I'm thinking the caster could be allowed to enhance radius or damage (or maybe range as well) for each extra level - so L9 could be a 12d6 blast, or a 6d6 blast with longer range (say 10' per extra level) or bigger radius (say 5' per extra kevel), so that L9 slot could be 80' range with 35' radius to blast at that big group of Orcs way back there - for 6d6, since extra levels were allocated to radius and range, not damage.
Is Spell Blasting Doomed to Suck Even More in Next than it did in 3.x?
- Thread starter Falling Icicle
- Start date
I'm thinking the caster could be allowed to enhance radius or damage (or maybe range as well) for each extra level - so L9 could be a 12d6 blast, or a 6d6 blast with longer range (say 10' per extra level) or bigger radius (say 5' per extra kevel), so that L9 slot could be 80' range with 35' radius to blast at that big group of Orcs way back there - for 6d6, since extra levels were allocated to radius and range, not damage.
There are two axes - blasters should be competitive with other Wizard options, and Wizards should be competitive with other classes.
3rd was where I saw magic become a commodity. Prices were all nice and neat, and if you took a bunch of feats to be good with a Battle Axe, then you'd better be able to get a magic battle axe. Plus, 3e introduced wealth by level.
Well, save-or-die was probably more powerful than the blasters, but they have higher variance since they rely on less dice rolls. There are times when your DM rolls 20-16-18-19 and if you are relying on save-or-die spells that can easily make your character worthless in a single encounter - enough to get your character (or party) killed. So, save or die was more powerful in 3.5, but I prefered playing blasters.
As I said, the amount of magic items in 3e highly depended on your DM. I could usually get the "correct" wealth per level from my DM, but I couldn't point at a specific item in the DMG and get it. Although yeah, I would get a decent version of my main weapon if I was playing a weapon wielder. Getting four-five specific items to round out my build was unlikely. I would have to rely on spells from the primary casters in corner cases.
... Magic items aren't meant to be commodities in 5e though, so when comparing 5e/3e casters it has to be taken into account. In other words, the power curve should be more shallow in 5e for the casters/spells.
You know, it's interesting that we routinely see complaints that a Fighter built to be a melee brute isn't very effective outside melee. The game evolved between 2e and 3e to expand character customization alternatives. This allowed players to focus all of their character resources on "being a melee brute" if desired. Now, a Fighter could be designed with a moderate to high DEX and STR, take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for each of the Greatsword and the Longbow, buy a decent magical bow and greatsword (maybe a +4 equivalent and a +3 equivalent, rather than a +6 equivalent Greatsword and no magic to the bow - 50,000 cost either way) and otherwise split resources between ranged and melee combat, and we would have a fighter who is pretty good at both ranged and melee combat.
But that's not how players think, for some reason. Instead, we design that Fighter to maximize STR at the cost of all other stats, focus all his feats on melee combat and buy the best Greatsword he can get, and to heck with any other weapons. And then we complain that the fighter we designed to be good at nothing but melee isn't good at anything but melee. That's what you chose to build.
The DM has to take part of the blame - if you needed Greater WF and WS, plus all other feats directed to melee, plus the best Greatsword you can get with all your available gold, to be able to hold your own in melee combat, then you're forced to a very focused build. But complaining that my Melee Brute, tweaked to eke out every possible bonus in melee with that Greatsword, isn't good at anything else is disingenuous. It's like specializing my Wizard in Enchantment spells - focusing every feat on making them more effective, specializing in them, seeing out only those spells, memorizing only enchantments, buying magic items that enchant, etc. - and then complaining that my Wizard isn't very good against mindless creatures.
The game can take some blame too, if it is structured to require max'ing out in one area to be effective there, so resources can't be directed to other areas. But if the game were designed around the assumption that putting, say, half the maximum ranks into a class skill would make your character reasonably good in that skill, how many PCs would be petty good in a bunch of skills, and how many would have maximum ranks in half as many skills, being really good at those skills and useless at all others? And then we'd see the push to make the DC's higher, to challenge max'ed out characters, so the more versatile characters become useless, since they can't make those much higher DC's.
Perhaps the model should begin with a look at a member of each class who is a well-rounded representative of such a class - maybe that's a Fighter with a decent AC (say, only hit 25% of the time by a level appropriate opponent), decent melee and ranged attack skills (let's say those enable him to hit a typical opponent 1/3 of the time, and his own AC about 25% of the time), decent damage (a level appropriate threat can be dropped with, say, two average hits) and good hp (it would take about three hits from a level-appropriate opponent, or from himself, to drop him). Let's also say that he's physically fit, agile and can be pretty intimidating or inspiring (so we establish skills that he can succeed with, say, 2/3 of the time against a level appropriate challenge).
I'm picking those benchmarks out of the air, of course, and I think I've made a class that's a bit better at defense than offense. So that's our base chassis, and we build to various levels, with "standard" skill allocations, feat choices, etc. And maybe that becomes our base fighter - with no optional rules, he gets these skills and feats as base class abilities, with no tweaking or fine tuning. This is the "basic fighter".
Now we add choice. Instead of these assigned skill ranks, he can assign his own. He doesn't get these pre-selected feats, he gets to pick all of them (except automatic weapon and armor proficiencies at L1). What happens? I'll bet Marty Minmaxer shows up next week with half as many skills, all maxed out, most (if not all) his feats directed at melee (or ranged) combat (or AC, or some other singular focus, maybe 2 like massive AC and massive melee combat skills), and stats bumped up for the areas he focused on, and dumped for the abilities he dropped. And in a couple of weeks, Marty will be griping whenever challenges would better be solved with ranged combat, or with leadership and interaction (since he dumped CHA and took no ranks in such skills to beef up his melee abilities), or with anything outside the narrow focus of his melee brute. The narrow focus he chose for that character.
Guess what, Marty? You are the author of your own misfortune. No one forced you to dedicate all your resources to be the best melee brute you can be, and suck at everything else. And now, if the other PC's are still balanced, melee combat is a joke, because Marty walks all over it (or the DM beefs the enemy up to challenge Marty, and the rest of the PC's are outclassed) and non-melee challenges become a whinefest for Marty (or get dropped down to a level where he can contribute, so they're a cakewalk for everyone else).
Or maybe the GM looks at Marty's character and says "No way - he's too focused on melee and sucks too much at everything else. Go make a better balanced character." Will Marty say "I see your point, and for the good of a balanced campaign and everyone's enjoyment, I will tone down his melee abilities and beef up his abilities in other areas." and come back with a character which, while still having a melee focus, is maybe 20% better than the typical fighter at melee, and 10% less competent at ranged combat, interaction, etc., so melee is his clear sweet sot, and he shines in comparison to the other PC's, and he can still contribute in other areas, but is clearly not as good as the others? Or will Marty respond "WHAT??? My character is PERFECTLY LEGAL - I made him under the rules EXACTLY AS WRITTEN and I want, no I DEMAND to play THIS CHARACTER". And run roughshod over all melee challenges, gloating over his "system mastery" all the way, then whine and moan throughout all non-melee challenges about how the unfair the DM is, and how much the game sucks in not giving him enough power and versatility, so he's just bored because his PC is useless in these areas?
The more flexibility the game provides, the more onus it places on the players (GM included) to decide what kind of game they want to design and play using the toolbox provided by the game. No iteration of D&D is nearly as flexible as, say, the Hero system or similar "point buy for everything" systems, but 3e was a huge step up from 2e in respect of flexibility, so it increased that onus of the players to find a common level of min/max in their games. I don't think that increased onus was broadly recognized, nor was it highlighted by the rules. But if your 14 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, 14 CHA Fighter with a broad selection of ranged combat, melee combat and leadership/intimidation abilities and magic items gets laughed at by a group of min/maxers (with 20 STR, 10 DEX, 6 CHA fighters), or if you're the laughing min/maxer, then you've encountered a difference in the level of optimization and focus perceived as appropriate to design a good character.
But that's not how players think, for some reason. Instead, we design that Fighter to maximize STR at the cost of all other stats, focus all his feats on melee combat and buy the best Greatsword he can get, and to heck with any other weapons. And then we complain that the fighter we designed to be good at nothing but melee isn't good at anything but melee. That's what you chose to build.
The DM has to take part of the blame - if you needed Greater WF and WS, plus all other feats directed to melee, plus the best Greatsword you can get with all your available gold, to be able to hold your own in melee combat, then you're forced to a very focused build. But complaining that my Melee Brute, tweaked to eke out every possible bonus in melee with that Greatsword, isn't good at anything else is disingenuous. It's like specializing my Wizard in Enchantment spells - focusing every feat on making them more effective, specializing in them, seeing out only those spells, memorizing only enchantments, buying magic items that enchant, etc. - and then complaining that my Wizard isn't very good against mindless creatures.
The game can take some blame too, if it is structured to require max'ing out in one area to be effective there, so resources can't be directed to other areas. But if the game were designed around the assumption that putting, say, half the maximum ranks into a class skill would make your character reasonably good in that skill, how many PCs would be petty good in a bunch of skills, and how many would have maximum ranks in half as many skills, being really good at those skills and useless at all others? And then we'd see the push to make the DC's higher, to challenge max'ed out characters, so the more versatile characters become useless, since they can't make those much higher DC's.
Perhaps the model should begin with a look at a member of each class who is a well-rounded representative of such a class - maybe that's a Fighter with a decent AC (say, only hit 25% of the time by a level appropriate opponent), decent melee and ranged attack skills (let's say those enable him to hit a typical opponent 1/3 of the time, and his own AC about 25% of the time), decent damage (a level appropriate threat can be dropped with, say, two average hits) and good hp (it would take about three hits from a level-appropriate opponent, or from himself, to drop him). Let's also say that he's physically fit, agile and can be pretty intimidating or inspiring (so we establish skills that he can succeed with, say, 2/3 of the time against a level appropriate challenge).
I'm picking those benchmarks out of the air, of course, and I think I've made a class that's a bit better at defense than offense. So that's our base chassis, and we build to various levels, with "standard" skill allocations, feat choices, etc. And maybe that becomes our base fighter - with no optional rules, he gets these skills and feats as base class abilities, with no tweaking or fine tuning. This is the "basic fighter".
Now we add choice. Instead of these assigned skill ranks, he can assign his own. He doesn't get these pre-selected feats, he gets to pick all of them (except automatic weapon and armor proficiencies at L1). What happens? I'll bet Marty Minmaxer shows up next week with half as many skills, all maxed out, most (if not all) his feats directed at melee (or ranged) combat (or AC, or some other singular focus, maybe 2 like massive AC and massive melee combat skills), and stats bumped up for the areas he focused on, and dumped for the abilities he dropped. And in a couple of weeks, Marty will be griping whenever challenges would better be solved with ranged combat, or with leadership and interaction (since he dumped CHA and took no ranks in such skills to beef up his melee abilities), or with anything outside the narrow focus of his melee brute. The narrow focus he chose for that character.
Guess what, Marty? You are the author of your own misfortune. No one forced you to dedicate all your resources to be the best melee brute you can be, and suck at everything else. And now, if the other PC's are still balanced, melee combat is a joke, because Marty walks all over it (or the DM beefs the enemy up to challenge Marty, and the rest of the PC's are outclassed) and non-melee challenges become a whinefest for Marty (or get dropped down to a level where he can contribute, so they're a cakewalk for everyone else).
Or maybe the GM looks at Marty's character and says "No way - he's too focused on melee and sucks too much at everything else. Go make a better balanced character." Will Marty say "I see your point, and for the good of a balanced campaign and everyone's enjoyment, I will tone down his melee abilities and beef up his abilities in other areas." and come back with a character which, while still having a melee focus, is maybe 20% better than the typical fighter at melee, and 10% less competent at ranged combat, interaction, etc., so melee is his clear sweet sot, and he shines in comparison to the other PC's, and he can still contribute in other areas, but is clearly not as good as the others? Or will Marty respond "WHAT??? My character is PERFECTLY LEGAL - I made him under the rules EXACTLY AS WRITTEN and I want, no I DEMAND to play THIS CHARACTER". And run roughshod over all melee challenges, gloating over his "system mastery" all the way, then whine and moan throughout all non-melee challenges about how the unfair the DM is, and how much the game sucks in not giving him enough power and versatility, so he's just bored because his PC is useless in these areas?
The more flexibility the game provides, the more onus it places on the players (GM included) to decide what kind of game they want to design and play using the toolbox provided by the game. No iteration of D&D is nearly as flexible as, say, the Hero system or similar "point buy for everything" systems, but 3e was a huge step up from 2e in respect of flexibility, so it increased that onus of the players to find a common level of min/max in their games. I don't think that increased onus was broadly recognized, nor was it highlighted by the rules. But if your 14 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, 14 CHA Fighter with a broad selection of ranged combat, melee combat and leadership/intimidation abilities and magic items gets laughed at by a group of min/maxers (with 20 STR, 10 DEX, 6 CHA fighters), or if you're the laughing min/maxer, then you've encountered a difference in the level of optimization and focus perceived as appropriate to design a good character.
[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] I think you have many good points, but I do think it's more a fault of the way the game is designed than player decisions. There is so little overlap in what's useful for ranged/melee that trying to make a character that is good at both ends you up with a character that's mediocre at both instead. Take Ranger's for instance, you get to choose archery OR two-weapon fighting.
The funny thing is that my last 3.5 character had the following starting stats: str 14, dex 12, con 14, int 10, wis 14, cha 14 (+spellcasting prodigy feat, which more or less gives +2wis). It worked out really well, mostly because codzilla is so overpowered to begin with that nerfing yourself a bit with the stats isn't really a big problem. If more classes had this option - to be well rounded - I think 5e will be a success. Heavy specialization is something I think they should try to avoid when designing classes.
The funny thing is that my last 3.5 character had the following starting stats: str 14, dex 12, con 14, int 10, wis 14, cha 14 (+spellcasting prodigy feat, which more or less gives +2wis). It worked out really well, mostly because codzilla is so overpowered to begin with that nerfing yourself a bit with the stats isn't really a big problem. If more classes had this option - to be well rounded - I think 5e will be a success. Heavy specialization is something I think they should try to avoid when designing classes.
Lord_Blacksteel
Adventurer
Among 3E's other "gifts" to us was the concept of "builds" and optimization. Fighters went from being good at all combat (barring ability score issues) in older editions and using whatever magic weapon came to hand, to being specialized to some degree in 2E (depending on which options were allowed) to being hyper-focused on a single weapon in 3E. It used to drive me crazy to have fighters stowing away a +X magical axe just because they had weapon focus longsword. Gods forbid they run into something with DR10/+1 because they wouldn't think to use the axe without prompting by me! This started the whole concept of wishlisting and fed into the optimization thing too.
I've seen the symptoms described above as well, where a fighter won't even take a bow (or forgets he has one on his sheet by about 3rd level) because he hasn't spent feats on it. It usually only takes one encounter with some nasty flying creatures to rectify this but even that's not a sure thing. As many feats as fighters get it was rare in my to see anyone focus or specialize on more than one weapon - to me that seemed like a smart & practical way to go, if a little less flashy than whirlwind attack.
Wizards never seemed to have this problem to this degree. They were happy to use whatever wands etc. came their way in all of the earlier editions, and by 3E they could craft the scrolls & wands they really wanted if it didn't turn up. Specialists had a little of it but it wasn't crippling in the cases I saw.
I saw it occasionally with rogues and clerics ( I know I weapon-focused a few clerics at least) but "I'm a greataxe guy and only a greataxe guy" didn't seem to be as common a mindset with them.
Then 4E came along and pushed a lot more specialization onto characters, from things like orb wizards to all of the expertise feats. I'm a fan of 4E, but it made wishlisting and builds an even bigger part of the game and I'm less a fan of those.
One positive sign with Next, I notice the feats are not tied to individual weapons, just weapon types: great weapon master applies to all heavy weapons, fencing master applies to all martial finesse weapons, etc. The wording is a little sloppy in some , as with archery master where two of the benefits apply to "ranged attacks" but the third applies to "long bow or short bow" only. This does at least move things in a direction for a broader focuses when it comes to weapon boosting.
Also specialist wizards in Next don't have to give anything up - the specialization is pure bonus. This too is a good thing in my mind, as it should keep the "oh I don't use that" mindset out of the wizard player's head too.
I've seen the symptoms described above as well, where a fighter won't even take a bow (or forgets he has one on his sheet by about 3rd level) because he hasn't spent feats on it. It usually only takes one encounter with some nasty flying creatures to rectify this but even that's not a sure thing. As many feats as fighters get it was rare in my to see anyone focus or specialize on more than one weapon - to me that seemed like a smart & practical way to go, if a little less flashy than whirlwind attack.
Wizards never seemed to have this problem to this degree. They were happy to use whatever wands etc. came their way in all of the earlier editions, and by 3E they could craft the scrolls & wands they really wanted if it didn't turn up. Specialists had a little of it but it wasn't crippling in the cases I saw.
I saw it occasionally with rogues and clerics ( I know I weapon-focused a few clerics at least) but "I'm a greataxe guy and only a greataxe guy" didn't seem to be as common a mindset with them.
Then 4E came along and pushed a lot more specialization onto characters, from things like orb wizards to all of the expertise feats. I'm a fan of 4E, but it made wishlisting and builds an even bigger part of the game and I'm less a fan of those.
One positive sign with Next, I notice the feats are not tied to individual weapons, just weapon types: great weapon master applies to all heavy weapons, fencing master applies to all martial finesse weapons, etc. The wording is a little sloppy in some , as with archery master where two of the benefits apply to "ranged attacks" but the third applies to "long bow or short bow" only. This does at least move things in a direction for a broader focuses when it comes to weapon boosting.
Also specialist wizards in Next don't have to give anything up - the specialization is pure bonus. This too is a good thing in my mind, as it should keep the "oh I don't use that" mindset out of the wizard player's head too.
D'karr
Adventurer
This should not seem "odd" at all. Wizards use an entirely different system for their effectiveness. In 3e all the wizard's spellcasting ability was tied to one single attribute (INT). But the fighter/ranger/rogue had to spend resources on two different attributes if they wanted to be effective in both melee and range combat. Their feats similarly where broken into multiple silos. If the martial classes simply had a combat attribute that is shared for both ranged and melee combat, and the feats simply modified that combat attribute, as is the case for wizards, then they wouldn't have the problem either.
Ahnehnois
First Post
A largely accurate premise, but I think you've reached the wrong conclusion. If, instead, spellcasters had multiple ability score dependencies, and spells had prerequisites that "siloed" them off, then everyone would be on the same page.
Also, how does base attack not meet this definition?
Lord_Blacksteel
Adventurer
I never said it was odd, I was just making an observation that the hyper-specialization was mainly a fighter issue.
For Rogues, finesse weapons mitigated the two-stat issue in a lot of cases.
Martial classes did have a combat attribute that is the same for both melee and ranged: the attack bonus. I don't think the issue was being equally good at both options as much as it was being extremely good at one and forgetting the other one existed. If I have a greatsword fighter it makes sense to focus on str and take wpn focus & wpn spec in that weapon, but picking up a magic/strength bow is still a good idea at a minimum, even if their dex mod is zero. If it comes up semi-frequently, then using a feat for WF:Bow is an easy upgrade too.
With Next's approach to ability as save & skill base I think it mitigates some of the over-specialization concerns from the older editions. There is still the using-two-stats issue but hopefully the new system will lead to favoring one over the other rather than going all-in on one and ignoring the other. Combined with the broader weapon-related feats I think it's looking alright
Dandu
First Post
Once a feat is selected, you can't change it easily. If you decide to take Weapon Focus, Specialization, and the Greater WF/WS feats, you've invested a large chunk of resources into a single type of weapon without the ability to apply them to anything else you find. (Unless you happen to be a Warblade, who can do that.)
If you choose to specialize in two weapons, say the Greatsword and Longbow, not only do you have to pump three stats (Str, Dex, Con), but you have to buy into at least two different feat chains. This means that when you need to use a Greatsword, you're not doing it as well as someone who spent all their feats on Greastwording. A similar problem occurs with archery, which you need to spend a lot of feats on in order to be functional. (Though having a ranged option is never a bad idea, just not necessarily an effective one.)
We could, of course, test this out with an example build. Fortunately, I have one. What monsters could such a fighter be expected to face and "tank" in a classic 4 person party?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
