As long as i get to be the frog
In most situations it does a poor job of area denial. It's more typical use case is to delay an enemy or two from reaching the party for a single turn....that is literally the fundamental benefit of the spell. Area denial. As I specifically said earlier.
It doesn't 'just work'. Once an enemy walks around it, through it, under it or over it, grease has no more effect. Contrast with a fighter that can repeatedly prone every single turn and the enemy can't simply get past it once and never have to deal with it again. The point is that there's pros and cons to both methods of proning and focusing only on greases pros and ignoring the cons of it when compared with the fighters method makes poor analysis.But they have to take some kind of action to do it. The grease spell just...works. It doesn't need anyone attending to it. It doesn't need the Wizard to spend one of his fire bolt dice. It just happens.
There's much more to it than that. The effects of Wizard spells aren't identical. One often has to choose between using a less accurate spell with a stronger effect and bigger AOE or a more accurate spell with a lesser effect and a smaller AOE. So yes, Wizards can 'improve their accuracy' by targeting weak saves but it's usually with a large enough tradeoff that it isn't worth worrying about. Also, generally speaking Wizards will be concentrating on 1 spell an encounter and after that they have cast that spell they have very limited options for the remaining spells/cantrips they cast in an encounter. So while it makes wizards sound really powerful that they can target the enemies weaker saves and improve their accuracy, in practice concentration and the difference in spell effects from what the best spells in the situation target and the best saves to target generally makes this a moot point.I wasn't--and as far as I could tell, you weren't--talking about that. You were talking about comparing damage outputs, and treating both the casters and the Fighter as having identical accuracy. This is not true, because casters have a choice: they can attack AC, or they can target any save for which they have an appropriate spell. Most saving throw bonuses are significantly lower than AC bonuses.
Then why aren't you agreeing that Fighters basic attacks @ level 5 tend to be the equivalent of a good single target damage 2nd level spell?I have.
The fact that you think I haven't is very frustrating.
Then I dispute the argument as fundamentally in error. A caster can do most of those things, if we make the Fighter's mechanics into a spell. And then the next round, if it suits them, they can do something much better than the Fighter. Or they can do something about half as good, safely at range.
The point is that the effects the fighter is capable of producing on his turn would make good spells. Making the point that the wizard is still better because of versatility isn't a counter to this. I'm not trying to debate you about whether Fighters or Wizards are stronger, just whether the effects the fighter can produce would be good spells. Please address that instead of sliding in the Fighter vs Wizard stuff.
Every short rest. General consensus would say 3 (2 short rests).And how many times per day do you get that "2nd wind" effect? How many spell slots are we talking about?
The effects of using Action Surge + attack actions are what I would consider as making good wizard spells.Even if I granted this (which I don't, I still think you're pretty heavily over-weighting things and ignoring maintenance-action costs), even if I gave you that it was legit actually the equivalent of a 3rd-level spell (which I emphatically do not), you're talking about three-ish 3rd-level spells per day at 5th level (depending on number of short rests). You know how many 3rd-level spells a Wizard has at 5th level? Two (potentially three, via Arcane Recovery--every other spellcaster has two). A mere one level later, and all casters have three such spell slots. So the Wizard is already matching a clearly favorably-viewed version of the Fighter's special powers, even without considering cantrips, rituals (if applicable), and 1st and 2nd level spells. With some 20ish spells a day, and several of those spells being dramatically more powerful than anything in the Fighter's arsenal, I'm not seeing the power you talk about. I'm seeing a Fighter that gets some reasonably good stuff early on, which mostly scales poorly (a very common problem with Fighters across editions), and which the Wizard can reasonably match at level 6.
Also, Fighters get substantial power via subclass features as well. For example, what all spells could we create with the various combinations of maneuvers, action surge, 2nd wind, basic attacks, prones, shoves, grapples. Would those be good spells?
I've already said wizard at high levels are stronger than fighters. Why can't we focus on the part about fighters effects on their turns and how strong of spells they would make? That to me is alot more enlightening.Plus...don't forget the Wizard's class features. Spell Mastery at 18th level literally DOES let you cast a (chosen, but changeable) 2nd level spell at-will. So even that is something the Wizard eventually gets for free, albeit at quite high level (but still two levels before the Fighter gets a third extra attack!)
Sorry if you misunderstood what I was getting at I'm sure at least half the fault for that lies with me. I'm not saying take 2nd wind and make it a spell. Take action surge and make it a spell. I'm saying, take the things the fighter does on his turn when using 2nd wind or action surge or both and let's see how strong of a spell that makes.Then you shouldn't have said...
You were very specific about turning these things into actual spells, back then. That specifically rendering these effects as spells would create an "instant difference in perception." I've done the described task, and did not see the described result. Now you're saying you meant some other task. That's very frustrating to me. (Particularly since the actually-powerful things, like Second Wind and Action Surge, are not at-will.)
Being able to replace one attack with an attempt to knock a single target prone is not a powerful effect. If that were an at-will spell, it would be pretty bad. Sapping sting, as mentioned earlier, attempts to knock prone and do damage, just as the Fighter's shove already can. It's, admittedly, relatively light damage (d4 per tier), but...it already fits the bill, there's already a spell that does very nearly what you're talking about, and nobody's freaking out about it. Attempting to do 5 damage (2d4, take half damage on a save) and simultaneously knock prone is certainly less than doing 13.33 damage and separately attempting to knock prone, but not a vast gulf. I would not be looking in shock and confusion if sapping sting was based on d8s instead of d4s (frankly, I actually think d4 is a little weak, but since I appreciate spells that are weaker than non-spell options, don't take that as a complaint).
- Being able to cast grease is not a powerful effect either. That's kind of the point.
- The damage component being much higher is what brings the fighters up beyond cantrip level. Or if the fighter wanted to, he could prone two enemies. In either event that's clearly much stronger than that cantrip.
- **Also, Sapping Sting doesn't deal damage on a passed save.
The point isn't that it's the strongest thing in the world, but for an at-will option it's at least equivalent to a level 1 spell if not a level 2 spell. That's about where I'd place EB + invocations at level 5 as well. For the fighter this still isn't looking at spending he resource abilities - which is where the comparison to at level spells comes in.Doing 13.33 damage with a single melee attack instead of (about) 6 damage with a single ranged cantrip attack is, likewise, not a huge deal. Is it better? Yes, certainly. But don't forget that the Warlock can do 1d10+5 damage per hit at-will by spending something innate to their class (exactly like choosing a maneuver or a fighting style). Some people dislike that spellcasters (mostly Bard and Sorcerer) can dip for eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast, but you aren't hearing people throwing a fit because there's a cantrip that can deal 10.5 damage per hit at range and throw an opponent back 10 feet per hit, or slow each hit target by 10 feet (non-stacking), or the like. It may not be absolutely perfectly 100% identical to doing 13.33 damage on a melee hit and being able to trade doing that damage for knocking the target prone, but it's NOT worlds apart from what the Fighter does, and there isn't, and has never been, a chorus of voices complaining that eldritch blast is ridiculously OP plz nerf.
But that's not the argument I'm making. The fighter has various at-will effects and various effects he can produce by spending a resource. Despite having limited access to 'strong single effects' he can combo together the effects he can produce. We can roughly map those kinds of effects to already existing spells (not perfectly, but at least we can get in the ballpark of what level of spell they would make).The Shove action, presented as a spell, is weak. Plain and simple. The Shove action, presented as a rider on top of a cantrip you can already cast at the cost of reduced damage, would be...situational, even as a ranged attack. It certainly wouldn't be seen as horrendously overpowered--nor "10x stronger" than what the Fighter does.
Consider this spell: 'make 6 attacks at 2d6+1d10+modifier damage'. You heal for 1d10+11 damage. On the first hit the enemy will make a strength save or be be knocked prone, on the 2nd hit the enemy must make a wisdom save or be frightend for a turn, on the 3rd hit can allow your allies to spend half their movement and reposition. On the 4th hit you push the enemy back 15ft. That's 132 average damage (with the possibility for advantage on most of the attacks), with 16.5 avg healing, with the possibility for prone, frightened, ally movement and pushback 15 ft. At level 11, that's much stronger than the level 6 disintigrate spell. Now, this can only be done once per short rest, but this makes for a very strong spell.
No. I've told you what I meant and hopefully that's more clear now. It's definitely probable I could have made the posts more clear when initially raising the idea.You're arguing I've missed something. This is entirely possible, I'm human and make plenty of mistakes. Given this, would you be willing to point back to the specific posts where you did so, so I can re-read them and try to find what I missed?