4e Optimization Mythbusters.

[Eternity]

Here's another one:

Wizards suck in this edition. They've been nerfed beyond use. (Discussed into the ground over at WotC on this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1042917)

In my opinion, this could be labeled as busted just on the grounds of the broken wizard comboes out there (sleep + orb, another good one being Blood Pulse + Elemental Maw(teleporting straight up))

[DemonLord57]

But if you're hitting better, the monsters die faster, hit you less, and therefore you need less healing.

I'm pretty sure a Tactical Warlord is better for you than another cleric at epic levels, because the differentials are such that you take so much less damage with a tactical warlord that a 2nd cleric would be hardpressed to deal with all the additional healing demands.

Also can't forget that you're imposing negative status effects on the enemy more often, leading to better limiting of enemies' actions, leading to less effective actions in the fewer turns they have left.

Here's another one:

Wizards suck in this edition. They've been nerfed beyond use. (Discussed into the ground over at WotC on this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1042917)

In my opinion, this could be labeled as busted just on the grounds of the broken wizard comboes out there (sleep + orb, another good one being Blood Pulse + Elemental Maw(teleporting straight up))

Oh yeah, I haven't actually read the thread, (it's 48 pages long) but from what I heard about it in another thread, they have this warped reasoning for 'proving' that wizards suck. Here's the process: First, they show 'broken' (I hate how abused that word is) combos. Then, they say that because these combos are 'broken', (good) they shouldn't be allowed into the discussion. Then, they say that they now can't compare to other classes at all. All I can say is... huh? 

[Alpha]

I challenge the wizard disbelievers to compose a 4e Wizard based on Treantmonk's "God" handbook.

Then play it.

Then come back and say wizards suck.

Wizards are the only official controllers.  They are the only class with any significant AoE, which is very important for minion control.

They're just unhappy that wizards aren't strikers anymore.

I hate to bring up the point, but I faced the same thing when I was first playing a mage in World of Warcraft.  At the time(before the expansion)Mages were AOE/damage dealers.  Because warlocks and hunters could out-damage mages in single-target, everyone claimed mages were nerfed(especially the mages).  The more experience I gained, the more I realized this was absolutely not true.  Mages had a specific role to play, and they were great at it(or at least, I was).

Wizards are the same.  Other classes just don't have the same area control abilities.

[edit] My vote is busted.  Control doesn't mean damage.

[DemonLord57]

The most common claim for the Wizard being useless I've seen is that "the Cleric gets better spells for 'control' than the Wizard". This ridiculous argument comes from a few misconceptions: 1) Damage in an AoE is control. The reason people believe this ridiculous idea is, "because it says that under the definition of controller in the PHB". 2) Sort of an extension of 1, they compare Wizard 'pure damage' spells to Cleric ones, like Meteor Storm vs. Astral Storm and Firestorm vs. something damaging on that level. Okay, yes. Astral Storm is much better than Meteor Storm. However, Legion's Hold is much better than Astral Storm (IMO, at least). Hardly a fair comparison to determine who is the better controller. 3) Somehow the fact that Wizards have the ability to impose severely limiting status effects in an area with every power they have doesn't matter, because the cleric can do more damage with a daily. And if asked why this makes them a controller in the slightest, refer to 1 (again)

Oh yeah, in case it wasn't obvious: I vote Busted.

[Banor]

Anyone arguing that Wizard's suck must not have read TM and Squirelloid's guides to Wizards. That simple. My guess (haven't read the topic) is that they claim that Wizard are defenseless and squishies. That their powers are lackluster etc.... Starting to remind me the arguments I had with people advocating against 3.5 God Wizard.

I guess that history repeats itself, again for the good of the Wizards

[Eternity]

Then I take it that this one could be considered Busted?

Also, another thought @ Kuro for organizational purposes, could you perhaps put some sort of list of the myths in the thread in the first post, along with their status, if it isn't too much work for you?

[Kuroimaken]

Yep, definitely busted... Also, check out the Thunderwave + WoF combo on another thread. Give me that and Blood Pulse over a Warlock any time of the week.

Also, another thought @ Kuro for organizational purposes, could you perhaps put some sort of list of the myths in the thread in the first post, along with their status, if it isn't too much work for you?

Alas, my legendary lack of foresight rears its ugly head again. I didn't think that much ahead when I started the thread, else I would've reserved some posts for it; but I'll see what I can do about making this look tidier. (To be honest, I was afraid the thread would be defunct within a couple of days, tops. I'm actually a bit surprised it lasted this long.  )

[X-Codes]

The myth that Wizards suck is busted.  Just because they can't own every encounter anymore doesn't mean they suck.  Much like they were pre-3e they start out owning one or two encounters a day and steadily have more influence over the rest of the day.  As they are now, Wizards can effectively control only 1 encounter a day at level 1, depending on how minion-heavy the other encounters are, and that quickly rises to 3-4 encounters a day at about level 10, but it doesn't expand much beyond there later on.

[Kuroimaken]

The myth that Wizards suck is busted.  Just because they can't own every encounter anymore doesn't mean they suck.  Much like they were pre-3e they start out owning one or two encounters a day and steadily have more influence over the rest of the day.  As they are now, Wizards can effectively control only 1 encounter a day at level 1, depending on how minion-heavy the other encounters are, and that quickly rises to 3-4 encounters a day at about level 10, but it doesn't expand much beyond there later on.

Agreed. Busted beyond all recognition.

I thought 3-4 encounters a day was supposed to be the DMG recommendation, though?

[Squirrelloid]

The myth that Wizards suck is busted.  Just because they can't own every encounter anymore doesn't mean they suck.  Much like they were pre-3e they start out owning one or two encounters a day and steadily have more influence over the rest of the day.  As they are now, Wizards can effectively control only 1 encounter a day at level 1, depending on how minion-heavy the other encounters are, and that quickly rises to 3-4 encounters a day at about level 10, but it doesn't expand much beyond there later on.

Agreed. Busted beyond all recognition.

I thought 3-4 encounters a day was supposed to be the DMG recommendation, though?

The DMG has *no* recommendations for number of encounters per day.  This may be considered problematic.

[Kuroimaken]

The DMG has *no* recommendations for number of encounters per day.  This may be considered problematic.

So if a DM decides to toss 17 encounters in a day at a party (assuming all encounters have a minimum degree of challenge), then it's okay? That can't be right...

[highbulp]

The DMG has *no* recommendations for number of encounters per day.  This may be considered problematic.

So if a DM decides to toss 17 encounters in a day at a party (assuming all encounters have a minimum degree of challenge), then it's okay? That can't be right...

Every 2 encounters (or so) you get a Milestone, which gives you extra action points that can help offset the fact that you may have used your Dailies. That's "can help offset," not "makes up for."

But that doesn't make it okay. Nothing says that 17 encounters in one day is okay. The same way nothing says that throwing an encounter 15 levels higher than the party is okay. I think the game relies on a bit of common sense there. That's always been the case: the DM can kill the party if he wants--the goal is to challenge the party so that they have fun. And (iirc) that idea IS discussed in the DMG.

[DemonLord57]

The DMG has *no* recommendations for number of encounters per day.  This may be considered problematic.

So if a DM decides to toss 17 encounters in a day at a party (assuming all encounters have a minimum degree of challenge), then it's okay? That can't be right...

Every 2 encounters (or so) you get a Milestone, which gives you extra action points that can help offset the fact that you may have used your Dailies. That's "can help offset," not "makes up for."

But that doesn't make it okay. Nothing says that 17 encounters in one day is okay. The same way nothing says that throwing an encounter 15 levels higher than the party is okay. I think the game relies on a bit of common sense there. That's always been the case: the DM can kill the party if he wants--the goal is to challenge the party so that they have fun. And (iirc) that idea IS discussed in the DMG.

Actually, it does suggest limits to the encounter levels, and limits to the level of creatures in the encounter as well.

[Kuroimaken]

Actually, it does suggest limits to the encounter levels, and limits to the level of creatures in the encounter as well.

But not on the number of encounter per day, right?

[DemonLord57]

Actually, it does suggest limits to the encounter levels, and limits to the level of creatures in the encounter as well.

But not on the number of encounter per day, right?

Yes, that is what Squirreloid said. I don't remember seeing anything myself when I skimmed through it, and I'd take his word for it anyway. My response was aimed towards highbulp, who compared that to the supposed lack of guidelines on appropriate encounter levels for parties.

[highbulp]

Gah, I keep posting and being wrong My apologies to all.

What about the argument that it isn't necessarily the DM who chooses how many encounters per day the party has? When the group is out of stuff and wants to stop and rest, they'll stop and rest. Does the DMG say anything about letting parties stop and rest?

Not that it matters what the DMG says, since we're all intelligent people and know how to run a good game, whatever the book may or may not tell us to do

[Squirrelloid]

Gah, I keep posting and being wrong My apologies to all.

What about the argument that it isn't necessarily the DM who chooses how many encounters per day the party has? When the group is out of stuff and wants to stop and rest, they'll stop and rest. Does the DMG say anything about letting parties stop and rest?

Not that it matters what the DMG says, since we're all intelligent people and know how to run a good game, whatever the book may or may not tell us to do

Its actually not completely clear how many encounters a party should be able to go through.  I mean, I could see plausible arguments for anywhere from 4-10, really.  Its going to depend on the relative level of the combats, and also on how much depletion of party resources each encounter of a given challenge rating is supposed to eat up, but the DMG is remarkably short on guidance here.

Just letting the players rest whenever is problematic in two ways:
(1) it shouldn't be all or even most of the time, but occasionally attacking them while they're trying to rest is cool.
(2) if *players* don't have a good feel for when they can't take another challenge, they can kill themselves pretty easily if the DM *also* doesn't know if they can't take another challenge.

Finally, the level of the next challenge may be crucial.  If your next fight is the BBEG, but you don't know that yet, and you figure 'we can handle one more normal encounter', boy are you in for a *surprise*.

[Kuroimaken]

Its actually not completely clear how many encounters a party should be able to go through.  I mean, I could see plausible arguments for anywhere from 4-10, really.  Its going to depend on the relative level of the combats, and also on how much depletion of party resources each encounter of a given challenge rating is supposed to eat up, but the DMG is remarkably short on guidance here.

Just letting the players rest whenever is problematic in two ways:
(1) it shouldn't be all or even most of the time, but occasionally attacking them while they're trying to rest is cool.
(2) if *players* don't have a good feel for when they can't take another challenge, they can kill themselves pretty easily if the DM *also* doesn't know if they can't take another challenge.

Finally, the level of the next challenge may be crucial.  If your next fight is the BBEG, but you don't know that yet, and you figure 'we can handle one more normal encounter', boy are you in for a *surprise*.

That's actually a factor I hadn't considered up till now. For the purpose of argument, I'm thinking on something like this.

Suppose you have 8 encounters in a day (7 with about 10 minions each and the last one with the BBEG). Suppose, also, that for some reason you can only take short rests in between. Assuming the minions usually have a reasonable enough to-hit ratio (say 50%) and that 5% of those are criticals... How many healing surges would the party have spent on average, assuming a typical 4-man lineup? I'm afraid I don't really know what math to use for this.

[DemonLord57]

Its actually not completely clear how many encounters a party should be able to go through.  I mean, I could see plausible arguments for anywhere from 4-10, really.  Its going to depend on the relative level of the combats, and also on how much depletion of party resources each encounter of a given challenge rating is supposed to eat up, but the DMG is remarkably short on guidance here.

Just letting the players rest whenever is problematic in two ways:
(1) it shouldn't be all or even most of the time, but occasionally attacking them while they're trying to rest is cool.
(2) if *players* don't have a good feel for when they can't take another challenge, they can kill themselves pretty easily if the DM *also* doesn't know if they can't take another challenge.

Finally, the level of the next challenge may be crucial.  If your next fight is the BBEG, but you don't know that yet, and you figure 'we can handle one more normal encounter', boy are you in for a *surprise*.

That's actually a factor I hadn't considered up till now. For the purpose of argument, I'm thinking on something like this.

Suppose you have 8 encounters in a day (7 with about 10 minions each and the last one with the BBEG). Suppose, also, that for some reason you can only take short rests in between. Assuming the minions usually have a reasonable enough to-hit ratio (say 50%) and that 5% of those are criticals... How many healing surges would the party have spent on average, assuming a typical 4-man lineup? I'm afraid I don't really know what math to use for this.

Do you realize the number of factors that would be involved in such a calculation? And the variance? You can make assumptions about how many rounds it will take, how many times they'll attack, how much damage they'll do on average, how fast you take each one down, and where in the initiative order everyone is, (assume party then monsters, for example) but don't be surprised if you're off base with the result.

[Alpha]

I fear the best way to assess this would be through accumulation of experience.  It really does depend on the effectiveness of your group, and you as a player.

In short, it will probably be a long time before we have enough experience as a body to be able to say decisively "this is how many healing surges you can expect to use," if it's ever possible at all.