D&D 5E Boop

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, no. Not at all.

I mean, that's pretty much how I view your distinctions.

Not to beat on cantrips too much (but then again, why not), when people talk about fire bolt, or eldritch blast, or acid splash, or even vicious mockery ....

Does the fact they look different make it meaningfully different? Because to me, they aren't. Distinctions without a real difference aren't real distinctions.

Again, I appreciate that you like different things, but if I just went through and explained, at length and with six subpoints, why I think a certain way ... and you think that I just want spells re-types as abilities, I'm guessing there is a disconnect.

There must be, because...they do different things. That makes them different. I just...can’t fathom the counter argument to that, I guess. It seems quite objectively true, to me. Like...the actual thing that happens in play when you use the ability is different. The only similarity is packaging/presentation, ie, how it reads on a character sheet.

But also, I didn’t say you want spells retyped as abilities. I asked you if the abilities I presented seem more different from Eldritch blast and firebolt as currently presented, than do the RAW cleric cantrips. If they don’t, then that line of thinking doesn’t lead anywhere, cool.

another way to ask a similar question is, do you see 4e classes and powers and think they’re all the same, even though a wizard can create a sphere of flame that travels around the battle and a wall of ice, and a zone of reversed gravity, and the rogue can’t do anything remotely similar on any conceivable level?

because that’s the difference I see between the sorcerer and cleric, for instance. They just do completely different things, that happen to be written in the same “programming format”.

 

[FrogReaver]

There must be, because...they do different things. That makes them different. I just...can’t fathom the counter argument to that, I guess. It seems quite objectively true, to me. Like...the actual thing that happens in play when you use the ability is different. The only similarity is packaging/presentation, ie, how it reads on a character sheet.

But also, I didn’t say you want spells retyped as abilities. I asked you if the abilities I presented seem more different from Eldritch blast and firebolt as currently presented, than do the RAW cleric cantrips. If they don’t, then that line of thinking doesn’t lead anywhere, cool.

another way to ask a similar question is, do you see 4e classes and powers and think they’re all the same, even though a wizard can create a sphere of flame that travels around the battle and a wall of ice, and a zone of reversed gravity, and the rogue can’t do anything remotely similar on any conceivable level?

because that’s the difference I see between the sorcerer and cleric, for instance. They just do completely different things, that happen to be written in the same “programming format”.

Things can be different but not meaningfully so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Things can be different but not meaningfully so.

But they do different things! What other metric could ever possibly make a difference meaningful!?

They’re abilities. They do things. If they do different things, they’re different. This is objectively the case.
Like, do y’all also think that there is no difference between a ranged rogue and a melee fighter? Because they are closer to doing the same thing than a cleric and a wizard are.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm with lowkey13 on this. All the spellcasters feel very much the same in 5e, the Warlock excepted. The differences between them, and between various spells of the same type is, well, underwhelming.

The damage cantrips might as well be the same spell, the only differences index the game mechanics, not anything about how they feel in play. You need to mix and match damage types and have some saves and some targeted, but poison spray doesnt feel any different than fire bolt or chill touching play. You only make the choices to play against resistance and cover/AC.

To me, the difference in spell lists between the casters doesn't make them feel much different for very similar reasons. All the casters are picking between blasting, control and healing. The differences are more goldberg variations than comparing jazz and death metal. I use the same criteria to pick spells no matter what caster I'm building.

So yeah, individual spells do different things, but not in a way that makes the caster classes really feel any different from on another. The additional mechanics that are supposed to achieve that separation really fail to do so, at least in my opinion. YMMV.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm with lowkey13 on this. All the spellcasters feel very much the same in 5e, the Warlock excepted. The differences between them, and between various spells of the same type is, well, underwhelming.

The damage cantrips might as well be the same spell, the only differences index the game mechanics, not anything about how they feel in play. You need to mix and match damage types and have some saves and some targeted, but poison spray doesnt feel any different than fire bolt or chill touching play. You only make the choices to play against resistance and cover/AC.

To me, the difference in spell lists between the casters doesn't make them feel much different for very similar reasons. All the casters are picking between blasting, control and healing. The differences are more goldberg variations than comparing jazz and death metal. I use the same criteria to pick spells no matter what caster I'm building.

So yeah, individual spells do different things, but not in a way that makes the caster classes really feel any different from on another. The additional mechanics that are supposed to achieve that separation really fail to do so, at least in my opinion. YMMV.

this post is making me feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I’ve been rereading threads and caster classes all day, between other stuff, and I just...cannot fathom how y’all could literally even be reading and playing the same game as the one I’m familiar with. It feels a bit like one of those episodes of shows where he main character wakes up in a wierd version of life that isn’t real but everyone insists that everything is fine and normal.

Like...if firebolt and chill touch as basically the same, then dnd has literally never featured meaningfully different mechanics. Period.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm with lowkey13 on this. All the spellcasters feel very much the same in 5e, the Warlock excepted. The differences between them, and between various spells of the same type is, well, underwhelming.

The damage cantrips might as well be the same spell, the only differences index the game mechanics, not anything about how they feel in play. You need to mix and match damage types and have some saves and some targeted, but poison spray doesnt feel any different than fire bolt or chill touching play. You only make the choices to play against resistance and cover/AC.

To me, the difference in spell lists between the casters doesn't make them feel much different for very similar reasons. All the casters are picking between blasting, control and healing. The differences are more goldberg variations than comparing jazz and death metal. I use the same criteria to pick spells no matter what caster I'm building.

So yeah, individual spells do different things, but not in a way that makes the caster classes really feel any different from on another. The additional mechanics that are supposed to achieve that separation really fail to do so, at least in my opinion. YMMV.

Interesting. I don't actually agree with him.

For example, I find clerics play completely different than wizards. A good part of the difference is from the difference in spell lists. Clerics getting armor and weapons and more hp makes them feel a lot different in combat. Because of the differences these things make in play then I feel they are meaningful differences.

That said the 10 different ranged damage cantrips really don't feel like they have a meaningful difference. Doing a different type of damage or at a slightly different range or targeting a different defense, or having some miniscule side effect doesn't actually produce a change in play - thus no meaningful difference for me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

this post is making me feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I’ve been rereading threads and caster classes all day, between other stuff, and I just...cannot fathom how y’all could literally even be reading and playing the same game as the one I’m familiar with. It feels a bit like one of those episodes of shows where he main character wakes up in a wierd version of life that isn’t real but everyone insists that everything is fine and normal.

Like...if firebolt and chill touch as basically the same, then dnd has literally never featured meaningfully different mechanics. Period.

firebolt and chill touch are basically the same. Neither adds any meaningful difference to the play experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

DBW be all like ...

It's okay man.

It's the terror of knowing what D&D is about
Watching some good friends screaming
"Spellcasting in 5e is in doubt!"
Casting tomorrow gets me higher
Pressure on wizards, wizards on streets

You know what, man, at no point have I been a dismissive, insulting, jerk to you about this disagreement.

You normally have more class than this.

Not to mention, the comparison is just blatantly absurd. I don't believe for a moment that you even believe that Chill Touch and Firebolt, much less things like Create Bonfire vs Vicious Mockery, are as similar as a literally directly stolen hook from two pop songs.