Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6134988" data-attributes="member: 43019">Hmm, okay. Fwiw, I'm seeing a difference like:Caster: 4.5 damageArcher: 10 damage (+1 weapon, stat)&nbsp;More than twice as effective is generally considered &quot;not comparable&quot; in these parts. &quot;Doesn't need equipment&quot; is actually generally a downside in D&amp;D, because magic weapons exist.I've also never seen ray of frost's slow meaningful except when I've gone out of my way to force it to be meaningful, because I was feeling sorry for the PC that it was never meaningful.Why force casters to do actions that are not, in themselves, casting? We did the math on it, and the wizard really would have been better off making ranged attacks instead of his cantrips. He kept doing the cantrips in the hope the slow would mean something and because he wanted to be a caster, not an archer, but I'd cheerfully suggest _improving_ the cantrips to make them more worthwhile. Clearly at odds with your own goals, so I was hoping you had some serious in-play proof or examples of how it was harmful to play that they had cantrips, that was at odds with my own play experience (which is only 1st - 6th with the current packet)&nbsp;We've actually been seeing the casters as not having as much utility as expected. The standing joke in the group is around detect magic. One guy keeps continually forgetting how awful it is, and complaining that the wizard doesn't have it, and then the wizard explains why (again) it's awful, and the group laughs. I want to say it's happened every week, though I'm also hoping I'm wrong <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="keterys, post: 6134988, member: 43019"] Hmm, okay. Fwiw, I'm seeing a difference like: Caster: 4.5 damage Archer: 10 damage (+1 weapon, stat) More than twice as effective is generally considered "not comparable" in these parts. "Doesn't need equipment" is actually generally a downside in D&D, because magic weapons exist. I've also never seen ray of frost's slow meaningful except when I've gone out of my way to force it to be meaningful, because I was feeling sorry for the PC that it was never meaningful. Why force casters to do actions that are not, in themselves, casting? We did the math on it, and the wizard really would have been better off making ranged attacks instead of his cantrips. He kept doing the cantrips in the hope the slow would mean something and because he wanted to be a caster, not an archer, but I'd cheerfully suggest _improving_ the cantrips to make them more worthwhile. Clearly at odds with your own goals, so I was hoping you had some serious in-play proof or examples of how it was harmful to play that they had cantrips, that was at odds with my own play experience (which is only 1st - 6th with the current packet) We've actually been seeing the casters as not having as much utility as expected. The standing joke in the group is around detect magic. One guy keeps continually forgetting how awful it is, and complaining that the wizard doesn't have it, and then the wizard explains why (again) it's awful, and the group laughs. I want to say it's happened every week, though I'm also hoping I'm wrong :) [/QUOTE]

Verification