Legends and Lore: Balance

[Aegeri]

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.

I don't know, getting ritual casting as a class feature for free and arcana as a direct class skill that uses their primary attribute isn't good enough? A power though that might allow trading of surges to perhaps gain a bonus or cast a ritual somewhat faster - but still not fast enough to be viable in combat could be interesting. Best of all something that anyone with rituals could take would be even better.

 

[FireLance]

As a mechanic it's interesting and has merit, but it's not something that should be tacked willy nilly onto existing classes. A new class that limited the feature and prevented abuse from action points (or extra actions in general) would work very well. It has great merit as an interesting kind of striker mechanic though, but would need to be carefully thought out on how it worked and fit in with the rest of the system.

The beauty of the 4E system is that it doesn't have to be tacked onto a class via a class feature. I think it would work fine as a power (or series of powers) that players could take or not depending on their favored playstyle. Those who like to build up to a major attack can take such powers. Those who prefer to just keep blasting every round can take others.

I also believe the balance issues to be quantitative, not qualitative. There must be some combination of +X1 to hit, +YdZ damage in round 3 that would make spending two rounds casting "metamagic" spells and an attack spell in the third round roughly equivalent to spending the three rounds casting regular standard action attack spells. It does not have to be exactly equal for me (although YMMV) - as long as one approach is not superior to the other in the majority of circumstances, it's balanced enough in my view. And as long as we pay enough attention to the action economy (what you can do with three standard actions is more or less equivalent), action points shouldn't affect the balance too much. After all, any character could make three standard action attacks in two rounds by spending an action point, too.

And frankly, giving the enemies an incentive to attack the wizard is a bonus in my view. I personally don't think that monsters currently have enough incentive to attack other characters when they are marked. So let the monster attack the wizard, let the fighter get to use his combat challenge abilities, and if he causes the monster to miss, the wizard gets to make a nasty attack. It's a win-win-win (the last being for the DM) in my book.

 

[Aegeri]

I already commonly ignore marks to kill Wizards or anyone squishy given half the chance. I think some DMs interpret marks too strictly to begin with and this is really another kind of discussion entirely. The problem with the idea really comes into effect if you've seen the assassin (the bad one). That character "builds" up to a larger striker mechanic by applying shrouds one by one. The problem with it - well noted in discussions - is that 4E combat is pretty fast and violent. A viable target lasting around 3 rounds is actually fairly uncommon except for some elites and solos. In addition, with MM3 it's very hard not to be hit by something, particularly with the improvement to powers and options.

For example a metamagic casting wizard is just going to get swamped by every skirmisher instantly and waste 3 rounds of doing nothing. Alternatively, by the end of three rounds the combat is over and their metamagic will do very little (you're on your way to a TPK as the controller hasn't been *doing* anything the past 3 rounds) or the monsters are already nearly defeated.

I really don't think this is something that should be tacked onto an existing class - it's a 100% terrible idea. Absolutely. But as something that could be used for another new striker mechanic? I think that has a lot of merit and if balanced on minor/move actions especially I think we are cooking. An elementalist type who worked like this could be fascinating.

Why on earth do we need to be so focused on giving magic users absolutely everything? New classes IMO could do this pretty easily and in a perfectly balanced manner. Tacking it onto Wizards for the sake of trying to turn 4E into some version of 3.x is just an incredibly poor decision.

 

[Colmarr]

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

You see no evidence of a move away from symmetrical class development? Really? You should take a look at the E-martial classes versus the E-non martial classes.There is a strong retro trend in design philosophy in 4e since Mearls took the helm. Magic Missile has gone back to auto-hit. Classes have abandoned the AEDU model to varying degrees. The essentials treasure distribution model is a randomised table. There has been a signifant increase in talk about location-based (as opposed to event-based) adventures.Against that retro trend, I personally think it's a foregone conclusion that symmetrical class development is dead and buried. I mourn its loss.
Edit: Sorry about the wall of text. Enworld seems to be eating my formatting...

 

[FireLance]

I already commonly ignore marks to kill Wizards or anyone squishy given half the chance. I think some DMs interpret marks too strictly to begin with and this is really another kind of discussion entirely. The problem with the idea really comes into effect if you've seen the assassin (the bad one). That character "builds" up to a larger striker mechanic by applying shrouds one by one. The problem with it - well noted in discussions - is that 4E combat is pretty fast and violent. A viable target lasting around 3 rounds is actually fairly uncommon except for some elites and solos. In addition, with MM3 it's very hard not to be hit by something, particularly with the improvement to powers and options.

The advantage to the metamagic approach is that it's not target-specific, unlike shrouds. The wizard could attack any enemy still alive in round three - and in my experience, there will usually be at least one since most fights last four or five rounds.

Why on earth do we need to be so focused on giving magic users absolutely everything? New classes IMO could do this pretty easily and in a perfectly balanced manner. Tacking it onto Wizards for the sake of trying to turn 4E into some version of 3.x is just an incredibly poor decision.

I see nothing wrong with appealing to multiple playstyles if it can be done in a reasonably balanced manner.

And I know it's unfair that wizards (or spellcasters in general) seem to get more than their fair share of new mechanics, but it boils down to the simple fact that magic is narratively more flexible (anything can happen with magic). However, I did mention that it would be possible to have similar mechanics for the martial classes flavoured around aiming, looking for weaknesses in an opponent's fighting style, or focusing internal strength.

 

[Aegeri]

The advantage to the metamagic approach is that it's not target-specific, unlike shrouds.

The assumption being that there is a target you wanted to hit in the first place. How good does the player feel when the last targets are all minions and he's spent three rounds building up a huge attack to.. miss a minion and do nothing. Minions that are there incidentally, because the controller has been waffling around not doing his job for three rounds

I mean when you're doing this to kill that elite and the Barbarian finishes it off in one massive nova of doom (and this is something Barbarians excel at) - what exactly is this mechanic adding to 4E?

All it is to me is just pandering to the people who want god-wizards and CoDzilla back in the game. Frankly, are they even worth appealing to in 4E? I'm going to answer that with a definitive "no".

On the other hand, I find it curious you do not seem to like a new class - using many of the same ideas - that does the same concept. But builds it into the class in a balanced manner using the defined current action economy. They don't spend 3 turns doing nothing of course, but they do get a pay off on a round 2 or maybe 3 for spending their minors or probably their move actions (as minor actions can be reasonably cheap). They get a big bang and don't have to spend 2 rounds doing nothing. It's not exactly on the concept, but that's because I think the concept is rather silly in the first place and is a square peg in the round hole that is 4Es overall design.

So why on earth should the current design revolve around giving Wizards back things they deliberately had removed for balance from previous editions? This obsession - albeit you have the argument that I feel is backed by the designers given their 'retro' decisions and obsession with giving wizards infinite options - is baffling to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When you break it down, the only bizarro option is the fifth one, much like the "I don't want to do the same thing over and over again" option on the class poll. It's basically meaningless; it's closest to the fourth, and should probably be considered in with that or else removed entirely.

Neither of those was meaningless. In the current poll, the distinction between not caring about balance and favoring imbalance is certainly meaningful. (In the prior one, 'getting bored' with an optionless character is certainly a reasonable response.)

Otherwise it's basically...

Most Important
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not important at all

...which are standard survey answers.

Well, that would be a less slanted version of the same poll (Though 'most' is still slanted, it sounds unreasonable. 'Extremelly' or 'Vital' might be better), but that is not at all how the choices are phrased.

The way they're phrased, any of the responses except "It's the most important thing in a game" can be spun to support something along the lines of "Balance is not that important." While a lot of folks might think that /some/ particular thing is more important than balance, few of them would probably agree on what those things are, and probably not many of them at all think that the specific things Essentials is compromising balance to achieve are worth it. None the less, with the responses phrased the way they are, all the responses except the first one "It's the most important thing in a game" can be used to back up the Essentials direction.

 

[FireLance]

The assumption being that there is a target you wanted to hit in the first place. How good does the player feel when the last targets are all minions and he's spent three rounds building up a huge attack to.. miss a minion and do nothing. Minions that are there incidentally, because the controller has been waffling around not doing his job for three rounds

I mean when you're doing this to kill that elite and the Barbarian finishes it off in one massive nova of doom (and this is something Barbarians excel at) - what exactly is this mechanic adding to 4E?

All it is to me is just pandering to the people who want god-wizards and CoDzilla back in the game. Frankly, are they even worth appealing to in 4E? I'm going to answer that with a definitive "no".

Well, my fundamental premise is that you're not going to have a god-wizard or a CoDzilla because unleashing a big bang in round three is going to be roughly as effective as releasing three standard attacks over three rounds. It then becomes just a matter of playstyle preference: do you prefer the continuous standard attack approach, or the big bang approach.

As for attacking a minion or the barbarian getting a lucky crit against the most dangerous opponent - yes, these are the potential downsides. On the other hand, the party could be facing a solo or the barbarian might miss. Pros and cons - the essence of balance.

On the other hand, I find it curious you do not seem to like a new class - using many of the same ideas - that does the same concept. But builds it into the class in a balanced manner using the defined current action economy. They don't spend 3 turns doing nothing of course, but they do get a pay off on a round 2 or maybe 3 for spending their minors or probably their move actions (as minor actions can be reasonably cheap). They get a big bang and don't have to spend 2 rounds doing nothing. It's not exactly on the concept, but that's because I think the concept is rather silly in the first place and is a square peg in the round hole that is 4Es overall design.

It's a matter of personal preference. I'd rather have classes be more flexible that have a plethora of new classes.

And for those who want to do something while building up to a medium bang (it has to be smaller than a big bang for balance reasons ), just write up another power. Maybe you get to cast a magic missile and get a small bonus to the next attack roll with an arcane attack power or something.

So why on earth should the current design revolve around giving Wizards back things they deliberately had removed for balance from previous editions? This obsession - albeit you have the argument that I feel is backed by the designers given their 'retro' decisions and obsession with giving wizards infinite options - is baffling to me.

Not to be flippant, but ... because balance is no longer an issue? Needing to spend three rounds to unleash a big bang which is about as effective as spending those three rounds making standard attacks seems a lot better balanced to me than casting a heavily metamagiced spell in a single round.

 

[Aegeri]

Well, my fundamental premise is that you're not going to have a god-wizard or a CoDzilla because unleashing a big bang in round three is going to be roughly as effective as releasing three standard attacks over three rounds.

In certain rare circumstances sure, but 4E doesn't support this kind of play very well (damage etc). So if it's just as good there isn't really a point to it and in the end, you're actually contributing very little for those other two rounds. Contributions that could be very vital. I don't feel a class built on not doing anything is going to be effective or viable design in 4E.

As for attacking a minion or the barbarian getting a lucky crit against the most dangerous opponent

Ironically I'm not even talking about a crit for the Barbarian. Barbarians can do this without crits. In a single round. Yes, they really *are* that beefy. Things that survive this tend to end up easily picked off by the other characters.

It's a matter of personal preference. I'd rather have classes be more flexible that have a plethora of new classes.

Especially if its Wizards right? I guess everyone should get used to playing Wizards. Clearly there will never be enough Wizard options between Wand/Tome/Staff/Orb/Pyromancer/Enchanter/Illusionist/Necromancer/Nethermancer/Evoker. We obviously need more due to the terrible lack of options there.

Not to be flippant, but ... because balance is no longer an issue? Needing to spend three rounds to unleash a big bang which is about as effective as spending those three rounds making standard attacks seems a lot better balanced to me than casting a heavily metamagiced spell in a single round.

Obviously, but at the same time it can often - and if the assassin teaches us anything this isn't theorycraft - be quite useless. Either an encounter will make it pretty pointless to do it in the first place, or it might be easily wasted for a plethora of reasons (especially with the way 4E combat has changed due to errata/monster design).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, my fundamental premise is that you're not going to have a god-wizard or a CoDzilla because unleashing a big bang in round three is going to be roughly as effective as releasing three standard attacks over three rounds.

Mathematically, making 3 attacks that do X damage and hit half the time, vs unleashing one 3-round attack thad does 3X damage and hist half the time, would, indeed, be identical.

However, over the course of three rounds, a character might be dropped, dazed, stunned, or lose LoS to any valid target of the warmed-up power. While the character attacking each round would have gotten a hit or two in, the warm-up-power character gets nothing. So the power would have to do /more/ than 3X to be balanced. How much more? Hard to say, depends on all sorts of things, including DM & player styles. /Making it quite difficult to balance./

It's a matter of personal preference. I'd rather have classes be more flexible that have a plethora of new classes.

I guess the extreme would be one class so flexible that it can handle any character concept. I think Hero System has that class. Seriously, though, I'm on the fence. I like the balanced foundation the AEDU structure with front-loaded class features provides. If there's a class that fits your concept, you're golden, and the game is nicely balanced. But, to handle more concepts you need more builds or more classes. More builds gives you more choices and potential syenergies within a class which can impact balance, or at least cause power inflation. More classes increases complexity, and causes class-related items, feats, and the like to proliferate, which, again, can cause some balance problems. Plus, if early classes have enjoyed some power inflation, new classes need to be beefed up a bit relative to what earlier classes were like at first release...

Not to be flippant, but ... because balance is no longer an issue?

I really think this attitude has sunk in. 4e is a victim of it's own success. By using quite strict design principles, it managed to be the best balanced version of D&D ever. Which is to say, it's the /only/ version of D&D to ever be genuinely balanced. That accomplished, balance has ceased to be a concern in the minds of many, so they're happy to throw it away while rooting around for something else.