D&D 5E Are quadratic spellcasters still a problem?

[Kraydak]

No it isn't. If they were any weaker than that, they wouldn't be worth using at all. Cantrips need to be a respectable use of a character's turn, not only so that wizards don't totally suck once they're out of daily spells, but also so that they can use them instead of their daily spells, conserving their bigger guns for later while still making a somewhat meaningful contribution to the fight.

If cantrips do anywhere *near* 50% of Fighter damage, then Fighters become obsolete (well, ok I'll admit that if combat spells other than cantrips are removed, it'll be ok). If you are trying to make sure that CoDzilla lives, well, you are on the right path.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If cantrips do anywhere *near* 50% of Fighter damage, then Fighters become obsolete (well, ok I'll admit that if combat spells other than cantrips are removed, it'll be ok).

How do you figure? Do you have any kind of mathematic basis for this extreme conclusion?

If you are trying to make sure that CoDzilla lives, well, you are on the right path.

Don't cast aspersions like that. Just because we happen to disagree on how much damage cantrips should do doesn't mean that I want "CoDzilla" wizards.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If cantrips do anywhere *near* 50% of Fighter damage, then Fighters become obsolete.

Why? Are you forgetting that Fighters in D&DN have resources beyond their at-will attack?

 

[Wulfgar76]

Cantrips too powerful? Really?
A wizard is almost better off picking up rocks and throwing them - that's how weak cantrips are in DDN.

 

[Kraydak]

How do you figure? Do you have any kind of mathematic basis for this extreme conclusion?



Don't cast aspersions like that. Just because we happen to disagree on how much damage cantrips should do doesn't mean that I want "CoDzilla" wizards.

Look. I believe you don't. However, I also believe you haven't thought things through very carefully.

While I can't say it for certain, I'm pretty sure you started playing with 3e. There is a reason for that apparent non-sequitor. In 1e (post UA) and 2e (pre-cleric-granted-abilities-explosion), Fighters *did* do over 10X Cleric damage. And, for mid levels, 2-5X Wizard damage (at low levels, it could get well over 10X, and as you got closer to 9th, it closed on parity). And yet Fighters were not considered an overpowered class. If anything, the opposite. If you didn't experience that, you really do not have an actual experimental feel for what kind of offense differentials you need to get to before Fighters are overpowered. The numbers are pretty absurd, and well beyond anyone's naive intuition.

But no matter. If you think that cantrips doing 50% of Fighter damage (and they do well over that once you get past level 5) is reasonable, please explain why a party of a melee fighter (why the party even has a melee fighter in the first place is nagging question...), a cleric, a rogue and a wizard would recruit an archer as opposed to a wizard or cleric. Under that 50% assumption, the if the wizard loads *purely defensive and utility* spells, the damage output gain from the archer over the wizard is well under 16% (and with a decent defensive spell loadout, the wizard is tankier).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Look. I believe you don't. However, I also believe you haven't thought things through very carefully.

I kind of feel like you haven't explained why, still. Why is 50% of a Fighter's damage a problem? As always, play what you like

 

[keterys]

Effective cantrips aren't how you make or break casters. What they can do on the high end and what they can maintain over a reasonable number of encounters - the stuff that actually wrecks and dominates encounters? That's what matters.

So, the druid who uses an elemental mantle to give disadvantage to all ranged attacks against his whole party when they go to fight several dozen goblins and orcs (what happened today)? Yeah, that's a big deal. Or the previous week when he used it to make a huge area of difficult terrain to shutdown a group of minotaurs so they could be picked apart from range with call lightning? Yep.

So far my gut reaction is that the slotted spells are too powerful, even from level 1, and the cantrips are too weak. At least based on 1st - 7th.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Look. I believe you don't. However, I also believe you haven't thought things through very carefully.

You assume an awful lot. If you want to debate me, debate me. Challenge the points I make with FACTS, not with baseless assumptions about my thought processes or motives.

While I can't say it for certain, I'm pretty sure you started playing with 3e.

Bzzt. Wrong. I started playing with 2e, and played it for years. If that even matters.

There is a reason for that apparent non-sequitor. In 1e (post UA) and 2e (pre-cleric-granted-abilities-explosion), Fighters *did* do over 10X Cleric damage.

That's not how I remember things.

And, for mid levels, 2-5X Wizard damage (at low levels, it could get well over 10X, and as you got closer to 9th, it closed on parity). And yet Fighters were not considered an overpowered class. If anything, the opposite.

2e (and 3rd) made the mistake of trying to "balance" wizards by making them suck horribly at low levels, as if that balanced the fact that they were like gods at higher levels. It didn't work.

If you didn't experience that, you really do not have an actual experimental feel for what kind of offense differentials you need to get to before Fighters are overpowered.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide whether or not other people are "qualified" to have an opinion.

But no matter. If you think that cantrips doing 50% of Fighter damage (and they do well over that once you get past level 5) is reasonable, please explain why a party of a melee fighter (why the party even has a melee fighter in the first place is nagging question...), a cleric, a rogue and a wizard would recruit an archer as opposed to a wizard or cleric. Under that 50% assumption, the if the wizard loads *purely defensive and utility* spells, the damage output gain from the archer over the wizard is well under 16% (and with a decent defensive spell loadout, the wizard is tankier).

Because that extra 50% damage matters? Damage isn't everything, either. Spellcasters are widely considered to be the most powerful classes in 3.x and Pathfinder (at least at mid-high levels), and yet I've had plenty of fun playing other classes in those games, such as Rangers. In DnDN, the gap in power between casters and non-casters is far narrower than in those editions.

 

[Bluenose]

Well in my campaigns a lvl 20 wizard will at best know 2-3 9th level spells and maybe 3-4 of each level from 6th up. I just think that the WBL guidelines for additional spells are far too generous; a scroll should not be enough to learn a new spell from and learning a spell from a looted spellbook should be a laborious process. Sure that gives him versatility but up to a point. Also if you let your players abuse Wish or Shapechange because RAW allows them to be abused, I think the problem is as much with your DMing as it is with the ruleset.

If the ruleset allows those sort of abuses, I'm fairly sure blaming my GMing for not changing it rather than blaming the ruleset for including them isn't helpful. It would seem rather better not to write rules that can be abused in that way.

 

[Manbearcat]

Effective cantrips aren't how you make or break casters. What they can do on the high end and what they can maintain over a reasonable number of encounters - the stuff that actually wrecks and dominates encounters? That's what matters.

So, the druid who uses an elemental mantle to give disadvantage to all ranged attacks against his whole party when they go to fight several dozen goblins and orcs (what happened today)? Yeah, that's a big deal. Or the previous week when he used it to make a huge area of difficult terrain to shutdown a group of minotaurs so they could be picked apart from range with call lightning? Yep.

So far my gut reaction is that the slotted spells are too powerful, even from level 1, and the cantrips are too weak. At least based on 1st - 7th.

This is my take as well. I've playtested a bit into the 11 - 15th level range.

- Cantrips too weak.
- Slotted spells too powerful.
- Spell DCs outscale STs.
- Spell slot proliferation (plus having cantrips - but I want them) creates an overabundance of Batman utility options that compounds at higher levels.

I'd be for some form of enforced siloing if spell slots/prep stays this way, reallocating many spells to higher levels, nerfing a few problem spells, buffing cantrips, and removing inherent, scaling DCs if STs aren't going to scale at the same rate.