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

[pemerton]

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

I had in mind fighter at-wills. I don't feel I have a terrific handle on how fighter abilities work outside the at-will context, except the bonus to damage seemed a bit weak compared to the bonus to hit.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

That is part of it. The other part, or maybe an important detail, is that you need to think about percentage changes to the aggregate party resources. Everyone brings some damage to the table, so you need to bring a whole honking lot of damage more than the baseline to stand out. On the other hand, not everyone brings utility to the table, and utility often doesn't overlap that much, so bringing more utility, or a different category of utility (Druid spells when you already have a Wizard and a Cleric) is very useful. If Cantrips are at 50% of Fighter damage, then Fighters turn out to NOT bring a whole honking lot of damage for 4+ character parties.

Even beyond class balance, there are adventure-design advantages to making some characters mediocre at combat, but that is a post for another time.

 

[keterys]

The current model is roughly - if you're using a reasonable spell slot (one you can probably use every encounter) you can do triple the effectiveness of the fighter. If you aren't, you can do half the effectiveness of the fighter.

So, that is certainly one way to encourage the wizard to ensure they have a spell slot for every round that matters, ever, and to just ensure the party rests when appropriate. Which is too effective.

Which is why I contend that you're better off bringing up their low end and dropping down their high end. To be fair, this is more of a problem at low level than high level: 3d8 at 1st level is enough to drop most foes _who make a successful save_ while 5d6 with a 3rd level spell is not much higher than that. Even 2d8 vs. 2d8 + 6 is slightly less grating than the low level "Wait, so I should just throw something instead?"

 

[pemerton]

I think [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] is right that there is little point in making cantrips lower damage than the mundane weapons that casters can use. Because in that case the cantrips won't help balance overall damage output, they'll just force the player of the caster to choose between output and flavour.

 

[Sadrik]

I think [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] is right that there is little point in making cantrips lower damage than the mundane weapons that casters can use. Because in that case the cantrips won't help balance overall damage output, they'll just force the player of the caster to choose between output and flavour.

I think there is a lot of points to making them less than 1st level spells and giving them spell slots.

Subsystem of spells that are not treated as spells:
Unlimited use, exception to spell slots and rituals.
Scaling to dealing more damage than higher level spells
Cannot be put into higher level slots for increased effect

What if you had 20 0 level slots per day? This would be like a quiver of arrows but perhaps still better. I am trying to hone in on what really like about unlimited 0 level spells.

 

[Manbearcat]

The current model is roughly - if you're using a reasonable spell slot (one you can probably use every encounter) you can do triple the effectiveness of the fighter. If you aren't, you can do half the effectiveness of the fighter.

So, that is certainly one way to encourage the wizard to ensure they have a spell slot for every round that matters, ever, and to just ensure the party rests when appropriate. Which is too effective.

Which is why I contend that you're better off bringing up their low end and dropping down their high end. To be fair, this is more of a problem at low level than high level: 3d8 at 1st level is enough to drop most foes _who make a successful save_ while 5d6 with a 3rd level spell is not much higher than that. Even 2d8 vs. 2d8 + 6 is slightly less grating than the low level "Wait, so I should just throw something instead?"

I think @keterys is right that there is little point in making cantrips lower damage than the mundane weapons that casters can use. Because in that case the cantrips won't help balance overall damage output, they'll just force the player of the caster to choose between output and flavour.

I agree with keterys's and pemerton's analysis here.

What if you had 20 0 level slots per day? This would be like a quiver of arrows but perhaps still better. I am trying to hone in on what really like about unlimited 0 level spells.

On the first, that would be a lot of resource tracking that (A) would likely be superfluous given the frequency with which you would be at risk of exhausting 20 cantrips in the span of a work-day and (B) would likely be tedious and annoying to track.

As to the second part. I'll use 4e as an example here. A Wizard character with an unlimited usage of Ghost Sound, Prestidigitation and Mage Hand are not only providing the constant, high fantasy genre color as a Wizard (in the vein of Fantasia) that I expect but they are also manipulating and interacting with the world via their magicks; they're deploying those resources to mechanically resolve problems...and not in an overpowered way (given the lower overall power of those spells) but in an extremely fun way that provokes the player to be thoughtful and try to apply their At-Wills in both genre relevant and mechanically impactful ways. Their use constantly frames the fictional positioning of my Wizard player as a master of the arcane...from mundane applications such as pulling a chair out with a nod to offer someone a seat for an interrogation to less benign applications such as using Ghost Sound to lull a guard away from his post.

The same goes for the At-Will attack spells. There are all manner of applications of these spells in Skill Challenges and task resolution that let the Wizard always frame himself as a master of magic and let him always mechanically impact non-combat resolution as well as combat resolution.

I would prefer my masters of magic in my high fantasy gaming to always be nodding and pulling out chairs, conjuring mystical sounds and coins from behind awed childrens' ears, unleashing pulses of magical force, etc.

What's more, I also don't want them utterly bending the world to their will, dominating all theatres of conflict resolution, while their "partners" just press their attack button harder and see their passive defensive numbers inflate as the game progresses.

 

[JasonZZ]

I think there is a lot of points to making them less than 1st level spells and giving them spell slots.

Subsystem of spells that are not treated as spells:
Unlimited use, exception to spell slots and rituals.
Scaling to dealing more damage than higher level spells
Cannot be put into higher level slots for increased effect

What if you had 20 0 level slots per day? This would be like a quiver of arrows but perhaps still better. I am trying to hone in on what really like about unlimited 0 level spells.

I'm not Pemerton, but I can answer for this myself: The wizard shouldn't run out of wizard. The thing I liked least about 1st & 2nd edition was the fact that a low-level wizard was only a wizard a certain number of times per day. I'm not saying they should be slinging high-power (or even medium-power) stuff all day, but the wizard who runs *entirely* out of spells and has to resort to a crossbow offends my sensibilities.

 

[Warbringer]

If wizard at-wills did less damage, but inflicted status conditions on enemies....

I was thinking the same thing, this might add a lot of "controller" elements back into the 5e wizard.

 

[Rhenny]

I was thinking the same thing, this might add a lot of "controller" elements back into the 5e wizard.

I like this idea too. That makes spells much more interesting.

I also had an idea for the more powerful spells like polymorph, death spell, disintegrate, flesh to stone etc. Have a two tiered saving throw with a minor effect and a major effect. The target rolls two saves instead of one as soon as the spell is cast to avoid bookkeeping.

For example, wizard casts polymorph. Target rolls two saves. Fails the first...that would mean that the target is battling the transformation, so he or she can't act for 1 round. Fails the 2nd...."poof" the target is a chicken (or whatever) for 1 min. If the 2nd save is made, the target will fight the transformation the next round.

Death spell 1 fail = take damage --- 2 fails = death

etc.

 

[Xmarksthespot]

Martial classes took a horrendous blow in the latest playtest package and are reeling at the moment.

If things stay this way I give it six months until CharOP foolproofs the new casters&caddies paradigm.