D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[CapnZapp]

So....not bards and druids and sorcerers?

I probably should have added "such as" or "for example"...

(Yes, bards and Sorcerers too)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

But, again, we have to compare like to like.

Are casters leaving non-casters or half casters in the dust? I don't think so. The non full casters are certainly capable of contributing meaningfully throughout the game at any level.

Gone are the days of CoDzilla where a 4 cleric party was probably the strongest party you could make. Sure, you get a lot more spells and you're not wasting them, but, you still have to remember that the 5e spell lists are minuscule compared to 3e, even core 3e. 3 years after release and casters have what, maybe a hundred spells total per class? That's about it. Compared to the THOUSANDS of spells that were available in 3e if you went beyond core, or, if we stick to core, just shy of 350 spells per class.

Again, I'm really not seeing the big issue here. Do casters get lots of versatility? Sure. That's the draw of playing a caster. But, your cleric is no longer able to drop a couple of spells and out fight the fighter and out blast the wizard. Depending on your domain spells, you might not have a single area of effect damage spell before 4th level as a cleric. And the buffing spells are FAR less effective, particularly when coupled with concentration limitations.

Or, put it another way. You can no longer have the improved invisible, flying wizard vaporizing armies. A double digit full caster in 3e could level a city by him or herself. Those days are gone.

Lots of good examples here.

Bar one: your numerical comparison.

5e spells are often doing double or triple duty, covering effects that required two (or six!) spells in d20.

Your main points still stand, I'm not arguing against you. Just wanted to dispel the notion that a 3e caster was inherently more powerful because the numerical fact she has 300 spells instead of 100.

In fact, getting to cast ANY out of 20 prepared spells covers much more ground than in 3e, where you might have many more spells in total. Point is: in 5e you get to have access to a full 20% of all spells on your list when you need it (in the round you cast a spell).

I can't be bothered to calculate the corresponding ratio for d20, but if we take a level 10 caster who's already used up half his slots for the day, I wouldn't be surprised if his remaining repertoire amounts to just few percentage points of this number 300 (if his remaining slots cover ten spells between them that's 3,33%, just to take an example)

Tldr The number 300 is far less superior to the number 100 than you might think ☺



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Or, put it another way. You can no longer have the improved invisible, flying wizard vaporizing armies. A double digit full caster in 3e could level a city by him or herself. Those days are gone.

You're saying that as if it's a bad thing...?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Mephista]

I also don't see how it applies to Warlock, who are built around the concept of a very few spells with slots that regenerate swiftly in a manner no other casters do.

You don't? If anything the complaint about only one six to nine level spell once a day with limited spell list ONLY applies to the warlock, and a lot of mystic arcanum spells are rather lackluster options. Everyone else can get a second sixth and seventh level spell with larger lists. Huh. Different strokes I guess

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am mocking it, lightly and with humor, because you obviously left out an important subject matter in your post. Instead of playing along, you're being defensive and insulting. You're now making the hyperbolic statement that literally anyone with basic knowledge of 5e should have understood what you meant despite numerous people, who all are quite experienced with 5e, saying they also didn't know what exactly you were referring to.

Dude, just because you forgot the thread title doesn't mean that anyone else has the duty to remind you what the thread topic is before responding to it. I mean, if you just put the thread title in front of LS' response, it makes clear and perfect sense. I get you forgetting the topic - it's a long thread, it's a necro thread, it has had significant topic drift, whatever - but coming back a second time to chastise that LS didn't remind you before responding to the thread topic? No, bad form, you should acknowledge this error was yours, not his.

As for disagreeing with his point, I'm on your side - I rather prefer the new limitations on the high end caster spells. Casters are still the power users of the system at high level, but it's at least close enough that the other classes aren't just the vehicle to deliver the caster payload to encounters, they deliver now as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, again, we have to compare like to like.

Are casters leaving non-casters or half casters in the dust?

Non-casters, what there are of them in 5e, don't even get to be in the dust in some instances, the PH selection of non-casting sub-classes are primarily DPR in combat, and, out of combat, whatever check they have expertise in.

The theory, in as much as there may be one I suppose, is that non-casters give up the flexibility and power of limited-use daily casting in return for higher DPR every single round. Thus the edge they have in at-will DPR, over the course of the day, to equal the edge casters have on every round they use a spell. Thus the improbably long 6-8 encounter day the game expects to provide enough non-casting rounds for the non-casters to pull even by that 6th or 8th encounter.

That'd've been more plausible if there weren't scaling cantrips.

3 years after release and casters have what, maybe a hundred spells total per class? That's about it. Compared to the THOUSANDS of spells that were available in 3e if you went beyond core, or, if we stick to core, just shy of 350 spells per class.

Past a certain point (depending on how tightly designers try to balance things), a bigger list just raises the bar on system mastery. There'll be some best choices and a lot of chaff, system mastery becomes about sorting through the chaff.

IMHO, a hundred spells spread over 9 levels is probably not quite at that point. Two bonus feats or a half dozen maneuvers is certainly nowhere near it...

...but having a hundred spells to sort through to find the best to add to your list of known or prepped spells isn't exactly making life harder on the player who chooses a caster...

Do casters get lots of versatility? Sure. That's the draw of playing a caster. But, your cleric is no longer able to drop a couple of spells and out fight the fighter and out blast the wizard.

There's no longer the crazy buff-layering that made CoDzilla's theoretically better at fighting than fighters (though, really, they were still down feats, even fully buffed, and even minor buffs like cheap potions would bring the fighter back up to par).

Or, put it another way. You can no longer have the improved invisible, flying wizard vaporizing armies. A double digit full caster in 3e could level a city by him or herself. Those days are gone.

A 12th level chain-tripper could blow through armies a lot better than a 5e fighter, too. The extremes are muted across the board, due, as you point out, to just plain less material to powergame with. The game still breaks, still breaks fairly easily, but the pun-puns aren't as funny.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You forgot to mention the pleasure of rituals. No more need to waste half your low level slots on stuff like 'Detect Magic', it just has to be in your book. I mean, admittedly, there's a lot of utility spells that are NOT rituals (truth be told its hard to fathom what the logic was for what they chose) but even so its a nice little perk. Given that even a lot of your level 1 spells can be upleveled to do serious work at high levels, this is really non-trivial.

It is an embarrassment of riches. Yes, I forgot about rituals further reducing the demand on slots.
There's also HD, heal-from-0, and overnight healing all reducing the need for slots put towards healing for the support casters.
Ironically, even the one remaining mild limitation on some specific spells - Concentration - serves to save on wasted slots, since you can't blow multiple (concentration) buffs early in a fight only for it to turn out to be a paper tiger. Of course, standard 5e combats are tuned to be fast, anway, so buff-layering in combat wouldn't be practical, anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

Dude, just because you forgot the thread title...

Just because you're not following along with the discussion doesn't mean the rest of us are not.

We all knew he was discussion something that had to do with why he thought "5e sucks". There was never any doubt about that, and nobody forgot it, you just didn't read the posts you're grousing about now. We were asking specifically what aspects of 5e he was referring to. It was not clear which casters he meant. We totally groked whatever it was, was something he didn't like about 5e, and had something to do with known spells for something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just because you're not following along with the discussion doesn't mean the rest of us are not.

We all knew he was discussion something that had to do with why he thought "5e sucks". There was never any doubt about that, and nobody forgot it, you just didn't read the posts you're grousing about now. We were asking specifically what aspects of 5e he was referring to. It was not clear which casters he meant. We totally groked whatever it was, was something he didn't like about 5e, and had something to do with known spells for something.

You're spinning, now. You didn't ask for clarification on which casters he meant, you portrayed his post as complete gibberish totally unrelated to anything in the thread. Either you're lousy at parody or you forgot the thread topic. I was giving you the less embarrassing explanation, but, if you insist....

 

[Mistwell]

You're spinning, now. You didn't ask for clarification on which casters he meant, you portrayed his post as complete gibberish totally unrelated to anything in the thread.

No, I made a joke. An obvious joke. In no way was it supposed to be taken seriously. It was not spin - I explained what I meant shortly thereafter (copied below).

Either you're lousy at parody or you forgot the thread topic. I was giving you the less embarrassing explanation, but, if you insist....

It might have been a lousy parody (though given you're the first to admit you tend towards high levels of pedantry), but at least you now recognize that's what it was.

The only time I even mentioned what the heck I really meant, I said, "And yes, his comment has something to do with a complaint about 5e, but as his complaint lacks crucial information like...what class he's referring to for instance...it's sort of hard to comprehend what the heck his complaint is actually about. It could be about literally any spell-casting class, but seems specific to just one of them, or perhaps even one subclass of one of them. Or maybe he means all spellcasting classes. Or all full casters. Or Jello."

That's pretty clear to you despite your inability to recognize humor, right? Except the Jello part. Just to be clear, to aid you in particular due to your special needs in this regard, that part was also a joke