Why no one should say psionics for 5e is OP?

[Typhon]

So I am looking into building a system for psionics for 5e (Mostly homebrew but based off of SRD and playtest material). I am trying to make sure that it is viable at all levels and avoids going into munchkin territory for breakable mechanics. In my study of the SRD, I slowly have started to notice that the spell classes are OP and 0-level spells(cantrips) are very OP.

I compared them to 1st and 2nd editions, as well as 3.x, and I came to a realization. Why do wizards need spells past level 0. I mean one or two above that, but really not seeing the point. I know that for now there is no generalized "Mage" just specialists wizards, but there are no negatives at all. Every specialist still gets access to all spell schools, and the few to get above 1st are OP. I am not even going to start on the advantages the specialist school gives them and then come familiars.

I like that fighters got beefed to be usable for the length of a campaign now, and most of the rest looks pretty good (monks are still so ridiculously nerfed). I just don't get why spell classes are so OP now. I mean, why would the bard need 9th level spells? Could someone try to help me understand, please?

[Draco4472]

So your question is whether or not magic in this edition is overpowered?

Well to borrow your example of a fighter being usable throughout a campaign, a wizard being left to shoot, say, firebolt, a cantrip, once per round, dealing less damage then any martial class with less of an armor class and hitpoints for a massive campaign stretching to the higher levels doesn't seem balanced.

The balance of spellcasters is having fewer hitpoints, limited number of spells they can cast a day (outside of cantrips), and having only a few spells available to cast in any instance.

So is burning hands, a 1st level spell a level 1 caster can cast twice a day overpowered? As over the course of that one day, they would be able to deal 6d6 fire damage before needing to resort to cantrips, thus making them on par with a ranged fighter with fewer Hitpoints and a lower armor class due to lack of armor proficiencies.

[MrStabby]

What levels do you tend to play at in campaigns? If you hit level 17 regularly then 9th level spells are worth thinking about. If not - don't worry about them.

As to the lower level spells/cantrips - what is the issue?

With the exception of the Warlock (who is as much a martial character in play style as a caster) cantrips scale really badly. Generally they don't add a casting stat to damage - weapon attacks add str/dex to damage. You get one, which whilst scaling in power never scales as fast as number of attacks/gained fighting styles/feats of other classes. A cantrip is usually elemental damage -often resisted and rarely able to be bypassed by picking up a magic weapon. Spells to boost cantrip damage are more limited - there are many more spells that boost damage from weapons.

I wish you well building Psionics for your table but I would recomend playing 5th edition first before changing it too much.

[DragonSorcererX]

Well, we don't have a definitive version of the Mystic, so it is too early to say that Psionics is OP, and I think that it is weakened in both flavor and mechanichs because of the ****ing Magic-Psionics Transparency...

And about the flavor, in a world where magic is almost everywhere and isn't really esoteric (I'm assuming the Core Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms), just the way it is used may be esoteric, I liked that they called the class Mystic, it makes it more fantastical and not sci-fi, and I hope that they keep the Psionic powers like they were in 4e (yes, I'm talking about that edition) that were basically Transmutation and Enchantment Spells on steroids and with some Conjuration stuff, but with some of the good stuff from 3.X like Soulknife.

[Typhon]

The point I was trying to get at, and unfortunately I started to drift into a rant, was that there was a general level of power for a wizard/cleric/bard. In 1st, psionics was very broken and could quickly make a god among people if they were lucky. In 2nd, a psionic could start a little OP with certain abilities that copied or resembled certain spells of high level. 3.x basically turned it into an odd specialty wizard with a few perks to boost power, but those powers didn't usually scale with level. 4th was 4th and handled everything entirely differently than anything I have seen outside of video games. 5th, the psion/mystic whatever you want to call it looked like a nicely intention-ed start, but needs thought and help.

Wizards/sorcerers on the other hand, weren't the strongest early on but by about 5-8th they practically start to run the combat rounds. This was true in 1st and 2nd, but in third they did gain some options for earlier standing. 5th has them tossing 1d6 or better for energy damage at will. Originally in 1st and second, cantrips did no damage outside of very specialized spells against very small creatures for a very specific purpose (mostly insects and vermin). 3.x, they did gain some minor damage ability, typically 1d3 energy based, and it was at will. The only negative nerf I have seen over the editions is now they don't get bonus spells per day for their ability stat. Which I feel is negated by the fact that they don't need high scores to learn the spells anymore. Cantrips were also something that was usually fairly abundant, just not usually combat useful.

I know, I get it, it is fantasy, but seriously, where are their slings and staves. I get no spell caster wants to default to actual weapons, but that is why they are there. Not too mention, hp for the sorcerer/wizard was increased to d6 which is just as high as thieves in previous editions. I am not saying that they should lead a cavalry charge, just why should they get a free pass on unlimited spell ability. I say limit cantrips to relevant score + class level + relevant bonus, easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the number. For fantasy, it still shows that using magic is not an unlimited resource it does run out.

As far as psi-magic transparency, alter detect magic to detect mystic energy. For any instance where psionics would clash with magic to, for example scry on an invisible individual, have the magic user contest the psionic in a power struggle similar to trying to steal control of undead for another character.

Plus, I hate Forgotten Realms. Way to heavy with high magic, by design, and too cluttered with too many possible plots. I prefer something more akin to Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Planescape type settings. So I might just end up going with Eberron and then jumping to a custom setting.

[baticeer]

Well, personally I (and I'm sure a lot of others) really appreciate having cantrips provide at-will damage. It seems like you're saying that an at-will magical attack is overpowered, not because of the damage numbers, but just because it's magic? If my wizard can cast 2 good spells a day and then has to switch to weakly stabbing things with a dagger... it just doesn't feel very magical. I think it's a lot more fun if the wizard's default attack is to fire off a bolt of magic.

[DragonSorcererX]

Well, personally I (and I'm sure a lot of others) really appreciate having cantrips provide at-will damage. It seems like you're saying that an at-will magical attack is overpowered, not because of the damage numbers, but just because it's magic? If my wizard can cast 2 good spells a day and then has to switch to weakly stabbing things with a dagger... it just doesn't feel very magical. I think it's a lot more fun if the wizard's default attack is to fire off a bolt of magic.

Yes, if only the Warlock had at-will stuff like it was in 3.5, no one would play the Spellcasting focused classes, maybe only the weapon focused Clerics (Life, Nature, War) and Valor Bard.

This thing of limited level-0 magic is Gygaxian (in terms of Earth's Ages, it is Pre-historic).

[WhiteEagle88]

Well, personally I (and I'm sure a lot of others) really appreciate having cantrips provide at-will damage. It seems like you're saying that an at-will magical attack is overpowered, not because of the damage numbers, but just because it's magic? If my wizard can cast 2 good spells a day and then has to switch to weakly stabbing things with a dagger... it just doesn't feel very magical. I think it's a lot more fun if the wizard's default attack is to fire off a bolt of magic.

I agree with this. I used to not even play mages because I hated having my dignified scholar of the arcane arts tote around a sling, bow, or crossbow just to try and stay useful after he burnt his 2 or so spells for the day. Now, he has magical options that aren't really any more or less powerful than a sling, bow, or crossbow and can feel like he's a full time wizard. Also, I don't have to try and get points into his dex just to make him capable of using ranged weaponry.

[Vogonjeltz]

The point I was trying to get at, and unfortunately I started to drift into a rant, was that there was a general level of power for a wizard/cleric/bard. In 1st, psionics was very broken and could quickly make a god among people if they were lucky. In 2nd, a psionic could start a little OP with certain abilities that copied or resembled certain spells of high level. 3.x basically turned it into an odd specialty wizard with a few perks to boost power, but those powers didn't usually scale with level. 4th was 4th and handled everything entirely differently than anything I have seen outside of video games. 5th, the psion/mystic whatever you want to call it looked like a nicely intention-ed start, but needs thought and help.

Wizards/sorcerers on the other hand, weren't the strongest early on but by about 5-8th they practically start to run the combat rounds. This was true in 1st and 2nd, but in third they did gain some options for earlier standing. 5th has them tossing 1d6 or better for energy damage at will. Originally in 1st and second, cantrips did no damage outside of very specialized spells against very small creatures for a very specific purpose (mostly insects and vermin). 3.x, they did gain some minor damage ability, typically 1d3 energy based, and it was at will. The only negative nerf I have seen over the editions is now they don't get bonus spells per day for their ability stat. Which I feel is negated by the fact that they don't need high scores to learn the spells anymore. Cantrips were also something that was usually fairly abundant, just not usually combat useful.

I know, I get it, it is fantasy, but seriously, where are their slings and staves. I get no spell caster wants to default to actual weapons, but that is why they are there. Not too mention, hp for the sorcerer/wizard was increased to d6 which is just as high as thieves in previous editions. I am not saying that they should lead a cavalry charge, just why should they get a free pass on unlimited spell ability. I say limit cantrips to relevant score + class level + relevant bonus, easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the number. For fantasy, it still shows that using magic is not an unlimited resource it does run out.

As far as psi-magic transparency, alter detect magic to detect mystic energy. For any instance where psionics would clash with magic to, for example scry on an invisible individual, have the magic user contest the psionic in a power struggle similar to trying to steal control of undead for another character.

Plus, I hate Forgotten Realms. Way to heavy with high magic, by design, and too cluttered with too many possible plots. I prefer something more akin to Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Planescape type settings. So I might just end up going with Eberron and then jumping to a custom setting.

Cantrip Spell damage is garbage compared to the weapon-centric classes, it doesn't come close.

Spell slot damage can sometimes compare favorably, but it is easily eclipsed over the course of an adventuring day.

spell slots are better served imposing status effects on enemies, or negating negative effects on allies.

[Ninja-Radish]

The OP is forgetting a few things in his argument that all magic is OP. 1) Casters in 5E get fewer slots than they did in 3.5. 2) Concentration means you usually can't have more than one active spell at a time. 3) Saving throws are easier for monsters to make in this edition than in 3.5.

That's not to say casters are weak or anything, they're quite strong. Just not as strong as they were in some earlier editions.

[Steel Mirror]

It sounds to me like you are making a lot of comparisons to previous editions. Because sorcerers didn't have an at-will damage option that was relevant in edition X, the fact that they have that option in 5E makes them seem 'OP' to you.

Much better to compare spellcasters to other character classes within 5E. Like others have said, cantrips aren't very good at dealing damage when you start comparing them to what pretty much any other class can do with a weapon. They aren't terrible, they can still be relevant, but they aren't game-leading, and they definitely aren't game-breaking.

The idea of limiting the number of times a caster can use cantrips is a solution in search of a problem, as far as I can tell. It doesn't serve any game balance or class design function. If it's just a preference that you have, that's fine, but don't bring power levels into the discussion; cantrips just aren't particularly powerful.

I'm not sure how this discussion of cantrips and spellcasters matches up to the idea of building psionic classes, so I can't really comment there. Try finding a game of 5E and giving a spellcaster a shot, you'll quickly see that cantrips are good, but the truly fun and powerful parts of the caster classes are their spell slots, as it's always been. (Warlock is a bit of an exception to that)

[JNAProductions]

Cantrips are good. They're serviceable, and they let casters contribute when they don't want to or can't use spell slots.

And, in a table where the 15 minute adventuring day is the norm, they're going to be overpowered. But in a table with the recommended 6-8 encounters per long rest? They're totally fine.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, personally I (and I'm sure a lot of others) really appreciate having cantrips provide at-will damage. It seems like you're saying that an at-will magical attack is overpowered, not because of the damage numbers, but just because it's magic? If my wizard can cast 2 good spells a day and then has to switch to weakly stabbing things with a dagger... it just doesn't feel very magical. I think it's a lot more fun if the wizard's default attack is to fire off a bolt of magic.
THIS.

I mean, you can change it for thematic reasons, sure. But balance? With the exception of AoE, sometimes, spellcasters are terrible at dealing damage in 5e. A martial character will outdamage them pretty consistently without using anything but Extra Attack.

[Contrast]

Cantrips are good. They're serviceable, and they let casters contribute when they don't want to or can't use spell slots.

And, in a table where the 15 minute adventuring day is the norm, they're going to be overpowered. But in a table with the recommended 6-8 encounters per long rest? They're totally fine.

You've got this the wrong way round. In a campaign where you long rest after every fight you'd never cast a cantrip for damage as you'd always be better off casting a spell. Cantrips are mainly useful when you're trying to preserve spell slots (warlocks being the major exception to this).

I stand with everyone else - cantrips are fine and certainly not OP.

[Dalebert]

THIS.

I mean, you can change it for thematic reasons, sure. But balance? With the exception of AoE, sometimes, spellcasters are terrible at dealing damage in 5e. A martial character will outdamage them pretty consistently without using anything but Extra Attack.

This this.

If your goal is damage-dealing (aside from the niche cases of low-hp mobs occasionally conveniently clustered into fireball position) you make a melee. Maybe you dip caster but stay primarily melee.

Casters are by nature less optimized for dmg. The choice of a caster (generally) is the choice of some versatility at the cost of optimization for killing things with a few exceptions for niche cases. I'm sure someone will pull up a careful build of a caster, maybe even with some melee dips, to try to prove me wrong and people can be amazingly creative with builds on this forum, but this is generally the case.

[JNAProductions]

You've got this the wrong way round. In a campaign where you long rest after every fight you'd never cast a cantrip for damage as you'd always be better off casting a spell. Cantrips are mainly useful when you're trying to preserve spell slots (warlocks being the major exception to this).

I stand with everyone else - cantrips are fine and certainly not OP.

Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that CASTERS would be OP in a 15 minute adventuring day, not cantrips.

Reading my post, though, I can see how I phrased it poorly.

[Typhon]

I get that a great many people on this particular thread of the forum very much enjoy the aspect of never really having to touch a weapon with certain classes of spellcasters. I get it helps with feeling more in character and makes the play more enjoyable for you.

I guess that to put it is the easiest manner possible is that at level 1. A sorcerer/wizard/warlock has access to an unlimited at-will ability that has a damage equal to some of the strongest weapons(1d10) in the game but as a ranged attack that is going to be unaffected by distance like a ranged weapon. The only competing weapon for range and damage is the heavy crossbow, but it is heavy, two handed, has to be reloaded and still comes up 20 feet shorter on effective/normal range (I said normal, as the phb states on pg 147 firing a ranged weapon past normal range puts the firer at a disadvantage).

So an enemy with a standard speed of 30 charging/dashing 120 feet to our heroic level 1 group, these 3 classes have an advanced round of being able to attack said attacker without suffering disadvantage. That is unless someone either charges/dashes at the enemy (taking a round to do that) or has a ranged weapon and accepts the disadvantage. So a round of combat before others, with no disadvantage to attack rolls, and inflicting up to 1d10 (6) damage. While a fighter will most likely do about 1d6/1d8+Str (figure 15 Str, for avg of 5.5/6.5)damage the next round and about the same for ranged in the same initial round but at a disadvantage to hit.

Mostly I like Warlocks, they are pretty cool and I can see them being useful to a party. I wish there was another sorcerous origin in the phb (I know about SCAG, I am just saying I would have preferred at least 3 choices per class by default). I like the arcane twist for fighters and rogues, but wonder why paladins and rangers don't get the same access to cantrips or benefits to cast in combat. I have a hard time grasping why bards need spell progression past previous levels of previous editions without making that part of a college, they already have a ton of benefits. Overall, I get that 5e is more about being bigger and more awesome. I just feel that without some limitations to ultimate arcane power, then how is that balanced to more up close combat classes.

I know I started out very aggressively toward all spellcasters, but I don't see why they should get 0 level spells at-will. Which in this edition is more than a little on the OP side of the power curve for some instances. I know the arguments such as fighter's sword arm is at-will, but so is every spellcaster's. Mages in particular no longer feel like they have much in the way of limits now that there are no opposition schools and Intelligence is almost a dump stat that has little to do with limiting access to spells of higher levels. I will say that bonus spells per day for high ability stat is a wrong done to all spellcasters. I just don't see why an arcane spellcaster can't come down from on high, mingle with mortals, and murder squishy things using crude implements like civil creature.

[King539]

Casters dont get ability modifiers to cantrip damage, which makes a big difference. Lets compare a wizard with firebolt to a sharpshooter fighter with a longbow at levels 1 and 6.

Fighter (level 1): 1d8+3 damage (average 7.5), +7 to hit, 150 or 600 foot range.

Wizard (level 1): 1d10 damage (5.5), +5 to hit, 120 foot range.

Fighter (level 6, using Sharpshooter): 1d8+15 twice (average 39), +5 to hit, 600 foot range.

Wizard (level 6): 2d10 damage (average 11 damage), +7 to hit, 120 foot range.

Casters get better burst damage, and more support and out-of-combat abilities, while martials get better at-will damage and hit points. 5e is tied with 4e for the most balanced edition.

[Vogonjeltz]

Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that CASTERS would be OP in a 15 minute adventuring day, not cantrips.

Reading my post, though, I can see how I phrased it poorly.

Ye olde adventure doesn't stop just because the Wizard emptied his brain all over that poor Orc; the DM would just keep the encounters coming pretty much no matter what the players do. Now, they might be different encounters than if the players had pushed on, but there would still be encounters.


Fighter (level 6, using Sharpshooter): 1d8+15 (average 19.5), +5 to hit, 600 foot range.

They have extra attack, so double that.

[Typhon]

I see your point. But how much ammunition does a non-arcane carry? You could more evenly match feat against feat as Spell Sniper with double your ranged spell distance. As a scale of power a 6th level Arcane caster has a max 10 spell slots (4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd). Plus don't forget proficiency to hit with a spell. So it should look like this, if both are at 16 for ability stat and assuming both are human with the fighter not choosing archery style.

Fighter (level 1): 1d8+3 damage (average 7.5), +5 to hit, 150 foot normal or 600 foot max range.

Wizard (level 1): 1d10 damage (5.5), +5 to hit, 120 foot range.

Fighter (level 6, using Sharpshooter): 1d8+15 (average 19.5), +8 to hit, 600 foot max range.

Wizard (level 6, using Spell Sniper): 2d10 damage (average 11 damage), +8 to hit, 240 foot range.

Wizard (Magic Missile, Spell Sniper, 3rd level spell slot): 1d4+1 x 5 dmg (average 3.5 x 5, 17.5 damage), no miss, 240 foot range



My argument was at 1st level, without power gaming balance. Most of the time the wizard wins. Readying a bow takes longer than speaky-speak and hand wave, because most characters don't walk around with weapon in hand. Weapons are heavy and muscles tire. Does Sharpshooter give the range win? Yes. Does level make it easier to cast spells of just a higher level to keep up easily? Absolutely. Are Cantrips viable options for casters at higher levels? Yes, but more as a back up option as needed.

Another argument is how much damage can your fighter take at level 1? I will be generous and give plate and a shield. So that is AC 20. Spellcaster uses cantrip Blade Ward. You might get hit and it has a chance of being a crit. Spellcaster doesn't care, no damage taken and casts again next turn. Level 6, Heavily Armored and Heavy Armor Master which adds proficiency and damage reduction 3/-. Spellcaster picks up Warcaster still uses Blade Ward and is undamaged, but now somatic is less of a concern.

I am not saying they are bad, just that in some respects cantrips can be OP. Yes, certain builds will negate that for non-casters. Yes, max ranges on ranged weapons are more than enough to beat most spells on range. But an attack that does that much damage, at that range and requires nothing but the caster regardless of everything else is pretty messed up.

[Contrast]

You appear to have forgotten a number of things - most significantly that the fighter gets two attacks?

Edit -


Most of the time the wizard wins.

Your own example above seems to disprove that.


Readying a bow takes longer than speaky-speak and hand wave, because most characters don't walk around with weapon in hand. Weapons are heavy and muscles tire.

I'd be interested if you could point me to your justification for that in the rulebook. You can draw a weapon as part of an attack action and per the rules a warrior is no more drained by making an attack than a spellcaster is by casting a cantrip. Both take an action and, in fact, your level 6 fighter can take two attacks in the time it takes the wizard to cast a single cantrip.


Another argument is how much damage can your fighter take at level 1? I will be generous and give plate and a shield. So that is AC 20. Spellcaster uses cantrip Blade Ward. You might get hit and it has a chance of being a crit. Spellcaster doesn't care, no damage taken and casts again next turn. Level 6, Heavily Armored and Heavy Armor Master which adds proficiency and damage reduction 3/-. Spellcaster picks up Warcaster still uses Blade Ward and is undamaged, but now somatic is less of a concern.


Blade Ward is your example of an OP cantrip? Blade Ward? :smallconfused: FYI Blade Ward would I believe get my vote for being the single worst cantrip in the game :smalltongue:

[JackPhoenix]

Readying a bow takes object interaction, which is free (at least the first one in a turn). Assuming the archer isn't holding the bow in his hand the whole time, because he's in an location when he expects a fight, and it's not like walking around with a bow with your hand all day is that tiring.

Level 1 fighter usualy don't have AC 20, but 14-19 is common (Str based fighters can get Chain Mail for base AC 16+ possibly shieľd and Protection FS, Dex get leather for 11+Dex (so 14+ the same option to take shield and FS as Str build). Wizard can burn his slots for Mage Armor and Shield, but then he's using limited resources just to survive. Blade Ward takes his action, meaning he's not doing anything to actually deal with the foe hitting him, and it gives resistance, not immunity, meaning at best he's doubling his hit points... 6+Con compared to fighter's 10+Con, propably higher Con (as the wizard need high Int, Con and Dex if he doesn't want his AC to suck even more, while the fighter only really needs Str/Dex (depending on build) and Con, and mitigates the damage through not being hit in the first place thanks to his AC being 2-6 points higher (or even more, if the spellcaster dumped Dex for more Con)). Oh and the fighter gets Second Wind for BA heal of 1d10+1 once per rest if he needs to. And longbow actually has better normal range than cantrips have maximum (150' vs 120') (he's not actually using because he's spamming Blade Ward, remenber?. Level 1: sucks to be wizard forced into ranged duel with fighter.

So, let's look at level 6: Wizard does have more spells, fighter gets more HP, still better AC, Action Surge and one extra ASI. If the wizard spent his feat on Warcaster, it doesn't help him with Blade Ward (which is even more stupid tactic now) because even fighter built for archery is better than wizard if they get locked in melee, so he doesn't have to retreat. The fighter doesn't need Heavy Armored, he's proficient from level 1, so can take Sharpshooter and either increase his main ability score, or take one extra feat. Perhaps switching from longbow to hand crossbow and taking Crossbow Expert for 3 attacks at +3 to hit (with Sharpshooter and archery FS) for 1d6+13 each (13.5 for one hit, 41.5 if he gets lucky and hits with all 3) at the same range as cantrips. Wizard gets +6 to hit with 2d10 attack (or 11 damage on average). Even one of fighter's 3 hits causes more damage than what the wizard can do, without using any resources (except ammo which is cheap and not too heavy). Wizard can burn spell slot for 8d6 (24 on average against single target, though it gets better with AoE) Fireball, while fighter can use Action Surge for 2 more attacks (+27 damage if both hit). If the fighter takes +Dex instead of Sharpshooter, he does get one less attack for +1 to hit and damage with each, better Dex Save, AC and initiative and 1d8 damage die at 600' range with longbow. Wizard, of course, doesn't have Spell Sniper, because he used his only feat for Warcaster.

Note: it's not "certain build", it's cookie cutter ranged fighter, ignoring subclass features.

[MeeposFire]

You appear to have forgotten a number of things - most significantly that the fighter gets two attacks?

Edit -



Your own example above seems to disprove that.



I'd be interested if you could point me to your justification for that in the rulebook. You can draw a weapon as part of an attack action and per the rules a warrior is no more drained by making an attack than a spellcaster is by casting a cantrip. Both take an action and, in fact, your level 6 fighter can take two attacks in the time it takes the wizard to cast a single cantrip.



Blade Ward is your example of an OP cantrip? Blade Ward? :smallconfused: FYI Blade Ward would I believe get my vote for being the single worst cantrip in the game :smalltongue:

Bladeward is not good but it is at least better than true strike. True strike has so many small caveats that ruin it that it is exceedingly difficult to come out ahead from using it. Bladeward at least does its juob (its just a job you generally don't want to do since action economy is king and this essentially makes you delay the use of your action economy for defense).

[King539]

Blade Ward takes an action, an action that the fighter is using to wreck face. Also, you forgot to put int the to-hit debuffs from Sharpshooter, and the bonus from Archery fighting style.

Also, have you actually played a caster at level 1? They are very weak. Very. I know from experience.

[Mellack]

Fighter (level 1): 1d8+3 damage (average 7.5), +5 to hit, 150 foot normal or 600 foot max range.

Wizard (level 1): 1d10 damage (5.5), +5 to hit, 120 foot range.

My argument was at 1st level, without power gaming balance. Most of the time the wizard wins.



Fighter getss the better damage, better range, and same to hit chance. How do you call this a win for the wzard?



Readying a bow takes longer than speaky-speak and hand wave, because most characters don't walk around with weapon in hand.



Nope. Just takes an objuect interaction (free each round) to draw your weapon. The caster probably had to do the same to get out their focus.




Another argument is how much damage can your fighter take at level 1? I will be generous and give plate and a shield. So that is AC 20. Spellcaster uses cantrip Blade Ward. You might get hit and it has a chance of being a crit. Spellcaster doesn't care, no damage taken and casts again next turn. Level 6, Heavily Armored and Heavy Armor Master which adds proficiency and damage reduction 3/-. Spellcaster picks up Warcaster still uses Blade Ward and is undamaged, but now somatic is less of a concern.



Wait, what? You have Blade Ward all wrong. It makes you resist B/S/P damage. That means you take half, not immune to it. So the caster has wasted their action to just cut the damage in half. They have done nothing offensive or harmed their opponent at all. It is actually an example of how bad spells are.
If you meant that the caster has somehow taken Heavy weapon master and used it with the spell, I ask you how? Blade Ward is for wizards and warlocks. They would need to spend multiple feats to pull that off, meaning by the time they can, hits are doing way more than the 3 HWM will stop. And even then, they are still doing nothing to end the threat. That idea is so far from being OP it is laughable.

[Deleted]

Cantrip Spell damage is garbage compared to the weapon-centric classes, it doesn't come close.

Spell slot damage can sometimes compare favorably, but it is easily eclipsed over the course of an adventuring day.

spell slots are better served imposing status effects on enemies, or negating negative effects on allies.

You are comparing the wrong things though.

Yes, weapon damage is more, however spell damage keeps up with the game just fine. You aren't at a huge disadvantage when you use spell damage. Hell, for a lot of interesting creatures you will see resistance to BPS in some way. Also, weaknesses to certain spell elements is more common than weaknesses to BPS.

It is easier for magic users to keep all that extra stuff and do really nice damage. Warlocks, Evokers, Dragon Sorcerers, and some Clerics (Sacred Flame not being effected by Cover is huge) all can add their modifier to at-will damage once enemy HP start to ramp up.

Through direct damage it might take that magic user one additional turn to kill something (maybe, depending on weaknesses and resistances) but they have other options to debilitate that enemy or protect allies so that extra round is a wash.

Saying spell damage is garbage really misses a lot of the game and is very naive. The only time this would be true is if you had a featureless sack of HP to kill.

[Kileonhardt]

I see your point. But how much ammunition does a non-arcane carry? You could more evenly match feat against feat as Spell Sniper with double your ranged spell distance. As a scale of power a 6th level Arcane caster has a max 10 spell slots (4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd). Plus don't forget proficiency to hit with a spell. So it should look like this, if both are at 16 for ability stat and assuming both are human with the fighter not choosing archery style.

Fighter (level 1): 1d8+3 damage (average 7.5), +5 to hit, 150 foot normal or 600 foot max range.

Wizard (level 1): 1d10 damage (5.5), +5 to hit, 120 foot range.

Fighter (level 6, using Sharpshooter): 1d8+15 (average 19.5), +8 to hit, 600 foot max range.

Wizard (level 6, using Spell Sniper): 2d10 damage (average 11 damage), +8 to hit, 240 foot range.

Wizard (Magic Missile, Spell Sniper, 3rd level spell slot): 1d4+1 x 5 dmg (average 3.5 x 5, 17.5 damage), no miss, 240 foot range

If we're just comparing a ranged Fighter then you're forgetting their Archery fighting style for +2 to hit. If we throw it over to Rogue then the to hit is correct but you'd need to add Sneak Attack damage to the calculation. Even then with your numbers the Fighter is beating the Wizard in average damage without having to waste a third level spell slot. The issue of carrying ammunition is also rarely an issue because of how light and cheap it is as well as the fact that you can gather back half your expended ammunition from every encounter.




My argument was at 1st level, without power gaming balance. Most of the time the wizard wins. Readying a bow takes longer than speaky-speak and hand wave, because most characters don't walk around with weapon in hand. Weapons are heavy and muscles tire. Does Sharpshooter give the range win? Yes. Does level make it easier to cast spells of just a higher level to keep up easily? Absolutely. Are Cantrips viable options for casters at higher levels? Yes, but more as a back up option as needed.

Another argument is how much damage can your fighter take at level 1? I will be generous and give plate and a shield. So that is AC 20. Spellcaster uses cantrip Blade Ward. You might get hit and it has a chance of being a crit. Spellcaster doesn't care, no damage taken and casts again next turn. Level 6, Heavily Armored and Heavy Armor Master which adds proficiency and damage reduction 3/-. Spellcaster picks up Warcaster still uses Blade Ward and is undamaged, but now somatic is less of a concern.

I am not saying they are bad, just that in some respects cantrips can be OP. Yes, certain builds will negate that for non-casters. Yes, max ranges on ranged weapons are more than enough to beat most spells on range. But an attack that does that much damage, at that range and requires nothing but the caster regardless of everything else is pretty messed up.

A level 1 Wizard is never going to win against a martial, ever. The lower levels for casters are the worst things in the game and are why a lot of DMs start their parties at 3rd level so that no one feels useless. Using free object interaction to pull out your bow or focus to cast spells is literally the same thing.

A fighter at level 1 even in standard gear is going to destroy a wizard when it comes to survival. Sure the wizard can waste his action blade warding for resistance to BPS, but the fighter is just going to kill something in that time, while still having higher AC and HP.

You seem to be under the impression people are pointing out ranged weapons for having longer range than cantrips which isn't the case. It's the fact that you add ability modifier to the damage of weapons which makes them on par and even better than cantrips. Cantrips are FAR from OP just because they are free.

Hopefully you won't take offense to this since it's just my opinion, but it sounds like you probably need a lot more 5E playtime under your belt rather than studying the book and you'd understand the points being made.

[Addaran]

A level 1 Wizard is never going to win against a martial, ever. The lower levels for casters are the worst things in the game and are why a lot of DMs start their parties at 3rd level so that no one feels useless. Using free object interaction to pull out your bow or focus to cast spells is literally the same thing.


While i aggree that a fighter is in no way disadvantaged compared to a wizard, the wizard could win against a fight. If he gets to cast a spell, there's 25% chances he wins (magic missiles for 15 damage). A well rolled burning hands or sleep can also finish the fight in one shot.

Of course, the fighter can also finish the fight in one round. 2d6+3 or 1d10+5 is a lot of damage for a wizard.

[Zalabim]

While i aggree that a fighter is in no way disadvantaged compared to a wizard, the wizard could win against a fight. If he gets to cast a spell, there's 25% chances he wins (magic missiles for 15 damage). A well rolled burning hands or sleep can also finish the fight in one shot.

Of course, the fighter can also finish the fight in one round. 2d6+3 or 1d10+5 is a lot of damage for a wizard.

Sleep -> Fire Bolt (35%), or Light Crossbow if you have 16 Dexterity (42.7%), is your highest chance to end the fight in one go. Assuming the fighter is not an elf. Or half-orc. Or goliath. Maybe you can completely incapacitate them within 1 minute without waking them up with whatever you're doing to them. That'd be best.

The fighter can end the fight with a Heavy Crossbow (42%), Longsword (43.75%), or Greatsword (47.655%) assuming the corresponding fighting style, against a wizard with 16 Dex, Con, and Int with Mage Armor on. False life is actually more likely to save your ass at this level, but it only lasts an hour.

Just a little thought experiment.

[Deleted]

While i aggree that a fighter is in no way disadvantaged compared to a wizard, the wizard could win against a fight. If he gets to cast a spell, there's 25% chances he wins (magic missiles for 15 damage). A well rolled burning hands or sleep can also finish the fight in one shot.

Of course, the fighter can also finish the fight in one round. 2d6+3 or 1d10+5 is a lot of damage for a wizard.

Level 1 is also a bad level to compare these fights at, besides for the fact they weren't made for PvP, level 1 and 2 is essentially your "starter levels" to teach you the game. The game doesn't truly get going till level 3.

But, you are right. A Wizard would just cast a spell and then shoot the fighter.

At a minimum, the first attack will probably be stopped by shield from the wizard with cantrip or sleep from the wizard.

A better example is Fighter v Monster and Wizard v Monster (monster = one that wpuld be expected at that level) since this isn't a PvP game.

[Knaight]

The OP is forgetting a few things in his argument that all magic is OP. 1) Casters in 5E get fewer slots than they did in 3.5. 2) Concentration means you usually can't have more than one active spell at a time. 3) Saving throws are easier for monsters to make in this edition than in 3.5.

That's not to say casters are weak or anything, they're quite strong. Just not as strong as they were in some earlier editions.

Don't forget 4) Spells don't scale automatically. If you want to cast a more powerful version of a spell, you can stick it in a more powerful spell slot.

Any of these individually (along with changes to several individual spells) are enough to make 5e casters weaker than 3e casters. All of them in aggregate are enough to make the notion that they're better completely ludicrous.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sleep -> Fire Bolt (35%), or Light Crossbow if you have 16 Dexterity (42.7%), is your highest chance to end the fight in one go. Assuming the fighter is not an elf. Or half-orc. Or goliath. Maybe you can completely incapacitate them within 1 minute without waking them up with whatever you're doing to them. That'd be best.

The fighter can end the fight with a Heavy Crossbow (42%), Longsword (43.75%), or Greatsword (47.655%) assuming the corresponding fighting style, against a wizard with 16 Dex, Con, and Int with Mage Armor on. False life is actually more likely to save your ass at this level, but it only lasts an hour.

Just a little thought experiment.

Alternatively we could examine their performance over the course of an adventuring day with 8 encounters and the two anticipated short rests.

In short, cantrips fall woefully behind and actual spells provide a minor burst that is quickly swallowed up by the never ending attacks of a Fighter.

[Joe the Rat]

The point of the unlimited damage cantrips is so you don't have to resort to slings and arrows. Breaking out the slings (pfft. dude, darts are 3/1. Much better bang for the proficiency.) was part of the old game, and in 3.5's rejigger of weapon proficiencies, crossbows were added. "Imma wizard, where's my crossbow?" Was a thing, and many felt it rather ridiculous. I mean, yeah, Subdivisions was a fun song, but when you have one of the best damn bassists in the business, he really ought to be playing the bass.

But here's the thing: If all you care about is damage, and you have a halfway decent dex, lowly wizard (or sorcerer) is going to do more damage with that light crossbow (1d8+2 or better) than ye olde firebolt (1d10). Raise The Floor, Raise The Average. Without Agonizing Blast, the same is true of Warlocks... But you should treat them like Magic Archers to start with. Past 5 (die increase, stat-to damage in some cases) you can stop William Telling around, but you're not keeping up with archery (Fighters get Even More Attacks, Rangers have a variety of damage add-ons), or melee (fighters and rangers, plus Paladin smiting options, Barbarian rage-with-damage-boost).

On ammunition: A default "magazine" of arrows/bolts/stones is 20. You get half of that back after battle (assuming you didn't run away). Even at 5 rounds battles (which tptb have decided is "long"), you're going to take 3-4 encounters at higher levels before one quiver is going to come up dry. Two quivers, it's pretty much a non-issue. If you really want that to be a factor, limit your casters to [Casting Stat] cantrips a day. See if they run out.

Or you could be giving up damage to slow them down (ray of frost), stop regeneration (chill touch), or skip the armor altogether with a save (Cleric on Sacred Flame, the reviled 1d12 poison spray), possibly with a rider (Bard's Vicious Mockery, and Frostbite (Elemental Evil) impose disadvantage on the target's next attack). Or be a warlock, and throw people around like a kid sister.

[Typhon]

One of the biggest arguments I gave was mostly that cantrips are unlimited. I can work with damaging cantrips, but I would like to see them limited (Like I stated, relevant ability+level+ability modifier). I am arguing that I think they are more than a little OP, but that is my opinion. The only other argument I have seen about cantrips here is whether a healing cantrip should be allowed (1 HP per cast). Oddly, people were against that on the grounds of it broke the concept of resource management (HP). My opinion was that if you can cast a billion spells of damaging magic, why not less than one die of healing as a cantrip. It is not game breaking.

I have stated "MY" opinion that 5e cantrips are OP. In the sense that before this edition, and yes I am comparing editions, cantrips where limited in scope to mostly utility. The absolutely minor (1d3) elemental/radiant/necrotic damage could be construed as teaching to harness those energies effectively. But, I don't see why a 1st level spell like chill touch is now a cantrip. This was a first level spell that besides damage had an effect on strength.

I have a couple other gripes, some in defense of spellcasters. Namely, why don't spells scale with level? It makes sense, as you grow in understanding of magic your power should grow. I guess that I also look too far down the advancement road, as I see an Eldritch Knight casting blade barrier and then using his bonus action to attack. He is choosing to reduce his damage potential, but gaining prolonged combat time. Something that I think would be useful in drawn out combat with multiple opponents.

Maybe I am wrong and they are totally cool. I just don't see the issue with brinking a quarterstaff for actual combat and not just appearance. Every great wizard in literature started somewhere, and it makes a nice holder for a spell focus when you gain one.

[LordVonDerp]

One of the biggest arguments I gave was mostly that cantrips are unlimited. I can work with damaging cantrips, but I would like to see them limited (Like I stated, relevant ability+level+ability modifier). I am arguing that I think they are more than a little OP, but that is my opinion.
If they had limited uses they'd have to be made more powerful to compensate, which just reintroduces the problem they're supposed to fix.



The only other argument I have seen about cantrips here is whether a healing cantrip should be allowed (1 HP per cast). Oddly, people were against that on the grounds of it broke the concept of resource management (HP).
Because it would marginalize all other healing spells.



My opinion was that if you can cast a billion spells of damaging magic, why not less than one die of healing as a cantrip. It is not game breaking. no one can cast a billion spells. That would take about 200 straight years of nothing but casting spells.



I have stated "MY" opinion that 5e cantrips are OP.

And people have pointed out all of the flaws in your claim.



In the sense that before this edition, and yes I am comparing editions, cantrips where limited in scope to mostly utility.

And in previous editions wizards were way more powerful, so it theoretically (but not really) balanced out.



But, I don't see why a 1st level spell like chill touch is now a cantrip. This was a first level spell that besides damage had an effect on strength.
It doesn't do that now.



I have a couple other gripes, some in defense of spellcasters. Namely, why don't spells scale with level?

Because that would actually be OP.



It makes sense, as you grow in understanding of magic your power should grow.

Which is why they gain more spell levels.



Maybe I am wrong and they are totally cool.

They are.

[CantigThimble]

5th edition works differently than previous editions did in many ways. If you try to make spells in 5th editon work the way they did in 3.5 then the game would be unbalanced. If you tried to make spells in 3.5 work the way they do in 5th then the game would be unbalanced. Spells/spellcasters in 3.5 and 5th are apples and oranges. Try playing 5th as designed for a while before changing it. Many things that seem weird, overpowered or underpowered actually have good reasons to be the way that they are.

[War_lord]

You really need to play a class for a few levels before trying to "rebalance" it. A lot of the assumptions you're making about what's "OP" seems to be rooted in 3.5 edition conventions that really don't apply to 5e.

[Contrast]

I can work with damaging cantrips, but I would like to see them limited (Like I stated, relevant ability+level+ability modifier)

Fighters are OP too. They can just keep swinging their sword all day and not even get tired! They should only be able to attack a number of times a day related to their strength and con modifiers.


Namely, why don't spells scale with level? It makes sense, as you grow in understanding of magic your power should grow.

On a more serious note, I don't know if you're aware but quite a few spells do scale up if you cast them using a higher level spell slot.


Maybe I am wrong and they are totally cool. I just don't see the issue with brinking a quarterstaff for actual combat and not just appearance. Every great wizard in literature started somewhere, and it makes a nice holder for a spell focus when you gain one.

I don't believe a wizard was really any more incentivised not to bring a quaterstaff now than they ever were (in so much as standing in combat and trying to hit something with your quaterstaff has always been a bad idea as a wizard). It does mean I don't have to explain why my scholarly professor totes a crossbow round with him and helps avoid the Gandalf effect where we're repeatedly told someone is a wizard but don't actually see them do any magic.

If your concern if that magic users have too much at will damage I would suggest simply stopping cantrips scaling as you level (which would be roughly equivilent to making them go back to crossbows). As I and others have said though, we believe you're worrying over a problem which does not exist.

[Larpus]

One of the biggest arguments I gave was mostly that cantrips are unlimited. I can work with damaging cantrips, but I would like to see them limited (Like I stated, relevant ability+level+ability modifier). I am arguing that I think they are more than a little OP, but that is my opinion. The only other argument I have seen about cantrips here is whether a healing cantrip should be allowed (1 HP per cast). Oddly, people were against that on the grounds of it broke the concept of resource management (HP). My opinion was that if you can cast a billion spells of damaging magic, why not less than one die of healing as a cantrip. It is not game breaking.

I have stated "MY" opinion that 5e cantrips are OP. In the sense that before this edition, and yes I am comparing editions, cantrips where limited in scope to mostly utility. The absolutely minor (1d3) elemental/radiant/necrotic damage could be construed as teaching to harness those energies effectively. But, I don't see why a 1st level spell like chill touch is now a cantrip. This was a first level spell that besides damage had an effect on strength.

I have a couple other gripes, some in defense of spellcasters. Namely, why don't spells scale with level? It makes sense, as you grow in understanding of magic your power should grow. I guess that I also look too far down the advancement road, as I see an Eldritch Knight casting blade barrier and then using his bonus action to attack. He is choosing to reduce his damage potential, but gaining prolonged combat time. Something that I think would be useful in drawn out combat with multiple opponents.

Maybe I am wrong and they are totally cool. I just don't see the issue with brinking a quarterstaff for actual combat and not just appearance. Every great wizard in literature started somewhere, and it makes a nice holder for a spell focus when you gain one.

That's the thing, mate, it's not 4e or earlier anymore, it's 5e.

Comparing stuff to earlier editions in a direct way like you are doing will do you no good; if you go by that logic, nerf Barbarians too, those damned thugs are unkillable now compared to older editions!

Any of those brutes will take half damage of anything mundane out of the box and those darned pooh totem kids will take half of everything other than mind-rape. Also, even when caught literally naked, those blokes are likely to sport an AC of 14+.

But then you get to this editions monsters and overall damage capabilities and, while still pretty bloody strong and hard to kill, the Barbarian is nowhere as unkillable as older editions' usual damage output would make you think.

Rogues too...with half-clever playing, it's fairly easy to get sneak attacks off pretty much every turn you don't fail your sneak by simply having somewhere to hide that doesn't force you to always pop up on the same place. If you're a halfling "somewhere to hide" suddenly includes your whole party....other than the jerkass gnome, that is. Not to mention you reroll 1s, so now on the 5% chance you'd get an auto-fail....you actually get a free chance to try again and possibly succeed!

The Wizard never got any reason to rock out the quarterstaff, if it got to that, chances are they'd be eating dirt in a moment's notice.

As for rocking the crossbow....you can still totally do that and, depending on your Dex, is actually a better idea until you start to face things that either resist piercing/physical or get some more dice on your cantrips.

Yes, cantrips all day long are decently powerful, but they're not "great" by any means, they're just that, "powerful enough to be worthy of your consideration", but hardly "powerful enough to be your first go-to option".

As mentioned, it better serves the fantasy of being a Wizard 24/7, not being a Wizard for just shy of 30s every day and then a stuck up commoner in a fancy dress for the rest of the day.

Sure, if you want to run a low-magic scenario where magic is supposed to be mysterious, rare and frightening, I can sort of see the argument, but even then it would most probably be a better idea to limit the number of magical people in your party instead.

As for less than a die infinite casting healing cantrip....well, that'd make HP a resource that's pretty much only limited in battle as once you're out of it and have more than a minute of respite, you'll be healing 10+ HP for absolute free, which is quite nuts and game-breaking (or rather, tension-breaking).

Magic doesn't scale with levels too much because you have infinite cantrips, you can give casters than and limit cantrips if you'd like to, but you'll be upsetting the delicate balance at work in this edition, which is fairly balanced with casters edging on top due to more options while still being pretty much dead meat if a martial manages to touch them.

If you're still adamant on limiting cantrips...then may I suggest level or proficiency + casting stat mod cantrips per short rest?

This way it's still a finite resource casters would have to manage while not needing a buff up to compensate for limited daily usage as it's important to remember that in this edition you can no longer nova for 5 minutes and go to sleep to regain your slots as you can only benefit from long rest once every 24 hours.

[Knaight]

Comparing stuff to earlier editions in a direct way like you are doing will do you no good; if you go by that logic, nerf Barbarians too, those damned thugs are unkillable now compared to older editions!

If direct edition comparison is what we're doing here, then I'll just point out that a Barbarian's good saves in 5e start tied and quickly drop below their good saves in 3e, and way below them in 4e. The bad saves literally don't improve in 5e, while in 3e they improved more than the 5e good saves do. Meanwhile AC boosting is largely gone, stat boosting is dramatically reduced, the various non-AC not getting hit defenses are largely removed, etc. Barbarians in particular and characters in general are downright flimsy compared to 3e and 4e. They're flimsy and ineffective compared to 2e characters in most ways as well, but with drastically more HP, and more or less comparable to 1e characters (but with drastically more HP). There's enough overlap in core mechanics that one could basically run a mixed game which pulls from characters of every edition, and while there would need to be extensive rulings where changes bump into each other the general mechanics hold up fairly well. Were one to do so it's not the 5e classes that come across as powerful.

[Zorku]

One of the biggest arguments I gave was mostly that cantrips are unlimited.
For the sake of seeing this argument possibly budge an inch:
If cantrips took ammunition (maybe a little horoscope you unroll and burn through while casting?) how much would that change in your eyes? How close do you think that would get them to being balanced against martial attacks?


why not less than one die of healing as a cantripThe factor you don't seem to have here is time. Show of hands, who thinks that a cantrip that heals 1 hp but takes 10 minutes to cast is broken in the same way as the cantrip Typhon proposed?

Anybody? Guess not. Apparently something you can do once per round can happen about 50 or 500 times between combats. 50-500 hp is kind of a big deal between battles.

Firebolt? Nah, you can't really deal 500 hp worth of damage outside of combat. Something about that first firebolt makes everyone roll initiative for some reason. I find it hard to believe that you've argued this in good faith.