D&D 5E (2024) The Great Wizard Extinction.

[UngeheuerLich]

Have a look at sone other monsters.

5E about 4 times the hp generally, double 3.5.

A 10 level BG3 Evoker with all the items proportionally deals about the same as a 10th level 2E.

Comparison is close level 1, 3+2E. Kobolds and Gobibs are about the only typical low level stuff 5E might win on.

Avg 2E hp cs 5th
Orc 5 vs 15
Ogre avg 18 vs 52
Gnoll 9 vs 22

That looks like orc has 3 times as many hp in 5e than 2e...
Ogre has about 3 times as much hp than a 2e ogre.
Gnoll too.

5e MM deal 3 times as much damage as 2e one. Checks out.

So depends on level. 3+ its 2E

Please tell me something I do not know.

, 1&2 almost a wash 5E might win slightly.

Yes.

A lvl 1 MM 2E was crap though.

A level 1 wizard was totally crap except for the one sleep spell.
2 times if you were a specialist.

In 5e you can at least cast the magic missile spell 3 times a day and you have cantrips.

5E one did well once in current campaign. Vs Stirges on DoSI. Then got dumped.

So pretty much worse at all levels right down the line debatable at 1&2. Marginally better than bad is best case scenario.

You make a big mistake comparing spells this way:
You can only really compare spells at the exact level where you gain it and one lev thereafter maybe.

5e spell system is fundamently different than 2e or 3e, because spells don't scale with caster level. And even if upcast, the damage gain is usually not keeping up with spells that are naturally higher level.

So comparing magic missile at level 3+ is fundamently flawed. Of course, a spell that naturally deals 2d4+2 damage will comparatively outdamage a spell that is comparable to a 1d4+1 spell.

And everyone can see that if you upcast it by even adding 1d4+1 to 3d4+3 is not the same than adding 1d4+1 to 1d4+1

(that is 100% increase for free vs 33.3% increase for an extra investment).

So I am really confused about what you try to prove here with calculations that everyone can do in their head.
To disaprove something noone even slightly hinted at?

For your convenience: I said, 3d4+3 automatic damage is a serious threat to a level 1 PC. Not more, not less.
And before that, ECMO sad that magic missile, due to his totally unrealistic assumption of Monsters having AC22 to prove how well bless performs said, that magic missile in this situation is nearly as good as a bless spell.

 

[Zardnaar]

That looks like orc has 3 times as many hp in 5e than 2e...
Ogre has about 3 times as much hp than a 2e ogre.
Gnoll too.

5e MM deal 3 times as much damage as 2e one. Checks out.

Please tell me something I do not know.

Yes.

A level 1 wizard was totally crap except for the one sleep spell.
2 times if you were a specialist.

In 5e you can at least cast the magic missile spell 3 times a day and you have cantrips.


You make a big mistake comparing spells this way:
You can only really compare spells at the exact level where you gain it and one lev thereafter maybe.

5e spell system is fundamently different than 2e or 3e, because spells don't scale with caster level. And even if upcast, the damage gain is usually not keeping up with spells that are naturally higher level.

So comparing magic missile at level 3+ is fundamently flawed. Of course, a spell that naturally deals 2d4+2 damage will comparatively outdamage a spell that is comparable to a 1d4+1 spell.

And everyone can see that if you upcast it by even adding 1d4+1 to 3d4+3 is not the same than adding 1d4+1 to 1d4+1

(that is 100% increase for free vs 33.3% increase for an extra investment).

So I am really confused about what you try to prove here with calculations that everyone can do in their head.
To disaprove something noone even slightly hinted at?

For your convenience: I said, 3d4+3 automatic damage is a serious threat to a level 1 PC. Not more, not less.
And before that, ECMO sad that magic missile, due to his totally unrealistic assumption of Monsters having AC22 to prove how well bless performs said, that magic missile in this situation is nearly as good as a bless spell.

Well theresa bot mire going on. 5E attacks do a lot more damage as well. Even in 2E level 1 or 2 wont last long. In 5E thats two or 3 sessions. Basically you suck at blasting comparatively from here on out. And MM is kinda vad in 5E as well. Unless the campaign theme is stirges.

But thats also part of the problem. If it is a problem. Some people loje it after all hell probably a majority. High damage high hp high hp Regain. Directly contributes to 5E playstyle.

4E is 2/3 with low damage comparatively.

So yeah 3.5 may actually get that balance right its basically in the middle of to extremes.

Perfect edition of D&D 6-10 levels, no dailies, 3.5 hp/damage, no customers!!! We proved it mathematically what can go wrong!!.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well theresa bot mire going on.

What are you typing at times?

5E attacks do a lot more damage as well. Even in 2E level 1 or 2 wont last long.

Never said that.
Not 3 times as much as 2e ones at levels 1 and 2. A fighter with 16 str and weapon specialization did 1d8+3.

In 5E thats two or 3 sessions.

Yes. And your point is?

Basically you suck at blasting comparatively from here on out.

How does that connect to what I said?

And MM is kinda vad in 5E as well.

Kinda "vad"? I don't understand that slang.

Unless the campaign theme is stirges.

Yeah. Beware.

But thats also part of the problem. If it is a problem. Some people loje it after all hell probably a majority. High damage high hp high hp Regain. Directly contributes to 5E playstyle.

???
I am really not able to follow you. I don't understand enough words to make sense of that.

4E is 2/3 with low damage comparatively.

How does that relate to 5e?

So yeah 3.5 may actually get that balance right its basically in the middle of to extremes.

No. 3.5 did nothing right. Direct damage in 3.5 was a trap. Save or suck and prebuffing was so powerful that direct damage was comparatively useless.

Perfect edition of D&D 6-10 levels, no dailies, 3.5 hp/damage, no customers!!! We proved it mathematically what can go wrong!!.

???

I get the feeling you quotes someone that has blocked me or who I have blocked...

 

[Moving Pictures]

This thread really strikes at what I see as one of the weaknesses of 5e. I am dabbling as a player in 5e, and the character build part of the game is stupid complex, and the magic is overflowing. Everybody gets magic. It's like Oprah Winfrey at Christmas. That's the reason why mages are weaker - because they aren't special.

 

[Stalker0]

5e spell system is fundamently different than 2e or 3e, because spells don't scale with caster level. And even if upcast, the damage gain is usually not keeping up with spells that are naturally higher level.

This is also why 5e's system tends to favor control over damage. 5e's spell damage does does not autoscale (which is the principal measure of damage) but its DC do scale (which is the principal measure of control).

In 3e you have all these spells, but you only have a few control spells at a high enough DC to really put out in a big combat. In 5e, take your pick, everything has your best DC ready to go.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is also why 5e's system tends to favor control over damage. 5e's spell damage does does not autoscale (which is the principal measure of damage) but its DC do scale (which is the principal measure of control).

It is also a measure of damage. Statistically. Not increasing damage/duration AND DC is what prevents wizards in 5e to be as quadratic as 3.5 ones.

Theoretically 3.5 actually only increases DC for higher level spell slots.
So in a certain way, 3.5 and 5e has damage amd control flipped.

In 3.5, you needed your highest slots for control and reasonable damage could be dealt with lower level ones. And in 5e, low level control spells are still doing fine against single targets but you need your highest level spells (slots and memorized) for damage if you want to actually do enough to have it matter against the tougher opponents.

In 3e you have all these spells, but you only have a few control spells at a high enough DC to really put out in a big combat.

Yes. Your highest level slots.
And here is where 3.5 breaks apart. The highest level slots scaled way faster than saving throws. At first glance, at least good saving throws seem to keep up. But in practice they do not really. On top of focussing ony your main stat for wizards and sorcerers when you get an ability score increase, there were feats and magic items to increase DC further.
And then the caster could reasonably target at least two saving throws (Will and Fortitude). A bad saving throw, starting at +0 and then only increasing by 1/3 levels (that is +2 at level 8) makes defending against control spells difficult.
Fighter Types tend to only have 12 wis at most. Which at level 8 only gives a +3 save (maybe +4 with cloak of resistance) against DC of 10 (base) + 4(spell level) +5(stat) +1 (feat) and +1(misc magic item) = 20. That means the fighter needs to roll an 18+ to not fall victim to a dominate person spell.

I'd try that any day before throwing an 8d6 fireball at them. Which they might save against and have a good chance to resist it. A fighter in 3e has probably as much HP as a 5e fighter. The player side has not changed that much at the top end. Probably even lowered, because con increasing items are harder to get.

In 5e, take your pick, everything has your best DC ready to go.

Control in 5e is mainly held in check by concentration. Which is a fine enough mechanic.
But damage spells are just doing full damage more reliable when you level up.

 

[Zardnaar]

What are you typing at times?

Never said that.
Not 3 times as much as 2e ones at levels 1 and 2. A fighter with 16 str and weapon specialization did 1d8+3.

Yes. And your point is?

How does that connect to what I said?

Kinda "vad"? I don't understand that slang.

Yeah. Beware.

???
I am really not able to follow you. I don't understand enough words to make sense of that.

How does that relate to 5e?

No. 3.5 did nothing right. Direct damage in 3.5 was a trap. Save or suck and prebuffing was so powerful that direct damage was comparatively useless.

???

I get the feeling you quotes someone that has blocked me or who I have blocked...

Apologies phone can word salad things. Hate the keyboard on it.

Youre under rating how good fireball was in 3E vs how people play. People like using it.

Are there more powerful spells 3E? Sure
But its still better at killing things than 5E hence its B tier. Death is still the best debuff. By itself it wasn't a bad spell. Or good.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Apologies phone can word salad things. Hate the keyboard on it.

No problem. Happens to me from time to time too.

Youre under rating how good fireball was in 3E vs how people play. People like using it.

My experience is different.
But I am happy for you, that your experience differs from mine.

Are there more powerful spells 3E? Sure
But its still better at killing things than 5E hence its B tier.

I disagree. Like you rate 5e fireball lower because of in your opinion better things, I rate 3e fireball very low because it is almost never a really good option compared to other spells.
Although in one campaign (which I converted from 2e) it was quite good damage wise. What prevented it from being absolutely great was that it gives away the position of the caster due to its fire ray extending from the caster.

Death is still the best debuff. By itself it wasn't a bad spell. Or good.

I guess it comes down to adventure structure. Maybe we found that 3.5 adventures leaned towards lesser but more powerful monsters than 2e, which used sometimes more mass than class.
Probably due to the fact that lower level foes tended to just do nothing against higher level PCs. They could not even crit, because their attack bonus was often not high enough to hit PC's AC.

So. Maybe I regard fireball higher once again, because I often use cr < 1 creatures as minions. Those just work a lot better than they did in 5e, as they will still be able to actually hit and crit PCs of higher levels.

So just comparing numbers against other numbers without context is a fallacy in my opinion. 3e's numbers tended to escalate very fast

 

[cbwjm]

I compare fireball against ogres to show how powerful it is, basically, how good is a 5th level wizard's fireball against a band of ogres. I wrote the following ages ago but never posted it.

Fireball by the editions
Basic. A fireball back in BECMI could deal up to 20 dice of damage, that is 20-120 (70 average) damage which is pretty much going to wipe out anything it hits that fails it’s saving throw. Of course the wizard needs to be level 20 and their opponents are likely also rather high level and much more likely to make their save against the fireball.

1e. This edition is pretty far outside of my experience, I believe they had a damage cap of 20, though for all I know spell damage had no cap at all and continued to increase.

2e. The new damage cap became 10 dice, capping out in damage when the wizard reaches 10th level. Still likely to kill anything it is thrown against as 10-60 (35 average) damage is still a lot of damage when targets typically have a handful of d8s for hit points, no constitution bonuses added for monsters. For instance, an ogre in 2e has 4d8+1 hit points, that’s an average of 19 hit points, a 6th level caster would be likely to wipe out an ogre and his buddies with a single fireball dealing 6-36 (21 average) damage.

3e. This edition kept the 10 dice damage cap but now, since monsters all had the 6 ability scores as well, they could add in their constitution bonuses to their hit points. Now an ogre has 4d8+11 hit points (a 15 constitution and the toughness feat for a total of +11 hit points) so that their average hit points are increased to 29. Meaning that the wizard now needs to be level 9 before they can be confident that the ogre is destroyed by his 9d6 (9-54, 31.5 average) fireball. 9th level means that the DC for his fireball spell is likely going to be 17 (with an 18 intelligence) so the ogre with a +0 reflex saving throw is likely going to fail and take the full brunt of the fireball.

This edition also added in metamagic feats so, with the appropriate feats, use of higher level spell slots to increase the DC (heighten spell), deal an extra 50% damage (empower spell), deal full damage (maximise spell) or cast two fireballs (quicken spell), and there were more than these to choose. You could also combine these together if you had high enough level spell slots and wanted to cast fireballs all day every day.

4e. This edition turned the spell into a low damage effect, still useful to soften up some targets as well as wipe out minions. Initially dealing 3d6 + the wizard’s intelligence bonus, this was later increased to 4d6 + intelligence bonus via errata. Something to be noted, however, is that you were expected to swap out your lower level spells for higher level ones so you’d likely come across a more powerful fireball-like spell at a later level, though it may or may not have dealt (just) fire damage. The enemies were generally much tougher than previous editions and so the fireball spell was far less potent as anything other than a minion sweeper. How does this edition’s fireball deal with an ogre? Unless they are a minion, it doesn’t. You’d be better off using an ability that locks down an ogre than spending your daily use of fireball, but again, if there are a few minions, then fireball with it’s large area of effect, is still a great choice.

5e. Fireball is back to being 3e levels of potency with the spell dealing a base amount of damage of 8d6, though now since it scales with spell slot rather than caster level so you generally need to expend a higher level spell slot to increase its damage (some class abilities will add damage to the spell making it a bit stronger without needing a higher level slot). How well does it handle an ogre? The average 5e ogre has 59 hit points which means that to have a chance to kill one, you need to be a 9th level caster and use a 5th-level spell slot to deal 10-60 (35 average) fire damage. More than likely, you will need to throw a second fireball next turn, or allow your allies to have some fun in wiping out the ogre. At least the spell isn’t wiped from your mind after casting.

 

[Zardnaar]

No problem. Happens to me from time to time too.

My experience is different.
But I am happy for you, that your experience differs from mine.

I disagree. Like you rate 5e fireball lower because of in your opinion better things, I rate 3e fireball very low because it is almost never a really good option compared to other spells.
Although in one campaign (which I converted from 2e) it was quite good damage wise. What prevented it from being absolutely great was that it gives away the position of the caster due to its fire ray extending from the caster.

I guess it comes down to adventure structure. Maybe we found that 3.5 adventures leaned towards lesser but more powerful monsters than 2e, which used sometimes more mass than class.
Probably due to the fact that lower level foes tended to just do nothing against higher level PCs. They could not even crit, because their attack bonus was often not high enough to hit PC's AC.

So. Maybe I regard fireball higher once again, because I often use cr < 1 creatures as minions. Those just work a lot better than they did in 5e, as they will still be able to actually hit and crit PCs of higher levels.

So just comparing numbers against other numbers without context is a fallacy in my opinion. 3e's numbers tended to escalate very fast

Less creatures more powerful is more modern thing not just 3.X.

Look through 5E adventures. You rarely see 20 mooks let alone 80. Its mostly less than 2 monsters per PC with a rare 20 CR 1/2 popping up occasionally at level 5 or so.