D&D 5E What is the logic behind one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell?

[aramis erak]

That makes no sense, the scenario you came up with is viable for at least the first three editions on surprise. Without surprise I sincerely doubt the village will pose a struggle in any edition with 18th level characters.

In 5E, fighters can only take down at most 4-5 NPC's per round, 8-9 in the first couple rounds, plus one with a reaction... but they won't be hitting all the time.

The guards will take 2-3 hits each, maybe more. The knights (with 50HP) need at least 4 hits. (Compare this to 18th level in BX/BECMI or AD&D, where a fighter can take out 18 commoners per round, as they're 1HD each.)

The wizard, at 18th level, can take out a couple waves himself, if they come in clumped. But they won't after the first clump; the Knight and Priest are gonna waste him, and quick, and might even survive a fireball.

The spellcasters in 5E are far less dangerous to crowds than equivalent casters in prior editions. Still far more dangerous than a fighter of same level, but no more 20d6 fireballs (it peaks at 14d6, an average of 49 damage - not enough to assure drop a knight's or Veteran's 52 HP). And, unlike AD&D, there's no x10 radius for being outside...

The commoners die pretty easily - 4hp each - but you can't spill over the damage from one to another.

 

[Mouseferatu]

but you can't spill over the damage from one to another.

So far as we know, anyway. The DMG does have combat options.

 

[Sadras]

In 5E, fighters can only take down at most 4-5 NPC's per round, 8-9 in the first couple rounds, plus one with a reaction... but they won't be hitting all the time.

They probably will be, given their + to hit at 18th level with ability improvements, magical items, proficiency bonus and the fact that villagers don't wear plate due to the fact that its difficult to farm in it.

The guards will take 2-3 hits each, maybe more. The knights (with 50HP) need at least 4 hits. (snip) The wizard, at 18th level, can take out a couple waves himself, if they come in clumped. But they won't after the first clump; The spellcasters in 5E are far less dangerous to crowds than equivalent casters in prior editions. Still far more dangerous than a fighter of same level, but no more 20d6 fireballs (it peaks at 14d6, an average of 49 damage - not enough to assure drop a knight's or Veteran's 52 HP). And, unlike AD&D, there's no x10 radius for being outside...

Hmmmm, your table use morale much? You're solely looking at meat points. I'd hate to play with a DM with that mindset of numbers only. Even so your villagers aren't endless and neither are your veterans/knights. You're welcome to test it with your playgroup and report back on it.

However, if they attacked in small groups and attacked a few at a time without giving the high level party time to rest? Especially if they can do so in a place that the party has limited room to manoeuvre... it could easily get unpleasant.

Seriously doubt it. Cantrips scale. Melee swings are auto. So with a party of 4 x 18th level, great so you're losing at least 5-10 villages a round. How many villagers in your village?

I'd probably start such a scenario with a thief attempting to steal their belongings while they slept, then have attacks start in wherever the party are staying. Probably have them send some people into the building to die, barricade it up and set fire to it. Sure, an 18th level party will get out of that, but at a cost in resources.

Very few as stated above, they don't need much to clear out the first clump and take out the minor waves you predict thereafter with at-wills.

Once they escape the building, they will constantly face ambushes by groups of townspeople, most of whom look alike - they won't know if the five attacking them are all commoners or if they have a thug present who can hit a lot harder. The scouts would hide in sniper positions, attacking any time they had line of sight and moving to a new position after.

Yeah, honestly this sounds like a ridiculous scenario and for you to be even considering this as challenging is beyond me. I suggest you try this with your playgroup and let us know how it goes, I think it might prove interesting, but remember in this scenario - villagers are bad people, we are not discussing ethics/morals. So they're bad, kill = good, therefore no remorse.

Now, this isn't going to be a deadly encounter. You would need to include a lot more creatures with better stats than a village would have for that. But it could certainly be made with medium or hard difficulty.

My initial statement spoke of a village and this conversation/debate was about 18TH level PCs fighting a village, if you're adding to it then this conversation/debate is over. But even so, at 18TH level I'd imagine the adventures to be a little more interesting than fighting off mad-crazed villagers - I cry borgasm, loudly! At that level of power (freaking 18TH), I wish to be playing planar-themed adventures, not wasting my time with villagers, tavern drinking competitions and overseeing crops, sorry - that is my preference. I'm not eagerly anticipating THE EPIC LEVEL VILLAGE ADVENTURE from WotC, just saying.

And yes, the party could use one of a number of spells to avoid the encounter entirely. But they could do that with any number of threats, including some deadly ones.

What are you getting at here, I'm missing it entirely?

If the party run away from fighting an entire village, I think that demonstrates that the village has a real possibility to damage them!

I prefer rewarding smart play than playing a game of meat points vs meat points. A test of meat point attrition, in this scenario, is not appealing, IMO.

 

[SilverfireSage]

They probably will be, given their + to hit at 18th level with ability improvements, magical items, proficiency bonus and the fact that villagers don't wear plate due to the fact that its difficult to farm in it.

Hmmmm, your table use morale much? You're solely looking at meat points. I'd hate to play with a DM with that mindset of numbers only. Even so your villagers aren't endless and neither are your veterans/knights. You're welcome to test it with your playgroup and report back on it.



Seriously doubt it. Cantrips scale. Melee swings are auto. So with a party of 4 x 18th level, great so you're losing at least 5-10 villages a round. How many villagers in your village?



Very few as stated above, they don't need much to clear out the first clump and take out the minor waves you predict thereafter with at-wills.



Yeah, honestly this sounds like a ridiculous scenario and for you to be even considering this as challenging is beyond me. I suggest you try this with your playgroup and let us know how it goes, I think it might prove interesting, but remember in this scenario - villagers are bad people, we are not discussing ethics/morals.

Now who's adding things? I think a much more likely scenario would be villagers taken over by some evil being, or people convinced by some outside force of your evil nature (the soldiers following Nazi orders were just normal people after all). Not to mention if we're going to put in a morale mechanic, you should probably put in an exhaustion one too for after the adventurers continue their fight for hours. That aside, I have run a similar scenario with zombies and 15th level characters and the end result was actually rather harrowing. After just a few rounds the characters realized they were being overrun, and quickly retreated. Even slowly depleting resources are still depleting resources and with no time to rest and a lack of places to escape i was surprised how frightened they were of such a weak creature at that level.

Not to mention that a lot of people get bored if the stakes are constantly raised every single adventure, and even more enjoy low magic, interesting encounters.

In summary, I'm not sure if you haven't played the game, or have been playing a very high magic setting, but this type of scenario is very possible and speaks to why those high magic spells are so rare.

 

[Sadras]

Now who's adding things? I think a much more likely scenario would be villagers taken over by some evil being, or people convinced by some outside force of your evil nature (the soldiers following Nazi orders were just normal people after all).

The original poster spoke about nuking a village and then I made the comment. It had nothing to do with morality/ethics so I'm ensuring the goal posts are not being shifted.

Not to mention if we're going to put in a morale mechanic, you should probably put in an exhaustion one too for after the adventurers continue their fight for hours.

How many villagers in your village? Killing 5-10 per 6 seconds does not "hours" make. Morale has been in the game since the early days of D&D, I'm not adding anything new here.

That aside, I have run a similar scenario with zombies and 15th level characters and the end result was actually rather harrowing. After just a few rounds the characters realized they were being overrun, and quickly retreated. Even slowly depleting resources are still depleting resources and with no time to rest and a lack of places to escape i was surprised how frightened they were of such a weak creature at that level.

Interesting. Which edition? Any modifications to the zombies by yourself? What limitations did the PCs have? Did you have a cleric in the party? I feel there is vital information from this exchange we are missing. Not to nitpick but zombies are not villagers - for one they cant be put to sleep, however they can be turned

Not to mention that a lot of people get bored if the stakes are constantly raised every single adventure, and even more enjoy low magic, interesting encounters.

This wasn't the issue in the conversation, so I'm not disagreeing with you on this point.

In summary, I'm not sure if you haven't played the game,

Ridiculous comment.

or have been playing a very high magic setting,

Wrong again.

but this type of scenario is very possible and speaks to why those high magic spells are so rare.

What does this have anything to do with the debate? High magic spells are rare so 18th level characters find villagers challenging? Really? This is the summation of your argument? You sure you want to end with this?

 

[Rod Staffwand]

High-level spells are exceedingly powerful, capable of trumping a whole host of challenges in and of themselves. If casters had, for example, eight high-level spells, a caster can trump virtually every challenge a party faces in an adventuring day. With just two high-level casters the party can easily overkill every challenge in an adventuring day.

To maintain challenge you can either cut down the number of high-level spells per day or weaken the effects of high-level spells to a more manageable level. The designers elected to keep the profound effects of high-level magic while trimming down uses per day.

Did they trim too far? That's obviously debatable. I assume WotC will be polling for class balance and playability issues across all levels as part of their living ruleset scheme. As more 5e players gain experience with high-level play some issues will inevitably come to the surface.

As a gut reaction, I like the new limitations. It forces casters to make choices and pick their priorities. No longer can they be all things in all situations. This is mirrored in the concentration mechanic which prevents them from performing multiple roles in a single encounter.

I also think the effects of high-level magic items cannot be underestimated. True, they aren't a given in 5e, but experience tells me that high-level characters will be awash in pretty swanky gear at high-levels--stuff that will make their strengths stronger and their limitations non-existent. I wouldn't worry too much.

On the subject of villagers Wicker Manning a group of 18th-level heroes...I just don't see it. It's more possible in this edition than any other, but I can't see them seriously threatening characters of that level. Especially after you consider how many villagers would die from the inevitable burning and collapsed buildings and other collateral effects high-level characters would be able to unleash on the poor masses.


Wizard: I'll cast flaming sphere and roll it through these haystacks.
Barbarian: I throw a boulder into that one cottage using my girdle of storm giant strength.
Fighter: I'll land my wyvern mount on this thatched roof here.

Undoubtedly, the party would burn a small to moderate amount of resources, but the end would be a foregone conclusion--and one that would take a tedious amount of game time to play through. It could work, but the DM would need to take special care to keep things moving. I'd much rather stat up 'Mobs' representing 10 or 20 villagers than keep track of 500 or 1000 individual enemies.

 

[Umbran]

I need some help with the logic behind limiting 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells to one per day. On face value it appears this is to combat the quadratic caster. But then the scaling of spells means in high level play you only have up to four spells per day that are effective while the lower level spells are middling.

I admit to ignorance. What limit is Sadrik talking about? Did I miss something?

 

[Scorpio616]

I admit to ignorance. What limit is Sadrik talking about? Did I miss something?

Let me break it down...

On face value it appears this is to combat the quadratic caster.

A quirk some Video Game and Tabletop RPG game systems share is that melee classes are more powerful, versatile or useful at lower levels than casters or magic using classes. However, the trend reverses at higher levels, when the magic users gain a breadth of both versatility and pure power over simplistic hack and slash heroes.
(Follow the link to ruin your life)

But then the scaling of spells means in high level play you only have up to four spells per day that are effective while the lower level spells are middling.

OP was concerned that since spells don't scale, a spell a caster got 5 or 10 levels ago might not have enough power to matter.

 

[Umbran]

Let me break it down...

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

The OP said: "I need some help with the logic behind limiting 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells to one per day."

And I'm asking - where the heck is that limit stipulated? On what page of what book? It sure isn't in the Wizard's spell slots table!

 

[fuindordm]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

The OP said: "I need some help with the logic behind limiting 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells to one per day."

And I'm asking - where the heck is that limit stipulated? On what page of what book? It sure isn't in the Wizard's spell slots table!

The OP was inexact, that's all.

The slot progression tops out at 2 6th, 2 7th, 1 8th, and 1 9th. But you won't see even the 2nd 6th level spell until you reach level 19, so you've got a long stretch in there where you're limited to 1 of each.