Spellcasters

[StabbityRabbit]

Recently I read somewhere that WOtC has replaced the Wizard in D&D Next. Is this true?

I've only been semi paying attention to the playtest, and didn't bother to get the last several packets so I don't really have a way to check myself. It just seems like that would run counter to everything Next is trying to be, and I wanted to be absolutely sure this was true.

[1337 b4k4]

They renamed it, but it's still there

[Fralex]

They now call it the mage class, with Wizardry being a subset of it. I think maybe they were originally going to make other subsets like sorcery and witchcraft, but I don't know anymore since sorcerer is getting its own class now. And good for it, I must say!

EDIT: Actually, based on this Legends and Lore article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140527), it looks like they might've gone back to calling the class "wizard."


[The free Basic D&D PDF] runs from levels 1 to 20 and covers the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard,

[Lokiare]

Recently I read somewhere that WOtC has replaced the Wizard in D&D Next. Is this true?

I've only been semi paying attention to the playtest, and didn't bother to get the last several packets so I don't really have a way to check myself. It just seems like that would run counter to everything Next is trying to be, and I wanted to be absolutely sure this was true.

Yeah, its called Mage now and is a mix between the 3E Wizard and the 3E Sorcerer with the 3E Wizard fluff.

You prepare a number of spells per day equal to your level + 3. Then you pick which spells you use when you cast for each slot you have. So if you have magic missile, sleep, and burning hands prepared and you have 3 spell slots, you can cast magic missile 3 times or magic missile once, sleep once, and burning hands once or you can cast sleep twice and burning hands once or any combination like that. You choose which spell uses which spell slot when you cast the spell like 3E sorcerers.

You can also cast a lower level spell in a higher level slot and some spells get better in higher slots. Spells no longer scale by caster level but only by spell slot level. It still uses the bloated vancian spell chart but its closer to 2E than it is 3E.

[Fralex]

You can also cast a lower level spell in a higher level slot and some spells get better in higher slots. Spells no longer scale by caster level but only by spell slot level.

Well, cantrips do, but cantrips are a bit weird. They have unlimited uses like in 4e, and you can't cast them in higher slots like the other spell levels.

Can I just say how much I appreciate the fact that apart from cantrips, spells now scale with spell slots rather than level? I'm currently playing a 3.5e game after playing almost exclusively 5e for months, and the difference is huge. It's so much simpler to, rather than having 5 different versions of the Cure spell with only varying amounts of dice-rolling depending on the spell level PLUS another number depending on the caster level, just have one first-level spell called Cure Wounds and say that if you spend a higher-level slot to cast it, it takes on the qualities of a higher-level Cure spell. Keeping two definitions of "level" in my head whenever I'm casting a spell was a little confusing for me!

[StabbityRabbit]

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly WOtC briefly tried shoving all arcane casters into one, but went back to the original three classes method. If so that's different from what I read which was saying that wizards were now mages and the fluff was changed from:
"Guy who stared at books for so long that reality took pity, and let him have his fun."
to:
"Guy who was born magical and studied to control his inborn talent."

On an unrelated note that new system for spellcasting actually reads pretty cool.

[INDYSTAR188]

Do the spells feel overpowered? Are there any game breaking ones?

[HylianKnight]

Nope, they changed it back months ago, there just wasn't another play-test document to reflect it. https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130930

In the final play testing packet, they tried to go back to how it was pre-3rd Edition and called them the Mage. The idea being what with a generic name like Mage, they could then create additional classes like Sorcerer and Warlock which were essentially just about alternate spell-casting mechanics, and make them subclasses. So you see in the play-testing document that you can make a Mage who 'chooses' (the only play-test option) Wizardry at level 1.

Feedback was overall against this change, so they went back to having individual Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes for the upcoming PHB.


Do the spells feel overpowered? Are there any game breaking ones?

I haven't actually played the new edition, but having read up on some of the new edition I do know they've taken steps to not make the power gap quite so absurd. For example, in 3rd a Wizard's Fireball spell got more powerful as he leveled. Now that's still the case, but instead of making it automatic, a Wizard has to cast it at a higher level to get the boost (they also have flexible spell casting now, ala the 3E Sorcerer). They've also greatly expanded the Concentration mechanic on spells so that most buffs and battlefield control spells require concentration (i.e. can only have 1 at a time). So you can cast Haste on the party, or hold all the enemies in black tentacles, but not both.

Other campaign wrecking spells have been boosted in level to reflect their outsized impact (Teleport is now 7th level).

[Sartharina]

Well, cantrips do, but cantrips are a bit weird. They have unlimited uses like in 4e, and you can't cast them in higher slots like the other spell levels.

Can I just say how much I appreciate the fact that apart from cantrips, spells now scale with spell slots rather than level? I'm currently playing a 3.5e game after playing almost exclusively 5e for months, and the difference is huge. It's so much simpler to, rather than having 5 different versions of the Cure spell with only varying amounts of dice-rolling depending on the spell level PLUS another number depending on the caster level, just have one first-level spell called Cure Wounds and say that if you spend a higher-level slot to cast it, it takes on the qualities of a higher-level Cure spell. Keeping two definitions of "level" in my head whenever I'm casting a spell was a little confusing for me!

I am actually annoyed that spells scale with Spell Slot rather than Character (Not Caster) level - There aren't enough high-level spell slots to let a spellcaster's lower-level prepared spells keep up with HP scaling, and gish spellcasting gets hampered just as bad as it was in 3e. When I get a spell, I'd like it to be useful and worthwhile at all levels of play.

[captpike]

I am actually annoyed that spells scale with Spell Slot rather than Character (Not Caster) level - There aren't enough high-level spell slots to let a spellcaster's lower-level prepared spells keep up with HP scaling, and gish spellcasting gets hampered just as bad as it was in 3e. When I get a spell, I'd like it to be useful and worthwhile at all levels of play.

I know this will be weird, but I agree, spells should scale with your level.

there are better ways to balance casters then having the spells be binary. you use them and are awesome, or you don't and are useless.

[Fralex]

I am actually annoyed that spells scale with Spell Slot rather than Character (Not Caster) level - There aren't enough high-level spell slots to let a spellcaster's lower-level prepared spells keep up with HP scaling, and gish spellcasting gets hampered just as bad as it was in 3e. When I get a spell, I'd like it to be useful and worthwhile at all levels of play.

Hmm, that's a good point. I didn't notice because I never tried any high level characters. So your problem is that the lower-level spell slots aren't as useful at higher levels? I guess that is a good reason to scale with level. But I wonder if there's a way to solve that without adding another variable...

I mean, I guess the spell save DC and such already scales thanks to proficiency, so they get better in one respect... but maybe proficiency should also add to things like damage? Or is that too much?

[Sartharina]

I'm not sure. I'd have to look over the spells again. But the 1 die/level scales terribly, given that HP scales at over twice that.

Then again, others require sticking within a class to maintain damage increases with level... which might be a problem.

[Fralex]

What if you could, as you leveled up, gain "spell expertise" with the lower-level slots? Make your effective proficiency bonus doubled for the purposes of casting those spells, to make up for their lower power with better accuracy?

[Townopolis]

For blasting spells, maybe some improvement to low-level spells for high-level casters is warranted.

Other types of spells, though, easily maintain their effectiveness at higher levels due to your save DCs already scaling up. While, at lower levels, a wizard will prefer to use their level 1 slots for Sleep and then find that that spell loses its shine as enemy HP pools increase, Cause Fear doesn't care about HP. Cause Fear is just save-or-suck, and I haven't found monster saves to scale particularly aggressively (meaning save-or-suck spells actually get better as you level up, even when cast in lower-level spell slots). Thus, a debuffer/controller wizard will simply change their prepared spells in response to monster progression and be fine as-is.

For blasting, though, I can see a potential problem. I also took a look at the evocation school benefits and the only one that really helps with this particular issue is overchannel, which is of limited use. I cannot speak to gish builds, as I don't usually play, run, or encounter them.

[Pex]

I look forward to my fighter wielding a greatsword doing 2d6 dawizard. Later I'll play an illusionist and cast Silent Iwizard.

[pwykersotz]

I'm not sure. I'd have to look over the spells again. But the 1 die/level scales terribly, given that HP scales at over twice that.

Then again, others require sticking within a class to maintain damage increases with level... which might be a problem.

Does melee scale at a similar rate? Due to bounded accuracy, it might very well be intended design that HP scales beyond damage dealing capacity, since the chance of hitting is now much more likely. As an alternate thought, maybe they're trying to make Wizards burst DPS, unable to sustain, but capable of blasting quickly and powerfully, whereas melee is better sustained DPS. Low level spell slots could still be used for buffs and control, right?

[D-naras]

I thought that spell slots scale with level, but you dont gain access to new spells unless you gain level in a spellcasting class. Therefore, a multiclass wizard10/fightes 10 still has 1 9 th spell slot but knows spells up to 5th so he can afford to increase the power of his lower level spells. Correct me if I am wrong of course.

[da_chicken]

Yes, that is correct if I'm reading you right.

[Lokiare]

Do the spells feel overpowered? Are there any game breaking ones?

There are many spells that are save or die or save or suck that are extremely overpowered. Overpowered isn't the right word. Swingy is a better word. Hold person/monster can turn a boss fight into a joke or have almost no effect. If it sticks for 2-5 rounds it can make a boss fight a cake walk. If it only lasts a round or two then it might not do anything at all, and the caster might have been better off with a different spell.

Then there are all around over powered spells like grease that work against anything that can't fly or stinking cloud/cloud kill/incendiary cloud that work too well in some situations. Like when cast into a room and then have the fighter stand in the doorway and full defense until everything in the room is dead since the spells last for 10 minutes.

Then there's the vancian system itself that makes something that seems relatively balanced on its own become insanely overpowered when you can cast 6 of them in a row like the druids flame weapon spell.

[da_chicken]

Then there's the vancian system itself that makes something that seems relatively balanced on its own become insanely overpowered when you can cast 6 of them in a row like the druids flame weapon spell.

That doesn't do anything. The spell requires concentration. Subsequent castings just overwrite the previous one. And it would take 3 rounds to cast 6 anyways. And it also gives you an attack with the same bonus as a non-magical weapon, and has no ability bonus on the damage roll. You're essentially getting the damage of a greatsword. The spell could be summon greatsword and it would be about the same. The at 3rd level the Fighter is going to have +4 to hit for 2d6+3 damage. You're doing +4 to hit for 3d6 damage. You're at +0.5 damage. And the Fighter either deals 3 damage on a miss or is at +1 to hit. If he has a magic weapon, he's way ahead. The spell is there to deal fire damage and allow low Str druids to deal damage, like always.

[Pex]

There are many spells that are save or die or save or suck that are extremely overpowered. Overpowered isn't the right word. Swingy is a better word. Hold person/monster can turn a boss fight into a joke or have almost no effect. If it sticks for 2-5 rounds it can make a boss fight a cake walk. If it only lasts a round or two then it might not do anything at all, and the caster might have been better off with a different spell.

Then there are all around over powered spells like grease that work against anything that can't fly or stinking cloud/cloud kill/incendiary cloud that work too well in some situations. Like when cast into a room and then have the fighter stand in the doorway and full defense until everything in the room is dead since the spells last for 10 minutes.

Then there's the vancian system itself that makes something that seems relatively balanced on its own become insanely overpowered when you can cast 6 of them in a row like the druids flame weapon spell.

Oh noes! A spellcaster's spells are actually useful and do stuff to make combat easier, especially with tactics. How dare they!

[captpike]

Oh noes! A spellcaster's spells are actually useful and do stuff to make combat easier, especially with tactics. How dare they!

using a spell in the most direct way possible is not tactics.

nor should ONLY the spellcaster be able to do that.

[INDYSTAR188]

Oh noes! A spellcaster's spells are actually useful and do stuff to make combat easier, especially with tactics. How dare they!

I thought that the level of 'useful' a spellcasters spells propelled him to compared to the level of 'useful' for a melee characters attack options was the commonly acknowledged problem with the older systems? Are you honestly saying that the spells you've seen are not useful or powerful enough in 5E? I don't know very much about the system and am honestly curious as to your viewpoint. From what I've read they seem reasonable and viable with a lot of flexibility while not completely neutering the whole party.

EDIT: I understand you were being sarcastic, I'm genuienly curious what the Playgrounds consensus is on spellcaster vs melee power.

[Lokiare]

That doesn't do anything. The spell requires concentration. Subsequent castings just overwrite the previous one. And it would take 3 rounds to cast 6 anyways. And it also gives you an attack with the same bonus as a non-magical weapon, and has no ability bonus on the damage roll. You're essentially getting the damage of a greatsword. The spell could be summon greatsword and it would be about the same. The at 3rd level the Fighter is going to have +4 to hit for 2d6+3 damage. You're doing +4 to hit for 3d6 damage. You're at +0.5 damage. And the Fighter either deals 3 damage on a miss or is at +1 to hit. If he has a magic weapon, he's way ahead. The spell is there to deal fire damage and allow low Str druids to deal damage, like always.

Consecutively and at higher level spell slots. Its literally the most damaging spell in the game, especially if combined with haste.


I thought that the level of 'useful' a spellcasters spells propelled him to compared to the level of 'useful' for a melee characters attack options was the commonly acknowledged problem with the older systems? Are you honestly saying that the spells you've seen are not useful or powerful enough in 5E? I don't know very much about the system and am honestly curious as to your viewpoint. From what I've read they seem reasonable and viable with a lot of flexibility while not completely neutering the whole party.

EDIT: I understand you were being sarcastic, I'm genuienly curious what the Playgrounds consensus is on spellcaster vs melee power.

Its not as bad as 3E where you could randomly pick a game breaking spell "Wait, if I combine teleport with contingency..." but its worse than 4E where game breaking spells only exist in extreme optimization combos.

[INDYSTAR188]

Its not as bad as 3E where you could randomly pick a game breaking spell "Wait, if I combine teleport with contingency..." but its worse than 4E where game breaking spells only exist in extreme optimization combos.

In your opinion are there plenty of useful things for a spellcaster to do? Blast, control, utility, illusion? I mean, is the magic available viable and flexible?

[Lokiare]

In your opinion is there plenty of useful things for a spellcaster to do? Blast, control, utility, illusion? I mean the magic available is viable and flexible right?

Not anymore or less than 4E and 3E. The difference is mainly that 5E relies on DM interpretation for effects a lot more than 4E or even 3E. You'll see stuff like:

Player "I cast burning hands on the kobold invader that is in our inn room."

DM1 "You catch him in it as well as your bed, your curtains and the nice flammable wooden walls of the room and start a very large fire."

DM2 "It yelps in pain as you burn it to ash. Your companions wake up and ask what that flash was."

DM3 "The spell is larger than the room so it backlashes and not only hits the kobold but everyone else in the room and starts every burnable surface on fire."

Whereas in 4E the rules of spells are very clear and in 3E though they are wordy, they are also much clearer.

[INDYSTAR188]

Not anymore or less than 4E and 3E. The difference is mainly that 5E relies on DM interpretation for effects a lot more than 4E or even 3E. You'll see stuff like:

Player "I cast burning hands on the kobold invader that is in our inn room."

DM1 "You catch him in it as well as your bed, your curtains and the nice flammable wooden walls of the room and start a very large fire."

DM2 "It yelps in pain as you burn it to ash. Your companions wake up and ask what that flash was."

DM3 "The spell is larger than the room so it backlashes and not only hits the kobold but everyone else in the room and starts every burnable surface on fire."

Whereas in 4E the rules of spells are very clear and in 3E though they are wordy, they are also much clearer.

Do you think that was a conscious decision by WotC? I think you're making the point that this could lead to a lot of discussion about what exactly RAW vs in-play looks like. Maybe the player could state their intent and the DM could then judicate based on some reasonable interpretation? I mean I do this with skill checks all the time.

I read that there are rituals in NEXT, how exactly do they work? Casters get cantrips to use AW, their spell slots, and then rituals that take ~5 minutes or more to cast?

[captpike]

Do you think that was a conscious decision by WotC? I think you're making the point that this could lead to a lot of discussion about what exactly RAW vs in-play looks like. Maybe the player could state their intent and the DM could then judicate based on some reasonable interpretation? I mean I do this with skill checks all the time.

I read that there are rituals in NEXT, how exactly do they work? Casters get cantrips to use AW, their spell slots, and then rituals that take ~5 minutes or more to cast?

the problem is that with RAW this unclear there will be classes that at some tables are all but unplayable (say a fire wizard who sets everything on fire, and nearly TPKs everyone all the time) or at some tables are too powerful (the fire wizard only hits those he wants too, and he sets them on fire).

they need to have the rules more defined then they are for the rules to be useful.

[INDYSTAR188]

the problem is that with RAW this unclear there will be classes that at some tables are all but unplayable (say a fire wizard who sets everything on fire, and nearly TPKs everyone all the time) or at some tables are too powerful (the fire wizard only hits those he wants too, and he sets them on fire).

they need to have the rules more defined then they are for the rules to be useful.

You guys are making a great point. I wonder if that will be the case when the official material is released? Or maybe some guidance in one of the main books about spell powers and how exactly they're meant to work. I'm pretty excited for this edition from what I've read but I'm afraid there might be a ton of issues and then WotC is going to have to issue a bunch of errata which I find a pain in the butt to look up. There were hardly any times in 3E where I felt my non-caster character was really useful and in 4E I always knew (more or less) exactly what a power/spell was going to do but it wasn't very flexible so I REALLY hope they get this issue corrected.

[Pex]

It's not the spellcasters' fault the warriors suck so bad in (name your edition you hate so much and can't help yourselves from bashing every chance the opportunity arises) . By all means improve the warrior lot by allowing them to do many wonderful things, but it is not a requirement for spells to be prevented from doing wonderful things themselves. Using Stinking Cloud to take out a room while the warrior stands guard outside the door to chop any who try to escape is a good idea, a tactic to be encouraged not condemned. May the next room allow for the warrior to barge in and hack everyone inside to pieces with nary a scratch to himself while perhaps the spellcaster casts a minor spell that does piddly damage but enough to mop up a survivor or two of the warrior's rampage.

[INDYSTAR188]

It's not the spellcasters' fault the warriors suck so bad in (name your edition you hate so much and can't help yourselves from bashing every chance the opportunity arises) . By all means improve the warrior lot by allowing them to do many wonderful things, but it is not a requirement for spells to be prevented from doing wonderful things themselves. Using Stinking Cloud to take out a room while the warrior stands guard outside the door to chop any who try to escape is a good idea, a tactic to be encouraged not condemned. May the next room allow for the warrior to barge in and hack everyone inside to pieces with nary a scratch to himself while perhaps the spellcaster casts a minor spell that does piddly damage but enough to mop up a survivor or two of the warrior's rampage.

Honestly, I've had a really great time playing all the editions of DnD I've come across. I have nothing but warm, fuzzies for 3X and 4E. I think it would be the game designers fault that melee types get nerfed by spells, not any players. I don't think there's anything wrong with this situation described (having the spell and a meat shield forcing the baddies to stay put) that sounds like a solid game strategy to me. It's precisely situations like that that make DnD so much fun in my opinion. I think it's my job as the DM to enable the players fun and creativity while providing them a challenge. What I don't think is fun is when one player at the table *always* has an automatic win button while the other folks twiddle their thumbs.



Not anymore or less than 4E and 3E. The difference is mainly that 5E relies on DM interpretation for effects a lot more than 4E or even 3E. You'll see stuff like:

Player "I cast burning hands on the kobold invader that is in our inn room."

DM1 "You catch him in it as well as your bed, your curtains and the nice flammable wooden walls of the room and start a very large fire."

DM2 "It yelps in pain as you burn it to ash. Your companions wake up and ask what that flash was."

DM3 "The spell is larger than the room so it backlashes and not only hits the kobold but everyone else in the room and starts every burnable surface on fire."


How do you feel about the spells listed in NEXT? Do they seem useful and powerful enough to be considered well designed. What's your opinion on the issue Lokaire brought up (the quoted text above)?

[captpike]

It's not the spellcasters' fault the warriors suck so bad in (name your edition you hate so much and can't help yourselves from bashing every chance the opportunity arises) . By all means improve the warrior lot by allowing them to do many wonderful things, but it is not a requirement for spells to be prevented from doing wonderful things themselves. Using Stinking Cloud to take out a room while the warrior stands guard outside the door to chop any who try to escape is a good idea, a tactic to be encouraged not condemned. May the next room allow for the warrior to barge in and hack everyone inside to pieces with nary a scratch to himself while perhaps the spellcaster casts a minor spell that does piddly damage but enough to mop up a survivor or two of the warrior's rampage.

that kind of thinking leads to games where the wizard uses magic in all the important fights, and the fighter is only useful in cases where it makes no difference, or where the wizard could easily win the fight, but decides its beneath him to do so.

when I play a fighter I want to be just as important to the group as the wizard, I don't want to be the guy that mops up after someone else, or who only matters when the fight is so unimportant that its not worth a wizard's spell.

and of course if you really try to bring fighters up to 3e T1 then you would just cause more issues with people who like 3e.
the kind of power you would need to give fighters to catch up to wizards would be obscene. jump a mile, or punch a mountain apart obscene.
they would have to be able to do things that roughly have the power of the spells the wizard has access to. so a level 10 fighter would have to be able to do things that are on par with a level 5 spell. a level 20 fighter a level 9 spell ect.
for example fighters could punch the ground with the same damage as a fireball?

[da_chicken]

Consecutively and at higher level spell slots.

Irrelevant. How to Play.pdf, p28, column two, the first boldface item is under the list of actions that interferes with concentration is "Casting another spell that requires concentration." Earlier in the same column, it says "If you lose concentration, such a spell [requiring concentration] ends." You cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Then you cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Your concentration on your first casting ends and therefore the spell immediately ends. It doesn't matter what spell level you're talking about.


Its literally the most damaging spell in the game, especially if combined with haste.

If this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140127) is right, you will have to choose between casting flame blade and using your haste action the round you cast flame blade.

OK, so at level 20, a Druid can use his only 9th level spell to get 600 consecutive rounds where his attack is +11 for 10d6 (35) fire damage, 10d6 + 60 (95) on a crit. During which time, he cannot use any other spell requiring concentration and you'll have to make Con saves whenever the DM thinks you should or lose the spell. With haste, that's three attacks. Against AC 22 opponents, you're doing about ( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.45 ) * 3 = 61.5 damage a round.

A level 20 Fighter with a +3 greatsword is at +14 to attack and 2d6+8 (15) slashing damage, 2d6+28 (35) on a crit. The Fighter, however, gets five attacks with haste. Oh, we forgot the Warrior path. Let's take the math easy approach and say we're critfishers. So we crit on 18-20. Oh, and when we miss, we still deal 5 damage from Combat Style. Against the same AC 22 opponents, you're doing (35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.50 + 5 * 0.35) * 5 = 72.5 damage a round.

Well, AC 22 seems awfully high. Let's try something easier. How about AC 13. Now the Druid hits on a 2.

( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.90 ) * 3 = 108.75 damage a round

(35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.80 + 5 * 0.05) * 5 = 87.5 damage a round

Oh, the Druid is ahead now. Well.... I'll just skip to the end and show you the chart:


ACFighter DPRDruid DPR
1387.50108.75
1487.50103.50
1587.5098.25
1687.5093.00
1785.0087.75
1882.5082.50
1980.0077.25
2077.5072.00
2175.0066.75
2272.5061.50
2370.0056.25
2467.5051.00
2565.0045.75


Conclusion: If the Druid needs to roll at least an 8 or better to hit, his 9th level spell has made him worse than a Fighter. So, sure, a Druid can choose to spend a 9th level spell to out-damage a Fighter. Technically. Sometimes.

[INDYSTAR188]

Well thought out and reasoned argument

I like to think that whatever spellcasters might lose in total damage vs melee types evens out because they get so many more options in what they can do due to the use of spells (keep in mind I haven't gotten to read the playtest, just the NEXT spells list (http://community.wizards.com/forum/playtest-packet-discussion/threads/3939111) someone organized by level and by class).

I think that's a pretty fair trade but I hope melee types have a lot more options than just "I attack 5 times".

[captpike]

I like to think that whatever spellcasters might lose in total damage vs melee types evens out because they get so many more options in what they can do due to the use of spells (keep in mind I haven't gotten to read the playtest, just the NEXT spells list (http://community.wizards.com/forum/playtest-packet-discussion/threads/3939111) someone organized by level and by class).

I think that's a pretty fair trade but I hope melee types have a lot more options than just "I attack 5 times".

and of course damage is the least efficient thing that high level wizards can do.

[da_chicken]

I like to think that whatever spellcasters might lose in total damage vs melee types evens out because they get so many more options in what they can do due to the use of spells (keep in mind I haven't gotten to read the playtest, just the NEXT spells list (http://community.wizards.com/forum/playtest-packet-discussion/threads/3939111) someone organized by level and by class).

I think that's a pretty fair trade but I hope melee types have a lot more options than just "I attack 5 times".

If you pick something other than the critfisher, you do. Pretty much the primary damage dealing mechanism is the Attack action regardless of what Path you take, however.

[Pex]

that kind of thinking leads to games where the wizard uses magic in all the important fights, and the fighter is only useful in cases where it makes no difference, or where the wizard could easily win the fight, but decides its beneath him to do so.

when I play a fighter I want to be just as important to the group as the wizard, I don't want to be the guy that mops up after someone else, or who only matters when the fight is so unimportant that its not worth a wizard's spell.

and of course if you really try to bring fighters up to 3e T1 then you would just cause more issues with people who like 3e.
the kind of power you would need to give fighters to catch up to wizards would be obscene. jump a mile, or punch a mountain apart obscene.
they would have to be able to do things that roughly have the power of the spells the wizard has access to. so a level 10 fighter would have to be able to do things that are on par with a level 5 spell. a level 20 fighter a level 9 spell ect.
for example fighters could punch the ground with the same damage as a fireball?

Warriors do not have to do the same thing as spellcasters. What they need to do is cool stuff all their own. It would be appropriate for a warrior, at some level, to have an inherent vorpal ability regardless of weapon used. It starts at Natural 20, eventually lowering to Natural 17, and maybe 15 with a feat. There can be a saving throw. The rogue has evasion. The fighter gets mettle. The warrior's number of attacks is not limited by how far he moves. It would take a couple of rounds, but he can punch through a Wall of Force, maybe one round on a critical hit. However, the warrior not being able to teleport or fly on his own while the spellcaster can is not a tragedy of majestic proportions. The spellcaster is entitled to unique powerful things of his own.

[captpike]

Warriors do not have to do the same thing as spellcasters. What they need to do is cool stuff all their own. It would be appropriate for a warrior, at some level, to have an inherent vorpal ability regardless of weapon used. It starts at Natural 20, eventually lowering to Natural 17, and maybe 15 with a feat. There can be a saving throw. The rogue has evasion. The fighter gets mettle. The warrior's number of attacks is not limited by how far he moves. It would take a couple of rounds, but he can punch through a Wall of Force, maybe one round on a critical hit. However, the warrior not being able to teleport or fly on his own while the spellcaster can is not a tragedy of majestic proportions. The spellcaster is entitled to unique powerful things of his own.

sure, but if you wanted to bring them up to T1 his cool things would have to be on par with spells the wizard would get. meaning more then just attacking more, or having evasion.

ideally also adjust the game so the cool things they can do can not be done by magic.

[Lokiare]

It's not the spellcasters' fault the warriors suck so bad in (name your edition you hate so much and can't help yourselves from bashing every chance the opportunity arises) . By all means improve the warrior lot by allowing them to do many wonderful things, but it is not a requirement for spells to be prevented from doing wonderful things themselves. Using Stinking Cloud to take out a room while the warrior stands guard outside the door to chop any who try to escape is a good idea, a tactic to be encouraged not condemned. May the next room allow for the warrior to barge in and hack everyone inside to pieces with nary a scratch to himself while perhaps the spellcaster casts a minor spell that does piddly damage but enough to mop up a survivor or two of the warrior's rampage.

This is what they are thinking when they design this kind of stuff. What actually happens is what the other poster said shortly after this. The casters begin to take out encounters by themselves and only let the non-casters have fun when its beneath them or they are feeling sorry for them. This problem is especially prevalent with the vancian casting system in 5E which is made even more powerful by the sorcerer like choice at cast time feature. By mid level casters generally have enough spell slots to cast 1-3 daily spells per encounter. When all it takes is a single slightly clever spell use to end an encounter that becomes a problem. It stops being 'can I end this encounter with a spell' and ends up being 'how should I stop this encounter with a spell'.


You guys are making a great point. I wonder if that will be the case when the official material is released? Or maybe some guidance in one of the main books about spell powers and how exactly they're meant to work. I'm pretty excited for this edition from what I've read but I'm afraid there might be a ton of issues and then WotC is going to have to issue a bunch of errata which I find a pain in the butt to look up. There were hardly any times in 3E where I felt my non-caster character was really useful and in 4E I always knew (more or less) exactly what a power/spell was going to do but it wasn't very flexible so I REALLY hope they get this issue corrected.

I have a feeling the entire D&D crew will be laid off the moment 5E releases, but that's just me.


Irrelevant. How to Play.pdf, p28, column two, the first boldface item is under the list of actions that interferes with concentration is "Casting another spell that requires concentration." Earlier in the same column, it says "If you lose concentration, such a spell [requiring concentration] ends." You cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Then you cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Your concentration on your first casting ends and therefore the spell immediately ends. It doesn't matter what spell level you're talking about.

Yes, and I decently armored Druid (enhanced with a feat or multiclassing) has a really small chance of being hit at low level. They also have ways to dart in and out of combat so they won't be hit. Except that unless you are fighting a horde of monsters its likely that your concentration will be maintained since this runs into the double roll problem. First the druid has to get hit. Lets say that's a 40% chance. Then the druid has to fail a DC 10 (the example in the play test packet) Constitution save. Lets say they dumped constitution and have a +0 bonus. That means they have a 55% chance. So overall there is around a 22% chance any given attack will interrupt their concentration. The number of attack attempts needed to break concentration:



Attack attempt
Chance of losing concentration


1
39.16%


2
52.54%


3
62.98%



4

71.12%



5

77.48%



6
82.43%




So there is a good chance that they will maintain concentration for a while, that's if they are even targeted or don't have anything else interfering like blur or mirror image.


If this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140127) is right, you will have to choose between casting flame blade and using your haste action the round you cast flame blade.

Unless they change the wording of flame blade, this article doesn't change a thing. You still get your extra attack when hasted.


OK, so at level 20, a Druid can use his only 9th level spell to get 600 consecutive rounds where his attack is +11 for 10d6 (35) fire damage, 10d6 + 60 (95) on a crit. During which time, he cannot use any other spell requiring concentration and you'll have to make Con saves whenever the DM thinks you should or lose the spell. With haste, that's three attacks. Against AC 22 opponents, you're doing about ( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.45 ) * 3 = 61.5 damage a round.

A level 20 Fighter with a +3 greatsword is at +14 to attack and 2d6+8 (15) slashing damage, 2d6+28 (35) on a crit. The Fighter, however, gets five attacks with haste. Oh, we forgot the Warrior path. Let's take the math easy approach and say we're critfishers. So we crit on 18-20. Oh, and when we miss, we still deal 5 damage from Combat Style. Against the same AC 22 opponents, you're doing (35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.50 + 5 * 0.35) * 5 = 72.5 damage a round.

Well, AC 22 seems awfully high. Let's try something easier. How about AC 13. Now the Druid hits on a 2.

( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.90 ) * 3 = 108.75 damage a round

(35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.80 + 5 * 0.05) * 5 = 87.5 damage a round

Oh, the Druid is ahead now. Well.... I'll just skip to the end and show you the chart:



AC
Fighter DPR
Druid DPR


13
87.50
108.75


14
87.50
103.50


15
87.50
98.25


16
87.50
93.00


17
85.00
87.75


18
82.50
82.50


19
80.00
77.25


20
77.50
72.00


21
75.00
66.75


22
72.50
61.50


23
70.00
56.25


24
67.50
51.00


25
65.00
45.75



Conclusion: If the Druid needs to roll at least an 8 or better to hit, his 9th level spell has made him worse than a Fighter. So, sure, a Druid can choose to spend a 9th level spell to out-damage a Fighter. Technically. Sometimes.

Assuming your math is correct (I haven't checked it myself), the druid still comes out ahead most of the time since AC doesn't go up with monster level, the average AC is around 15. There's a pretty good chance a hasted Druid will out damage a fighter over the course of a battle. You also aren't counting in wasted damage. Any excess damage over a creatures hp max is worthless. If the fighter can deal 2000 damage per hit and the druid can only deal 100 per hit and the target has 12 hp, then they are about equal on DPS. So the Druid can use low level spell slots for flame blade for low level enemies, then they can use their high level slots for high level enemies. The fighter doesn't have that option. Thanks for proving me correct.

[da_chicken]

Yes, and I decently armored Druid (enhanced with a feat or multiclassing) has a really small chance of being hit at low level. They also have ways to dart in and out of combat so they won't be hit. Except that unless you are fighting a horde of monsters its likely that your concentration will be maintained since this runs into the double roll problem. First the druid has to get hit. Lets say that's a 40% chance. Then the druid has to fail a DC 10 (the example in the play test packet) Constitution save.

Making Con saves due to distractions is under the third heading. It's restricted to "Suffering severe distrations". Casting another spell contains no such caveat. It says:


Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose your concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells [at] once.

It doesn't say "you might lose it" or "you can lose it". Severe distractions says "can". Casting another spell says, "you lose it". You don't get a die roll. You simply can't concentrate on two spells at once. I don't see how they can make it any clearer than that. If you're hit by a giant wave, sure, you can roll a Con save. Concentrate on two spells at once? No, you can't do it. No "can". No "may". No die rolls. Concentration is just lost.

I mean, unless you're also suggesting that the second boldface item (i.e., losing consciousness) also allows you to make saves to maintain concentration. It uses the same language: "You lose your concentration on a spell if you are stunned or knocked unconscious" vs "You lose your concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration".


Unless they change the wording of flame blade, this article doesn't change a thing. You still get your extra attack when hasted.

Swift spells are bonus actions. Haste grants an extra attack as a bonus action. Thus, you can't use your bonus action (for you only ever get one per round) to cast a swift spell and make an extra attack.


Assuming your math is correct (I haven't checked it myself), the druid still comes out ahead most of the time since AC doesn't go up with monster level, the average AC is around 15. There's a pretty good chance a hasted Druid will out damage a fighter over the course of a battle. You also aren't counting in wasted damage. Any excess damage over a creatures hp max is worthless. If the fighter can deal 2000 damage per hit and the druid can only deal 100 per hit and the target has 12 hp, then they are about equal on DPS. So the Druid can use low level spell slots for flame blade for low level enemies, then they can use their high level slots for high level enemies. The fighter doesn't have that option. Thanks for proving me correct.

Your point was that flame blade was "the most damaging spell in the game". My point was that in many cases, the Fighter can still out-damage flame blade, even when it's cast at maximum power and with the benefit of haste. Thus, if flame blade is the most damaging spell in the game, and Fighters can keep up with it, then you're not saying a whole lot about game balance like you intimated.

[1337 b4k4]

So there is a good chance that they will maintain concentration for a while, that's if they are even targeted or don't have anything else interfering like blur or mirror image.

...

Unless they change the wording of flame blade, this article doesn't change a thing. You still get your extra attack when hasted.


I think his point was, you can't have two ongoing concentration spells at once. If you cast another concentration spell, the first one ends.

[Envyus]

I have a feeling the entire D&D crew will be laid off the moment 5E releases, but that's just me.


It is just you this is not going to happen. I would say there is a 0% chance of this happening. Seriously tell me why you dislike this D&D team so much because you say they give you the right to be as pessimistic as possible and I would like to know why.

[da_chicken]

Irrelevant. How to Play.pdf, p28, column two, the first boldface item is under the list of actions that interferes with concentration is "Casting another spell that requires concentration." Earlier in the same column, it says "If you lose concentration, such a spell [requiring concentration] ends." You cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Then you cast flame blade, a spell which requires concentration. Your concentration on your first casting ends and therefore the spell immediately ends. It doesn't matter what spell level you're talking about.



If this (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140127) is right, you will have to choose between casting flame blade and using your haste action the round you cast flame blade.

OK, so at level 20, a Druid can use his only 9th level spell to get 600 consecutive rounds where his attack is +11 for 10d6 (35) fire damage, 10d6 + 60 (95) on a crit. During which time, he cannot use any other spell requiring concentration and you'll have to make Con saves whenever the DM thinks you should or lose the spell. With haste, that's three attacks. Against AC 22 opponents, you're doing about ( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.45 ) * 3 = 61.5 damage a round.

A level 20 Fighter with a +3 greatsword is at +14 to attack and 2d6+8 (15) slashing damage, 2d6+28 (35) on a crit. The Fighter, however, gets five attacks with haste. Oh, we forgot the Warrior path. Let's take the math easy approach and say we're critfishers. So we crit on 18-20. Oh, and when we miss, we still deal 5 damage from Combat Style. Against the same AC 22 opponents, you're doing (35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.50 + 5 * 0.35) * 5 = 72.5 damage a round.

Well, AC 22 seems awfully high. Let's try something easier. How about AC 13. Now the Druid hits on a 2.

( 95 * 0.05 + 35 * 0.90 ) * 3 = 108.75 damage a round

(35 * 0.15 + 15 * 0.80 + 5 * 0.05) * 5 = 87.5 damage a round

Oh, the Druid is ahead now. Well.... I'll just skip to the end and show you the chart:


ACFighter DPRDruid DPR
1387.50108.75
1487.50103.50
1587.5098.25
1687.5093.00
1785.0087.75
1882.5082.50
1980.0077.25
2077.5072.00
2175.0066.75
2272.5061.50
2370.0056.25
2467.5051.00
2565.0045.75


Conclusion: If the Druid needs to roll at least an 8 or better to hit, his 9th level spell has made him worse than a Fighter. So, sure, a Druid can choose to spend a 9th level spell to out-damage a Fighter. Technically. Sometimes.

Just a note that the above math is wrong. Crits are max plus a single die not max plus another full roll, so the Fighters crit is 20 + 1d6 (23.5) and the Druids crit is 60 + 1d6 (63.5). This reduces damage overall for both characters, although a critfisher would probably select a Great Axe instead of a sword since his crits add 1d12 instead of 1d6. Bottom line is the Fighter doesn't come out ahead until AC 20. I am not counting Great Weapon Master feat because the bonus attack granted by that feat and the bonus attack from haste likely do not stack in 5e final. I'm curious how well Power Attack-like ability works out, but I'm waiting for final before I really look at that.

[da_chicken]

It is just you this is not going to happen. I would say there is a 0% chance of this happening. Seriously tell me why you dislike this D&D team so much because you say they give you the right to be as pessimistic as possible and I would like to know why.

If we look historically, it has a very high chance of happening. I would argue it's unlikely to happen in the first 2-3 years because the staff size is already very small, but as soon as WotC decides to go a different direction with the game they're likely to change designers completely. It happened, IIRC, within a year after 4e was released mainly because the team size developing that game was so large. But the 3e team, 3.5 team, 4e team, and 4.5e team all largely got laid off as much as or more than they quit, AFAIK.

If WotC weren't owned by Hasbro it would be far less likely, but when you have a megacorp full of MBA bean counters continually monitoring your bottom line, you can't keep a full team of developers on staff. Yes, it hurts the game. Yes, it's really stupid. Yes, it's exactly how Paizo got to be where they are (WotC's major competitor). Business managers aren't concerned about where the game will be in 4 years, and they're not interested in new creations. They're concerned about getting their area in the black this quarter to get a bonus, and the easy way to do that is cut costs (#1 cost of business is always staff) and sell product you already own (where do you think the "Premium" 1e/2e/3e handbooks came from?).

On the plus side, it means WotC will likely always be in business because developers won't steer the company off a development cliff. On the down side, it means their games will never be as good as they really could be because the developers have less control.

[Envyus]

If we look historically, it has a very high chance of happening. I would argue it's unlikely to happen in the first 2-3 years because the staff size is already very small, but as soon as WotC decides to go a different direction with the game they're likely to change designers completely. It happened, IIRC, within a year after 4e was released mainly because the team size developing that game was so large. But the 3e team, 3.5 team, 4e team, and 4.5e team all largely got laid off as much as or more than they quit, AFAIK.

Oh two or three years is possible for sure. But he said they would be fired the moment it came out and we know that's not going to happen.

[Lokiare]

I think his point was, you can't have two ongoing concentration spells at once. If you cast another concentration spell, the first one ends.

That wasn't my issue. Of course they would end when they cast another concentration spell. That's obvious. I'm talking about casting it again when you fail your concentration check and using it nearly every round of every fight to out damage the fighter.


Oh two or three years is possible for sure. But he said they would be fired the moment it came out and we know that's not going to happen.

You need to look at WotC history. The majority of developers got laid of right after 4E released. They did this because they hire on a bunch of people right before the release of a new edition and then let them go once the majority of the work load is done. Its basically standard procedure.

In the case of 5E Hasbro talked a while back about WotC making a kind of 'evergreen' D&D that would sit on shelves like Monopoly, never changing. If they decide the D&D side of WotC is too expensive and not bringing in enough money (like they did with 4E) their policy is to lay everyone off or move them to other departments and shelve the IP. I'm just looking at the facts and realizing the most likely scenario.

Of course 5E could be a smashing success and become a house hold game and I would be wrong, but once again the facts are against it. The 2nd largest fan base of a D&D product (4E, coming in second to Pathfinder) is just not interested in playing 5E. That indicates it will make less than or equal to the money that 3E made. With Pathfinder out there though coming from a company that knows how to please its customers paints an even grimmer picture. Its more likely 5E will capture a fragment of the 3E fan base a few from each other edition and a handful of new players. No where near what it would need to have to be considered a success.

[pwykersotz]

Of course 5E could be a smashing success and become a house hold game and I would be wrong, but once again the facts are against it. The 2nd largest fan base of a D&D product (4E, coming in second to Pathfinder) is just not interested in playing 5E. That indicates it will make less than or equal to the money that 3E made. With Pathfinder out there though coming from a company that knows how to please its customers paints an even grimmer picture. Its more likely 5E will capture a fragment of the 3E fan base a few from each other edition and a handful of new players. No where near what it would need to have to be considered a success.

I'm curious what you're basing your assertions on. Outside the boards, every 4e and Pathfinder player I know is eagerly awaiting 5e. Are you considering other posts on forums to be a larger indicator, or is there some other study I'm not aware of?

[Lokiare]

I'm curious what you're basing your assertions on. Outside the boards, every 4e and Pathfinder player I know is eagerly awaiting 5e. Are you considering other posts on forums to be a larger indicator, or is there some other study I'm not aware of?

I've read posts from quite a few forums including but not limited to EnWorld, WotC, Paizo, GiantITP, and a few others I can't recall at this moment. There are a few players from each edition that say they will like the game, but for the most part I don't see a lot of support and I see a lot of people saying they won't play 5E as anything more than a one off adventure on occasion.

Its also important to remember that Hasbro wouldn't consider it a success unless it got every player from 4E and 3E and 2E and 1E and some new ones. So if it fails to capture even a fragment of a single editions fans, it could be deemed a failure.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm curious what you're basing your assertions on. Outside the boards, every 4e and Pathfinder player I know is eagerly awaiting 5e. Are you considering other posts on forums to be a larger indicator, or is there some other study I'm not aware of?

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really get us anywhere. The closest I could find is this Enworld poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353452-how-many-5e-supporters-are-upset-about-the-possible-50-price-tag), which suggests that 46% is interested in 5E, 46% is uneasy or unsure about it, and 8% is firmly opposed. Note that Enworld's audience tends to focus on new products in general, so if you hold the same poll on the (mostly 4E-focused) WOTC forums, or the (mostly 3E-focused) GiantItp forums, then you'll likely get other results.

[pwykersotz]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really get us anywhere. The closest I could find is this Enworld poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353452-how-many-5e-supporters-are-upset-about-the-possible-50-price-tag), which suggests that 46% is interested in 5E, 46% is uneasy or unsure about it, and 8% is firmly opposed. Note that Enworld's audience tends to focus on new products in general, so if you hold the same poll on the (mostly 4E-focused) WOTC forums, or the (mostly 3E-focused) GiantItp forums, then you'll likely get other results.

Completely agreed. That's why I was curious if there was a study. Thanks for the link. :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

Completely agreed. That's why I was curious if there was a study. Thanks for the link. :smallsmile:

Another poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353521-Are-you-ready-for-a-new-edition-of-D-amp-D) shows 64% clearly in favor of "a new edition" and 19% clearly opposed.

In other news, a poll of resident Kurald Galains shows that 100% of them agree with me. :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

I am actually annoyed that spells scale with Spell Slot rather than Character (Not Caster) level - There aren't enough high-level spell slots to let a spellcaster's lower-level prepared spells keep up with HP scaling, and gish spellcasting gets hampered just as bad as it was in 3e. When I get a spell, I'd like it to be useful and worthwhile at all levels of play.

+1

I hate non-scaling and poorly scaled spells/powers/abilities/Feats/etc. It usually leads to pointless duplication, worthless low-level slots, and/or spells/whatever that are only useful at a certain class level. I was hoping that they'd use something closer to a true Vancian caster (as in, like the magic users in the Dying Earth books by Jack Vance) where you could memorize a 4-10ish spells, but each spell was awesome and scaled fully so that it was always worthwhile if used in the proper context. I do not need or want 200+ core Wizard spells to choose from, and having that many options for any one class is inherently unbalanced.



Do the spells feel overpowered? Are there any game breaking ones?

I haven't seen any truly game breaking spells like Polymorph or Gate. But Tiers exist is 5E, and spellcasters are once again on the top of the list. They get more resources then other classes, can cover a wider variety of niches/roles, and a single spell can often determine the outcome of an encounter. Having said that, they've taken steps to try and tone casters down and to elevate non-casters. Casters get fewer spells, the Concentration requirement for ongoing spells makes CoDzilla buffing and the action advantage from Summoning somewhat less of an issue, they've made a serious attempt to try and make spells more balanced, and they've made attempts to give non-casters interesting abilities.



Of course 5E could be a smashing success and become a house hold game and I would be wrong, but once again the facts are against it. The 2nd largest fan base of a D&D product (4E, coming in second to Pathfinder) is just not interested in playing 5E. That indicates it will make less than or equal to the money that 3E made. With Pathfinder out there though coming from a company that knows how to please its customers paints an even grimmer picture. Its more likely 5E will capture a fragment of the 3E fan base a few from each other edition and a handful of new players. No where near what it would need to have to be considered a success.

So 5E is going to make millions of dollars. It is a new edition of a well recognized brand, will get plenty of friendly support from Penny Arcade and Wil Wheaton and many other similar nerd culture websites, game and comic store owners will stock their shelves with it, and plenty of people are curious about it. So the initial sales will be strong, and every 2-3 years they'll come out with another half edition (3.5, Essentials) or entirely new edition (I'm looking forward to 6E in 2020), because they make the most money from the rapid edition churning. The real question is whether or not Hasbro is happy with millions of dollars, or will they insist that D&D make $50 million+ a year, which is what they wanted from 4E. $50 million+ a year without the support of a branded supporting video game, cartoon, movie, and a robust worthwhile subscription service seems ludicrous.

[Lokiare]

+1

I hate non-scaling and poorly scaled spells/powers/abilities/Feats/etc. It usually leads to pointless duplication, worthless low-level slots, and/or spells/whatever that are only useful at a certain class level. I was hoping that they'd use something closer to a true Vancian caster (as in, like the magic users in the Dying Earth books by Jack Vance) where you could memorize a 4-10ish spells, but each spell was awesome and scaled fully so that it was always worthwhile if used in the proper context. I do not need or want 200+ core Wizard spells to choose from, and having that many options for any one class is inherently unbalanced.




I haven't seen any truly game breaking spells like Polymorph or Gate. But Tiers exist is 5E, and spellcasters are once again on the top of the list. They get more resources then other classes, can cover a wider variety of niches/roles, and a single spell can often determine the outcome of an encounter. Having said that, they've taken steps to try and tone casters down and to elevate non-casters. Casters get fewer spells, the Concentration requirement for ongoing spells makes CoDzilla buffing and the action advantage from Summoning somewhat less of an issue, they've made a serious attempt to try and make spells more balanced, and they've made attempts to give non-casters interesting abilities.




So 5E is going to make millions of dollars. It is a new edition of a well recognized brand, will get plenty of friendly support from Penny Arcade and Wil Wheaton and many other similar nerd culture websites, game and comic store owners will stock their shelves with it, and plenty of people are curious about it. So the initial sales will be strong, and every 2-3 years they'll come out with another half edition (3.5, Essentials) or entirely new edition (I'm looking forward to 6E in 2020), because they make the most money from the rapid edition churning. The real question is whether or not Hasbro is happy with millions of dollars, or will they insist that D&D make $50 million+ a year, which is what they wanted from 4E. $50 million+ a year without the support of a branded supporting video game, cartoon, movie, and a robust worthwhile subscription service seems ludicrous.

They toned down the spells a bit, its not 3E broken bad, but its not anywhere near 4E balanced either (which was not perfect balance to start with). There are still spells at 1st level that can destroy high level encounters like fear or grease. There are low level spells that deal more damage over the course of several rounds than high level spells do in one round (flaming sphere vs. fireball for instance). Saving throws don't get better but the casters DC goes up as they level so fear or grease actually become more powerful as you level rather than less. There are summoning spells like Animate Dead that bypass the concentration limit and allow multiple summons at the same time and since AC doesn't scale you end up with the army of peasants taking out the dragon syndrome, where the 1st and 2nd level zombies and skeletons the caster creates can combined take out mid to high level enemies even if most of them are destroyed in the process. At which point the caster just makes more.

I would say 5E magic is about 80% as broken as 3E and about 20% as balanced as 4E.

Yeah, the real question is what does Hasbro consider worthwhile to keep and the answer is probably more than 5E will make.