How to make Fighter Combat Superiority equal to Wizard spellcasting

1089 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lets deconstruct what a wizard gets each day:

1st Level   - 3 1st level spells
2nd Level  - 4 1st level spells
3rd Level  - 4 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells
4th Level  - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells
5th Level - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells and 2 3rd level spells

Now that means by level 5 the Wizard can cast 16 levels of spells per day.

If we take the 4 encounter suggestion in the play test packet we can see that the Wizard can expend 4 levels of spells per encounter at level 5. If an encounter plays out at about 4 rounds (the average from most estimates) that's 1 spell level per round.

Now if you read the spells and see what happens you'll find that a lot of spells either completely disable an opponent (such as hold persons reduce speed to 0 or paralyzed) or deal pretty hefty damage (like stinking clouds max potential of 550-1100 damage to each creature in its area). They also target multiple targets (average about 15-20).

So 1 spell level is about equivalent to 3-4 CS dice.

So using those estimates we can conclude that the fighter should get a progression of CS at a rate like this:

1st Level  - 2d4
2nd Level - 3d4
3rd Level - 3d6
4th Level - 4d6
5th Level - 5d6

At this rate the fighter can easily use 2-3 different CS maneuvers on 1-3 targets keeping about even with the Wizard.

The other option is to make the CS Maneuvers much much more powerful. Here are some examples:

Rain of Arrows - Pick a 20' radius make a normal attack against each enemy that you can attack in that radius. Deal Xd(CS Die) where X is a number of CS dice you choose to expend.

Charging Slash - Move half your speed and attack any enemy that is within your melee threatened range during that move that you can normally attack. On a hit deal a number of CS dice worth of damage that you choose to expend.

The only caveat would be to limit the number of 'special' maneuvers you can do per round to 1.

We do still have to deal with variety though.

The Wizard gets spells known like this:
1st - 5 1st level spells
2nd - Add Int mod 1st level spells
3rd - Add Int mod 1st level or 2nd level spells
4th - Add Int mod 1st level or 2nd level spells
5th - Add Int mod 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level spells

The fighter goes like this:
1st - 3 Maneuvers
2nd - ?
3rd - 1 Maneuver
4th - ?
5th - 1 Maneuver

In order to equal this out we either need to up the power of a maneuver (like multi-shot Maneuver that hits all enemies in a 20' radius dealing 4d(CS die) damage)

or we need to add an equal number of maneuvers so I suggest this:

1st - 5 Maneuvers
2nd - Add Str Mod Maneuvers
3rd - Add Str Mod Maneuvers
4th - Add Str Mod Maneuvers
5th - Add Str Mod Maneuvers

What happens here is that the fighter would have the same kind of versatility as the Wizard when it comes to choosing which Maneuver to use.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Mostly agreed.

EDIT:

Ok, now that I'm awake...

I like the progression of die. Starting Level 1 players at 2d4s isn't a huge damage increase over 1d6, but it gets players used to choosing b/w offense and defense and playing around with maneuver combinations (I personally am looking forward to combining Knockback and Prone to play Goblin Croquet!).

In terms of special maneuvers, I think creating some higher-level attack maneuvers that do multiple [W] damage and/or damage multiple targets (in the equivalent of a close burst, natch) can be easily balanced by having the maneuver either wholly or mostly eat your dice pool for that round, so that players still have to balance the big flashy hit vs. defense. I also think that you can also create higher-level defense/tanking maneuvers that either wholly or mostly eat your dice in return for cancelling alll damage against an ally or allowing you to move multiple enemies around the map (an AOE Push/Shieldbash kind of thing). It's a good solution for scaling Combat Superiority without going hog-wild on dice progression.

In terms of variety, I think starting the Level 1 Fighter with Deadly Strike/Parry, three Fighting Style Maneuvers, and Tactical Strike would be fine, giving beginning players quite a few variables to experiment with. I'd also suggest that we need to keep a weather eye on improving maneuvers vs. new high-level maneuvers. We don't want bloat, and a lot of the maneuvers we've seen automatically scale as you level through the dice mechanic. 

Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I'd rather give the Wizard much fewer spells.
If we want to look at exact comparisons take Stinking cloud for just 1 round. It hits around 20-25 targets (more likely 10 on average). It deals 2d10 damage to each target.

To be equal CS needs to allow the fighter at 5th level to hit 10+ targets for an additional 2d10 damage over the course of the battle (which will likely be 4-6 rounds).

So at 5th level if you gave the fighter 2d10 CS dice and had a power that allowed adding 2d10 to each attack it would stack up to the Wizard casting 1 spell.

Now at 5th level the Wizard will likely be casting 2-3 dailies per combat with the expected 4 encounter day.

So if we examine 3 daily spells that a 5th level Wizard is likely to cast during any given encounter we can start to see what the fighter needs to compare with.

We will take one 1st level spell, one 2nd level spell, and one 3rd level spell.

So we end up with:
Burning hands - around 6 targets for 4d4 damage save for half. Average damage to each target with 60% save failure is around 8 damage average per target.

Sunburst - around 10 targets for 1d8 + blind save for half damage and no blind, with the DC for the save we are looking at around 6 targets for 1d4 with no blind so if we average this out its closer to 6 targets taking 3.5 average damage and being blinded.

Fireball - around 40+ targets for 5d6 save for half we would get about a 60% failed save ratio. Lets half the targets for average due to there never being 40 creatures that bunch up for a fireball. So we are talking 20 targets taking 21 average or 10 on a save so 16.6 average damage to 20 targets.

So by level 5 the fighter needs to be able to hit 6 targets for 8 average damage, 6 targets for 3.5 average damage as well as blinded, and finally 20 targets for around 16.6 damage.

If we average the damage we get around 11.79 damage on each target so 32 targets for 11.79 damage over the course of 4-6 rounds. with 6 blinded.

To get 11.79 average damage we need something like 2d10 for CS dice at level 5 each round.

Now hitting that many targets is going to require some interesting maneuvers like maneuvers that allow you to take a full round action (move and standard action) to run past as many enemies as you can and hit each one.

An at level average encounter is 14 Dark Adepts which means the fighter will have to double up on damage for each target. So we are looking at the ability to deal 23.5 average damage to each dark adept over the course of the encounter without resorting to the basic attacks (as the Wizards Minor spells are also not accounted for).

This means that the fighter needs to hit every Dark Adept every other round to keep up with the Wizard. We can mitigate this by upping the damage to 4d10 which means the fighter only needs to hit each Dark Adept about once per fight. Hitting 3.5 Dark Adepts per round.

So we need to up the CS dice to 4d10 and allow multiple target Maneuvers at level 5.

I suggest something along the lines of:

Charging Slash - for 4 CS dice the fighter may move up to their speed and make an attack on every enemy whose threatened space they move into. No more than one attack per enemy. On a hit they deal the CS dice they expended worth of damage. The first target hit each round with this Maneuver must make a dexterity save or be blinded for 1d4 rounds.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
A simple fighter done 3.5e style with 18 str. 

1lv: 2d6+6= 13 average damage. Way more then 1d4+1. 
2lv: 2d6+8= 15, with weapon focus and mwk sword. He should at least take -1 on power attack.
3lv: 2d6+9= 16, got his first magic weapon. Fireball plus cleave equal encounter over.
4lv 2d6+13= 21, got his specialization feat and taking another -1 on power attack.
5lv 2d6+16= 23, got his first +2 strength item and risking antoher -1 on power attack.

Right now his attack bonus should be +9, with a -3 from power attack for 6 extra damage. That's not including flanking or whatever bonus he get from the fight. 

Now instead of casting fireball, the wizard should be casting haste. Having +10/+10 with an average 23 damage each for 5 rounds, that's not including great cleave he is going to use.

If this fireball was cast against a single creature. The wizard will be only doing 18 average damage on a fail save. With haste, he could buff the fighter for extra 115 damage because of his spell.  

I like doing math. Let the Fighter vs Wizard battle begin! 
A simple fighter done 3.5e style with 18 str. 

1lv: 2d6+6= 13 average damage. Way more then 1d4+1. 
2lv: 2d6+8= 15, with weapon focus and mwk sword. He should at least take -1 on power attack.
3lv: 2d6+9= 16, got his first magic weapon. Fireball plus cleave equal encounter over.
4lv 2d6+13= 21, got his specialization feat and taking another -1 on power attack.
5lv 2d6+16= 23, got his first +2 strength item and risking antoher -1 on power attack.

Right now his attack bonus should be +9, with a -3 from power attack for 6 extra damage. That's not including flanking or whatever bonus he get from the fight. 

Now instead of casting fireball, the wizard should be casting haste. Having +10/+10 with an average 23 damage each for 5 rounds, that's not including great cleave he is going to use.

If this fireball was cast against a single creature. The wizard will be only doing 18 average damage on a fail save. With haste, he could buff the fighter for extra 115 damage because of his spell.  

I like doing math. Let the Fighter vs Wizard battle begin! 



We aren't talking about average damage from at-will attacks or minor spells.

We are talking about balancing Combat Superiority with Daily Spellcasting.

If you want you can start another thread for that.

The thing you didn't consider though in your calculations is miss chance. The fighter will miss on average around 40% of the time according to some posters (I haven't done the average AC of all monsters of each level compared to the fighters modified average attack roll, but feel free to do the math and correct me) so we end up with average damage of 7.8 for level 1 for the fighter and 3.5 for the Wizard still the wizard is more about control so if we go with the at-will control spells we get better damage and control effects.

Ray of Frost - 1d6+3 and -10 foot of movment. with a 60% hit chance that's 3.9 average damage + move penalty. I'd say that's about balanced.

Also haste is not in the play test packet so we can't compare.

This is a stricly 5E comparison thread with the new play test packet...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'd rather give the Wizard much fewer spells.



I'd rather redo the spells, turn all of them into some form of damage, and maybe a condition.

Like I've mentioned, Flesh to Stone.  You do so much damage, and each 25%, you slow, or immobalize and then take out the target.

Things like that.


Lets deconstruct what a wizard gets each day:

1st Level   - 3 1st level spells
2nd Level  - 4 1st level spells
3rd Level  - 4 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells
4th Level  - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells
5th Level - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells and 2 3rd level spells

etc.






I don't dispute what you say.  In fact - I did some quick and dirty math and found that the 'parity point' between an all damage wizard (Burning Hands - 4 targets each time; Arc Lighting - 2 targets and Fireball - 6 targets) and an all damage fighter (two handed weapon, Deadly Strike and Glancing Blow); assuming enemies save half the time and the fighter hits half the time (this number is low for both - the fighter will hit more often and the creatures will fail their saves more often - but 50% makes a good value for a quick comparison) was 30 rounds.  That is to say - if you had less than 30 rounds of combat per day, under those assumptions the wizard did more damage; if you had more than 30 rounds of combat the fighter did more damage.


That is a much longer day than I expected. 


The problem is - I don't think the solution is to increase the fighter's expertise dice.  Damage inflation is rarely the answer.


I think one solution is to roll back the wizards added damage to burning hands (Arc Lighting can stay as it is) and reduce the damage from Fireball.  Or decrease their spells per day (they have one more 2nd and one more 3rd than they did in AD&D1st (4 2 1). 


Bottom Line: The current iteration of the wizard has more spells than it did in AD&D1st and those spells do either the same damage (fireball) or significantly more damage (as in burning hands).


One way to look at it is:  Burning Hands does around 2 rounds of fighter damage; Arc Lighting does a bit over 1 round of fighter damage and Fireball does around 5.5 rounds of fighter damage. 


In fact - that suggests a rough metric:  What if each spell did around 1 round of fighter damage per level.  By this measure - Burning Hands and Fireball are overpowered and Arc Lighting is actually weak.
   
If this metric could be hit - a 5th level magic user would be close to on par with a Fighter if they had sixteen rounds of combat in a day (not a bad starting point for discussion, imho).   The actual value would be slightly higher because the magic user would be doing his 16 rounds of damage in 9 rounds - but it would be far closer than the current approach.  (I think this actually leads to parity in 18 rounds, not 16 - if I did the math right in my head).


What does this mean: 

First - what is a 'fighter round' of damage.  SInce I am going all damage, I assume fighter does 14 points of damage per round (2d6 for weapon plus 3 for 10 points on a hit, 0 on a miss, average 5; 2d8 for expertise dice, applied every round -deadly strike or glancing blow- average 9).   


Thus - a first level spell ought to do around 14 points of damage on average.  That works out to around 18 points for the spell, half on a save.  

For a single target spell - that's a nice bit of damage - say 5d6 (average 17.5; Since this number seems high to those used to earlier editions, I'd probably change it to a smaller value with a status effect.) 

For a cone (average three targets) that means around 6 points per target before save.  The last packet burning hands did 2d4+3 or 8 points - a bit high but not too bad.  You could change it to a spray (the three square's adjacent to one side - which is more like the AD&D version that had flames jet out 3' from the wizard in a 120degree arc)  - this makes two targets more likely and caps the spell at three targets, but gets a bit wonky with diagonals on a grid.    Bottom line - the old burning hands was about right (although for a developing symmetry I like 1d6+3).   You could also up the base damage but remove the half damage (or halve the base damage to three points and remove the save.  An autohit AE spell would be nice).


A second level spell ought to do around 28 points of damage on average.  That works out to around 36 points before save. 

As with the first level spell - this is a ton of damage for a single target spell.  Better to go with a lower damage calculation and add a status effect.  I don't think the game should have 2nd and higher level, damage only spells.
 
For a two target spell (like arc lightnig) it depends on how it's split up.  Arc lighting does 5d6 to one target (half on save) and 2d6 to the second target (nada on save).  That's an average of around 16.5. This is actually low.  Arc lighting should do more damage by this metric.  Alternately - I'd add status effect (because damage inflation is never the answer).  Alternately, the spell could increase the damage of the second bold - if both bolts do the same 5d6, the average damage increases to around 27 points.


For a three target spell (cone or small burst) - the spell should do about 12 points per target.  That's about 2d8 +3.
  

A third level spell ought to do around 42 points of damage.   That's 56 points of damage before the save.

Again - no single target or even double target damage only spells.  Essentially - the minimum area of the spells goes up with level as well - which is a hindrance as much as it is a benefit as it becomes harder and harder to keep allies out of the big spells.


FOr a cone (average three targets) we are looking at  around 18 points of damage.  3d10+3.  (Notice that was L1 1d6+3, L2 2d8+3, L3 3d10+3.  Nice how that worked out...)


For a fireball (big blast) we are looking at around 10 points of damage before the save.  3d6 does this nicely (I haven't looked for a pattern for this size yet - but if a pattern could be found it would add elegance to the system).


Note:  This is a big drop in the fireball - because the fireball is the one that is really throwing the math off.  It is both massive damage and (when used to its best advantage) massive number of targets.


It is the epitome of quadratic wizard.

Thoughts?

Carl


note:  This is a quick and dirty estimate to show how I might try to balance the spells.  I probably won't have time to do the numbers properly until after GenCon.


note 2:  This creates a point of balance at level 5.  At this point I have no clue whether this same approach creates a point of balance at any other level  - to determine that I need to consider both how many spells per day of each level and the values of the expertise dice.  This is a starting point to think about balance - not an end product. 

Alternately- I may want to borrow from the OPs idea - and make the spells proportional to fighter BASE damage plus starting expertise dice and use the expertise dice to balance the additional spells gained as the wizard gains level.  In this case, the damage figures given above would all drop by around 1/3 (fighter-round of damage becomes 8.5 - rather than 14)- but the wizard would likely need more spells to compensate for that lower damage figure.

This is probably a good thing (ironically- part of the difficulty in balancing wizards is the fact that they have so few spells and thus the spells must do so much damage.  If you give them more spells - despite being Vancian - the balance much easier because the damage per spell is much closer to that of the fighter and they are able to push on for longer periods of time without needing a rest.

And they are probably more fun to play because you get to cast more spells.

But my thought is:  For any given number of expertise dice and any given number of rounds to reach parity, if the damage formula for wizard spells is made consistant in this way - one can work backwards from that to a number of levels of damage (i.e. number of fighter-rounds of damage) per day; and from that (rather than from historical gamebooks) deduce the proper spell progression for wizards to keep their damage balanced for the target number of rounds of combat per day.

Furthermore - with these numbers one can also determine how many spell levels (and thus the spell progression) it takes to hit parity for any number of rounds of fighting per day.   In short - this gives you the tools to balance wizards and fighters for whatever style of campaign you want, whether that be one encounter per day or fifty.


Or so I believe. 


Carl
That is some cool maths carl and I applaud your efforts.

That being said, an all damage wizard fills the 4e artillery role. (am I right in this?)

If I remember correctly artilleries did dish out more damage so as to balance their lower survivability.

So a lower ac/hp wizzie should lead to bigger damage?

Just something to consider


Lets deconstruct what a wizard gets each day:

1st Level   - 3 1st level spells
2nd Level  - 4 1st level spells
3rd Level  - 4 1st level spells and 2 2nd level spells
4th Level  - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells
5th Level - 4 1st level spells and 3 2nd level spells and 2 3rd level spells

etc.






I don't dispute what you say.  In fact - I did some quick and dirty math and found that the 'parity point' between an all damage wizard (Burning Hands - 4 targets each time; Arc Lighting - 2 targets and Fireball - 6 targets) and an all damage fighter (two handed weapon, Deadly Strike and Glancing Blow); assuming enemies save half the time and the fighter hits half the time (this number is low for both - the fighter will hit more often and the creatures will fail their saves more often - but 50% makes a good value for a quick comparison) was 30 rounds.  That is to say - if you had less than 30 rounds of combat per day, under those assumptions the wizard did more damage; if you had more than 30 rounds of combat the fighter did more damage.


That is a much longer day than I expected. 


The problem is - I don't think the solution is to increase the fighter's expertise dice.  Damage inflation is rarely the answer.



The only other option is to redesign Maneuvers to hit many opponents at once though, I don't think many would like that...

I think one solution is to roll back the wizards added damage to burning hands (Arc Lighting can stay as it is) and reduce the damage from Fireball.  Or decrease their spells per day (they have one more 2nd and one more 3rd than they did in AD&D1st (4 2 1).


Bottom Line: The current iteration of the wizard has more spells than it did in AD&D1st and those spells do either the same damage (fireball) or significantly more damage (as in burning hands).


One way to look at it is:  Burning Hands does around 2 rounds of fighter damage; Arc Lighting does a bit over 1 round of fighter damage and Fireball does around 5.5 rounds of fighter damage. 


In fact - that suggests a rough metric:  What if each spell did around 1 round of fighter damage per level.  By this measure - Burning Hands and Fireball are overpowered and Arc Lighting is actually weak.
   
If this metric could be hit - a 5th level magic user would be close to on par with a Fighter if they had sixteen rounds of combat in a day (not a bad starting point for discussion, imho).   The actual value would be slightly higher because the magic user would be doing his 16 rounds of damage in 9 rounds - but it would be far closer than the current approach.  (I think this actually leads to parity in 18 rounds, not 16 - if I did the math right in my head).



Your math is off here. If the fighter is dealing an average of 12 points of damage TO ONE TARGET if they use their CS dice on damage each round then burning hands is 10 points of damage average to around 6 targets. In other words the fighter needs to have 5 extra rounds just for that one spell. Since we are counting the average damage including basic attacks, then the wizard gets to tack on ray of frost damage (magic missile even without miss chance sucks in comparison) 6.5 * 5 rounds is 32.5 so the Wizard is dealing 60 + 32.5 = 92.5 damage compared to the fighters 60 in the same time frame not counting misses and failed saves. If we up it to say 10 rounds we get 120 from the fighter and 125 from the Wizard so with just 1 daily spell the fight has to have 10 rounds to catch up with the current system. That to me is just not acceptable as by level 5 the Wizard is going to be casting a daily spell every 3rd round or so assuming the play tests suggested 4 encounter day...

What does this mean: 

First - what is a 'fighter round' of damage.  SInce I am going all damage, I assume fighter does 14 points of damage per round (2d6 for weapon plus 3 for 10 points on a hit, 0 on a miss, average 5; 2d8 for expertise dice, applied every round -deadly strike or glancing blow- average 9).

 

Actually someone mentioned that the fighter can hit on average about 60% of the time in the play test. So 55% of that is normal damage and 5% is maxed out for critical damage. So average damage taking into account miss chance and critical damage would be done like this (Based on the pre-gen dwarven fighter):

40% - miss
55% - 5.5 (weapon) + 3 (ability mod) + 3.5 (CS dice) = 12
5% - Critical 10 + 3 + 6 = 19
So using those percents you get an average of 7.55 damage per round.

A Wizard would get this from burning hands:
40% - half damage 5 * 6 targets = 30
60% - full damage 10 * 6 targets = 60
So using those percents you get an average of 48 damage. Now add in the Minor spell Ray of Frost:
40% - miss
55% - 6.5
5% - Critical 9
Using those we get 4.025 per round used.

So across 10 rounds the fighter gets 75.5 average damage and the Wizard gets 48 (burning hands 1 round) + 36.225 (Ray of Frost 9 rounds) = 84.225. So we need to go a few more rounds to even it out. Lets try 12 rounds:
Fighter - 90.6
Wizard - 92.275

Almost there so lets try 13 rounds:
Fighter - 98.15
Wizard - 96.3

So somewhere between 12 and 13 rounds is what it takes for the fighter to catch up with the Wizard at level 1-2 where the Wizard is going to be casting 1 spell per average combat...

Thus - a first level spell ought to do around 14 points of damage on average.  That works out to around 18 points for the spell, half on a save.  

For a single target spell - that's a nice bit of damage - say 5d6 (average 17.5; Since this number seems high to those used to earlier editions, I'd probably change it to a smaller value with a status effect.) 

For a cone (average three targets) that means around 6 points per target before save.  The last packet burning hands did 2d4+3 or 8 points - a bit high but not too bad.  You could change it to a spray (the three square's adjacent to one side - which is more like the AD&D version that had flames jet out 3' from the wizard in a 120degree arc)  - this makes two targets more likely and caps the spell at three targets, but gets a bit wonky with diagonals on a grid.    Bottom line - the old burning hands was about right (although for a developing symmetry I like 1d6+3).   You could also up the base damage but remove the half damage (or halve the base damage to three points and remove the save.  An autohit AE spell would be nice).


A second level spell ought to do around 28 points of damage on average.  That works out to around 36 points before save. 

As with the first level spell - this is a ton of damage for a single target spell.  Better to go with a lower damage calculation and add a status effect.  I don't think the game should have 2nd and higher level, damage only spells.
 
For a two target spell (like arc lightnig) it depends on how it's split up.  Arc lighting does 5d6 to one target (half on save) and 2d6 to the second target (nada on save).  That's an average of around 16.5. This is actually low.  Arc lighting should do more damage by this metric.  Alternately - I'd add status effect (because damage inflation is never the answer).  Alternately, the spell could increase the damage of the second bold - if both bolts do the same 5d6, the average damage increases to around 27 points.


For a three target spell (cone or small burst) - the spell should do about 12 points per target.  That's about 2d8 +3.
  

A third level spell ought to do around 42 points of damage.   That's 56 points of damage before the save.

Again - no single target or even double target damage only spells.  Essentially - the minimum area of the spells goes up with level as well - which is a hindrance as much as it is a benefit as it becomes harder and harder to keep allies out of the big spells.


FOr a cone (average three targets) we are looking at  around 18 points of damage.  3d10+3.  (Notice that was L1 1d6+3, L2 2d8+3, L3 3d10+3.  Nice how that worked out...)


For a fireball (big blast) we are looking at around 10 points of damage before the save.  3d6 does this nicely (I haven't looked for a pattern for this size yet - but if a pattern could be found it would add elegance to the system).


Note:  This is a big drop in the fireball - because the fireball is the one that is really throwing the math off.  It is both massive damage and (when used to its best advantage) massive number of targets.


It is the epitome of quadratic wizard.

Thoughts?

Carl


note:  This is a quick and dirty estimate to show how I might try to balance the spells.  I probably won't have time to do the numbers properly until after GenCon.  



Lets take a level 5 Fighter versus a level 5 Wizard in an average 4 encounter day as suggested by the play test:

Fighter:
40% - Miss
55% - 5.5 (Weapon) + 3 (abilitiy mod) + 9 (CS Dice) = 17.5 average per round.
5% - Crit 10 (Weapon) + 3 (ability mod) + 16 (CS Dice) = 29 average per round.
Total average per round: 11.075

Wizard Ray of Frost:
40% - Miss
55% - 6.5
5% - 9
Total average per round: 4.025

Wizard Fireball (Assuming 20 out of the possible 50+ targets):
40% - Half 175
60% - Full 350
Total average for one round: 280

Damage over the course of 12 rounds (Wizard casts 1 3rd level spell and spams ray of frost the rest of the time):
Fighter - 132.9
Wizard - 328.3

Here we have to go way more rounds to catch up lets do 30 rounds:
Fighter - 332.25
Wizard - 396.725

Nope still not enough lets try 40 rounds:
Fighter - 443
Wizard - 436.975

Close but lets go 38 to see what happens:
Fighter - 420.85
Wizard - 428.925

That's pretty close so with one spell the wizard requires the fighter to take 36-38 rounds to catch up. From the look of things a typical combat will last about 4-8 rounds. Now imagine if that same Wizard then casts a first level and second level spell during that combat. We are probably looking at some 90+ rounds to even that out...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Again excuse my terrible maths but I think you are making a mistake on your assumptions Iokiare.

6 targets for burning hands (a 15ft cone) is max targets for the spell I think, 2 or 3 average would be more like it.
Did I mention I hate the return to cones,cylinders and the rest of weird geometrical ranges in a default square dnd grid? Yup I do...

A fireball having 20 targets on average? Wow, how many encounters you had with 20+ monsters on it?

If you check Xp budget for an average 5th level encounter we see 690 xp.

Now filling a room with 20 1st level critters like a fire beetle ( 50 xp per creature) will get us up to 1000 xp for our encounter. Thats clearly a bad encounter design from the start, and something begging for a well placed fireball to get rid of imo.
Again excuse my terrible maths but I think you are making a mistake on your assumptions Iokiare.

6 targets for burning hands (a 15ft cone) is max targets for the spell I think, 2 or 3 average would be more like it.
Did I mention I hate the return to cones,cylinders and the rest of weird geometrical ranges in a default square dnd grid? Yup I do...

A fireball having 20 targets on average? Wow, how many encounters you had with 20+ monsters on it?

If you check Xp budget for an average 5th level encounter we see 690 xp.

Now filling a room with 20 1st level critters like a fire beetle ( 50 xp per creature) will get us up to 1000 xp for our encounter. Thats clearly a bad encounter design from the start, and something begging for a well placed fireball to get rid of imo.



your probably right on the burning hands but that only shaves off 2-3 rounds.

The fireball can hit up to 50+ targets so less than half is reasonable or the Wizard would use a different spell. Even if you drop it to 10 targets (about the minimum that the Wizard would target and still waste one out of two of their highest level spell slots) It still adds up to way too many rounds to equal out.

A typical fight for a mixed party is going to be around 6-10 rounds or so. Even assuming really low target numbers we are still looking at 50+ round fights to be even. That's a major problem when the fighter is supposed to be the 'master of fighting'...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, so I'm with one of the posters above:

Give wizards fewer spells.  I like Combat Superiority--lets balance the wizard around that, instead of the other way around, not that I wouldn't want more Expertise dice or anything. 
Yeah, so I'm with one of the posters above:

Give wizards fewer spells.  I like Combat Superiority--lets balance the wizard around that, instead of the other way around, not that I wouldn't want more Expertise dice or anything. 



Less spells wouldn't help. If they even get just 1 spell per level they are still ahead of the fighter for 25+ rounds out of a 6-10 round encounter.

Even if you halved the area of fireball so it only hit around 5-10 targets on average your still at 25+ rounds ahead of the fighter.

If you lower the number of spells, lower the damage output, and the area of the spells you might break even in the duration of a typical combat...

I'd rather give the fighter more dice and more maneuvers.

Even if we balance the damage stuff we are still left with casters being quadratically more flexible than melee classes. That needs to be fixed too...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Again excuse my terrible maths but I think you are making a mistake on your assumptions Iokiare.

6 targets for burning hands (a 15ft cone) is max targets for the spell I think, 2 or 3 average would be more like it.
Did I mention I hate the return to cones,cylinders and the rest of weird geometrical ranges in a default square dnd grid? Yup I do...

A fireball having 20 targets on average? Wow, how many encounters you had with 20+ monsters on it?

If you check Xp budget for an average 5th level encounter we see 690 xp.

Now filling a room with 20 1st level critters like a fire beetle ( 50 xp per creature) will get us up to 1000 xp for our encounter. Thats clearly a bad encounter design from the start, and something begging for a well placed fireball to get rid of imo.

I agree. The number of targets for the AOE spells is WAY too high for an average number of targets. If burning hands can tag 3 targets, I count that as a good use. Fireball might be able to get 10, but I think that is also too high, I'd say more like 6. There is also the issue of smaller number but tougher encounters, where AOE is far less effecient. A single solo encounter could trivialize the wizard's contribution if all they had were AOE spells.

I do agree the balance is extremely out of whack currently between fighters and wizards.

I like the suggestion of first determining what a single fighter's damage per round by level should be. Use that as a basis for all other damage output. If a fighter can do X damage on average at level Y, then an AOE effect at level Y should be Z% of that, with an average number of targets appropriate to level. This further needs tweaks since these spells are a daily resource, and not usable every encounter. This is further tweaked if the caster is trading in less durability for better damage.

WotC might do well informing us of the the metrics they are assuming for different game elements. Number of encounters per day of which pillar. The overall expected effectiveness of each feature for each pillar. D&D isn't all about combat, as many have mentioned. If Class is a strictly combat aspect of character creation, then there should not be non-combat game elements as part of a class. Case in point: all spells should be combat-only spells. Separate out the "non-combat spells" into a non-class game element. If a class is intended to potentially include features for any or all of the pillars, then things got a whole lot more complicated. There needs to be test cases for a variety of encounters involving all of the pillars, not just combat.

Flash of insight: Note to WotC, don't give us "adventures". Instead, give DM's static encounters to run the party though in whatever order they want. This includes encounters for EVERY pillar, not just combat. How does classic character build X perform/contribute in Combat/Exploration/Interaction? I realize there is a fairly wide margin based on player creativity, but again using some form of target number at least allows this to be quantifyable.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The values I used were for what really happens in the real world.


Burning hands I saw over several sessions and have real data - although it can hit up to six targets, three is the norm.  Sometimes four.  I can think of one time the party got six - but that was definately the exception.


Fireball has a theoretical max of sixty or sixty four creatures (depending on how they do diagonals) but in practice it rarely gets that many.  Especially since you have to place it to avoid your party as well.    Six is a decent number although that number is debateable, I freely concede.  That detail, however, doesn't change the principles involved:  For any size blast, there is some number which represents the spells typical effectiveness.  This can be inferred from past experience and it can be verified in playtesting. 


If I did a more complete workup, the calculation would (initially) ignore the actual burst size - it would instead define spells by expected number of targets (single target, two targets, three targets, four targets, etc.).  Once that underlying math was done - lets say we decided that a three target 3rd level spell should do 3d8 damage (a made up number):  When it came do desiging spells, we might make this a cone (max six targets, average three per usage); an 'arc' - bounces from target to target till it had hit three targets, or whatever.  The points is that the math is based on how many targets we expect to hit; the shape is chosen later to achieve that expected number of targets.


Carl   
The values I used were for what really happens in the real world.


Burning hands I saw over several sessions and have real data - although it can hit up to six targets, three is the norm.  Sometimes four.  I can think of one time the party got six - but that was definately the exception.


Fireball has a theoretical max of sixty or sixty four creatures (depending on how they do diagonals) but in practice it rarely gets that many.  Especially since you have to place it to avoid your party as well.    Six is a decent number although that number is debateable, I freely concede.  That detail, however, doesn't change the principles involved:  For any size blast, there is some number which represents the spells typical effectiveness.  This can be inferred from past experience and it can be verified in playtesting. 


If I did a more complete workup, the calculation would (initially) ignore the actual burst size - it would instead define spells by expected number of targets (single target, two targets, three targets, four targets, etc.).  Once that underlying math was done - lets say we decided that a three target 3rd level spell should do 3d8 damage (a made up number):  When it came do desiging spells, we might make this a cone (max six targets, average three per usage); an 'arc' - bounces from target to target till it had hit three targets, or whatever.  The points is that the math is based on how many targets we expect to hit; the shape is chosen later to achieve that expected number of targets.


Carl   



Even if were were to say an average of 5 targets for all AoE spells (including the 50+ fireball) that is still around 25+ rounds for the fighter to catch up in a 6-10 round encounter... Its totally unbalanced and the linear fighters and quadratic wizards is still very much in play...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You will get a LOT more screams and threats to ragequit if you cut back Wizard power rather than buff Fighters.

So I'd rather see Combat Superority dice accumulate faster.

Perhaps once every 3 levels rather than once every 5?

That would mean they are on a totally different "arc" to the Wizard (difference = good) but closer to power balance.     
You will get a LOT more screams and threats to ragequit if you cut back Wizard power rather than buff Fighters.

So I'd rather see Combat Superority dice accumulate faster.

Perhaps once every 3 levels rather than once every 5?

That would mean they are on a totally different "arc" to the Wizard (difference = good) but closer to power balance.     



Using the math I showed above once every two levels would still be too few. We are talking about needing 3-4d10 at level 5 just to keep up with the Wizard. That is with Maneuvers that can deal CS dice damage to 2-3 targets per round. You can mess with the numbers a bit, but your stuck with the same problem. At higher levels unless the CS dice go up quadratically (like 6d12 at level 10 or something) they won't be keeping up with the casters...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Ok I was trying to make a point for average monster numbers in a 5th level encounter... but anyone else noticed how many mistakes are in the bestiary??

We have torog for 580 xp, but then again minotaur is a 5th level elite with 570 xp? not to mention the all mighty dark adept being a 5 level encounter monster with 200 xp while their obviously more powerful commander is a level 3 elite with 260 xp.

Anyways, perhaps we should focus on an average encounter? So as to avoid minionizing or soloing it?

IF torog xp value is correct 580 xp. Then an average 5th level encounter worth of 690*4=2760 xp, would have 4,75 torogs. So (I repeat again IF torog's number is correct) we can expect 5 targets in an average encounter.

So imo burning hand's average should be 2-3 targets and fireball's 5 targets.
Ok I was trying to make a point for average monster numbers in a 5th level encounter... but anyone else noticed how many mistakes are in the bestiary??

We have torog for 580 xp, but then again minotaur is a 5th level elite with 570 xp? not to mention the all mighty dark adept being a 5 level encounter monster with 200 xp while their obviously more powerful commander is a level 3 elite with 260 xp.

Anyways, perhaps we should focus on an average encounter? So as to avoid minionizing or soloing it?

IF torog xp value is correct 580 xp. Then an average 5th level encounter worth of 690*4=2760 xp, would have 4,75 torogs. So (I repeat again IF torog's number is correct) we can expect 5 targets in an average encounter.

So imo burning hand's average should be 2-3 targets and fireball's 5 targets.



I went with around 14 Dark Adepts, but go ahead and do the math in my above posts with 5 targets instead of 10 or whatever. Just be sure and count 2-3 daily spells and Minor spells every round (minus the 2-3 rounds for the dailies) at level 5. You'll see that it evens out at about 25+ rounds in a 6-10 round encounter...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Hmmn...

Fair call on the progression.

Perhaps they should be starting with two dice and then gaining one per three?

Though, perhaps start with two and gain one per two makes the most sense.  It matches quite closely with Wizard progression at that point.     
I tried with 3rd level monsters. Ranging xp 250-460 so 355 xp. 355*5=1775 xp. Considering 1700 is the xp target for 3rd level pcs I'd say that 5 seems to be the average number.
Hmmn...

Fair call on the progression.

Perhaps they should be starting with two dice and then gaining one per three?

Though, perhaps start with two and gain one per two makes the most sense.  It matches quite closely with Wizard progression at that point.     



Mathematically it would need to go like this:

level - dice - average roll
1st  - 3d4 - 7.5
2nd - 4d4 - 10
3rd  - 4d6 - 14
4th  - 5d6 - 17.5
5th  - 5d8 - 22.5

This is in combination with hitting 2-3 targets with the total dice roll each round.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So the abilities would need to look like this:

Cleave - When you hit an enemy make an attack roll on up to 2 adjacent enemies they take damage equal to your total CS dice. Cost all CS dice roll.

Deadly Strike - On a successful hit roll your CS dice 2 times and add that total to the damage of the attack. Cost all CS dice.

Glancing Blow - On a miss of 5 or less you may roll your CS dice, deal 2 times your roll to the target. Cost all CS dice.

Jab - Same as the play test packet except you add all your CS dice roll.

Knock down - Same as the play test, but deal the rest of your CS dice roll in damage.

Hopefully your seeing a pattern here...

You can know the 2x rolls off if you count for not using all CS dice and allowing the defensive ones and extra attack ones on the use of any Maneuver.

TL:DR - Bigger and more dice as well as multi-target maneuvers is the only way this will ever balance out without totally nerfing the Wizard.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Wait, I just had flash of insight....
Oh right, for some reason 4e did not have the problem that the Wizard totally overshadowed the Fighter.

Huge bursts are rather limited for the 4e Wizard until the higher levels of play and focus-firing is more important. Also the really powerful spells (dailies) are only available 3 times per day and the Fighter gets equivalently strong abilities. Spells like Hold Person that immobilize any creature for 10 rounds without a save are not even available for the highest level dailies. 

The actual problem is very obvious to me. Spells currently in D&D next are more powerful than 4e dailies and also more often available.  Additionally Wizards have got decent at-will abilities, that they can use when it is not worth using a spell or all their spells are depleted.

With the Vancian system, a round in which a Wizard casts a spell should not be more powerful than a Fighter round. The wizard is more versatile after all. He is a ranged attacker that can pretty much choose arbitrary targets and use the spell that suits the situation best.
Wait, I just had flash of insight....
Oh right, for some reason 4e did not have the problem that the Wizard totally overshadowed the Fighter.

Huge bursts are rather limited for the 4e Wizard until the higher levels of play and focus-firing is more important. Also the really powerful spells (dailies) are only available 3 times per day and the Fighter gets equivalently strong abilities. Spells like Hold Person that immobilize any creature for 10 rounds without a save are not even available for the highest level dailies. 

The actual problem is very obvious to me. Spells currently in D&D next are more powerful than 4e dailies and also more often available.  Additionally Wizards have got decent at-will abilities, that they can use when it is not worth using a spell or all their spells are depleted.

With the Vancian system, a round in which a Wizard casts a spell should not be more powerful than a Fighter round. The wizard is more versatile after all. He is a ranged attacker that can pretty much choose arbitrary targets and use the spell that suits the situation best.



Yeah, but they are dead set on having Vancian in, so its either super nerf the Wizard or super buff CS... your choice...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Maybe, just maybe, the AOE damage spells should be pushed back a spell level, to let the lower level play still be a bit of a challenge? I'd rather see the spell level effectively be the average number of targets affected (ok, maybe more like: (SL-1)*2). Status effects should also downgrade the damage output of a spell considerably, or increase its base spell level. Was there rules for casting spells at higher level slots? I don't recall, and don't have the playtest handy.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Maybe, just maybe, the AOE damage spells should be pushed back a spell level, to let the lower level play still be a bit of a challenge? I'd rather see the spell level effectively be the average number of targets affected (ok, maybe more like: (SL-1)*2). Status effects should also downgrade the damage output of a spell considerably, or increase its base spell level. Was there rules for casting spells at higher level slots? I don't recall, and don't have the playtest handy.



Not that I saw...

It like you are just not understanding.

If the Wizard can deal 3-4 rounds worth of damage in 1 hit and gets to do this 2-3 times per encounter they will outpace the fighter even with CS for more rounds than the combat lasts...

So even if we make every spell target only 1 enemy at a time the problem still exists...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
To be honest I don't want any class to have abilities that powerful, no matter how seldom they can use it. I want to be able as a DM to let the party face a solo melee monster without the wizard disabling it for the entire combat with a single spell or the Fighter hacking it to pieces with 2 attacks due to his awesome CS dice.

Buffing CS to be in line with a broken spell system is not going to help.  The Vancian spells have to be toned down, or another mechanic has to be used.
To be honest I don't want any class to have abilities that powerful, no matter how seldom they can use it. I want to be able as a DM to let the party face a solo melee monster without the wizard disabling it for the entire combat with a single spell or the Fighter hacking it to pieces with 2 attacks due to his awesome CS dice.

Buffing CS to be in line with a broken spell system is not going to help.  The Vancian spells have to be toned down, or another mechanic has to be used.



I could deal with that, but many won't. They'll rage quit at the first sign of Wizards being nerfed...

Basically you would have to do both anyway. Increase CS dice number and size, and lower Wizard number of spell slots, area of effect, and number of spells known...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Are you sure all the factors are there?  Seems a little vacuumy.

I am not convinced that DDN should be DDMath.  But many might like that style of gaming.  Dunno.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Are you sure all the factors are there?  Seems a little vacuumy.

I am not convinced that DDN should be DDMath.  But many might like that style of gaming.  Dunno.



No its 'not all there' as you put it. I didn't think about trying to compare the wizards plethora of status effects to the fighters 'prone', that would make the Wizard win hands down no matter what they did to the fighter...

edit: Also it wouldn't be D&DMath because the developers would have all this figured out before the players and DM ever saw it. The developers need to do this kind of stuff just so it isn't D&DMath when it comes out and DMs have to know the inner workings to house rule the game into playability like they generally have to do with 3.xE...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
How do you propose balance without all the factors?

Do magic items make a difference?

How about player skill?

How will this work with casual play?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

How do you propose balance without all the factors?

Do magic items make a difference?

How about player skill?

How will this work with casual play?



Well I'm hoping to get it closer on just damage, then we can talk about giving the fighter some maneuvers that will have status effects in a similar way to wizards. One step at a time. As it is right now, the Wizard is a better fighter than the fighter, its something that really needs work...

Assuming they give magic items out evenly so as to not anger a good portion of fans, then the magic item question is moot. Otherwise they will give melee characters 9 out of 10 magic items to balance them. At that point your playing a coat rack and not a fighter.

Nope, assuming equally skilled players the Wizard will win hands down.

Casual play will end with most Wizards still dominating. Occasionally you might get a Wizard randomly that is gimped and only occasionally shows up the fighter...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Now if you read the spells and see what happens you'll find that a lot of spells either completely disable an opponent (such as hold persons reduce speed to 0 or paralyzed) or deal pretty hefty damage (like stinking clouds max potential of 550-1100 damage to each creature in its area). They also target multiple targets (average about 15-20).

So 1 spell level is about equivalent to 3-4 CS dice.

So using those estimates we can conclude that the fighter should get a progression of CS at a rate like this:



Your estimates are bass ackwards.  If you're going to use broken spells that are going to change, your calculations should geared towards reducing those spells, not raising the fighter damage.  Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.   








Now if you read the spells and see what happens you'll find that a lot of spells either completely disable an opponent (such as hold persons reduce speed to 0 or paralyzed) or deal pretty hefty damage (like stinking clouds max potential of 550-1100 damage to each creature in its area). They also target multiple targets (average about 15-20).

So 1 spell level is about equivalent to 3-4 CS dice.

So using those estimates we can conclude that the fighter should get a progression of CS at a rate like this:



Your estimates are bass ackwards.  If you're going to use broken spells that are going to change, your calculations should geared towards reducing those spells, not raising the fighter damage.  Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.



Yep, go back and read all the posts in the thread please.

Even limiting the Wizard to half the damage, half the area, and half the number of spell slots you are still going to be around 25+ rounds ahead of the fighter with CS.

It doesn't matter how you look at it, its quadratic wizards and linear fighters.

Unless you want to take a stab at the math yourself?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


Yep, go back and read all the posts in the thread please.



Meh.  I generally won't read through every page of a discussion.  I read the first few posts and the last page.  That's it. 

Even limiting the Wizard to half the damage, half the area, and half the number of spell slots you are still going to be around 25+ rounds ahead of the fighter with CS.



If you didn't assume an absurd 550-1100 damage... 

It doesn't matter how you look at it, its quadratic wizards and linear fighters.



Even now, quadratic doesn't exist in 5e.  More powerful wizards, sure.  Quadratic?  Nope.  





Yep, go back and read all the posts in the thread please.



Meh.  I generally won't read through every page of a discussion.  I read the first few posts and the last page.  That's it. 

Even limiting the Wizard to half the damage, half the area, and half the number of spell slots you are still going to be around 25+ rounds ahead of the fighter with CS.



If you didn't assume an absurd 550-1100 damage... 

It doesn't matter how you look at it, its quadratic wizards and linear fighters.



Even now, quadratic doesn't exist in 5e.  More powerful wizards, sure.  Quadratic?  Nope.  






Yeah, see now your throwing up straw mans. I assumed 10 targets on a fireball  that can hit 50+ and 2-3 targets on burning hands. Even going so far to calculate average damage with miss, hit, failed saves, and critical percents taken into account. I pretty thouroughly nailed it.

But you would know that if you read the thread.

Nice form though coming in and reading the last 4 posts and totally blowing up at the proven math... always a good idea...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
How do you propose balance without all the factors?

Do magic items make a difference?

How about player skill?

How will this work with casual play?



Well I'm hoping to get it closer on just damage, then we can talk about giving the fighter some maneuvers that will have status effects in a similar way to wizards. One step at a time. As it is right now, the Wizard is a better fighter than the fighter, its something that really needs work...

Assuming they give magic items out evenly so as to not anger a good portion of fans, then the magic item question is moot. Otherwise they will give melee characters 9 out of 10 magic items to balance them. At that point your playing a coat rack and not a fighter.

Nope, assuming equally skilled players the Wizard will win hands down.

Casual play will end with most Wizards still dominating. Occasionally you might get a Wizard randomly that is gimped and only occasionally shows up the fighter...



Unless you come up with the whirling shield bash that is not magic based then it will be hard to replicate effects from spells like grease.  Since you mention 'prone'.  Essentially making the fighter, the wizard.  I am not sure I understand the need to make the fighter the same as the wizard.  Is the math supposed to be the same and just refluff stuff?  How is playing a coatrack any more exciting than playing in a party of DD5 computer chips?  I would give up balancing CS to damage spells in a heartbeat for the sake of difference.

I think your assumption about magic items should be based on the assumption that DMs have varying attitudes toward magic items.  Its their ballpark.  Not WoTC.

Skilled players understand synergy.  A prone rending fighter and a thug rogue can lock down and destroy baddies easier than if they try to do it themselves.  The skilled wizard refrains from casting fireball because they do not wish to burn the thug and fighter.  Are skilled wizard  players always casting spells?  Or just the right one?  Or only when they are needed?  Again, wizard dominance is a vacuumy assumption.  Not every wizard fills the need to cast a spell.  And then enter...the Wild Mage.  Yay!

All in all, not bad for Powers Module similar to the 4E powers tray.

All that being said, I would like them to revisit CS.  It seems overly complicated for the creative pay off you get using it.  Kinda like a coke with no fizz.



"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Wizards complain that they dont have enough hit points. Fighters complain that they don't do enough damage.