D&D 5E (2024) Circle Casting is gonna break a lot of games

[Zardnaar]

Youre kinda getting clowned on chief lol. We gave you the math/examples.

Theres just more broken combos in the game than circle magic. Looks good on paper.

If you build the party around it sure. Theres worse things to build the party around.

Something like sea druid, light cleric and 3 strikers (monk, 2 fighters) would probably be the more OP party than circle magic. Cleric and druid subclass doesn't matter to much.

In a real game range doesn't matter to much. Big SG might be really good but its not hard to yeet the cleric around.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Youre kinda getting clowned on chief lol.

Don't call me chief. While I'm not indigenous, several of my friends are and so is my half brother.

We gave you the math/examples.

No, you didn't. One person gave 9th level math to a 5th level scenario, and even then, continued to ignore how SG is DoT (which is pretty important).

 

[Horwath]

You keep saying, "so no different than if each caster had cast their own spell." but it's not that. It's allowing someone to maintain concentration on a spell they can't normally cast themselves. Either due to level, class, or being out of spell slots.

cant wait to use this on my aberrant mind sorcerer.
hire bunch of 1st level NPC casters, use all spellpoints on 4th level summon aberration for beholderkin summon.
welcome to my squad of predator drones.

and this is probably the least cheese-ist combination you could inflict on the DM.
it's just damage, but firing 20 laser eyes per round is fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't call me chief. While I'm not indigenous, several of my friends are and so is my half brother.

No, you didn't. One person gave 9th level math to a 5th level scenario, and even then, continued to ignore how SG is DoT (which is pretty important).

Well I pointed out how much damage 5.5 PCs can dish out.

The other thing with circle magic. DM can use it as well.
Mostly it's well there's already worse things in the game.

Opportunity cost. What else can PCs do instead snd imagine if they knew what to do.

Here's a basic one. Sorcerer using tashas mindwhip. New twin spell. Intelligence saves are terrible in 5.5. Im sitting behind the DM screen comparing weak wisdom saves.

New Comnand and Tashas hideous laughter. Sure theres situations people are conjuring out of sunlight and moonbeams and saying "look how broken this is".

Another example. Has anyone actually seen Conjure Minor Elementals (unnerfed) in action? Theres 1 theory craft builds that breaks it. In a real game that build is terrible until level 11 or 12 minimum. Anyone here seen it actually happen?

Its not even on the radar if things i need to watch out for. I can always say no its gone or use it myself. Worst case scenario.

Opportunity cost. Blow a feat and be bad@game most of the time lol.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Delayed blast fireball does an extra 1d6 damage per round that it isn’t set off. Talk about setting up the nuclear option for a trap….

 

[Horwath]

How does Prolong stacks with Sorcerer's Extended metamagic?

Can we get 48 hour spells?

Extend is capped at 24hrs

 

[ECMO3]

Dude, stop trying with the gotcha moments. This isn't one. I used the 5th level example because it was easier to prove the point. A point which you still haven't shown the math on to disprove despite me asking several times.

Here is the math using example your cherry picked example and set up that was changed to 5th level and assuming you don't lose concentration on the casting and assuming initiative is you then the fighter, then the Hobgoblins (best case):

1. You and the fighter cast spirit guardians. Those hobgoblins need a 15 to save and it does 11.4 damage to each on the fighters turn - 22.8 damage on average using 2 actions, a 1st level slot and a 3rd level slot. It does this on the fighters turn, assuming you hold onto the concentration the whole time.

2. You cast a normal "little" spirit guardians alone and the fighter uses multiattack
Your spirit guardians comes up on your turn. On the fighters turn he uses multiattack and tactical shift. Using a relatively weak DPR build, an attack action with a 1d8 weapon, dueling and push (pushing them into your little spirit guardians), you do an average of 24.35 damage. This uses 1 3rd level spell slot and 1 use of second wind.

So with your cherry picked set up and assuming the best possible initiative order, and no concentration checks during the casting the MATH shows you use more resources and do less damage on average than just casting a smaller spirit guardians and attacking.

This isn't a gotcha moment, it is illustrating the shortfalls in play.

If we were talking about 11th level, then the SG would be upcast and doing a lot more than 3d8 damage to each creature

The highest level you can cast Spirit Guardians with a 11 level Cleric is a 5th level casting (assuming saving a slot for Blade Barrier). That is not a lot more damage. It is 9 more damage on a failed save or about 7 more damage on average including saves. That is far short of what an 11th level Eldrtich Knight is going to do with an attack action.

You wouldn't, but lots of people would when they see how clearly it's better for the party.

Execept in most cases it is clearly worse. Cool and neat yes, better no.

I didn't just say so. I said where it came from. You still haven't shown any evidence that combat rarely takes more than 2 rounds, less for higher level. You were the one to make that claim originally, remember.

I said 3 rounds and that is from this board and this thread:

Z

D&D 5E (2014) Thread 'How many rounds do most of your combats last?'

May 12, 2020

I know they don't all last the same, but I'm curious if many combats go past round 5.....This isn't for a research paper, just go with your gut.

thanks!

• Zaukrie
• Replies: 93
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

So unless you can actually prove that combat is as short as you claim, and you can show the math where the damage on one round of attacks is more than all of the damage SG does in total (each round and to all opponents), I think I'm done here.

You can't prove that it is as long as you claim, nor that it will last multiple rounds, especially considering concentration.

Again let's use your cherry picked example. Assuming the Cleric has a 20 AC, 18 Wisdom, 14 Constitution and 36hps and assuming you kill 3 Hobgoblins on every single round:

There are only 2 targets for the enemies to attack and with spirit guardians up they are going to concentrate on the cleric. So you have 8 Hobgoblins that are going to attack the Cleric and one Cult Fanatic that is going to cast Hold Person and Spiritual Weapon at the Cleric.

Chance of maintaining concentration through one round (8 Hob attacks, spiritual weapon, hold person): 36%
Chance of maintaining concentration through 2 rounds (5 more Hob attacks, spiritual weapon): 16%
Chance of maintaining concentration through 3 rounds (2 more Hob attacks, spiritual weapon): 10%

The does not include critical hits, pack tactics for the Hobgoblins or any action attacks by the Cult Fanatic against the Cleric.

So most of the time SG does not make it past ONE round using your cherry picked example and it is very rare that it will last 3 rounds!

If you don't like any of the assumptions I made then tell me what assumptions you want me to use. Unless those assumptions are intelligent enemies being stupid you are not going to be holding down SG and damaging enemies for round over round over round for 4-5 rounds or so.

 

[Azzy]

This all just cements my determination to follow the new Forgotten Realms GM advice and keep levelled Class characters a rarity.

Eg, there may be a priest in every town, village and neighborhood, but an actual Cleric is rare. There may be a minor spellcaster with cantrips here and there, but actual Wizards and Sorcerors are scarce and legendary.

It might go against some portrayals of the Forgotten Realms, but I like it better this way.

That's the way I always do it my homebrew settings. It just makes things make more sense IMO.

 

[Sulicius]

That was not mentioned at any point in the post I quoted, nor the post to which you were replying. Having system mastery ≠ being an "optimizer". Otherwise, the only way you could have someone design a system is to do it blind, because by definition if the designer knows how their system works they have a high degree of system mastery.

It simply is true that if you're testing something, having testers who knows what they're doing is better than testers who are totally ignorant. Yes, you should also test for various other things, like how approachable the system is, looking for fresh customer pain points or problem areas so you can cut things off at the pass. But prioritizing approachability above all other goals no matter what is just as harmful as pretending that approachability doesn't matter at all.

People are only new for a time. Then they aren't new, and their concerns are going to grow. I've seen plenty of games over-prioritize a hyper simplified, hyper streamlined, absolutely zero roughness experience....and I have found that those are games where players slide in super easily and then slide right back out again just as easily. If you want folks to stay, you need to offer texture and depth, which requires that you be willing to offer experiences that provide some degree of challenge, some degree of learning to play, some degree of reasonable, targeted, purposeful resistance. Because that creates a feeling of mastery; it leads players to feel some degree of ownership or accomplishment from their developing skill; and, best of all, it makes people want to stick around because they know that they know what they're doing.

Inherently unbalanced systems that intentionally give no f#$&s about that long-term player experience suffer for it. You need both. You need an onboarding process that is approachable and which avoids excessive or unnecessary pain points, and you need a long-term experience that feels rewarding, textured, and worthwhile. Miss the former and your game can't grow. Miss the latter and your game won't survive.

I mean, I guess if you only care about those initial sales and are perfectly fine with the game living by boom and bust cycles, then sure, all you need is a slick onboarding, because screw the long-term players amirite? We only care about up-front profits here!

Do I really have to get the receipts?

You started responding to my posts here, where I had been talking to Horwarth, who had a very bold statement that I tried to give more nuance.

Yes, of course a game needs balance, and it is important that people test the game for that, and that those results are considered by the game designers to improve the game for their target audience. And yes games need depth.

I don't think we disagree anyway. You are having an argument with someone else who's not here, I think. Can you stop?