D&D 5E Charisma Conundrum

[Ashrym]

In my case, watched cartoons, because I didn't even hear of D&D until like '79. And played Basic for a couple of months with other kids who absolutely did not even begin to get it - like class? huh? level? roll some dice, that's your level. What's it for? Vampires eat 'em.
Seriously, guys?

I had one DM who considered the dice absolute and wouldn't fudge rolls. We would bring 3 or 4 characters prerolled just trying to get to level 2. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who never played with a cleric that got 1 cure light wounds starting at 2nd level these days. Forbid you ever memorize sticks-to-snakes once and end up losing your thief to an animal attack. (Paul, if you are on these forums I did apologize. )

IMX, it was out of hps and out of healing... but the two tended to come very close together, and if you skated /too/ close boom you had someone to drag out and wait a week to recover.

IMX, healing potions were a lot more common in treasure, and the nearby churches were happy to accept our donations in town. If we weren't in town and wanted to get back to town and were low on healing and hp then getting there sometimes also meant rolling up new characters.

Being low on hit points also wasn't hard when the hit dice were all lower, the ability scores were lower, and the bonuses for the ability scores were lower. Or editions where non-fighters were capped in max CON bonus. BECMI fighters had d8 hp and were lucky to have a bonus at all to hp. Good luck on anyone else. The official rule was to roll 1st level hp too. Kids have it easy these days. I slayed goblins uphill both ways through snow and magical snow.

And while 5e casters can't pull all the same shenanigans, and can't claim the raw power of an untouchable save DC or whatever, they do, amazingly, have it even easier than in 3e (or 4e, or ever, really). Concentration? Oh, boo-hoo? Does it require your action every round? Oh, you have to make a save? You get a save wow, it's not automatic loss of the spell when you're interrupted? Oh, you can't be interrupted at all it's not to cast, it's only some spells with a duration?
sheesh
...20 miles in the snow, up-hill, both ways that was casting back in the day... and we were glad to have, it!

I like 5e concentration mechanics. It creates decision points and restricts stacking abuse. A party full of casters can still stack different concentration spells on someone. It prevents a single caster doing it so it's not a solo show anymore but multiple effects can still be stacked.

It really depends. If you're raiding an actively defended site of some sort, no way you can rest an hour - stopping a few minutes may seem like pushing it. If you're journeying through a wilderness, you can easily rest 8, and likely will as a matter of course.
Where's that middle-ground where an hour is no problem, but 8 is dicey?

The middle ground is an active wilderness area in which the group is adventuring as opposed to journeying through. A lot of wilderness adventures are no different that dungeon treks except there is more time between the encounter areas.

Or multiple locations in the same area. Or city based that also sees a short amount of time between encounters.

Where an 8 hour rest exists. 4 or more short rests exist. There are middlegrounds between raiding a heavily defended complex and travelling though the wilderness.

Combat as in DPR? Do you count the 'profit' from buffs & de-buffs?

I count whatever is in the builds and scenarios, including what might be shared damage like AoO's bards trigger with dissonant whispers. Damage is part of it and wizards have a hell of a lot more damage options than bards. Damage isn't what I see as a strong point for either class. Buffs, debuffs, status effects, direct battlefield manipulation. Both classes are good a that but the wizard offers more options at any given time plus can cast a few more times after a short rest plus tradition benefits improve spells for wizards. Add defensive options into combat because no one does anything if they drop. Wizards have better defensive options.

Bards can get stretched thin trying to cover too much. I often spend magical secrets on bard spells instead of from other classes. Especially at 10th level when several 5th-level healing spells come online. Unless the character is giving up healing or going lore other spell lists are more like a 14th level pipe dream. On a lore bard I pick up a more efficient healing spell too. Covering healing takes a good sized chunk out of the spells known. That prevents going to heavily into other spells. The other secret on a 6th level lore bard is either a cantrip for an at-will damage option or a utility spell on what's still a limited spells known list at that time or a defensive spell. That's a tough choice: Suck at damage, suck at healing, suck at defense, suck at more utility -- pick 2 to suck at.

Bards are a good class but some aspects of them are way over-rated. They deceptively look like they are better at more things than they are because while they have a lot of options might take they can only take so many, and so many at a time in the end. They actually suffer the same issues as 3.5 where they could do a lot but not as well as "insert other class here", but the toys look a bit cooler and gap isn't quite as big so no one notices. ;-)

Now compared to my first cleric, the bard with worthy of praise and worship beyond measure. Compared to any other spell caster in 5e they have their pluses and minuses

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who never played with a cleric that got 1 cure light wounds starting at 2nd level these days.

Really, the fad got rolling in, like '83, there were a lotta people who never played with the 0e, no-healing-at-1st cleric (or only very briefly with the Basic, before going AD&D), by '89. AD&D, the 1st level cleric likely had 3 Cure Lights from wisdom bonus. At least, the second cleric you played did.

IMX, healing potions were a lot more common in treasure...
If we weren't in town and wanted to get back to town and were low on healing and hp then getting there sometimes also meant rolling up new characters.

There were various coping styles. New characters all the time was certainly one, maybe more the "Real Man" than the "muchkin" (remember those?), breaking off and "resting" was another, DM fudging, Monty Haul...
...there were so many 'wrong' ways to run D&D, I'm not even sure there was a right way.

Being low on hit points also wasn't hard when the hit dice were all lower, the ability scores were lower, and the bonuses for the ability scores were lower.

Well, it was /extremely hard/. To survive.

Or editions where non-fighters were capped in max CON bonus.

Yep, 1e did that, too.

The official rule was to roll 1st level hp too. Kids have it easy these days. I slayed goblins uphill both ways through snow and magical snow.

By the time I started seeing more folks my own age playing, there were a LOT of getting-through-1st-level variants. Max HD at 1st, 2nd level 'brevets,' all manner of increasingly out there stat generation methods (starting with the ones in the DMG), starting with healing potions, etc, etc...

I like 5e concentration mechanics. It creates decision points and restricts stacking abuse. A party full of casters can still stack different concentration spells on someone.

So, restricts stacking abuse to parties with multiple casters... ok.

I just find it really pallid next to even /casting/ a spell back in the day. If your concentration was broken while casting, you lost the spell, no effect, and memory of it was gone. And that wasn't a save or a skill check (the luxury!), it was if you took even 1 hp of damage from anything. If you were grabbed or jostled. If you were on a ship's deck at sea in less than perfectly calm conditions. If you were walking faster than a stately pace. Depending on the DM's interpretations and the initiative rolls you could - or were virtually guaranteed - to be interrupted by attacks, too, especially in melee. Casters were profoundly allergic to melee.

"Concentration" on just durations? Not even all durations? No chance of being interrupted? Even in melee? Virtually no restrictions on casting?

It's not an adventure, it's a vacation.

The middle ground is an active wilderness area in which the group is adventuring as opposed to journeying through. A lot of wilderness adventures are no different that dungeon treks except there is more time between the encounter areas.

24+ encounters/day? That's pretty active.

Or city based that also sees a short amount of time between encounters.

Also plenty of reasonably safe places to rest.

Where an 8 hour rest exists. 4 or more short rests exist.

The point is, the long rest is available.

I can see plenty of cases where you might take /either/ a long or short rest (so why not a long one). Easily a short rest, but not a long is the one I find less than plausible. Time pressure to contain the challenge to a single day is usually about it.

Damage is part of it and wizards have a hell of a lot more damage options than bards. Damage isn't what I see as a strong point for either class. Buffs, debuffs, status effects, direct battlefield manipulation

Oh, sure. Damage - overall DPR in the course of the prescribed 5e day - is just where classes tend to balance out. It's not nearly the Bard or Wizard's best thing, but, in a basic - single-target, not too situational - way, they can probably both output comparable damage when that's all that's needed, one way or another.

Bards deceptively look like they are better at more things than they are because while they have a lot of options might take they can only take so many, and so many at a time in the end.

Yep, it's the spontaneous/known rather than neo-Vancian casting, at bottom. They're an impressive and even cool (come up quite a bit in the world from Elan) class, but still Tier 2.

 

[Ashrym]

@Tony Vargas

I still let anyone disrupt spellcasting. Without a feat it takes a readied action followed by a concentration checked based on damage. Better than the old days and still possible.

 

[5ekyu]

So what did you mean by this then?

"If your social pillar only sees active uses of charisma, thatis a statement about the type of social challenge scenes and the complexity of them being presented, not the rules or system. "

I never said my social pillar only sees active uses of charisma. That looks like a response to something I never said to me.

""It's not that CHA is the entire social pillar so much is that tends to be ""where the active uses are in the social pillar.** CHA, DEX, and STR see a lot of active checks for actions made by the PC's. INT, WIS, and CON are checks more often associated a use in reaction to something else."

You referenced the charisma being where the active uses are and the context seemed to be dismissing the other actives uses in that pillar... so not technically " only" but clearly leaning into " only ones that vount."

Now, if you are now saying that your intent was to spotlight how much the others did matter and count, as opposed to trying to make it look like the charisma ones were the ones that mattered, then that's quite a swerve.

If however, you want to play catch- phrase where you make a point about charisma being not necessarily "only" but some other phrase for it, then fine.

Is your intended point that the other stats matter enough in the social pillar or thst thry font and really it's only charisma that mstter gor the active uses and that you find thsat a problem?

Or was this just word-pixeling?

If so, if its word-pixeling, then I will rephrase...

"If your social pillar sees other stat checks but not enough active uses except for those of charisma, thatis a statement about the type of social challenge scenes and the complexity of them being presented, not the rules or system. "

A robust social chsllenge should be more than charisma checks and the actual rules support that- unless the GM chooses to present cases where the others are not possible or necessary.

 

[Don Durito]

Charisma is basically the entire social pillar though.

Insight is the guy handing out the oranges at half-time.

 

[Zardnaar]

How is the Warlock beating the Wizard in exploration given the Wizard uses a familiar as a ritual? Unless you're choosing the Warlock with the familiar - which I've seen you say is horrible.

Warlocks better at rituals or at least can be if they are tomelocks.

 

[5ekyu]

Warlocks better at rituals or at least can be if they are tomelocks.

Warlock vs wizard in rituals is debatable.

A wizard has access in their own class list to about 2 out of three of the about 3 dozen rituals that exist for all classes and can simply choose them. While they can augment these chosen free by using any written they find, its easy for them to get the ones they want. Additionally, they can choose to cast them without the ritual time.

The warlock doesnt get any ritual ability until they get pact boon at 3rd and then get two first level. They have about four rituals in their class list but no ritual casting ability (not counting the sub-classes.) Sure, they can be of any class, but after those two they need to find and scribe - similar to the wizard's supplemental ones. It also costs an invocation.

By the time the 3rd level comes round, it's likely a wizard will already be four or more rituals ahead and they can simply choose a good and desired ritual when they hit levels instead of having to find the written versions.

So, starting later, dependent on found written, etc vs access to 36 instead of about 24 if they can find them... hard to see that as a slam dunk for warlocks being the better at rituals.

 

[Zardnaar]

Warlock vs wizard in rituals is debatable.

A wizard has access in their own class list to about 2 out of three of the about 3 dozen rituals that exist for all classes and can simply choose them. While they can augment these chosen free by using any written they find, its easy for them to get the ones they want. Additionally, they can choose to cast them without the ritual time.

The warlock doesnt get any ritual ability until they get pact boon at 3rd and then get two first level. They have about four rituals in their class list but no ritual casting ability (not counting the sub-classes.) Sure, they can be of any class, but after those two they need to find and scribe - similar to the wizard's supplemental ones. It also costs an invocation.

By the time the 3rd level comes round, it's likely a wizard will already be four or more rituals ahead and they can simply choose a good and desired ritual when they hit levels instead of having to find the written versions.

So, starting later, dependent on found written, etc vs access to 36 instead of about 24 if they can find them... hard to see that as a slam dunk for warlocks being the better at rituals.

I doubt a wizard going to spend their level up spells exclusively on rituals.

5E adventures also don't have that much gold.

Even if they do if the wizard has the gold and can buy rituals the warlock can do the same thing at level 3.

The only extra rituals a wizard picks up are any they start with or pick via leveling up. None of the low level ones are that great IMHO, level 3 ones are.

The other point still stands about the combat and social pillars.

I suspect a lot if games don't hit level 8, apparently 90% don't go past 10.

And for the 1st 4 levels multiple spellcasters are better than all the wizards IMHO. No I don't think wizards are bad.

Eventually the wizard will be very useful or the gap becomes to large. Warlocks don't scale well but I don't think the warlock ever becomes bad depending on how you build them.

How much gold, ritual shops, short rests etc are also ymmv. At worst the Warlock is a glorified Archer with a bit of utility. Assuming you don't build a bad warlock (or wizard).

 

[Salthorae]

I doubt a wizard going to spend their level up spells exclusively on rituals.

5E adventures also don't have that much gold.

Even if they do if the wizard has the gold and can buy rituals the warlock can do the same thing at level 3.

The only extra rituals a wizard picks up are any they start with or pick via leveling up. None of the low level ones are that great IMHO, level 3 ones are.

The Spell level 3 rituals are great, but neither Warlock , nor Wizard can get those until Class level 5.

I agree eventually a tomelock can be a better ritual caster than a wizard just because they can learn any ritual from any class, that is very useful and powerful.

But the point about gold and availability of rituals applies as much to a warlock as it does to a wizard. Moreso actually because a Wizard can pick up new ritual spells with their two spells known per level.

If you follow Treantmonk's new youtube (which you should if you don't), he has put up wizard guides for all the wizard subclasses/schools except transmutation so far. Very often on his level ups he recommnends picking up a new ritual spell because of limited spell preparations available to the character. 5th level example is a good one. You would have 14 spells minimum in your spellbook (8x 1st, 4x 2nd, 2x 3rd), but you can only prepare 5+IntMod (call it 7-9 prepared), so that is just under or right at half your spells you can't prepare on a daily basis. Having a good % of those being rituals makes a ton of sense.

They are both the best ritual casters in the game, but for different reasons IMO

 

[5ekyu]

I doubt a wizard going to spend their level up spells exclusively on rituals.

5E adventures also don't have that much gold.

Even if they do if the wizard has the gold and can buy rituals the warlock can do the same thing at level 3.

The only extra rituals a wizard picks up are any they start with or pick via leveling up. None of the low level ones are that great IMHO, level 3 ones are.

The other point still stands about the combat and social pillars.

I suspect a lot if games don't hit level 8, apparently 90% don't go past 10.

And for the 1st 4 levels multiple spellcasters are better than all the wizards IMHO. No I don't think wizards are bad.

Eventually the wizard will be very useful or the gap becomes to large. Warlocks don't scale well but I don't think the warlock ever becomes bad depending on how you build them.

How much gold, ritual shops, short rests etc are also ymmv. At worst the Warlock is a glorified Archer with a bit of utility. Assuming you don't build a bad warlock (or wizard).

At 3rd level, a wizard will have from his free spells 10 - 6 at first and 2 each at 2nd and 3rd. They can likely prepare 6 at a time. That, combined with actual in plsy experience, is where I got the estimate of 4 or more rituals in their chosen spells at that point.

So, whoever you were directing the line about a wizard exclusively picking rituals with those dlots, was not me.

As for the gold costs etc etc... as we both observed, either can add rituals to a book within the limits of gold avsilable and finding the right one and time.

But, for the wizard this is supplemental- they csn choose the key and most desired rituals of their class (2/3 of all rituals are included there) when they level, no charge as part of theirsprlls chosen. Meanwhile the found-gold- time the only way a warlock tomer gains them at all after the first two.

That's why the claim that warlocks fo rituals better is to me highly questionable. Especially for the first four levels.

As fo