Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Awesomeocalypse Jul 08, 2014 14:35:05	Now that (most of) the rules are out, how do you think casters in this edition stack up to their counterparts in prior editions? Does it seem like there a substantial gulf in power between casters and non-casters at high levels?   Looking it over, my personal reaction is that casters seem significantly toned down compared to 3.x (the epitome of caster dominance), but I can't quite determine how they'll stack up compared to, say, 2e or AD&D (4e feels tough to compare to, because its execution overall was very different).   On the "Casters are fairly reigned in in this edition" side:   -On a spell by spell basis, at first blush most of the "problem" spells from prior editions seem to have been reigned in significantly. Save or Die now generally just deals damage, and usually in line what you'd expect from an equal level fighter. Save or suck spells tend to allow saves either every round, or on very common triggers (like dominate person offering a save every time the target takes damage), or else they take a while to take effect and can be disrupted in the meantime. They also tend to have shorter durations than prior editions and/or require concentration. Even a lot of the utility spells seem reigned in--Teleport is now a 7th level spell (there is no Teleport without error in basic, and if the full rules have it we can assume it'll be 8th or 9th level), with a significant chance of error any time you teleport somewhere not well known, meaning Scry+Teleport risks huge damage to the caster and party and isn't something to be done lightly. Knock makes a massive crash that means it'll frequently be a poor choice in any sort of hostile territory.   -The fact that spell power is largely dependent on slot level rather than caster level really limits the extent to which low level spells "scale up" by default. That is, a wizard in prior editions will find their magic missiles and fireballs getting progressively much stronger as they go up in levels, while still only ever using their original low level slots. In 5e, these spells start out quite potent, but they don't scale up in power all that well unless you opt to spend higher level slots on them, which precludes casting some higher level spells.   -Slots feel pretty limited at most levels. Cantrips mitigate this by making sure the Wizard can always contribute on some level, but a Wizard's arsenal of higher level prepared spells never reaches the point it often did in prior editions where he can cast prepared spells all day with little fear of running out. Spell slots feel like a genuinely limited resource, which I like. This is offset to some extent by the improved versatility of the Next system, since any prepared spell can be assigned to any slot of high enough level on the fly, rather than being forced to assign slots at the start of the day. But I still feel like overall this is a tradeoff that reigns in casters somewhat. In 3.x for example, preparing a bevy of utility spells in your lower level slots came at basically zero opportunity cost for higher level mages, and rendered many other classes irrelevant. In Next, preparing utility spells is easier than ever, but actually casting them draws upon a much more limited pool of slots, and therefore presents a larger tradeoff for the caster.   -The concentration mechanic not only limits a caster's ability to stack buffs (or debuffs, or summons, etc.), the fact that concentration breaks on damage without a successful con save (and no casters are proficient in con saves by default) means that it is generally much better for casters to apply buffs to allies than to themselves, which reduces chances of spotlight hogging and incentivizes teamwork. Similarly, it means that any caster (PC or NPC) who locks down an enemy with a conctration-based debuff or crowd control spell becomes massive priority target, and if players (or monsters) are smart they can easily break the concentration and end the spell.   On the "Casters may still be really strong" side:   -The fact that only proficient saves keep up with rising caster DC's suggests the 3.x dynamic may be at work, where characters effectively get worse at resisting many spells as they go up in level. OTOH, this may be offset by a few factors, namely:   Many classes get other mechanics to help with saves once they hit certain levels, whether new proficiencies, stat bumps, advantage on saves, etc.   Monster math isn't necessarily tied to the same progressions as PC math ala 3.x. That is, just because an optimized PC spellcaster might have a really high spell save DC at high levels doesn't necessarily mean monsters and enemy NPCs will have save DC's that high. Similarly, monster saves can be set at whatever value produces the best result in play. Given this, it may be that in practice this isn't a big issue...but it does strike me as a red flag, and something that could easily end up going awry if handled badly.   -Increased caster versatility via cantrips, freeform use of slots, and rituals. Honestly, I don't think this is a huge issue. Cantrips do enough damage that casters can always contribute somewhat, but they aren't outshining the damage output from fighters or rogues...and with the much more limited number of slots, having some way for wizards to contribute beyond using prepared spells seems reasonable. The freeform use of slots is probably the biggest, but it carries the inherent tradeoff of spells not scaling up much on their own except when cast with higher level slots. Rituals right now seem very limited, with only a very small number of spells having the option.   Overall, I'm feeling pretty positive about it. I'm someone who loves the traditional D&D style wizard, but really didn't like how out of hand the class got in the 3.x/Pathfinder era. I appreciated that 4e offered a more balanced version, but it also didn't feel much like a traditional D&D wizard to me. This seems to hit a nice balance of being a mostly Vancian caster with a spell list containing all the old classic spells from prior editions, but executed in such a way that it seems far less likely than the 3.x/Pathfinder version to totally overshadow the rest of the party.
#2 Saelorn Jul 08, 2014 15:05:05	Yeah, that about sums it about. Good job.
#3 Tony_Vargas Jul 08, 2014 15:06:57	Awesomeocalypse wrote:
#4 Alex_ Jul 08, 2014 17:19:32	At low levels, 5E casters look fine.  I didn't have a chance to work with higher level casters, but with the Concentration mechanic, nerfed spells, and fewer spell slots, they look alright.       I would (among other things) like to see a caster that can select a fixed spell-list, like the Sorcerer and it's many derivitives in 3E.  I think that this would largely reign in the issue many have with a Wizard or Cleric being able to choose one suite of spells today, and a totally different one the next day.  It would lock them down in a "style" of sorts the same way that Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, Monks, and other classes do and make it easier for the DM to take into account their capabilities.