Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7391510" data-attributes="member: 996">Light-years instead of parsecs, sure. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;It's not the whole story, either.&nbsp; In 3e, the idea was also that lower level slots would fall off in usefulness, because Save DCs scaled with slot instead of character level.&nbsp; In 5e Save DCs scale with character level.&nbsp; So, while using low level slots for blasting spells falls off in usefulness, spells that don't inflict or test vs hps don't, and that's not strictly limited to utility.&nbsp; And, that's compared to 3e, the height of caster supremacy.&nbsp; In 3e, a wizard with 9th level spells might hesitate to count on 7th or lower level spells because it meant essentially giving the target a save bonus.&nbsp; In 5e, every save DC is the same, you don't have to cast Dominate Monster on a high-level humanoid because the DC on charm person would be 7 lower.Concentration does keep casters from layering powerful spells that require it, but it's not hard to concentrate, there's no AoOs forcing concentration checks on all spells cast in melee for instance.&nbsp; And, ultimately, it keeps casters from wasting a lot of spells on pre-casting all the time, making them better for actual longer days, in spite of somewhat reduced slots/day.&nbsp;In a game that's roughly spotlight-balanced, versatility is power.I would hope so, if you stick to single-target, direct damage.&nbsp; If nothing else the baseline of at-will cantrips should be.But that doesn't measure versatility, the way Tier judges these things.&nbsp; The fighters supposed to be a top damage-dealer, and the wizard blazing away with fireballs and the like is supposed to be comparable (in one of the playtest L&amp;Ls Mearls said something along the lines of high level fighters &amp; wizards should both be able to take on armies, they'd just do it differently). The wizard could also choose to do something else with his slots that day, instead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7391510, member: 996"] Light-years instead of parsecs, sure. ;) It's not the whole story, either. In 3e, the idea was also that lower level slots would fall off in usefulness, because Save DCs scaled with slot instead of character level. In 5e Save DCs scale with character level. So, while using low level slots for blasting spells falls off in usefulness, spells that don't inflict or test vs hps don't, and that's not strictly limited to utility. And, that's compared to 3e, the height of caster supremacy. In 3e, a wizard with 9th level spells might hesitate to count on 7th or lower level spells because it meant essentially giving the target a save bonus. In 5e, every save DC is the same, you don't have to cast Dominate Monster on a high-level humanoid because the DC on charm person would be 7 lower. Concentration does keep casters from layering powerful spells that require it, but it's not hard to concentrate, there's no AoOs forcing concentration checks on all spells cast in melee for instance. And, ultimately, it keeps casters from wasting a lot of spells on pre-casting all the time, making them better for actual longer days, in spite of somewhat reduced slots/day. In a game that's roughly spotlight-balanced, versatility is power. I would hope so, if you stick to single-target, direct damage. If nothing else the baseline of at-will cantrips should be. But that doesn't measure versatility, the way Tier judges these things. The fighters supposed to be a top damage-dealer, and the wizard blazing away with fireballs and the like is supposed to be comparable (in one of the playtest L&Ls Mearls said something along the lines of high level fighters & wizards should both be able to take on armies, they'd just do it differently). The wizard could also choose to do something else with his slots that day, instead. [/QUOTE]

Verification