|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:37PM
#11
|
|
|
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:51PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!
Can I see evidence for this assertion? I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.
Look up any of the threads over the years about what people liked about 4e, and the class balance is something that is commonly mentioned. Was it perfect? Of course not. But the balance problems people regularly bring up about 4e (like the expertise feat tax) are miniscule in comparison to the balance problems of previous editions. It's a night and day comparison.
What am I still getting that the Fighter still sucks.
Really? Really? I am happy the way the Fighter is right now. Why do the Fighter need more toys just because the wizard can do several things with his spellbook?
There are three pillars of play: combat, exploration and interaction. Fighters excel in only of of those, and have absolutely nothing going for them in the other two. No class should be left out of 2/3 of the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:56PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
I think this would be a good time to post the video, so we can reminisce why the video is so biting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA
It's not that the Wizard can out-damage the Fighter: that's a problem that can be corrected with changed numbers. It's that the Wizards can out-do everything the Fighter (Polymorph into a War Troll / Summon something tougher than a Fighter) and do things the Fighter can never try (go invisible / fly vertically / travel to another plane).
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:57PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I would rather pull the Wizard down than build the Fighter up. Sure the dead levels for ftrs need to die. The hp, the ungodly damage, mind skills, and feats that allow them to shatter the laws of physics are style over substance. Uniform accuracy, damage, and other stats make for a boring class. Its basically the faceless MDD dude and its maneuver cards vs monsters. Now to make up for it the Wizard is even more powerful than before. They went from the slow elevation caster dominance to a glassy Diablo 3 build with many of the same dominant spells. The wizard uses few components, no casting time, no failure, has casting bonuses, cantrips that do more damage than swords, slot casting and even though there are multiple saves they now have the probability on their side.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:58PM
#15
|
|
|
The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!
Can I see evidence for this assertion? I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.
Look up any of the threads over the years about what people liked about 4e, and the class balance is something that is commonly mentioned. Was it perfect? Of course not. But the balance problems people regularly bring up about 4e (like the expertise feat tax) are miniscule in comparison to the balance problems of previous editions. It's a night and day comparison.
Now you're moving the goalposts. More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced. More balanced is not balanced in general. Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.
Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far. That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:05PM
#16
|
|
|
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
I think this would be a good time to post the video, so we can reminisce why the video is so biting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA
It's not that the Wizard can out-damage the Fighter: that's a problem that can be corrected with changed numbers. It's that the Wizards can out-do everything the Fighter (Polymorph into a War Troll / Summon something tougher than a Fighter) and do things the Fighter can never try (go invisible / fly vertically / travel to another plane).
My point is that in no Edition, not even the "balanced" ones, has a Fighter ever been able to outdamage the Wizard in addition to all of the other things a Wizard can do yet a Fighter can't. A spellcaster can potentially outclass a melee class in all arenas except for HP total (and in many editions use magic to mitigate damage taken to a greater level than a HP total can compensate for).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:05PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Now you're moving the goalposts. More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced. More balanced is not balanced in general. Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.
Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far. That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.
Can we please not derail this thread with pointless arguments about 4th edition?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:08PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
Regularly? I wouldn't call specific builds to achieve such a thing "regular".
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:09PM
#19
|
|
|
Now you're moving the goalposts. More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced. More balanced is not balanced in general. Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.
Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far. That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.
Can we please not derail this thread with pointless arguments about 4th edition?
While I think it is fair game to question postulates you make in your opening post, I will respect your wishes and move to end the topic.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:11PM
#20
|
|
|
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
Regularly? I wouldn't call specific builds to achieve such a thing "regular".
I'm not talking about specific builds. I'm talking about optimized Rangers versus a "new to 4E but not D&D" Wizard specialized in AoE.
|
|
|
