D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[Tony Vargas]

Healing is the main throttle of encounters per day and if divine casters are healing, they are not getting to cast their other spells as much.

I think spells/day have been the main 'throttle' in most editions. That's about the same as saying healing is, because, prior to the 3.x Wand of Cure Light Wounds, daily clerical spells were the main source of healing. 'Out of healing' and 'out of spells' meant the same thing.

5e has a some healing in the form of HD, which would tend to extend the 'day,' but has strangely reduced the power of healing spells, meaning casters will probably choose to use other spell, instead, which'd tend to shorten the 'day.' Yet, 6-8 encounter games are apparently meant to be the norm?

 

[Aoirorentsu]

My experience...

I recently played a one-shot at 5th level. We had a spell-casting-focused druid (who had lightning bolt), a fighter, my character (a fighter/rogue), and a cleric. I realize I'm missing a big one with there being no arcane caster there, but the caster/martial difference was not a problem. In fact, if anything, in combat us martial types did the vast majority of damage and got virtually all the kills (the combination of Sneak Attacks and Maneuvers from the Battle Master fighter or whatever-it's-called is pretty sweet).

Out of combat, we had an interesting subjective gravity-based puzzle, a few skill-based challenges, and the like. Sure, the casters get the occasional "I win" button (Sleep is powerful again in this edition and I love it). But for the most part there was no point where I felt like I couldn't contribute meaningfully. And IMO, avoiding such occurrences (i.e. where one is so out-classed that they can't contribute at all) is about as reasonable a criteria for "balanced" as I have heard.

And, of course, what everyone else said: martial characters are much less limited in using their abilities than are casters.

I kind of think we should play the game for a little while before we talk about taking it apart and putting it back together again. This puppy is very thoroughly play-tested and I like to think that if there was really that much of a discrepancy they would've addressed it along the way. Maybe I'm being optimistic.

 

[Morty]

The over-reliance on healing spells in the previous editions apart from 4e definitely meant that the entire party operated according to the cleric's schedule. When the cleric ran out of healing spells and everyone was wounded, it was time to pack it in. Part of the problem is daily magic, but another is the hit point system, which assumes that everyone will lose HP and then use limited resources to regain them. If the health and defence system was less attrition-focused, it wouldn't be such a problem.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy this being a big "restriction" on "casters" in general, rather on "whichever caster has to blow most of their resources on healing" - which was always an issue in 1/2/3E (unless one went the wand of CLW route). It was also why Cleric was an unpopular class (IME). 1 spell/encounter minimum at higher levels, for, say, a Wizard, who has 15+AR spells/day at L10 doesn't seem very onerous.

Yeah, but how long of real time (months or even over a year) does it take to get a wizard to level 10 in most groups?

If you had read the "did you get to level 20" thread, a lot of groups do not get that high level. Level 12 or 14 seems to be the max in many cases before life or boredom or whatever interferes and that's for the longest campaigns at each table listed on that thread, not the many many shorter ones that happen all of the time.

It's not high levels where the squeeze occurs, it's single digit levels.

It's sloughing through the mud of not being able to cast even one non-cantrip spell every single encounter because of the desire/need for mage armor and/or utility spells and/or conserving spells, and when the PC finally gets to the point where he can reliably cast two spells per encounter, the campaign often ends.

And, it's doubly difficult for the divine pure spell casters because of party healing expectations.


But think about it for a moment. Even at 10th level like you mentioned, 1 spell per encounter is easily possible. But how about 2? That's a bit less likely due to other demands. For example, the dungeon is far away. The party decides to travel there, and then grab an associated object from that location at the end of the first day, and then teleport home. They then teleport back in the next day. That's two teleports (5th level spells) per day each day they do this. Sure, the wizard gives the party the capability to do this, but at the cost of 2 of his 3 potential highest level spells. Safe, but costly. While there, they need a Comprehend Languages or some spell to get them past a hazard. Or they get into a really long difficult fight that takes up 4 spells. Suddenly, 2 spells per encounter starts becoming a little less frequent.

How about 3 spells per encounter? Those are nearly impossible to consistently achieve at 10th level.

And most of the spells are low level ones that hardly affect foes. A first level Burning Hands? White noise at level 10 most of the time. A first level Sleep? It doesn't even affect 6 HD foes usually, let alone 10 HD foes. Magic Missile? Seriously? Against 10 HD foes?

So yeah, you can claim that they have 15+ spells, but most of the lower level ones go from being combat spells to low utility spells. 1st and 2nd level spells, about 40% of the 10th level spells, are pretty darn weak compared to the competition.

So, the wizard against 10+ HD foes at level 10 is still firing off a boatload of his dinky cantrips (that take 10 to 15 rounds to take out a foe) or his light crossbow (ohh, 8 to 12 rounds) and even once in a while, he can be brave and cast Magic Missile for 10 points of damage or Scorching Ray for a possible 7 points of damage to 3 foes. Woo Hoo!!!

Sorry, but the boredom factor for players of single digit level spell casters can be quiet high, and not just for the divine casters. They either nova and accomplish quite a bit with their highest level spells, or they do double or so the damage of a cantrip burning off low levels spells, or they dink a foe.

And it takes the player 6 to 18 months of real time to get to the point where his PC can reallly contribute once per encounter. zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[KarinsDad]

PS. On my last post, this is why we are seeing wands and staves show up in the recent adventures. Without wands and staves for all kinds of casters, the game is limited to 3-4 encounters per day. Spell casters need to be able to throw out a few extra fireballs, or heal a few more times per day, or whatever to allow for more encounters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry, but the boredom factor for players of single digit level spell casters can be quiet high, and not just for the divine casters. They either nova and accomplish quite a bit with their highest level spells, or they do double or so the damage of a cantrip burning off low levels spells, or they dink a foe.

So rounds where you're reduced to just making an attack roll are high-boredom? At least the caster gets the occasional break from that boredom when he expends a slot. ;P

PS. On my last post, this is why we are seeing wands and staves show up in the recent adventures. Without wands and staves for all kinds of casters, the game is limited to 3-4 encounters per day. Spell casters need to be able to throw out a few extra fireballs, or heal a few more times per day, or whatever to allow for more encounters.

I'd be surprised if Mr Mearls failed so hard at designing the game to 'not need' magic items that it became necessary for the freelancers writing the adventures to 'fix' the game by throwing extra magic items at casters. The 6-8 encounters (likely with 2 short rests in there) the guidelines call out are persumably where the game is meant to strike a balance among classes with different resource mixes and provide the most playable/best experience. One factor in that is obviously limiting the number of rounds (at at very low levels, encounters) in which casters do something other than cast cantrips that are weaker than the mundane attacks non-casters perforce make every round of every combat.

It's up to the DM to make that happen, though, because the impetus to rest for lack of healing, out of simple caution after seeing how fragile their characters are at first, and out of boredom for lack of spells enough to cast every round, is going to be pretty strong on the player side.

 

[KarinsDad]

So rounds where you're reduced to just making an attack roll are high-boredom? At least the caster gets the occasional break from that boredom when he expends a slot. ;P

Tell that to the Eldritch Knight or the Battle Master or the Arcane Trickster.


It's boring if one is doing dinky damage. It's not the attack roll, it's the damage. The high level fighter is still wiping foes every round or two. He's contributing.

Simple math. 16.5 points of damage for the successful Firebolt spell (13.5 for Ray of Frost or Sacred Flame) against the 60 hit point 10 HD monster versus three or more attacks by the 11th or higher level fighter doing 13 points of damage per successful hit (or one successful hit by the rogue doing 24 or more damage). The one PC does about 25% of the damage and the other PC does almost 50%.

Yes, one is a bit boring compared to the other.

And yes, the spellcaster does get to shine at times, but it really is feast or famine, especially in the 6-8 encounter model.

A 11th level spellcaster throws out the second level Scorching Ray and the 11th level fighter or rogue still does more damage overall. His lower level spells are slightly better than cantrips, but still pretty lame and a bit boring. Wow. Three foes at 11th level took 7 damage each if he makes all three attack rolls. Great against 1 HD Kobolds. Against anything that is even a tiny bit of a challenge (say 5 or 6 HD), not so much.

I'd be surprised if Mr Mearls failed so hard at designing the game to 'not need' magic items that it became necessary for the freelancers writing the adventures to 'fix' the game by throwing extra magic items at casters. The 6-8 encounters (likely with 2 short rests in there) the guidelines call out are persumably where the game is meant to strike a balance among classes with different resource mixes and provide the most playable/best experience. One factor in that is obviously limiting the number of rounds (at at very low levels, encounters) in which casters do something other than cast cantrips that are weaker than the mundane attacks non-casters perforce make every round of every combat.

In 5E at least at low levels, many of the foes are one or two shot cardboard cutouts. Minions (or tough minions, i.e. 2 shot foes). That means in order to maintain that model, PCs have to be constantly fighting lower level challenges. The moment multiple encounters take 3 or more shots to take out each foe and the party is faced with as many foes as they themselves have, then the 6-8 encounters idea flies out the window because the casters cannot keep up, both with healing and with spells. Sure, the PCs will often win those types of fights, but they will use up so many resources doing so that the number of encounters per adventuring day just got seriously restricted.


And an ambush by a worthwhile foe or foes will drop the number of encounters by one right off the bat. It doesn't matter if healing comes from HD or spells or potions or whatever, resources are resources.

PS. I suspect that a lot of players will stock up on tons of healing potions in 5E.


Edit: fixed math.

 

[Dausuul]

But think about it for a moment. Even at 10th level like you mentioned, 1 spell per encounter is easily possible. But how about 2? That's a bit less likely due to other demands. For example, the dungeon is far away. The party decides to travel there, and then grab an associated object from that location at the end of the first day, and then teleport home. They then teleport back in the next day. That's two teleports (5th level spells) per day each day they do this.

Teleport is 7th level now. You have to be 15th level to do this at all, and even then you're blowing your two highest-level slots on commuting; an absurd waste of your few "uber-spell" (level 6+) slots.

I suppose you could use teleportation circle to get home, but you still need the full teleport to get back. This is a pretty good example of how stuff you'd take for granted in earlier editions is just not feasible any more. If the dungeon is far from home, you set up a base camp.

Simple math. 5.5 points of damage for the successful Firebolt spell against the 60 hit point 10 HD monster versus three or more attacks by the 11th or higher level fighter doing 13 points of damage per successful hit (or one successful hit by the rogue doing 24 or more damage). The one PC does less than 10% of the damage and the other PC does almost 50%.

Your math is wrong. An 11th-level wizard deals 16.5 with a successful firebolt. Still far short of what the fighter is laying down, but nowhere near as bad as you make it out. The ratio of cantrip damage to fighter attack damage remains about the same across the level range.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your math is wrong. An 11th-level wizard deals 16.5 with a successful firebolt. Still far short of what the fighter is laying down, but nowhere near as bad as you make it out. The ratio of cantrip damage to fighter attack damage remains about the same across the level range.

Good point. Forgot about the boosts.

Actually, cantrips fall behind a little since Fighters boost their Str to 20 and magical weapons can improve them. But then again, that's why spellcasters have other spells.

Still, your point is valid.

Your post also reminds me that I have to let the Cleric player in my group know to take Sacred Flame. At level 5, 11, and 17, her mace just isn't going to cut it. Thanks.

 

[Remathilis]

EDIT: Dasuul Way of Shadow'd me.