D&D 5E Might&Magic: the linear fighter and the exponential wizard

[FrogReaver]

Power isn't just about damage. A good divination spell can be *invaluable*.

Are you suggesting that non-damage spells manage to scale exponentially while damage based spells do not?

 

[Garthanos]

totally disagree with the bolded.

Also, they do get damage and utility. BUT damage and utility isn't what makes wizards get called exponential...

No its why they got called Tier 1 though. (different discussion I suppose.)

 

[Ancalagon]

Are you suggesting that non-damage spells manage to scale exponentially while damage based spells do not?

Well, yes. The impact of the character on the game is what I am looking at here. Let's compare a cleric and a fighter, shall we?

At low level, a fighter can sword well, and a cleric can heal well.

At high level (say, 11), a fighter can sword *extremely* well indeed. And a cleric can heal extremely well too. But the cleric can do so much more. She could animate the dead, create food and water, break spells and curses. She can communicate at great distances, or speak to those who have been killed

... and that's just level 3 spells! At higher level she can use divination and scrying, locate objects and creatures, speak directly to her deity and ask questions, bring down flames from the heavens, bring the dead back to life, see things truly, summon planar allies....

There is SO MUCH MORE a caster can do than just damage.

Think about this. You are Churchill, leading the UK in WWII. The fairy courts owes the crown a favor, and they are sending a champion. Would you want a high level fighter, or a high level wizard? A single wizard - if he's skilled at divination - could turn the war. A fighter... what is he going to do? Sword a few nazis?

 

[pogre]

Think about this. You are Churchill, leading the UK in WWII. The fairy courts owes the crown a favor, and they are sending a champion. Would you want a high level fighter, or a high level wizard? A single wizard - if he's skilled at divination - could turn the war. A fighter... what is he going to do? Sword a few nazis?

First, I love this scenario!

Second, I do not think it really belongs in the conversation (re: fighter v. caster), because only one side has the potential of getting magic.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, yes. The impact of the character on the game is what I am looking at here. Let's compare a cleric and a fighter, shall we?

At low level, a fighter can sword well, and a cleric can heal well.

At high level (say, 11), a fighter can sword *extremely* well indeed. And a cleric can heal extremely well too. But the cleric can do so much more. She could animate the dead, create food and water, break spells and curses. She can communicate at great distances, or speak to those who have been killed

... and that's just level 3 spells! At higher level she can use divination and scrying, locate objects and creatures, speak directly to her deity and ask questions, bring down flames from the heavens, bring the dead back to life, see things truly, summon planar allies....

There is SO MUCH MORE a caster can do than just damage.

And yet none of that is showing that a wizard or clerics growth in any facet of spell casting is exponential...

I could make a class that grows exponentially and it still could be weak. I can make a linear growing class be stronger than any potentially exponentially growing class in the game.

I think you don't understand what it means to grow exponentially. Or if you do understand you are not placing that knowledge to use in this discussion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 5e divide is much improved over 3.5/PF as others have said.

Light-years instead of parsecs, sure.

Concentration, requiring higher slots for greater spell effects, and limited high level slots are all very helpful. Is it enough?

It's not the whole story, either. In 3e, the idea was also that lower level slots would fall off in usefulness, because Save DCs scaled with slot instead of character level. In 5e Save DCs scale with character level. So, while using low level slots for blasting spells falls off in usefulness, spells that don't inflict or test vs hps don't, and that's not strictly limited to utility. And, that's compared to 3e, the height of caster supremacy. In 3e, a wizard with 9th level spells might hesitate to count on 7th or lower level spells because it meant essentially giving the target a save bonus. In 5e, every save DC is the same, you don't have to cast Dominate Monster on a high-level humanoid because the DC on charm person would be 7 lower.

Concentration does keep casters from layering powerful spells that require it, but it's not hard to concentrate, there's no AoOs forcing concentration checks on all spells cast in melee for instance. And, ultimately, it keeps casters from wasting a lot of spells on pre-casting all the time, making them better for actual longer days, in spite of somewhat reduced slots/day.

the issue isn't exponential power increase, it's just the versatility increase.

In a game that's roughly spotlight-balanced, versatility is power.

Is a wizards damage output linear as well? Has anyone actually made a chart of expected damage for a wizard in a day to see?

I would hope so, if you stick to single-target, direct damage. If nothing else the baseline of at-will cantrips should be.
But that doesn't measure versatility, the way Tier judges these things. The fighters supposed to be a top damage-dealer, and the wizard blazing away with fireballs and the like is supposed to be comparable (in one of the playtest L&Ls Mearls said something along the lines of high level fighters & wizards should both be able to take on armies, they'd just do it differently). The wizard could also choose to do something else with his slots that day, instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

In a game that's roughly spotlight-balanced, versatility is power.

So show me where versatility increases exponentially

 

[Ancalagon]

First, I love this scenario!

Thank you

Second, I do not think it really belongs in the conversation (re: fighter v. caster), because only one side has the potential of getting magic.

One side... do you mean fighter vs wizard, or axis vs allies?

 

[Ancalagon]

And yet none of that is showing that a wizard or clerics growth in any facet of spell casting is exponential...

I could make a class that grows exponentially and it still could be weak. I can make a linear growing class be stronger than any potentially exponentially growing class in the game.

I think you don't understand what it means to grow exponentially. Or if you do understand you are not placing that knowledge to use in this discussion.

*facepalm*

This is about impact on the game, not *numbers*. We are using the word quadratic to illustrate a *concept*.

Ok, let's see if we even agree about the basic premise:

Do you agree, yes or no, that a high level caster can have a much bigger impact on the game than a high level warrior?

 

[FrogReaver]

*facepalm*

This is about impact on the game, not *numbers*. We are using the word quadratic to illustrate a *concept*.

Ok, let's see if we even agree about the basic premise:

You actually used the word exponential not quadratic...

But let's say you are just trying to use it to reinforce a concept. What concept can you possibly be referencing by calling something quadratic/exponential if you aren't referencing any kind of numbers?

So let's look at a wizard.
-He grows linearly in spells known (2 per level).
-He grows linearly in the number of spells he can cast per day
-He grows linearly in potential daily damage output

(Actually some of those things I listed may be a slower growth pattern than linear...)

What on earth is growing anything other than linearly about him? How on earth are you measuring versatility and having it come out any other way but as a linear increase in versatility?

Do you agree, yes or no, that a high level caster can have a much bigger impact on the game than a high level warrior?

Generally yes, but depends on the game.