Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6169736" data-attributes="member: 6681948">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.Again, that 25% save probability has a lot of impact on the results.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".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.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.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification