D&D (2024) Fireball is a C Tier Spell

[EzekielRaiden]

yes,
I would rather have attack scaling from +5 to +14(+3 weapon) than from +6 to +22ish(with +5 weapon)

or in 3.5 where it went from +5ish to +35 or something like that

But again: This leads to many people feeling that they aren't really progressing at all. You've swapped the problem of large numbers for the problem of ACTUALLY feeling like one is on a treadmill because nothing changes.

Instead of an abstract mathematical treadmill, theoretically there and thus annoying for some players to think about, we have now hand-built ourselves an actual in-experience treadmill where change doesn't happen and monsters are either hordes of tedious uninteresting trash, or ever-inflating bags of HP.

 

[Horwath]

But again: This leads to many people feeling that they aren't really progressing at all. You've swapped the problem of large numbers for the problem of ACTUALLY feeling like one is on a treadmill because nothing changes.

so new abilities that you gain are nothing?

Instead of an abstract mathematical treadmill, theoretically there and thus annoying for some players to think about, we have now hand-built ourselves an actual in-experience treadmill where change doesn't happen and monsters are either hordes of tedious uninteresting trash, or ever-inflating bags of HP.

inflating HPs are a problem, maybe add more attacks to classes or more various riders to attack.

more attacks vs more HP is better than few attacks vs less HP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

so new abilities that you gain are nothing?

Only if you're actually gaining any...which almost always requires you to be specifically a spellcaster of some kind. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and to a certain extent even Monks? Most of the time, all you get are more uses of what you already had, or the 4th/5th/6th-string option when you'd already chosen the top three. Even Paladins and Rangers often barely change across levels, especially if they're not really into the spell thing.

Several classes barely change from level 1 to level 10...and that's where most games stop. Unless, as stated, you're a spellcaster. Because spellcasters always get The Most Toys.

inflating HPs are a problem, maybe add more attacks to classes or more various riders to attack.

Or, hear me out, maybe consider other approaches to growing power besides inflating damage and then inflating HP to match (or vice-versa, whichever caused the other doesn't matter). Maybe there actually was some value in 1st-level creatures becoming effectively unable to hit high-level characters, and that value very specifically was being able to SEE that you had attained greater mastery if you fought something like that. It's obviously a sometimes food, but even sometimes-foods have a place in a well, er, constructed diet, since I know the seven-letter B word causes people to break out in hives around here.

more attacks vs more HP is better than few attacks vs less HP.

Is it though? Again, this sounds to me like insistence rather than evidence. You've declared a thesis with no evidence.

In my experience, players don't feel much different making three attacks in a single round than rolling one, and splitting the damage up into small chunks makes it feel smaller than it is. But they feel quite a bit different rolling a single attack and doing a bazillion damage, especially if you don't do as 5e did and make crits double-roll damage (because I've seen PLENTY of snake-eyes crits in 5e, my own and others', that aren't even as good as an average attack.) 4e's rule on that front was absolutely both simpler AND more impactful (crit = maximized damage). That very thing is one of my best pieces of evidence that 5e didn't actually have simplification as a core goal, it merely deployed simplification in some places and not others...often to its own detriment, e.g. the fact that so many monsters are dull fat sacks of HP.

 

[Horwath]

Only if you're actually gaining any...which almost always requires you to be specifically a spellcaster of some kind. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and to a certain extent even Monks? Most of the time, all you get are more uses of what you already had, or the 4th/5th/6th-string option when you'd already chosen the top three. Even Paladins and Rangers often barely change across levels, especially if they're not really into the spell thing.

Several classes barely change from level 1 to level 10...and that's where most games stop. Unless, as stated, you're a spellcaster. Because spellcasters always get The Most Toys.

fighter gets new feature at every level except 5,11,17 and 20, when just more uses of old features are gained, 16 out 20 levels are something new

Or, hear me out, maybe consider other approaches to growing power besides inflating damage and then inflating HP to match (or vice-versa, whichever caused the other doesn't matter). Maybe there actually was some value in 1st-level creatures becoming effectively unable to hit high-level characters, and that value very specifically was being able to SEE that you had attained greater mastery if you fought something like that. It's obviously a sometimes food, but even sometimes-foods have a place in a well, er, constructed diet, since I know the seven-letter B word causes people to break out in hives around here.

bounded accuracy means that no matter how powerful you are, if you are unprepared, lots of low level opponents can take you out.
that to me is better than being immune, it makes the world more real.

Is it though? Again, this sounds to me like insistence rather than evidence. You've declared a thesis with no evidence.

i would rather have 5 attacks for 10 damage vs 200HP opponent than 1 attack for 10 damage vs 40HP opponent.
more attacks means that one fluke roll will not break the balance.
and with more attacks, if you fight mooks, you can spread them out.

In my experience, players don't feel much different making three attacks in a single round than rolling one, and splitting the damage up into small chunks makes it feel smaller than it is. But they feel quite a bit different rolling a single attack and doing a bazillion damage, especially if you don't do as 5e did and make crits double-roll damage (because I've seen PLENTY of snake-eyes crits in 5e, my own and others', that aren't even as good as an average attack.) 4e's rule on that front was absolutely both simpler AND more impactful (crit = maximized damage). That very thing is one of my best pieces of evidence that 5e didn't actually have simplification as a core goal, it merely deployed simplification in some places and not others...often to its own detriment, e.g. the fact that so many monsters are dull fat sacks of HP.

funny, I have seen the opposite, people love to make as much attack rolls as possible, even better if it is with advantage.

as for criticals, I agree 100% with you, 5E crits suck completely.
either double ALL damage, or max normal with extra roll of dice on top.

 

[mellored]

Then you forgot Hit Dice, and only counted them in a biased way here.

I added them in to the total daily HP.

You absolutely DO NOT have access to all of your surges in a given combat.

Never said you did.
Nor do you have access to hit dice in combat.
And I just added the total daily hit points.

And round and round we go.

Well I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

The fact that 4e numbers (level, HP, to-hit, AC) scaled more isn't a judgment call. It's a simple fact.

Never said you has to like or dislike it.

Personally I like the more restrained numbers 5e has, but that's just my opinion.

l like healing surges more than HDs in 5e

that is true

having short rests on 5min is much better than 1hr.
1hr is not a "short" rest.

but the number scaling is much better in 5e

Agreed on all counts.

But what I probably miss the most was that all healing took a surge. So you could
1: be healed a certain number of times a day (with healing stabilizing you after that)
2: healing scales with the targets HP. Cure wounds on a level 20 barbarian should do more than cure wounds on a level 1 wizard.

 

[GrimCo]

max normal with extra roll of dice on top.

That's one houserule we implemented in our group. Crits do max damage, plus normal roll. So longsword is 8+1d8, greatsword is 12+2d6, etc. So even if you roll poorly, you still do above average damage, and if you roll really well, you hit hard. We also tried double dice and double bonus ( so if you have 1d8+5, crit would be 2d8+10), but it was bit much, specially combined with GWM or Sharpshooter.

There is fine balance in numbers. I remember 3e days where 7 attacks per round were doable at level 11-12 with help from wizard casting haste. Paired with rogue and sneak attack on every attack, that was lots of dice rolling if you hit with all attacks. It would slow down combat and become tedious. On the other hand, played enough low levels 2ed where it was race for the first hit, as in, whoever scores hit first, wins. Damage/HP ratio was almost 1:1. 5e is decent in that regard up to a point where HPs start to bloat too much that you need few rounds of regular attacks to drop down someone.

4e was and still is, by my opinion, best designed edition when it comes to combat.

 

[Horwath]

I remember 3e days where 7 attacks per round were doable at level 11-12 with help from wizard casting haste. Paired with rogue and sneak attack on every attack,

had level 14 fighter/rogue 1 with the broken craven feat.

sneak attack on every crit, 15-20 crit range, 6 attacks per round.

 

[ECMO3]

At levels 5-10, 8d6 damage (half of it guaranteed) is more than a Rogue deals when sneak attacking

This is not helping your case ... at 9th level you are using a resource to deal slightly more than the at will damage for the worst non-caster in the game.

 

[ECMO3]

There is fine balance in numbers. I remember 3e days where 7 attacks per round were doable at level 11-12 with help from wizard casting haste.

A 2024 11th level Monk with nick will do 6 attacks with FOB and if he gets hasted that is a 7th.

Assuming a 20 dex that is 7d10+35

 

[Horwath]

A 2024 11th level Monk with nick will do 6 attacks with FOB and if he gets hasted that is a 7th.

Assuming a 20 dex that is 7d10+35

you mean 11th level monk/ 1st level fighter?