Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="deathdonut" data-source="post: 4125495" data-attributes="member: 62072">Hopefully the decision used a little math beyond the assumption that the warrior will be &quot;front line&quot; and therefore needs HP.In general, balance should be based around Survivability * Effectiveness = Power.&nbsp; Unfortunately, neither the Survivability nor the Effectiveness numbers are easily quantifiable.Survivability: By HP alone, the warrior has almost twice the survivability.Adding in about 5 points of armor, you probably average a total melee suvivability factor of 4 times that of the wizard.The problem is that you aren't doing an apples-to-apples comparison.&nbsp; Wizards have most of their effectiveness at range.&nbsp; How much survivability do you get from this?&nbsp; Obviously it depends upon the campaign and is difficult to quantify.&nbsp; If the Wizard has a Defender friend between him and his opponent, that survivability edge is quite large.Effectiveness:Warriors are Defenders, so while most warriors will stack defensibility we will assume here (as we did above) that the warrior goes for as much offense as the mage.&nbsp; This means that they are on equal footing on offense numbers.The problem is that Warriors are limited (mostly) to attacks that go against AC.&nbsp; If we give NPC's the same AC bonus (5ish) as we did the warrior in the survivability example, a wizard attacking a non-AC stat is going to be roughly twice as effective offensively.&nbsp; Add to that a likely variety in defensive stat targets (Will vs Fort?) and the gap expands.The wizard also gains the nebulous effectiveness of the Controller role.&nbsp; I think this is where most people expect things will be swayed by wizards &quot;getting more powerful abilities&quot;.&nbsp; The role itself is defined by being able to effect multiple enemies and portions of the battlefield.&nbsp; This means that where a warrior or other defender is going to be limited to swinging at a single opponent (with perhaps a little cleave bonus), the Wizard will be doing similar damage to a clump of opponents.If we expect the Wizard to be &quot;dealing with&quot; an average of two opponents per action, the power numbers are suddenly swayed toward the Wizard.Add in some localized control (Opportunity) abilities of the Warrior and some Wizard-based Utility rituals/spells, and I think we have two reasonably balanced but quite unique polar ends of the class spectrum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="deathdonut, post: 4125495, member: 62072"] Hopefully the decision used a little math beyond the assumption that the warrior will be "front line" and therefore needs HP. In general, balance should be based around Survivability * Effectiveness = Power. Unfortunately, neither the Survivability nor the Effectiveness numbers are easily quantifiable. Survivability: By HP alone, the warrior has almost twice the survivability. Adding in about 5 points of armor, you probably average a total melee suvivability factor of 4 times that of the wizard. The problem is that you aren't doing an apples-to-apples comparison. Wizards have most of their effectiveness at range. How much survivability do you get from this? Obviously it depends upon the campaign and is difficult to quantify. If the Wizard has a Defender friend between him and his opponent, that survivability edge is quite large. Effectiveness: Warriors are Defenders, so while most warriors will stack defensibility we will assume here (as we did above) that the warrior goes for as much offense as the mage. This means that they are on equal footing on offense numbers. The problem is that Warriors are limited (mostly) to attacks that go against AC. If we give NPC's the same AC bonus (5ish) as we did the warrior in the survivability example, a wizard attacking a non-AC stat is going to be roughly twice as effective offensively. Add to that a likely variety in defensive stat targets (Will vs Fort?) and the gap expands. The wizard also gains the nebulous effectiveness of the Controller role. I think this is where most people expect things will be swayed by wizards "getting more powerful abilities". The role itself is defined by being able to effect multiple enemies and portions of the battlefield. This means that where a warrior or other defender is going to be limited to swinging at a single opponent (with perhaps a little cleave bonus), the Wizard will be doing similar damage to a clump of opponents. If we expect the Wizard to be "dealing with" an average of two opponents per action, the power numbers are suddenly swayed toward the Wizard. Add in some localized control (Opportunity) abilities of the Warrior and some Wizard-based Utility rituals/spells, and I think we have two reasonably balanced but quite unique polar ends of the class spectrum. [/QUOTE]

Verification