Legends and Lore: Balance

[Ryujin]

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.

It might seem like a bad idea for an existing class, but what about making it an extra damage mechanic for a Wizard-based Striker class? The concept that I outlined above, regarding the use of a minor action to begin and sustain casting of a whopper of a spell, isn't too far from a Warlock's Curse. If it was somehow built into a 'signature spell or power' of that class, it might not bee too bad a mechanic.

 

[Danzauker]

This is a quick sample of what I meant. It's by no means assumed to be balanced (I'm no RPG designer), just a rough draft.

Like others, I think that big ba-boom spells should be handled by rituals. But I understand people who want to implement in play the archetype of the wizard who wields great magic.

This is a quick template for a pseudo skill challenge that tries to balance a wizard trying to "build mana" for releasing a spell with greater effect than normal, without being completely out of play for several rounds. By changing the template I guess one interested in the thing can make up "metamagic skill challenges" for other effects, by giving greater complexities for greater boosts.






[Metamagic Challenge] Maximize spell
Complexity: 1 (requires 4 successes before 3 failures)
Level: Same as character

This challenge can be started by a character in the same action when he casts a spell, the first skill check can be attempted on the first action after the one used to cast the spell. The spell effects are delayed until the skill challenge is over. Once started the skill challenge can't be stopped, and at least one successful check (or success by other means specified below) must be made on every round, otherwise the challenge will fail.

Skills:

Arcana (Easy)
The character can make a check as a standard action to achieve 1 success.

Arcana (Moderate)
The character can make a check as a move action to achieve 1 success.

Arcana (Hard)
The character can make a check as a minor action to achieve 1 success.

Arcana (Hard)
The character can make a check as a standard action to negate 1 failure.

Expending spells:
Expending one encounter spell as a standard action achieves an automatic success.
Expending one daily spell as a standard action achieves 3 automatic successes or negates 1 failure.

Disturbance:
Being hit, falling prone, getting dazed or weakened automatically causes 1 failure.
Being dominated or falling unconscious automatically causes the challenge to fail.

Success:
The spell is cast with all damage maximized.

Failure:
The spell is wasted with no effect.

 

[triqui]

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.

That, however, does not show game imbalance (assuming there are effective counters), assuming the player also have different things to do. Read this:
Game Design, Psychology, Flow, and Mastery - Articles - Rock, Paper, Scissors in StrategyGames

Sure, D&D is not a competitive multiplayer game, but the basics behind the theory stay true.

EDIT: you have to keep some control of the comparative value of each action and counter. If your "rock" is worth 1000$, while scissors and paper are worth 3$, everybody will try the rock. But just like not every single shot in basketball is a three pointer, that wouldn't be the case, assuming you achieve balance.

 

[Riastlin]

Really, it's kinda sad.

Well first off, I didn't take Mearls' article on the gnome to indicate that there's a mandate for a race if 10% say they want it. What he was getting at is that its not a simple as saying "Well if only 10% of people want something, then its not important as it won't affect very many people." He was merely pointing out that if 10% of players want gnomes, then on average, 50% of D&D groups will have somebody wanting to play a gnome. I don't think that there was ever a suggestion that they should ignore the other 90%, nor that they should ignore a race that say 75% of players love. Just that 10%, in the context of D&D, is actually much larger than it seems.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the problem with your take on the poll in this article is that you are assuming that not only is balance the very most important thing, but that everyone (or just about everyone) agrees with this principle. You then take the assumption that if the first choice is not a 98% selection that WotC will then absolutely throw balance out the window (which is certainly not confirmed by the article).

To me, fun is the most important factor. Balance affects fun, but it does not guarantee it. This is evident by the fact that I've really enjoyed every edition of D&D that I've played, which includes a little bit of first, a fair amount of 2nd, and a lot of both 3.x and 4ed. The degree of balance in these various editions has generally changed quite a bit, but I still have fun.

Personally, my view is that if either of the first two choices are the front runners (and particularly if they are the top two) then the message is sent that balance absolutely should be looked at and considered. If the third choice is the frontrunner, then balance should be considered, but its only one of many factors that need to be looked at (and those other factors definitely need to be addressed). If the last two choices become the front runners then yeah, I guess there's some merit to the idea that balance is not all that important in a PnP RPG. Of course, it still needs to be acknowledged (as it has been by Mearls) that these polls are far from scientific, so any surprising results (such as "Who cares about balance?") should definitely be looked at carefully before being used as guidance for the game.

For the record, I went with the third choice because while I whole heartedly believe that balance CAN make a game more fun, I don't believe that either a) it automatically makes a game for or that b) a lack of balance guarantees that the game will not be fun. Certainly, if you are going to create a game that does not enjoy balance between the classes, I think you have your work cut out for you in order to make it fun, but it can be done. Its easier to make the game balanced, but not mandatory.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Exhibit A: The Mage class. A flat out better wizard, that gets 2 spells to choose from every level and never has to retrain. And it has other perks. At the time of its release, they went back and buffed a number of mage usable wizard spells to be better.

They almost NEVER improve powers/feats. They could never pretty much never publish another power or feat, and just errata the glut of useless crap no one ever takes and still be working on it by the time 5th edition rolls out. But the mage apparently needed even more shiny toys.

If this isnt a clear example of trying to swing the power/focus/whatever back towards the wizard/mage, I dont know what is.

Oh well, its not called Fighters of the Coast for a reason I guess.

 

[IanB]

As far as multi-round casting goes, I think it needs to still involve some positive/partial progress or it will just feel way too crappy for the player. Something along the lines of you fire a weak-ish attack as part of the casting for a couple rounds, if you are hit you lose your progress towards the big part 3 of the spell, but at least you still got to do something with your turns before that. Think of how Storm of Vengeance worked in 3e, each round of it gave you something new as you maintained concentration, if you lost concentration you lost the remaining parts of the spell, but at least your earlier turns of it weren't a total waste. Basically I think back-loaded multi round spells can work, but just sitting there 'charging up' for a couple rounds is a boring mechanic with huge potential for causing player frustration.

Especially in 4e, the battlefield is so fluid, you need to let them do something 'real' every round just because it would be so easy for things to be out of range or dead or suddenly tangled up with all your friends, etc., by the time the spell is actually finished.

 

[triqui]

Exhibit A: The Mage class. A flat out better wizard, that gets 2 spells to choose from every level and never has to retrain. And it has other perks. At the time of its release, they went back and buffed a number of mage usable wizard spells to be better.

Wizards, however, were underrated. Excepting Orbizards, there was a cry about them being underpowered (specially their at-wills) when compared to other controllers

 

[LostSoul]

If the multi-round casting takes only a standard action, then you can still use Sustain Minor or Move powers.

Round 1: Stinking Cloud
Rounds 2-x: Cast mega-spell, sustain stinking cloud

 

[TwoSix]

Wizards, however, were underrated. Excepting Orbizards, there was a cry about them being underpowered (specially their at-wills) when compared to other controllers

Especially since most of their controlleriness (not a word, I know) is baked into their powers as opposed to their class features. A swordmage|wizard is a better wizard then a wizard!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Wizards were the first controller in the first book of 4E.

Of course it was hard to make the class.

Later controllers were better at controlling, and were more ambitious to boot. It really is the nature of a new edition.

As for making wizard with more boom spells, I would not bring this into 4E. They do enough.

I do think rituals need to be a lot more flexible, with shorter casting times being penalized iwth healing surge loss, far higher component costs or the like. SO a standard action water breathing could be triple component cost or a loss of a couple healing surges.

That option alone would make wizards and rituals a lot more effective.

Or even better a wizard utility (as a daily or encounter power, probably a daily) that allowed this to be done. I have never understood why Wizards, supposed masters of rituals, have not a single power (maybe they do in a DDI article) that makes them do rituals better.