Community

Apr 12, 2012 -- 4:07AM, Gnarl wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:33AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

It existed in 4e prior to Essentials.  There are those who claim that 4e classes are 'samey,' of course, but that's really just another way of complaining that they're balanced.

The only circumstancial class immabalance 4th edition original "fixed" was with regards to the number of encounters per day.

That was at the root of it, yes.  But it was a /huge/ fix.  The disparity between high-level casters and non-casters was vast, because, even though the high-level caster had enough spells to cast every round through multiple encounters, his spells were not only still being compenated with greater power as if each one were the /only/ thing he could do, that individual spell-power was also increasing.  It was a truely horrible design.  It's not just 'there were a few broken spells,' though there were more than a few that were broken enough to make things even worse.  It was the basic structure of one class with high-power dailies and another without.

A wizard is still better than the other classes against multiple opponents and is less powerful against a single opponent. But maybe you have a different experience or maybe this kind of circumstancial class imbalance isn't a problem?

A wizard could be.  Part of the controller role is minion-sweeping.  But, one AE at-will can be adequate to cover that, and a wizard could be terribly effective against a single target - rediculously so with a lockdown build.  Similarly, non-wizards - even martial classes - could get some nice AE (mostly Close) powers that would let them deal with multiple opponents.  So, the disparity you're thinking of is very small.  The same goes for many other situational disparities in 4e.  Powers were designed to be more generally-useful than weapons and spells were in prior editions.  A wizard might not shine as brightly against a single foe as against a crowd of minions, but he was still fully contributing.  A fighter might not rock against minions as hard as when he marks and pins down an Elite, but he might still Cleave through them 2 at a time.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Gnarl wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 2:25AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Exactly my point.  As soon as you have some classes with dailies and some without, class balance becomes extremely precarious.  Add in the impetus for the 5-minute work day, and it's virtually impossible for a reasonable DM to maintain class balanced.

The kind of balance you're looking for can't exist in any game where classes are different. A class that heavily focuses on AOE attacks is probably going to be balanced against the other classes making assumptions on the number of opponents and how many opponents you can reasonably expect to affect with your AOE attacks. Against more opponents than the expected number of targets, your AOE class will be more powerful than a single-target DPS class and your single-target DPS class will be better against a single opponent.

Why is having a class slightly better than another in a single encounter per day a big deal but having a class that is better against a single opponent not a problem?

People on these boards seem to say that slayer is weaker than an AEDU striker in a one encounter per day scenario but it's not that big of a deal because the slayer is still significantly contributing to the encounter. What they are describing is a serious improvement to what I've experienced at higher levels with spellcasters in 3rd edition.

Let's say you have 8 minions, a soldier, and an elite artillery vs a party of 1 defender type, 1 controller, 2 striker and a leader.  The Controller would probably be best used by trying to kill or lock down the minions, the defender could try to get to the elite or engage the soldier in a one on one, allowing the strikers to get to the elite artillery bombing the party, and the leader runs around buffing, hitting where he can and putting out fires.  each one contributes, even if they aren't contributing to everything "equally" at the same time.  The point is not specifically to count up hit point damage, or get XP for deathblows (ahhhhhh killstealing).  Take this example instead: same monster distribution, but the artillery can stop the leader and the controller from casting spells in an area large enough to cripple them.  Now, instead of the fight being about each person helping everyone else, it's about killing the big monster first, or letting the casters suffer through being useless, pulling out weapons they suck at to attempt to do some damage.  Desparation and possibly even boredom sets in, the suggestion is made to run (but only by the casters) while the rest of the party is trying their best to clear the room, and probably even succeeding to a degree; after all, the strikers cna focus fire on the artillery still and bring it down, but if the artillery's biggest features aren't dealing damage but instead crippling a class type, the strikers might instead choose to leave that thing for last.
A possibly imperfect example, but the point is this:slightly better is only a problem with those concerned with the specific min-maxing of their character, and absolute parity.  Instead, the game needs to focus on not gimping people.  Here's an example of effective against a monster done right: same distribution as above, but the minions are creatures that, along with their soldier leader, summoned a fire monster, immune to fire.  The Controller is a fire caster primarily, but the minions aren't immune to fire, though they resist it when within the artillery's aura; now it becomes a matter of drawing the artillery away from the minions, while keeping the soldier locked down.  The strikers use any forced movement powers they have to get the artillery away, the controller nukes the minions.  Even within the aura, the controller only has to get past resistance+1 to kill the minions; it might take more than 2 rounds at this point, but that's all right.  Now after that, the controller can move on to the soldier, also not immune to fire, and let the strikers, defender and leader take any turn they need to switch out and engage the soldier or artillery monster.  Class not negated, but challenged, and though the controller can't impact the artillery monster, he can clear the field for his allies, and in turn they can help him do his job more effectively through teamwork.

This is what people should be able to expect, I think.

I think for a lot of people 4e is balanced more than is necessary for a fun game.  I don't mind lesser levels of imbalance spread around the table at different times.   I also think that daily resource management is fun enough that DMs managing their games and preventing abuse it worth it.  Of course it won't be for some.

Would these magic user tropes work for all of you?

1.  Wizard - A Vancian caster with mostly dailies.   Some basic at-will damage spells as well.  Dailies are either big boom or utility.   The spells here get a lot more balancing than any prior edition.   Rituals take spell slots and require long casting times.

2.  Sorceror - Encounter / At-will powers.  No dailies.  Some utility encounter powers.  Everything balanced like #1.  Some kind of access to rituals.

3.  Warmage - At-Will Blasts and stances.  These are much better than #1's.  Close to #2's Encounter damage powers.   Stances let you change your blast in some way.   Fire to Lightning for example.  Some kind of access to rituals.

Now I'm assuming not every group plays all three.  I would allow all three in my game.  But for Tony who is against Vancian magic I'm assuming you'd just allow #2, #3 or maybe just #2.   So my question is - would this approach be ok for you even if you ban parts.   How about you Gnarl?  Would you be happy with at least one of these options for your campaign and let others have the one or more of the others?




 

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Gnarl wrote:

I guess it's ok for the fan base to pretend that only old grognards didn't like 4th edition.

About as okay as it is to assume that only wet behind the ears new kids did like it.