Recently I introduced a few Pathfinder players to 5E. Their immediate reaction was to go through the spells in amazement at how powerful they are. Cantrips that do ridiculous amounts of damage from extremely far away, etc. They asked how it could possibly be balanced or what the Fighter could even do in the game. Also what the point of defensive spells were if everything did so much damage.

I've never played 3.5 or Pathfinder though so I have no frame of reference. How do the spellcasters stack up in that compared to 5E power wise?

I am sure Doom will chirp in on how overpowerd spellcasters are in 5e with their more more more spells, ad nausium.

Quick excerp from 3.5.

Wizard level 5 has 4 cantrips, 3 1st, 2 2nd and 1 3rd.
Notable difference is that 3.5 wizards got bonus spells for high INT. At 18 INT a caster gets a bonus 1st through 4th level slot. max 23 INT with just level up stat bumps.

QuoteCantrips:
Acid Splash: 1d3 damage.
Level 1 spells:
Burning Hands: 1d4 damage per level with a max of 5d4.
Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage. +1 missile per two level above 1st and a max of 5 missiles.
Shocking Grasp: 1d6 per damage per level with a max of 5d6.
Level 3 spells
Fireball: 1d6 damage per level, 20-ft. radius.
Lightning Bolt: 1d6 damage per level

A 5e level 5 wizard has  4 cantrips, 4 1st, 3 2nd and 2 3rd.

QuoteCantrip
Acid Splash: 1d6 damage with a DEX save to avoid. 2d6 at level 5, 3d6 at 11 and 4d6 at 17.
Level 1
Burning Hands: 3d6 damage. DEX save for half. +1d6 damage per spell slot level over 1st expended. So a max of 9d6 once you have a 9th level slot.
Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage. 3 darts. +1 dart per spell slot level over 1st expended. So a max of 12 once you have a level 9 slot.
Shocking Grasp: 1d8 damage. To hit roll needed. 2d8 at level 5, 3d8 at 11 and 4d8 at 17.
Level 3 spells
Fireball: 8d6 damage, 20-ft. radius. DEX save for half. +1d6 per spell slot level over 3rd expended. So a max of 14d6 once you have a level 9 slot.
Lightning Bolt: 8d6 damage per level. DEX save for half. +1d6 per spell slot level over 3rd expended. So a max of 14d6 once you have a level 9 slot.

5e spells tend to have more initial oomph. 3.5 acid splash caps at 5d4 at level 5. 5e acid splash does not hit 4d6 until level 17. or more clearly. Compare the 3.5 fireball to the 5e one. A 5th level 3.5 wizard casts it at 5d6, while the 5th level 5e  wizard casts it at 8d6. The big difference though is that the 3.5 wizards fireball gets steadily stronger while the 5e wizards does not unless they expend a higher level slot to cast it. The 3.5 can hit 20d6, and be cast at that level 4 times at level 20. Whereas the 5e can only hit 14d6 and only once at the expense of a 9th level slot. But you can cast A-LOT of freaking fireballs of diminishing power if you wanted. 15 at level 20!!!

Its a weird give and take sort of thing. Fighters in comparison tend to do pretty well even so and even without any applications of feats or min-maxing they can output a steady rate of beating. With some feat choices that damage output can jump quite a bit.

The early power boost in 5e may be part of the ideals expressed during NEXT where the designers believed that only up to around level 10 was important and that "modern" players want more power sooner. And so the characters get more flash early on.

But in the end it more or less balances out as the wizards spells are finite and the new system chews through them very quickly with no guarantee of a short or even long rest to get any back. The cantrips equate to handing the wizard a free heavy crossbow of infinite element ammo. Not the path I  would have gone. But eh.

Rest assured, 5e cantrips are crap from a combat damage perspective.  Wizards have to use their real spells to feel useful.  From there, it largely depends on your gaming style.

If wizards have their full allotment each battle, they will seem dominant.  If wizards go multiple battles without being able to afford casting a single non-cantrip spell, they will appear weak.  In the middle of these extremes, wizards seem little better or worse than the fighty types.

Cantrips is the least of the system's problem.  On the whole, though, Cantrips are a GOOD thing.  Simply because of the key fact that it let's casters BE casters.

One thing those players need to realize is that there's no way to add any bonuses to those spell damage.

So a D8 Poison Spray will only do D8's, unlike a one handed Long Sword which can get up to 1d8+5 at 16 Strength Fighter with Duelist.  Which jumps to 1d8+7 when the Fighter hits 20 Strength, which (unless you use the optional Feats rule) can be right quick.

So base damage by averages and not counting Critical hits (which some cantrips can't do), means that the Fighter will hit for about 10.5 before level 10, meanwhile the Caster will average around 7.  After that, well, the balance shifts a little.

At least to my amateur level math, which I admit may be off.

However, the actual spells, they're no more powerful than the 3.x set, with Polymorph and other shape shifting powers being seriously curtailed.  The rest is still a mess of Save or Die exclusionary rule effects.  But that's always been D&D's biggest problem, I've believed.  For others, that's a feature.

Spellcasters were grossly "overpowered" in 3.5. Spellcasters are grossly "overpowered" in 5E. If that is a problem for you, change the rules. A game that doesn't use any houserules hasn't been probably personalized yet.
There are a few things I really, really don't like about 5e casting rules (I think it's a horrible rule that interrupting a spell requires an extra feat instead of being the default, and endless cantrips without any sort of limitation diminish them and make magic boring, mundane and repetitive, and you cannot cast spells while grappling), and which I would change immediately if I play again, and even though these changes would strictly speaking reduce the overall power of spellcasting characters, that is a side effect, due to my personal aesthetical preferences when it comes to spellcasting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;837412Cantrips is the least of the system's problem.  On the whole, though, Cantrips are a GOOD thing.  Simply because of the key fact that it let's casters BE casters.

What an odd tautology.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;837428What an odd tautology.

How so?  I'm saying the Cantrips are the most balanced of the current magic system, and that they don't force players into a role they're not.  If you choose a magic user, it's to be a magic user, right?

Cantrips mean casters don't have to carry any weapons at all, basically. I'm not sure that "let's casters be casters," as what a caster is has changed over time. They used to be limited issue nukes and physics breakers. Now they're nukes, physics breakers and machine guns. No need to learn anything else, really. I suppose that's okay, but I don't think it's a rule that a caster has to do everything with magic. Of course, if that's true, then you can put an end to any caster's career by cutting off their tongue.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837390I've never played 3.5 or Pathfinder though so I have no frame of reference. How do the spellcasters stack up in that compared to 5E power wise?

For one thing they are not noticing that the cantrips are not auto success. You generally have to hit to do the damage and given bounded accuracy that is never a certain thing.

Another thing is that the action economy is very rigid. There is a limit to what you can chain together and what you can you quickly run out of.  You get one action, one bonus action, one reaction and one interaction. And for some classes, mostly fighters, you can get multiple attacks if you pick the attack action. Mind you don't get multiple actions but multiple attacks.

I been running a 5e campaign since the summer of 2014 and I don't have any complaints about class balance.

Quote from: Beagle;837418...and you cannot cast spells while grappling...

Hang on, what? I didn't see this in the Grappling Rules, the Grappled Condition or in the spell chapter. Where does it "spell" this out in the rulebook?

Quote from: Omega;837397I am sure Doom will chirp in on how overpowerd  spellcasters are in 5e with their more more more spells, ad nausium.

Good lord, man, can you ease up on the butthurt? Please?

Anyway, cantrips are a bit of a problem. They don't do amazing damage, but they warp the game. Now, spellcasters have a choice of damage types--they're always going to have a way to hit vulnerable monsters at their weakest, and they'll always have a way to get around resistances.

The worst of the lot is Sacred Flame. A cleric basically has no reason to wield a weapon after level 4, because Sacred Flame does comparable (or more) damage, works on high armor targets, is a ranged attack you can trivially use on adjacent targets, and cover is irrelevant, making it good at long range or in the middle of a melee, too. That's alot of versatility for a "weak" cantrip. Toss in that a cleric will "Aid" every out of combat roll, and it makes sense to consider if WotC really thought about these cantrips much at all.

There are also a few feats and abilities to make cantrips hit harder.

QuoteBut you can cast A-LOT of freaking fireballs of diminishing power if you wanted. 15 at level 20!!!

This is a pretty good point--spellcasters get LOTS of spells (and some get to refresh some spells after a short rest, or through various special abilities), in addition to being able to often cast more than one spell a round. To assert spells are finite is technically correct, but realistically bizarre; the kind of firepower that would exhaust the spells would have the non-spellcasters standing around comparatively useless for many rounds and probably long out of hit points anyway.

That said, melee combatants can do amazing damage, especially if they cookie-cutter for the problematic feats like 2hweapon fighting or the archery equivalent. Conditionally weaker armor (and a system that doesn't reward armor much anyway) doesn't really offset the greater risks of being in melee, and lots more creatures are resistant to nonmagic damage than anything a spellcaster tosses out.

The big real change from 3.5 to 5e is magic item creation has been removed from 5e, at least for the wizards. Thus, the DM can balance things out in much the same way AD&D did: make most magic items for fighters and nonspellcasters...and consider creating monsters that are magic-immune.

So, yes, there are problems, you can ignore them and cry if people point them out...or you can realize you can fix them, without necessarily changing the rules. Although I suspect changing the rules will be necessary in campaigns with players that read carefully and make even semi-optimal decisions.

Basically 3.5 and I assume PF you start with a slightly lesser spell and can end up with some broke ass shit quickly with all the add ons.

In 5th edition they are slightly better but are much more static including how fast saves go up etc.

With Hit point inflation as the balancing tool that makes 5th edition spells even weaker.

I think 3.5 decently built caster not even optimized is more powerful.

I have ass tons of experience in 3.5 and have only played 5th up to 5th so not sure how my opinion will bear out but even the killer save or die spells don't exist like they do in 3.5

just my opinion and not saying anything else is right or wrong for either game.

Quote from: Necrozius;837448Hang on, what? I didn't see this in the Grappling Rules, the Grappled Condition or in the spell chapter. Where does it "spell" this out in the rulebook?

As of last check grappling does not impede casting, or even attacking. Not even the grappler feat does that.

For that matter the freaking restrained condition in no way stops anyone from casting or attacking.

You are better off trying to disarm the caster, or swordsman, of their focus, or weapon, than to grapple.

Quote from: Omega;837467As of last check grappling does not impede casting, or even attacking. Not even the grappler feat does that.

For that matter the freaking restrained condition in no way stops anyone from casting or attacking.

You are better off trying to disarm the caster, or swordsman, of their focus, or weapon, than to grapple.

How are they restrained though? If their hands are being held, or mouth being covered during the restraining, then they won't be able to meet the spell requirements.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837468How are they restrained though? If their hands are being held, or mouth being covered during the restraining, then they won't be able to meet the spell requirements.

Thats the goofball thing with 5e. All restrained does is stop you from moving around. It reduces your movement to zero. The restrained is at disadvantage on attacks and those attacking it have advantage. And disadvantage on DEX saves.

All grapple does is reduce speed to zero.

That is it.

At least in Next you could take a grappled target and on another successful check then restrain them. But even in Next restrain just stops movement.

I am not sure there is a way to physically silence or restrain limbs in 5e short of asking the DM and doing a DEX or STR check vs the target.