D&D 3E/3.5 how much weaker are wizards(and other casters) in this edition compared to 3.5?

[adrian23]

Well, spell casting in general is somewhat weaker in this edition. This is mostly done with the mitigation of Save or Suck spells (many of them have multiple saves or save every round) and a major reduction in stacking (no longer one dispel magic causing the combat to stop for twenty minutes while you recalculate all the bonuses and such). While all full casters in 5e cast like 3.5 sorcerers (wizards can prepare so many levels of spells each day, then choose from this prepared list when expending spell slots at casting time), there are limitations:

1) Wizards no longer have as many spell slots (mitigated by the Arcane recovery feature, which allows wizards to recover a certain levels worth of spell slots once on a short rest, but it does require a short rest).

2) Many spell that are not instantaneous are now Concentration: meaning that the spell could be disrupted by damage, and you can only ever have one concentration spell up at a time.

3) Spells no longer increase in effect with "Caster level": a first level spell cast by an Archmage has the same effect as one cast by an apprentice; you have to use a higher level slot to get more effect, and this 'slot scaling' is rarely efficient (this is somewhat offset by the Save Difficulty increasing with 'caster level'; opponents will find it much more difficult to save against the Archmage's 1st level spell, but he's still only getting 1st level effects out of it) This makes lower level slots more efficient for utility, buff & debuff type spells. Of course, at will damaging cantrips are there to fill the gap; they increase in damage with the caster's level.

4) IMHO high level spell effects are somewhat less than in 3.5; and I'm not referring to damage (which is a poor measure when comparing between editions); you just don't get all the bells and whistles you used to. Summoning spells are sparse and not as prolific; Teleport is higher level; Demiplane is basically Mordenkainen’s Broom Closet; Timestop is not the be all end all it once was.

5) Monsters are generally not as powerful with as many abilities; 5e has gone a long way to reduce the "fiddly bits" and streamline and simplify game play, so you don't necessarily need all the bells and whistles of yesteryear.

1) not sure if it's really mitigated since level 6 spells and above are not affected.

2)this does seem a bit ridiculous to me. i can just imagine high level wizards mind raping low level ones just for the sake of following them around and buffing them up before the battle. besides wizards would use these buffs for the entire party. if anything they helped everyone shine more rather than making the wizard superior

3) generally speaking wizards were always more efficient playing GOD than blasting staff if you ask me.

4) this seems a bit subjective, what does it mean "sparse"? i mean, i assume the total number of spells in the universe is not fixed and more can be researched. after all by definition if it can be thought then magic can do it.

5) i'd call this dumbing down but then again i don't have any experience yet.

 

[Staffan]

4) IMHO high level spell effects are somewhat less than in 3.5; and I'm not referring to damage (which is a poor measure when comparing between editions); you just don't get all the bells and whistles you used to. Summoning spells are sparse and not as prolific; Teleport is higher level; Demiplane is basically Mordenkainen’s Broom Closet; Timestop is not the be all end all it once was.

In addition, you have straight-up fewer high-level spells. In 3e, with the exception of 8th and 9th level spells, you would always get a second spell per day one level after you gained the first, then a third two levels after that, and a fourth three levels after that. In other words, if you read the spells/day table downward for each spell level it would look like this: 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4... . 8th and 9th level spells had a faster acceleration than that, in order to give a 20th level wizard 4 spells at each level. In addition, most wizards were specialists so they had one additional spell available at each level, and would likely have bonus spells for high Intelligence up to 8th or 9th level (at the time they had access to those levels of spells). So in practice, an 18th level wizard would probably have 3 spells per day of 9th level, 5 of 8th, 6 of 5th through 7th, and 7 of 1st through 4th. That's a total of 50 spells.

In 5e, an 18th level wizard will instead have 4 1st-level spells, 3 each of level 2 through 5, and 1 each of level 6 through 9 - a total of 20 spells. There are no bonus spells for high Intelligence or specialization. That's a significant drop, particularly at the game-changing spells at level 6+. This is somewhat helped by Arcane Recovery (though that doesn't do anything for level 6+ spells), increased spell flexibility, and ritual casting, but the difference is still big.

 

[Dausuul]

Wizards are dramatically weaker at high levels. This is due to:

• The loss of bonus slots for Int.
• The drastic reduction in base slots of level 6+.
• The Concentration mechanic preventing the wizard from layering buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control spells.
• Wizards can no longer craft scrolls at will by spending a few XP and some gold.
• The spells themselves are better balanced, with fewer insta-wins.
• Powerful monsters often have Legendary Resistance now. As a result, the insta-win spells that do exist are less reliable.

They are moderately stronger at the lowest levels, due to:

• Arcane Recovery.
• Ritual spells.
• Cantrips, though this is more about utility than damage output. Assuming decent Dex, a crossbow is on par with fire bolt at levels 1-4. However, at-will mage hand is quite... uh... handy.

 

[Gadget]

1) not sure if it's really mitigated since level 6 spells and above are not affected.

It is partially mitigated at lower levels; but you are correct, it certainly is not fully mitigated. I should have been more clear.

2)this does seem a bit ridiculous to me. i can just imagine high level wizards mind raping low level ones just for the sake of following them around and buffing them up before the battle. besides wizards would use these buffs for the entire party. if anything they helped everyone shine more rather than making the wizard superior

It is one of the ways wizards are less powerful in this edition. And there is no 'mind raping' now. Charms and enchantments are either much shorter duration or much lesser effect. Having played both editions, I disagree: I certainly do not miss the layered buffs and calculus need for when dispel magic came out. Some buffs can affect more targets, at the cost of a higher level spell slot; there's no more free auto scaling.

3) generally speaking wizards were always more efficient playing GOD than blasting staff if you ask me.

And this is still generally true. Its just that, to quote Guardians of the Galaxy II "Small g in god" now, rather than all caps.

4) this seems a bit subjective, what does it mean "sparse"? i mean, i assume the total number of spells in the universe is not fixed and more can be researched. after all by definition if it can be thought then magic can do it.

It means that there just aren't that many summoning spells, and they do not summon as powerful entities as in 3.5. Now due to Bounded Accuracy, even small numbers of weaker summons can still make a difference, but you can no longer Summon a powerful monster and buff them through the roof due to concentration and summons in general not having as powerful summons as before; though iirc, it was Druids in 3.5 that were really masters of the summon & buff technique. It also makes tactics like "scry and fry" much more difficult. And if you can get a DM to let you get away with "if it can be thought then magic can do it", then more power to you; but at that point you're pretty much in a Monte Hall campaign.

5) i'd call this dumbing down but then again i don't have any experience yet.

Once again, IMHO, I find 5e far more liberating, better balanced, designed and superior to 3.X in almost every way. Not that there aren't issues I have with the system, and improvements that could be made; but there's no way I would go back to 3.x's much more intricate process sim and fiddly bits. YMMV.

 

[mellored]

The biggest difference is that spells no longer scale per caster level. They get a flat value. This makes them stronger at lower level, but weaker at higher level.

3.5 burning hands does 1d4 to 5d4.
5e burning hands does 3d4.*

3.5 fireball does 3d6 to 10d6.
5e fireball does 8d4. (a little less than 6d6)*

3.5 cone of cold does 5d6 to 15d6.
5e cone of cold does 8d6.*

*HP is higher across the board in 5e, so I reduced the 5e spells a die size to better compare.


As far as fighters and rogues being more powerful. It's pretty well balanced across all levels. Since spells don't scale, the wizards high levels spells (whatever counts as high for the level) can out damage them, but the fighter/rogue can out damage the wizards lower level spells (whatever counts as low for the level). What's better depends on how long the day is.

For instance, a level 5 fighter might do 4d6+8 (22) to a single target every turn.
While a level 5 wizard could fireball for 8d6 (28) to a big group of enemies, with half (11) damage on a miss. But only a few times per day. Then he's back down to 3d6 (10.5) damage to a small group with his lower spells.


Also 5e while HP scales faster, DC, saves, to-hit, and AC all scale slower. So 100 peasants with bows could take out an ancient red dragon, with heavy losses.

 

[Hussar]

I think I'll chime in with a "me too" post here.

5e casters in general have come down a LOT in power from 3e. There's much more parity between the classes. Yes, your wizard is probably one of the more damaging characters in the group, but, it's not like she's so far ahead of the game that she's in a different league.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd vote that 5e casters are stronger and more versatile at lower levels while much weaker and less versatile at higher levels. (Of course a lot depends on how big a thing the 5mwd was in the older campaigns).

 

[the_redbeard]

Concentration isn't that big of a deal. The wizard is no longer flying and invisible, but neither are there an abundance of monsters which can negate flying and invisibility as a balancing measure.

I agree it isn't a big deal to get used to in play. But I think it's a huge deal in making play more manageable and fun for everyone in one simple step while still preserving choices.

The big (theoretical) difference comes with bounded accuracy, and the need to make a saving throw every round. Third edition still had a lot of save-or-die effects, so a single spell could end a fight instantly. Fifth edition has a lot of save-or-mezzed effects, where a single spell can still trivialize a fight, but there's usually at least a possibility of one of the monsters breaking free before you can focus it down.

Unfortunately, the bounded part of spell DCs doesn't quite work as intended, due to the proficiency math. In third edition, save DCs were often impossible to beat, which is why a natural 20 was always a success. In fifth edition, because non-proficient saves don't scale at all, and since a natural 20 is no longer an automatic success, it's possible for a mezzed monster to have zero chance of breaking free. So the ultimate change in caster power hasn't actually changed that much, on the high end; you just need to be more careful to target non-proficient saves.

EDIT: to remove misreading of easily misreadable rules. :/ Whoops!

Casters are still really important for control, utility and versatility. But they are more equal members of the group now, without returning to the real old school glass cannon version.

 

[neogod22]

I agree it isn't a big deal to get used to in play. But I think it's a huge deal in making play more manageable and fun for everyone in one simple step while still preserving choices.



Monsters (and NPCs that are calculated as monsters instead of full blown PC rules) are proficient in all saves. You still want to pick which saves due to stat differences, which are higher compared to level bonuses (ie proficiency bonus) in 5th edition. But monster saves definitely scale to CR according to the Monster Manual. (It's annoying to me that this is in a chart but not on the monster stat block, but that's another story.)

Casters are still really important for control, utility and versatility. But they are more equal members of the group now, without returning to the real old school glass cannon version.

That bottom paragraph is untrue. In 5th edition, monsters are not profient in any saves unless the stat block says otherwise. Then it tells you which saves those are, and what the bonuses are. The most I've seen any one monster have is 5 saves.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Seramus]

Compared to 3.5E: Wizards are somewhat stronger at low levels and considerably weaker at higher levels. If your DM allows you to create scrolls (there are rules in the DMG and Xanathars, but they are optional) then that difference is slightly less but still considerable.

Compared to 5E: Wizards/Clerics/Druids still rule the roost and make the martial classes feel inadequate in the non-combat pillars of the game, but the distance between the classes is much smaller now. Most martial classes wish for more out of combat options, but they can hit pretty damn hard in the combat pillar.