D&D 5E In Defense of the Lore Wizard

[raleel]

The save-swap is insanely good, but restricted by being a 1/rest thing. But it's still insanely good.

If I were going to do this, I'd probably nerf it to "the first save changes type". So you can make Hold Person with *one* str save, or dex save, or whatever, increasing your initial chances, but it reverts for any future saves. This is a big deal for continuing-effect spells with saves every round.

I think that is a fair change. It is in line with the parts where it is clear certain spells were not considered (AOE + 2d10, etc)

 

[Quartz]

The save-swap is insanely good, but restricted by being a 1/rest thing. But it's still insanely good.

If I were going to do this, I'd probably nerf it to "the first save changes type".

How about making it the first save roll? So that a Fighter with Indomitable can re-roll with the normal save type. But it's still going to suck for classes that have no re-roll ability. Feeblemind was mentioned earlier, for instance.

 

[raleel]

How about making it the first save roll? So that a Fighter with Indomitable can re-roll with the normal save type. But it's still going to suck for classes that have no re-roll ability. Feeblemind was mentioned earlier, for instance.

I also think that's pretty reasonable.

edit: however, I think per creature struck. So if you are making INT fireballs, everyone gets INT once.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I guarantee this will never see play at my table as is, and I'm incredibly permissive. Expertise on all lore checks isnt a ribbon, the fact that people are thinking it is one just shows how grossly overpowered the other features are! It lets a class that can already go nova nova even harder, further destroying the balance on low combat days (which occur frequently and naturally unless you play exclusively in dungeoncrawl mode). It removes planning from a class whose main limitation was needing to prepare, and breaks the damage curve on spells (fire spells deals more damage BECAUSE it its more resisted).

I already viewed sorcerer's as weaker, one dimensional wizards, but this makes them a joke in comparison. I dont think the nerf hammer is enough for this... might need the nerf bazooka!

 

[cbwjm]

I guarantee this will never see play at my table as is, and I'm incredibly permissive. Expertise on all lore checks isnt a ribbon, the fact that people are thinking it is one just shows how grossly overpowered the other features are! It lets a class that can already go nova nova even harder, further destroying the balance on low combat days (which occur frequently and naturally unless you play exclusively in dungeoncrawl mode). It removes planning from a class whose main limitation was needing to prepare, and breaks the damage curve on spells (fire spells deals more damage BECAUSE it its more resisted).

I already viewed sorcerer's as weaker, one dimensional wizards, but this makes them a joke in comparison. I dont think the nerf hammer is enough for this... might need the nerf bazooka!

Fire spells don't actually deal more damage than others. So many comparisons show that they actually deal a similar amount. Fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold cast at 5th level all deal similar damage with cone of cold dealing slightly more. Burning hands deals the same damage as magic missiles and, if cast at 2nd level, shatter. Compare it with thunderwave and it deals a little more damage but this is offset by thunderwave having an additional push effect.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fire spells don't actually deal more damage than others. So many comparisons show that they actually deal a similar amount. Fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold cast at 5th level all deal similar damage with cone of cold dealing slightly more. Burning hands deals the same damage as magic missiles and, if cast at 2nd level, shatter. Compare it with thunderwave and it deals a little more damage but this is offset by thunderwave having an additional push effect.

The comparisons I remembered were that the fire spells did more. Well it was mostly iconic spells, but there were more fire spells that were iconic than other kinds...

 

[Lanliss]

The comparisons I remembered were that the fire spells did more. Well it was mostly iconic spells, but there were more fire spells that were iconic than other kinds...

The quote I remember reading only mentioned Lightning bolt and Fireball, rather than spells using particular elements.

 

[cbwjm]

The comparisons I remembered were that the fire spells did more. Well it was mostly iconic spells, but there were more fire spells that were iconic than other kinds...

If you look through them though and compare the damage spells, it shows that they don't. Spells generally only seem to do less than fire if they have some sort of additional effect such as ray of frost only dealing a base d8 damage with a slow effect compared with firebolt which deals d10 but doesn't do anything else significant.

Some of the spells even surpass fire in damage when levelled up. For instance, thunderwave eventually pulls ahead of burning hands in damage after a couple of levels.

Edit: I've become too used to using the app on my phone. I had this page open on my PC and still used my phone to post my response.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you look through them though and compare the damage spells, it shows that they don't. Spells generally only seem to do less than fire if they have some sort of additional effect such as ray of frost only dealing a base d8 damage with a slow effect compared with firebolt which deals d10 but doesn't do anything else significant.

Some of the spells even surpass fire in damage when levelled up. For instance, thunderwave eventually pulls ahead of burning hands in damage after a couple of levels.

(Why would anyone cast burning hands at level 3 when they could cast fireball at level 3????) So why even compare a level 3 burning hands with a level 3 thunderwave? ...very unrealistic comparison there.....

I tried to pick aoe spells or single target spells at each level.

Level 1
Burning hands = 3d6 (10.5)
Thunderwave = 2d8 (9)

Level 2
Scorching Ray = 6d6 (21)
Melf's Acid Arrow = 6d4 (15)

Level 3
Fireball 8d6 (28)
**Really no AOE spell to compare this with at this level

Level 4
Icestorm 6d8 (27)
*a level higher and lower damage than fireball

Level 5
Cone of Cold 8d8 (36)

We could go on but the point is that fire spells just do more damage at comparable levels for when you get them and other similar spells. There may be other affects involved or whatever, but fire spells just tend to do more damage.

 

[raleel]

Scorching ray does more because it does no damage on a miss. Melf's does half of the first round damage. According to the DMG spell creation rules, those are actually equal. Have a 50% save in there and they are within a point.

Thunderwave does all of one point less on average and as a push.

Erupting earth, from EE, does a lower average at start, has an additional effect, and scales better than fireball, even over taking it.
Ice storm also creates secondary effects, and also scales better, though not quite enough I think to overtake fireball.

Immolation is comparable to cone of cold, at 10d6 (2 round) for an average of 35. Cone of cold, however, affects a truly stupidly large area in comparison to immolation incredibly bad ongoing + save + single target+ concentration. 5th level fireball also averages 35.

The amount of damage difference with fire is really quite insignificant. Certainly not enough to hang a "fire is resisted more" argument on.