I too started D&D back when there was no Advanced. At 45, I've played about every version up to 3, which I didn't play at all beyond a couple of modules really.
Later, 1999, I got onboard with the MMO experience. Probably the most "true to D&D" was (and still is in many ways) Everquest. At least at first. Each class had a defining role. Different classes/races had penalties/advantages. Exp penalties for death. And Clerics that used maces and shields rather than the pure caster model we get.
My two BIG disappointments when I first logged in and started the character creation process: Pure caster Clerics and no Rangers. Yes, I know.. the whole "open beta" thing. Which is another topic entirely so we just won't go there.
Took a big bite out of my D&D donut the first day.
And given the (already mentioned) crazy way exp and levels are handed out in this game (just look to the parallel zones of Ebon Downs and Vellosk, either way you don't get to finish both areas before you out level the content) it's a fun distraction and a decent MMO, but in no way says D&D to me other than seeing at in the game's title.
I can, since i play D&D till the age of eleven at least once a week, and now i'm 32 years old.
Aaand let's go.
"When I was playing D&D, there was nothing more deadly than a warrior at melee (being GF or GWF in this game) cause they were gaining much and much attacks in one turn as they were rising in level."
Fighter didn't dominate game. Wizards, cleric and psionic dominated the game, and they still did in 3rd edition and in PF, because developers continue to create broken spells. Only magic immune monsters could be a problem for wizards, but they were still invincible... Just few words. Contingence, clone, teleport, wish.
Old D&D and the AD&D were almost the more unbalanced games ever. 3rd edition, 3.5 and PF are still unbalanced, but now other hibrid classes can rule (and druid).
So please, continue to tell me how warriors could dominate a game against a cleric with the thought sphere, that basically could reduce dmg by 1/8, or a caster he can't even reach. Maybe, and i say maybe, you could do something with skills and powers and subsequent optional rules, but not without fixing the balance casters issue.
Considering your "experience" which was an one shot one, what a long time to compare as if you knew what you're debatting about... Moreover considering your spell's use as the enemies you were facing you were low to very low level (not more than 5).
So with leveling wizards were earning more and more spells, depending of their intellingence, but not much that's true. Anyway they could use as many scrolls they wanted to cast barely INSTANTLY without COMPONENTS any spells, even some they were too low level to actually learn (only thing was to ask for a master to write it for them, they only needed to be able to read magic...).
Anyway I totally understand 2nd edition is over and now this is 4th edition, but don't say you prefer 4th edition because it's better whereas you never actually tested the 2nd one as many, if not all, long time D&D players do prefer former edition (at least the 3rd one).
I gave one example, which was the adventure in the 1st edition red box to impress on you that even people who are "old" and have played D&D basically from when it was released think in retrospect that the early versions of D&D were lacking and that 4th is better. Of course I played more than that one scenario, but I didn't imagine that you were dense enough that I would have to spell it out for you (and if you could read you would see that I have also played 2nd edition; in fact, I played 2nd edition extensively but I like 4th edition more).
And you keep going on about scrolls as if they dropped from trees or something. In the games I played scrolls were fairly rare and relatively expensive/difficult to make. Of course if the DM thought that mages were so gimped and useless and got sick of them demanding that the party sleep after every encounter so they could actually do something I guess they might want to have a scroll shower for the party- but that never happened in games I played.
I can, since i play D&D till the age of eleven at least once a week, and now i'm 32 years old.
Aaand let's go.
"When I was playing D&D, there was nothing more deadly than a warrior at melee (being GF or GWF in this game) cause they were gaining much and much attacks in one turn as they were rising in level."
Fighter didn't dominate game. Wizards, cleric and psionic dominated the game, and they still did in 3rd edition and in PF, because developers continue to create broken spells. Only magic immune monsters could be a problem for wizards, but they were still invincible... Just few words. Contingence, clone, teleport, wish.
Old D&D and the AD&D were almost the more unbalanced games ever. 3rd edition, 3.5 and PF are still unbalanced, but now other hibrid classes can rule (and druid).
So please, continue to tell me how warriors could dominate a game against a cleric with the thought sphere, that basically could reduce dmg by 1/8, or a caster he can't even reach. Maybe, and i say maybe, you could do something with skills and powers and subsequent optional rules, but not without fixing the balance casters issue.
As if warriors did not have the best savings of all classes to barely become immune to some kind of magic, nor couldn't they wear magical items as well... like enchanted weapons. I'm not sure how wizards could deal with greater demons or creatures from other plans like the one you found in Sigil (most of them being unsensitive to some schools or even immune to magic) whereas having warriors in a group in such situations is quite helpful.
There are tons of monsters which can be a real pain for wizards without the help of warriors. Not to mention rare to very rare components for the mightiest spells, as the raising failure percentage. Moreover you totally seem to think 2nd edition was some one on one classes competition... how bizarre ?
Cleric were powerful but with quite less hp and way higher CA than warriors, as some building time to use a spell (they couldn't hit and use magic) thus not being melee monsters... But probably your DM, or you, liked wizards very much, which explains why you like so much neverwinter.
I gave one example, which was the adventure in the 1st edition red box to impress on you that even people who are "old" and have played D&D basically from when it was released think in retrospect that the early versions of D&D were lacking and that 4th is better. Of course I played more than that one scenario, but I didn't imagine that you were dense enough that I would have to spell it out for you (and if you could read you would see that I have also played 2nd edition; in fact, I played 2nd edition extensively but I like 4th edition more).
And you keep going on about scrolls as if they dropped from trees or something. In the games I played scrolls were fairly rare and relatively expensive/difficult to make. Of course if the DM thought that mages were so gimped and useless and got sick of them demanding that the party sleep after every encounter so they could actually do something I guess they might want to have a scroll shower for the party- but that never happened in games I played.
No need to be that conscending : is it my fault if you choose the worste example on purpose just to proove you were right ?
I can read as I can see you've probably not played first editions so much, nor didn't like them because they were certainly too complex to use, compared to the 4th edition which heavily looks like a simplification for quick use of players coming from video games better than actual roles players. Which explains why you take straight and easy ways to proove how you are right before a lot of other posters who think the 4th edition is just a pale reflect of what you could get from the former editions.
No need to be that conscending : is it my fault if you choose the worste example on purpose just to proove you were right ?
I can read as I can see you've probably not played first editions so much, nor didn't like them because they were certainly too complex to use, compared to the 4th edition which heavily looks like a simplification for quick use of players coming from video games better than actual roles players. Which explains why you take straight and easy ways to proove how you are right before a lot of other posters who think the 4th edition is just a pale reflect of what you could get from the former editions.
First, nearly every one of your replies to anyone who has a different opinion to you has been insulting and condescending. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker? If English is your second language then I apologize and commend you for your ability, but if you are a native speaker.....
Second, obviously you can't read as I posted "in fact, I played 2nd edition extensively but I like 4th edition more" and "I loved it at the time".
Anyway, talking to old codgers like you makes me want to puke, I'm gonna go kill some dwarves.... yeah that will be fun.
To be honest you've over looked that both Clerics and Wizards could get Tensor's Transformation. You're magic immune? now suddenly I'm an equivalent level warrior problem solved. The balancing fact was that in 2nd ed it really did take you 2-5 rounds to cast that Power Word Kill. In 3rd they did away with that and spells became either a minor or standard action but it never took you more than one round to cast it.
What you overlooked was I said that using a channeling system would ruin it for caster and at this game's pace yes it would. I did say instead that there should be a short delay of a second or two with a clear warning so players could use already implemented mechanics to dodge some of those attacks. This simulates that same effect without creating a sever imbalance.
I said CA for rogues. Now there are any number of ways to get it, stealth is just the easiest. So no stealth should be left as it is since it would encourage them to use the other mechanics which requires group or smart play.
You've admitted to only looking at 4e which means your basing your opinion of it on what the complainers post since those who enjoy it rarely do. This is true for everything so you cannot be faulted for it. What does seem to happen though is you take it very personally when someone disagrees with out.
Scrolls for the most part was actually pretty easy to come by unless you had a DM who was aware of the problem and kept a close eye on it. Between the creation feats/options, resources gathered and loot a party generally had a fair few lying around. Thus making the power curves limiting factor a much more minor thing. Melee characters limiting factor is less internal and built directly into their function.
Lastly it is un-disputable that warriors shine at low levels but at they higher levels casters were always the most powerful. Every edition was designed this way. Utility trumps everything, every time. 4e is the only edition that actually brings the melee classes into line power wise at the later stages but even here the control classes become a nightmare if not handled carefully.
There is no doubt that in 2e the classes felt far more defined than they do now. But sadly what made them feel that way does not translate well into MMO since games are much less about the story or tailor made encounters for a specific group.
0
Options
rickfrankMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 13Arc User
edited June 2013
I'm a third edition dnd nerd but i've heard enough about 4th edition to know they changed alot. The fourth edition tabletop rules are very like mmo's in the way everything is designed, more combat friendly.
I do agree that the nastiest thing in melee is a fighter, unless the barbarian is raging or the paladin is fighting a demon, however a rogue is traditionally a skill monkey. In other words they do good damage as long as someone else has the monsters attention but they also bring alot more to the table in the way of picking locks spotting and disarming traps scouting areas talking to people, lying to people, gathering information all that cool dnd stuff that doesn't translate well to an actionmmo. The rogue is basically a dual wielding fighter who chose leather armor because the max dex bonus on platemail wasn't high enough to suit him. If you keep that image in your head you can almost see the character sheet.
OP, the big problem here is that this game is based on 4th edition, which is lightly based on 3rd edition. Gygax himself said that 3rd edition wasn't really DnD anymore. 4th ed not only plays like a WoW clone, but to an original player like me, it seems like they tried to turn everyone into a magic user.
Everyone has powers like on your bar, even fighters. They can use some as often as they like, a few only a few times a day, and some only once per day. I guess the warrior is just too tired after using his super move, or maybe he forgets how to and has to rememorize, lol. Sorry, not really a big 4th ed fan.
No, the DnD we started out with isn't around anymore, certainly not in video format. That'd be a nightmare. You think they scream about player balance now? First person that saw experience costs for leveling up weren't equal would raise bloody hell.
If it helps, think of the TRs as Spider-Man, and the GF/GWFs as a pre-Venom version of Flash Thompson. You know, someone for a real hero to come along and save..../sigh.
I said CA for rogues. Now there are any number of ways to get it, stealth is just the easiest. So no stealth should be left as it is since it would encourage them to use the other mechanics which requires group or smart play.
Well then your suggestion is nonsense. Rogues would be utterly useless in PvP if damage was significantly reduced without boosts to the stealth mechanic. We have one skill that teleports us behind enemies, and after that is used, what are we supposed to do? Our AoE skills suck, but you want to force us into group combat? Ridiculous.
The simple fact is that the rogues in this game are working as intended. Their powers are designed around stunning and damage-dealing, not awarding combat advantage. And if you specced in the burst DPS/crit-based DPS build, then the time your actually in stealth is incredible low.
A rich rogue nowadays is fit company for any gentleman; and the world, my dear, hath not such a contempt for roguery as you imagine. - John HAMSTER
I wrote : the rogue had ONE chance to kill his foe with ONE hit. Am I clear enough now ?
I'm also sure to have written rogues were usually using poisons to compensate their few attacks number a turn (before a war for example) despite they could usually dodge most of their foe's attacks thanks to their high dexterity. Technically rogues could dodge one attack and take the other (facing a lvl 10 war) but thx to their poisons (which could dealt a lot of damage as well as their sneaky attack) they were totally compensated. A good poison could kill a war in a few seconds, or paralyze it for a moment to make the rogue able to strike his foe in the back to deal the killing blow.
By rogues having to break the fight I meant they had to IF they wanted to surprise their foe once again as to attack them in the back to maximize their damage.
The same goes for wizards : they could only learn, thus use, a few spells a day... but they could used scrolls as many as they were able to wear (which casting time was usually way faster) and even without having to wear components for those spells. And yes their focus were easily broken but they could cast their spells from afar (become invisible, fly, levitate, and so on) though some wizards could specialize in melee fighting like necromancers, and they were deadly.
Finally, considering the system of this game with a lot of instances for which you don't have to look for a group since the system do it for you, I don't think your point about being able to solo or not (especially with the use of a companion) the PvE content is relevant. Moreover everybody is whining about the PvE content being way too easy, especially in solo but at HL as well.
So basically you would have been satisfied with a game even more easy ? I think I know now why I don't like this game nor its community : this is no where near D&D nor the players mentality I used to play with.
The game you want to play is not a game that would be profitable.
This game caters to video game players, not table-top RPG gamers. I'm an old school DnD player myself, and I understand that this game cannot be made to work exactly like pen and paper DnD and hope to draw any kind of playerbase at all.
I'll put it this way:
Video Gamer: I want to play a Wizard!
*VG rolls a wizard*
Video Gamer: What?! You mean I'm virtually helpless if I don't have someone with me to keep the enemy busy while I cast my spell, because a single hit disrupts it and I can't dodge anything while I'm casting?! And I have to either rest after every fight to re-learn my spells or carry around a library's worth of scrolls that take up all my money to keep buying?! Screw this, I'm going back to WoW.
A true DnD wizard would not be fun to play in an action oriented game like this. At all.
First off did not say significantly since that would damage our only striker class. But it must be toned down in comparison to CA damage.
Here is a quick list of all the easy ways you can gain CA.
1. Be in stealth
2. Be behind your target
3. Any CC move
4. Flank your target
5. Attack a target that is CCed
That is 5 simple ways and only two of them require a single team member to pull off.
Actually many of the TR powers have a rider that states it gains extra damage when you have CA.
So I'll state it again.
Tone down none CA damage and leave CA damage where it is. It only needs to be enough of a difference that it is noticeable between the two states. This would encourage TR to make use of the mechanics that are in place and give them more of a Trickster feel rather than in your face swing away type you see from most of them.
As for the low stealth in some specs that is kind of the point of different specs. There are currently other classes that haven't even got enough working powers and feats to have viable alternate options. This is a whole other discussion though that can't bear fruit until all the bugs are ironed out of those classes.
This is basically what's annoying me in this game and why this is not D&D for me, looking at it from a PvP (or a PvE point of view). Wizards are way too powerful, rogues are actually light armour fighting class, better than rogue : those 2 classes are so unbalanced compared to the others it totally ruins the game, whatever I'm playing (PvP or PvE).
You could have just posted this... Though its a known issue by pretty much everyone by this point.
The game you want to play is not a game that would be profitable.
This game caters to video game players, not table-top RPG gamers. I'm an old school DnD player myself, and I understand that this game cannot be made to work exactly like pen and paper DnD and hope to draw any kind of playerbase at all.
I'll put it this way:
Video Gamer: I want to play a Wizard!
*VG rolls a wizard*
Video Gamer: What?! You mean I'm virtually helpless if I don't have someone with me to keep the enemy busy while I cast my spell, because a single hit disrupts it and I can't dodge anything while I'm casting?! And I have to either rest after every fight to re-learn my spells or carry around a library's worth of scrolls that take up all my money to keep buying?! Screw this, I'm going back to WoW.
A true DnD wizard would not be fun to play in an action oriented game like this. At all.
Nah... of course I don't want the game to be strictly like 2nd edition, surely it would be such a pain in the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> for wizards and rogues early on.
But I think balancing the classes would profit of wizards having lowered range and/or longer building "spell" time (not asking for lowering damage output here) since they are no more as squishy as they were in 2nd edition. I still don't get why wizards need, considering the class as it is now in the 4th edition, to have such a range or instant building time since : they can dodge a lot to avoid melee (maybe lowering stamina regen is a part of the solution as already suggested) they have very good cc and their concentration can't be broken.
Currently I see CWs able to root me without actually seeing me (if I'm "hidden" behind the pilar of the cap point) or root me while, a fraction of a second before, I was right in their back... may comes from lag, but it's like every single CW's skill is an aoe, even though it's to cc a single target... which looks quite ridiculous for them not to have one skilled shot, for the very least.
The same goes for TR, though the 2nd edition's one was terribly addictive, they should keep their current damage output in my opinion, since their very only role is to dps, compared to other classes which have 2 roles. But comparing a lvl 23 rogue defense to mine (18 GWF with bracers, since I reroll from my 60 GWF... desesperatly waiting for a balance patch) was quite intructive : roughly 170 (green/white stuff) for the rogue compared to my 130 (green/white stuff) which means I will probably not get more than 180-200 max at lvl 23 (since I miss only the helmet). Considering rogue's high amount of deflection thanks to their dexterity, as probably stuff, I think their defence is too high for something called "light" armour. This certainly explains why I felt to output no damage on rogues even after having passed several crucial seconds using my mightiest skills trying to crush a pinned one.
Thus I would argue rogues do not need damage reduction but they do need defence reduction, their current defence rating is way too high considering what they should have with light armour stuff.
I fondly remember the 2nd Edition rules. Your right classes were much more distinct, and they all had a purpose. Each one had skills that none of the others had. Now everybody is basically a fighter with a minor speciality on the side. Welcome to the modern RPG where everybody can do everything, and everyone wins a prize. Magic items grow on trees, traps are mere annoyance, and thinking is not required.
My thoughts exactly... What's even worse, is the classes that do diverge from the norm are shunned until they're nerfed to be exactly like every other.
Comments
I too started D&D back when there was no Advanced. At 45, I've played about every version up to 3, which I didn't play at all beyond a couple of modules really.
Later, 1999, I got onboard with the MMO experience. Probably the most "true to D&D" was (and still is in many ways) Everquest. At least at first. Each class had a defining role. Different classes/races had penalties/advantages. Exp penalties for death. And Clerics that used maces and shields rather than the pure caster model we get.
My two BIG disappointments when I first logged in and started the character creation process: Pure caster Clerics and no Rangers. Yes, I know.. the whole "open beta" thing. Which is another topic entirely so we just won't go there.
Took a big bite out of my D&D donut the first day.
And given the (already mentioned) crazy way exp and levels are handed out in this game (just look to the parallel zones of Ebon Downs and Vellosk, either way you don't get to finish both areas before you out level the content) it's a fun distraction and a decent MMO, but in no way says D&D to me other than seeing at in the game's title.
I can, since i play D&D till the age of eleven at least once a week, and now i'm 32 years old.
Aaand let's go.
"When I was playing D&D, there was nothing more deadly than a warrior at melee (being GF or GWF in this game) cause they were gaining much and much attacks in one turn as they were rising in level."
Fighter didn't dominate game. Wizards, cleric and psionic dominated the game, and they still did in 3rd edition and in PF, because developers continue to create broken spells. Only magic immune monsters could be a problem for wizards, but they were still invincible... Just few words. Contingence, clone, teleport, wish.
Old D&D and the AD&D were almost the more unbalanced games ever. 3rd edition, 3.5 and PF are still unbalanced, but now other hibrid classes can rule (and druid).
So please, continue to tell me how warriors could dominate a game against a cleric with the thought sphere, that basically could reduce dmg by 1/8, or a caster he can't even reach. Maybe, and i say maybe, you could do something with skills and powers and subsequent optional rules, but not without fixing the balance casters issue.
I gave one example, which was the adventure in the 1st edition red box to impress on you that even people who are "old" and have played D&D basically from when it was released think in retrospect that the early versions of D&D were lacking and that 4th is better. Of course I played more than that one scenario, but I didn't imagine that you were dense enough that I would have to spell it out for you (and if you could read you would see that I have also played 2nd edition; in fact, I played 2nd edition extensively but I like 4th edition more).
And you keep going on about scrolls as if they dropped from trees or something. In the games I played scrolls were fairly rare and relatively expensive/difficult to make. Of course if the DM thought that mages were so gimped and useless and got sick of them demanding that the party sleep after every encounter so they could actually do something I guess they might want to have a scroll shower for the party- but that never happened in games I played.
As if warriors did not have the best savings of all classes to barely become immune to some kind of magic, nor couldn't they wear magical items as well... like enchanted weapons. I'm not sure how wizards could deal with greater demons or creatures from other plans like the one you found in Sigil (most of them being unsensitive to some schools or even immune to magic) whereas having warriors in a group in such situations is quite helpful.
There are tons of monsters which can be a real pain for wizards without the help of warriors. Not to mention rare to very rare components for the mightiest spells, as the raising failure percentage. Moreover you totally seem to think 2nd edition was some one on one classes competition... how bizarre ?
Cleric were powerful but with quite less hp and way higher CA than warriors, as some building time to use a spell (they couldn't hit and use magic) thus not being melee monsters... But probably your DM, or you, liked wizards very much, which explains why you like so much neverwinter.
No need to be that conscending : is it my fault if you choose the worste example on purpose just to proove you were right ?
I can read as I can see you've probably not played first editions so much, nor didn't like them because they were certainly too complex to use, compared to the 4th edition which heavily looks like a simplification for quick use of players coming from video games better than actual roles players. Which explains why you take straight and easy ways to proove how you are right before a lot of other posters who think the 4th edition is just a pale reflect of what you could get from the former editions.
First, nearly every one of your replies to anyone who has a different opinion to you has been insulting and condescending. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker? If English is your second language then I apologize and commend you for your ability, but if you are a native speaker.....
Second, obviously you can't read as I posted "in fact, I played 2nd edition extensively but I like 4th edition more" and "I loved it at the time".
Anyway, talking to old codgers like you makes me want to puke, I'm gonna go kill some dwarves.... yeah that will be fun.
What you overlooked was I said that using a channeling system would ruin it for caster and at this game's pace yes it would. I did say instead that there should be a short delay of a second or two with a clear warning so players could use already implemented mechanics to dodge some of those attacks. This simulates that same effect without creating a sever imbalance.
I said CA for rogues. Now there are any number of ways to get it, stealth is just the easiest. So no stealth should be left as it is since it would encourage them to use the other mechanics which requires group or smart play.
You've admitted to only looking at 4e which means your basing your opinion of it on what the complainers post since those who enjoy it rarely do. This is true for everything so you cannot be faulted for it. What does seem to happen though is you take it very personally when someone disagrees with out.
Scrolls for the most part was actually pretty easy to come by unless you had a DM who was aware of the problem and kept a close eye on it. Between the creation feats/options, resources gathered and loot a party generally had a fair few lying around. Thus making the power curves limiting factor a much more minor thing. Melee characters limiting factor is less internal and built directly into their function.
Lastly it is un-disputable that warriors shine at low levels but at they higher levels casters were always the most powerful. Every edition was designed this way. Utility trumps everything, every time. 4e is the only edition that actually brings the melee classes into line power wise at the later stages but even here the control classes become a nightmare if not handled carefully.
There is no doubt that in 2e the classes felt far more defined than they do now. But sadly what made them feel that way does not translate well into MMO since games are much less about the story or tailor made encounters for a specific group.
I do agree that the nastiest thing in melee is a fighter, unless the barbarian is raging or the paladin is fighting a demon, however a rogue is traditionally a skill monkey. In other words they do good damage as long as someone else has the monsters attention but they also bring alot more to the table in the way of picking locks spotting and disarming traps scouting areas talking to people, lying to people, gathering information all that cool dnd stuff that doesn't translate well to an actionmmo. The rogue is basically a dual wielding fighter who chose leather armor because the max dex bonus on platemail wasn't high enough to suit him. If you keep that image in your head you can almost see the character sheet.
Everyone has powers like on your bar, even fighters. They can use some as often as they like, a few only a few times a day, and some only once per day. I guess the warrior is just too tired after using his super move, or maybe he forgets how to and has to rememorize, lol. Sorry, not really a big 4th ed fan.
No, the DnD we started out with isn't around anymore, certainly not in video format. That'd be a nightmare. You think they scream about player balance now? First person that saw experience costs for leveling up weren't equal would raise bloody hell.
If it helps, think of the TRs as Spider-Man, and the GF/GWFs as a pre-Venom version of Flash Thompson. You know, someone for a real hero to come along and save..../sigh.
Well then your suggestion is nonsense. Rogues would be utterly useless in PvP if damage was significantly reduced without boosts to the stealth mechanic. We have one skill that teleports us behind enemies, and after that is used, what are we supposed to do? Our AoE skills suck, but you want to force us into group combat? Ridiculous.
The simple fact is that the rogues in this game are working as intended. Their powers are designed around stunning and damage-dealing, not awarding combat advantage. And if you specced in the burst DPS/crit-based DPS build, then the time your actually in stealth is incredible low.
The game you want to play is not a game that would be profitable.
This game caters to video game players, not table-top RPG gamers. I'm an old school DnD player myself, and I understand that this game cannot be made to work exactly like pen and paper DnD and hope to draw any kind of playerbase at all.
I'll put it this way:
Video Gamer: I want to play a Wizard!
*VG rolls a wizard*
Video Gamer: What?! You mean I'm virtually helpless if I don't have someone with me to keep the enemy busy while I cast my spell, because a single hit disrupts it and I can't dodge anything while I'm casting?! And I have to either rest after every fight to re-learn my spells or carry around a library's worth of scrolls that take up all my money to keep buying?! Screw this, I'm going back to WoW.
A true DnD wizard would not be fun to play in an action oriented game like this. At all.
Here is a quick list of all the easy ways you can gain CA.
1. Be in stealth
2. Be behind your target
3. Any CC move
4. Flank your target
5. Attack a target that is CCed
That is 5 simple ways and only two of them require a single team member to pull off.
Actually many of the TR powers have a rider that states it gains extra damage when you have CA.
So I'll state it again.
Tone down none CA damage and leave CA damage where it is. It only needs to be enough of a difference that it is noticeable between the two states. This would encourage TR to make use of the mechanics that are in place and give them more of a Trickster feel rather than in your face swing away type you see from most of them.
As for the low stealth in some specs that is kind of the point of different specs. There are currently other classes that haven't even got enough working powers and feats to have viable alternate options. This is a whole other discussion though that can't bear fruit until all the bugs are ironed out of those classes.
You could have just posted this... Though its a known issue by pretty much everyone by this point.
Nah... of course I don't want the game to be strictly like 2nd edition, surely it would be such a pain in the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> for wizards and rogues early on.
But I think balancing the classes would profit of wizards having lowered range and/or longer building "spell" time (not asking for lowering damage output here) since they are no more as squishy as they were in 2nd edition. I still don't get why wizards need, considering the class as it is now in the 4th edition, to have such a range or instant building time since : they can dodge a lot to avoid melee (maybe lowering stamina regen is a part of the solution as already suggested) they have very good cc and their concentration can't be broken.
Currently I see CWs able to root me without actually seeing me (if I'm "hidden" behind the pilar of the cap point) or root me while, a fraction of a second before, I was right in their back... may comes from lag, but it's like every single CW's skill is an aoe, even though it's to cc a single target... which looks quite ridiculous for them not to have one skilled shot, for the very least.
The same goes for TR, though the 2nd edition's one was terribly addictive, they should keep their current damage output in my opinion, since their very only role is to dps, compared to other classes which have 2 roles. But comparing a lvl 23 rogue defense to mine (18 GWF with bracers, since I reroll from my 60 GWF... desesperatly waiting for a balance patch) was quite intructive : roughly 170 (green/white stuff) for the rogue compared to my 130 (green/white stuff) which means I will probably not get more than 180-200 max at lvl 23 (since I miss only the helmet). Considering rogue's high amount of deflection thanks to their dexterity, as probably stuff, I think their defence is too high for something called "light" armour. This certainly explains why I felt to output no damage on rogues even after having passed several crucial seconds using my mightiest skills trying to crush a pinned one.
Thus I would argue rogues do not need damage reduction but they do need defence reduction, their current defence rating is way too high considering what they should have with light armour stuff.
My thoughts exactly... What's even worse, is the classes that do diverge from the norm are shunned until they're nerfed to be exactly like every other.