D&D 5E Long Rests vs Short Rests

[Asisreo]

That's why I don't take all those spells.

For a first I take Wall of Stone over Wall of Force. Wall of Force makes a better combat spell than Wall of Stone - but the ability to permanence a wall and create architecture means I prefer the flexibility. By the same token I take Polymorph over Banishment as my take it out of action spell by default.

Second you're massively overloaded on third level spells. Fireball, counterspell, hypnotic pattern, and haste?

Third I don't rate Mirror Image - an entire action for a couple of hits. I also don't rate Magic Missile - 3.5 damage per magic missile is far far too low to be worth burning a spell slot on especially when Firebolt does 11 damage on average.

I'm choosing highlight combat spells that people consider optimal for their purposes, I didn't include Scorching Ray as an attack roll spell either because its still a bit iffy for the community. Either way, the spells I chose are ones that some people consider "gimping" your pure wizard if you don't pick up like Shield and Mage Armor.

In fact, I never even took any Xanathar's or Tasha's spells which introduce spells which are arguably rated higher than just the ones I chose.

Also, third-level spells are usually very powerful.

Greater Invisibility is a pure combat spell. Misty Step is again more combat.

I chose either one invisibility or the other since I don't think its fair to assume they'd double-up. Either way, having at least one gives a utility spell in terms of sneaking around, definitely a valuable utility spell.

It depends on what I was expecting. Tongues and Darkvision in particular (although I'd try to pass Darkvision off on someone else) are spells that can make or break things.

I don't see it. Tongues is for communicating with creatures that were likely going to fight you anyways. Darkvision is like 75% of race's features in a spell, and light spells/torches fulfill the majority of its needs better anyways so it isn't that useful.

For a value of "nobody" that doesn't include me or the groups I play in.

Seriously? No one takes Alarm, Comprehend Languages, Floating Disk, Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Water Breathing? And I'd normally grab Phantom Steed.

Not in my group. Someone tried using Comprehend Languages once and the DM ruled that the creature they were communicating with got intimidated by the magic and fled.

LTH isn't something taken often because we respect our DM mostly.

Remember that taking rituals do take Wizard's spells known so having better spells that will actually be used more than once a campaign are better.

Who is calling it either or?

I'm just saying. If a spell is worse than a cantrip, is it worth the spells known?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not in my group. Someone tried using Comprehend Languages once and the DM ruled that the creature they were communicating with got intimidated by the magic and fled.

And here is the problem I think. I'd consider this an naughty word move on behalf of your DM. And if your DM goes this hard to make sure that spells aren't useful out of combat no wonder you have problems using spells out of combat and stick to combat spells.

Remember that taking rituals do take Wizard's spells known so having better spells that will actually be used more than once a campaign are better.

As opposed to every night like Alarm and LTH?

I'm just saying. If a spell is worse than a cantrip, is it worth the spells known?

In some cases not just yes but hell yes. And you can learn spells from outside your automatic spells known.

 

[tetrasodium]

This would be true if and only if casters had one spell. Meanwhile they get a number of spells prepared for each spell level - and there's a reason Sorcerers and Rangers (the actual offenders) have had their number of spells known go up first with Xanathar's then with Tasha's. Meanwhile a level 10 wizard should have 15 spells prepared or one per pillar per spell level. Which is flexible enough.

No it's still true because that number is significantly less than both the number of spells they can know or are reasonably likely to have in a spell book as well as less than the entire class list. The spells you are pinning your position on are generally too niche to bother preparing even if they are an option meaning the caster is going to be preparing spells that will at least have a good chance of providing some use during the current session rather than nothing but niche spells that can poorly solve a generally not very significant or pressing problem.

@Asisreo already hit the very short partial list you gave. If that's the full list it suggests casters are very unfinished by covering such a small range of spell levels

Go ahead list off the whole batch of specific spells you think support your position of the disparity of 5e's LWQF across all levels being justified, Give us a challenge & state why for each spell rather than just listing spells if you think your position is so strong rather than making us guess.

I'll give you credit for trying to hook in something new as part of this point rather than a point on its own though. On top of everything @Asisreo noted above those 15 spells are also a big reduction from the past. You can look at it in detail here because the loss of flexibility is significantly more than slots alone would suggest as you had things like preparing a single cast of second level knock at mid to high levels had near zero opportunity cost being in one of the 4 2nd level slots while in 5e every niche spell prepared has the exact same opportunity cost as a bread & butter staple spell. There are a huge amount less actual spell slots at nearly every level in 5e than there were in the past too as one more attempt at countering LFQW to add onto the pile

as to tiny hut itself, it's not yet been poited out that that the spell only exists on the bard & wizard lists

 

[Neonchameleon]

Go ahead list off the whole batch of specific spells you think support your position of the disparity of 5e's LWQF across all levels being justified,

I don't need to give the whole batch of spells. Once the wizard has Minor Image and Invisibility then the fighter has been left in the dust in social and exploration situations because they get nothing in their core features.

Give us a challenge & state why for each spell rather than just listing spells if you think your position is so strong rather than making us guess.

Give me what the basic fighter gets.

Oh wait. That's two skills, no tools, plus their background - literally the bare minimum of any class. Oh, and the Champion gets remarkable athlete for what that is worth. Or the Arcane Archer gets the Arcana skill and a single cantrip. And the barbarian is worse, there being less chance of anything that's not about hitting things.

Show me how these match up to a wizard using even a fraction of their spells to expand what they can do. Even a wizard with an entire combat loadout other than only using one attack cantrip is more or less a match for a fighter or barbarian in the other two pillars. Your best claim for a flexible fighter would be the Eldritch Knight.

The wizard doesn't need to be the god-wizard to be more flexible than most classes. The fighter is called a fighter and puts 100% of their resources beyond the bare minimum two skills all classes get into fighting. If they are not better at it than any class that does not do this then they are a miserable failure of a class.

If the pillars matter and two classes drop 100% of their resources on one of the three pillars then those two classes should be the best in that pillar. And they are also outmatched in the other two.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't need to give the whole batch of spells. Once the wizard has Minor Image and Invisibility then the fighter has been left in the dust in social and exploration situations because they get nothing in their core features.

Give me what the basic fighter gets.

Oh wait. That's two skills, no tools, plus their background - literally the bare minimum of any class. Oh, and the Champion gets remarkable athlete for what that is worth. Or the Arcane Archer gets the Arcana skill and a single cantrip. And the barbarian is worse, there being less chance of anything that's not about hitting things.

Show me how these match up to a wizard using even a fraction of their spells to expand what they can do. Even a wizard with an entire combat loadout other than only using one attack cantrip is more or less a match for a fighter or barbarian in the other two pillars. Your best claim for a flexible fighter would be the Eldritch Knight.

The wizard doesn't need to be the god-wizard to be more flexible than most classes. The fighter is called a fighter and puts 100% of their resources beyond the bare minimum two skills all classes get into fighting. If they are not better at it than any class that does not do this then they are a miserable failure of a class.

If the pillars matter and two classes drop 100% of their resources on one of the three pillars then those two classes should be the best in that pillar. And they are also outmatched in the other two.

so basically your response is "I got nothin". As to what the fighter gets? I can give you a ton of math. even a few breakdowns like this, this, this, & many others. That's ok if you got nothing. It's interesting that you wanted to move from "spellcasters" to "wizards" though and chose to complain about "two skills plus their background" as support for your position though given the way 5e works...

What version of d&d are you talking about?

 

[Neonchameleon]

so basically your response is "I got nothin".

No. It's "Come back her with those goalposts. And stop making up strawmen."

As to what the fighter gets? I can give you a ton of math.

Come back here with those goalposts.

Me: The fighter should be the best at damage because they are naughty word at the other two pillars and have dropped all their resources into fighting.
You: Here are numbers to demonstrate that the fighter does more damage.

Which is what I am saying should happen. Come back here with those goalposts.

even a few breakdowns like this, this, this, & many others. That's ok if you got nothing.

I don't have to have anything. Because you are creating what is known as a strawman argument.

I will repeat once more because it is clear you haven't got the point yet. The fighter and barbarian put basically 100% of their resources into doing damage and taking hits. If there is any sort of balance this means that the fighter and barbarian should be the best at fighting because they are naughty word at everything else.

It's interesting that you wanted to move from "spellcasters" to "wizards" though and chose to complain about "two skills plus their background" as support for your position though given the way 5e works...

Me: The fighter has two skills plus their background and nothing else. The wizard has the same number of skills plus their magic. The fighter loses out of combat to even a wizard with just cantrips for non-combat work.
You: The fighter has the same number of skills as the wizard.

Well, duh! That's literally what I said. You somehow seem to think that having the same number of skills makes them comparable when it's skills plus magic vs skills plus nothing at all. And in order to rebut me you don't need me to go through all the spells and show which put the wizard beyond the fighter out of combat. You need to go through and demonstrate that precisely none of them do.

The fighter is basically a one trick pony. At first level they move 30' with a move action and swing a sharpened piece of metal hard and fast at targets within 5 foot. At twentieth level they move 30' and swing a sharpened piece of metal very hard and fast at targets within 5 foot. They are still a linear class, still doing basically the same thing at level 20 they were doing at level 1. They damn well ought to be good at it because they've given up everything else.

Meanwhile a wizard has moved from being able to conjure a silent image of a red dragon to being able to turn into one permanently. The wizard's capabilities have massively expanded in ways that aren't measured on a simple scale.

Goodbye.

 

[Asisreo]

And here is the problem I think. I'd consider this an naughty word move on behalf of your DM. And if your DM goes this hard to make sure that spells aren't useful out of combat no wonder you have problems using spells out of combat and stick to combat spells.

Don't consider my DM anything, you haven't played with him.

It made sense in-context. We were invading their land and they were making it quite clear we weren't welcome but their leader let us try to talk but a whole 10 minutes of weird magic chanting isn't a comforting sight.

As opposed to every night like Alarm and LTH?

If you cast alarm, and nothing sounds it, was it ever cast at all? Honestly, Alarm is still very niche because it doesn't really prevent anything if someone's on watch unless the enemy is very stealthy or invisible. Which hardly ever happens. Same could be said for LTH.

In some cases not just yes but hell yes. And you can learn spells from outside your automatic spells known.

Spells Known is the single most precious resource a wizard has because you cannot take it back. Adding rewards to the mix also widens a noncaster's options so its a moot point. You could take Tenser's Floating Disk which would be a really niche need, more like a luxury, or you could take Protection from Evil and Good, which is also niche but you can almost always see the need to prepare it a mile away making it much more useful within its niche.

These examples are all easy to find where even niche non-ritual spells are more efficient for the spells known than ritual spells are.

 

[Flamestrike]

Are we really having the same old arguments about the 5mwd?

Surely by now there are enough techniques for a DM to stop that if he wants.

 

[Flamestrike]

The fighter is basically a one trick pony.

Only if you want to be.

Nothing stopping a Fighter from using those bonus feats on stuff that lets them be good outside the Combat pillar (Skilled, Gaining expertise, Linguist etc).

And there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a class that smacks things down, and doesn't do much else of anything. Heck; every table has at least 1 player that just wants to do nothing other than throw those D20's and kill things.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sir Thumpsalot Silvertounge 'Warlord'
Half Elf BM Fighter 7
S 18, D 8, C 14, I 12, W 12, Ch 14
HP: 59, AC 18, Init -1
Full plate, Greatsword
Feats: GWM, Skill expert (Persuasion)
Background (Noble) - Position of Privilege
Skills: Athletics +7, Perception +4, Insight +4, Persuasion +8, Intimidate +5, History +4, Investigation +4; Blacksmith tools +4, Chess set +4
F/S: Superior technique
Maneuvers (6 Sup dice): Commanders strike, Commanding presence, Tactical assessment, Precision attack, Rally, Maneuvering attack (d8)
Action surge, Second Wind, Student of War, Know your enemy

Is there any reason the above dude is outclassed by a Wizard in the combat or social pillar (or indeed much of the exploration pillar)?

After a minute of talking to someone he gets basically all their Game stats (Know your enemy) and gets whatever information a Persuasion check at +8 (+1d8 from Commanding presence) or around +13 or so lets him know. If they're lying to him he gets Insight at +4 (+1d8) to figure it out. If that still doesnt work he gets to Intimidate them at +5 (+1d8) to get them to do what he wants.

He can add +1d8 to Insight, History, Investigation, Persuasion and Intimidate checks, and is rocking a base +7 to Athletics (climbing etc).

If its just hitting things, he's all the goodness of a GWM BM Fighter with precise attack to make sure they land.

He can also buff his allies with Rally, move them into position, or grant them extra attacks thanks to his maneuvers, like any good Warlord.

Im just not seeing the 'ZOMG Wizards are so better than him outside of combat' argument here.