D&D 5E Long Rests vs Short Rests

[tetrasodium]

For exploration? Find Familiar, invisibility and greater invisibility, just for a start.

That's one spell, also "gm: There is a door" & "GM: your familiar notices a hawk that appears to be hunting"... it's not the slam dunk you make it out to be.. Show us something that justifies the nearly every session relevant damage disparity between casters & martials.

A rogue or ranger is generally a much better scout & is capable of trivially handling either of those hiccups

 

[ph0rk]

If you think the fighter can, with regularity, be a better explorer than a wizard, I don’t think you are open to empirical arguments. Nobody has the utility of that spell list (save for a handful others that gain access to that list, so, it’s the list!)

Neither of them are opening a door as quietly as a rogue, anyway.

 

[Asisreo]

If you think the fighter can, with regularity, be a better explorer than a wizard, I don’t think you are open to empirical arguments. Nobody has the utility of that spell list (save for a handful others that gain access to that list, so, it’s the list!)

Neither of them are opening a door as quietly as a rogue, anyway.

I think the point is:

Yeah, Wizards have a small leg up in exploration-based scenarios. But is that leg up the difference of "can't do anything" vs. "Can do absolutely everything" or is it the difference of "Can do almost everything." and "Can do almost everything quicker."

What is your familiar doing that absolutely, unequivocally could not have been done had a sneaky character did something? Or a druid did it himself? Or a Ranger's companion? Or the fighter not even caring?

Its a convenience factor but it isn't a necessity of the likes of an ability that was needed to complete an adventure.

In other words, magic is a convenience, not a necessity.

---

Can I take the time to mention that the comparison between Fighter : Captain America; Wizard : Thor/Scarlet Witch/Iron man/Doctor Strange is THE MOST ridiculous equivalency that could possibly be equated?

First, doesn't specify which versions we're talking about. Movie? Comics? Which universe? Which issue?

The powerful Avengers run circles on D&D casters like its their job. Doctor Strange could imitate the effects of "Wish" with his eyes closed at will...in the movie version. There's absolutely no way a wizard comes a mile radius into the powerscale of some of the Higher-tier Avengers.

The mid-tier Avengers still have way more usefulness in almost every department. Iron Man can level entire cities several times over with his arsenal if he decided it was okay to do so. Hulk (mid-tier movies, God-tier comics) can still canonically destroyed monsters roughly the size of Purple Worms with a single punch. Freaking Ant-man has absurd levels of power.

Wizards aren't freaking Thor or Ironman, the closest fair comparison is that they're Falcon or War Machine, or Black Widow. "But what about Wish, Teleport, and Simulacra?" These three characters being able to teleport with half-butt accuracy about twice a day is well within their power-limits of technology (borrowed from the guys a tier above them). Being able to summon a large area for a bomb strike once a day(like Meteor Swarm) is something I almost feel like already exists for Shield-Authorized Avengers.

If yall want to say Fighters are Hawkeye (closer to Bucky IMO), the least you can do is agree Wizards are roughly Falcon.

 

[ph0rk]

What is your familiar doing that absolutely, unequivocally could not have been done had a sneaky character did something? Or a druid did it himself? Or a Ranger's companion? Or the fighter not even caring?

You are drifting here to whether or not a wizard is unequivocally the best at exploration. I’m not making that point - they’re head and shoulders above a fighter, as are all those other classes you mention. That’s the point.

 

[Asisreo]

You are drifting here to whether or not a wizard is unequivocally the best at exploration. I’m not making that point - they’re head and shoulders above a fighter, as are all those other classes you mention. That’s the point.

I need a more complete description.

Being 1 damage point and 1 HP point higher is enough for a fighter to be objectively better than a wizard at all combats in general, but that "head-and-shoulders difference isn't going to be significant enough to warrant calling Wizards horrible in combat or completely gimped.

So how far above fighters are wizards? Give me a metric? Being useful but nonessential means that having a wizard is nice but it doesn't make having a fighter horrible.

 

[ph0rk]

but that "head-and-shoulders difference isn't going to be significant enough to warrant calling Wizards horrible in combat or completely gimped.

Wanting fighters to be good at exploration or social and them actually being as good at either as the major players are isn’t the same thing.

A fighter can’t touch a bard or rogue or wizard or even a warlock here, and those four aren’t equally good at both social and exploration as each other, either, but any of them can surpass a fighter given the same level of customization at either of those areas, all while being quite useful in combat.

And, if you then wish to argue these classes aren’t as useful as a fighter in combat simply because they can’t hit things as much with a stick, I question your understanding of combat in this game.

 

[Asisreo]

Wanting fighters to be good at exploration or social and them actually being as good at either as the major players are isn’t the same thing.

A fighter can’t touch a bard or rogue or wizard or even a warlock here, and those four aren’t equally good at both social and exploration as each other, either, but any of them can surpass a fighter given the same level of customization at either of those areas, all while being quite useful in combat.

And, if you then wish to argue these classes aren’t as useful as a fighter in combat simply because they can’t hit things as much with a stick, I question your understanding of combat in this game.

Each class has a dial of the three pillars. Is the dial on fighter's two other pillars set too low in comparison to the others? State your reasonings without pushing the intellectual effort onto your audience. In other words, assume nothing is obvious.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Each class has a dial of the three pillars. Is the dial on fighter's two other pillars set too low in comparison to the others? State your reasonings without pushing the intellectual effort onto your audience. In other words, assume nothing is obvious.

It's an easy thing to balance. All the DM has to do is ignore all the rules and use their judgement to make the Fighter just as good in exploration as all the other classes!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I agree that disintegrate being a high level slot is a bad example for comparison, but being a high level slot that is so limited it shouldn't even be in the same realm as at will damage . I usually stick to other spells or cantrips for A:A comparisons & there's a tab with bas all of the cantrips plus a bunch of weapons & the results are pretty stark there as well. Here's a fighter with a prison break 1d4 dagger shiv they found vrs a generic d12 cantrip
That's a damage comparison that should stack up like the three stooges vrs a heavy weapon but it's nowhere close to that with the cantrip not even beating the prison shiv until you drop to 14/16 strength & even then it's barely pulling ahead. Things get dramatically worse when you start comparing weapons+feats & cantrips people actually use.

Well of course. Those are cantrips. They're the at-will single-target damage of a heavily resource-based class for whom single-target damage is the 2nd worst thing they do. Unless your DM is very good, its quite unlikely that a mid+ tier wizard will be casting cantrips for more than half of their rounds in combat. It is a good assumption that they are likely to cast a concentration spell which will be supplying "effect" (or damage equivalent) while they are throwing instant spells or cantrips in addition.

A lot of the comparisons I make deliberately try to stack things against the fighter like that absurd maximized lucky lucky lucky disintegrate & still come out with silly results like this with the dagger. The point isn't to argue over the numbers so much as show how far spells need to bridge the gap in nondamage areas

Utility spells often automatically achieve things that a skill check might be required to do, or flat out do things that no skill check, no matter how high could achieve.
In combat, we're comparing the the thing wizards do 2nd worst with what fighters do best, partly because number vs number is easy, but mostly because fighrters just don't get anything that can compare to the utility, control or other nondamage effects wizards have access to. I mean you seem to have strong feelings on the matter, so I can understand you making it a comparison of damage rather than control options. Comparing grappling and shoving to wizard control spells is going to indicate a much greater discrepancy of power than single-target damage does.
What sort of nondamage areas do you believe spells are lagging behind in?

It's all well & good to say "Wizards do excel at casting spells: they do it much better than Fighters." While technically true it's not like fighters are limited to actor & dagger/short word because rogues like those akin to how wizards basically share the vast majority of their spell list with sorcerer/warlock/sorlock but cast them basically the same way unlike fighters getting extra attacks action surge etc.

You're going to have to break this sentence down a little further for me to understand it I'm afraid.

Spells cast by those wizards need to stack up to being something on par with what kind of useful fighters bring to the average session game after game & they fall far short with cantrips likewise being such a joke that they are effectively a pointless contribution. the occasional This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman type situation where a niche spell is both available and basically by fiat declared the only solution doesn't make up the gap either.

You're saying that in your games, Wizards just cannot compare with Fighters in terms of the usefulness that they bring to the party?
Is that correct?

I need a more complete description.

Being 1 damage point and 1 HP point higher is enough for a fighter to be objectively better than a wizard at all combats in general, but that "head-and-shoulders difference isn't going to be significant enough to warrant calling Wizards horrible in combat or completely gimped.

So how far above fighters are wizards? Give me a metric? Being useful but nonessential means that having a wizard is nice but it doesn't make having a fighter horrible.

I mean I think it is established that wizards aren't completely gimped in combat, even if they are playing to their weakness rather than their strengths. And fighters have skill proficiencies, so there isn't nothing they can do outside of combat.
If you're asking for a numbers breakdown, what sort of thing do you mean? There isn't really a way to compare since it depends on the situations that come up. Most of the wizards I've seen in play devote a reasonable amount of spells to utility, but it seems likely from this thread that in other groups, the wizards focus on single-target damage. Outside of running a party containing a "typical wizard" and "typical fighter" through a "typical adventure" at a "typical level", there are too many variables.

I can boil it down to this however:
In my experience, most wizard players are able to leverage their utility spells and rituals to significant effect.
However, even on the wizard's worst day, when all their spell slots have been spent on combat and none of their rituals are applicable, they still have what the fighter does on their best day.

 

[tetrasodium]

]

Well of course. Those are cantrips. They're the at-will single-target damage of a heavily resource-based class for whom single-target damage is the 2nd worst thing they do. Unless your DM is very good, its quite unlikely that a mid+ tier wizard will be casting cantrips for more than half of their rounds in combat. It is a good assumption that they are likely to cast a concentration spell which will be supplying "effect" (or damage equivalent) while they are throwing instant spells or cantrips in addition.

Sure, except that expending those resources is generally met with overcompensations combating problems of past editions. You & a few others are quick to dismiss the damage disparity as something fighters should excel at but it applies to rogues as well they just make a more difficult to compare set of numbers due to scaling & other issues. I'm more than happy to admit that damage is not the wizard's crown & never said it should be. What I'm sating is that the damage disparity does not justify the lack of greatness elsewhere that you & others keep asserting must exist somewhere you can't be bothered to go into. Detail where you think that greatness is that justifies things like the overuse of concentration generally weakened spells monster design targeting LFQW of past editions where it was a problem & damage disparity in combat. Sure it might exist, show where.

Utility spells often automatically achieve things that a skill check might be required to do, or flat out do things that no skill check, no matter how high could achieve.
In combat, we're comparing the the thing wizards do 2nd worst with what fighters do best, partly because number vs number is easy, but mostly because fighrters just don't get anything that can compare to the utility, control or other nondamage effects wizards have access to. I mean you seem to have strong feelings on the matter, so I can understand you making it a comparison of damage rather than control options. Comparing grappling and shoving to wizard control spells is going to indicate a much greater discrepancy of power than single-target damage does.

You allude to utility spells able to do things no skill check no matter how high can accomplish yet noted not a single spell. Can you be specific? Does this require contrived situations & situations that only require those spells because the gm by fiat said no other abilities are an option? In my experience those situations are too niche & coincidental to matter if they come up in a campaign at all. You didn't list any so we can't discuss that though

What sort of nondamage areas do you believe spells are lagging behind in?

buffing debuffing & control are all hindered by overuse of concentration overuse of magic resist & overuse of legendary resist on top of the undertuned spells themselves that fail to make up the diasparity even if you ignore the overcompensation. Since you & @ph0rk seem to think that's the real gold exploration & utility if you want to include those go for it. Whatever you do be more specific than vague allusions that shove the work of proving your position onto others before discussion can even begin.

You're saying that in your games, Wizards just cannot compare with Fighters in terms of the usefulness that they bring to the party?
Is that correct?

I'm saying the disparity is too great and because WotC is all in on combating the problems of past editions it's difficult to address without massive sweeping changes. You & a few others keep saying that there is no need to address anything because somewhere is a niche where all the true greatness lies, unfortunately I can't agree or disagree because thus far it's pretty much been described as "find familiar" as the beginning and end of that niche & that spell in no way provides the oomph being demanded of it to support the disparity as justified

I mean I think it is established that wizards aren't completely gimped in combat, even if they are playing to their weakness rather than their strengths. And fighters have skill proficiencies, so there isn't nothing they can do outside of combat.

Fine, post a build & associated spell listyou feel shows their strength. From the sounds of things that should result in self evident greatness.

If you're asking for a numbers breakdown, what sort of thing do you mean? There isn't really a way to compare since it depends on the situations that come up. Most of the wizards I've seen in play devote a reasonable amount of spells to utility, but it seems likely from this thread that in other groups, the wizards focus on single-target damage. Outside of running a party containing a "typical wizard" and "typical fighter" through a "typical adventure" at a "typical level", there are too many variables.

Think of it like this. I can look at different cars & compare things like gas mileage pickup cargo capacity safety ratings MSRP & many others. classes should be an even easier comparisonto gauge where they are on the three pillars. martial classes are dramatically ahead of casters like wizard & the claim is that is because wizard is so far ahead elsewhere but there's nothing being added to support that claim.

I can boil it down to this however:
In my experience, most wizard players are able to leverage their utility spells and rituals to significant effect.

What is important is if those utility spells and rituals are providing a significant enough effect to justify the state of things or not & . A few of us are saying they do not given the niche uses of those spells being too niche given limitations like spells available while you & a few others are saying it does but not actually willing to demonstrate with a build or spell list not hiding behind the quantum ogre

However, even on the wizard's worst day, when all their spell slots have been spent on combat and none of their rituals are applicable, they still have what the fighter does on their best day.

You sound pretty certain there, why the reluctance to show a build or even example spellbook/spells prepped list that supports it?