|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:42PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Generally though I don't think too many monsters are going to get saves based on alignment. There may be some exceptions with neutral and lawful aligned monsters, but in general they aren't going to get a save each round.
Even assuming they get a save it looks like this:
Round Chance to have saved by now
1 70%
2 91%
3 97.3%
It gets progressively worse after that. Even then it only lowers the DPR and starts to look ridiculous. Magic Missile is better.
Hmm.. I would have thought the DC of the Wizard's spell would be higher than that, so even if they got saves every round it would start off at a much lower chance of success of saving and increase from there. And that would only be if you bothered having lawful/neutral creatures kill their own allies. If you told them to just sit in a corner, then they wouldn't need to be doing saves.
But if the DC of Dominate Person is so low that one should expect it to fail 70% of the time, I don't see it ever being a a reasonably better option than direct damage. It does seem like a fun tool to introduce for political intrigue or similar stories though, just not dungeon-crawling.
Sorry its the opposite. Have to recalculate the math.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:48PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Round Chance to have saved by now
1 30%
2 51%
3 65.7%
4 75.99%
5 83.193%
6 88.2351%
7 91.76457%
8 94.235199%
9 95.9646393%
That should be correct.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:49PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Number crunshing is allways helpfull if you know how to interpret these numbers correctly.
Most of the problems arise from seeing it in a vacuum.
For the fighters this means:
You have to take into account that the fighters stand toe to toe with the enemy
but have the option of variable, concentrated fire.
The wizzard has the option of dealing areal damage and will usually stay back to the best of her/his possibilities.
However, the wizard will not be allways able to do so.
The enemies will hardly allways be in fireball formation and even less often stay in fireball formation if the are not complete maroons.
Usually enemies and friends get mixed up pretty soon as soon as the fight starts and so the wizard has to be careful with friendly fire.
According to my experience the average target number of the wizard is something between 2 and 3 and especially solo fights are very difficult for the wizard of 4th edition.
So, while the math is sound it is, IMHO swayed in favour of the wizard who is seen stronger than really is.
I think the wizard as was, was o.k but a bit lack luster. However, gimping it with the last playtest was much over the top.
And keep in mind I never played a wizard untill 4th edition, but I am allways looking for the challenge to make something work others do not consider workable. So I produced a stealthy wizard for 4th edition, which was a great success and a great annoyance to my DM.
So could somebody please do the math taking firendly fire and other impacts, such as terrain etc., into consideration?
Dave is pretty conservative on the numbers he allows in an are of effect attack more conservative than I would be..
The wizard has abilities to lock enemies in to place so they very well could get more than one fireball formation attack... even better than 4e.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:49PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Problem is direct damage is weak and boring. The real question is how do you compare 2d6+3d10+5 damage vs Dominate Person, Cloudkill, Polymorph, and so on. Comparing the two classes based on damage done completely misses the basis of most of the complaints about imbalance.
That's a real question, but comparing DPR is also a real question. As you point out, direct damage is weak and boring. But, it is a real baseline contribution, and the only real contribution a fighter has to make in combat beyond taking up space until he runs out of hps. In theory, that contribution is supposed to make the fighter 'best at combat.' So if the wizard beats out the fighter in direct damage, then there is obviously a very large problem. OTOH, if the fighter beats out the wizard, any problem may be less obvious, and you have to start trying to puzzle out how whatever edge the fighter has in "weak & boring" direct damage stacks up to the wizard's "real" power and versatility.
Assuming an 80% hit rate and a 30% save rate (I don't know that those numbers are accurate, I am guestimating),
Why is the fighter assume to have an edge, here? Attacks go against one defense: AC. There are six different saves, and a cunning or lucky or experienced wizard could choose spells that target one of the victims' lower defenses pretty consistently.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:51PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Problem is direct damage is weak and boring. The real question is how do you compare 2d6+3d10+5 damage vs Dominate Person, Cloudkill, Polymorph, and so on. Comparing the two classes based on damage done completely misses the basis of most of the complaints about imbalance.
That's a real question, but comparing DPR is also a real question. As you point out, direct damage is weak and boring. But, it is a real baseline contribution, and the only real contribution a fighter has to make in combat beyond taking up space until he runs out of hps. In theory, that contribution is supposed to make the fighter 'best at combat.' So if the wizard beats out the fighter in direct damage, then there is obviously a very large problem. OTOH, if the fighter beats out the wizard, any problem may be less obvious, and you have to start trying to puzzle out how whatever edge the fighter has in "weak & boring" direct damage stacks up to the wizard's "real" power and versatility.
Yes, the problem is with the assumption that "fighters are best at combat" as opposed to "fighters are best at confrontational weapon and armor use"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 4:58PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Seerow, direct damage is not boring to a great many of us. In fact, I find it FAR more interesting than status effect spells.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 5:02PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Why is the fighter assume to have an edge, here? Attacks go against one defense: AC. There are six different saves, and a cunning or lucky or experienced wizard could choose spells that target one of the victims' lower defenses pretty consistently.
Click on the comparing the fighter to the wizard thread in my sig, read through it, and you will see. Long story short, that is what some math crunching came up with as realistic probabilities on the basis of the last playtest. Things may have changed a bit since then. In fact, by level 10, assuming that the average defence of your foes has not gone up, fighter will hit a little more often and things will save a little less often...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 5:09PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Yes, the problem is with the assumption that "fighters are best at combat" as opposed to "fighters are best at confrontational weapon and armor use"
Well, the fighter class has nothing going for it at interaction, and only feats of strength in exploration, so if it's not 'best at combat' to make up for being worst at interaction and poor at exploration, it's going to be a pretty worthless class. I know there's a real faction out there that is extremely insistent on fighter inferiority (or the inferiority of non-casters, in general), but I don't think its reasonable for 5e to try to cater to that faction.
5e's stated intent is to give each class a sort of 'best at..' niche, and to protect that niche to protect the balance/viability/fun of that class.
As the recent Rogue controversely illustrates, coming up with even 4 meaningful niches is not proving easy...
If those niches get defined in meaningless ways (like best at using tweezers in a foreign film involving iguanas), then there is plenty of room for classes to be strictly inferior. "Confrontational weapon and armor use" is not much more meaningful than tweezing iguanas if it turns out to be a terrible way of winning a fight. For instance if, as is sometimes asserted about certain prior eds which can remain numberless, a single spell might 'win' many fights. Similarly, 'best at casting spells,' when the most effective solution to any problem is having the right spell, could be functionally pretty close to 'best at everything.'
To drag it back to the fighter v wizard comparison, the only thing "confrontational weapon & armor use" can deliver in the game is DPR contests. The weapon user grinds out damage and takes up space until he runs out of hps. If his DPR output isn't greater than that of a class that does other things besides, he's strictly inferior. The real question is how much of a margin is needed to balance those other things? That's a very difficult question to answer, but the spot check to assure the margin is there is a good idea.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 5:12PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Well, at least damage is not a concern with the Fighter. Now we just need to convince the devs to give that class (far more) things which don't relate to that (especially non-combat).
Now, if Clerics can compete with Fighter damage, then we'll be in serious trouble.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 5:17PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Why is the fighter assume to have an edge, here? Attacks go against one defense: AC. There are six different saves, and a cunning or lucky or experienced wizard could choose spells that target one of the victims' lower defenses pretty consistently.
Click on the comparing the fighter to the wizard thread in my sig, read through it, and you will see. Long story short, that is what some math crunching came up with as realistic probabilities on the basis of the last playtest. Things may have changed a bit since then. In fact, by level 10, assuming that the average defence of your foes has not gone up, fighter will hit a little more often and things will save a little less often...
So the idea of using spells that target low stats, or at least not 'wasting' spells against obviously very high stats, is just excluded? What about taking the average, but excluding at least those monsters from the caclulation for whom DEX is the highest stat?
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
