Is Spell Blasting Doomed to Suck Even More in Next than it did in 3.x?

[Falling Icicle]

Back in AD&D, blasting spells like fireball were very powerful, and were just as useful overall as save-or-suck and control effects. This was because the hit points of both characters and monsters were kept tightly in check. Only warriors could get more than +2 hp/level from a high Constitution score, and that bonus ended after 10th level. Likewise, characters didn't roll their hit dice after 10th level, either, they got a small bonus like +1-3 hit points per level instead. Monsters had much lower hp as well, so doing an average of 35 damage with a 10th+ level fireball was actually pretty impressive.

Then 3rd edition came out, and greatly increased the hp of both characters and monsters, while leaving the damage of offensive spells exactly the same as it had been before. This made blasting far less useful than it was before.

Now, in Next, it's even worse. While I fully approve of spells not scaling with caster level, we still have a situation now where fireball does only 6d6 damage at level 3, and yet creatures have just as many hit points in Next as they did in 3rd edition. Fireball can do up to 12d6, but that's using a 9th level spell slot! Spell damage has been greatly reduced across the board. I don't mind this, but they need to do something about monster hit points, or blasting is going to be even more useless than it was in 3rd edition.

And don't tell me that wizards shouldn't do good damage, especially area effect damage. Going back to the earliest days of the game they were "glass cannons." There are few wizard spells that are as iconic as fireball and lightning bolt. People expect mages to be good artillery. Even setting the game's traditions, popular culture, and all that aside, it's important for game balance. Playing an evoker shouldn't be a trap choice!

I'm not suggesting that they boost spell damage. I think the overall damage potential of the various classes right now are fine. A few specific spells need adjustment, of course, but for the most part, I like how the spells work. What need to be fixed are hit points. Hit point bloat is going to be a big problem for the game if it's not reigned in, not just for wizards, but for everyone.

 

[the Jester]

...creatures have just as many hit points in Next as they did in 3rd edition

When I saw the quoted part of your post, I thought you were wrong. I decided to do a quick check on some 3e vs. 5e hit points. Here's what I found:

[Monster] [3e/5]
Bone devil 95/95
Horned devil 172/115
Ice devil 147/114
Gelatinous cube 54/73
Gargoyle 37/30
Ogre 29/32
Otyugh 36/84
Roper 85/153
Roc 207/115

The bottom line seems to be a big fat "It depends", but basically, 5e monsters do seem about as tough hp-wise as their 3e versions. Some are substantially tougher (e.g. otyugh!)

 

[Li Shenron]

Then 3rd edition came out, and greatly increased the hp of both characters and monsters, while leaving the damage of offensive spells exactly the same as it had been before. This made blasting far less useful than it was before.

I am not so convinced about the premise... I played many Wizards and Sorcerers in 3e, although admittedly only a very few of them were blasters (and Sorcerers), but usually the damage dealt with those spells was quite huge.

You also have to factor in that an area spell does not just do a certain damage, but that if used properly then the damage is multiplied for all enemies caught.

 

[Herobizkit]

This is also before you factor in metamagic-type abilities and feats.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I am not so convinced about the premise... I played many Wizards and Sorcerers in 3e, although admittedly only a very few of them were blasters (and Sorcerers), but usually the damage dealt with those spells was quite huge.

You also have to factor in that an area spell does not just do a certain damage, but that if used properly then the damage is multiplied for all enemies caught.

Let's take a 5th level wizard, for example. Casting fireball, he does 5d6 (avg. 17.5) damage. Then, monsters get to save for half, potentially reducing the damage to as little as 9. Then, you also have to remember that many creatures have fire resistance, potentially lowering the damage even more. I can't say I find that damage potential to be very impressive. You could have cast haste instead, giving your entire party an extra attack (plus other benefits) for 5 rounds. The total extra damage from those hasted attacks will almost certainly far exceed the damage fireball could do in total, probably even on the first round (unless your party neglects to make full attacks for some reason).

 

[Falling Icicle]

This is also before you factor in metamagic-type abilities and feats.

Feats in Next are optional, so they shouldn't be used in determining class balance.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let's take a 5th level wizard, for example. Casting fireball, he does 5d6 (avg. 17.5) damage. Then, monsters get to save for half, potentially reducing the damage to as little as 9. Then, you also have to remember that many creatures have fire resistance, potentially lowering the damage even more. I can't say I find that damage potential to be very impressive. You could have cast haste instead, giving your entire party an extra attack (plus other benefits) for 5 rounds. The total extra damage from those hasted attacks will almost certainly far exceed the damage fireball could do in total, probably even on the first round (unless your party neglects to make full attacks for some reason).

Well in 5e they certainly increased the damage of non-casters compared to 3e, and conversely reduced the spells per day. But in 3e I don't think area spells were weak.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hit point "bloat" won't get reined in because that and damage are the two ways to differentiate low and high level creatures (as opposed to AC and attack bonus). The question then becomes "is 6d6 hp of damage for multiple targets at 5th level mathematically correct?" Especially when high level characters can throw that spell several times in a row? It doesn't matter what they used to do... it's what they should be doing now. No spell should be overpowered for its level regardless of tradition. Either rein the damage in, or change its level (like Fly for example).

 

[N'raac]

So how about Fighter damage? When the Fighter can strike for, say, 1d10 + 7 (between STR, magic and specialization), an average of 12.5 per hit, and hit twice a round, a Wizard with a Fireball that averages 21 hp, save for half and apply resistances, doesn't seem like he has a comparable level of power. He's better off, as posited above, to Haste the fighter.

Sure, the fireball affects an area. That's great when we have multiple opponents, not so great once the warriors have closed I, or when space is constrained. It also needs no roll to hit. But the fighter can swing his sword multiple times in multiple battles. How many spells does the Wizard get to cast, again? I think expecting the typical Fireball to inflict damage in the same range as a Fighter's Full Attack is not unreasonable.

So how do those compare? I have not followed 5e that closely, but I get the sense the Fighter or Barbarian does pretty solid damage. The B vs F vs Monk suggests 1d12+7 for the Raging barbarian (average 13.5; 11.5 without rage), 1d8+3 (7.5 average; 2 attacks) for the Fighter, at 5th level. 21, save for half, apply resistance means you do more than the warrior for 1 round, if the opponent fails his save. No one gets a save against weapon damage - maybe "save for half" should go away, and become the first iteration of Evasion.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

WotC hasn't been that interested in numerical balance in D&DN. (At least not yet, but it's kind of late in the dev cycle.) WotC doesn't know how much damage a 5th-level fighter should do, or how much damage a 5th-level Fireball should do, or how many hit points a 5th-level monster should have.

Feats or specializations do need to be taken into account. Wizards have such a breadth of spells (unlike in 4e) that you can switch from one type (save-or-suck) to the other (blast) freely. In 4e, you could be a blaster wizard, but you probably wanted to be an evoker for that, which gave special benefits for blasting. (Same with a Pathfinder evoker wizard.) A D&DN blaster wizard might want to take such an "evoker" feat, possibly getting a substantial bonus to using blast spells. I would hope there's a similar feat or specialty for illusionists and so forth.