D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

[Ashrym]

OK, the Sorcerer becomes 15 at 6th level then. (Since you added an ASI at 4th level for the Fighter, I get to do the same for the Sorcerer.)

So ... 21 or 22 vs. 15? Still too close.

At 6th level it's 23 or 24 vs 15 plus better accuracy because the fighter has another ASI to add. Or a feat. Plus battle master maneuvers because we're applying a bloodline.

I understand your opinion that it might not be enough but damage is not something fighters struggle with compared to cantrips. Extra attacks multiplying damage is just better than cantrips adding damage. It's 5e's QFLW subsystem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I understand your opinion that it might not be enough but damage is not something fighters struggle with compared to cantrips. Extra attacks multiplying damage is just better than cantrips adding damage. It's 5e's QFLW subsystem.

Funny.

But, really, cantrip and extra attack are both linear, cantrips just do dice, weapons do a die + mod, they increment at about the same points, if you're comparing weapon use by a 'pure' fighter who keeps getting extra attacks.

Attack bonus also doesn't much figure into it, it progresses at proficiency, the same for weapons or cantrips, while AC tends to also scale with CR in a similar way.

What would a quadratic fighter look like? Well, if you gave a fighter MDDs like in the early playtest, such that every attack did more damage (and some of that could be added in enabled more useful maneuvers, with the list of maneuvers as well as the number of dice increasing) as you leveled, and gave them 5e Extra Attacks, that'd start to look a bit like it.

What would a linear wizard look like?

Level	1st level spell slots	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
1	2
2	2
3		2
4		2
5			2
6			2
7				2
8				2
9					2

etc...


Of course, you'd have a chance to trade in an old known spell for a new one every level (and via scribing, any time he encountered the text of a new spell of the level he casts or lower), so you wouldn't just be up-casting sleep forever (though you could if you wanted).

Also of course, of course, all save bonuses would scale with CR at about the proficiency rate.

 

[Ashrym]

But, really, cantrip and extra attack are both linear, cantrips just do dice, weapons do a die + mod, they increment at about the same points, if you're comparing weapon use by a 'pure' fighter who keeps getting extra attacks.

Extra attack multiplies bonuses. +3 damage on a cantrip is +3*2 damage from extra attack.

With the exception of eldritch blast, all cantrips just add damage. All damage added to weapon attacks is multiplied. At 11th level the ability score bonus is still just added one time while the fighter just tripled bonuses.

QFLW was just a tongue-in-cheek comment but multiplying out stacking bonuses is clearly a lot better than just increasing base damage to match the base weapon damage from multiple attacks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Extra attack multiplies bonuses. +3 damage on a cantrip is +3*2 damage from extra attack.

Not that many casters add to cantrip damage, anyway, do they?

OTOH, all weapon users have a stat to add to damage, so it's still a linear progression either way, the cantrips just tend to start lower and stay lower. If you're talking a d10 firebolt vs a d10 arrow, for instance, with a 20 DEX, the arrow does neatly twice (10.5) as much damage as the firebolt (5.5), on average. If you're comparing 4 arrows (42) vs a single 4d10 firebolt (22), you're still talking about twice the damage.

Now, that's cherry-picked for easy math, but AFAIK, it's how cantrips and extra attack generally relate.

Similarly, both attack AC (which tends to roughly scale with CR at about the same rate as proficiency), both have disadvantage if used in melee, etc. They're quite neatly comparable, and both quite linear, really.

(Sure, feats and magic items and specific sub-class features and whatnot would change that, but feats are optional and items 'not assumed,' so, meh. For that matter MCing, also optional, would impact it differently, the fighter that MC misses out on Extra Attacks, while the caster who MCs sees his cantrips scale exactly the same.)

 

[Arnwolf666]

Very much disagree with this. The scaling of spells led directly to the whole LFQW problems in earlier editions. Not only did your wizard get more powerful spells but most of the spells he cast got more powerful too. Kinda made sense when your wizard only had at the absolute outside, maybe a dozen spell slots per day. But in 5e, where casters have so many slots, allowing each of those slots to also power up on level up is way too much.

I find the upcasting mechanics a very elegant solution. Does it work 100% of the time? Perhaps not, but, it does work most of the time. You want a more powerful effect? Cast the spell at higher level (whether an actually higher level spell or upcasting) .

Personally, I think cantrips might actually level up too quickly. Not so much for wizards, but, for clerics and druids, it turns them both into pew pew casters too often.

Yes and they should stop scaling up sneak attack too. It’s an at will that keeps getting more powerful.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Funny.

But, really, cantrip and extra attack are both linear, cantrips just do dice, weapons do a die + mod, they increment at about the same points, if you're comparing weapon use by a 'pure' fighter who keeps getting extra attacks.

Attack bonus also doesn't much figure into it, it progresses at proficiency, the same for weapons or cantrips, while AC tends to also scale with CR in a similar way.

What would a quadratic fighter look like? Well, if you gave a fighter MDDs like in the early playtest, such that every attack did more damage (and some of that could be added in enabled more useful maneuvers, with the list of maneuvers as well as the number of dice increasing) as you leveled, and gave them 5e Extra Attacks, that'd start to look a bit like it.

What would a linear wizard look like?

Level	1st level spells	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
1	2
2	2
3		2
4		2
5			2
6			2
7				2
8				2
9					2

etc...


Of course, you'd have a chance to trade in an old known spell for a new one every level (and via scribing, any time he encountered the text of a new spell of the level he casts or lower), so you wouldn't just be up-casting sleep forever (though you could if you wanted).

Also of course, of course, all save bonuses would scale with CR at about the proficiency rate.

Yes. This. I would prefer something similar to 13th age then what we have now. This is a good idea.

 

[Ashrym]

Not that many casters add to cantrip damage, anyway, do they?

OTOH, all weapon users have a stat to add to damage, so it's still a linear progression either way, the cantrips just tend to start lower and stay lower. If you're talking a d10 firebolt vs a d10 arrow, for instance, with a 20 DEX, the arrow does neatly twice (10.5) as much damage as the firebolt (5.5), on average. If you're comparing 4 arrows (42) vs a single 4d10 firebolt (22), you're still talking about twice the damage.

Now, that's cherry-picked for easy math, but AFAIK, it's how cantrips and extra attack generally relate.

Similarly, both attack AC (which tends to roughly scale with CR at about the same rate as proficiency), both have disadvantage if used in melee, etc. They're quite neatly comparable, and both quite linear, really.

(Sure, feats and magic items and specific sub-class features and whatnot would change that, but feats are optional and items 'not assumed,' so, meh. For that matter MCing, also optional, would impact it differently, the fighter that MC misses out on Extra Attacks, while the caster who MCs sees his cantrips scale exactly the same.)

You are comparing the cantrip to the weapon and not the extra attack feature.

Cantrips do one, two, three, or eventually 4 dice worth of damage. Then add bonuses. Weapons do damage then add bonus then increase number of attacks. A cantrip would have to add bonus damage to each die to match that effect.

I prefer battle master archers so the arrow pretty typical for me.

At 1st level the difference is d8+3 (7.5) with a +2 bonus to hit from fighting style. A sorcerer can do d10 (5.5) firebolts for less damage with less accuracy. At 2nd level the fighter adds action surge and at 3rd level the sorcerer adds meta-magic while the fighter adds superiority dice. At 4th level they both get an ASI for an equal benefit.

At 5th level firebolt does 2d10 (11) damage. Each arrow does d8+4 (8.5) still with better accuracy (17). The sorcerer has to miss once to do no damage and the fighter has to miss twice to do no damage. Range cut into the damage for the archer compared to melee but the archer has benefits. At 6th level the dragon sorcerer adds +4 from CHA to get 15 and the fighter adds DEX again so the accuracy gap increases and the damage goes to 19. That ASI increased damage twice because of extra attack.

At 8th level the sorcerer can add that second ASI so DEX and CHA sync back up to 20 each. The fighter adds sharpshooter so ranged accuracy is much better, and damage can be increased per weapon attack more. Ignoring the better accuracy and the sorcerer damage goes up to 16 compared to 39 because we've been ignoring accuracy up until now. That's ~10 for the sorcerer and ~19 for the fighter. If the fighter misses once and hits once the fighter would do more damage than the sorcerer hitting every single time.

The next jump is 11th level when firebolt adds d10 and the fighter adds another attack that also adds every bonus. The sorcerer is still hit or miss and the fighter needs to miss 3 times to do no damage. We're up to 21.5 for the sorcerer and 30.5 for the fighter as a base with higher accuracy, That's only adding the ability mod because that's spell caster don't add a lot of bonuses. At this point the sorcerer added it once and the fighter added it 3 times, however, because multiple attacks multiplies it out, as I stated. With accuracy that's ~14 for the sorcerer and ~23 for the fighter.

Adding in the extra feat for sharpshooter spent and accuracy goes down but the fighter still needs 3 misses for no damage. Extra attack means it's not binary hit or miss, similar to save for half spells. That's not something that's noticeable in DPR calc's but it turned out to be noticeable in gameplay, IME. The base on sharpshooter is 58.5 and after accuracy is ~30 DPR. 30 is a boat load more than 14 and the impact of multiplying damage through extra attacks.

It's true that spell casters do not get a lot of bonuses to damage. That's part of the point. Fighters get bonus ASI's and fighting styles to be included in the multiplicative effect while adding bonuses. The comparison above doesn't include the situational benefits of maneuvers, spells, or meta-magic. Or running out of arrows and needing to switch out to weapons, which I've done.

Fighters aren't struggling in this area. Cantrips are just poor damage in the over-all grand scheme of things. If I really want a shine moment I'll action surge, use the sharpshooter damage bonus, and top off precision for a nova. That's not bothering to focus hard. It's standard with a good feat.

NOTE: accuracy is ballparked in all examples because detailed match doesn't significantly impact the illustrated points.

The next key points aren't until 17th level for cantrips and 20th level for another extra attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are comparing the cantrip to the weapon and not the extra attack feature.

Am not:

If you're talking a d10 firebolt vs a d10 arrow, for instance, with a 20 DEX, the arrow does neatly twice (10.5) as much damage as the firebolt (5.5), on average. If you're comparing 4 arrows (42) vs a single 4d10 firebolt (22), you're still talking about twice the damage.

"4 arrows" = "Extra Attack (3)"

Comparing to the weapon would be:

"An arrow does d10, a firebolt does d10. They're the same but for damage type. But the cantrip scales with level to 4d10, while the arrow just sits there, unless someone picks it up and uses it in a bow." ;P

Not what I did.

Cantrips do one, two, three, or eventually 4 dice worth of damage. Then add bonuses.

Often they add no bonuses. I'd consider that prettymuch the standard case, really.

It's true that spell casters do not get a lot of bonuses to damage. That's part of the point.

The point is simply that both cantrips and extra attacks progress additively, not geometrically or 'quadratically.'

Yes, if you trace your way down a linear progression, and divide by the quantity at the origin, it's been multiplied.

The comparison above doesn't include the situational benefits of maneuvers, spells, or meta-magic. Or running out of arrows and needing to switch out to weapons, which I've done.

Of course not, because we're just looking at extra attack, OT1H, and cantrip scaling, OTOH.

Fighters aren't struggling in this area. Cantrips are just poor damage in the over-all grand scheme of things.

Of course, cantrips are poor damage, consistently poor relative to an attacker with a weapon of about the same level, due to extra attack. It's a simple idea: the higher baseline at-will damage of an extra-attacking weapon-user eventually makes up for the greater impact of spells over the hallowed 6-8 encounter day.

The next key points aren't until 17th level for cantrips and 20th level for another extra attack.

Not too important that the third increment comes a tad early for cantrip. Not sure what the rationale was, but, whatever.

 

[Ashrym]

Am not:

"4 arrows" = "Extra Attack (3)"

Comparing to the weapon would be:

"An arrow does d10, a firebolt does d10. They're the same but for damage type. But the cantrip scales with level to 4d10, while the arrow just sits there, unless someone picks it up and uses it in a bow." ;P

Not what I did.


Often they add no bonuses. I'd consider that prettymuch the standard case, really.

The point is simply that both cantrips and extra attacks progress additively, not geometrically or 'quadratically.'

Yes, if you trace your way down a linear progression, and divide by the quantity at the origin, it's been multiplied.

Of course not, because we're just looking at extra attack, OT1H, and cantrip scaling, OTOH.

Of course, cantrips are poor damage, consistently poor relative to an attacker with a weapon of about the same level, due to extra attack. It's a simple idea: the higher baseline at-will damage of an extra-attacking weapon-user eventually makes up for the greater impact of spells over the hallowed 6-8 encounter day.

Not too important that the third increment comes a tad early for cantrip. Not sure what the rationale was, but, whatever.

Lol, the rationale on extra attack was that it's so good getting a 4th is worth the capstone.

The bottom line is still that weapons multiply bonuses and cantrips add them. The bonuses don't actually need to come from class features. Tossing party buffs tends to help that fighter 3 times as often as that single attack cantrip. Multiplying a bonus is not linear progression. Even just the base ability score modifier is additive in the attack action. It's +3 +3 +3 vs +3 +6 +9 looking solely at +3 for the cantrip (the sorc example) and +3 for the weapon attacks as we go from 1 attack to 2 attacks to 3 attacks using a single action.

I think you're taking too much from my joking QFLW comment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lol, the rationale on extra attack was that it's so good getting a 4th is worth the capstone.

Or, maybe that it shouldn't come at the same time as the second Action Surge? I mean, a fair bit of 5e class feature progression is prettymuch just shuffling to avoid dead levels, I guess. (And, I suppose that, since cantrips scaling wasn't put on any class progression chart - it's by character level - is why it's OK to get your 4th cantrip die at 17th, the same as 9th level spells.)
Really just table aesthetics, past a certain point.

The bottom line is still that weapons multiply bonuses and cantrips add them.

Weapons don't multiply bonuses, Extra Attacks do. I get that it's just not 'quadratic,'...

I think you're taking too much from my joking QFLW comment.

(not even jokingly "quadratic"), nor even geometric, it's still a linear progression.

Like the hypothetical, not exactly joking, Linear Wizard, above, who only ever gets 2 slots that just get higher level, and only ever swaps out spells for leveling, learning new ones only when his INT mod goes up.