[Playtest 2] Spell damage out of whack?

[triqui]

That requires 2 other characters/allies that have the target within reach.

Which is one more than flanking, but requires no positioning, is harder to avoid by the BBEG by shifting away, and works on ranged weapons. I think it's a fair trade off.

And yes, Thugs SA sound a little bit over the top.

 

[Campbell]

My primary concern with the spells as listed is that the root component of Hold Person requires no attack roll or save and lasts for a full minute. That's an extroadinary amount of control for a 2nd level spell.

 

[Li Shenron]

Given that spell damage no longer scales with caster level (which IMO is a good thing), I'm baffled that they reduced starting character hit points. I thought the hp characters had in the first playtest packet were right on. I don't want to go back to the days where my starting wizard had like 4 or 5 hp and could die from stubbing his toe.

Also, the damage of basic spells is just... pathetic. Weapons already usually do more damage than basic spells do, and then you add on things like combat superiority and sneak attack, and casters just get left in the dust when they're not willing or able to expend daily spell slots. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with fighters and rogues having an advantage since they don't have dailies, but that gap doesn't need to be a chasm.

Rogue Sneak attack in particular is simply off the charts in this edition, starting at 2d6 and adding 1d6 at every single level. So much for "flatter math" and "reducing hp and damage across the board". With rogues, they went the exact opposite direction, which leaves me scratching my head.

And while I think the Necromancer theme is really cool, I'm very upset that you have to spend your entire action to make your one weak pet attack for a whopping 1d6 + 2 damage. Given the insane damage output that fighters and rogues are capable of now, that's just insulting. Would it really destroy balance if my wizard could do a 1d4 + 1 Magic Missile and his skeleton pet hit for 1d6 + 2 damage on the same turn? How is that overpowered at all when the rogue is stabbing people for +6d6 sneak attacks?

Bleh, anyway, I've gotten off on a rant. I don't want to sound like I hate the new playtest packet because there are alot of positives in it. They just really need to reevaluate the balance of hp, damage and classes.

I think I am actually fine with spells being not that much damaging, when compared with the weapon damage + Fighter's abilities and with the Rogue's sneak attack.

But I totally agree that all these damages are not in line with the HP anymore. The previous playtest HP were higher than any previous editions at 1st level, but then the curve per level was flatter. Going back to 3ed HP numbers while at the same time keeping damage more or less the same is a mistake (that will certainly be seen in the playtest).

 

[GX.Sigma]

My primary concern with the spells as listed is that the root component of Hold Person requires no attack roll or save and lasts for a full minute. That's an extroadinary amount of control for a 2nd level spell.

Yeah, that's a bit messed up. The paralysis part is incredibly weaksauce (save negates and save ends and HP threshold), yet the immobilize lasts for the entire encounter with no way to negate it ever. That's totally backwards.

My primary concern with spells is that it's not clear which spells require somatic components. The "magic" section of How to Play pretty much says that you can't cast spells unless you have a free hand, but then how come the Cleric has a hammer and shield?

 

[PinkRose]

Maybe his shield only takes 3 fingers and a thumb to hold?

 

[Falling Icicle]

My primary concern with the spells as listed is that the root component of Hold Person requires no attack roll or save and lasts for a full minute. That's an extroadinary amount of control for a 2nd level spell.

Most of the save-or-suck spells are raising big red flags. Command allows no saving throw if your max hp are less than 30. Charm person allows no saving throw if your max hp are less than 25. Ray of Enfeeblement minimizes your damage with no saving throw if your max hp are less than 25. Sleep has no saving throw at all if its "damage" is enough to "kill" you.

Such effects should never, ever screw you over without an attack roll or saving throw, no matter how low your maximum HP happen to be, IMO. These spells are not only easy to abuse on monsters and NPCs, PCs can be victims of them too.

One of the goals of this edition is supposed to be flatter math, and one of the big reasons for that is so that people the PCs regularly interact with, but wouldn't be high level adventurers themselves, can be relevant. The king may only be 1st level, but his stats are in the same realm as yours. But what does that matter if the wizard can effortlessly charm him, with no saving throw allowed, just because he doesnt have 25+ max hp?

I am not at all a fan of this power-word-like hp threshold mechanic they have become so fond of using. Like many of the spells of the past that had HD limits, they end up being overpowered at the levels that they're relevant and then become useless later. I also dislike it from the player side of things because you have no way of knowing (without sneaking a peak at the monster manual or something like that) how many hp a creature has. I hate wasting spells to no effect because of stupid mechanics like that.

So, in short, I think this hp threshold mechanic is awful in alot of ways.

 

[Falling Icicle]

My primary concern with spells is that it's not clear which spells require somatic components. The "magic" section of How to Play pretty much says that you can't cast spells unless you have a free hand, but then how come the Cleric has a hammer and shield?

All spells are assumed to have both verbal and somatic components. As for clerics, they've always gotten a free pass when it comes to that.

 

[variant]

Wizard is going to easily get eclipsed by the Rogue in damage. They deal out that kind of damage every other attack during every single encounter. I don't want to see the wizard's daily spells increase with levels, but I think the cantrips need to.

I think damage for all the classes needs to get scaled back just as the wizard's has. Just judging from the playtest, I think the Rogue's sneak attack should get +1d6 every 3 levels. The fighter's Combat Superiority should probably start at 1d4.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think every single damage expression and spell effect is absolutely perfect and doesn't need to be changed one bit.

(See, I can make declarations about the rules of the playtest without actually playing or testing it first too!)

 

[zsek320]

One thing that I did notice was in the How to Play under damage...

It calls out that weapons and SPELLS list a damage roll... it then continues to state that when you roll damage you also get to add any modifiers, INCLUDING the ability mod that you use to make the attack.

Normally I would think that just means melee/ranged attacks, but the fact that it calls out spells makes me question if you would add wis/int to magic attacks damage as well...