| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Thespian
Sergeant
442 Posts
    
Lethbridge, Alberta
 | | 04/05/2006 1:19 PM |
| Looking at some area of effect spells like fireball and the cost that you have to incur to get them, you are looking at a level 6 Elf Pyromancer or a level 7 mephling. The levels of the critters SHOULD be a pretty effective way of comparing power levels of figures. A first level fighter *should* be about as powerful as a first level Sorcerer.
In the 6 to 7 level range, and for a relatively similar amount of points, you could also get a Justice Archon, a Goliath Barbarian, a Gauth, an Orc Champion, or a ZakRak.
No one is going to go for the magic user in this case. I realize that there is some cross-faction action here, but shouldn't it be about equal?
You have to see that some of this tech just doesn't stand up against a heavy hitter of about the same level or points. The wizards and sorcerers that CG should be making heavy use of are overcosted.
One of the reasons (I think) is that there is significantly less liberal use of D&D equivalent feats. Why doesn't one of them have sudden maximize? They qualify for it by this level! That would give even a 5th level wizard the ability to throw down a 30 fire damage fireball! Or even give them a lesser rod of empower or something. I mean, the Eye of Grummsh has a Vicous Greataxe...it gives him a lot of hitting power.
If the wizard/sorcerer (one of the hallmarks of CG) is going to get screwed out of a ton of equivalent hitpoints (to a fighter or barbarian), Melee to hit and damage abilities....then it should be compensated GREATLY!
I have read that they assume that a barbarian has started to rage BEFORE the battle and that the magic slingers have done the same....but excuse me if I think that there hasn't been a whole lot of this. So he cast mage armour on himself...now he has an AC of 17?! WOW! Scary eh?! Makes those barbarians quake in their boots! How about having them cast invisibility to start (like the Night Hag) with Bears Endurance, Sheild, Expeditous Retreat, Blur, Heroism, Gaseous Form, or Haste? These are ALL accessable to a wizard of 5th level! And yet......these abilities that should come part and parcel seem to be missing.....and then we all get excited to see Fly and Fireball (TWO 3rd level spells...OOOOOOHHH!) on a figure that costs 38 points?!?!
Maybe it would unbalance the metagame....maybe not. I certainly don't see a whole lot of 5x pyromancer warbands out there....by the Orc Champ certainly sees multiple use!
PLEASE R&D! UNLOOSE THE NOOSE ON CG SPELLCASTERS!!!!! | |
A wand of silence means never having to say you're sorry.
CHAMPION OF THE ANNIS HAG!!! | |
|
bshugg
Underboss
1833 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 1:26 PM |
| It isn't just the levels and items that are out of wack. Its the point costs. Thats where the imbalance between fighters and wizards come from. If a Pyromancer cost 15 points it would have much more impact on the format than it does at 32 points.
The designers seem to react slowly to balancing the format, only because they are working 3 sets ahead. If something is wrong now, it will take a year or so before they can start fixing it by releasing new figures. Believe me they are not slow about it, the system is. It took a while for them to properly balance LE and look how playable it is now. I have faith that effectively costed spellcasters will be coming sometime.
Personally, I would like to see the rules on radius templates be matched to cones and lines. Right now they basically only have 1/2 the radius they should, because the nearest target must always be in the center. To modify them to be like cones change the radius rules to:
Radius effects must target the nearest target enemy or friendly figure. The origin of the effect may be placed anywhere that the caster has line of sight to as long as part of the template overlaps the nearest target.
| |
Looking for someone to cosponser a midwest DDM event. let me know if your interested!
Check out my brand new blog:
http://bshugg.blogspot.com | |
|
lalato
Underboss
1546 Posts
Urbana, IL
| | 04/05/2006 1:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by bshugg
Radius effects must target the nearest target enemy or friendly figure. The origin of the effect may be placed anywhere that the caster has line of sight to as long as part of the template overlaps the nearest target.
I like this. I would also love to see a modified Line effect with similar wording.
--sam | |
I'm in Urbana, IL | |
| The Great
Choco Monster
Ghendar
Warlord
12477 Posts
The G Spot
| | 04/05/2006 1:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
PLEASE R&D! UNLOOSE THE NOOSE ON CG SPELLCASTERS!!!!!
This not meant as a personal attack, please believe me when I say that, but with all due respect I'm getting a little annoyed at everyone crying about how CG sucks right now.
Let's all step back and take a deep breath and relax. This game is cyclical. Once upon a time LE was in the competetive sh*tter, so was LG. Back then, weren't CG and CE the two dominant factions?
One of these days, maybe with Drag Queen, CG will come back into prominance.
Until then, let's just all take a  and relax.
By the way, CG is my favorite faction and it pains me that it's not very good at the moment, but it will change. Trust me | |
WotC - making me wish more and more every day for a return to the TSR days. :(
I fought the snark and the snark won. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!
Some of my favorite Maxminis quotes
I actually love to be swallowed. - Posted By gss_000 on 09/04/2007 2:32 PM
Could somebody explain Snatch to me? I understand the basics, but not how to enter/use it. - Posted by orcmonk220
G's the man. - Posted By greyhaze on 11/11/2008 8:58 AM | |
|
Thespian
Sergeant
442 Posts
Lethbridge, Alberta
| | 04/05/2006 1:55 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Ghendar
quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
PLEASE R&D! UNLOOSE THE NOOSE ON CG SPELLCASTERS!!!!!
This not meant as a personal attack, please believe me when I say that, but with all due respect I'm getting a little annoyed at everyone crying about how CG sucks right now.
Let's all step back and take a deep breath and relax. This game is cyclical. Once upon a time LE was in the competetive sh*tter, so was LG. Back then, weren't CG and CE the two dominant factions?
One of these days, maybe with Drag Queen, CG will come back into prominance.
Until then, let's just all take a and relax.
By the way, CG is my favorite faction and it pains me that it's not very good at the moment, but it will change. Trust me
I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but my post is LESS about CG and more about spellcasters. They are RARELY played (unless they cost less than 25 points) becasue the package they come in costs more than is appropriate.
This effects CG directly because they are "wild and tricksy" faction which has quite a number of spellcasters. If these were better costed, and better designed (in my mind), I think CG wouldn't be the whipping boy that it is.
I agree that the game will change and is in a near-constant flux. It is just necessary to voice your opinions when you have them! In that vein, I gotta say I would love to see the above change to targetting with a radius spell. It would help quite a bit!
One of the nicest things in regular DnD is that you can place your fireball ANYWHERE you want...it is a very effective tool....but not so much in this DDM game. Changes like this would be awesome! | |
A wand of silence means never having to say you're sorry.
CHAMPION OF THE ANNIS HAG!!! | |
| The Great
Choco Monster
Ghendar
Warlord
12477 Posts
The G Spot
| | 04/05/2006 2:13 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
quote:
Originally posted by Ghendar
quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
PLEASE R&D! UNLOOSE THE NOOSE ON CG SPELLCASTERS!!!!!
This not meant as a personal attack, please believe me when I say that, but with all due respect I'm getting a little annoyed at everyone crying about how CG sucks right now.
Let's all step back and take a deep breath and relax. This game is cyclical. Once upon a time LE was in the competetive sh*tter, so was LG. Back then, weren't CG and CE the two dominant factions?
One of these days, maybe with Drag Queen, CG will come back into prominance.
Until then, let's just all take a and relax.
By the way, CG is my favorite faction and it pains me that it's not very good at the moment, but it will change. Trust me
I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but my post is LESS about CG and more about spellcasters. They are RARELY played (unless they cost less than 25 points) becasue the package they come in costs more than is appropriate.
Fair enough. You might have a valid concern. Hmm | |
WotC - making me wish more and more every day for a return to the TSR days. :(
I fought the snark and the snark won. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!
Some of my favorite Maxminis quotes
I actually love to be swallowed. - Posted By gss_000 on 09/04/2007 2:32 PM
Could somebody explain Snatch to me? I understand the basics, but not how to enter/use it. - Posted by orcmonk220
G's the man. - Posted By greyhaze on 11/11/2008 8:58 AM | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10446 Posts
United States
| | 04/05/2006 2:21 PM |
| See the Red Wizard for another shining example of this.
He has some feats, he has some excellent spells, but, hit hit points and AC mean he's going to die as soon as he gets based. So, he really needs to not cost about one-third of your band.
For the same price, you get an Elf Pyro and Rikka.
The fact that he's a commander means he should cost a little more than the Elf Pyro, but, not twice as much.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 2:31 PM |
| I'm not certain they have spellcasters figured out yet.
The wand expert looked cool, as did the wizard tactician, but ultimately both die too fast. They added a summoning circle to a map, but no summoner currently in existence could be played with the current rules about the death of the summoner killing all the summoned creatures. Elminster does not have enough of his own spells to be effective (this is a classic example of "why not all minis are tier 1 in design", I believe). The archmage is about it right now, and even that can be tough to get to work.
I believe that spellcasters need more variety, more power/offense, and a lot more hit points. They certainly need combat casting or something that allows them to cast when threatened (though I don't think that would make any current pure spellcaster playbable, it would certainly help the purple dragon knight)- the size of a cone spell is a lot smaller than the templates if any square in contact with the caster cannot be an enemy. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 2:32 PM |
| As a mage maniac, I heartily agree... I would love to field more warbands the utilize cost efficient aggressive spell casters. Less tech, more BANG.
Bshugg's suggested targetting change would be nice, but we'd need it complemented with a figure with a good number of the right spells, not "1" of them...
Prebuffed, full of feat's, and lets rock and roll!
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
|
rhane
Underboss
1412 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 3:03 PM |
| I know its been stated many times by many people, but...
One big problem with higher level spellcasters is that they rarely get to utilize all of their spells. I don't usually count on any spellcaster casting more than 4 spells in a skirmish.
A possible solution would be to allow spellcasters to cast 1 (or some other number) spell on any legal target(s) in their OWN warband (including self or warband affecting spells) before the skirmish begins. | |
Rhane
"The focus is sharp in the city..."
Have/Want List
Reference thread
Avatar Thread
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 3:09 PM |
| Look, you play D&D right? What happens when you see an enemy mage? You bum-rush and kill it.
The Archmage is about the only current option that doesn't suffer from insta-dead. Mordy / Elminster are close and there are some that have potential.
The issue is the lack of a good combat mage and the general squishiness of mages. In the RPG you're somehwat loathe to bum-rush the mage as you know the Warforged Barbarian will have your ass and you don't want to deal with character death. In DDM, that's a non-issue. They are the freaking light-brigade ... and that lack of fear makes it tough to keep mages around. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1066 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 3:43 PM |
| Hmmmm... What if there were more sanctuary-ish spells, that made it more difficult to attack the mage directly while he did his deeds. Kind of like making another character "IT" in the old Gauntlet video game.
Or perhaps the wizard could choose a designated protector/familiar that would work like the new Warforged Bodygard. That would allow the wiz to take AOO's to break away to cast another bomb spell.
Or perhaps the ability to create illusionary copies of himself which would each have to be destroyed before you could attack the original.
There are lots of possibilities to make Mages work without giving them boatloads of HP that they don't deserve. Just look to the RPG. How did we keep our Wizards alive 20 years ago? Lots of ways. R&D just has to put a few of them on the skirmish side of the card. | |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11768 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 04/05/2006 3:43 PM |
| | I'm not sure if it would break the game, but a rule update to fix the problem might be to give every archer and spellcaster perfect targeting like the Wizard Tactician - like they do in the real game of RPG. Imagine a HEBI being able to pick its targets at will. It would still suffer from cover, and an Orc Champion/Hill Giant Barbarian would still get to it in a round or two. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
jdb2112
Sneak
163 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 4:02 PM |
| I don't know. Creatures with high damage area effect spells should cost in the 30+ range.
The real issue, in my opinion and as BShugg alluded to, are the targeting rules in general. This goes for both spellcasters and archers. My biggest disappointment in the new rules is that they didn't get rid of "the closest enemy/ally" rule. Get rid of that rule and suddeny archers and mages would be much more viable as centerpieces to warbands.
Oddly enough this rule doesn't exist in WotC's other two minis games and they don't seem to be suffering for it. (Yes I know there is a version of it in SWM but it applies to a specific set of circumstances, it is not general).
Jim | |
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
-Niels Bohr | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11768 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 04/05/2006 4:15 PM |
| | Problem is, 5 Elf Pyromancers with perfect targeting would probably still lose to 4 Orc Champions. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
Gloom_
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 5:53 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Ghendar
quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
PLEASE R&D! UNLOOSE THE NOOSE ON CG SPELLCASTERS!!!!!
This not meant as a personal attack, please believe me when I say that, but with all due respect I'm getting a little annoyed at everyone crying about how CG sucks right now.
Let's all step back and take a deep breath and relax. This game is cyclical. Once upon a time LE was in the competetive sh*tter, so was LG. Back then, weren't CG and CE the two dominant factions?
One of these days, maybe with Drag Queen, CG will come back into prominance.
Until then, let's just all take a and relax.
By the way, CG is my favorite faction and it pains me that it's not very good at the moment, but it will change. Trust me
Oh Yeah! It was a long wait untill Angelfire for me (LE) long wilderness years of Urthiok, Salamander, Thayan Knight, and Skullcrushers..
CG has had a long day in the sun, first with dual HEBI, then with Bezerkers and Golaiths, then Archmages. Who else spent ages fed up with CG bands, and having to worry about speedy things hitting for 30 magic (although, to be honest, I can only recall ever losoing twice to frenzied bezerkers [threat was greater than actuality for me])
LG was worse, and it took untill underdark to really start getting some decent LG warbands that didn't feature the LSD. Topic after topic about LG hate from R&D. Having watched the meta develop since Harbinger, I've come to respect R&D's ability to balance the game in the long term, and the element of cyclicity in it. I bet in a few sets time, LE, LG or CE will be back to the status of whipping boy again, as Barbariand, and ranged nastiness re-surface. I really thought at one time that CE and CG hitters were *too* powerful with regard to the minatures around them, and we'd never see the end of them. And untill the Wardrummer, the Chaotics have played back seat to Lawful dominance, so that was proved untrue. | |
| |
|
cerberuspuppy
Warrior
288 Posts
| | 04/05/2006 9:28 PM |
| I understand that the game needs to change or it would get stale. I understand the concept of rotating dominance, but I do not agree with it. I think it's terrible to deliberately make one faction stronger (or weaker) than the others. The goal should be a level playing field, and adjustments should be made to maintain balance, not tip it.
That said, the game is much more balanced than it was before Angelfire. I do think that the designers are getting better at costing in general.
Spellcasters are tricky though. The utility of a spell will vary more than that of a melee attack, and be harder to judge. Placing the right combination of spells on the right mini, and getting the cost right is easier said than done. There are many factors to consider. I think they try to err on the side of caution with spellcasters- it's easy to see how an undercosted one with the right spells could have big impact. | |
Mine is an evil laugh! Muhahahaha!
-Wash, Firefly | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11768 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 04/06/2006 3:25 AM |
| Being a fan of the chaotic good faction, I would like to see the finesse pieces be more competitive. But, I would like to echo the sentiments of cerberuspuppy. This faction is the most potentially dangerous, by far, because of what it's strengths are supposed to be. Mobility, spells, and ranged attacks.
A while back, Kiddoc made a post of why he thought this faction was so poor at the start of DDM (i.e. around Harbinger to GoL). He noted that the designers had to be very careful, and err on the conservative side if need be, with ranged attacks. There could have been nothing worse than undercosting CG's ranged units, as it would be very demoralizing and irritating to lose a fight before one has even had the chance to close with the enemy.
By starting with the simpler melee units as a costing base, Wizards R&D can gradually "ramp-up" the effectiveness of archers and spellcasters, with the help of all the brilliant playtesters out there. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
| 
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1899 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 4:04 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
That's why I think putting a spellcaster in who's essentially a blast-caster (single target rays, etc.) maybe with ignoring-SR spells and some ranged sneak (and hell, maybe hide) would be an easy model to use. Just turn the ranged attack into +whatever (15 or more fire or 10 acid, etc.)
Kinda like the Renegade Warlock... but different. Right? [)]
| | | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
rhane
Underboss
1412 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 9:32 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jdb2112
The real issue, in my opinion and as BShugg alluded to, are the targeting rules in general. This goes for both spellcasters and archers. My biggest disappointment in the new rules is that they didn't get rid of "the closest enemy/ally" rule. Get rid of that rule and suddeny archers and mages would be much more viable as centerpieces to warbands.
Oh? If they abolished the closest enemy rule, you'd bring more 20ish HP, low AC mages if you know that 2 Steelheart archers could kill them outright in 1 set of activations?
I admit that from an RPG perspective, the closest enemy/ally rule doesn't make sense. However, this is really a tactical board game, not a RPG. The closest enemy/ally rule is necessary to allow for the possibility of low AC/HP tech-type creatures to succeed. | |
Rhane
"The focus is sharp in the city..."
Have/Want List
Reference thread
Avatar Thread
| |
|
Helzapoppn
Warrior
258 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 9:55 AM |
| A 6th-level Wizard wouldn't be able to do that.
Scorching Ray is 2nd level; Maximize Spell bumps it up to 5th level, and Empowering it turns it into a 7th-level spell.
| |
Champion of Iconics & the Apparatus of Kwalish (Constructs with Drivers? Brilliant!)
Dungeons of Dread Called Shot: Yeah, right | |
|
jdb2112
Sneak
163 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 12:03 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rhane
quote:
Originally posted by jdb2112
The real issue, in my opinion and as BShugg alluded to, are the targeting rules in general. This goes for both spellcasters and archers. My biggest disappointment in the new rules is that they didn't get rid of "the closest enemy/ally" rule. Get rid of that rule and suddeny archers and mages would be much more viable as centerpieces to warbands.
Oh? If they abolished the closest enemy rule, you'd bring more 20ish HP, low AC mages if you know that 2 Steelheart archers could kill them outright in 1 set of activations?
I admit that from an RPG perspective, the closest enemy/ally rule doesn't make sense. However, this is really a tactical board game, not a RPG. The closest enemy/ally rule is necessary to allow for the possibility of low AC/HP tech-type creatures to succeed.
Yep, you're right. Silly me. I forgot we play on wide open maps where line of sight can't be blocked, no benefits from cover can ever be found, my opponent is always guaranteed to win initiative and all my oppnent's rolls will be good and all of mine bad.
Oh yeah and there are no high AC/hp flying creatures with breath weapons in the game either. So you are right those low hp tech creatures don't have anything to worry about as long as the closest enemy/ally rule is in effect.
This is not meant to be inflammatory. It is my generally sarcastic way of trying to say that you can't look at things in a vaccum. Too many discusions of this type seem to end up going down the path of X is far superior to Y without ever considering the environment surrounding the two figures. DDM is actually quite a complex game.
While my personal opinion is that eliminating this rule makes a better game, I do realize it causes some problems in its own right. It would probably slow the game down a bit as players would have to be far more careful in how they maneuver. The are a couple pieces in CG that might make an archer/spellcaster band too powerful on the right map. Commander assassination becomes a little too easy. Although with the changes in War Drums that is not nearly as devastating as it would have been pre- War Drums. On the positive side I think it would open up a lot of different combined arms type warbands that are on the cusp of being viable competitevly and could very well eliminate turtling once and for all as a viable strategy.
Jim
| |
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
-Niels Bohr | |
|
rhane
Underboss
1412 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 1:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jdb2112
quote:
Originally posted by rhane
quote:
Originally posted by jdb2112
The real issue, in my opinion and as BShugg alluded to, are the targeting rules in general. This goes for both spellcasters and archers. My biggest disappointment in the new rules is that they didn't get rid of "the closest enemy/ally" rule. Get rid of that rule and suddeny archers and mages would be much more viable as centerpieces to warbands.
Oh? If they abolished the closest enemy rule, you'd bring more 20ish HP, low AC mages if you know that 2 Steelheart archers could kill them outright in 1 set of activations?
I admit that from an RPG perspective, the closest enemy/ally rule doesn't make sense. However, this is really a tactical board game, not a RPG. The closest enemy/ally rule is necessary to allow for the possibility of low AC/HP tech-type creatures to succeed.
Yep, you're right. Silly me. I forgot we play on wide open maps where line of sight can't be blocked, no benefits from cover can ever be found, my opponent is always guaranteed to win initiative and all my oppnent's rolls will be good and all of mine bad.
Oh yeah and there are no high AC/hp flying creatures with breath weapons in the game either. So you are right those low hp tech creatures don't have anything to worry about as long as the closest enemy/ally rule is in effect.
This is not meant to be inflammatory. It is my generally sarcastic way of trying to say that you can't look at things in a vaccum. Too many discusions of this type seem to end up going down the path of X is far superior to Y without ever considering the environment surrounding the two figures. DDM is actually quite a complex game.
Yikes...I didn't mean to make you mad. You are the one who said you were trying to promote the use of archers and spellcasters by changing the rule. I was pointing out why this would have the opposite effect. If archers could shoot anyone within LOS, then the minute you moved your 20-30 HP mage out from behind total cover (which I'm assuming you'd eventually do to cast your spells at my warband), a 15-ish point archer (or several 5-ish pointers) would light them up.
As far as cover goes, even with cover, most casters would (and should) have AC's in the mid to high teens.
Worse yet, spellcasters would become their own worst enemies. Think of all the casters out there with 10 damage LOS spells. The potential of running up against creatures like Greenfang Druids, Efreeti, Gauths (I assume you would extend the removal of nearest enemy to special abilities as well), Renegade Warlocks, etc. would preclude me from EVER running a low HP wizard (at least one that needs LOS to me to be effective).
Also, as well as weakening the 20ish hp spellcasters, such a change would completely invalidate dozens of commanders and interesting tech choices(e.g. Devis, Mialee, Satyr, Blue).
I hope I've demonstrated how I'm not looking at things in a vacuum. Such a "simple" change would completely alter the landscape of the skirmish game. It would be a different game, even more dominated by high HP beaters with a few devastating LOS type attacks to preclude anyone from ever running low HP commanders, casters, or tech.
| |
Rhane
"The focus is sharp in the city..."
Have/Want List
Reference thread
Avatar Thread
| |
|
Thespian
Sergeant
442 Posts
Lethbridge, Alberta
| | 04/06/2006 2:00 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Helzapoppn
A 6th-level Wizard wouldn't be able to do that.
Scorching Ray is 2nd level; Maximize Spell bumps it up to 5th level, and Empowering it turns it into a 7th-level spell.
A 3rd level wizard certainly has access to SUDDEN empower...which doesn't raise the level of the spell being cast, and can only do it once a day.
it is a 20-25 point hit from a thrid level wizard!
on a slightly different note, I have to say opening up the targetting rules to include everyone (not just the closest) would be a MAJOR mistake. It would change the game TOTALLY. I like the way it is right now. Remember, this is DDM, not DnD. It is a close approximation to the RPG, but more tactical.
I really hope they never touch that rule! | |
A wand of silence means never having to say you're sorry.
CHAMPION OF THE ANNIS HAG!!! | |
|
jdb2112
Sneak
163 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 3:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rhane
Yikes...I didn't mean to make you mad. You are the one who said you were trying to promote the use of archers and spellcasters by changing the rule. I was pointing out why this would have the opposite effect. If archers could shoot anyone within LOS, then the minute you moved your 20-30 HP mage out from behind total cover (which I'm assuming you'd eventually do to cast your spells at my warband), a 15-ish point archer (or several 5-ish pointers) would light them up.
As far as cover goes, even with cover, most casters would (and should) have AC's in the mid to high teens.
Worse yet, spellcasters would become their own worst enemies. Think of all the casters out there with 10 damage LOS spells. The potential of running up against creatures like Greenfang Druids, Efreeti, Gauths (I assume you would extend the removal of nearest enemy to special abilities as well), Renegade Warlocks, etc. would preclude me from EVER running a low HP wizard (at least one that needs LOS to me to be effective).
Also, as well as weakening the 20ish hp spellcasters, such a change would completely invalidate dozens of commanders and interesting tech choices(e.g. Devis, Mialee, Satyr, Blue).
I hope I've demonstrated how I'm not looking at things in a vacuum. Such a "simple" change would completely alter the landscape of the skirmish game. It would be a different game, even more dominated by high HP beaters with a few devastating LOS type attacks to preclude anyone from ever running low HP commanders, casters, or tech.
Not mad so much as insane :)
I see too many "well my 2 X's will slaughter your Y and they cost 10 pts less arguments" without taking into regard that Y may become far more effective when paired with Z or on map PQRST. So comments such as your Steelheart archer one tend to raise my hackles.
This post makes a far more compelling argument to my idiocy.
I have already stated that the commander issue is somewhat problematic. However I don't think the "tech" pieces will be affected all that much. Most tech pieces are there for buffs of some kind and these are almost always accomplished in the first two rounds when generally they are out of los from ranged attacks. If they haven't accomplished the buffs in the first couple of rounds they're probably in danger of being forced into combat anyway. The non-buff tech pieces are generally ones you can keep hidden or are there to deal with low hp fodder, which is becoming more scarce in the 8 activation age.
Also as I said before there are flying pieces and pieces with breath weapons or both that make it risky to run with low hp tech/commanders already. Not to mention the speed 9 and 10 beaters.
I agree that it would be a completely different game if the rule were eliminated, however I fail to see how it could be MORE dominated by high hp beaters as it pretty much is completely dominated by them now.
Interestingly enough, by eliminating the targeting rules and making low hp commanders (which are generally cheaper)less optimal you might actually find more bands with fewer beaters because they would have to spend more points on hardier commanders. Unless of course they designed bands madeup of primarily constructs or fearless units. Oh wait, that's already being done.
I guess it really comes down to what you want in a D&D skirmish game. Right now the game is almost completely dominated by melee combat. Wizards and archers are relegated to "tech" and expensive tech at that for the most interesting of them. I would actually like to be able to make competitve warbands with an archer or spellcaster as my centerpiece and that is nearly impossible at the moment.
As I see it there are two primary reasons for that (there are some others but I think these are the two big ones):
1.) Targeting rules.
2.) Inability to cast/shoot when based. I.e no equivalent of a five step rule or combat casting.
No.1 is the easiest to deal with. Eliminating it simplifies the rules, which as I understand it is generally a good thing. Will it make some currently usefull figures less useful or obsolete? Yes. Will it allow currently worthless figures to become more useful? Yes. Will it diversify the type of warband (ie. melee, ranged, combined tactics)? Maybe.
Also in my opinion, and take that for what it is worth as I am not a game designer, it is easier to design and cost figures with abilities that can help deal with a lack of this rule(for example bodyguard, arrow catching shield, antimagic eye)than it is to design and cost archers/spellcasters that ignore this rule and still be in line with the spellcasters/archers that don't have any way to ignore the rule.
No2. is trickier to deal with as incoporating these type of rules adds complexity to the game and affects other aspects of the game such as AoO's.
This is why, while maybe not the best answer, I believe that eliminating the targeting rules can work.
Jim
| |
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
-Niels Bohr | |
|
Matthew77
Skirmisher
2 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 3:32 PM |
| One of the biggest differences between DDM and D&D is that a D&D party is usually composed of characters within 1 or 2 levels of eachother, while a DDM warband has a very wide range of levels.
Its a difficult task to make rules that allow both a level 3 mage and a CR16 outsider to be playable minis :)
How about removing the "target nearest" rules and replace them with:
"Enemy figures block line of sight to creatures of equal size or smaller"
Perfect targeting is too powerful, because it doesn't allow for any strategic defense, but it just doesn't make sense to be forced to fireball the Orc creeping up on your flank instead of the mass of trolls far in front of you.
| |
| |
|
Thespian
Sergeant
442 Posts
Lethbridge, Alberta
| | 04/06/2006 3:48 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Matthew77
One of the biggest differences between DDM and D&D is that a D&D party is usually composed of characters within 1 or 2 levels of eachother, while a DDM warband has a very wide range of levels.
Its a difficult task to make rules that allow both a level 3 mage and a CR16 outsider to be playable minis :)
How about removing the "target nearest" rules and replace them with:
"Enemy figures block line of sight to creatures of equal size or smaller"
Perfect targeting is too powerful, because it doesn't allow for any strategic defense, but it just doesn't make sense to be forced to fireball the Orc creeping up on your flank instead of the mass of trolls far in front of you.
Who needs perfect targeting?
All one needs to do is just move enough so that the orc is no longer within line of sight. Then fireball the Trolls. This forces movement to be considered when you are thinking through your tactics.
Assuming there is the appropriate cover within 6 squares....of course! | |
A wand of silence means never having to say you're sorry.
CHAMPION OF THE ANNIS HAG!!! | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11768 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 04/06/2006 4:02 PM |
| | Perfect targeting does seem too powerful now that I think about it. I guess the archers and spellcasters just have to be given a lower cost, in general, to be effective. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
jdb2112
Sneak
163 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 4:22 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thespian
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew77
One of the biggest differences between DDM and D&D is that a D&D party is usually composed of characters within 1 or 2 levels of eachother, while a DDM warband has a very wide range of levels.
Its a difficult task to make rules that allow both a level 3 mage and a CR16 outsider to be playable minis :)
How about removing the "target nearest" rules and replace them with:
"Enemy figures block line of sight to creatures of equal size or smaller"
Perfect targeting is too powerful, because it doesn't allow for any strategic defense, but it just doesn't make sense to be forced to fireball the Orc creeping up on your flank instead of the mass of trolls far in front of you.
Who needs perfect targeting?
All one needs to do is just move enough so that the orc is no longer within line of sight. Then fireball the Trolls. This forces movement to be considered when you are thinking through your tactics.
Assuming there is the appropriate cover within 6 squares....of course!
Under the current targeting rules the onus is on you to keep your opponent's fodder piece (which may be resistant/immune to all your spells) out of line of sight so you can target something useful.
Meaning you have to be reactive to a non-threat.
Under perfect targeting rules the onus is on your opponent to keep his important pieces out of line of sight of your spell caster until they can engage.
Meaning your opponent needs to be reactive to a threat.
This is rather simplistic but I think makes a point.
As this game is based on fantasy combat, which makes more sense?
In my opinion it is the second one.
Jim | |
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
-Niels Bohr | |
|
Mortusbard
Sergeant
427 Posts
North Carolina
| | 04/06/2006 5:39 PM |
| I hear and feel you all.
The Bottom line is that in D7D The Grandaddy of DDM spellcasters were beasts if you could keep them alive.
DDM needs to grow up and accept that fact.
If your AC 16 HP 35 Spellcaster wants to provoke an Attack of Opportunity to cast a spell when he is based well then he is/was a big boy/gril. The rules shouldn't stop the spell but point out the risk. An Archer on the other hand hs to not be based.
Here's my fixes.
Delete the nearest target rule. ( I can choose to ignore the Goblin becasue I see a HUGE FRICKEN RED DRAGON AND ITS PISSED. )
If a spell caster casts when based. Attack of opportunity simple. If hit make a concentraction check.
Give your area of attacks and other awesome spells min. Ranges. ( A caster will not be caught in his own area of effect.)
Now give the opponent the choice deal with the tanks or attack the artillery or stand around scratching his A** and die. | |
Unto Death We Strive,
From Birth unto the Dust, | |
|
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1899 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 8:03 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Do you play the RPG? The warlock does 10/hit. Our 6th level wizard can pull out a metric ton of dice on an empowered, maximized scorching ray.
In DDM, your 6th level wizard would be able to do 30 damage once (since this would require the sudden feats) and would have 20 hit points. If it had any other spells, it would probably have a point cost at least as much as the Renegade Warlock, and its other spells would do much less damage.
The ability to do damage from range means that a spellcaster who has the same damage output as a melee beater is going to cost more. Creatures with melee reach tend to do less damage relative to their point cost when compared to a melee beater without reach.
I don't think that the problem is that the DDM spell casters don't match their level... it's that _point cost_ is supposed to the way to judge whether two minis are roughly equivalent, not the level/save stat.
Yes, ranged attackers and spellcasters have issues with targeting since an opponent can try to ensure that the closest target is fodder. If the costs of spellcasters should be lowered because they can be forced to target fodder, shouldn't the cost of melee beaters be reduced since it's possible to surround or block them with sniglets?
Fireball and other area effects are expensive in terms of point cost because of the potential damage output. Yes, creatures get saves versus some spells to reduce the damage and some have spell resistance, but the beater equivalent is missing an attack and effects like conceal and incoporeal.
Aren't most decent breath weapons on creatures that cost 30+ points with a single use? Some are on creatures that also qualify as melee beaters, but for example the Chraal has some significant drawbacks to bring down its cost. The Red Samurai is undercosted compared to spellcasters, but more recent minis that combine melee and spell-like effects are more balanced. Most spellcasters w/ an area spell also have other spells, which add to their utility in the same way that the ability to make melee attacks in rounds before or after breathing adds to the Chraal.
Why are spells so expensive? Why don't spell casters have all the spell slots they should? Because that is how the cost comes out for point costing.
If you want to compare DDM to RPG, I think a good analogy for why the number of spell slots on DDM spellcasters is reduced compared to an RPG spellcaster is the way that the cost of consumable items like potions are increased for one-shot adventures and the organized play campaigns. Since there is no reason not to use up those items because there is no "after this adventure" or "after this encounter", those items are more valuable. In order to keep the point cost of casters reasonable, the number of choices are lowered.
Another separate issue is that powerful spellcasters can be _very_ effective in the hands of a highly skilled player. The amount of skill involved is signifcant to how efficient a caster is for its point cost. In many ways, running a melee beater is much simpler, and is less dependent on player skill.
Should R&D cost the Archmage based on how Pat Ellis would use it, or drop down its cost because someone like me has a hard time using it effectively? They have to base the costs on how the creature _could_ be used and the best possible outcomes.
| | | |
|
Pegasus Knight
Sergeant
896 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 9:59 PM |
| Another thought on Fireballs and the like:
I've looked over the RPG layouts for the melee classes (Fighter, Barbarian. We'll leave the Paladin out of this since it's not entirely 'pure front-line melee') and noticed a trend. They grow very slowly in Will and Reflex saves. What save does a D&D RPG fireball ask for? Reflex.
But in Skirmish, their Save is equal to their level. This makes them about as likely as a Monk or Rogue to avoid the worst of the Fireball's damage, when the game Skirmish is based on wasn't intended to work like that. Paladins, Monks, and Rogues are expected to make their saves against these effects, but Fighters, Barbarians, etc. are not.
The end result is melee figures in DDM have higher HP than casters, plus are likely to shrug off the worst effects of said caster.
I'm not sure what would fix this. Perhaps retroactively raising the DC of various spells to reflect this change, since Spell DCs seem to be calculated via a very standard formula that doesn't currently account for the higher Save/Level values exhibited in Skirmish.
But it's definitely worth noting. They kept one element of RPG the same, then notably changed another. Combined with the lack of "Perfect Targeting", low AC, average Speed, and low HP...you're forced to waste shots on melee beaters that might not have necessarily been optimal. | |
- Irrationally Fanatical Champion of Pegasus-mounted cavalry
- Proud member of Team Low Tier Beasting: I play CG as my main faction!
- Garland, TX 2006 Qualifier Champion
My trading thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19725 | |
|
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1899 Posts
| | 04/06/2006 10:38 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Pegasus Knight
But in Skirmish, their Save is equal to their level. This makes them about as likely as a Monk or Rogue to avoid the worst of the Fireball's damage, when the game Skirmish is based on wasn't intended to work like that. Paladins, Monks, and Rogues are expected to make their saves against these effects, but Fighters, Barbarians, etc. are not.
The end result is melee figures in DDM have higher HP than casters, plus are likely to shrug off the worst effects of said caster.
If you run through all of the figures RPG stats, there are plenty whose Reflex save is higher than the DDM level as well. Don't forget that spellcasters have poor Reflex saves in RPG too and actually benefit more that melee figures since it making a save can mean the difference between life and death for them.
| | | |
|
Prince o the Raven Banner
Sergeant
606 Posts
| | 04/07/2006 7:01 AM |
| I'm coming in late on this.
All I really want from my spellcasters is too pay their tuition! At least cause as much damage as they cost. Now I think eliminating the targeting rules is kinda nutty, but thats just me. All that seems necessary, some new spells, some of which are pre-cast.
Expeditious retreat(sudden or lengthened) = fix speed handicaps
Blur = conceal, yeah my AC sux but....
Shield = 4 to AC, nice but not great, so, I'm only getting 4 spells on the card.
Flame Shield = Hurts up close doesn't it.
Protection from Missles = duh
Mantle of Entropy (new spell) - 1st creature that hits this figure in melee suffers Enfeeblement - = Reactive Nerfium!
Wraithform = does anyone remember this spell? Your freakin incorporeal!
Mirror Image (have no idea how it would work) = Ok confussion for everyone involved.
And some we havent seen, for combat.
Shocking Grasp (from a lvl.12 ring say)-Range touch/20 or 25 electrical dmg.- Yeah I'm based(near dead) but you're gonna hurt for getting this close.I AM BIG ON THIS ONE.
More touch attack spells in general = auto damage from a figure thats about to die doesn't seem unfair to me.
Tenser's Transformation = Oh the spellslinging is over, let the beating begin.
Grease - can target any 4 connecting squares, any mini entering this space must save (DC ?) or be stunned (like the wolve's trip attack) = come to papa.
Blink(out)- like the Spec. Ab.- = Freakin incorporeal!
I've got more but you see where I am going...
Not every spell must be a damage causing area effect or a free attack provoker. Buzzing Bee was useful once.
How about DCs that don't get ignored by every competitive figure on the map.
How About some familiars (minions) that you could cast spells through. 4 familiar figures would be all thats needed, 1 for each faction. Admittadly this is a long way down the road, Pseudodragon.
The costs are high only compared to what we are getting.
i.e. name recent wizard...some lesser Orb, Bigbys or Snakes Swiftness, 1 maybe 2 good damage spells, or some minor buff.
I for one, would be happy with just the Shocking Grasp and a pre-cast Blur. But I'm easy.
I'll also put in my standard plug for a commander that gives Sidestep.
[:D] | |
Two trades completed!! (Krush,Hides From Hurricanes)
Champion of the Aaracokra
Herald Of Snig Goblin King | |
|
bshugg
Underboss
1833 Posts
| | 04/07/2006 7:43 AM |
| I would like to see them expande more into the buff spells. Its an area the designers aren't really pushing enough. Every barbarian in the mini's game is raging, how come all the wizards aren't all "false lifed" like they are in a typical roleplaying game. That can add an extra 15 HP on a cheap wizard which can make all the difference.
Some others I would like to see (to expand the above list.)
O |
|
|
|
|
|