Legends and Lore: Balance

[triqui]

You're really suggesting that Mearls, the head of 4E, is trying to construct some kind of *anti*-balance agenda?

He is suggesting, as far as I understand, taht Mike Mearls is trying to construct some kind of antibalance agenda, as we understand balance in 4e (which means symetric class development).

I agree with Tony, he seems to probably be doing this. I probably disagree with Tony in this being necessarily (sp?) a bad thing. It might be, becouse balance is easier to achieve with symetric design. But might end being a better game design if they find a way to build asymetric balanced classes.

 

[Aegeri]

I don't think Mearls will be adding exponential power to casters or similar any time soon to be honest, as the original fighter is being updated into essentials remember. There are some decisions in 4E lately that I find just strange and unwarranted - though with this article trying to deliberately lead the reader to a specific conclusion (I agree with Tony on that point) they make sense. I can't fathom why on earth the Shade (arguably one of the worst races in 4E, unless the book form is substantially different to the preview shown some time ago) and Vryloka need racial penalties. They are incredibly poor design decisions and in some cases cripple these races unfairly - yet they gain nothing over the ordinary for them. It's almost like anti-balance, deliberately adding in trap options for... whatever reason and just hope it kind of limps along behind the rest of the characters in the party?

Then again he did state the amount of errata was aimed to be much lower. If everything you publish is average to underpowered, you never have to bother fixing it (as they have frequently stated they will rarely fix underpowered or poor options compared to overpowered ones). This is somewhat of the impression I've got from a lot of player content I've seen from HoS in many ways. I haven't seen a lot previewed that really wowed me or I thought "That could be really interesting in play", but a lot of stuff that was okay (Energy Drain, Finger of Death) and a lot of stuff that is plain terrible or just poor choices compared to existing options. The ED they previewed a while back, which was not only horrible on its own merit but required multiple PCs to take an absolutely terrible ED is a good example.

Balance to me is more than just making sure nothing is overpowered and breaks the game. It isn't even about if Wizards and casters are better than everyone else (as some people insist should be the case). It is largely about adding viable options to the game that will be useful and interesting in play compared with other existing options. In terms of player content, this is something I'm beginning to worry about a lot.

 

[wedgeski]

He is suggesting, as far as I understand, taht Mike Mearls is trying to construct some kind of antibalance agenda, as we understand balance in 4e (which means symetric class development).

Then colour me bemused. I see no credible evidence of this happening in 4E at all.

 

[triqui]

About the slow multicasting option, which sounds cool, you can use something like 3e fullround casting- you start casting now, you finish to cast in the begining of your next round. Easier to balance vs standard actions, becouse it takes only slighter. Still gives you a chance to counter. And as free bonus, it does not need to be arcane only. A well aimed heartseeker Shot can be balanced toward a Finger of Death

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I have noticed a disturbing trend by folks who seemed determined to put "big magic" back into D&D, and this article seems to be following right along.

I so badly don't want 4e to go there. We don't need 3.5's God-wizard or CoDzilla running around. Putting this stuff back in and then adding meaningless "restrictions" lilke "rare" components or longer cast times (then providing the metamagic to get around it), seems like a giant step backward.

If you need "big magic" in your game, that's what rituals are for. Anyone can learn them, anyone can use them, and if you want them to be an important story element, then that's what you have skill challenges for, as others have pointed out.

As for the slant in the poll, I see it too, but I have a different take. I actually don't think that balance is "the most important thing." Fun is. However, if they completely toss balance out the window by putting "uber-casters" back in the game, then the fun goes out the window along with it.

 

[Shroomy]

I personally think that the 4E engine is able to handle something like this. One possibility is metamagic Encounter attack spells that cost a standard action and basically grant an Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to the next attack roll you make with an arcane attack spell before the end of the encounter. If you hit, you deal + 4d6 extra damage. If you take damage before you make the attack roll, you gain a +1 power bonus to the attack roll instead, and you deal +1d6 extra damage if the attack hits.

There's a githzerai racial paragon path with an 11th level encounter power with this set-up; I'm sure there's more examples, but I can't think of them off the top of my head - dang cold!

 

[Kinneus]

Random aside: I've always wondered whether wizards/sorcerers/other casters could be given their phenomenal cosmic powers in exchange for longer, multi-round casting times.

Maybe a wizard can incinerate a vrock in one hit, permanently blind his opponents, or open a portal to allow escape, but only after chanting for 3-5 rounds without getting smacked. The defender then becomes extremely important; he has to lock down enemy melee monsters long enough for the caster to finish his spell.

I like your idea in spirit, but this would never, ever work. I've found that once you get past early heroic, virtually every enemy has access to at least one ranged attack or area attack. Once the wizard begins his doom-spell, all the baddies are going to step back and start lobbing rocks right over the fighter's head. If the wizard gets hit in round 3 of the 4-round chant, then he's wasted three turns for absolutely no effect and ended up looking like a fool.

Also, why spend 5 rounds to incinerate one enemy when you can lay down 5 (or 6, with an AP, or more, with Paragon-Epic tier attack-granting wackiness) attacks, and potentially kill much, much more? Honestly, by round 5, the rogue probably already slit that poor vrock's throat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 are not symmetric, but still so balanced, that it became a sport in korea...

And this nearly perfect balance has allowed SC to live for more than 10 years in a scene, that is usually fast living.

Symmetrie is nice (Warcraft 1 and 2 are relatively symmetric), but achieving balance in an unsymmetric game is a lot more interesting.

Wesnoth, a free game also achieves quite good balance with 6 very different races...

the only thing that you have to remember: map design is important... some kind of maps outright favour certain races (in sc2 or wesnoth)
For D&D it is adventure design, and to a lesser extend map design... but still, a map with nowhere to charge makes charge builds obsolete... a certain skill challenge already makes some characters not beeing able to do a lot...

So in the end, when a computer game has to achive balance for all, in every possible scenario, an RPG can spreadits balance around a bit more, as the DM is (usually) more adaptible...
Problematic are situations, and that is clearly stated in mearls' article, when someone takes or at least tries to take all spotlight... which is not bad per default, but when he is actually more able in all these things, than anyoone in the party, most players start getting annoyed...

This is one of the major complains of 3.x... something i don´really share... if you don´t have 5 min workdays, and not every possible feat or magic item, the relation between fighter, mage, cleric and rogue is not so imbalanced...

 

[TerraDave]

I do agree with the article, and do agree that balance can have a strong subjective component and is really about someone wanting to play a particular charecter for a good long time.

But this also seems pretty broad and obvious. What I wish he would do in the columns is actually have some facts or details or examples. Take the first post here...balancing spell casting with a speed/delay mechanic. The idea that the spell caster can do this amazing thing, and this needs to be balanced by that some vulnrability or other cost (including speed or delays) goes back 30+years. It would have been nice if some of that history was here.

 

[Spatula]

Random aside: I've always wondered whether wizards/sorcerers/other casters could be given their phenomenal cosmic powers in exchange for longer, multi-round casting times.

To me, this is a bad idea for the simple reason that intelligent opponents are going to do everything in their power to prevent the mega-spell from going off. That means that (assuming there's a mechanism to 'interrupt' the mega-spell), casting the spell is going to be dicey - it might not go off - and it's an invitation to focus-fire the PC into the ground. As a DM, repeatedly singling out one PC and denying them their class-defining tricks at the same time would make me feel bad (and some players would not take that very well). But I would feel pressured into it by the system, because if the NPCs instead do nothing, they go boom/lose their minds/etc.