Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 820232" data-attributes="member: 1251">Eh I don't think so. One premise which I think needs to be dispelled here is that high-level spellcasters are at all lacking in buffs in the first place. Given the long duration of most low-level buffs, there is a point at which the party is already suitably buffed and the ability to provide more has almost no effect. Relative to damage spells, the marginal utility of buffs decreases at a faster rate. The only thing most high-level casters use low-level slots for is buffs, and from what I have observed, they usually have enough of them. And as you pointed out, these last longer than the Mystic's and are harder to dispell.As to the cleric and bard (the latter of which is more difficult to critique, given the large number of changes that have come with the revision), they are both superior in-battle buffers than a Mystic is likely to be. The cleric has the hp, bab, and saves to make its role as a 'front-line medic' truley viable, not to mention it has more outright blasting power (again, the three caster levels). The bard's musical abilities have less of an oppurtunity cost than other casters because it can make attacks as well. Plus the better saves makes it durable.Oh, and before I forget, the hp advantage of the Mystic over the wizard is probably overblown. The ability score issue allows a wizard to trade off Int for Con and still maintain a healthy DC advantage over the Mystic in most of the spells it is likely to cast. The stunted familiar advancement also means a wizard can invest in a toad with less of a likelyhood that it will be knocked off in high-level combat.</blockquote>

Verification