5E Power Curve

[Firechanter]

Hello Playground,

So far I've just glanced through the available 5E material, but so far my impression is that the power curve will be very shallow, at least for mundanes (haven't touched spellcasting at all yet so no comment from me here).
Are we dealing with the lowest-powered D&D ever?

- Stats appear to be much more limited. It seems to be impossible to start with a score greater than 17 in anything, and that's gonna be expensive. Also, they don't seem to increase at all with level, so the only way to get a larger score seems to be by way of items. Also, it seems to be pointless to start with an odd score in anything, since items seem to overwrite instead of increase your natural score.

- Proficiency Bonus: so I've accumulated half a million XP and all it does for my To Hit is a +5 advantage over level 1?

- Magic Weapons / Armour: seem to be very limited; few sample items give more than +1, and so far I haven't found any that goes higher than +2. Also, there's no WBL anymore, so basically the game claims to be playable completely without items.

This is going to be especially interesting when we compare mooks to highlevel characters. AC seems to cap at 20-ish. Any level 1 Warrior can have a +3 To Hit, not counting Advantage situations or anything. So... does that mean that any random bunch of level 1 town guards can be serious trouble even for a level 20 hero (or villain)? Not to mention a horde of 60 generic Hobgoblins with crossbows?

And what if that Dragon decides to harrass a town... I don't see anything in the way of Damage Reduction there, so does that mean any retarded town militia can pepper the dragon to kingdom come with a few arrow volleys? Then what do you need Dragonslayers for?

If this is the case, and I didn't overlook anything important: not cool. For me, D&D has always been the game of larger-than-life heroes, who (at higher levels) can wade through hordes of mooks with relative impunity. And conversely, the game where it _takes_ a hero to deal with highlevel threats, which are impervious to the efforts of regular mortals.

Very weird if you ask me.

Compare that to older editions... okay, 3.5 is probably the absolute peak of D&D Powerlevel, where AC easily climbs beyond 40 in a low-op game, and Attack outpaces that with relative ease.
But already in AD&D (with its weird subtractive system) AC caps at the equivalent of 30 in 3E, and Attack could exceed that number, but it doesn't take long until lowlevel mook can only hit you on a 20.

What do you all think about that?

[Envyus]

Hello Playground,

So far I've just glanced through the available 5E material, but so far my impression is that the power curve will be very shallow, at least for mundanes (haven't touched spellcasting at all yet so no comment from me here).
Are we dealing with the lowest-powered D&D ever?

- Stats appear to be much more limited. It seems to be impossible to start with a score greater than 17 in anything, and that's gonna be expensive. Also, they don't seem to increase at all with level, so the only way to get a larger score seems to be by way of items. Also, it seems to be pointless to start with an odd score in anything, since items seem to overwrite instead of increase your natural score.

- Proficiency Bonus: so I've accumulated half a million XP and all it does for my To Hit is a +5 advantage over level 1?

- Magic Weapons / Armour: seem to be very limited; few sample items give more than +1, and so far I haven't found any that goes higher than +2. Also, there's no WBL anymore, so basically the game claims to be playable completely without items.

This is going to be especially interesting when we compare mooks to highlevel characters. AC seems to cap at 20-ish. Any level 1 Warrior can have a +3 To Hit, not counting Advantage situations or anything. So... does that mean that any random bunch of level 1 town guards can be serious trouble even for a level 20 hero (or villain)? Not to mention a horde of 60 generic Hobgoblins with crossbows?

And what if that Dragon decides to harrass a town... I don't see anything in the way of Damage Reduction there, so does that mean any retarded town militia can pepper the dragon to kingdom come with a few arrow volleys? Then what do you need Dragonslayers for?

If this is the case, and I didn't overlook anything important: not cool. For me, D&D has always been the game of larger-than-life heroes, who (at higher levels) can wade through hordes of mooks with relative impunity. And conversely, the game where it _takes_ a hero to deal with highlevel threats, which are impervious to the efforts of regular mortals.

Very weird if you ask me.

Compare that to older editions... okay, 3.5 is probably the absolute peak of D&D Powerlevel, where AC easily climbs beyond 40 in a low-op game, and Attack outpaces that with relative ease.
But already in AD&D (with its weird subtractive system) AC caps at the equivalent of 30 in 3E, and Attack could exceed that number, but it doesn't take long until lowlevel mook can only hit you on a 20.

What do you all think about that?

This has been discussed quite a bit. The numbers were made lower in this game is all I have to say. Someone else will answer your questions better then I could. Anyway Appearntly Basic D&D will be out soon so download that to get some more answers.

[archaeo]

What do you all think about that?

I think that if you wait for something like 12-24 hours, you will be able to download the first version of Basic D&D, which, given that it's drawn from the PHB, will offer a lot more concrete details about the power curve.

You're otherwise basically asking "what do you guys think about bounded accuracy?" If you added up the number of words that have been spent arguing about that question over the last two years re: 5e, you would be astounded and staggered by the magnitude; naturally, I'm sure the rest of the forum will be along shortly to argue about it all over again. :smallsmile:

[Madfellow]

The stuff you're talking about, namely that it is possible for an army or militia to whittle down powerful monsters and characters over time, is (A) a very accurate interpretation of the game's math on your part and (B) an intentional aspect of the game that the designers had in mind from the beginning. They've been talking about that for years now, and I actually think it's a step in a positive direction.

Yes, characters in 5th will be less powerful than those in 3rd and 4th. Yes, the numbers involved in creation and advancement have been deflated. Yes, there are fewer magic items and spell slots for characters to work with. However, I disagree with you in that I prefer the new direction over the old one. It is still possible for a party to become crazy powerful compared to everything else in the world, but it's not possible for them to become untouchable. There is always a risk involved when the party decides to start a fight, and I think that's a good thing.

You did miss something, though. Characters do raise their stats over time (actually faster than they did in previous editions, funny enough). And while a character's accuracy might not raise very much over time, HP and damage output do. Those are the more important contributors to a character's power level in 5th.

[Kurald Galain]

It has been publically stated that 4E was intentionally modeled after levels 6 through 10 of the 3E gameplay; it strikes me that 5E is intentionally modeled after levels 0 through 5 of the 3E gameplay. It appears that a 1st level character in 5E is somewhat weaker than in 3E, and a 5E character improves over 20 levels about as much as a 3E character does in 5 levels.

It is clearly not really true, so far, that higher level 5E characters have more HP and damage output than they would have in earlier editions.

[Firechanter]

This has been discussed quite a bit.

Hehe, I should have figured; I just didn't look that much into 5E before. After seeing how much was changed in the first couple playtests I decided I'd just sit it out and wait for the finished product.

Maybe the devs have noticed how popular E6 appearst to have become -- looking at these (3E) boards here, I am sometimes under the impression that about 1/3 of all game-related threads are about E6. It's not really my style, but _if_ I wanted to play such a low powerlevel, I'd just pick a system that was written for it to begin with. So maybe 5E is targeting that group.

Ofc the power creep in 3.5 has been quite astounding, up to and beyond the threshold of unplayability if you don't control yourself in your optimization efforts. But such an extreme change - I dunno. Well, there's no accounting for taste.

Anyway, so I'll get the free PDFs later to get a better picture.

Edit:

It is clearly not really true, so far, that higher level 5E characters have more HP and damage output than they would have in earlier editions.

Maybe they were thinking of the comparison "5E level 20 vs 3.5 level 6". ;) [Although, seeing how an optimized melee char in 3.5 can crack the 100 dpr sound barrier at level 6, that's probably not even true either.]

[captpike]

the real question is why did they not use the level system to phase that part out at a certain point? why not just have peon's become a non-threat past a certain level. that is after all why the level exists. to gate power

[obryn]

The power curve is pretty clear. If you're a Wizard, at 18th level you're casting world-altering magic like stopping time or imprisoning creatures forever.

If you're a Fighter, at 18th level you can hit something with a sword 4 times. OR you can hit 4 things with a sword!

[Envyus]

the real question is why did they not use the level system to phase that part out at a certain point? why not just have peon's become a non-threat past a certain level. that is after all why the level exists. to gate power

That's not why they exsist. and Peons are not a threat. Lots of peons however are a threat.

An Ogre will be threatening at level 2. At level 10 they're much less scary but you can't just ignore them.

Plus it would take a ton of commoners to beat a young dragon going by their stats.

Commoners have +2 to hit with clubs and deal 1d4 damage and have 4 hp. The dragon would crush them and tons would die or run in fear from the terrifying dragon.

[Envyus]

The power curve is pretty clear. If you're a Wizard, at 18th level you're casting world-altering magic like stopping time or imprisoning creatures forever.

If you're a Fighter, at 18th level you can hit something with a sword 4 times. OR you can hit 4 things with a sword!

Anything a fighter touches with said sword will probably turn into mush and being immune or highly resistant to powerful magic.

5e wizard vs same level fighter would probably go like this.

Wiz: Finger of Death.
Fighter: Saved
Fighter: Cut you in two.

[obryn]

Anything a fighter touches with said sword will probably turn into mush and being immune or highly resistant to powerful magic.

5e wizard vs same level fighter would probably go like this.

Wiz: Finger of Death.
Fighter: Saved
Fighter: Cut you in two.
I have some unfortunate news for you about the D&D 5e saving throw system. :smallbiggrin:

It goes something like this...
Wizard Spell Save DC = 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Int Modifier. At 1st level, this is 13. At 20th, this is 19.

"Good" Save Bonus (normally on a bumped stat) = Proficiency Bonus + Stat Modifier. At 1st, this is +5. At 20th, this is +11.
"Bad" Save Bonus (normally not bumped) = Stat modifier. At 1st, this is +0. At 20th, this is... +0.

There are six saving throws, and you're good at two of them. There are save-or-suck spells against all of them. A Wizard can have a save-or-suck spell prepared against every stat, and can choose what to cast when they're cast.

Enjoy! :smallbiggrin:

[Envyus]

I have some unfortunate news for you about the D&D 5e saving throw system. :smallbiggrin:

It goes something like this...
Wizard Spell Save DC = 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Int Modifier. At 1st level, this is 13. At 20th, this is 19.

"Good" Save Bonus (normally on a bumped stat) = Proficiency Bonus + Stat Modifier. At 1st, this is +5. At 20th, this is +11.
"Bad" Save Bonus (normally not bumped) = Stat modifier. At 1st, this is +0. At 20th, this is... +0.

There are six saving throws, and you're good at two of them. There are save-or-suck spells against all of them. A Wizard can have a save-or-suck spell prepared against every stat, and can choose what to cast when they're cast.

Enjoy! :smallbiggrin:

True but who goes first matters more.

[Lokiare]

True but who goes first matters more.

Not with spells like Mage Armor, Blink, Blur, and Mirror Image. Your little scenario goes differently:

Fighter: Attacks 4 times. Misses the first, misses because of mage armor the second. Misses because they hit a Mirror Image on the third. Misses because of the miss chance of Blur.
Wizard: Casts any instant death save or die spell.
Fighter: Instantly dead. or if they make their save, repeat.

[Envyus]

Not with spells like Mage Armor, Blink, Blur, and Mirror Image. Your little scenario goes differently:

Fighter: Attacks 4 times. Misses the first, misses because of mage armor the second. Misses because they hit a Mirror Image on the third. Misses because of the miss chance of Blur.
Wizard: Casts any instant death save or die spell.
Fighter: Instantly dead. or if they make their save, repeat.

Fighter will have a much better chance to hit, the Wizard already has crappy ac and when did the Wizard get the time to cast those spells. Also Mirror Image is not in the basic game.

[Lokiare]

Fighter will have a much better chance to hit, the Wizard already has crappy ac and when did the Wizard get the time to cast those spells. Also Mirror Image is not in the basic game.

Most of those spells last 1-2 minutes. Most dungeon crawls last 1-2 minutes (if you actually time the characters as opposed to the players). Mage Armor + Dex mod is equivalent to medium AC. If I were a wizard knowing how dangerous a slightly unruly house cat was, I'd have those spells (or similar) up all the time when going into a dangerous place. As soon as it wore off, I'd cast it again, or simply cast it when entering a new unexplored area.

[obryn]

Not with spells like Mage Armor, Blink, Blur, and Mirror Image. Your little scenario goes differently:

Fighter: Attacks 4 times. Misses the first, misses because of mage armor the second. Misses because they hit a Mirror Image on the third. Misses because of the miss chance of Blur.
Wizard: Casts any instant death save or die spell.
Fighter: Instantly dead. or if they make their save, repeat.
Most buff spells require concentration.

[Lokiare]

Most buff spells require concentration.

Some do some don't. Blur for instance doesn't, but I think Mirror Image does. Mage Armor does not.

[1337 b4k4]

Most of those spells last 1-2 minutes. Most dungeon crawls last 1-2 minutes (if you actually time the characters as opposed to the players).

Surely you have a typo here? How in the world do you accomplish a full dungeon crawl in 2 minutes?

Edit
-----------

Interesting ... a review of the books shows that exploration movement rates have been steadily increasing from 60-120' per turn (10 minutes) in Basic to 60-180' per turn (again 10 minutes) in 1e to 150-300' per minute in 3e to 250-350' per minute in 4e (with the note that most of the time the DM should just hand wave it). I suppose it technically would be possible to complete a smaller dungeon crawl in about 1-2 minutes. Even 5e maintains this at 100-300' per minute.

As a note, from the little bit of spelunking I've done in my life, definitely the older movement rates were more realistic for crawling through caves.

[Pex]

Exaggeration, with a little snark . . .

5E

3E players hate the sameness of 4E, so 5E brings in 3E's versatility.

4E players hate the power level of 3E, so 5E brings in 4E's lower numbers.

Add in a dash of 2E reference points for nostalgia flavoring. (Find Familiar spell, drinking successive potions effects optional rule, etc.)

[Envyus]

Some do some don't. Blur for instance doesn't, but I think Mirror Image does. Mage Armor does not.

Hey remember Mirror image is not in the basic game.

[Arzanyos]

What I would like to see with the army of peons versus high level characters would happen if hp and damage scales, but ac/attack bonuses don't scale as much. Then you can have Dynasty Warriors style battles where your high level fighter is cutting through waves of enemies and shrugging off blows, but is still in danger of just being whittled down. Then, instead of high level combat against armies being either "lol, find better dudes" or "this army is entirely elite supersoldiers", armies can throw themselves at heroes and hope they have enough dudes.

[Kurald Galain]

Maybe the devs have noticed how popular E6 appearst to have become -- looking at these (3E) boards here, I am sometimes under the impression that about 1/3 of all game-related threads are about E6. It's not really my style, but _if_ I wanted to play such a low powerlevel, I'd just pick a system that was written for it to begin with. So maybe 5E is targeting that group.

Hm, that's a good point. Yes, 5E does seem to be modeled after E6. Actually, in certain areas (attack and skill bonus, in particular) a 5E character improves even less over 20 levels than an E6 character does over six levels.

[Felhammer]

5E will be like playing in Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Legend of the Seeker or many other really popular non-D&D fantasy worlds. You may be experienced and worldly but a bad situation and a concerted effort can take you down. You are, at the end of the day, only mortal. No player character can single-handedly take down an entire army.

This is a marked change from the previous two editions where you quickly became a force to be reckoned with and eventually a near-divine power house.

I, for one, embrace and endorse this change.

The great thing about it, too, is that it will be easy to ratchet up a few of the various knobs to turn the game into something more akin to what we had in previous editions (and I am sure there will eventually be a variant rule system that will do just that).

[Firechanter]

5E will be like playing in Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Legend of the Seeker or many other really popular non-D&D fantasy worlds. You may be experienced and worldly but a bad situation and a concerted effort can take you down. You are, at the end of the day, only mortal. No player character can single-handedly take down an entire army.

Well that would be nice but we'll have to see how it holds up. I know that people like going on about how "Aragorn is a 5th level Paladin" or something, but I don't see that at all. I won't go into 3E-related detail here, but let's instead look at how 5E would compare to Middle Earth.

- Even as a level 20, Aragorn's outlook to survive battles like Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields etc would be rather bleak. Due to the aforementioned "whittling down".
- Gondorian Knights are stated to be "worth a hundred lesser men" or something like that. And they probably still don't compare to Aragorn or Boromir.
- Yeah, Boromir does get rushed by a relatively small troop of Orcs. Unfortunately, we only know he was pierced with "many arrows". That would have been a clue to his Hit Points, but the basic idea Tolkien tried to convey was probably "One arrow can slay a normal man, so Boromir was n times tougher than that".
- However, Spellcasting. "You are Gandalf. You can make light and talk to birds." This is the major disconnect to any D&D incarnation (and probably the source where this level 5 nonsense sprouted). There is hardly any spellcaster in Middle Earth at all, and those few that we know cast hardly any spells, and of those that they do cast, the most powerful ones seem to compare to level 3 in D&D.

So long story short, 5E will still be as unsuitable for Middle Earth gaming as any D&D. If anything, they've made it worse, because mundane power levels get thoroughly nerfed, while spellcasting still goes as much overboard as always, what with Teleport and Earthquake and Time Stop and whatnot.

Similarly, in Song of Ice and Fire there is hardly any magic at all, i.e. not in the way of spellcasting.

[Gettles]

5E will be like playing in Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Legend of the Seeker or many other really popular non-D&D fantasy worlds. You may be experienced and worldly but a bad situation and a concerted effort can take you down. You are, at the end of the day, only mortal. No player character can single-handedly take down an entire army.

This is a marked change from the previous two editions where you quickly became a force to be reckoned with and eventually a near-divine power house.

I, for one, embrace and endorse this change.

The great thing about it, too, is that it will be easy to ratchet up a few of the various knobs to turn the game into something more akin to what we had in previous editions (and I am sure there will eventually be a variant rule system that will do just that).

If anything the non-magical classes are more constrained than ever by whatever vague sense of "realism" the designers had while the magical classes end up with all the high-level insanity they have always been given.

[obryn]

If anything the non-magical classes are more constrained than ever by whatever vague sense of "realism" the designers had while the magical classes end up with all the high-level insanity they have always been given.
In fairness, there's some folks far on the Sim side who are losing their minds over Fighter abilities like Second Wind and Rogue abilities like Evasion (which lets you cut the damage of an attack that just hit you in half).

We'll have to wait for the PHB to see how constrained the "complicated" versions of the Fighter and Rogue turned out. I've heard through the grapevine that Fighter maneuvers all use the same Saving Throw system as spells, now ... but they don't improve with the Fighter's proficiency bonus, unlike spells.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In fairness, there's some folks far on the Sim side who are losing their minds over Fighter abilities like Second Wind and Rogue abilities like Evasion (which lets you cut the damage of an attack that just hit you in half).

We'll have to wait for the PHB to see how constrained the "complicated" versions of the Fighter and Rogue turned out. I've heard through the grapevine that Fighter maneuvers all use the same Saving Throw system as spells, now ... but they don't improve with the Fighter's proficiency bonus, unlike spells.

Holy hell... Did they actually listen to me???:smalltongue:

I would give the proficiency bonus too but whatever, they actually streamlined the system and I can just wait for 5.5 to have the prof bonus added in there (or homebrew it). That is if it is needed.

[Person_Man]

The power curve is pretty clear. If you're a Wizard, at 18th level you're casting world-altering magic like stopping time or imprisoning creatures forever.

If you're a Fighter, at 18th level you can hit something with a sword 4 times. OR you can hit 4 things with a sword!

That's true. Tiers totally exist again, and Wizards are once again in Tier 1 and Fighters are once again Tier 4ish.

But in defense of the Fighter, he does get the best pure numbers in the game in terms of number of attacks, to-hit/AC bonuses in a game where these numbers barely scale, an extra Action every combat, and the ability to easily replenish hit points. This is very similar to how the Fighter played in 2E, where he was basically just a line of high stats + a bunch of free Henchmen.

I don't like the 5E Fighter design. But in theory the semi-Bounded Accuracy of the game makes it a better class then the 3.0/3.5/PF Fighters.

[Palegreenpants]

Personally, I love bounded accuracy. It is the number-one best thing about 5E so far.
Also, those basic rules are yet to be released, time zone issues, yes?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's true. Tiers totally exist again, and Wizards are once again in Tier 1 and Fighters are once again Tier 4ish.

But in defense of the Fighter, he does get the best pure numbers in the game in terms of number of attacks, to-hit/AC bonuses in a game where these numbers barely scale, an extra Action every combat, and the ability to easily replenish hit points. This is very similar to how the Fighter played in 2E, where he was basically just a line of high stats + a bunch of free Henchmen.

I don't like the 5E Fighter design. But in theory the semi-Bounded Accuracy of the game makes it a better class then the 3.0/3.5/PF Fighters.

Personally I don't give two horse turds about tiers in relation to class versus class.

As long as each class has fun viable options that allows them to stay in the game past level X then I'm fine. People tend to see wizard is tier 1 and fighter is tier 4 and automatically think that is horrible... It isn't as long as the fighter (or any other low tier class) can have nice things and can keep up with the game.

These nice things may not be "I win buttons" but they should be fun. Magic of Incarnum is a great example of two lower tier classes (tier 4 or tier 3 depending on play style, actually they could be tier 5 for a day if built weirdly, also the other class doesn't exist) that didn't have "I Win" yet was able to keep up with the game and be fun.

Its like... SSBBrawl sure Luigi isn't the highest tier character in the game but bring it on and let's see how much fun I have knocking you around :smallwink:. The lower tier characters in that game can deal with what the game itself throws at them and really that's all I ask of the classes on a base level.

Be able to deal with the game and don't become useless at level 6 (unless I want to super optimize).

[obryn]

I don't like the 5E Fighter design. But in theory the semi-Bounded Accuracy of the game makes it a better class then the 3.0/3.5/PF Fighters.
I agree with this.

I am not positive if I'd call the 5e Wizard actually Tier 1, though, "world-changing" hyperbole aside. They're limited in some fairly major ways in 5e compared to 3e, including buff stacking and spells per day.

Where they are not limited is the "rock-paper-scissors, but I know what you threw before I throw mine" game. It's trivial past a certain point to have a save-or-suck vs. most or all of the 6 saves prepared, and because of the math scaling I mentioned above, this is a pretty big deal. It means that, at high level against even-level foes, you don't get better resisting the stuff you're good at resisting; you get worse at resisting the stuff you're bad at.

[Morty]

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the PCs not outlevelling the world quite so quickly. It was yet another flaw in the generally awful 3e design that ended up internalized and taken for granted. But the way 5E does it is lazy. Using hit points as the main measure of power for non-magical characters is just terrible. Whether or not a high-level warrior can fight off an army is meaningless if one way or the other it's a cure for insomnia.

[Kurald Galain]

Where they are not limited is the "rock-paper-scissors, but I know what you threw before I throw mine" game. It's trivial past a certain point to have a save-or-suck vs. most or all of the 6 saves prepared, and because of the math scaling I mentioned above, this is a pretty big deal. It means that, at high level against even-level foes, you don't get better resisting the stuff you're good at resisting; you get worse at resisting the stuff you're bad at.

I'd say that a 50% chance of resisting the things you're supposed to be good at resisting is already pretty bad. Based on the playtest so far, 5E is shaping up as the game where your character isn't allowed to be good at anything.

[obryn]

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the PCs not outlevelling the world quite so quickly. It was yet another flaw in the generally awful 3e design that ended up internalized and taken for granted. But the way 5E does it is lazy. Using hit points as the main measure of power for non-magical characters is just terrible. Whether or not a high-level warrior can fight off an army is meaningless if one way or the other it's a cure for insomnia.
By and large, I'm good with PCs not-outleveling the world, too. But I still just don't know about this implementation.

I mean, let's be frank - you don't really outlevel the world in BECMI/RC or in AD&D, either. And I think I like how it works in them, better.


I'd say that a 50% chance of resisting the things you're supposed to be good at resisting is already pretty bad. Based on the playtest so far, 5E is shaping up as the game where your character isn't allowed to be good at anything.
I'm okay with keeping probability in the 30%-70% range for combat stuff. But not for the "fail this and you get to sit around for the rest of the fight" stuff.

I mean, Fighters eventually get the "Advantage on all saves" benefit, but that doesn't help, say, the Ranger. And it doesn't help near enough when he's rolling +0 against a DC 19.

[Person_Man]

I agree with this.

I am not positive if I'd call the 5e Wizard actually Tier 1, though, "world-changing" hyperbole aside. They're limited in some fairly major ways in 5e compared to 3e, including buff stacking and spells per day.

Where they are not limited is the "rock-paper-scissors, but I know what you threw before I throw mine" game. It's trivial past a certain point to have a save-or-suck vs. most or all of the 6 saves prepared, and because of the math scaling I mentioned above, this is a pretty big deal. It means that, at high level against even-level foes, you don't get better resisting the stuff you're good at resisting; you get worse at resisting the stuff you're bad at.

Yup. And think through exactly how this might play out.

If I'm playing a mid-high level Wizard, I will:

1) Memorize 1 spell that targets each of the 6 Attributes.

2) When I fight an enemy, I will target the lowest attribute. I cast the spell's I've prepared spontaneously, so I never run out of the right/best spell to use, which was a big limitation on magic in previous editions.

3) Spells with status effects are cast out of the lowest level spell slot available, because status effects don't have a numerical value that needs to scale (like damage, probably summons, etc). Spells with numerical values are cast out of he highest level spell slot available. So I'm basically using up all/most my spell level slots in a useful fashion.

4) When I start to run low on spell slot uses, I have a class ability which restores some of them. When I run out again, I force my party to take a long rest (which takes 4 hours for an Elf apparently). And there's no reason we can't do that unless DM fiat explicitly prevents it.


So Wizards will usually target a monster's weakest attributes and have a base 80%ish+ chance of succeeding, and this success rate will universally go up against most creatures as I gain levels, because my enemy's "weak" attributes/defenses don't scale in ay way, and in practice they will never really run out of resources to do this with.

And that's only if I can't find a loophole in one of the soon to be thousands of other spell options. If Animate Dead ignores the Concentration rules, for example, then the default optimal play style becomes about having a hoard of undead minions all the time.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm okay with keeping probability in the 30%-70% range for combat stuff.
But you're not getting 30-70, you're apparently getting 0-50.

Personally speaking, I'm fine with giving characters one defense that they excel at, e.g. that rogues have a 90% chance to dodge a fireball. It's what rogues do, after all.

[Morty]

The other side of this equation is that for many spells, the target making the save means that the spell is wasted. On the other hand, if they don't make the save, they might well be out of combat.

[obryn]

3) Spells with status effects are cast out of the lowest level spell slot available, because status effects don't have a numerical value that needs to scale (like damage, probably summons, etc). Spells with numerical values are cast out of he highest level spell slot available. So I'm basically using up all/most my spell level slots in a useful fashion.
First off, I agree completely with everything in your post except for this.

We've already seen with Command that you can spend a higher-level slot to affect more enemies. Any bets that Hold Person will work the same way?


But you're not getting 30-70, you're apparently getting 0-50.

Personally speaking, I'm fine with giving characters one defense that they excel at, e.g. that rogues have a 90% chance to dodge a fireball. It's what rogues do, after all.
Yep, agreed. Not all spreads are created equal. Requiring a 7-13 is much more reasonable than a 13-19.


The other side of this equation is that for many spells, the target making the save means that the spell is wasted. On the other hand, if they don't make the save, they might well be out of combat.
Well, I can tell you that in RC and 1e, this was a feature. If you wanted a guaranteed effect, you cast an Evocation spell which still did half damage on a miss (and had a harder save, to boot). So you went all-or-nothing, or lots-or-something

In 3e and afterwards, with evocation spells doing a trivial amount of damage compared to hit points, this is no longer worthwhile.

[Fwiffo86]

I'm curious. How many spells do you just hand to your wizards? I mean really? I mean, if your handing out access to spells willy nilly, then yes, your Wizard will once again dominate everything. Not to mention letting them have access to every spell some person comes up with seems like an inherently bad idea, because some joker will inevitably make a spell to overcome some specifically designed mechanic, and be all ... no longer need to worry about saves, this spell targets their worst save every time!

This is also why i miss the Cleric domain rules. The clerics didn't have access to all cleric spells, which went miles for reigning them in. Maybe I'll just work it in for 5e if I need to... *ponders*

Anyway this is what I aim for a wizard of 20th level to have in his spell book

Wizards KNOWN spell list/book
1 - all
2 - 10
3 - 7
4 - 6
5 - 6
6 - 6
7 - 5
8 - 4
9 - 3


EDIT
I don't remember if Wizards get "researched" spells when they level, I'm pretty sure they don't, which gives even more control to the DM. Ahhh the good old days before 3e broke everything.

[Felhammer]

Yup. And think through exactly how this might play out.

If I'm playing a mid-high level Wizard, I will:

1) Memorize 1 spell that targets each of the 6 Attributes.

2) When I fight an enemy, I will target the lowest attribute. I cast the spell's I've prepared spontaneously, so I never run out of the right/best spell to use, which was a big limitation on magic in previous editions.

3) Spells with status effects are cast out of the lowest level spell slot available, because status effects don't have a numerical value that needs to scale (like damage, probably summons, etc). Spells with numerical values are cast out of he highest level spell slot available. So I'm basically using up all/most my spell level slots in a useful fashion.

Metagaming. There will always be "that guy" in a party but honestly, in real life, I have not seen many people really do this in 4E or 3E, where such playstyles were supposedly the norm, if one believes the internet.


4) When I start to run low on spell slot uses, I have a class ability which restores some of them. When I run out again, I force my party to take a long rest (which takes 4 hours for an Elf apparently). And there's no reason we can't do that unless DM fiat explicitly prevents it.

Good DMs will punish groups for resting whenever the wizard runs out of spells. This punishment can be as simple as the monsters set up traps/ambushes, hide their treasure, summon/call allies or just leave the dungeon. Beyond that, the classic time constraint (we only have two days to find the MacGuffin before Mortimer the Evil Wizard will marry the Princess!) will prevent this abuse of the game.



So Wizards will usually target a monster's weakest attributes and have a base 80%ish+ chance of succeeding, and this success rate will universally go up against most creatures as I gain levels, because my enemy's "weak" attributes/defenses don't scale in ay way, and in practice they will never really run out of resources to do this with.

And why exactly are monsters not taking advantage of the same rules against player characters? Turn the Enemy Wizard invisible, roll initiative, PC Wizard takes out one of the monsters, enemy wizard fires off a spell at the PC Wizard targeting his weakest save. Boom, Wizard is out of the fight.

Another easy tactic is to have fights take place in larger rooms, with larger numbers of enemies spread out more evenly. Sure, you can take out Bob Bugbear and Otto Orc but you won't hit Garry Goblin, Harry Hobgoblin, Rory Roc or Larry Lizard. Including more cover and levels/elevations will also weaken wizards powers (as well as everyone else too). The battalion of mooks is also very viable in that the wizard can only kill so many before the enemy gang up on him and pummel him.


And that's only if I can't find a loophole in one of the soon to be thousands of other spell options. If Animate Dead ignores the Concentration rules, for example, then the default optimal play style becomes about having a hoard of undead minions all the time.

Which will never be the default play style because DMs will simple say no. End of story. Even Mike Mearls has stated that there are ways to abuse the rules but if the DM does not like it, then he is well within his right to say no. This is a feature of the game and must be remembered when considering (potentially) abusive playstyles.

[Yorrin]

A lot of good stuff.

While this is true, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said, these boards are generally against anything that requires the DM to actually, y'know, DM the game. Or at least that's how the 3.5 forums operate- take RAW as far as you can and ignore the power of the DM. Sadly, many 3.5 posters are going to freak out about 5e because they don't realize that the game was designed with high amounts of DM fiat/customization in mind, and moreover they're going to call it "bad design" or something. If I had the power to apologize for my fellow 3.5 players I would, but I don't hold that kind of clout around here :smalltongue:

[Felhammer]

While this is true, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said, these boards are generally against anything that requires the DM to actually, y'know, DM the game. Or at least that's how the 3.5 forums operate- take RAW as far as you can and ignore the power of the DM. Sadly, many 3.5 posters are going to freak out about 5e because they don't realize that the game was designed with high amounts of DM fiat/customization in mind, and moreover they're going to call it "bad design" or something. If I had the power to apologize for my fellow 3.5 players I would, but I don't hold that kind of clout around here :smalltongue:

So very true. Once the game gets underway, I am sure there will be a lot of belly aching about DMs being "mean" or not "playing by the book". It will also take DMs time to reacquaint themselves with the power of "no", considering how that word almost did not exist in 4th edition and was quaintly swept under the rug as 3.x aged.


I'm curious. How many spells do you just hand to your wizards? I mean really? I mean, if your handing out access to spells willy nilly, then yes, your Wizard will once again dominate everything. Not to mention letting them have access to every spell some person comes up with seems like an inherently bad idea, because some joker will inevitably make a spell to overcome some specifically designed mechanic, and be all ... no longer need to worry about saves, this spell targets their worst save every time!

This is also why i miss the Cleric domain rules. The clerics didn't have access to all cleric spells, which went miles for reigning them in. Maybe I'll just work it in for 5e if I need to... *ponders*

Anyway this is what I aim for a wizard of 20th level to have in his spell book

Wizards KNOWN spell list/book
1 - all
2 - 10
3 - 7
4 - 6
5 - 6
6 - 6
7 - 5
8 - 4
9 - 3


EDIT
I don't remember if Wizards get "researched" spells when they level, I'm pretty sure they don't, which gives even more control to the DM. Ahhh the good old days before 3e broke everything.

"Each time you gain a mage level, you can add two spells to your spellbook. You choose the spells from the mage’s spell list."

So basically you will research 2 spells from the highest spell level you have available, which will amount to 4 spells per spell level except for 9th level spells where you will know 8.


Two First Level Spells (Two1st)
Two First Level Spells (Four 1st)
Two Second Level Spells (Four 1st, Two 2nd)
Two Second Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd)
Two Third Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Two 3rd)
Two Third Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd)
Two Fourth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Two 4th)
Two Fourth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th)
Two Fifth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Two 5th)
Two Fifth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th)
Two Sixth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Two 6th)
Two Sixth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th)
Two Seventh Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Two7th)
Two Seventh Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th)
Two Eighth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Two 8th)
Two Eighth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Four 8th)
Two Ninth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Four 8th, Two 9th)
Two Ninth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Four 8th, Four 9th)
Two Ninth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Four 8th, Six 9th)
Two Ninth Level Spells (Four 1st, Four 2nd, Four 3rd, Four 4th, Four 5th, Four 6th, Four 7th, Four 8th, Eight 9th)


However, I question the desire to learn so many 9th levels spells, considering how few spells slots you have available. It may be far more advantageous to pick up lower level spells that you skipped over when leveling, especially after you know three or four ninth levels spells. This is probably true of 6th-9th in general, considering the arcane recovery ability only works on spells of 5th level and lower.

[Morty]

Well, I can tell you that in RC and 1e, this was a feature. If you wanted a guaranteed effect, you cast an Evocation spell which still did half damage on a miss (and had a harder save, to boot). So you went all-or-nothing, or lots-or-something

In 3e and afterwards, with evocation spells doing a trivial amount of damage compared to hit points, this is no longer worthwhile.

I think it would be better if the "save or lose" spells were less binary.

[Lokiare]

While this is true, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said, these boards are generally against anything that requires the DM to actually, y'know, DM the game. Or at least that's how the 3.5 forums operate- take RAW as far as you can and ignore the power of the DM. Sadly, many 3.5 posters are going to freak out about 5e because they don't realize that the game was designed with high amounts of DM fiat/customization in mind, and moreover they're going to call it "bad design" or something. If I had the power to apologize for my fellow 3.5 players I would, but I don't hold that kind of clout around here :smalltongue:

Some people enjoy house ruling to fix broken systems and creating rules from scratch at a moments notice. Other people buy the game so they don't have to. If they have to do that too much or too often sometimes its just better to make your own game or find another game that works out of the box.

To me, if something broken appears and its not some random combinations of 5+ things that made it happen, I blame the developers. Its literally their job to provide a working rule set that has the most obvious bugs worked out. If they haven't done that they haven't earned their pay.

TL;DR: A rare ruling or house rule to fix a problem is fine, but having to do it constantly or on a regular basis is not.

[Endarire]

It sounds like 5E turned into a game of "be a caster, win initiative, cast ego whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/egoWhip.htm)." (Really, who's gonna boost CHA unless they need it?)

[Sartharina]

Most of those spells last 1-2 minutes. Most dungeon crawls last 1-2 minutes (if you actually time the characters as opposed to the players). Mage Armor + Dex mod is equivalent to medium AC. If I were a wizard knowing how dangerous a slightly unruly house cat was, I'd have those spells (or similar) up all the time when going into a dangerous place. As soon as it wore off, I'd cast it again, or simply cast it when entering a new unexplored area.1 minute is one round of dungeon exploration.

[Firechanter]

1 minute is one round of dungeon exploration.

Ah, in 3.5 I sometimes have insisted on exploring a dungeon round by round. Making the most of buff durations, because otherwise those min/level buffs tend to get handwaved away after each fight. When in fact, 3 minutes is often enough for a small dungeon and 10 minutes even for a bigger one if you don't dawdle around.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It sounds like 5E turned into a game of "be a caster, win initiative, cast ego whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/egoWhip.htm)." (Really, who's gonna boost CHA unless they need it?)

Except that from I've seen ability damage or drain doesn't exist in 5e.

Has anyone caught any instances of ability drain or damage?

[1of3]

No. In the playtest, the undead who used to do this instead provided damage that couldn't easily be cured. So it was more of an attrition but not more harmful in the short term.


As for the rest of this discussion: The basic document does not include spells with Intelligence, Charisma or Strength saving throws. And the playtest didn't either. Monks did target strength.

Also there are no Save-or-Die spells. There are enchantments that take an opponent out but they all require concentration and allow additional saves or just end under certain conditions.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No. In the playtest, the undead who used to do this instead provided damage that couldn't easily be cured. So it was more of an attrition but not more harmful in the short term.


As for the rest of this discussion: The basic document does not include spells with Intelligence, Charisma or Strength saving throws. And the playtest didn't either. Monks did target strength.

Also there are no Save-or-Die spells. There are enchantments that take an opponent out but they all require concentration and allow additional saves or just end under certain conditions.

That's what I thought, figured I might have missed something.

I think that the Fighter maneuvers will hopefully target Strength, Con, Dex and Int saves. That way we have some middle ground (con and Dex) and some outliers (Str/Int and Wis/Cha). I'm guessing eventually magic will target cha.

Of course I would love to see an optional (and one I would use a lot) rule where the defender could pick between two defenses against spells or maneuvers. They already have the Shove action which has a contest of Athletics versus Acrobatics or Athletics.

I like the defender having a say how they will defend.

So if a wizard casts a spell, say Charm Person, then the target can have a Wisdom or Charisma save to defend against it.

If the same wizard casts Fireball, the target could use their Dexterity to get out of the way or use their Constitution to ignore the damage.

The problem with the saving throw system is that you get to normally be good at 2 things and Meh at 4 things. A wizard or cleric can have spells that target all of your saves in order to hit the bad save. This will reign in that versitility a bit without really affecting the casters.

[1of3]

A wizard or cleric can have spells that target all of your saves in order to hit the bad save.

They can only affect all six stats, if there are spells for all six stats. There are not. You will also note that class features (like Slippery Mind) and spells (like Bacon of Hope and Heroes' Feast) only buff Wisdom saves.

Conclusion: There are effectively the same saves that have been in 3e.

[Psyren]

Hm, that's a good point. Yes, 5E does seem to be modeled after E6. Actually, in certain areas (attack and skill bonus, in particular) a 5E character improves even less over 20 levels than an E6 character does over six levels.

I agree but that just begs the question - why turn the entire game into E6 instead of just sanctioning an official E6 variant?

And it's not even really E6 - at least there you can avoid issues like the saving throw problem obryn mentioned via gear and custom feats.

[da_chicken]

Except that from I've seen ability damage or drain doesn't exist in 5e.

Has anyone caught any instances of ability drain or damage?

Nope. No level drain, either.

[captpike]

That's true. Tiers totally exist again, and Wizards are once again in Tier 1 and Fighters are once again Tier 4ish.

But in defense of the Fighter, he does get the best pure numbers in the game in terms of number of attacks, to-hit/AC bonuses in a game where these numbers barely scale, an extra Action every combat, and the ability to easily replenish hit points. This is very similar to how the Fighter played in 2E, where he was basically just a line of high stats + a bunch of free Henchmen.

I don't like the 5E Fighter design. But in theory the semi-Bounded Accuracy of the game makes it a better class then the 3.0/3.5/PF Fighters.

its not like hp damage matters when you have save-or-die's in the game.

the fighter might good for cleaning up what is not important enough for the wizard's time but anything that is a real threat at high levels will just be spelled to death

[Friv]

its not like hp damage matters when you have save-or-die's in the game.

the fighter might good for cleaning up what is not important enough for the wizard's time but anything that is a real threat at high levels will just be spelled to death

Save-or-dies have been pretty seriously scaled back, though. Of the wizard's Level 9 spells shown to date, only Power Word: Kill is a save-or-die, and it doesn't affect anything remotely beefy. Of the Level 8s, Dominate Monster allows a lot of resistance if you try to use it to kill your target, Maze is a save-or-delay, and Power Word: Stun works a lot better with a fighter on hand to make with the stabbing.

Plus, with fewer high-level spells per day (only four Level 7-9 spells at Level 20, compared to about fifteen in 3.x), the wizard is more likely to need fire support in a single high-level encounter.

Which isn't to say that the fighter or rogue is as good as the cleric or wizard, but the gap is definitely less overwhelming. A wizard casting Foresight to give the party fighter advantage on everything for eight hours is a totally reasonable spell choice, rather than just being a joke.

[Psyren]

That's true. Tiers totally exist again, and Wizards are once again in Tier 1 and Fighters are once again Tier 4ish.

But in defense of the Fighter, he does get the best pure numbers in the game in terms of number of attacks, to-hit/AC bonuses in a game where these numbers barely scale, an extra Action every combat, and the ability to easily replenish hit points. This is very similar to how the Fighter played in 2E, where he was basically just a line of high stats + a bunch of free Henchmen.

I don't like the 5E Fighter design. But in theory the semi-Bounded Accuracy of the game makes it a better class then the 3.0/3.5/PF Fighters.

In theory/naked, yes, they will be better off.

In practice, 3.P WBL more than compensated for the lack of "bounded accuracy." Sure, you needed that wealth to compete, but the game's assumption was that you had it. A level 20 fighter could be expected to fly everywhere, pounce, teleport, have various immunities, be able to arm-wrestle giants and all kinds of other boons; to me, the fact that most of those abilities came from items was irrelevant.

And I'd rather have the scalability of 3.x anyway. If I want a fighter with more innate ability, I can start with a Warblade or Warshade and then still have access to the gear to get them where I want to be. I don't need the system to nerf every monster and negative condition instead.

[Arzanyos]

captpike, what save or die's are in the game? I just sort of skimmed the spells.

[Psyren]

captpike, what save or die's are in the game? I just sort of skimmed the spells.

Power Word Kill is the only one I saw, though there may be others. (Finger of Death is just a blasting spell now, and a weak one at that.)

Death Ward protects against them so I assume there will be more, or that there may be some monster ones.

[captpike]

Save-or-dies have been pretty seriously scaled back, though. Of the wizard's Level 9 spells shown to date, only Power Word: Kill is a save-or-die, and it doesn't affect anything remotely beefy. Of the Level 8s, Dominate Monster allows a lot of resistance if you try to use it to kill your target, Maze is a save-or-delay, and Power Word: Stun works a lot better with a fighter on hand to make with the stabbing.

Plus, with fewer high-level spells per day (only four Level 7-9 spells at Level 20, compared to about fifteen in 3.x), the wizard is more likely to need fire support in a single high-level encounter.

Which isn't to say that the fighter or rogue is as good as the cleric or wizard, but the gap is definitely less overwhelming. A wizard casting Foresight to give the party fighter advantage on everything for eight hours is a totally reasonable spell choice, rather than just being a joke.

except that the value of those spells changes with the rounds/day. that is not in the hands of the system, so the system can't balance around it.

you rest every other fight the wizard can still spell away the fights. and of course the fact all the really bad creatures WILL be taken out, even if the rest of the fight is not, by spells means the fighter will always be on clean up duty.

[Arzanyos]

If the party is resting every other fight and the wizard is kill-stealing like that, then as the DM, punish resting. Have the monsters haul away the treasure and replace it with magekiller golems. Then tell the wizards corpse to play nicer next session.

[captpike]

If the party is resting every other fight and the wizard is kill-stealing like that, then as the DM, punish resting. Have the monsters haul away the treasure and replace it with magekiller golems. Then tell the wizards corpse to play nicer next session.

why would a good DM punish good in-character tactics? its not like its metagaming to do that. your characters lives are in danger, you SHOULD use the best strategy you can to win.

and of course having everything your PCs do be on a timer would be very trying very fast.

[Envyus]

except that the value of those spells changes with the rounds/day. that is not in the hands of the system, so the system can't balance around it.

you rest every other fight the wizard can still spell away the fights. and of course the fact all the really bad creatures WILL be taken out, even if the rest of the fight is not, by spells means the fighter will always be on clean up duty.

If you take a long rest after every fight then Wondering monsters are going to rip you apart. Or you will lose sight of your objective because you are taking a long time.

[captpike]

If you take a long rest after every fight then Wondering monsters are going to rip you apart. Or you will lose sight of your objective because you are taking a long time.

sure for some plots that works, but not all. the game should be flexible enough to not require the DM work their plot around a number of rounds per day

[Felhammer]

I agree but that just begs the question - why turn the entire game into E6 instead of just sanctioning an official E6 variant?

And it's not even really E6 - at least there you can avoid issues like the saving throw problem obryn mentioned via gear and custom feats.

It is easier to design a low-magic game and then provide high magic variant rules than it is to do the opposite.

[da_chicken]

captpike, what save or die's are in the game? I just sort of skimmed the spells.

The only spell I have a real problem with is hold person, which I've always sort of loathed since 2e when it affected 2d4 creatures. Lesser restoration breaks it, as does repeatedly punching the caster, and the target does get repeated saves, and it's a concentration spell so it's pretty nerfed... but I still don't like it. I would much rather the spell stunned or restrained (both less severe than paralysis) or broke on damaging the target.

[Morty]

I agree but that just begs the question - why turn the entire game into E6 instead of just sanctioning an official E6 variant?

And it's not even really E6 - at least there you can avoid issues like the saving throw problem obryn mentioned via gear and custom feats.

Even if they wanted to make the entire game like E6, there are better ways of going about that. Like actually taking a page out of E6's book and making the advancement curve less straight and narrow.

[da_chicken]

sure for some plots that works, but not all. the game should be flexible enough to not require the DM work their plot around a number of rounds per day

What exactly is the DM supposed to work their plot around then if not time?

Most dungeons aren't a series of isolated and independent rooms that have no contact or relationship with each other. The creatures there generally live and work there, and will react to invasion. Maybe not in the first hours, but eventually someone will notice that Bob and Jim didn't come to dinner or that someone has been searching the store room. Sure, you might clear a room and then leave or hide in a rope trick but someone is probably going to notice the room has changed and creatures are missing. Sure, some dungeons are made of mindless undead or guardians that just stay where they were bound and attack when triggered, but those aren't the most common dungeons.

[captpike]

What exactly is the DM supposed to work their plot around then if not time?

Most dungeons aren't a series of isolated and independent rooms that have no contact or relationship with each other. The creatures there generally live and work there, and will react to invasion. Maybe not in the first hours, but eventually someone will notice that Bob and Jim didn't come to dinner or that someone has been searching the store room. Sure, you might clear a room and then leave or hide in a rope trick but someone is probably going to notice the room has changed and creatures are missing. Sure, some dungeons are made of mindless undead or guardians that just stay where they were bound and attack when triggered, but those aren't the most common dungeons.

the story? that sounds coolest? anything other then "I have to add in two more fights, each at least 5 rounds long. despite the fact that there is nothing here to fight, just so the fighter can be useful"

[Surrealistik]

The power curve is pretty clear. If you're a Wizard, at 18th level you're casting world-altering magic like stopping time or imprisoning creatures forever.

If you're a Fighter, at 18th level you can hit something with a sword 4 times. OR you can hit 4 things with a sword!

The wizard once again takes up its lofty mantle as king of the classes. Kneel to the crown! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DelhLppPSxY#t=101)

I did my best to stop spellcaster supremacy from coming about during the closed playtest, but in the end, the 3.5 pro-caster grognards got their way sadly.

BTW it gets worse; just wait until you see the bull**** the Transmuter specialist can do, to say nothing of the Bard which can poach up to 8 spells from _any_ spell list, and has 9th level casting.

[Person_Man]

Metagaming. There will always be "that guy" in a party but honestly, in real life, I have not seen many people really do this in 4E or 3E, where such playstyles were supposedly the norm, if one believes the internet.

This is obviously just a matter of personal experience, but I tend to game mostly with old, experienced gamers, who all optimize and try out the most different and interesting combinations that they can. We rarely use Polymorph or Divine Metamagic game breaking stuff. But we definitely use the rules to our advantage, and assume that the DM will do the same.

It's also been my personal experience that many young players go through a Munchkin phase, where they explicitly try and find broken stuff and use it, which in turn can make the game very un-fun for their friends, which makes some people stop playing the game.

Having said all that, I'm not arguing that the Wizard should be weaker. I'm arguing the Fighter should have more options, and shouldn't suck by default (Remarkable Athlete just sucks, Survivor ability at a level when everything is rocket tag, Improved/Superior Critical when critical damage is nerfed, an Extra Attack as your capstone ability).



Good DMs will punish groups for resting whenever the wizard runs out of spells. This punishment can be as simple as the monsters set up traps/ambushes, hide their treasure, summon/call allies or just leave the dungeon. Beyond that, the classic time constraint (we only have two days to find the MacGuffin before Mortimer the Evil Wizard will marry the Princess!) will prevent this abuse of the game.

I agree entirely, and I use the exact same DMing strategy myself sometimes.

But "a good DM can fix this" has two problems.

One is that the Basic Rules don't actually suggest that DMs do this. It's something you have to learn through trial and error. And thus some players will end up breaking some games if the DM is new or inexperienced.

Two is that mid-high level 5E (like mid-high level 3.X/PF) is clearly a game of ambush rocket tag. And so a Wizard really doesn't need to use more then 1 spell to win many combats, or essentially win by killing a bunch of enemies in the first round and then just using cantrips to mop up. So daily limits are not important unless the DM throws lots of encounters at the party. And again, this is dependent on smart DMing. The rules don't actually tell you to keep throwing monsters at the party in waves in order to challenge the spellcasters.

[Envyus]

the story? that sounds coolest? anything other then "I have to add in two more fights, each at least 5 rounds long. despite the fact that there is nothing here to fight, just so the fighter can be useful"

No it's just common sense that you should not rest after every fight. If you do expect something to come across you while you are. There is no add in two fights that last 5 rounds it's just. If you rest now a monster is likely to come across you or if you rest too long they took the treasure your here for because you took a day to get it despite being only 300 ft away from it because you had to stop every time the wizard cast something.

The Wizard would be a liablity if they stopped every time he used one of his few high level spells.

[obryn]

The wizard once again takes up its lofty mantle as king of the classes. Kneel to the crown! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DelhLppPSxY#t=101)

I did my best to stop spellcaster supremacy from coming about during the closed playtest, but in the end, the 3.5 pro-caster grognards got their way sadly.

BTW it gets worse; just wait until you see the bull**** the Transmuter specialist can do, to say nothing of the Bard which can poach up to 8 spells from _any_ spell list, and has 9th level casting.How disheartening.

I'm not shocked, though. Rob Heinsoo has said that, during 4e's development, certain designers kept trying to sneak caster supremacy back into the game. Without him there....

I've seen the maneuver fighter. It's awful there's no such thing as a higher level maneuver. The die size increases, and you learn more tricks, but nothing so powerful you couldn't start the game with it. :(

[Sartharina]

Two is that mid-high level 5E (like mid-high level 3.X/PF) is clearly a game of ambush rocket tag. And so a Wizard really doesn't need to use more then 1 spell to win many combats, or essentially win by killing a bunch of enemies in the first round and then just using cantrips to mop up. So daily limits are not important unless the DM throws lots of encounters at the party. And again, this is dependent on smart DMing. The rules don't actually tell you to keep throwing monsters at the party in waves in order to challenge the spellcasters....This is disheartening if true (And I've not seen proof of it yet, though!). Higher-level characters are supposed to have greater survivability. High-level vs. High-level fights being 'long, tedious slogs' is supposed to be the small price to pay for having a character actually make it to high levels (Something of a positive-feedback loop that's probably not a good idea, but still: The character you spend more time investing in and building up is supposed to be harder to take down). With Bounded Accuracy being a way to break free of the treadmill, it's supposed to allow for greater level diversity in parties (Allowing low-level characters to contribute in high-level battles if they're cautious... or daring), and give a feel of progression against the world.

The fight between the farmer and the viper in his field is a quick battle over in a few seconds, with one or the other dead (Or both dead, the farmer succumbing to the viper's poison after slaying the serpent). The fight between the legendary Olaf One-Eye and the mighty dragon Numinex was a battle that raged for days over mountains and tundra, with neither side gaining clear advantage over the other.

[da_chicken]

the story? that sounds coolest? anything other then "I have to add in two more fights, each at least 5 rounds long. despite the fact that there is nothing here to fight, just so the fighter can be useful"

You're not getting what I'm saying.

The story is what the players do as much as if not more than what the plot of the adventure is. Adventure plots are like battle plans. They don't survive player contact. The only thing that makes TTRPGs special is that the "computer" running the game can account for any situation and respond intelligently to any player choice no matter how absurd or unique. With a CRPG, the story happens as the developer plans it. The enemy does what it does every time. You go watch a competitive module being run, and you'll see a different plan and a different story at every table! If the module and the story don't react to how the players behave in the game world you might as well be playing a CRPG.

[Sartharina]

The only thing that makes TTRPGs special is that the "computer" running the game can account for any situation and respond intelligently to any player choice no matter how absurd or unique.Sorry, but this line made me giggle in all my years of gaming experience. That said, even unintelligent responses to player choice/input are at least dynamic and possible (Which is also less restricted in a TTRPG - in a CRPG, you have less ability to do dumb things - Sure you might forget to assign an attack, try walkng against a wall, etc... but only in a TTRPG can you do... well, I have some stories).

I can't remember how many deadly encounters we survived by getting distracted by a conversation about television, games, or why I'm not wearing a shirt until we forgot we were even in the middle of a battle. Or characters were resurrected simply because we forgot they died.

I get and agree with what you're saying, but Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

[captpike]

No it's just common sense that you should not rest after every fight. If you do expect something to come across you while you are. There is no add in two fights that last 5 rounds it's just. If you rest now a monster is likely to come across you or if you rest too long they took the treasure your here for because you took a day to get it despite being only 300 ft away from it because you had to stop every time the wizard cast something.

The Wizard would be a liablity if they stopped every time he used one of his few high level spells.

its basic strategy to try to enter every fight with enough force to win quickly and uncontested. why punish your PCs for using basic strategy?

this is not metagaming, this is not cheating, its acting in a way that is inline with your PC's desire to stay alive. there would be times you could not do this, but you should not put every quest on a timer, nor should every night be filled with random attacks, regardless of where you are or what precautions the PCs took.

the best way to address this problem is in the system, not the DM. the system is why the best way to win every fight is to use spells, and spells only come back daily

[Sartharina]

its basic strategy to try to enter every fight with enough force to win quickly and uncontested. why punish your PCs for using basic strategy?

this is not metagaming, this is not cheating, its acting in a way that is inline with your PC's desire to stay alive. there would be times you could not do this, but you should not put every quest on a timer, nor should every night be filled with random attacks, regardless of where you are or what precautions the PCs took.

the best way to address this problem is in the system, not the DM. the system is why the best way to win every fight is to use spells, and spells only come back dailyNot every fight - you have to take the adventure holistically. And spells aren't the best way to win every fight - swords and arrows work just as well. Also, if you're resting every fight, you're not winning quickly.

Basic strategy is to conserve resources in a manner that you can get through an adventure, stretch of dungeon, or otherwise achieve an objective quickly and efficiently.

[rlc]

Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions.this should go for both PCs and NPCs.

[captpike]

Not every fight - you have to take the adventure holistically. And spells aren't the best way to win every fight - swords and arrows work just as well. Also, if you're resting every fight, you're not winning quickly.

Basic strategy is to conserve resources in a manner that you can get through an adventure, stretch of dungeon, or otherwise achieve an objective quickly and efficiently.

not from what I have seen of 5e so far, spells trump everything else. they might not be much worse in some situations but its not like there are situations where you would trade a wizard for a fighter.

your assuming you can't just back out and rest. when you can you should there is no reason to risk death to save a day or two unless there is a real reason to do so.

[Fwiffo86]

not from what I have seen of 5e so far, spells trump everything else. they might not be much worse in some situations but its not like there are situations where you would trade a wizard for a fighter.

your assuming you can't just back out and rest. when you can you should there is no reason to risk death to save a day or two unless there is a real reason to do so.

Your opinion is noted

[Morty]

I think this discussion points out the inherent problem with Vancian spellcasting, and per-day abilities in general. In a classical dungeon crawl, where the DM can control the pacing and enforce a certain number of encounters per day, it's a predictable and appropriate limitation. In different circumstances, it might well not be.

[Sartharina]

To be fair.. in practice, everyone usually has a bit of good ol' LEEROY JENKINS within them, preventing the "rest-fight-rest" cycle from getting out of hand.

To counter Captpike's assertation... where's the Fun in not being challenged, and overwhelming everything immediately, and not accomplishing everything without risk. In fact, doing so often diminishes fun, because a game session only lasts so long - in a sense, EVERY adventure is on a timer, because the sessions are, and our lives are.

[TheOOB]

not from what I have seen of 5e so far, spells trump everything else. they might not be much worse in some situations but its not like there are situations where you would trade a wizard for a fighter.

your assuming you can't just back out and rest. when you can you should there is no reason to risk death to save a day or two unless there is a real reason to do so.

Spells are very powerful, but they are a strictly limited resource. A caster only ever gets 1 or 2 of their most powerful spell per day, and their old spells don't scale(with the exception of cantrips which are strictly worse than a fighters multi-attacks or a rogue sneak attack) Further, you can only concentrait on one spell per time, and most of the powerful buffs/debuffs are concentraition.

At 11th level a wizard has 16 spells per day, 10 of which are 3rd level of lower(still useful, but not epicly powerful by that point). The fighter, on the other hand, can make three attacks every round, with a greatsword, assuming 75% hit rate thats over 28 damage per round(not counting great weapon fighting style), which better than the average damage of a fireball or lightning bolt. Further said fighter likely has a 19 AC, a ton of hit points, a powerful self heal usuable multiple times per day, an extra action usuable multiple times per day, and a extra chance at saving throws. The wizard likely has 10-13 AC, half the hp, and no defensive utilities that don't take spell slots.

With access to the correct spells, the wizard is the most powerful class in the book, bar none, but in this edition they really seem to be the glass cannons they were always ment to be. They have greater power in their spells, but very little outside of it. If they get caught in a situation where they don't have or don't have the ability to use useful spells, they're pretty screwed, whereas the fighter is a badass killing machine all day every day.

Is the fighter possibly a little weak, yes(though it might have to do with the Champion archtype being BAAAAD), but is it terrible, useless, or a bad choice next to a wizard or cleric, no way.

[Doug Lampert]

I think this discussion points out the inherent problem with Vancian spellcasting, and per-day abilities in general. In a classical dungeon crawl, where the DM can control the pacing and enforce a certain number of encounters per day, it's a predictable and appropriate limitation. In different circumstances, it might well not be.

Vancian is fine. IIRC There's no indication in the books of Jack Vance that the passage of a night means SQUAT to how much a wizard can cast. If he can get back to his tower and rest he can recover spells, but he can't do so in the field at all and it doesn't really matter how long he's out.

Eliminate casual teleportation from the game (I don't recall a single teleport in Vance), and poof, you're done. To all intents and purposes wizards get X spells PER ADVENTURE, which is the correct pacing structure. Going back home pretty well ends the quest.

The attitude isn't totally unprecedented, a high level caster in pre 3rd edition took days to fully recover spells.

[Dausuul]

Spells are very powerful, but they are a strictly limited resource. A caster only ever gets 1 or 2 of their most powerful spell per day, and their old spells don't scale(with the exception of cantrips which are strictly worse than a fighters multi-attacks or a rogue sneak attack) Further, you can only concentrait on one spell per time, and most of the powerful buffs/debuffs are concentraition.

This, exactly. Speaking from my experience in the playtest, 5E wizards can be really scary--a couple times a day. Then they run out of juice. They also can't layer on multiple high-powered buffs, and any spell requiring concentration can be broken if the wizard takes damage.

As for fighters, they do one thing in 5E: They fight. The difference is that in 5E, unlike 3E, they fight really well. They can full attack and move on the same round; their second and later attacks don't suffer a penalty to hit; they can open the combat with Action Surge and change 2, 3, or 4 attacks into 4, 6, or 8 (!); they get a ton of ability boosts and a limited ability to re-roll failed saves (think about that before you try to save-or-lose the fighter!); and they have thrown weapons to let them use Strength at range*. A high-level fighter is a walking buzzsaw.

We'll have to see how it all plays out at high levels, but there is certainly nowhere near the caster/noncaster discrepancy that existed in 3E.

*Or they can go the archer/dual wielder route instead, and pump Dex instead of Str. The Dex fighter in 5E is a nasty customer.

[Zale]

I don't see how people are going to be happy about sitting down for a whole day somewhere for the casters to recharge, since you can only benefit from a long rest once per day anyway. Resting for an hour or so for a small recharge and some self-healing would probably be alright if you aren't in a rush.

[da_chicken]

I don't see how people are going to be happy about sitting down for a whole day somewhere for the casters to recharge, since you can only benefit from a long rest once per day anyway. Resting for an hour or so for a small recharge and some self-healing would probably be alright if you aren't in a rush.

It's not like casters don't have cantrips to keep them going, too. You lose a lot of your excuse to wait when you can throw bolts of fire and ice around endlessly.

[Pex]

With the lesser amount of spells per day, I wonder how affected spellcaster players will be by "Spongeworthy Syndome". They can have a great spell that will help in the encounter, but will they need it more later? They do nothing but cantrips or maybe one low level spell. By the time the day is done they still have their high level spells uncast. If it's the BBEG fight, sure, cast away, but even non-BBEG fights will need some big boombas of spellcasting. Pity the poor cleric. It's nice they boosted Cure Wounds in its base spell, but the cleric really can't afford to spend too many spells on healing, and boosting it with a higher level slot seems such a waste. It could be 2E all over again with players yelling at the cleric for casting spells that are not Cure Wounds because they need the healing and cleric players yelling back they don't want to be a walking band-aid.

[TheOOB]

With the lesser amount of spells per day, I wonder how affected spellcaster players will be by "Spongeworthy Syndome". They can have a great spell that will help in the encounter, but will they need it more later? They do nothing but cantrips or maybe one low level spell. By the time the day is done they still have their high level spells uncast. If it's the BBEG fight, sure, cast away, but even non-BBEG fights will need some big boombas of spellcasting. Pity the poor cleric. It's nice they boosted Cure Wounds in its base spell, but the cleric really can't afford to spend too many spells on healing, and boosting it with a higher level slot seems such a waste. It could be 2E all over again with players yelling at the cleric for casting spells that are not Cure Wounds because they need the healing and cleric players yelling back they don't want to be a walking band-aid.

For wizards, the arcane recovery ability appears to be a deliberate attempt to reduce that problem, especially at low levels, as it encourages you to actually use some of your spells early in the day, because you can get some of them back, it also limits how much boom a wizard can call upon at once, while making it take a little longer for them to because use-impaired due to the lower spells per day(without spells the wizard is a bad archer).

For clerics, any good cleric will tell you that healing is the least efficient way of keeping your party alive, and it's almost always better to prevent the damage in the first place than to heal it after the fact.

[pwykersotz]

For clerics, any good cleric will tell you that healing is the least efficient way of keeping your party alive, and it's almost always better to prevent the damage in the first place than to heal it after the fact.

"Glory to Lathander, may you walk in his path. Consider always the consequences of thine actions so that the least effort may bring the greatest and best reward. Do not walk into the den and so burden those who would care for you. Instead pray for guidance that you may know the will of the gods. Pray for swiftness that you may avoid peril. Pray for strength that you may overcome the obstacles which are set before you. Now go and may Lathander be with you."

[Palegreenpants]

For wizards, the arcane recovery ability appears to be a deliberate attempt to reduce that problem, especially at low levels, as it encourages you to actually use some of your spells early in the day, because you can get some of them back, it also limits how much boom a wizard can call upon at once, while making it take a little longer for them to because use-impaired due to the lower spells per day(without spells the wizard is a bad archer).

For clerics, any good cleric will tell you that healing is the least efficient way of keeping your party alive, and it's almost always better to prevent the damage in the first place than to heal it after the fact.

I agree with this guy. Arcane Recovery is a nice balancing mechanic, as it prevents long rests after every tough fight, and keeps Mages reasonably well-charged.
Only issue is, most of the Mages in my party are wimps, and want a long rest if they so much as get scratched. That's when the giant cave bears show up.

[captpike]

To be fair.. in practice, everyone usually has a bit of good ol' LEEROY JENKINS within them, preventing the "rest-fight-rest" cycle from getting out of hand.

To counter Captpike's assertation... where's the Fun in not being challenged, and overwhelming everything immediately, and not accomplishing everything without risk. In fact, doing so often diminishes fun, because a game session only lasts so long - in a sense, EVERY adventure is on a timer, because the sessions are, and our lives are.

yes it does, but I would rather not be face with a choice between acting the way my character would (doing my best to stay alive) and fun.


This, exactly. Speaking from my experience in the playtest, 5E wizards can be really scary--a couple times a day. Then they run out of juice. They also can't layer on multiple high-powered buffs, and any spell requiring concentration can be broken if the wizard takes damage.

As for fighters, they do one thing in 5E: They fight. The difference is that in 5E, unlike 3E, they fight really well. They can full attack and move on the same round; their second and later attacks don't suffer a penalty to hit; they can open the combat with Action Surge and change 2, 3, or 4 attacks into 4, 6, or 8 (!); they get a ton of ability boosts and a limited ability to re-roll failed saves (think about that before you try to save-or-lose the fighter!); and they have thrown weapons to let them use Strength at range*. A high-level fighter is a walking buzzsaw.

We'll have to see how it all plays out at high levels, but there is certainly nowhere near the caster/noncaster discrepancy that existed in 3E.

*Or they can go the archer/dual wielder route instead, and pump Dex instead of Str. The Dex fighter in 5E is a nasty customer.

that assumes a certain number of rounds/day. past a certain number the wizard only is able to use their most boring and weak spells. bellow a certain number they are the only ones that matter in fights.

also one thing that WILL happen often even during long days is that wizard saving their spells for the most important bad guys. this means that the fighter will only fight things that are unimportant. the 4 hard targets each day will be taken out by the wizard. the fighter is stuck on cleanup.

if I am playing a fighter I should be equal as important and powerful as the wizard, I should NOT be stuck on clean up.

[Palegreenpants]

@captpike

A question for you, do you willingly avoid capitalization?

[Morty]

To be fair.. in practice, everyone usually has a bit of good ol' LEEROY JENKINS within them, preventing the "rest-fight-rest" cycle from getting out of hand.


Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The problem with daily usages of magic and other abilities is that their effectiveness as a restriction varies so much.


Vancian is fine. IIRC There's no indication in the books of Jack Vance that the passage of a night means SQUAT to how much a wizard can cast. If he can get back to his tower and rest he can recover spells, but he can't do so in the field at all and it doesn't really matter how long he's out.

That's true. Not to mention that in Vance's actual writings, we have powerful sorcerers preparing a whopping four spells at a time. So it's about Vancian magic as D&D does it.


Eliminate casual teleportation from the game (I don't recall a single teleport in Vance), and poof, you're done. To all intents and purposes wizards get X spells PER ADVENTURE, which is the correct pacing structure. Going back home pretty well ends the quest.

The attitude isn't totally unprecedented, a high level caster in pre 3rd edition took days to fully recover spells.

What if the adventure takes place near, or even at, the caster's 'home location', though? With only one fight in-between opportunities to prepare spells?

[Sartharina]

I miss the old spell preparation rules from 2e, that allowed spellcasters to have a good number of powerful spells on-hand, but if they cast them, they're out that spell slot for several days. I didn't like, however, that they couldn't be doing anything else with that sort of downtime.

[Pex]

No matter what the party does, PCs are going to take damage. A cleric telling other PCs it's better not to take damage in the first place is the same as saying don't bother to play the game at all.

[Sartharina]

No matter what the party does, PCs are going to take damage. A cleric telling other PCs it's better not to take damage in the first place is the same as saying don't bother to play the game at all.
Fortunately, hitpoints a Fighter looses are hitpoints a Cleric is less likely to need to heal. As it is, Fighters have the best healing in the game, especially at low levels, thanks to their larger Hit Die (Which also improves HP recovery) and Second Wind ability (Better than a free hit die every rest). The drawback of fighter healing is that it's self-only.

[Surrealistik]

Cleric Life Domain healing, including its Preserve Life Channel Divinity it can use up to 3 times per short rest, restoring up to 5 x Cleric level HP per use divided between any number of creatures, definitely is better than Second Wind which only restores 1d12 (6.5) + 1 x Fighter level HP to the user only once per short rest.

[da_chicken]

Cleric Life Domain healing, including its Preserve Life Channel Divinity it can use up to 3 times per short rest, restoring up to 5 x Cleric level HP per use divided between any number of creatures, definitely is better than Second Wind which only restores 1d12 (6.5) + 1 x Fighter level HP to the user only once per short rest.

Preserve Life is limited to 50% max hp.

[Surrealistik]

Preserve Life is limited to 50% max hp.

Still tons of free, effectively limitless healing; meanwhile you can use Prayer of Healing with your Domain enhancements to top up the rest.

[Pex]

I do know that in the hypothetical I play a cleric in a 5E game, I will have to adjust my normal tactics. Unlike many people here, I do heal others in combat. Not every combat. Not every round. It is situational and an effective tactic. It's more efficient in Pathfinder thanks to Channel Energy, and a Life Oracle doing it increases the power of the party a great deal. I know this from actual play experience. In 5E I don't see how it could be done. There are too few spell slots. For now the concept of low number of spell slots is not a complaint from me, merely an observation. However, the amount 5E provides (levels 1 to 5) is roughly equal to how many I use playing a cleric for non-healing spells when I do choose the tactic of healing others in combat. 5E takes away that buffer of healing spells used yet still cast all sorts of non-healing spells.

I expect a drinking binge of healing potions among 5E parties. The cleric is right to want to cast spells that are not Cure Wounds.

Edit: Having the Life Domain would help, but it is also unfair to demand every cleric everywhere have that domain every time all the time.

[Sartharina]

I do not like how little HP clerics heal in 5e :(

And, they have too few spell slots. At least WIzards get theirs back on a rest! And their spells are bigger!

Cure wounds and Healing Word are jokes :(

[Surrealistik]

Preserve Life is a ton of HP restoration and can be used in combat, though I agree that healing on the whole is pretty anemic; the potency of healing spells was something Mike nerfed late in the closed playtest, and I did not feel it to be beneficial or necessary.

[obryn]

Yeah, that was our finding during open playtesting - the cleric needed to heal so much, they never had slots for other spells.

[PinkysBrain]

The wizard once again takes up its lofty mantle as king of the classes. Kneel to the crown! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DelhLppPSxY#t=101)
the 3.5 pro-caster grognards got their way sadly.
Hey don't blame us ... yes we like to have a high magic game at high level, but we don't really mind if a fighter can create a small earthquake by hitting the ground.

Blame the Not Muh Mundanes crowd who don't want to give the martials anything interesting ... can't blame that on the 3.5 crowd, both before and after 4e ToB was one of the most popular splatbooks out there.

[Sartharina]

Hey don't blame us ... yes we like to have a high magic game at high level, but we don't really mind if a fighter can create a small earthquake by hitting the ground.

Blame the Not Muh Mundanes crowd who don't want to give the martials anything interesting ... can't blame that on the 3.5 crowd, both before and after 4e ToB was one of the most popular splatbooks out there.
Unfortunately, it's also the second-most banned (After the Expanded Psionics Handbook) - and that's only because more people are aware of the SRD-incorporated EPH than the ToB.

[spelley]

Hey don't blame us ... yes we like to have a high magic game at high level, but we don't really mind if a fighter can create a small earthquake by hitting the ground.

Blame the Not Muh Mundanes crowd who don't want to give the martials anything interesting ... can't blame that on the 3.5 crowd, both before and after 4e ToB was one of the most popular splatbooks out there.

To be fair, this can easily be handled with a subclass that allows magical effects. They went with the most "iconic" versions of each character class for the Basic/Tutorial game which, regardless of anyone's preference, *is* the "hit things with a weapon real good" Fighter, the "thiefy" Rogue, the "blaster" Wizard and the "healer" Cleric. The PHB will have 3 subclasses defined, so 2 new ones along with the Basic PDF and my guess is that at least one of them is more suited for Wuxia/"over-the-top"-style Fighters (not sure how to put that. Not trying to sound derogatory or anything as I'd allow either one at my table, just didn't want to say the "magical" Fighter)

[Morty]

I think people are giving sub-classes more confidence than they warrant. Looking at what we got so far, I honestly doubt we'll see any that will substantially alter their main classes.

[Elderand]

I think people are giving sub-classes more confidence than they warrant. Looking at what we got so far, I honestly doubt we'll see any that will substantially alter their main classes.

Have you considered the fact that the sub classes we were given where not chosen to diversify their class at all ? But to exemplify the model that the developpers have always seen as the default for dnd for better or for worse ?

The fighter who stab stuff, the rogue who steal stuff, the healbot cleric and the mobile artillery wizard.

They aren't there to be interesting or innovative they are there because they exemplify the basics of the game....funny how they would do that in a pdf called dnd basic.

The whole design of the dnd next was: we're going to take what is iconic in dnd, what people of all editions enjoyed and make a game out of that.

The goal was not to reinvent the wheel, be hyper innovative or stray far from well walked paths.

Back to basics is the order of the day, doubly so with this pdf that exist to wet peoples appetite.

[Morty]

So you're agreeing with me, then, that future sub-classes will not significantly alter their 'parent classes'.

[Elderand]

So you're agreeing with me, then, that future sub-classes will not significantly alter their 'parent classes'.

No. I don't.

Thses sub classes, presented as appetizer, reinforce their base classes because that's their job. That's what the dev wanted, establish a strong classic base.

It is the job of future books and supplements to turn things on their head. Whether or not they will is another matter. But you can't use these as evidence that future ones will be more of the same.

[obryn]

I think people are giving sub-classes more confidence than they warrant. Looking at what we got so far, I honestly doubt we'll see any that will substantially alter their main classes.
Well, the Fighter does have an Eldritch Knight subclass that I've seen. Rogue apparently has one, too.

[TheOOB]

The sub-classes in the basic rules are obviously designed to represent the base or "classic" member of their class. The evoker is a blaster who uses lots of fireballs, the champion is a strong up front no nonesense fighting, the life domain cleric is a heavy armor wearing healer who bashes people with a mace, and the thief is a skill stealthy quick bastard. They are the archtypes that have been around since 1e. They make sense to be in the basic rules, they're the simple "safe" choices

The Archtypes all provide around 5 abilities, and that's enough to radically alter the classes.

[Morty]

No. I don't.

Thses sub classes, presented as appetizer, reinforce their base classes because that's their job. That's what the dev wanted, establish a strong classic base.

It is the job of future books and supplements to turn things on their head. Whether or not they will is another matter. But you can't use these as evidence that future ones will be more of the same.

Not more of the same, no. But a few abilities spread across all 20 levels of the class probably isn't enough to really alter it. And apparently, the 'advanced' manoeuvre-based fighter picks nine moves from a selection that never changes by the time they hit level 17.


Well, the Fighter does have an Eldritch Knight subclass that I've seen. Rogue apparently has one, too.

Presumably, they'll use existing spells, so I suppose they're safe.

[obryn]

Presumably, they'll use existing spells, so I suppose they're safe.
Yeah, the version I saw let them cast Evocation and Abjuration, but also had some abilities to cast & attack on the same turn.

[Surrealistik]

Hey don't blame us ... yes we like to have a high magic game at high level, but we don't really mind if a fighter can create a small earthquake by hitting the ground.

Blame the Not Muh Mundanes crowd who don't want to give the martials anything interesting ... can't blame that on the 3.5 crowd, both before and after 4e ToB was one of the most popular splatbooks out there.

The Monk and Fighter both get interesting options via their subclasses (not the Champion one though), the former especially which is my favourite of the martial classes by a large margin and probably my favourite class to play as overall. The Elementalist subpath for the Monk is somewhat reminiscent of a miniature ToB maneuvers system.

And yes, as Sartharina has mentioned, I could blame 'muh mundanes' on the 3.5 crowd to the extent that a seemingly large portion of it hates giving martials good/versatile options per that segment's ban of the ToB.

[PinkysBrain]

To be fair, this can easily be handled with a subclass that allows magical effects. They went with the most "iconic" versions of each character class for the Basic/Tutorial game which, regardless of anyone's preference, *is* the "hit things with a weapon real good" Fighter
But he doesn't ... he's just slightly better off than in 3e because the incredibly stupid limit on movement and iterative attacks was reverted. (Did they ever own up to just how badly they screwed that up in 3e? It would be nice if we could show statements to that effect to Paizo.) A simple blaster caster will still outdo in DPS and Damage Per Day at mid/high level even with the reduced number of spells ... by a huge margin if the DM throws lots of stuff which can be AoE'd into the mix.

[Sartharina]

Well, the Fighter does have an Eldritch Knight subclass that I've seen. Rogue apparently has one, too.NICE! I've been wanting to play an effective Elven Fighter that feels like an Elven Fighter since RC let me play as an Elf!

[obryn]

NICE! I've been wanting to play an effective Elven Fighter that feels like an Elven Fighter since RC let me play as an Elf!
The basics... Intelligence for casting, Evocation/Abjuration only. 3rd level, start with 2 cantrips. You learn spells pretty slowly, based on your class advancement, though you always know Longstrider. You eventually learn other ones, too, like Magic Weapon. These are always prepared, and spellcasting goes up to Level 4.

You have a magic weapon bond and learn some stuff to both cast a cantrip and attack. The key feature is at Level 10, where you get to impose some disadvantage on saves vs. your own spells when you smack something.

[Fwiffo86]

But he doesn't ... he's just slightly better off than in 3e because the incredibly stupid limit on movement and iterative attacks was reverted. (Did they ever own up to just how badly they screwed that up in 3e? It would be nice if we could show statements to that effect to Paizo.) A simple blaster caster will still outdo in DPS and Damage Per Day at mid/high level even with the reduced number of spells ... by a huge margin if the DM throws lots of stuff which can be AoE'd into the mix.

I contest this. 10 damage on a target is still just 10 damage on a target. If you hit 5 targets, they all just take 10 damage. Your actual damage output does not change.

Fireball does 6d6 damage : average base damage = 21 on any target.

Fighter, 2 attacks = d12+STR (+3): average base damage (9.5 x 2) = 19

This does not account for chance to hit, resistances, saves, etc. They look to be pretty close to me.
A target cannot take more than one hit from fireball. The extra damage is applied to other targets sure. But that doesn't actually increase the damage out put of the fireball itself.

[Surrealistik]

TBH, I found the Eldritch Knight to be really weak; its passive traits suck, and the only thing that really shines about it is the access to excellent defensive/curative spells, like Counterspell, Shield, Protection From Evil, Fire Shield, Death Ward, Lesser Restoration, Protection From Energy, etc..

Also Fireball does 8d6 base damage to start.

[obryn]

TBH, I found the Eldritch Knight to be really weak; its passive traits suck, and the only thing that really shines about it is the access to excellent defensive/curative spells, like Counterspell, Shield, Protection From Evil, Fire Shield, Death Ward, Lesser Restoration, Protection From Energy, etc..
Simply from reading it, that was the impression I got, and it's too bad I'm not wrong. Swordbond is dull and its casting is super-limited.

Maybe the final version will improve it?

[PinkysBrain]

I contest this. 10 damage on a target is still just 10 damage on a target. If you hit 5 targets, they all just take 10 damage. Your actual damage output does not change.
Not interested in semantic arguments so I'll just rephrase ... a mid to high level blaster caster will do far more summed damage over all targets in a day when there are a lot of encounters in which multiple enemies can be caught in an AoE.

This does not account for chance to hit, resistances, saves, etc. They look to be pretty close to me.
They shouldn't be IMO. The caster shouldn't get anywhere close to a fighter on single target damage with an AoE spell, especially not a melee fighter.

Melee ... high risk, no reward.

[Morty]

And as always, a wizard can slip some non-damaging spells in without sacrificing too much offensive potential. A fighter is only going to do damage day in and day out.

[Doug Lampert]

What if the adventure takes place near, or even at, the caster's 'home location', though? With only one fight in-between opportunities to prepare spells?
If the adventure happens at home base then time pressure is provided by the fact that if you withdraw to your lab they may well attack your lab. It's no longer safe territory in that event. Preparation need not be instant even if time isn't the main way you're limiting it. Several hours off on an adventure at home can matter in a way that's unlikely when you're raiding the other side of the continent via teleport.

[Morty]

Then there's the situation where the caster has no "home location", which is going to happen often, seeing as the PCs are adventurers. Or even if s/he does, s/he might be separated from it for weeks. I perfectly understand the need to keep magic-users limited in capacity, but there's a big risk of overkill here. Which makes me think that maybe preparation-based magic just isn't the right choice for a game like D&D.

[emeraldstreak]

How disheartening.

I'm not shocked, though. Rob Heinsoo has said that, during 4e's development, certain designers kept trying to sneak caster supremacy back into the game. Without him there....

I've seen the maneuver fighter. It's awful there's no such thing as a higher level maneuver. The die size increases, and you learn more tricks, but nothing so powerful you couldn't start the game with it. :(



They don't know any better. Few understand where power comes from (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html).

[Jigawatts]

While this is true, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said, these boards are generally against anything that requires the DM to actually, y'know, DM the game. Or at least that's how the 3.5 forums operate- take RAW as far as you can and ignore the power of the DM. Sadly, many 3.5 posters are going to freak out about 5e because they don't realize that the game was designed with high amounts of DM fiat/customization in mind, and moreover they're going to call it "bad design" or something. If I had the power to apologize for my fellow 3.5 players I would, but I don't hold that kind of clout around here :smalltongue:
I am ecstatic that this mentality is once again the mainstream. And its not necessarily about houseruling, like one poster mentioned, as it is about the power to say the word "No", an artform that has become somewhat lost over the last 15 years.

[PinkysBrain]

I am ecstatic that this mentality is once again the mainstream. And its not necessarily about houseruling, like one poster mentioned, as it is about the power to say the word "No", an artform that has become somewhat lost over the last 15 years.
But "No" is exactly the word which doesn't suit a game with ad hoc DCs ... yes is the default answer in rules light, because otherwise answering all the "can I do X" and "what's the DC for doing Y" questions are going to disrupt the game.

[Jigawatts]

But "No" is exactly the word which doesn't suit a game with ad hoc DCs ... yes is the default answer in rules light, because otherwise answering all the "can I do X" and "what's the DC for doing Y" questions are going to disrupt the game.
Im not talking about "I want to swing across the room on the chandelier and use my whip to attempt to snatch the magical staff out of the bad guys hand", that stuff is cool and I encourage it.

Im talking about "I want to play a pixie druid with a unicorn companion".

[Pex]

Im not talking about "I want to swing across the room on the chandelier and use my whip to attempt to snatch the magical staff out of the bad guys hand", that stuff is cool and I encourage it.

Im talking about "I want to play a pixie druid with a unicorn companion".

Says the pixie in the playground.

:smallbiggrin:

[JusticeZero]

A lot of people are going straight from 3e. Third was, by far, the highest powered version of D&D ever. This is a fact that I don't think the developers intended, at least to the extent that they got. 4th stepped the power down, and 5th is shifting down closer to E6.
Additionally, a lot of the power of 3rd was comparatively iterative. Numbers climb and push against each other, but within the power band, they cancel out. The unfortunate result of that is a likely application of BiDA, or a constant rapid rotation of campaign enemies and locale in order to conceal rampant power inflation.

[Surrealistik]

One thing I am legitimately concerned about is the Warlock's power in the closed playtest; this was a serious problem since I'd first laid eyes on it at the beginning of the alpha, and it still is; no errata or follow up content have been released except to make this class even _stronger_, with the exception that Eldritch Blast no longer works with Haste.

This mother****er can deal 8d6+20 damage (assuming it's following the current cantrip progression; 10d6+25 otherwise) with his Eldritch Blast, half damage on a miss, without magical items divided in 2d6+5 damage chunks between up to 4 creatures. Not only that, but when fully pimped out it can attack out to a range of 600 feet without any kind of penalty, ignore cover, push up to 40 feet, halve a creature's speed (kitetastic) and count any damage rolled 1s as 2s; all of this at-will.

Really hope this is fixed for the public release, or is quickly errataed at least. I think Mearls is aware of the issue at least given the Haste nerf, so fingers crossed.

EDIT: Adjusted damage due to copy pasta from my own typoed source. But yeah still a lot of damage, and everything else, completely accurate.

[Envyus]

One thing I am legitimately concerned about is the Warlock's power in the closed playtest; this was a serious problem since I'd first laid eyes on it at the beginning of the alpha, and it still is; no errata or follow up content have been released except to make this class even _stronger_, with the exception that Eldritch Blast no longer works with Haste.

This mother****er can deal 8d6+40 damage (assuming it's following the current cantrip progression; 10d6+45 otherwise) with his Eldritch Blast (almost equivalent to a Disintegrate spell), half damage on a miss (which makes it _better_ than Disintegrate on damage dealing), without magical items divided in 2d6+5 damage chunks between up to 4 creatures. Not only that, but when fully pimped out it can attack out to a range of 600 feet without any kind of penalty, ignore cover, push up to 40 feet, halve a creature's speed (kitetastic) and count any damage rolled 1s as 2s; all of this at-will.

Really hope this is fixed for the public release, or is quickly errataed at least. I think Mearls is aware of the issue at least given the Haste nerf, so fingers crossed.

There is no damage on a miss anymore.

[Surrealistik]

Do you have access to some closed material that I don't, or is there a public release I'm missing? Because the Invocation that grants half damage on an Eldritch Blast miss has not been removed or errataed to my knowledge.

[1337 b4k4]

Do you have access to some closed material that I don't, or is there a public release I'm missing? Because the Invocation that grants half damage on an Eldritch Blast miss has not been removed or errataed to my knowledge.

Mearls has stated a few times that damage on a miss as a concept was moved from the final version of the game. It had too many oddball side effects when working with abilities that do more than damage.

[obryn]

One thing I am legitimately concerned about is the Warlock's power in the closed playtest; this was a serious problem since I'd first laid eyes on it at the beginning of the alpha, and it still is; no errata or follow up content have been released except to make this class even _stronger_, with the exception that Eldritch Blast no longer works with Haste.

This mother****er can deal 8d6+20 damage (assuming it's following the current cantrip progression; 10d6+25 otherwise) with his Eldritch Blast, half damage on a miss, without magical items divided in 2d6+5 damage chunks between up to 4 creatures. Not only that, but when fully pimped out it can attack out to a range of 600 feet without any kind of penalty, ignore cover, push up to 40 feet, halve a creature's speed (kitetastic) and count any damage rolled 1s as 2s; all of this at-will.

Really hope this is fixed for the public release, or is quickly errataed at least. I think Mearls is aware of the issue at least given the Haste nerf, so fingers crossed.

EDIT: Adjusted damage due to copy pasta from my own typoed source. But yeah still a lot of damage, and everything else, completely accurate.
They are probably comparing it to a maxed out Fighter doing 4x 2d6+5 damage, if I were to guess.

Still, I am completely unsurprised if a magic guy is doing something better than a swordy guy in 5e. :smallsigh:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Mearls has stated a few times that damage on a miss as a concept was moved from the final version of the game. It had too many oddball side effects when working with abilities that do more than damage.

Which was a bull crap answer on their part. Love it or hate it DOAM is easily able to be ruled as.

Hit: Normal damage + rider effects
Miss: Some damage on a miss + No rider effects.

I see that magic still has DOAM (1/2 damage on a passed reflex save) so I guess we will still get that same damage to the game :smallamused:

I wish they would just be honest about this one and say they are too chicken crap scared of putting it in the game for non-casters because people can't wrap their heads around it. Also it just might make the creators have to actually explain AC better in a way that idk... Actually makes sense within the game world.

Love that heavy armor makes you able to dodge blows better you know. Cause you know that is exactly how it works. You also never get hurt when you block an attack with your shield, nope, never.

It isn't so bad that the ability isn't in the game, I can live with that, but everyone's narrow minded excuses for why they don't want it or the straight up bull crap that WotC is spewing about it is what grinds my gears.

But I guess fantasy games can't work with non casters getting DOAM, it just tears everything apart.

[obryn]

Mearls has stated a few times that damage on a miss as a concept was moved from the final version of the game. It had too many oddball side effects when working with abilities that do more than damage.
Yeah, this was pretty transparently, "some people went balls-out insane over this, so we took it out."

Seriously, 2 people got banned from ENWorld because they just wouldn't let it go.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, this was pretty transparently, "some people went balls-out insane over this, so we took it out."

Seriously, 2 people got banned from ENWorld because they just wouldn't let it go.

Though it is usually fun to read when people lose their minds, the level at which some people take it is quite... Disturbing.

If I ever reach a level such as them, I think I may give up D&D for good.

[da_chicken]

I wish they would just be honest about this one and say they are too chicken crap scared of putting it in the game for non-casters because people can't wrap their heads around it. Also it just might make the creators have to actually explain AC better in a way that idk... Actually makes sense within the game world.

Love that heavy armor makes you able to dodge blows better you know. Cause you know that is exactly how it works. You also never get hurt when you block an attack with your shield, nope, never.

It isn't so bad that the ability isn't in the game, I can live with that, but everyone's narrow minded excuses for why they don't want it or the straight up bull crap that WotC is spewing about it is what grinds my gears.

But I guess fantasy games can't work with non casters getting DOAM, it just tears everything apart.

WotC decided not to include a mechanic because a significant number of people expressed extreme dislike of the mechanic because it breaks their suspension of disbelief and you put it down to WotC being "chicken"? Listening to their customers like they promised they would makes them cowards now? :smallconfused:

I love martial damage on a miss and think it's a solid game mechanic, but if the game loses a significant number of players because of it then it's not a good mechanic.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

WotC decided not to include a mechanic because a significant number of people expressed extreme dislike of the mechanic because it breaks their suspension of disbelief and you put it down to WotC being "chicken"? Listening to their customers like they promised they would makes them cowards now? :smallconfused:

I love martial damage on a miss and think it's a solid game mechanic, but if the game loses a significant number of players because of it then it's not a good mechanic.

Not putting it in wasn't chicken (though no offense to you or other chickens :smalltongue:) but how they keep skirting around the issue. I'm a huge fan of it but I can play in a game without it. But every time I see something from them they say it is because it will mess up the game in some way like giving some excuse other than that their target audience might not like it.

The biggest culprit is where they say that abilities that have more than just damage will be wonky and not work well. Bull crap. Just come out and be honest even if you do make those of us that like DOAM mad or whatever. DOAM is still in the game so they can't tell me that it will hinder the game like that.

It is like they think the people who like DOAM need to be convinced that the mechanic will actually hurt the game if put in there, outside of some people liking it or not.

That's what grinds my gears.

[1337 b4k4]

Not putting it in wasn't chicken (though no offense to you or other chickens :smalltongue:) but how they keep skirting around the issue. I'm a huge fan of it but I can play in a game without it. But every time I see something from them they say it is because it will mess up the game in some way like giving some excuse other than that their target audience might not like it.

The biggest culprit is where they say that abilities that have more than just damage will be wonky and not work well. Bull crap. Just come out and be honest even if you do make those of us that like DOAM mad or whatever. DOAM is still in the game so they can't tell me that it will hinder the game like that.

It is like they think the people who like DOAM need to be convinced that the mechanic will actually hurt the game if put in there, outside of some people liking it or not.

That's what grinds my gears.

The funny thing about this is, as you point out, they already have what basically amounts to a DOAM effect in the game, "save for half damage". Frankly, I always thought it was a little dumb to give fighter powers DOAM when we could simply give them abilities and powers that force saves instead. This would also have the benefit of giving martial classes a way of targeting something other than straight AC. They could still be melee / ranged weapon attacks, they don't have to be "magic" but they should be positioned as such overwhelming type attacks that it's not a matter of if you get hit or not, but how much damage you're going to take when you get hit.

[rlc]

The funny thing about this is, as you point out, they already have what basically amounts to a DOAM effect in the game, "save for half damage". Frankly, I always thought it was a little dumb to give fighter powers DOAM when we could simply give them abilities and powers that force saves instead. This would also have the benefit of giving martial classes a way of targeting something other than straight AC. They could still be melee / ranged weapon attacks, they don't have to be "magic" but they should be positioned as such overwhelming type attacks that it's not a matter of if you get hit or not, but how much damage you're going to take when you get hit.

They could probably do that with called shots for a ranged fighter, but that doesn't help melee at all.

[Fwiffo86]

Not putting it in wasn't chicken (though no offense to you or other chickens :smalltongue:) but how they keep skirting around the issue. I'm a huge fan of it but I can play in a game without it. But every time I see something from them they say it is because it will mess up the game in some way like giving some excuse other than that their target audience might not like it.

The biggest culprit is where they say that abilities that have more than just damage will be wonky and not work well. Bull crap. Just come out and be honest even if you do make those of us that like DOAM mad or whatever. DOAM is still in the game so they can't tell me that it will hinder the game like that.

It is like they think the people who like DOAM need to be convinced that the mechanic will actually hurt the game if put in there, outside of some people liking it or not.

That's what grinds my gears.

It sounds simple to handle, but I have a similar issue with mechanics I am working on for another game. DOAM is easy to figure out. But what happens when your spell "misses"? Is EOAM justified? Does it make that spell too powerful?

Could it be not that they are chicken to do so, but that they really have no desire to invest that amount of work on spell descriptions they have already essentially completed? That's what I'm inclined to believe personally.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The funny thing about this is, as you point out, they already have what basically amounts to a DOAM effect in the game, "save for half damage". Frankly, I always thought it was a little dumb to give fighter powers DOAM when we could simply give them abilities and powers that force saves instead. This would also have the benefit of giving martial classes a way of targeting something other than straight AC. They could still be melee / ranged weapon attacks, they don't have to be "magic" but they should be positioned as such overwhelming type attacks that it's not a matter of if you get hit or not, but how much damage you're going to take when you get hit.

Oh I'm on the same page, I have been yelling about using one system for years.

I attack with my glaive and I want to trip them, make a reflex (or in 5e a Dex save) at my challenge level (DC) is so much simpler because you can not need multiple rules for what is essentially the same thing.

Hell if you wanted to you can make attack rolls be saves but I've only seenvthat used once or twice.



It sounds simple to handle, but I have a similar issue with mechanics I am working on for another game. DOAM is easy to figure out. But what happens when your spell "misses"? Is EOAM justified? Does it make that spell too powerful?

Could it be not that they are chicken to do so, but that they really have no desire to invest that amount of work on spell descriptions they have already essentially completed? That's what I'm inclined to believe personally.

The things is, 3e and 4e had this system down pat. They screwed around with it to much in 4e but it is there.

Hit: X happens
Miss: Y happens

Easy to implement. It is already within the system as spells, there is no way that giving it to non-casters will break the game mechanically (as in fiddly rules and such)

DOAM Fighter Trip Strike!

Hit: Deal normal damage and knock the target prone if they fail a Dex (Acrobatics) check versus your DOAM Fighter DC.

Miss: Deal half damage and target gains advantage on their Dex Acrobatics check.

Or

Miss: Deal half damage and target is not tripped.

I mean, how is that really going to mess up the game? I get that some people may not like it but how would it actually cause the game to not work?

Random note

I hear that the fighter may finally have maneuvers to force waving throws :D!!!!

[1337 b4k4]

They could probably do that with called shots for a ranged fighter, but that doesn't help melee at all.

How so?



The things is, 3e and 4e had this system down pat. They screwed around with it to much in 4e but it is there.

Hit: X happens
Miss: Y happens

Easy to implement. It is already within the system as spells, there is no way that giving it to non-casters will break the game mechanically (as in fiddly rules and such)

DOAM Fighter Trip Strike!

Hit: Deal normal damage and knock the target prone if they fail a Dex (Acrobatics) check versus your DOAM Fighter DC.

Miss: Deal half damage and target gains advantage on their Dex Acrobatics check.


To be completely fair to WotC on this issue, with 4e powers and with spells, DOAM is really easy to do because they're distinct and discrete units of effect. You can define both the hit and miss values without worrying about many side effects.

DOAM that applies to a standard melee attack on the other hand can have all sorts of riders that make things weird. For example, if I put poison on my blade, with DOAM, do I get the poison chance or not? If I have a flaming sword that deals 1d4 fire damage in addition to normal damage, does DOAM mean I take half the fire damage, or apply none of it since it's a rider effect or apply all of it because it's in addition to the damage dealt? Same thing with Sneak Attack. If a rogue attacks with a DOAM maneuver, can do they apply all, half or none of the sneak attack damage on a miss? None of these are intractable problems, and are generally solvable with some simple guidelines but it is a real problem, and is one of those things that generates corner cases.

That's partly why I'm also in favor of specific maneuvers that force a save. Because spells have established that saves, depending on spell, either halve or negate the effect entirely, and there's no question as to what things hit or didn't. The spell hit, the save is the target actively doing something else. Applying the same to martial attacks means you easily answer all of the above issues with "yes you apply it all, because you didn't miss, and then you divide the damage in half or negate it as the case may be"

[Fwiffo86]

That's partly why I'm also in favor of specific maneuvers that force a save. Because spells have established that saves, depending on spell, either halve or negate the effect entirely, and there's no question as to what things hit or didn't. The spell hit, the save is the target actively doing something else. Applying the same to martial attacks means you easily answer all of the above issues with "yes you apply it all, because you didn't miss, and then you divide the damage in half or negate it as the case may be"

Ok, I'm with you. Yes, a set of "maneuvers" that fighter types have makes sense. I agree with that entirely. I also agree that the "save or" effect is already well established. And I agree that someone should go... "maneuvers? Save Ors? Kiss!"

But I'm hesitant because then they are really just nothing more than reworded spells essentially. And while I'll catch heat for saying this, that is exactly what turned me off from 4e in the first place. If all the mechanics are the same, when you strip an abiliity's description away, they are just the same thing. Whether it's 6d6 damage (save for half) or 1d12+6 damage (save for +6 damage only). This is where I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes, fighter types need maneuvers. Yes they need a mechanic. But not the spell mechanic. Even if you strip it down to its skivvies, DOAM is still essentially a save throw, just reversed. (Did I hit the target number? No, ok <<saved>>, he takes 6 damage instead of 1d12+6).

[Sartharina]

Ok, I'm with you. Yes, a set of "maneuvers" that fighter types have makes sense. I agree with that entirely. I also agree that the "save or" effect is already well established. And I agree that someone should go... "maneuvers? Save Ors? Kiss!"

But I'm hesitant because then they are really just nothing more than reworded spells essentially. And while I'll catch heat for saying this, that is exactly what turned me off from 4e in the first place. If all the mechanics are the same, when you strip an abiliity's description away, they are just the same thing. Whether it's 6d6 damage (save for half) or 1d12+6 damage (save for +6 damage only). This is where I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes, fighter types need maneuvers. Yes they need a mechanic. But not the spell mechanic. Even if you strip it down to its skivvies, DOAM is still essentially a save throw, just reversed. (Did I hit the target number? No, ok <<saved>>, he takes 6 damage instead of 1d12+6).

No, they're not 'reworded spells' - An effect that requires a save is merely an effect that requires a save. It doesn't require magic.

[1337 b4k4]

Ok, I'm with you. Yes, a set of "maneuvers" that fighter types have makes sense. I agree with that entirely. I also agree that the "save or" effect is already well established. And I agree that someone should go... "maneuvers? Save Ors? Kiss!"

But I'm hesitant because then they are really just nothing more than reworded spells essentially. And while I'll catch heat for saying this, that is exactly what turned me off from 4e in the first place. If all the mechanics are the same, when you strip an abiliity's description away, they are just the same thing. Whether it's 6d6 damage (save for half) or 1d12+6 damage (save for +6 damage only). This is where I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes, fighter types need maneuvers. Yes they need a mechanic. But not the spell mechanic. Even if you strip it down to its skivvies, DOAM is still essentially a save throw, just reversed. (Did I hit the target number? No, ok <<saved>>, he takes 6 damage instead of 1d12+6).

While I agree on the "don't want to go the 4e route", at the same time if you strip everything down to the bare mechanic, everything is the same. Swinging a sword and making a spell attack are the same thing in that case, it's just who makes the roll. To me, the 4e issue was not necessarily that everyone used the same mechanic, but that they used the same mechanics in the same way for every single thing. I absolutely think a 4e fighter and a 5e wizard could play side by side in this game and not only would it work, but it would be downright glorious. The trick is making the things that trigger the effects different, and making the refresh different. If casters are going to have everything based on a 24 hour refresh cycle, then martial characters need a different refresh cycle. Doing that alone would do a lot to avoid the "samey" feeling of 4e. Way back in the dark ages of the playtest, the idea was that martial characters would get a series of "martial dice" which unlocked maneuvers and refreshed after a short rest, or as an action in combat. Frankly I'd love to see that come back. In fact, although it would add a bit more book keeping, what I would have loved was a mechanic whereby fighters got 1 (or 2) martial dice PER ROUND in combat. They could be saved to unlock and use higher damage/effect abilities, or they could be spent almost as soon as they were earned to power lesser maneuvers. The basic idea would be that a fighter can go nova just like a caster could, but the difference is the fighter goes nova (and more nova) later in the fight.

Alternatively, it would be incredibly awesome to bring back and power up 4e stances for martial characters. Let martial characters spend some resource (but not a daily resource) to turn the space around them (or themselves temporarily) into a zone of effect. A sticky fighter might enable a "zone of stick" allowing them unlimited AoOs within their reach, but at the expense of dealing half damage on normal attacks while the zone is active (or maybe having disad). A striker fighter might enable a "zone of whirling death" allowing them to deal XdY damage to any creature ending, beginning or passing within 5 feet of the fighter unless they make a dex saving throw. A reprisal based fighter might get into a stance that allows them to make a free counter attack against any foe that attacks them (hit or miss) in exchange for a penalty to AC (or alternatively granting advantage to anyone attacking them). You could go on forever giving fighters various "stance" type powers. Things that are passively active in exchange for altering how the fighter is able to engage with the combat system, and that would allow them to target saves instead of AC, and if done right, it would never feel like magic does (from a mechanical standpoint) and never have to look like magic (from a fiction standpoint).

[Morty]

While I agree on the "don't want to go the 4e route", at the same time if you strip everything down to the bare mechanic, everything is the same. Swinging a sword and making a spell attack are the same thing in that case, it's just who makes the roll.

Exactly. At the end of the day, everything in D&D, of any edition, happens where someone rolls some dice - in 3e and forward, a d20 is almost always rolled, but I think older editions used 3d6 for attribute rolls - and then something either happens or fails to happen, depending on how the roll fell. The reason people say maneuvers are 'too spell-like' is that in core 3e, spells are the only set of discrete, unique abilities you can pick from. Everyone else is stuck with their basic actions, which can be modified by feats, sometimes. So obviously giving other character types pools of abilities will make them feel like spells.


To me, the 4e issue was not necessarily that everyone used the same mechanic, but that they used the same mechanics in the same way for every single thing. I absolutely think a 4e fighter and a 5e wizard could play side by side in this game and not only would it work, but it would be downright glorious. The trick is making the things that trigger the effects different, and making the refresh different. If casters are going to have everything based on a 24 hour refresh cycle, then martial characters need a different refresh cycle. Doing that alone would do a lot to avoid the "samey" feeling of 4e. Way back in the dark ages of the playtest, the idea was that martial characters would get a series of "martial dice" which unlocked maneuvers and refreshed after a short rest, or as an action in combat. Frankly I'd love to see that come back. In fact, although it would add a bit more book keeping, what I would have loved was a mechanic whereby fighters got 1 (or 2) martial dice PER ROUND in combat. They could be saved to unlock and use higher damage/effect abilities, or they could be spent almost as soon as they were earned to power lesser maneuvers. The basic idea would be that a fighter can go nova just like a caster could, but the difference is the fighter goes nova (and more nova) later in the fight.

Yep. It would make playing a warrior revolve around managing your momentum - blow your dice on an aggressive special attack, or keep them in reserve for stances and defensive abilities? It honestly resembles Riddle of Steel a bit, and there's a reason its combat system is considered one of the best.

[Lokiare]

I contest this. 10 damage on a target is still just 10 damage on a target. If you hit 5 targets, they all just take 10 damage. Your actual damage output does not change.

Fireball does 6d6 damage : average base damage = 21 on any target.

Fighter, 2 attacks = d12+STR (+3): average base damage (9.5 x 2) = 19

This does not account for chance to hit, resistances, saves, etc. They look to be pretty close to me.
A target cannot take more than one hit from fireball. The extra damage is applied to other targets sure. But that doesn't actually increase the damage out put of the fireball itself.

Neither way is a good way of balancing AoE effects. The real measure is how many rounds it takes the AoE character to take out all the enemies compared to the single target character. This also changes based on how many enemies are present and how many AoE attacks the character has.

For instance if a wizard casts fireball on a group of 5 hobgoblins with 16 hp each and deals an average of 9 damage each. Then proceeds to cantrip them to death for 3.5 damage per round. The group of hobgoblin will take 11 rounds to defeat.

If a fighter attacks them and deals 15 damage average to one of them each round, then it takes the fighter 10 rounds to defeat them. In this case the fighter comes out ahead.
(Please note these numbers were pulled out of thin air for example purposes)

I don't have the time or inclination, but if someone could do the actual math in a comparison that would show which is better rather than some kind of DPR calculation which doesn't take into account monster hp max and lost damage.

[Pex]

Alternatively, it would be incredibly awesome to bring back and power up 4e stances for martial characters. Let martial characters spend some resource (but not a daily resource) to turn the space around them (or themselves temporarily) into a zone of effect. A sticky fighter might enable a "zone of stick" allowing them unlimited AoOs within their reach, but at the expense of dealing half damage on normal attacks while the zone is active (or maybe having disad). A striker fighter might enable a "zone of whirling death" allowing them to deal XdY damage to any creature ending, beginning or passing within 5 feet of the fighter unless they make a dex saving throw. A reprisal based fighter might get into a stance that allows them to make a free counter attack against any foe that attacks them (hit or miss) in exchange for a penalty to AC (or alternatively granting advantage to anyone attacking them). You could go on forever giving fighters various "stance" type powers. Things that are passively active in exchange for altering how the fighter is able to engage with the combat system, and that would allow them to target saves instead of AC, and if done right, it would never feel like magic does (from a mechanical standpoint) and never have to look like magic (from a fiction standpoint).

But that would give Fighters a Nice Thing. Can't have that!

[JusticeZero]

Honestly, I think the dismantling of the movement stuff is intended to make the map less necessary. Most of the great games I was in that were most memorable in 2e were impromptu affairs in places where a formal battlemap would be completely infeasable. 3rd edition made the map necessary, which actually killed a lot of gaming opportunities. 4e retained the map. 5e seems to be de-emphasizing the map so that it can be removed without massively distorting gameplay. This would allow for a lot more gaming opportunities.

[Fwiffo86]

Neither way is a good way of balancing AoE effects. The real measure is how many rounds it takes the AoE character to take out all the enemies compared to the single target character. This also changes based on how many enemies are present and how many AoE attacks the character has.

For instance if a wizard casts fireball on a group of 5 hobgoblins with 16 hp each and deals an average of 9 damage each. Then proceeds to cantrip them to death for 3.5 damage per round. The group of hobgoblin will take 11 rounds to defeat.

If a fighter attacks them and deals 15 damage average to one of them each round, then it takes the fighter 10 rounds to defeat them. In this case the fighter comes out ahead.
(Please note these numbers were pulled out of thin air for example purposes)

I don't have the time or inclination, but if someone could do the actual math in a comparison that would show which is better rather than some kind of DPR calculation which doesn't take into account monster hp max and lost damage.

LOKI! Where have you been? I've missed you!

Actually no need for the math. You're thin air math is adequate to get your point across. Yes. I see your point about damage per round. Which makes perfect logical sense. I was examining it on a 1 target situation to demonstrate that fireball really doesn't hit any harder than a fighter at the same level.

AoE though is a completely different issue, at least for analytical reasons at any rate.

[Morty]

But that would give Fighters a Nice Thing. Can't have that!

I think it's less about "fighters not getting nice things" and more about the D&D Next team being really reluctant to give tactical depth to non-magical combat.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think it's less about "fighters not getting nice things" and more about the D&D Next team being really reluctant to give tactical depth to non-magical combat.

I wonder how much is because of they don't know how and how much of it is because they are afraid to?

[Pex]

I think it's less about "fighters not getting nice things" and more about the D&D Next team being really reluctant to give tactical depth to non-magical combat.

6 of one, half dozen of the other

[Morty]

"Not giving warriors nice things" is mostly snarky forum talk, whereas on the other hand removing tactical depth from non-magical combat is their stated goal. Mearls said in one of the blogs that a round of combat shouldn't take the player more real time than it takes their character in 'game' time.

[archaeo]

"Not giving warriors nice things" is mostly snarky forum talk, whereas on the other hand removing tactical depth from non-magical combat is their stated goal. Mearls said in one of the blogs that a round of combat shouldn't take the player more real time than it takes their character in 'game' time.

Do you have the L&L handy? I find it hard to believe Mearls has ever stated "removing tactical depth from non-magical combat" as a 5e goal, or even anything that means that in roundabout tones.

If 5e has a goal for its combat system, it's "provide the full range of PC complexity across as wide an area as possible while retaining ease of use." WotC wants every player at the table to find a solution for the level of complexity expected in play while making each of those options broadly balanced against the monsters. In Basic, that means giving the classes different levels of complexity, and giving "complicated" to spellcasters seems like an easy decision. In the PHB, the stated goal seems to be offering varying levels of complexity within each class, or across related classes.

I think it's totally, super fair to find the maneuver fighter or other "complex" martial characters wanting, but I don't think the evidence exists for cries of LFQW yet or reviving the "tier" system, and I don't think you can accuse WotC of not trying.

[Morty]

Here (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20131216) is the post I'm talking about, specifically the Complexity in Strategy, Simplicity in Tactics paragraph. It was easier to find than I expected. Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140210), in a similar vein, is a blog in which he discusses weapon-based abilities and how they were deemed too complicated. I don't think 'hey, let's make non-magicians dull and repetitive' is their stated goal, no. But they try to simplify and streamline so much that they dump the baby with the bathwater and achieve it anyway.

[rlc]

"Not giving warriors nice things" is mostly snarky forum talk, whereas on the other hand removing tactical depth from non-magical combat is their stated goal. Mearls said in one of the blogs that a round of combat shouldn't take the player more real time than it takes their character in 'game' time.

there are two ways that you can look at that.
i've played games where fighters got maneuvers and all you had to do was hit a button or type something and you tried to do the thing. like, say my fighter did a spin move to gain some momentum and hit the other guy harder (or my monk slammed the other guy on the ground, my rogue kneed him in the gut, whatever. but, back to fighters). it didn't really take much time to figure out what i wanted to do, especially if this was a real-time game. sure, i had a bunch of options, but i didn't really need much time to think about which one to pick.
but, if you're going to assume that it takes extra time to figure out what combat maneuver you want to use, why not do the same thing for spells?