D&D (2024) Can A Spell Caster Out Damage a Martial Consistently?

[Asisreo]

I'm much more concerned with the frequency of long rests than I am with short rests.

With the 24hr recharge limit of long rests as well as the 8hr waiting time, long rests really shouldn't be frequent.

I mean, unless you want the game to be easy. But if the game's easy, character effectiveness doesn't really matter all that much.

 

[TwoSix]

With the 24hr recharge limit of long rests as well as the 8hr waiting time, long rests really shouldn't be frequent.

I mean, unless you want the game to be easy. But if the game's easy, character effectiveness doesn't really matter all that much.

Well, let me ask this. What makes long rests not be frequent? "Shouldn't be" implies some sort of expectation or social contract, since there's nothing system-wise that demands any particular rest frequency.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think tbe 5MW gets exaggerated but I'm sure it happens enough. Players rest when they need to.

 

[Asisreo]

Well, let me ask this. What makes long rests not be frequent? "Shouldn't be" implies some sort of expectation or social contract, since there's nothing system-wise that demands any particular rest frequency.

The nature of the adventure/game in which it matters is what makes long rests infrequent.

That is, the assumption that the adventure is sufficiently challenging, and therefore any discussion of balance is relevant. If the adventure is not sufficiently challenging such that balance does not matter, then rests can be as frequent as the players are comfortable with. But a challenging adventure would not allow players to rest simply by its nature, not without grave consequences at least.

The system does not need to introduce challenge. That is what the adventure is for. If I want to play a game with my friends over beer and a laugh, then a less challenging adventure that allows a rest between combats might be fine. But if I tell you this game will be a grueling test of skill, but I don't account for an entire sub-system of rules that the players can easily exploit, then that's a failure on adventure design.

One could argue the system should provide better guidance, to which I won't argue, but the system's rules and method of play itself leaves enough room for adventures to be a breeze or a difficult experience.

 

[^Dagon^]

The nature of the adventure/game in which it matters is what makes long rests infrequent.

That is, the assumption that the adventure is sufficiently challenging, and therefore any discussion of balance is relevant. If the adventure is not sufficiently challenging such that balance does not matter, then rests can be as frequent as the players are comfortable with. But a challenging adventure would not allow players to rest simply by its nature, not without grave consequences at least.

The system does not need to introduce challenge. That is what the adventure is for. If I want to play a game with my friends over beer and a laugh, then a less challenging adventure that allows a rest between combats might be fine. But if I tell you this game will be a grueling test of skill, but I don't account for an entire sub-system of rules that the players can easily exploit, then that's a failure on adventure design.

One could argue the system should provide better guidance, to which I won't argue, but the system's rules and method of play itself leaves enough room for adventures to be a breeze or a difficult experience.

This is absolutely correct. That's exactly how I run my campaigns.

 

[^Dagon^]

Treantmonk did the math at 4 encounters each 4 rounds 1 short rest. His sorcerer build low tier 3 got an A for damage. The martials were still S tier.

I think I can beat his numbers on paper white room theory crafting.

High tier 3 ad 4 it's all CME which means the answer to my question is no. Espicially at levels people actually play out.

I've gone through 3 powergaming youtube type channels, my own power gamers and a discord server plus reddit. I merged several sources to improve Treantmonks build.

Most theory craft builds are crap until level 12 or so. My more realistic ones are playable from level 1 but trade off those Uber damage numbers.

Fireballs very situational in 5E now. Unless DMs essentially feeding large groups into it that won't out damage martials either. At least consistently.

Fireball vanilla is nowhere as spectacular as many inexperienced players think. Overall, it is a weak yet playable spell, in accordance with the ousting of blasting strategies in 5e. If fireball was to become average in power it should do 10d6 damage at least and there should also be some options to specialize in blasting (like a VIABLE Elemental Adept or Spell Sniper feat). 5e vanilla has almost zero boosting options for blasting.

 

[tetrasodium]

Fireball vanilla is nowhere as spectacular as many inexperienced players think. Overall, it is a weak yet playable spell, in accordance with the ousting of blasting strategies in 5e. If fireball was to become average in power it should do 10d6 damage at least and there should also be some options to specialize in blasting (like a VIABLE Elemental Adept or Spell Sniper feat). 5e vanilla has almost zero boosting options for blasting.

The wizard and sorcerer don't have enough high level slots to recklessly spam an effective fireball without eating into their effectiveness over the session... Warlock changes that math in tier3(level 11) & beyond when they are throwing out 3 level 5 fireballs right out of the gate plus an additional three more 5th level fireballs over an unlimited number of short rests and can basically match or exceed the fighter's at will multi attack chain with 3x 1d10+cha+hex at will any time that a 5th level almost at will fireball might be less optimal. Shifting the math like that is probably a big part of why you see people grumble about it so often.

 

[Zardnaar]

The wizard and sorcerer don't have enough high level slots to recklessly spam an effective fireball without eating into their effectiveness over the session... Warlock changes that math in tier3(level 11) & beyond when they are throwing out 3 level 5 fireballs right out of the gate plus an additional three more 5th level fireballs over an unlimited number of short rests and can basically match or exceed the fighter's at will multi attack chain with 3x 1d10+cha+hex at will any time that a 5th level almost at will fireball might be less optimal. Shifting the math like that is probably a big part of why you see people grumble about it so often.

Even the it's a specific type of warlock. Probably upcast hunger of hadar now instead and use devil sight and repelling blast.

 

[^Dagon^]

The wizard and sorcerer don't have enough high level slots to recklessly spam an effective fireball without eating into their effectiveness over the session... Warlock changes that math in tier3(level 11) & beyond when they are throwing out 3 level 5 fireballs right out of the gate plus an additional three more 5th level fireballs over an unlimited number of short rests and can basically match or exceed the fighter's at will multi attack chain with 3x 1d10+cha+hex at will any time that a 5th level almost at will fireball might be less optimal. Shifting the math like that is probably a big part of why you see people grumble about it so often.

I have yet to encounter a DM allowing more than 2 short rests per long rest, myself included. If you take that into account, the warlock is still weaker than the other two in 'fireballizing' his enemies...

Yeah, if you have unlimited short rests warlock is second best, after battle master in dealing damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have yet to encounter a DM allowing more than 2 short rests per long rest, myself included. If you take that into account, the warlock is still weaker than the other two in 'fireballizing' his enemies...

Yeah, if you have unlimited short rests warlock is second best, after battle master in dealing damage.

Prayer of healing adds another one these days.

I wouldn't bother with upcasting fireball as a fiendpact warlock myself. At least not that much.