Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8592668" data-attributes="member: 6877472">It's an interesting idea.&nbsp; Certainly, one of the problems the 3e design team ran into was that they inadvertently made non-damaging spells a lot better by allowing the caster to make them harder to save against, while not doing anything to increase spell damage.And yet, from their playtests, they assume casters would still be lobbing damage spells around.&nbsp; Then when players realized that 5d6 damage doesn't have the same sting when everything has more hit points, and that damage spells were fairly pointless (without massive splatbook diving and optimization), suddenly everyone switched to buffs, control spells, and save or X effects.Now in 5e, I see those spells used a lot less often in favor of damage spells, and I know I've surprised the heck out of several DM's by judicious use of sleet storm alone.Actually I get surprised a lot when people complain about fireball, given that 5e enemies still have a lot more hit points than AD&amp;D opponents...Anyways, the game is probably healthier when casters are using a mix of damage spells and other spells.&nbsp; As a non-caster damage dealer, your main way to contribute to the end of a battle is hit point damage.If a caster just ends the combat through effects that don't deal damage, your contribution is meaningless unless the monster dies due to damage (this is a big part of why I think 5e Sleep is cool and wish a lot more spells worked like it does).I'm reminded of a 3e battle where I spent several rounds fighting a summoned demon, only for the caster to trap it in an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere until the duration of it's summon wore off.I really didn't feel like I did much there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8592668, member: 6877472"] It's an interesting idea. Certainly, one of the problems the 3e design team ran into was that they inadvertently made non-damaging spells a lot better by allowing the caster to make them harder to save against, while not doing anything to increase spell damage. And yet, from their playtests, they assume casters would still be lobbing damage spells around. Then when players realized that 5d6 damage doesn't have the same sting when everything has more hit points, and that damage spells were fairly pointless (without massive splatbook diving and optimization), suddenly everyone switched to buffs, control spells, and save or X effects. Now in 5e, I see those spells used a lot less often in favor of damage spells, and I know I've surprised the heck out of several DM's by judicious use of sleet storm alone. Actually I get surprised a lot when people complain about fireball, given that 5e enemies still have a lot more hit points than AD&D opponents... Anyways, the game is probably healthier when casters are using a mix of damage spells and other spells. As a non-caster damage dealer, your main way to contribute to the end of a battle is hit point damage. If a caster just ends the combat through effects that don't deal damage, your contribution is meaningless unless the monster dies due to damage (this is a big part of why I think 5e Sleep is cool and wish a lot more spells worked like it does). I'm reminded of a 3e battle where I spent several rounds fighting a summoned demon, only for the caster to trap it in an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere until the duration of it's summon wore off. I really didn't feel like I did much there. [/QUOTE]

Verification