I Need Help Explaining the Value of Battlefield Control

[Guile]

I thought the Min/Max board would be the best place to seek the help I need. If any Admin disagrees, please feel free to move it.

So, as the title says, I need help explaining the value of battlefield control to one of my fellow players.

Here's the setup: four players - beguiler (myself), rogue (player in question), big stupid fighter, and bard. Today we're assaulting a small orc outpost. I sneak around the back, rogue sneaks around the side, bard and fighter come in the front door. I keep 3/4 of the orcs tied up with glitterdusts and colour sprays, the party never has to deal with more than 3 or 4 orcs at any one time. Needless to say, it's a cakewalk. The only person who manages to get hit in the entire battle, amusingly enough, is me.

Standing around chatting after the game: rogue player - "I can't believe we don't have a blaster wizard. This party really needs a blaster wizard." Me -

I mean, I suppose this could just be a case of bruised ego on my part, but it really annoyed me. I'm sure his lack of understanding is primarily because he seldom plays anything other than a blaster wizard, as far back as 1st Edition (yes, we've been playing together that long). I'm also pretty sure that he's hit for sneak attack damage more times in this campaign due to my spells than due to flanking with party members.

And yet, the "show, don't tell" method seems to be falling on blind eyes. I don't know how else to display the superiority of battlefield control. I think I may have to explain it to him, preferably with small words.

So can anyone give me some advice on what to say? He's my best friend, so I have to say it nicely.

[Midnight_v]

Have you considered sitting him down and handing him a copy of TreantMonklvl20's "Guide to being god"?

[Ubernoob]

Have you considered sitting him down and handing him a copy of TreantMonklvl20's "Guide to being god"?

I actually did this to a player.  He enjoyed reading it.

[Brainpiercing]

How I would go about explaining it:

Battlefield control is all about one thing:

Making your actions count. Actions are a very important currency in D&D. Often the PCs will have fewer than the opposition (by being outnumbered),and likewise, if the opposition has fewer it usually shows pretty quickly. Which makes designing single BBEG encounters so difficult in D&D.

Making your actions count has a simple meaning: After you have acted things should be different than before. Enemies should have a disadvantage after every PC action, and one that goes beyond having lost a few HP. The reason is obviously that HP-loss does not diminish fighting capabilities. Without diminished fighting capabilities enemies hit back - which is to be avoided.

A blaster wizard who can one-shot an entire group of enemies IS doing battlefield control. Mostly it just doesn't work that way, though, because you can only hope to one-shot groups of mooks. And doing 30 points of fire damage to a monster with 50HP doesn't do squat to prevent said monster from hitting back. SODing a single enemy is also doing battlefield control, as long as it works. But the best thing to do is to hit a group of enemies with a debuff that makes sure that the BSF can kill them without danger to himself, because an enemy that does nothing for one round is (during that round) just as good as a dead enemy.

Now this isn't really any different than the Guide to being god, I admit.

[Bozwevial]

Tell him that you can do one of two things with your spells: You can hit him with Magic Missile, which will do a few points of damage and not much else, and he is then free to attack people on his turn. Or you can hit multiple people with Grease, making them all flat-footed for him to sneak attack and possibly making them fall down, leaving them in a poor position to attack from. Now ask him and his d6 Hit Dice which sounds better.

[ninjarabbit]

Let me make a comparison: a fireball affects a 20' radius for one round, an Evard's black tentacles affects a 20' radius for a number fo rounds equal to you caster level, which one sounds like the better deal.

[Midnight_v]

Let me make a comparison: a fireball affects a 20' radius for one round, an Evard's black tentacles affects a 20' radius for a number fo rounds equal to you caster level, which one sounds like the better deal.

OH NOES NOTZ ZE TENTAKULES@
LOL
He's right, Evards is such ownage when it come online. Thats a good parable, tell him that one.

Okay if I were going to cast a spell at you, and you get to pick which one which would you pick? Ready?
1. Evards black tentcles
2. Fireball (10 hit dies)
which would you rather me cast?

You can try this at every level with different spells same net effect... I'd think.

[Brainpiercing]

If I'm huge and have Str 30 of course I'll pick Tentacles...

[Midnight_v]

If I'm huge and have Str 30 of course I'll pick Tentacles...

Fair enough... that should be a big if.

[Negative Zero]

Battlefield Control is better the larger your party is. A tiny party very well may need a blaster wizard, if there isn't the ability to do that damage otherwise.

Incidentally, Guile, does your name reference the Street Fighter character, or just the abstract noun?

[ninjarabbit]

If I'm huge and have Str 30 of course I'll pick Tentacles...

Then replace black tentacles with stinking cloud or something similar.


Even if you want damage, you'll do more damage with a spell like haste, greater magic weapon, or cloudkill than you will with a fireball or cone of cold.

[Runestar]

I can see why it is hard to see the effectiveness of a battlefield controller - your contribution is arguably quite indirect and very hard to quantify. With a blaster wizard, you can easily say "Look - I did hundreds of damage through the course of the session. You can't doubt my worth to the party".

But with a controller, you rarely ever get to do any damage. What you are doing is weakening/disabling foes, in turn making them weaker and allowing the other PCs to overcome them more easily. But at the end of the day, just how much of the party's effectiveness should be attributed to you? Everyone remembers the fighter who critted the hill giant for 100 damage. No one remembers the wizard who made this possible by blinding him via glitterdust. Hard to tell at a glance. Everyone knows you contributed, only question is how much.

Having played a few blaster'esque spellcasters before trying a hand at battlefield control, the surge in effectiveness is quite significant. Best solution might be to play a blaster for 1 or 2 games and show just how lackluster it is compared to what a controller wizard is truly capable of. Then the players should understand.

[Guile]

Wow, didn't expect this much response this fast. I'm glad I followed the link from CharOps to BG; you guys rock!

Anyways, after reading these responses, I think I'll try explaining it this way:

We're in a fight. The BSF is occupied with another opponent. The bard is... a bard. It's just you and me, a 10th level rogue and a 10th level beguiler. We're facing an evil, uninjured cloud giant. Would you rather I:

a) Was a wizard instead of a beguiler, and cast a 10d6 fireball. If he fails the Reflex save, that's an average of 35 hp. He still has 143 hp left. You can poke him with your rapier next turn for around 7 hp, 'cause me and my d4 hit dice ain't getting anywhere near him just to give your sorry ass a flanking bonus. He's free on his next turn to beat you like a rented mule. Or;

b) Cast glitterdust. If he fails the Will save, he's blinded. Sure, he still has all 178 hp left, but he's now denied his Dexterity bonus. You can sneak attack him with your rapier for 10 rounds, averaging around 25 hp each round, double that if you luck out and connect with your second attack. You also have 50% concealment against him.

Either way, I'm not powerful enough to one-shot him. If he's going to be able to attack you next round anyways, wouldn't you prefer he have a 50% miss chance?

How's that sound so far?

Incidentally, Guile, does your name reference the Street Fighter character, or just the abstract noun?

Both. It's also the reason I liked the beguiler class when I first saw it printed.

[Rebel7284]

Sneak attack damage is not doubled on a crit.  Otherwise sounds good.

[PhoenixInferno]

We're in a fight. The BSF is occupied with another opponent. The bard is... a bard. It's just you and me, a 10th level rogue and a 10th level beguiler. We're facing an evil, uninjured could giant. Would you rather I:

a) Was a wizard instead of a beguiler, and cast a 10d6 fireball. If he fails the Reflex save, that's an average of 35 hp. He still has 143 hp left. You can poke him with your rapier next turn for around 7 hp, 'cause me and my d4 hit dice ain't getting anywhere near him just to give your sorry ass a flanking bonus. He's free on his next turn to beat you like a rented mule. Or;

b) Cast glitterdust. If he fails the Will save, he's blinded. Sure, he still has all 178 hp left, but he's now denied his Dexterity bonus. You can sneak attack him with your rapier for 10 rounds, averaging around 25 hp each round, double that if you luck out and score a critical hit or connect with the second attack. You also have 50% concealment against him.

Either way, I'm not powerful enough to one-shot him. If he's going to be able to attack you next round anyways, wouldn't you prefer he have a 50% miss chance?

Perfect.

Another reason Battlefield Control is important is because the Wizard has to expend limited resources in order to damage things - non-spellcasters have an unlimited ability to deal damage - it is better to find ways to leverage that unlimited resource than it is to try and compete with it.

[Guile]

Sneak attack damage is not doubled on a crit.  Otherwise sounds good.

Fixed, thanks!

Perfect.

Another reason Battlefield Control is important is because the Wizard has to expend limited resources in order to damage things - non-spellcasters have an unlimited ability to deal damage - it is better to find ways to leverage that unlimited resource than it is to try and compete with it.

Cool, thanks PhoenixInferno, I'll remember this as my backup argument. We're meeting for lunch today; hopefully this goes well. If worse comes to worst, I'll shove a copy of TreantMonk's guide under his nose.

[TheChrisWaits]

He's my best friend, so I have to say it nicely.

Really? I thought most people are just really blunt with their best friends. Punch the guy in the nose and tell him it's that way because it is.

[SixthDeclension]

Ahhh, this thread reminds me of my beguiller... and how he completely outsources the summoner sorcerer in every single encounter.

[Guile]

Well, some people just won't listen to reason... I guess I'll just have to keep playing the character I want to, without worrying about what he thinks, and hope that he eventually clues in. I was hoping he'd listen to reason, but then again, this is the guy who complained about how "overpowered" my lesser tiefling swashbuckler/fighter/dervish/tempest was, while he was playing a cleric he'd intentionally designed as a walking band-aid box. Whatever.

Thanks for the help, everyone.

Really? I thought most people are just really blunt with their best friends. Punch the guy in the nose and tell him it's that way because it is.

Well, by being nice, I meant not just flat-out calling him an f'n idiot. Insinuating that he's an f'n idiot is different.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If you still want to show him just how bad actually doing damage is, you do have access to the whelm series of spells.

If you're willing to play it risky, I agree with Runestar so you can show your little rogue what would happen if you burned a fourth level slot for Whelm, Mass versus if you used it on say, charm monster. Heck, if you can get the DM to agree, you might even be able to do some mock combat to prove that in nearly every situation, greater invisibility and solid fog are better than DD.

All else fails, just give him what he wants.