This is not an assumption. It has been a truism across gaming. You cannot balance limited and free use abilities without forcing an EXACT number of encounters on a party. As soon as you have a class without dailies you must battle exactly X encounters a day or the system is no longer ballanced.
I think the kind of argument required to substantiate this statement would require waaaaay more space and scope than these forums allow.
Arithmetic suffices.
Let's say an At-Will (AW) does 1 damage, and Encounter (E) does 2, and a Daily (D) does 3 (this follows the 1W-2W-3W progression in most of Heroic Tier).
First we'll look at 3 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 15 rounds of combat total. The first character is Alice, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, and 2 Daily Attacks. Given those 3 encounters, Alice will be able to use each of her Daily Attacks once (2 rounds), her Encounter Attacks three times each (6 rounds), and the remaining 7 rounds she uses At-Will Attacks. Alice's total damage over three encounters is: 7*AW + 3*2*E + 2*D = 7*1 + 6*2 + 2*3 = 7 + 12 + 6 = 25. The second character is Bob, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, but does not have a Daily Attack. For those same 3 encounters, Bob will be able to use his two Encounter Attacks three times (6 rounds), and the remaining 9 are At-Will. Bob's total damage over three encounters is: 9*AW + 3*2*E = 9*1 + 6*2 = 9 + 12 = 21 He's 4 points of damage behind. So, to balance Bob against Alice, Bob needs a Class Feature (CF) that makes up for those 4 points. But, that Class Feature is generating those 4 points of damage over 3 encounters, so his Class Feature generates (4/3) points of damage per encounter.
Now let's look at 5 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 25 rounds of combat total. Alice gets her two Daily Attacks once each (2 total), each of her Encounters 5 times (10 total), and the remaining 13 are At-Wills: 13*AW + 10*E + 2*D = 13 + 20 + 6 = 39 Bob gets each of his Encounters 5 times, and his At-Wills 15 times 15*AW + 10*E = 15 + 20 = 35 He's still four points behind, but previously we calculated his Class Feature gives him (4/3) points of damage per encounter, so he'll get an additional 6.66667 points of damage, giving him 35+6.66667 = 41.66667 Now he's almost 3 points ahead! More encounters will only increase that, since his Class Feature keeps on giving him benefits while Alice is limited to her Daily Attacks. If we balance him around 5 encounters, his Class Feature should do (4/5) points of damage per encounter; however, that means he'd be doing less damage than Alice if there are fewer than 5 encounters.
We find that to properly balance Bob's Class Feature against Alice's Daily powers, he needs to do an extra 4 points of damage per day, regardless of the number of encounters. If his Class Feature gives him an extra 4 points of damage per day, that's just another Daily Power.
This is why Class Features and Daily Attacks can at-best only be balanced for a single fixed number of encounters. Fewer encounters than that and Daily Attacks win. More encounters and Class Features win. Previous editions of D&D were balanced around some larger number of encounters per day. That's why Fighters were good at the early levels since they could always attack, but were overshadowed by Wizards once they got enough spells. There was a cross-over point in the level progression where Wizards started leaving Fighters behind.
Suffice it to say, then, that I don't see how it's totally outside the realm of human possibility for the designers to balance the system. (I guess time will tell?)
I hope the above math helps you see the problem, then.
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
I didn't say that Essentials would get it right, I simply said that I didn't think that the task was outside the realm of human imagination.
If that's what you said, you said nothing. What's commonly called an "apeal to ignorance." Sure, I can't know that in the potentially infinite set of future human endeavors, someone might not fix that little quirk of class-based/resource-management RPGs. That in no way improves the chances of Essentials to /be/ that breakthrough. The fact that such attempts have only met with failure argues /very/ strongly against it.
More to the point, it's just not logical to think that it could be done. Let's reduce it to comparing two powers, for the sake of argument. One power can be used any number of times a day, the other can be used once a day. How much better does the 1/day power have to be, to be equal to the unlimitted power? The 1/day power will presumably be used at a time when it would seem to be very useful. The unlimitted use power might often be used sub-optimally. How do you answer the question?
Well, there's one thing you need to know: how often are there opportunities to make use each power? If there's not at least one good oportunity to use the 1/day power, it's a lot less useful. If there's not /more/ than one opportunity to use the unlimitted-use power, then it would have to be /identical/ in power to the 1/day power to be balanced with it.
Balancing the two powers requires that you know how often you'll need a power each day. You can estimate that answer and balance accordingly, but the powers remain balanced only when your estimate is correct.
Getting back to classes, the corresponding unknown facing a designer balancing something like the new Essentials classes is "how many encounters per day?" The answer they used was probably 4 or 5, since that's the expected 'typical' adventuring day.
So, the classes will, if they've been designed well enough, balance roughly in a 4 or 5 encounter day. (Though they probably won't be as closely or robustly balanced as 4e classes, even then.) If a DM's style leans toward infrequent encounters, they will not be balanced in his campaign. If an adventure calls for some grueling 8+ encounter days, the classes won't be balanced in that adventure. If the players hit upon strategies to enable them to rest more often (a common theme in 3.5, for instance), the classes will not be balanced. If the DM 'telegraphs' the best times to use powers, classes with dailies will also be favored. Contrarily, of the DM presents 'gotchya' moments that /seem/ like an ideal time to use a 1/day power, but actually waste it, classes with those powers will be disfavored.
None of those things are issues - with /class/ balance - in 4e. All of them will potentially be issues with it in Essentials.
Essentials is, indeed, opening up 'design space,' rather like a city council deciding to re-zone toxic waste dumps residential opens up 'living space.'
As an addition to the above math, you will note there is a specific number of encounters where the at will class and the daily class do balance. However, how much fun is it to always be forced to use that exact number of encounters in a day?
In addition, this assumes that the classes are perfectly mathmatically balanced to begin with. This is never true. Even in the current 4th ED there are powers that are a little too strong, and some classes have more powerful dailies then others. Adding a fundamental disconnect in the design of classes only makes those matters worse.
My DM likes random treasure, as he feels it adds to the versimilitude of the game. However, if we get a bunch of items no one can use, we don't get enough treasure (because we would sell them all at 20%). So, we came up with a solution: Disenchant Magic Item ritual gives the full value of residuum. The idea came from our good friend, Mr Rust Monster. This way, if we happen to like the random item, we are all happy: the DM got to give a random item, and we get an item we wouldn't normally have thought to ask for. If we don't like the item, we can disenchant it and make something else of the same level. Again, everyone is happy.
Not trying to pick on you, just simply curious.
What is the difference, in end result, between a wishlist full of items you want and/or could use, and random "drops" with a full disenchant for the purposes of crafting items you want and/or could use?
Seems like the only difference is that you might end up with something you didn't know you wanted until you had it. Is that all?
I believe he said it in his first sentence... it adds to the verisimilitude of the game. Instead of the party "just happening" to run into exactly the items they use all the time and nothing else ("Wow, another enchanted Urgosh and an invoker Rod! Sure is lucky that we keep finding these urgoshes and hoy rods everywhere we go; though it's weird that we've never seen a single magic sword or wand in our entire lives!")
The random item tables is a good idea... yes, I do think there are one or two good changes in Essentials. And it fits over the game nicely as a legitimate optional system where you could use either one and end up with nearly identical balance.
I guess random loot feels no more "real" than pre-chosen loot, to me at least. I, as the DM, place treasure according to what would be "there", wherever "there" is. I use my player's wishlist as a guide in that I'll maybe place one item directly from their wishlist every few levels, so that one player gets something directly on their list each level.
I also ask for really generic wishlists ("I want a dagger that reacts with critical hits for my crit-fishing rogue build, and armor that helps me move around the battlefield"). That way, I have lots of freedom to both satisfy AND surprise my players.
Just how I do it. No judgements either way about random loot, or parcels, or what have you.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
This is not an assumption. It has been a truism across gaming. You cannot balance limited and free use abilities without forcing an EXACT number of encounters on a party. As soon as you have a class without dailies you must battle exactly X encounters a day or the system is no longer ballanced.
I think the kind of argument required to substantiate this statement would require waaaaay more space and scope than these forums allow.
Arithmetic suffices.
Let's say an At-Will (AW) does 1 damage, and Encounter (E) does 2, and a Daily (D) does 3 (this follows the 1W-2W-3W progression in most of Heroic Tier).
First we'll look at 3 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 15 rounds of combat total. The first character is Alice, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, and 2 Daily Attacks. Given those 3 encounters, Alice will be able to use each of her Daily Attacks once (2 rounds), her Encounter Attacks three times each (6 rounds), and the remaining 7 rounds she uses At-Will Attacks. Alice's total damage over three encounters is: 7*AW + 3*2*E + 2*D = 7*1 + 6*2 + 2*3 = 7 + 12 + 6 = 25. The second character is Bob, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, but does not have a Daily Attack. For those same 3 encounters, Bob will be able to use his two Encounter Attacks three times (6 rounds), and the remaining 9 are At-Will. Bob's total damage over three encounters is: 9*AW + 3*2*E = 9*1 + 6*2 = 9 + 12 = 21 He's 4 points of damage behind. So, to balance Bob against Alice, Bob needs a Class Feature (CF) that makes up for those 4 points. But, that Class Feature is generating those 4 points of damage over 3 encounters, so his Class Feature generates (4/3) points of damage per encounter.
Now let's look at 5 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 25 rounds of combat total. Alice gets her two Daily Attacks once each (2 total), each of her Encounters 5 times (10 total), and the remaining 13 are At-Wills: 13*AW + 10*E + 2*D = 13 + 20 + 6 = 39 Bob gets each of his Encounters 5 times, and his At-Wills 15 times 15*AW + 10*E = 15 + 20 = 35 He's still four points behind, but previously we calculated his Class Feature gives him (4/3) points of damage per encounter, so he'll get an additional 6.66667 points of damage, giving him 35+6.66667 = 41.66667 Now he's almost 3 points ahead! More encounters will only increase that, since his Class Feature keeps on giving him benefits while Alice is limited to her Daily Attacks. If we balance him around 5 encounters, his Class Feature should do (4/5) points of damage per encounter; however, that means he'd be doing less damage than Alice if there are fewer than 5 encounters.
We find that to properly balance Bob's Class Feature against Alice's Daily powers, he needs to do an extra 4 points of damage per day, regardless of the number of encounters. If his Class Feature gives him an extra 4 points of damage per day, that's just another Daily Power.
This is why Class Features and Daily Attacks can at-best only be balanced for a single fixed number of encounters. Fewer encounters than that and Daily Attacks win. More encounters and Class Features win. Previous editions of D&D were balanced around some larger number of encounters per day. That's why Fighters were good at the early levels since they could always attack, but were overshadowed by Wizards once they got enough spells. There was a cross-over point in the level progression where Wizards started leaving Fighters behind.
Suffice it to say, then, that I don't see how it's totally outside the realm of human possibility for the designers to balance the system. (I guess time will tell?)
I hope the above math helps you see the problem, then.
I tried to make this exact same argument in some other thread, but you have done it better and more concisely.
I would like to buy you a beer and/or cookie. Or the Martian equivalent thereof.
This is not an assumption. It has been a truism across gaming. You cannot balance limited and free use abilities without forcing an EXACT number of encounters on a party. As soon as you have a class without dailies you must battle exactly X encounters a day or the system is no longer ballanced.
I think the kind of argument required to substantiate this statement would require waaaaay more space and scope than these forums allow.
Arithmetic suffices.
Let's say an At-Will (AW) does 1 damage, and Encounter (E) does 2, and a Daily (D) does 3 (this follows the 1W-2W-3W progression in most of Heroic Tier).
First we'll look at 3 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 15 rounds of combat total. The first character is Alice, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, and 2 Daily Attacks. Given those 3 encounters, Alice will be able to use each of her Daily Attacks once (2 rounds), her Encounter Attacks three times each (6 rounds), and the remaining 7 rounds she uses At-Will Attacks. Alice's total damage over three encounters is: 7*AW + 3*2*E + 2*D = 7*1 + 6*2 + 2*3 = 7 + 12 + 6 = 25. The second character is Bob, who has At-Will Attacks, 2 Encounter Attacks, but does not have a Daily Attack. For those same 3 encounters, Bob will be able to use his two Encounter Attacks three times (6 rounds), and the remaining 9 are At-Will. Bob's total damage over three encounters is: 9*AW + 3*2*E = 9*1 + 6*2 = 9 + 12 = 21 He's 4 points of damage behind. So, to balance Bob against Alice, Bob needs a Class Feature (CF) that makes up for those 4 points. But, that Class Feature is generating those 4 points of damage over 3 encounters, so his Class Feature generates (4/3) points of damage per encounter.
Now let's look at 5 encounters of 5 rounds each, for 25 rounds of combat total. Alice gets her two Daily Attacks once each (2 total), each of her Encounters 5 times (10 total), and the remaining 13 are At-Wills: 13*AW + 10*E + 2*D = 13 + 20 + 6 = 39 Bob gets each of his Encounters 5 times, and his At-Wills 15 times 15*AW + 10*E = 15 + 20 = 35 He's still four points behind, but previously we calculated his Class Feature gives him (4/3) points of damage per encounter, so he'll get an additional 6.66667 points of damage, giving him 35+6.66667 = 41.66667 Now he's almost 3 points ahead! More encounters will only increase that, since his Class Feature keeps on giving him benefits while Alice is limited to her Daily Attacks. If we balance him around 5 encounters, his Class Feature should do (4/5) points of damage per encounter; however, that means he'd be doing less damage than Alice if there are fewer than 5 encounters.
We find that to properly balance Bob's Class Feature against Alice's Daily powers, he needs to do an extra 4 points of damage per day, regardless of the number of encounters. If his Class Feature gives him an extra 4 points of damage per day, that's just another Daily Power.
This is why Class Features and Daily Attacks can at-best only be balanced for a single fixed number of encounters. Fewer encounters than that and Daily Attacks win. More encounters and Class Features win. Previous editions of D&D were balanced around some larger number of encounters per day. That's why Fighters were good at the early levels since they could always attack, but were overshadowed by Wizards once they got enough spells. There was a cross-over point in the level progression where Wizards started leaving Fighters behind.
Suffice it to say, then, that I don't see how it's totally outside the realm of human possibility for the designers to balance the system. (I guess time will tell?)
I hope the above math helps you see the problem, then.
I fail to see the problem. Your math (well done, by the way), shows that over the course of a day, the two classes will either be balanced (at the encounter sweet spot) or one class will be ahead by 1-3 points. That means, over the course of a day's worth of battles, one class has done 1-3 dice of damage more than the other. Will anyone really notice? In addition, on over time this will average out, unless the party consistantly has fewer or more than the sweet spot every day. Some days you might only have a few fights, and the Slayer is ahead. Other days you have a lot of fights, and the Wizard is ahead. And some days things are juuuuuuuuuuust right, and everyone gets to eat the porridge. Sorry, slipped into another story there.
The point is that this just isn't enought of a difference to matter, assuming the Martial classes continue to gain powers to balance out the additional Daily powers other classes get. Looking at the level charts for Knight and Slayer this seems to be the case. Slayers get Quick Swap at 4, Mighty Slayer at 5, and Inexorable Slayer at 9. Knights get Combat Readiness at 4, Weapon Mastery at 5, Shield Block at 8, and Greater Combat Readiness at 9.
I fail to see the problem. Your math (well done, by the way), shows that over the course of a day, the two classes will either be balanced (at the encounter sweet spot) or one class will be ahead by 1-3 points. That means, over the course of a day's worth of battles, one class has done 1-3 dice of damage more than the other. Will anyone really notice?
Yes, because that was the simple version to show the math. Actual D&D makes the disparity much worse.
1st - Burst damage is better then damage over time. Dead is the best status effect, and more damage at the start of the fight makes monsters dead faster. Thus the at will player needs to be a little better over the course of the fight to actually be balanced. This exascerbates the overall math issues.
2nd - Dailies have better riders. Stun doesn't go on at wills. At will characters have less access to conditions because it's unbalancing to give them those abilities. This once again increases the disparity, as the early fights will be won by the guys packing stun, while the guys who can daze every hit will be winning all the later fights.
3rd - Here's the fun part: That sweet spot changes every time a character gets a new daily power. So you'll be running 2 encounters in heroic and 6 in Epic to get something pretending to resemble balance.
All because Fighters can't have nice things daily powers.
I believe he said it in his first sentence... it adds to the verisimilitude of the game. Instead of the party "just happening" to run into exactly the items they use all the time and nothing else ("Wow, another enchanted Urgosh and an invoker Rod! Sure is lucky that we keep finding these urgoshes and hoy rods everywhere we go; though it's weird that we've never seen a single magic sword or wand in our entire lives!")
The random item tables is a good idea... yes, I do think there are one or two good changes in Essentials. And it fits over the game nicely as a legitimate optional system where you could use either one and end up with nearly identical balance.
The issue I've always had with the DM using random treasure is ending up with treasure that's either totally out of place for the adventure ("Why did these goblins have magic greataxes? They can't even wield them!") or items that should have had a significant impact against the PCs if the monsters had bothered to use them.
In terms of enchanted weapons, I often hand them out in alternate weapon forms and encourage the use of the Transfer Enchantment ritual, particularly when it comes to the PCs' superior weapon proficiencies (and often roll the component cost for the transfer into some coin pile so I'm not continually taxing their superior weapon prof.). Other items that don't necessarily fit the adventure they may end up with as a reward for completing a task or quest.
In terms of the larger economy, I just say the item creators in my world have a special ritual: Enchant Magic Item... Cheap! Functions as the Enchant Magic Item ritual, except for the following: Market Price: Your character becomes an NPC. (Seriously, the PCs are the kind of people this guy is looking to make money off of. Why should he sell them his trade secret, at any price? Besides, maybe the super-secret item creators' guild has magically forbid him from selling the formula.) Component Cost: 40% of the item's price Time: 4-8 hours, based on item level (Why it's component cost is less than the normal ritual)
And as for selling items, I would think that a merchant stocking specialized magic items would be very rare - they tend to be tailored for specific classes (or even a single class) so they wouldn't have a lot of demand, so why waste the shelf space? They may have magic weapons and magic armor on hand, but an orb that's only interesting to telekinetic psions +2 might sit on the shelf forever without ever seeing a potential buyer. In that case, it's more valuable to him as dust, since anyone can use residuum; said merchant would probably be offering less than 20% for it so he could turn a profit on the residuum. Conversely, I could actually see them paying more than the standard 20% for a magic weapon +2, since it's useful to almost anyone and thus more likely to sell. Short version: You'd get more at the shop for something they can turn around and sell quickly than something that would sit on the shelf a long time waiting for a buyer.
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
Yeah, too much randomness can make it seem... random. But I think it's better than every single dungeon you go into having a Double-Axe and no other weapons, which just happens to be the weapon that the fighter uses. The problem with the current 4e loot system is that it basically assumes the DM will only be giving out items that the party needs. It limits the gold income and cuts the sell price drastically, and doesn't let you craft anything above your level, while the items the DM gives you can be up to 4 levels higher than you and are always way out of your price range. But it assumes that those items will be the ones you're getting your bonuses from (your weapon, armor, and neck slot). If the DM doesn't give the players the items they need, the combat balance stops working correctly.
