Is Spell Blasting Doomed to Suck Even More in Next than it did in 3.x?

[Quartz]

Isn't one of the goals of 5e that those of low level can still tackle those of high level? So a Fireball would be just the ticket to clear out the mooks.

 

[1of3]

The main reason blasting was considered ineffective in 3.x was the power of buffs. But buffs have been nerfed hard. You can only concentrate on one.

Also note that casters have an advantage in Next: You don't need to use a prepared spell. In 3.x, if a situation came up, where a prepared spell was suboptimal, you effectively wasted a slot. In Next, you can cast a spell more suited for the occasion. So even if Fireball is a very situational spell, you don't loose for packing it.

In addition, wizards do not specialize in the same sense as they did in 3.x. If you chose a blaster in 3.x, you couldn't cast from two schools. The tactic is in Next is to prepare a little bit of everything. In our playtest last weekend, the illusionist saved the day with blasting, when the rest of the team was stunned by the Mindflayer for several rounds. The wizard was empty afterwards, but he won single-handedly. (Or maybe single-tentacledly, as this was a Flumph party.)

Generally, you want to blast:
- When nobody else can hurt them properly, because of distance, resistance etc.
- When there are minions to clear.
- When you need to bring down immediate pressure.
- When it's boss fight and the adventure is likely over afterwards.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On some level, area damage spells can't be balanced. If they're at the point where they're even useful against a single opponent, then they're completely overwhelming against a large group of opponents. If they're balanced for large groups, then they're useless against small groups. And there's no norms for the number of creatures a party encounters (nor should there be).

And that's even considering them on a rudimentary level, before you take into account all the uses for spells besides dealing damage and the frequency of combat and all that.

I think your 3e fireball is about the best you can do. It's situationally very useful against swarms, large groups of opponents, and enemies that are weak against fire damage or when the range comes into play. It's one of the most common spells selected for its level. Is it frequently ineffective? Yes. But you just have to live with that in the name of balance.

 

[Stalker0]

On some level, area damage spells can't be balanced. If they're at the point where they're even useful against a single opponent, then they're completely overwhelming against a large group of opponents.

As a base assumption i would say a fireball should be balanced assuming it is hitting at least two creatures.

I agree that with the increased flexibility of preparation in next, a wizard should never feel that he "has" to throw a fireball, so he would use it when a situation occurs that would be to its advantage.

 

[GSHamster]

As a base assumption i would say a fireball should be balanced assuming it is hitting at least two creatures.

You want it set a little bit higher, at 3 or 4 creatures. The reason for this is so that at 2 or 3 enemies, taking them down one at a time (focus the mage, then the fighter) is still a reasonable strategy compared to take them both down at the same time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Isn't one of the goals of 5e that those of low level can still tackle those of high level? So a Fireball would be just the ticket to clear out the mooks.

That only holds true for very low level monsters. What if we're talking about a 20th level mage fighting a bunch of 7th level creatures? Many level 7 monsters have well over 100 hp. A fireball that does on average 21 damage isn't going to help much. Even a 9th level meteor swarm only does 42 on average. See the problem? Yeah, a 5th+ level wizard can wipe out a bunch of 1st level kobolds, which are 4 levels below him. But the same is not at all true of higher level wizards fighting creatures with far greater level gaps. This is because the scaling of hp far outpaces the scaling of spell damage.

The game goes from one extreme to the other. At 1st level, even a level 1 spell is incredibly deadly. When characters often have single digit hp, or low teens at the most, a 3d4 +3 damage magic missile or 4d8 sleep is very likely to one-shot just about any character. But then, as you go up in level, the situation quickly reverses itself, as hp quickly multiply but spell damage increases very little. I just want things to be consistent, and for blasting spells to not become far less useful than save-or-suck spells.

 

[gyor]

Actually blaster wizards in 5e, aka evokers are very powerful, they don't have to worry about hitting allies, half damage on a miss for evocation cantrips, add thier intelligence to the damage of evocation spells, ingore resistance to evocation spells and the big daddy overcharge which allows the evoker to do maxiumized damage. Oh and at level 20 they can cast fireball and lightening at will. Plus Spell Mastery which allows any mage to cast 1 first level spell at will and one second level spell at will. Plus all wizarss can make potions, scrolls.

That not including if you decide to take the arcane archer feat as well, which is absolutely awesome for wizards. An Arcane Archer Evoker wizard at level 20 teamed with an archer focused ranger for example can enchant as many arrows as the Ranger can get his hands on with fire balls and lightening. Now imagine that Arcane Archer has an entire party of archers, he can cast an infinate amount of arrows with fire balls that ignore resistance, add intelligence to the damage, do no damage to allies, and be fired by the whole party! Talk about armedgon!

So no, you should not worry about the Blaster Wizard's he's fine and can easily compete with a fighter, its just fighters don't get automatically eciplsed by the wizard.

 

[gyor]

For added fun everyone other then the wizard should be a Knight with archer mastery, because each will get a group of level 5 knights to unleash fireball and lightening arrows.

 

[Zaruthustran]

So how about Fighter damage? When the Fighter can strike for, say, 1d10 + 7 (between STR, magic and specialization), an average of 12.5 per hit, and hit twice a round, a Wizard with a Fireball that averages 21 hp, save for half and apply resistances, doesn't seem like he has a comparable level of power. He's better off, as posited above, to Haste the fighter.

You've perfectly described the ideal play experience of the Wizard and Fighter. The Fighter is moderately effective in every combat. Dependable damage in all situations. The Wizard is extremely effective when he wants to be/when the circumstances fit his spell choices. Direct or indirect damage, depending on the situation.

In other words what you describe is a feature, not a bug.

Different classes playing differently is the best feature of D&D Next.

 

[N'raac]

The Fighter can do his average 15 damage per round (assuming a 60% chance to hit) every round for an hour. How many times a day can the Wizard manage his comparable per target damage?

I don't consider "the wizard gets an autowin 10% of the time and is useless 80% of the time" to be balance.