D&D 5E Charisma Conundrum

[Zardnaar]

Tier 1 the warlock beats the wizard in social, exploration, combat pillars even with no shirt rests. At least can depending on how you build it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been playing for nearly 40 years I didn't even hear of the 5MWD until WotC forums when I joined DnD Next.

It's much older than that. Used to 15min though. Unions.

Back in the day it was a notorious expression for running the eff outta hps and needing to "go back to town" (what I'd always heard it called) to 'rest' so the Cleric could get his 3 Cure Light Wounds spells back, even though you'd only been in the dungeon a short (but obviously, eventful) time. "We need to rest, we're outta spells!" "but, we finished breakfast like 15 minutes ago?"

It tended to go away as you levels progressed.

I've never had a problem where everyone decided they would blow all their resources, rest, rinse, and repeat as DM or as a player.

As an aside: sometimes when I read "...never had a problem with..." I have to wonder if they mean "this problem never happened" or "it happened all the time and we liked it!"

(Of course, everyone's 'back in the day' was different, because we weren't all comparing notes on the internet every few minutes - and, really, everyone's experiences are different now, too, we just notice, sometimes, that certain sorts of experiences tend to get aired a lot...)

In 3e it became SoP, along with Scry/Buff/Teleport and Polymorphs shenanigans, because that was just the 3.x zeitgeist, I don't pretend to understand it.... (...similar internet groupthink provisos apply)

I also think it's far easier and more likely to take short rests than long rests.

It really, /really/ depends on your DM. If you can squeeze in an hour, you may well be able to squeeze in 8. But, there is a /hard/ limit on long rests in a 24 hr period. So it becomes a matter of lollygagging around. ;P

However, going with this nova concept on the 5MWD doesn't give the action economy for the wizard to blow all those spells any faster than the warlock can go through his on a single encounter.

That also depends on level. Zard had this idea that the wizard was 'better' at 13th-15, for some reason. The 5MWD is the classic OP-wizard scenario. At high level, though, it'd be a rare encounter that'd let them throw out all their best stuff, though, so maybe a multi-encounter, no-short rest day?

The premise requires everyone adhere to the number of spells the wizard casts before resting instead of the number of spells the warlock casts before resting. If the party would rest for the wizard, they would rest for the warlock.

I wouldn't assume equal treatment among D&D classes.

To be clear, I said pacing does matter more and more as levels increase, btw.

OK then, I must've missed that bit.

Tier 1 the warlock beats the wizard in social, exploration, combat pillars even with no shirt rests. At least can depending on how you build it.

Two very different statements.

I can see how the social pillar claim ties into this thread. Is it all along that line: INT sucks so hard the Warlock beats the Wiz? Does the Bard, too, then?

 

[Zardnaar]

It's much older than that. Used to 15min though. Unions.

Back in the day it was a notorious expression for running the eff outta hps and needing to "go back to town" (what I'd always heard it called) to 'rest' so the Cleric could get his 3 Cure Light Wounds spells back, even though you'd only been in the dungeon a short (but obviously, eventful) time. "We need to rest, we're outta spells!" "but, we finished breakfast like 15 minutes ago?"

It tended to go away as you levels progressed.

As an aside: sometimes when I read "...never had a problem with..." I have to wonder if they mean "this problem never happened" or "it happened all the time and we liked it!"

(Of course, everyone's 'back in the day' was different, because we weren't all comparing notes on the internet every few minutes - and, really, everyone's experiences are different now, too, we just notice, sometimes, that certain sorts of experiences tend to get aired a lot...)

In 3e it became SoP, along with Scry/Buff/Teleport and Polymorphs shenanigans, because that was just the 3.x zeitgeist, I don't pretend to understand it.... (...similar internet groupthink provisos apply)


It really, /really/ depends on your DM. If you can squeeze in an hour, you may well be able to squeeze in 8. But, there is a /hard/ limit on long rests in a 24 hr period. So it becomes a matter of lollygagging around. ;P

That also depends on level. Zard had this idea that the wizard was 'better' at 13th-15, for some reason. The 5MWD is the classic OP-wizard scenario. At high level, though, it'd be a rare encounter that'd let them throw out all their best stuff, though, so maybe a multi-encounter, no-short rest day?

I wouldn't assume equal treatment among D&D classes.

OK then, I must've missed that bit.

Two very different statements.

I can see how the social pillar claim ties into this thread. Is it all along that line: INT sucks so hard the Warlock beats the Wiz? Does the Bard, too, then?

Usually yes.

The reason I say the wizard us better latter is that early on it's competing with every other spellcaster several of which are front loaded by comparison.

Alot if key spells are also shared with other classes. Sleep, fireball etc. They have more resources,good spells, and class abilies.

It's going to take the wizard time to aquire rituals and even then the warlock can be better at it.

So yeah wizards not as front loaded and the class exclusive spells that are good turn up later.

 

[5ekyu]

That's a pretty absolute statement considering what you quoted me actually saying, lol.

I dont think any statement that starts with if and then leads to a broad category is all that absolute myself, but hey, maybe it's a new literally vs literally thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I dont think any statement that starts with if and then leads to a broad category is all that absolute myself, but hey, maybe it's a new literally vs literally thing.

It's literally but not, like, literally literally.

 

[Ashrym]

It's much older than that. Used to 15min though. Unions.

Okay, that made me laugh.

Back in the day it was a notorious expression for running the eff outta hps and needing to "go back to town" (what I'd always heard it called) to 'rest' so the Cleric could get his 3 Cure Light Wounds spells back, even though you'd only been in the dungeon a short (but obviously, eventful) time. "We need to rest, we're outta spells!" "but, we finished breakfast like 15 minutes ago?"

What did they do when clerics didn't start getting spells until 2nd level?

That's actually funny because it reminds me that the very first character I ever played was a BECMI cleric. I was young and naïve, and said "they can cast spells and wear armor and fight?" to which 3 people quickly agreed and so I made one.

I learned quickly that was not the case.

We did still play and didn't just stop if I was out of healing, but I distinctly remember wishing were weren't lost 3 levels deep in a dungeon and low on spells pretty often. That expectation on clerics is what turned me toward druids, magic-users, and bards in AD&D.

As an aside: sometimes when I read "...never had a problem with..." I have to wonder if they mean "this problem never happened" or "it happened all the time and we liked it!"

See above. The desire to stop and rest didn't stop us. We definitely had party members die too. The first time I played Castle Amber with the resting glow was kind of nice.

In 3e it became SoP, along with Scry/Buff/Teleport and Polymorphs shenanigans, because that was just the 3.x zeitgeist, I don't pretend to understand it.... (...similar internet groupthink provisos apply)

Except we didn't change to scry/buff/teleport etc shenanigans either. I did diplomancer an attacking red dragon using an impromptu epic diplomacy check and make him immediately loyal to me with other shenanigans, mind you, and jedi mind trick the crap out of people.

3e spell casters were the most powerful I've ever seen them.

It really, /really/ depends on your DM. If you can squeeze in an hour, you may well be able to squeeze in 8. But, there is a /hard/ limit on long rests in a 24 hr period. So it becomes a matter of lollygagging around. ;P

Not really. If you can squeeze in 1 hour there's no guarantee you can squeeze in 8, but if you can squeeze in 8 you can always squeeze in at least 1 or more, and going with 8 helps the warlock better than 1 anyway because he gets his arcanum back.

That also depends on level. Zard had this idea that the wizard was 'better' at 13th-15, for some reason. The 5MWD is the classic OP-wizard scenario. At high level, though, it'd be a rare encounter that'd let them throw out all their best stuff, though, so maybe a multi-encounter, no-short rest day?

Even then arcanum is there. Throwing in an arcanum, a slotted spell, and high damage cantrip like EB is still pretty solid for multiple encounters. EB does enough damage it's worthwhile compared to many spells. The many-encounters-no-rest days definitely impacts there and that's why invocations are needed to be carefully selected. Either eldritch blast is focused on and more valuable or more abilities are added.

Long days with no rests are going to impact a major resource for warlocks.

I wouldn't assume equal treatment among D&D classes.

I wouldn't assume biased treatment. There's no logic behind willing to rest for one and not the other.

I can see how the social pillar claim ties into this thread. Is it all along that line: INT sucks so hard the Warlock beats the Wiz? Does the Bard, too, then?

I would have a pretty hard time saying wizards suck, lol. INT isn't a high priority ability score for many aspects of the game but doesn't create a scenario where an INT caster is inferior to a CHA caster specifically because of the ability score. There's way too many other variables and subjective opinions to jump down that rabbit hole.

I think wizards are more powerful offensive spellcasters than bards. A wider selection of combat spells, class bonuses to casting more spells per day, and tradition benefits enhancing spellcasting do that quite well. Wizard defensive spells also walk all over the bard spell list.

I don't think there's anything the bard can do to catch up to the wizard's better combat potential.

I think bards provide better party support because of the variety of spells in the list, available healing, a strong assortment of status effects, bardic inspiration dice, and the ability to cover skill areas.

I think wizards have more utility within the spells because bards are restricted by spells known that cover multiple areas and the wizard's ritual caster mechanic is much better than the bard's. I think bards cover utility outside of spells better because of the skill benefits. My personal opinion is that bards can cover utility better overall with a combination of spells and skills, especially if they give up some healing and support.

Short answer -- it's not that easy to just say "INT sucks, CHA rocks"

 

[Ashrym]

I dont think any statement that starts with if and then leads to a broad category is all that absolute myself, but hey, maybe it's a new literally vs literally thing.

So what did you mean by this then?

"If your social pillar only sees active uses of charisma, thatis a statement about the type of social challenge scenes and the complexity of them being presented, not the rules or system. "

I never said my social pillar only sees active uses of charisma. That looks like a response to something I never said to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay, that made me laugh.



What did they do when clerics didn't start getting spells until 2nd level?

That's actually funny because it reminds me that the very first character I ever played was a BECMI cleric. I was young and naïve, and said "they can cast spells and wear armor and fight?" to which 3 people quickly agreed and so I made one.

I learned quickly that was not the case.

We did still play and didn't just stop if I was out of healing, but I distinctly remember wishing were weren't lost 3 levels deep in a dungeon and low on spells pretty often. That expectation on clerics is what turned me toward druids, magic-users, and bards in AD&D.



See above. The desire to stop and rest didn't stop us. We definitely had party members die too. The first time I played Castle Amber with the resting glow was kind of nice.



Except we didn't change to scry/buff/teleport etc shenanigans either. I did diplomancer an attacking red dragon using an impromptu epic diplomacy check and make him immediately loyal to me with other shenanigans, mind you, and jedi mind trick the crap out of people.

3e spell casters were the most powerful I've ever seen them.



Not really. If you can squeeze in 1 hour there's no guarantee you can squeeze in 8, but if you can squeeze in 8 you can always squeeze in at least 1 or more, and going with 8 helps the warlock better than 1 anyway because he gets his arcanum back.



Even then arcanum is there. Throwing in an arcanum, a slotted spell, and high damage cantrip like EB is still pretty solid for multiple encounters. EB does enough damage it's worthwhile compared to many spells. The many-encounters-no-rest days definitely impacts there and that's why invocations are needed to be carefully selected. Either eldritch blast is focused on and more valuable or more abilities are added.

Long days with no rests are going to impact a major resource for warlocks.



I wouldn't assume biased treatment. There's no logic behind willing to rest for one and not the other.



I would have a pretty hard time saying wizards suck, lol. INT isn't a high priority ability score for many aspects of the game but doesn't create a scenario where an INT caster is inferior to a CHA caster specifically because of the ability score. There's way too many other variables and subjective opinions to jump down that rabbit hole.

I think wizards are more powerful offensive spellcasters than bards. A wider selection of combat spells, class bonuses to casting more spells per day, and tradition benefits enhancing spellcasting do that quite well. Wizard defensive spells also walk all over the bard spell list.

I don't think there's anything the bard can do to catch up to the wizard's better combat potential.

I think bards provide better party support because of the variety of spells in the list, available healing, a strong assortment of status effects, bardic inspiration dice, and the ability to cover skill areas.

I think wizards have more utility within the spells because bards are restricted by spells known that cover multiple areas and the wizard's ritual caster mechanic is much better than the bard's. I think bards cover utility outside of spells better because of the skill benefits. My personal opinion is that bards can cover utility better overall with a combination of spells and skills, especially if they give up some healing and support.

Short answer -- it's not that easy to just say "INT sucks, CHA rocks"

B/X could be rough.

Reading early adventures they usually had NPCs nearby. They were there to heal you.

Rewards RP and exploration I suppose. Turn undead was at will and a lot if those adventures have undead as well.

Playing some of that stuff now the game kind of supports exploration and social built in. I noticed a lot more people looked for secret doors and treasure and healing potion was often hidden behind them.

5MWD makes sense level 1
/2/3 but set amount if encounters wasn't an assumption.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What did they do when clerics didn't start getting spells until 2nd level?

Switched to AD&D, where they got 'em at 1st.

We did still play and didn't just stop if I was out of healing

IMX, it was out of hps and out of healing... but the two tended to come very close together, and if you skated /too/ close boom you had someone to drag out and wait a week to recover.

3e spell casters were the most powerful I've ever seen them.

See the "Streamlining 3e" thread elsewhere on this forum.
It was pretty remarkable. Then there was the Wand of Cure Light Wounds and other low-level-spell-in-an-item trick.
A lot of the stuff in 3e made a lot of sense, seemed neat, and then blew up.

And while 5e casters can't pull all the same shenanigans, and can't claim the raw power of an untouchable save DC or whatever, they do, amazingly, have it even easier than in 3e (or 4e, or even, really). Concentration? Oh, boo-hoo. Does it require your action every round? Oh, you can still cast any non-concentration spell? You get a save wow, it's not automatic loss of the spell when you're interrupted? Oh, you can't be interrupted at all it's not to cast, it's only some spells with a duration?
sheesh
...20 miles in the snow, up-hill, both ways that was casting back in the day... and we were glad to have, it!

Not really. If you can squeeze in 1 hour there's no guarantee you can squeeze in 8

It really depends. If you're raiding an actively defended site of some sort, no way you can rest an hour - stopping a few minutes may seem like pushing it. If you're journeying through a wilderness, you can easily rest 8, and likely will as a matter of course.
Where's that middle-ground where an hour is no problem, but 8 is dicey?

I wouldn't assume biased treatment. There's no logic behind willing to rest for one and not the other.

There's no logic behind a lotta things people do. Including made up games like D&D.

I would have a pretty hard time saying wizards suck, lol. INT isn't a high priority ability score for many aspects of the game but doesn't create a scenario where an INT caster is inferior to a CHA caster specifically because of the ability score.

Yeah. I didn't think so, but I thought I'd ask.

I don't think there's anything the bard can do to catch up to the wizard's better combat potential.

Combat as in DPR? Do you count the 'profit' from buffs & de-buffs?

I think bards provide better party support because of the variety of spells in the list, available healing, a strong assortment of status effects, bardic inspiration dice, and the ability to cover skill areas.

Yep, they are totally a support class, and unlike Sorcerer & Warlocks, don't have some arbitrary/hypothetical fluff-text strike against them in the social pillar.

I think wizards have more utility within the spells because bards are restricted by spells known that cover multiple areas and the wizard's ritual caster mechanic is much better than the bard's.

Known/spontaneous hurts that way relative to neo-Vancian/ritual-book wizarding, in more than just utility, too. Any time it might've been nice to know a different spell in a circumstance you saw coming...
The dividing line between class-Tier 1 & 2.

 

[Mistwell]

Tier 1 the warlock beats the wizard in social, exploration, combat pillars even with no shirt rests. At least can depending on how you build it.

How is the Warlock beating the Wizard in exploration given the Wizard uses a familiar as a ritual? Unless you're choosing the Warlock with the familiar - which I've seen you say is horrible.