D&D 5E Are quadratic spellcasters still a problem?

[Sadrik]

I think wizards need the following adjustments:

1. Saving Throw DCs shouldn't scale with level. Since saving throws don't scale, it's extremely overpowered, to the point of being game-breaking, that save DCs do. Right now, a 20th level wizard with 20 Int has a save DC of 20 for his spells. Even if his target has a 20 in the ability score he is using to make his save, he still only has a 30% chance to save. If the target has an average 10 ability score, he only has a 5% chance to save. This is especially problematic since wizards have spells that target every ability score. This is ridiculously unbalanced.

I agree. This needs to change.

2. Cantrips should scale at the same rate as cleric deadly strike (up to 3[W] damage). They should also require attack rolls against AC instead of saving throws so that they don't "hit" more often that weapon attacks do. This also lets the player roll his at-will attacks and have a chance to crit, which IMO is more fun. I'd also give cantrips +ability modifier to damage, so that they don't totally suck at low levels. These changes also make it so that cantrips never become better than 1st level spells.

To balance cantrips give them spell slots. The unlimited nature of them makes them too good. I understand some people want them to be that good. Archers are obsoleted with cantrips, that should not be the case. I would be ok with not having them scale too. Right now a wizard can get most of his damage out of a cantrip and then use his other slots for utility because they know they have unlimited auto-scaling damage effect on the ready. I would rather have the caster invest more spell slots into basic attacks.

I would also like to see a class feature/feat/spell that grants an unlimited minor attack, but you have to opt into it. All casters should not be unlimited archers.

As to who rolls the dice and which method is more fun. This has been discussed to death in other threads. Fun is a subjective thing. When I play a caster, I dont really care who rolls, so long as I get my effect to happen.

3. Spells that require concentration should require a check to maintain if the caster takes damage.

I do not agree, I like the concentration rules as they are.

4. The overpowered spells need to be fixed. This includes stinking cloud, cloudkill, polymorph, wish, etc.

I agree, damage is too high for continuous damage effects, polymorph should be higher level and wish should be powerful, it just just needs to be mitigated by a dastardly DM and perhaps an INT roll to have your character say it correctly.

5. Some spells need to have their levels changed. For example, why is Fly only 3rd level, when it is a better spell than Air Walk, a 4th level spell? Fly should be 5th level, IMO. Not just because it's better than Air Walk, but also because it's a game-changing ability.

I agree some spells need to be releveled.

 

[Manbearcat]

Its very difficult to argue any point stating that you can achieve parity with Wizards and Warriors at medium and high levels under the D&D paradigm (outside of the edition that shall not be named).

Its simply a matter of logistics.

A Fighter action figure comes with:

- 1 infrantryman with kung-fu grip.
- if the system solely allows for the mundane type to have access to units that allow for force-multiplication, then they come with that.

A Wizard action figure comes with:

- A Radioman in the field.
- Central Command recieving reconnaisance from said Radioman in the field.
- Air Support.
- Ground Support.
- Naval Support.
- Diplomatic potency with diplomatic immunity a finger waggle away.
- Intelligence Network.
- Borderline unlimited strategic range (in many cases instantly).


"I hit this guy hard/repeatedly with my super-duper awesome sword (or a collection of them) or shoot him hard/repeatedly with my super-duper awesome bow (or a collection of them) and my armor or swiftness or grit mitigates this guy's attacks" cannot compete with that. This is especially so at high level play where the game moves further and further away from melee skirmishes and dungeon crawls being the majority locale of conflict resolution.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. Saving Throw DCs shouldn't scale with level.

I agree thoroughly.

2. Cantrips should scale at the same rate as cleric deadly strike (up to 3[W] damage).

I don't know what to do with cantrips... It was safe when they were dailies in 3e, now I really don't know. My playtesting players loved them, but the issue is that of long-term: cantrips at will mean that all low-level wizards are basically going to easily shoot sparkles or similar stuff all the time. This IMO has quite strong implications on the "level of magic" in the setting already, making magic "tricks" a more common sight than before. Then at higher level, those cantrips may be useless, but to me the sight of a wizard or cleric shooting stars in battle feels more high level than low level. Overall, I'd be happier if cantrips at will came from feats rather than from class.

3. Spells that require concentration should require a check to maintain if the caster takes damage.

I think there is a separate mechanic for that, or it was announced. Right now "concentration" with that name, serves a different purpose.

4. The overpowered spells need to be fixed. This includes stinking cloud, cloudkill, polymorph, wish, etc.

Definitely, but they should not change so much that they become something else entirely. Better to move them up in level than losing them.

5. Some spells need to have their levels changed.

Absolutely, no problem with that! Fly, Haste, Polymorph, Teleport, Invisibility, Wish... they are all signature spells of D&D and they have to be there and they have to do what they are expected to do, but if they are a problem, then the exact level is not really a sacred cow.

Nice post, by the way.

 

[keterys]

Archers are obsoleted with cantrips, that should not be the case.

Can you clarify how you find this to be the case? I generally found the elven wizard with a not-very-good Dex was actually better off being an archer than using his Ray of Frost cantrip, due to how little effectiveness the cantrip had. A true archer, such as a fighter, puts the cantrips to utter shame.

I would be ok with not having them scale too. Right now a wizard can get most of his damage out of a cantrip and then use his other slots for utility because they know they have unlimited auto-scaling damage effect on the ready. I would rather have the caster invest more spell slots into basic attacks.

This is also not how I've seen it go, remotely. Spellcasters are dominating fights by AoE dropping most of an encounter in most encounters. Cantrips are strictly backup options that deal _far_ less damage than the other PCs.

 

[Nymrohd]

I'm fairly sure that you don't have to have magic with no limits for it to be called magic. Magic that enables a person to fly doesn't imply that they can also make anyone else fly, or that if they can't make everything around them fly it's not still magic.



Still a problem. Today, the Wizard needs Wish. Tomorrow they need Meteor Swarm. The day after that, Shapechange. If they have the 'treasure/spell' they can do that. Meanwhile the Paladin may have a Holy Avenger, a Vorpal Blade, and a (some other powerful magic sword) but they still do pretty much the same thing. The versatility of the spell caster is vastly greater than the versatility of the person with several magic swords.

Well in my campaigns a lvl 20 wizard will at best know 2-3 9th level spells and maybe 3-4 of each level from 6th up. I just think that the WBL guidelines for additional spells are far too generous; a scroll should not be enough to learn a new spell from and learning a spell from a looted spellbook should be a laborious process. Sure that gives him versatility but up to a point. Also if you let your players abuse Wish or Shapechange because RAW allows them to be abused, I think the problem is as much with your DMing as it is with the ruleset.

 

[Sadrik]

Can you clarify how you find this to be the case? I generally found the elven wizard with a not-very-good Dex was actually better off being an archer than using his Ray of Frost cantrip, due to how little effectiveness the cantrip had. A true archer, such as a fighter, puts the cantrips to utter shame.

Certainly, without spell slots cantrips deal damage comparable to an archer. An archer will deal mildly more damage due to their stat modifier being added in and any class features or feats. That said, a caster does not have to have any gear or equipment and they also get the boon of reducing movement rate.

This is also not how I've seen it go, remotely. Spellcasters are dominating fights by AoE dropping most of an encounter in most encounters. Cantrips are strictly backup options that deal _far_ less damage than the other PCs.

My point here is why give casters unlimited shooting when they also have so many other upper level options? Do they need to be offered that much utility? Spending resources is the way casters work in D&D and when given options when you do not have to spend resources casters always jump on those because it frees up a lot of resources to do other things. You are not required to get quite as many blasty spells if you do not have to blast with them...


As to the scaling of the different character abilities. The quadratic problem in my mind is solved by this: Magic no longer auto-scales (outside of a few spells that were hopefully oopsies). I also think that a warrior abilities should auto-scale. The reason for this is because feats, should be available at any level (except prestige feats, or whatever they wind up calling them, then level 10 or 11 requirement). If a fighter selects a power attack feat it should automatically scale to become more powerful, if they select dodge feat it should scale, perhaps base benefits on the attack bonus of the character. A fighter should not have to select cleave, then great cleave then mighty cleave etc. Those things should come along simply by having cleave and then leveling. That would be the best way to handle feats for me.

Bringing this around to cantrips, since they have a huge suite of daily abilities, having an unlimited resource ability out of the gate without a consideration to their other abilities seems counter constructive. I think that unlimited magic should be available but not without an investment, a wand, a permanency spell, a feat. I think a wand is a perfect addition to make near unlimited magic. Why not have a wand of chill ray as a low level item? Fighters have to get a magic item to increase their potential casters should too. The return is too good and it makes others who invest in non-magical at-will ranged attacks (archers) less spiffy.

Hopefully that clarifies my thoughts on this...

 

[keterys]

Certainly, without spell slots cantrips deal damage comparable to an archer. An archer will deal mildly more damage due to their stat modifier being added in and any class features or feats. That said, a caster does not have to have any gear or equipment and they also get the boon of reducing movement rate.

Hmm, okay. Fwiw, I'm seeing a difference like:
Caster: 4.5 damage
Archer: 10 damage (+1 weapon, stat)

More than twice as effective is generally considered "not comparable" in these parts. "Doesn't need equipment" is actually generally a downside in D&D, because magic weapons exist.

I've also never seen ray of frost's slow meaningful except when I've gone out of my way to force it to be meaningful, because I was feeling sorry for the PC that it was never meaningful.

My point here is why give casters unlimited shooting when they also have so many other upper level options?

Why force casters to do actions that are not, in themselves, casting? We did the math on it, and the wizard really would have been better off making ranged attacks instead of his cantrips. He kept doing the cantrips in the hope the slow would mean something and because he wanted to be a caster, not an archer, but I'd cheerfully suggest _improving_ the cantrips to make them more worthwhile. Clearly at odds with your own goals, so I was hoping you had some serious in-play proof or examples of how it was harmful to play that they had cantrips, that was at odds with my own play experience (which is only 1st - 6th with the current packet)

We've actually been seeing the casters as not having as much utility as expected. The standing joke in the group is around detect magic. One guy keeps continually forgetting how awful it is, and complaining that the wizard doesn't have it, and then the wizard explains why (again) it's awful, and the group laughs. I want to say it's happened every week, though I'm also hoping I'm wrong

 

[Sadrik]

Hmm, okay. Fwiw, I'm seeing a difference like:
Caster: 4.5 damage
Archer: 10 damage (+1 weapon, stat)

At levels 1-4
Caster: 4.5 (+effect, +easier to hit/affect, no equipment/ammunition requirement, a minor whatever ability)
Archer: 4.5 (+stat, +magic and/or feat bonus, +this is their main schtick)

At levels 5-9
Caster: 9 (+effect, +easier to hit/affect, no equipment/ammunition requirement, a minor whatever ability)
Archer: 9 (+stat, +magic and/or feat bonus, +this is their main schtick)

At levels 10-14
Caster: 13.5 (+effect, +easier to hit/affect, no equipment/ammunition requirement, a minor whatever ability)
Archer: 13.5 (+stat, +magic and/or feat bonus, +this is their main schtick)

At levels 15-19
Caster: 18 (+effect, +easier to hit/affect, no equipment/ammunition requirement, a minor whatever ability)
Archer: 18 (+stat, +magic and/or feat bonus, +this is their main schtick)

At levels 20
Caster: 22.5 (+effect, +easier to hit/affect, no equipment/ammunition requirement, a minor whatever ability)
Archer: 22.5 (+stat, +magic and/or feat bonus, +this is their main schtick)

Why force casters to do actions that are not, in themselves, casting?

Tastes and preferences, why force them to spam casting? Both questions are not possible to answer definitively other than to look at what the actual game rule differences are, like above.

I'd cheerfully suggest _improving_ the cantrips to make them more worthwhile.

I would cheerfully like to see them mitigated, again tastes and preferences. In a situation like this, I would say we need a module, so that we can both be happy.

 

[Li Shenron]

The quadratic problem in my mind is solved by this: Magic no longer auto-scales

...

I also think that a warrior abilities should auto-scale. ... A fighter should not have to select cleave, then great cleave then mighty cleave etc. Those things should come along simply by having cleave and then leveling. That would be the best way to handle feats for me.

...

I think that unlimited magic should be available but not without an investment, a wand, a permanency spell, a feat. I think a wand is a perfect addition to make near unlimited magic. Why not have a wand of chill ray as a low level item? Fighters have to get a magic item to increase their potential casters should too. The return is too good and it makes others who invest in non-magical at-will ranged attacks (archers) less spiffy.

I really endorse these ideas!

 

[Falling Icicle]

To balance cantrips give them spell slots. The unlimited nature of them makes them too good. I understand some people want them to be that good. Archers are obsoleted with cantrips, that should not be the case. I would be ok with not having them scale too. Right now a wizard can get most of his damage out of a cantrip and then use his other slots for utility because they know they have unlimited auto-scaling damage effect on the ready. I would rather have the caster invest more spell slots into basic attacks.

I disagree. Archers are not obsoleted by cantrips at all. Martial archers put cantrip damage to shame. Cantrips are just a magical alternative to using a simple weapon, such as a light crossbow. I also disagree that a wizard gets most of his damage from cantrips. His daily spells are far more potent, especially if he wants to hit an area.

I would also like to see a class feature/feat/spell that grants an unlimited minor attack, but you have to opt into it. All casters should not be unlimited archers.

Not all casters are unlimited archers. There are plenty of other cantrips to choose from. Nobody is forcing anyone to pick lance of faith or ray of frost as one of their cantrips.