Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7962008" data-attributes="member: 20564">Some points your OP doesn't address:First, long lasting spells have more effect simply because the encounter is going longer, plus lack of need to spend slots and actions to recast it again in another encounters.  It's hard to argue that 6 slots and 6 actions are less efficient than 3 slots and 3 actions for the same result.Note that arguments that it would only be 3 even with more encounters because of varying difficulty requires players to have perfect knowledge of when to cast or not, including a good expectation fo how many encoutners they will have in a day which many DMs vary. And still, it's worse because it's still would hvae been of some use in the easier encounters. So that is disproven.Second, increasing deadliness is done by doing one, both, or a combination of tougher and/or more numerous opponents. Both of these can allow a caster to contribute more for the same number of slots and actions through good spell selection.More numerous opponents means that area of effect can catch more. A fireball that hits 3 foes does 24d6 reduced by saves, while one that hits 5 foes does 40d6 reduced by saves. Greater contribution per actionThe nature of saves in 5e is that most creatures will have 2-3 bad saves - ones that they aren't proficient in and don't have a great ability score. These bad saves mean that if you chose the right save to target, more powerful creatures will fail saves just as frequently as less powerful creatures. So if there are more powerful foes, then the same slot will be able to debuff/crowd control/whatever something more powerful. Denying an action to a more powerful creature is a greater contribution than denying an action to a less powerful creature.Since at-will powers are generally flat per action, casters being able to contribute more per action shows how the balance between the classes is upset with fewer encounters per day.</blockquote>

Verification