Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

[Man_Over_Game]

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

It is used as a reference, not as a definition.

The majority of spell effects are not like Disintegrate, just as the majority of martials are not level 20 PAM GWM Fighters.

Additionally, the majority of encounters involve multiple enemies rather than singular bosses.

I'm saying that it shouldn't be something that's discredited just because it's not relevant in this one situation. If anything, telling a caster that he has to upcast a spell by 2 spell levels to stay relevant in a very specific combat scenario is enough of a reason to say it's very tilted against them.

Or, put another way, Disintegrate is one of the worst spells in the game, so calling it an average would be wrong.

[LordCdrMilitant]

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.

Twin Disintegrate is the highest single-target damage output per turn considering only BRB spells, because I don't have all the expansion splatbooks.

For Level 9 Slots:
Twin Disintegrate does 232 at level 9, and drops to 160 at level 6
Meteor Storm does 160
Twin Finger of Death does 160
Incendiary Cloud does 50
Sunburst does 48
Prismatic Spray does 40

Literally the only competitive damage spell with Twin Disintegrate is Meteor Storm, because it's a huge blast and is cheaper, but loses a massive amount of damage.

[JackPhoenix]

Twin Disintegrate is the highest single-target damage output per turn considering only BRB spells, because I don't have all the expansion splatbooks.

Twin Disintegrate, by definition, is not single target damage, as it requires two different targets.

[Man_Over_Game]

Twin Disintegrate is the highest single-target damage output per turn considering only BRB spells, because I don't have all the expansion splatbooks.

For Level 9 Slots:
Twin Disintegrate does 232
Meteor Storm does 160
Twin Finger of Death does 160
Incendiary Cloud does 50
Sunburst does 48
Prismatic Spray does 40

I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that basing a caster's value off of one of their worse spells (best in the Single-Target category, worse overall) doesn't really determine the value of a caster.

That is, the caster's worst is keeping up with the Fighter's best?

That's a level 6 spell we're talking about, at a level when level 9 spells are available. How much value do you think is lost when upcasting by 6 caster levels' worth of power?

[Cikomyr2]

{Scrub the post, scrube the quote}

{Scrubbed}

First of all, how does the lenght of someone's experience on the forum important in the worth of their contribution? People can join yesterday, and be as worthy to listen as someone who has been here 10 years.

Corrolarily, someone can say inane things either way too.

Second, what do you know of the reason I'm Cikomyr2? You asked me?

{Scrubbed}

[LordCdrMilitant]

Twin Disintegrate, by definition, is not single target damage, as it requires two different targets.

Oh yeah, I forgot that. I don't usually think about this, because I don't usually play damage source casters and leave that to people with pointy sticks.


I recant my previous considerations: The equation now looks like
Round 1:
Meteor Storm: 160
Action Surge: 204
Fighter leads by 44

Round 2:
Disintegrate 8: 104
Action Surge: 204
Fighter leads by 248

Round 3:
Disintegrate 7: 92
Standard Attack: 102
Fighter Leads by 258

At this point, there is no spell option that will do more than 102 damage on average, so the Fighter is always doing more single target damage.

I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that basing a caster's value off of one of their worse spells (best in the Single-Target category, worse overall) doesn't really determine the value of a caster.

That is, the caster's worst is keeping up with the Fighter's best? That's a level 6 spell we're talking about, at a level when level 9 spells are available. How much power do you think is lost when upcasting by 6 caster levels' worth of power?

Well, 44 points of damage and 4 points with 40ft radius blast.

Once you're on level 8 spells, though, Disintegrate is actually your best damage dealer. The at-level blast options are in the range of 50 damage.

Yeah, it's not caster's best, because caster's best doesn't do damage. Caster's best is: Wish once per day, followed probably by Teleport/DDoor to put Fighter into close quarters combat the rest of the time.

Disintegrate definitely isn't worst overall. Worse than it in combat IMO are:
Time Stop [can't be used to shoot, can't be used to buff, can't be used to debuff, can't target your friends, basically an expensive DDoor]
PW: Kill [Cast Meteor Storm instead to kill low health targets. PW:Kill is stupidly expensive for what it does when you get it]
Dominate Monster [Theoretically, this could be awesome. Theoretically. I've yet to have any 5e character succeed with any spell that has an effect like this.]
Sunburst
Incendiary Cloud
Earthquake
Fire Storm
These 4 are low damage blast effects. Theoretically effective if you hit a lot of people, mostly questionable because it won't even clear out chaff and D&D has sudden critical existence failure.

[JackPhoenix]

Oh yeah, I forgot that. I don't usually think about this, because I don't usually play damage source casters and leave that to people with pointy sticks.


I recant my previous considerations: The equation now looks like
Round 1:
Meteor Storm: 160
Action Surge: 204
Fighter leads by 44

Round 2:
Disintegrate 8: 104
Action Surge: 204
Fighter leads by 248

Round 3:
Disintegrate 7: 92
Standard Attack: 102
Fighter Leads by 258

At this point, there is no spell option that will do more than 102 damage on average, so the Fighter is always doing more single target damage.

If you make it quickened, you can add 22 for Fire Bolt, 27 for fire dragon sorcerers

[47Ace]

OK i found the post about combat length and that data was 4-5 rounds per combat https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...encounter-last so that makes a "proper" (read different from the one the OP had almost certainly) adventuring day 20 - 30 rounds. So going back to the detailed example the fighter only exceeded the magic user at doing the fighters thing about half way through the day that is not a good result for the fighter. If we do a scenario involving more then one opponent where the magic user can use their non-crap spells I highly doubt the fighter will be breaking even. With regards to legendary resistances between non save spell and spamming Tasha Hideous Laughter until the LR are gone magic users are not suffering that much and pales in comparison to the trouble melee fighters have with teleport/move legendary actions. Though that last point has more to do with ranged being OP then magic users in particular being OP but magic user are often ranged so it is somewhat relevant.

[47Ace]

Oh yeah, I forgot that. I don't usually think about this, because I don't usually play damage source casters and leave that to people with pointy sticks.

Snip

Yeah, it's not caster's best, because caster's best doesn't do damage. Caster's best is: Wish once per day, followed probably by Teleport/DDoor to put Fighter into close quarters combat the rest of the time.

OK now I am confused, you just spent several post complaining that casters can't be better then fighters at doing the fighters thing and now you are talking about caster have a different role and different strengths. I read the above and go that sounds about right fighters are good at doing damage casters are good at other things that's semi reasonable though probably still in favour of casters given that signal target damage far from even half the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

Once you're on level 8 spells, though, Disintegrate is actually your best damage dealer. The at-level blast options are in the range of 50 damage.

Per target. Horrid Wilting deals 56 damage per target, halves on a save (so deals 90% damage with a 60% miss chance), and hits a 6x6 cube.

I found the most accurate way of calculating the average number of creatures hit by an AoE spell is by finding the square root of the maximum.

Square root of 36 possible targets is 6 targets, dealing a total of 302 damage after accounting for the 60% miss chance.

Disintegrate, with an 8th level spell, would deal about 96 damage with a 100% hit chance, or 58 with a 60% hit chance.

Circumstance matters.

[Trask]

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.

I actually like this a lot! Pretty elegant and very cool way of making the sheer total of spells much lower, reducing that massive amount of versatility and power that casters have over martials, but doesnt just take away the ability to cast bigger hitter spells.

Big fan of this.

[LordCdrMilitant]

[QUOTE=Man_Over_Game;24426902]

Once you're on level 8 spells, though, Disintegrate is actually your best damage dealer. The at-level blast options are in the range of 50 damage./QUOTE]

Per target. Horrid Wilting deals 56 damage per target, halves on a save (so deals 90% damage with a 60% miss chance), and hits a 6x6 cube.

I found the most accurate way of calculating the average number of creatures hit by an AoE spell is by finding the square root of the maximum.

Square root of 36 targets is 6 targets, dealing a total of 302 damage after accounting for the 60% miss chance.

Disintegrate, with an 8th level spell, would deal about 96 damage with a 100% hit chance, or 58 with a 60% hit chance.

Circumstance matters.

Huh? Why would square root of the maximum be the most accurate way of calculating average number of hit critters? That seems like an odd formulation.
IME, small effects, like 15ft cones and things, are basically single target attacks.
Larger effects, like 30ft radius spheres probably hit between 3 and 6 targets, erring on the side of small.
Very large effects, like Meteor Storm, probably hit everything on the battlefield.

As a player [and as a GM], I usually count secondary target damage from blasts as less valuable than massive directed damage, if it doesn't eliminate the secondary targets.
As a GM, I also try to devalue melee attack power, devalue direct damage, and upvalue tactical mobility and crippling effects, but basically no other GM I know believes this.

OK now I am confused, you just spent several post complaining that casters can't be better then fighters at doing the fighters thing and now you are talking about caster have a different role and different strengths. I read the above and go that sounds about right fighters are good at doing damage casters are good at other things that's semi reasonable though probably still in favour of casters given that signal target damage far from even half the game.

Huh?

My take is that the idea that a caster has a small number of very powerful abilities per day versus a martial's consistent output isn't really substantiated. This would be a fine model if the sorcerer's best could outperform the fighter's best, and then after a a couple of uses of that then fighter's normal was better, but in this case that's not substantiated.

The Sorcerer's best is the "clear everything but the big guys" meteor storm once per day, then kind of adequate disintegrates or weak blasts another 5 times, and then her spells degrade into not really doing anything of significance in the damage realm.

So, since the caster just can't do damage well, her job is support. Buff Fighter, debuff Fighter's enemies, move people around. In this capacity, she's a force multiplier who without a force to multiply has little to contribute. And, because of a number of features of the system, I feel that it's very often that the force multiplier isn't a particularly strong multiplier until the GM creates a specific circumstance for it to come into play.



My complaint isn't that the sorcerer can't be better at the fighter's thing than Fighter. My opinion about rebalancing magic is as follows:
Spells do not naturally scale in effect. Thus, low level spells and spell slots are often of questionable value save a small number of level-independent buffs, mostly just Fly and DDoor. Invisibility/Greater Invisibility are also useful, sometimes, but circumstantially.
Then, as you go up in level, the number of high level slots that are relevant slots goes down. You get more spell slots, but the low level spells slots fade out of utility, and since you have more low level slots than high level ones to replace them, your special abilities also get rarer, basically.
Then, the special abilities don't actually get relatively stronger than they used to be, just rarer. There are a couple of spells that are really, really strong like Wish [which really has no business existing and is well beyond the power curve of spells like PW:Kill and Gate and Time Stop].
Finally, spells have a lot of restrictions that limit how good they are in support or in direct damage.

Thus, I usually feel that spellcasting at higher levels isn't particularly strong and could use a buff. The sweet spot is probably around mid levels when you have both strong effects and lots of slots to use them with.


I think my preferred solution to rebalacing magic would be to:
Scale the low level spell effects naturally without requiring them to be upcast, so that the low level spell slots remain a reasonably relevant source of damage and support into the late game.
Strike out or modify the spells that are built around a very small chance to do something very powerful [Dominate Monster], or just really insane and game warping [Wish, though it's usually banned in games I've played in]
Reduce restrictions on some spells and spellcasting to allow for stacking of effect and abilities.


The idea of having a fixed number of total spell slots, and then just promoting them to higher levels is actually a really good one, the more I think about it.

[Trask]

I think my preferred solution to rebalacing magic would be to:
Scale the low level spell effects naturally without requiring them to be upcast, so that the low level spell slots remain a reasonably relevant source of damage and support into the late game.
Strike out or modify the spells that are built around a very small chance to do something very powerful [Dominate Monster], or just really insane and game warping [Wish, though it's usually banned in games I've played in]
Reduce restrictions on some spells and spellcasting to allow for stacking of effect and abilities.

I like the idea of making low level spell-effects scale better, but how would you actually go about doing that? There are so many spells, with different effects for from being upcast (more damage, more targets, effect lasts longer etc).

[Man_Over_Game]

DMG has assumptions about numbers of targets on page 249. Although if I'm reading it and the spell in question right, for that particular spell it's the same end result, 6 targets.

Not sure how I feel about that.

Using those rules, the 20ft radius sphere of Fireball would hit 4 out of 64 possible targets.

[47Ace]

Snip

That doesn't seem too unreasonable but, a couple of point 1. a 15 foot cone spells should be hitting at least 2 people or you shouldn't cast it and it is balances as such 2. I think given your mention of 10+ round combats that you have much longer adventuring days then are expected by the rules. That makes you opinion make much more sense and I should have probably given more credit to you different circumstances instead of ranting about how long a proper adventuring day is. 3. I think the OP probably plays the common 1 fight a day* which is where spellcasting is too strong. I know the discussion now has noting to do with the OP but, I just wanted to add that context.

*even I run games like this even if I am trying not to I need more encounter planing practice as I am always afraid of TPKing

[LordCdrMilitant]

Not sure how I feel about that.

Using those rules, the 20ft radius sphere of Fireball would hit 4 out of 64 possible targets.

I don't own a DMG, but that sounds pretty reasonable. That's what I expect to hit with a Fireball.

I like the idea of making low level spell-effects scale better, but how would you actually go about doing that? There are so many spells, with different effects for from being upcast (more damage, more targets, effect lasts longer etc).

Case-by-case basis. There's so many different spells.
Taking shots at a couple:
Add damage scaling to Fireball, something like 1d6 per caster level would put it at 20d6 at final level, about 80 damage in a blast, which I think is pretty appropriate for a regular-use blast effect at that point.
Strike the clause limiting the extra action off of Haste to 1 weapon attack. Then it naturally scales as your target for it scales in level.
Set Dispel Magic's effect to Caster Level instead of Spell Level
Add more missiles for Magic Missile, maybe Caster Level missiles fired. [this averages 60 damage, but doesn't miss, which also seems pretty appropriate]
Naturally evolve spells like Fly and Dimension Door to include more targets [maybe 1 per X caster levels].

Scaling with Caster Level is incorporated for Cantrips, so it can be done for other spells, but Cantrips are so weak so they don't really matter.

There's also just a lot of spells that don't really need to exist.

[Pex]

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.

In addition the Sorcerer cannot keep doing it round after round because it takes a bonus action to convert spell slots to sorcery points, so the round he does that he's not casting a Quickened spell. More, it's only one spell slot, so he doesn't have the sorcery points to spend for Twinning a high level spell and Quickening a spell round after round after round. After all of this the Sorcerer has exhausted most of his spells. Short rest. The Fighter can do his thing all over again. The Sorcerer can't.

[patchyman]

I actually like this a lot! Pretty elegant and very cool way of making the sheer total of spells much lower, reducing that massive amount of versatility and power that casters have over martials, but doesnt just take away the ability to cast bigger hitter spells.

Big fan of this.

Thanks! I just need to playtwst this.

[Sigreid]

Why's that?

Because it always seems to revolve around destroying or taking away things my group and myself enjoys. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all what people do in their home games, I just think a lot of these discussions in the game design room would lead to a less fun game for me.

To the person who followed after Man Over Game, the opinion that this kind of thing would be harmful to the fun of myself and my group if implemented universally in the rule book is an opinion contributed, not a snide comment.

[GorogIrongut]

I too am in the camp of those who believe that spellcasting needs to be balanced. And if I were to do it in the context of this thread, I would do it as below. The weakness of this approach is that it would require a rewrite of all spells because they weren't written with this in mind.

Each spell is listed as using the Verbal, Somatic, Material component to cast it. This is all too often ignored or hand-waved. I would argue that it should be more prominent and used the following way would remove the need to list a casting time in 99% of spells.

To successfully cast a spell, the time committed to the casting is determined by the actions required to complete the incantation.
A spell with a Verbal component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite vocalizations to cast the spell.
A spell with a Somatic component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite gestures to cast the spell.
A spell with a Material component to casting takes up an Action to allow for the necessary time to interact with the materials used in the casting.

If a spell requires more than one of the above, then the spell is not cast until all requirements have been met. In the case of a spell with V,S,M you would need to expend an Action and 2 Bonus Actions to complete the casting of the spell. A spell that only has a V or S is castable only as a bonus action.

Spells requiring 2 Bonus Actions or more will be cast over two turns. These turns do not have to be successive but cannot be farther apart than 10 minutes x the caster's spellcasting stat modifier. Casting this way utilizes the players Concentration.



Now they'd just have to go back and reassess the V,S,M of all the spells so that it fit their power level. That and deciding if Sorcerors with Subtle still use the Bonus Action or not (testing for balance... because in most Sorcerors I make I take Subtle as an auto choice. I would personally keep it because Sorcerors will now suffer for having to use a Bonus Action to convert spells to Sorcery Points, so they become Bonus Action intensive).

[deljzc]

I too am in the camp of those who believe that spellcasting needs to be balanced. And if I were to do it in the context of this thread, I would do it as below. The weakness of this approach is that it would require a rewrite of all spells because they weren't written with this in mind.

Each spell is listed as using the Verbal, Somatic, Material component to cast it. This is all too often ignored or hand-waved. I would argue that it should be more prominent and used the following way would remove the need to list a casting time in 99% of spells.

To successfully cast a spell, the time committed to the casting is determined by the actions required to complete the incantation.
A spell with a Verbal component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite vocalizations to cast the spell.
A spell with a Somatic component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite gestures to cast the spell.
A spell with a Material component to casting takes up an Action to allow for the necessary time to interact with the materials used in the casting.

If a spell requires more than one of the above, then the spell is not cast until all requirements have been met. In the case of a spell with V,S,M you would need to expend an Action and 2 Bonus Actions to complete the casting of the spell. A spell that only has a V or S is castable only as a bonus action.

Spells requiring 2 Bonus Actions or more will be cast over two turns. These turns do not have to be successive but cannot be farther apart than 10 minutes x the caster's spellcasting stat modifier. Casting this way utilizes the players Concentration.



Now they'd just have to go back and reassess the V,S,M of all the spells so that it fit their power level. That and deciding if Sorcerors with Subtle still use the Bonus Action or not (testing for balance... because in most Sorcerors I make I take Subtle as an auto choice. I would personally keep it because Sorcerors will now suffer for having to use a Bonus Action to convert spells to Sorcery Points, so they become Bonus Action intensive).

I agree (and have mentioned previously), there needs to be something positive/negative attached to components of a spell. But I just don't understand connecting that to actions/bonus actions or how that would work over multiple rounds of combat.

I think an easier way is to connect VSM to initiative somehow and being some sort of penalty of announcing what spell you intend to cast, but having the possibility of the battlefield changing considerably by the time the spell is cast.

The way it works now, spellcasters wait for their turn, see how the battlefield looks and somehow get off a VSM spell (which they choose right then) and have it go off before anything else happens or the next player/monster turn. There is something counter intuitive to that logic (not that everything in D&D has to be logical).

Certainly with V component (or maybe even V&S) that can work, but spells with material components or more powerful spells logically need longer time to cast. And the game just doesn't adjust for that at all.

[Pex]

I too am in the camp of those who believe that spellcasting needs to be balanced. And if I were to do it in the context of this thread, I would do it as below. The weakness of this approach is that it would require a rewrite of all spells because they weren't written with this in mind.

Each spell is listed as using the Verbal, Somatic, Material component to cast it. This is all too often ignored or hand-waved. I would argue that it should be more prominent and used the following way would remove the need to list a casting time in 99% of spells.

To successfully cast a spell, the time committed to the casting is determined by the actions required to complete the incantation.
A spell with a Verbal component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite vocalizations to cast the spell.
A spell with a Somatic component takes up a Bonus Action to complete the requisite gestures to cast the spell.
A spell with a Material component to casting takes up an Action to allow for the necessary time to interact with the materials used in the casting.

If a spell requires more than one of the above, then the spell is not cast until all requirements have been met. In the case of a spell with V,S,M you would need to expend an Action and 2 Bonus Actions to complete the casting of the spell. A spell that only has a V or S is castable only as a bonus action.

Spells requiring 2 Bonus Actions or more will be cast over two turns. These turns do not have to be successive but cannot be farther apart than 10 minutes x the caster's spellcasting stat modifier. Casting this way utilizes the players Concentration.



Now they'd just have to go back and reassess the V,S,M of all the spells so that it fit their power level. That and deciding if Sorcerors with Subtle still use the Bonus Action or not (testing for balance... because in most Sorcerors I make I take Subtle as an auto choice. I would personally keep it because Sorcerors will now suffer for having to use a Bonus Action to convert spells to Sorcery Points, so they become Bonus Action intensive).

Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because it always seems to revolve around destroying or taking away things my group and myself enjoys. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all what people do in their home games, I just think a lot of these discussions in the game design room would lead to a less fun game for me.

To the person who followed after Man Over Game, the opinion that this kind of thing would be harmful to the fun of myself and my group if implemented universally in the rule book is an opinion contributed, not a snide comment.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense. Would you say there isn't a disparity between the two sides of contention, or that the disparity doesn't matter?

For the record, though, I thought it was a bit snide. It came off as "Man, these ideas are stupid".

However, your last comment added the words "for my table".

[Misterwhisper]

Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

So much potential there that was done completely wrong.

[Man_Over_Game]

So much potential there that was done completely wrong.

How so? A lesson learned through Pathfinder could be a lesson learned here.

[Misterwhisper]

How so? A lesson learned through Pathfinder could be a lesson learned here.

I meant how they went from 1e to 2e in pathfinder.

After reading the PHB for 2E, my group just chunked it’s and said never mind.

[GorogIrongut]

Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

Interesting. While I've done most editions of Dnd, I never branched out into Pathfinder. So I had no idea that my idea was already a thing.

[Sigreid]

Thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense. Would you say there isn't a disparity between the two sides of contention, or that the disparity doesn't matter?

For the record, though, I thought it was a bit snide. It came off as "Man, these ideas are stupid".

However, your last comment added the words "for my table".

I think the two sides, martial and caster fulfill different wish fantasies. One being the eventual master of his reality and the other being the common man rising above to conquer. At least at my table, I've not seen one over shadow the other, I've seen them tackle different things. When I play a wizard, even at high level, I need the guy in the party who likes to play the fighter. If I tried to replace him with magic I'd find myself depleted and vulnerable. The guy playing the fighter needs my magic. Overcoming some challenges without magic will leave him depleted and vulnerable.

I hope that makes some sense.

Edit: This is not to say that I would object to Champion fighter, for example, having access to a short rest legendary resistance around level 10 or so. The man overcoming the magic through will and skill.

[Captain Panda]

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

Totally agree. These discussions show why Crawford and Mearls make the big bucks; not every Joe DM actually understands game balance.

[Zuras]

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?

What happens in the Tier 3 & 4 games you play or DM yourself?

In my experience, Disintegrate is a terrible spell compared to almost anything else you can do with a 6th level slot. Pure damage from a caster is rarely going to accomplish much. The martials are always going to cut through a significant enemies HP much more effectively. Casters normally focus on killing mooks with AoE spells or CC on the Boss’ lieutenants. A disintegrate on the Boss is just wasted.

I have seen Fighters and Barbarians in particular have problems, but that’s mostly because their saves against charm and mind control effects are terrible relative to Tier 3+ threats. Rogues, Monks and Paladins all have lower chances of getting knocked out of fights that way. Indomitable doesn’t do you much good against a DC 20 Int save if you still have a -1 modifier.