Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM Aug 01, 2014 3:30:27	I'm growing worried about a few issues of cantrips vs weapon attacks, but those worries might not be taking everything into consideration. My worry is that a single use of a cantrip is worth far more than a single weapon attack. This comes up with haste, where a caster gets to use a cantrip and noncasters get one extra attack. There is also a feat which let's a caster use a cantrip as an opportunity attack. This might be considerably better than a single attack, and thus be a go to feat for Eldritch Knights. Is there something I'm missing?
#2 JC999 Aug 01, 2014 3:31:44	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#3 TiaNadiezja Aug 01, 2014 3:34:06	Don't Evokers get ability mod to damage on cantrips?   Then again, Evoker gives up piles of utility to be the best blaster around. They ought to be able to match archers.
#4 Psikerlord Aug 01, 2014 4:19:47	You are missing many things OP. Martials will far and away outdamage cantrip damage dealers in 5e. Especially with great weapon master. It's not even close.
#5 Kalani Aug 01, 2014 7:35:53	On the surface, Cantrips do evoke a knee-jerk reaction making one feel they are OP alongside warriors, but with closer observation you will see that this is not the case.   Low level cantrips are slightly weaker than equivalent level weapon attacks, due to the fact they do not add ABL mod to damage, but usually have a small control benefit to compensate. Cantrips frequently deal damage of a commonly resisted type (fire, cold). Damage/Spell resistance halves damage dealt. Being able to cast cantrips "at-will" makes many long-time players nervous, however it gives casters something meaningful and "magical" to do each round. In isolation, high level cantrips deal significantly more damage. However, the damage boost is balanced against the Extra Attacks class feature, and still favors the warrior-type classes.  In addition to Extra Attacks, combat-classes have other class features which provide additional damage spikes at reliable intervals (Fighting style, sneak attack, fighter maneuvers/crit bonuses, paladin smites, etc). IIRC, at 20th level, Fighters can make 8 attacks/round twice/short rest, and 4 attacks/round for every other action. The potential single-target output of such attacks is about 30-40 damage less than the wizards 1/day meteor swarm (the most damaging spell in the game), and is consistent, and repeatable due to bounded accuracy. Due to the reduction in spell slots overall (but esp. higher level spells), high level spellcasters will frequently fall back on their damage-boosted cantrip as their default action in most rounds. Only spells with the swift  tag can be cast during the same round as another spell/attack. While the haste  spell gives the impression it breaks action economy, this is not the case as casters cannot cast multiple cantrips/round, nor can they cast a cantrip alongside another non-swift spell. This was well tested throughout the playtest and was highly praised (the cantrips in the basic rules appear almost identical to those in the final playtest). While I am aware that the 5e mechanics often appear OP on the surface, you must remember that over 150,000 gamers helped playtest this system last year, through 5 major revisions and several minor ones. Not only that, but the dev's listened to our feedback and made changes accordingly....   You should have seen an early example of the maneuver/expertise dice mechanic (it was clunky and shoe-horned into every martial class), or the fact that playtest sorcerers were eldritch knights by any other name (people liked them, but decried they did not feel like sorcerers).    TiaNadiezja wrote:
#6 Lawolf Aug 01, 2014 7:39:22	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#7 mellored Aug 01, 2014 8:02:34	Lawolf wrote:
#8 Mephi1234 Aug 01, 2014 8:11:59	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#9 Kalani Aug 01, 2014 8:33:25	In respect to Mountain Dwarf Enchanters (the most durable wizard to date), I playtested one alongside an Elven Evoker specifically in an attempt to abuse the concept and see if it was in fact, OP. Long story short, it wasn't. Both played very differently however, nor did the enchanter overshadow the warrior-classes, but did offer a welcome meatshield for the squishies in the party.   My dwarf enchanter frequently mixed it up in melee, and as such took about as many successful "melee" attacks as the evoker, thanks in part to their 2nd level tradition benefit. Like the evoker, I took most of my damage from ranged attacks.  The evoker was at +1 attack and Spell DC over my Enchanter thanks to racial benefits, and had 1 more spell known, however I had 1 more 1st level spell slot available, due to his reliance on Mage Armor. While my AC was 1 point better (16 vs 15), the Evoker's Reflex saves were noticably higher (+2) due to stat arrays (I focused on Int/Str/Con to his Int/Dex/Con).  Due to being a melee-centric mage, I rarely used my cantrips as my Battle Axe dealt +2 damage due to Str bonus (I wielded the battle axe 2hand when not casting a spell), however I dealt noticably less damage than the warrior classes, due to them having +1 Attack, and dealing 1-3 damage more/hit. As such, the warriors (fighter, and paladin respectfully) did not feel I was stealing their thunder in any way, unlike the War Cleric. Due to being melee-centric, I memorized fewer concentration spells, and usually cast ranged spells while closing with the enemy (due to disadvantage on attack rolls during melee) We concluded that the dwarf enchanter was not OP, and was comparable with other wizards in respect to the number of hits taken, effectiveness in combat etc. It played very differently in order to exploit its class features, but was ultimately interchangable with other wizards.   With that being said, we had problems with the War Cleric at levels 1-4, as they made the fighter feel obsolete due to their multi-attack domain feature. Even when our Fighter gained maneuvers, he still felt outclassed by the cleric at low levels, and to a lesser extent by the rogue (due to TWF). This was not a problem with the rogue however, as the fighter could have just as easily used TWF rules themselves.   More to the point, this was an issue with the great weapon fighter vs. War Cleric. My general feeling on the issue is that it would have become a non-issue if the War Clerics feature only granted 1 additonal attack/day at levels 1-4, and granted its full benefit at 5th level when the warrior-classes extra attack kicked in.   Regarding Evokers: You must also keep in mind that the evoker damage bonus does not kick in until 10th level. This is a significant delay for such a small (4-5 point) boost in damage output each round. Yes, this damage boost is noticable compared against other wizards, but it pales alongside the benefit from Extra Attacks, let alone other class features - which is a good thing once you factor in damage spikes from spell use. The boost will be helpful in putting down enemies slightly faster than another wizard, but thats the tradeoff.
#10 Sturmunddrang Aug 01, 2014 8:25:22	Cantrip damage is garbage.  It was pretty miserable in the playtest unless you used bogus math in ridiculous sitatutions and compared it to someone at level 20 who managed to get there with no class abilities.  With the nerf in release it's a waste of your action.
#11 Mephi1234 Aug 01, 2014 8:31:40	Cantrips are there for times when you're out of spells and so you don't need to fall back onto throwing darts.     Cantrip abuse isn't a thing anymore.  Though I suspect that we'll get warlock with eldritch blasts who can match archers and melee people in damage, that's an exception more than the rule.
#12 Kalani Aug 01, 2014 8:47:56	The thing is - I am perfectly fine if the Warlock can match an archer in damage. It makes both roles interchangable within a party. The problem is not whether two classes are interchangable, its whether one class can replace another and still bring something else to the table. Warlocks do not gain extra attacks, therefore are likely to be in the same boat as wizards and sorcerers - relying on their encounter/daily spells to ramp up their damage output, while the archer-type falls back on their "extra attacks" and other class features.   Until we see the warlock, its only speculation at this point - but I highly doubt that it will invalidate the archer archetype, but might be interchangable. Having multiple interchangable options is a good thing. It offers variety. While both may be interchangable in that one area, they would likely both bring different things to the table in other areas - the archer likely having reliable damage spikes, and/or wilderness benefits (if we assume ranger), while the warlock brings their non-combat invocations and spells to the table.   I highly doubt the Warlock will be fully interchangable with the Wizard/Sorcerer though. I feel it will be more comparable to the Eldritch Knight, providing welcome (and reliable) blaster damage alongside other benefits - while the wizard/sorcerer will provide frequent (but less reliable) damage spikes, and more powerful effects....But, we will have to wait and see once people start getting their hands on the book next Friday (8th August).    Then again, its highly likely that the warlocks eldritch blast will be of comparable damage to a wizards cantrips, at least in its raw (unmodified) form. Also, if we go under the assumption of 3-6 (4) round combats, I don't see the encounter-based powers overshadowing the daily-use powers of the wizard/sorcerer, as both are likely to use 2-3 such powers in any given combat, relying on their cantrips/eldritch blast for the remainder. While the warlock regains those powers after a short rest, the wizard/sorcerers increased spell slots are comparable over an average day (4 encounters), however more or less encounters will favor the warlock (or sorc/wizard) respectively.
#13 Mephi1234 Aug 01, 2014 9:29:29	Warlocks are kind of the exception when it comes to spellcasting in general.   Wizards, sorcerers, lore bards, clerics, and land druids probably all have cantrips that deal similar damage, and are pretty weaker when it comes to damage when compared to an archer.    Let alone a Hasted archer.
(Reply to #8) Ashrym	Mephi1234 wrote:
#15 Kalani Aug 01, 2014 10:38:59	Mephi1234 wrote:
#16 Mephi1234 Aug 01, 2014 11:14:43	Kalani wrote:
#17 Kalani Aug 01, 2014 11:39:11	It may have been dropped - but it was retained in multiple playtests (including the final playtest), so who knows. Honestly, it wasn't a major issue anyway and in light of the Eldritch Knight, I don't see it being a big problem if the Enchanter retained that ability in the final version. Non-dwarf enchanters are still going to use it as a panic button, or for those times when they decide to cast a melee touch spell.    The fact that Mt. Dwarf enchanters (as per the playtest) simply happen to be a very gish-type spellcaster is not a huge deal..It seems very in keeping with how a dwarf wizard would act to be perfectly honest. Elves have their eldritch knight bladedancers, dwarves have their armored tank wizards. Seems appropriate.    Not only that, but it was thoroughly playtested and was not found imbalancing in the slightest. The only people I see complaining about dwarven mages running around in armor and having their own (racially appropriate) flavour, are those who believe that only elven mages are allowed to run around in armor.   Edit: My only concern is that it encourages melee characters to make a 2-level dip into wizard, then again this would come at the expense of delaying "extra attacks", a major enticement to stay mono-classed (at least for the first 5 levels). Honestly, I dont see it being a major problem. Despite playing a Mt. Dwarf Enchanter at our table, none of the fighter-types wanted to mc-Enchanter, as they saw it a major setback in offensive power, and had other in-class defensive options to supplement their increased HP.   In fact, only two people MC'd at our table. One of the fighters mc'd War Cleric in order to increase their damage output (but later regretted the decision), and I level-dipped rogue for the Expertise ability and minor sneak attack benefits (my enchanter had a guild-thief background so I could fill in as a "rogue" on weeks we were lacking one, so this was not out of character). FYI, we were playing Encounters at our FLGS (drop-in/drop-out), so I see it as comparable to what other groups would have experienced.
(Reply to #15) Overpromises	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #7) Tony_Vargas	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #19) Ashrym	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#21 FallingIcicle Aug 02, 2014 0:37:20	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#22 Xeviat-DM Aug 02, 2014 0:46:30	I'm not worried about on round. I'm worried about Haste and Opportunity Attacks here.   Just looking at a simple Eldritch Knight Fighter, not knowing everything about them mind you, we can safely assume one could have an attack of 1d8+7 in the upper levels (2 from duelist, 5 from ability modifier). A high level cantrip can be 4d10 damage (firebolt) or 4d8 plus something (shocking grasp would be a great choice for the advantage on a hit, ray of frost for the speed reduction). While I think Sentenal will likely be a better first feat for a defender focused Eldritch Knight, Warcaster seems like it's going to be a fairly standard go to. 1d8+7 averages 11.5; 4d8 averages 18.   Opportunity Attacks seem like they'll be weak with weapons, but stronger with cantrips.   As for haste, I did not notice that the recent version specifically says what the extra action can be used for. Thanks for the clarification on that. I'm now imagining a hasted wizard tossing out a dart just because they can.
#23 Prism Aug 02, 2014 2:09:13	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#24 Xeviat-DM Aug 02, 2014 2:27:41	The Alpha Warcaster feat supposidly lets you cast with weapons/shields in your hands. And yes, using a ranged spell would impose disadvantage, unless you had another way to get around that (that seems like I wouldn't be surprised to see). But we're probably going to see chill touch as a cantrip, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more touch-based cantrips.
#25 Prism Aug 02, 2014 2:40:27	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#26 Shroom-Mage Aug 02, 2014 3:34:32	Prism wrote:
#27 Mephi1234 Aug 02, 2014 3:37:33	Overpromises wrote:
#28 Mephi1234 Aug 02, 2014 3:57:12	Shroom-Mage wrote:
#29 Prism Aug 02, 2014 5:41:02	Mephi1234 wrote:
#30 Mephi1234 Aug 02, 2014 5:54:44	EDIT - nevermind, found where I was wrong.
#31 mellored Aug 02, 2014 6:28:06	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#32 Kalani Aug 02, 2014 7:25:11	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#33 BecDeCorbin Aug 02, 2014 8:09:00	What about the ammunition issue? Invokers can cast cantrips all day, while archers are limited by ammunition (in an odd reversal of the standard fighter/wizard balance argument).   A high-level archer goes through 4 arrows per round and can recover 2, time permitting. That's 10 rounds of combat per 20 arrows, which can't be considered much of an adventuring day. The solutions seem problematic:   1. Hey, 1000 arrows only weigh 50 lbs! Just get a backpack full of them! 2. Hire a "caddie" to carry your arrows for you. "Oh, arrow boy, fetch hither another quiver." 3. Handwave the whole issue. High-level heroes never run out of ammo, following the examples of Sir Rambo the First Bloodied and Sir John of Clan McClane. 4. Bag of holding, everful quiver, magic bow of needing no ammo. Probably the default solution, and the most effective. But aren't magic items not assumed in 5E? Shouldn't the concept of a high-level archer be able to work without them? In a low-magic world with few magic items, high-level ranged attackers will, counterintuitively, be invokers (a high-magic class).
(Reply to #33) Ashrym	BecDeCorbin wrote:
#35 grendel111111 Aug 02, 2014 13:55:15	And you can get the mage to carry them for you.
(Reply to #35) Ashrym	grendel111111 wrote:
#37 Tony_Vargas Aug 02, 2014 19:34:10	Ashrym wrote:
(Reply to #37) Ashrym	Tony_Vargas wrote: