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

[N'raac]

I don't know much about spheres. It would be a paradigm shift, but not necessarily a huge one. 3e warmages/beguilers/dread necromancers still have more diverse options than a 4e character. And a prerequisite-based approach isn't that restrictive.

??Your Fighter preference is the 2e Specialization to Mastery model, but you don't know much about the clerical spheres which were also unique to 2e?? Maybe I'm mixing up editions here somewhere...

Well, most of D&D doesn't.

4e has Dailies and Encounter powers. Prior editions have short and long term buff spells. Practically, each spell pre-4e is a "daily power" in that once it's been cast, it's gone.

But as long as we're doing theorycraft... consider a high-level Knight fighter, with a 20 Strength and a +3 greatsword. With a +14 to attack, we'll say the fighter hits on a 3 or better. Three attacks for 2d6+8, hitting 90% of the time, with crits, results in average damage output of 41.025 per round. Twice per combat, the fighter gets an action surge that spikes that damage output to 95.55. This seems pretty comparable to what the mage is doing with blasting magic (if the mage is going full strength).

What is the mage doing with blasting magic at the same level? And how many battles can the mage accomplish this in a day, versus the fighter who recharges for each combat, if I read you correctly above (ie "if the mage is going full strength").

Now, to the question of "Why would you fireball instead of haste or slow?" Well, the benefits of slow are situational; it does little good against monsters with ranged attacks, or if the fighter is just going to charge in and engage the foe in melee anyhow. Haste only grants one extra attack per round to one combatant, so you're looking at 13.675 extra damage, to one target, per round. A fireball against four foes who save 25% of the time averages 73.5 damage total, which is more than five rounds' worth of haste. That's a pretty strong contender in my book. A lot of 5E combats don't last that long.

Can fighters/multiple attackers still take their full attack iteration under a 5e Slow spell? Is a 25% save chance, with 4 targets lacking resistance to fire within the Fireball area (and no friendlies in there) a reasonable expectation? And can my PC expect to fail 3/4 of his saves as well? I don't know as I'm not familiar with 5e structure, so I ask to get a comparable.

From your comments, 5e Haste is restricted to a single target, which makes it considerably less powerful, I agree. Is Slow also limited to a single target?

(True, the fireball can't focus fire. But what's the benefit of focused fire? It lets you drop a target right away. Well, haste can't do that either! Waiting for the damage to dribble out over several rounds is just as bad as splitting it over several targets.)

The Haste doesn't target friendlies in the area, though.

And even if you do conclude that haste or slow is a better choice--fine. You cast it on the first round. Then what? You going to just twiddle your thumbs the rest of the fight? Both spells require concentration. You can't double up on them, or stack them with other buffs and debuffs. Time to break out the bat guano.

So we'll Fireball into the melee, damaging friend and foe alike? Sucks to be on your team!

 

[Dausuul]

What is the mage doing with blasting magic at the same level? And how many battles can the mage accomplish this in a day, versus the fighter who recharges for each combat, if I read you correctly above (ie "if the mage is going full strength").

Well, let's see here. The fighter is at least 17th level (that's when you get two Action Surges), so we'll assume a mage of the same level. Such a mage has one spell at each level between 6 and 9, plus two spells at level 5, three each of 4, 3, and 2, and four at level 1. As a specialized blaster, the mage will of course follow the School of Evocation. And since I gave the fighter a very rare magic weapon, I'll give the mage a very rare ring of wizardry, adding one spell slot per level from levels 1 to 4.

Assume the mage is rationing spells to fight four major combats per day, and using fireball heightened as appropriate. Then a pretty typical combat, versus four targets saving 25% of the time, would be something like this:

Round 1: 8th-level fireball (11d6+5): 152.25 damage.
Round 2: 4th-level fireball (7d6+5): 103.25 damage.
Round 3: 3rd-level fireball (6d6+5): 91 damage.
Round 4: 3rd-level fireball (6d6+5): 91 damage.
Round 5: What? We're still fighting?

Can fighters/multiple attackers still take their full attack iteration under a 5e Slow spell?

Yes.

Is a 25% save chance, with 4 targets lacking resistance to fire within the Fireball area (and no friendlies in there) a reasonable expectation?

This is where my limited experience at high levels prevents me from giving a definitive answer, but I can say it's quite conservative at the mid-levels (6-7). I have often fried much larger groups than that. And evokers at level 16+ can ignore resistance.

And can my PC expect to fail 3/4 of his saves as well? I don't know as I'm not familiar with 5e structure, so I ask to get a comparable.

It depends very much on what you're trying to save against, what your ability scores are, and what class abilities you've got. For that matter, the same applies to the monsters.

A 17th-level mage, assuming maxed-out Intelligence (a safe assumption by that level), is going to have a save DC of 18. So, a foe with Dexterity 14 and no other applicable abilities will have a 25% chance to save against that mage's blasting spells. That goes for PCs too. On the other hand, many PCs have special abilities that improve their saves. For instance, a 13th-level fighter gets to roll all saving throws twice and take the best result.

From your comments, 5e Haste is restricted to a single target, which makes it considerably less powerful, I agree. Is Slow also limited to a single target?

It hits up to six creatures. Those that fail a Will save must choose between action or move each round; have their move speed halved; and get -2 to AC and Dex saves. Very powerful against melee foes if you've got a ranged-heavy or skirmish-oriented party, not so much if you've got heavy melee guys of your own.

So we'll Fireball into the melee, damaging friend and foe alike? Sucks to be on your team!

That's why you play an evoker, allowing you to "shield" a number of targets equal to 1 plus the spell level. Those creatures automatically save against the spell, and if the spell would normally deal half damage on a save, it deals nothing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

??Your Fighter preference is the 2e Specialization to Mastery model, but you don't know much about the clerical spheres which were also unique to 2e?? Maybe I'm mixing up editions here somewhere...

Yes, my knowledge regarding 2e is a mixed bag. I only played, never DMed, and never owned any books. I did play a variety of characters, but the DM ended up walking us through some of the mechanics so there are large gaps in my knowledge. I do think that 2e, while inferior overall to 3e, does have a lot of good ideas, some of which were picked up but others were lost.

4e has Dailies and Encounter powers. Prior editions have short and long term buff spells. Practically, each spell pre-4e is a "daily power" in that once it's been cast, it's gone.

True. But there's no differential recharge rates for the most part pre-4e. Things are either use-limited or not, and you asked about the importance of making a distinction between short and long recharges. I don't think that distinction is very meaningful in most situations.

 

[Dannager]

600 rounds of combat? Agreed - an extreme. Inability to rest after each encounter? Much more common in the games I've played. The concept of having a single encounter, blasting off everything, then retreating to rest and coming back tomorrow hasn't been present in any game I've played in.

Nor mine. But between four and six encounters before resting for the evening? Quite common. The norm, in fact.

This forced the spellcasters to be a bit more conservative in spellcasting, not let loose with full power at the outset of each encounter.

By the time well-constructed spellcasters hit mid-level, they typically have enough powerful spells at their disposal to use one or two powerful spells at the beginning of an encounter (often only one is necessary) and follow those up with less powerful (though still extremely effective) spells for the rest of the combat.

 

[N'raac]

Well, let's see here. The fighter is at least 17th level (that's when you get two Action Surges), so we'll assume a mage of the same level. Such a mage has one spell at each level between 6 and 9, plus two spells at level 5, three each of 4, 3, and 2, and four at level 1. As a specialized blaster, the mage will of course follow the School of Evocation. And since I gave the fighter a very rare magic weapon, I'll give the mage a very rare ring of wizardry, adding one spell slot per level from levels 1 to 4.

OK - does that mean he has access to that number of spells which he may choose between in an encounter, or that he can cast a sum total of 19 spells per day? As I said, I'm not sure how 5e spellcasting is structured. Having used his L8 spell in your example, does he have to use L6/7/9 in the next battle? Other than that, seems a fair comparison.

Assume the mage is rationing spells to fight four major combats per day, and using fireball heightened as appropriate. Then a pretty typical combat, versus four targets saving 25% of the time, would be something like this:

Round 1: 8th-level fireball (11d6+5): 152.25 damage.
Round 2: 4th-level fireball (7d6+5): 103.25 damage.
Round 3: 3rd-level fireball (6d6+5): 91 damage.
Round 4: 3rd-level fireball (6d6+5): 91 damage.
Round 5: What? We're still fighting?

Again, that 25% save probability has a lot of impact on the results.

This is where my limited experience at high levels prevents me from giving a definitive answer, but I can say it's quite conservative at the mid-levels (6-7). I have often fried much larger groups than that. And evokers at level 16+ can ignore resistance.

It depends very much on what you're trying to save against, what your ability scores are, and what class abilities you've got. For that matter, the same applies to the monsters.

Your damage figures will drop off as the save percentage gets higher. The Fighter hits 90% of the time, so it does not seem unreasonable the wizard gets his spell through 75% of the time - but that should be consistent with fighting "PC equivalents". Your comments indicate 25% save success is for opponents at the bottom end of the "save pool".

A 17th-level mage, assuming maxed-out Intelligence (a safe assumption by that level), is going to have a save DC of 18. So, a foe with Dexterity 14 and no other applicable abilities will have a 25% chance to save against that mage's blasting spells. That goes for PCs too. On the other hand, many PCs have special abilities that improve their saves. For instance, a 13th-level fighter gets to roll all saving throws twice and take the best result.

But a typical opponent for L17 characters will roll 1d20 + 2 and hope for the best? Seems like my Save or Suck spells are pretty effective then. In the same four rounds you hypothesize me casting four fireballs, I can cast four "save or lose" spells that target a single opponent, and expect that three of them are done for, leaving one for the rest of the party to deal with. That seems not to compare favourably with Blasting, especially if my specialty abilities enhance those save or sucks as much as the evoker's appear to enhance blasting.

It hits up to six creatures. Those that fail a Will save must choose between action or move each round; have their move speed halved; and get -2 to AC and Dex saves. Very powerful against melee foes if you've got a ranged-heavy or skirmish-oriented party, not so much if you've got heavy melee guys of your own.

So it will hit all four of the hypothetical fireball targets, right? Let the melee heavy PC's close on the 1 in 4 that made his save and quickly dispatch that target. The ranged characters can focus on the other three, and I assume nothing stops our melee heavy hitter(s) pulling out a bow to join the mopup. Just like the wizard will often just stand back (or cantrip, or crossbow) in the mopup rather than waste a ,ore valuable, and limited, spell resource.

That's why you play an evoker, allowing you to "shield" a number of targets equal to 1 plus the spell level. Those creatures automatically save against the spell, and if the spell would normally deal half damage on a save, it deals nothing.

Again, seems like the evoker gets major bonuses. Assuming comparable bonuses for more subtle spellcasters, how do they compare?

In any case, this is more an illustration of my own lack of 5e knowledge than anything else. My simplistic point is that Blasting should be a viable option. It appears that it is for a focused Blaster. If the game is shifting to force spellcasters to focus on a specific area (such that this Blaster's spells other than Blasts will be about as useful as that Fireball would be to an Illusionist who can't exempt teammates from damage, gets no bonuses, etc.), then we have that balance. Seems like 5e will focus on less versatile wizards with more flexibility available for each spell, rather than a wider spell selection, which is a valid approach.

True. But there's no differential recharge rates for the most part pre-4e. Things are either use-limited or not, and you asked about the importance of making a distinction between short and long recharges. I don't think that distinction is very meaningful in most situations.

There's also the difference between a short fade rate and a long fade rate. If we have one encounter a day, a 3e Bull's Strength (which lasts hours) and a 3.5e Bull's Strength (which lasts minutes or rounds) are both the same. If we have half a dozen encounters spread out over the day, that duration change is a lot more meaningful.

Nor mine. But between four and six encounters before resting for the evening? Quite common. The norm, in fact.

3e? Sure - six seems at the high end, even. But I can't blindly blast off my heaviest artillery in the first encounter if I expect a few more today.

By the time well-constructed spellcasters hit mid-level, they typically have enough powerful spells at their disposal to use one or two powerful spells at the beginning of an encounter (often only one is necessary) and follow those up with less powerful (though still extremely effective) spells for the rest of the combat.

If I read the analysis above correctly, one powerful spell for each of four encounters (assuming we consider a 6th level spell "powerful" for a caster with the capability of a 9th level spell - not sure what his higher level spell options are or how they compare to that 11d6/12d6 Fireball) and a pack of weaker ones. Care to spell out a spell load for that 7th level wizard whose fireballs are going to be an effective threat to CR 7 opponents with 120 or so hp?

Are there some more knowledgeable 5e commentators still concerned, or have they been swayed? I'm on the 5e fringes, so if those with a greater understanding of the 5e mechanics are sold, I'm probably sold too.

 

[Dausuul]

OK - does that mean he has access to that number of spells which he may choose between in an encounter, or that he can cast a sum total of 19 spells per day? As I said, I'm not sure how 5e spellcasting is structured. Having used his L8 spell in your example, does he have to use L6/7/9 in the next battle? Other than that, seems a fair comparison.

Yes, that is the sum total of spells per day, not counting cantrips (which can be cast at will with no use limits) and scrolls (which use a rather curious system). 5E wizard spell slots have been rather sharply curtailed, even relative to AD&D. I am assuming this mage is going to be following the classic wizard strategy of relying on low-level spells or even sitting out minor encounters, then unleashing heavy firepower in serious fights. This wizard is expecting to use one spell of level 6+ in each of the four "serious fights" of the day.

Your damage figures will drop off as the save percentage gets higher. The Fighter hits 90% of the time, so it does not seem unreasonable the wizard gets his spell through 75% of the time - but that should be consistent with fighting "PC equivalents". Your comments indicate 25% save success is for opponents at the bottom end of the "save pool".

14 Dexterity means a save percentage of 25%, absent any special abilities. Many PCs have such abilities. Monsters seldom do. Furthermore, lots of monsters have Dexterity below 14, while very few have more than 16 or 17. It's not exactly the "bottom end."

But a typical opponent for L17 characters will roll 1d20 + 2 and hope for the best? Seems like my Save or Suck spells are pretty effective then. In the same four rounds you hypothesize me casting four fireballs, I can cast four "save or lose" spells that target a single opponent, and expect that three of them are done for, leaving one for the rest of the party to deal with.

And these spells would be... what, exactly? You're bringing a raft of assumptions from 3E that just don't apply any more. "Save or suck" has been cut way, way back. Most of the spells that have such effects grant a save every round (hold person, cause fear--also note that coup de grace no longer applies to paralyzed targets); or require concentration to maintain (polymorph, flesh to stone); or grant multiple saves before achieving "suck" (dominate person, flesh to stone); or only work effectively on a narrow set of targets (feeblemind). As far as I can tell, you have to get to 8th-level spells and dominate monster before there is a decisive option to take a single monster out of the combat with one spell, one failed save, no maintenance required.

Even finger of death only kills outright if the target has 40 hit points or less. Otherwise it just deals a boatload of necrotic damage.

If I read the analysis above correctly, one powerful spell for each of four encounters (assuming we consider a 6th level spell "powerful" for a caster with the capability of a 9th level spell - not sure what his higher level spell options are or how they compare to that 11d6/12d6 Fireball) and a pack of weaker ones. Care to spell out a spell load for that 7th level wizard whose fireballs are going to be an effective threat to CR 7 opponents with 120 or so hp?

As I said, I'm just theorycrafting for the high levels, but as the player of a 7th-level wizard I can say with certainty that blasting is a very effective option in the mid-level range. In fact, since I generally prefer to specialize in utility and control magic, it's a bit too effective for my taste--I find myself falling back on fireball more than I'd like. When you're facing a big gang of weak foes, it's hard to justify playing around with illusions and control spells when you can just wipe them off the map and be done with it. I'm hoping that the illusionist tradition in the new playtest packet will make the control mage a bit stronger.

 

[N'raac]

Dausuul, this is probably the most useful post to me in this whole thread.

Yes, that is the sum total of spells per day, not counting cantrips (which can be cast at will with no use limits) and scrolls (which use a rather curious system). 5E wizard spell slots have been rather sharply curtailed, even relative to AD&D. I am assuming this mage is going to be following the classic wizard strategy of relying on low-level spells or even sitting out minor encounters, then unleashing heavy firepower in serious fights. This wizard is expecting to use one spell of level 6+ in each of the four "serious fights" of the day.

14 Dexterity means a save percentage of 25%, absent any special abilities. Many PCs have such abilities. Monsters seldom do. Furthermore, lots of monsters have Dexterity below 14, while very few have more than 16 or 17. It's not exactly the "bottom end."

One thing I disliked about 4e was the "PC's follow different rules than their opponents" approach. That's a style difference, not "right" or "wrong", but my preference. It seems like the monsters don't get to save but the PC's get to be much more resistant to their counterattacks. That said, I think it would be appropriate for saves to be much more difficult across the board - given the reduction in spell slots, less spells more likely to succeed seems like a fair tradeoff. With 1 spell each of your best four levels, having them fail half the time would be an exercise in frustration, so making saves unlikely seems much more equitable.

And these spells would be... what, exactly? You're bringing a raft of assumptions from 3E that just don't apply any more. "Save or suck" has been cut way, way back. Most of the spells that have such effects grant a save every round (hold person, cause fear--also note that coup de grace no longer applies to paralyzed targets); or require concentration to maintain (polymorph, flesh to stone); or grant multiple saves before achieving "suck" (dominate person, flesh to stone); or only work effectively on a narrow set of targets (feeblemind). As far as I can tell, you have to get to 8th-level spells and dominate monster before there is a decisive option to take a single monster out of the combat with one spell, one failed save, no maintenance required.

Seems like Slow is pretty effective - if I can move and attack (even if that attack is one arrow doing 1d6) and my opponent can move or attack and has no ranged attacks, I'm eventually going to win (unless I run out of arrows first). That said, it sounds like the approach taken has been to move the more effective spells down. My concern is first that the various spellcaster options be balanced against one another, and second that they be balanced against other types of characters (ie non-spellcasters). It sounds like this is a viable approach, and that the non-Blast spells have been downgraded (at least for non-specialists in that type of spell), which is a means of better equalizing Blasts and non-Blasts.

As I said, I'm just theorycrafting for the high levels, but as the player of a 7th-level wizard I can say with certainty that blasting is a very effective option in the mid-level range. In fact, since I generally prefer to specialize in utility and control magic, it's a bit too effective for my taste--I find myself falling back on fireball more than I'd like. When you're facing a big gang of weak foes, it's hard to justify playing around with illusions and control spells when you can just wipe them off the map and be done with it. I'm hoping that the illusionist tradition in the new playtest packet will make the control mage a bit stronger.

Sounds like the options are at least closer to balance, which should be the goal. But, to me, "a big gang of weak foes" is the sweet spot for Fireballs and the like, so perhaps the scenario allows those spells to be overly effective. I hope the test packets are providing a wide variety of encounter types to ensure a broad playtest.

In any case, thanks for this useful info - it clarifies a lot of the issues for me, anyway.

I question "new edition", but I've questioned that since 3e - the "new editions" from that point on (2 to 3; 3 to 4) seem more like new games, with 3.5 and perhaps essentials in 4e being more like "same game, new edition" and 3e, 4e seeming more like "same name, new game". Looks like 5e will follow the latter approach.

 

[1of3]

It sounds like this is a viable approach, and that the non-Blast spells have been downgraded (at least for non-specialists in that type of spell), which is a means of better equalizing Blasts and non-Blasts.

There currently are no specialists for weponized save or suck effects. While enchanters get useful abilities, most of them just make the suck longer, not more reliable. So they are especially useful outside of combat, but won't help you, when the show is already running.

Level 16 is the exception, allowing charms on usually un-charm-able folk. But then "Charmed" isn't that useful by itself either, and this ability of the Enchanter is just the spell formerly called Charm Monster, which doesn't currently exist.

I question "new edition", but I've questioned that since 3e - the "new editions" from that point on (2 to 3; 3 to 4) seem more like new games, with 3.5 and perhaps essentials in 4e being more like "same game, new edition" and 3e, 4e seeming more like "same name, new game". Looks like 5e will follow the latter approach.

Most of the changes wouldn't be recognized, if you just hand people complete characters. Changes are very subtle. Starting from 3.x, explaining the rules changes that you have to know is about 5 minutes.

 

[Dausuul]

Most of the changes wouldn't be recognized, if you just hand people complete characters. Changes are very subtle. Starting from 3.x, explaining the rules changes that you have to know is about 5 minutes.

Mmm... well, sorta. You can jump in quickly, sure, but you will be tripping over a lot of things that are just a bit different from what you're used to. For instance, if you look at hold person, you'll see that it paralyzes the target. You think "Great!" and nail an opponent with hold person, then tell the rogue to coup de grace him. He's paralyzed, so you can coup de grace, right? Well... no. Paralysis doesn't do that any more.

The rogue, meanwhile, is setting up flanking... only to find that flanking no longer exists, but she's got a special ability that gives her advantage whenever an ally is within 5 feet of the target. Also, what used to be Evasion is now Uncanny Dodge, what used to be Uncanny Dodge no longer quite exists, and Evasion is a totally new thing. The barbarian is belatedly discovering that if she goes a round without attacking, her rage stops. The fighter is finding out that he no longer has to sacrifice his move to get a full round of attacks.

I'd characterize it as being like 2E to 3E. It is recognizably the same game, and not too hard to make the initial jump--certainly nothing like the 3E to 4E transition*--but massively overhauled and a bunch of stuff works differently now.

[size=-2]*Unless, of course, you are starting with 4E, in which case it's like going through the 3E to 4E transition in reverse.[/size]

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Couple of points:

-The AD&D Fireball had no dice cap (15th level MU = 15d6 fireball) and covered considerably more area indoors because of the volume of the blast (as noted in the spell description). Outdoors it had a 20-yard radius instead of 20', which was nice too.

-The AD&D Lightning Bolt could be bounced off a wall to double-dip on damage and blast a line of enemies twice. It also had no dice cap.

-2E capped the dice but left in the volume and rebound rules in the spell descriptions so they were still good but not as awesomely powerful as before

-3E kept the cap and dropped the volume/area/rebound fun

So there has been an ongoing weakening of some key blasting spells through the editions. I never thought they were underpowered but they were certainly less glorious than the old days.

I don't think character hit points are all that relevant to the conversation but monster hit points certainly are. Monster hit points started going up in 2E - the biggest, meanest red dragon (huge, ancient) in 1E had 11HD and 88hp. In 2E, a red hatchling (the smallest) has 9HD and the older age brackets get into the 20's! Giants saw about a 50% boost in HD too. With 3E the most powerful dragons got a bump again while giants stayed about where they were in 2E. An AD&D MU at 8th level can throw his 8d6 fireball into a room (even a very large room) and take out 2/3 of every hill giant's HP (average) - and one more fireball clears it, barring two saves. By 2E, those are 12HD giants, but a 12th level wizard only has a 10HD fireball, so he's only doing slightly over half even on a failed save and by 3E he's only doing that in a 20' radius, which is pretty limiting when fighting larger creatures.

In contrast orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, bugbears, etc - the things that seem to end up on the receiving end of fireballs the most, stayed pretty much the same through all these editions. They're all in the 1-3 HD range, mostly 1-2, which means even the 5d6 fireball handles them in any edition.

I'd like to see Next move back towards the fireball being the answer to hordes, for sure - maybe with a larger blast radius. It does have the built-in option to spend a higher slot for more damage which is nice, but I'd rather see that for Lightning Bolt (which it does have) and give Fireball an option to increase the area. I don't really expect that to happen outside of some kind of magical feat but it would give a wizard some more options during play.