D&D 5E Long Rests vs Short Rests

[tetrasodium]

You post this, but then your argument which has absolutely nothing to do with that claim and isn't even coherent. Plus your claim re: previous editions remains absolutely irrational and the fact that you can't see that is beyond staggering.

ROFL this is the most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum for a while mate. Amazing baseless nonsense-claim.

... Yeah that's why I said "involve concentration".

There's room for disagreement but when the average damageof greataxe+GWM (not even needing maxed str) & the average damage of one handed longsword & shield meets or exceeds a maximized disintegrate there is a problem. This post I linked to earlier details the math but there is exactly one way to maximize a spell in 5e & that method is to roll 33-34 on the wild surge table(phb104) as a wild magic sorcerer after qualifying to roll on that table & 6th level spell slots start at 1 slot/long rest at level 11 then jump to 2 at 19/20 while action surge is 1/ short rest from level 2-16 when it jumps to 2/short rest from 18 on. This is an example of the massive gap that does not even need awesome legendary/artifact type weapons to create

Quadratic fighters occur in 5e because weapon attacks add attribute mod, weapon mods, & feat/class mods each attack with many if not all of those scaling upwards independently over the course of gaining more attacks each round. through leveling & adventuring. All of that adds up. Casters by contrast face an increased amount of legendary resistance magic resistance & energy resist/immune while falling further & further behind due to being pegged to a pair of garbage assumptions on dmg249 & the idea that martials will be hamstrung by a situation wotc takes pains pushing GMs to avoid in multiple publications.

Mate, if you're not even going to be honest about your min-maxed Fighter being min-maxed, then that's not much incentive to get into a min-max battle with you is it?

The fighter he briefly described is far from minmaxed, the wizard you described by contrast exists beside the quantum ogre and is all things at all times "mate". Why the resistance to supporting your position in good faith discussion?

 

[ph0rk]

There's room for disagreement but when the average damageof greataxe+GWM (not even needing maxed str) & the average damage of one handed longsword & shield meets or exceeds a maximized disintegrate there is a problem

Linked post is argued poorly.

Disintegrate is an option as early as 11, at which point a sword and board fighter with str 20 and a longsword is managing .65*(4.5+5)*3, or 18.5 damage a round on average, sans crits. Various subclasses have ways of boosting this, but they run out of juice. This is less damage than an all-day eldritch blaster, and does not have the possibility of an instant kill to some targets as does disintegrate, or the ability to rip down walls of force or similar.

that same 6th level slot used to cast magic missile with no other funny business (school of evocation, etc) will average 28 damage, unless one is fool enough to cast it something that looks ready and able to cast shield.

Anyway, looking at pure damage output when comparing the fighter to anything else is pretty foolish (though, add in post-TCoE bladesinger and you’ve got a race), in 5e the problem arises from being able to put out quite adequate damage while also have world bending powers. The fighter is essentially last here, a Captain America alongside an Iron Man, Thor, Dr. Strange, and Scarlet Witch.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm exactly the opposite. I prefer fantastic and wonderous magic to special or novel magic. To me, in order to be fantastic, something needs to be experienced and increasing rarity limits exposure.

I akin to a favorite teddy bear you keep by your side for years vs that Hungry Hungry Hippos game you got for Xmas, and was fun to play a few times because it was new and exciting, but has been gathering dust since January. D&D magic especially has never been interesting enough to me to justify rarity... partially because it brutally botched Vance's actual system.

Out of curiosity, how do you imagine one might go about making o a magic system that was more accurate to Vance?

 

[tetrasodium]

Linked post is argued poorly.

Disintegrate is an option as early as 11, at which point a sword and board fighter with str 20 and a longsword is managing .65*(4.5+5)*3, or 18.5 damage a round on average, sans crits. Various subclasses have ways of boosting this, but they run out of juice. This is less damage than an all-day eldritch blaster, and does not have the possibility of an instant kill to some targets as does disintegrate, or the ability to rip down walls of force or similar.

that same 6th level slot used to cast magic missile with no other funny business (school of evocation, etc) will average 28 damage, unless one is fool enough to cast it something that looks ready and able to cast shield.

Anyway, looking at pure damage output when comparing the fighter to anything else is pretty foolish (though, add in post-TCoE bladesinger and you’ve got a race), in 5e the problem arises from being able to put out quite adequate damage while also have world bending powers. The fighter is essentially last here, a Captain America alongside an Iron Man, Thor, Dr. Strange, and Scarlet Witch.

You misunderstand a few points. The first one shouldn't involve much in the way of controversy either. Eldritch blast is broken as hell & one of the major problems in 5e. As a warlock evocation cantrip it's also pretty limited to warlock & sorlock type builds. The fighter being compared to doesn't need multiclassing bingo or even a highly optimized minmaxed build (one feat & a starting greataxe is rarely considered minmaxing). I've long argued that wotc's decision not to unbork it in one of many possible ways bandied around is reprehensible & think this is a silly distraction.

With disintegrate, you need to factor it over two rounds because the 33-34 maximize wildmagic entry applies to the next spell. Either way the point is not that casters need more damage & this feeds into the next point. You skipped past the gwm greataxe user dealing an average of 86/round all day long vrs that maximized disintegrate 114 max damage to focus on the sword & board longsword& shield user who doesn't even belong in the damage comparison but still compares incredibly favorably.

The damage disparity is not evidence that casters like wizard need to deal more damage, that's something I've not said or intentionally implied through this discussion. The damage disparity is evidence of how much those casters need to excel in the nondamage areas they lay claim to & due to 5e enacting so many mechanics attempting to counter the problems of 5e they fall significantly short of doing that,

Finally you aren't the first person to bring up or allude to fighters are supposed to excel at fighting things because that's their thing. The same applies to wizards and casting spells because.... That. Is. Their. Thing. the argument goes both ways but only holds up in one direction

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Out of curiosity, how do you imagine one might go about making o a magic system that was more accurate to Vance?

Have spells that are rather powerful, but you have very few of them.

And for game balance and Vance-accuracy let the wizards actually have useful capabilities besides just being 'the spell guy'. I gave never been a huge fan of the weedy scholarly wizards that can only use daggers. Such people of course can exist, but the characters are adventuring wizards which one might expect to be a tad more versatile in their mundane capabilities. Hell, even Gandalf, the archetypal fantasy wizard often fought with a sword, and Vance's sorcerers certainly tended to be capable adventurers outside their spellcasting.

 

[Asisreo]

Have spells that are rather powerful, but you have very few of them.

And for game balance and Vance-accuracy let the wizards actually have useful capabilities besides just being 'the spell guy'. I gave never been a huge fan of the weedy scholarly wizards that can only use daggers. Such people of course can exist, but the characters are adventuring wizards which one might expect to be a tad more versatile in their mundane capabilities. Hell, even Gandalf, the archetypal fantasy wizard often fought with a sword, and Vance's sorcerers certainly tended to be capable adventurers outside their spellcasting.

I feel bards handily fulfill this niche, if not a teensy bit more restricted.

Don't get me wrong, I hate playing bards, but they do have a good mix of useful non-casting dependent features alongside casting potential of good spellcasters like clerics and sorcerers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Out of curiosity, how do you imagine one might go about making o a magic system that was more accurate to Vance?

The spells have to be a lot more open-ended for one. The point of the spells in Vance was to show how much of a guile hero the 'wizards' were by using their spells in creative ways.

Admittedly, even though I do it a lot, I don't like game design that depends on the player's creativity. It isn't fair to people who aren't or don't want to push themselves to such levels (I prefer games to be fun instead of teaching lessons or acting as 'tests of character'), so I honestly like (Vance's) Vancian magic as a thing you read rather than one you play.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

They did that in 4E and people HATED it...

I think that's understood by everyone on this thread. (Although I'm not sure if that one element was the primary reason for the negativity about that edition.) I was simply offering my perspective on what the OP said, which is that he was considering balancing around short rests vs long rests.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Anyway, looking at pure damage output when comparing the fighter to anything else is pretty foolish (though, add in post-TCoE bladesinger and you’ve got a race), in 5e the problem arises from being able to put out quite adequate damage while also have world bending powers. The fighter is essentially last here, a Captain America alongside an Iron Man, Thor, Dr. Strange, and Scarlet Witch.

Point of order: While a high-end caster can do a pretty good job of replicating or matching the power level of some of the Avengers, Captain America is more widely capable and powerful than a D&D fighter. Outside of maybe the sheer durability which is shared by all D&D classes.

There's room for disagreement but when the average damageof greataxe+GWM (not even needing maxed str) & the average damage of one handed longsword & shield meets or exceeds a maximized disintegrate there is a problem.

Average damage of Level 11 longsword and shield fighter= 37.5.
OK. Well, I guess you might have got carried away with your claims and meant just the minmaxed Greataxe fighter, average damage (ignoring attack penalty, assuming same hit rate at the others): 64.5
Average damage of non-maximised Disintegrate (Not even bothering with the maximised thing: takes too long/too much luck to set up.): 75

I do not believe that either 37.5 or 64.5 "meets or exceeds" 75, let alone 100.
(In fact the Fighter would have to deal decidedly non-average damage, by kicking in their Action Surge to start comparing with disintegrate.)

Now personally, I do not think that this is a valid comparison: Disintegrate uses a high-level spell slot and is one of the worst example spells to start comparing combat performance with. But I wasn't going to let such an . . . unusual claim stand without looking more closely at its actual truth.

Finally you aren't the first person to bring up or allude to fighters are supposed to excel at fighting things because that's their thing. The same applies to wizards and casting spells because.... That. Is. Their. Thing. the argument goes both ways but only holds up in one direction

Pretty sure that it is not a valid comparison to start with, but it does hold up in both directions: Wizards do excel at casting spells: they do it much better than Fighters. (Or pretty much any other class due to the spell list and class/subclass abilities.)

The reason that I do not view it as a valid comparison is that extra attack and spellcasting cannot be compared directly in the game as a whole. You can compare greataxe damage compared to fireball on X targets for the combat pillar, but the fighter's Extra Attack is not going to help them with exploration, stealth, social, investigation, and other challenges the way that 3rd level spell slot is with the wizard.
In the time a fighter takes to get another attack, usable in only the combat pillar, the wizard has got three more spell levels and ten different ways of using them. Outside of a really combat-focused hack-and-slash style game, the two cannot be compared.

Or to put it to you in an even simpler way: Matching fighter attack damage with wizard disintegrate damage over the course of a day would still be unfair, because disintegrate has a good non-combat utility use as well, whereas weapon attacks don't.

 

[ph0rk]

Point of order: While a high-end caster can do a pretty good job of replicating or matching the power level of some of the Avengers, Captain America is more widely capable and powerful than a D&D fighter. Outside of maybe the sheer durability which is shared by all D&D classes.

That's an even stronger argument - the fighter is Hawkeye!

Or to put it to you in an even simpler way: Matching fighter attack damage with wizard disintegrate damage over the course of a day would still be unfair, because disintegrate has a good non-combat utility use as well, whereas weapon attacks don't.

And: the wizard can cast something other than disintegrate if the situation calls for it.