Will WotC keep 5e safe from wizards who want ultimate arcane power?

[With a box]

If not, how long it will take before wizard brakes 5e?
1. When PHB is on market?
2. in Complet Arcane kind of book?

[da_chicken]

1. Limited release is Aug 8. General release is Aug 19. These are US release dates. There are currently NO plans for ANY non-English books (German, Japanese, and French people have said they've been told "no.")

2. Only the first three books have been announced: the Player's Handbook in August, the Monster Manual in September, and the Dungeon Master's Guide in November. Wizards of the Coast has said they want to release fewer books like Complete Arcane, but that doesn't mean they won't.

3. It's hard to say. Wizards are probably more powerful than Fighters, but it's nowhere near 3e levels. It doesn't seem to be causing problems with the Starter Set, but that's only through level 5 or so.

[Madfellow]

Right now everybody seems to be in a tizzy about high-level magic. Sure, spellcasters are still capable of doing some pretty scary things. However, this is not 3e. 5e has been designed with a number of limiting factors built in and around spellcasters (fewer spell slots, more limited spells, concentration, and anti-magic). Spellcasters are still very powerful, but they are no longer invincible. They can be brought down to Earth and held in check by mere mortals.

So I doubt that wizards will take over the Realms by the end of the month. And as for a Complete Arcane book or anything like that, Mearls has stated that they're not doing that this time around. Once the core books are out, all the rest of the publications for Next will be either errata or campaign modules and setting books. We'll probably get psionics fairly soon, but that's it.

[With a box]

1. Limited release is Aug 8. General release is Aug 19. These are US release dates. There are currently NO plans for ANY non-English books (German, Japanese, and French people have said they've been told "no.")

2. Only the first three books have been announced: the Player's Handbook in August, the Monster Manual in September, and the Dungeon Master's Guide in November. Wizards of the Coast has said they want to release fewer books like Complete Arcane, but that doesn't mean they won't.

3. It's hard to say. Wizards are probably more powerful than Fighters, but it's nowhere near 3e levels. It doesn't seem to be causing problems with the Starter Set, but that's only through level 5 or so.
they were more like example of time then actual question..

[hawklost]

they were more like example of time then actual question..

3 months, 1 day, 4 hours, 1 min and 59 seconds.

I like exact predictions, even if they make no sense to anyone but a geek reading them. :smallbiggrin:

as for exactly when, from some perspectives, when they decided to make 5e

[da_chicken]

they were more like example of time then actual question..

Oh. That wasn't clear to me. :smallsmile:

Although the game does return to the 3.x style instead of 4e, Wizards have a lot of extra restrictions. Most of the old tricks don't really work. It's a different game.

[obryn]

It will depend on how much momentum 5e has, the Wizard's coefficient of friction, and how much force is pushing the wizard against the disc or drum.

[DiBastet]

Certainly less time when they release ABS.

"ABS generally offers improved vehicle control and decreases stopping distances on dry and slippery surfaces for many drivers" - wikipedia

[With a box]

It will depend on how much momentum 5e has, the Wizard's coefficient of friction, and how much force is pushing the wizard against the disc or drum.

You forgot the coefficient of friction of disc or drum itself

[rlc]

reaction time is usually .75 seconds, so it depends on how fast the wizard is going

[rlc]

now the brake jokes don't make any sense anymore.

[Secret Bard]

reaction time is usually .75 seconds, so it depends on how fast the wizard is going

Wait I thought the wizard was the brakes. Is there a wizard driving and using smaller wizards as its brakes now?

[With a box]

now the brake jokes don't make any sense anymore.

No, it still viable because I didn't change the word 'brake'

[rlc]

these are the breaks
break it up break it up break it up

[akaddk]

I predict that the world will end in 3, 2...

[With a box]

Now we go back to topic, shell we?

[Lokiare]

If not, how long it will take before wizard brakes 5e?
1. When PHB is on market?
2. in Complet Arcane kind of book?

While the Wizard is less powerful than in 3E, they are still far and away able to break the game. At the moment they can use certain spells to outdo just about any class:

Cleric - Wizard's can make healing potions, and cast buff spells. They can create undead that are about equivalent to the Clerics fighting power in small numbers.
Fighter - Wizard's can already out damage them with a cantrip and one 2nd level daily spell that is concentration. They can use undead to occupy space and be a bag of hp like the fighter. At levels where that is not available they have things like blur and stone skin and even mage armor + shield.
Rogue - Wizard's get such spells as Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Invisibility, Knock, Spider Climb, Suggestion, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Dominate Person, Mass Suggestion, and Dominate Monster there aren't many things a Rogue can do that a Wizard can't.
Barbarian - See fighter.
Bard - See rogue.
Monk - Many spells replicate or bypass the things a monk can do.

You'll notice that it does most of those things better. For instance spider climb is automatic no check, whereas a rogue has to make the check and has a chance of falling.

There is no telling what will happen when they release the PHB and its expanded list of spells. So to answer your question. Its broken already.

Wizard's need their power reduced by 40% not 1% as we see in 5E in order to play well with others.

[Madfellow]

Cleric - Wizard's can make healing potions, and cast buff spells. They can create undead that are about equivalent to the Clerics fighting power in small numbers.
Fighter - Wizard's can already out damage them with a cantrip and one 2nd level daily spell that is concentration. They can use undead to occupy space and be a bag of hp like the fighter. At levels where that is not available they have things like blur and stone skin and even mage armor + shield.
Rogue - Wizard's get such spells as Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Invisibility, Knock, Spider Climb, Suggestion, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Dominate Person, Mass Suggestion, and Dominate Monster there aren't many things a Rogue can do that a Wizard can't.

1) Make healing potions - No, actually, they can't. I don't know where you're getting this from, but there isn't even a mechanic listed in the entire PDF that pertains to brewing potions. No character can brew potions at this point, not even the wizard.
2) Cast buff spells - Sure, wizards have a couple of buff spells, but most of them just offer minor bumps to AC or damage output, they all require concentration, and most of them only work on wizards. It's just a minor offset to their Victim Stats. And even a wizard that has devoted himself to buff spells cannot buff nearly as well as literally any cleric.
3) Create undead - No, they can't. Raise Dead is a cleric spell, not a wizard spell.
4) Out-damage fighters - They can't do this either. At all levels their damage output per turn through cantrips falls short to that of fighters, and any damage-dealing spell takes up a valuable spell slot that the wizard will probably want for something else, like the aforementioned buff spells.
5) Rogues - Rogues get to be awesome all the time. Wizards, if they study really hard, can pretend that they're rogues a couple of times per day.

Seriously, stop panicking.

[Lokiare]

Sigh, it gets really annoying to have to repeat myself in every thread.


1) Make healing potions - No, actually, they can't. I don't know where you're getting this from, but there isn't even a mechanic listed in the entire PDF that pertains to brewing potions. No character can brew potions at this point, not even the wizard.

It was in many of the play tests and likely will end up in the PHB in some form or another.


2) Cast buff spells - Sure, wizards have a couple of buff spells, but most of them just offer minor bumps to AC or damage output, they all require concentration, and most of them only work on wizards. It's just a minor offset to their Victim Stats. And even a wizard that has devoted himself to buff spells cannot buff nearly as well as literally any cleric.

Care to provide some examples? The only spell that I can recall off the top of my head that can't be cast on other players is Mage Armor and that's one of the weakest buff spells the Wizard gets. How about some examples?


3) Create undead - No, they can't. Raise Dead is a cleric spell, not a wizard spell.

Finger of Death


4) Out-damage fighters - They can't do this either. At all levels their damage output per turn through cantrips falls short to that of fighters, and any damage-dealing spell takes up a valuable spell slot that the wizard will probably want for something else, like the aforementioned buff spells.

The 2nd level spell Flaming Sphere combined with Fire Bolt deals the same damage as a fighter of the same level and lasts an entire encounter. By level 5 a Wizard can do this at least once per encounter. With spells having ritual forms and not requiring preparation this means many of the utility spells aren't going to need to be prepared or use spell slots meaning that Flaming Sphere every encounter is easy to come by.


5) Rogues - Rogues get to be awesome all the time. Wizards, if they study really hard, can pretend that they're rogues a couple of times per day.

Seriously, stop panicking.

Rogues have a chance for failure and due to ritual forms for spells the Wizard gets to auto-succeed whenever they please, and they can expend spell slots during emergencies to instantly do these things. They also get enough slots to do this on a regular basis. Remember according to WotC 4 average encounters is the standard they designed around.

In other words 'start panicking' because its happening.

[Madfellow]

It was in many of the play tests and likely will end up in the PHB in some form or another.

Care to provide some examples? The only spell that I can recall off the top of my head that can't be cast on other players is Mage Armor and that's one of the weakest buff spells the Wizard gets. How about some examples?

Finger of Death

The 2nd level spell Flaming Sphere combined with Fire Bolt deals the same damage as a fighter of the same level and lasts an entire encounter. By level 5 a Wizard can do this at least once per encounter. With spells having ritual forms and not requiring preparation this means many of the utility spells aren't going to need to be prepared or use spell slots meaning that Flaming Sphere every encounter is easy to come by.

Rogues have a chance for failure and due to ritual forms for spells the Wizard gets to auto-succeed whenever they please, and they can expend spell slots during emergencies to instantly do these things. They also get enough slots to do this on a regular basis. Remember according to WotC 4 average encounters is the standard they designed around.

1) Potions - I took a second look through the PDF and found the herbalism kit. Any character, not just the wizard, can brew healing potions if they have proficiency with the herbalism kit (which the wizard class does not provide), and it takes 10 days to brew each potion. So you can't say "Wizards heal as well as clerics because of potions," when the cleric can also brew potions on top of their free healing spells.
2) Buffs - Blur has a range of "self" and requires concentration. Haste requires concentration. Invisibility requires concentration. Mage armor stacks with literally no other AC bonuses, including physical armor and class features. Magic weapon requires concentration. Protection from Energy requires concentration. Shield has a range of "self" and only lasts 1 round. Stoneskin requires concentration AND 100gp of diamond dust.
3) Finger of Death - Can only be cast once per day, and it has to land the killing blow in order to count. Congrats, your level 20 wizard can create a single level 1 zombie per day, if he's lucky. Woo.
4) Flaming Sphere - As soon as you take damage from any source you have to make a Con save, which wizards aren't proficient with. And if you're upkeeping Flaming Sphere AND casting Firebolt every turn, then you can't cast or upkeep and defensive buffs. You're completely exposed and vulnerable, since you have to maintain line of sight to your targets. And wizards still have craptastic AC and HP compared to basically all other classes.
5) Rituals - They take up both time and money, which the party will rarely have in abundance. If you choose to expend spell slots instead, then you have to prepare the spells ahead of time, which means you're not preparing other spells (buffs and evocations come to mind).

[Fwiffo86]

It was in many of the play tests and likely will end up in the PHB in some form or another.


"Likely" is not "Definite". You have no proof that it will be in the PHB. This statement is faulty.



Rogues have a chance for failure and due to ritual forms for spells the Wizard gets to auto-succeed whenever they please, and they can expend spell slots during emergencies to instantly do these things. They also get enough slots to do this on a regular basis. Remember according to WotC 4 average encounters is the standard they designed around.


Except Ritual casting require a minimum of Ten minutes per spell cast and cannot be cast at a higher spell level. As per Basic Rules pdf pg. 78.

[hawklost]

Rogues have a chance for failure and due to ritual forms for spells the Wizard gets to auto-succeed whenever they please, and they can expend spell slots during emergencies to instantly do these things. They also get enough slots to do this on a regular basis. Remember according to WotC 4 average encounters is the standard they designed around.

Funny, the Only ritual spells I see so far are.

Augury
Comprehend Languages
Commune
Detect Magic
Divination
Identify
Silence

Bolded ones that Wizard can cast.

None of these spells seem like an "I Win" over a rogue except possibly Silence (and that requires you to choose a point so it doesn't really move with you). But if you are spending 10 minutes somewhere chanting and casting a spell (being pretty loud I assume), I am not sure that your 10 minutes of silence are terribly helpful.

EDIT: Redacted the last part of the statement due to reading the rules again.

[Sartharina]

Sigh, it gets really annoying to have to repeat myself in every thread.And it gets really annoying to see you posting the same misconceptions and erroneous information in every thread. Stop being wrong and you wouldn't have to repeat yourself as much.

Care to provide some examples? The only spell that I can recall off the top of my head that can't be cast on other players is Mage Armor and that's one of the weakest buff spells the Wizard gets. How about some examples?


Finger of DeathOnce per day, you have a slim chance of making an incompetent commoner. And you expect this to be game-breaking.


The 2nd level spell Flaming Sphere combined with Fire Bolt deals the same damage as a fighter of the same level and lasts an entire encounter. By level 5 a Wizard can do this at least once per encounter. With spells having ritual forms and not requiring preparation this means many of the utility spells aren't going to need to be prepared or use spell slots meaning that Flaming Sphere every encounter is easy to come by.Flaming Sphere lasts until the wizard wants to cast another spell or takes a hit.


Rogues have a chance for failure and due to ritual forms for spells the Wizard gets to auto-succeed whenever they please, and they can expend spell slots during emergencies to instantly do these things. They also get enough slots to do this on a regular basis. Remember according to WotC 4 average encounters is the standard they designed around.Yes, you get 4 encounters per day. You better draw them out as long as possible, because you're not getting your encounter powers back as frequently. An encounter is a single 'scene', not a single combat situation. An encounter is a quarter of a floor of a dungeon, or an entire chase through a town, or complete Storming of Prince Humperdinck's/Prince John's castle.

Also - a rogue does its stuff is less than a hundredth of the time a wizard trying to use rituals takes.

[rlc]

None of these spells seem like an "I Win" over a rogue except possibly Silence

all silence does is make things quiet, which isn't as good as sneak attacking things to make them dead.
and even then, silence is only level 2, so the arcane trickster will probably get it anyway.

[hawklost]

all silence does is make things quiet, which isn't as good as sneak attacking things to make them dead.
and even then, silence is only level 2, so the arcane trickster will probably get it anyway.

I will retract my statement about silence being better than the rogue. I originally thought you could cast it on an object and carry that around (making it somewhat useful) with it being a 10 minute cast time and only 10 minutes of spell, I feel it is pretty much worthless for almost anything

[rlc]

I will retract my statement about silence being better than the rogue. I originally thought you could cast it on an object and carry that around (making it somewhat useful) with it being a 10 minute cast time and only 10 minutes of spell, I feel it is pretty much worthless for almost anything

well, the casting time is still one action, but the duration is 10 minutes. and things it affects are deaf and can't make nay noises, so no verbal spells. and they're immune to thunder.
so if you don't want your enemies to cast spells with verbal components, it has a purpose. if you're fighting a boss with only thunder-based attacks (which makes little sense, but i guess is possible), then you can even cast it on yourself and let your martial characters go to work.

edit: but that's still pretty useless.

[arclance]

Knock can be heard from 300ft. away.

When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.
You need Silence to be sneaky lockpick wizard using only spells.

[rlc]

so two spells to do something that a rogue can do all day everyday

[hawklost]

well, the casting time is still one action, but the duration is 10 minutes. and things it affects are deaf and can't make nay noises, so no verbal spells. and they're immune to thunder.
so if you don't want your enemies to cast spells with verbal components, it has a purpose. if you're fighting a boss with only thunder-based attacks (which makes little sense, but i guess is possible), then you can even cast it on yourself and let your martial characters go to work.

edit: but that's still pretty useless.

We were discussing Rituals at the time I made the comment about Silence. If anyone wants to wait 10 minutes while the ritual is completed before they try to use spells they really really deserve the pain that will come.

[Alefiend]

Care to provide some examples? The only spell that I can recall off the top of my head that can't be cast on other players is Mage Armor and that's one of the weakest buff spells the Wizard gets. How about some examples?


After a not especially careful or thorough search:

Blur
Shield
Etherealness
Globe of Invulnerability
Anti-Magic Field
Comprehend Languages

[TheOOB]

Wizards are already the most powerful class, but they are tied to a weak chassis (lowest hd, worst proficiencies), and their power is exclusively limited to their spells(they get pretty much no abilities that are related to spellcasting.)

They never get more than 1 or 2 of their most powerful spell levels per day, few of their powerful buffs and debuffs are non concentraition spells, and it seems to be easy for a wizard to blow their load and be stuck with cantrips until a long rest.

Basically, they are a glass cannon, unbelievable power, but easy to break and once their ammo is out, it's out.

[rlc]

We were discussing Rituals at the time I made the comment about Silence. If anyone wants to wait 10 minutes while the ritual is completed before they try to use spells they really really deserve the pain that will come.

you can dismiss it whenever you want to and you can even cast another spell that doesn't require concentration. so silence + something damaging still works, but you're probably wasting the turn by casting silence, unless you're really scared of your target casting something scary at you.

[hawklost]

you can dismiss it whenever you want to and you can even cast another spell that doesn't require concentration. so silence + something damaging still works, but you're probably wasting the turn by casting silence, unless you're really scared of your target casting something scary at you.

Ummm, you do realize that a Ritual requires 10 Minutes to cast, not 1 round. So in reference to ritual casting of Silence, I am saying that Ritual is pretty useless.

[rlc]

Ummm, you do realize that a Ritual requires 10 Minutes to cast, not 1 round. So in reference to ritual casting of Silence, I am saying that Ritual is pretty useless.

well, yeah, but i'm ignoring that because casting silence as a ritual is dumb. the only way that it makes sense is to know ten minutes beforehand that there's going to be a fight where you're casting the spell, which means you're leading something worth casting silence on into an ambush, which...probably still isn't worth it.
so, yes, we agree that ritual casting silence is useless, except for in very specific situations. don't be that guy.
but, the spell itself, as a single action spell, is still pretty situational. that's the point i'm making. it's not just limited to when it's a ritual casting. if anything, the hybrid classes, like the eldritch knight, probably get more use out of it than the pure wizard, just because of the extra attack.

[Envyus]

Silence is not even a Wizard spell it's a cleric spell. So the entire point is moot.

[TheOOB]

Casting silence as a ritual has a lot of uses, not many of them involving dungeon crawling.

[rlc]

Casting silence as a ritual has a lot of uses, not many of them involving dungeon crawling.

I'm trying pretty hard, but I honestly can't think of more than about 2 or 3 uses for silence outside of combat, never mind dungeon crawling, and all of the examples I can think of are kind of silly (like casting silence on the grandfather clock because it gives someone a headache). I'm genuinely interested in some of your examples.

[Person_Man]

So the core design problem is this:

1) Full spellcasters get around 10ish class features, plus access to a massive list of 100+ options via spells which can be changed out with a Long Rest.

2) Non casters get a total of 20ish class features, and once selected those options are permanently locked in.

3) Additional options from subclasses are basically a wash, since every class can trade away 5ish class abilities for a different package of 5ish class abilities. (It's never a net gain). And even then, the Wizard and Cleric have more subclasses, and thus more options to choose from.

3) Half-Casters get some spells, but at higher levels they're getting comparatively inferior spells. For example, At 13th level the Paladin's only new class feature is gaining 4th level spells, when full casters are gaining 7th level spells.

4) Spells tend to be more powerful and useful then the things that mundane characters of a similar level can do.

5) The primary restrictions on spellcasting are Concentration and limited spells. But not all buff spells with a duration require Concentration (like Mage Armor or Foresight) and Cantrips, Rituals, and an easily metagamed Rest system means that full casters will rarely run out of resources.

6) Each splat book is likely to produce additional spells, adding more spellcaster options. Non-casters can gain new options via subclasses, but they have to trade away class features in order to get them. They have no comparable open ended subsystem.

So yes, Tiers exist in 5E, spellcasters are once again at the top, and its only a matter of time before someone creates a Pun Pun like nuclear bomb.

[Madfellow]

1) Full spellcasters get around 10ish class features, plus access to a massive list of 100+ options via spells which can be changed out with a Long Rest.
2) Non casters get a total of 20ish class features, and once selected those options are permanently locked in.
3) Additional options from subclasses are basically a wash, since every class can trade away 5ish class abilities for a different package of 5ish class abilities. (It's never a net gain). And even then, the Wizard and Cleric have more subclasses, and thus more options to choose from.
3) Half-Casters get some spells, but at higher levels they're getting comparatively inferior spells. For example, At 13th level the Paladin's only new class feature is gaining 4th level spells, when full casters are gaining 7th level spells.
4) Spells tend to be more powerful and useful then the things that mundane characters of a similar level can do.
5) The primary restrictions on spellcasting are Concentration and limited spells. But not all buff spells with a duration require Concentration (like Mage Armor or Foresight) and Cantrips, Rituals, and an easily metagamed Rest system means that full casters will rarely run out of resources.
6) Each splat book is likely to produce additional spells, adding more spellcaster options. Non-casters can gain new options via subclasses, but they have to trade away class features in order to get them. They have no comparable open ended subsystem.

1) Only divine casters know all of their spells; arcanes have a much more limited pool from which to draw. And in any given day, they'll only have access to up to 20 of them, each of which can only be used one at a time. Mundanes, on the other hand, have all 20 of their class features active at all times.
2) The Gladiator is a perfect counterexample to this, and I feel confident in saying that other mundane classes will likely have sub-classes that are similar to it from a mechanical perspective.
3a) Points 1 and 2 make this a non-issue.
3b) High level casters only get 3 high level spell slots per day. That's cool for them, but half-casters don't need them, because like the mundanes they can do cool things all the time, not just when they're casting.
4) They have to be, because they can only be active for short intervals.
5) Mage Armor is strictly inferior to regular armor, as other posters have said, because it requires a valuable spell slot to cast it. And Foresight is good, but I'd hardly call it game-breaking. Cantrips are inferior to mundane damage output, as others have said. Rituals require both time and money, as others have said. And if your party is taking an 8-hour rest after every hour of adventuring, the fighter will benefit just as much from a full HP restore.
6) Mearls has said they're not doing that for Next. We get Psionics and the occasional errata, but the rest is adventures and campaign settings. No Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium or anything like that.

[obryn]

2) The Gladiator is a perfect counterexample to this, and I feel confident in saying that other mundane classes will likely have sub-classes that are similar to it from a mechanical perspective.
The former Gladiator (now Battlemaster) actually confirms it. They have a list of relatively low-impact abilities they can use 2-6 times between Short Rests. Worse, there's no stratificiation in the list, so at 17th level you're just picking your 9th-favorite ability from the same list you've been looking at your entire career.

Even the "recover dice" ability has been thoroughly nerfed; in the Alpha it was 2 per round. Now, it's 1 when you roll initiative. It's not great.


3a) Points 1 and 2 make this a non-issue.
3b) High level casters only get 3 high level spell slots per day. That's cool for them, but half-casters don't need them, because like the mundanes they can do cool things all the time, not just when they're casting.
There's no "all the time," unless you're running with a very specific and narrow set of conditions - mainly "dungeon, with random encounters." Balancing classes based on various refresh rates just doesn't work out great, by and large.


6) Mearls has said they're not doing that for Next. We get Psionics and the occasional errata, but the rest is adventures and campaign settings. No Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium or anything like that.
I wouldn't hold your breath on this count. :smallbiggrin: Third parties are already coming up with "big book o' poorly-balanced spells" supplements, and I have very little doubt that WotC will dive in within a year.

The way the game is assembled - with feats, vancian spells, 3e-style multiclassing, and subclasses - begs for expansion. I would not be at all surprised to see the first prestige classes within the year; they fit neatly into the base system already, since character structure takes most of its cues from 3.x.

[PinkysBrain]

6) Mearls has said they're not doing that for Next. We get Psionics and the occasional errata, but the rest is adventures and campaign settings. No Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium or anything like that.

If they don't someone else will ... and make good money of it.

There will be a demand not just for spell splat, but also ToB style alternative martials, some version of prestige classes and/or paragon paths and epic destinies etc etc.

[Cibulan]

If they don't someone else will ... and make good money of it.

There will be a demand not just for spell splat, but also ToB style alternative martials, some version of prestige classes and/or paragon paths and epic destinies etc etc.Maybe mine is an unpopular opinion but if some 3rd party wants to put out some terrible splat book that unbalances things, I hardly think that should be a knock against the edition as a whole. My group never uses any 3rd party material at all and we are generally pleased with the balance seen so far, so if Mearls keeps true to his word, we won't have any troubles.

[hawklost]

Maybe mine is an unpopular opinion but if some 3rd party wants to put out some terrible splat book that unbalances things, I hardly think that should be a knock against the edition as a whole. My group never uses any 3rd party material at all and we are generally pleased with the balance seen so far, so if Mearls keeps true to his word, we won't have any troubles.

I agree with your opinion. Any 3rd party book to a game means nothing about how the game is laid out. 3rd party books never have to follow anything in the Core books since they aren't sanctioned always by the creators.

Now, if Wizards comes out with Splat books that are completely unbalanced and cause issues, that is another matter entirely. Although even then, some groups play Core Only games so they are not fazed by what comes out after the Core 3.

[obryn]

Maybe mine is an unpopular opinion but if some 3rd party wants to put out some terrible splat book that unbalances things, I hardly think that should be a knock against the edition as a whole. My group never uses any 3rd party material at all and we are generally pleased with the balance seen so far, so if Mearls keeps true to his word, we won't have any troubles.
I'm not certain Mearls's word was "no splat" - just a slower release schedule.

Even if we get mostly get settings, the odds that they will have a bunch more spells is (IMO) pretty damn high.

[Cibulan]

I'm not certain Mearls's word was "no splat" - just a slower release schedule.

Even if we get mostly get settings, the odds that they will have a bunch more spells is (IMO) pretty damn high.Honest question, do people let players mine for spells/feats out of settings books that the group is not using? For example, if your DM is running Forgotten Realms, would he/she allow a player to take spells from the Eberron books? If not, doesn't seem like a big issue to me. If so, that is a totally alien concept to me.

[obryn]

Honest question, do people let players mine for spells/feats out of settings books that the group is not using? For example, if your DM is running Forgotten Realms, would he/she allow a player to take spells from the Eberron books? If not, doesn't seem like a big issue to me. If so, that is a totally alien concept to me.
Depends on circumstances.

Back when I ran 3.x/d20 games, no, I kept a strict book limit because I haaaate looking up spells, classes, feats, magic items, etc. (but especially spells).

In 4e, I don't allow specific setting flavor (like Dragonmark feats) in inappropriate settings, but I'll usually allow stuff like subclasses, paragon paths, and so on, so long as I get a good story out of it.

[Cibulan]

In 4e, I don't allow specific setting flavor (like Dragonmark feats) in inappropriate settings, but I'll usually allow stuff like subclasses, paragon paths, and so on, so long as I get a good story out of it.Is that just because the DDI character builder gave all those options? In other words, DDI facilitated the practice to the point it just became the norm? If you weren't using a digital tool for 5e, would you be willing to let a player walk in with random book X's spells?

[obryn]

Is that just because the DDI character builder gave all those options? In other words, DDI facilitated the practice to the point it just became the norm? If you weren't using a digital tool for 5e, would you be willing to let a player walk in with random book X's spells?
If I weren't using a digital tool, odds are I'd keep sources more restricted, yep. I don't like lugging around a bunch of books for reference pretty much no matter what.

[HorridElemental]

As of the PHB review on enworld the answer to this thread is " no".

The big spells are back and I don't see the fighter or rogue being able to win against them.

Polymorph and Shape change is back.

[Cibulan]

If I weren't using a digital tool, odds are I'd keep sources more restricted, yep. I don't like lugging around a bunch of books for reference pretty much no matter what.Yea that's about where I am too. We won't be using digital tools so the possibility of crunch splat isn't as great of a concern for me personally but as always, something to be wary of for the health of the edition.

[Envyus]

As of the PHB review on enworld the answer to this thread is " no".

The big spells are back and I don't see the fighter or rogue being able to win against them.

Polymorph and Shape change is back.

Do you know how they work? Because I have been around there and they don't seem as powerful as they used to be.

[PinkysBrain]

Wonder if polymorph will be like AD&D/Pathfinder ... personal range only, to add insult to injury.

[Lokiare]

1) Potions - I took a second look through the PDF and found the herbalism kit. Any character, not just the wizard, can brew healing potions if they have proficiency with the herbalism kit (which the wizard class does not provide), and it takes 10 days to brew each potion. So you can't say "Wizards heal as well as clerics because of potions," when the cleric can also brew potions on top of their free healing spells.

This was changed. It used to be a Wizard class feature they got at early levels. We do know from the PHB thread that polymorph is back so just polymorphing someone into a troll or other regenerating creature is just as good as a Clerics limited daily healing, possibly better if the target can regenerate to full before the duration wears off.


2) Buffs - Blur has a range of "self" and requires concentration. Haste requires concentration. Invisibility requires concentration. Mage armor stacks with literally no other AC bonuses, including physical armor and class features. Magic weapon requires concentration. Protection from Energy requires concentration. Shield has a range of "self" and only lasts 1 round. Stoneskin requires concentration AND 100gp of diamond dust.

Yes, what Cleric buffs don't require concentration? Since we are comparing the Wizards buffs to the Cleric? Also with the proficiency to Con saves feat a Wizard can now safely make 2-3 saves in a row to keep concentrating until very high level where it drops to 1-2 saves.


3) Finger of Death - Can only be cast once per day, and it has to land the killing blow in order to count. Congrats, your level 20 wizard can create a single level 1 zombie per day, if he's lucky. Woo.

Yeah, it helps to know what the spell does and how the spell casting system works. You can actually cast it 3 times per day and the undead it creates is permanent. I can see a wizard carefully raising an army of undead and then totally destroying any challenges, except another wizard similarly armed. Luck also has nothing to do with it. You use it on weak creatures that you know will 100% die from it.


4) Flaming Sphere - As soon as you take damage from any source you have to make a Con save, which wizards aren't proficient with. And if you're upkeeping Flaming Sphere AND casting Firebolt every turn, then you can't cast or upkeep and defensive buffs. You're completely exposed and vulnerable, since you have to maintain line of sight to your targets. And wizards still have craptastic AC and HP compared to basically all other classes.
5) Rituals - They take up both time and money, which the party will rarely have in abundance. If you choose to expend spell slots instead, then you have to prepare the spells ahead of time, which means you're not preparing other spells (buffs and evocations come to mind).

See the Con save proficiency feat I mentioned above. Yes, they can't keep up anything except Mage Armor + Shield which is plenty enough defense to outdo the fighter in plate with a shield and the defensive fighting style. They have low hp, but its comparable to the Rogue so yeah, not really seeing the problem here for the most part they will get through the 4 average encounters in a day with zero problems and still do most of what everyone else in the party can do only better in some cases.

Actually since you can't buy magic items the only real costs in the game is your daily upkeep (which is a couple silver at best) and armor upgrades for the non-casters (or for the casters too if you are a dwarf caster). Basically a few levels in the whole party is going to be swimming in money they can't actually spend anywhere. The party has as much time as they want. A single fighter standing in a doorway going defensive can hold off most creatures in the game while the wizard casts their rituals. Of course that's assuming the DM throws creatures at the party every time they stop for a rest or ritual. In most games unless there are patrols from smart creatures like hobgoblins there will be plenty of time to do what you need. There are enough spell preparation slots to get every spell you want and then some. Its level + ability score mod. Meaning you'll have around 5 spells at first level and 25 by level 20. Dropping spells that are only useful at low level, you really only need 2-3 spells of each level and the most damaging spells of your highest level.


"Likely" is not "Definite". You have no proof that it will be in the PHB. This statement is faulty.

Likely is 'all available evidence points toward it being in the book'. I'll take that any day over 'its not in the book because the book isn't out yet.'


Except Ritual casting require a minimum of Ten minutes per spell cast and cannot be cast at a higher spell level. As per Basic Rules pdf pg. 78.

And? Your point is? Short of the DMs that constantly throw combat encounters at their players a few 10 minute rests are nothing.


And it gets really annoying to see you posting the same misconceptions and erroneous information in every thread. Stop being wrong and you wouldn't have to repeat yourself as much.

I haven't been shown to be wrong very often and when I have been shown wrong, I've altered my view point to accommodate the new information. Just randomly saying someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong. You have to provide examples or quotes.


Once per day, you have a slim chance of making an incompetent commoner. And you expect this to be game-breaking.

No three times per day every day you have a chance of making another addition to your undead army that is permanent and can focus fire down anything in the game.


Flaming Sphere lasts until the wizard wants to cast another spell or takes a hit.

Yes, you get 4 encounters per day. You better draw them out as long as possible, because you're not getting your encounter powers back as frequently. An encounter is a single 'scene', not a single combat situation. An encounter is a quarter of a floor of a dungeon, or an entire chase through a town, or complete Storming of Prince Humperdinck's/Prince John's castle.

Also - a rogue does its stuff is less than a hundredth of the time a wizard trying to use rituals takes.

I wish you would quite posting your personal house rules as if they are game rules. Just to make your statement look silly a 1st level encounter is 5-7 goblins. Go ahead spread that over 1/4 of a dungeon or an entire castle. See how that plays out.


After a not especially careful or thorough search:

Blur
Shield
Etherealness
Globe of Invulnerability
Anti-Magic Field
Comprehend Languages

I meant for the Clerics. What are the Cleric buff spells that are more powerful than the Wizard.


So the core design problem is this:

1) Full spellcasters get around 10ish class features, plus access to a massive list of 100+ options via spells which can be changed out with a Long Rest.

2) Non casters get a total of 20ish class features, and once selected those options are permanently locked in.

3) Additional options from subclasses are basically a wash, since every class can trade away 5ish class abilities for a different package of 5ish class abilities. (It's never a net gain). And even then, the Wizard and Cleric have more subclasses, and thus more options to choose from.

3) Half-Casters get some spells, but at higher levels they're getting comparatively inferior spells. For example, At 13th level the Paladin's only new class feature is gaining 4th level spells, when full casters are gaining 7th level spells.

4) Spells tend to be more powerful and useful then the things that mundane characters of a similar level can do.

5) The primary restrictions on spellcasting are Concentration and limited spells. But not all buff spells with a duration require Concentration (like Mage Armor or Foresight) and Cantrips, Rituals, and an easily metagamed Rest system means that full casters will rarely run out of resources.

6) Each splat book is likely to produce additional spells, adding more spellcaster options. Non-casters can gain new options via subclasses, but they have to trade away class features in order to get them. They have no comparable open ended subsystem.

So yes, Tiers exist in 5E, spellcasters are once again at the top, and its only a matter of time before someone creates a Pun Pun like nuclear bomb.

What you mean like the Dwarf Wizard in plate mail with the Heavy Armor Mastery and Warcaster feats with a couple levels of Sorcerer for the Twinned Fire Bolt every round and Shield for when they get attacked? Throw in a number of concentration spells like Flaming Sphere and whatever utility spells they need to outdo the other classes and you have a Wizard that can do everything.

[hawklost]

..................................
What you mean like the Dwarf Wizard in plate mail with the Heavy Armor Mastery and Warcaster feats with a couple levels of Sorcerer for the Twinned Fire Bolt every round and Shield for when they get attacked? Throw in a number of concentration spells like Flaming Sphere and whatever utility spells they need to outdo the other classes and you have a Wizard that can do everything.

So wait, what level are you again?
Sorc will get a limited number of points to use for a Metamagic ability we already know that (probably limited like the Alpha based on Sorc level)
Sorc Metamagic ability has a level requirement from the Sorc (whatever it is, 3/5/15) we don't know yet but it probably isn't 1
Shield takes up a spell slot every time you cast it
Your Wizard has taken up 2 of his 4 stat increases for Feats, better hope he had a 16 at least in Int to begin with (and a great Con, 16 or so by the end)

So, to have your Wizard do all this he pretty much has about 15-20 character levels
Assuming the Sorc gets metamagic at 3 (and say 4 points to use) you could cast Twinned 4 times a day
Assuming the Sorc gets metamagic at 5 (and say 7 points to use) you could cast Twinned 7 times a day

Lets say your Wizard is attacked every round needing to cast Shield each round a total of 22 rounds a day (not counting recovery) (AC = 23 now). They lose their armor after that and are still weak against anything that can ignore armor (Grapple anyone?).
A lvl 20 fighter gets 4 attacks at +11, so about a 40% chance to hit Each Round, so you have to make about 2 Concentration Checks a round against a Fighter or lose your cast spell (which you can recast at the cost of your defense later).
Holding a Concentration spell still can fail ~15% of the time with Con 20 AND Advantage (and that isn't even taking into account more than 20 damage at once).

This is all pretty much going against a complete Mundane who has no spells whatsoever, so not a High Elf Fighter(who could have a Shocking Grasp to gain advantage against your heavy armor wearing butt), only a Champion fighter (who if Criting you will probably make your save DC higher than 10 for that hit)

Now lets look at your everything statement
-Lets make the Wizard Stealth through enemies..... Invisibility and.... wait.... Silence requires Concentration too... so you get advantage to Stealth but you either make noise or you are able to be seen
-Lets make the Wizard jump to Gorge roof tops....... Fly... yup, succeeded here
-Lets make the Wizard try to convince the Guard to let them pass..... Charm Person..... ...... 1 minute passed and now the alarm is sounding OR you cast a much higher level slot that a person could have done FOR FREE
-Lets have the Wizard get those dire wolves from attacking.... ..... Sleep? Nope, too many HP there.... .....
-Lets have the Wizard steal that guys wallet (objective, they don't know its gone, so no handing it to you).... .... mage hand possibly?..... .... Telekinesis?
-Lets have the Wizard stop a poison from killing the party or stop the bleeding..... ...... .....
-Lets have the Wizard lead us to our destination through a wilderness.... Augury? Wish? Teleport to something we have never seen?
-Lets have the Wizard Intimidate someone.... Cast magic at them... wait, that would be a DM call cant use that.... FEAR, wait, they came back angrier now
-Lets have the Wizard Entertain someone.... Prestidigitation.... yea...not really caring if the wizard does this, but I mock perform anyways

[Fwiffo86]

Likely is 'all available evidence points toward it being in the book'. I'll take that any day over 'its not in the book because the book isn't out yet.'

Your personal feelings have no relevance to the inaccuracy of your statement.



And? Your point is? Short of the DMs that constantly throw combat encounters at their players a few 10 minute rests are nothing.

No increased spell level.
Spells cast without enhanced spell level and at its minimum effectiveness.
10 minute cast for 1 minute duration, or instant effect.



I haven't been shown to be wrong very often and when I have been shown wrong, I've altered my view point to accommodate the new information. Just randomly saying someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong. You have to provide examples or quotes.

Quoted for sheer entertainment value.

[Lokiare]

So wait, what level are you again?
Sorc will get a limited number of points to use for a Metamagic ability we already know that (probably limited like the Alpha based on Sorc level)
Sorc Metamagic ability has a level requirement from the Sorc (whatever it is, 3/5/15) we don't know yet but it probably isn't 1
Shield takes up a spell slot every time you cast it
Your Wizard has taken up 2 of his 4 stat increases for Feats, better hope he had a 16 at least in Int to begin with (and a great Con, 16 or so by the end)

So, to have your Wizard do all this he pretty much has about 15-20 character levels
Assuming the Sorc gets metamagic at 3 (and say 4 points to use) you could cast Twinned 4 times a day
Assuming the Sorc gets metamagic at 5 (and say 7 points to use) you could cast Twinned 7 times a day

I'm thinking they get it earlier probably level 2 or so. Even if they don't that just means they don't out damage other classes until they hit the magic level where they gain twinned spell.

As to the points, I already qualified my statement with 8+ points when I originally posted it.


Lets say your Wizard is attacked every round needing to cast Shield each round a total of 22 rounds a day (not counting recovery) (AC = 23 now). Actually no, they get to choose after the DM says 'hit' to cast it which means they only cast it when they are hit and if the DM shows their rolls when it will matter enough to stop a hit. Meaning just 3-4 slots per day is all that's needed and they can use higher level slots if they want to keep some for lower spells. They lose their armor after that and are still weak against anything that can ignore armor (Grapple anyone?). As far as I know that's a save to get out of, so they can probably get out of the grapple. If not they still have their cantrips.
A lvl 20 fighter gets 4 attacks at +11, so about a 40% chance to hit Each Round, so you have to make about 2 Concentration Checks a round against a Fighter or lose your cast spell (which you can recast at the cost of your defense later).
Holding a Concentration spell still can fail ~15% of the time with Con 20 AND Advantage (and that isn't even taking into account more than 20 damage at once).

In the unlikely event they will fight a fighter with 4 attacks since this isn't a PvP game. Even if they did they would have not only advantage on the Constitution save they would also have proficiency which depending on level can be as high as +6. A DC 10 save can be passed 97.75% (http://anydice.com/program/42e6) of the time with advantage and +6, not including the caster putting a decent stat into Con.


This is all pretty much going against a complete Mundane who has no spells whatsoever, so not a High Elf Fighter(who could have a Shocking Grasp to gain advantage against your heavy armor wearing butt), only a Champion fighter (who if Criting you will probably make your save DC higher than 10 for that hit)

Now lets look at your everything statement
-Lets make the Wizard Stealth through enemies..... Invisibility and.... wait.... Silence requires Concentration too... so you get advantage to Stealth but you either make noise or you are able to be seen,

sure one or the other, but it doesn't matter it still ups the chance to around 100%.



-Lets make the Wizard jump to Gorge roof tops....... Fly... yup, succeeded here
-Lets make the Wizard try to convince the Guard to let them pass..... Charm Person..... ...... 1 minute passed and now the alarm is sounding OR you cast a much higher level slot that a person could have done FOR FREE

Not for free. Remember social skill checks aren't that powerful. They merely make a suspicious person friendly or a hostile person neutral. They don't automatically make them obey your commands. The response from the guard after a successful Charisma check might be "I like you, but I'm sorry you can't come in, you'll have to make an appointment during the day. Here, I'll take your name and set it up for you."

The response after charm person however is "Ok friend, I guess I can let you come in, I know you and know you would never harm the duke."


-Lets have the Wizard get those dire wolves from attacking.... ..... Sleep? Nope, too many HP there.... .....

Web, Higher slot Hold Monster, Higher slot sleep, comprehend languages, etc...etc... They have the spells and options to do this.


-Lets have the Wizard steal that guys wallet (objective, they don't know its gone, so no handing it to you).... .... mage hand possibly?..... .... Telekinesis?

Sleep works too. Prestidigitation to make his wallet fall out as he's standing up., since its a finagle the DM spell.


-Lets have the Wizard stop a poison from killing the party or stop the bleeding..... ...... .....

Polymorph Troll x5


-Lets have the Wizard lead us to our destination through a wilderness.... Augury? Wish? Teleport to something we have never seen?

Fly, levitate, any of the knowledge skills, etc...etc...


-Lets have the Wizard Intimidate someone.... Cast magic at them... wait, that would be a DM call cant use that.... FEAR, wait, they came back angrier now

Why did they come back at all. Fear lasts 1 minute and has no reaction once it wears off.


-Lets have the Wizard Entertain someone.... Prestidigitation.... yea...not really caring if the wizard does this, but I mock perform anyways

Just about any image spell and many illusions, polymorph, etc...etc...


Your personal feelings have no relevance to the inaccuracy of your statement.

Yes, which is why we go for the 'more evidence for than against'. You'll have to come up with some actual logic now.


No increased spell level.
Spells cast without enhanced spell level and at its minimum effectiveness.
10 minute cast for 1 minute duration, or instant effect.

And? Again. Instant effect (from skill use) means a decent chance to fail even for experts. While the 10 minute ritual means 1 minute of 100% success. I'm not seeing your point here?


Quoted for sheer entertainment value.

Since we can't come to a mutual understanding of the facts (or the facts themselves apparently), at least you are amused. Me? I'd rather have a fruitful discussion.

[Arzanyos]

About the reaction to Charm Person, that's not what it does. It doesn't make the target a trusted ally, just a friendly acquaintance. So they would say something like "Hey, buddy, nice seeing you. Naw, I can't let you in, bosses orders. You know how it is." They'll get along with you, but won't put themselves at risk just to further your goals.

[Lokiare]

About the reaction to Charm Person, that's not what it does. It doesn't make the target a trusted ally, just a friendly acquaintance. So they would say something like "Hey, buddy, nice seeing you. Naw, I can't let you in, bosses orders. You know how it is." They'll get along with you, but won't put themselves at risk just to further your goals.

Even so, they are still at the same point as the Charisma skill check, just automatically (or nearly so) instead of having to pass the skill check, they get a much easier saving throw that has little chance of failure.

[Arzanyos]

But what happens when the Charm wears off?

[Fwiffo86]

Yes, which is why we go for the 'more evidence for than against'. You'll have to come up with some actual logic now.


There is no logic to argue. Your statement is faulty due to being based on belief. You believe it will be in the book. This does not change the possibility it will not be there. Claiming it will be based on your belief is a faulty statement.



And? Again. Instant effect (from skill use) means a decent chance to fail even for experts. While the 10 minute ritual means 1 minute of 100% success. I'm not seeing your point here?


I have no idea what you are even referencing here. For clarification, my point is you are wrong about ritual casting being useful in a combat situation. Only certain spells can be cast as rituals in the first place. I'll even provide a complete list for you...

FACTS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Augury, Comprehend Lang, Commune, Detect Magic, Divination, Identify, Silence

This is all of the spells that can be cast as a ritual in the basic pdf. Please continue explaining how ritual casting spells in combat situations is beneficial.



Since we can't come to a mutual understanding of the facts (or the facts themselves apparently), at least you are amused. Me? I'd rather have a fruitful discussion.

-- EDIT to add content --

I do have a question, which facts are you looking for? You have shown equal interest in facts that can be verified, such as those from the pdf or the test packets, but then you also show interest in theoreticals, such as things that may or may not be in the PHB. Which do you prefer?

[Envyus]

This is a slight discription on how wish works from a person who has the book.


Wish is a pretty massive description, takes up a half page in total, it can duplicate any 8th level or lower spell without using components, it has a handful of additional effects, from creating a non magical item of up to 25k in value, healing large groups, or forcing a reroll on an action in prior turns. As well as allowing stated reality shaping effects, prone to DM shenanigans, but with severe drawbacks including a chance of never being able to cast wish again.

[hawklost]

I'm thinking they get it earlier probably level 2 or so. Even if they don't that just means they don't out damage other classes until they hit the magic level where they gain twinned spell.

As to the points, I already qualified my statement with 8+ points when I originally posted it.



In the unlikely event they will fight a fighter with 4 attacks since this isn't a PvP game. Even if they did they would have not only advantage on the Constitution save they would also have proficiency which depending on level can be as high as +6. A DC 10 save can be passed 97.75% (http://anydice.com/program/42e6) of the time with advantage and +6, not including the caster putting a decent stat into Con.


So wait, you now give your Wizard Con save proficiency too? So you took 3 feats out of 4 stat increases. Assuming the Point by system and a Dwarf, your best Int is now 17 (possibly 18 IF you can use the +1 to Stat and +prof to save feat for different stats/save, we will see). So your DC saves are down to 18(or even 17) for anything. You just gave a 5% increase to ALL enemies for saves. For an enemy who has 10 stat and 0 proficiency you have just doubled their chances against every single one of your save effects.

All you seem to have done is make yourself the most defensive against a single enemy, those who do Direct physical damage. I guess for the sake of your very limited argument of making a caster very decent at being more defensive than a Fighter against a fighter style enemy it works. Then again, I believe that all you have done is taken a very narrow choices to make a point but failed to make your Caster actually safe or useful in real combat situations. There are still many many effects your Caster would die from, more than the Fighter since he at least has the HP to survive the hits that get through.

I can concede your very narrow point that yes, you can build a Caster who has more defense and some little utility in the front lines of combat. I will not give you that he is Better than a Fighter who gets 18-20 AC all the time (instead of limited to 22 rounds before needing rest), has a 15% chance to crit to your 5% so 3 times as likely to do double your damage PER HIT, which he gets 4 chances of to your 1 or 2 (if twinned spell). He can survive more hits than you (which yes, he will take a few more, but has the HP to take them anyways). Doesn't have to worry about losing his extra damage every (even 97% of the time is still a failure some of the time). He can go as long as his HP holds up, while your Wizard is limited to less (spell slots which is maxed at 22 before a short rest) if he wants his AC to be high and wants to actually do more damage than the Fighter. A Fighter can also handle better an enemy who attempts to take out his main weapon (sword) vs your Wizard who will be pretty helpless if the enemy takes out your Focus/pouch. Fighters can also handle better situations like Grappling or being shoved and other control effects like that.

[hawklost]

But what happens when the Charm wears off?

When charm wears off, the target knows they have been charmed by the caster.

Ignoring the legal ramifications of using Charm inside a city against a citizen (which there may or may not be any depending on the DM/Setting/Law and all) there is the fact that the person knows the caster did that **** and is probably quite pissed. This of course does not stop the caster from doing it again to the person, but it does kind of make enemies and assuming the NPC is still alive later, a chance for DM to decide the NPC attempts something against the Caster (hires people to harm the Caster, gets the law involved, won't do business with anyone associated with the Caster ect. ) Of course, some people do not care what the DM may do (As has been repeatedly said those things are not a garrenty in the rules and so do not count), since there are no direct rules against using it, but I would hope any DM would look at its use and have some ramifications to it some of the time.

[HunterOfJello]

Will WotC keep 5e safe from wizards who want ultimate arcane power?

Should they?

It's important to remember that the only reason why any humans could be alive in a D&D setting is because of their superior access to arcane and divine magic. If humans had no magic, then they would all be slaughtered by Hobgoblin and Orc armies.

[Tholomyes]

Should they?

It's important to remember that the only reason why any humans could be alive in a D&D setting is because of their superior access to arcane and divine magic. If humans had no magic, then they would all be slaughtered by Hobgoblin and Orc armies.I disagree. There are plenty of settings where high level spell casters are rare, and finding a caster who can cast spells higher than 3rd level outside of big cities (or NPC enemies) can be next to impossible. In those cases, there's not really much "superior access to arcane and divine magic." Sure, they may have more casters, but nothing on the level that can stop armies.

Either way, it really has no bearing on the mechanics. Whether PC casters can wield ultimate arcane power the way they could in high level 3e games doesn't really have any bearing on whether humans and other races would get overrun by 'monster' races. NPC wizards, like Elminster, who wield great power aren't necessarily 20th level PC wizards, but more something around an epic-level NPC with a lot of DM-fueled plot power.

Personally, I prefer not to have your Elminsters or such, and describe it based on the flaws of the monster hordes. Orc tribes don't have the same type of organized armies that other races do. Hobgoblins are less numerous, compared to other races, and their military tactics can only go so far, when a large portion of those under them are their slaves, meaning they don't have the morale that an opposing army might. Stuff like that. They might be pretty good at raiding, but once they face a real army, they can't push too far in.

[CyberThread]

So what do you do , when you have settings that are grown up enough, like eberron to treat "monsters" as actual folks with skills, like orcs and the drow. I mean you complain of mary sue casters, if some race has some critical flaw that runs through it that prevents it from ruling the world, how is that any different ? Instead of powerful humans, your just arguing for weak monsters. Eberron is a much more " realistic " setting, in how it treats mosnters as something then kill them for treasure or because they are evil.


Also, as we are talking about settings. I think the many arrows kingdom in forgotten realms, is a good case study on how to make a proper monster kingdom in a high tension way.

[Envyus]

So what do you do , when you have settings that are grown up enough, like eberron to treat "monsters" as actual folks with skills, like orcs and the drow. I mean you complain of mary sue casters, if some race has some critical flaw that runs through it that prevents it from ruling the world, how is that any different ? Instead of powerful humans, your just arguing for weak monsters. Eberron is a much more " realistic " setting, in how it treats mosnters as something then kill them for treasure or because they are evil.


Also, as we are talking about settings. I think the many arrows kingdom in forgotten realms, is a good case study on how to make a proper monster kingdom in a high tension way.

It also appears that a Dragon Magazine spoiled how the next book involving many arrows will go.

On Eberron The Hobgoblins have always had the most potential in my eyes among the monster races due to how well ordered they are so I liked how in Eberron they had created the greatest empire in the world before it collapsed due to the forces from Xoriat.

[Tholomyes]

So what do you do , when you have settings that are grown up enough, like eberron to treat "monsters" as actual folks with skills, like orcs and the drow. I mean you complain of mary sue casters, if some race has some critical flaw that runs through it that prevents it from ruling the world, how is that any different ? Instead of powerful humans, your just arguing for weak monsters. Eberron is a much more " realistic " setting, in how it treats mosnters as something then kill them for treasure or because they are evil. I was more using the term monsters and races for convenience than accuracy. I never run these traditionally monster races as inherently evil bags of hit points and XP. Their flaws aren't inherent to their race, but are more the result of their society, and the skills that traditionally come from it (i.e. orcish tribes that originated in a badlands area might find themselves unable to grow or herd enough food to sustain their population, so they raid other areas to sustain themselves. Over time, their society puts more emphasis on raiding than agriculture, and thus they become more and more reliant on raiding for food and supplies. With raiding, they don't need a very organized fighting style, and focus more on being able to do a lot of damage really quickly, and leave with the spoils, which doesn't work so well when you're fighting an organized army).

I'm not arguing for weak monsters, as you claim, but instead arguing that the types of societies that are traditionally found in 'monsterous' races are not very well equipped to establish civilization, or crush the civilizations of other races (and before you misinterpret me, and put more words in my mouth, this isn't to say I haven't run games where 'monsterous' races have been able to establish civilizations of their own, or crush the civilizations of others, it just means that they're not very likely to do so, at least without help).

Furthermore, I fail to see how you say I'm arguing for "weaker humans," when a large part of my argument actually bodes for stronger humans (and elves and dwarves and such), since, instead of saying "A wizard did it" for why civilization still exists even with the threat of raids, and putting the weight on a Deus Ex Machina like Elminster, it's putting it on the members of those races, as a whole (and, because If I don't add this parenthetical, you'll no doubt put more words in my mouth, again, by races, I am using the term for convenience, due to the fact that most settings place kingdoms as largely homogeneous to one specific race, and thus I am using race as a shorthand for the society, culture and so on that are present in these kingdoms which manage to stand firm against the threat of 'monster' raids. #NotAllOrcs). Which is more indicative of "powerful humans:" Humans who manage to fight off orc hordes using, largely, non-magical means, or humans who have to rely on a handful of powerful wizards not to succumb to these raids?

[Psyren]

5) Rogues - Rogues get to be awesome all the time. Wizards, if they study really hard, can pretend that they're rogues a couple of times per day.

If this is true I have another really good reason to avoid 5e. :smalltongue:

(I'm suddenly mindful of Vaarsuvius acerbic "bumming around a bad neighborhood" quote from SSDT. I think I'll add that to my sig.)

[rlc]

Should they?

It's important to remember that the only reason why any humans could be alive in a D&D setting is because of their superior access to arcane and divine magic. If humans had no magic, then they would all be slaughtered by Hobgoblin and Orc armies.

That is not even close to true. There have been warrior societies in real life and they're not always the only ones left standing, so I don't see why it should be different woth orcs, goblins, ogres or giants. Once you start talking about dragons, it gets a little muddier, but when you consider that this is a game, they can also be balanced to what everyone else can do. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any magic and you probably do need it to deal with other magical things, and because it's a game for people who like magic, but that doesn't mean that magic shouldn't at least be balanced.

[Sartharina]

If this is true I have another really good reason to avoid 5e. :smalltongue:

(I'm suddenly mindful of Vaarsuvius acerbic "bumming around a bad neighborhood" quote from SSDT. I think I'll add that to my sig.)

Why is 'bumming around a bad neighborhood' (A practice that takes far more cunning, skill, time and life investment, and risk) worth so much less than 'reading a handful of books'?

[Tholomyes]

That is not even close to true. There have been warrior societies in real life and they're not always the only ones left standing, so I don't see why it should be different woth orcs, goblins, ogres or giants. Once you start talking about dragons, it gets a little muddier, but when you consider that this is a game, they can also be balanced to what everyone else can do. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any magic and you probably do need it to deal with other magical things, and because it's a game for people who like magic, but that doesn't mean that magic shouldn't at least be balanced.Even with dragons, I don't see why magic necessarily needs to be their counterpoint. It could be a great legendary warrior who kept them at bay. After all, it's far more of a trope to have a dragon-slaying knight, than for "A wizard did it". Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean magic needs to be the universal go-to solution. Fantasy is filled with brave (far more often non-magical than magical) heroes who triumph over great evils. Why should D&D be different?

You don't need to invoke "A hero did it" for everything, but a good mix of heroes and more mundane armies and even the occasional Divine intervention (though it should probably have more of an impact on the world than just being a literal Deus Ex Machina to solve some issue), can make for a way more compelling explanation for a world than just 'orcs haven't conquered because Elminster'

[Lokiare]

There is no logic to argue. Your statement is faulty due to being based on belief. You believe it will be in the book. This does not change the possibility it will not be there. Claiming it will be based on your belief is a faulty statement.

I'm not saying its 100% absolute. I'm saying all available evidence points to it being true. There is a difference. This is a much more logical stance than "Its not true because the books aren't out yet."


I have no idea what you are even referencing here. For clarification, my point is you are wrong about ritual casting being useful in a combat situation. Only certain spells can be cast as rituals in the first place. I'll even provide a complete list for you...

FACTS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Augury, Comprehend Lang, Commune, Detect Magic, Divination, Identify, Silence

This is all of the spells that can be cast as a ritual in the basic pdf. Please continue explaining how ritual casting spells in combat situations is beneficial.

Actually we can see here: http://i.imgur.com/4tYeMpQ.jpg that the PHB adds more spells as rituals. Including Alarm. Its likely more will be added.


-- EDIT to add content --

I do have a question, which facts are you looking for? You have shown equal interest in facts that can be verified, such as those from the pdf or the test packets, but then you also show interest in theoreticals, such as things that may or may not be in the PHB. Which do you prefer?

I use the available facts to form opinions. I use other facts to form predictions. I then form an opinion based on the facts and predictions. When new facts are presented I change my opinion. I go with the most likely scenario based on predictions.

For instance the play test had many other ritual spells. Mearls talked about more spells in the PHB that are not present in Basic. Thus its likely that more ritual spells will be added in the PHB. My prediction is born out by the screen shot above where Alarm is added which is a ritual spell that invalidates the fighters ability to stand watch. Its basic logic.


So wait, you now give your Wizard Con save proficiency too? So you took 3 feats out of 4 stat increases. Assuming the Point by system and a Dwarf, your best Int is now 17 (possibly 18 IF you can use the +1 to Stat and +prof to save feat for different stats/save, we will see). So your DC saves are down to 18(or even 17) for anything. You just gave a 5% increase to ALL enemies for saves. For an enemy who has 10 stat and 0 proficiency you have just doubled their chances against every single one of your save effects.

Yes, the feat that gives con proficiency also grants a +1 to a stat (I think). Due to rolling for stats being the norm, I would simply suicide my character until I got a natural 17 or 18. If I got a couple of 14's to 16's on top of that I would put them in Con and Dex to further boost my AC and my concentration chance beyond 97.75%. Short of something having proficiency and a decent stat the chance of saving is still extremely low. There's also the fact that the Wizard can simply focus on spells that don't have a save or where a save doesn't matter such as fireball which deals damage even if the target makes the save. Even with a save, the fireball spell will increase the wizard's damage above the fighters. An 18 DC for saves against targets that have no proficiency or ability score bonus have a 15% chance of succeeding. Meaning 85% of the time they will fail. I'm perfectly happy trading out 5% save chance for the ability to almost never get interrupted when casting concentration spells.


All you seem to have done is make yourself the most defensive against a single enemy, those who do Direct physical damage. I guess for the sake of your very limited argument of making a caster very decent at being more defensive than a Fighter against a fighter style enemy it works. Then again, I believe that all you have done is taken a very narrow choices to make a point but failed to make your Caster actually safe or useful in real combat situations. There are still many many effects your Caster would die from, more than the Fighter since he at least has the HP to survive the hits that get through.

Yes, that was my purpose. If the wizard can out do the fighter in all their areas of strength, then to me wizards are broken. If they can even out do the fighter in 50% of their strengths, then to me they are broken.

The real question you have to ask is how many creatures are going to use magic or elemental effects that aren't physical? For the most part not many until high level, and by then you can trade out stone skin for the elemental resistance spells or just take a level or two of fighter to gain most of their best features like armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, multiple attacks, action surge, more hp, etc...etc...


I can concede your very narrow point that yes, you can build a Caster who has more defense and some little utility in the front lines of combat. I will not give you that he is Better than a Fighter who gets 18-20 AC all the time (instead of limited to 22 rounds before needing rest), has a 15% chance to crit to your 5% so 3 times as likely to do double your damage PER HIT, which he gets 4 chances of to your 1 or 2 (if twinned spell). He can survive more hits than you (which yes, he will take a few more, but has the HP to take them anyways). Doesn't have to worry about losing his extra damage every (even 97% of the time is still a failure some of the time). He can go as long as his HP holds up, while your Wizard is limited to less (spell slots which is maxed at 22 before a short rest) if he wants his AC to be high and wants to actually do more damage than the Fighter. A Fighter can also handle better an enemy who attempts to take out his main weapon (sword) vs your Wizard who will be pretty helpless if the enemy takes out your Focus/pouch. Fighters can also handle better situations like Grappling or being shoved and other control effects like that.

Its not double damage. Its 1 extra damage dice, you don't add stat bonuses multiple times. So lets do some math:

Assuming a fighter with 4 attacks (from the basic PDF) using a 1d12 weapon with a +5 ability modifier. We also assume 2 uses of action surge (being generous given 1 hour short rests).
We also assume a wizard with the War Caster and the Con save proficiency (I can't remember the name they gave it) feat. We also assume a +4 ability score bonus. We also assume a few levels of Sorcerer to gain the ability to twin Fire Bolt.
For both we assume 4 average encounters of about 6 rounds each (the reported average, if you can find a better number I'll amend this) for a total of 24 rounds per day.
I won't do vs. AC because the AC of creatures vary and the difference is 1 point between the fighters and wizards attack bonus. If someone wants to take my numbers and do a comparison to AC between 10 and 30 that's fine with me. I am going to assume about a 70% hit rate for the fighter and a 65% hit rate for the caster. We will also assume about a 85% save failure rate for the caster (see the above math for where we get this)

Fighter
Attack 55% hit chance 1d12 weapon (6.5) + str (5) = 11.5 * 0.55 = 6.325;
15% critical hit chance 2d12 (13) + 5 = 18 * 0.15 = 2.7;
total = 9.025 damage per attack;

4 attacks = 4 * 9.025 = 36.1
Action surge = 8 * 9.025 = 72.2

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 36.1 = 794.2
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 72.2 = 144.4
Total damage per average day = 938.6
Total average damage per round = 39.1083_

Wizard
Attack 60% hit chance 8d10 twinned fire bolt = 44 * 0.6 = 26.4;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 27.775

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 5d6 = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Failed Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125

4 rounds of Flaming Sphere alone = 4 * 22.3125 = 89.25
20 rounds of Twinned Fire bolt + Flaming Sphere = (20 * 22.3125) + (20 * 27.775) = 1001.75
Total damage per average day = 1,091
Total average damage per round = 45.4583_

Now that's assuming the fighter and wizard is up against creatures with the same AC and with no proficiency and no ability bonus to their saving throw. The numbers might change if any of those assumptions are changed. So this is under 'average' circumstances. The wizard comes out clearly ahead. This is with 4 daily spell slots used. I'm sure you can figure out that if the wizard were to use half their spell slots they would destroy the fighter's damage with ease.

Also you need to review the shield spell. The caster can trigger it after the DM says it hits. So if the caster only gets hit every 2-3 rounds, then guess what? The caster has enough slots to cover 66 rounds of combat or can use some of those slots for other things.

[Sartharina]

That is not even close to true. There have been warrior societies in real life and they're not always the only ones left standing, so I don't see why it should be different woth orcs, goblins, ogres or giants. Once you start talking about dragons, it gets a little muddier, but when you consider that this is a game, they can also be balanced to what everyone else can do. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any magic and you probably do need it to deal with other magical things, and because it's a game for people who like magic, but that doesn't mean that magic shouldn't at least be balanced.European+Asia Minor-style Human civilizations have a pretty strong defensive advantage over Orcs, Hobgoblins, and other militant races as well: (Sub)Urban warfare. Most warlike races live in simple tent-like structures, caves, or underground. Humans live in lots and lots of tiny little castles right next to each other, with all sorts of windows to shoot/stab/escape out of, cellars to hide in, walls to interfere with line-of-attacks, alleys, yards, and roads to navigate between their little castles. And, if someone's castle gets compromised, they can go out the back door and reinforce their neighbor's castle instead. Even if a town does get completely overwhelmed, while the attackers are busy trying to search every house and basement for survivors, refugees can escape and move to reinforce the next towns over.

@Lokaire - Why would a fighter be using a d12 weapon? He'd either be using a d8+2 one-handed weapon(And possibly carrying a shield), or a 2d6 rerolling 1s+2s.

[Lokiare]

European+Asia Minor-style Human civilizations have a pretty strong defensive advantage over Orcs, Hobgoblins, and other militant races as well: (Sub)Urban warfare. Most warlike races live in simple tent-like structures, caves, or underground. Humans live in lots and lots of tiny little castles right next to each other, with all sorts of windows to shoot/stab/escape out of, cellars to hide in, walls to interfere with line-of-attacks, alleys, yards, and roads to navigate between their little castles. And, if someone's castle gets compromised, they can go out the back door and reinforce their neighbor's castle instead. Even if a town does get completely overwhelmed, while the attackers are busy trying to search every house and basement for survivors, refugees can escape and move to reinforce the next towns over.

@Lokaire - Why would a fighter be using a d12 weapon? He'd either be using a d8+2 one-handed weapon(And possibly carrying a shield), or a 2d6 rerolling 1s+2s.

Would that change the math up by much? Feel free to redo my math with those two options.

Edit: d8+2 is identical with lower crits. 2d6 will tend toward middle numbers (7 average versus 6.5) not sure what 1's and 2's will do (I showed the math using anydice on another thread, but can't remember where).

[Arzanyos]

The 1d12 weapon would be to take more advantage of crits.

Anyway, Lokiare, I think for the purposes of this hypothetical exercise, we should refrain from assuming that one is able to "Suicide characters until I get a Natural 17 or 18", because by expanding that assumption, every adventurer would start out with 18's across the board. Since we're using averages, we should use either point buy or array.
Also, why do you assume that the Fighter is just a vanilla Champion, while the Wizard has taken at least two feats and multiclassed to Sorcerer, which, if I'm not mistaken, requires a minimum of 15 in both INT and CHA.
Lastly, I'm fairly sure twinning a spell or cantrip costs sorcerery points.

[Sartharina]

Would that change the math up by much? Feel free to redo my math with those two options.

Edit: d8+2 is identical. 2d6 will tend toward middle numbers (7 average versus 6.5) not sure what 1's and 2's will do (I showed the math using anydice on another thread, but can't remember where).The rerolling 2d6 increases the damage a bit more, closer to 8ish.

Something I'm curious about is... where do you get the Twinned Firebolt from?

Also - it's great if a wizard can maintain Flaming Sphere, but that's not a given. Even then, I'm not surprised a Glass Cannon can outdamage a Stone Wall.

However, there's something I think you missed with the fighter: Action Surge is an encounter, not Daily, ability. (So is flaming sphere - so multiply both by 4 to get Daily usage out of them - 4 encounters 4-5 rounds seems like a fair assumption, though.)

[Lokiare]

The rerolling 2d6 increases the damage a bit more, closer to 8ish.

Something I'm curious about is... where do you get the Twinned Firebolt from?

A few levels of sorcerer.


Also - it's great if a wizard can maintain Flaming Sphere, but that's not a given. Even then, I'm not surprised a Glass Cannon can outdamage a Stone Wall.

With the two feats its a 97.75% chance of success on concentration checks. Its very nearly a given. Even if it is not the character has the ability to cast it about 1 more time at that level due to Arcane Recovery.

They can out damage the fighter while maintaining a higher effective AC (using dwarf + plate + shield or mage armor + shield + a few points of dex mod.


However, there's something I think you missed with the fighter: Action Surge is an encounter, not Daily, ability. (So is flaming sphere - so multiply both by 4 to get Daily usage out of them - 4 encounters 4-5 rounds seems like a fair assumption, though.)

Action Surge is a short rest which takes 1 hour. I allowed 2 short rests which I think is way more than you would actually get during real play.

I did multiply the flaming sphere by 4, which is why I used the damage from flaming sphere alone for 4 rounds before adding in the damage from flaming sphere + twinned fire bolt.

[charcoalninja]

Regardless of all the straight damage comparisons, the image of the leaked Wizard Spell List, if it is indeed from the PHB, is distressing for mundanes mattering at all.

On the Wizard list we have the typical huge offenders of:
5th:
Animate Objects, Planar Binding, Leagend Lore, Scrying, Teleportation Circle, Wall of Force

6th:
Contingency, Create Undead, Majic Jar

7th:
Simulacrum (I can't recall if this is remotely as powerful as in previous editions), Forcecage, Reverse Gravity, Teleport

8th:
Clone, Demiplane, Maze, Mind Blank, Trap the Soul

9th:
Astral Projection, Gate, Wish, Shapechange, True Polymorph

Now we don't know how different they are from 3.5, but based on their legacy these are some serious game be my bizatch spells, that if they are even a quarter of what they have been in the past, the tier system will be firmly implace with the casters as Tier 1-2 and the mundanes carrying their luggage.

[rlc]

Even with dragons, I don't see why magic necessarily needs to be their counterpoint. It could be a great legendary warrior who kept them at bay. After all, it's far more of a trope to have a dragon-slaying knight, than for "A wizard did it". Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean magic needs to be the universal go-to solution. Fantasy is filled with brave (far more often non-magical than magical) heroes who triumph over great evils. Why should D&D be different?

You don't need to invoke "A hero did it" for everything, but a good mix of heroes and more mundane armies and even the occasional Divine intervention (though it should probably have more of an impact on the world than just being a literal Deus Ex Machina to solve some issue), can make for a way more compelling explanation for a world than just 'orcs haven't conquered because Elminster'

Agreed, but if people really want magic in a magic game, then they should be able to have magic. It should also be significant, but it shouldn't be the end all and be all.
People have lived through their entire face being burnt, but nobody has lived through their head being cut off.

[hawklost]

Its not double damage. Its 1 extra damage dice, you don't add stat bonuses multiple times. So lets do some math:

Assuming a fighter with 4 attacks (from the basic PDF) using a 1d12 weapon with a +5 ability modifier. We also assume 2 uses of action surge (being generous given 1 hour short rests).
We also assume a wizard with the War Caster and the Con save proficiency (I can't remember the name they gave it) feat. We also assume a +4 ability score bonus. We also assume a few levels of Sorcerer to gain the ability to twin Fire Bolt.
For both we assume 4 average encounters of about 6 rounds each (the reported average, if you can find a better number I'll amend this) for a total of 24 rounds per day.
I won't do vs. AC because the AC of creatures vary and the difference is 1 point between the fighters and wizards attack bonus. If someone wants to take my numbers and do a comparison to AC between 10 and 30 that's fine with me. I am going to assume about a 70% hit rate for the fighter and a 65% hit rate for the caster. We will also assume about a 85% save failure rate for the caster (see the above math for where we get this)

Fighter
Attack 55% hit chance 1d12 weapon (6.5) + str (5) = 11.5 * 0.55 = 6.325;
15% critical hit chance 2d12 (13) + 5 = 18 * 0.15 = 2.7;
total = 9.025 damage per attack;

4 attacks = 4 * 9.025 = 36.1
Action surge = 8 * 9.025 = 72.2

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 36.1 = 794.2
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 72.2 = 144.4
Total damage per average day = 938.6
Total average damage per round = 39.1083_

Wizard
Attack 60% hit chance 8d10 twinned fire bolt = 44 * 0.6 = 26.4;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 27.775

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 5d6 = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Failed Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125

4 rounds of Flaming Sphere alone = 4 * 22.3125 = 89.25
20 rounds of Twinned Fire bolt + Flaming Sphere = (20 * 22.3125) + (20 * 27.775) = 1001.75
Total damage per average day = 1,091
Total average damage per round = 45.4583_

Now that's assuming the fighter and wizard is up against creatures with the same AC and with no proficiency and no ability bonus to their saving throw. The numbers might change if any of those assumptions are changed. So this is under 'average' circumstances. The wizard comes out clearly ahead. This is with 4 daily spell slots used. I'm sure you can figure out that if the wizard were to use half their spell slots they would destroy the fighter's damage with ease.

Also you need to review the shield spell. The caster can trigger it after the DM says it hits. So if the caster only gets hit every 2-3 rounds, then guess what? The caster has enough slots to cover 66 rounds of combat or can use some of those slots for other things.

Wait, you gave your Wizard how many levels in Sorcerer to gain 20 rounds of Twinned Firebolt a day? assuming the rumors are correct, you get 1 per Sorc Level, so you are a 20th level Sorc, not a wizard.

I also notice you did not give the Fighter any feats to compensate for your War Caster and Resilient feat. which means you intentionally gimped the Warrior damage there (Like GWF)
You assume the enemy is constantly standing inside your Flaming Sphere radius which is possible but unlikely every single round
You assume that the enemy is Not in Melee range of your caster but is with your Fighter (otherwise you get disadvantage on Fire Bolt shots)
You have chosen a d12 weapon instead of a 2d6 weapon for a Fighter, which lowers his total damage output slightly
Not sure why, but you have given yourself a higher chance to hit with your Caster than a Fighter, you claim to assume a 70% chance to hit then drop it to 55% for fighter

Other Factors which are less important
You have assumed that neither your fighter nor your Caster take any damage, since the Fighter can take more damage than the Caster you are intentionally throwing another thing the Fighter is better at out.

Again, you seem to try to give advantages to your Caster so that he looks better than he would be if you tried to make it an even fight.

EDIT: More information,

- You have assumed that both your shots from Twinned spell hit together without seperate chances of missing
- You also gave the advantage to the Wizard by assuming no saving throw bonus, since the Wizard requires it while the Fighter doesn't
- You gave the creature only a +1 to its save, again enhancing the chances of damage from the Caster over the Fighter
* You gave the an extra Fighter Action Surge and you 2 extra combats of Flaming Sphere because of a Short rest (which gives the Fighter advantage with Rests)

Again, more side notes that might effect the battle but are too hard to quantify
-As for your claim of every 2-3 rounds for Shield, I did point out an enemy with Fighter like abilities to hit, so 4 attacks at 50% chance of missing would mean they hit twice every round, assuming they only get a 25% chance to hit, they still hit every round. This is another thing, which burns through your spells fast that you have ignored to give your Wizard more of a chance.
- if you fail your Save then your sphere is Gone, unless you want to use a higher level slot to cast it, you don't get it again that encounter. If you do get it again, you need to take up a turn to cast it. (This is hard to quantify but does change numbers, a failure in first round is devistating while a failure in last round means nothing, you still have a failure, in fact in 24 rounds of combat you will lose it about once)

On a different note, you gimped both on the Critical, it says to roll all of the attack's damage dice, which means more damage for both Fighter using 2d6 and your bolt of 4d6. (yes, I know this increases the Wizards damage, I don't have a problem with increasing it if it is a legitimate rule)

[Fwiffo86]

Fighter
Attack 55% hit chance 1d12 weapon (6.5) + str (5) = 11.5 * 0.55 = 6.325;
15% critical hit chance 2d12 (13) + 5 = 18 * 0.15 = 2.7;
total = 9.025 damage per attack;

---Not needed for question----

Wizard
Attack 60% hit chance 8d10 twinned fire bolt = 44 * 0.6 = 26.4;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 27.775


Why does the fighter have a lower chance to hit than the wizard? For comparison reasons, shouldn't they be equal?
Additionally, why are you counting 8d10 instead of properly doing 4d10 and 4d10 each with its own roll to hit?
(Calculated the exact same as the fighters multiple attacks)

Representative math

Wizard
Twin (essentially a second attack)
60% hit chance
(.60*.60=36% both attacks land)
4d10 = (5.5*4=22) 22
22*.60=13.2
22*.36=7.92
Total----------
21.12 dpr

[Lokiare]

Wait, you gave your Wizard how many levels in Sorcerer to gain 20 rounds of Twinned Firebolt a day? assuming the rumors are correct, you get 1 per Sorc Level, so you are a 20th level Sorc, not a wizard.

What are the rumors based on? My take of the facts is that they will have around 6-10 points starting out and go up from there, but if they don't then the damage goes down significantly and the wizard will have to rely on daily spells to make up the difference.


I also notice you did not give the Fighter any feats to compensate for your War Caster and Resilient feat. which means you intentionally gimped the Warrior damage there (Like GWF)
You assume the enemy is constantly standing inside your Flaming Sphere radius which is possible but unlikely every single round
You assume that the enemy is Not in Melee range of your caster but is with your Fighter (otherwise you get disadvantage on Fire Bolt shots)
You have chosen a d12 weapon instead of a 2d6 weapon for a Fighter, which lowers his total damage output slightly
Not sure why, but you have given yourself a higher chance to hit with your Caster than a Fighter, you claim to assume a 70% chance to hit then drop it to 55% for fighter

Other Factors which are less important
You have assumed that neither your fighter nor your Caster take any damage, since the Fighter can take more damage than the Caster you are intentionally throwing another thing the Fighter is better at out.

Again, you seem to try to give advantages to your Caster so that he looks better than he would be if you tried to make it an even fight.


Why does the fighter have a lower chance to hit than the wizard? For comparison reasons, shouldn't the be equal?

I don't give unfair advantages. What two feats would you like to see for the fighter? The two I chose for the wizard don't affect their damage output, only make concentration checks trivial.

Flaming sphere can be used like an attack spell by forcing it into the space occupied by an enemy. I was assuming one creature hit with Flaming Sphere per round using this tactic. Since you can move the sphere the average move speed of creatures (30 feet) as a bonus action you can literally hit anything the fighter can hit by moving. Now if the twinned spell takes up your bonus action (no indication either way), then we might have to use a different tactic, if not then it works as indicated.

I'm assuming the wizard attempts to stay out of melee range or has some other way to mitigate disadvantage. This should be basic tactics, unless its common for wizards to walk around in melee range of enemies in your game.

Nope the fighter has a 55% (hit) + 15% (crit) = 70% chance to hit. Its basic math people.

As to the 2d6 weapon with 1's and 2's being rerolled once. Feel free to take my math and adjust it for the different weapon. It'll add a few points here or there, but we can just throw 1 more daily spell on the comparison to deal more damage. I think a 3rd level fireball dealing 8d6 (28) would probably be sufficient. That still leaves the wizard with tons of spells (5/20+).

If anything I'm low balling this comparison because I could just have the caster use 1/2 of their dailies and boost the damage to insane levels, and that's just damage. So far everyone seems to have missed the post about the spells that are broken without damage being a factor.

[Lokiare]

Why does the fighter have a lower chance to hit than the wizard? For comparison reasons, shouldn't they be equal?
Additionally, why are you counting 8d10 instead of properly doing 4d10 and 4d10 each with its own roll to hit?
(Calculated the exact same as the fighters multiple attacks)

Representative math

Wizard
Twin (essentially a second attack)
60% hit chance
(.60*.60=36% both attacks land)
4d10 = (5.5*4=22) 22
22*.60=13.2
22*.36=7.92
Total----------
21.12 dpr

Your math doesn't account for when one hits and the other doesn't.

We are using averages so it would be:

Original
Attack 60% hit chance 8d10 twinned fire bolt = 44 * 0.6 = 26.4;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 27.775

Split as separate attacks
Attack 60% hit chance 4d10 twinned fire bolt = 22 * 0.6 = 13.2;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 14.575
x2 = 29.15

You are correct though on the crit chance it would increase the damage. So they do even more. Thanks for pointing that out.

Since the wizard uses Fire Bolt 20 times per day this would increase the damage by (29.15 - 27.775) * 20 = 27.5

[Tholomyes]

Wait, you gave your Wizard how many levels in Sorcerer to gain 20 rounds of Twinned Firebolt a day? assuming the rumors are correct, you get 1 per Sorc Level, so you are a 20th level Sorc, not a wizard.

I also notice you did not give the Fighter any feats to compensate for your War Caster and Resilient feat. which means you intentionally gimped the Warrior damage there (Like GWF)
You assume the enemy is constantly standing inside your Flaming Sphere radius which is possible but unlikely every single round
You assume that the enemy is Not in Melee range of your caster but is with your Fighter (otherwise you get disadvantage on Fire Bolt shots)
You have chosen a d12 weapon instead of a 2d6 weapon for a Fighter, which lowers his total damage output slightly
Not sure why, but you have given yourself a higher chance to hit with your Caster than a Fighter, you claim to assume a 70% chance to hit then drop it to 55% for fighter

Other Factors which are less important
You have assumed that neither your fighter nor your Caster take any damage, since the Fighter can take more damage than the Caster you are intentionally throwing another thing the Fighter is better at out.

Again, you seem to try to give advantages to your Caster so that he looks better than he would be if you tried to make it an even fight.Sometimes I'm not entirely sure Loki isn't just a false-flag troll. There are places which cause me concern as to whether a high level wizard (even with reduced spells per day) will be just as problematic at high level play as in 3e, but damage isn't one of them. Personally, I don't mind if a wizard can do decent damage, since that was never really their issue. Even if their total damage contributions roughly even out, the fighter still wins out, because he's better at taking hits than the wizard. The issue is, and has always been, the fact that the wizard's contributions often obsolete the fighter or other mundanes, either with summons (who provide the survivability that the fighter has, but wizard lacks), SoD/SoS spells (which make the damage contributions not really matter) and immensely strong Utility casting (which minimizes the role and importance of skills).

If these are still a problem in 5e, that's what should be tackled first, not the fact that a wizard might get damage output around that of a fighter, if they spend all their spells and abilities to try and do so. Granted, without the PHB, it's hard to tell if they will still be a problem. We have spells that have the same names as ones that were major problems in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be problems this time around. I have my fears that they will, but it needs more of an in-depth look than that.

[Lokiare]

Sometimes I'm not entirely sure Loki isn't just a false-flag troll. There are places which cause me concern as to whether a high level wizard (even with reduced spells per day) will be just as problematic at high level play as in 3e, but damage isn't one of them. Personally, I don't mind if a wizard can do decent damage, since that was never really their issue. Even if their total damage contributions roughly even out, the fighter still wins out, because he's better at taking hits than the wizard. The issue is, and has always been, the fact that the wizard's contributions often obsolete the fighter or other mundanes, either with summons (who provide the survivability that the fighter has, but wizard lacks), SoD/SoS spells (which make the damage contributions not really matter) and immensely strong Utility casting (which minimizes the role and importance of skills).

If these are still a problem in 5e, that's what should be tackled first, not the fact that a wizard might get damage output around that of a fighter, if they spend all their spells and abilities to try and do so. Granted, without the PHB, it's hard to tell if they will still be a problem. We have spells that have the same names as ones that were major problems in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be problems this time around. I have my fears that they will, but it needs more of an in-depth look than that.

If you are going to use personal attacks then at least come up with something believable. I've shown my math and am adjusting it as per the concerns voiced. If you have specific concerns about my math then voice them and I will take them into consideration.

[hawklost]

What are the rumors based on? My take of the facts is that they will have around 6-10 points starting out and go up from there, but if they don't then the damage goes down significantly and the wizard will have to rely on daily spells to make up the difference.





I don't give unfair advantages. What two feats would you like to see for the fighter? The two I chose for the wizard don't affect their damage output, only make concentration checks trivial.

Flaming sphere can be used like an attack spell by forcing it into the space occupied by an enemy. I was assuming one creature hit with Flaming Sphere per round using this tactic. Since you can move the sphere the average move speed of creatures (30 feet) as a bonus action you can literally hit anything the fighter can hit by moving. Now if the twinned spell takes up your bonus action (no indication either way), then we might have to use a different tactic, if not then it works as indicated.

I'm assuming the wizard attempts to stay out of melee range or has some other way to mitigate disadvantage. This should be basic tactics, unless its common for wizards to walk around in melee range of enemies in your game.

Nope the fighter has a 55% (hit) + 15% (crit) = 70% chance to hit. Its basic math people.

As to the 2d6 weapon with 1's and 2's being rerolled once. Feel free to take my math and adjust it for the different weapon. It'll add a few points here or there, but we can just throw 1 more daily spell on the comparison to deal more damage. I think a 3rd level fireball dealing 8d6 (28) would probably be sufficient. That still leaves the wizard with tons of spells (5/20+).

If anything I'm low balling this comparison because I could just have the caster use 1/2 of their dailies and boost the damage to insane levels, and that's just damage. So far everyone seems to have missed the post about the spells that are broken without damage being a factor.

Sorry, but giving yourself a huge bonus to concentration IS an increase in damage output considering you are using a Concentration spell for damage.
Give the Fighter Great Weapon Fighting at least, on Crit or downing an enemy can use bonus to attack again at -5 attack +10 damage

I use the 'rumors of' http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook which shows 20 points at 20th level. You only have 3 a day if your Sorc is 3rd level. Not sure where you ever came up with 6-10 starting out since there was no indication of it being this way.

I concede the chance to hit and crit for the way you did that, not the way I usually throw calculations around, but I will not dispute them.

Increasing your usage of your daily spells decreases your usage of defense, which is what you were building to begin with with this character.

2d6 reroll 1/2 increases the damage by at least .5 per hit, more since I am ignoring the re-rolls.

Note: Before you posted this, I had added Edit to my upper post

[Tholomyes]

If you are going to use personal attacks then at least come up with something believable. I've shown my math and am adjusting it as per the concerns voiced. If you have specific concerns about my math then voice them and I will take them into consideration.It's not your math (well, not just your math; it's flawed, but that's not my point). It's the fact that you frequently argue your points both poorly, and in a way that tangents the conversation away from other potential complaints. For example, in this thread, you've got people down the tangent of trying to show you how your math is wrong and shows a one-sided bias, on a DPR fight with the Fighter. However, the Wizard's main problem is not DPR, but all the things that it can do (potentially, since we haven't seen the finished spell blocks in 5e) to obsolete fighters and other mundane classes. By dragging on an argument over DPR, you're bringing the conversation away from the more likely issues that may face caster-martial imbalance in 5e, which have nothing to do with spells that deal damage, and everything to do with spells like the ones charcoalninja listed above, which were what primarily made Wizards in 3.x overpowered at high levels.

[hawklost]

Lokiare, you also made a comment about the Wizard always attempting to stay melee range while fighting. If the enemy gets within melee range to the caster, him trying to pull back is either taking a chance for damage (being AoOed) or using Disengage. You seem to be assuming somehow that he is fighting something purely at range, which considering the attempt to do calculations 'evenly' doesn't make sense. Either both the fights are at range or both of them are in Melee, you can have it where it is in between, but you need to calculate then the Wizard having to break off every other turn or so. You might also just throw 2 fights in melee and 2 fights at ranged (say 60 feet), this means the Fighter loses 2 turns of damage total getting into melee while the wizard has to back out of melee.

[hawklost]

It's not your math (well, not just your math; it's flawed, but that's not my point). It's the fact that you frequently argue your points both poorly, and in a way that tangents the conversation away from other potential complaints. For example, in this thread, you've got people down the tangent of trying to show you how your math is wrong and shows a one-sided bias, on a DPR fight with the Fighter. However, the Wizard's main problem is not DPR, but all the things that it can do (potentially, since we haven't seen the finished spell blocks in 5e) to obsolete fighters and other mundane classes. By dragging on an argument over DPR, you're bringing the conversation away from the more likely issues that may face caster-martial imbalance in 5e, which have nothing to do with spells that deal damage, and everything to do with spells like the ones charcoalninja listed above, which were what primarily made Wizards in 3.x overpowered at high levels.

I feel that until we Can see the final product and spell blocks that the part of the conversation you wish to have is purely speculative. Lokiare is at least attempting to use what we already know to make an argument about the superiority of a Wizard over a Fighter (even If I feel his arguments are flawed). You seem hellbent on trying to claim they are overpowered because a potential for the spells you see could be. His argument seems to have more merit until at least Friday when some of us will have the Book. (I hate defending him, but I calls em as I sees em)

[HorridElemental]

The thing about flaming sphere is a couple different things that I've seen played wrong. Just because you conjure the sphere next to a creature doesn't mean they take damage. The only time they take damage is when...

Dex Save: When a target ends their turn within 5 feet of the sphere.

Dex Save: When you ram 1 creature (the ball stops moving at this point)

So you have to slam it into a creature or have another creature locking down that creature for the sphere to have effect. The damage isn't at the start of your turn or the ball's turn but at the end of the creature's turn.

This severely limits the damage output of the spell from what I've seen in play. A lot of people have been playing it as "if you come within 5' of the sphere make a Dex save" which isn't how it works.

/mini rant due to 7 different wizards using the ball wrong in real life games.

[obryn]

I dunno, guys, the more pages from the PHB that people post, the less confident I am that non-casters will be able to keep up in 5e.

Random leaks, including a pretty much the whole Gods section, half-orcs (hooray! they're not rapey!), gnomes, feats, and a bunch of stuff on the Rogue. (Spoiler: The assassin is really bad. Its level 9 ability falls into the "stuff you don't need a class feature for" and most everything else requires Surprise. And Arcane Tricksters are sadly as dull as Eldritch Warriors.)

http://m.imgur.com/a/dR0Dx

[Sartharina]

A few levels of sorcerer.But how are sorcerers twinning the rays? I've not seen this, but I've not seen any previews.

Action Surge is a short rest which takes 1 hour. I allowed 2 short rests which I think is way more than you would actually get during real play.Actual play has resulted in at least 3 short rests per day.

[Fwiffo86]

Your math doesn't account for when one hits and the other doesn't.

We are using averages so it would be:

Original
Attack 60% hit chance 8d10 twinned fire bolt = 44 * 0.6 = 26.4;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 27.775

Split as separate attacks
Attack 60% hit chance 4d10 twinned fire bolt = 22 * 0.6 = 13.2;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 14.575
x2 = 29.15 <---- THIS IS INCORRECT


The bolded part I added to draw your attention.

Should read....

60% * 60% = 36%
(Total Damage) * 60% = (1st Hit Damage)
(Total Damage) * 36% = (2nd Hit Damage)
(1st Hit Damage) + (2nd Hit Damage) = (Damage per round)

[Tholomyes]

I feel that until we Can see the final product and spell blocks that the part of the conversation you wish to have is purely speculative. Lokiare is at least attempting to use what we already know to make an argument about the superiority of a Wizard over a Fighter (even If I feel his arguments are flawed). You seem hellbent on trying to claim they are overpowered because a potential for the spells you see could be. His argument seems to have more merit until at least Friday when some of us will have the Book. (I hate defending him, but I calls em as I sees em)I never said anything to indicate that I was already trying to claim that they were overpowered. I have my fears, based largely on things that were said from people who already got the PHB, but I acknowledged that we don't know enough yet:


Granted, without the PHB, it's hard to tell if they will still be a problem. We have spells that have the same names as ones that were major problems in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be problems this time around. I have my fears that they will, but it needs more of an in-depth look than that.

[HorridElemental]

I dunno, guys, the more pages from the PHB that people post, the less confident I am that non-casters will be able to keep up in 5e.

Random leaks, including a pretty much the whole Gods section, half-orcs (hooray! they're not rapey!), gnomes, feats, and a bunch of stuff on the Rogue. (Spoiler: The assassin is really bad. Its level 9 ability falls into the "stuff you don't need a class feature for" and most everything else requires Surprise. And Arcane Tricksters are sadly as dull as Eldritch Warriors.)

http://m.imgur.com/a/dR0Dx

Non-casters need options and the ability to keep up with the game, not keep up with casters. They might be able to pull it off.

Also, I wonder if the conspiracy theory of Pelor: the burning hate will continue in this edition.

[1337 b4k4]

(Spoiler: The assassin is really bad. Its level 9 ability falls into the "stuff you don't need a class feature for" and most everything else requires Surprise.

I've always personally felt the Assassin as a "class" was another one of those redundant and not distinct enough to be a real class classes. That said, it would have been nice to see poisons and related abilities make it in as class features for the assassin.

[HorridElemental]

I've always personally felt the Assassin as a "class" was another one of those redundant and not distinct enough to be a real class classes. That said, it would have been nice to see poisons and related abilities make it in as class features for the assassin.

Well that would mean putting effort into something that is a Non-Caster soooo... Did you really think they would do that?

I like a lot of 5e, but they really seemed to have dropped the ball on a lot of things not having to do with casters.

[Tholomyes]

I dunno, guys, the more pages from the PHB that people post, the less confident I am that non-casters will be able to keep up in 5e.

Random leaks, including a pretty much the whole Gods section, half-orcs (hooray! they're not rapey!), gnomes, feats, and a bunch of stuff on the Rogue. (Spoiler: The assassin is really bad. Its level 9 ability falls into the "stuff you don't need a class feature for" and most everything else requires Surprise. And Arcane Tricksters are sadly as dull as Eldritch Warriors.)

http://m.imgur.com/a/dR0DxThe Real World pantheon gods bug me, somewhat (Hades as Lawful Evil? Come on; at least pretend like you have any knowledge of the mythologies), but I kind of expected that. Otherwise, I'll probably need more time to look through it.

[Lokiare]

Sorry, but giving yourself a huge bonus to concentration IS an increase in damage output considering you are using a Concentration spell for damage.

I use the 'rumors of' http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook which shows 20 points at 20th level. You only have 3 a day if your Sorc is 3rd level. Not sure where you ever came up with 6-10 starting out since there was no indication of it being this way.

I came up with it from the play test. So from this we can infer that it takes 8 or more levels of sorcerer to pull off this trick. I guess the Wizard has to use some more daily spells or take 8 levels of sorcerer.


I concede the chance to hit and crit for the way you did that, not the way I usually throw calculations around, but I will not dispute them.

Increasing your usage of your daily spells decreases your usage of defense, which is what you were building to begin with with this character.

In that case the answer is no. They don't have to use extra daily spell slots to increase defense. They use some of their 1st level slots to catch the occasional attack that gets by their armor. Since shield can be used after the DM declares a hit, it won't be used on misses. If the wizard will be missed 1/3 of the time that means they can get 15+ rounds on just five 1st level daily slots. With the two feats they almost auto succeed on concentration checks until the highest levels. If they are a dwarf and take the heavy armor mastery feat they get DR 3 against physical attacks + Plate. So we are talking AC 18 + 5 = 23 when hit. It takes feat slots not spell slots, except for those low level utility slots that won't be used for combat spells anyway by mid to high level.


2d6 reroll 1/2 increases the damage by at least .5 per hit, more since I am ignoring the re-rolls.

Note: Before you posted this, I had added Edit to my upper post

I did the math somewhere using anydice. Let me see if I can replicate it again. http://anydice.com/program/42fb

So the average is 8.33 instead of 6.5. That could prove significant.

Fighter
Attack 55% hit chance 2d6 reroll 1's and 2's once weapon (8.33 (http://anydice.com/program/42fd)) + str (5) = 13.33 * 0.55 = 7.3315;
15% critical hit chance 3d6 reroll 1's and 2's once (16.67 (http://anydice.com/program/42fd)) + 5 = 21.67 * 0.15 = 3.2505;
total = 10.582 damage per attack;

4 attacks = 4 * 10.582 = 42.328
Action surge = 8 * 10.582 = 84.656

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 42.328 = 931.216
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 84.656 = 169.312
Total damage per average day = 1100.528
Total average damage per round = 45.8553_

Wizard
Attack 60% hit chance Fire Bolt 4d10 spell +4 Int from sub-class = 26 * 0.6 = 15.6;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 14.575

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125

Arcane Recovery + Over Channel + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 8 spell slot once (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 8d6 (48) = 48 * 0.85 = 40.8; 15% Successful Save 3.6; Total 44.4

Meteor Swarm + Empowered Evocation (+ int mod)
85% Save Failure 40d6 (140) + 4 (int) = 144 * 0.85 = 122.4; 15% Successful Save 10.8; Total 133.2

18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 22.3125 = 401.625
6 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) Over Channeled = 6 * 44.4 = 266.4
19 rounds of Fire bolt = 19 * 14.575 = 276.925
1 round of Meteor Swarm = 133.2
Total damage per average day = 1,078.15
Total average damage per round = 44.922916_

Sadly it appears that nothing in basic out damages Fire Bolt + Flaming Sphere except for Meteor swarm (no not even an over channeled fireball). Also we were counting in the fighters sub-class features but not the wizards. I've added the wizards sub-class features to this math equation.
Spell Mastery allows for an infinite use of Shield and Blur by the way.

So the result is the Fighter out damages the Wizard by 0.932384 per round in basic. Almost 1 point per round, all the while the wizard is running around with a higher AC, DR 3 and a metric ton of utility spells.

[Sartharina]

So the result is the Fighter out damages the Wizard by 0.932384 per round in basic. Almost 1 point per round, all the while the wizard is running around with a higher AC, DR 3 and a metric ton of utility spells.
The fighter also has DR 3 and his own damage or toughness-enhancing feats. Also - the fighter has significantly greater HP.

[Lokiare]

The thing about flaming sphere is a couple different things that I've seen played wrong. Just because you conjure the sphere next to a creature doesn't mean they take damage. The only time they take damage is when...

Dex Save: When a target ends their turn within 5 feet of the sphere.

Dex Save: When you ram 1 creature (the ball stops moving at this point)

So you have to slam it into a creature or have another creature locking down that creature for the sphere to have effect. The damage isn't at the start of your turn or the ball's turn but at the end of the creature's turn.

This severely limits the damage output of the spell from what I've seen in play. A lot of people have been playing it as "if you come within 5' of the sphere make a Dex save" which isn't how it works.

/mini rant due to 7 different wizards using the ball wrong in real life games.

Yes. Right now I'm calculating single target damage per round. I'm sure we all agree that the wizard wins hands down on multiple target damage per round. So having the flaming sphere ram into one creature per round (at the same move speed as the fighter) lines up perfectly with that analysis.


But how are sorcerers twinning the rays? I've not seen this, but I've not seen any previews.
Actual play has resulted in at least 3 short rests per day.

It was in one of the early PHB threads where some people received their PHB a few days early and leaked some info.


The bolded part I added to draw your attention.

Should read....

60% * 60% = 36%
(Total Damage) * 60% = (1st Hit Damage)
(Total Damage) * 36% = (2nd Hit Damage)
(1st Hit Damage) + (2nd Hit Damage) = (Damage per round)

Nope sorry. The second hit doesn't depend on the first hit. They are completely independent, thus they are calculated individually and just multiplied by 2. Doesn't matter though I dropped that part since the Sorcerer won't have enough points to do it if they multiclass into wizard.


The fighter also has DR 3 and his own damage or toughness-enhancing feats. Also - the fighter has significantly greater HP.

Sure, which bumps the Wizard from tier 1 to tier 2, while the fighter being only marginally good at dealing damage (I still think a straight up sorcerer can out damage a fighter) and only damage means they are tier 5 at best.

I'm not disagreeing that they reigned in the casters when compared to 3.5. I am saying that the choice between "getting shot in the hand or getting shot in the leg" is not appealing. They lowered the caster power a small amount, but its no where near balanced. The Wizard can do 99% of the damage of the fighter while still retaining most of their spell slots for utility while also having a higher AC than the fighter. That's just too much for me when the last edition had them about even. The Wizard had more control effects, but the fighter had higher defenses, more damage, the ability to lock down enemies and they worked much more evenly. In 4E if they weren't in the same tier, they were no more than 1 tier apart. However by 3E standards everything in 4E is the same tier around 3-4.

[hawklost]

I came up with it from the play test. So from this we can infer that it takes 8 or more levels of sorcerer to pull off this trick. I guess the Wizard has to use some more daily spells or take 8 levels of sorcerer.



In that case the answer is no. They don't have to use extra daily spell slots to increase defense. They use some of their 1st level slots to catch the occasional attack that gets by their armor. Since shield can be used after the DM declares a hit, it won't be used on misses. If the wizard will be missed 1/3 of the time that means they can get 15+ rounds on just five 1st level daily slots. With the two feats they almost auto succeed on concentration checks until the highest levels. If they are a dwarf and take the heavy armor mastery feat they get DR 3 against physical attacks + Plate. So we are talking AC 18 + 5 = 23 when hit. It takes feat slots not spell slots, except for those low level utility slots that won't be used for combat spells anyway by mid to high level.



I did the math somewhere using anydice. Let me see if I can replicate it again. http://anydice.com/program/42fb

So the average is 8.33 instead of 6.5. That could prove significant.

Fighter
Attack 55% hit chance 2d6 reroll 1's and 2's once weapon (8.33 (http://anydice.com/program/42fd)) + str (5) = 13.33 * 0.55 = 7.3315;
15% critical hit chance 3d6 reroll 1's and 2's once (16.67 (http://anydice.com/program/42fd)) + 5 = 21.67 * 0.15 = 3.2505;
total = 10.582 damage per attack;

4 attacks = 4 * 10.582 = 42.328
Action surge = 8 * 10.582 = 84.656

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 42.328 = 931.216
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 84.656 = 169.312
Total damage per average day = 1100.528
Total average damage per round = 45.8553_

Wizard
Attack 60% hit chance Fire Bolt 4d10 spell +4 Int from sub-class = 26 * 0.6 = 15.6;
5% critical hit chance 5d10 = 27.5 * 0.05 = 1.375;
Total = 14.575

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125

Arcane Recovery + Over Channel + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 8 spell slot once (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
85% Save Failure 8d6 (48) = 48 * 0.85 = 40.8; 15% Successful Save 3.6; Total 44.4

Meteor Swarm + Empowered Evocation (+ int mod)
85% Save Failure 40d6 (140) + 4 (int) = 144 * 0.85 = 122.4; 15% Successful Save 10.8; Total 133.2

18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 22.3125 = 401.625
6 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) Over Channeled = 6 * 44.4 = 266.4
19 rounds of Fire bolt = 19 * 14.575 = 276.925
1 round of Meteor Swarm = 133.2
Total damage per average day = 1,078.15
Total average damage per round = 44.922916_

Sadly it appears that nothing in basic out damages Fire Bolt + Flaming Sphere except for Meteor swarm (no not even an over channeled fireball). Also we were counting in the fighters sub-class features but not the wizards. I've added the wizards sub-class features to this math equation.
Spell Mastery allows for an infinite use of Shield and Blur by the way.

So the result is the Fighter out damages the Wizard by 0.932384 per round in basic. Almost 1 point per round, all the while the wizard is running around with a higher AC, DR 3 and a metric ton of utility spells.

Your math is wrong
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125 would be
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save is 17.5 / 2 * .15 = 1.313; Total 16.1875
18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 16.1875 = 291.375

Your Meteor Swarm is also off, but on the low end by about 10 damage.

You are still assuming a +1 to dex saves only, the higher this is, the lower you damage is by a margin, each +1 gives the creature gives the monster a (17.5*.8 + 17.5*.2/2) 14+1.75 = 15.75

I will give you Shield and Blur now that you are only a Wizard.

[Lokiare]

Your math is wrong
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125 would be
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save is 17.5 / 2 * .15 = 1.313; Total 16.1875
18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 16.1875 = 291.375

Your Meteor Swarm is also off, but on the low end by about 10 damage.

You are still assuming a +1 to dex saves only, the higher this is, the lower you damage is by a margin, each +1 gives the creature gives the monster a (17.5*.8 + 17.5*.2/2) 14+1.75 = 15.75

I will give you Shield and Blur now that you are only a Wizard.

You are correct on the Flaming sphere so the total damage goes down by (22.3125 - 16.1875) * 18 = 110.25 and the DPR goes down by 4.59375. So the gap is around 5 points of DPR. Still sounds broken to me.

The meteor swarm is correct. It deals 144 average /2 is 72 * 0.15 = 10.8

I'm actually assuming the creature has no ability modifier and no proficiency bonus. This will be true for many monsters while several monsters will have ability modifiers or proficiency bonuses. We have to wait for the monster list to see what happens there. Of course we are also assuming a static AC for the creatures when a high AC and low save bonuses would mean the fighter is screwed but the caster comes out ahead. The opposite could also be true where the AC is low and the save bonuses are high. I chose numbers that represent most creatures and were the same for the fighter and the wizard.

[Sartharina]

I'm getting Tier 4 out of Fighters, not Tier 5. They do more than just deal damage - they also take hits well, and keep others from taking hits if built for it. They also have sufficient skills available to put them at Tier 4.

[1337 b4k4]

Your math is wrong
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save 7.4375; Total 22.3125 would be
85% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.85 = 14.875; 15% Successful Save is 17.5 / 2 * .15 = 1.313; Total 16.1875
18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 16.1875 = 291.375

Your Meteor Swarm is also off, but on the low end by about 10 damage.

You are still assuming a +1 to dex saves only, the higher this is, the lower you damage is by a margin, each +1 gives the creature gives the monster a (17.5*.8 + 17.5*.2/2) 14+1.75 = 15.75

I will give you Shield and Blur now that you are only a Wizard.

How is the Wizard casting Blur and Flaming Sphere at the same time? They're both concentration spells. Or are we simply mentioning that Blur is available but it's not being used in this calculation?

[hawklost]

How is the Wizard casting Blur and Flaming Sphere at the same time? They're both concentration spells. Or are we simply mentioning that Blur is available but it's not being used in this calculation?

I am acknowledging that Lokiare's wizard has Shield and Blur as his at-will spells, that is all. Considering that he wished to ignore anything related to defense (other than his Concentration enhancements and his Armor). Since none of the calculations that Lokiare used had anything in reference to being attacked and/or damaged (because it would probably harm his argument) I was just acknowledging his choice of spells.

I do agree that Blur and Flaming Sphere cannot be used at the same time (although he was more obsessed about his Shield spell on top of his Heavy Armor making him super powerful).

[hawklost]

.....
I'm actually assuming the creature has no ability modifier and no proficiency bonus. This will be true for many monsters while several monsters will have ability modifiers or proficiency bonuses. We have to wait for the monster list to see what happens there. Of course we are also assuming a static AC for the creatures when a high AC and low save bonuses would mean the fighter is screwed but the caster comes out ahead. The opposite could also be true where the AC is low and the save bonuses are high. I chose numbers that represent most creatures and were the same for the fighter and the wizard.

I am not sure how you assume that creatures will have a High AC but no ability scores or proficiency bonus. Do you have some way to know this?
Yes, you chose a decently High AC of 17 but pretty dismally low Save of +0. This means that you gave advantage to the Wizards abilities over the Fighters abilities, increasing the damage output of your Wizard.

Here, since the Only material we have at this time for references is the Mines advanture I took the time to add up all the ACs of the creatures and all the saves and divide them.

Average AC = 13 (13.269) Average Dex Save = 1 (1.346)

Since these are the only AC and Saves we can actually be sure of (and not just make up claims about high ACs and low Saves) then you should be using these as a baseline calculation. If you feel you must increase the effects due to higher level monsters you can make the AC to 18, you need to increase the percentage wise Ref Save, to an average of +2. (I personally feel that higher level monsters will have better saves but we can use what we have at this time).

Here is my results using your setup (adding Great Weapon Fighting to the Fighter and giving him Defense for his second Style)
Enemy AC = 18, Enemy Ref = 2
Fighter +11 to hit - Giving Fighter Great Weapon Fighting to compensate for Wizards 2 feats for Concentration
Attack 50% hit chance 2d6 reroll 1's and 2's once weapon (8.33) + 5 = 13.33 * 0.50 = 6.665;
15% critical hit chance 4d6 reroll 1's and 2's once (16.67) + 5 = 21.67 * 0.15 = 3.2505;
Since he can only do this once a turn, and he crits for 3 possible, will divide it by 3 a then give it its 15% chance
- Attack -5 +10 damage 2d6 reroll 1’s and 2’s once weapon (8.33) + 5 + 10 = 23.33 * .6 * 0.15 * .33 = .6699
total = 10.5854 damage per attack; (I will ignore the chance of Crit on the bonus attack due to calculations and making only a very small difference)

4 attacks = 4 * 10.5854 = 42.3416
Action surge = 8 * 10.5854 = 84.6832

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 42.3416 = 931.5152
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 84.6832 = 169.3664
Total damage per average day = 1100.8816
Total average damage per round = 45.87

Wizard +10 to hit, DC 18
Attack 55% hit chance Fire Bolt 4d10 spell +4 Int from sub-class = 26 * 0.55= 14.3;
5% critical hit chance 8d10 = 44 * 0.05 = 2.2;
Total = 16.5

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
75% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.75 = 13.125; 25% Successful Save 2.1875; Total 15.3125

Arcane Recovery + Over Channel + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 8 spell slot once (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
75% Save Failure 8d6 (48) = 48 * 0.75 = 36; 25% Successful Save 6; Total 42

Meteor Swarm + Empowered Evocation (+ int mod)
75% Save Failure 40d6 (140) + 4 (int) = 144 * 0.75 = 108; 25% Successful Save 18; Total 126

18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 15.3125 = 275.625
6 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) Over Channeled = 6 * 42 = 252
19 rounds of Fire bolt = 19 * 16.5 = 297
1 round of Meteor Swarm = 126
Total damage per average day = 950.625
Total average damage per round = 39.609

The Fighter is doing 6.2611 more damage per round on average. (15% more damage)
The Fighter can do an average of 42.34 damage per round until he dies
The Wizard can do an average of 16.5 damage per round after he has burned through his spells or he dies
The Fighter recovers 5+Con HP per round at 50% or less
Fighter AC = 19 (Defense), Wizard AC = 18(23 if Reaction Used). Wizard has a 21.05% increase of AC over Fighter
The Fighter has more HP, but less AC than the Wizard in this scenario.
The Fighter has used 1 Feat and 1 Stat increase out of 7 (2/7)
The Wizard has used 2 Feats and 1 stat increase out of 5 (3 / 5) - Giving Fighter 250% more Stat/Feats over Wizard left.
Wizard has 4,3,3,3,2,2,2,0,1 Spells left, giving him more effective choices to use during any other fights
Fighter has all abilities but Action Surge for any other fight (used all but 1 ability (Second Wind))


Verdict (Opinion time) - Fighter does more damage overall and can sustain higher DPR indefinitely (256% more than Wizard indefinitely). Even with lower AC, the Fighter has more staying power because of his HP and Survivor ability. The Fighter still has a large bit of customization left with 5 Feats or Stat increases vs the 2 from Wizard. During these battles, the Fighter has used all his ‘daily’ abilities while the Wizard has many left (see spells left). Wizard has more versatility left, but he had that to begin with.

Personal Conclusion: I believe the Fighter out performs the Wizard in his schtick even when the Wizard attempts to maximize his single target damage. The Wizard has superior AoE damage and more options that can be used in and out of combat but fails to defeat the Fighter in this scenario by a decent margin.

EDIT: Modified numbers for the Crit attack, did not calc % chance to hit originally

[akaddk]

That said, it would have been nice to see poisons and related abilities make it in as class features for the assassin.
They did.


And Arcane Tricksters are sadly as dull as Eldritch Warriors.
Perception and bias are powerful indeed. I looked at the Arcane Trickster and said to myself, "Oh man, I really want to play that, it looks like so much fun!"

[1337 b4k4]

They did.

I see the proficiency with the kit, but I didn't see anything beyond that. Do we know what benefits that confers? In the playtest it gave proficiency to ability checks related to poison and allowed crafting 1 dose of poison per hour at half price. That's nice, but I was alluding to wanting to see more class abilities related to poisons. In either case, overall I still feel the assassin is (and always has been) far to situational of a concept to be a class for D&D.

[HorridElemental]

The Real World pantheon gods bug me, somewhat (Hades as Lawful Evil? Come on; at least pretend like you have any knowledge of the mythologies), but I kind of expected that. Otherwise, I'll probably need more time to look through it.

Hell, Hades is the closest god in Greek mythology to get to LN or LG... All the other gods were worse than him (Zeus, seriously wtf was wrong with him?)... His biggest crime is like kidnapping his own fiancé, and he didn't do that for evil but because of lawfulness.

[charcoalninja]

Hell, Hades is the closest god in Greek mythology to get to LN or LG... All the other gods were worse than him (Zeus, seriously wtf was wrong with him?)... His biggest crime is like kidnapping his own fiancé, and he didn't do that for evil but because of lawfulness.

My understanding of it was that she wasn't his fiance, until you know after the kidnapping and magical ensnarement and forced separation from her mother that nearly ended all life thing.

If Hades was lawful good he wouldn't have let her eat the food of the underworld because he knew it would trap her forever.

You know, and not kidnap her in the first place.

[hawklost]

My understanding of it was that she wasn't his fiance, until you know after the kidnapping and magical ensnarement and forced separation from her mother that nearly ended all life thing.

If Hades was lawful good he wouldn't have let her eat the food of the underworld because he knew it would trap her forever.

You know, and not kidnap her in the first place.

True, he is probably at best Neutral to possibly LN but he really does seem more stable than most of the other Greek Gods.

I can't help it but I don't feel any of the Greek gods fit the Good Descriptor and very few if any would reach Lawful. They were always out for their own gain and fun and they never cared for the rules (they even broke all their own).

[Millennium]

My understanding of it was that she wasn't his fiance, until you know after the kidnapping and magical ensnarement and forced separation from her mother that nearly ended all life thing.

If Hades was lawful good he wouldn't have let her eat the food of the underworld because he knew it would trap her forever.

You know, and not kidnap her in the first place.

I remember that 3e classed him as LE, but went out of its way to state that he isn't particularly malevolent. What makes him Evil is that he's utterly unmoved by compassion, and ruthless in doing what he believes is right or necessary.

Consider the story of Orpheus. The greatest musician/poet who ever lived goes down to the Underworld to retrieve his beloved, wreaking quite a bit of unintentional havoc in the process: gates open in front of him, the punished dead (and their tormenters, when applicable) stop to listen, and inanimate objects weep. He gets to the throne of Hades and unleashes his best work yet.

Persephone is moved to tears. Hades is not moved at all. He agrees to let Eurydice go only because his wife won't shut up about it, and even then, he puts in a trap clause that he knows Orpheus won't be able to resist, ensuring that Eurydice will never leave his domain anyway. If that's not the work of an evil god, and specifically an LE god, then I don't know what is.

Hades is not a moustache-twirler by any stretch of the imagination. Despite this particular story, he's not even in the habit of duplicitous dealing. But he is a very different, very cold form of evil: an unstoppable force that has an agenda but Does. Not. Care.

Does 5e do something similar to this?

[Tholomyes]

I remember that 3e classed him as LE, but went out of its way to state that he isn't particularly malevolent. What makes him Evil is that he's utterly unmoved by compassion, and ruthless in doing what he believes is right or necessary.

Consider the story of Orpheus. The greatest musician/poet who ever lived goes down to the Underworld to retrieve his beloved, wreaking quite a bit of unintentional havoc in the process: gates open in front of him, the punished dead (and their tormenters, when applicable) stop to listen, and inanimate objects weep. He gets to the throne of Hades and unleashes his best work yet.

Persephone is moved to tears. Hades is not moved at all. He agrees to let Eurydice go only because his wife won't shut up about it, and even then, he puts in a trap clause that he knows Orpheus won't be able to resist, ensuring that Eurydice will never leave his domain anyway. If that's not the work of an evil god, and specifically an LE god, then I don't know what is.

Hades is not a moustache-twirler by any stretch of the imagination. Despite this particular story, he's not even in the habit of duplicitous dealing. But he is a very different, very cold form of evil: an unstoppable force that has an agenda but Does. Not. Care.

Does 5e do something similar to this?All they give is Name (and a small portfolio, in this case "Hades, god of the underworld"), Alignment, Suggested Domains, and Symbol. It's possible this will be their explanation if they ever elaborate on it. Personally, I don't buy that explanation, though. I think his LE status was entirely due to the fact he was given the Assassin PrC (I think; it might have been something else) requiring him to be evil. If they gave Zeus CG in that book, with all that he's done, there's no way Hades can be anything less than LN, even if you separate him from Plauton, which is largely considered just to be another name for him, though with a greater positive connotation, due to a greater portfolio including harvest and wealth.

[Lokiare]

I am not sure how you assume that creatures will have a High AC but no ability scores or proficiency bonus. Do you have some way to know this?
Yes, you chose a decently High AC of 17 but pretty dismally low Save of +0. This means that you gave advantage to the Wizards abilities over the Fighters abilities, increasing the damage output of your Wizard.

Here, since the Only material we have at this time for references is the Mines advanture I took the time to add up all the ACs of the creatures and all the saves and divide them.

Average AC = 13 (13.269) Average Dex Save = 1 (1.346)

Since these are the only AC and Saves we can actually be sure of (and not just make up claims about high ACs and low Saves) then you should be using these as a baseline calculation. If you feel you must increase the effects due to higher level monsters you can make the AC to 18, you need to increase the percentage wise Ref Save, to an average of +2. (I personally feel that higher level monsters will have better saves but we can use what we have at this time).

Here is my results using your setup (adding Great Weapon Fighting to the Fighter and giving him Defense for his second Style)
Enemy AC = 18, Enemy Ref = 2
Fighter +11 to hit - Giving Fighter Great Weapon Fighting to compensate for Wizards 2 feats for Concentration
Attack 50% hit chance 2d6 reroll 1's and 2's once weapon (8.33) + 5 = 13.33 * 0.50 = 6.665;
15% critical hit chance 4d6 reroll 1's and 2's once (16.67) + 5 = 21.67 * 0.15 = 3.2505;
Since he can only do this once a turn, and he crits for 3 possible, will divide it by 3 a then give it its 15% chance
- Attack -5 +10 damage 2d6 reroll 1’s and 2’s once weapon (8.33) + 5 + 10 = 23.33 * .6 * 0.15 * .33 = .6699
total = 10.5854 damage per attack; (I will ignore the chance of Crit on the bonus attack due to calculations and making only a very small difference)

4 attacks = 4 * 10.5854 = 42.3416
Action surge = 8 * 10.5854 = 84.6832

22 rounds at 4 attacks per round = 22 * 42.3416 = 931.5152
2 rounds of action surge = 2 * 84.6832 = 169.3664
Total damage per average day = 1100.8816
Total average damage per round = 45.87

Wizard +10 to hit, DC 18
Attack 55% hit chance Fire Bolt 4d10 spell +4 Int from sub-class = 26 * 0.55= 14.3;
5% critical hit chance 8d10 = 44 * 0.05 = 2.2;
Total = 16.5

Arcane Recovery + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 5 spell slot once per encounter (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
75% Save Failure 5d6 (17.5) = 17.5 * 0.75 = 13.125; 25% Successful Save 2.1875; Total 15.3125

Arcane Recovery + Over Channel + Flaming Sphere cast out of a level 8 spell slot once (for every round of the encounter against at least 1 target)
75% Save Failure 8d6 (48) = 48 * 0.75 = 36; 25% Successful Save 6; Total 42

Meteor Swarm + Empowered Evocation (+ int mod)
75% Save Failure 40d6 (140) + 4 (int) = 144 * 0.75 = 108; 25% Successful Save 18; Total 126

18 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) = 18 * 15.3125 = 275.625
6 rounds of Flaming Sphere (5th) Over Channeled = 6 * 42 = 252
19 rounds of Fire bolt = 19 * 16.5 = 297
1 round of Meteor Swarm = 126
Total damage per average day = 950.625
Total average damage per round = 39.609

The Fighter is doing 6.2611 more damage per round on average. (15% more damage)
The Fighter can do an average of 42.34 damage per round until he dies
The Wizard can do an average of 16.5 damage per round after he has burned through his spells or he dies
The Fighter recovers 5+Con HP per round at 50% or less
Fighter AC = 19 (Defense), Wizard AC = 18(23 if Reaction Used). Wizard has a 21.05% increase of AC over Fighter
The Fighter has more HP, but less AC than the Wizard in this scenario.
The Fighter has used 1 Feat and 1 Stat increase out of 7 (2/7)
The Wizard has used 2 Feats and 1 stat increase out of 5 (3 / 5) - Giving Fighter 250% more Stat/Feats over Wizard left.
Wizard has 4,3,3,3,2,2,2,0,1 Spells left, giving him more effective choices to use during any other fights
Fighter has all abilities but Action Surge for any other fight (used all but 1 ability (Second Wind))


Verdict (Opinion time) - Fighter does more damage overall and can sustain higher DPR indefinitely (256% more than Wizard indefinitely). Even with lower AC, the Fighter has more staying power because of his HP and Survivor ability. The Fighter still has a large bit of customization left with 5 Feats or Stat increases vs the 2 from Wizard. During these battles, the Fighter has used all his ‘daily’ abilities while the Wizard has many left (see spells left). Wizard has more versatility left, but he had that to begin with.

Personal Conclusion: I believe the Fighter out performs the Wizard in his schtick even when the Wizard attempts to maximize his single target damage. The Wizard has superior AoE damage and more options that can be used in and out of combat but fails to defeat the Fighter in this scenario by a decent margin.

EDIT: Modified numbers for the Crit attack, did not calc % chance to hit originally

I don't see 6-7 points per round being all that much. Also we are using the system as is so comments like 'the fighter can do this all the time' don't matter because according to the rules there are 4 average encounters in an average adventuring day. This is also only using basic and a couple feats from the PHB. This is without looking at all the feats, spells, etc...etc... in the PHB. Its also without taking into account things like save or die effectively being 100% of the target creatures hp (which would be the average hp of a creature of that level) or things like figuring out how much more damage a party does when the wizard debuffs enemies. Which we could do with simulations, but I don't think 10 of use want to sit around and simulate 400 combats each. It also doesn't count over damage, when an attack kills a creature but deals 200% of the creatures health in damage.

I would say its nearly a tie for damage. A few points here or there will be off set by over kills. So the Wizard still qualifies for the 'doing things as well as other classes' part of tier 1.

Edit: I did notice a few problems with your math: A fighter gets +6 from proficiency and +5 from str so their bonus is +11 right? So to hit AC 18 is a 70% chance (http://anydice.com/program/4317), but we are calculating AC 19 with the 65% chance. So the fighter numbers should go up slightly. Feel free to recalculate with 'average' numbers of AC 13-14 and save of +2. In fact you could do a spreadsheet with all AC's from 10-30 and all saves from -2 to +10 if you wanted.

[Sartharina]

Save-or-die? I'm sorry, which edition are we playing in? Because I've not seen any of those yet.

Also - a fighter can do its stuff throughout an encounter, which can vary in length from 3 rounds to 20+

[Millennium]

All they give is Name (and a small portfolio, in this case "Hades, god of the underworld"), Alignment, Suggested Domains, and Symbol. It's possible this will be their explanation if they ever elaborate on it.
Oh. Well, that's dumb.

Personally, I don't buy that explanation, though. I think his LE status was entirely due to the fact he was given the Assassin PrC (I think; it might have been something else) requiring him to be evil.
I remember them giving him Assassin. But why isn't my reasoning for a LE Hades plausible? I think you've got the Assassin thing backwards: Hades is the only deity in the book with any prestige class levels at all, so Wizards clearly wasn't trying to hang a PrC on every god. There's no reason for them to have bent his alignment around just to give him that particular class.

If they gave Zeus CG in that book, with all that he's done, there's no way Hades can be anything less than LN, even if you separate him from Plauton, which is largely considered just to be another name for him, though with a greater positive connotation, due to a greater portfolio including harvest and wealth.
I agree that giving Zeus CG was a bad idea, but that doesn't absolve Hades of his own wrongdoings. He's not villainous (unless you're Demeter or possibly Persephone), but you don't have to be villainous to be evil.

[hawklost]

I don't see 6-7 points per round being all that much. Also we are using the system as is so comments like 'the fighter can do this all the time' don't matter because according to the rules there are 4 average encounters in an average adventuring day. This is also only using basic and a couple feats from the PHB. This is without looking at all the feats, spells, etc...etc... in the PHB. Its also without taking into account things like save or die effectively being 100% of the target creatures hp (which would be the average hp of a creature of that level) or things like figuring out how much more damage a party does when the wizard debuffs enemies. Which we could do with simulations, but I don't think 10 of use want to sit around and simulate 400 combats each. It also doesn't count over damage, when an attack kills a creature but deals 200% of the creatures health in damage.

I would say its nearly a tie for damage. A few points here or there will be off set by over kills. So the Wizard still qualifies for the 'doing things as well as other classes' part of tier 1.

Edit: I did notice a few problems with your math: A fighter gets +6 from proficiency and +5 from str so their bonus is +11 right? So to hit AC 18 is a 70% chance (http://anydice.com/program/4317), but we are calculating AC 19 with the 65% chance. So the fighter numbers should go up slightly. Feel free to recalculate with 'average' numbers of AC 13-14 and save of +2. In fact you could do a spreadsheet with all AC's from 10-30 and all saves from -2 to +10 if you wanted.

Where are you getting the rules say there is 4 average encounters a day? (did a quick check and couldn't find it, not saying it isn't though)
4 Encounters which you have just assumed based on no real evidence will only last 6 rounds (sorry, personal experience in 3e or 4e does not count since those are not 5e).
Save or Die? Please point to these abilities you seem to know so much about. If the wizard is counting hit points then there are other issues at a table. We are already facing some kind of creature who can take about 300 damage over 6 rounds, what Save or Die spell can take that out?
What debuffs are you somehow using since this was a fight with just a Fighter against something and a Wizard against something, changing up the rules on it when you start being proved wrong is useless.
Considering that the damage per round was an average of about 40, 6 points of difference is pretty hefty.

As noted, my average numbers were based on low level monsters, I do not assume any kind of scaling but was attempting to give you the numbers you originally posted for AC and then extrapolate a Dex Save for that average AC. If you prefer, we can grab one of the CR 13-16 monsters (legendary works) that came out in the newest suppliment and try those numbers but they pretty much ignore 3 of your save vs die spells and have AC between 16 (144 hp) to 19 (240 hp) with saves ranging from +5 Dex-+9 and +7 Will, so it harms your caster much more than the Fighter. Course, since we are not taking damage done to PCs into account in these calculations we can use only their defensive stats.

[rlc]

Where are you getting the rules say there is 4 average encounters a day? (did a quick check and couldn't find it, not saying it isn't though)

it was said somewhere, this is actually legit. it might have been a tweet or something, i don't remember and can't find it anywhere, either, but he is right about that. of course, if the starter set alone is anything to go by, then at least in the official adventures, you won't be doing only 4 challenging encounters before you find someplace to rest.

[Madfellow]

it was said somewhere, this is actually legit. it might have been a tweet or something, i don't remember and can't find it anywhere, either, but he is right about that. of course, if the starter set alone is anything to go by, then at least in the official adventures, you won't be doing only 4 challenging encounters before you find someplace to rest.

I recall a recent Legends and Lore in which Mearls talks about the new Challenge Ratings, how a rating just above the party's level is considered very challenging, and that the average party can handle 2 of these per day. Everything else scales down from there.

[1337 b4k4]

it was said somewhere, this is actually legit. it might have been a tweet or something, i don't remember and can't find it anywhere, either, but he is right about that. of course, if the starter set alone is anything to go by, then at least in the official adventures, you won't be doing only 4 challenging encounters before you find someplace to rest.

Per the encounter building LL (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/building-adventures-0), Mearls states:


The Adventuring Day: As a rule of thumb, the game assumes that characters of a particular level can defeat a total number of creatures with an XP value equal to two hard encounters before needing to take a long rest. That's not a perfect measure, since the adventuring day is subject to strategic considerations that can swing encounter difficulty from overwhelming to trivial, and back again. As a guideline, though, it's a good way to gauge when you can expect the party to start running out of resources.

Based on the provided chart that would be 6 moderate (average) encounter per day, not 4.

[Malifice]

On that topic, I'll be running the game with short rests being '5 minutes or more, but less than 8 hours'

I detest the 5 minute adventuring day.

[rlc]

Per the encounter building LL (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/building-adventures-0), Mearls states:



Based on the provided chart that would be 6 moderate (average) encounter per day, not 4.

all right, so there's the answer.

[TenchiSD]

Verdict (Opinion time) - Fighter does more damage overall and can sustain higher DPR indefinitely (256% more than Wizard indefinitely). Even with lower AC, the Fighter has more staying power because of his HP and Survivor ability. The Fighter still has a large bit of customization left with 5 Feats or Stat increases vs the 2 from Wizard. During these battles, the Fighter has used all his ‘daily’ abilities while the Wizard has many left (see spells left). Wizard has more versatility left, but he had that to begin with.

Personal Conclusion: I believe the Fighter out performs the Wizard in his schtick even when the Wizard attempts to maximize his single target damage. The Wizard has superior AoE damage and more options that can be used in and out of combat but fails to defeat the Fighter in this scenario by a decent margin.

EDIT: Modified numbers for the Crit attack, did not calc % chance to hit originally

I wish this site had a like button. You sir deserve a medal for that entire post.

[Falka]

Some people in this site seem to make an unfair comparison between the Fighter and the Wizard. They always assume, for some reason, that the Fighter fights at his worst, without using his abilities while the Wizard always fights at his best, completely protected or "winning situations" that the Fighter shouldn't suppose to be really good at.

It saddens me a bit because this ends up feeling like a "look at me, me, me, I'm the important person in the group!"

The two Wizards of my group thought like this in their first sessions. Nowadays they are licking the Fighter's boot all day because he's the one getting his ass kicked against the mobs while he buys time for the Wizards to do their tricks. Wizards cannot tank unless you are counting with some high level gimmicks (Shield Spell Mastery, seriously - at what level do you get that and what are you going to do before it?).

That's a typical schoolyard theorycrafting: "If we assume that the Wizards has this and this and this and this and everything else stays ceteris paribus, well, he's awesome."

Wizards no longer have easy access to summoned creatures, so they cannot just ditch their Fighters away. Why? You would need to waste half your spells to just protect yourself. True Strike gives you a bonus for your next attack in the following turn, wow. You don't even have multiple attacks. Yes, you can use Flame Strike, but it's not like you do not need to control it. And since it's Concentration cast, as soon as you cast something else, the DPS is gone. And so on.

If things were so simple as in, Tier 1 classes, let's just play that you can try to play a party of 5 Wizards and see how it goes. I'm sure that it won't end quite well. Tier 1 classes are supposed to beat every other at their role, right? So why even play anything else? Let's just play Wizard.

But if this isn't automatically true then that means the Wizard isn't either as half as good as you want to make it sound, or Fighters aren't that bad. You don't value something that is 'useless', the basic definition implies that is has no profitable use.

I can understand some arguments pointing out how a Fighter is a better melee class than the Ranger, or the Barbarian's potential. That's interesting. But the "Wizard is awesome and everything else is crap" argument is getting old really fast.

[With a box]

That reminds me 3.5e
Wizards CAN do that in 3.5, aren't them?

[Madfellow]

That reminds me 3.5e
Wizards CAN do that in 3.5, aren't them?

That's basically how these conversations have been going since this board was created. People look at 5e, see surface-level similarities to 3e, and worry because they assume that nothing has changed.

If you are a person who is concerned about wizards in 5e, I urge you to just go out and PLAY a game with your group and see how it goes. People, please stop with all of the theory crafting. It's getting us absolutely nowhere.

[obryn]

So, one of the major issues of 3.x was the summoning stuff, and how it renders your beefy characters obsolete because you can just summon a better-fighter for the cost of a spell.

So.... Tell me about the Necromancer. I hear he has undead minions.

[Falka]

So, one of the major issues of 3.x was the summoning stuff, and how it renders your beefy characters obsolete because you can just summon a better-fighter for the cost of a spell.

So.... Tell me about the Necromancer. I hear he has undead minions.

Not until level 5. They are not as good as PCs. And only an option for Evil parties.

[MadBear]

One thought I had when talking about fighter vs wizard comparison in regards to fighting is simply this.

What if we we're to turn it to fighter vs wizard vs rogue? It seems to me that a rogue with their sneak attack has a really good way to break concentration on a wizards spells.

by level 7 they should be able to reliably do over the 20 damage concentration thresh hold. (5 (attribute) + 14 (sneak average) + 3.5 (weapon average)= 22). From that point their single round damage continues to rise.

Anyways, the only reason I even thought it was worth mentioning is that the rogue seems to fill the niche of being able to force concentration checks that have a higher degree of failure then other classes. (add the battlemasters ability to give another creature an attack during his turn, the rogue could get 2 nice sneak attacks in to really break a concentration check).

[omniknight]

So, one of the major issues of 3.x was the summoning stuff, and how it renders your beefy characters obsolete because you can just summon a better-fighter for the cost of a spell.

So.... Tell me about the Necromancer. I hear he has undead minions.

Meh, it probably is a bit overpowered mid-game from like levels 5-10. But eventually a posse of 1/4-1/2 CR zombies stops being a significant threat and just end up lengthening combat encounters. Higher level I think I'd prefer to be an Evoker or Transmuter Wizard over Necromancer.

[obryn]

Not until level 5. They are not as good as PCs. And only an option for Evil parties.
I know they're not as good as PCs, but how many can you keep around? How good are they? If you can get a handful of them, the action economy will kick in.


Meh, it probably is a bit overpowered mid-game from like levels 5-10. But eventually a posse of 1/4-1/2 CR zombies stops being a significant threat and just end up lengthening combat encounters. Higher level I think I'd prefer to be an Evoker or Transmuter Wizard over Necromancer.
Are they only as good as normal skeletons or zombies, then? What kinds of bonuses does the Necromancer give them?

[Madfellow]

One thought I had when talking about fighter vs wizard comparison in regards to fighting is simply this.

What if we we're to turn it to fighter vs wizard vs rogue? It seems to me that a rogue with their sneak attack has a really good way to break concentration on a wizards spells.

by level 7 they should be able to reliably do over the 20 damage concentration thresh hold. (5 (attribute) + 14 (sneak average) + 3.5 (weapon average)= 22). From that point their single round damage continues to rise.

Anyways, the only reason I even thought it was worth mentioning is that the rogue seems to fill the niche of being able to force concentration checks that have a higher degree of failure then other classes. (add the battlemasters ability to give another creature an attack during his turn, the rogue could get 2 nice sneak attacks in to really break a concentration check).

It's not a Player vs Player problem, it's a problem of one class outshining the other. In 3.5, spellcasting classes could outshine mundane classes through sheer power and versatility--they could do things mundanes couldn't.

And until a large number of people have played a large number of games in 5e, we can't know definitively one way or another whether that is still the case. In the meantime, I am willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.

[da_chicken]

Meh, it probably is a bit overpowered mid-game from like levels 5-10. But eventually a posse of 1/4-1/2 CR zombies stops being a significant threat and just end up lengthening combat encounters.

I don't know about that. A Cleric 5 can force all undead C1/2 and below to save DC ~15 or be destroyed outright. Based on LMoP, undead of that level will need a 17+ to succeed. At Cleric 6 he can do it twice an encounter. At level 8 he bumps it to C1. Undead swarms have difficulty against Clerics.

[omniknight]

Are they only as good as normal skeletons or zombies, then? What kinds of bonuses does the Necromancer give them?

True, Necromancy does make them better meat shields, they hit a little harder, and resist Turning better. But they do not get a bonus to attack so they are going to be missing quite often anyway.

[omniknight]

I don't know about that. A Cleric 5 can force all undead C1/2 and below to save DC ~15 or be destroyed outright. Based on LMoP, undead of that level will need a 17+ to succeed. At Cleric 6 he can do it twice an encounter. At level 8 he bumps it to C1. Undead swarms have difficulty against Clerics.

Yeah, but how often are you fighting NPC Clerics? Most of the time the mid-level Necromancer is going to use his swarm unhindered.

[Madfellow]

Yeah, but how often are you fighting NPC Clerics?

As often as your party wizard tries to abuse the Raise Dead spell, if it can be abused.

[Twelvetrees]

I know they're not as good as PCs, but how many can you keep around? How good are they? If you can get a handful of them, the action economy will kick in.

You only get one in the normal version of the spell and you have to recast the spell each day to maintain control. You get two more per higher level spell slot.

[da_chicken]

Yeah, but how often are you fighting NPC Clerics? Most of the time the mid-level Necromancer is going to use his swarm unhindered.

I don't know. The good guys that come after evil PCs are often Clerics and Paladins. Especially Necromancers raising armies, since most gods want undead destroyed. Also good guys are jerks like that and like to cheat by bringing healers. Sure, you'll be able to slay or enslave an entire village of goblins, but pissing off the organized races with a small army of undead is just asking to be hunted down.

[MadBear]

It's not a Player vs Player problem, it's a problem of one class outshining the other. In 3.5, spellcasting classes could outshine mundane classes through sheer power and versatility--they could do things mundanes couldn't.

And until a large number of people have played a large number of games in 5e, we can't know definitively one way or another whether that is still the case. In the meantime, I am willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, The comment was more of a throwback to the "the wizard can out-damage the fighter, and with certain feats has unbreakable concentration".

To take a different angle on it then since you're right that PVP isn't that useful, the fighters role covers dealing a good amount of damage, having the ability to tank well, and depending on subclass, can act as a decent controller. Meanwhile, the rogue seams like they'd be really good at disrupting caster concentration, and they'd have that niche filled really well.

[hawklost]

Yeah, but how often are you fighting NPC Clerics? Most of the time the mid-level Necromancer is going to use his swarm unhindered.

The other question is, how many spells every 24 hours does the Necromancer have to use up to keep his swarm from rampaging against the party? Unless he is using Finger of Death, every other Necromancy spell (I believe) only holds the undead of 24 hrs before they are free of control (unless the spell is cast on them again).

[Human Paragon 3]

Where is the math that shows that with the right feats wizards have unbreakable concentration? This seems pattently false to me. A battle master fighter can drop a ton of superiority dice on the wizard. Paladins can smite. Rogues can sneak attack. Barbarian can get big bonuses to damage when raging. Opposed spellcasters can blast for large amounts, and most high level foes also have large attacks, breath weapons, spells etc.

Hell, even the Champion "out of the box" fighter will get his 8 attacks, some of which will be critical hits for 22+ damage, and the mage slayer feat negates the advantage on con saves from the wizard's feat.

I expect DC 30+ concentration checks will be routine starting around mid-level.

[hawklost]

Where is the math that shows that with the right feats wizards have unbreakable concentration? This seems pattently false to me. A battle master fighter can drop a ton of superiority dice on the wizard. Paladins can smite. Rogues can sneak attack. Barbarian can get big bonuses to damage when raging. Opposed spellcasters can blast for large amounts, and most high level foes also have large attacks, breath weapons, spells etc.

Hell, even the Champion "out of the box" fighter will get his 8 attacks, some of which will be critical hits for 22+ damage, and the mage slayer feat negates the advantage on con saves from the wizard's feat.

I expect DC 30+ concentration checks will be routine starting around mid-level.

The right feats allow the Caster to have a Proficiency in Con and Advantage on their Con Saves (assuming of course noone imposes disadvantage on it, which negates it then). That means they have a good chance but not unbreakable at all. Heck, a Rogue does an average of 40+ damage a turn with sneak at level 20, so assuming +11 to save with Advantage they will still fail about 20% of the time (quick calc, no tools used).

[obryn]

True, Necromancy does make them better meat shields, they hit a little harder, and resist Turning better. But they do not get a bonus to attack so they are going to be missing quite often anyway.
What are the actual rules, though? Lacking a high attack bonus doesn't seem like the achilles heel it could be, given that this is 5e with bounded accuracy.

How beefy are we talking?


You only get one in the normal version of the spell and you have to recast the spell each day to maintain control. You get two more per higher level spell slot.
That seems like a lot though? It sounds like you can have a veritable horde of undead with a few spells, especially when you can snag some spell slots back after an hour's rest.

[Human Paragon 3]

The right feats allow the Caster to have a Proficiency in Con and Advantage on their Con Saves (assuming of course noone imposes disadvantage on it, which negates it then). That means they have a good chance but not unbreakable at all. Heck, a Rogue does an average of 40+ damage a turn with sneak at level 20, so assuming +11 to save with Advantage they will still fail about 20% of the time (quick calc, no tools used).

Well the odds of hitting a DC 40 with a +11 is 10%. You need to roll a 19. Even with advantage, your odds of either die coming up 19 or 20 is... what, 19%? Mind that's your odds of passing, not your odds of failing.

[MadBear]

Well the odds of hitting a DC 40 with a +11 is 10%. You need to roll a 19. Even with advantage, your odds of either die coming up 19 or 20 is... what, 19%? Mind that's your odds of passing, not your odds of failing.

I think concentration is 1/2 damage dealt, not full damage.

[Human Paragon 3]

I think concentration is 1/2 damage dealt, not full damage.

Ah. That greatly affects the calculus.

[hawklost]

I think concentration is 1/2 damage dealt, not full damage.

It still means that on an average turn against an NPC who can do 40 damage the caster has about a 20% chance of failure, more again if disadvantage causes them to lose their Advantage.

Many things can cause more than on a single attack. Almost any Caster can do more than that with their spells, Rogues, Barbarians, and many other classes can get 40 damage in a single attack.

Also note, you require the Caster to take up 2 of his Stat increases/Feats to be able to do this. It means he probably doesn't have a 20 Con so he gets less advantage using it.

[obryn]

Ah. That greatly affects the calculus.
Yeah, there's no improvement before 22 damage, and even a Greatsword Fighter will have trouble dealing that much on a single attack without magic items.

Rogues get there more easily, as do other casters. Just don't expect your Fighter to disrupt concentration, unfortunately, because they're more the "thousand cuts" sort, and the save is per-event.

With a +8 to Concentration and Advantage, DC 10 is trivial to hit. You miss it 1 out of 400 rolls.

[Twelvetrees]

That seems like a lot though? It sounds like you can have a veritable horde of undead with a few spells, especially when you can snag some spell slots back after an hour's rest.
It's a trade off. A horde of undead (ten sound about right?) becomes viable around level 7 or 8, but only if you use up all of your highest level spell slots. Having a horde with high level spell slots to spare...about level fifteen or so, but at that point, your enemies can likely get rid of them relatively quickly.

If you want a very end of the spectrum extreme...let's see, say level 20 wizard using all the slots possible to make an undead army...then you could have right about 100 undead, if you had enough corpses and were fine only having low level spell slots. As I said before, it's a trade off.

[obryn]

It's a trade off. A horde of undead (ten sound about right?) becomes viable around level 7 or 8, but only if you use up all of your highest level spell slots. Having a horde with high level spell slots to spare...about level fifteen or so, but at that point, your enemies can likely get rid of them relatively quickly.

If you want a very end of the spectrum extreme...let's see, say level 20 wizard using all the slots possible to make an undead army...then you could have right about 100 undead, if you had enough corpses and were fine only having low level spell slots. As I said before, it's a trade off.
How quickly can they get rid of them? How many hit points would they have then, what'd their attack bonuses be, and how much damage would they do with, say, a bow?

Because that "horde of peasants" thing I (and others) pooh-poohed as being basically impossible and irrelevant seems to be a real thing that can happen.

[Twelvetrees]

How quickly can they get rid of them? How many hit points would they have then, what'd their attack bonuses be, and how much damage would they do with, say, a bow?

Because that "horde of peasants" thing I (and others) pooh-poohed as being basically impossible and irrelevant seems to be a real thing that can happen.

Around thirty hit points, normal attack (necromancy doesn't improve attack), and ten damage or so.

I will admit that I don't know how fast enemies could get rid of them, but I don't think area attacks that do over thirty damage are unreasonable abilities to expect from the highest level monsters in the game.

[Jenckes]

How quickly can they get rid of them? How many hit points would they have then, what'd their attack bonuses be, and how much damage would they do with, say, a bow?
seems to be a real thing that can happen.

They gain your proficiency bonus, and an amount of HP equal to your level (at work right now but I am fairly sure that's right). Zombies had about 20 HP to start with, max level necromancy wizard would have 40ish HP zombies who would have +8ish to attack? dealing maybe 5 damage a hit?

Also, as for number of zombies
3rd level spells = 3 slots x 2 = 6
4th level = 3 x 3 = 9
5th level = 3 x 4 = 12
6th level = 2 x 5 = 10
7th level = 2 x 6 = 12
8th level = 7
9th level = 8

Keep in mind a 20th level wizard can get back two level five spells with a rest. Meaning that wizard can raise 8 more at a different time of day. So he does most of his raising when he wakes up, and the rest an hour later. For a total of 72 zombies.

A different wizard could of course kill them all with one level 9 spell. But, a 72 man force of zombies kind of cool. I guess.

[obryn]

I'm thinking "skeletons with bows" are where the real power will be found, here. Ranged weapons have a number of advantages over melee-ing zombies.

If they get to add proficiency bonus to the damage, then at high levels each of your (conservatively) 50 skeletons is doing, what, 1d8+5 or 1d8+6 damage at range?

I mean, that's basically the "peasant horde killing Asmodeus" scenario that I previously found ridiculous right there, isn't it?

Also, from a much less game-breaky perspective, even running around with ten or so a day seems like it could out-Fighter the Fighter through the magic combination of action economy and bounded accuracy.

[Twelvetrees]

They gain your proficiency bonus, and an amount of HP equal to your level (at work right now but I am fairly sure that's right). Zombies had about 20 HP to start with, max level necromancy wizard would have 40ish HP zombies who would have +8ish to attack? dealing maybe 5 damage a hit?

Also, as for number of zombies
3rd level spells = 3 slots x 2 = 6
4th level = 3 x 3 = 9
5th level = 3 x 4 = 12
6th level = 2 x 5 = 10
7th level = 2 x 6 = 12
8th level = 7
9th level = 8

Keep in mind a 20th level wizard can get back two level five spells with a rest. Meaning that wizard can raise 8 more at a different time of day. So he does most of his raising when he wakes up, and the rest an hour later. For a total of 72 zombies.

A different wizard could of course kill them all with one level 9 spell. But, a 72 man force of zombies kind of cool. I guess.
Animate Dead adds two undead per spell level, not one.

Sorry, I get nit picky sometimes.

[PinkysBrain]

I will admit that I don't know how fast enemies could get rid of them, but I don't think area attacks that do over thirty damage are unreasonable abilities to expect from the highest level monsters in the game.

They think it's unreasonable for the highest level fighter in the game :p

[obryn]

They think it's unreasonable for the highest level fighter in the game :p
Yeah, I mean "horde of 3,000 hit points worth of skeletons" is one hell of a capstone ability.

[Twelvetrees]

I'm thinking "skeletons with bows" are where the real power will be found, here. Ranged weapons have a number of advantages over melee-ing zombies.

If they get to add proficiency bonus to the damage, then at high levels each of your (conservatively) 50 skeletons is doing, what, 1d8+5 or 1d8+6 damage at range?

I mean, that's basically the "peasant horde killing Asmodeus" scenario that I previously found ridiculous right there, isn't it?

Also, from a much less game-breaky perspective, even running around with ten or so a day seems like it could out-Fighter the Fighter through the magic combination of action economy and bounded accuracy.

In response to the first part: Purely damage wise, yes, they could kill Asmodeus. Likely in-game? No, I really doubt it.

Second part: Maybe? There are more of them, but at high level they are easy to hit.

[hawklost]

I'm thinking "skeletons with bows" are where the real power will be found, here. Ranged weapons have a number of advantages over melee-ing zombies.

If they get to add proficiency bonus to the damage, then at high levels each of your (conservatively) 50 skeletons is doing, what, 1d8+5 or 1d8+6 damage at range?

I mean, that's basically the "peasant horde killing Asmodeus" scenario that I previously found ridiculous right there, isn't it?

Also, from a much less game-breaky perspective, even running around with ten or so a day seems like it could out-Fighter the Fighter through the magic combination of action economy and bounded accuracy.

Assuming the Necromancer used every single one of his slots up to get the army, he has a few interesting issues with it.

1) He Must cast the spell again in the 24 hour period, not one instant after it to maintain the control.
2) He can only get the benefits of a long rest once in a single 24 hour period.
3) Both 1 and 2 mean that assuming he wants to maintain a hold over the undead indefinitely, he must wake up at exactly the same time, cast his spells in exactly the same order as before And exactly on the same undead as he originally did.

If he fails number 3, some of the undead get out of his control and do who knows what.

Skellies would have
+2 to hit with bow
Weapon +8 to damage
HP average of 13+20 (33)
and be naked

the Necromancer would have to pay for all their armor, bows and arrows. With that many Skellies, the DM might determine that it not trivial and actually require the player to keep track of it all.

[obryn]

Assuming the Necromancer used every single one of his slots up to get the army, he has a few interesting issues with it.

1) He Must cast the spell again in the 24 hour period, not one instant after it to maintain the control.
2) He can only get the benefits of a long rest once in a single 24 hour period.
3) Both 1 and 2 mean that assuming he wants to maintain a hold over the undead indefinitely, he must wake up at exactly the same time, cast his spells in exactly the same order as before And exactly on the same undead as he originally did.

If he fails number 3, some of the undead get out of his control and do who knows what.
I'm not looking at the spell right now, but are you saying he couldn't dismiss the undead, then re-animate the same skeletons the next day?

Regardless, I don't see the problem really. Wait 10-15 minutes after you get done with your long rest to start casting. Mark 'em up with paint if you want to keep track. :smallbiggrin:


Skellies would have
+2 to hit with bow
Weapon +8 to damage
HP average of 13+20 (33)
and be naked

the Necromancer would have to pay for all their armor, bows and arrows. With that many Skellies, the DM might determine that it not trivial and actually require the player to keep track of it all.
Yeah, that's actually much, much more powerful than a horde of peasants. But at this level, really, even that much money is child's play, near as I can see.

Heck; get half the skeletons, then save the rest of your spell slots for Counterspells or something. I think it would have the same effect.

[Cibulan]

I'd be more disappointed if a level 20 master necromancer couldn't make an undead-horde army.

[hawklost]

I'm not looking at the spell right now, but are you saying he couldn't dismiss the undead, then re-animate the same skeletons the next day?

Regardless, I don't see the problem really. Wait 10-15 minutes after you get done with your long rest to start casting. Mark 'em up with paint if you want to keep track. :smallbiggrin:


Nothing in the spell says he can dismiss it, therefore it could be assumed the only thing he dismissed is his control over them.
And true on the painting, but I really want to see his color coding of them.
As for 10-15 minutes, you are assuming that every single day he casts his spells at exactly the same time, if he slips up on day 5 by a minute he is down to 9-14 minute, slip up again and he could be down to 2-7 minutes, again and he could have to make it in the scenario I gave. Remember, I specified indefinitely for a reason.

Otherwise he needs to get more skellies somewhere, which would be slaughtering many creatures, which will get him noticed by Heroes, which will get an adventure against him. Sounds like a good badguy for an adventure but not so great for a PC.

[obryn]

Nothing in the spell says he can dismiss it, therefore it could be assumed the only thing he dismissed is his control over them.
And true on the painting, but I really want to see his color coding of them.
As for 10-15 minutes, you are assuming that every single day he casts his spells at exactly the same time, if he slips up on day 5 by a minute he is down to 9-14 minute, slip up again and he could be down to 2-7 minutes, again and he could have to make it in the scenario I gave. Remember, I specified indefinitely for a reason.

Otherwise he needs to get more skellies somewhere, which would be slaughtering many creatures, which will get him noticed by Heroes, which will get an adventure against him. Sounds like a good badguy for an adventure but not so great for a PC.
Hey, this is the game where a Wizard can precisely place a Fireball AoE 100' away to capture an exact sector of a grid, hitting enemies and missing allies! :smallbiggrin: Regardless, your objections are all the kind of nitpicky stuff that indicates to me that, yes, this really is a functional exploit, and that a DM would need to resort to shenanigans to counteract it. It's nitpicky stuff.

When a skeleton dies, why can't you just reanimate that skeleton?


I'd be more disappointed if a level 20 master necromancer couldn't make an undead-horde army.
Yeah, my disappointment is more that there's nothing a high-level Fighter or Rogue can do that's anywhere close to that. And that it pretty much wrecks the entire balance of the game.

I'm in favor of a dude having some skeletons or raising a skeleton horde or something - modeled in the stats as a single "skeleton horde" monster. But this is just ridiculous, with the action economy implications.

[Falka]

It sounds like a huge effort and vastly impractical. I'm sure that the Wizard character could come up with better ways to raise an army of undead. Dedicating all of his spellslots just to keep control of a small horde isn't what I would call efficient.

[obryn]

It sounds like a huge effort and vastly impractical. I'm sure that the Wizard character could come up with better ways to raise an army of undead. Dedicating all of his spellslots just to keep control of a small horde isn't what I would call efficient.
Well, a few counterpoints.

(1) You don't need all your spell slots, because arguably 30 skeletons (or ~1000 hp of skeletons) is plenty already.
(2) Because of the way bounded accuracy and the action economy work, this is an incredibly effective tactic.
(3) There's all kinds of utility uses, too. Send a skeleton ahead to "check" for traps! Let them block the hallway!
(4) Having 100 skeletons pretty well obviates having a Fighter, so you just get a second Wizard in the group to do all the other stuff. :smallbiggrin:

[da_chicken]

It sounds like a huge effort and vastly impractical. I'm sure that the Wizard character could come up with better ways to raise an army of undead. Dedicating all of his spellslots just to keep control of a small horde isn't what I would call efficient.

I would think a Rod of Rulership or Armor of Command or Circlet of Persuasion or some similar item would just get you a lot further. Or, you know, anything other than digging up a couple hundred corpses and instead hiring or conscripting an army like a normal person. Especially if there's a costly material component to Animate Dead like there is in 3.x. I mean, they cost silver a day and you're going to tax them!

[Giddonihah]

Well, a few counterpoints.

(1) You don't need all your spell slots, because arguably 30 skeletons (or ~1000 hp of skeletons) is plenty already.
(2) Because of the way bounded accuracy and the action economy work, this is an incredibly effective tactic.
(3) There's all kinds of utility uses, too. Send a skeleton ahead to "check" for traps! Let them block the hallway!
(4) Having 100 skeletons pretty well obviates having a Fighter, so you just get a second Wizard in the group to do all the other stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Nothing stops you (Or anyone really) from hiring 100 commoners, or training 100 animals either. Doesn't mean its something a player should do unless they are good at dodging books thrown at them by the GM.

Most likely this skeleton army will be used by a Big Bad necromancer controlled by the GM, rather than a Player in a Evil campaign.

[Lokiare]

DC
Bonus +1
Bonus +2
Bonus +3
Bonus +4
Bonus +5
Bonus +6


10
84%
87.75%
91%
93.75%
96%
97.75%


11
79%
84%
87.75%
91%
93.75%
96%


12
75%
79.75%
84%
87.75%
91%
93.75%


13
69.75%
75%
79.75%
84%
87.75%
91%


14
64%
69.75%
75%
79.75%
84%
87.75%


15
57.75%
64%
69.75%
75%
79.75%
84%


16
51%
57.75%
64%
69.75%
75%
79.75%


17
43.75%
51%
57.75%
64%
69.75%
75%


18
36%
43.75%
51%
57.75%
64%
69.75%


19
27.75%
36%
43.75%
51%
57.75%
64%


20
19%
27.75%
36%
43.75%
51%
57.75%



Table for Concentration checks with advantage and proficiency or the equivalent ability modifier. All data gathered from http://anydice.com/program/437b

Rogue average sneak attack per level (remember the caster gets a save for each and every hit so if the rogue is dual wielding, that's two saves at DC 10, not one save at DC15 or whatever)


Level
W (1d8) + SA
(xd6) + Ab(+5)

Average
Max

Con Save DC
average/max



1-2
1d8 + 1d6 + 5
13
19
10/10



3-4
1d8 + 2d6 + 5
16.5
25
10/12



5-6
1d8 + 3d6 + 5
20
31
10/15



7-8
1d8 + 4d6 + 5
23.5
37
11/18



9-10
1d8 + 5d6 + 5
27
43

13/16



11-12
1d8 + 6d6 + 5
30.5
49

15/21



13-14
1d8 + 7d6 + 5
34
55

17/27



15-16
1d8 + 8d6 + 5
37.5
61

18/30



17-18
1d8 + 9d6 + 5
41
67

20/33



19-20
1d8 + 10d6 + 5
44.5
73

22/36



(edit: I had to adjust my math a little)
The minimum level the Rogue can cause a greater than DC 10 concentration check is level 3 and then only if they roll near max. On average it'll be a a DC 10 check up until about level 5.

The rest of the non-caster classes can't deal more than 17 damage max on any single hit. I don't count the magic monk as non-caster they are doing magical effects.

[Lokiare]

Nothing in the spell says he can dismiss it, therefore it could be assumed the only thing he dismissed is his control over them.
And true on the painting, but I really want to see his color coding of them.
As for 10-15 minutes, you are assuming that every single day he casts his spells at exactly the same time, if he slips up on day 5 by a minute he is down to 9-14 minute, slip up again and he could be down to 2-7 minutes, again and he could have to make it in the scenario I gave. Remember, I specified indefinitely for a reason.

Otherwise he needs to get more skellies somewhere, which would be slaughtering many creatures, which will get him noticed by Heroes, which will get an adventure against him. Sounds like a good badguy for an adventure but not so great for a PC.

My question is why doesn't he do this and then when he needs healing just target his skeletons with low level (or even cantrip) necromancy spells. Sacrificing them to heal himself?

[da_chicken]

Nothing stops you (Or anyone really) from hiring 100 commoners, or training 100 animals either. Doesn't mean its something a player should do unless they are good at dodging books thrown at them by the GM.

Most likely this skeleton army will be used by a Big Bad necromancer controlled by the GM, rather than a Player in a Evil campaign.

I still like the idea of a Necromancer filling the lower (or upper) levels of his complex with endless waves of uncontrolled undead. You know, to keep rats out. And ill advised adventurers. Pest control. Just put a locked door between the level of endless death and the real complex and you're good to go.

[Madfellow]

Nothing stops you (Or anyone really) from hiring 100 commoners, or training 100 animals either. Doesn't mean its something a player should do unless they are good at dodging books thrown at them by the GM.

:smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

Nothing stops you (Or anyone really) from hiring 100 commoners, or training 100 animals either. Doesn't mean its something a player should do unless they are good at dodging books thrown at them by the GM.
The difference, of course, is that "100 commoners" is now a wizard class feature.

I don't think this class feature is needed at all for an evil necromancer, unless we're completely going back to the bad old days of using NPCs built like PCs. This is clearly, IMO, something that's meant to be used by a PC.

[Falka]

Well, a few counterpoints.

(1) You don't need all your spell slots, because arguably 30 skeletons (or ~1000 hp of skeletons) is plenty already.
(2) Because of the way bounded accuracy and the action economy work, this is an incredibly effective tactic.
(3) There's all kinds of utility uses, too. Send a skeleton ahead to "check" for traps! Let them block the hallway!
(4) Having 100 skeletons pretty well obviates having a Fighter, so you just get a second Wizard in the group to do all the other stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hire a few kobolds or a Fighter that I actually like? I just notice this huge need for you guys to circumvent the need for a Fighter, like your life depends on being completely independent. :p

I'm a Wizard player, and I prefer to have strong minions / allies / followers and most of my spells available rather than depending on this skeleton horde shenanigan. Or at least, make it work in a way that doesn't involve self-depletion of my arcane power in a constant basis.

[Lokiare]

The difference, of course, is that "100 commoners" is now a wizard class feature.

I don't think this class feature is needed at all for an evil necromancer, unless we're completely going back to the bad old days of using NPCs built like PCs. This is clearly, IMO, something that's meant to be used by a PC.

Tradition.

But really, if they could just summon up hoards of undead that lasted a minute or two at a time, that would probably work with most people.

If not, then the spell needs an accompanying section in the DMG with costs for upkeep of undead, NPC reactions ("run" or "kill it, its another necromancer. We still haven't cleaned up all the filth from the last one."), the cost to arm and pay off officials to look the other way. Lots of details need to be hashed out.

[Lokiare]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hire a few kobolds or a Fighter that I actually like? I just notice this huge need for you guys to circumvent the need for a Fighter, like your life depends on being completely independent. :p

I'm a Wizard player, and I prefer to have strong minions / allies / followers and most of my spells available rather than depending on this skeleton horde shenanigan. Or at least, make it work in a way that doesn't involve self-depletion of my arcane power in a constant basis.

They are talking overkill. Depending on level having 5+ minions is enough topping out at around 20 minions per encounter at 20th level to trivialize encounters with enemies without AoE attacks.

[Tenmujiin]

Tradition.

But really, if they could just summon up hoards of undead that lasted a minute or two at a time, that would probably work with most people.

If not, then the spell needs an accompanying section in the DMG with costs for upkeep of undead, NPC reactions ("run" or "kill it, its another necromancer. We still haven't cleaned up all the filth from the last one."), the cost to arm and pay off officials to look the other way. Lots of details need to be hashed out.

Lokiare finally says something that makes sense.
I'm a proponent of the idea that munchkins gona munch and that the average player doesn't particularly care about what tier their class is (back in 3.5e I never played a character that wasn't warlock/something once I discovered that class).

That said, this is actually a great idea and in the sessions I DM (I run secondary campaigns when our normal DM has work/uni commitments) I'll probably pull this on the player who always tries to run the master of undead.

[obryn]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hire a few kobolds or a Fighter that I actually like? I just notice this huge need for you guys to circumvent the need for a Fighter, like your life depends on being completely independent. :p
You misunderstand. I'm the opposite - I want the Fighter to be an essential party member, with a role that can't be obviated through spellcasting.

A class feature which makes Fighters useless is a broken class feature.


I'm a Wizard player, and I prefer to have strong minions / allies / followers and most of my spells available rather than depending on this skeleton horde shenanigan. Or at least, make it work in a way that doesn't involve self-depletion of my arcane power in a constant basis.
You don't need to totally deplete it, though. Lokiare is right here - 100 is overkill. If you have even a dozen, the action economy benefits are enormous.

[Giddonihah]

If you have over a dozen the GM will still throw a book at you for taking up too much time for very little benefit. :smalltongue:

But is this really the best Wizards can do? A bunch of weak skeles made by a specialized and Evil Wizard that will rarely see play (High level Evil Campaign is a subset within a Subset)? I mean its annoying sure, but it still isnt ultimate cosmic power of old.

[Lokiare]

If you have over a dozen the GM will still throw a book at you for taking up too much time for very little benefit. :smalltongue:

But is this really the best Wizards can do? A bunch of weak skeles made by a specialized and Evil Wizard that will rarely see play (High level Evil Campaign is a subset within a Subset)? I mean its annoying sure, but it still isnt ultimate cosmic power of old.

What are you talking about "Loki" the evil necromancer made a wager with a good wizard and lost and thus must serve 'the side of good' for 10 years. In order to do the least damage, while on this side, he has decided to join an adventuring party. He's totally evil though.

[Giddonihah]

Loki the Evil Wizard is just misunderstood and sadly is executed by a group of Paladins and Clerics of Pelor for running around with illegal Undead.

[Lokiare]

Loki the Evil Wizard is just misunderstood and sadly is executed by a group of Paladins and Clerics of Pelor for running around with illegal Undead.

"They aren't mine. I just sometimes have fits/seizures and say strange words and they come clawing up out of the ground and follow me around. I must be cursed or something."

[Arzanyos]

Are you proficient in deception? 'Cause if not,

"You're going to have to come with us, Mr. Anted Loki, because frankly, we don't believe a word you're saying."

[Lokiare]

Are you proficient in deception? 'Cause if not,

"You're going to have to come with us, Mr. Anted Loki, because frankly, we don't believe a word you're saying."

" eh, I was trying to keep my end of the deal, but whatever Raze the town my 100 minions and we'll just take what we need"

[archaeo]

I'm confused; even if you're telling everyone that you're quote-unquote "doing good," isn't raising a massive undead army still the sort of thing that results in parties with clerics coming to visit you? Clerics who can just instantly destroy all your undead, and who can literally just ring up their gods and ask where you are? Or, I suppose, a team of ranger undead hunters? Aren't tons of good-party adventures literally "go stop the necromancer and his army of undead"?

I could, in theory, understand that as Mearls & Co.'s "balance," here; you can do this, but you have to engineer a setting in which you can get away with it, too.

But on a related point: does anyone have the PHB to actually confirm that this is how it goes down? I feel like we're arguing from snippets and highlights still when there's no real reason to.

-----------

Edit: Ok, so I hunted down the necessary information. Someone with the PHB can let me know if I've missed anything.

First, you are a Level 20 Wizard who has chosen School of Necromancy. For the purposes of this example, you have access to all the dead bodies you want and nobody's around to bother you with divine magic.

At level 20, you can cast Animate Dead using your 9th level spell slot to create 14 total undead servants, 13 from the spell (1+2+2+2+2+2+2), 1 from your Undead Thralls class feature. If you go on to cast, you could put together even more zombies with your lower slots, 12 undead from the 8th level slot and 10 undead from both 7th level slots, and so on. That's 46 thralls for your four highest spell slots at level 20.

The next day, you have to do some math, since using Animate Dead to reassert control over your thralls happens at 4 thralls per cast at 3rd level. If we once again use our top four slots, that's what, 4+2+2+2+2+2+2=16 undead you can control with the 9th slot, 14 with the 8th slot, and 24 from both 7th slots, for a total of 54 undead you can control every day by giving up your top slots; you might as well cast animate undead at 6th level for those 8 missing thralls on your second day. You also have Command Undead at 14th level from being a School of Necromancy bro, so add in one (ideally Int<11) undead. Your max undead army size is 55 undead at level 20, assuming you are willing to give up all casting above 7th level every day.

Obviously, the math changes if you use different spell slots, aren't a School of Necro Wizard, or aren't level 20.

(At level 11, when you get your 6th spell slot, you can use your 6 slot and two 5 slots to have an army size of 26. Alternately, nothing's stopping you from expending every spell slot on undead every day, but I'm not going to count that up.)

-------

Edit the 2nd: Before anybody asks, Animate Dead only appears on the Wizard spell list. It would also be handy to have the stats on skeletons and zombies; School of Necro Wizbiz lets you add HP and proficiency bonuses, but it doesn't affect CR, so if they're subject to Turn Undead, you had best hope none of the gods find out you're raising crazy armies. Also, I only saw Animate Dead; if there are other higher level spells that do this more efficiently, I missed it.

[1337 b4k4]

The difference, of course, is that "100 commoners" is now a wizard class feature.

I don't think this class feature is needed at all for an evil necromancer, unless we're completely going back to the bad old days of using NPCs built like PCs. This is clearly, IMO, something that's meant to be used by a PC.

Not to be picking on you, just your quote has phrasing I like. Is my memory failing me or do I recall that during the playtest there actually was a class feature for fighters that give them some number of commoners / men-at-arms and it was widely derided as a stupid class feature that was useless. Or maybe it was a background? I could swear I saw something like this.

[obryn]

Not to be picking on you, just your quote has phrasing I like. Is my memory failing me or do I recall that during the playtest there actually was a class feature for fighters that give them some number of commoners / men-at-arms and it was widely derided as a stupid class feature that was useless. Or maybe it was a background? I could swear I saw something like this.
No, that'd be awesome. "Get an army" would be a great old-school style Fighter feature. :)

The Noble had a fun retinue. That vanished in the PHB, unfortunately.

[obryn]

Edit: Ok, so I hunted down the necessary information. Someone with the PHB can let me know if I've missed anything.

First, you are a Level 20 Wizard who has chosen School of Necromancy. For the purposes of this example, you have access to all the dead bodies you want and nobody's around to bother you with divine magic.

At level 20, you can cast Animate Dead using your 9th level spell slot to create 14 total undead servants, 13 from the spell (1+2+2+2+2+2+2), 1 from your Undead Thralls class feature. If you go on to cast, you could put together even more zombies with your lower slots, 12 undead from the 8th level slot and 10 undead from both 7th level slots, and so on. That's 46 thralls for your four highest spell slots at level 20.

The next day, you have to do some math, since using Animate Dead to reassert control over your thralls happens at 4 thralls per cast at 3rd level. If we once again use our top four slots, that's what, 4+2+2+2+2+2+2=16 undead you can control with the 9th slot, 14 with the 8th slot, and 24 from both 7th slots, for a total of 54 undead you can control every day by giving up your top slots; you might as well cast animate undead at 6th level for those 8 missing thralls on your second day. You also have Command Undead at 14th level from being a School of Necromancy bro, so add in one (ideally Int<11) undead. Your max undead army size is 55 undead at level 20, assuming you are willing to give up all casting above 7th level every day.

Obviously, the math changes if you use different spell slots, aren't a School of Necro Wizard, or aren't level 20.

(At level 11, when you get your 6th spell slot, you can use your 6 slot and two 5 slots to have an army size of 26. Alternately, nothing's stopping you from expending every spell slot on undead every day, but I'm not going to count that up.)
So the next question is, "How many skeleton archers do you need to kill a tough foe?"

Let's use the CR16 Blue Dragon. It has a very high AC of 19 and 225 hit points. It is also - because it's a blue dragon with a Line breath weapon - absolutely terrible at killing skeletons.

So I've looked up the Skeleton stats, and with their default shortbows (note: this gets scarier with crossbows), they have +4 to-hit and will do 1d6+8 (an average of 11.5 after the proficiency bonus) per hit and 2d6+8 (or 15) on a crit.

Each skeleton, then, hits on a natural 15, 16, 17, 18, or 19; and crits on a 20.

(.25*11.5) + (.05*15) = 2.875+0.75 = 3.625 dpr

The dragon has 225 hit points, so you need a grand total of 62 shortbow-equipped skeletons to have a really good chance of killing a CR16 Adult Blue Dragon in the first round.

It gets scarier if you cast Otto's Irresistible Dance on that Dragon, who doesn't even get a save during the first round. All your skeletons just got Advantage on their attacks; go to town!


But that's nothing. Let's see if they can kill a Tarrasque (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=63460&d=1407794626). For this we gotta get crazy, but we're crazy already, so we have some buddies cast Magic Weapon a lot. Unreasonable? Maybe, but remember - the freaking tarrasque is attacking; we can surely round up some 3rd+ level clerics from every temple in a city nearby.

The tarrasque has an AC of 25, so the skeletons are only hitting on a 20, which is also a crit. Their DPR drops to a pathetic 0.75 (a tad more after Magic Weapon)... which is still enough for 100 skeletons to kill the Tarrasque in almost exactly 9 rounds.

"But," you say, "The Tarrasque will surely fight back!"

And he sure will. He can kill 3 whole 30ish hp skeletons per round. Heck; his fear aura won't even work against the mindless undead. The tarrasque, I am sorry to say, never had a chance.

[archaeo]

snipped good math

I think it won't work vs. the Tarraesque. It's immune to non-magical weapon damage, and it seems unlikely that any DM is going to let you give all 100 skeletons a +1 shortbow or whatever. It will also take 100 minutes to raise 100 undead, so I hope you had them all ready before the big guy showed up.

Edit: I missed that you accounted for this. A little searching around netted me the description of magic weapon: it affects a single weapon, regardless of spell slot, and requires concentration for the full hour that it works. So I struck what I said, but it still stands: you will probably not be able to arm your entire skeleton army with magic weapons.

The dragon faces more trouble, but it gets 3 legendary actions per turn. Even with a bad initiative roll, it can immediately use its Wing Attack action [edit the 2nd: following a skeleton turn], knocking all nearby skeletons prone who fail a DC 20 dex save (also outright killing any skeletons made by a non-Necromancy Wizard, probably) and then it can fly 40 feet. Unless you manage to surprise the dragon by surrounding it with skeletons at the start of combat, all of whom win initiative, it seems like the dragon could make a tactical retreat without too much trouble.

[obryn]

Haha, yeah, the Tarrasque bit has significant challenges, but it's pretty telling imo how one sided the fight would be without that cheesy 1e style "immune to nonmagical weapons" bit. :) It's interesting from a math perspective and just goes to show the power of numbers.

On a practical level, this is just kind of disappointing and I'm surprised it made it through.

e: don't forget that you can Otto's the dragon!

[thereaper]

I got a look at some of the spells today, and oh boy. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Teleport, Wind Wall, Time Stop, Simulacrum, Shapechange, Rope Trick, Freedom of Movement, Forcecage, Find Traps, and Contact Other Plane all still exist. Most of them are weaker than before (though Forcecage is inexplicably stronger), but they're still quite broken.

Needless to say, I am disappointed.

[archaeo]

e: don't forget that you can Otto's the dragon!

Huh! You sure can! I'm not sure how that interacts with the legendary action, but Otto's sure sounds like all movement, whatever the type, becomes dancing. Of course, this strategy requires a second Wizard or Bard or a level 20 Wizard, since I think you'll need a 6th level slot to get to 62 skeletons.

Oh, and you'll need to know about it ahead of time. Better have a diviner who can tell you to ready the army. If you're going solo, you'll need a full day to recover your 20th level wizard so that the Otto's slot will be available. I suppose if you're a party of 4 wizards, well, you now need a graveyard and about 15 minutes.

And at the end, you'll probably need a new table, since I bet literally zero players or DMs will put up with this necromancer at their table. Super effective, certainly, but rolling for 62 creatures will be a nightmare, especially with Otto's, since you've now given every one of those skeletons advantage.

This strikes me as the peasant problem all over again, still; 5e isn't meant to model necromancy army tactics, and therefore it does so poorly.

[obryn]

I'm struggling to think how this isn't an intended use of the Necromancer's abilities. :)

[Zeuel]

cast Otto's Irresistible Dance

Ugh! I hate this spell! Do they really need to keep every single named spell in this edition? I don't mind the mechanics of it, but I seriously hate hate hate hate hate forced humor with a passion*.

*With the exception of some people who are good at anti-humor and that doesn't look like where they are going with this. >:(

[archaeo]

I'm struggling to think how this isn't an intended use of the Necromancer's abilities. :)

I should think there's a big difference between "I raise and keep a handful of skeletons with a single cast of animate dead per day" and "I use every single 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slot on an animated dead army that I bring with me everywhere and keep up every day, because I am 100% able to maintain my army every 24 hours and no one, man or god, knows that I have an undead army."

But sure, feel free to tweet Mike Mearls and ask if he intended high level D&D to become a zombie army simulator.

Edit: somebody's already quoted me, or I'd remove it, but that last line sounds snarkier than I meant it to. Sorry. It's also just straight-up incorrect; I find it basically impossible to imagine that no one in the closed playtest or at WotC didn't notice the potential of this spell, so, you know, what gives?

[Zeuel]

But sure, feel free to tweet Mike Mearls and ask if he intended high level D&D to become a zombie army simulator.

Why shouldn't a Necromancer be able to have an army of undead at higher levels? I mean that's like 90% of the reason most people want to play a Necromancer in the first place. If it's a problem at the table with it taking too long then go all WarmaHordes on them and break out the time clock. If they can't resolve the actions of 50 zombies in 5 minutes then they lose any left over actions.

[obryn]

Edit: somebody's already quoted me, or I'd remove it, but that last line sounds snarkier than I meant it to. Sorry. It's also just straight-up incorrect; I find it basically impossible to imagine that no one in the closed playtest or at WotC didn't notice the potential of this spell, so, you know, what gives?
Nah, it's all good.

And yeah, I'm just wondering how it slipped through. 3,000 hp of skeletons is one hell of a class feature.

Why shouldn't a Necromancer be able to have an army of undead at higher levels? I mean that's like 90% of the reason most people want to play a Necromancer in the first place. If it's a problem at the table with it taking too long then go all WarmaHordes on them and break out the time clock. If they can't resolve the actions of 50 zombies in 5 minutes then they lose any left over actions.

Because it obviates the rest of the party.

Also, it trashes the action economy.

Treat hordes as swarms, basically, and there is less of a problem. Or reasonable limits on the spell.

[Sartharina]

Trashing the action economy is a serious problem. I didn't like how strict 4e was on action economy, but I can't help but think that 3e needs SOME limits on how many allies can act in a round. Also - Why do undead have so many Hit Points?!

[archaeo]

Nah, it's all good.

And yeah, I'm just wondering how it slipped through. 3,000 hp of skeletons is one hell of a class feature.

I mean, there seem to be lots of limiting factors. You're not sneaking anywhere anymore, and you have to return to your army every 24 hours unless you want them to leave your control. You can't teleport your whole army (teleport limits the number, gate lasts 1 minute) and moving them about the countryside will be difficult. You can't bring them anywhere good-aligned, and probably not most evil-aligned places either. You also lose all your spell slots you cast animate dead with until the army's gone or you release them. Plus, for 3,000 skeleton HPs, you need 100 dead bodies worth of bones, which is a fairly substantial number of dead bodies to acquire, legally or otherwise.

Personally, I think the nerf to this strategy is built into the game anyway: the punishment for raising an undead army is having an undead army. :smallsmile:

--------

Edit to answer above question: skeletons have 13 HP, and zombies have 22, but the Undead Thrall power of the School of Necromancy gives every undead additional HP equal to your Wizard level.

--------

Edit 2: The Revenge of the Edit: also, it's entirely possible that they just assumed that non-evil PCs would never animate dead and that the balance for the spell comes from the fact that everyone who uses it finds a party of 3-5 good adventurers hot on their trail before they get very far.

[Falka]

I've checked the undead creating spells and you can get better stuff than skeletons. Actually, upkeep can be maintained with fewer spells, so after you get your zombie / skeleton hord, you will probably invest a quarter of the expended slots to keep them working. Though as I thought, there are better undeads out there (you can even have a couple of mummies).

[Zeuel]

Because it obviates the rest of the party.

Also, it trashes the action economy.

Treat hordes as swarms, basically, and there is less of a problem. Or reasonable limits on the spell.

Isn't that more of a problem with the execution instead of the concept though? I'm not saying that this iteration of how D&D is handling PC controlled undead is going to be all that great, but people can't just throw out the concept entirely because it's hard to do well.

[Jenckes]

Zomg. Sorry for the wrongness of zombie calculation.

3rd x3 = 6
4th x3 = 12
5th x5 = 30
6th x2 = 16
7th x2 = 20
8th x1 = 12
9th x1 = 14

110 skeleton archers: +4 to attack and 1d6 +8 damage. Say they're shooting at a 21 AC fighter they deal an average of (.15*11.5*110) + (.05*15*110) = 272.25 damage. Though why the fighter didn't see the 110 skeleton archers about to attack him is a decent question.

Also, those skeletons would do 0 damage to the tarrasque.

[obryn]

I mean, there seem to be lots of limiting factors. You're not sneaking anywhere anymore, and you have to return to your army every 24 hours unless you want them to leave your control. You can't teleport your whole army (teleport limits the number, gate lasts 1 minute) and moving them about the countryside will be difficult. You can't bring them anywhere good-aligned, and probably not most evil-aligned places either. You also lose all your spell slots you cast animate dead with until the army's gone or you release them. Plus, for 3,000 skeleton HPs, you need 100 dead bodies worth of bones, which is a fairly substantial number of dead bodies to acquire, legally or otherwise.
Go to any battlefield. Poof - you have thousands of available skeletons to cackle over.

As far as the "limiting factors" go ... DMs are there to make judgment calls. It should not be their job to paste over broken rules, as this surely is. It should especially not be their job to twist every adventure around to account for Necromancer Bob and His Traveling Skeleton Show.

Now! If Animate Dead followed any kind of normal 5e conventions, like requiring Concentration, this wouldn't be an issue at all.


110 skeleton archers: +4 to attack and 1d6 +8 damage. Say they're shooting at a 21 AC fighter they deal an average of (.15*11.5*110) + (.05*15*110) = 272.25 damage. Though why the fighter didn't see the 110 skeleton archers about to attack him is a decent question.
An equal question is, "how many of Necromancer Bob's skelly bros can Gutboy Barrelhouse take down?"

Each of Bob's bony buddies has 33 hp. Mr. Barrelhouse deals ... what, a maximum of 20ish damage per attack? So it takes two attacks per skeleton.

Awesome.


Also, those skeletons would do 0 damage to the tarrasque.
Yeah, but only - and this is important - only because the Tarrasque has a BS-y ability to ignore non-magical weapons. If the tarrasque didn't have that ... well, at least he can't be one-shotted, like most dragons could be. But he's only taking down maybe 3-4 skeletons per round, too, giving them plenty of time to fill him full of arrows.


Isn't that more of a problem with the execution instead of the concept though? I'm not saying that this iteration of how D&D is handling PC controlled undead is going to be all that great, but people can't just throw out the concept entirely because it's hard to do well.
I will go out on a limb and say that the action economy is pretty fragile in D&D of every edition, including 5e. Any time you're giving one character a dozen actions, problems are inevitable.

You can call that execution or concept; I think it's both.

[Zeuel]

I'm pretty sure WotC dun goofed by not making it require concentration to keep control over your undead minions. Once actual PC necromancers start showing up to the gaming tables the consequences will never be the same. :(

[Falka]

As far as the "limiting factors" go ... DMs are there to make judgment calls. It should not be their job to paste over broken rules, as this surely is. It should especially not be their job to twist every adventure around to account for Necromancer Bob and His Traveling Skeleton Show.

The DM pretty much can do whatever he wants. That's the point of being the DM, I believe? To control the world where you play.

And it's not twisting. It's just common sense. Only evil characters go around with an undead army. That has consecuences, especially if you are going around stealing corpses (or do you decide where is the battlefield, and how many corpses are there? I thought that was the DM's job), etc.

One of my players thought about playing a Necromancer. I told him just to apply common sense and figure if he could go around raising corpses of peasants and walk around with them. He now rolls a Bard.

[obryn]

I'm pretty sure WotC dun goofed by not making it require concentration to keep control over your undead minions. Once actual PC necromancers start showing up to the gaming tables the consequences will never be the same. :(
I'm just disappointed because I thought the "peasant horde vs. dragon" scenario was an absurd corner case which the rules shouldn't be expected to handle, and now it turns out it's someone's class feature.


The DM pretty much can do whatever he wants. That's the point of being the DM, I believe? To control the world where you play.

And it's not twisting. It's just common sense. Only evil characters go around with an undead army. That has consecuences, especially if you are going around stealing corpses (or do you decide where is the battlefield, and how many corpses are there? I thought that was the DM's job), etc.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's making the DM patch over broken rules, though. A game with such a Necromancer has now become about that Necromancer. So instead of having functional rules preventing an undead horde, you're worrying about preventing that necromancer from finding a battlefield or organizing peasant witch-hunts.

[Zeuel]

As far as the "limiting factors" go ... DMs are there to make judgment calls. It should not be their job to paste over broken rules, as this surely is. It should especially not be their job to twist every adventure around to account for Necromancer Bob and His Traveling Skeleton Show.

The DM pretty much can do whatever he wants. That's the point of being the DM, I believe? To control the world where you play.

And it's not twisting. It's just common sense. Only evil characters go around with an undead army. That has consecuences, especially if you are going around stealing corpses (or do you decide where is the battlefield, and how many corpses are there? I thought that was the DM's job), etc.

One of my players thought about playing a Necromancer. I told him just to apply common sense and figure if he could go around raising corpses of peasants and walk around with them. He now rolls a Bard.

What if the Necromancer was in the business of paying large sums of gold to the family of the deceased in exchange? What if the Necromancer was a hero who ran a community free from want because labor was done by the undead while the living were free to benefit from the fruits of their labor? What if the Necromancer only animated those who performed evil acts in life as a way to make sure those people sufficiently repaid their debt to the public good?

[Doug Lampert]

Super effective, certainly, but rolling for 62 creatures will be a nightmare, especially with Otto's, since you've now given every one of those skeletons advantage.

Eh, given the hit chance my laptop can roll for 62 creatures in about 10 seconds, roughly 10 of which is me hitting the right tab and entering the command.

I haven't bothered to set up for advantage, although that's trivial too. But given that I haven't bothered we can instead simply reroll the misses and add.

20 seconds tops, or we could admit, "if the dragon gets in range of this, it dies."

Mind, I don't LIKE needing a laptop to play, but if that's your objection to hordes of undead it's solvable. Don't roll individually, roll once for each member of the group, then reroll the misses if advantage or reroll the hits if disadvantage.

Having dealt with the claim that playing this by the rules is too cumbersome to actually do and that thus it somehow doesn't matter if the rule's EFFECTS are bad because they're cancelled by the additional badness of how cumbersome it is, we can then discuss if the rule is a problem and if so to what extent.

Maybe dragons running in horror at the thought of getting into even long range of a company sized group of undead is the desired mechanic. Maybe using a few spells to largely duplicate the fighter is what they wanted. Maybe dealing with traps by sending in an undead to trigger them is a desirable feature and the Rogue likes the time off.

The wizard can (allegedly) create 110 a day and control four times that many (or use fewer slots for control so he can still do wizard stuff), and I strongly suspect that even a dozen slightly more powerful undead is a bigger problem than 440 weak ones.

But either way the party becomes Bob and his traveling undead show and the roadies who occasionally help out rather than a party of adventurers.

Given all that "What were they thinking?" becomes an interesting question.

[obryn]

I strongly suspect that even a dozen slightly more powerful undead is a bigger problem than 440 weak ones.
I'm not positive about this, and lean strongly towards disagreeing. In prior editions, I'd say this was absolutely the case, but bounded accuracy has made the action economy even more critical than it was before. I'd put my money on "huge amounts of weak enemies" pretty much every time.

[hawklost]

snip

Edit 2: The Revenge of the Edit: also, it's entirely possible that they just assumed that non-evil PCs would never animate dead and that the balance for the spell comes from the fact that everyone who uses it finds a party of 3-5 good adventurers hot on their trail before they get very far.


Considering what exactly the Basic even says about Animate Dead, they don't have to assume a non-evil PC would do it. It is specifically in the book about



Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells
such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters
use such spells frequently

I bolded the relevant part there.

[obryn]

Considering what exactly the Basic even says about Animate Dead, they don't have to assume a non-evil PC would do it. It is specifically in the book about

I bolded the relevant part there.
Leaving aside for a moment how toothless an alignment discussion is - it's more of the same setting concerns - lawful evil characters are even allowed in 5e Organized Play.

[MadBear]

Leaving aside for a moment how toothless an alignment discussion is - it's more of the same setting concerns - lawful evil characters are even allowed in 5e Organized Play.

I will say I find myself in the camp of "if you bring an army of undead around any civillization, be prepared to find your 400 skeletons facing 1000+ levied peasants + nobles/knights/wizards/adventurers sent to put down the evil necromancer.

It's one thing to think in game terms about an army of undead, but I'd think it'd be another from a RP perspective to actually see the living dead walking around. The rotten pieces of flesh still lingering on the skeleons, the flies, the unnatural look of it all would be revolting and horrifying.

Sure, the wizard could try to get the bodies by asking people to consent/even pay people to make them, but honestly, how much would it cost you if someone came around asking to dig up and turn your mother/father/son/daughter into an undead skeleton that would blindly follow the wizards bidding. The mere existence of such a creature would probably compel a response.

[Arzanyos]

Really, concerning trying to break 5E, I think Bolas said it best. "There is always a higher power." The DM can totally slap you down without stepping outside the rules.

[hawklost]

Really, concerning trying to break 5E, I think Bolas said it best. "There is always a higher power." The DM can totally slap you down without stepping outside the rules.

But see, the people who want to 'prove' 5e is broken don't like the idea of higher powers stopping them. 'It's not the DMs job to fix the issues that I create' is pretty much the typical response.

The DM has a huge amount of materials to use if a player tries to break the game, but the players who try to break it hate DMs who 'slap down their ideas'. They like to pretend that a powerful wizard is the highest authority, that Gods and Demons don't take notice. That the number of semi to powerful NPCs are equal to whatever they desire at the moment (there are x number of casters who can break the crafting by using Fabricate even if the DM disagrees. They don't need a motive to break it, they can and therefore the system is stupid. How many high level Clerics are there who would destroy my army of Undead? kind of arguments). They will look for symantical arguments to get their way or even something that is grammatical if it would help them, but they will never accept the fact that the DM rules the multi-verse in DnD and has ultimate authority over everything.

[obryn]

Really, concerning trying to break 5E, I think Bolas said it best. "There is always a higher power." The DM can totally slap you down without stepping outside the rules.


But see, the people who want to 'prove' 5e is broken don't like the idea of higher powers stopping them. 'It's not the DMs job to fix the issues that I create' is pretty much the typical response.

The DM has a huge amount of materials to use if a player tries to break the game, but the players who try to break it hate DMs who 'slap down their ideas'. They like to pretend that a powerful wizard is the highest authority, that Gods and Demons don't take notice. That the number of semi to powerful NPCs are equal to whatever they desire at the moment (there are x number of casters who can break the crafting by using Fabricate even if the DM disagrees. They don't need a motive to break it, they can and therefore the system is stupid. How many high level Clerics are there who would destroy my army of Undead? kind of arguments). They will look for symantical arguments to get their way or even something that is grammatical if it would help them, but they will never accept the fact that the DM rules the multi-verse in DnD and has ultimate authority over everything.
No, it's not the DM's job to fix broken rules. It's the DM's job to run the game, and broken rules make this harder than it needs to be.

"Rocks fall, everyone dies" (or other DM smack downs) are not a substitute for a well-designed rule set. And it's a problem when that's considered the ideal solution. What's baffling is that there's no reason for the spellcasting rules to allow for an army of a hundred skeletons - yet, they do. Duration: concentration, a hard limit on quantity, or something to fix the action economy implications would all work.

You're working around a broken rule, not making the rule less broken.

[Lokiare]

But see, the people who want to 'prove' 5e is broken don't like the idea of higher powers stopping them. 'It's not the DMs job to fix the issues that I create' is pretty much the typical response.

The DM has a huge amount of materials to use if a player tries to break the game, but the players who try to break it hate DMs who 'slap down their ideas'. They like to pretend that a powerful wizard is the highest authority, that Gods and Demons don't take notice. That the number of semi to powerful NPCs are equal to whatever they desire at the moment (there are x number of casters who can break the crafting by using Fabricate even if the DM disagrees. They don't need a motive to break it, they can and therefore the system is stupid. How many high level Clerics are there who would destroy my army of Undead? kind of arguments). They will look for symantical arguments to get their way or even something that is grammatical if it would help them, but they will never accept the fact that the DM rules the multi-verse in DnD and has ultimate authority over everything.

Actually I'm the DM and I don't want to have to slap players down every five minutes. I want to do the fun things like make a great and interesting adventure, role play NPCs, and watch how the players react in a balanced system.

I do not want to have to slap a player down because they accidentally stumbled onto a broken spell. That can offend them, and annoy me.

I also want an even playing field so its the players intellect against mine when it comes to plot and story. I don't want to have to 'cheat' in order to keep the game fair. It should be fair right out of the box.

I don't have the time to play 20 questions or house rule the game all day. I have just a few hours to play the game with some friends. If it doesn't work, I'm simply going to find one that does.

[Arzanyos]

No, no, no, you got to get it inside the bottle, the DM isn't fixing broken rules, but stopping jerk strategies. If you are playing a Necromancer and start cackling about how you're going to obsolete your party with an army of undead, you deserve to only ever fight high level clerics and paladins.

[Cibulan]

What's baffling is that there's no reason for the spellcasting rules to allow for an army of a hundred skeletons - yet, they do.There's a perfectly good reason for it: verisimilitude. If you want the potential for an NPC evil necromancer to do this, and if there's even the smallest assumption that NPCs work like PCs, this needs to be possible. It's up to the DM to decide if the PC is going to make the jump from morally questionable wizard to full evil necromancer. I played a dread necro in a 3.5 game. I raised up to that level and my PC became an NPC. NPCs don't just grow on trees; that level 20 wizard had to come from somewhere.

[Arzanyos]

You know, I'm feeling pretty good about balance now that gamebreaking strategies went from, "Trivialize encounters with only one spell" to "Have an undead army in exchange for all your high level slots and a mountain of corpses."

[Lokiare]

There's a perfectly good reason for it: verisimilitude. If you want the potential for an NPC evil necromancer to do this, and if there's even the smallest assumption that NPCs work like PCs, this needs to be possible. It's up to the DM to decide if the PC is going to make the jump from morally questionable wizard to full evil necromancer. I played a dread necro in a 3.5 game. I raised up to that level and my PC became an NPC. NPCs don't just grow on trees; that level 20 wizard had to come from somewhere.

Actually no. All you need is an Orb of Infinite Undead for an NPC to have an army of undead. This magic item explodes when the user dies by the way and can only be attuned to one person at a time.

If you don't like making up a magic item, you can simply say X god of death has blessed this necromancer with the ability to raise as many undead as they want and retain control of them.

There is no reason why the rules shouldn't limit the use of raise undead or at least make it work within the rules of the game.

[Lokiare]

You know, I'm feeling pretty good about balance now that gamebreaking strategies went from, "Trivialize encounters with only one spell" to "Have an undead army in exchange for all your high level slots and a mountain of corpses."

Its not trivialize an encounter. Its trivialize an entire campaign of levels 16-20.

[obryn]

There's a perfectly good reason for it: verisimilitude. If you want the potential for an NPC evil necromancer to do this, and if there's even the smallest assumption that NPCs work like PCs, this needs to be possible. It's up to the DM to decide if the PC is going to make the jump from morally questionable wizard to full evil necromancer. I played a dread necro in a 3.5 game. I raised up to that level and my PC became an NPC. NPCs don't just grow on trees; that level 20 wizard had to come from somewhere.
I find any assumption that PCs must be able to do anything and everything that an NPC can do inherently problematic for many, many reasons. :smallsmile:

One of which is handily illustrated in this very thread!


You know, I'm feeling pretty good about balance now that gamebreaking strategies went from, "Trivialize encounters with only one spell" to "Have an undead army in exchange for all your high level slots and a mountain of corpses."
Yeah, I'm not really feeling good about gamebreaking strategies pretty much ever, but YMM evidently V...

You also don't need to blow all your spell slots to do this; two or three dozen skelly bros is more than adequate, given the action economy concerns. As shown a few pages back, 66 is sufficient to kill an Adult Blue Dragon in 1 round. And it's persistent, too; they don't just disappear, and when a skeleton dies, it conveniently leaves behind a skeleton to animate.

I'll submit for consideration that this is a powerful enough feature/spell that a game which features Ned the Necromancer doing this necessarily becomes about Ned the Necromancer. And that strategies to nerf Ned's Dancing Skelly Show illustrate the problem, rather than solve it. (That problem being, Ned's skellies need to be the main balance consideration for all future adventures.)

http://i.imgur.com/IULxUqS.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/IULxUqS.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/IULxUqS.gif

[hawklost]

Actually I'm the DM and I don't want to have to slap players down every five minutes. I want to do the fun things like make a great and interesting adventure, role play NPCs, and watch how the players react in a balanced system.

Get better players, you shouldn't have to 'slap them down' every 5 minutes unless they are intentionally trying to screw with your game. You tell them if they do stupid crap, they get burned. If they are good players, they won't Try to break your game and you can gently tell them that you would prefer they don't do something that will break your game. Or you could give them free reign with the knowledge that they do something 'the people' (NPCs) don't like, they will have consequences.



I also want an even playing field so its the players intellect against mine when it comes to plot and story. I don't want to have to 'cheat' in order to keep the game fair. It should be fair right out of the box.

You are a freaking DM, there is no 'even playing field'. You have an infinite number of monsters to throw against PCs when you feel like it. You determine how hard or easy something it at all times. You decide how an enemy attacks or doesn't based on your whim, nothing in the rules gives the players help against these (everything that might is purely recommendations, not requirements). Nothing in the rules says a DM can't throw 1 million peasants at the PCs at first level, therefore your argument of 'even playing field' is crap. You 'cheat' all the time as a DM, you don't attack the PCs with things that will slaughter them, even if it was possible. Why doesn't a Dragon come after and destroy the PCs when they can't handle it? Because the DM decides not to do it, that is the only reason. You can come up with random explanations in game, but its your whim that decides their challenge.



I don't have the time to play 20 questions or house rule the game all day. I have just a few hours to play the game with some friends. If it doesn't work, I'm simply going to find one that does.

Why would you be playing 20 questions or house rules all day. Once you lay a rule down, stick to it, if you or your players have bad memory, write it down, now its an official ruling. As for 20 questions, what do you think you are doing when a player says "Whats the DC for jumping onto this roof in the rain while battling that Dragon?". "Is it possible for us to find someplace safe for the night, whats the DC?" "Can I strike all these enemies with a single Fireball?" "What kind of items are in this town?" "Does this guy look like he could be intimidated by me?". Sure, sometimes the DM preemptively answers questions like "This guy seems kinda nervous when you carry your weapons", but it is still answering questions.


The game doesn't stop a Thief from stealing every copper from the party in their sleep and spending it all, but that doesn't mean the Player wasn't being a jerk.
The game doesn't stop a Wizard from using Charm or Dominate or any other spell on the party members to get what he wants but doesn't mean he won't have consequences for it later
It doesn't stop a fighter from using his fists instead of swords but it punishes them for it.
Nothing in the requires the PCs to help each other or even to be in the same party when things happen, but it sure recommends parties to be together for ease of use.
The game doesn't even force the PCs to go out and actually adventure, but it sure as heck gives incentives to do it.

[MadBear]

D&D is not an army simulator. If you use it in this way, you're going to have a bad time. It really only takes a few seconds of thought to realize that if you raise an army of undead, you can get pushed back by an army of living.

Heck if someone has created 400 undead under their control, you can raise a fraction of a legion to fight them (legion=roughly 6,000 men).

If you send out an 4-6 adventuring party to take on an NPC's army they probably shouldn't be able to survive a head-on encounter. you're engaging in using a hammer to tighten a screw. Likewise if a PC decides to use raise an army for a dungeon crawl, that's going to take a ton of prepwork (that might get them caught and banished/arrested), it'll be visible coming (what BBEG would stick around his lair when he see's an army coming knocking. Just throw out some traps and leave with all the loot), you lose the ability to sneak (something tells me you're not going to be keeping them from making noise), and the BBEG can now reasonably go to the authorities to report that Ned the Necro is a menacing threat that set up a evil base in a nearby lair (BBEG doesn't have anymore use for it, and with a undead army, who'll believe you).

Also it dawns on me that the 400 archer skeletons are assumed to all be in range. While a fighter might not be able to take 400 shots at once, he'd be able to lock down a corridor. The theorycrafting 66 skeletons kill a blue dragon only work if the dragon is an idiot. If you see 66 people poised to shoot you with a bow, you don't go diving in. And if you're an intelligent dragon, you don't get dropped on by an army without time to react.

[Arzanyos]

Also, I'm fairly sure a destroyed skeleton is destroyed. HP is meat for them, since there is nothing else it could be. Once they're dead, they're dead. Ain't nothing bringin' that body back.

[obryn]

D&D is not an army simulator. If you use it in this way, you're going to have a bad time. It really only takes a few seconds of thought to realize that if you raise an army of undead, you can get pushed back by an army of living.

Heck if someone has created 400 undead under their control, you can raise a fraction of a legion to fight them (legion=roughly 6,000 men).

If you send out an 4-6 adventuring party to take on an NPC's army they probably shouldn't be able to survive a head-on encounter. you're engaging in using a hammer to tighten a screw. Likewise if a PC decides to use raise an army for a dungeon crawl, that's going to take a ton of prepwork (that might get them caught and banished/arrested), it'll be visible coming (what BBEG would stick around his lair when he see's an army coming knocking. Just throw out some traps and leave with all the loot), you lose the ability to sneak (something tells me you're not going to be keeping them from making noise), and the BBEG can now reasonably go to the authorities to report that Ned the Necro is a menacing threat that set up a evil base in a nearby lair (BBEG doesn't have anymore use for it, and with a undead army, who'll believe you).

Also it dawns on me that the 400 archer skeletons are assumed to all be in range. While a fighter might not be able to take 400 shots at once, he'd be able to lock down a corridor. The theorycrafting 66 skeletons kill a blue dragon only work if the dragon is an idiot. If you see 66 people poised to shoot you with a bow, you don't go diving in. And if you're an intelligent dragon, you don't get dropped on by an army without time to react.

I'll submit for consideration that this is a powerful enough feature/spell that a game which features Ned the Necromancer doing this necessarily becomes about Ned the Necromancer. And that strategies to nerf Ned's Dancing Skelly Show illustrate the problem, rather than solve it. (That problem being, Ned's skellies need to be the main balance consideration for all future adventures.)
http://i.imgur.com/LGyRCaD.gif

[Sartharina]

You also don't need to blow all your spell slots to do this; two or three dozen skelly bros is more than adequate, given the action economy concerns. As shown a few pages back, 66 is sufficient to kill an Adult Blue Dragon in 1 round. And it's persistent, too; they don't just disappear, and when a skeleton dies, it conveniently leaves behind a skeleton to animate.Does it? I've always been under the impression that an undead that's taken enough damage to be destroyed is not in reanimatable condition.

I wish there were easier ways to handle the action economy issues of the skeletons.

[MadBear]

I'll submit for consideration that this is a powerful enough feature/spell that a game which features Ned the Necromancer doing this necessarily becomes about Ned the Necromancer. And that strategies to nerf Ned's Dancing Skelly Show illustrate the problem, rather than solve it. (That problem being, Ned's skellies need to be the main balance consideration for all future adventures.)

This is true only due to the fact that we're discussing it. A PC assassin who spends his entire career with the party sneaking into people's homes and murdering them is also going to create a high level response. Even more so if the people he's sneaking and killing are nobles and such. Heck even Fighty McFighter will draw a response if he just starts walking into bars and murdering everyone around him. Does that mean fighters are OP? no. This just happens to be a class ability that if you abuse, you're an evil character, which isn't usually the focus of D&D.

There will always be ways for PC's to make the game all about them.

I guess maybe there's a disconnect here.

[Sartharina]

This is true only due to the fact that we're discussing it. A PC assassin who spends his entire career with the party sneaking into people's homes and murdering them is also going to create a high level response. Even more so if the people he's sneaking and killing are nobles and such. Heck even Fighty McFighter will draw a response if he just starts walking into bars and murdering everyone around him. Does that mean fighters are OP? no. This just happens to be a class ability that if you abuse, you're an evil character, which isn't usually the focus of D&D.

There will always be ways for PC's to make the game all about them.

I guess maybe there's a disconnect here.A PC assassin or fighter can be brought down by a small, coordinated team of defenders. You need a LOT of brute force to take down a skeleton-wielding wizard.

[hawklost]

A PC assassin or fighter can be brought down by a small, coordinated team of defenders. You need a LOT of brute force to take down a skeleton-wielding wizard.

Actually, you just need a small coordinated team. They slip through the Skeletons, who aren't very good at guarding and all, and kill the Wizard directly. They don't need to take on the whole army.

That is kind of what PCs do in games, they don't try to take out the whole army of a kingdom but instead surgically strike to take out the head of the army and watch it fall apart.

[obryn]

This is true only due to the fact that we're discussing it. A PC assassin who spends his entire career with the party sneaking into people's homes and murdering them is also going to create a high level response. Even more so if the people he's sneaking and killing are nobles and such. Heck even Fighty McFighter will draw a response if he just starts walking into bars and murdering everyone around him. Does that mean fighters are OP? no. This just happens to be a class ability that if you abuse, you're an evil character, which isn't usually the focus of D&D.

There will always be ways for PC's to make the game all about them.

I guess maybe there's a disconnect here.
The disconnect is the false equivalence among all these non-equivalent scenarios. :smallsmile:

I mean, sneaking in and murdering dudes is a problem no matter what character does it. But it's not a problem with the combat rules, class abilities, or spells. Nor does it create the kinds of gameplay and balance concerns that "skeleton horde" does. Nor does it render the entire rest of the party basically obsolete. Nor does it pigeonhole the DM's adventure design from that point onwards.

They're not equivalent, unless you're talking about consequences for using your skeleton horde to murder villages.

[MadBear]

A PC assassin or fighter can be brought down by a small, coordinated team of defenders. You need a LOT of brute force to take down a skeleton-wielding wizard.

Which just suggests that the DM's response to a PC attempting to break the game will differ depending on who the PC is.

What I don't buy is Obryn's assessment that because the DM responds to a PC breaking a game, it proves there's a problem.

This would be the equivalent of saying that sending a small strike-force to take out a PC assassin proves the Assassin is a problem.

Now if the argument is, needing an army to fight the PC army, is different because of scale, then I'm inclined to agree. As I opened with, the game isn't designed to be an army simulator. If I was running the table, I wouldn't ban a wizard from doing this, but I would warn them that what they're doing is going to draw an appropriate NPC response that I'm not positive he could handle, since the game isn't designed to handle it.

Then again, I don't like running games with evil PC, it's just not my thing, and any PC who raises an army of undead is evil. I don't care if their other actions are good. In the same way a person who murders a bunch of innocent people and then makes a donation to a local church isn't a good character either, even if they do some good stuff.

[MadBear]

The disconnect is the false equivalence among all these non-equivalent scenarios. :smallsmile:

I mean, sneaking in and murdering dudes is a problem no matter what character does it. But it's not a problem with the combat rules, class abilities, or spells. Nor does it create the kinds of gameplay and balance concerns that "skeleton horde" does. Nor does it render the entire rest of the party basically obsolete. Nor does it pigeonhole the DM's adventure design from that point onwards.

They're not equivalent, unless you're talking about consequences for using your skeleton horde to murder villages.

It's not that the scenario's are non-equivalent, it's that the points we're addressing seem to be different.

My point was that if you're saying that answering how to solve a Necro doing this means it's a giant problem, I was saying that any character breaking the game makes it a problem.

As to the point of scale, well, as I already stated I'm inclined to agree. It's just one of those problems that seems like it would naturally work itself out though.

[Sartharina]

The bigger problem isn't in taking out the PCs - a DM can easily kill any player character, no matter what it's power is. The problem is the agency. A necro-army wizard outfights all fighters, doesn't need to outsneak a rogue (Stealth means nobody can report you. Dead people don't talk), and can trash any encounter in the world. A necro-wizard has an excessive amount of firepower built into the class.

Frankly, my problem is with the action economy, not the hitpoints or damage of the skeletons.

[obryn]

What I don't buy is Obryn's assessment that because the DM responds to a PC breaking a game, it proves there's a problem.

This would be the equivalent of saying that sending a small strike-force to take out a PC assassin proves the Assassin is a problem.
It's not equivalent at all, near as I can see. Plenty of adventures take place on the fringes of civilization. And adventurers being adventurers, it's not like "corpses" will ever be in short supply, you know? And a closed up wagon full of skeletons can hide 'em very effectively, since they neither breathe nor complain. Raise a bunch of dead skelly bros, herd them into the wagons, and unload at your next dungeon.

So let me ask you this - if this isn't fair game, what is an "appropriate" use of the Necromancer's few and powerful subclass abilities?

e:

The bigger problem isn't in taking out the PCs - a DM can easily kill any player character, no matter what it's power is. The problem is the agency. A necro-army wizard outfights all fighters, doesn't need to outsneak a rogue (Stealth means nobody can report you. Dead people don't talk), and can trash any encounter in the world. A necro-wizard has an excessive amount of firepower built into the class.
And yes, agreed here.

As I mentioned upthread, a horde of skeletons will slaughter a Fighter before the Fighter drops more than a handful. And that's with Action Surge!

[MadBear]

The bigger problem isn't in taking out the PCs - a DM can easily kill any player character, no matter what it's power is. The problem is the agency. A necro-army wizard outfights all fighters, doesn't need to outsneak a rogue (Stealth means nobody can report you. Dead people don't talk), and can trash any encounter in the world. A necro-wizard has an excessive amount of firepower built into the class.

Frankly, my problem is with the action economy, not the hitpoints or damage of the skeletons.

and this only works in a theorycrafting scenario. Sure if you put 400 skeletons and the necro in an arena against a equal level fighter, it's not contest. To that I agree. However, how to you ever expect this to realistically play out at a table?

I guess we get back into a problem of verisimilitude. It seems reasonable that a max level necromancer should be able to make a giant army of undead, but it throws the rest of the game into a dive. I guess I just don't see a solution that doesn't involve arbitrary limits.

As to action economy problem this is almost always an issue. Heck that's why familiars were better then bonded items in 3.5, why leadership was broken, and why mid level animal companions were really good. The question becomes, how do you balance it all. And to that I think what's been done is fine. At least the only way for the wizard to get his army is through evil methods, that will likely make him many enemies. I find it a bigger problem if the wizard could easily obtain 400 summoned monsters that were of a good alignment, because then you would have a bigger problem.

[Demonic Spoon]

and this only works in a theorycrafting scenario. Sure if you put 400 skeletons and the necro in an arena against a equal level fighter, it's not contest. To that I agree. However, how to you ever expect this to realistically play out at a table?

I guess we get back into a problem of verisimilitude. It seems reasonable that a max level necromancer should be able to make a giant army of undead, but it throws the rest of the game into a dive. I guess I just don't see a solution that doesn't involve arbitrary limits.

As to action economy problem this is almost always an issue. Heck that's why familiars were better then bonded items in 3.5, why leadership was broken, and why mid level animal companions were really good. The question becomes, how do you balance it all. And to that I think what's been done is fine. At least the only way for the wizard to get his army is through evil methods, that will likely make him many enemies. I find it a bigger problem if the wizard could easily obtain 400 summoned monsters that were of a good alignment, because then you would have a bigger problem.


I generally agree with this.

Besides: If the problems your high-level PCs are facing can be solved with an army of 100 skeletons, why couldn't a local NPC kingdom see this problem and send an army of 1000 soldiers to deal with it rather than any of this adventurer business? I assume that, if they wanted to, high level PCs with social skills and other forms of influence could gain some power over some local governments powerful enough to field such an army.

[obryn]

and this only works in a theorycrafting scenario. Sure if you put 400 skeletons and the necro in an arena against a equal level fighter, it's not contest. To that I agree. However, how to you ever expect this to realistically play out at a table?
With exactly the kinds of smart gameplay you'd expect.

(1) A 1st level Silent Image spell to make an illusory wall.
(2) Extradimensional spaces

...want me to go on? :smallsmile:

You should know by now that players will figure out a way for that to happen.


I guess we get back into a problem of verisimilitude. It seems reasonable that a max level necromancer should be able to make a giant army of undead, but it throws the rest of the game into a dive. I guess I just don't see a solution that doesn't involve arbitrary limits.
I think you're a bit too ready to sacrifice balance and gameplay on the altar of verisimilitude. YMMV of course, but I have way different priorities.

I'm not keen on giving this much agency to a single PC for any reason, then leaving the DM to sort it all out.


I generally agree with this.

Besides: If the problems your high-level PCs are facing can be solved with an army of 100 skeletons, why couldn't a local NPC kingdom see this problem and send an army of 1000 soldiers to deal with it rather than any of this adventurer business? I assume that, if they wanted to, high level PCs with social skills and other forms of influence could gain some power over some local governments powerful enough to field such an army.
Because all of that falls apart when you're looking at the standard PC-vs.-Adventure sort of scenario that's common in D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

Hm.

I've pondered the necromancer army problem...

ok, what about:

give out quests and missions that emphasize stealth, or small squad tactics. make them have to leave the skeleton army behind sometimes. give them problems that by solving with the skeleton army, they have to solve the rest of the problems by themselves.

for example: say the PC's need to investigate where the raids upon the village are coming from out in the wilderness. But they don't know where the next attack will come from and won't be able to respond when they are trying to find where the attacks are coming from. if scrying is used, it somehow shows only static for reasons you don't know yet. you have an army of skeletons that would be bad at investigating where these people are, but would be good at defending the town while you do it yourself and find the base of their operations, what do you do?

emphasize how having a skeleton army will only solve one problem in the current situation. the rest of the problems have to be dealt by the PC's, its their story after all.

[Demonic Spoon]

I think the bigger problem might be at a smaller scale. 100 skeletons is unwieldy and problematic. 10-15 is far less so and makes the wizard really, really strong in a direct encounter (especially since he will have most of the rest of his spell slots available)

[Cibulan]

The question becomes, how do you balance it all.Isn't it obvious that they don't/won't balance it all? At least not to the level some want. It seems clear to me that they are not balancing features based on fringe cases (level 20 wizards) but instead on what they except (flawed or not) to be "reasonable" table play. Mearls et al probably assumed a necromancer would make just a few mummies instead of dozens of skeletons. I don't believe they ever stopped to ask "can a PC make an army with this?" because they know it'd be a fringe case. 4th edition was the edition that tried to make sure every piece fit together, 5th just isn't like that. It is without debate clear that a high level necromancer with an army of skeletons is more powerful than a single high level fighter, but that probably wasn't considered in design because a high level necromancer is a fringe case (being most games never make it to high level, let alone a PC being a necromancer).

[MadBear]

It's not equivalent at all, near as I can see. Plenty of adventures take place on the fringes of civilization. And adventurers being adventurers, it's not like "corpses" will ever be in short supply, you know? And a closed up wagon full of skeletons can hide 'em very effectively, since they neither breathe nor complain. Raise a bunch of dead skelly bros, herd them into the wagons, and unload at your next dungeon.

So let me ask you this - if this isn't fair game, what is an "appropriate" use of the Necromancer's few and powerful subclass abilities?


As I stated, we're talking different points with the equivalency thing.

To reply to the fringes of society, my point was just that bringing the dead back to life is likely to piss off the living that cared for the skeleton that was once someone they cared for. Even if it's a goblin tribe, they're more likely to seek retribution against a man that killed their loved ones and brought them back as undead mockery's then just killed them.

As to the whats fair. I'd assume that using a few 1-3 spell slots is plenty fair for a dungeon crawl, or more if there's alot of dead creatures in the area. You're either trading in you're highest spell slots to have a medium strike force, that can be whittled down. I'd also assume if you're using it this often you're evil, which bring issues in and of itself.

What I don't see as fair , is having a caravan of 400 undead wandering the countryside from dungeon to dungeon. I'm not saying you can't force it to work, but then again if you hit a screw with a hammer long enough it will get nailed in.

I guess you can call it a failing of WOTC, but I believe that they generally assume that you'll be using the tools at you're disposal to tell a compelling story, that's interesting, fun, and relatively balanced to play. In any rule set unless you make all classes identical, you'll get imbalance. Necromancy is an issue because it's defining feature is creating undead. If the system didn't let you do this, it'd break verisimilitude, but by allowing it, it creates balance issues. Tbh the only solution that I can even see, would be making it require concentration to maintain the undead horde. In previous editions it helped that low-level undead were completely useless, but with bounded accuracy their use is dramatically more useful.


Isn't it obvious that they don't/won't balance it all? At least not to the level some want. It seems clear to me that they are not balancing features based on fringe cases (level 20 wizards) but instead on what they except (flawed or not) to be "reasonable" table play. Mearls et al probably assumed a necromancer would make just a few mummies instead of dozens of skeletons. I don't believe they ever stopped to ask "can a PC make an army with this?" because they know it'd be a fringe case. 4th edition was the edition that tried to make sure every piece fit together, 5th just isn't like that. It is without debate clear that a high level necromancer with an army of skeletons is more powerful than a single high level fighter, but that probably wasn't considered in design because a high level necromancer is a fringe case (being most games never make it to high level, let alone a PC being a necromancer).

I completely agree

[Demonic Spoon]

what if:

-Summoned undead do nothing by themselves
-You can command your undead to perform a simple task (e.g. "attack this guy") as a bonus action
-You can only command one raise dead casting's worth of undead per action

Would that solve these problems?

[obryn]

In any rule set unless you make all classes identical, you'll get imbalance. Necromancy is an issue because it's defining feature is creating undead. If the system didn't let you do this, it'd break verisimilitude, but by allowing it, it creates balance issues. Tbh the only solution that I can even see, would be making it require concentration to maintain the undead horde. In previous editions it helped that low-level undead were completely useless, but with bounded accuracy their use is dramatically more useful.
There's a very, very wide gap between inevitable and unavoidable balance issues and Ned's Dancing Skeleton Tour. This isn't Greatweapon Fighting out-damaging Two-Weapon Fighting, or Resilient being a better feat than Tough. This is way past that.

And requiring Concentration would be a perfectly fine fix, IMO. It's still a very powerful with a 9th level slot, but it seems a lot more in line with other 9th-level spells that way.


It is without debate clear that a high level necromancer with an army of skeletons is more powerful than a single high level fighter, but that probably wasn't considered in design because a high level necromancer is a fringe case (being most games never make it to high level, let alone a PC being a necromancer).
It becomes a problem well before 20th level, though.

A dozen beefy skeletons is already enough to (a) cause significant gameplay slowdowns, and (b) create substantial balance concerns.


what if:

-Summoned undead do nothing by themselves
-You can command your undead to perform a simple task (e.g. "attack this guy") as a bonus action
-You can only command one raise dead casting's worth of undead per action

Would that solve these problems?
ssssomewhat. See above, basically. You've still got (at the top end) over a dozen extra actions available to you, from minions who are far from pushovers. I think Concentration is a much cleaner fix, since there's also a gameplay cost associated with it over and above the scroll or spell slot.

[Sartharina]

To reply to the fringes of society, my point was just that bringing the dead back to life is likely to piss off the living that cared for the skeleton that was once someone they cared for. Even if it's a goblin tribe, they're more likely to seek retribution against a man that killed their loved ones and brought them back as undead mockery's then just killed them. That's a lot of words just to say "The world will just keep giving the Necromancer more bodies to work with."

[Fwiffo86]

Have all undead created be destroyed if the Necromancer is ever exposed to sunlight.

[hawklost]

Have all undead created be destroyed if the Necromancer is ever exposed to sunlight.

I personally always prefered things like "Caster must give up X hit points to maintain control of the Undead, these hit points cannot be returned to caster until the spell is dismissed. If undead is destroyed before the spell is dismissed the Caster cannot regain the hit points until 1 (day/week) has passed."

Therefore the caster can gain his army if he wants but makes himself vulnerable to personal attack. Make the X be something like 2 hp and the caster limits his undead to probably no more than 50 (assuming he wants almost no HP).

EDIT: This is included on top of the other requirement of recasting the spell every 24 hours. (HP cost is not used up again, if spell was not recast it is the same as Dismissing the undead and the caster can gain back the hp normally)

[Demonic Spoon]

ssssomewhat. See above, basically. You've still got (at the top end) over a dozen extra actions available to you, from minions who are far from pushovers. I think Concentration is a much cleaner fix, since there's also a gameplay cost associated with it over and above the scroll or spell slot.


How does concentration fix the issue of them one-round killing a dragon, unless the dragon can hit you first to break your concentration?

[obryn]

How does concentration fix the issue of them one-round killing a dragon, unless the dragon can hit you first to break your concentration?
Well, for starters, if it's a Concentration spell, so you only get to cast it the once; no army for you. And on top of that, it takes up your "concentration slot" so you can't cast any more concentration spells without losing them. And on top of that, you can get hit and lose the spell.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's a good solution, though...perhaps add the caveat that "lose the spell" entails "lose control of the undead", who then go mad and start whacking whatever is closest, until the necromancer does something to regain control.