D&D 5E (2024) Martials and Magic. Two Years of Testing.

[Maxperson]

There is no spell level with ten slots in 3.5, the 3.5 wizard doesn't prepare ten or fifteen anything even at level 2p when they prepare 4 level zero spell slots 4 level 1 spell slots 4 level 2 spell slots and so on. You are still mixing and matching where it's convenient to support your original claim and trying to ignore that comparing the raw count of slots across editions is not a comparison tripping over it's own laces at the starting line

You are clearly not reading what I am saying.

If a wizard spends one 1st level slot, one 2nd level slot, two 3rd level slots, two 4th level slots, and one each of 5th-8th on utility, that's 10 slots spread out...................just like I said multiple times.

In 3.5e if you didn't have a 24 int between items and level increases by 20th level, you did something wrong. Sometimes I had as high as 28 or 30, depending on initial roll for int, race, level bonuses, and items.

A 20th level wizard has 4 slots of every spell level, for 36 slots. Add 1 to each level for being a specialist, because having more spells was far more important than having access to every school, and now we are at 45 slots. A 24 int provides 2 bonus 1st-3rd level slots and 1 each for 4th-7th level, for an additional 10 slots. So now my 20th level 3.5e wizard has 56 slots to your 5e wizard's 22 slots.

If OVER ALL 9 SPELL LEVELS I have 10 slots devoted to purely utility spells(some of which will be useful), and 15 slots devoted to combination utility/combat spells, that leaves me with 31 slots OVER ALL 9 SPELL LEVELS to devote to purely combat spells. That's 9 more than your wizard has in total to spend on both combat and utility. And my wizard has unlimited cantrips, too.

If the 5e wizard uses 100% of his slots on combat spells, he is still 9 combat spells short of the 3.5e wizard, and he has failed to match the 3.5e wizard in utility, since he didn't spend any slots on utility.

Put down the roller skates. You haven't cleared the starting line yet to move on to discussing how they "perform", this is entirely about your bonkers choice of measuring stick for that performance of raw spell slot count back in 422. The 5e wizard has fewer spell slots than the 3.5 wizard had because the 5e version uses neovancian prep & is no longer preparing spells slot by slot

I don't need to put down roller skates. You need to understand what you are reading so that you respond to what I'm saying and not what you are making up.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree with you that most of the 3.5e problem builds were online theory crafting issues and not ones typically found in actual play. what I don't agree with is that casual = low level. Casual players just really don't give a fig about super optimization and are there to have fun and play the game. They can do that at low, mid, and high levels.

In my opinion, most, perhaps even the vast majority of the reason for why games don't go to high level is 1) lack of support by WotC, and 2) life gets in the way. Folks move. School gets out for the summer. Johnny gets sick and after weeks of not playing the others have moved on to something else. And more.

Its mostly number 2 imho.

Lack of support want true earlier editions but those products didnt sell that wwll comparatively.

Apparently 3.0 wasn't playtested above lvl 10. WotC would have had the numbers after they wwnt through everything.

I dont think its a new phenomenon. Maybe not as extreme as 6 sessions mostly done by 7th level.

 

[tetrasodium]

You are clearly not reading what I am saying.

If a wizard spends one 1st level slot, one 2nd level slot, two 3rd level slots, two 4th level slots, and one each of 5th-8th on utility, that's 10 slots spread out...................just like I said multiple times.

In 3.5e if you didn't have a 24 int between items and level increases by 20th level, you did something wrong. Sometimes I had as high as 28 or 30, depending on initial roll for int, race, level bonuses, and items.

A 20th level wizard has 4 slots of every spell level, for 36 slots. Add 1 to each level for being a specialist, because having more spells was far more important than having access to every school, and now we are at 45 slots. A 24 int provides 2 bonus 1st-3rd level slots and 1 each for 4th-7th level, for an additional 10 slots. So now my 20th level 3.5e wizard has 56 slots to your 5e wizard's 22 slots.

If OVER ALL 9 SPELL LEVELS I have 10 slots devoted to purely utility spells(some of which will be useful), and 15 slots devoted to combination utility/combat spells, that leaves me with 31 slots OVER ALL 9 SPELL LEVELS to devote to purely combat spells. That's 9 more than your wizard has in total to spend on both combat and utility. And my wizard has unlimited cantrips, too.

If the 5e wizard uses 100% of his slots on combat spells, he is still 9 combat spells short of the 3.5e wizard, and he has failed to match the 3.5e wizard in utility, since he didn't spend any slots on utility.

I don't need to put down roller skates. You need to understand what you are reading so that you respond to what I'm saying and not what you are making up.

Oh I read what you are saying but what you are saying is a differently sliced version of the same thing you were saying before and that relies on ignoring too many "it doesn't work that way" factors to jump from a list of facts to the conclusion you are trying to justify.

There is no world in which a 3.5 PC exists alongside a 5e PC without some kind of extreme house ruling so it doesn't matter what the numbers are if you compare the sum total count of prepared spells from a PC of a given class from one edition to the sum total of the same class hypothetical PC from a different because the rules for spell prep slot progression and the suddenly upcastable spells themselves are different.

Counting the sum total differently doesn't fix the core problem with the comparison's conclusion because on top of the differing mechanics one of them will be in a group with something like a shock trooper charge build while the other will be in a party with things like a champion fighter monk and warlock saying letsrakeashortrestineedashortrestyupyupyupwerequireandforcethepartytostop every fight or two.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh I read what you are saying but what you are saying is a differently sliced version of the same thing you were saying before and that relies on ignoring too many "it doesn't work that way" factors to jump from a list of facts to the conclusion you are trying to justify.

There is no world in which a 3.5 PC exists alongside a 5e PC without some kind of extreme house ruling so it doesn't matter what the numbers are if you compare the sum total count of prepared spells from a PC of a given class from one edition to the sum total of the same class hypothetical PC from a different because the rules for spell prep slot progression and the suddenly upcastable spells themselves are different.

Counting the sum total differently doesn't fix the core problem with the comparison's conclusion because on top of the differing mechanics one of them will be in a group with something like a shock trooper charge build while the other will be in a party with things like a champion fighter monk and warlock saying letsrakeashortrestineedashortrestyupyupyupwerequireandforcethepartytostop every fight or two.

I think we need to go back to the first post of mine on this topic. Someone said that wizards needed to have their spell slots reduced. I responded with................they are already reduced. The comparison to 3.5e is to show that the 5e wizards slots are much lower comparatively, since the 3.5e wizard can do everything the 5e wizard can do, and a lot more, because of how many more spell slots they had. I wasn't suggesting that they would be adventuring side-by-side.

For the 5e wizard to be roughly equal to the 3.5e wizard, it would need to have at least 9 more spell slots and at the upper levels.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think we need to go back to the first post of mine on this topic. Someone said that wizards needed to have their spell slots reduced. I responded with................they are already reduced. The comparison to 3.5e is to show that the 5e wizards slots are much lower comparatively, since the 3.5e wizard can do everything the 5e wizard can do, and a lot more, because of how many more spell slots they had. I wasn't suggesting that they would be adventuring side-by-side.

For the 5e wizard to be roughly equal to the 3.5e wizard, it would need to have at least 9 more spell slots and at the upper levels.

Soekl slots not the whole story. Cheap wands and scrolls in 3E.

Early on its fairly close. 5E wizards better in sone ways, not others eg 3E scribe scroll for free.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think we need to go back to the first post of mine on this topic. Someone said that wizards needed to have their spell slots reduced. I responded with................they are already reduced. The comparison to 3.5e is to show that the 5e wizards slots are much lower comparatively, since the 3.5e wizard can do everything the 5e wizard can do, and a lot more, because of how many more spell slots they had. I wasn't suggesting that they would be adventuring side-by-side.

For the 5e wizard to be roughly equal to the 3.5e wizard, it would need to have at least 9 more spell slots and at the upper levels.

Thing is though, the 3.5 wizard can't & it boils down to (neo)vancian prep at the core, the prep change does far far more than you are giving it credit. By shifting from vancian to neovancian prep with upcasting the 5e prepared caster no longer needs to think about their prepared spells in terms of the adventuring day. That shift in resource management is massive because now the 5e wizard cleric druid paladin & so on can go into every round of every encounter chanting YOLO while singing yohoho & a bottle of rum now that both "I will probably only need N casts of [this spell] but want [that spell too so I'm going to split the difference like this in my prep" & "if I cast [this spell] right now it simply won't be available later at also I need to make sure it counts enough" is no longer a concern for the 5e prepared caster.

By insisting that all comparisons be made at level 20 despite multiple posters commenting on the absurdity you ignore that to spotlight the perceived & largely theoretical play impact from changes to slot progression as more than it actually is. Without prepared casters needing to think about their spell pool on an adventuring day scale with every cast the GM can't supplement table & party specific capabilities with items either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is right. Game designers ought to understand that not everyone likes the same sort of play experience. They knew when making 5e that people would object to second wind. You could twist the system pretty hard to get back to a traditional playstyle but then they poison pilled the base fighter. It's pure stupidity. No one in your group has to play the basic fighter.


You are confusing an inability to play something with a desire to play it.


I have lots of players who want a simple fighter. It was actually the most popular class in my D&D campaigns.

D&D has traditionally tried to be the all inclusive game that most people can enjoy. I won't play it at this point. It's riddled with dissociative mechanics. They could have done it differently and included a lot of others and not excluded anyone else.

This leads to a serious question.

Should Fighters be required to never have anything complex, for the people who like both the Fighter archetype and complexity, so that the class is always specifically "made for" the people who like both the Fighter archetype and simplicity?

That seems pretty one-true-way-ist, doubly so when we have a game that they refuse to create alternatives because they aren't starkly different. If we can't have a Warlord, the Fighter has to be able to accommodate both people who like simplicity and people who like complexity.

This is one of those areas where we have some pretty serious problems in the community. It's fine--by itself--to want some classes as simple, some classes as complex. It's fine--by itself--to want some specific class to be the way you like best. And it's fine--by itself--to want very few classes.

It's not fine for a single game to enforce a simple/complex divide with classes and always give specific fans what they want while not giving other fans what they want AND having very few options to choose from. Because that inherently, and unavoidably, means that you're telling some people "Your preferences aren't welcome here." That's a serious, serious problem if the game is presenting itself as a generic, built-for-everyone RPG.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Encouraging the GM to be an "amateur game designer" is a big selling point to me and I would imagine many others.

"Encouraging" would imply that it is fully optional, but rewarding if pursued.

It is not fully optional. It is absolutely mandatory.

That is why it's a problem. That it is mandatory. That's why I gave the examples I gave upthread. A cookbook that refused to give any measurements for its ingredients because "well I don't know your taste" would not just be a bad cookbook, it would be a laughingstock, a joke, the kind of thing that gets brought up at parties as one of those "no, that's impossible" believe-it-or-not conversation pieces. Both a cookbook and a rulebook are instruction sets. Why should one get a pass for literally not communicating how to do that, and the other be held to task for even occasionally committing an error?

And really if the GM is having to make off the cuff rulings constantly it probably means the players are coming up with creative solutions/approaches. That again is a big selling point because the alternative is either not allow stuff that the rules don't cover and/or have an encyclopedia of rules which sucks for a TTRPG.

Creative solutions should already be rewarded by the rules. If creativity is not rewarded by the rules as they already exist, then they are bad rules and should be replaced.

That you think having rules means creativity is automatically extinguished is precisely the problem I have with forcing GMs to be literally constantly re-designing the system. The hostility to the very idea that rules are helpful tools IS the problem.

 

[Zardnaar]

This leads to a serious question.

Should Fighters be required to never have anything complex, for the people who like both the Fighter archetype and complexity, so that the class is always specifically "made for" the people who like both the Fighter archetype and simplicity?

That seems pretty one-true-way-ist, doubly so when we have a game that they refuse to create alternatives because they aren't starkly different. If we can't have a Warlord, the Fighter has to be able to accommodate both people who like simplicity and people who like complexity.

This is one of those areas where we have some pretty serious problems in the community. It's fine--by itself--to want some classes as simple, some classes as complex. It's fine--by itself--to want some specific class to be the way you like best. And it's fine--by itself--to want very few classes.

It's not fine for a single game to enforce a simple/complex divide with classes and always give specific fans what they want while not giving other fans what they want AND having very few options to choose from. Because that inherently, and unavoidably, means that you're telling some people "Your preferences aren't welcome here." That's a serious, serious problem if the game is presenting itself as a generic, built-for-everyone RPG.

Subjective depends on edition and ones preference.

5.5 probably threaded the needle the best. Various clone of B/X simple, 4E the best for complex.

2E*. Depends on books. They had point buy classes in one. Probably 2nd best at threading the needle.

4E. Complex. Good defender, poor fighter, effective overall

3E fighter. Complex and meh. Relative other editions.

1E. Simple, effective. Mid overall. UA you're eating great.

0D&D cant rate fairly

Basic lines. Depends. Very simple. Somewhat effective.

 

[Maxperson]

Thing is though, the 3.5 wizard can't & it boils down to (neo)vancian prep at the core, the prep change does far far more than you are giving it credit. By shifting from vancian to neovancian prep with upcasting the 5e prepared caster no longer needs to think about their prepared spells in terms of the adventuring day. That shift in resource management is massive because now the 5e wizard cleric druid paladin & so on can go into every round of every encounter chanting YOLO while singing yohoho & a bottle of rum now that both "I will probably only need N casts of [this spell] but want [that spell too so I'm going to split the difference like this in my prep" & "if I cast [this spell] right now it simply won't be available later at also I need to make sure it counts enough" is no longer a concern for the 5e prepared caster.

I've already shown how neovancian isn't relevant, because even if every spell was used for combat, it can't match the 3.5e wizard in combat. And even if some of those spells are used for non-combat, so will the 3.5e wizard, because they prep commonly used non-combat spells, not obscure ones like Wipe Nose of Dragon or whatever. The versatility isn't relevant, because it fails to be good enough to match the 3.5e wizard even with that versatility in slots.

By insisting that all comparisons be made at level 20 despite multiple posters commenting on the absurdity you ignore that to spotlight the perceived & largely theoretical play impact from changes to slot progression as more than it actually is. Without prepared casters needing to think about their spell pool on an adventuring day scale with every cast the GM can't supplement table & party specific capabilities with items either.

So first, I play both 3.5e and 5e to high level, including 20, so it's relevant. Second, It doesn't matter, because the 3.5e wizard wins at low level as well. Look at 5th level.

The 5e wizard has 9 spell slots and 9 spells prepared to pick from. I'm using 18 Int for both. The 3.5e wizard has 12 spell slots that can be up to 12 different spells, which include combat, commonly encountered utility, and/or hybrid utility/combat spells. That's much closer, yes, but it's still 25% more spell slots and it's likely that all or almost all can be cast before the next rest. As I mentioned earlier, vancian wizards aren't in the habit of memorizing spells that are unlikely to be used. It's highly unlikely that the vancian wizard would have more than 3 spells unused, so at a minimum he's equal to the 5e wizard and on many days will be better and use 10, 11 or 12 spells.