I suspect the folks who are bringing out the same old argument of "Wizards can do everything else, AND do as much damage" haven't actually looked at the rules, let along played them.  The spell slots per levels are WAY down, and there's a reason why most people who have played the playtests have said that the fighter is probably overpowered, and certainly not still sucking the wizard's tits as in 3e.

A 20th level sorcerer is not going to have more than 3 level 3 spells, and not more than 1 level 6-9 spell each.  Those things are to be cherished and used sparingly.  It's not like the 20th level 3e wizard who has six level 9 spells.  Especially since some of those higher level slots will be used to cast lower level spells to greater effect.  

In fact, as a comparison, the 5e level 20 mage can cast a total of 19 spells.  The 20th level 3e sorcerer? 54.  That's not insignificant.  And last time I checked, most adventuring days didn't only have 1 encounter.

*Edit*  For a more accurate comparison, the level 20 3e sorcerer can cast 270 levels of spells (one level 6 spell counts for 6 levels for example).  The 5e mage?  71.  That's more accurate of a comparison because you're not just comparing the amount of spells each can cast, but the power level of each.

Okay I have to admit, that's a bit of a turn on for me...  Gandalf was way cooler than any high-magic wizard I can think of...

Hope it plays that way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761385I suspect the folks who are bringing out the same old argument of "Wizards can do everything else, AND do as much damage" haven't actually looked at the rules, let along played them.

Until we have all the rules and it's well-established that this isn't the case, it's still a valid argument. There has not yet been an edition of D&D where casters weren't able to match fighters in combat (in terms of damage output) and have a bunch of things on the side.

QuoteThe spell slots per levels are WAY down, and there's a reason why most people who have played the playtests have said that the fighter is probably overpowered, and certainly not still sucking the wizard's tits as in 3e.

I just don't see a need for wizards to be able to dish out the same kind of damage as a fighter.

While I like the idea of a combat-focused mage being a viable character concept, I don't want it to be the default, and instead something a mage should decide they want to focus on or not.

QuoteA 20th level sorcerer is not going to have more than 3 level 3 spells, and not more than 1 level 6-9 spell each.  Those things are to be cherished and used sparingly.  It's not like the 20th level 3e wizard who has six level 9 spells.  Especially since some of those higher level slots will be used to cast lower level spells to greater effect.

And since we're still looking at a daily resource, sounds to me like we've gone from a 15-minute workday to a 5-minute workday.

How is this supposed to be better, exactly?

QuoteIn fact, as a comparison, the 5e level 20 mage can cast a total of 19 spells.  The 20th level 3e sorcerer? 54.  That's not insignificant.  And last time I checked, most adventuring days didn't only have 1 encounter.

The viability of lower-level spells in higher-level encounters has always been questionable.

The problem of the 15-minute workday was something potentially solvable at the table, yes. But there are only so many times a group can be told "you're on the clock!" before it gets old. You shouldn't have to resort to GM tricks and specific types of adventures just to avoid glaring class imbalance.

QuoteThat's more accurate of a comparison because you're not just comparing the amount of spells each can cast, but the power level of each.

Just as an aside, because spell power doesn't scale linearly with level, the typical calculation I've seen used is to square the level of each spell available. Given the oddity with the prepared vs. slots thing in 5e, though, I'm not sure how you would calculate it out.

re: "5 minute day"

Well, if you're running through a dungeon, then the 5 minute day gets you into the first room, and then you leave, and then next time you can get to the first room again!  Yay!

If you're going to make the argument that D&D doesn't work all that awesome if you use it for "Big Damn Heroes on their Big Important Quest where they go through the Dramatic Encounters"..... well, I'm not gonna disagree with you there.

I would rather figure out a way around the ogre without using spells actually. Then again, when I played Magic, I played green. So I'm a sucker.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761424I just don't see a need for wizards to be able to dish out the same kind of damage as a fighter.

They don't. No int to damage, no magic weapon bonus (though this will be small in 5e if they follow through). Also a fighter can easily be using a d10 or even 2d6/d12 weapon.

Let's say the fighter has 16 str at level 5 (not unheard of) using a two handed sword with two attacks with a +1 magic weapon.

Let's say that he has a 50% chance of hit, for comparison sake. Average on 2d6 is 7.

He averages ((7 + 3 + 1) * 2) * 0.5 = 11 damage a round.

The wizard, on the other hand, using a cantrip that does 2d8 (and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one melee range... something I wouldn't want to do regularly with a wizard) with a 45% chance to hit (no +1 from a magic weapon) Average damage on 2d8 = 9.

He averages (9) * 0.45 = 4.05

Yeaaaah, I don't think your wizard is putting out the consistent damage of a Fighter. (when this goes to 3 dice for the wizard / 3 attacks for the fighter, it gets even worse)

Quote from: robiswrong;761430Well, if you're running through a dungeon, then the 5 minute day gets you into the first room, and then you leave, and then next time you can get to the first room again!  Yay!

What, can you not spike doors shut anymore?

QuoteIf you're going to make the argument that D&D doesn't work all that awesome if you use it for "Big Damn Heroes on their Big Important Quest where they go through the Dramatic Encounters"..... well, I'm not gonna disagree with you there.

I'm just pretty much of the opinion, at this point, that daily resources just don't work. They just strike me as weird and wind up doing weird things to how games play out.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;761432I would rather figure out a way around the ogre without using spells actually. Then again, when I played Magic, I played green. So I'm a sucker.

Green is alright, if you mix it with blue.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761435They don't. No int to damage, no magic weapon bonus (though this will be small in 5e if they follow through). Also a fighter can easily be using a d10 or even 2d6/d12 weapon.

Yeaaaah, I don't think your wizard is putting out the consistent damage of a Fighter. (when this goes to 3 dice for the wizard / 3 attacks for the fighter, it gets even worse)

We'll see, I guess. There seems to be questions about how bonuses to damage and such work, apparently (I guess you don't always apply strength to damage?).

If my concern doesn't play out - cool. That's a good thing. I'd rather be mistaken.

Quote from: Omega;761223We play classes that interest us because they are fun to play.
Not because we want to out munchkin the others. Because at the end of the day you have to work together to win because there will be situations where your awesome powers are useless.

Play the GAME. Don't PLAY the game. (This should be in a fortune cookie...)

Wanting to understand the underlying math of the game doesn't, contrary to popular belief here, automatically make someone a charop powergaming munchkin.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761441Wanting to understand the underlying math of the game doesn't, contrary to popular belief here, automatically make someone a charop powergaming munchkin.

As much as I don't normally agree with your positions, in this case, I think this is absolutely true.

Understanding the math is an important part of studying game design. The rules need to actually do what they intend to do. (Well, in some cases the rules turn out to not do what they were intended to do, but what they actually do do turns out to be a better play experience, but that is a happy accident, not actual design).

sorry gnome, I think you're very mistaken.  For one, pretty much every edition of TSR era D&D had mages not able to deal out the same damage as a fignter.. For the vast majority of game play anyway (prior to level 10 or so).  Once again you're making that critical error that the mage always has access to all spells every round.  In those editions, only rarely did the mage do a lot more damage per round than a fighter when he blew his big spell load.  And that's assuming he didn't get his spell interrupted.  Most of the rounds in most of the combats, the fighter was dealing out more damage.. Just because a MU could do 8d6 damage on an aoe spell a couple times doesn't mean he's doing that every attack like the fighter does with his attacks.. For the rest of the combat, he's probably doing less

and a 15 minute workday is very much a gamer problem, and not a game rule problem.  If a fellow player wants to stop after every encounter to rest up (assuming that's even possible), I'm gonna tell them to go screw themselves.  No player should have to cater to another, let alone the entire group catering.  That's entitlement bullshit.  And any DM who allows the players to stop and rest whenever is a shit DM.  The game world doesn't go on pause every time the players want to rest

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761443sorry gnome, I think you're very mistaken.

Well hey, thanks for being an adult about it and further explaining your point.

Hmm. I feel it necessary to point out that that isn't sarcasm.

QuoteFor one, pretty much every edition of TSR era D&D had mages not able to deal out the same damage as a fignter.. For the vast majority of game play anyway (prior to level 10 or so).

Eh... that seems to be a function of LFQW, though.

I'll be honest, I have not played many mages pre-3e. Couple clerics, yes, but their use in a party is kind of assumed in play (healbot, go!).

QuoteJust because a MU could do 8d6 damage on an aoe spell a couple times doesn't mean he's doing that every attack like the fighter does with his attacks.. For the rest of the combat, he's probably doing less

Sure. But I'd say then you need to start looking at damage over the course of an encounter, not over the course of a round. With those couple of spells, is the mage just stupidly out-damaging the fighter?

And it's not just the damage thing, I mean... there are a lot of situations, it seems, where a caster with the right spell can basically neuter an encounter. That's cool, I guess, if it happens not often (or if the caster is specifically combat-focused); but in general, I don't want it happening so often that the fighter questions why they're even there.

Quoteand a 15 minute workday is very much a gamer problem, and not a game rule problem.  If a fellow player wants to stop after every encounter to rest up (assuming that's even possible), I'm gonna tell them to go screw themselves.  No player should have to cater to another, let alone the entire group catering.  That's entitlement bullshit.  And any DM who allows the players to stop and rest whenever is a shit DM.  The game world doesn't go on pause every time the players want to rest

If it's more tactically sound to rest after a couple encounters to let the casters get their spells back, I don't see that as an entitlement issue, I see it as a game design issue.

Again, it comes back to daily resources. It's just easier to deal with casters that aren't using daily spells: once you go that route, spells get powered down because you expect them to be used more often. Then you get casters who actually cast all the time (rather than resorting to darts or just standing around, or whatever), without clearly overpowering everyone else in the party. I realize that it's not very D&D in style, which is fine, but it just seems better, IMO.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761446Well hey, thanks for being an adult about it and further explaining your point.

Hmm. I feel it necessary to point out that that isn't sarcasm.



Eh... that seems to be a function of LFQW, though.

I'll be honest, I have not played many mages pre-3e. Couple clerics, yes, but their use in a party is kind of assumed in play (healbot, go!).



Sure. But I'd say then you need to start looking at damage over the course of an encounter, not over the course of a round. With those couple of spells, is the mage just stupidly out-damaging the fighter?

And it's not just the damage thing, I mean... there are a lot of situations, it seems, where a caster with the right spell can basically neuter an encounter. That's cool, I guess, if it happens not often (or if the caster is specifically combat-focused); but in general, I don't want it happening so often that the fighter questions why they're even there.



If it's more tactically sound to rest after a couple encounters to let the casters get their spells back, I don't see that as an entitlement issue, I see it as a game design issue.

Again, it comes back to daily resources. It's just easier to deal with casters that aren't using daily spells: once you go that route, spells get powered down because you expect them to be used more often. Then you get casters who actually cast all the time (rather than resorting to darts or just standing around, or whatever), without clearly overpowering everyone else in the party. I realize that it's not very D&D in style, which is fine, but it just seems better, IMO.

In 1E 2E dnd a wizard of level 5+ usually will massively out damage a fighter (unless the wizard did not learn many damage spells.)

But, 1E/2E wizards tended to run out of spells a bit faster than in 3X

What I like about wizards is the tool box aspect; you can do dmage if you like, but have a lot of other paths.

Quote from: Bill;761449In 1E 2E dnd a wizard of level 5+ usually will massively out damage a fighter (unless the wizard did not learn many damage spells.)

A function of LFQW. I mean, that's pretty much how it was designed, right?

QuoteBut, 1E/2E wizards tended to run out of spells a bit faster than in 3X

Yep. And I can definitely get behind the 3e reaction of giving wizards more spells: if you're a caster, you don't want to feel like you have to keep the thing your class is known for in reserve.

But that brought with it a bunch of other problems.

QuoteWhat I like about wizards is the tool box aspect; you can do dmage if you like, but have a lot of other paths.

And I'm fine with that. But the problem seems to be that you can do both.

I'd much rather have a situation where you have a number of different caster types, each with their own focus. Like... if school specialization were the default, and being a generalist slowed your rate of spell slot gain, or something. So that you don't wind up with a caster who can do everything, even if they can't do it all at once.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761435They don't. No int to damage, no magic weapon bonus (though this will be small in 5e if they follow through). Also a fighter can easily be using a d10 or even 2d6/d12 weapon.

Let's say the fighter has 16 str at level 5 (not unheard of) using a two handed sword with two attacks with a +1 magic weapon.

Let's say that he has a 50% chance of hit, for comparison sake. Average on 2d6 is 7.

He averages ((7 + 3 + 1) * 2) * 0.5 = 11 damage a round.

The wizard, on the other hand, using a cantrip that does 2d8 (and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one melee range... something I wouldn't want to do regularly with a wizard) with a 45% chance to hit (no +1 from a magic weapon) Average damage on 2d8 = 9.

He averages (9) * 0.45 = 4.05

Yeaaaah, I don't think your wizard is putting out the consistent damage of a Fighter. (when this goes to 3 dice for the wizard / 3 attacks for the fighter, it gets even worse)

Not that I'd do it, unless I had no other good option. Or was F/M that would likely to have learned it in the first place, but a melee cantrip (shocking grasp) is auto hit but can be saved against not sure if for half or not.

Also there is no 15 minute work day because again it's another reason why cantrips are at-will, short/long rests aren't set in stone and arcane recovery. Among other things.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761452A function of LFQW. I mean, that's pretty much how it was designed, right?



Yep. And I can definitely get behind the 3e reaction of giving wizards more spells: if you're a caster, you don't want to feel like you have to keep the thing your class is known for in reserve.

But that brought with it a bunch of other problems.



And I'm fine with that. But the problem seems to be that you can do both.

I'd much rather have a situation where you have a number of different caster types, each with their own focus. Like... if school specialization were the default, and being a generalist slowed your rate of spell slot gain, or something. So that you don't wind up with a caster who can do everything, even if they can't do it all at once.

You should hear me rant about how most wizards should be very specialized.
I dislike the so called specialist wizards that are not actually specialized enough.