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

[Hussar]

As much as I’d prefer to see them get less durability, and let Clerics be priests not full caster Paladins, it’d be pretty simple to just...add Melee cantrips to both classes. In fact, the Druid got one. Just needs one that involves a weapon attack.

Honestly? I think that would go a LONG way towards making me happy.

 

[Ashrym]

Agreed. But, people were saying that the iterative attacks mean that weapon attacks will consistently deal more damage than cantrips. I'm not sure if the math actually agrees with that since, while yes, you do lose all your damage if you miss with a cantrip, the flip side is, you rarely hit with all your attacks. So, if we're going to say that 3 weapon attacks is equal to a 3dX cantrip, then, well, we do have to take that into account.

The math holds up taking probability into consideration. Hitting once out of two attacks before 11th level is still more than the cantrip. Hitting once out of three attacks at 11th level is about two points of damage lower than the cantrip from the sorcerer and higher than most cantrips, and hitting two out of three attacks is a lot more. Alternatively, just don't bother with the -5/+10 against higher AC targets and rely on the higher accuracy from the archery fighting style.

That's not even really pushing damage. Hand crossbow is better after taking crossbow expert and sharpshooter because it enables the bonus action attack I wasn't applying to the regular bow, or bumps the d8's to d10's with a heavy crossbow.

My damage after accuracy took the miss ratio's into account. I was assuming 65% base chance to hit, 75% with archery fighting style, 50% with the sharpshooter damage trade off.

 

[tetrasodium]

Agreed. But, people were saying that the iterative attacks mean that weapon attacks will consistently deal more damage than cantrips. I'm not sure if the math actually agrees with that since, while yes, you do lose all your damage if you miss with a cantrip, the flip side is, you rarely hit with all your attacks. So, if we're going to say that 3 weapon attacks is equal to a 3dX cantrip, then, well, we do have to take that into account.

Are you trying to make a subjective opinion... Or are you bad at math? What you are attempting to claim is a simple matter ofsth not opinion.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, sorry, wasn't thinking about feats. Just straight up damage. Fair enough I suppose. I'll take your word that the math holds up as I'm sure others are far better at calculating this sort of thing than I am. Just an idle thought.

Although, I'm still trying to parse:

is a simple matter ofsth not opinion

But, I think I get the gist.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ah, sorry, wasn't thinking about feats. Just straight up damage. Fair enough I suppose. I'll take your word that the math holds up as I'm sure others are far better at calculating this sort of thing than I am. Just an idle thought.

Although, I'm still trying to parse:



But, I think I get the gist.

Sth = math at 3am on my phone while watching the dog not pee in the grass :

 

[Ashrym]

Ah, sorry, wasn't thinking about feats. Just straight up damage. Fair enough I suppose. I'll take your word that the math holds up as I'm sure others are far better at calculating this sort of thing than I am. Just an idle thought.

It's not as good without feats, lol. The fighter will still average a good bit higher but it can be less noticeable in individual combats given how much swing d20's give.

There's a reason those feats get mentioned a lot. I think even in a featless game I would let fighters and rogues use their bonus ASI's for feats.

 

[pemerton]

double post deleted

 

[pemerton]

The cost of scribing wizard spells only came up in discussion because sorcerers are getting a zero cost version of the wizard's spellbook fully loaded with every spell on their class list with the minor restriction of only being able to swap one spell or cantrip per long rest

I don't see how that can be characterised as a "minor restriction". In most campaigns I think the difference between changing whole load-out overnight and changing one spell overnight would not be minor.

If, in your game, it would be only a minor restriction - eg because you're playing something like Tomb of Horrors in the classic mode - then the easy solution seems to be not to use the optional variant.

wizards are getting an ability to swap one cantrip per level & people said that the wizard cantrip versatility should also be on long rest

<snip>

if other classes are gaining the last thing that only a wizard can be proud of being able to do as a class, then it's only right that the wizard cantrip versatility also be on long rest

the same logic wotc was using to make spell versatility per long rest to account for campaigns that level slowly should be applied to cantrip versatility and cantrip versatility should also be on long rest rather than on level to account for the fact that wizards can also play in those slow leveling campaigns.

So either the logic applied to why sorcerer spell flexibility explicitly including cantrips & being on rest also applies to wizards or wizards don't play in those campaigns.

This doesn't make sense, for the reasons @Ashrym has described.

Spell versatility is a solution to a problem with the real-world pacing of an intended class feature (ie being able to correct/adjust for choices that don't work out). Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem. It's adding a new option.

The suggestion that it's only right seems missplaced to me. This isn't an issue about morality or esteem. It's about design. One is a design correction. The other is a design addition.

 

[Mistwell]

Some spells actually upscale nicely (long duration, increasing area size spells, multiple targets) while others gain value from the DC increase without touching the level. Both DC and scaling up to a higher spell slot can benefit at the same time.

What DC increase?

 

[Leatherhead]

Cantrip versatility is not a solution to any existing problem.

I'm jumping back in to clear something up:

Cantrip Versatility is one of a series of retraining rules that is intended to solve the problem of people not having a by-the-book rule for fixing mistakes or unsatisfactory choices made when they created or leveled up their character.