Preferences on a new Crescendo?

So here's the deal: Crescendo has been broken for awhile now. There's a lot of Errata we need to get to, really. But the are two paths I see for Crescendo besides just nerfing the numbers.

1) For each attack to target a different monster
-) Is still an attack with high output
-) Doesn't trigger crazy vuln combos
-) Becomes useful for it's original intention as a multi-target (Just what I had originally seen it as)

2) Make it healing instead of damage
-) Can still target one person
-) Doesn't have crazy multi-hit-triggers
-) Bards ARE support after all

or even

3) Something crazy, like each one giving a different something. One for damage, healing, resist, penalty to damage...

the thing is that well options two and perhaps three would be taking things in a wildly different direction... Personally I would like to see all three being made.

The main thing that was good about the original version was that it was good for basically any kind of fight due to the ability to choose targets without limitation. But, if these are the options you're sticking with then I'm with Tyger.

Do all of them and call them different things... but of course! Why didn't I think of that!?
If you have suggestions beyond those three, though, feel free to suggest them.

Well, as far as the offered options go...

1) This makes the talent VERY weak/useless against solos, whilst for aoe fights, you are probably better off with one of the other aoe abilities (e.g. inferno), since those affect a similar number of targets and deal damage equally (rather than spread it from low to high on hand-picked enemies). And unless I'm mistaken, the ordering of the talent (lowest to weakest) means in a fight with less than optimal amount of targets, you outright can't use the "big hitting" ones.

2) A very nice alternative, though I think most like crescendo purely for its single-target damage dealing capabilities. This change would also likely "invalidate" a lot of builds that rely on it for that purpose. 

3) Another good alternative. Perhaps the ability would use the same values it does now, but it randomly assigns "vuln", "ongoing damage", "damage", "healing", and "resist" to those values on each use?

e.g. on one use, you end up with a 1d4+1 resist, a 1d6+2 damage, etc; and on another, you get 1d4+1 damage, 1d6+2 healing on another.

And may I propose two extra ideas:

4) Make it into something like a song that you start, and do over the course of several rounds, at a gradually increasing pip cost. For instance, you pay 0 pips and spend a standard action to start the song and do its lowest value (1d4+1) attack, then on the next round you have to pay 1 pip before the turn ends to do the next attack as a free attack, and then pay 2 pips for the next attack after on the round following that... This continues until you use the strongest attack, or you run out of pips to pay with. In the end, you do the same damage, and can use vuln, but not all at once, and it costs you quite a few pips to keep going after a while.

5) One could also mix up its damage with healing capabilities (as described in option 2) at random - You toss a coin for each of the attacks, and that determines whether they will heal or do damage (so you might end up with three weak heals and two strong attacks), which you then allocate as you see fit. This sort of fits the bard theme as well.

Just throwing it out there since brainstorming is still going on:
One idea is to lower the base cost, make the default choosing different creatures each time, then allow the player to pay pips to select targets that have already been hit.  Another idea is to make a variant that costs hp rather than pips

Maybe have there be a three-teired talent... One does healling, one does solo damage, and one does AoE damage.

Good points. Forcing the split would just plain make it an awkward talent, though I do plan to add a single target 1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12 damage power that just doesn't multi-hit.
As far as randomly assigning the effects, I would hesitate. It is an interesting thought as the power variability would be awesome, though it would mean a lot of rolling, it's be hard to balance and it certainly couldn't get "vuln" attached to it, in case that gets a high value.

So here's an idea on the "do a bunch of stuff" idea

[-4] Crescendo - Standard Utility
Range: Ranged 7
Roll 1d4. Target creature suffers a penalty to saving throws equal to the roll result (save ends).
Roll 1d6. Target creature gains resistance equal to the roll result (save ends).
Roll 1d8. Target creature gain regeneration equal to the roll result (save ends).
Roll 1d10. Target creature suffers a penalty to damage equal to the roll result (save ends).
Roll 1d12. Target creature suffers ongoing damage equal to the roll result (save ends).

My personal problem with it is a flavor thing. I liked crescendo due to the flavor of the term, it was a tune that got bigger and bigger, but this feels like they're miscellaneous effects on relatively equal footing. I'd want to call this like "Improvised tune" or something. It is pretty cool, though, and there's the interesting thought of "Do I want to put the penalty to saves on the enemy with the ongoing and the damage penalty, or the ally with the resist and the regen?" I could make a more powerful version with vuln on the d4 and the penalty to save somewhere else, but vuln is notoriously hard to balance, and ironically the d4 would become the most powerful shot

Well, that's certainly interesting anyway. Not sure if it should be our replacement for Crescendo itself but, it's neat all the same.

Hmmm... Maybe the way of making it seem like a "gradually increasing crescendo" is by applying an extra bonus for it triggering special moves on its last three abilities? E.g. if it triggers the d8/d10/d12 crit, it gives a +1/+2/+3 to the roll value, respectively?

I don't really think it needs a change...
A -10 pip cost is one of the highest in the game, it probably should be able to do something very impressive. I have also very rarely seen vulnerability utilized in sufficiently high numbers to make that multi strike OVERpowered (particularly since the base hits are low, and there are a LOT of creatures with resist designed by this community)... and even then, it would require a combination with at least one ally to pull off properly, and isn't mass destruction through teamwork exactly what pony combat SHOULD be?

...

If you simply MUST depower one of the most expensive (and therefore rightfully [potentially] most spectacular) talents in the system, I guess I'd try this:

[-9] Crescendo - Standard Attack
Choose one of the following:
Deal 5 lots of damage
1d4+1
1d6+2
1d8+3
1d10+4
1d12+5
Split among multiple enemies, with each enemy taking no more than two hits

OR

Deal 3 lots of damage
1d8+1
1d10+2
1d12+3
To a single target

Way, WAY less potent as a solo-murderer, but that tiniest bit cheaper to compensate... I suppose this would technically mean it's getting upgraded for those who like to swing it at multiple targets, but I figure as a multi-target move it's likely to do far less damage than even cheaper maneuvers as it stands - and reducing the cost for those who do like to ignore the dangerous 'dogpile the boss' version of the move probably wouldn't be terrible.

While I don't object to the healing or the nonsense effects, THAT sort of change wouldn't be updating crescendo - it would be removing crescendo and then adding in a talent that does healing or save ends.

IT's true, it would be basically removing and replacing it. However, it does need a nerf because the fact is, there's math behind what a -10 should do, and this does more.
Personally, what I want to see is:
Crescendo as healing
The save ends thing as a talent
A Ranger talent that forces the split
A -9 single target nuke for the Berzerker in big d12s, basically a not-silly-it's_over
A Sorcerer nuke at -5/6 that does 1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12 damage to a single target as one attack.
However, your idea of being an option between a more powerful forced-split or a less powerful nuke is interesting, though I worry about the multi-hit effect still.

However, for the moment things are halted. We realized an algorithm we don't have which, once figured out, should allow ults to be more viable and appealing, without being overpowered (since, with the exception of Crescendo's hilarity, Multiattack builds are just plain far more potent than nukers, which isn't good). See, we don't have an exact understanding of what kind of value you should get on using a -6 or a -9 over just using lower cost moves every turn - what the value of saving up pips is - that is to say, what the proper "Ultflation" to the curve is. Once we figure that out, we'll be able to more appropriately balance such ults as these.

So, when I say there's math behind what a -10 should do, well, we're getting some new math. It's probably still overpowered given the merits of crazy vuln triggers (I've done it, it's silly), but we're digging into appropriate value atm.

Kindulas wrote:My personal problem with it is a flavor thing. I liked crescendo due to the flavor of the term, it was a tune that got bigger and bigger, but this feels like they're miscellaneous effects on relatively equal footing.

Yeah, the multi effect thing feels like it should be it's own power rather than a replacement for Crescendo.  Just feels thematically off.

I do wonder how reviewing the new formula will effect nukes.  There's something about storing up for something big as opposed to numerous small hits.  While not a tabletop, I remember that City of Heroes was in the process of revamping nukes before they shut down since their drawbacks made it so that weren't considered as much worth to many players compared to DPS.  Definitely a balancing act but I think that in most situations players will simply gravitate towards the reliable.  Though I do wonder how much the problem is with the damage and how much is with the vulnerability itself.

Okay, here's the plan. We make Crescendo this:
Bard:
[-4] Crescendo - Standard Utility
Range: Ranged 10
Target creature gains 1d4+1 hp or 1d4+1 temporary hp
Target creature gains 1d6+2 hp or 1d6+2 temporary hp
Target creature gains 1d8+3 hp or 1d8+3 temporary hp
Target creature gains 1d10+4 hp or 1d10+4 temporary hp
Target creature gains 1d12+5 hp or 1d12+5 temporary hp

Then help fill the single target damage gap with this
Sorcerer:
[-7] Electrocution - Standard Attack
Range: Ranged 7
Deal 1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12 to target creature

Wow, that's a REALLY powerful/versatile heal - stronger than miracle, even. Are those values the same in the board as the skype version?

Electrocution seems fairly simple/nice as well.

Zarhon wrote:Wow, that's a REALLY powerful/versatile heal - stronger than miracle, even. Are those values the same in the board as the skype version?

Electrocution seems fairly simple/nice as well.

Yes, it will be ranged in board so the values will be the same.

Hm, would the other AOE/single target heals be rebalanced in heal amount/cost accordingly? The new heal Crescendo sort of trumps all of them by a wide margin (e.g. especially the "grace" talents).

Zarhon wrote:Hm, would the other AOE/single target heals be rebalanced in heal amount/cost accordingly? The new heal Crescendo sort of trumps all of them by a wide margin (e.g. especially the "grace" talents).

With just three targets, the first two graces are appropriate - the 3rd in fact is only 2.5 under the curve with a mere 2 targets. Sure there's the versatility factor, but I think you underestimate the Grace talents

I think grace relies on actually having six targets to heal in the combat for full effect - most parties are 4, 5, or 6 people, not counting any conjurations (which probably don't need heals anyway). If you've got 4 or 5, then crescendo gives you more for your buck, I think, since you don't really "waste" any of the heals / temp hp. It's also quite a bit more reliable as far as values go (rolling a nat1 on amazing grace kind of sucks) and has more crit chances.

Have to admit I didn't expect an AoE damage to turn into AoE healing.

I do like the replacement electrocution, but despite having just lost my big-bad that was supposed to provide dialogue later, absorbing 9/10ths of a PC's crescendo damage rolls, I find myself missing the AoE damage talents.

Ah, but AoE nerfing was a recent discussion, wasn't it? So this is, I guess, in keeping with that.

What about an old-style crescendo but using smaller dice? on the board "everybody" uses online rollers anyway, so you could have 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d5 and end with ... gasp 1d6 !

Or am I too late to that party?

Still wish there was something that functioned like old Crescendo where it was good for fighting single or multiple enemies.

SparkImpulse wrote:
What about an old-style crescendo but using smaller dice? on the board "everybody" uses online rollers anyway, so you could have 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d5 and end with ... gasp 1d6 !

Or am I too late to that party?

Well, shoot, technically you can get all of those from other dice (1d2 from any of them, 1d3 from d6 or d12, and d5 from d20) as well. You'd probably need to goober up the rules with "roll a d20, then divide by 4, rounding up," but anyway, the point still stands.

I actually do wonder if it would be feasible to have something similar to the old version with lower dice amounts since the actual mechanic is interesting. Perhaps

[-cost] Repeated Crack Fist [Standard Attack]
Deal 1d4 damage to target creature.
Deal 1d4 damage to target creature.
Deal 1d4 damage to target creature.
Deal 1d4 damage to target creature.
Deal 1d8 damage to target creature.

Without escalating non-random damage, vuln isn't as much of an outright problem yet it can still have use. Perhaps the d4 could be upped to d6.

I think 4d6s and a d8, while weak, would be kinda cool to try to work into this system as it's own mult-attack thingie.