D&D 5E reducing dominance of ranged: cantrips

[Saeviomagy]

One thing I don't like about the cantrip scaling is that over level 11 cantrips start to deal more damage then some first level spells like chromatic orb.
not sure if this is a problem with the cantrips or those 1st level spells being to weak

Well, 1st level damage spells always seem pretty underwhelming to me in the first place. Chromatic orb is doing 3d8 damage, averaging 13.5 damage. If you look at a fighter with a greatsword, he's probably pulling 2d6+3 for 10 damage. But the fighter is doing that with zero resource expenditure. Since a caster gets 2 spell slots and a fighter gets 3 uses of adrenaline rush, in pure damage terms expending a fairly equal resource, the caster loses.

I mean there's other factors in there like range or resistances/vulnerabilities, but generally it looks like 1st level pure damage single target spells are a bad idea.

That's not to say they're problematic: they're still your best bet against a single target as a low level spellcaster - it's just that straightforward single target damage is a bad niche for a spellcaster to pick for their 1st level spells.

 

[Ashkelon]

Hex makes EB about on par with archery style, but it takes concentration, has shorter range, limited use, and fighter still gets their battlemaster's dice and action surges.

For sorcerer11/warlock2
(6d10 + 30) * 60% accuracy = 31.

vs archery fighter 13 (sharpshooter + crossbow experties)
(4d6+ 60)* 45% = 33.3


At level 20
(8d10+40) * 60% = 45.6

vs archer
(5d6+75) * 45% = 41.625


So yes, a really high-level sorcerer/warlock can slightly out damage a bow user. But you sacrifice a lot of defense for that little increase. Like -3 AC and -40 HP.
Also action surge, battle master dice, and ignoring cover are not included, but sorcerer can skip a few quickens for a fireball when that would be more helpful.


To quicken spam EB, you need to sacrifice those spells for SP. You'll run out of slots quickly if you try and do both. Then you'll be back to doing half the damage the fighter does.


Overall i'd say it's pretty balanced. Unless you're specifically playing at level 17-19. Then again, sorcerer's suck pretty bad from 1-3.

The spellcaster of course meets the damage of the crossbow fighter without the need for feats. And given that the hand crossbow fighter is the highest martial damage dealing build in the game, it does seem a little off that the spellcaster can come close and even beat it for damage output.

And since the spellcaster can approach the damage of the fighter without feats, there is nothing stopping him from taking his first two levels as fighter. This gives him armor proficiency to close the AC gap. Alternatively, the spellcaster can take the toughness feat to close the HP gap.

And yes, the spellcaster will need to spend many Spell slots to create Spell points to cast quickened spells, the spellcaster still has the option to use some big powerful spells for utility or combat, an option the archer does not. The ability to trade damage for utility should come with a cost, wouldn't you say?

 

[Ristamar]

Well.... you also have to keep in mind the "level pyramid". Low level "PC-class" NPCs will be more common than higher level ones. The DM's Option: High level campaign (see http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16866/Dungeon-Masters-Options-HighLevel-Campaigns?it=1 , the start of this book is excellent and applicable to any D&D game really) calculated this, with the following assumptions:

-10% of the population is a "PC-classed NPC" (*waaay* more than your assumption).
- Each level has half the previous level. Why? Because the people at the lower level haven't leveled up yet, have plateaued or retired, or die before reaching the next level.

From these two basic (and reasonable) assumptions, you get that at level 18 hero is literally *one in a million*. Therefore a level 18 hero of a specific class is like 1 in 10 million. There might be 2-3 in a large kingdom. So yes, a wizard may be as common as a grade 4 teacher, but high level ones are are extremely rare.

Here's an interesting argument against the 3e method of NPC class and level distribution based on specific preferred attributes for adventurers.

http://ludusludorum.com/2014/10/21/introducing-the-ludus-population-engine/

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, 1st level damage spells always seem pretty underwhelming to me in the first place. Chromatic orb is doing 3d8 damage, averaging 13.5 damage. If you look at a fighter with a greatsword, he's probably pulling 2d6+3 for 10 damage. But the fighter is doing that with zero resource expenditure. Since a caster gets 2 spell slots and a fighter gets 3 uses of adrenaline rush, in pure damage terms expending a fairly equal resource, the caster loses.

I mean there's other factors in there like range or resistances/vulnerabilities, but generally it looks like 1st level pure damage spells are a bad idea.

Given that? Probably no big deal that at higher levels cantrips out first level single target direct damage spells. They always sucked anyway and you shouldn't use them in the first place

In fairness, Chromatic Orb is a ranged spell, therefore it's more appropriate to compare it to a ranged weapon (longbow deals significantly less damage than a greatsword). Additionally, one of its biggest advantages is its versatile damage type, making it an excellent spell for targeting vulnerabilities (double damage) or avoiding resistance/immunity.

Overall though, single target damage is not where magic excels IMO. Area effects are a whole other story, capable of eliminating many more hit points in a single turn than a fighter can ever hope to achieve, depending on circumstances.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmmm

"There are always more experienced, trained people in a given profession than there are neophytes breaking into it."

Well... This is true. But what is an "experienced, trained person"? In 5e... might that be a level 3? Or level 5? There comes a point where it lowers again. There might be more sergeants than privates, but are there more special forces than raw recruits?

Also, most professionals don't have the attrition rate that adventuring does!

 

[Saeviomagy]

In fairness, Chromatic Orb is a ranged spell, therefore it's more appropriate to compare it to a ranged weapon (longbow deals significantly less damage than a greatsword). Additionally, one of its biggest advantages is its versatile damage type, making it an excellent spell for targeting vulnerabilities (double damage) or avoiding resistance/immunity.

Well, let's make it a heavy crossbow then. Closer on the range and the damage is 8.5 vs chromatic orb's 13.5. Again, using adrenaline surge puts the fighter in front.

Avoiding resistance and targeting vulnerabilities are both great, but so is being able to hit a target at 400ft, or overcoming most resistances simply by using a magic weapon. To me that's all lost in the noise.

Overall though, single target damage is not where magic excels IMO. Area effects are a whole other story, capable of eliminating many more hit points in a single turn than a fighter can ever hope to achieve, depending on circumstances.

Agreed. And that's before you even start thinking about things other than pure damage. Which is why I don't think it's a problem with either cantrips or 1st level spells: cantrip scaling keeps you in the same ballpark as the fighter when you're not spending spell slots. At the same time, single target damage was never your strong suit, so the fact that spending low level slots to do it is underwhelming seems fine.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, let's make it a heavy crossbow then. Closer on the range and the damage is 8.5 vs chromatic orb's 13.5. Again, using adrenaline surge puts the fighter in front.

Avoiding resistance and targeting vulnerabilities are both great, but so is being able to hit a target at 400ft, or overcoming most resistances simply by using a magic weapon. To me that's all lost in the noise.

Agreed. And that's before you even start thinking about things other than pure damage. Which is why I don't think it's a problem with either cantrips or 1st level spells: cantrip scaling keeps you in the same ballpark as the fighter when you're not spending spell slots. At the same time, single target damage was never your strong suit, so the fact that spending low level slots to do it is underwhelming seems fine.

Good points, but keep in mind that the levels where Chromatic Orb is likely to see the most use are the levels where the fighter is least likely to have any magic weapon (or might have a magic weapon but it isn't their weapon of choice). After a certain level, 1st level spell slots are better reserved for utility (including Shield / Absorb Elements, which never lose their utility).

 

[Dausuul]

As others have pointed out, you can punch your way through an iron door just as easily as you can burn your way through it. This is what the damage threshold rules exist for.

As for mending, how much does it cost to train a wizard to the point of being able to cast cantrips at will? Traditional D&D lore says it's a long, demanding, difficult process just to reach 1st level. So what you have is a scenario where the per-unit cost of providing a good is practically nil, but there is a big up-front capital investment required.

That's a recipe for a natural monopoly, which in turn allows the wizard to charge monopoly rents. Even though the wizard pays nothing for a cantrip, the customer will pay plenty, because it's still cheaper than paying to train a second wizard. Besides, if wizards are common enough to affect the economy, they're bound to have a guild, and one of the core functions of a guild is to squelch competition. You do not want to get squelched by the wizards' guild.

It's the higher-level spells, like teleportation and resurrection, that will do a number on your campaign setting. Mending is a very weird thing to get hung up on.

 

[mellored]

One thing I don't like about the cantrip scaling is that over level 11 cantrips start to deal more damage then some first level spells like chromatic orb.
not sure if this is a problem with the cantrips or those 1st level spells being to weak

It's a problem with damage spells scaling by spell level and not character level. Chromatic orb is a pointless spell to cast at level 20, irrelevant of whether you have cantrips or not.

IMO: I would add half your character level to all spell damage, reducing the die size a little to keep it on par for that level.
i.e.

Chromatic orb = 3d8 + half your character level
Burning hands = 2d6 + half your character level
Fireball = 6d6 + half your character level.
Metor Swarm = 18d6+18d6+half your character level.

I would also do similar for weapon attacks, though that might be tricker without reworking some classes.

 

[guachi]

I blame 3rd Edition for this.
It codified how common adventurers were, and said that people with PC classes were close to 0.5% of the population. Which sounds low when you compare it to actual jobs in the real world. In North America, 0.5% of an urban population might be Elementary School teachers. (I actually ran the numbers for my school district/county. And 0.99% of the population are Full Time teachers.)

So meeting a wizard in a typical D&D setting should be as common as meeting a Grade 4 teacher. Which feels far, far too common, and implies adventurers are in every settlement, large and small.

I arbitrarily decided in my Mystara campaign that .5% of the human population was of class level 3+, .75% of the dwarf population, and 2.5% of the elf population.

The way I avoided having piles of spellcasters was to have most people be fighters or rogues and of the non-spellcasting archetypes. Most of those fighters/rogues would be current or former military. You can suck up a large portion of the class-experienced population by putting it in the military.

In a country of about 300,000 and .5% at level 3+ and ~2% of those being wizards, I ended up with 28 wizards of level 3+ (at least among the human population).