D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Fanaelialae]

I find it a bit strange that the lesson that WotC learned from 4e - a game meant to have 2-3 combats per day as dramatic center pieces - was that people wanted shorter combats, but then decided to balance around 6-8 combats presumed combats per day.

I'm not sure they had much of a choice. It was probably that or give casters FAR fewer spell slots than they get now. And quite a few people already complain how many slots casters lost compared to 3e.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not sure they had much of a choice. It was probably that or give casters FAR fewer spell slots than they get now. And quite a few people already complain how many slots casters lost compared to 3e.

What they really needed to, and what 13th Age did, was to basically have lower level spell slots disappear as you level up.

So it would be something like this

Level 3: 4 2
Level 4: 4 3
Level 5: 3 3 2

It really doesn't matter if the number of lower level slots goes down (and eventually level 1 slots disappear altogether), so long as the overall number of slots goes up. You can always use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell, but this way you keep the increase in actual slots on a more controllable curve, even as the power level of the spells increases. (And also looking at the above, it isn't necessary to go straight to 2 level 3 slots if the PCs are fighting less encounters between long rests).

Cantrips count for a lot, and you could give higher level options to master low level utility spells at a certain point so that they can be cast at-will (like Warlock invocations).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is simply not true. In a normal adventuring day most casters can not cast as many spells as a battlemaster can use. It is not until very high levels that this is the case, and even then it requires using other abilities like sorcery points or arcane recovery to get extra spell slots.

I posted this earlie using the guidlines RAW:
A 3rd level full caster has 3 spell slots a day. A 3rd level battle master has 12 maneuvers a day.
A 7th level full caster has 11 spell slots a day. A 7th level battlemaster has 15 maneuvers a day.
An 15th level full caster has 18 spell slots a day. A 15th level battlemaster has 18 maneuvers a day and gets one more every time he rolls initiative without one.

Clearly the idea that a fighter can only do a few maneuvers a day while casters can cast leveled spells all day long is simply false.

The point at which a Wizard can cast as many spells per day as a Battlemaster can use maneuvers is 5th level.
(Assuming the standard 2 short rests and a long rest.)

This also assumes that the Superiority Die spent to grant one extra attack is of the same value as the Haste spell that grants an extra attack for every round of the combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What they really needed to, and what 13th Age did, was to basically have lower level spell slots disappear as you level up.

So it would be something like this

Level 3: 4 2
Level 4: 4 3
Level 5: 3 3 2

It really doesn't matter if the number of lower level slots goes down (and eventually level 1 slots disappear altogether), so long as the overall number of slots goes up. You can always use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell, but this way you keep the increase in actual slots on a more controllable curve, even as the power level of the spells increases. (And also looking at the above, it isn't necessary to go straight to 2 level 3 slots if the PCs are fighting less encounters between long rests).

Cantrips count for a lot, and you could give higher level options to master low level utility spells at a certain point so that they can be cast at-will (like Warlock invocations).

You're not wrong. That would work. I'm just not sure a sizable contingent of players wouldn't have a fit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Exactly. It's NOT the end all be all of everything.

The things that people tend to forget about casters is that your spells prepared and slots are limited. And if you're a spells known caster, forget about it. You're not preparing every great spell for every eventuality.

And if you don't have a relevant spell all that happens is that you are in the same boat as the fighter and probably the barbarian. But there has been a sea change in the spells known casters between the PHB where they got two spells known per spell level and Tasha's with the Clockwork and Aberrant Souls for the sorcerer and new subtypes and reworks for the ranger where they get four spells known per spell level. Four is enough for one for each pillar and something pretty situational. So you should always have something useful. Two was not enough.

A caster might end a fight with a single spell. Or they might just stand there throwing cantrips the whole time because they're functionally useless, having prepped the wrong spells. I've rarely seen an encounter where a martial is functionally useless. People often bring up flying monsters, but if you're a martial you should always have a ranged weapon. Less effective is not ineffective.

And cantrips are less effective but not ineffective... The cleric can also martial of course.

Well the OSR people that WotC was trying to court overwhelmingly stayed with OSR, Critical Role didn't want to go to the dungeon, and the ex-3e/PF1 players were still mostly operating as per the 5MWD.

And let's not forget that 4e isn't really a dungeon game either. The setpieces and climactic combats are great, the incidental fights not so much. It's more critical role that way

 

[Aldarc]

You're not wrong. That would work. I'm just not sure a sizable contingent of players wouldn't have a fit.

"Why do you always have to nerf the wizard? Everyone should be buffed up to where we are."

"Okay, we'll let the fighter be capable of legendary and mythic feats of physical prowess..."

"OBJECTION!"

"Sigh... What is it now, Mr. Wizard?"

"That's unrealistic!"

 

[Don Durito]

And let's not forget that 4e isn't really a dungeon game either. The setpieces and climactic combats are great, the incidental fights not so much. It's more critical role that way

Yes, but I'm not sure they fully realised that, at least not at first. They did try and sell it initially with a dungeon crawl adventure that it was notoriously unsuited for.

It's seems to be reflexive for WOTC, the future is always 'back to the dungeon'.

 

[Don Durito]

"Why do you always have to nerf the wizard? Everyone should be buffed up to where we are."

"Okay, we'll let the fighter be capable of legendary and mythic feats of physical prowess..."

"OBJECTION!"

"Sigh... What is it now, Mr. Wizard?"

"That's unrealistic!"

See. That's just it. No one complains that the wizard can prepare both Animate Dead and Fireball!

But the historical record is very clear, evocation reached it's peak in the late 13th century* and the major advances in necromancy didn't take place until the huge spikes in residual negative energy that accompanied the black death.

*Ok yes, there are accounts of a French Sorcerer attempting a Fireball at the battle of Crecy before being killed by an arrow from an English longbow. But the last successful casting of the spell was a full 39 years earlier so there was no guarantee he would have succeeded with his casting arrow or not - and in any case, there are no records of successful fireballs cast at any later date.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, but I'm not sure they fully realised that, at least not at first. They did try and sell it initially with a dungeon crawl adventure that it was notoriously unsuited for.

It's seems to be reflexive for WOTC, the future is always 'back to the dungeon'.

It's a shame the future isn't "back to the dragons."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The vast majority of sleight of hand stuff is on unsuspecting targets. 5e explicitly makes everyone in combat on high alert, as well as moving to avoid attacks and such. IF I even gave a roll to check sleight of hand in the middle of violent and chaotic combat, the DC would be 25 or 30. More than likely it just wouldn't work. Now if you wanted to try it on an unsuspecting wizard enjoying a drink at the bar, go for it.

I'd probably allow it in combat at disadvantage simply because of the movement involved, but it is entirely do-able. Just as I'd allow it to be attacked with the intent to destroy it, also at disadvantage.