D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Steampunkette]

So 'samey' is 'unified mechanic'.

D20 - Roll high is also samey.

Good to know.

You're not wrong!

d20 roll high is pretty samey! Especially since it means all functions tied to a d20 roll have explicitly 5% increments of happening or not happening.

I'd much rather have a system where different dice are used in different situations, or different potential outcomes with increasing granularity occur. Like having attack rolls vary in dice use based on class, level, and proficiency. But that ship sailed when 3e came out.

It was a terrible analogy brooked on the TTRPG nerd triggering 'vidah games is ebil' dreck.

... I've worked on Videogames. I play videogames pretty much every day. I've dissected the mechanical systems of videogames in order to adapt them for other games, video or otherwise.

Videogames aren't evil. Videogames are just a really great way to describe the concept I was going for. Specifically I was referring to Champions Online, which has a massive array of different powers that are almost all puddle-shallow recolors of the first powers that were made for the game. Oh, sure, -some- stuff now does slightly different push/pull/lift mechanics or resists damage in some combination of set immunity and relative reduction... but it's all the same core mechanics the Cryptic Engine was built with.

Though I guess I could've gone more for the various "Build your own Spell" systems in different tabletop games where you pick a template, pick a damage type, pick a secondary effect, and go. Where the only real difference between a Cone of Fire and a Cone of Ice is how they're described.

But go off, I guess.

 

[Manbearcat]

Where the only real difference between a Cone of Fire and a Cone of Ice is how they're described.

This shouldn't be true in any TTRPG and its definitely not true in 4e. If you're using Fire effects, you're burning things (causing damage over time and the like and creating conflagration hazards). If you're using Cold effects, you're freezing things (causing immobilization/slowed or creating slippery hazards). Beyond that:

I've got a Fire keyword spell available to me as a Wizard in 4e? Great, the following moves are available to me:

COMBAT - The floorboard of the tavern are covered in alcohol? Awesome! I want to do a Terrain Stunt and light the floor on fire. We'll shut the door and let them cook.

SKILL CHALLENGE - They're pursuing us via the rope bridge we just used to transit the chasm? Awesome. I'm going to set the bridge on fire with my Fire spell as soon they get on it.


It should be abundantly clear the move-space you're opening up with Cold keywords abilities.

The move-space and the fiction are flat out different.

 

[pemerton]

if the mechanics for Fire and Physical and Ice and Lightning are the same (Or drastically similar) does it actually -matter- in terms of the playspace?

And the answer is a resounding "No".

Huh? In my experience the answer is a resounding yes. Icy Terrain is a cold spell: it can be used to freeze water. Fire Shroud is a fire spell: when you use it in a library you risk setting books and scrolls alight. Thunderwave creates a shockwave that pushes enemies away: it can be used to blast them through a wall.

Those are all actual play reports from my 4e game.

The relevant rules text is found in the PHB (p 55) and the DMG (p 66):

Damage Type: Many powers create energy or a substance that deals damage to their targets.

Acid: Corrosive liquid.​

Cold: Ice crystals, arctic air, or frigid liquid.​

Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.​

Force: Invisible energy formed into incredibly hard yet nonsolid shapes.​

Lightning: Electrical energy.​

Necrotic: Purple-black energy that deadens flesh and wounds the soul.​

Poison: Toxins that reduce a creature’s hit points.​

Psychic: Effects that target the mind.​

Radiant: Searing white light or shimmering colors.​

Thunder: Shock waves and deafening sounds.​

Effect Type: Some powers are classified according to how their effects work.

Charm: Mental effects that control or influence the subject’s actions.​

Conjuration: Powers that create objects or creatures of magical energy.​

Fear: Effects that inspire fright.​

Healing: Powers that restore hit points.​

Illusion: Powers that deceive the senses or the mind.​

Poison: Substances that hamper or impede a creature.​

Polymorph: Effects that alter a creature’s physical form.​

...​

Sleep: Powers that cause sleep or unconsciousness.​

...​

Teleportation: Powers that transport creatures instantaneously from one location to another.​

Zone: Powers that create lingering effects that extend over an area.​

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions.​

​

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage.​

​

Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.​

​

Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

EDIT: Mostly ninja'd by @Manbearcat.

 

[Flamestrike]

Then there's a vast difference between the mechanics where someone has hit three times (once for the off balance and two on their turn) and what you claim the in-world fiction is.

No there is not a difference in the mechanics at all.

Hit points (mechanically, RAW) represent (among other things) luck, fighting skill, experience, resolve and the will to live. Expressly and implicitly.

I could 'hit' you and do 22 points of 'luck' reduction (damage) with the 'hit' narrowly missing you (via sheer luck). Or I could 'hit' you and lower your 'resolve points' by 22, with the sword also not actually hitting you (in game) and instead your morale and confidence being affected by my demonstration of superior fighting skill.

Hit points are deliberately, intentionally, and expressly not 'meat'. They are extreme abstractions of a multiple of factors including:

• fighting skill,
• experience,
• luck,
• resolve,
• the will to live and fight on, and
• health.

How a DM or group chooses to narrate those things is entirely up to them, but mechanically its MORE correct to do it my way, than it is to try and argue that 'every loss of hit points is a meat hit'.

This has always been an issue with hit points

No, the issue isnt with HP. The issue is with people such as yourself that dont understand what HP represent, and what they have always represented through the various editions:

AD&D 1E: These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and / or magical factors. PHB P34.

Only a 'certain' amount of your HP represents actual physical punishment. The remainder (the significant portion at higher levels) represents fighting skill (parrying, dodging etc) luck and 'other'.

This has largely remained the case in every edition since.

Despite our fighter landing 3 'hits' for 20 odd points of damage each, the first 'hit' was him knocking aside the Ogres clumsy strike, and leaving the Ogre open to a counter attack, the second 'hit' was a dazzling show of martial prowess that demoralized the Ogre and shattered its resolve as the figher leapt into the air, his sword arcing in a huge swathe, and only the final 'hit' was a solid (actual in-game-word stabby) hit, which plunged deep into the Ogres heart.

Thats RAW, and RAI. Thats what HP are, and how they're supposed to be handled. The problem isnt with HP, its with 'HP are meat' interpretations such as yours.

 

[pemerton]

the issue isnt with HP. The issue is with people such as yourself that dont understand what HP represent, and what they have always represented through the various editions

I think @Neonchameleon is perfectly familiar with what hp represent. (Subject to some borderline cases which put pressure on the conceit, like damage from missile fire and the fact that in AD&D poison generally doesn't do hp damage.)

I think his point is that a fighter should have a meaningful chance to take down an ogre in a single attempt - ie the ogre shouldn't be automatically lucky enough not to be killed. And that in 5e D&D this is not the case.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except when a Fighter and a Wizard hit multiple targets in a small area, in 3e and 5e, the Wizard casts a spell and the DM rolls saving throws while the fighter makes multiple attack rolls.

So the difference isn't that the fighter is using a weapon and has to bring everyone in reach. And it isn't that the wizard is burning people from a distance. It's entirely separately, outside the game world, which person picks up the dice.

And if I were to make a Videogame where every "Spellmaster" had the same 10 templates of powers but you could change the damage type from Fire to Ice and it would make the visual change as well... It would still be a Fireball dealing Ice Damage. You'd still feel like you're playing the exact same character if you made them a Lightning Spellmaster because there's no actual difference in how the spells would function

That depends on interactions. You'd only feel like you were playing the exact same character if the designer of the game was completely boring and didn't have secondary effects to any of their spells.
;
Meanwhile if the fire mage routinely set people on fire while the ice mage chilled them, slowed them down, and made the ground slippery with ice then yes you'd feel that they were different characters.

If I look at the 4e PHB there are both fire and ice spells.

• Cantrips: Scorching burst burns an area, just doing damage, while Ray of Frost chills a target and mechanically slows them
• Encounter 1: Burning Hands burns a large area, while Icy Terrain covers a smaller area, knocking people down and making it difficult terrain briefly
• Daily 1: Flaming Sphere moves around and burns people, just doing damage while Freezing Cloud stays around, hurting people (this, unusually, could actually be reflavoured to a flaming cloud).
• Encounter 3: Fire Shroud burns people in a wide area and literally sets them on fire with ongoing fire damage, while Icy Rays freezes people and immobilizes them
• Daily 5: Fireball, as ever, just does damage to people while Bigby's Icy Grasp is a literal conjured hand made of ice that grabs people

I think we can stop there. Lots of fire spells and lots of ice spells in the PHB - and the ice ones are not interchangeable with the fire ones.

So in 4e ice and fire spells are not simply "the same 10 templates of powers but change the damage type and it would make a visual change". Meanwhile if we look at the pitiful number of ice-themed spells in the 3.5 PHB we find Ray of Frost (just does damage), Cone of Cold (just does damage), Freezing Sphere (just does damage unless it hits a lake - and for some reason is nothing to do with flaming sphere), Polar Ray (just does damage), Wall of Ice (OK, so this is a decent one), and Ice Storm (does damage, but also turns the ground into terrain that you move through at half speed). Oh and sleet storm which does no damage, but does have a nice obscuring and tripping effect.

So I do see why if you were used to something as bland as 3.5 where "who rolls the dice" is a meaningful difference because there aren't many actual things that emphasise the damage type, and if you didn't bother to actually see what 4e was doing you might think that it had followed in the footsteps of blander previous editions where you really could just replace the word "fire" with the word "ice" and they'd be pretty much interchangeable. 5e has at least kept some of the 4e flavour where ray of frost slows people as well as damaging them and immolation sets them on fire.

This is one of the many reasons why I find 3.5 and 5e spellcasting alike to be much blander than 4e. You care about who rolls the dice. I care about what the actions actually do - and fighters don't set people on fire with their swords or turn the ground to ice with them.

When you wanna force a door open using an Ability Check the Wizard and the Barbarian both have the same chance to do it because Strength and Intelligence are interchangeable for the task.

I'm not sure what this is a reference to. Because (without a utility power) it's not a 4e reference that can be made both with knowledge and in good faith.

When you wanna hurt a bad guy you just add your modifiers and roll a d20 regardless of how you're hurting them.

So what you're saying is that non-4e fighters suck because that's all they do? 4e fighters have many more ways of hurting people - most of which work that way.

And on and on and on it went.

Indeed. A lie can travel round the world before the truth can get its boots on. And the distortions you are making about 4e are old ones.

But what I would prefer, which I kinda described? Is very much not 4e.

What you described as 4e is very much not 4e.

 

[Manbearcat]

No there is not a difference in the mechanics at all.

Hit points (mechanically, RAW) represent (among other things) luck, fighting skill, experience, resolve and the will to live. Expressly and implicitly.

I could 'hit' you and do 22 points of 'luck' reduction (damage) with the 'hit' narrowly missing you (via sheer luck). Or I could 'hit' you and lower your 'resolve points' by 22, with the sword also not actually hitting you (in game) and instead your morale and confidence being affected by my demonstration of superior fighting skill.

Hit points are deliberately, intentionally, and expressly not 'meat'. They are extreme abstractions of a multiple of factors including:

• fighting skill,
• experience,
• luck,
• resolve,
• the will to live and fight on, and
• health.

How a DM or group chooses to narrate those things is entirely up to them, but mechanically its MORE correct to do it my way, than it is to try and argue that 'every loss of hit points is a meat hit'.



No, the issue isnt with HP. The issue is with people such as yourself that dont understand what HP represent, and what they have always represented through the various editions:

AD&D 1E: These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and / or magical factors. PHB P34.

Only a 'certain' amount of your HP represents actual physical punishment. The remainder (the significant portion at higher levels) represents fighting skill (parrying, dodging etc) luck and 'other'.

This has largely remained the case in every edition since.

Despite our fighter landing 3 'hits' for 20 odd points of damage each, the first 'hit' was him knocking aside the Ogres clumsy strike, and leaving the Ogre open to a counter attack, the second 'hit' was a dazzling show of martial prowess that demoralized the Ogre and shattered its resolve as the figher leapt into the air, his sword arcing in a huge swathe, and only the final 'hit' was a solid (actual in-game-word stabby) hit, which plunged deep into the Ogres heart.

Thats RAW, and RAI. Thats what HP are, and how they're supposed to be handled. The problem isnt with HP, its with 'HP are meat' interpretations such as yours.

Given how much history of interactions I have with @Neonchameleon on all manner of subjects, but specifically on HP (and them NOT being meat)...I'm confident you guys aren't disagreeing about HPs.

From my vantage, it looks to me like the salient differences you two are having here is what action economy expresses (3 discrete attacks spread over off-turn/on-turn actions)...not what HPs express.

This is something like the 1 minute combat round abstraction issue in AD&D...but different because it goes further (its the engagement with multiple aspects of action economy).

 

[Flamestrike]

I think @Neonchameleon is perfectly familiar with what hp represent. (Subject to some borderline cases which put pressure on the conceit, like damage from missile fire and the fact that in AD&D poison generally doesn't do hp damage.)

It's an abstraction, not an absolute.

I think his point is that a fighter should have a meaningful chance to take down an ogre in a single attempt - ie the ogre shouldn't be automatically lucky enough not to be killed. And that in 5e D&D this is not the case.

The Fighter (in the game world) does have a meaningful chance to do just that.

To the players at the table it might take a few attack rolls. To the observers in the game world, it was just the single thrust to the heart that did it and it was over in a few seconds.

Fighters primary class feature is HP and HD. You're depriving them of the narrative power of those class features arbitarily.

DM's do it all the time with 'insta death from falls/ lava/ assassins'' rules instead of simply allowing the fighter the narrative power those hit points represent.

 

[pemerton]

So the difference isn't that the fighter is using a weapon and has to bring everyone in reach. And it isn't that the wizard is burning people from a distance. It's entirely separately, outside the game world, which person picks up the dice.

<snip>

So I do see why if you were used to something as bland as 3.5 where "who rolls the dice" is a meaningful difference because there aren't many actual things that emphasise the damage type, and if you didn't bother to actually see what 4e was doing you might think that it had followed in the footsteps of blander previous editions where you really could just replace the word "fire" with the word "ice" and they'd be pretty much interchangeable. 5e has at least kept some of the 4e flavour where ray of frost slows people as well as damaging them and immolation sets them on fire.

This is one of the many reasons why I find 3.5 and 5e spellcasting alike to be much blander than 4e. You care about who rolls the dice. I care about what the actions actually do - and fighters don't set people on fire with their swords or turn the ground to ice with them.

This is the same point as the one I made upthread: that the "sameyness" is not a property of the fiction that is created, but of the mechanical procedures of playing the game.

As I posted upthread, I think 4e is clearly designed not for RPGers for whom the mechanical experience comes first, but for RPGers for whom the fiction comes first. Because it's in the shared fiction that we see the distinctiveness and the vibrancy of 4e characters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think @Neonchameleon is perfectly familiar with what hp represent. (Subject to some borderline cases which put pressure on the conceit, like damage from missile fire and the fact that in AD&D poison generally doesn't do hp damage.)

I think his point is that a fighter should have a meaningful chance to take down an ogre in a single attempt - ie the ogre shouldn't be automatically lucky enough not to be killed. And that in 5e D&D this is not the case.

My point isn't even that.

I have no problem with the idea that if we are playing a game running under action movie physics the fighter can't take down the target in a single attempt. But by the same token the fighter should be able to perform stunts like Arnie or Tom Cruise in their films. Because they are damn action movie stars. I wouldn't expect Errol Flynn's character to kill Basil Rathbone's character in a single blow or Arnie to one-shot the Predator.

If on the other hand we are saying that the fighter should be bound by what's "realistic" in what they can do (especially when the overwhelming majority of characters are spellcasters) then they should be, as you say, able to take down an ogre in a single attempt because ogres have obvious vital organs and aren't tougher than steel.

As it is the fighter gets the short end of the stick both ways.