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

[Sadrik]

For those that think 0 level spells are too weak. Do you feel like they should be more powerful than a 1st level spell slots or about the same or less powerful?

From my position, cantrips should be less powerful than a first level slot. This will put more emphasis on wizard players making their slots pack their punch. It will mitigate the overabundant utility some are citing. Giving 0-level spells slots, making them not auto-scale, move them into the standard spell system rather than have them be an asterisk, kinda like a spell but... And once again, wands, feats, permanency and many other effects can bring these spells into the at-will category (like a sword swing) but in my opinion it should not be out of the gate. I also endorse a well defined module to allow unlimited 0 level spells and perhaps even 1st level spells too, for those who are interested in this.

Spells need to be powerful, but they need to be level appropriate. Re-leveling spells is a must. All of the powerful effects need to be in there the question is at what level. This should be approached from a position of we have this effect, where would it naturally fall on the power scale, rather than, lets make this fit into this level and either weaken the effect or make it too powerful. Hold person, sleep, polar ray, etc...

Spell saves are an issue in making spells too powerful at upper levels. There is no need to have them be more difficult to resist as you level up, this is the exact opposite of 1e and 2e assumptions. There your save improved and the DC was static, essentially. More powerful spell effects were mitigated by a better save against all spell effects.

 

[keterys]

Sounds like pretty universal agreement that spell save DCs are too high. They start at monsters needing ~13, climb to ~19 over time. Personally I'd be fine with closer to 50/50, or with monsters becoming slightly more resistant over time (~13 -> ~10 for example), but depends on how effective you want spells to be. If a failed save drops a boss without any prep, I want it to be notable. If you set things up so folks do some set of actions to give a boss disadvantage on saves, and then the spell has a high chance to drop 'em, great.

Anyhow, cantrip damage-wise, at the moment it's doing less than the not-Dex fighter with their backup crossbow. That's pretty lame to me. In the same way that "Roll initiative. Wizard goes first? You cast boom spell for X damage. Hmm, my guys have less than X/2 hp so I won't bother to roll saves. Next fight then." is also pretty lame to me, in the other direction.

Certainly enough that I don't feel it's a waste of time for me to be rolling the save against their cantrip damage.

 

[cmbarona]

Should cantrips be more powerful than 1st-level slots? I guess that depends on a number of factors, some of which might ultimately boil down to opinion. For example, I think spells should scale with caster level. One underlying assumption I try to make: If Cleric Allen is more powerful than Cleric Bob (assuming a higher level, to use the game terms), then the same spell cast by Allen should be more powerful than one cast by Bob.

This means cantrips should scale, 1st-level spells should scale, 5th-level spells should scale, etc. One could argue that the latest playtest packet has done this in two ways: 1) Spells can be cast in higher spell slots, which is a process I admittedly haven't reviewed. 2) Cantrips, existing outside the realm of slotted spells because they are arguably so familiar to the caster, become even more familiar and therefore more effective over time.

As I've said before, some spells are just too powerful, especially for their given spell level, whether through damage done or save DCs scaling inappropriately. Many of them need to be reworked. Personally, I'm hoping the end result will be that, for any given level, a caster can expect to want to use a slotted spell of a level-appropriate slot rather than a cantrip in most situations. But I do want them to be able to fall back on a cantrip, and that cantrip to serve a useful and reliable function, when it is used as an alternative. What's a level-appropriate slot? I don't know. Maybe the maximum available slot, the one before it, and occasionally the one before that. As for the slots below those? That could be part of a caster's ever-expanding utility belt.

Another alternative I might appreciate would be for all spells to scale at a rate similar to cantrips, such that they are usually a viable alternative after most slots for the day have been burned. But yes, even in those cases, I still think they should scale, and I still think they should be unlimited.

Also FWIW, I would be happy with the standard damage cantrips being equivalent to a shortbow attack: d6+ability, with some scaling mechanic attached.

 

[Wulfgar76]

For those that think 0 level spells are too weak. Do you feel like they should be more powerful than a 1st level spell slots or about the same or less powerful?

Of course not. But they should be better than picking up a stick or rock.

Right now they do a flat 1d8 damage at low level, which is less than the same wizard shooting a crossbow. That said, I'm not convinced that they need to become better, because slotted spells are already so powerful.

 

[Falling Icicle]

For those that think 0 level spells are too weak. Do you feel like they should be more powerful than a 1st level spell slots or about the same or less powerful?

That's a good question. One on hand, people are used to cantrips being 0th level spells because that's what they were in 3.x (and prior to that, cantrip was a 1st level spell that let you perform minor magical tricks). In DnDN, cantrips aren't labeled as 0th level spells. Instead, one could think of them as signature spells or innate powers that are different from other spells. Looking at it that way, it's not unreasonable that they might end up being more powerful than 1st level spells at higher levels.

That said, one of the changes I've suggested is to make cantrips scale like Cleric deadly strike (up to 3[W] damage). If that were the case, they would always be inferior to 1st level spells. 3d8 damage to a single target is not as powerful as 1st level spells. Burning Hands and Thunderwave do 3d8 to multiple targets. Inflict Wounds does 4d8 damage. Magic Missile does 3d4 + 6 and automatically hits.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Incidentally, has there already been a dedicated thread identifying 'broken/Opd' spells in DDN?

Because after playing for the past couple months, I have some serious contenders in need of the nerf bat.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Incidentally, has there already been a dedicated thread identifying 'broken/Opd' spells in DDN?

Because after playing for the past couple months, I have some serious contenders in need of the nerf bat.

Not that I'm aware of, but not a bad idea.

 

[pemerton]

Remember, you aren't doing a strict fighter vs. wizards DPR comparison. That'd be silly. No, you are doing party vs party comparisons, such as:
Melee Fighter, Ranged Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue VS Melee Fighter, Cleric, Wizard X 2, Rogue comparison.

Now, assume that the non-Fighters do 50% of Fighter DPR. Well, the 1st party does 3.5 Fighter DPR while the second only does 3 Fighter DPR. IE it does 1/6 more DPR at the cost of 1/3 of the spell power. Now, if the Wizards are doing 50% of Fighter DPR *only* when taking combat heavy spell loadouts, well, you could maybe (just maybe) make a balance case. In that scenario, the Wizards *aren't* providing all that much utility.

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).

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

As I understand it, Kraydak's argument - from the two posts I've quoted - is that if a caster does 50% or more of a fighter's damage, then given the utility benefits that a caster brings, the marginal benefit from adding another caster to the party will significantly outstrip the benefit of adding another fighter.

I'm not sure that marginal gain is the only relevant measure - for instance, there is also the experience of the individual player of each PC (no player is playing his/her own PC as the marginal increase to the party's capacity).

My issue with making cantrips closer to fighters in power would be that, for casters to have an incentive to use their non-cantrip spells, then those spells would have to be notably better than fighter attacks. Which seems broken. From what [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] is saying, it sounds like the control effects of D&Dnext cantrips don't compensate for low damage as much as is the case with at-wills in 4e.

 

[keterys]

In 4e terms, it feels like at the moment the balance is -

Fighter At-Will: 1W+Stat+Bonuses
Wizard At-Will: 1W
Fighter Encounter: 2W+Stat+Bonuses
Wizard "Encounter": 3W+Stat to the encounter

Which could be considered a form of balanced. It's just not one I'm enthused about.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In 4e terms, it feels like at the moment the balance is -

Fighter At-Will: 1W+Stat+Bonuses
Wizard At-Will: 1W
Fighter Encounter: 2W+Stat+Bonuses
Wizard "Encounter": 3W+Stat to the encounter

Which could be considered a form of balanced. It's just not one I'm enthused about.

I think part of the balance issues between fighter and wizard in 3rd Edition revolved around damage. Both fighters and wizards were "supposed" to be good at damaged, and competed at the same role.

If wizard at-wills did less damage, but inflicted status conditions on enemies, I think that would contribute to balance.

My issue with making cantrips closer to fighters in power would be that, for casters to have an incentive to use their non-cantrip spells, then those spells would have to be notably better than fighter attacks. Which seems broken.

Are you comparing to fighter at-wills, or other fighter powers?