D&D 5E 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy

[DaveDash]

Mostly at low to mid levels via Conjures. Is there cool things that they can do that Wizards cannot at higher levels (other than Earthquake or Tsunami which Wizards can technically cast with Wish)?

Druids get some really nice battlefield control spells, and their spell list seems more tailored to it. For example, Moonbeam is a great little spell to use in Dungeons, very effective at controlling the battlefield, and the damage scales really well. Higher levels casting it as a 3rd-4th level spell is extremely efficient use of resources, because you're doing 4d10 damage per round (half on a save), and forcing things to move around, blocking doorways, or frying up unintelligent creatures like oozes who just move on through it.
It's better than wall of fire because you can move it around once you cast it and it does radiant damage.

There's heaps of examples like that in the Druid spell list.

Not to say Wizards can't do battlefield control - they can - but Druids get some really nice picks.

 

[Quartz]

Here's an experiment for those toying with high-level characters: make one up (max stat 16 after racial bonuses) and take only feats and see how competitive it is.

 

[DaveDash]

Here's an experiment for those toying with high-level characters: make one up (max stat 16 after racial bonuses) and take only feats and see how competitive it is.

One of the guys I play with basically does this already, although he will boost his primary stat to 20. Apart from that he loves being feat heavy.

The difference is I've noticed is his characters tend to be more 'well rounded', albeit they usually suffer on hit points, but he gets good AC and good well rounded utility out of them.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yes I do.

It all comes back to the much earlier discussion on "Wizards suck at low level". But it goes beyond that into higher levels. The entire concentration mechanic pushes arcane casters into roles that players might not enjoy playing as much.

As per your example, casting Foresight on the fighter instead of casting Time Stop or Wish or Meteor Swarm.

Seriously. What a rip! I have one of the most powerful casters in the game and I'm stuck buffing the Fighter with my highest level slot. WT?

Btw, I get the whole "help out the party" deal. I just don't like how shoehorned wizards (and other casters) are into that role (or at least expectations at some tables encourage this). When playing an arcane caster, I do not often want to be a blaster and I do not often want to be a buffer. Once in a while, sure. No big deal. But mostly, I want to do battlefield control (and I want decent defensive/mobility spells if a bunch of monsters get in my face). 5E nerfed battlefield control pretty darn heavily with one spell at a time and saves/checks every round.


One aspect of the game which might alleviate buffing a bit is if casters were able to create scrolls and non-casters were able to cast from them (abet with potential side effects). The fighter could then scroll cast Fly on himself.


Btw, the "allow multiple concentration spells" has not heavily influenced my game yet. Granted, we are only at level 6, but the most concentration spells anyone has ever cast by a single PC is 2 at a time and this was hardly game breaking (Shield of Faith with Spirit Guardians by the Cleric). I suspect that after nearly 40 years of not having a concentration mechanic at all, D&D survives quite well with one that merely loses spells and does not have super nerf limits on it. IMO. If it gets to be a problem at higher level (which I suspect it won't), I'll probably limit it to 2. So far, though, it has not been an issue. But I've talked with my players and they really enjoy the ability to cast whatever they want, when they want and not have this artificial albatross handcuffing them.

The caster decides his spells. If you dont want to buff.... dont. Every martial should have a ranged attack after all. Relying on the wizard to make you fly is a big mistake.

I agree however that only being able to concentrate on one spell is probably too restrictive. I would be inclined to make a feat to solve that issue. Concentrate on as many spells as you have stat bonus or something, but you still have to make checks if you take damage, athough maybe at a small bonus. Done.

 

[spinozajack]

I agree there will be no errata.

Because the game is like totally perfect and only has a couple unclear passages to fix and that's it

When I heard they weren't going to issue any functional errata I thought to myself, ok here is a big blunder. They went completely the opposite direction from 4e which had monthly errata that were so disruptive to campaigns that relied on the builder and so had no choice but to stay at the bleeding edge. But now, they've gone in the complete opposite direction of no errata.

Probably a testament to the quality of the Seattle Hafling Leaf they got up there.

All they've done here is in effect the same kind of "feat tax" or use player glut to fix other broken stuff. I bet any money there will be a feat to make close range great weapons competitive with polearms again, and then another that will make dual wielding competitive with polearms. Instead of actually fixing the problem and removing the bonus attack from polearm master and making GWM not work with reach weapons. Those two fixes would immediately rebalance the game where feats are concerned.

 

[Quartz]

You and I have already gone back and forth on this. You should at least understand why we cast fly on a martial character built for using GWM. The guy wanted to play a raging fighter with a greatsword. What am I supposed to do as a DM? Tell him not to play his concept because he'll be stuck on the ground all the time requiring a fly spell?

Rather than casting Fly all the time, the party mage could always make Boots of Flying for everyone.

 

[SkidAce]

... I bet any money there will be a feat to make close range great weapons competitive with polearms again, and then another that will make dual wielding competitive with polearms. Instead of actually fixing the problem and removing the bonus attack from polearm master and making GWM not work with reach weapons. Those two fixes would immediately rebalance the game where feats are concerned.

Give me a time frame for win/lose, and change the bet to cookies (winner chooses type, I like plain Chip's Ahoy) and I'll likely take your bet.

 

[SkidAce]

You and I have already gone back and forth on this. You should at least understand why we cast fly on a martial character built for using GWM. The guy wanted to play a raging fighter with a greatsword. What am I supposed to do as a DM? Tell him not to play his concept because he'll be stuck on the ground all the time requiring a fly spell? We try to work as a group as much as possible. It just isn't smart to leave your martials on the ground while you cast other stuff. Even the paladin was useless without a fly spell. We needed to get them into action. Bless is too good not to cast on as many people as possible. You know this.

Include more monsters that don't fly?

Either in separate encounters, or have multiple types in same encounter. You fighter can go toe to toe with the minotaur while the ranged guys are shooting down the harpies before they get too close.

I have read many of your comments, so I know you are experienced and already know this. So if you have varying type of encounters, that obviates the need for always casting fly on the GWM.

IME, if the party has the same spell combo and attack plan every time, I need to change things up. NOT stealing their glory or taking away from their ingenuity, but maybe their favorite tactics only work 1/3 of the time, based on them driving the story and what they encounter of course.

 

[Dausuul]

Instead of actually fixing the problem and removing the bonus attack from polearm master and making GWM not work with reach weapons. Those two fixes would immediately rebalance the game where feats are concerned.

They still have to deal with Sharpshooter, which is a bigger problem.

I think the proper solution here would be to include functional errata in a very few cases--the really egregious issues--and put a note in the book on everything that's had a functional change. Also publish a list of the functional changes, in such a form that you can print them out and tape them into your existing PHB if you so desire. (This means the layout has to be handled carefully so that the new text takes up the same amount of space as the old.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

The game is repetitive. The concentration mechanic in 5E makes it this way for casters. What are we supposed to do? Let the melee martial stand there doing nothing against a flying enemy while a caster tries to take it out burning all his spell slots? Make every player that wants to play a martial character play a ranged striker? As the caster player in that group, I would have liked to try other spells in combat. I was stuck casting fly on the martial due to the concentration mechanic or he was nearly useless. My options were play selfishly or help the melee martial get into combat so he could do his best damage. At least at later levels my DM gave the bard a magic item that allowed him to concentrate on a second spell allowing him to cast fly and bless, so I could cast some other spells. One thing about Lore Bards is they don't do much damage. Awesome at making a party work better, but not much in the damage casting department. So he was fine buffing the party and hiding from combat, while my evoker did some damage. I was happy with it as well since concentration mechanic was turning me into a one trick pony. I was happy to be able to use animate objects one combat. I tore it up with that spell and my fire bolt.

We have already discussed some of the issues with the concentration mechanic extensively. We both know it needs some work. We disagree how to go about that. I think you eliminated the concentration limit. I feel completely eliminating the concentration limit would wreck game balance in favor of casters. If I remove the concentration mechanic from fly, I get the invisibly, flying wizard headache again. That headache might be worse in 5E given the limited capabilities of enemies in the majority of fights creating the "Caster does things alone" problem from the previous edition.

You and I have already gone back and forth on this. You should at least understand why we cast fly on a martial character built for using GWM. The guy wanted to play a raging fighter with a greatsword. What am I supposed to do as a DM? Tell him not to play his concept because he'll be stuck on the ground all the time requiring a fly spell? We try to work as a group as much as possible. It just isn't smart to leave your martials on the ground while you cast other stuff. Even the paladin was useless without a fly spell. We needed to get them into action. Bless is too good not to cast on as many people as possible. You know this.

Sounds like your player doesn't just want to be the GWF concept, but wants "GWF who can fly", and I'd tell that player that sorry, that concept doesn't really exist in the game unless he wants to multi-class to a caster and get that spell himself. I.e., building a character concept that is dependent on your other players doing exactly what you want is pretty poor form. And a bit selfish.

It's not you being selfish for feeling bad because you have to cast fly on him every combat and not using any of your other spells. It's the other player being selfish. D&D, since day 1, has been a team sport by default. Sometimes your PC will be in a situation where they aren't all that useful and another player gets to shine. Demanding to be the #1 guy all the time is childish and selfish.