Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

[Cikomyr2]

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.

But now aren't we going the other way with one of the 5e creator that made sure wizards were still overpowered no matter what?

The whole point of this is that I like the thematic feel of major spellcaster having to take a heavy swing before they punch, and the team needing to adjust around them.

[Amechra]

The thing about the "1/day vs. at-will" argument is that it falls apart in any playstyle where you have 1-2 encounters per day. Because at that point, it effectively goes from being once per day to being once per fight, which is a whole different can of worms. Both players and DMs have an incentive to have really short adventuring days. On the PC side, they get back all of these really powerful limited resources, which make otherwise dangerous encounters much easier. On the DM side, running 6-8 challenging encounters that drain resources is hard work, and doesn't always make sense, especially when you're playing something other than a dungeon crawl.

None of this would be a problem if WotC had built 5e to actually support the "6-8 encounters per long rest" that they balanced their game around. This would involve stuff like giving DMs proper tools for making things like "talking to people" or "navigating the wilderness" into encounters instead of "you roll a skill, I guess?", generally making it much easier to plan and run encounters, and removing player control over when they can "rest" so that playing with shorter adventuring days has to be intentional. Pushing the burden of hitting this balance point onto DMs instead of making it a reasonable default isn't great - you can only have so many time-sensitive adventures, after all.

[Luccan]

But now aren't we going the other way with one of the 5e creator that made sure wizards were still overpowered no matter what?

The whole point of this is that I like the thematic feel of major spellcaster having to take a heavy swing before they punch, and the team needing to adjust around them.

I can see the argument, though I don't think it's necessary. If you want casters to not be the focus of "every" fight, making the martials protect them while they wait to cast their uber spell seems a poor way to do it and less fun for both parties. I would seriously take the earlier suggestion of playing a lower level game to heart. Or even go as far as adapting the E6 system or the related E8/E10 from 3.5.

[Man_Over_Game]

.

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.

I didn't just compare a 1/day resource to an at-will.

I also took into account for the Fighter's Action Surge, and the damage benefits of the Fighter's Subclass (A Fighter with no subclass abilities would deal about 10-12 damage per hit, not 15).

But even a level 3 spell, like Fireball, is capable of dealing 25 damage per target, assuming a 60% miss chance, hitting an 8x8 grid. When I compared the Wizard, I assumed he was using nothing but Fire Bolt after his one big spell for the day.

But I'd be satisfied if someone else would show me why I'm wrong rather than telling me. This is not the first time I've done an analysis on the contribution between casters and noncasters, but the only arguments I ever hear is "that isn't what happens in real games".

So show me what *does* happen. What should I be accounting for that I'm missing?

[MrStabby]

I didn't just compare a 1/day resource to an at-will.

I also took into account for the Fighter's Action Surge, and the damage benefits of the Fighter's Subclass (A Fighter with no subclass abilities would deal about 10-12 damage per hit, not 15).

But I'd be satisfied if someone else would show me why I'm wrong. This is not the first time I've done a quick analysis on the contribution between casters and noncasters, but the only arguments I ever hear is "that isn't what happens in real games".

So show me what *does* happen.

I think the "show me what *does* happen" part, in my experience, comes down to fights being avoided as much as anything else. Those 4 days of grueling wilderness challenge, staving off predations of dinosaurs and barbarian tribes where the strongest and those who can keep going all day excel gets replaced with something like teleport. Now half the party has skipped their chance to shine, the party is 4 days ahead of schedule so can take 4 more long rests before they start to fall behind.

Sure, it isn't always teleport (although I have seen that undermine characters multiple times). What *does* happen that causes the most issues is, in my experience only occasionally about the damage - if we are talking about the resource trade off. Now these spells are not going to be impacted the same way by the OP suggestion, so responding somewhat to a tangent.

The high level spells I have seen be most problematic cast in battles are force cage and banishment (out of a high level slot), maze, wish and a few others, not really the damage spells so much.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the "show me what *does* happen" part, in my experience, comes down to fights being avoided as much as anything else. Those 4 days of grueling wilderness challenge, staving off predations of dinosaurs and barbarian tribes where the strongest and those who can keep going all day excel gets replaced with something like teleport. Now half the party has skipped their chance to shine, the party is 4 days ahead of schedule so can take 4 more long rests before they start to fall behind.

Sure, it isn't always teleport (although I have seen that undermine characters multiple times). What *does* happen that causes the most issues is, in my experience only occasionally about the damage - if we are talking about the resource trade off. Now these spells are not going to be impacted the same way by the OP suggestion, so responding somewhat to a tangent.

The high level spells I have seen be most problematic cast in battles are force cage and banishment (out of a high level slot), maze, wish and a few others, not really the damage spells so much.

Honestly, I think Chain Lightning is probably one of the worst ways of spending a level 6 slot, but it still seems to surpass most things a Fighter could do.

It seems like a problem on two fronts.

Mages seem to solve problems out of combat better than Fighters.

Mages seem to solve problems in combat better than Fighters.

Even if the Wizard spends his combat resources for non-combat stuff, it'd be because it was more valuable to do so (like through your teleport example).

How much fighting would it take for the Fighter to outpace a Wizard, past level 5? A lot, I'd reckon. I guess you could convert all of the spell slots into damage, then have the Fighter match that, assuming about an Action Surge once every 4 combat rounds, after subtracting the Wizard's cantrips damage per round after the spell slots are spent.

I could probably make something up to guess that later today

[MrStabby]

Honestly, I think Chain Lightning is probably one of the worst ways of spending a level 6 slot, but it still seems to surpass most things a Fighter could do.

It seems like a problem on two fronts.

Mages seem to solve problems out of combat better than Fighters.

Mages seem to solve problems in combat better than Fighters.

Even if the Wizard spends his combat resources for non-combat stuff, it'd be because it was more valuable to do so (like through your teleport example).

How much fighting would it take for the Fighter to outpace a Wizard, past level 5? A lot, I'd reckon. I guess you could convert all of the spell slots into damage, then have the Fighter match that, assuming about an Action Surge once every 4 combat rounds, after subtracting the Wizard's cantrips damage per round after the spell slots are spent.

I could probably make something up to guess that later today

I think perspectives may differ a little depending on game styles. If the problem is that there are 1200 hostile and armed tribesmen between where you are and where you need to be, then this is a problem that can be solved by teleport or cutting a bloody swathe through them on a 4 day march. To me it is just a situation, an obstacle to be overcome and isn't a "combat challenge" or a "non-combat challenge".

I find a lot of objectives are. You need to steal a secret ritual from a wizard? You can solve it in a non combat way through dimension door, grab the papers and leave. You can also have a combat solution which is to kill everything in the tower, grab the ritual, burn the tower down, kill all the witnesses...

I think the issue is some PCs have too great a capacity to solve problems, invalidating what other classes bring.

[Amechra]

I can see the argument, though I don't think it's necessary. If you want casters to not be the focus of "every" fight, making the martials protect them while they wait to cast their uber spell seems a poor way to do it and less fun for both parties. I would seriously take the earlier suggestion of playing a lower level game to heart. Or even go as far as adapting the E6 system or the related E8/E10 from 3.5.

Honestly? It depends on the framing. You'd have to build the game around it, but I could see a game where your party spellcasters set a time limit on the fight could be fun.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was wondering. I think at high levels, spells are just too much of a game breaker to be spontaneously cast. I don't mind Wizards and Sorcerers and all to change the world in a major way by doing magic, but I think gameplay and thematic wise, high level spells should be less a half second effort.

What if a Sudden Death spell would take two Actions to cast. You can do your bonus action during rounds where you cast the spell. You can take your movement. But your action is dedicated in pre-casting your spell. You can hold an uncast spell for a while with Concentration checks. But you have to finish it to actually cast it. So it won't get out next round.

The idea is to.. Make high level (11+) spellcasters just a little slower to deploy their top lvl 6+ spells, which are kind of a game breaker a times.

I like that they are gamebreaker. It's high level magic. But I think the game might be more enjoyable and tactical if the casters had to dedicate 2+ rounds of action deploying their Big Cannons. Again, they have their bonus action and movement.

However, a Fighter/Caster could dedicate their Action Surge to do two casting actions jn the same round.

And i guess a sorcerer with Swift casting could replace one of the casting action for a Bonus action.

Whatcha think?

I think giving cool things to everyone is a better option than nerfing specific classes. Especially when 6/12 of the classes get 6th+ spellcasting.

The reasons my groups don't play high level games isn't because of the casters, they're cool and fun to play, it"s that the other half of the casters fall closer to the "meh" range after you hit level 11.

Your proposed rules would make me, and my groups, not play high level even more than usual as we do one shots from time to time at high level.

[Telok]

I think the issue is some PCs have too great a capacity to solve problems, invalidating what other classes bring.

Perhaps rather than "too great" it might be that some classes are not designed to have non-combat problem solving, or that their problem solving is niche and inflexable.

The ranger class has problem solving abilities, but they're all "explore/survive outdoor winderness" and can't really be applied to varied stuff like dungeons, cities, planar travel, etc. Their abilities are narrow and... say, not modular? They can't adapt their abilities to fit the situation, the explore stuff can't be adapted (natively in the game structure given in the books, of course) to exploring a city for faster travel, they can't use surviving harsh environment in a dungeon.

Then you have poor fighter class, that is punished for investing in non-combat stats and only gets basic skill proficency for problem solving.

It will be argued that feats (optional, not guaranteed, competes with needed ability advancement) and backgrounds make up for this. But all characters get those, all are equally available, and those are all narrow-niche-inflexable.

By contrast the "too much" problem solving casters have one main class ability, spellcasting, which is adaptable and modular. Say the fighter class got 'stunts', a per day/known resource like sorc casting but focused on a mix of combat tricks an non-combat "this type of problem gets solved" things. Suddenly making new stunts is as easy as making new spells, and fighters can get the sort of splat expansion that casters do. Also, non-combat problem solving is baked into the class just like the casters.

[MrStabby]

Perhaps rather than "too great" it might be that some classes are not designed to have non-combat problem solving, or that their problem solving is niche and inflexable.

The ranger class has problem solving abilities, but they're all "explore/survive outdoor winderness" and can't really be applied to varied stuff like dungeons, cities, planar travel, etc. Their abilities are narrow and... say, not modular? They can't adapt their abilities to fit the situation, the explore stuff can't be adapted (natively in the game structure given in the books, of course) to exploring a city for faster travel, they can't use surviving harsh environment in a dungeon.

Then you have poor fighter class, that is punished for investing in non-combat stats and only gets basic skill proficency for problem solving.

It will be argued that feats (optional, not guaranteed, competes with needed ability advancement) and backgrounds make up for this. But all characters get those, all are equally available, and those are all narrow-niche-inflexable.

By contrast the "too much" problem solving casters have one main class ability, spellcasting, which is adaptable and modular. Say the fighter class got 'stunts', a per day/known resource like sorc casting but focused on a mix of combat tricks an non-combat "this type of problem gets solved" things. Suddenly making new stunts is as easy as making new spells, and fighters can get the sort of splat expansion that casters do. Also, non-combat problem solving is baked into the class just like the casters.

It isn't just that a subset of classes dominates the non combat problem solving, it is that that same subset can chose the approach through spell section and that furthermore, having avoided the resource attrition of combat they get to undertake combat with more resources than they otherwise would. ( I suppose just stating this, not aiming it at you). If the abilities that enabled the party to circumvent encounters or to long rest more easily were abilities on the classes that were not reliant on long rest resources thather than on the classes that were then I would be a lot more chilled about it. If a player felt screwed by a shift in balance caused by their abilities allowing fewer encounters per day they could swap it out - making it more of a team game.

The idea of stunts is cool, at least in principle. Depends on execution I guess. There is still the problem that some people play a fighter because they want to fight. They want to play a character that uses violence as a universal problem solvent. I think it goes deeper than can be solved by a session zero or a trite "talk to the DM" instruction though. If we are accepting that at some tables people should not play the class they want, then there is certainly something off about the game.

[Monster Manuel]

What the game is missing is different ways for a warrior to interact to stop spell effects working - they are passive subjects to magic rather than it being an engaging back and forth.

I totally agree with this sentiment, and I think that this is the way to go about fixing the imbalance between higher-level casters and martials, or at least part of it.

Part of my problem with this is similar to lots of fixes that people suggest...how to incorporate the fix elegantly into the system as it is designed, without having to re-balance whole swaths of the game? Since, given the realities of what will and will not be considered "errata", there's almost no chance of getting a major adjustment to the power level balance in this edition. They can't re-write the players' handbook, so any correction to the issue has to be something that can be easily plugged into the existing system, rather than a total overhaul, and that's hard to do.

This is what I love about the Shield Master feat, as a side note. The bonus action attack is what gets the most attention, but letting the character use their shield as an evasion-like reaction to AoE is exactly the kind of fun thing that martials need to put them on more even footing with the casters. We need more of this.

One thing I've added to my games is tied to the Minor Properties of magic items in the DMG. I added a minor property called "spellbreaker", which lets an attuned wielder make a melee attack as a reaction, 1x per long rest, against the spell's save DC+2 to cancel the effect. It's not too far ahead of some of the better minor properties (free language proficiency, detect a certain kind of enenmy, +2 initiative). It makes absolutely no real word sense ("Did you just...CUT THROUGH that spell...with your axe?"), but it's fun in a silly anime-like way that gels with the play-style at my table, and gives the martials a subtle boost. Can the casters take this just as easily? Sure, but it means they have to devote one of their attunement slots to a melee weapon, which they have to be wielding, which is not optimal for most casters, and the vast majority of martials will be better at hitting things with a melee weapon than an equivalent caster.

Another thing to consider, it seems that the issue with high-level spells is often coming down to a handful of top-tier spells, not all spells at level 6 and higher. A possible fix that is easy to implement and doesn't have so many long-range impacts might be to just change the casting time on the specific, problematic spells. Banishment now has a 2-round casting time, rather than 1 action. You get the same sort of impact that the OP wanted, without making a sweeping change to the casting system in general; just a relatively small tweak to some existing spells.

The rules as written kind of do this for some spells already...they could be made to be more plot points than fire-and-forget spells. Find Familiar has a 1 hour casting time, and expensive material components which must be obtained, and has an effectively permanent duration once cast...it's kind of like a class ability/quest reward hidden inside of a lvl 1 spell (the "quest" being a lvl-1-appropriate version of "acquire 10gp worth of rare herbs"). The "quest" is exactly as difficult and meaningful as the DM chooses to make it, depending on what herbs are necessary and how hard they are to get. Do something similar for Clone...you need a 2000GP "vessel" to grow the clone inside of. The rules are intentionally vague as to what this vessel has to be; a DM interested in making this more of an event than a spell can put further limitations on the nature of the vessel, and make getting it a non-trivial challenge. It's still a wizard-only spell, but setting up the requirements to cast it can be a plot point, depending on how it is played, with no changes necessary to the spell at all.

You could feel free to put further limitations on any other spell...Forcecage too strong? Maybe make it require a mithril bar, forged in a particular furnace in the Astral Plane, as a focus. A non-caster could end the spell by disarming the caster of their focus. Minor change, rules-wise, but has a huge impact in playstyle possibilities.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think perspectives may differ a little depending on game styles. If the problem is that there are 1200 hostile and armed tribesmen between where you are and where you need to be, then this is a problem that can be solved by teleport or cutting a bloody swathe through them on a 4 day march. To me it is just a situation, an obstacle to be overcome and isn't a "combat challenge" or a "non-combat challenge".

I find a lot of objectives are. You need to steal a secret ritual from a wizard? You can solve it in a non combat way through dimension door, grab the papers and leave. You can also have a combat solution which is to kill everything in the tower, grab the ritual, burn the tower down, kill all the witnesses...

I think the issue is some PCs have too great a capacity to solve problems, invalidating what other classes bring.

Sure, but what kind of obstacles can a Fighter deal with, uniquely?

Even that 4 day march is 300 enemies per day. Even if they die with a single hit of 15 damage-killing about 4 enemies per turn-the Wizard can deal with up to 64 enemies in one.

There is still the problem that some people play a fighter because they want to fight. They want to play a character that uses violence as a universal problem solvent. I think it goes deeper than can be solved by a session zero or a trite "talk to the DM" instruction though. If we are accepting that at some tables people should not play the class they want, then there is certainly something off about the game.

I agree.

• A Fighter that only wants to fight should be roughly as effective as a Wizard who only wants to fight.
  
• A Fighter that only wants to solve problems out of combat should be just as effective as a Wizard who wants to do the same.

Or, at least, the sum of both of those comparisons should be equal (that is, how unbalanced a Fighter is at combat should be a net 0 when compared to how unbalanced it is out of combat).

However, the second bullet is definitely not true, and the first bullet is something I dispute as also untrue (in favor of the Wizard).



It IS a team-based game, and everyone's participating towards the same goals, but nobody writes up a Batman character just to end up as someone's Robin, and there's a reason that the Hulk is mad that everyone only wants him because he's big and dumb (Thor: Ragnarok). And besides being better at melee combat (in a system where ranged combat is almost always better), and being able to take a hit, I just don't see much benefit to playing a Fighter. There's a REASON to be a Fighter (I want to be a swashbuckling knight that hits things very hard), but is that a BENEFIT (that is, did your choice actually help the team over a different one)?

[Sigreid]

These discussions always just make me glad the people on them aren't the ones in charge of the game.

[deljzc]

I just read through the entire list of 6th level spells.

I find that most of the high damage spells that throw off equality to martial classes involve all VSM casting components.

There is something to be said that maybe D&D in general doesn't pay enough attention to this. Similar to how we are talking about multi-action casting, it might make sense for spells using all VSM just take longer or have some penalty to initiative.

And while everyone agrees micromanaging component costs and availability is a pain, they do provide another aspect of restriction on high level spells.

It's just a thought to add in the scheme of things.

[Man_Over_Game]

These discussions always just make me glad the people on them aren't the ones in charge of the game.

Why's that?

[Cikomyr2]

These discussions always just make me glad the people on them aren't the ones in charge of the game.

If you have an opinion to contribute, then contribute it. Don't just make snide comments about other posters from the sidelines.

[Misterwhisper]

If you have an opinion to contribute, then contribute it. Don't just make snide comments about other posters from the sidelines.

{Scrubbed}

[LordCdrMilitant]

Honestly, I think Chain Lightning is probably one of the worst ways of spending a level 6 slot, but it still seems to surpass most things a Fighter could do.

It seems like a problem on two fronts.

Mages seem to solve problems out of combat better than Fighters.

Mages seem to solve problems in combat better than Fighters.

Even if the Wizard spends his combat resources for non-combat stuff, it'd be because it was more valuable to do so (like through your teleport example).

How much fighting would it take for the Fighter to outpace a Wizard, past level 5? A lot, I'd reckon. I guess you could convert all of the spell slots into damage, then have the Fighter match that, assuming about an Action Surge once every 4 combat rounds, after subtracting the Wizard's cantrips damage per round after the spell slots are spent.

I could probably make something up to guess that later today

I already compared the Sorcerer V. Fighter, [Someone else has also run a similar comparison], and we came to different conclusions.

The most single-target damage in a round from Sorcerer is Twinned Level 9 Disintegrate + Quickened Firebolt [38d6+80+4d10], at least out of the core PHB on first pass. Wizard doesn't do better than this I think, because Wizard can't twin or quicken spells. Maybe something with a Simulacrum will get there.
A Fighter with PAM & GWM [which comes online at level 6 or level 4 if human] makes 4+1 attacks for 4d10+1d4+75 [102] damage

Spoiler: Round by Round

Show

On Round 1:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does her thing for 256 damage, spending 12/20 Sorcery Points. We'll assume she converted her low level otherwise useless slots to extra sorcery points as necessary ahead of time.
Sorcerer is leading by 52 damage

Round 2:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does level 8 Twinned Disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 232 damage, spending 11 Sorcery Points. All but 1 of her level 1 slots have been turned into sorcery points.
Sorcerer is leading by 84 damage

Round 3:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer could do a level 7 twinned disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 208 damage, spending 10 Sorcery Points. She spends all of her level 2 slots, her last level 1 slot, and one of her level 3 slots for this.
Sorcerer is leading by 190 damage

Round 4:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does the same thing as last turn. This costs her remaining 2 level 3 spell slots, and one level 4 spell slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 298 damage

Round 5:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 380 damage

Round 6:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot. She has exactly 1 level 5 spell slot remaining.
Sorcerer is leading by 464 damage

Round 7:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer liquidates her last level 5 slot for sorcery points to twin Firebolt, which is more than any other available level 5 non-sustained spell [48 damage].
Sorcerer is leading by 410 damage.

Round 8:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 356 damage

Round 9:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 302 damage

Round 10:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 248 damage

Round 11:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 194 damage

Round 12:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer has exhaust all her sorcery points and is on plain Firebolt for 4d10 [24]
Sorcerer is leading by 116 damage

Round 13:
Same as 11.
Sorcerer is leading by 38 damage

Round 14:
Same as 11.
Fighter is leading by 40 damage

Now, this isn't actually the highest total damage that could be done, but it's the fastest that damage could be done [and I think the longest the lead sticks] that doesn't include sustained spells [which are harder to factor for]

Sorcerer could be more efficient though, and drop the quickened firebolts to use those points for twinned firebolts later [144 more damage for the day, but she loses the damage lead on round 11 instead of round 14]. She could also liquidate her entire spell list for sorcery points to twin firebolts with, which would actually do more total damage over the adventuring day than the twinned disintegrates [3456 total damage versus 1392 total damage out of the resources spent], but she'd never actually exceed Fighter in damage in any turn.


Anyway, 14 rounds is about 2 combats, maybe 1 and a half combats, in the day. If, between any combats, a 1 hour rest is taken, the extra 2 actions surges add 204 damage to the Fighter's damage on the first two turns after the rest. One short rest allows the fighter to deal the same amount of damage as the last 5 of the Sorcerer's turns, causing Fighter to take the lead on turn 8


It's also worth mention that I did not include any subclass features [in part because I don't know all the subclasses], but Fighter could add: 6d12 [42] damage from Maneuvers or 45+3d10 [63] damage for Fighting Spirit+Rapid Strike. Sorcerer can get 5 more damage per turn from Draconic Heritage, I think.

[Man_Over_Game]

I already compared the Sorcerer V. Fighter, [as has somebody else], and we came to different conclusions.

The most single-target damage in a round from Sorcerer is Twinned Level 9 Disintegrate + Quickened Firebolt [38d6+80+4d10], at least out of the core PHB on first pass. Wizard doesn't do better than this I think, because Wizard can't twin or quicken spells. Maybe something with a Simulacrum will get there.
A Fighter with PAM & GWM [which comes online at level 6 or level 4 if human] makes 4+1 attacks for 4d10+1d4+75 [102] damage

Spoiler: Round by Round

Show

On Round 1:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does her thing for 256 damage, spending 12/20 Sorcery Points. We'll assume she converted her low level otherwise useless slots to extra sorcery points as necessary ahead of time.
Sorcerer is leading by 52 damage

Round 2:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does level 8 Twinned Disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 232 damage, spending 11 Sorcery Points. All but 1 of her level 1 slots have been turned into sorcery points.
Sorcerer is leading by 84 damage

Round 3:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer could do a level 7 twinned disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 208 damage, spending 10 Sorcery Points. She spends all of her level 2 slots, her last level 1 slot, and one of her level 3 slots for this.
Sorcerer is leading by 190 damage

Round 4:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does the same thing as last turn. This costs her remaining 2 level 3 spell slots, and one level 4 spell slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 298 damage

Round 5:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 380 damage

Round 6:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot. She has exactly 1 level 5 spell slot remaining.
Sorcerer is leading by 464 damage

Round 7:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer liquidates her last level 5 slot for sorcery points to twin Firebolt, which is more than any other available level 5 non-sustained spell [48 damage].
Sorcerer is leading by 410 damage.

Round 8:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 356 damage

Round 9:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 302 damage

Round 10:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 248 damage

Round 10:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 194 damage

Round 11:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer has exhaust all her sorcery points and is on plain Firebolt for 4d10 [24]
Sorcerer is leading by 116 damage

Round 12:
Same as 11.
Sorcerer is leading by 38 damage

Round 13:
Same as 11.
Fighter is leading by 40 damage

Now, this isn't actually the highest total damage that could be done, but it's the fastest that damage could be done [and I think the longest the lead sticks] that doesn't include sustained spells [which are harder to factor for]

Sorcerer could be more efficient though, and drop the quickened firebolts to use those points for twinned firebolts later [144 more damage for the day, but she loses the damage lead on round 11 instead of round 13]. She could also liquidate her entire spell list for sorcery points to twin firebolts with, which would actually do more total damage over the adventuring day than the twinned disintegrates [3456 total damage versus 1392 total damage out of the resources spent], but she'd never actually exceed Fighter in damage in any turn.

That's wonderful!

A terrible outcome, but a great job in your analysis!

It really doesn't look good for the Fighter, although Short Rests would help (reducing the number of rounds by 2 for each Short Rest).

But regardless of how many Short Rests there are, Attacking a 1500 HP target for ~10 rounds isn't going to be a realistic scenario, and one that greatly favors the Fighter. A more realistic one would be several waves of enemies, which will definitely favor the caster, since casters become more efficient the more targets there are while martials do not.

Even in the situation where Fighters have the most going for them, they still seem to fall short. That's not even considering the damage typing of their weapon vs. Disintegrate and how relevant that'd be against a 1500 HP boss.

Of course, that's a level 20 analysis, and might be a bit extreme. I might work on something on a smaller scale (levels 11, 7, 3) just to rule out the fact that "20 is a good level for casters".

[LordCdrMilitant]

That's wonderful!

A terrible outcome, but a great job in your analysis!

It really doesn't look good for the Fighter, although Short Rests would help (reducing the number of rounds by 2 for each Short Rest).

But regardless of how many Short Rests there are, Attacking a 1500 HP target for ~10 rounds isn't going to be a realistic scenario, and one that greatly favors the Fighter. A more realistic one would be several waves of enemies, which will definitely favor the caster, since casters become more efficient the more targets there are while martials do not.

Even in the situation where Fighters have the most going for them, they still seem to fall short. That's not even considering the damage typing of their weapon vs. Disintegrate and how relevant that'd be against a 1500 HP boss.

Of course, that's a level 20 analysis, and might be a bit extreme. I might work on something on a smaller scale (levels 11, 7, 3) just to rule out the fact that "20 is a good level for casters".

Huh. I came to the opposite conclusion, that it didn't look good for Sorcerer.

It takes 14 rounds for Sorcerer to fall behind in the damage race if she's set on doing the most damage quickly rather than most damage total [since she doesn't win the endurance damage contest in any scenario], which is only about 2 average-length encounters, but she's actually out of useful things to do after round 6 and is just losing ground on her established early lead from being able to Twin Disintegrate for longer than Fighter can Action Surge in the early rounds.

[JackPhoenix]

The most single-target damage in a round from Sorcerer is Twinned Level 9 Disintegrate + Quickened Firebolt [38d6+80+4d10], at least out of the core PHB on first pass. Wizard doesn't do better than this I think, because Wizard can't twin or quicken spells.

Sorcerer can't do that either, because he can't cast Disintegrate with his action when he cast anything, including a cantrip, with his bonus action. It's either twinned Disintegrate and nothing else (well, I guess you can use BA to make attacks with Spiritual Weapon or Flaming Sphere, but that'll cost you one turn to set up), or quickened Disintegrate and twinned Fire Bolt.

Even in the situation where Fighters have the most going for them, they still seem to fall short. That's not even considering the damage typing of their weapon vs. Disintegrate and how relevant that'd be against a 1500 HP boss.

You mean that boss (let's ingore that nothing has 1500 hp, toughest things has less than half of that) that will most likely ignore the Disintegrate outright through high save bonus combined with spell resistance and/or Legendary Resistance, while still taking at least some damage from the fighter, who, even if he's got to do against high AC, can expect at least some of his attacks will hit every turn?

[47Ace]

I already compared the Sorcerer V. Fighter, [Someone else has also run a similar comparison], and we came to different conclusions.

The most single-target damage in a round from Sorcerer is Twinned Level 9 Disintegrate + Quickened Firebolt [38d6+80+4d10], at least out of the core PHB on first pass. Wizard doesn't do better than this I think, because Wizard can't twin or quicken spells. Maybe something with a Simulacrum will get there.
A Fighter with PAM & GWM [which comes online at level 6 or level 4 if human] makes 4+1 attacks for 4d10+1d4+75 [102] damage

Spoiler: Round by Round

Show

On Round 1:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does her thing for 256 damage, spending 12/20 Sorcery Points. We'll assume she converted her low level otherwise useless slots to extra sorcery points as necessary ahead of time.
Sorcerer is leading by 52 damage

Round 2:
Fighter Action Surges for 204 damage.
Sorcerer does level 8 Twinned Disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 232 damage, spending 11 Sorcery Points. All but 1 of her level 1 slots have been turned into sorcery points.
Sorcerer is leading by 84 damage

Round 3:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer could do a level 7 twinned disintegrate + Quick Firebolt for 208 damage, spending 10 Sorcery Points. She spends all of her level 2 slots, her last level 1 slot, and one of her level 3 slots for this.
Sorcerer is leading by 190 damage

Round 4:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does the same thing as last turn. This costs her remaining 2 level 3 spell slots, and one level 4 spell slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 298 damage

Round 5:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot.
Sorcerer is leading by 380 damage

Round 6:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer does a level 6 twinned disintegrate + quick firebolt for 184 damage and 9 sorc points. This costs her 1 level 4 slot and 1 level 5 slot. She has exactly 1 level 5 spell slot remaining.
Sorcerer is leading by 464 damage

Round 7:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer liquidates her last level 5 slot for sorcery points to twin Firebolt, which is more than any other available level 5 non-sustained spell [48 damage].
Sorcerer is leading by 410 damage.

Round 8:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 356 damage

Round 9:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 302 damage

Round 10:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 248 damage

Round 11:
Same as 7.
Sorcerer is leading by 194 damage

Round 12:
Fighter Attacks Normally for 102 damage.
Sorcerer has exhaust all her sorcery points and is on plain Firebolt for 4d10 [24]
Sorcerer is leading by 116 damage

Round 13:
Same as 11.
Sorcerer is leading by 38 damage

Round 14:
Same as 11.
Fighter is leading by 40 damage

Now, this isn't actually the highest total damage that could be done, but it's the fastest that damage could be done [and I think the longest the lead sticks] that doesn't include sustained spells [which are harder to factor for]

Sorcerer could be more efficient though, and drop the quickened firebolts to use those points for twinned firebolts later [144 more damage for the day, but she loses the damage lead on round 11 instead of round 14]. She could also liquidate her entire spell list for sorcery points to twin firebolts with, which would actually do more total damage over the adventuring day than the twinned disintegrates [3456 total damage versus 1392 total damage out of the resources spent], but she'd never actually exceed Fighter in damage in any turn.


Anyway, 14 rounds is about 2 combats, maybe 1 and a half combats, in the day. If, between any combats, a 1 hour rest is taken, the extra 2 actions surges add 204 damage to the Fighter's damage on the first two turns after the rest. One short rest allows the fighter to deal the same amount of damage as the last 5 of the Sorcerer's turns, causing Fighter to take the lead on turn 8

OK so before getting into the question of accuracy of GWM lets do some quick math 5-6 combats a day at 3 rounds a combat gives us 15 to 18 rounds of combat in a day means that the fighter who's main advantage over a magic user is signal target damage is only pulling ahead in the 14th round of combat and give that you are assuming melee combat probably took more damage doing it. That's a nice rundown of some of the problems with high level magic in D&D.

I am not sure where you are getting your combat length data from. From what I have seen from a data dump from a spread sheet recording several levels of combat 3 rounds is about average and that is consistent with the monster design guidelines in the DMG.

[Man_Over_Game]

Huh. I came to the opposite conclusion, that it didn't look good for the Sorcerer.

Not to sound rude, but...how?

I mean:

• Single target (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
• Melee as consistent as Range (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
• Damage type is not relevant (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
• Miss chance is not relevant (In favor of Fighter)

Results in the Fighter doing it better after [13- 2*# of Short Rests]
Assuming about 1-2 Short Rests, that's 10 rounds. 10 rounds of combat before a Fighter starts doing it better.

If we reversed the tables, and made a scenario that strongly favored the Sorcerer, would it be roughly the same?

You mean that boss (let's ingore that nothing has 1500 hp, toughest things has less than half of that) that will most likely ignore the Disintegrate outright through high save bonus combined with spell resistance and/or Legendary Resistance, while still taking at least some damage from the fighter, who, even if he's got to do against high AC, can expect at least some of his attacks will hit every turn?

But you also don't acknowledge a lot of the other things that favor the Fighter (like the lower HP overall of the boss, or the fact that a level 20 boss would likely have resistance to weapon damage).

If we add another factor that is strictly in-favor of the Fighter through x3 legendary saves, and assume the caster naturally misses once, the Fighter gets 4 turns to himself. The Sorcerer would catch back up on Round 8 or so and fall back down on Round 13.

And you're right that the boss would have significantly less HP than 1500, but assuming a DM would allow a lesser HP boss and still have x3 legendary saves against a single caster is kinda BS. Telling a single caster that they can't participate until the 4th round is garbage. Telling a group of casters that they can't participate until the 2nd or 3rd round is acceptable, but that would mean the Fighter would once again fall behind.

I want to reiterate this, since this hasn't been addressed, but this scenario is entirely in favor of the Fighter. Almost every single factor in play is something that benefits the Fighter over the Sorcerer.

[JackPhoenix]

Not to sound rude, but...how?

I mean:
Single target (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
Melee as consistent as Range (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
Damage type is not relevant (Strongly in favor of Fighter)
Miss chance is not relevant (In favor of Fighter)

Results in the Fighter doing it better after [13- 2*# of Short Rests] Assuming about 1-2 Short Rests, that's 10 rounds.

10 rounds of combat before a Fighter starts doing it better.

If we reversed the tables, and made a scenario that strongly favored the Sorcerer, would it be roughly the same?

You mean like all saves fail (strongly in favor of sorcerer)
Enemy has no access to Counterspell (strongly in favor of sorcerer)
Damage type is not relevant (more in favor of sorcerer than fighter in any case, as very few things resist magic weapons which are pretty much a given at level 20, while a lot of thing is immune or resistant to fire, making Fire Bolt less than ideal. Or many other forms of energy damage, really)
Miss chance is not relevant (favors sorcerer more strongly than fighter if he's relying on attack roll spells, as fighters gets multiple attacks meaning he's likely to do at least some damage even if he misses with one or more attacks and has easier ways of getting bonus to attack and damage from magic items, or advantage)
Oh, and the fighter can do pretty much the same thing at range (and longer range than the sorcerer) if he picks a ranged weapon, with somewhat lower base damage being offset by higher accuracy, if that's relevant.

[47Ace]

Snip

Miss chance is not relevant (favors sorcerer more strongly than fighter if he's relying on attack roll spells, as fighters gets multiple attacks meaning he's likely to do at least some damage even if he misses with one or more attacks and has easier ways of getting bonus to attack and damage from magic items, or advantage)

Snip

We are talking about average damage so number of attacks meaning you will do at least something is not relevant as that doesn't affect averages. Also we are assuming GWM's -5 to hit so disadvantage fighter.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Sorcerer can't do that either, because he can't cast Disintegrate with his action when he cast anything, including a cantrip, with his bonus action. It's either twinned Disintegrate and nothing else, or quickened Disintegrate and twinned Fire Bolt.

You're right. I misinterpreted that rules. In that case, Fighter takes the lead on turn 11, not turn 14.

OK so before getting into the question of accuracy of GWM lets do some quick math 5-6 combats a day at 3 rounds a combat gives us 15 to 18 rounds of combat in a day means that the fighter who's main advantage over a magic user is signal target damage is only pulling ahead in the 14th round of combat and give that you are assuming melee combat probably took more damage doing it. That's a nice rundown of some of the problems with high level magic in D&D.

I am not sure where you are getting your combat length data from. From what I have seen from a data dump from a spread sheet recording several levels of combat 3 rounds is about average and that is consistent with the monster design guidelines in the DMG.

Accuracy is pretty hard to compute, since they hit different things about the target.
GWM does worse than not doing so when the target has an AC 21 or higher, assuming the case of the fighter using a D10 damage weapon. The lower the weapon die, the higher the AC you want to use GWM against. Using GWM, this is going to reduce the fighter's overall damage to between 3/4 to 1/3 of the generalized potential damage per turn [102]

Disintegrate forces a Dex saving throw vs. DC19, and does nothing on a passed save. This is really all or nothing, and legendary saves can make it way worse. If the monster has 3 legendary saves, the Sorcerer loses 375 damage outright [she loses her three most powerful spell hits to Legendary Saves, it doesn't matter what order she fires in] followed by reduction of damage based on the save value of the target, which covers a basically identical accuracy range to GWM fighter. They hit different numbers though, so some monster could be easy for the fighter to hit but likely to be missed by the disintegrate, or vice versa.
Kind of out of my ass, just based on proficiency numbers, for an all armor no dex the fighter's accuracy disadvantage would probably be around +8, for all Dex no AC the sorcerer's accuracy disadvantage is around +6.

If we consider the target taking it's legendary saving throws, then the Sorcerer never leads the fighter.

[Man_Over_Game]

You mean like all saves fail (strongly in favor of sorcerer)
Enemy has no access to Counterspell (strongly in favor of sorcerer)
Damage type is not relevant (more in favor of sorcerer than fighter in any case, as very few things resist magic weapons which are pretty much a given at level 20, while a lot of thing is immune or resistant to fire, making Fire Bolt less than ideal. Or many other forms of energy damage, really)
Miss chance is not relevant (favors sorcerer more strongly than fighter if he's relying on attack roll spells, as fighters gets multiple attacks meaning he's likely to do at least some damage even if he misses with one or more attacks and has easier ways of getting bonus to attack and damage from magic items, or advantage)
Oh, and the fighter can do pretty much the same thing at range (and longer range than the sorcerer) if he picks a ranged weapon, with somewhat lower base damage being offset by higher accuracy, if that's relevant.

You mentioned saves failing and hit chance, but I meant those as both being the same things. A Fighter is generally going to have a harder time hitting with a -5 to hit relying on GWM. If they both hit 60% of the time, they're going to deal 60% of their damage over the course of the fight. The only time more attacks would matter is if you were picking off lighter targets (and more targets is in favor of the Sorcerer). Consistency feels better, but it isn't inherently more effective.

The difference between using Fire Bolt and another cantrip is only about 4 damage per casting.

On a miss, caster spells often have a half-damage clause, where the Fighter has no such clause. Assuming a 60% save chance, halved on a save, it deals 90% of its full damage while a Fighter would deal 60% of its full damage.

Being limited to ranged attacks would mean a -1 damage per attack and no additional 1d4 attack. That accounts for about a 20% damage reduction.


But even ignoring all that, we're still looking at this as a massive HP pool with a single target. An unrealistic, hypothetical situation that doesn't accurately estimate what happens at most tables.

This is a hypothetical situation that should be showing off how overpowered the Fighter is, and it's failing to impress. If we cut that total in half to make a half-dozen additional targets, like a real encounter would have, it'd be so one-sided that calculating the difference wouldn't be worthwhile.

Disintegrate is a level 6 spell, being cast as a level 9 to keep it at the same level of power, relevant only because there aren't any more powerful single target spells for the 6 character levels it'd take you to go from spell level 6 to 9, without considering the fact that much of its power is probably spent on the 'disintegrating' factor and the lack of halving-on-a-miss.




That'd be like saying a Sorcerer could keep up with a level 7 Fighter by just casting an upcasted Catapult every turn. Catapult isn't the defining power of a level 7 Sorcerer.

[LordCdrMilitant]

You mentioned saves failing and hit chance, but I meant those as both being the same things. A Fighter is generally going to have a harder time hitting with a -5 to hit relying on GWM. If they both hit 60% of the time, they're going to deal 60% of their damage over the course of the fight. The only time more attacks would matter is if you were picking off lighter targets (and more targets is in favor of the Sorcerer). Consistency feels better, but it isn't inherently more effective.

The difference between using Fire Bolt and another cantrip is only about 4 damage per casting.

On a miss, caster spells often have a half-damage clause, where the Fighter has no such clause. Assuming a 60% save chance, halved on a save, it deals 90% of its full damage while a Fighter would deal 60% of its full damage.

Being limited to ranged attacks would mean a -1 damage per attack and no additional 1d4 attack. That accounts for about a 20% damage reduction.

Disintegrate doesn't have a half damage clause, so it just fails. The ones that do don't come close to the fighter's damage output on a all-hit or half-hit basis, so it doesn't really matter.

We are talking about average damage so number of attacks meaning you will do at least something is not relevant as that doesn't affect averages. Also we are assuming GWM's -5 to hit so disadvantage fighter.

It's not significant.
The Sorcerer's save DC is 19. Ranges of saving throws are for the most part between +0 and +11. Best case is 90% accuracy, worst case is 35% accuracy.
Fighter's BAB is +6. Ranges of AC are for the most part from 10 to 20. Best case is 85% accuracy, worst case is also 35% accuracy.

If we drop GWM and just plok them, Fighter damage drops drastically but accuracy skyrockets.

[JackPhoenix]

On a miss, caster spells often have a half-damage clause, where the Fighter has no such clause. Assuming a 60% save chance, halved on a save, it deals 90% of its full damage while a Fighter would deal 60% of its full damage.

We're talking specifically about Disintegrate, which does nothing on save.

Being limited to ranged attacks would mean a -1 damage per attack and no additional 1d4 attack. That accounts for about a 20% damage reduction.

Or -2 damage per attack, but the additional attack at d6, although you won't outrange the sorcerer that way, for the same 2-feat cost as GWM/PAM. And if magic items are in play, remember that +x from ranged weapon and ammo stacks.

The Sorcerer's save DC is 19. Ranges of saving throws are for the most part between +0 and +11. Best case is 90% accuracy, worst case is 35% accuracy [7 or less hits].
Fighter's BAB is +6. Ranges of AC are for the most part from 10 to 20. Best case is 85% accuracy, worst case is also 35% accuracy [].

Archery FS adds +2 to hit, and crits increase damage from attacks a bit, though 0.275 dmg per 1d10 or 0.175 dmg per 1d6 attack is mostly irrelevant.