. All Fighter powers have the 'Mark' rider attached to them when we evaluate them, all Ranger Powers have the '+1d6 damage the first time they hit' rider, and all Seekers get...well, nothing, because Seeker's (like most controllers) suffer in their class-specific mechanics.
This gets to my point, long winded though it may be: theoretical discussions of power design in a vacuum are interesting, but also pointless. Powers are balanced by considering all aspects of a character: class traits, potential interaction with feats, and class role.
Theoretical discussions of power design are far from pointless. They give us a framework for analyzing actual powers. In this case, people argue that the Guardian harrier is good because it provides control; it clearly doesn't. While it may be a good power for other factors, it's not a meaningful control power, and theoretical discussion shows it.
As for interaction with feats, class roll, etc. we're changing the terms of the debate--but that's. Explicitly noting that we are changing gears from Debate 1 to Debate 3. The logical inferiority of Enemy Choice powers is a completely separate issue from whether the existence of such inferior powers is justified by class/role differences.
I think, in this specific case, they're not. I don't think that occasional pseudo-striekr damage on a controller is a bad thing, and I don't think enemy choice powers are inherently unbalanced. I just think the Seeker gets is way wrong. Here's my train of logic:
Seekers can select almost all of their powers to be 'soft' control powers, which punish an enemy with damage.; and That punishment damage is less damage than a Ranger deals; Therefore If the seeker dealt Punishment damage 100% of the time, he would never control enemies and therefore be a pure damage dealer, functionally a Striker, but one dealing less damage than a real Ranger Striker.
The logical framework we spent so much time arguing shows that, in fact, those soft control powers are inferior to dealing that damage 100% of the time; Therefore, a Seeker that takes all available 'soft' control powers will be worse than a bad striker.
@Rey: Ok, now you did admit that Guardian Harrier was a poor choice for your poster power, and I respect that, given that you are a self described stubborn person. What I hope you will also admit, is that when trying to identify if a monster choice power is too weak, you should compare it to other powers within the same role.
I never said this.
I regretted choosing Guardian Harrier not because it was from a different role, but because it wasn't identical to the other power, and therefore required an additional level of abstraction that people were unable or unwilling to accept. The power I SHOULD have used was, in fact, the Druid's Storm Spike, which shares a defense and range, and deals elemental damage, and therefore is much more comparable to Acid Orb.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
