Duration Concentration

[Grayson01]

I have been reading through the Spell list and it is of my oppion that a fast majority of the Spells have become Duration Concentration for X time. With the changes of these spells and the new and revised concentration rules it seems to me that it has greatly curved the spell casters power. By greatly limiting the number of buffs and spells a caster can have up and running at any given time. My question is am I alone in this thought, am I missing something or has this new dration really limited Spell casters power?

[pwykersotz]

You aren't alone. In fact, I think we have T-shirts somewhere around here. :smallsmile:

The concentration mechanic is great. You'll find that there is some frustration that there are a few buffs that escaped the mechanic (Foresight comes to mind) and there are those who feel it discourages their style of play (melee Wizards are now more difficult to pull off), but overall it stops casters from stacking buffs to win at all things. For example, unless you have multiple casters to use their resources on it, no more invisible flight.

[Grayson01]

You aren't alone. In fact, I think we have T-shirts somewhere around here. :smallsmile:

The concentration mechanic is great. You'll find that there is some frustration that there are a few buffs that escaped the mechanic (Foresight comes to mind) and there are those who feel it discourages their style of play (melee Wizards are now more difficult to pull off), but overall it stops casters from stacking buffs to win at all things. For example, unless you have multiple casters to use their resources on it, no more invisible flight.

Okay good I am glad I am not alone. I do like it though I think it was a good way to go towards balance between Mundane and Casters. I am finding that this will be a good new edition and I might be able to find new games now since I am not a fan of 4th.

[VoxRationis]

What are the new concentration rules? Again, I had access to the PHB for a very short time.

[Lokiare]

You would think it would curb over powered casters, unfortunately that's not true. It reduces them from 3e levels of broken, but they are still extremely over powered because several of the spells don't require concentration like mirror image or shield and near impossible to break concentration is only two feats away. Throw in other feats that replicate other classes abilities and the casters are still the most broken classes in the game...

[VoxRationis]

Feats are optional in this system, aren't they?

[Daishain]

What are the new concentration rules? Again, I had access to the PHB for a very short time.

In short, you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, and any damage taken forces a concentration check. You can cast spells without the concentration tag while concentrating on a spell however.

The way they have it set up, you basically get 1 enduring effect, that's it. Whether that's a buff or a BFC. Choose wisely


Feats are optional in this system, aren't they?

Yes, you either get ability point increases every 2-4 levels (usually closer to 4 in the case of everyone but the fighter), or can swap it in for a feat. Frankly being forced to choose between the two in this manner is agonizing, and this setup is one of the few things I actively dislike about the edition.

[Grayson01]

Feats are optional in this system, aren't they?

You are correct feats are optional and few and far between. You also have to give up an ablility scor3e increase.

@Lokiare the concentration rules do curve the power of the caster by limiting the number of spells they can spam at once, limiting them to 1.

However I just found a loop hole that would allow Casters to spam more then one conentration spall. Glyph Of Warding: Spell Glyph.

WIth a Spell Glyph you can have the spell you wanna spam be cast when the Glyph is triggered and it last for the for the full duration. Granted it costs 1 hour of casting and two spell slots, but a small loop hole.

[Symphony]

You are correct feats are optional and few and far between. You also have to give up an ablility scor3e increase.

@Lokiare the concentration rules do curve the power of the caster by limiting the number of spells they can spam at once, limiting them to 1.

However I just found a loop hole that would allow Casters to spam more then one conentration spall. Glyph Of Warding: Spell Glyph.

WIth a Spell Glyph you can have the spell you wanna spam be cast when the Glyph is triggered and it last for the for the full duration. Granted it costs 1 hour of casting and two spell slots, but a small loop hole.

You also can't move it without triggering the spell and as written does not allow beneficial effects.

[Grayson01]

You also can't move it without triggering the spell and as written does not allow beneficial effects.

Where is the no beneficial effects part I am not seeing that. I know you can't move it but you can use some of the longer durations buffs, like I said it takes some time but it would work to get you one or two extra buffs with a duration of Con X.

[Symphony]

Where is the no beneficial effects part I am not seeing that.

Mostly the "you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures". At least that's the wording I would use to disqualify buffing spells, were I so inclined.

With that said, I can actually think of plenty of legitimate uses for beneficial spells stored in such a way that fits the intended purpose (and not the concentration/daily spell limit bypassing), but it is definitely not intended to be used for any spell that is beneficial.

Edit: It would also make enemy wizards a nightmare to fight in their lair... you know, more than they already are.

[Deox]

Feats are optional in this system, aren't they?

Yes. Not only are feats optional, but they require DM approval to even be considered available. At every 4 levels you only get the stat bump, unless the DM allows you to pick a feat instead.

As for the caster power curve, the system does a great job of reigning in the supreme power that was 3.X casting, and makes spell choices more meaningful. You still have many encounter ending spells, but the ability to have 20+ buffs with contingencies for your contingencies has been subdued.

[Pex]

As the levels increase buff spells become useless because you can't make the Constitution check. At low level it's DC 10, doable. Eventually damage from opponents will reach 22+, forcing the DC of 11+. Damage spell alone do this. Then you have warrior types with their multiple attacks. (It's a good thing they have those.) A particular hit might do less than 22 damage, but they'll keep hitting. The spellcaster has to make concentration checks over and over and over. He will fail. It's not just the wizard. It's the War cleric or any cleric who wants to fight. The druid. Even the paladin will lose his spell. There's no point in casting them.

Don't even think about buffing others. Wizard casts Fly on the Fighter so he can bash the head in of someone or something flying. However, one failed concentration check and the Fly spell is gone causing the Fighter to plummet to the ground taking lots of damage. An enemy's Fireball could do that. It's not just buff spells. Many non-damaging attack spells require concentration as well. The only thing spellcasting is really good for now is blasting.

5E magic is really starting to tick me off.

[Lokiare]

As the levels increase buff spells become useless because you can't make the Constitution check. At low level it's DC 10, doable. Eventually damage from opponents will reach 22+, forcing the DC of 11+. Damage spell alone do this. Then you have warrior types with their multiple attacks. (It's a good thing they have those.) A particular hit might do less than 22 damage, but they'll keep hitting. The spellcaster has to make concentration checks over and over and over. He will fail. It's not just the wizard. It's the War cleric or any cleric who wants to fight. The druid. Even the paladin will lose his spell. There's no point in casting them.

Don't even think about buffing others. Wizard casts Fly on the Fighter so he can bash the head in of someone or something flying. However, one failed concentration check and the Fly spell is gone causing the Fighter to plummet to the ground taking lots of damage. An enemy's Fireball could do that. It's not just buff spells. Many non-damaging attack spells require concentration as well. The only thing spellcasting is really good for now is blasting.

5E magic is really starting to tick me off.

With the two feats and a +0 con mod the concentration chance failure is nearly 0% for DC 10 and extremely low for other DCs. If you take ability score increases instead you still have a pretty good chance against DC 10 saves.

[Snails]

Don't even think about buffing others. Wizard casts Fly on the Fighter so he can bash the head in of someone or something flying. However, one failed concentration check and the Fly spell is gone causing the Fighter to plummet to the ground taking lots of damage. An enemy's Fireball could do that. It's not just buff spells. Many non-damaging attack spells require concentration as well. The only thing spellcasting is really good for now is blasting.


Buff spells are still very useful because of Action Economy. You just have to get used to losing them in the middle of the fight.

[Eslin]

Mostly the "you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures". At least that's the wording I would use to disqualify buffing spells, were I so inclined.

With that said, I can actually think of plenty of legitimate uses for beneficial spells stored in such a way that fits the intended purpose (and not the concentration/daily spell limit bypassing), but it is definitely not intended to be used for any spell that is beneficial.

Edit: It would also make enemy wizards a nightmare to fight in their lair... you know, more than they already are.

Have it cast haste, keep it on you, condition is 'person who weighs the same amount I do draws sword and says squiddley doodlefluffer'. It harms other creatures because you then use it to hurt them.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

What are you outsmarting, a dm or a wet paper bag?

[Eslin]

What do you mean?

[thereaper]

In terms of balance, 5e is a lot better than 3.5. But it still becomes unplayable the moment a sufficiently high-level caster starts abusing the broken stuff. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion still removes spell slot management from the game. Contact Other Plane is still around. Polymorph effects are still broken (though now for completely different reasons). Fly still trivializes many encounters (including the Tarrasque). Wind Wall still completely negates archers. Find Traps and Knock still step on the Rogue's toes (really, what fantasy archetype were they trying to channel there?). Necromancers obviate the need for Fighters and their equivalents. Antimagic Field shuts down any spellcaster who isn't abusing broken things of their own. And Simulacrum is, well, Simulacrum.

What gets me is that Forcecage actually got stronger. Someone at WotC sat down with a spell that completely shuts down not only entire classes but entire character archetypes with no save allowed and said "let's buff this".

Here's hoping your group doesn't tolerate that kind of thing so that you can enjoy the many improvements over 3.5.

[Snails]

What do you mean?

I believe he means "use it to hurt them" is very far from the same as "harms other creatures", unless your DM coddles his or her players to an absurd degree.

[Socko525]

You aren't alone. In fact, I think we have T-shirts somewhere around here. :smallsmile:

The concentration mechanic is great. You'll find that there is some frustration that there are a few buffs that escaped the mechanic (Foresight comes to mind) and there are those who feel it discourages their style of play (melee Wizards are now more difficult to pull off), but overall it stops casters from stacking buffs to win at all things. For example, unless you have multiple casters to use their resources on it, no more invisible flight.

Been following this thread, still waiting for the t-shirt design concept XD

[Galen]

The one thing I decidedly don't like about the Concentration mechanic is that it limits the casters' ability to buff other people. For example, a 3rd level Wizard has two 2nd level slots, but he can't make two people Invisible.

A house rule I'm contemplating is: "when you cast a spell with a duration Concentration on a willing target, you may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of you". This still doesn't allow buff stacking, but allows to wizard buff multiple people, which is actually more power to the mundanes.

[Daishain]

The one thing I decidedly don't like about the Concentration mechanic is that it limits the casters' ability to buff other people. For example, a 3rd level Wizard has two 2nd level slots, but he can't make two people Invisible.

A house rule I'm contemplating is: "when you cast a spell with a duration Concentration on a willing target, you may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of you". This still doesn't allow buff stacking, but allows to wizard buff multiple people, which is actually more power to the mundanes.

No kidding, I do appreciate that they're thinking about limiting just how much junk you can slap onto one body to turn them into mr superhero, but come on.

One of the best means for a spellcaster to both be effective and avoid outstripping the other players had been to focus on keeping everyone working at peak efficiency via strategic buffs. But that is pretty much all burned to the ground now. Heck, they even stripped the bard of what I would consider his signature buffing ability, Inspire Courage.

[Psyren]

I believe he means "use it to hurt them" is very far from the same as "harms other creatures", unless your DM coddles his or her players to an absurd degree.

Honestly I agree with him though - a buff to your allies is harming the enemy, just not directly. But it never said anything about directness.

Of course, this is the kind of argument that can easily pop up at a table, that 5e would just shrug at.


The one thing I decidedly don't like about the Concentration mechanic is that it limits the casters' ability to buff other people. For example, a 3rd level Wizard has two 2nd level slots, but he can't make two people Invisible.

I would simply say that you only have to concentrate on spells that you cast on yourself. There are plenty of magic systems that make self-casting harder in fiction anyway. (Wheel of Time for example.)

[BW022]

Yes. Concentration is a major limiting issue in spell casting. Gone are the days were casters could have five or six buff spells up at the same time or you could bury enemies in continued affect spells until they had no hope of saving, moving, or acting.

This means that casters can't so massively tip combats merely be stacking spells over and over. It means that martial types retaining their usefulness in combats. Clerics can not longer become tougher than fighters through spell after spell. Wizards can't lay down slow, web, stinking cloud, etc. until no opponent can function. Spell casting becomes more selective, tactical, and impactful... rather than just relying on stacking spells.

It also provides some hope for those facing casters in that they can get out of awful effects if they can damage the caster often enough to get them to break concentration.

Overall, I think this provides a unique way of balancing out 5E casters.

One the flip side...

a) All casters now cast spontaneously. Thus, you don't need to fill specific spell slots. They have much more flexibility in which spells to cast at what time. This means far fewer 'wasted' spell slots.

b) Many casters have ritual casting, either from a spell book or prepared spells. This means many utility spells no longer have to waste spell slots. Again, fewer 'wasted' spell slots.

c) Most spells are far more effective. Magic missile starts at 3d4+3. Fireball starts are 8d6. Sleep is 5d10 hp worth of creatures. Spells giving advantage rather than a minor +1 or +2. Durations are often fixed at 8 hours, 1 hour, or 1 minute... which is far better for low level characters rather than hour/level, 10 minutes/level, or rounds/level. Ranges much longer.

d) Saving throws are less likely over levels. DCs increase slightly over levels, regardless of spell levels. An opponents ability to save does not -- unless they are have that saving throw bonus. A 1st-level charm person is say DC 13 (8+2+3), at 17th-level it could easily be DC 19 (8+6+5, assuming increase in spellcasting ability). Meanwhile, someone without a good wisdom save is still only d20+wis to save. Even if you had a good wisdom save, it's likely not better than 50/50. Unlike 3.x, where casting low level spells at high level opponents was pointless.

e) Many spells can be cast using higher level slots for increased damage, area, or duration. Again, flexibility is increased as if you don't have a high level spell effective in the situation... a lower-level spell at a higher slot might easily work.

f) Most casters now have at-will cantrips which do reasonable damage. Typically a d8 with the possibly of multiple attacks as you level. Casters can still do reasonable levels of damage... typically at range... while using a concentration type spell.

g) There are many spells which can be cast as bonus actions or reactions. Spell casting classes now have higher hit points, and all have special abilities such as the sorcerer's meta-magic, font of magic, arcane recovery, etc. plus additional powers based on their traditions, schools, domains, etc. -- often consisting of spell-like abilities not requiring concentration.

Overall... I think it is a better balanced system. No five minute buffing sessions, no spell stacking to the point of no hope, etc. It is more balanced for martials and other non-casters. Yet... when the caster does use a concentration spell... it is usually effective.

[Pex]

Buff spells are still very useful because of Action Economy. You just have to get used to losing them in the middle of the fight.

That's the problem. I don't want to lose my only buff in the middle of the fight, but the game tells me tough feces.

Edit: The problem is not that you can only have one concentration spell active at a time. The problem is you can lose it so easily, especially for those spellcasters who are expected to get hit a lot.

[Zweisteine]

Concentration, I think, was made explicitly to limit spellcasters' power.

Some spells shouldn't be concentration that are, such as fly. I want to be imbuing my allies with magic, not mentally holding them airborne.

Also, here's a mechanic I'd have liked:
While maintaining concentration, you should be able to cast a concentration spell, but not concentrate on it. The second spell lasts for only one round, or even just the one turn. For example, this lets a warlock who has his opponent hexed cast eyebite to shoot only one eyelaser, but keep the hex running.

[pwykersotz]

That's the problem. I don't want to lose my only buff in the middle of the fight, but the game tells me tough feces.

If your DM agrees, you could always nix the damage breaking it as a houserule. Then the limit of one buff at a time remains but your primary frustration goes away.

Having played a buff-o-mancer in 3.5 multiple times, I'm glad for the restriction myself. Enough time has convinced me that vulnerabilities such as this are a good thing, but I definitely understand why some might not want it. :smallsmile:

[Lokiare]

Yes. Concentration is a major limiting issue in spell casting. Gone are the days were casters could have five or six buff spells up at the same time or you could bury enemies in continued affect spells until they had no hope of saving, moving, or acting.

This means that casters can't so massively tip combats merely be stacking spells over and over. It means that martial types retaining their usefulness in combats. Clerics can not longer become tougher than fighters through spell after spell. Wizards can't lay down slow, web, stinking cloud, etc. until no opponent can function. Spell casting becomes more selective, tactical, and impactful... rather than just relying on stacking spells.

It also provides some hope for those facing casters in that they can get out of awful effects if they can damage the caster often enough to get them to break concentration.

Overall, I think this provides a unique way of balancing out 5E casters.

One the flip side...

a) All casters now cast spontaneously. Thus, you don't need to fill specific spell slots. They have much more flexibility in which spells to cast at what time. This means far fewer 'wasted' spell slots.

b) Many casters have ritual casting, either from a spell book or prepared spells. This means many utility spells no longer have to waste spell slots. Again, fewer 'wasted' spell slots.

c) Most spells are far more effective. Magic missile starts at 3d4+3. Fireball starts are 8d6. Sleep is 5d10 hp worth of creatures. Spells giving advantage rather than a minor +1 or +2. Durations are often fixed at 8 hours, 1 hour, or 1 minute... which is far better for low level characters rather than hour/level, 10 minutes/level, or rounds/level. Ranges much longer.

d) Saving throws are less likely over levels. DCs increase slightly over levels, regardless of spell levels. An opponents ability to save does not -- unless they are have that saving throw bonus. A 1st-level charm person is say DC 13 (8+2+3), at 17th-level it could easily be DC 19 (8+6+5, assuming increase in spellcasting ability). Meanwhile, someone without a good wisdom save is still only d20+wis to save. Even if you had a good wisdom save, it's likely not better than 50/50. Unlike 3.x, where casting low level spells at high level opponents was pointless.

e) Many spells can be cast using higher level slots for increased damage, area, or duration. Again, flexibility is increased as if you don't have a high level spell effective in the situation... a lower-level spell at a higher slot might easily work.

f) Most casters now have at-will cantrips which do reasonable damage. Typically a d8 with the possibly of multiple attacks as you level. Casters can still do reasonable levels of damage... typically at range... while using a concentration type spell.

g) There are many spells which can be cast as bonus actions or reactions. Spell casting classes now have higher hit points, and all have special abilities such as the sorcerer's meta-magic, font of magic, arcane recovery, etc. plus additional powers based on their traditions, schools, domains, etc. -- often consisting of spell-like abilities not requiring concentration.

Overall... I think it is a better balanced system. No five minute buffing sessions, no spell stacking to the point of no hope, etc. It is more balanced for martials and other non-casters. Yet... when the caster does use a concentration spell... it is usually effective.

Which would you rather be shot with, a low caliber handgun or a high caliber rifle?

Yes its a trick question. Just like the 'well its a lightly more reigned in 3E'. Broken is broken. Slightly less broken is not helpful. There are still ridiculous combinations like Mirror Image + Shield + Mage Armor that break AC. There are still save or die spells that are completely broken like Blight. There are even spells like Force Cage that completely shut down opponents and groups of opponents.

Personally I liked 4E because every class could participate at the same level as other classes. Fighters were on the same footing as Wizards for instance.

[Grayson01]

Concentration, I think, was made explicitly to limit spellcasters' power.

Some spells shouldn't be concentration that are, such as fly.Also, here's a mechanic I'd have liked:
While maintaining concentration, you should be able to cast a concentration spell, but not concentrate on it. The second spell lasts for only one round, or even just the one turn. For example, this lets a warlock who has his opponent hexed cast eyebite to shoot only one eyelaser, but keep the hex running.

That is a resnable request and a sound house rule. Cyclops should have nice things as well.

[Psyren]

Unlike 3.x, where casting low level spells at high level opponents was pointless.

Uh, there were plenty of low level spells in 3.x that either didn't have a save at all or could target the weak save of a high level monster (e.g. plants and dragons tended to have crappy reflex) or even that forced a skill check the target might not be likely to have (e.g. Grease vs. Balance.)

[XmonkTad]

The thing I like best about Concentration and the way it's used is that it doesn't make magic weaker per se, but it does make a single spellcaster less capable of going nova.

See, you could still have a Tippyverse type scenario, but, until they make spellclocks, it probably won't be just a single wizard doing it. In terms of adventuring, 2 or 3 wizards are now required to be God. This is a good thing, because if you need more than one person to be awesome, it's called "a party."

[Cambrian]

@XmonkTad:
Absolutely agree!

People need to really go back and reread the spells in 5th because they made some significant balance changes.

Knock, for example, does not replace a Rogue-- it has a loud noise alerting anything within 300 feet; it also uses a 2nd level spell slot (not a ritual); and a DM could limit a caster by putting multiple locks on a chest or door-- Knock only opens one.

[TheOOB]

Concentration, I think, was made explicitly to limit spellcasters' power.

Some spells shouldn't be concentration that are, such as fly. I want to be imbuing my allies with magic, not mentally holding them airborne.

Also, here's a mechanic I'd have liked:
While maintaining concentration, you should be able to cast a concentration spell, but not concentrate on it. The second spell lasts for only one round, or even just the one turn. For example, this lets a warlock who has his opponent hexed cast eyebite to shoot only one eyelaser, but keep the hex running.

Fly is intended to be limited. 3e had a problem that once the party hit 5th level, walls and pits no longer posed any problem for the party. Now with increased scarcity of spell slots, and decreased ability to fly all the time, terrain remains relevant for much much longer.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

well if we're oging to make awful comparisons, its more like being shot five times versus being shot once

[Sartharina]

Which would you rather be shot with, a low caliber handgun or a high caliber rifle?Considering that I've survived a Low-Caliber handgun shot (Got the proof marked on my left breast), I'd definitely say low-caliber handgun than high-caliber rifle (Which, at the point-blank range, would have completely blown through me instead of just cracking a rib - then again, it's also much less likely that the high-power rifle could have hit me in such close quarters) - and I still remained conscious enough to beat him and his two friends into submission with my broom.


Yes its a trick question. Just like the 'well its a lightly more reigned in 3E'. Broken is broken. Slightly less broken is not helpful. There are still ridiculous combinations like Mirror Image + Shield + Mage Armor that break AC. There are still save or die spells that are completely broken like Blight. There are even spells like Force Cage that completely shut down opponents and groups of opponents.Except it's not a 'trick question', because while powerful, magic isn't obscenely overpowered. Thanks to the destruction of meaningful stacking, a Wizard still needs a fighter to let him actually do anything. Thanks to the reduced daily spell slots, a wizard can't chain as many spells into broken combinations. Thanks to the changes in spells, there aren't game-breaking spells anymore. You are complaining that a mountain that has been turned into a molehill is still a mountain.

[rollingForInit]

Personally I liked 4E because every class could participate at the same level as other classes. Fighters were on the same footing as Wizards for instance.

What I disliked about spellcasters in 4E was that fluff aside, there was no real difference between them and other classes. Everything was so streamlined. There was no real difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer that highlighted the different sources of magic. Same with Warlock. It was mostly just fluff. The cast spells in exactly the same way. Hell; spells didn't really exist at all, except for rituals. It was just attack- or utility powers, and everyone had exactly the same amount of them. The differences were more of roles than anything else, with Sorcerer being a Striker, Wizard a Controller and Warlock a single-target-neutraliser. And the difference between, say, a Ranger and a Wizard? Wizards had more multi-attacks, and Rangers used bows whereas Wizards didn't. Nothing mechanical to make magic different from anything else.

[thereaper]

Considering that I've survived a Low-Caliber handgun shot (Got the proof marked on my left breast), I'd definitely say low-caliber handgun than high-caliber rifle (Which, at the point-blank range, would have completely blown through me instead of just cracking a rib - then again, it's also much less likely that the high-power rifle could have hit me in such close quarters) - and I still remained conscious enough to beat him and his two friends into submission with my broom.

Except it's not a 'trick question', because while powerful, magic isn't obscenely overpowered. Thanks to the destruction of meaningful stacking, a Wizard still needs a fighter to let him actually do anything. Thanks to the reduced daily spell slots, a wizard can't chain as many spells into broken combinations. Thanks to the changes in spells, there aren't game-breaking spells anymore. You are complaining that a mountain that has been turned into a molehill is still a mountain.

Ah ha! I knew brooms were the ultimate weapons! I've been telling my coworkers that for all these years, and I was right! For your service to the cause, you win an internet. :smallcool:

Sadly, though, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The Wizard doesn't need a Fighter; he needs something to stand there and take hits for him. Given that Wizards can produce such things, it would be inaccurate to say he needs a Fighter (strictly speaking, he might be better with a Fighter than without, but even that's debatable when you recall that the Fighter is taking a share of the loot). Honestly, a Druid would do the job better.

But there's no denying that 5e is better than 3.5. I'd much rather houserule away a quarter of the system than half of it.

[Grayson01]

Ah ha! I knew brooms were the ultimate weapons! I've been telling my coworkers that for all these years, and I was right! For your service to the cause, you win an internet. :smallcool:

Sadly, though, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The Wizard doesn't need a Fighter; he needs something to stand there and take hits for him. Given that Wizards can produce such things, it would be inaccurate to say he needs a Fighter (strictly speaking, he might be better with a Fighter than without, but even that's debatable when you recall that the Fighter is taking a share of the loot). Honestly, a Druid would do the job better.

But there's no denying that 5e is better than 3.5. I'd much rather houserule away a quarter of the system than half of it.

The Wizard can't produce meat shields and still deal out a mass amount of spells with the new concentration rules. The Wizard has to concentrate on his summons, so he can summon and blast. Also the point is that the Wizard/Cleric/druid is no longer a stand alone do all. So yes it does not have to be a Fighter, but that is probably going to be his/her/their best friend, But a Barbarian, a Paladin, or a Ranger will probably be just as effective as a front line companion. Which is nice change.

[thereaper]

A Necromancer with Planar Binding (for healing), an army of skeletons (for damage), proficiency with Thieves' Tools (which he can get through time and gp), and a Simulacrum (just in case) can indeed do everything.

The issue isn't nearly as bad as it was in 3.5, but it undeniably still exists.

[Gnaeus]

A Necromancer with Planar Binding (for healing), an army of skeletons (for damage), proficiency with Thieves' Tools (which he can get through time and gp), and a Simulacrum (just in case) can indeed do everything.

The issue isn't nearly as bad as it was in 3.5, but it undeniably still exists.

I deny it still exists. So it is deniable.

An army of humanoid skeletons, which is all you can get in 5.0, is not in any way a replacement for a fighter type for damage. It is decent if your enemies conveniently gather in a wide open field. It is a waste of resources against any AOE, and it is pathetically useless for anything but trap detection in a dungeon. There is just no way that any but the most lenient DM will let you walk 30 skeletons into a room to block the enemy before a fight. And it requires daily spellcasting just to keep control of your pets. And this assumes that you aren't dealing with possibly significant campaign repercussions for walking around with an undead army.

Planar binding takes an hour to cast. It requires Magic Circle to keep the outsider trapped. It requires a third spell to actually summon the creature. Planar binding allows the target a save. Magic circle allows a save if the creature has teleport powers. Also, magic circle allows the creature to blast you (with disadvantage, but who cares) for an hour while you cast the planar binding, and if it breaks your concentration, you are back to square 1. The process takes 1100 gp, which is no longer a trivial issue in a game without guaranteed WBL. And you wind up with a creature that may seek to subvert your commands. And you only get that creature for a limited length of time. Hardly a replacement for a cleric or bard.

Training a new tool proficiency takes 250 days with a teacher. That is not remotely guaranteed. In fact, from personal experiences, I would call that extremely rare. 500 gp cost is again not negligable (250 for teacher, 250 for maintaining a crummy lifestyle, because you aren't working). + the opportunity cost of whatever you could otherwise have been doing in those 8 months. And when you are done? Yeah, you can pick locks and disarm mechanical traps like a rogue can. But can you notice them? Not without perception and a good wisdom? Quicksand? Thats Survival. Need social skills? They are much harder to replace via spells. Want to swim a river or climb a wall? Fly might get you there, as long as you don't take any damage, but the skeletons are screwed. Good luck even trying to be stealthy with your army of skeletons.

Do everything? Hardly. You can do a few things pretty well, if you use resources and limited character build options (like spells) on them. And when all is said and done, with all your 3rd and 4th level spells used on animate dead, with your year of DM granted downtime and your spellbook full of spells of limited value in a typical dungeon, I'm not convinced that you are actually more versatile than a typical bard.

[Lokiare]

What I disliked about spellcasters in 4E was that fluff aside, there was no real difference between them and other classes. Everything was so streamlined. There was no real difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer that highlighted the different sources of magic. Same with Warlock. It was mostly just fluff. The cast spells in exactly the same way. Hell; spells didn't really exist at all, except for rituals. It was just attack- or utility powers, and everyone had exactly the same amount of them. The differences were more of roles than anything else, with Sorcerer being a Striker, Wizard a Controller and Warlock a single-target-neutraliser. And the difference between, say, a Ranger and a Wizard? Wizards had more multi-attacks, and Rangers used bows whereas Wizards didn't. Nothing mechanical to make magic different from anything else.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read posts like this is that the poster obviously never played 4e and is relying on rumors and memes.
The second thing is that if they did play they played 4e like a board game. In a way they would never play their preferred edition.
Lastly I compare the powers which are completely different and laugh. The wizards powers are low damage with lots of side effects. The sorcerer powers are high damage with few if any side effects. This is compared to 3e where the spells are literally the same for both classes.
Sorry but posts like these make me laugh.

[Gnaeus]

The differences were more of roles than anything else, with Sorcerer being a Striker, Wizard a Controller and Warlock a single-target-neutraliser.



Lastly I compare the powers which are completely different and laugh. The wizards powers are low damage with lots of side effects. The sorcerer powers are high damage with few if any side effects.

Thanks Lokiare. Your "rebuttal" proved his point to my satisfaction.

[Fwiffo86]

The first thing that comes to mind when I read posts like this is that the poster obviously never played 4e and is relying on rumors and memes.
The second thing is that if they did play they played 4e like a board game. In a way they would never play their preferred edition.
Lastly I compare the powers which are completely different and laugh. The wizards powers are low damage with lots of side effects. The sorcerer powers are high damage with few if any side effects. This is compared to 3e where the spells are literally the same for both classes.
Sorry but posts like these make me laugh.

The small differences in spell effect does not detract from the point the poster was making, which is their activation mechanic was the same, and is the same for all classes.

If you wish to dispute the fact that all classes operate on at will, encounter, and daily powers, I am interested to hear how they are different from each other other than the effects those powers produce (which is not what I am asking of you).

[Broken Twin]

Yeah, I played 4E for a long time, and the poster's problem with the system (pre-essentials, anyway) is valid. The abilities each class gets are significantly different and varied, but they all rest upon a identical progression chassis. I don't agree with it, but I can understand people becoming frustrated with it.

[Grayson01]

I deny it still exists. So it is deniable.

An army of humanoid skeletons, which is all you can get in 5.0, is not in any way a replacement for a fighter type for damage. It is decent if your enemies conveniently gather in a wide open field. It is a waste of resources against any AOE, and it is pathetically useless for anything but trap detection in a dungeon. There is just no way that any but the most lenient DM will let you walk 30 skeletons into a room to block the enemy before a fight. And it requires daily spellcasting just to keep control of your pets. And this assumes that you aren't dealing with possibly significant campaign repercussions for walking around with an undead army.

Planar binding takes an hour to cast. It requires Magic Circle to keep the outsider trapped. It requires a third spell to actually summon the creature. Planar binding allows the target a save. Magic circle allows a save if the creature has teleport powers. Also, magic circle allows the creature to blast you (with disadvantage, but who cares) for an hour while you cast the planar binding, and if it breaks your concentration, you are back to square 1. The process takes 1100 gp, which is no longer a trivial issue in a game without guaranteed WBL. And you wind up with a creature that may seek to subvert your commands. And you only get that creature for a limited length of time. Hardly a replacement for a cleric or bard.

Training a new tool proficiency takes 250 days with a teacher. That is not remotely guaranteed. In fact, from personal experiences, I would call that extremely rare. 500 gp cost is again not negligable (250 for teacher, 250 for maintaining a crummy lifestyle, because you aren't working). + the opportunity cost of whatever you could otherwise have been doing in those 8 months. And when you are done? Yeah, you can pick locks and disarm mechanical traps like a rogue can. But can you notice them? Not without perception and a good wisdom? Quicksand? Thats Survival. Need social skills? They are much harder to replace via spells. Want to swim a river or climb a wall? Fly might get you there, as long as you don't take any damage, but the skeletons are screwed. Good luck even trying to be stealthy with your army of skeletons.

Do everything? Hardly. You can do a few things pretty well, if you use resources and limited character build options (like spells) on them. And when all is said and done, with all your 3rd and 4th level spells used on animate dead, with your year of DM granted downtime and your spellbook full of spells of limited value in a typical dungeon, I'm not convinced that you are actually more versatile than a typical bard.

Looks like someone read the PHB and has a good grasp of the new edition.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, you can pick locks and disarm mechanical traps like a rogue can. But can you notice them? Not without perception and a good wisdom? Trap detection is INT-based Investigate, not Perception (Unless it's an 'obvious' trap like a tripwire).

[rollingForInit]

The first thing that comes to mind when I read posts like this is that the poster obviously never played 4e and is relying on rumors and memes.
The second thing is that if they did play they played 4e like a board game. In a way they would never play their preferred edition.
Lastly I compare the powers which are completely different and laugh. The wizards powers are low damage with lots of side effects. The sorcerer powers are high damage with few if any side effects. This is compared to 3e where the spells are literally the same for both classes.
Sorry but posts like these make me laugh.

Gnaeus and Fwiffo replied to this pretty well.

You're describing the very issue I addressed. The Wizards and Sorcerers are merely magic users by fluff. There's no mechanic that makes magic different, at all, from a Fighter swinging his sword or a Warlord ordering around his allies. Calling one magic and the other sword-fighting doesn't make them different. The only feature that adds actual magic as a system to 4th is rituals, that were generally quite expensive to cast anyway. There's also nothing that sets Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks apart in how they use their magic. 5e, despite the spell effects being the same for all classes, makes the classes much more distinguished in how they use their magic. There's an actual difference, not just in lore, but in mechanics.

[Gnaeus]

Trap detection is INT-based Investigate, not Perception (Unless it's an 'obvious' trap like a tripwire).


F i n d i n g a H i d d e n O b j e c t
When your character searches for a hidden object such as
a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a
Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find
hidden details or other information and clues that you might
otherwise overlook.
In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking
in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For
example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in
the top drawer o f a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace
around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues,
you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your
Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify
that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in
order to have any chance of success.

Looks like perception to me

[Sartharina]

Gnaeus and Fwiffo replied to this pretty well.

You're describing the very issue I addressed. The Wizards and Sorcerers are merely magic users by fluff. There's no mechanic that makes magic different, at all, from a Fighter swinging his sword or a Warlord ordering around his allies. Calling one magic and the other sword-fighting doesn't make them different. The only feature that adds actual magic as a system to 4th is rituals, that were generally quite expensive to cast anyway.Yes there are - A fighter tends to rely on either Stances, or attacks that deal [W] damage, and only in an area they can plausibly reach. They also apply weapon traits to all their Melee powers, such as reach, heavy crit, brutal, and proficiency bonus. It's very clear they're making attacks with their weapon.

Spellcaster powers require using an Implement to use instead of a Weapon, and deal damage based on the spell cast instead of a weapon used. The damage for each spell is unique. They are also unique in the effects they can lay out on the battlefield, and durations. There are also Keywords that differentiate the damage types, which affect how they effect certain creatures.

I could argue that there's nothing that makes a 5e fighter 'different' from a 5e wizard, because there's no mechanical difference between shooting someone with a Scorching Ray and shooting someone with a bow, and no mechanical difference for a Wizard hitting someone with a Shocking Grasp or Fighter hitting someone with a Longsword. There's also no difference between a Battlemaster hitting someone with a Trip attack, and Caster using Grease.

[Person_Man]

There are literally more then a hundred with a duration that do not require Concentration to maintain, including:
"Save or Lose" and/or battlefield control spells like Charm Person, Sleep, Mass Suggestion, Forcecage, Blindness/Deafness, Enthrall, Prismatic Wall.

Potent buffs like Freedom of Movement, Teleportation Circle, True Seeing, Etherealness, Regenerate, Mind Blank, Foresight, Guardian of Faith, Shillelagh, Longstrider, Darkvision, Magic Circle, Phantom Steed, Death Ward, Nondetection, Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Armor of Agathys, Fire Shield.

Spells that allow you to indirectly win encounters or change the nature of the game, like Planar Binding, Glibness, Geas, Forbiddance, Astral Projection, Hallucinatory Terrain, Wind Walk, Antipathy/Sympathy, Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Telepathic Bond, Contingency, and Wish.


I get that its currently pretty hard to pull off major abuse outside of a few outliers. But the list above is going to get a lot longer once splat comes out. Mark my words, CoDzilla and Batman shall be reborn within a year, if not sooner.

I love the Concentration mechanic. I just wish that they had actually implemented it more fully and consistently. If something is weak enough that it needs a duration without Concentration, then just make it a Ritual. If not, every spell with a duration should require Concentration, and should be worth maintaining Concentration on, so that players can't stack a bunch of non-Concentration effects (be they offensive, defensive, or other).

[Galen]

Charm PersonOkay, this is the first time I notice Charm Person actually doesn't require Concentration. Surprising. I mean, if there ever was an effect that needed concentrating on, it's controlling another person's mind. Not something you can put on autopilot.

[Sartharina]

Okay, this is the first time I notice Charm Person actually doesn't require Concentration. Surprising. I mean, if there ever was an effect that needed concentrating on, it's controlling another person's mind. Not something you can put on autopilot.

Charm person is not controlling another person's mind.

[Daishain]

I love the Concentration mechanic. I just wish that they had actually implemented it more fully and consistently. If something is weak enough that it needs a duration without Concentration, then just make it a Ritual. If not, every spell with a duration should require Concentration, and should be worth maintaining Concentration on, so that players can't stack a bunch of non-Concentration effects (be they offensive, defensive, or other).
I disagree.

If you want to limit the number of buff spells you can stack, fine, then do so. I never was one for piling things on endlessly anyways. But do it directly and in a manner that doesn't make the vast majority of duration spells in effect useless. Seriously, I'm looking at the spell lists and thinking that I'll almost certainly never get to use spells A, B, or C, as nice as they are, because the opportunity cost of not keeping D or E active is just too high

For instance, simply declare that a particular character cannot maintain more than two positive effects at a time. Have fluff reasons for how too many spellweave effects on one body start to distort each other. There is even a precedent for this, a la the reason we can't wear more than one magic ring on a hand.

You can even do something similar for persistent AOE spells, such that stacking debuff after debuff on one group of enemies is no longer possible. Though you could still set it up so that in running from one they hit another.

[Gnaeus]

There are literally more then a hundred with a duration that do not require Concentration to maintain, including:
"Save or Lose" and/or battlefield control spells like Charm Person, Sleep, Mass Suggestion, Forcecage, Blindness/Deafness, Enthrall, Prismatic Wall.

Potent buffs like Freedom of Movement, Teleportation Circle, True Seeing, Etherealness, Regenerate, Mind Blank, Foresight, Guardian of Faith, Shillelagh, Longstrider, Darkvision, Magic Circle, Phantom Steed, Death Ward, Nondetection, Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Armor of Agathys, Fire Shield.

Spells that allow you to indirectly win encounters or change the nature of the game, like Planar Binding, Glibness, Geas, Forbiddance, Astral Projection, Hallucinatory Terrain, Wind Walk, Antipathy/Sympathy, Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Telepathic Bond, Contingency, and Wish.


I get that its currently pretty hard to pull off major abuse outside of a few outliers. But the list above is going to get a lot longer once splat comes out. Mark my words, CoDzilla and Batman shall be reborn within a year, if not sooner.

I love the Concentration mechanic. I just wish that they had actually implemented it more fully and consistently. If something is weak enough that it needs a duration without Concentration, then just make it a Ritual. If not, every spell with a duration should require Concentration, and should be worth maintaining Concentration on, so that players can't stack a bunch of non-Concentration effects (be they offensive, defensive, or other).

I'm extremely glad PersonMan is not on the Dev team, because those changes would definitely result in setting fire to my PHB.

Mage Armor? Seriously? The spell is clearly intended as a spell slot tax for non-armored casters to have an AC in the normal range. If you make it concentration, no mage will ever use it!

Planar Binding? You sent a pet on a mission, and now you can't cast a spell for 2 weeks until it returns? Assuming that you could make it work at all, since you ALSO want to make Magic Circle require concentration, and you couldn't have all the effects that are required for planar binding to work at all in place at the same time.

Phantom Steed? A simple non flying ground transport spell which vanishes if it takes any damage should also go away if you cast any spells? And the spell is also now nearly useless because you can't cast 4 of them in order to have all your party moving at the same speed?

Shillelagh? A non scaling buff that makes a druid's staff do as much damage as the standard weapons of other classes but without the other classes armor or special combat abilities, so the druid shouldn't be able to use this and their normal combat buff barkskin? Oh no. With both of these rocking at the same time, you have pulled even with the unbuffed cleric. If you are lucky.

Enthrall? Target gets a will save, with advantage if they are fighting you. The only thing the spell does is give the target disadvantage on perception checks on other targets than you. And you want to make it so that not only are they incentivized to attack you to make the spell end but also you can't use any other combat altering spells? I'm not sure I would take that as a cantrip.

Etherealness? I spend an 8th level spell slot to transport the party to another plane for some adventure, but during the 8 hours we are there, not only do I not get to Wizard, but if I get hit by anybody it shunts the entire party back to the prime material with the possibility of making us all eat a ton of force damage? Super!

Yeah, thats not a game I would play.

Also, a spell that imposes disadvantage on a target and they get a constitution save every round to end the spell is not a save or lose.

Oh, and this change, aside from making dozens of spells useless, is not even good for team play. In a team setting, buffing party members is what you WANT your wizard to do. If you make it so that casting darkvision just prevents you from using any of your control spells, a lot of players will simply react by NOT CASTING THE BUFFS and using those slots to play god, which is the opposite from what you want to encourage. Someone else's suggestion above where everyone can maintain concentration on a spell for a caster is much more likely to encourage team play and buffs for the muggles.

[Fwiffo86]

Yes there are - A fighter tends to rely on either Stances, or attacks that deal [W] damage, and only in an area they can plausibly reach. They also apply weapon traits to all their Melee powers, such as reach, heavy crit, brutal, and proficiency bonus. It's very clear they're making attacks with their weapon.

Spellcaster powers require using an Implement to use instead of a Weapon, and deal damage based on the spell cast instead of a weapon used. The damage for each spell is unique. They are also unique in the effects they can lay out on the battlefield, and durations. There are also Keywords that differentiate the damage types, which affect how they effect certain creatures.

I could argue that there's nothing that makes a 5e fighter 'different' from a 5e wizard, because there's no mechanical difference between shooting someone with a Scorching Ray and shooting someone with a bow, and no mechanical difference for a Wizard hitting someone with a Shocking Grasp or Fighter hitting someone with a Longsword. There's also no difference between a Battlemaster hitting someone with a Trip attack, and Caster using Grease.

This is what I have been saying all along. Damage is damage, the source is irrelevant. The activation mechanic is what is being examined. Not the individual effects. The individual effects do not substantially separate the abilities when they are all equal in power/effect/etc, activated on the same time frame, and restore in the same manner.

This is in no way a comment on the validity of that system. It is just one that feels unlike the D&D I like to play. That is of course, personal preference.

[Sartharina]

This is what I have been saying all along. Damage is damage, the source is irrelevant. The activation mechanic is what is being examined. Not the individual effects. The individual effects do not substantially separate the abilities when they are all equal in power/effect/etc, activated on the same time frame, and restore in the same manner.

It's an Action in all cases and almost all editions. What's your point?

And the source isn't irrelevant.

[Pex]

But there's no denying that 5e is better than 3.5. I'd much rather houserule away a quarter of the system than half of it.

To paraphrase Gnaeus, I deny 5E is better than 3.5 so it is deniable. It is better for you, not universally better for everyone. It is better to me than 4E but still not universally better for everyone who played 4E.

Unlike others I do not hyperventilate with seething anger at the thought of 3E magic. I have no issues with it whatsoever. However, I accept that 5E magic was not going to copy it. I accept that 5E was going to lower the power level. I have no issue with that. The new spell preparation mechanic is interesting to me. I could get used to it. I didn't like the diminished spellcasting slots, but I can get over it. You use the 6th+ level spell slots for the BBEG fight. One concentration spell only is itself not a bad idea. I do dislike particular spells having that restriction, but I would eventually have been able to get over that too if not for the fact you can lose concentration so easily. Had you only lost concentration due to incapacitation and never just for taking damage I'd probably still grumble and eventually get over it as well, but I wouldn't be hyperventilating with seething anger as I am with losing concentration for taking damage.


Gnaeus and Fwiffo replied to this pretty well.

You're describing the very issue I addressed. The Wizards and Sorcerers are merely magic users by fluff. There's no mechanic that makes magic different, at all, from a Fighter swinging his sword or a Warlord ordering around his allies. Calling one magic and the other sword-fighting doesn't make them different. The only feature that adds actual magic as a system to 4th is rituals, that were generally quite expensive to cast anyway. There's also nothing that sets Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks apart in how they use their magic. 5e, despite the spell effects being the same for all classes, makes the classes much more distinguished in how they use their magic. There's an actual difference, not just in lore, but in mechanics.

This is exactly why 5E is better to me than 4E.

[Fwiffo86]

It's an Action in all cases and almost all editions. What's your point?

And the source isn't irrelevant.

Admittedly, I have never played 4e. But I have played a sizable quantity of different games, and different systems. And I have been playing and running games for well over 2 decades. I feel confident that when I read a PHB, and the whole class mechanic is based on the same exact build, that qualifies as "Samey" in my book, and is a major deterrent from wanting to engage the game on a more intimate level. It was not the first thing that I noticed about the game though. The first thing I noticed was how there was a WBL requirement (which is an issue not exclusive to 4e, so is not important). When I realized that the same chassy was used for every single possible character you can create, or wanted to create, I put it down.

The point is simply that 4e (whether good or bad) forced every character to operate exactly the same on a fundamental level. When people say all the characters "feel" the same or are "samey", this is what they are talking about, not the powers or what they do. It doesn't matter what the powers actually do, its how they are activated. Unlike other editions, the mechanics for activating magic are the same for making an attack, or moral boosting your party, or fast talking a bandit.

The specifics of how X power and Y power effect the game are superficial and "fluff". I hit it with a spell and deal 7 damage. I hit it with an arrow and deal 7 damage. Either case, it takes 7 damage. The activation mechanics for the powers feel more like buttons than choices. Use the big one here, now I'll use these smaller ones which recharge quicker here, and fill the holes with the buttons with no refresh rate.

When character classes have the exact number of abilities, broken out in the same ratios, with the same recover rates, it does not matter what those abilities do. Everyone has the same basic chassy. More so than other editions, much more so. Is it balanced? Sure. Does that make it good? If that is your game preference. But I just don't get the D&D vibe from this type of system.

[emeraldstreak]

Admittedly, I have never played 4e. But I have played a sizable quantity of different games, and different systems. And I have been playing and running games for well over 2 decades. I feel confident that when I read a PHB, and the whole class mechanic is based on the same exact build, that qualifies as "Samey" in my book, and is a major deterrent from wanting to engage the game on a more intimate level. It was not the first thing that I noticed about the game though. The first thing I noticed was how there was a WBL requirement (which is an issue not exclusive to 4e, so is not important). When I realized that the same chassy was used for every single possible character you can create, or wanted to create, I put it down.

The point is simply that 4e (whether good or bad) forced every character to operate exactly the same on a fundamental level. When people say all the characters "feel" the same or are "samey", this is what they are talking about, not the powers or what they do. It doesn't matter what the powers actually do, its how they are activated. Unlike other editions, the mechanics for activating magic are the same for making an attack, or moral boosting your party, or fast talking a bandit.

The specifics of how X power and Y power effect the game are superficial and "fluff". I hit it with a spell and deal 7 damage. I hit it with an arrow and deal 7 damage. Either case, it takes 7 damage. The activation mechanics for the powers feel more like buttons than choices. Use the big one here, now I'll use these smaller ones which recharge quicker here, and fill the holes with the buttons with no refresh rate.

When character classes have the exact number of abilities, broken out in the same ratios, with the same recover rates, it does not matter what those abilities do. Everyone has the same basic chassy. More so than other editions, much more so. Is it balanced? Sure. Does that make it good? If that is your game preference. But I just don't get the D&D vibe from this type of system.

Ultimately all there is to say about the 4th is the number next to it in the root directory of this forum. Compare it to 3rd's and 5th's numbers and you'll know.

[thereaper]

I deny it still exists. So it is deniable.

An army of humanoid skeletons, which is all you can get in 5.0, is not in any way a replacement for a fighter type for damage. It is decent if your enemies conveniently gather in a wide open field. It is a waste of resources against any AOE, and it is pathetically useless for anything but trap detection in a dungeon. There is just no way that any but the most lenient DM will let you walk 30 skeletons into a room to block the enemy before a fight. And it requires daily spellcasting just to keep control of your pets. And this assumes that you aren't dealing with possibly significant campaign repercussions for walking around with an undead army.

Planar binding takes an hour to cast. It requires Magic Circle to keep the outsider trapped. It requires a third spell to actually summon the creature. Planar binding allows the target a save. Magic circle allows a save if the creature has teleport powers. Also, magic circle allows the creature to blast you (with disadvantage, but who cares) for an hour while you cast the planar binding, and if it breaks your concentration, you are back to square 1. The process takes 1100 gp, which is no longer a trivial issue in a game without guaranteed WBL. And you wind up with a creature that may seek to subvert your commands. And you only get that creature for a limited length of time. Hardly a replacement for a cleric or bard.

Training a new tool proficiency takes 250 days with a teacher. That is not remotely guaranteed. In fact, from personal experiences, I would call that extremely rare. 500 gp cost is again not negligable (250 for teacher, 250 for maintaining a crummy lifestyle, because you aren't working). + the opportunity cost of whatever you could otherwise have been doing in those 8 months. And when you are done? Yeah, you can pick locks and disarm mechanical traps like a rogue can. But can you notice them? Not without perception and a good wisdom? Quicksand? Thats Survival. Need social skills? They are much harder to replace via spells. Want to swim a river or climb a wall? Fly might get you there, as long as you don't take any damage, but the skeletons are screwed. Good luck even trying to be stealthy with your army of skeletons.

Do everything? Hardly. You can do a few things pretty well, if you use resources and limited character build options (like spells) on them. And when all is said and done, with all your 3rd and 4th level spells used on animate dead, with your year of DM granted downtime and your spellbook full of spells of limited value in a typical dungeon, I'm not convinced that you are actually more versatile than a typical bard.

Ok, I'll bite. Let's remove the skeletons from the picture.

Wizards can still generate wealth, so it is of no consequence. Wish can perform the Planar Binding instantly, and you're only binding the creature to act as your healer between battles (the rest of the time you will give it orders to sit in your demiplane and do nothing). The Criminal background gives access to Thieves' Tools proficiency if your DM isn't allowing you to train. Investigation can be picked up through feats. Your Simulacrum can summon monsters for you while you do Wizard stuff. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion means that you have no need to do more than one encounter per day, so spell slots really aren't an issue. And if things somehow do go bad, Clone has got your back.

And even if I did accept your assertion that the Wizard needed someone else, that still wouldn't be an argument against caster supremacy; it would only be an argument for keeping a Cleric and Druid around.

[Rummy]

Admittedly, I have never played 4e. But I have played a sizable quantity of different games, and different systems. And I have been playing and running games for well over 2 decades. I feel confident that when I read a PHB, and the whole class mechanic is based on the same exact build, that qualifies as "Samey" in my book, and is a major deterrent from wanting to engage the game on a more intimate level. It was not the first thing that I noticed about the game though. The first thing I noticed was how there was a WBL requirement (which is an issue not exclusive to 4e, so is not important). When I realized that the same chassy was used for every single possible character you can create, or wanted to create, I put it down.

The point is simply that 4e (whether good or bad) forced every character to operate exactly the same on a fundamental level. When people say all the characters "feel" the same or are "samey", this is what they are talking about, not the powers or what they do. It doesn't matter what the powers actually do, its how they are activated. Unlike other editions, the mechanics for activating magic are the same for making an attack, or moral boosting your party, or fast talking a bandit.

The specifics of how X power and Y power effect the game are superficial and "fluff". I hit it with a spell and deal 7 damage. I hit it with an arrow and deal 7 damage. Either case, it takes 7 damage. The activation mechanics for the powers feel more like buttons than choices. Use the big one here, now I'll use these smaller ones which recharge quicker here, and fill the holes with the buttons with no refresh rate.

When character classes have the exact number of abilities, broken out in the same ratios, with the same recover rates, it does not matter what those abilities do. Everyone has the same basic chassy. More so than other editions, much more so. Is it balanced? Sure. Does that make it good? If that is your game preference. But I just don't get the D&D vibe from this type of system.

Well I played 4e from the moment it debuted until about 7 months ago. I like it better than 3.X, which I think is broken. I can verify from lots and lots of personal experience that it was indeed samey. Essentials helped a ton, but they also opened the door for broken essentials-warlock hybrids. Regardless, I think 5e has done a fantastic job in bringing more fundamentally DnD flavor to the game. It really feels like they captured God soul of second edition when I play 5e. Maybe I am a fanboy blinded by the new shiny toy, but I live where they have taken my hobby.

[rollingForInit]

Yes there are - A fighter tends to rely on either Stances, or attacks that deal [W] damage, and only in an area they can plausibly reach. They also apply weapon traits to all their Melee powers, such as reach, heavy crit, brutal, and proficiency bonus. It's very clear they're making attacks with their weapon.

Spellcaster powers require using an Implement to use instead of a Weapon, and deal damage based on the spell cast instead of a weapon used. The damage for each spell is unique. They are also unique in the effects they can lay out on the battlefield, and durations. There are also Keywords that differentiate the damage types, which affect how they effect certain creatures.

I could argue that there's nothing that makes a 5e fighter 'different' from a 5e wizard, because there's no mechanical difference between shooting someone with a Scorching Ray and shooting someone with a bow, and no mechanical difference for a Wizard hitting someone with a Shocking Grasp or Fighter hitting someone with a Longsword. There's also no difference between a Battlemaster hitting someone with a Trip attack, and Caster using Grease.

You cannot argue that there's no mechanical difference between fighters and wizards in 5e, because the mechanical difference is enormous between how spells work and how a sword works. The difference is also very signficiant between various caster classes to emphasise the different types of magic, e.g. Wizards use spellbooks to prepare and store spells, Clerics know all of their spells and just prepare them. Bards and Sorcerers are mechanically similar, and not simply know their magic innately. Warlocks have their Invocations granted by their Patrons.

In 4e, there is no such difference. Wizards are certainly more different in terms of effect than Fighters are, but the difference gets significantly more obscure when you start comparing spellcasting classes. An Invoker is basically a Cleric with more Control and fewer Buffs.

I'm not trying to say that every class is identical in 4e. Obviously, they are not. I am saying that there are no mechanics for magic in 4e, aside from rituals. That most classes operate on the same mechanics, whether they're magical or martial. And this does very little to really set the different casting classes apart, both from each other and non-magical classes. One notable exception would be the Psion which defies the system somewhat. Essentials does its part, too.

5e, on the other hand, has a very distinct system for magic, which is used in different ways by different caster classes. The fact that the spells lists overlap also accentuates the fact that they operate within the same system, that they just use different means to achieve similar (but not identical) results. Whereas 4e lacked any kind of coherent magic.

[Fwiffo86]

Ok, I'll bite. Let's remove the skeletons from the picture.

Wizards can still generate wealth, so it is of no consequence. Wish can perform the Planar Binding instantly, and you're only binding the creature to act as your healer between battles (the rest of the time you will give it orders to sit in your demiplane and do nothing). The Criminal background gives access to Thieves' Tools proficiency if your DM isn't allowing you to train. Investigation can be picked up through feats. Your Simulacrum can summon monsters for you while you do Wizard stuff. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion means that you have no need to do more than one encounter per day, so spell slots really aren't an issue. And if things somehow do go bad, Clone has got your back.

And even if I did accept your assertion that the Wizard needed someone else, that still wouldn't be an argument against caster supremacy; it would only be an argument for keeping a Cleric and Druid around.

This is of course, a high level mage. Is there adequate evidence to support a Lone Mage career? Because it seems to me, that until the mage gets that 9th slot, his solo career is not all that viable. Assuming the DM of that Wizard has made available the exact specific list of spells.

[Person_Man]

I'm extremely glad PersonMan is not on the Dev team, because those changes would definitely result in setting fire to my PHB.

That seems like a fairly extreme response to reading a magic rule you disagree with. Remind me to never lend you my collection of Dresdon File or Amber books. :smallsmile:

In case you glossed over it in my post, I also said "If something is weak enough that it needs a duration without Concentration, then just make it a Ritual. If not, every spell with a duration should require Concentration, and should be worth maintaining Concentration on" If I was a developer for 5E, I would write the spells and other rules to be consistent with my overall game design philosophy of fun, consequential decisions, and balance, rather then writing the spells first and then kludging balance mechanics for them after the fact. (Which is exactly what the 5E game designers did. Do you remember all those long play test surveys on which spells each class needed to include in order for the Wizard to "feel" like a Wizard?)

If a spell is weak and you want to include it for flavor or non-combat or other similar reasons, then make it a Ritual, so that the player doesn't have to expend resources to use it, and players can just cast it as needed between combats. If a combat spell has a duration, it should be written so that it is powerful enough that it is truly worth casting and maintaining Concentration on.

All of the spells you listed could easily be tweaked this way, and then play tested thoroughly to ensure that each spell is truly fun and worth casting and didn't throw off the balance of the game. D&D is not a pile of computer code. When you change one rule, the entire system doesn't crash, because as human beings we are capable of testing and changing other rules as needed.

[Sartharina]

That seems like a fairly extreme response to reading a magic rule you disagree with. Remind me to never lend you my collection of Dresdon File or Amber books. :smallsmile:

In case you glossed over it in my post, I also said "If something is weak enough that it needs a duration without Concentration, then just make it a Ritual. If not, every spell with a duration should require Concentration, and should be worth maintaining Concentration on" If I was a developer for 5E, I would write the spells and other rules to be consistent with my overall game design philosophy of fun, consequential decisions, and balance, rather then writing the spells first and then kludging balance mechanics for them after the fact. (Which is exactly what the 5E game designers did. Do you remember all those long play test surveys on which spells each class needed to include in order for the Wizard to "feel" like a Wizard?)

If a spell is weak and you want to include it for flavor or non-combat or other similar reasons, then make it a Ritual, so that the player doesn't have to expend resources to use it, and players can just cast it as needed between combats. If a combat spell has a duration, it should be written so that it is powerful enough that it is truly worth casting and maintaining Concentration on.

All of the spells you listed could easily be tweaked this way, and then play tested thoroughly to ensure that each spell is truly fun and worth casting and didn't throw off the balance of the game. D&D is not a pile of computer code. When you change one rule, the entire system doesn't crash, because as human beings we are capable of testing and changing other rules as needed.
There are some spells that are too weak for Concentration, but are still strong enough to require a spell slot to use.

[Person_Man]

There are some spells that are too weak for Concentration, but are still strong enough to require a spell slot to use.

That's true. I just think that those spells should be rewritten and made stronger and worth Concentration or weaker so that they can be made a Ritual as needed. Or you could just change or remove the fiddly secondary rule that they bypass, or make the spell lists of each class more focused.

[Grayson01]

Ok, I'll bite. Let's remove the skeletons from the picture.

Wizards can still generate wealth, so it is of no consequence. Wish can perform the Planar Binding instantly, and you're only binding the creature to act as your healer between battles (the rest of the time you will give it orders to sit in your demiplane and do nothing). The Criminal background gives access to Thieves' Tools proficiency if your DM isn't allowing you to train. Investigation can be picked up through feats. Your Simulacrum can summon monsters for you while you do Wizard stuff. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion means that you have no need to do more than one encounter per day, so spell slots really aren't an issue. And if things somehow do go bad, Clone has got your back.

And even if I did accept your assertion that the Wizard needed someone else, that still wouldn't be an argument against caster supremacy; it would only be an argument for keeping a Cleric and Druid around.

Every Class can generate Wealth, how in 5e are you proposing that the Wizard generates it better?
Feats are an optional rule so out the Box Investigation is not a feat choice away. So wizards out the box not getting the proff, with out limmiting yourself to Half-elf. And with half-elf you are limiting your casting Stat at 1st level.
As for you Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion eliminating more then one encounter a day: well after you fought the Troll guards and there Warlock Captain you summoned your mansion and then the whole castle contingent is waiting out side with there own Wizards, clerics and fighters. Or just a tone of fighters with Cross bows waiting for you to come out and start casting and they take turns readying to disrupt your spell? Or after you fought the first encounter and summoned your Mansion and waited 8 hours the Prince who was kidnapped was killed because the ransom was not paid and you didn't rescue them because you had to rest after every encounter along the way? Or any other time sensative job?

As for Cleric, Druid as your *well if I do agree they can't solo, caster supremacy* have you read teh classes at all? They are limited by the same Concentration rules and don't make near asa good frontliners as they used to nor meat sheilds.

[thereaper]

This is of course, a high level mage. Is there adequate evidence to support a Lone Mage career? Because it seems to me, that until the mage gets that 9th slot, his solo career is not all that viable. Assuming the DM of that Wizard has made available the exact specific list of spells.

Oh, absolutely. You need to be high level to pull this off. I make no assertions as to the contrary. Like 3.5, the low levels is where the game comes closest to actually working.


Every Class can generate Wealth, how in 5e are you proposing that the Wizard generates it better?
Feats are an optional rule so out the Box Investigation is not a feat choice away. So wizards out the box not getting the proff, with out limmiting yourself to Half-elf. And with half-elf you are limiting your casting Stat at 1st level.
As for you Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion eliminating more then one encounter a day: well after you fought the Troll guards and there Warlock Captain you summoned your mansion and then the whole castle contingent is waiting out side with there own Wizards, clerics and fighters. Or just a tone of fighters with Cross bows waiting for you to come out and start casting and they take turns readying to disrupt your spell? Or after you fought the first encounter and summoned your Mansion and waited 8 hours the Prince who was kidnapped was killed because the ransom was not paid and you didn't rescue them because you had to rest after every encounter along the way? Or any other time sensative job?

As for Cleric, Druid as your *well if I do agree they can't solo, caster supremacy* have you read teh classes at all? They are limited by the same Concentration rules and don't make near asa good frontliners as they used to nor meat sheilds.

How exactly is a Fighter supposed to generate wealth without adventuring?

How exactly are they supposed to find your mansion?

Time-sensitive missions work once. Then they become a clear case of the DM going out their way to nerf you. Incidentally, going out of their way to deny you feats (which are arguably more important to the noncasters than the casters) also qualifies. The same logic could be used to argue that Fighters are the best class in the game, since a DM could send nothing but Golems at the party for an entire campaign. Since we know that isn't accurate, we cannot use such logic to claim that a Wizard needs allies. And even if that kind of situation were in play, Wizards still have ways of dealing with it (such as scry-and-die). And remember, they aren't just one person; they're a minimum of two thanks to Simulacrum (if not more, since the Simulacrum could create another Simulacrum). Since the average party is only going to have two casters anyway, and noncasters generally can't accomplish much without casters, a situation that two casters can't deal with is a situation that the average full party would struggle with anyway (never mind the possibility of just dominating or hiring some help).

Moon Druids make far better frontliners than any melee class in the game, simply because of the sheer number of hit points they can get.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Everyone needs allies! That's the entire point of the adventuring party.


Time-sensitive missions work once. Then they become a clear case of the DM going out their way to nerf you
Time sensitive missions are the central thesis of every campaign I've played!

[Symphony]

I'm not sure where this thread is going, but Investigation is a Wizard class skill (and probably one of the better choices). Not that it really matters, because customizing a background to get Investigation, Stealth, and Thieves' Tools is not even considered a variant of the rules.

[Grayson01]

Oh, absolutely. You need to be high level to pull this off. I make no assertions as to the contrary. Like 3.5, the low levels is where the game comes closest to actually working.



How exactly is a Fighter supposed to generate wealth without adventuring?

How exactly are they supposed to find your mansion?

Time-sensitive missions work once. Then they become a clear case of the DM going out their way to nerf you. Incidentally, going out of their way to deny you feats (which are arguably more important to the noncasters than the casters) also qualifies. The same logic could be used to argue that Fighters are the best class in the game, since a DM could send nothing but Golems at the party for an entire campaign. Since we know that isn't accurate, we cannot use such logic to claim that a Wizard needs allies. And even if that kind of situation were in play, Wizards still have ways of dealing with it (such as scry-and-die). And remember, they aren't just one person; they're a minimum of two thanks to Simulacrum (if not more, since the Simulacrum could create another Simulacrum). Since the average party is only going to have two casters anyway, and noncasters generally can't accomplish much without casters, a situation that two casters can't deal with is a situation that the average full party would struggle with anyway (never mind the possibility of just dominating or hiring some help).

Moon Druids make far better frontliners than any melee class in the game, simply because of the sheer number of hit points they can get.

You still did not answer my question of how the Wizard Generates Wealth? The fighter can do all kinds of odd jobs, be a highwaymen, or any other way normal people generate wealth.
Time sensitive mission don't work once, they add intrests to the plot. Also take away rediculous players who think they should be aloud to rest after every little thing so that their player can be supreamly powerful dispite logic. Making characters or groups have more then one encounter in a day is not the DM trying to Nerph casters, it' s the DM doing their job by making a fun fantasy adventure.
How do they find your Mansion that you summoned in there lair/castle/etc detect magic, peepholes with spies behind them, or anyone who herd you destroying the guards and cam and see's you summon it.
Denying feats is the base game. No feats is the way the game is intended to be played out of the box.
Now also how do you end all these so called encounters solo or just with your Simulacrum?
Especially when your Simulacrum can't regain any spells after cast, how do you afford to keep creating/healing them?

[Daishain]

Denying feats is the base game. No feats is the way the game is intended to be played out of the box.

Yeah, every single "alternative rule" in the PhB is fully in play as an option so far as I'm concerned. And I suspect (and hope) that such is exactly as intended. That they're just listed as alternatives to give people completely new to PnP a version with less in the way of distracting fiddly bits to get them started.

[Grayson01]

Yeah, every single "alternative rule" in the PhB is fully in play as an option so far as I'm concerned. And I suspect (and hope) that such is exactly as intended. That they're just listed as alternatives to give people completely new to PnP a version with less in the way of distracting fiddly bits to get them started.

But would you say a DM who decides not to play with them, as intentionally trying to Nerph characters?

Don't take me wrong I like feats and after the first play throughs will probably wanna play with them inorder to give some more charcter variation between the same classes.

[Symphony]

You still did not answer my question of how the Wizard Generates Wealth?
[...]
Denying feats is the base game. No feats is the way the game is intended to be played out of the box.
Now also how do you end all these so called encounters solo or just with your Simulacrum?
Especially when your Simulacrum can't regain any spells after cast, how do you afford to keep creating/healing them?

First of all, the Wizard does not need any feats. Wizards get Investigation as a class skill, and can pick up thieves' tools, perception, stealth, and any other tool proficiency through a custom background (which is not a rule variant, it's part of the core rules).

The Wizard at level 17 gets stupid amounts of wealth/minions/power risk free with Simulacrum. Provided that the Wizard can gather 1.5k of Ruby Dust over his 17 levels, he can create a Simulacrum of himself. The Wizard and his simulacrum prepare the materials for another casting of this spell. The wizard then rests for 8 hours. The simulacrum then uses Wish to cast Simulacrum targeting the Wizard. This new Simulacrum has a seventh and ninth level spell slot, so it can both Wish for a Ruby worth 25k and again cast Simulacrum on the Wizard.

Repeat ad infinitum for a net gain of 23.5k per 12 hours.

Edit: When you get enough ruby, you can stop wishing for it and just continue making more and more simulacrums (these ones retain the ninth level slot for something like Time Stop, Meteor Storm, etc). Then you True Polymorph all the Simulacrums that have used their useful spell slots into Dragons.

[Daishain]

But would you say a DM who decides not to play with them, as intentionally trying to Nerph characters?

Don't take me wrong I like feats and after the first play throughs will probably wanna play with them inorder to give some more charcter variation between the same classes.
Depends on the context, but generally, yes.

As I mentioned in another thread just a minute ago, my number 1 rule for DMs is never to limit options without a good reason to do so. Now, if the group is full of players new to the system, I agree that might be a good reason to reign it in. But if at least the majority of them are experienced, there is no reason to do so.

[Grayson01]

First of all, the Wizard does not need any feats. Wizards get Investigation as a class skill, and can pick up thieves' tools, perception, stealth, and any other tool proficiency through a custom background (which is not a rule variant, it's part of the core rules).

The Wizard at level 17 gets stupid amounts of wealth/minions/power risk free with Simulacrum. Provided that the Wizard can gather 1.5k of Ruby Dust over his 17 levels, he can create a Simulacrum of himself. The Wizard and his simulacrum prepare the materials for another casting of this spell. The wizard then rests for 8 hours. The simulacrum then uses Wish to cast Simulacrum targeting the Wizard. This new Simulacrum has a seventh and ninth level spell slot, so it can both Wish for a Ruby worth 25k and again cast Simulacrum on the Wizard.

Repeat ad infinitum for a net gain of 23.5k per 12 hours.

How did the Wizard Solo and gather all that wealth by their self until then? How do yu plan to adventure and stay alive against an encounter fit for a party of the wizards level?

[Symphony]

How did the Wizard Solo and gather all that wealth by their self until then? How do yu plan to adventure and stay alive against an encounter fit for a party of the wizards level?

Beats me. Maybe it's a party of Wizards? Between them all they should have more than enough crowd control to last until level 5 and Animate Dead. A Wizard doesn't really even need equipment, so saving up an average of 89 gold per level seems easy.

Even solo, if you're playing a solo game, there is no way a reasonable DM would not craft encounters fit for your solo Wizard.

Edit: Anyway, unlike thereaper, I am not trying to argue that Wizards obsolete every one else. I'm only trying to show that a 17th level Wizard, given enough time, wins.

Just wins.

[Grayson01]

Beats me. Maybe it's a party of Wizards? Between them all they should have more than enough crowd control to last until level 5 and Animate Dead. A Wizard doesn't really even need equipment, so saving up an average of 89 gold per level seems easy.

Even solo, if you're playing a solo game, there is no way a reasonable DM would not craft encounters fit for your solo Wizard.

Edit: Anyway, unlike thereaper, I am not trying to argue that Wizards obsolete every one else. I'm only trying to show that a 17th level Wizard, given enough time, wins.

Just wins.

I can live with the Party of Wizards, it's still a party.


and yes with a DM who taylors the game for a Solo Wizard then yes of course. But that can be done for any class.

[archaeo]

Edit: Anyway, unlike thereaper, I am not trying to argue that Wizards obsolete every one else. I'm only trying to show that a 17th level Wizard, given enough time, wins.

Just wins.

I mean, wins what, exactly? Certainly not society-at-large's love, since they might be upset about the necromancy and the end of their economy and whatnot.

Like, yes, congratulations, you have obtained infinite wealth and power. Is that the end of the story? What do you do with it? What does everybody else think about it? What happens next? What does everybody else at the table think about your scheme? Etc.?

[Symphony]

I mean, wins what, exactly? Certainly not society-at-large's love, since they might be upset about the necromancy and the end of their economy and whatnot.

What necromancy? An infinite army of Simulacrums are far more effective than any undead army (particularly because of the infinite cantrips and True Polymorph in Adult Gold Dragon thing).

You don't have to break the economy, either.


Like, yes, congratulations, you have obtained infinite wealth and power. Is that the end of the story? What do you do with it? What does everybody else think about it? What happens next? What does everybody else at the table think about your scheme? Etc.?

Generally, infinite wealth and power is the end-game of many people's existence. You're basically a demigod. You can do whatever you want with your army of Simulacrums, including making the world a better place.

With that said, if the story did still go on you would obviously be challenged by other evil wizards with their own armies of simulacrums...

[Fwiffo86]

Is there a scenario where the similacrums decide to off the wizard and take his place?

[Symphony]

Is there a scenario where the similacrums decide to off the wizard and take his place?

Nope. They are friendly to you and obey your commands. Not only that, but they can't learn either, so this attitude is unlikely to be able to change. I'm not sure how this interacts with True Polymorph, though, since that spell replaces all mental statistics except alignment and personality (and does work on simulacrums, which are considered creatures for the purpose of spells).

[koscum]

Like, yes, congratulations, you have obtained infinite wealth and power. Is that the end of the story? What do you do with it? What does everybody else think about it? What happens next? What does everybody else at the table think about your scheme? Etc.?
That's a pretty nice everything you have there, Wizard; it would be a shame if DM were to send a Neutronium Golem to drop by for some tea.

[Fwiffo86]

What is the life expectancy of a Similucrum? Standard for the Wizard's race? If they don't think, how are they superior to SSUs?

[MustacheFart]

There are still save or die spells that are completely broken like Blight.

Excuse me but how is Blight a Save or Die. I just looked it up and it says it does 8d8 on a failed save and is a 4th level spell. It auto kills plants but last time I checked I wasn't adventuring with a tree. I don't get it.

[Fwiffo86]

Maybe he is just looking for things to dislike about the system?

[Symphony]

What is the life expectancy of a Similucrum? Standard for the Wizard's race? If they don't think, how are they superior to SSUs?

They do think. They just can't learn, are friendly to you, and obey your commands. Plus they can use all your cantrips infinite times, have more HP than even necro-enhanced Skeletons, and can use any of your spells (can't regain slots). Finally, since they are considered to be equivalent in level to you (at least 17), you can True Polymorph them into Adult Gold Dragons once they run out of spell slots for even more value.

EDIT: SSUs definitely have the advantage in terms of accessibility, though. You can only prepare one Simulacrum per 12 hours, after all, and the starting materials are harder to come by. But SSUs are undead, which makes them socially unacceptable in most societies, and they take spell slots every day to control.

[hawklost]

They do think. They just can't learn, are friendly to you, and obey your commands. Plus they can use all your cantrips infinite times, have more HP than even necro-enhanced Skeletons, and can use any of your spells (can't regain slots). Finally, since they are considered to be equivalent in level to you (at least 17), you can True Polymorph them into Adult Gold Dragons once they run out of spell slots for even more value.

Where in the books does it equate a lvl 17 character to a CR 17 creature (Simuclarums are NPCs not PCs)? The Archmage which has spell slots equal to an 18th level caster is only considered a CR 12 . So if we use that logic and the fact that the Simuclarum is at best an NPC (And doesn't even have any levels since its a pure NPC) so it doesn't have class levels to begin with, you can only True Polymorph into something that is CR 12 or lower, not your Adult Gold Dragon you want.

Next, True Polymorph changes everything but Alignment and Personality of a Creature. Magical effects like making it loyal or friendly to you are subsumed by the spell then. Assuming it awakens fully then (as if it was an object turned into a Creature). It is friendly towards you until the spells 1 hour concentration is up. At such time, it is now free of all your controls on it and does not have to remain friendly to you unless it chooses (remember you just effectively turned yourself into a different creature after forcing yourself to cast Wish)

[Symphony]

Where in the books does it equate a lvl 17 character to a CR 17 creature (Simuclarums are NPCs not PCs)? The Archmage which has spell slots equal to an 18th level caster is only considered a CR 12 . So if we use that logic and the fact that the Simuclarum is at best an NPC (And doesn't even have any levels since its a pure NPC) so it doesn't have class levels to begin with, you can only True Polymorph into something that is CR 12 or lower, not your Adult Gold Dragon you want.

Sorry, but True Polymorph explicitly allows you to use character level as CR if the creature being polymorphed does not have a CR. And Simulacrum has EXACTLY your statistics, except half hp, so it obviously has the same level as you.


Next, True Polymorph changes everything but Alignment and Personality of a Creature. Magical effects like making it loyal or friendly to you are subsumed by the spell then. Assuming it awakens fully then (as if it was an object turned into a Creature). It is friendly towards you until the spells 1 hour concentration is up. At such time, it is now free of all your controls on it and does not have to remain friendly to you unless it chooses (remember you just effectively turned yourself into a different creature after forcing yourself to cast Wish)

I know this and have already considered it. Consider that it has your personality, and that the alternative to being turned into a badass Adult Gold Dragon is never having free will or being an actual creature, and I'd say it will definitely still remain friendly to you, and would probably be willing to do you at least one favor. The army of Adult Gold Dragons may not be at your beck and call, but it's still better than having a simulacrum that can only cast cantrips, can't heal on its own, and can't learn.

Not to mention you could just pay the Dragon. You have infinite wealth, remember?

Edit: Not that it even matters, because each casting of Wish provides enough Ruby for 16.66 Simulacrums, so you can have bunch of Simulacrums that haven't been "forced to cast Wish", and therefore can just Shapechange into an Adult Gold Dragon and be a dragon that does have to follow your commands for an hour.

[hawklost]

Sorry, but True Polymorph explicitly allows you to use character level as CR if the creature being polymorphed does not have a CR. And Simulacrum has EXACTLY your statistics, except half hp, so it obviously has the same level as you.

You have made a huge assumption just to get your way. Considering the spell is still an illusion of reality and not reality, it is just as fully valid to say that it has no CR OR Class levels and therefore cannot turn into anything. See how that logic works? Exactly the same as yours since there are no claims either way.




I know this and have already considered it. Consider that it has your personality, and that the alternative to being turned into a badass Adult Gold Dragon is never having free will or being an actual creature, and I'd say it will definitely still remain friendly to you, and would probably be willing to do you at least one favor. The army of Adult Gold Dragons may not be at your beck and call, but it's still better than having a simulacrum that can only cast cantrips, can't heal on its own, and can't learn.

Not to mention you could just pay the Dragon. You have infinite wealth, remember?

Edit: Not that it even matters, because each casting of Wish provides enough Ruby for 16.66 Simulacrums, so you can have bunch of Simulacrums that haven't been "forced to cast Wish", and therefore can just Shapechange into an Adult Gold Dragon and be a dragon that does have to follow your commands for an hour.

So you have considered everything?

Would your character be happy with a more powerful wizard controlling him and making him use Wish and other spells to the Wizards sole advantage and then forcibly turning your wizard into a difference species?

Remember, you have now made an Adult Dragon (Red, Gold, whatever you want) (if you can convince your DM to use your logic and not a purely legit logic that the Simucalum does not even have Class Levels) with the exact same selfish personality as you.
- Why wouldn't the Dragon just take your Rubies that HE made from you?
- Why would he be happy that you controlled him like a puppet? (Would your character be happy to be controlled by someone for a time and then released?)
- Why would he be willing to work with someone who sees him as a thing to be used?

Here is another hitch in your plan.

Do you consider an Adult Red Dragon more powerful than your Simulacrum?

EDIT: Lets make it a little easier to answer. Do you consider a living breathing creature that can think and act for itself, therefore growing in potential over time to be more powerful than a puppet that once it uses its spells cannot regain them?

[MustacheFart]

Remember, you have now made an Adult Red Dragon (if you can convince your DM to use your logic and not a purely legit logic that the Simucalum does not even have Class Levels) with the exact same selfish personality as you.
- Why wouldn't the Dragon just take your Rubies that HE made from you?
- Why would he be happy that you controlled him like a puppet? (Would your character be happy to be controlled by someone for a time and then released?)
- Why would he be willing to work with someone who sees him as a thing to be used?

Here is another hitch in your plan.

Do you consider an Adult Red Dragon more powerful than your Simulacrum?

EDIT: Lets make it a little easier to answer. Do you consider a living breathing creature that can think and act for itself, therefore growing in potential over time to be more powerful than a puppet that once it uses its spells cannot regain them?

Umm... he never said Red Dragon. He said gold dragon. There's a difference.

[hawklost]

Umm... he never said Red Dragon. He said gold dragon. There's a difference.

sorry, that was a misstype. Considering that the personality is that of the Wizard, it doesn't really matter the type of Dragon except for the stats. I will still Edit the previous post though to fix the issue.

[archaeo]

As long as we've completely abandoned the topic, it's worth pointing out that this whole simulacrum/wish loop discussion sort of ignores the fact that, at level 17, the Wizard can just cast wish anyway. Why bother with all this nonsense when you can cast literally any other 8th-and-below level spell in the game? Who needs wealth when you have Ultimate Arcane Power!?

Frankly, by level 17, your party should be facing threats that can't be magicked away with a single 9th level slot. Infinite wealth and spells are unlikely to be able to lead a society, or end the tyranny of the gods, or reshape the planes, or whatever high-minded goals one should have at such a high level. And I should certainly hope that whatever BBEG the party is trying to deal with at that level (the MM has several suggestions) will be clever enough to avoid dying to a huge storm of polymorphed golden dragons; certainly, the moment that the BBEG casts planeshift, you're going to have a heck of a time getting your massive dragon army across the planes!

The existence of wish just necessitates some outré campaign requirements. You can accept these and run with them, crafting an extremely epic campaign of magical one-up'ing, or you can just ban wish from your game. Or you can have a polite chat with your Wizard/Bard player about what kind of game everybody wants to play. There are lots of ways to avoid having to toss out balance because of 200-odd words of spell text near the back of the PHB.

[Symphony]

You have made a huge assumption just to get your way. Considering the spell is still an illusion of reality and not reality, it is just as fully valid to say that it has no CR OR Class levels and therefore cannot turn into anything. See how that logic works? Exactly the same as yours since there are no claims either way.

No, it's no assumption. A Simulacrum is considered to be a creature for all effects that target creatures. As it has ALL of the casters statistics, it therefore includes character level. It certainly doesn't have a CR, and the True Polymorph spell explicitly says that if a creature (which, again, the Simulacrum is considered) does not have a CR, you use character level. Because a Simulacrum obviously is capable of casting cantrips as well as the caster, it stands to reason that it has a character level equivalent to your own.


So you have considered everything?

Would your character be happy with a more powerful wizard controlling him and making him use Wish and other spells to the Wizards sole advantage and then forcibly turning your wizard into a difference species?

Obviously, yes. The Simulacrum is not going to (can't, in fact) lie to the caster, so a simple "hey, if I gave you life and free will as a dragon, would you be resentful for the actions I have ordered you to take?" is enough. Again, even if it says that it would, Shapechange is a short-term, but absolutely risk-free method of getting some dragon muscle in a pinch.


Remember, you have now made an Adult Dragon (Red, Gold, whatever you want) (if you can convince your DM to use your logic and not a purely legit logic that the Simucalum does not even have Class Levels) with the exact same selfish personality as you.

Who said selfish? Maybe the caster is using the wealth to better the world. Maybe, like I already suggested, the caster agrees to pay the Simulacrum-turned-dragon for its services (keeping in mind that this new being owes its entire existence to the caster and will probably be grateful for that alone, regardless of the spells it cast before).


- Why wouldn't the Dragon just take your Rubies that HE made from you?

Again, the caster does not need to be a selfish thief, nor does the Simulacrum being changed need to have been used for the infinite wealth (and if it was, that can be considered payment for bringing it into existence).


- Why would he be happy that you controlled him like a puppet? (Would your character be happy to be controlled by someone for a time and then released?)

- Why would he be willing to work with someone who sees him as a thing to be used?

Why wouldn't someone be happy that the person that brought it into existence has deigned to grant it freedom?



Here is another hitch in your plan.

Do you consider an Adult Red Dragon more powerful than your Simulacrum?

EDIT: Lets make it a little easier to answer. Do you consider a living breathing creature that can think and act for itself, therefore growing in potential over time to be more powerful than a puppet that once it uses its spells cannot regain them?

...obviously? That's the whole point of doing it. Especially once the Simulacrum runs out of spell slots.

And don't bring a DM into this. I think very few DMs would allow this, and there are very easy rulings that prevent infinite simulacrum armies.

This is only a RAW discussion, however, in which this obviously works.


As long as we've completely abandoned the topic, it's worth pointing out that this whole simulacrum/wish loop discussion sort of ignores the fact that, at level 17, the Wizard can just cast wish anyway. Why bother with all this nonsense when you can cast literally any other 8th-and-below level spell in the game? Who needs wealth when you have Ultimate Arcane Power!?

Frankly, by level 17, your party should be facing threats that can't be magicked away with a single 9th level slot. Infinite wealth and spells are unlikely to be able to lead a society, or end the tyranny of the gods, or reshape the planes, or whatever high-minded goals one should have at such a high level. And I should certainly hope that whatever BBEG the party is trying to deal with at that level (the MM has several suggestions) will be clever enough to avoid dying to a huge storm of polymorphed golden dragons; certainly, the moment that the BBEG casts planeshift, you're going to have a heck of a time getting your massive dragon army across the planes!

The existence of wish just necessitates some outré campaign requirements. You can accept these and run with them, crafting an extremely epic campaign of magical one-up'ing, or you can just ban wish from your game. Or you can have a polite chat with your Wizard/Bard player about what kind of game everybody wants to play. There are lots of ways to avoid having to toss out balance because of 200-odd words of spell text near the back of the PHB.

Oh yeah, definitely. I wouldn't ever do this in an actual game unless the DM and other players actually wanted that kind of game.

But RAW and actually intending to to use something that is RAW justified are two different things.

[archaeo]

Oh yeah, definitely. I wouldn't ever do this in an actual game unless the DM and other players actually wanted that kind of game.

But RAW and actually intending to to use something that is RAW justified are two different things.

Which is part of the issue with RAW as a concept, and one of the reasons Mearls & Co. have been so keen to play up the "rulings not rules" meme. If one reads the PHB and MM as a set of tools rather than a dictum from on high, one can freely make use of things without feeling like they're "playing wrong." I can certainly imagine a campaign where infinite wish and simulacrum chains would be super cool, especially if you let the enemies do it as well! But I can just as easily see leaving it as an unused tool in the box to enable a less crazy campaign.

(As an aside, people rarely trumpet RAW so heavily when discussing the removal of life-restoring spells. Not that I think you're trumpeting RAW, but it's interesting to see what kinds of house rules are simply given a pass by most RAWists.)

We'll see how it goes, and how the metagame develops over time. Maybe when next year rolls around and they start up player surveys, they'll find that these weird combos and ambiguities are too divisive to keep in the game and will issue errata preventing them. It certainly wouldn't be too tough in this case; you could simply edit it to say "The simulacrum can only cast spells of 6th level and below," or something like that.

[hawklost]

...obviously? That's the whole point of doing it. Especially once the Simulacrum runs out of spell slots.

And don't bring a DM into this. I think very few DMs would allow this, and there are very easy rulings that prevent infinite simulacrum armies.

This is only a RAW discussion, however, in which this obviously works.


So you are saying that it is impossible to do by RAW.

Read Simulacrum again. You missed the point in RAW that states "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful,"

Therefore by RAW, you cannot turn it into a more powerful creature. It fully lacks the ability to.

[Fwiffo86]

So you are saying that it is impossible to do by RAW.

Read Simulacrum again. You missed the point in RAW that states "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful,"

Therefore by RAW, you cannot turn it into a more powerful creature. It fully lacks the ability to.

I agree with you Hawklost. Let me just say that first.

However,

Here is a question that my group ran into while proposing theories.

Elf Druid Lvl 20. Wildshapes into a Bear. Takes terminal damage (reduced to 0) but not killed outright. Reverts to Elf with lost HP equal to the carry over. Conscious, and active. We agree that this is the reading of the rules.

Not so clear rules....

Same druid. Wildshapes into a bear. Sleep is cast on the bear. Is it immune to sleep because it's an elf? Wildshape says it keeps things like darkvision if the new form shares it. Does it keep its immunity to sleep?

or

Same druid. Same bear. Power word kill. Has less than 100 HP, no save. Dies. Reverts back to being an elf (as per wildshape rule: upon unconsciousness, being reduced to 0 hit points, or death). Is the elf dead? Or is he brought back from the dead because he reverted?

The reason I bring this up, is once its polymorphed into a dragon, does it "lose" the limitation on becoming more powerful? Is that meant to indicate that the similucrum cannot earn experience?

[Symphony]

We'll see how it goes, and how the metagame develops over time. Maybe when next year rolls around and they start up player surveys, they'll find that these weird combos and ambiguities are too divisive to keep in the game and will issue errata preventing them. It certainly wouldn't be too tough in this case; you could simply edit it to say "The simulacrum can only cast spells of 6th level and below," or something like that.

The infinite simulacrum part can easily be prevented by merely ruling that reality considers the simulacrum to be you for the purposes of simulacrum creation limits (i.e., creating a new simulacrum destroys the old one).


So you are saying that it is impossible to do by RAW.

Read Simulacrum again. You missed the point in RAW that states "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful,"

Therefore by RAW, you cannot turn it into a more powerful creature. It fully lacks the ability to.

Nice try, but no. Character level and CR are considered equivalent for the purposes of True Polymorph, and that has no bearing on my personal opinion of whether or not an Adult Gold Dragon is more powerful than a used-up Simulacrum.

It's like saying I couldn't give my Simulacrum a weapon or cast Haste on it because that would make it more powerful. (Or that it couldn't Shapechange into said creature, either).


The reason I bring this up, is once its polymorphed into a dragon, does it "lose" the limitation on becoming more powerful? Is that meant to indicate that the similucrum cannot earn experience?

True Polymorph reads that it replaces ALL statistics except for Personality and Alignment. This is quite a different thing from Wild Shape or Shapechange.

Admittedly, the wording is a little unclear on how permanent changes interact with the reverting upon hitting 0 hp, though.

[Z3ro]

The reason I bring this up, is once its polymorphed into a dragon, does it "lose" the limitation on becoming more powerful? Is that meant to indicate that the similucrum cannot earn experience?

While your line of questioning is valid, I think it goes off the rails here as your are talking once the simulacrum turns into a dragon. If you agree that the dragon falls into the "become more powerful" category, it doesn't matter; you wouldn't be able to turn into it in the first place.

Along the same lines, this is the same discussion about can a simulacrum cast simulacrum without destroying itself? Does it inheret that limitation from its original caster? In my games, the answer is yes, just to curb these potential abuses.

ETA:

Nice try, but no. Character level and CR are considered equivalent for the purposes of True Polymorph, and that has no bearing on my personal opinion of whether or not an Adult Gold Dragon is more powerful than a used-up Simulacrum.


Ah, but you have to be careful. Nowhere in either the PHB or the MM is power defined as CR or level. Oh sure, you can imply it (and I'd generally agree), but from a strict RAW standpoint, "power" is not defined, leaving it up to the individual DM.

[hawklost]

Nice try, but no. Character level and CR are considered equivalent for the purposes of True Polymorph, and that has no bearing on my personal opinion of whether or not an Adult Gold Dragon is more powerful than a used-up Simulacrum.

It's like saying I couldn't give my Simulacrum a weapon or cast Haste on it because that would make it more powerful. (Or that it couldn't Shapechange into said creature, either).


You do realize your entire argument is based on the claiming that an Illusion is a real creature and not still a spell illusion.

And also, it did not inherit everything from the person it was created from. It is still not a living breathing creature even if it pretends to be and acts like one. Otherwise it would not turn back into snow and ice at 0 hp. Your character has the ability to survive after 0 HP (And so does every single living creature out there) but the simulacrum does not, proving it is not a creature and therefore does not get anything but what is said in the spell (So no, it does not count as having Character levels).

[Symphony]

Edit: You know what, nevermind.

I know I'm never going to convince you that the simulacrum/wish/true polymorph exploit is RAW possible, so I'll just stop here.

[archaeo]

hawklost, I think it's totally reasonable to read the rules as Symphony is doing. It's also fair to read the rules as you are. The RAW here is ambiguous, in my opinion. Whether it's purposefully ambiguous or not remains to be seen.

[thepsyker]

Sorry, but True Polymorph explicitly allows you to use character level as CR if the creature being polymorphed does not have a CR. And Simulacrum has EXACTLY your statistics, <i>except half hp, so it obviously has the same level as you.</i>

Don't have my book on hand so this could be totally off base, but when you say statistics does that just mean ability score/saves or is the simulacrum described as also getting your class features, excepting hit points? Because if it doesn't make that clear one could argue that half hit points means half the hit-dice and thus half the character levels.

[Symphony]

Don't have my book on hand so this could be totally off base, but when you say statistics does that just mean ability score/saves or is the simulacrum described as also getting your class features, excepting hit points? Because if it doesn't make that clear one could argue that half hit points means half the hit-dice and thus half the character levels.

From page 276 (I'm not typing up the whole spell): "The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature's hit point maximum and is formed without any equipment. Otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates." [emphasis mine]

And here's a fun part I didn't remember: "...so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots." [again, emphasis mine]

There you go, the Simulacrum clearly has a level, and it is clearly the same as the caster's.

[rlc]

Have it cast haste, keep it on you, condition is 'person who weighs the same amount I do draws sword and says squiddley doodlefluffer'. It harms other creatures because you then use it to hurt them.
Valiant effort, but that's not how it works at all and even the most liberal of rules juries will disagree with you.

[Eslin]

Valiant effort, but that's not how it works at all and even the most liberal of rules juries will disagree with you.

Why not? Seems to work fine, there's no good reason not to load glyphs up with spells that help you kill people and use them to buff yourself.

[rlc]

Why not? Seems to work fine, there's no good reason not to load glyphs up with spells that help you kill people and use them to buff yourself.

The "good reason" is that it specifically says "to harm a creature," which means that the glyph would be used to cast a spell that will directly harm that creature. Buffing somebody is not doing that. You can house rule that away, but it would still be a houserule.