D&D 5E (2014) 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[Cybit]

I think Polymorph was intended to be both the CR is equal or less to that of the spell level (so a caster using an 8th level spell slot for Polymorph would be able to do something CR8 or under).

In unsurprising news, CR messes everything up again.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Our DM is adding some house rules for the medicine skill and the healing kit. Combined with PC creation of healing potions (and presumably a few other DM aids like healing potions), it'll help.

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?

Sounds like a plan. Many games reach level 5, and level 5 is a major power boost level for PCs, so if it is off there, it will be off at levels that do not get a lot of boosts. Probably be a couple of days before I can get to this.

4e illustrated a /lot/ of things (for instance, that you could balance martial classes and casters), but that wasn't one of them.

Sure it was. 3x3 blasts tended to not attack many foes because of small area and the problem with attacking allies. Without forced movement, 2 was common, 3 was more rare. This was mitigated via PC synergies of pushing, pulling, and sliding foes where some PCs set up the AoE PCs. 5E doesn't really have much forced movement (pushing being the main one and then often only 5 feet).

The 5E fireball is huge, even when not in the hands of an Evoker. Approximately 78 squares in a square grid system. Kick open the door, hold the doorway, caster fills room with fire, foes 50% or more hurt. Mop up.

Burning Hands is so much more limited at 6 squares.

How many foes you can catch in an are depends on the circumstances of the battle and the size and tactics of the foes.

Few. 6 max. Are NPCs really going to pile up in a 6 square triangle? Doubtful. And this is where theater of the mind conflicts with grids and miniatures. A DM might be way overgenerous in allowing 3 or 4 foes in the blast in TotM where that would probably happen a lot less in a grid. In our game with hexes, this cone is super easy. 1 hex, 2 hexes, 3 hexes. If foes are not in the 6 hex triangle, then they are not.

Even with a front line fighter and an evoker with the fighter being surrounded by 6 foes, the most foes an evoker can get is 4 in a 6 hex cone. It's impossible to get 5 or 6. In a square grid with 9 foes around him, the most foes is 5.

How often is a fighter totally surrounded like this? Evokers in either system are typically limited to 3. Non-evokers, 2.

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."

Yup. Just one of many reasons I dislike TotM, but to each his own.

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/.

No, I totally get that. My point is that the caster does 25%, 0%, 25%, 25% in four rounds. The non-caster does 50%, 50%, 0%, and 50% in four rounds. It feels like the caster is not doing as well (in addition to the fact that he isn't). And I would be totally ok with that in a 3 encounter day where the caster does 2 major in combat spells (in the case of the cleric, 2 spells, in the case of the wizard, 1 mage armor and 2 spells).

In a 3 encounter day, that's 2/3rds of the encounters and 2/9th of the rounds. In a 6-8 encounter day, that's 1/3rd to 1/4th of the encounters and 1/9th to 1/12th of the rounds. That's a lot of spamming.

I totally get that the melee guy is spamming, but a) he chose to be a melee guy, so he probably doesn't mind, and more importantly, b) he's being a lot more productive.

Greater contributions tend to be more fun than lesser contributions, especially when those lesser contributions are a significant (80+%) portion of the time. It's like the player who gets talked over by other more exuberant or talkative players. He might feel like he is not contributing as much due to circumstances.

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.)

Ring of Protections for everyone!!!


Btw, don't get me wrong. I like 5E balance for the most part. I just think that 6-8 encounters is going to be extremely difficult unless most of the foes are minions. Since I personally hate minion fights and I prefer 6-8 encounters, I do think that in order to get my comfort zone of play, the DM is probably going to have to hand out wands and potions and scrolls and healing resources so that the PCs have the resources to handle 6-8 non-minion encounters.

PS. At level 5 when the melee types get two attacks, a foe with 20 hit points is for all intents and purposes a minion. Not because he drops in a single hit, but because he often drops a foe in a single round by one PC attacking. I could probably use the word grunt instead of minion cause I mean a foe that can be often dropped in a single round by a single PC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I totally get that. My point is that the caster does 25%, 0%, 25%, 25% in four rounds. The non-caster does 50%, 50%, 0%, and 50% in four rounds.

What are those percentages supposed to be? DPR? So cantrips don't generally get a stat boost, so do basically 'one die' of damage vs the non-casters, maybe, 'two dice' equivalent. So, yes, it takes two or three rounds of plinking with cantrips to make up for one round of spellcasting in DPR terms. Just in DPR terms.

That's really pretty minimal balance considering caster versatility ouside of DPR. Add spells or reduce encounters and it goes out the window.

ok with that in a 3 encounter day where the caster does 2 major in combat spells (in the case of the cleric, 2 spells, in the case of the wizard, 1 mage armor and 2 spells).

That would likely reduce a combat to a 3-round sweep. If you assume a cantrip doing half the melee type's damage potential, the 'major' spells would have to do only about 125% of that damage potential - not very major. And that's just to make the caster roughly /equal/ in DPR, not to grant the melee types any edge.

I totally get that the melee guy is spamming, but a) he chose to be a melee guy, so he probably doesn't mind, and more importantly, b) he's being a lot more productive.[//quote] Classic argument for perpetuating a double-standard. It's been unequal for so long, everyone must like it as much as you do. No, everyone doesn't.

Greater contributions tend to be more fun than lesser contributions, especially when those lesser contributions are a significant (80+%) portion of the time.

Actually, I'd argue that repetition makes a modest edge much less dramatic than an infrequent, larger margin. Even if the caster only gets off one Fireball all day, if it owns an encounter, that's a wildly impressive contribution. The fighters may have ground their way through three times as many monsters over the course of the day, but the fireball is what everyone'll remember.

Btw, don't get me wrong. I like 5E balance for the most part. I just think that 6-8 encounters is going to be extremely difficult unless most of the foes are minions.

It's supposed to be difficult - it has to put real stress on resource management decisions so limited resources really /do/ face meaningful limitations.

PS. At level 5 when the melee types get two attacks, a foe with 20 hit points is for all intents and purposes a minion. Not because he drops in a single hit, but because he often drops a foe in a single round by one PC attacking.

That's going to happen about 42% of the time - assuming the generous 65% chance we tended to see in the playtest. I wouldn't count on them dropping as fast as one-hit-kill minions.

 

[KarinsDad]

Divine Strike (Its a domain feature for the Life, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, and War). +1d8 at 8th, +2d8 at 14th.

Knowledge and Light don't have it, but they both get Potent Spellcasting (add Wis to cantrip damage). I'd wager Death gets divine strike as well.

Seriously, flip through the PHB a bit; a lot of these problems are answered.

I thought that the word "mace" would give you a clue.

The thing is that I had the PHB for a single day when people rolled up characters. Knowing higher level stuff (like Potent Cantrip) was not necessarily a given (it took 8 hours to roll up 4 characters because it was brand new). So yes, I just learned yesterday that the knowledge cleric should take Sacred Flame, regardless of a desire to go in and hit with a mace.


As for Divine Strike, it's ok but not that great. A tempest human cleric with a starting str of 16 and a maul bumping wis twice and str once can do 2d6+2d8+4 at level 14. He was 2d6+3 at level 1. So, he doubled his damage in 13 levels. Fighter, Bards, etc. doubled their damage at level 5. And, the monsters increased their hit points by a multiple of 10, so yeah, he's not exactly staying even close.

He could kill a 2 HD foe in a single shot at level 1. At level 14 with 10 HD foes (same encounter difficulty), it takes 3 hits.

And at level 13, Divine Strike is even weaker. It'll take 4 hits to take out the 9 HD same encounter difficulty foe then. The Sacred Flame cantrip without Potent Spellcasting does 2 points average less damage at level 13 than the beefy Divine Strike maul that the player put significant Str resources into.


And the Potent Spellcasting cantrip Sacred Flame matches (and eventually exceeds) the Divine Strike maul starting at level 8 (2D8+5 vs. 2D6+D8+3).

 

[KarinsDad]

What are those percentages supposed to be?

Sorry, based off earlier conversation. Percentage of monster hit points at level 10 assuming a hit (hit 3 rounds out of 4).

The percentages are probably a little high. For example, 4 7 HD Ogres with 59 hit points each. The melee types with two handed weapons do maybe 11.5 to 13.5 points of damage and attack twice (or three times for 8.5 points with 2 wpn). Fire Bolt is 11 damage once (Ray of Frost is 9 damage once).

So yeah, the melee types are hitting for more than twice as much damage and can do about 39% to 46% of monster hit points per round (if they hit). Casters with cantrips, about 15% to 20% (if they hit).

 

[KarinsDad]

That's going to happen about 42% of the time - assuming the generous 65% chance we tended to see in the playtest. I wouldn't count on them dropping as fast as one-hit-kill minions.

Agreed.

I just would prefer if the encounters were difficult and the resource management was easy.


A hard encounter in the DMG is considered hard because it will use up x amount of resources, not because it is even a minor threat to the PCs. It is only a real threat to the PCs when they are low or out of resources.

 

[Remathilis]

I thought that the word "mace" would give you a clue.

The thing is that I had the PHB for a single day when people rolled up characters. Knowing higher level stuff (like Potent Cantrip) was not necessarily a given (it took 8 hours to roll up 4 characters because it was brand new). So yes, I just learned yesterday that the knowledge cleric should take Sacred Flame, regardless of a desire to go in and hit with a mace.

Psst. The Basic Rules are available Here. Granted, you'd only have the core-four (and one school/domain) but it has a bunch of good info you'll want.

As for Divine Strike, it's ok but not that great. A tempest human cleric with a starting str of 16 and a maul bumping wis twice and str once can do 2d6+2d8+4 at level 14. He was 2d6+3 at level 1. So, he doubled his damage in 13 levels. Fighter, Bards, etc. doubled their damage at level 5. And, the monsters increased their hit points by a multiple of 10, so yeah, he's not exactly staying even close.

He could kill a 2 HD foe in a single shot at level 1. At level 14 with 10 HD foes (same encounter difficulty), it takes 3 hits.

And at level 13, Divine Strike is even weaker. It'll take 4 hits to take out the 9 HD same encounter difficulty foe then. The Sacred Flame cantrip without Potent Spellcasting does 2 points average less damage at level 13 than the beefy Divine Strike maul that the player put significant Str resources into.

TODAY'S NEWS: Cleric not as good as fighter as fighting. You'd think they'd give them spells or something to compensate.

And the Potent Spellcasting cantrip Sacred Flame matches (and eventually exceeds) the Divine Strike maul starting at level 8 (2D8+5 vs. 2D6+D8+3).

Yeah, funny how that works.

 

[KarinsDad]

Psst. The Basic Rules are available Here. Granted, you'd only have the core-four (and one school/domain) but it has a bunch of good info you'll want.

TODAY'S NEWS: Cleric not as good as fighter as fighting. You'd think they'd give them spells or something to compensate.

Yeah, funny how that works.

Seriously, relax. No need to go all snarky.

 

[Remathilis]

Seriously, relax. No need to go all snarky.

Its hard to see where you're going with this. It seems you want wizards to be fireballing every round but you also want fighter's to not be obsolete. I just got done with an edition where wizards were the be-all end-all, and while there is still some discrepancy in this edition (unlike 4e and its PerfectBalance (TM)), I'm more than happy to force wizards to zap-ping with firebolt for a while.

 

[KarinsDad]

Its hard to see where you're going with this. It seems you want wizards to be fireballing every round but you also want fighter's to not be obsolete.

I do not want wizards fireballing every round. I do want the players of wizards to feel useful. The 5th level wizard can fire off 3 fireballs a day. But, his first level spells tend to be wimpier than melee PC damage per round, so those are no longer as worthwhile. They are his new cantrips.

What I want:

1) 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. 5E advertises it, but I do not think it delivers shy of PCs using a ton of group stealth and foes being mooks most of the time. I like real challenging fights where the players feel like their PCs are actually threatened and lots of them, not fights that are challenging only to resource management.

2) Pure spellcasters to be able to do their schtick once per encounter (on average). A cantrip or a light crossbow is not their schtick. They should feel productive in most encounters, at least for one round.

3) Melee PC to feel productive most encounters as well. If the wizard is casting Fireball 3 encounters in a row at level 5 and winning most of the encounters by himself, the melee PC players will feel non-productive, just like when the 5th level melee PCs rush into the room and take out half of the foes with their double damage before the wizard can cast his one or two cantrips in a one or two round fight.

4) PCs to NOT be fighting mooks most of the encounters in order to get to that 6-8.

I think that 5E accomplishes part of this. I think it is (like 1E and 2E and 3E without cure wands) weak on out of combat healing which means fewer real encounters. And I think that the DM can adjust the number of decent encounters that casters can cast in with a few judicious offensive wands and healing items.


Mostly, a caster's two highest levels of spells are the ones that are really cool and anything lower than that tends to be average at best. Lower level spells can become a bit obsolete, especially offensive ones. That's an average of 4.5 spells per day that are generally cool and some that are, not so cool. Some levels have a few more, some a few less. There are some spells (like maybe Hold Person) that scale well for 8 levels or so. Some like Shield are always good. But many spells do not scale that well (and putting them into higher slots means that they are no longer a low level spell).

Sure, Dimension Door is good at any level, but it doesn't really make the caster shine offensively. There are a lot of utility spells or defensive spells that do not mean that the caster is hogging the show.

Just like more consistent damage, better hit points, and better AC does not necessarily mean that the non-caster is hogging the show. It only means this if the caster is not being that productive many encounters.