New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 148
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    The thing is? Shield would be perfectly fine if casters didn't have ready access to Constitution save proficiency or better armor proficiencies.

    Theoretically, arcane casters have to split their stats between their casting stat, Constitution (for HP and concentration), and Dexterity (for AC and initiative). You're probably going to have a Dexterity of 12~14 for most of your career, so Mage Armor is going to give you a base AC of 14-15. Slapping Shield on top of that gets you to AC 19-20, which makes you roughly on par with a martial character at the cost of a low-level spell slot and your reaction. It's fairly obvious to me that this was what they thinking of when balancing the classes - you cast Shield to prevent losing concentration on your big spell, because your AC and Con save are generally poor.

    The thing is, even when you factor in the fact that casters generally hit a point where they don't have any good uses for casting low-level spells other than casting Shield and other defensive spells, that's still fine, because it mirrors how people with "real" armor are going to generally improve their AC, due to finally affording stuff like full plate, maxing out their Dexterity, or just plain finding magical armor. By the time that Mr. Wizard effectively has access to their Shielded AC all day long, everyone else should have AC that's at about that same level.

    The problem is that they made it way too easy to get access to actual armor, which lets Shield break bounded accuracy like a twig. They made it too easy to grab proficiency in Constitution saves, which means that casters aren't forced to split their stat increases between Dexterity and Constitution to be "comfortable" in combat. While being able to cast spells in any armor you're proficient in is certainly a problem, the real issue is that spells like Shield were written without taking that into account.




    An even bigger problem, in my mind, is that spellcasters are designed to cater to multiple incompatible playstyles. They have to have tons of spell slots for the people who want to participate in fights by throwing around multiple Fireballs, while at the same time they're designed so that you can get away with only using one or two spell slots per fight so that you can use them for utility. There's also a really bad trend where spellcasters get spells that boil down to plot powers - there's no good reason why things like Clone or Wish need to be player-accessible.

    Honestly, the Warlock is closer to how spellcasters should have been designed if the whole "save my spells for utility and the big fight, normally contribute with cantrips" playstyle was deliberate. Because that's the playstyle they're are more-or-less designed around - that's why they get those Invocations that give access to additional spells known that they can only use once per long rest, and why they get bonuses to Eldritch Blast that make it as strong as it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    If you see me try to discuss the nitty-gritty of D&D 5e, kindly point me to my signature and remind me that I shouldn't. Please and thank you!

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    The thing is? Shield would be perfectly fine if casters didn't have ready access to Constitution save proficiency or better armor proficiencies.

    Theoretically, arcane casters have to split their stats between their casting stat, Constitution (for HP and concentration), and Dexterity (for AC and initiative). You're probably going to have a Dexterity of 12~14 for most of your career, so Mage Armor is going to give you a base AC of 14-15. Slapping Shield on top of that gets you to AC 19-20, which makes you roughly on par with a martial character at the cost of a low-level spell slot and your reaction. It's fairly obvious to me that this was what they thinking of when balancing the classes - you cast Shield to prevent losing concentration on your big spell, because your AC and Con save are generally poor.

    The thing is, even when you factor in the fact that casters generally hit a point where they don't have any good uses for casting low-level spells other than casting Shield and other defensive spells, that's still fine, because it mirrors how people with "real" armor are going to generally improve their AC, due to finally affording stuff like full plate, maxing out their Dexterity, or just plain finding magical armor. By the time that Mr. Wizard effectively has access to their Shielded AC all day long, everyone else should have AC that's at about that same level.

    The problem is that they made it way too easy to get access to actual armor, which lets Shield break bounded accuracy like a twig. They made it too easy to grab proficiency in Constitution saves, which means that casters aren't forced to split their stat increases between Dexterity and Constitution to be "comfortable" in combat. While being able to cast spells in any armor you're proficient in is certainly a problem, the real issue is that spells like Shield were written without taking that into account.




    An even bigger problem, in my mind, is that spellcasters are designed to cater to multiple incompatible playstyles. They have to have tons of spell slots for the people who want to participate in fights by throwing around multiple Fireballs, while at the same time they're designed so that you can get away with only using one or two spell slots per fight so that you can use them for utility. There's also a really bad trend where spellcasters get spells that boil down to plot powers - there's no good reason why things like Clone or Wish need to be player-accessible.

    Honestly, the Warlock is closer to how spellcasters should have been designed if the whole "save my spells for utility and the big fight, normally contribute with cantrips" playstyle was deliberate. Because that's the playstyle they're are more-or-less designed around - that's why they get those Invocations that give access to additional spells known that they can only use once per long rest, and why they get bonuses to Eldritch Blast that make it as strong as it is.
    Agreed that its way too easy for casters to get armor and constitution saving throw proficiency, those are crucial balancing factors that just kind of go out the window with the multiclassing and feats rules (another reason why the game is better balanced without those things...)

    Casters just go so MUCH in general. So many spells that just instantly solve problems (find the path, invisibility, magnificent mansion, temple of the gods, teleport, telepathy, rope trick, leomund's, gate, wish etc). They can cast very easily (no more AoO if casting within 5ft) and with the optional MC and Feats rules, their biggest limitations (low defenses & vulnerable to losing concentration) literally disappear. Its expected that every caster get into "auto succeed territory" with concentration and IMO that should be quite rare. On top of everything, the way that rests tend to be handwaved more easily nowadays only compounds the problem, making casters leagues and stars above everyone else.

    Its disheartening at times, and all the goodwill between classes and feelings of teamwork doesn't change that casters have way too few limitations on their power and that it impacts the game.

    Personally I feel like every class could use a reduction in their spells known and I agree that the warlock feels like casters "done right" in comparison to martials.
    Last edited by Trask; 2020-03-29 at 04:28 PM.
    What I'm Playing: D&D 5e
    What I've Played: D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, B/X D&D, CoC, Delta Green

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Canada

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    If a concern is balancing magic and martial characters, why not just buff martial characters and scale monsters up?

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Belac93 View Post
    If a concern is balancing magic and martial characters, why not just buff martial characters and scale monsters up?
    Because we shouldnt be so afraid to bring in line what is clearly an issue that we have to change literally everything else in the game to accommodate for one kind of character class.
    What I'm Playing: D&D 5e
    What I've Played: D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, B/X D&D, CoC, Delta Green

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Belac93 View Post
    If a concern is balancing magic and martial characters, why not just buff martial characters and scale monsters up?
    Because it's way easier to cut back to an established balance level than to try and invent six distinct sets of buffs that balance out with caster classes? Because anything you do to help martial characters out that isn't restricted to class features is going to also be available to casters by design.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    If you see me try to discuss the nitty-gritty of D&D 5e, kindly point me to my signature and remind me that I shouldn't. Please and thank you!

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    - there's no good reason why things like Clone or Wish need to be player-accessible.
    I really have too different opinions about this on one hand I fell that part of the appeal of high level D&D is the bonkers high power level that spells like these represent. On the other hand I get that these spells don't necessarily fit certain play styles (neither does healing spirit, goodberry's food aspect, create food and water, or others) Pathfinder 2e has a really clean solution of giving spells certain rarities so spells like these are not in the game by default but need DM permission.

    On clone in particular I personally feel that it solves a big problem with world building and high level play. I find that from a world building perspective that the easiest way to explain the world not being the Tippyverse is to pretend that the players are mostly the only people of their level. The PC being effectively immortal due to clone solves the huge (in my opinion) problem of otherwise trying to explain where the replacement character comes from. This is why I dislike high magic setting like the Forgotten Realms where it is still somehow medieval-esc despite multiple (I think) high level NPC of which Elminister is the best known example and, why I like the low but broad magic of Eberron where there is a soft cap of about level 10 with few npc exceptions (few with more then 3rd level spells even) but, magic has still effected the world in mostly logical ways. Though I do understand that not everyone shares my opinions about this which is why I like the Pathfinder 2e system of spell rarities.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    Because it's way easier to cut back to an established balance level than to try and invent six distinct sets of buffs that balance out with caster classes? Because anything you do to help martial characters out that isn't restricted to class features is going to also be available to casters by design.
    I really do understand this, I just also see the appeal of a game with the power level of high level casters as they currently are whether that is bust done with an epic level hand book giving everyone caster demigod levels of power or by buffing non casters post level 10 (with class features (possible structured like warlock invocations or 3.5e feats) and providing a mechanism to stop level advancement at lower levels like 10 and 6. I think the reason why such high level effects exist is because they are the sort of things BBEG Wizards and Litches should have and there is no reason to have different NPC and PC spellcasting systems.
    Last edited by 47Ace; 2020-03-29 at 05:20 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by 47Ace View Post
    I think the reason why such high level effects exist is because they are the sort of things BBEG Wizards and Litches should have and there is no reason to have different NPC and PC spellcasting systems.
    But there already is an implicit difference, with all the rituals to summon orcus, hordes of undead minions, mind controlled slaves and whatnot that villains usually have in adventures. If a PC had access to every kind of magic that NPC's are implied to have by plot and such, it would be a huge problem.

    I dont think it's bad that these things be separate because they exist for different purposes.
    What I'm Playing: D&D 5e
    What I've Played: D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, B/X D&D, CoC, Delta Green

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by 47Ace View Post
    I really have too different opinions about this on one hand I fell that part of the appeal of high level D&D is the bonkers high power level that spells like these represent. On the other hand I get that these spells don't necessarily fit certain play styles (neither does healing spirit, goodberry's food aspect, create food and water, or others) Pathfinder 2e has a really clean solution of giving spells certain rarities so spells like these are not in the game by default but need DM permission.

    On clone in particular I personally feel that it solves a big problem with world building and high level play. I find that from a world building perspective that the easiest way to explain the world not being the Tippyverse is to pretend that the players are mostly the only people of their level. The PC being effectively immortal due to clone solves the huge (in my opinion) problem of otherwise trying to explain where the replacement character comes from. This is why I dislike high magic setting like the Forgotten Realms where it is still somehow medieval-esc despite multiple (I think) high level NPC of which Elminister is the best known example and, why I like the low but broad magic of Eberron where there is a soft cap of about level 10 with few npc exceptions (few with more then 3rd level spells even) but, magic has still effected the world in mostly logical ways. Though I do understand that not everyone shares my opinions about this which is why I like the Pathfinder 2e system of spell rarities.
    The reason I referred to them as "plot powers" is that many really high level spells are either things that should be the rewards for an adventure (you have a wish granted) or a cause for an adventure (oh no, the evil magic-user has a Doom Bot clone, so we have to adventure some more to stop them once and for all!). They are things that make the plot work, and they lose a lot of their shine when you can do them every day.

    Your Clone example is actually kinda perfect - why does that have to be a spell? Why couldn't that be, I dunno, a magic item or something? Why does that need to be something that one single class can grab by default?

    EDIT:

    I think the reason why such high level effects exist is because they are the sort of things BBEG Wizards and Litches should have and there is no reason to have different NPC and PC spellcasting systems.
    That's the thing - there is a reason. PCs and NPCs aren't built on the same rules in the first place, because they fill very different roles in the game. For example, most NPCs effectively exist for a single fight, so they need a different way to pace how many spells they can throw out. In a less mechanical sense, why should your Wizard (who, if you're playing from 1st level, probably started doing this whole "magic" thing less than a decade or two ago) have access to magic that is as good, if not better, than someone who literally turned themselves into an immortal skeleton so that they could study magic forever?
    Last edited by Amechra; 2020-03-29 at 05:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    If you see me try to discuss the nitty-gritty of D&D 5e, kindly point me to my signature and remind me that I shouldn't. Please and thank you!

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Interesting.

    I'm of the opinion that high level spells, and low level spells, and spellcasting in general, aren't good enough.

    Part of it is that they don't scale naturally and high level slots are very limited. Many of their effects are also incredibly unreliable. There's just a few spells that are outside the power level of even their peers, skewing the curve, IMO.


    If I were to rebalance magic, I'd return damage scaling by caster level instead of spell level and/or return additional spell slots for having a high casting stat [or maybe just increase the number of slots per day]. Then, I'd look at the spells that have effects that are now too strong, and eliminate or reduce their effect.

    There's no reason for Wish to exist beyond legacy. It would go, since it skews the curve for all other spells.
    Dominate would be re-worked, because it's kind of useless now since it's such a high level high value slot that has such a high probability of just doing nothing, but its effect is supposedly worth it if it happens. This is IMO a bad model, and I would make it weaker [such as eliminating the direct control clause to just "give directions to" and reducing duration to like 1 minute instead of 1 hour so it's an encounter-length ability.]
    Power Word Kill and Forcecage are pretty mundane, and probably don't need anything done about them.
    Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2020-03-29 at 06:33 PM.
    Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    The reason I referred to them as "plot powers" is that many really high level spells are either things that should be the rewards for an adventure (you have a wish granted) or a cause for an adventure (oh no, the evil magic-user has a Doom Bot clone, so we have to adventure some more to stop them once and for all!). They are things that make the plot work, and they lose a lot of their shine when you can do them every day.

    Your Clone example is actually kinda perfect - why does that have to be a spell? Why couldn't that be, I dunno, a magic item or something? Why does that need to be something that one single class can grab by default?
    Oh that makes sense I agree with that. I kinda like the idea of high level spell casters being able to do that but your way makes lots of sense and maybe it should be an "epic level" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    EDIT:



    That's the thing - there is a reason. PCs and NPCs aren't built on the same rules in the first place, because they fill very different roles in the game. For example, most NPCs effectively exist for a single fight, so they need a different way to pace how many spells they can throw out. In a less mechanical sense, why should your Wizard (who, if you're playing from 1st level, probably started doing this whole "magic" thing less than a decade or two ago) have access to magic that is as good, if not better, than someone who literally turned themselves into an immortal skeleton so that they could study magic forever?
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    But there already is an implicit difference, with all the rituals to summon orcus, hordes of undead minions, mind controlled slaves and whatnot that villains usually have in adventures. If a PC had access to every kind of magic that NPC's are implied to have by plot and such, it would be a huge problem.

    I dont think it's bad that these things be separate because they exist for different purposes.
    For whatever reason despite not thinking that lots of things others say are metagamey* are metagamey that feels a bit too metagamey for me but, it may still be the best solution.


    *Legendary resistance and not starting with your biggest spells being the most common thing i see referred to a metagamey that I don't consider as such. Not trying to say that opinion is wrong but trying to suggest that to my mind I have a high bar for metagameyness.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    Interesting.

    I'm of the opinion that high level spells, and low level spells, and spellcasting in general, aren't good enough.

    Part of it is that they don't scale naturally and high level slots are very limited. Many of their effects are also incredibly unreliable. There's just a few spells that are outside the power level of even their peers, skewing the curve, IMO.


    If I were to rebalance magic, I'd return damage scaling by caster level instead of spell level and/or return additional spell slots for having a high casting stat [or maybe just increase the number of slots per day]. Then, I'd look at the spells that have effects that are now too strong, and eliminate or reduce their effect.

    There's no reason for Wish to exist beyond legacy. It would go, since it skews the curve for all other spells.
    Dominate would be re-worked, because it's kind of useless now since it's such a high level high value slot that has such a high probability of just doing nothing, but its effect is supposedly worth it if it happens. This is IMO a bad model, and I would make it weaker [such as eliminating the direct control clause to just "give directions to" and reducing duration to like 1 minute instead of 1 hour so it's an encounter-length ability.]
    Power Word Kill and Forcecage are pretty mundane, and probably don't need anything done about them.
    I think there are two things here... one is overall power of spell casting and the other is how it is expressed. On the overall power I think we disagree - I think the most feted low level spells dont tend to do damage and they do stay pretty powerful: fairy fire, misty step, hypnotic pattern, bless, shield etc.. now they are probably so highly regarded as they do scale as they dont do damage, but do spellcaster need 100% of their spells to scale as well as their best scaling 30% do?

    How it is expressed is more interesting. Being a spellcaster and not being able to cast spells sucks. Being stuck with cantrips sucks... a system that pushed more of a class's spellcasting power into lower levels slots would be cool by me - less variance in what you do. I am not sure spell slots are the way to go for this though. Bigger changes.might be needed.

    Certainly I think you have a point about how spes dont scale with caster level. Whilst we differ as I think it would overpower casters if it did, with no other changes, I think that there is some merit to your suggestion if you could keep an ok class balance. Those thematic spells that your character loved get forgotten as they are no longer effective - if burning hands was a bit of a trademark of your character then it is a shame to see it dropped rather than grow.

    The balance between spells is terrible, I think we agree on that. Of all the spells in the PHB there are clear gaps between good ones and the mediocre ones and the bad ones. I think that sometimes this is forgotten or underplayed. For all that big sweeping changes can be proposed to systems, a lot of the problems could be fixed by changing about a third of spells.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    I think there are two things here... one is overall power of spell casting and the other is how it is expressed. On the overall power I think we disagree - I think the most feted low level spells dont tend to do damage and they do stay pretty powerful: fairy fire, misty step, hypnotic pattern, bless, shield etc.. now they are probably so highly regarded as they do scale as they dont do damage, but do spellcaster need 100% of their spells to scale as well as their best scaling 30% do?

    How it is expressed is more interesting. Being a spellcaster and not being able to cast spells sucks. Being stuck with cantrips sucks... a system that pushed more of a class's spellcasting power into lower levels slots would be cool by me - less variance in what you do. I am not sure spell slots are the way to go for this though. Bigger changes.might be needed.

    Certainly I think you have a point about how spes dont scale with caster level. Whilst we differ as I think it would overpower casters if it did, with no other changes, I think that there is some merit to your suggestion if you could keep an ok class balance. Those thematic spells that your character loved get forgotten as they are no longer effective - if burning hands was a bit of a trademark of your character then it is a shame to see it dropped rather than grow.

    The balance between spells is terrible, I think we agree on that. Of all the spells in the PHB there are clear gaps between good ones and the mediocre ones and the bad ones. I think that sometimes this is forgotten or underplayed. For all that big sweeping changes can be proposed to systems, a lot of the problems could be fixed by changing about a third of spells.

    For martial vs. caster damage output balance, a very basic level 20 fighter can downrange 75+4d10+1d4 damage every turn without considering special abilities or anything. This is like a low bar for per-turn damage potential.

    A sorcerer at 20th level can do more damage in a burst, but doesn't even come close to that kind of damage for an extended fight, and drops to 4d10 after all her spells are gone or she doesn't want to use them anymore. It's hard to measure her base per-turn downrange damage, but the bulk of her abilities are doing like 30-50 damage per turn, and her high-mid level but still really rare abilities like disintegrate aren't topping the fighter's baseline damage potential.

    I nominated sorcerer because she's comparable to fighter, with twinned spell basically being like an action surge. Sorcerer can twin a disintegrate/finger of death and quicken a cantrip for along the lines of [20 to 38]d6+80+4d10 for 9-12 sorcerery points, and can do this twice per day [before running out of sorcery points], before dropping off to doing just the 10d6+40 twice, then then further down into irrelevance in the damage per turn realm. The Fighter can action surge her full attack cycle for 150+8d10+2d4 twice per day before dropping off to the 75+4d10+1d4 damage.

    38d6+80+4d10 averages out to 256 burst damage, and 150+8d10+1d4 averages out to 204. Sorcerer then drops to 80 and Fighter to 102, and then Sorcerer drops again to like 40 and then to like 20 and stops being comparatively relevant as a damage source. Fighter takes over the lead in damage on only the 6th or 7th round of combat for the day.



    I don't think this is actually too bad, because to some degree the caster is supposed to be providing less damage to more targets [like a meteor storm of 160 average to basically-everybody once per day] and/or support abilities that make everybody else more effective or the enemy less effective, as opposed to single-target alpha striking. However, I think this illustrates why there should be something to push the lower level spells up in ability without costing high level spell slots.

    Some spells that don't do damage are strong, but because of the way combat works in 5e [which is another problem and another discussion to have another time], a lot of the ones that do damage I think are actually legitimately strong options when they come available, and then quickly decline into obsolescence and the slots into sorcerery points.

    The low level spells that IMO have the best staying power are Invisibility, Fly, D-Door, and Greater Invisibility because they have tactical maneuver value and minimal failure chance, and assuming the party size doesn't change, neither does their effect grow relatively weaker.
    Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2020-03-29 at 06:46 PM.
    Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by detro View Post
    A quick and dirty solution is that when on a players turn they declare they are casting a spell, but the spell isn't actually cast until the initiative count of (original initiative - 2*spell level).
    It's treated as pseudo concentration, whenever they receive damage between beginning and finishing casting the spell they must succeed a concentration check or fail to cast the spell that round.

    So lets say Wilgaf the Vile with an initiative of 13 decides they want to cast a third level spell on their turn. Wilgaf begins the casting process and in the meantime any player with an initiative from 7 to 12 has the opportunity attempt an attack and disrupt the spell.
    For an extra dynamic, it could be based on the original level of the spell. An upcast burning hands has less of a chance of being disrupted than a fireball, creating interesting tradeoffs.
    AD&D casting times, usually additional segments (initative points) per spell level. Also reference weapons speeds where smaller weapons are faster to use and a complete lack of things like concentration rolls. All limitations abandoned as "un-fun", leading eventually to our current paradigm of always magic all the time and denying martials fun stuff.

    That was what, 45 years ago?

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    How it is expressed is more interesting. Being a spellcaster and not being able to cast spells sucks. Being stuck with cantrips sucks... a system that pushed more of a class's spellcasting power into lower levels slots would be cool by me - less variance in what you do. I am not sure spell slots are the way to go for this though. Bigger changes.might be needed.

    Certainly I think you have a point about how spes dont scale with caster level. Whilst we differ as I think it would overpower casters if it did, with no other changes, I think that there is some merit to your suggestion if you could keep an ok class balance. Those thematic spells that your character loved get forgotten as they are no longer effective - if burning hands was a bit of a trademark of your character then it is a shame to see it dropped rather than grow.
    I’ve never played a level 10+ game so I haven’t yet seen this problem firsthand.

    That being said, I’ve been toying with a novel approach to fixing it. Basically, the spell progression follows the normal curve until level 6 (10 spell slots total). After level 6, spells casters don’t get more slots, their slots simply
    get more powerful (i.e. they gain a new slot, but lose their lowest level existing slot).

    A 7th level wizard has 1 4th level, 3 3rd level, 3 2nd level and 3 1st level slots. A 12th level wizard has 1 6th level, 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 3 3rd level and 2 2nd level slots. You can always cast a spell using a higher level slot, so your Shield spell remains somewhat useful.

    You have to be careful with your spells because even at high levels you can run out.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant View Post
    For martial vs. caster damage output balance, a very basic level 20 fighter can downrange 75+4d10+1d4 damage every turn without considering special abilities or anything. This is like a low bar for per-turn damage potential.

    A sorcerer at 20th level can do more damage in a burst, but doesn't even come close to that kind of damage for an extended fight, and drops to 4d10 after all her spells are gone or she doesn't want to use them anymore. It's hard to measure her base per-turn downrange damage, but the bulk of her abilities are doing like 30-50 damage per turn, and her high-mid level but still really rare abilities like disintegrate aren't topping the fighter's baseline damage potential.

    I nominated sorcerer because she's comparable to fighter, with twinned spell basically being like an action surge. Sorcerer can twin a disintegrate/finger of death and quicken a cantrip for along the lines of [20 to 38]d6+80+4d10 for 9-12 sorcerery points, and can do this twice per day [before running out of sorcery points], before dropping off to doing just the 10d6+40 twice, then then further down into irrelevance in the damage per turn realm. The Fighter can action surge her full attack cycle for 150+8d10+2d4 twice per day before dropping off to the 75+4d10+1d4 damage.

    38d6+80+4d10 averages out to 256 burst damage, and 150+8d10+1d4 averages out to 204. Sorcerer then drops to 80 and Fighter to 102, and then Sorcerer drops again to like 40 and then to like 20 and stops being comparatively relevant as a damage source. Fighter takes over the lead in damage on only the 6th or 7th round of combat for the day.



    I don't think this is actually too bad, because to some degree the caster is supposed to be providing less damage to more targets [like a meteor storm of 160 average to basically-everybody once per day] and/or support abilities that make everybody else more effective or the enemy less effective, as opposed to single-target alpha striking. However, I think this illustrates why there should be something to push the lower level spells up in ability without costing high level spell slots.

    Some spells that don't do damage are strong, but because of the way combat works in 5e [which is another problem and another discussion to have another time], a lot of the ones that do damage I think are actually legitimately strong options when they come available, and then quickly decline into obsolescence and the slots into sorcerery points.

    The low level spells that IMO have the best staying power are Invisibility, Fly, D-Door, and Greater Invisibility because they have tactical maneuver value and minimal failure chance, and assuming the party size doesn't change, neither does their effect grow relatively weaker.
    That is one of the other main issues, there are no extended fights like old editions.

    I never made it to level 20 but I have made it to 16 once and 17 once.

    No fight lasted more than 4 rounds. None.
    I have never even heard of a combat in other groups go past 6.
    Most of the time of a fight goes past 4 it is because everyone is stuck in darkness or fog or something and people are doing nothing most of the time.

    Heck in the level 16 capped game where I played a melee rogue, I didn’t even bother rolling initiative after level 11 because I knew that nothing I was going to do in actual combat mattered.

    We had:
    An evoker wizard one level fighter
    A life cleric
    A bear totem barbarian with PAM
    A vengeance paladin one level hexblade and PAM
    A Lore Bard
    And
    Me as a melee centered rogue swashbuckler who used a custom made 2 handed reach finesse weapon.

    It was very much the 10 min adventuring day, so I just went around and scoped places for hidden rooms and things while everyone else handled the fighting.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterwhisper View Post
    That is one of the other main issues, there are no extended fights like old editions.

    I never made it to level 20 but I have made it to 16 once and 17 once.

    No fight lasted more than 4 rounds. None.
    I have never even heard of a combat in other groups go past 6.
    Most of the time of a fight goes past 4 it is because everyone is stuck in darkness or fog or something and people are doing nothing most of the time.

    Heck in the level 16 capped game where I played a melee rogue, I didn’t even bother rolling initiative after level 11 because I knew that nothing I was going to do in actual combat mattered.

    We had:
    An evoker wizard one level fighter
    A life cleric
    A bear totem barbarian with PAM
    A vengeance paladin one level hexblade and PAM
    A Lore Bard
    And
    Me as a melee centered rogue swashbuckler who used a custom made 2 handed reach finesse weapon.

    It was very much the 10 min adventuring day, so I just went around and scoped places for hidden rooms and things while everyone else handled the fighting.
    Unfortunately your experience reflects mine as well, at high levels the way casters just absolutely shut down encounters before they even begin can be pretty gross. The DM's solution to this way to make enemy saves ridiculously high and giving way too many creatures legendary resistances (instead of putting in more encounters in one adventuring cycle...) and casters almost immediately became the other extreme, very weak. This just isnt the way the game was designed.

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the first thing any DM should do to remedy this is to not make it so easy to take a long rest, either by danger, time pressure or making the requirements for actually completing one higher (must be done in safety and comfort, or only in certain designated "safe spots" in the map). Casters should be exhausting their spell slots by the end of a long rest, not just resting to get their 6+ slots back.

    Of course this doesn't fix the entire problem, but its the very first thing anyone can do to start making it less of one.
    What I'm Playing: D&D 5e
    What I've Played: D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, B/X D&D, CoC, Delta Green

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Modern in sense of design focus. I consider any system that puts more weight in the buttons that players mash over the rest of the system as modern.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by patchyman View Post
    I’ve never played a level 10+ game so I haven’t yet seen this problem firsthand.

    That being said, I’ve been toying with a novel approach to fixing it. Basically, the spell progression follows the normal curve until level 6 (10 spell slots total). After level 6, spells casters don’t get more slots, their slots simply
    get more powerful (i.e. they gain a new slot, but lose their lowest level existing slot).

    A 7th level wizard has 1 4th level, 3 3rd level, 3 2nd level and 3 1st level slots. A 12th level wizard has 1 6th level, 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 3 3rd level and 2 2nd level slots. You can always cast a spell using a higher level slot, so your Shield spell remains somewhat useful.

    You have to be careful with your spells because even at high levels you can run out.
    This reminds me of 13th Age, which is a good thing - it's a pretty elegant way to cap out how much power you can bring to bear. It might be messy when it comes to certain class features - Arcane Recovery comes to mind immediately, but I'm pretty sure there are others.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    If you see me try to discuss the nitty-gritty of D&D 5e, kindly point me to my signature and remind me that I shouldn't. Please and thank you!

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    There is a fine line between this being appropriate and this being an inappropriate and monumentally selfish approach.

    It is fine as long as a casters big thing does not diminish what another players big thing is. If another player's big thing is doing damage and meteor swarm overshadows that then one players big thing is spoiling the experience if someone else. If a players big thing is absorbing damage and a high level spell stops that damage then one player being inconsiderate spoils the fun of another player. If a player plays a ranger to guide the party accross the wilderness and that gets skipped through a teleport spell then that player doing their thing is taking away from the fun of someone else at the table.

    Any analysis that only looks at that one player and what that player wants is bound to be flawed. Likewise an analysis that looks at the encounter that was, rather than the encounter that would be in the absence of high level spells is similarly problematic.

    It isn't just winning or losing but ensuring that every player has a chance to shine during that process but also that they have a chance to shine at equally dramatic and narratively important points. Who ever is running the game needs to look after the fun of the whole table and not just one player.
    Wizard casts Meteor Swarm? Wonderful. All the hoard of mooks are dead. The BBEG and Lieutenants of the fight are singed. The barbarian rages and attacks one, getting in its face and pummeling it probably with great weapon master. The paladin charges at another one smiting it to death. The fighter goes after a third one using his Maneuvers and Action Surge. The ranger snipes away with his bow picking off any of the BBEGS or Lieutenants who somehow survive the warriors' wrath. The rogues kites in and sneaks attack one. The monk runs in stunning one, perhaps to help the paladin land his smite blows.

    Maybe the wizard Mazes the BBEG of the fight. Wonderful. Everyone else kills the mooks and all pummel the BBEG when he returns. Hooray, the wizard was MVP of that fight. Everyone is happy. The wizard player is allowed to be MVP of a fight. In another fight it will be another player. There's no reason to resent spellcasters having their turn in the limelight.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    The idea has merit but I think you’d need to look at it from a spell by spell basis. You’d need to decide about what you want to do with a seventh level fireball. Spells would all need a rebalancing. I’d want WotC to rebalance I wouldn’t trust myself.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordCdrMilitant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Inner Palace, Holy Terra
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterwhisper View Post
    That is one of the other main issues, there are no extended fights like old editions.

    I never made it to level 20 but I have made it to 16 once and 17 once.

    No fight lasted more than 4 rounds. None.
    I have never even heard of a combat in other groups go past 6.
    Most of the time of a fight goes past 4 it is because everyone is stuck in darkness or fog or something and people are doing nothing most of the time.

    Heck in the level 16 capped game where I played a melee rogue, I didn’t even bother rolling initiative after level 11 because I knew that nothing I was going to do in actual combat mattered.

    We had:
    An evoker wizard one level fighter
    A life cleric
    A bear totem barbarian with PAM
    A vengeance paladin one level hexblade and PAM
    A Lore Bard
    And
    Me as a melee centered rogue swashbuckler who used a custom made 2 handed reach finesse weapon.

    It was very much the 10 min adventuring day, so I just went around and scoped places for hidden rooms and things while everyone else handled the fighting.
    4 rounds of combat in an adventuring day sounds kind of ridiculous.

    I could see maybe 4 rounds in a single combat, especially if everybody unloads, but in a whole day seems kind of extreme levels of 10 minute adventuring day. I would say that we probably usually have 4-10 rounds in a single combat, and in a day that involves combats, there are usually several [Most days do not involve combat]. I definitely understand an argument that short rests might as well not exist so Fighter doesn't get to alpha strike more than Sorcerer, but Fighter isn't actually relying on being able to recharge her burst abilities on a short rest to outperform the long rest Sorcerer, only that there's 7 or more rounds of combat in a day where there's a fight.

    As far as being a melee centered rogue, it's not just the caster showing you up:

    As mentioned, even a basic fighter build [any type, PAM & GWM] is going to downrange 204 average potential damage on the opening/action surge rounds and 102 on a regular turn. Shooty Rogue, on the round they Assassinate [first round], outputs 20d6+2d10+15 [107] [or some combination thereof, since most of the damage is coming from Sneak Attack] on the first round of combat and drops to 10d6+1d10+15 [61] on each round thereafter. This isn't favorable at all. Without Assassinate, Rogue doesn't even get the damage spike on turn 1 [I don't know what Swashbuckler gets, though].





    Quote Originally Posted by patchyman View Post
    I’ve never played a level 10+ game so I haven’t yet seen this problem firsthand.

    That being said, I’ve been toying with a novel approach to fixing it. Basically, the spell progression follows the normal curve until level 6 (10 spell slots total). After level 6, spells casters don’t get more slots, their slots simply
    get more powerful (i.e. they gain a new slot, but lose their lowest level existing slot).

    A 7th level wizard has 1 4th level, 3 3rd level, 3 2nd level and 3 1st level slots. A 12th level wizard has 1 6th level, 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 3 3rd level and 2 2nd level slots. You can always cast a spell using a higher level slot, so your Shield spell remains somewhat useful.

    You have to be careful with your spells because even at high levels you can run out.
    IMO, expecting the use of cantrips for damage is only really acceptable in the calculation if the alpha strike and follow-on rates are actually exceeding the every-turn always-active floor for the noncaster. Given that this isn't true, I think that casters just need the potential in their low end slots to grow with level.
    [as a side note, without twinning spells the burst damage out of a spellcaster isn't even that high]

    If we took, for example, Fireball [which is common and good when it becomes available but is obsolete not too long afterwords] and scaled it as it used to be [1d6/caster level], then it would do 20d6 [80] damage at 20th level. This would be pretty acceptable for a 20th level blast effect, and alleviate the problem of high-level casters having 6 turns of useful damage output [which still for the most part doesn't actually exceed noncasters] before dropping off to irrelevance in that regard and mostly being useful for teleporting places.
    Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2020-03-29 at 10:00 PM.
    Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Belac93 View Post
    If a concern is balancing magic and martial characters, why not just buff martial characters and scale monsters up?
    With regard to this point, other than what has been mentioned about it being easier to fix that which is too good, rather than fixing every other things in the game, it is also important to note that simply moving everything to the same power level doesn't necessarily fix things, if that power level is bad for the game. There is a mantra you may often hear in conversations like this one: "always buff, never nerf." However, that phrase, despite being common, is almost entirely BS. You are likely to hear it from people who enjoy the things that are being called overpowered, but , almost anyone with significant experience in game design can tell you that it is not a good idea.

    Games are designed around particular power levels. That power level is what allows all of the systems of the game to interact properly. This big problem is that the mechanics that the players get to use are not the only mechanics in the system. If a player option is out of whack when it comes to balance, it is not simply because it is a different power level than other player options. The issue is that it is out of line with what all the other systems of the game expect. Changing the power level of everything else to match this broken element does not fix everything. It may make the other options feel less outclassed, but the game itself will still have significant issues, since it will not be expecting players to have that level of power. Only by dialing back an overpowered option (or dialing up an underpowered one) can you actually fix balance issues and have a game that plays how it is expected to.

    Now obviously, whether or not any particular thing is overpowered or not is a different question all together. But while it is tempting to always want to leave something powerful alone because some people enjoy it, you are not going to fix balance issues without fixing the actual elements that are at issue.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    In-combat spells are already garbage at high level play compared to non-spell-based classes. Too many things have spell resistance, damage/condition immunities, and legendary resistance. An extra action to cast a spell is only punitive in combat, which is the place that spells are already pretty bad.

    If you're upset about high level spells, I have to assume you mean the out of combat ones. In which case, who cares how long it takes to cast?

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    With a level 11 Fighter, dealing about 15 damage per hit and a ~75% hit chance, we're looking at an average of 11 damage per attack, 3 attacks per turn, and 3 more attacks in the first turn of each encounter.
    I see your problem.

    My model level 11 fighter deals 4d6+15+1d8 damage per hit with a 50% hit chance 5% crit chance x3 for 33.5 * 1.5 + 2.775 or 53.025 damage per round, or 106 damage with action surge. Accounting for accuracy.

    Or, a champion 3/barbarian 8 that has advantage, hits 75% for 1d12+2d6+17 (30.5) and 19% crit for an additional 2d12+2d6 (20) on crit, 2 attacks deal 53.35 damage, action surge for 107.

    Or, elven Paladin 6/Samurai 3/Hexblade 1/Sorcerer 1 attacking for 2d6+5d8+11 (including smite)x2 at 40.5, 27% crits for 5d8+2d6(29.5), 98% accuracy, 95.31 per action.

    Or a Fighter 11 BM sharpshooter.

    Or Gloomstalker 3/Battlemaster 5/Assassin 3, opening for 18d6+8d8+126 = 225 damage on round 1.
    Last edited by Yakk; 2020-03-29 at 10:23 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #54

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    AD&D casting times, usually additional segments (initative points) per spell level. Also reference weapons speeds where smaller weapons are faster to use and a complete lack of things like concentration rolls. All limitations abandoned as "un-fun", leading eventually to our current paradigm of always magic all the time and denying martials fun stuff.

    That was what, 45 years ago?
    1977-present.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    AD&D casting times, usually additional segments (initative points) per spell level. Also reference weapons speeds where smaller weapons are faster to use and a complete lack of things like concentration rolls. All limitations abandoned as "un-fun", leading eventually to our current paradigm of always magic all the time and denying martials fun stuff.

    That was what, 45 years ago?
    TBF, magic-user and cleric casting times were intended to be unfun because Gary didn't like that some people wanted to play something other than Conan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    So the wizard casts meteor swarm, the BBEG then used their turn to flee may be more likely. The BBEG hanging round to die just so the party can mop up the fight after the wizard has made sure the party outnumbers the bad guys is hardly the most likely choice.

    And there is no resentment about a caster being MVP in a fight, it is that they always get first pick of which fights to be MVP in. In this hypothetical fight with the minions, the lieutenants AND the BBEG it sounds pretty epic - the caster can chose to outshine everyone else here and they dont get a say in that. If there was some more symmetry and the barbarian could chose to open a fight with an ability that, whilst not ending the fight, did mean the result was not in doubt, but could only do it once per day then fair enough - whoever rolled higher initiative can be the one who steals the show in the most epic fight of the campaign. As it is those with high level spells decide on a fight by fight basis if that fight is one that is important enough and fun enough to dominate or whether it is trivial and can be left for another PC to be MVP of.

    The problem isn't a caster shining in some encounters, it is the caster getting to chose which ones in a way that the other players dont. The key metric is which players get to use their abilities to make a difference: does the barbarian raging in your example make a difference? Was the fight already won then and the use of the ability is just for show? Too often the really big swing is landing the spell and the impact of some classes using their toys is too little too late.

    I think that it is worth noting that it isn't all spells that do this. Some are better designed than others. Spells like spirit guardians can do a lot of damage but also give others space to do their things (although not a high level spell it gives an indication of what I mean); it contributes to a fight rather than deciding it. Crown of stars might be an equivalent high level example. Foresight is the same, an incremental impact that gives others the space to shine. Spells like Maze and Forcecage that can turn a fight around by themselves are the opposite.

    Fixing this isn't about squashing fun, it is about opening things up so that more players get to have fun at the climactic moments rather than just escorting the high level casters to the big fights.
    Last edited by MrStabby; 2020-03-30 at 03:44 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2018

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    And there is no resentment about a caster being MVP in a fight, it is that they always get first pick of which fights to be MVP in.
    I believe that this is a deeply flawed argument, even if we disregard the excessively dangerous 'always'. It relies heavily on the assumptions that the mage in question a- has the spell learned/prepared, b- has saved the spellslot during the entire day of adventuring, c- that this is the fight that 'matters' and not the one after. Or the one previous that the group managed with difficulty and that the meteor swarm could have made much easier. d- that the spell actually does something and doesn't miss / get saved against / fail for a myriad of other possible reasons, and e- that 'being the MVP' is the thing that matters to the mage, and not 'group success', 'fun RPing' or anything else. I don't think any one of these assumptions is trivial.
    Last edited by terodil; 2020-03-30 at 04:48 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by terodil View Post
    I believe that this is a deeply flawed argument, even if we disregard the excessively dangerous 'always'. It relies heavily on the assumptions that the mage in question a- has the spell learned/prepared, b- has saved the spellslot during the entire day of adventuring, c- that this is the fight that 'matters' and not the one after. Or the one previous that the group managed with difficulty and that the meteor swarm could have made much easier. d- that the spell actually does something and doesn't miss / get saved against / fail for a myriad of other possible reasons, and e- that 'being the MVP' is the thing that matters to the mage, and not 'group success', 'fun RPing' or anything else. I don't think any one of these assumptions is trivial.
    Some of these points are more legitimate than others. Working in order:
    A) has the spell slot learned or prepared. It is possible, if you try really hard, to pick sets of high level spells that will be useless in a big fight. I absolutely conceed this is possible. Some classes are more likely to have this than others - for example a wizard or cleric with access to divination magic has a pretty good chance of knowing what is coming up and can change. A sorcerer or warlock who made poor choices is stuck with them. This point though doesn't seem relevant to me, the OP suggested changes to how these spells cast. If, as you are suggesting, you dont have anything appropriate to cast out of your high level slots, or dont have the slots... then these changes have absolutely no impact at all.

    B) This is my point. It is the choice of the caster as to when they dominate. They can chose not to on any given encounter. It is their choice to hold back. Other classes with a less uneven distribution of power get to shine, not according to their timetable but to the decision of the caster. So yeah, it assumes the caster saves slots - the problem is when they can.

    C) this is the fight that matters. Ok, sure if you have only 1 high level slot then you need to use it in the right fight. When you have only one high level slot then the OP suggestion only impacts one spell in the entire day anyway. If you have a slot of 6th, 7th and 8th level then that is three encounters you have high level slots for. Your point here is legitimate though in that when you have exceptionally long adventuring days with each encounter being as tough as all the others with no climactic boss fights or easy encounters then this issue does diminish a lot. Sure, there are other problems but the point remains.

    D) The problem is described is with a single spell ending the dram of a key encounter before the other PCs get an equal chance to have their class features shine. If the spell doesn't do that it is a non issue. So yeah, if they dont do the thing that spoils the game the game isn't spoiled. Much like if they chose not to cast the spell. I guess this is true...

    E) This is the one that I strongly disagree with. The "MVP" thing I am not so tied to - it was Pex's term so I borrowed it for consistency. I dont think it matters at all what the PC casting the spell is aiming for though. If they cast Maze because it is an awesomely evocative spell and they love the description and if they cast it in the most important fight because they are role playing someone who wants to survive that fight and defeat their enemies you get the same effect as someone who selects and casts the spell to demonstrate that their character is really really powerful or even someone who wants to actively stop the rest of the party doing their thing. Indeed the alternative motivation of "group success" is the most common motivation I have seen for this problem. Player wants the party to overcome the encounter therefore PC casts the spell that will achieve that.

    I would say that you have missed out bigger assumptions though, thinks like the assumption that someone is playing a caster. But the nature of calling these assumptions such doesn't diminish the OP's point that it would be useful to have rules in place that stop these problems from occurring when the conditions, that you call assumptions, are met.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2018

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    I don't have all that much time at the moment, so I'll just focus on one element that does re-occur several times in your argument, and that's the point of 'if it doesn't matter [e.g. because there is no appropriate spell, the spell fails or anything else], the change doesn't have any impact'. That's not true, I think. It makes the caster feel even ****tier; it's not just the strategic failure of picking a bad spell for the encounter, e.g. due to lack of foreknowledge, or the operational failure of having a suitable spell fail entirely -- now the caster has to pay an extra penalty on top because it could potentially have been a good spell, saved for the right time, that was 100% effective. If I was a caster, I would feel very demotivated by this. YMMV.
    Last edited by terodil; 2020-03-30 at 07:17 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    Well, I dunno about that.

    At level 11, a single spell slot, at 6th level spent on your example of Chain Lightning, will afford that Wizard about 3-4 turns of a Fighter hacking away. That's without spending a single other spell slot.
    hmmm, i can see what you mean. on the other hand that assumes a particular style of play. i.e. very short adventuring days. and while i agree that that is a fairly common way to play the game, its not what the game is balanced around. sure, 1/day the caster can do 3/4 turns worth of the fighters at-will damage. But it also makes sense that expending a daily resource should get more out of it than an at-will resource.

    meanwhile, as you point out, passively the fighter has significantly more HP than the wizard. and in order for the wizard to keep up, they need to expend even more resources.

    Now im not trying to argue that spell casting at high levels is *actually* balance. especially when you consider that most games probably dont do the 6-8 encounters per day thing. However, using a comparison of a 1/day resource to an at-will attack is a pretty poor argument.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •