D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[FormerlyHemlock]

I remember the early sorcerer levels were pretty miserable in combat. You run out of spells fast, and if the DM isn't generous with long rests the cantrips are waaaay lower in damage. It just felt bad doing 2 damage for your turn while the barbarian is just 1 shotting everything.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I don't mind doing 1d8 points of damage with Chill Touch to a creature (werewolf) that nobody else can even damage except by pushing it in the burning house; I especially don't mind doing 1d8 damage from a safe distance. So what if I rolled a 2? It can't even catch up to me due to Expeditious Retreat, and I'll hit it again next turn, and eventually it will die.

We didn't have a barbarian in the party when that happened, but if we had it wouldn't have bothered me. Let the barbarian handle what he's good at, and I'll handle what I'm good at, and we'll all level up together.

 

[Celtavian]

Because the INTENT is that martial characters (being limited to more mundane general actions) deal more damage than casters.

Let's look at level 11 minus feats with the most damaging classes minus special abilities:

Barb, Paladin with Greataxe: Two Attacks: 1d12+5 or 23 avg. attack potential
Fighter with Greatsword: Three attacks: 2d6+5 per attack and avg. attack potential: 36
Caster using fire bolt: One bolt. points avg. att. potential: 16 or 17
Warlock using Eldritch Blast: Three blasts: 1d10+5 or avg. att. potential: 32

Even absent the use of feats and special abilities, I don't think adding ability to cantrip damage would imbalance the game. Once you take into account feats and special abilities, the martials shoot way ahead except in AoE situations. A fireball against a single target is 28 points. A mage can't even match the damage against a single target with a 3rd level spell slot. Adding ability to cantrip damage would be a very minor boost.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let's look at level 11 minus feats with the most damaging classes minus special abilities:

Barb, Paladin with Greataxe: Two Attacks: 1d12+5 or 23 avg. attack potential
Fighter with Greatsword: Three attacks: 2d6+5 per attack and avg. attack potential: 36
Caster using fire bolt: One bolt. points avg. att. potential: 16 or 17
Warlock using Eldritch Blast: Three blasts: 1d10+5 or avg. att. potential: 32

Even absent the use of feats and special abilities, I don't think adding ability to cantrip damage would imbalance the game. Once you take into account feats and special abilities, the martials shoot way ahead except in AoE situations. A fireball against a single target is 28 points. A mage can't even match the damage against a single target with a 3rd level spell slot. Adding ability to cantrip damage would be a very minor boost.

...but the caster can Hold or Dominate a target, which is pretty much like taking away all of its HP and/or adding them to your side of the combat. Pumping cantrip damage as well is unnecessary.

 

[pemerton]

if you lock down a wizard in a cell, without his spellbook, he can still kill the guards from range with cantrips, or convince them to open the locks (friends cantrip) a feat no other class could do except other arcanes

Why does a character need magic to convince a guard to open the locks? Especially Friends, which just gives advantage on CHA checks?

 

[pemerton]

PCs win basically equal fights because of spells and special abilities. D&D has always been that way.

I tend to agree with someone upthread (maybe [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]?) that this is evidence that the fights weren't equal.

For instance, in 4e a notionally "balanced" encounter is one standard monster of the PCs' level per PC - but I think that the typical PC is at least as robust as an elite of his/her level, maybe a bit more (especially at higher levels), for the sorts of reasons that you give (depth of offensive ability, but even more so depth of recovery abilities).

I have never yet done 7 fights in a single day[1]. It's hard to imagine a situation where I would have that much concentrated-yet-discretized violence on call.

In 4e, quite a few groups don't treat a "day" as literal, but use various approaches to ration extended rests (the simplest: you can only truly rest in a haven/city eg Rivendell, Minas Tirith not under siege, etc).

Is this an approach that can be used in 5e?

people like myself who deliberately eschew "balanced" encounters and consider the game to start long before initiative is rolled aren't playing the same game as someone who insists on encounter balance and balanced classes that all contribute equally to each encounter.

I'm referring to a style that expects the DM to build encounters according to the encounter budgets listed in the Basic Rules and the DMG. E.g. rarely make Deadly encounters, follow the "adventuring day" XP budget guidelines, not use monsters with a higher CR than the player level. People with such expectations exist, at least on the Internet (and presumably therefore in real life). Such people should know that I have no intention of using those rules, and that's the primary thing I intend to communicate by saying I believe in Combat As War.

The combat with gnolls that [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] has described seems like the sort of thing that I might run in my 4e game.

I like to keep track of my XP budgets, to get a sense of what sort of threat I am presenting to the PCs (and thereby challenge to the players) but (like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said upthread) I don't take the view that there is any particular degree of difficulty I'm bound by (within reason - much above level +4 to 6 in 4e can be pretty punishing!). But I do prefer that most of the decision-making take place during resolution (eg the choke-pointing and other tactics that Celtavian described) rather than in advance of the encounter. The latter style was a big part of play in the Rolemaster games I used to run, but these days I prefer the "immediacy"/"spontaneity" of the 4e makes-choices-in-the-moment approach.

 

[sithramir]

Let's look at level 11 minus feats with the most damaging classes minus special abilities:

Barb, Paladin with Greataxe: Two Attacks: 1d12+5 or 23 avg. attack potential
Fighter with Greatsword: Three attacks: 2d6+5 per attack and avg. attack potential: 36
Caster using fire bolt: One bolt. points avg. att. potential: 16 or 17
Warlock using Eldritch Blast: Three blasts: 1d10+5 or avg. att. potential: 32

Even absent the use of feats and special abilities, I don't think adding ability to cantrip damage would imbalance the game. Once you take into account feats and special abilities, the martials shoot way ahead except in AoE situations. A fireball against a single target is 28 points. A mage can't even match the damage against a single target with a 3rd level spell slot. Adding ability to cantrip damage would be a very minor boost.

Agreed except it seems sorcerers and warlocks who DO get that bonus would now be even weaker compared to others so I think its used to help balance those classes. However it can suck at lower levels (even for sorcerers)

 

[Celtavian]

...but the caster can Hold or Dominate a target, which is pretty much like taking away all of its HP and/or adding them to your side of the combat. Pumping cantrip damage as well is unnecessary.

They do either for a few rounds depending on the save, then the martials will do the damage to finish them. Hold and dominate aren't the powerful options they were in 3E. I don't even take those spells any longer. Seems like a waste of time to use. A mass of weak creatures are better eliminated with AoE spells. A single tough non-legendary creature is killed very quickly by your martials, so that wasting a 5th level slot isn't appealing. Legendary creatures laugh at save spells.

I don't think there would be much of an issue at all adding ability damage to cantrip damage. They made save spells fairly weak in this game and they take a concentration slot. I haven't used a single hold or dominate spell in this game for 16 levels because of concentration. Once I need to cast fly or some other buff like protection from energy, all those hold and dominate spells are out the window.

Once again, I don't see that as a factor in adding cantrip damage. The Concentration mechanic already prevents you from using concentration spells that would in anyway imbalance the +5 damage to cantrips.

 

[KarinsDad]

How about no save but you just go unconscious at 0 HP? You might die from death saves or live but easy to finish off as well but not auto suck? Maybe too weak?

This sounds promising if the main way for such a character to survive is death saving throws. Cure spells and stabilization attempts do not cure or stabilize, they just give a bonus to your next death saving throw (e.g. +1 for stabilization, +1 per 10 hit points cured, so a Heal spell would almost guarantee one successful save). A PC could (like my wizard that started my thoughts on this thread) still die by rolling multiple 1s on death saving throws (I rolled two 1s back to back, I roll so much better as a DM than I do as a player ). And of course, a PC in this state would still take a death saving throw if an NPC damages him.

The rules would have to work identical for NPCs. They would just be unconscious and dying (instead of dead like normal at 0 hit points).

But this doesn't address the PWK vs. Disintegrate issue. So what if a foe is unconscious and not dead? Typically, his enemies will still finish him off and his odds of surviving if they do not are not very good. This still makes Disintegrate better and PWK is still worse than save or die, and the Demilich can still be taken out with a single spell.


I kind of like the concept, but it still needs some adjustments. I'm not sure what.

 

[KarinsDad]

I tend to agree with someone upthread (maybe [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]?) that this is evidence that the fights weren't equal.

For instance, in 4e a notionally "balanced" encounter is one standard monster of the PCs' level per PC - but I think that the typical PC is at least as robust as an elite of his/her level, maybe a bit more (especially at higher levels), for the sorts of reasons that you give (depth of offensive ability, but even more so depth of recovery abilities).

I agree with this for 4E. Almost every single fight, some PCs were bloodied and possibly unconscious and the foes were mostly ok. But with Healing Surges and healing spells, PCs became non-bloodied and attrition wins the day. Action Economy eventually shifts in favor of the PCs. It starts out against them because foes tend to use their encounter and daily powers immediately whereas PCs tend to start out with encounter powers (and only pull out Dailies if the encounter appears to warrant it).

In 5E, the typical story is different. In moderate fights, the PCs tend to have better AC, more spells/abilities, and similar hit points. So action economy shifts into their favor practically from the start of the fight. This is why healing is rarely used in combat except against tough or harder encounters. The fight is often over in 2 to 5 rounds (difficulty dependent) and PCs are not unconscious too often in hard or easier fights (although it can happen).

In order to get a near equal fight in 5E, the ACs have to be similar, the hit points have to be similar, the number of foes has to be similar, the damage has to be similar, and the to hit bonus has to be similar. If any of these are subpar by the NPCs, the DM has to throw higher level foes at the PCs to get near equality. With this type of nearly equal fight, now it is the recovery ability of the PCs that gives them the edge (and as you say, depth of offensive ability). They can still heal themselves. The foes typically cannot. When a PC goes unconscious, they can be brought back into a fight and shift action economy towards the group whereas the NPCs typically do not have this option.

And this is why Healing Word is generally considered superior to Cure Wounds. Cure Wounds uses an action this round to gain one additional action next round (assuming the healed PC does not go unconscious again). Action economy for this round actually shifts towards the NPCs. Healing Word only uses a bonus action, so action economy for this round does not shift towards the NPCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They do either for a few rounds depending on the save, then the martials will do the damage to finish them. Hold and dominate aren't the powerful options they were in 3E. I don't even take those spells any longer. Seems like a waste of time to use. A mass of weak creatures are better eliminated with AoE spells. A single tough non-legendary creature is killed very quickly by your martials, so that wasting a 5th level slot isn't appealing. Legendary creatures laugh at save spells.

I think you're overestimating the general utility of AoE spells. Let's say you're facing three Githyanki knights. They're very mobile, so assume they're 60 feet away from each other (still within mutual support range) unless they're in melee with the party. Wouldn't it be nice if you could subtract 1/3 of the enemy force from the equation and use it to neutralize another 1/3, letting you kill the final knight solo? Compared to Fireball, which will degrade the enemy by 1/10, or to Lightning Bolt which will degrade 2/10, degrading roughly 2/3 looks pretty good. (This observation based on actual 9th level fights with Dominated githyanki. Actual game fights, that is. Not actual actual. )