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

[pemerton]

If a caster blows their highest slot in a good way, most medium encounters become easy.

So each caster who burns half their high slots well and half of them on utility or inefficiently on damage/control, each caster downgrades 2 fights a day.

If a caster burns all their good slots in combat well, a caster downgrades 4 fights. That's half your adventuring day.

Interesting analysis. Is this a reason to think that casters are balanced, or overpowered? In the other half of the adventuring day do the martial PCs play the dominant role?

 

[Quickleaf]

The Battlemaster is so egregiously nerfed for something that's supposed to be standing in for the 4e fighter, and the 3e fighter's tactical builds, and the Warlord that it's really not a fit topic of conversation outside the 'rage-quit rants' thread.

The sub-class honestly feels like a joke, especially with the way it's bandied about as the 'complex' and 'customizable' option.

It would be interesting to see a caster class built like the Battlemaster Fighter, and a fighter class built like the Sorcerer or Warlock. Certainly would turn things on their head!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

I think this is all a bit off, frankly.

I recently appraised of the phrase "special pleading", and it seems like it applies really, really well to what you're posting here - specifically you have a massive double-standard in which a caster firing off a cantrip or using a moderately effective weapon is "zzzzzzzzzzzzz" and "boring", but apparently a non-caster making a similar contribution, only with possibly a higher damage number is somehow having a great time.

Most other stuff seems a bit dodgy too. You seemingly ignore the utility of utility cantrips, you seem to think casting utility spells is merely some sort of onerous chore, preventing you from casting REAL spells (i.e. combat spells), rather than something that most people think is awesome, you ignore most of the class/subclass features of casters (seemingly), and most strangely of all, you seem to wildly overestimating how long 5E combats against normal (i.e. not legendary) opponents last, which seems, from what I've gathered, to be more like 1-4 rounds, rather than 10-15. You complain that "3 spells per encounter is unobtainable!", but how many encounters will even last 3 rounds? If they do, how many will have those rounds beyond 3 as anything but "mop up"? Especially if you open with some sort of nasty spell. Not many, I'd imagine.

With Teleport, it's a 7th level spell, but perhaps you mean Teleportation Circle, the 5th level one? I seriously doubt any normal party will have an expectation of you casting that twice a day. If they do, it's a huge deal, and they will certainly think it's important, as, presumably, will you, rather than seeing it as a "waste" or "zzzzzzzzzzz".

You dismiss Burning Hands, I note, but it does 3d6 damage (so avg. 10.5) in a 15' cone, which, even at 10th level, is likely to be a spell worth casting on grouped enemies. You keep talking about "10HD" and so on - but PCs at 10th level aren't consistently facing 10HD monsters - they'll often be facing larger numbers of much lower HD monsters.

And on top of this, you're basing all your assumptions on a 6-8 medium or hard COMBAT encounter a day structure, which, frankly, seems very unlikely to be what we actually see in the DMG, and I believe is not reflective of current WotC 5E adventures (I don't own any, so people who do feel free to correct me, but the impression I have got from threads, reviews, and so on is that whilst you may be looking at that number of encounters a day, not all are combat, and not all are medium+).
[MENTION=6778261]Morty[/MENTION] - Yep. They were actually okay until very late in the Playtest, too, because you used to be able to refresh them in combat, and would be guaranteed to start a combat with them. Then, after the playtest had finished, and with no public feedback to let them know it was a dumb idea, they suddenly made them short-rest only, which means that, unless we're using the (supposed) DMG option to make short rests actually short, instead of lunch breaks, they're unlikely to be able to be used much.

It's really sad and kind of odd how much they put the boot in on Martial characters after the Playtest finished.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But look at a medium encounter. If a caster blows their highest slot in a good way, most medium encounters become easy.

Lets not give the caster extra credit, here -- this is EXTREMELY encounter-dependent. Magic resistance, wonky spell choice, targeting good saves, loss aversion, character concept, movement space...you could have an encounter with 8 goblins bunched up in a 10x10 room and it would go a lot different than an encounter with a single imp who used hit-and-run tactics in a huge cave.

Caster's gonna rock at the former, but be reduced to magic missile and then crying in the latter (while our rogue or our fighter are going to basically be one-and-done for their attack rolls).

 

[Minigiant]

Interesting analysis. Is this a reason to think that casters are balanced, or overpowered? In the other half of the adventuring day do the martial PCs play the dominant role?

It shows balance

I said a caster downgrades half the they if ALL 4 big spells work in great situations.

The average is only 2 times.

Casters get 3-5 big spells a day.

Lets not give the caster extra credit, here -- this is EXTREMELY encounter-dependent. Magic resistance, wonky spell choice, targeting good saves, loss aversion, character concept, movement space...you could have an encounter with 8 goblins bunched up in a 10x10 room and it would go a lot different than an encounter with a single imp who used hit-and-run tactics in a huge cave.

Caster's gonna rock at the former, but be reduced to magic missile and then crying in the latter (while our rogue or our fighter are going to basically be one-and-done for their attack rolls).

That's why I had the average is 2 downgraded encounters in a 6-8 encounter day. That's for an arcanist.

Clerics and druids are even more situational so they get less.

So a party of fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric at level 5 can get usually 3 downgraded encounters from the casters in a 6-8 medium encounter adventuring day. If they are VERY VERY LUCKY then between the 2 casters they can diminish every encounter. If they are VERY UNLUCKY they downgrade none and don't even finish as they die or burn out early.

 

[Pickles JG]

It would be interesting to see a caster class built like the Battlemaster Fighter, and a fighter class built like the Sorcerer or Warlock. Certainly would turn things on their head!

The Ranger is very similar to the Warlock with daily refresh on his spells instead of encounter (er long short rest) - he is more castery.

In fact I think they may have lowered the Warlock to the level of the Martial classes - spamming his basic attack Eldritch blast & very scarce "short rest" spells.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing i will say, most of my adventure arcs aren't 8 encounters, let alone per day!!

Now that said I know 5e is supposed to run a lot faster so maybe my encounters will increase...but i think it would be more like 6 encounters on the outside not 8

 

[Pickles JG]

Maybe, like with the slots, not in every case enough, but when you see a spell like Polymorph and your reaction is "Meh...", I think 5e is doing a really good job in putting the kibosh on some of the most infamous spells from previous e's.

Interestingly I am pretty sure Polymorph is completely broken.

As a crowd control spell it is one of few that do not allow repeated saves to break it & it lasts an hour. It does not allow you to kill the taget while it is up but will break up tough fights or buy a lot of time.

As a buff spell it lets you turn into a Beast with CR <= your current CR or your level. As PCs have no formal CR they use their level which is approximaetly triple their CR (eyeballing monsters- very conservatively it mught be half their CR). At level 7 you can turn into a Giant Ape with 150 free HP & double the damage output of a fighter (terrible AC but there is Mage Armour to help a bit).

At Level 8 you can have reisilient on saves & War caster so you will rarely lose concentration. You may be a bit of a drain on healing if anyone botghered to heal you but essentially you turn your level 4 slot into a 150 point heal anyway so why bother?

A level 7 sorcerer can cast this 5 times a day burning all his slots but probably will not need to.

At level 10 or so it's effectively unlimited.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this is all a bit off, frankly.

I recently appraised of the phrase "special pleading", and it seems like it applies really, really well to what you're posting here - specifically you have a massive double-standard in which a caster firing off a cantrip or using a moderately effective weapon is "zzzzzzzzzzzzz" and "boring", but apparently a non-caster making a similar contribution, only with possibly a higher damage number is somehow having a great time.

Most other stuff seems a bit dodgy too. You seemingly ignore the utility of utility cantrips, you seem to think casting utility spells is merely some sort of onerous chore, preventing you from casting REAL spells (i.e. combat spells), rather than something that most people think is awesome, you ignore most of the class/subclass features of casters (seemingly), and most strangely of all, you seem to wildly overestimating how long 5E combats against normal (i.e. not legendary) opponents last, which seems, from what I've gathered, to be more like 1-4 rounds, rather than 10-15. You complain that "3 spells per encounter is unobtainable!", but how many encounters will even last 3 rounds? If they do, how many will have those rounds beyond 3 as anything but "mop up"? Especially if you open with some sort of nasty spell. Not many, I'd imagine.

With Teleport, it's a 7th level spell, but perhaps you mean Teleportation Circle, the 5th level one? I seriously doubt any normal party will have an expectation of you casting that twice a day. If they do, it's a huge deal, and they will certainly think it's important, as, presumably, will you, rather than seeing it as a "waste" or "zzzzzzzzzzz".

You dismiss Burning Hands, I note, but it does 3d6 damage (so avg. 10.5) in a 15' cone, which, even at 10th level, is likely to be a spell worth casting on grouped enemies. You keep talking about "10HD" and so on - but PCs at 10th level aren't consistently facing 10HD monsters - they'll often be facing larger numbers of much lower HD monsters.

And on top of this, you're basing all your assumptions on a 6-8 medium or hard COMBAT encounter a day structure, which, frankly, seems very unlikely to be what we actually see in the DMG, and I believe is not reflective of current WotC 5E adventures (I don't own any, so people who do feel free to correct me, but the impression I have got from threads, reviews, and so on is that whilst you may be looking at that number of encounters a day, not all are combat, and not all are medium+).

Err, yes I am basing it off 6-8 medium or hard combat encounters a day. From the "Building COMBAT Encounters" section of the DMG:

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, then the party can get through more; if it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

If the section on Building Combat Encounters states 6-8 medium or hard encounters in the DMG, I assume that this is what they are talking about. So yes, my discussion is only on combat (and not on using cantrips out of combat). I also assume that the guideline means half medium and half hard encounters each day.

At first level, a medium encounter is 50 XP per PC. A hard encounter is 75 XP per PC.

So, a 5 PC group should be able to handle 3 to 4 encounters of 250 XP and 3 to 4 encounters of 375 XP.

That's 3 to 4 encounters with 5 Goblins (one hit foes for most PCs, but nastier than on paper if they are not out in the open and can use their abilities for hit and hide tactics). Alternatively, that could be 5 Giant Poisonous Snakes (11 HP, AC 14, +6 to hit, D4+4 plus 3D10 failed save, half made save), sometimes one round (2 handed hits, or 2 wpn, both hits) foes for the martial types. Ditto for a lot of other 50 XP foes like Giant Wolf Spider.

And that's 3 to 4 encounters with 2 Hobgoblins (Hobgoblins can sometimes hit hard for an average of 12 damage) and 3 Goblins (or 3 Hobgoblins and 1 Goblin), or 3 Gnolls (Gnolls do not hit as hard as Hobtgoblins, but they have twice as many hit points at 22, so they are more durable, 2 rounds of martial successful hits each, 4 or 5 cantrips to take one down) and 1 Goblin.

Btw, 3 Cocktrices (27 hit points each) is a 300 XP fight where one failed save restrains and two failed saves petrifies a PC for 24 hours. Granted, they are easy to hit and have a hard chance of hitting back, but some unlucky rolls and this one (semi-medium, semi-hard) encounter by itself prevents even one more encounter from occurring. In this particular case, sure, a wizard could do sleep or burning hands, but 3 small little creatures, he might not know early on that he should be doing this.

Sure, we are talking foes that have a 35% to 45% chance of hitting many front line PCs (and higher against squishier PCs), but even so, that's maybe ~2 hits the first round, ~1 hit the second round, and 0 hits the last round for medium encounters and one more hit for hard encounters (since the hard encounter monsters have more hit points, they last longer). 3 hits per encounter * 3 - 4 encounters * 5 points of damage per hit plus 4 hits per encounter * 3 - 4 encounters * 8 points of damage per hit (tougher monsters either get more attacks per round, or hit harder) = 141 to 188 hit points / 5 PCs = 28 to 38 hit points per PC. Every PC goes down about 3 to 4 times (hit point dependent) and every PC gets healed back up full.

PCs just do not have these kind of resources. Most groups can heal back up ~50% of total group hit points (maybe 25) via HD in short rests plus maybe 15 to 20 via a Cleric, 40 by a Bard (15 plus 9D6, assuming a Cleric or Druid in the party healing only during short rests) plus maybe a Fighter 25 (5D10, 4 short rests). That's 105 to 110 assuming that they have two healers, one of them being a bard and that they have a fighter. They cannot even handle 6-8 medium encounters (assuming the DM plays the NPCs reasonably).

141 to 188 damage. 105-110 healing (80-85 without a Bard or a Fighter, 55-60 with neither a Bard or Fighter). Sounds like a TPK. Especially since PCs have to survive the damage in order to get the Bard healing.

This assumes that there are two healers in the group who never use their spells for anything but Cure Wounds.

This assumes encounters where there are not more hits.

With an NPC ambush, these numbers blow up more. With the squishy PCs getting attacked during a few encounters, these numbers blow up more. With lucky NPC criticals, these number blow up more.

Granted, with a PC ambush, these numbers decrease. With lucky novas or PC criticals, these numbers decrease.

Sure, PCs get more hit points and abilities at higher levels. We'll have to see how that works. But if it seems off at level one, then it might be off at higher levels too.

Regardless, your comments on 6-8 encounters do not seem supportable. It's WotC's guideline. Although I think it is unsupportable based off party resources, I do think that it is the baseline for where discussion has to start.


Also, on the Burning Hands question, I'm not seeing it. Burning Hands is 15 feet away, 15 feet wide at the end. If 4E illustrated anything, it's typically difficult to get more than 2 NPCs bunched up in a blast. 4E solved it by having a lot of multisquare pushes and slides. 5E does not have that. On a grid, 4E blasts were 9 squares. On a grid, 5E cones are 6 squares (i.e. 1 square 5 feet away, 2 squares 10 feet away, 3 squares 15 feet away). So the odds of 3 NPCs being in those 6 squares tends to be limited. DMs might group enemies around a PC and swarm him, but only Evokers can really use Burning Hands well in that situation and get 3 foes. Other casters would typically get 2 foes on average (because they would rarely use it on 1 or 3 and would save it for 2).

2 NPCs. 40% chance to save each with +0 to save. 36% chance of 20 damage, 48% chance of 15 damage, 16% chance of 10 damage. The most likely outcome is one saves and one fails basically half of the time. These odds shift against foes with +1 or more to their save (like Goblins 25/50/25 and Hobgoblins 30/50/20). So, one dead and one wounded for Goblins. Compared to the martial types who often have one dead in the same timeframe.

Sorry, not seeing where Burning Hands is all that great. It's about 50% more damage than a non-shield melee type can do whereas Firebolt is about 50% of the damage a non-shield melee type can do. Burning Hands gets worse as the caster levels up. Btw, I suspect that a lot of players of melee PCs will forego shields. 5E is a game where offense trumps defense. 30% to 40% more damage every hit trumps 10% better change to get missed.


With regard to 10 HD creatures, I agree with you. A single Hill Giant is 10 HD. It's considered a hard encounter for level 10 PCs. It would be lucky to survive two full rounds with 10 PC turns (14 to 16 attacks class depending) against it. It might hit the PCs twice for a total of 40 points of damage against PCs that have 50 to 100 hit points each. It's more of an annoyance and slight party resource hog than a hard encounter. 4 Griffons with the same XP, on the other hand, do half of the Hill Giant's damage per round, but with more than twice as many hit points is an encounter that will do more. They'll hit maybe 10 times for about 100 damage and it will probably take at least 3 rounds and maybe 4 to take them out.



Btw, you misinterpreted me. I think that the vast majority of 5E encounters will be 2-4 rounds. One round will very rarely occur. 3 rounds should be the norm (sometimes 2, sometimes 4). As an example, if the PCs surprise their foes in a surprise round, then all of the PCs attack. Some of those PCs will miss and because it is a surprise round, most casters will be saving spells until they see the outcome. Typically, some foes will die, some will still be alive for round one. I seriously doubt that one round will be frequent. An occasional large AoE could result in a single round once in a while.


I'll also point out that your "special pleading" comment was not supported by the rest of that paragraph. Show me where I ignored something pertinent concerning PCs who do 50% of monster damage per hit vs. PCs who do 25% of monster damage per hit and how for some people, doing significantly less damage might be considered boring. If pinging the foes is exciting to you, great. It's not for some other people and not a double standard. The vast majority of players do not play the game to be partially ineffective round after round, encounter after encounter. You might think that is enjoyable, but there are many people who might get bored being the 5th wheel a lot (at first level in a 6-8 encounter day, 3-5 or 4-6 of those encounters without a non-cantrip spell, class depending).


My personal take is that most adventuring will be 4 - 5 medium or hard encounters at tier one and that will climb by one encounter per tier as PCs get more resources, especially (heaven forbid) magic items.

Btw, I am also concerned about the fact that 2 of the 3 major saves (2 of the 3 minor saves) at high level do not have a proficiency bonus for most PCs. High level fights, not even including legendary, might be pretty nasty when a PC fails a save 4 rounds in a row, especially if that is a PC that does most of the party buffs or dispels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

PCs just do not have these kind of resources. Most groups can heal back up ~50% of total group hit points (maybe 25) via HD in short rests plus maybe 15 to 20 via a Cleric, 40 by a Bard (15 plus 9D6, assuming a Cleric or Druid in the party healing only during short rests) plus maybe a Fighter 25 (5D10, 4 short rests). That's 105 to 110 assuming that they have two healers, one of them being a bard and that they have a fighter. They cannot even handle 6-8 medium encounters (assuming the DM plays the NPCs reasonably).

141 to 188 damage. 105-110 healing (80-85 without a Bard or a Fighter, 55-60 with neither a Bard or Fighter). Sounds like a TPK. Especially since PCs have to survive the damage in order to get the Bard healing.

This assumes that there are two healers in the group who never use their spells for anything but Cure Wounds.

Nod. The 6-8 encounter guideline /is/ intended to balance casters and non-casters. Casters now have at-wills that are pretty decent, so it takes a lot of rounds of casters falling back on cantrips to balance out the few rounds they spend casting spells. Frankly, I'm not convinced 6-8 will remain sufficient into double-digit levels, but, if your point is that there's not enough healing to see a party through that many encounters, the 'solution' should probably be more HD, not more spells, because HD are only used for healing, while spells can be used for anything.

Sure, PCs get more hit points and abilities at higher levels. We'll have to see how that works. But if it seems off at level one, then it might be off at higher levels too.

Level 1 /is/ probably off - for the sake of tradition - you're also not level one for very long. Maybe you could try your analysis at level 5?

Also, on the Burning Hands question, I'm not seeing it. Burning Hands is 15 feet away, 15 feet wide at the end. If 4E illustrated anything, it's typically difficult to get more than 2 NPCs bunched up in a blast.

4e illustrated a /lot/ of things (for instance, that you could balance martial classes and casters), but that wasn't one of them. How many foes you can catch in an are depends on the circumstances of the battle and the size and tactics of the foes. Frankly, in TotM, it also depends on the DM's approach. Some DMs may be a lot more generous than others. You might get anything from, "sure, you can hit all 5 orcs" to "you can't possibly cast that spell without hitting your allies."

Btw, you misinterpreted me. I think that the vast majority of 5E encounters will be 2-4 rounds. One round will very rarely occur. 3 rounds should be the norm (sometimes 2, sometimes 4).

One-round encounters (where we didn't even get to the bottom of the initiative order) happened in the playtest. Encounters could, conversely, go long if a PC or two dropped or was otherwise shut down early.

Show me where I ignored something pertinent concerning PCs who do 50% of monster damage per hit vs. PCs who do 25% of monster damage per hit and how for some people, doing significantly less damage might be considered boring. If pinging the foes is exciting to you, great. It's not for some other people and not a double standard.

What you're missing is that what you're lamenting as 'boring' for the casters, because they're stuck doing it /some of the time/, is what non-casters do /all the time/.

Btw, I am also concerned about the fact that 2 of the 3 major saves (2 of the 3 minor saves) at high level do not have a proficiency bonus for most PCs.

That is another serious issue. In AD&D, there were six save categories, with some classes better at some than others, but /all/ saves improved with level (and, the fighter's improved fastest, giving him, overall, the best saves at high level). In 3e, 'poor' saves were /really/ poor, and the same is true in 5e. (Even in 4e, you had to pay a lot of feat taxes to keep one or two of your non-AC defenses from falling behind.)

It would be interesting to see a caster class built like the Battlemaster Fighter, and a fighter class built like the Sorcerer or Warlock. Certainly would turn things on their head!

I don't think they could have done that - put a martial class and a full caster class on the same standard in any sense - without provoking another edition war. There were a lot of things contributing to the edition war, but many of them did revolve around objections to the martial & magical classes being at all balanced.

The Warlock and Battlemaster already have fairly similar structures. Both are primarily short-rest-recharge on their features. The Warlock also gets high-level dailies, and the Battlemaster multiple attacks.