| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1JadawinParrAug 22, 2014 11:28:01 | I'm reading through the spells, and it seems like spellcasters are generally weaker compared with 3.5 - at least in the case of wizards so far. For example, a third level spell like Fireball, no longer scales with your level, so at 15th level you are still only doing 8d6. I get that you can take spell in a higher spell slot, but there are so few of those already that I can't imagine that's really efficient. Also, for summoning, most of the spells take a minute to cast, but you end up with a creature much lower than your level. Conjure elemental, for example, you first have access at ninth level and get a CR 5 monster. Conjure minor elemental, you first get at 7th level and at best get a CR 2 monster.
So, was it the intention to weaken spellcasters? Was it felt that there was imbalance between the classes at the higher levels? With no bonus spells from a high intelligence, and the lower number of spells in the higher level spell slots at high levels, wizards had better be pretty good with their daggers, because they're going to be 'bad-fighters' by the third combat. |
| #2CentauriAug 22, 2014 11:39:26 |
|
| #3Thoughts_My_AimAug 22, 2014 11:42:24 | Hmm, my post seems to have been eaten.
Basically, yes the intent was absolutely to make casters weaker. And they're still pretty strong.
And remember that casters all have ways to get spell slots back - Sorcery Points, Arcane Renewal (or something) and ... Being A Warlock. And remember that cantrips are now at-will and quite powerful (Fire Bolt goes from 1D10 to 4D10 damage, which is pretty good for a non-combat class).
But yes, since casters are *supposed* to be balanced against non-casters by the fact that their abilities are more powerful but can be used less often, it does mean that a caster who has used all of their powerful abilities will be less effective than the fighter. Otherwise fighters would just be bad wizards. |
| #4flamepheonix182Aug 22, 2014 11:48:54 |
|
| #5CentauriAug 22, 2014 11:49:32 |
|
| (Reply to #3)JadawinParr |
|
| #7CentauriAug 22, 2014 11:52:23 |
|
| #8JadawinParrAug 22, 2014 11:53:15 |
|
| #9KalaniAug 22, 2014 12:02:23 |
|
| #10Thoughts_My_AimAug 22, 2014 12:05:44 |
|
| #11CentauriAug 22, 2014 12:09:12 | In 3.5 wizards just used wands or scrolls to keep from using up their own spells. Are those not an option in 5? |
| #12TiaNadiezjaAug 22, 2014 12:11:43 | I'll note a few things here:
1. Wizards, clerics, and druids were basically universally considered sufficiently overpowered that other classes might as well not exist in 3.5. Now, there's a lot of metagame debate about whether the best class in the game, at least in combat, is the wizard or the fighter, and the utility spells do a lot less edging the rogue out of contributing in non-combat situations. The metagame is eventually going to settle on a "best" class for various circumstances, but it's clear that the gap betweem has and has-nots had been substantially reduced.
2. The concentration mechanic in 3e actually made spellcasters more powerful, since AD&D casters automatically lost spells if they took damage while casting them.
3. The new wizard is less powerful, true... but I find it far more exciting. Removal magic no longer obsoletes giant blasting spells, so I don't feel like a fool casting fun, flashy evocations. Subclass features let you feel like an interesting, flavorful specialist mage without giving up access to huge subsets of spells. I adore the abjurer, particularly.
4. That one Bard cantrip that does d4s and inflicts disadvantage on attacks makes me smile. I know that's off-topic, but it does. |
| #13TiaNadiezjaAug 22, 2014 12:14:05 |
|
| #14JadawinParrAug 22, 2014 12:24:37 | Thank you to the clear answers from most of you. My question was simply was it an intentional decision to downscale the power of high level casters, which has been answered that it has. So, no, I wasn't kidding. I wanted to know if it was a clear, conscious decision out of the gate to downgrade the firepower of casters. I get that in 3.5 they were definitely more powerful at high levels, but have always been (in the case of wizards any way) quite squishy compared to the other classes, and personally felt that was enough of a downside to off-set the nuclear capabilities of the high level wizard. You are right that having not played the full game yet, I am only looking at this in-theory by way of the spell descriptions.
Cheers. |
| (Reply to #14)Lord_Ventnor |
|
| #16DemoMonkeyAug 22, 2014 12:39:17 | JadawinPar
I think not only has there been a conscious decrease in a Wizards power, but a just-as-conscious decision to "de-squishify" them. d6 hit dice, a reliable ranged attack so they don't have to get in close even at low levels, more forgiving death rules for the squishiest low levels, improvements to Mage Armor, and (as noted above) a couple of different routes to better armour protection.
They are still the glass cannons of the group, but at least they are THICK glass now! |
| #17flamepheonix182Aug 22, 2014 12:48:46 |
|
| #18CentauriAug 22, 2014 12:50:43 |
|
| #19masterfat78Aug 22, 2014 12:53:22 |
|
| #20TiaNadiezjaAug 22, 2014 12:53:32 |
|
| #21CentauriAug 22, 2014 12:58:07 |
|
| (Reply to #21)Ghaliyah |
|
| #23CentauriAug 22, 2014 13:16:43 |
|
| #24KalaniAug 22, 2014 13:27:50 | Magical items are not an assumed part of 5E. You may go your entire adventuring career without even seeing a +1 dagger (although this is an extreme example), and the game runs fine without it.
Unlike in 3.X and 4E, magical items offer an identical benefit at all class levels. Monsters are not scaled in difficulty under an assumption of +X items (only based on CR and proficiency bonus). As such, that +1 dagger will be a +5% Accuracy and +1 damage bonus at all levels. It won't diminish in effectiveness with increasing level.
Scrolls and Potions may be the only magical items which typical spellcasters would have the ability to create - and outside of healing potions even that is not a given. Unlike in 3E-4E, magical items are once again up to DM discretion. You get what you are given, and that is all. If your DM allows you to manufacture magical items (even simple ones) - feel blessed. I expect the vast majority won't.
As the availability of magical items (and more importantly - specific items) are exclusively within DM control (to the point that monsters in the MM lack treasure guidelines) - the community has tried to steer clear of including magical items in our discussions of class balance.
The Fighter sans magical weapons/armor is balanced alongside the wizard sans items as well. This is a departure in class design from what we have seen previously. |
| #25CentauriAug 22, 2014 13:42:00 |
|
| #26ZyphAug 22, 2014 13:49:11 |
|
| #27CentauriAug 22, 2014 13:53:47 |
|
| #28wildefoxAug 22, 2014 14:52:51 |
|
| #29CentauriAug 22, 2014 14:54:51 |
|
| #30MechaPilotAug 22, 2014 15:02:41 | It's also worth noting that you can always re-implement scaling by caster level if you want to. Heck, if you want to you can always just use the 3e spell descriptions. |
| #31ShadewynAug 22, 2014 15:06:48 |
|
| (Reply to #14)Ashrym |
|
| #33CentauriAug 22, 2014 15:30:20 |
|
| (Reply to #33)Ashrym |
|
| #35ZyphAug 22, 2014 15:44:16 |
|
| #36CentauriAug 22, 2014 15:53:22 |
|
| #37DooflegnaAug 22, 2014 15:58:56 |
|
| #38LawolfAug 22, 2014 16:02:53 |
|
| #39CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:09:36 |
|
| #40CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:12:42 |
|
| #41ZyphAug 22, 2014 16:19:20 |
|
| #42DooflegnaAug 22, 2014 16:26:49 |
|
| #43LawolfAug 22, 2014 16:28:21 |
|
| #44CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:35:23 |
|
| #45CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:37:54 |
|
| #46CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:39:15 |
|
| #47DooflegnaAug 22, 2014 16:43:51 |
|
| #48CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:49:18 |
|
| #49DooflegnaAug 22, 2014 16:55:09 |
|
| #50CentauriAug 22, 2014 16:58:08 |
|
| #51setiAug 22, 2014 20:32:04 | I think spellcasters are stronger at low levels now than in 1, 2, or 3e. But weaker at high levels. This is good, IMO.
Aside from HP total, most 5e casters are better than 4e casters in pretty much every way. (And the HP total isn't a big deal, as monsters in 5e also have less HP than monsters in 4e did) 5e Casters very much beat 4e casters in that they have more at-will choices (ie: cantrips) and they have generally better encounter/daily/utility (ie: leveled/slotted spells) spells too.
Clerics can't heal as a minor action anymore, though...So, they aren't quite as good/useful as they were in 4e. A cleric is back to having to choose if it will heal an ally or attack an enemy.
My only issue is that casters have AoE's that do more damage than martial PCs single target attacks. ie: at 5th level, a wizard can cast fireball, auto hitting each target for at least 4d6. 8d6 if they fail thier saves. A 5th level fighter can hit one for 4d6+8 or two monsters for 2d6+4 each (assuming he's got a STR of 18, and is using a greatsword). The fighter has to roll to hit. The fighter might miss. So, you have a game where not only will a wizard always hit, but the wizard can hit more than 1 or 2 bad guys in one round. True, the level 5 wizard can't do this at will, but can do it a couple of times a day. I think focused single target attacks should always do more damage than AoE and DoaM attacks on a per target basis. The rogue can do better than the fighter on single target attacks, with sneak attack...But in TotM combat (the default assumption) it's totally up to the DM if the rogue PC has advantage. True, if another ally is engaged in melee with the target, the rogue can do it. But, that's the only way to trump DM opinion in the matter.
5e is much more balanced (on paper) than 1, 2, or 3e were. And it's less balanced than 4e. 4e nerfed the traditional caster PC, and empowered the traditional martial PC to a point where many thought they were the same. This is, obviously, one of the main criticisms of 4e from the standpoint of those used to the typical D&D way.
I haven't played or DMed 5e enough yet to see how this will work out. I've only used the playtest docs and the Basic PDF. Even with that, just for basic dungeon crawls/delves...Not a true campaign or anything.
|
| #52DLfanAug 22, 2014 20:46:40 | I have not tested them at higher levels but wizards and sorcerers especially seem weaker at the higher levels. Getting 1 spell from levels 7-9 is just pathetic, especially when there are a minimum of 12 spells per level at those high teirs and the wizard will lose out on versatility. Their capstone powers are just garbage and sorcerers get a complete lack of spells known. 15 now vs 36 in 3.5 is just crushing. At least wizards can prepare a weak amount of spells but once again the divine classes rule the day with prepared spells which makes no sense. Yeah, they seem strong at first but their lower level spells do not seem like they will hold up once the characters advance to the higher levels. It will be 15 minute workdays since they cannot recover the spells powerful enough to challenge the major monsters at high level and the spell scaling will be a moot point also. Also the monsters and classes seem to be catered to defeating spellcasters and limiting their options. Legendary monsters autosave against 3 spells of choice. Where is the Auto-AC miss or crit degrade to a normal hit for legendary monsters? It just reinforces the trope of blaster spells untill you are screwed by a legendary monster with evasion or its cousins mettle and force of will which will be no damage on con or will saves respectively. |
| #53DLfanAug 22, 2014 20:45:18 |
|
| #54KalaniAug 22, 2014 21:00:21 |
|
| #55AshrymAug 22, 2014 21:09:23 |
|
| (Reply to #53)seti |
|
| #57LeugrenAug 22, 2014 21:44:38 | One big change that no one has mentioned is the use of the spell preparation mechanic as opposed to a spell memorization mechanic. In 5E, a wizard can prepare a bunch of spells, but they can choose from any of these spells when they decide to expend a spell slot. If the situation calls for x magic missiles in a row, then the wizard can burn all of their spell slots on magic missile as long as they have magic missile prepared. In all versions of D&D prior to 4E, the wizard would have had to memorize x instances of the magic missile spell. The spell preparation mechanic thereby gives wizards a much higher level of versatility, and compensates a lot for the lower number of spell slots (many of which would have been wasted on "just in case" spells in earlier editions of the game). Ritual spells also help to compensate for the lower number of spell slots. I believe that the wizard's main schtick is versatility, not DPR. I suspect that many of those who are complaining about wizards being weak are merely theorycrafting, since they have not actually seen a high-level wizard in action. Until some real testimonials start to roll in from people who are playing high-level wizards, I would reserve judgement. |
| #58RastapopoulosAug 22, 2014 22:30:31 |
|
| #59ZyphAug 23, 2014 13:23:15 |
|
| #60BW0222Aug 25, 2014 22:16:40 | I'll disagree. Sticking with wizards.
First, you don't have static spell slots. You can use any slot, as needed, provided it is sufficiently high level. This means that you don't end up with lots of useless slots as in 3.5, when you encounter something in which the spell is useless against. For example, if you are 9th level and your high level spells are confusion, phantasmal killer, and hold monster... and you come up against an undead filled castle... rather than waste two 4th and your 5th-level spell slots, you can use fireballs or magic missiles against them. The spells will also be cast at much higher levels.
I don't know how many times I ended the night on my mid-to-high level spell casters with lots of empty spell slots or spent precious time on my turn trying to find a spell which would work against the opponent. In 5E, you typically always have some spell which is useful.
Second, a wizard can cast any of the ritual spells in his spellbook given ten minutes. You no longer have to waste spell slots on detect magic, identify, alarm, magic mouth, water breathing, leomund's tiny hut, etc. and other combat spells. Again, more free slots. Many non-combat spells need not be memorized.
Third, you have the ability to bring back some spell slots given an hour's rest.
Forth, cantrips are at will and more damaging. A ray of frost is as good as most weapons. Survival at low-levels is much easier. Most spells are more damaging at their level than in 3.xE.
Fifth, if you multi-class, you combine spell slots. Meaning if you take a level of cleric and prepare cure wounds... you can use all your 'wizard' slots to heal if you need to.
Sixth, the DC for spell saves do scale. In 3.xE, charm person was 10+1+Int. In 5E it is 8+prof+Int where proficiency scales at higher levels. A charm person spell cast by a 17th level wizard is far more likely to succeed than one cast by a 1st-level wizard. I really disliked that in 3.xE all your first level 'save' spells were useless.
Seventh, in 3.x, most spells were level capped. Fireball capped at 10d6. Magic missle at five missiles.
Eight, there are some spells which do scale by level in terms of effects. You can choose to learn and prepare these spells if you want.
Otherall the flexibility of the casting in 5E is far better than spells in 3.xE. IMO, this makes up for the fact that individual spells don't necessarily scale by caster level.
|
| #61EnglishLanguageAug 25, 2014 22:43:04 | Arguably, Bards make one of the best classes in 5e. Good frontline potential, support with their inspirational dice thing, and can bum spells off other class's spell lists, which gets hilariously broken when you're stealing the Paladin's Smite spells about 7 levels earlier than the Paladin gets them. |
| (Reply to #61)GladiusLegis |
|
| #63FallingIcicleAug 26, 2014 4:21:06 |
|
| #64OrzelAug 26, 2014 5:34:10 | The major change of the caster operations is how it functions. In the past, playing a caster was "You have X guesses to correctly choose a win button. At low levels, you have a few guesses, at high levels you have a lot of guess. You might gain bonuses guesses as treasure or maybe craft guesses with money and/or XP". 5e shifted this to "You have 3-5 guesses to win each day since only your highest slots matter. And it is harder to have a good guess ready so rely on your allies for times when your guesses are ill-fitting." |
| #65KalaniAug 26, 2014 9:01:28 |
|
| #66EinlanzerAug 26, 2014 10:20:04 | Editions prior to 4th had a fairly persistent problem with casters (especially wizards) being too weak at low level and too strong at higher levels, with non-casters being the opposite. 4e an now 5e have both attempted to correct that. I think they did a great job in this edition, from preliminary analysis. We'll see what the splatbooks bring! |
| #67DrDragonlanceAug 26, 2014 11:16:40 | I think in addition to Wizards being less powerful, the other side needs to be accounted for as well, which is monsters now have more HPs.
So, its nice that Fireball is now 8d6 for a L5 Wizard, but Ogres went from ~30 HPs to ~50 HPs. Trolls went from ~60 HP to ~80 HPs. It will be interesting to see when the MM comes out, but as of now I'd say Power Word Kill will be the least used spell in the game. A 9th level spell that can kill a C5 mob.
I also think the Concentration mechanic turns all casters to direct damage. When you prepare spells for the day, you will probably only prepare a few spells that would use Concentration. The rest of your spells would probably be Evocation based.
This really bothers me because I liked the utility of the Wizard to aid the party. IE, you can no longer cast Magic Weapon, Enlarge, Stoneskin and Haste on the party.
With Concentration, I would probably use those spell slots for Ice Storm, Fireball and a pair of Level 2 Magic Missiles. |
| #68KalaniAug 26, 2014 11:45:55 |
|
| #69melloredAug 26, 2014 11:47:35 |
|
| #70CentauriAug 26, 2014 12:21:08 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Ashrym |
|
| (Reply to #69)seti |
|
| #73Tony_VargasAug 26, 2014 19:51:02 |
|
| #74ZardnaarAug 26, 2014 20:36:09 |
|
| #75animeusAug 26, 2014 20:42:31 |
|
| #76animeusAug 26, 2014 20:43:46 |
|
| (Reply to #73)Ashrym |
|
| (Reply to #74)Ashrym |
|
| #79KalaniAug 27, 2014 0:24:40 |
|
| (Reply to #79)Ashrym |
|
| #81KalaniAug 27, 2014 10:28:18 |
|
| (Reply to #81)Ashrym |
|
| (Reply to #34)Arbitrary_Aardvark |
|
| #84CentauriAug 28, 2014 14:19:38 |
|
| #85pedro2112Aug 31, 2014 23:35:44 |
|
| #86ZardnaarSep 01, 2014 0:32:04 |
|
| (Reply to #86)Ashrym |
|