Rule of Three 2/28

[Hussar]

There's a terminology mismatch, here. "Nova" effects as I've been using the term refer to "spikes": you deal 20 damage once every 4 rounds, versus 5 damage every round for 4 rounds.

The problem with your terminology though is that it ignores the cascading effects of more persistant spells. I "nova" by dropping six summoning spells before combat and blowing every memorized spell I have. I now mow through combat, every spell doing maximum effect, because it lasts the entirety of my combat day.

A summoning that survives a combat, but runs out of duration before the next combat is just wasted power. If you have only one combat to worry about, then there is no wastage.

Same goes with any persistant spell. A Web spell that has an effect over all your encounters for the day is far more effective than a web spell which only impacts one out of four encounters. Effectively, that web spells is several times more effective.

Fighter types cannot "stack" their effects like this. That's where the nova caster issue comes in. And, it's hardly limited to the wizard. Buffs become MUCH more effective in the nova situation. For one, any buff with a duration in minutes usually doesn't last more than one encounter. But, in a nova situation, that's all you need. Plus, when combined with summoning, buffs just go that much farther. Sure, animal growth on your companion is great. But, animal growth on your companion plus his ten friends is just that much better.

 

[Hassassin]

The problem with your terminology though is that it ignores the cascading effects of more persistant spells. I "nova" by dropping six summoning spells before combat and blowing every memorized spell I have. I now mow through combat, every spell doing maximum effect, because it lasts the entirety of my combat day.

I think basically what you are saying is that many of the spells from previous editions assume short combats in how they are balanced? I agree, but that doesn't really make the idea of days with a single long encounter problematic for 5e, it just means those spells need to be rebalanced.

 

[Hussar]

I think basically what you are saying is that many of the spells from previous editions assume short combats in how they are balanced? I agree, but that doesn't really make the idea of days with a single long encounter problematic for 5e, it just means those spells need to be rebalanced.

Oh, totally agree with that.

But, therein lies the rub. When you start balancing the spells, inevitably you are going to have to start fencing them in with some limitations. And people get testy when you start doing that.

 

[Kingreaper]

Maybe an example would help. We'll keep it simple and abstract. Fighter deals 5 points of damage every round. Wizard deals 50 points of damage for their "nova" effect (fireball!), and otherwise can't actually deal any damage -- weak wizarding arms y'know. Monsters have on average 50 hp. In a "normal adventuring day", this party of two fights two monsters: the wizard nukes one, and then the fighter chops away at the other.

The wizard then gets the genius idea for a 15MAD, so that the wizard can kill all the monsters all by herself: kill one monster, rest & recharge, then come back and kill the other.

The party goes out and has the wizard kill one monster, and then take a rest. Only, when they come back, they find that they must fight TWO monsters at once -- the DM has employed the system's ability to cram a whole day's worth of encounters into one encounter, and so the Wizard has lost the ability to exploit resting mechanics to always be at full power. The wizard still kills one monster, and the fighter still kills the other.

Note the word in bold. Have you ever noticed that fireball is not, in fact, single target ability?

Wizards get novas, they also get AoEs. Naive megafights (like the one you described) still make them more important than the slow, steady, singletarget, fighter.


Additionally: 50 damage round 1=/=50 damage by round 10.
50 damage round 1=monster is dead, no damage taken.
50 damage over 10 rounds=10 rounds of damage taken.

When you're attempting to demonstrate balance, look out for the pitfalls, they're quite important

 

[I'm A Banana]

I "nova" by dropping six summoning spells before combat and blowing every memorized spell I have. I now mow through combat, every spell doing maximum effect, because it lasts the entirety of my combat day.

Right, but those six summoning spells should (if they are properly balanced) only get you up to where the Fighter is normally. You're more powerful than YOU usually are as just Wizard McGee, but you're not more powerful than Fighter Jones. Your summons help you keep pace.

Think of it in terms of the example: Fighter deals 5 damage per round, wizard deals 0 damage per round. A summon gives the wizard +5 damage per round. They're doing that instead of dealing 50 damage all at once.

I'm focusing on damage right now to try and keep it simple, but Web and other persistent effects fall into the same basket: these things aren't spikes, so their long-term potential isn't any greater than the rest of the party's long-term potential (a web vs. a fighter who stops all movement away from him).

Fighter types cannot "stack" their effects like this. That's where the nova caster issue comes in. And, it's hardly limited to the wizard. Buffs become MUCH more effective in the nova situation. For one, any buff with a duration in minutes usually doesn't last more than one encounter. But, in a nova situation, that's all you need. Plus, when combined with summoning, buffs just go that much farther. Sure, animal growth on your companion is great. But, animal growth on your companion plus his ten friends is just that much better.

Buffs are a slightly different bag, but not remarkably. Instead of the wizard summoning a mook to deal 5 damage per round, he buffs the fighter to deal +5 damage per round, but the net output in damage is the same.

But, therein lies the rub. When you start balancing the spells, inevitably you are going to have to start fencing them in with some limitations. And people get testy when you start doing that.

Well, unless we want to return to spells-as-treasure, we're going to need to balance spells with the assumption that they're going to be used. Spells-as-treasure is a viable alternative in a lot of peoples' books, though.

Note the word in bold. Have you ever noticed that fireball is not, in fact, single target ability?

YOU'RE KIDDING ME!!!!!

Of course I've noticed it, but I wasn't talking about fireball specifically, merely nova capacity in general. Multi-target damage isn't dramatically different in raw numerical points than single-target damage (you still balance it assuming an expected damage output, so its damage is lower than ST damage, spread out among more creatures).

 

[Kingreaper]

Right, but those six summoning spells should (if they are properly balanced) only get you up to where the Fighter is normally. You're more powerful than YOU usually are as just Wizard McGee, but you're not more powerful than Fighter Jones. Your summons help you keep pace.

Okay, so that's easy right, there are 3 encounters in a day, so a summon should deal half as much damage as Fighter Jones.

Okay, so that's easy right, there are 6 encounters in a day, so a summon should deal as much damage as Fighter Jones.

Okay, so that's easy right, there are 12 encounters in a day, so a summon should deal twice as much damage as Fighter Jones.

Okay, so that's easy right, there is 1 encounter in a day, so a summon should deal 1/6th as much damage as Fighter Jones.

Yep, you can just balance the numbers, provided you control how many encounters are in a day.

YOU'RE KIDDING ME!!!!!

Of course I've noticed it, but I wasn't talking about fireball specifically, merely nova capacity in general. Multi-target damage isn't dramatically different in raw numerical points than single-target damage (you still balance it assuming an expected damage output, so its damage is lower than ST damage, spread out among more creatures).

You don't think that the fact that wizards have multi-target damage is relevant to the idea of mega-encounters?

The more monsters, the more monsters can be hit by a single fireball, so the more damage the fireball deals.

You can't simply ignore factors. You can't design a megaencounter simply by adding more monsters, because that's playing into the wizard's hands.


I notice you didn't even comment on the fact that frontloaded damage is better than the same amount of damage spread out over time?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, so that's easy right, there are 3 encounters in a day, so a summon should deal half as much damage as Fighter Jones.

Why half? No, if you're trading the single-target burst for the longer-term effect, the longer-term effect should equal other longer-term effects. So the summon should deal equal damage to a fighter.

You don't think that the fact that wizards have multi-target damage is relevant to the idea of mega-encounters?

The more monsters, the more monsters can be hit by a single fireball, so the more damage the fireball deals.

Mega encounters don't necessarily equal "a 10 by 10 room entirely filled with goblins. To the roof." They could also mean, "A dragon." Or they could mean, "An evil knight and his eeeevil army on a sweeping battlefield." Or they could mean "A militia of kobolds, all darting in and out of the fight at different times." Or they could mean "waves of reinforcements."

Putting all the encounters into one doesn't necessarily mean you're cramming an extra 10 skeletons into the same tiny space every single time. You're still employing the same general encounter design principles you'd do for a normal encounter: using a broad swath of the terrain, spacing out monsters, etc., etc., et al.

You can't simply ignore factors. You can't design a megaencounter simply by adding more monsters, because that's playing into the wizard's hands.

Oh those wicked, wicked wizard players, always making me play into their nefarious hands!

I'm not ignoring factors, I'm positing that it really doesn't matter -- these are effectively solved problems in this model. "Moar Monsters" doesn't automatically indicate that the wizard gets to fry more at once with each multi-target effect (or that the fighter gets to kill more with a whirlwind attack). There's nothing about the first feature that has anything to do with the second.

I notice you didn't even comment on the fact that frontloaded damage is better than the same amount of damage spread out over time?

Because it's not necessarily any better. If you frontload all your damage on, say, something like a 4e minion (which only has 1 hp), it's entirely lost. If you frontload your damage on something like a 4e solo, it still has HP to spare. If you frontload your damage on something like a standard monster, there's more monsters where those came from.

This is one of the many ways that nova-ing can be made essentially ineffective: big, daily encounters that include all the HP and damage from every encounter you'd otherwise have. After the nova is all spent, the encounter is still ongoing, and if the nova is traded for a longer-term effect, then it's no longer a nova (it becomes the equal of the fighter).

 

[Kingreaper]

Why half? No, if you're trading the single-target burst for the longer-term effect, the longer-term effect should equal other longer-term effects. So the summon should deal equal damage to a fighter.

The wizard gets six summons.

If there are three encounters in a day, and each summon equals the fighter, the wizard is twice as effective as the fighter.

Given as you don't understand that extremely basic principle, I'll leave responding to the rest of your post until I have nothing better to do.

While you're waiting, feel free to consider why you didn't realise that, and what it means for your megaencounter scenario for the wizard to have six summons, each of which is the equal of the fighter...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The wizard gets six summons.

Says who? You got some sneak peek 5e preview that I haven't noticed?

You seem to be assuming that summons have to work a certain way that they don't have to. That's stopping you from seeing the real potential in this.

Given as you don't understand that extremely basic principle, I'll leave responding to the rest of your post until I have nothing better to do.

Aww, lighten up, princess.

 

[Kingreaper]

Says who?

"Right, but those six summoning spells should (if they are properly balanced) only get you up to where the Fighter is normally. You're more powerful than YOU usually are as just Wizard McGee, but you're not more powerful than Fighter Jones. Your summons help you keep pace."

I wonder who said that? Who said they could balance six summons?

Oh, right, that was that Kamikaze Midget fellow.

You got some sneak peek 5e preview that I haven't noticed?

You seem to be assuming that summons have to work a certain way that they don't have to. That's stopping you from seeing the real potential in this.

Sure, if they make summons require your actions, it'll be fine*. But that's a "that scenario wouldn't happen" solution not a "oh yeah, that's balanceable" solution.
Your response to "going into the megafight with six summons" was "oh yeah, that's balanceable". Which, given your belief that each summon should equal the fighter, it really isn't.

*as long as you don't have any non-summoning spells of course