TheRPGSite

While I may consider Sac the sites village idiot sometimes.

He has a point. To a point.

The argument being along the lines of Fighter doing two 1d8 attacks at 60% chance to hit each, and wizard doing a single 2d8 attack for same chance.

I did a quick test. No bonuses. Just bare basics as for this test that is all that counts.

After 25 rounds the Fighter hit 27 times for 27 die of damage and the wizard did hit 16 times for 28 die of damage.
 
So I rolled up damage. Also just the basics. The fighter did 138 damage and the mage did 125 total. Rolled the damage a second time out of curiosity for both and got about the opposite. Fighter did 128 and wizard 137.

In one sequence the mage hit once out of 7 rounds while in that same span the fighter hit seven times.

Swingy as all get out. But in the long run it evened out.

Add in the fighters to hit and damage bonuses though, if any. And the fighter will jump ahead by a little bit each attack and that accumulates over time. In the above example a fighter with a +2 damage bonus will be doing an additional 54 damage. If he has say a +2 to hit then hes hitting 10% more often. The mage usually does not get those to-hit and damage bonuses.

This is why I do these hands on experiments. I need to see for myself if the math does what people claim. Or not. It is how I finally came to understand the bell curve on dice rolls.

Quote from: Omega;760884While I may consider Sac the sites village idiot sometimes.

He has a point. To a point.

The argument being along the lines of Fighter doing two 1d8 attacks at 60% chance to hit each, and wizard doing a single 2d8 attack for same chance.

I did a quick test. No bonuses. Just bare basics as for this test that is all that counts.

After 25 rounds the Fighter hit 27 times for 27 die of damage and the wizard did hit 16 times for 28 die of damage.
 
So I rolled up damage. Also just the basics. The fighter did 138 damage and the mage did 125 total. Rolled the damage a second time out of curiosity for both and got about the opposite. Fighter did 128 and wizard 137.

In one sequence the mage hit once out of 7 rounds while in that same span the fighter hit seven times.

Swingy as all get out. But in the long run it evened out.

Add in the fighters to hit and damage bonuses though, if any. And the fighter will jump ahead by a little bit each attack and that accumulates over time. In the above example a fighter with a +2 damage bonus will be doing an additional 54 damage. If he has say a +2 to hit then hes hitting 10% more often. The mage usually does not get those to-hit and damage bonuses.

This is why I do these hands on experiments. I need to see for myself if the math does what people claim. Or not. It is how I finally came to understand the bell curve on dice rolls.

Excellent.  Now tell me whether you would rather have one chance at 2d8 or 2 chances at 1d8.  Are some instances better for one or the other, not over time in a sim, but with certain opponents in front of you?  

I think I've tracked down the exact line that started all this, but I'll wait until Sac comes in and calls me a goal-shifting coward or something.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760891Excellent.  Now tell me whether you would rather have one chance at 2d8 or 2 chances at 1d8.  Are some instances better for one or the other, not over time in a sim, but with certain opponents in front of you?  

I think I've tracked down the exact line that started all this, but I'll wait until Sac comes in and calls me a goal-shifting coward or something.

I would prefer 2 chances over 1. Yes the fighter and wizard are even in a closed scenerio but in reality the fighter is all about consistent damage via multiple attacks while a wizard is the strategic hammer and all about spike damage if she chooses that solution. Her advantage isn't straight damage because that's a sorcerer's deal. Her real deal is tilting the field. So that everyone is focused on her while her boyfriend with that huge sword kills you or softens everybody up for her BIG HAMMER. Game over.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760891Excellent.  Now tell me whether you would rather have one chance at 2d8 or 2 chances at 1d8.  Are some instances better for one or the other, not over time in a sim, but with certain opponents in front of you?  

I think I've tracked down the exact line that started all this, but I'll wait until Sac comes in and calls me a goal-shifting coward or something.

aheh.

Honestly both have their merits and flaws. But seem equal in the end

I play the mage alot and so Im used to wooshing more than wacking.

A fighter is going to be landing a hit just about every round. Which means the fighter is likely to be able to interrupt spells or mow down the little guys.

The mage will have those times where a whole lot of damage on a kobold is overkill. But otherwise will be outputting on par with the fighter. Its just that each miss will feel like more of a fail. But that is just perceived rather than actuality.

In Next playtest that would be about what youd see with a 5th level mage and fighter. One using a cantrip and the other a big sword.

Were it depletable spells it would probably be a different matter. The mage would have to save the harder hitting spells for fitting targets or desperation moves.

Can I at least ride Falcor on this never ending story? :idunno:

Quote from: Opaopajr;760910Can I at least ride Falcor on this never ending story? :idunno:

Ok fine.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760910Can I at least ride Falcor on this never ending story? :idunno:

How much damage does he do? :D

Quote from: Omega;760914How much damage does he do? :D

Well, hrms. He's probably a unique dragon like Bahumat or Tiamat, a Luck dragon; probably Fey of some sort as well as draconic. So he probably has a strange breath weapon like a super color spray, or other prismatic effect.

Quote from: Silverlion;760920Well, hrms. He's probably a unique dragon like Bahumat or Tiamat, a Luck dragon; probably Fey of some sort as well as draconic. So he probably has a strange breath weapon like a super color spray, or other prismatic effect.

hmmm, so at 5th level thats 4 attacks of d4 each, with a 60% chance to hit. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;760891Excellent.  Now tell me whether you would rather have one chance at 2d8 or 2 chances at 1d8.  Are some instances better for one or the other, not over time in a sim, but with certain opponents in front of you?

Exactly.

The problem here is that while the wizard has a better chance of doing 2d8 damage than the fighter, the fighter has a better chance of doing any damage at all, in a given round.

As the fight progresses, the probabilities - apparently - start merging towards each other, and it starts being irrelevant as combat rounds approach infinity. (Admittedly I'm not entirely convinced that that matters.)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;760922Exactly.

The problem here is that while the wizard has a better chance of doing 2d8 damage than the fighter, the fighter has a better chance of doing any damage at all, in a given round.

As the fight progresses, the probabilities - apparently - start merging towards each other, and it starts being irrelevant as combat rounds approach infinity. (Admittedly I'm not entirely convinced that that matters.)

Overall. No. It doesnt seem to matter other than when a hit or miss really matters.

The minotaur is down to 2 HP. And So are you.
The mage needs to hit. Period. A miss means the Minotaur is going to pay into them.

The fighter just needs to hit once, possibly twice if no bonuses are in use. And hes got two chances to land a hit.

Otherwise in the long run it evens out mostly. The mage is just going to have those times when the enemy sidesteps everything.

A lot depends on whether foes have damage reduction. Of course, I don't even know whether damage reduction is a thing in 5E at all, let alone how common it is.

If it's straight up damage race, I'll take the fighter. If there's some use for utility (movement stealth control), the wizard is a better choice.

Quote from: Warthur;760927A lot depends on whether foes have damage reduction. Of course, I don't even know whether damage reduction is a thing in 5E at all, let alone how common it is.

It did not exist at all in the last play test packet.

Situationally, you want 2d8 if:
*you have a one-off to hit bonus (True Strike or whatnot)
*you get a bonus attack from somewhere
*you're hitting something with damage reduction

You want 2 x d8 if:
*you can trade an attack for something else which has an effect other than damage (trip, disarm, dodge, whatever)
*you're fighting something with only a couple of hit points, or other cases where doing any damage has an effect (spell disruption?)
*you get a damage bonus that applies to all your attacks in the round

I missed the original argument though; don't fighters get a damage bonus making them do more damage anyway? Possibly with some dodgy power where you still do damage on a miss?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;760932You want 2 x d8 if:
*you can trade an attack for something else which has an effect other than damage (trip, disarm, dodge, whatever)
*you're fighting something with only a couple of hit points, or other cases where doing any damage has an effect (spell disruption?)
*you get a damage bonus that applies to all your attacks in the round

*You get to apply a Damage bonus to the first attack in a round that hits

QuoteI missed the original argument though; don't fighters get a damage bonus making them do more damage anyway? Possibly with some dodgy power where you still do damage on a miss?

The pre-gen Fighter does not, no.

Quote from: jadrax;760931It did not exist at all in the last play test packet.

In the last playtest, They replaced DR with "Resistance" which means half damage from certain damage types (as specified by the creature description). This means you always do some damage.  No hitting for 10, only to find out target has DR15.  They also had in that packet a feat that allowed DR based on CON Mod.

Quote from: honesttiago;760936In the last playtest, They replaced DR with "Resistance" which means half damage from certain damage types (as specified by the creature description). This means you always do some damage.  No hitting for 10, only to find out target has DR15.

This doesn't effect if you want to make a 2d8 attack or 2 1d8 attacks.

QuoteThey also had in that packet a feat that allowed DR based on CON Mod.

Yes you are right, I had forgot Heavy Armor Master. Good catch.

Yeah. Once modifiers are added from like my fighter STR bonuses then things shift sometimes dramatically in the fighters favor as it adds up gradually.

The wizard had the advantage of range and we could factor in ray of frosts slowing element too.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;760932You want 2 x d8 if:
*you can trade an attack for something else which has an effect other than damage (trip, disarm, dodge, whatever)
*you're fighting something with only a couple of hit points, or other cases where doing any damage has an effect (spell disruption?)
*you get a damage bonus that applies to all your attacks in the round

Or:

*you're fighting multiple opponents who are individually quite weak.

Quote from: jadrax;760939This doesn't effect if you want to make a 2d8 attack or 2 1d8 attacks.

You're right, it doesn't. But there was a mention of whether there was DR or not, so I was just providing the info.

I can tell everyone here that, in play, fighter eclipses everyone in bringing the pain. Wizards are still glass cannons as far as that goes, especially when the fighter gets 2 attacks + action surge. Since ACs are low in 5th, it's just chop, chop, chop.  In the last playtest, which we are still using at level 9, the fighter shines brighter than any other D&D version I've seen, outside 4E, where everyone more or less shined equally in combat. Combat is the fighter's domain. Wizard damage is still nuke damage, for the most part, but the main thing, as already mentioned here, is utility. Wizards are handy for making some problems a lot easier to solve.

Right.

Against opponents with average of 3 hit points, the 2d8 is overkill.  While the Wizard might do the same amount of damage over any given 10 rounds, he's putting that damage against at most 10 targets - the Fighter would be putting it over potentially 20 targets.

The fact that attacks have to be allocated to specific creatures until the point that they reach 0 hit points makes the math a little tricky.  

Imagine, for a moment, that the opponents have 17 hit points.  It's clear that the Wizard won't 'one-shot' them (and of course, neither will the Fighter).  Two attacks each dealing 1d8 is probably more useful in that situation because when you get to the point where a target is VERY LOW on hit points, you can potentially direct your next attack to a new opponent.  

Ultimately, what this should encourage is that the Wizard attack a 'high toughness' character, and the Fighter focus on dropping already wounded characters.

In AD&D at least fighters and other physical combat types also had the advantage of being able to shift to subdual damage.

A mage cannot do that with an attack spell. Its allways set to kill.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760891Excellent.  Now tell me whether you would rather have one chance at 2d8 or 2 chances at 1d8.  Are some instances better for one or the other, not over time in a sim, but with certain opponents in front of you?  

I think I've tracked down the exact line that started all this, but I'll wait until Sac comes in and calls me a goal-shifting coward or something.

When you shift the goal posts, people are going to say you're goal post shifting.  That's sort of how it works.  The original conversation started because people were flipping out that the mage's at will spells were doing way too much damage compared to the fighter.  So the original context of that entire conversation was to compare how much damage a mage does per round compared to a fighter's.

The equation was simple, and sound.  You said it wasn't, and when called out on how basic math works, you started adding a bunch of factors into the equation that weren't there when we were talking about the issue.  That's called shifting the goalposts when you're changing the scenario to retroactively fit your claim.

Quote from: Omega;760952In AD&D at least fighters and other physical combat types also had the advantage of being able to shift to subdual damage.

A mage cannot do that with an attack spell. Its allways set to kill.

Well you could use something like hold person or sleep or some higher level Abjuration or even Transmutation spells....

Quote from: Marleycat;760990Well you could use something like hold person or sleep or some higher level Abjuration or even Transmutation spells....

That is totally irrelevant to the point.

A ray of frost has one setting. Kill. You cant use it to subdue. (Short of the DM allowing you to.)

Quote from: Omega;761017That is totally irrelevant to the point.

A ray of frost has one setting. Kill. You cant use it to subdue. (Short of the DM allowing you to.)

Of course I just said there are other options. But if it's specifically Ray of Frost v physical weapon you're correct.

Quote from: Omega;761017That is totally irrelevant to the point.

A ray of frost has one setting. Kill. You cant use it to subdue. (Short of the DM allowing you to.)

I don't have a problem with that because a fighter can always hit with the flat of his sword, etc.  Hard to do that with a fireball, magic missile, or lightning bolt.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761019I don't have a problem with that because a fighter can always hit with the flat of his sword, etc.  Hard to do that with a fireball, magic missile, or lightning bolt.

I would totally subdue everyone with my lightning bolt! :eek:

Quote from: Omega;761020I would totally subdue everyone with my lightning bolt! :eek:

Well, I'd hope normal moral rules (however the DM wants to use them) would still apply.  I.e., even though there might not be an "official" way to subdue using a lightning bolt, if you nail someone with it nearly killing them, they very well might still act subdued ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;760961The equation was simple, and sound.  You said it wasn't, and when called out on how basic math works, you started adding a bunch of factors into the equation that weren't there when we were talking about the issue.  That's called shifting the goalposts when you're changing the scenario to retroactively fit your claim.

But perhaps too complex to describe it instead of just a reference that keeps the ongoing flame war alive?

Shirts or skins, Sac?  What's better?  Why?

Ooh, I got a few non-traditional factors that just popped in my head:

Wild dice.
Luck points.
Successes.

Not a lot of DnD there but would certainly change the decision.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761026But perhaps too complex to describe it instead of just a reference that keeps the ongoing flame war alive?

Shirts or skins, Sac?  What's better?  Why?

Anyone who cares can read the posts and decide, been linked multiple times.  No one cares.  Fair enough.

Quote from: Warthur;760927A lot depends on whether foes have damage reduction. Of course, I don't even know whether damage reduction is a thing in 5E at all, let alone how common it is.

And in other games too.  In the FASA Star Trek game, if you had multiple weapons of the same type you could fire them separately or together.

Shields were simple subtractors.  It meant that if your enemy had shields up, you were better firing your phasers together and adding the damage... so, 2 point phasers would add together into one 4 point phaser with the same hit probability.

On an unshielded target it didn't matter, but on a shielded target you were better off combining shots.

Quote from: Omega;761020I would totally subdue everyone with my lightning bolt! :eek:

hurr hurr hurr...

Quote from: mcbobbo;761026Shirts or skins, Sac?  What's better?  Why?

The men should always be shirts, the women should always be skins.

Always.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;760932Situationally, you want 2d8 if:
*you have a one-off to hit bonus (True Strike or whatnot)
*you get a bonus attack from somewhere
*you're hitting something with damage reduction

You want 2 x d8 if:
*you can trade an attack for something else which has an effect other than damage (trip, disarm, dodge, whatever)
*you're fighting something with only a couple of hit points, or other cases where doing any damage has an effect (spell disruption?)
*you get a damage bonus that applies to all your attacks in the round

The 2d8 has a higher variability, which is useful in some cases.

As you note, if the enemies have 4 hp each, then usually the 2d8 is overkill.  

However, if the enemies have 8 hp each, then 2d8 may have a slight advantage. The two 1d8 attacks at 60% has a greater chance to wound - allowing the enemy to strike back, while the 2d8 attack at 60% has a greater chance to kill outright in one round.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;760922Exactly.

The problem here is that while the wizard has a better chance of doing 2d8 damage than the fighter, the fighter has a better chance of doing any damage at all, in a given round.

As the fight progresses, the probabilities - apparently - start merging towards each other, and it starts being irrelevant as combat rounds approach infinity. (Admittedly I'm not entirely convinced that that matters.)

Fortunately the game isn't played at the statistical level.
RPGs are played at the laws of independent trail level.  That is where we get

Quote from: Omega;760884In one sequence the mage hit once out of 7 rounds while in that same span the fighter hit seven times.

That could be a dead Mage or even a TPK.  The group probably doesn't give a shit what the statical probabilities are, they see a dead PC or worse.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761119That could be a dead Mage or even a TPK.  The group probably doesn't give a shit what the statical probabilities are, they see a dead PC or worse.

With equal chances to hit, seven hits by the fighter and one by the mage is a statistical anomaly.  It could as just as easily been that the Mage and Fighter each hit four times, and the Mage saved the day, in which case instead of bitching about the Mage, they'd be bitching about how the Fighter doesn't do enough damage.

That said, lower variability will generally be preferred simply because getting a fight over more quickly, or possibly winning one you shouldn't isn't nearly as big of an event as not winning a fight you "should" have.

Quote from: CRKrueger;761033Anyone who cares can read the posts and decide, been linked multiple times.  No one cares.  Fair enough.

I'm far too lazy to go trudging through probably thousands of posts to try and find it.  And you have discussed it so much that I suspect even the search engine would bore the shit out of me.

But it's good to see someone concede...

Quote from: jadrax;760933*You get to apply a Damage bonus to the first attack in a round that hits

Is that just a fighter ability or open to anybody? Been awhile since I read the packets.
If its both, a damage bonus to just the first attack that hits would favour 2 attacks as its two chances to hit; I think rogue sneak attack works that way, so fighter/rogue would be slightly better synergy).

Quote from: jhkim;761068The 2d8 has a higher variability, which is useful in some cases.

As you note, if the enemies have 4 hp each, then usually the 2d8 is overkill.  

However, if the enemies have 8 hp each, then 2d8 may have a slight advantage. The two 1d8 attacks at 60% has a greater chance to wound - allowing the enemy to strike back, while the 2d8 attack at 60% has a greater chance to kill outright in one round.

Yes, true.

Quote from: robiswrong;761120With equal chances to hit, seven hits by the fighter and one by the mage is a statistical anomaly.

Take a large enough sample and that becomes 0.00001% difference.

You guys... The fighter is better. Because fighters are better.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;761189You guys... The fighter is better. Because fighters are better.

They seem to be in 5e. They sure solved LFQW for sure. Both the cleric and fighter make them pretty weak. Even FantasyCraft gives you twice the prepared spells and better flexibility. I mean seriously 2 signature spells only at 1/2nd level? Get real,. 4-5 between 1st-3rd is reasonable.

And make overchannelling worth it at higher levels already for someone not playing a cleric. It's not like anybody won't reach 20th if they just play once a week this time around.

Why do you think they actually need at-will attack cantrips? They literally choked off 6-9 level spells! Not even 2 slots for 6-7th level spells? No chance to even recover even a 6th level one at high levels. Really?

My only hope at this point is auto-prepared school spells, some signature spells ouhtside your 19 slots and some actual spellcaster feats, before I have to do it myself. It's not that hard thank God.

At least they're better then the 4e sham of a class and fixable so it's not completely hopeless.

Quote from: Sommerjon;761185Take a large enough sample and that becomes 0.00001% difference.

Obviously?  I mean, expected output is the same in both cases, so with a large enough sample we clearly expect them to equal out.

The wizard has higher variability.  This can go in their favor (massive damage in a short time) or against them (no damage in a short time).  Both are equally likely.

I bumped both up to level 11 so the mage is doing 3d8 and the fighter has 3 attacks of 1d8 each and the results were the same.

They both got in close to the same total die of damage over just 25 rounds of target practice as it were.

Main difference was that the fighter was landing hits just about every round. There were two spots where he missed four times in a row. But that meant that he only wooshed a round at this point. The Mage was doing damage in spikes and pretty much missed about every other round at one point.

The mage got 17 hits in totalling 51d6 damage. The fighter got 55 hits.

Do note that all this does is show that under equal conditions the math holds up and alot of little hits and one big hit will equal out in NEXT. The fighter and mage might even have the same to hit range as the mage gets INT bonus to hit with Ray of Frost and the Fighter gets STR or DEX depending on the weapon.

Ray though does not get the damage boost from a stat that a fighter gets for a weapon and good STR/DEX.

And there WILL be situations were you just need to tag the opponent. such as to interrupt a spell. And that is were the fighter has an advantage. Whereas if you just need someone dead NOW. The mage "might" have the better shot. IF they hit.

The fighter will though have various tricks to potentially dole out even more damage depending on their choices up to that point and the mage has a potential to sling up to 9 Lightning Bolts for example totalling something like 64 die of damage. No to hit needed and damages them even if they save.

Toss in tactics and other factors and things get really interesting.

Does any of this matter to me or my group one bit if X Y or Z has more theoretical DPS?

No.

Not one bit.

We 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 awsome powers are useless.

Play the GAME. Dont PLAY the game. (This should be in a fortune cookie...)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761159Is that just a fighter ability or open to anybody? Been awhile since I read the packets.
If its both, a damage bonus to just the first attack that hits would favour 2 attacks as its two chances to hit; I think rogue sneak attack works that way, so fighter/rogue would be slightly better synergy).

Sneak Attack woks that way, as do a fair few spells IIRC (You basically cast them as a reaction to hitting in melee). There was not a fighter ability that worked this way as far as I remember.

Quote from: Omega;761223Do note that all this does is show that under equal conditions the math holds up and alot of little hits and one big hit will equal out in NEXT. The fighter and mage might even have the same to hit range as the mage gets INT bonus to hit with Ray of Frost and the Fighter gets STR or DEX depending on the weapon.

Well, I guess it's nice that the fighter - you know, the guy whose class is pretty much defined by his ability to fight things - is at least on-par with the guy who can kill people or do one of a dozen other things with his magic.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761238Well, I guess it's nice that the fighter - you know, the guy whose class is pretty much defined by his ability to fight things - is at least on-par with the guy who can kill people or do one of a dozen other things with his magic.

Armour, Weapons, various quirks. Also make great door openers. aheh.

I agree that the mage is getting a bit more oomph that it feels like should. But others might disagree. And from the playtest alone it feels to me that it fits in context of how Next works.

As said elsewhere. Easy enough to houserule Ray down to a d6 and/or remove the INT bonus to hit. Or add a spell component. There are ways to curb it if it is seen as an issue at a table. And as noted. The mage spells have been sometimes toned down a fair bit.

A better question is. How do the other classes compare? Combat-wise. Not on par with the Fighter it seems. But they have other areas they function in.

And is it even an issue?
For me. No. For others. Who knows.

Some of this may well be moot if anything changed from the playtest reguarding either elements.

Quote from: Omega;761223The mage got 17 hits in totalling 51d6 damage. The fighter got 55 hits.

I am not following the math, but 17 big hits vs 55 smaller ones probably won't "feel the same" - and I could see it swing both ways.  In 90% of combats - where there are multiple foes each weaker than a given PC - I think the fighter would shine.  Not only are the spell caster's big hits overkill, but they just plain miss more.  The fighter, as others have said, could possibly switch targets between kills and spread the damage around.

Vs orcs, goblins, etc - fighter should "win"

Vs dragons - maybe caster.  But all that damage rolled up into fewer saving throws will amplify the curve that throw is on.  So if said dragon is good at throws it seems fewer chances are in the players favor.  Any one fail has a big impact.  But if dragon is bad at saves making them roll more often should benefit the players.

No clue if that has any bearing on 5e, but that's how it seems in general.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761280I am not following the math, but 17 big hits vs 55 smaller ones probably won't "feel the same" - and I could see it swing both ways.  In 90% of combats - where there are multiple foes each weaker than a given PC - I think the fighter would shine.  Not only are the spell caster's big hits overkill, but they just plain miss more.  The fighter, as others have said, could possibly switch targets between kills and spread the damage around.

Vs orcs, goblins, etc - fighter should "win"

Vs dragons - maybe caster.  But all that damage rolled up into fewer saving throws will amplify the curve that throw is on.  So if said dragon is good at throws it seems fewer chances are in the players favor.  Any one fail has a big impact.  But if dragon is bad at saves making them roll more often should benefit the players.

No clue if that has any bearing on 5e, but that's how it seems in general.

At 11th level the mage's Ray is doing 3d6 damage, and at 11th level the fighter is getting 3 attacks a round. Using the same 60% to hit chance that was the result. They still ended up about equal in output over 25 rounds.

From the playtest...

For Fireball and Lightning Bolt its a DEX save. A Black dragon has a DEX of 10. A Green has a DEX of 13 for example. So for the Black that is a 50% chance to save, and for the Green its a 65% chance.

But Ray of frost just has a to-hit roll.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761238Well, I guess it's nice that the fighter - you know, the guy whose class is pretty much defined by his ability to fight things - is at least on-par with the guy who can kill people or do one of a dozen other things with his magic.

And... which character is going to stand up to a hit from an ogre?

Quote from: robiswrong;761322And... which character is going to stand up to a hit from an ogre?

At high levels, a wizard can do interesting things (like travel to other planes) that a Fighter... just can't.  

I can legitimately seeing people upset that wizards are 'just as good' at 'killing things' which is supposed to be the specialty of the fighter, but ultimately, a wizard gets more options.  They can play the game when it isn't about killing people.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761330At high levels, a wizard can do interesting things (like travel to other planes) that a Fighter... just can't.  

I can legitimately seeing people upset that wizards are 'just as good' at 'killing things' which is supposed to be the specialty of the fighter, but ultimately, a wizard gets more options.  They can play the game when it isn't about killing people.

I understand that, and it's a valid point.

My point is that "combat effectiveness" is not just damage output.  It's damage output, resilience, and other stuff besides.  It may still be that the Fighter is good at combat and the wizard is just as good (though probably in other ways) as the fighter, but gets to do other stuff.

Can we please remember that the damage shown isn't figuring in +Str mod, or +Magic weapon, or well anything.

This is 10 Str Fighter vs 10 Str Wizard (to get the same hit percentages without the fighter having a +to damage)

Once you start counting Fighters who are actually strong (or dextrous in the case of finesse fighters), or a +1 Weapon then we are going to see a widening gap between at will combat damage. On top of the versatility of being able to hit more targets.

Also, if you check out the number of spell slots Wizards got in the playtest for casting, they aren't going to be able to cast nearly as may non-cantrip spells as they could in earlier editions.

(And the fighter will still have higher AC and more Hit Points)

Quote from: robiswrong;761322And... which character is going to stand up to a hit from an ogre?

Which is better: having the ability to take a few hits from an ogre, or being able to fly above the ogre's reach and not get hit at all?

Or go invisible... or make a bunch of illusory copies of yourself... or just summon an expendable meatshield from another plane...

QuoteMy point is that "combat effectiveness" is not just damage output. It's damage output, resilience, and other stuff besides. It may still be that the Fighter is good at combat and the wizard is just as good (though probably in other ways) as the fighter, but gets to do other stuff.

Sure, there are plenty of other factors. And yet I'm fairly certain that we'll see spells that let wizards either (1) replicate the other combat-centric abilities of a fighter, or (2) render them moot (like being able to fly out of reach of melee-focused opponents).

Quote from: Omega;761304At 11th level the mage's Ray is doing 3d6 damage, and at 11th level the fighter is getting 3 attacks a round. Using the same 60% to hit chance that was the result. They still ended up about equal in output over 25 rounds.

From the playtest...

For Fireball and Lightning Bolt its a DEX save. A Black dragon has a DEX of 10. A Green has a DEX of 13 for example. So for the Black that is a 50% chance to save, and for the Green its a 65% chance.

But Ray of frost just has a to-hit roll.

I have stayed away from the WIP stuff, except hearsay, so forgive any stupid questions...

Does the fighter get +str to damage?  Is that limited to once per round?  Can they still crit?  Can Wizard spells crit?

Does a save negate or do half?  And Ray of Frost gets no save at all?

Also fighters probably get a bigger die than d6, right?  Unless TWF light weapons or somesuch?

Even still 3d6 to one target is more situational than 1d6 three times between one, two, or three targets.  Big boss and or nuke from orbit stuff.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761347Does the fighter get +str to damage?  Is that limited to once per round?  

Yes, or Dex with certain weapons. This applies to every attack.

QuoteCan they still crit?  Can Wizard spells crit?

I don't think we know the current crit rules.

QuoteDoes a save negate or do half?  And Ray of Frost gets no save at all?

No save, but you do have to roll to hit like a ranged attack (but using Int). It also slows the target by 10 feet and is obviously Cold Damage.

QuoteAlso fighters probably get a bigger die than d6, right?  Unless TWF light weapons or somesuch?

I would assume a d8 personally, for a typical long sword and board fighter.

Quote from: jadrax;761352Yes, or Dex with certain weapons. This applies to every attack.

except the off hand attack from dual weapons.  You don't get your ability modifier to that unless you've specialized (either class feature or feat) in dual weapon fighting.

QuoteI don't think we know the current crit rules.

They very well could have changed.  IIRC, it was max damage and you didn't roll.  I houseruled it to double rolled damage like I've been playing for years.

Well, unless I am missing something, 3d6 is less than, e.g. (1d8+2)x3 - all day every day.

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. :D

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.

D&D was never designed to support a 5mwd.  In fact, the opposite.  Want to spike the door?  Congrats, but all the other denizens have now organized a defense and you're trapped.  5mwd only exists as a problem if DMs ignore how monsters should act and react, essentially pausing the game world.  Early D&D was very much designed where a MU could far out damage a fighter--for a couple of attacks only, but that there would be several encounters before you could get back to a safe place.  That's why in AD&D days, players had a base of operations they returned to rather than rest in a dungeon.  So mages had to very much manage their resources, and didn't go around making the fighter obsolete damage wise.  Not at all

You should be happy then because there are no generalist wizards in 5e. They specialize by school.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761457D&D was never designed to support a 5mwd.

I feel like you're conflating how it's designed with how it was played.

Quote5mwd only exists as a problem if DMs ignore how monsters should act and react, essentially pausing the game world.

This requires that the GM be on the ball about how the dungeon - or whatever environment the group is in - would react.

Experienced GMs being able to handle this? Sure. Fresh ones, or ones that haven't dealt with it before? Not so much.

Look, it's fine and dandy if earlier editions of D&D apparently supported the style of play I'm looking for. The problem is that, in a lot of other ways, they don't.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761459I feel like you're conflating how it's designed with how it was played.

no, it was played pretty much how I described.  It wasn't until 3e, when all the factors that mitigated mages being overpowered (interruptions, etc) before you started seeing the power imbalance

QuoteThis requires that the GM be on the ball about how the dungeon - or whatever environment the group is in - would react.

Experienced GMs being able to handle this? Sure. Fresh ones, or ones that haven't dealt with it before? Not so much.

Look, it's fine and dandy if earlier editions of D&D apparently supported the style of play I'm looking for. The problem is that, in a lot of other ways, they don't.

No, even basic DMs could do this.  Random wandering tables were an excellent tool that even the most inexperienced DM could use.  Also, it's less DM experience and more common sense that drives the living world.. I don't know why you assume a new DM would assume the monsters all stop what they're doing whenever the players want to rest

so yeah, you can't criticize the game when you're (general you) ignoring how it's designed and won't use common sense

Quote from: Bill;761456You 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.

Would you do it again just for me?

:)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761464no, it was played pretty much how I described.  It wasn't until 3e, when all the factors that mitigated mages being overpowered (interruptions, etc) before you started seeing the power imbalance

That's fine if that's how it was played. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's how it was designed, though; you do see the difference there, yes?

Emergent properties are just that. Sometimes you design a thing, and it winds up doing something you totally did not see coming. It happens. Whether or not high-level play in earlier editions could lead to the 15 minute workday isn't something I can personally speak to and haven't really seen much evidence either way; but given that LFQW has been around since the game's inception, I could see it going to that.

QuoteNo, even basic DMs could do this.

You cannot assume that everyone has your same basic skill set, or that they will arrive at the same conclusions you did.

QuoteRandom wandering tables were an excellent tool that even the most inexperienced DM could use.

Is the game going to provide those for every dungeon, every wilderness setting, every city, etc?

QuoteAlso, it's less DM experience and more common sense that drives the living world.. I don't know why you assume a new DM would assume the monsters all stop what they're doing whenever the players want to rest

Did I say that? I did not, so kindly don't act like I did.

I am saying that a newbie GM is not necessarily going to have the knowledge/skills/awareness to do this. Even if they say, "huh, they left the dungeon... stuff probably is still happening there," that does not necessarily mean they'll be able to make that stuff happen in a sensible manner.

Quoteso yeah, you can't criticize the game when you're (general you) ignoring how it's designed and won't use common sense

Mostly I try to envision how a bunch of pre-teen kids who have never seen a TTRPG before, who have no assistance and have no experienced gamers they can turn to for advice, would look at the rules, and try to figure out how to make the game experience I'm looking for emerge from the game without too much effort or weird leaps of logic that may not be obvious to everyone.

So if it seems like I am generally trying to avoid what you or I would consider "common sense," it's because I'm trying to approach things from a demographic not known for having it. :p

wait, what?  First you say, "Just because it was designed that way doesn't mean it was played that way.", and when I said it was played that way too, you say, "just because it was played that way doesn't mean it was designed that way."


wow.

Quote from: Marleycat;761465Would you do it again just for me?

:)

I like characters with a theme, and with specialist wizards, spells presumably should fit the theme.

Hate it when a wizard who is an illusionist, enchanter, or diviner take's freakin' stoneskin.

Evokers that take divination, charm, illusions.

Drives me crazy.

Especially when the excuse is "I am a Wiiiizaaaaaard! I can cast anything!"

That's should be for universality, not specialists.

Specialist should not mean "I take any spell I want because its uber and the hell with theme"

In pathfinder the even ruined the opposition school limit, when they should have made it more strict. In pathfinder a specialist can cast opposition school spells by using two slots. Its  a penalty, but I don't want Evokers casting mirror image at all!!!!

Blood pressure!

Angst!

@GW, as for your question about random encounter tables? Hell yes that's happening and been done. Now if only they had the balls to bring the brothels and the streetwalkers (prostitutes) then we're talking. Real World in motion I like to call it.:)

Quote from: Bill;761474I like characters with a theme, and with specialist wizards, spells presumably should fit the theme.

Hate it when a wizard who is an illusionist, enchanter, or diviner take's freakin' stoneskin.

Evokers that take divination, charm, illusions.

Drives me crazy.

Especially when the excuse is "I am a Wiiiizaaaaaard! I can cast anything!"

That's should be for universality, not specialists.

Specialist should not mean "I take any spell I want because its uber and the hell with theme"

In pathfinder the even ruined the opposition school limit, when they should have made it more strict. In pathfinder a specialist can cast opposition school spells by using two slots. Its  a penalty, but I don't want Evokers casting mirror image at all!!!!

Blood pressure!

Angst!

6/10.

I agree with you. There should be a Universal list and then you pick from 2-3 schools picked at creation or given by the game and if you pick in your school that spell has features nobody else gets on top. That's a specialist.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761472wait, what?  First you say, "Just because it was designed that way doesn't mean it was played that way.", and when I said it was played that way too, you say, "just because it was played that way doesn't mean it was designed that way."

The game is designed such that the 15 minute workday is an emergent property. It obviously does not emerge for everyone; in earlier editions, for presumably various reasons, it seems to come up a lot less than in WotC D&D.

However, the fact that an individual group did not wind up seeing it emerge does not mean that it is not something that comes up.

If I'm being (apparently) inconsistent, please be a little more concise in demonstrating that; I'm trying to catch up on homework at the moment, and I realize that splitting my attention can cause me to say things that seem absurd (it's happened in the past, hence why I bring it up).

When I was 14 I think my GM at the time would definitely have shoved some vampires under the door or something if we tried to just Fireball the giant rat and go to sleep, instead of clearing the dungeon first.
I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488When I was 14 I think my GM at the time would definitely have shoved some vampires under the door or something if we tried to just Fireball the giant rat and go to sleep, instead of clearing the dungeon first.
I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Exactly. And it's why GW is having issues. You can't quantify a day vs an encounter and the fact is old school is built on the adventure day model.  But new school is built on ENCOUNTERS inside that day. And just to make it impossible for both you and WotC you have us MIDDLE school people that mix and match from both extremes.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Ding! Winnah. When the game is based on a balanced encounter every encounter is supposed to be challenging but not too challenging, so you get the idea that casters have to maximize damage output, thus the Nova.  Once spells run out, encounters run out = 15 minute adventuring day.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761381Well, unless I am missing something, 3d6 is less than, e.g. (1d8+2)x3 - all day every day.

That is what I've pointed out at least twice now.

Sac's argument was that 2d8 once is equal to 1d8 twice if all else was equal. And in 5e the mage and the fighter can have the same to hit chance with ray and weapon due to how ray functions.

Add in the fighters stat bonus and he moves forward as I pointed out. Toss in a magic weapon and he jumps forward again. Outside of the base equation things are not equal.

All of that irrelevant to finding out if Sac's base statement was true or false.

I may have a rather low opinion of Sac. But hands on testing shows that in this case he was correct. They balance out.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

There is not a single version of D&D that supports the idea of every challenge being the same difficulty.

4e explicitly states what would be easy, moderate, and difficult encounters, and to vary them. Just because it was built around the idea that encounters are BEATABLE, doesn't mean that it was built around every encounter being the exact same level of challenge.

I'm not really a big fan of 4e, but the lies told about it are astounding.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761346Which is better: having the ability to take a few hits from an ogre, or being able to fly above the ogre's reach and not get hit at all?

Or go invisible... or make a bunch of illusory copies of yourself... or just summon an expendable meatshield from another plane...

Except that the wizard in the example is using a ranged spell and out of reach allready?

Except that if the wizard is casting non-com spells then they are not using the at will and thus not contributing damage and allowing the fighter to outperform them gradually.

Except that the Ogre could chuck a rock at the flying mage, get lucky and clip the invisible one with a wild swing or just wait for him to attack, etc.

All assuming the mage even has these spells or has them memorized, or has any slots left to blow on them.

The wizard has allways been a sort of Swiss-Army-Knife. IF they prepped right. That has been their boon and bane from the start.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488When I was 14 I think my GM at the time would definitely have shoved some vampires under the door or something if we tried to just Fireball the giant rat and go to sleep, instead of clearing the dungeon first.

Which, honestly? Just strikes me as kind of asinine.

QuoteI think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Having a preference for the game being balanced around individual encounters, as opposed to per diem, is not automatically an idiotic thing.

I have significant issues with constantly using Vancian magic, and don't care for it. I prefer more fluid and flexible means of casting, which - usually - carries with it a change in the game's balance point (encounter vs. daily).

Quote from: Marleycat;761489Exactly. And it's why GW is having issues. You can't quantify a day vs an encounter and the fact is old school is built on the adventure day model.  

Yes, that's why I'm "having issues," though I will argue that it is not an issue and is just a matter of taste.

Older editions are quite clearly modeled around a day. In my experience, this leads to the 15 minute workday; we can sit here and argue that GMs "back in the day" used other means to combat this, that doesn't mean that (1) the system didn't allow for it, and (2) that those exact same means aren't still viable in newer editions: I just don't care for a lot of them.

QuoteBut new school is built on ENCOUNTERS inside that day. And just to make it impossible for both you and WotC you have us MIDDLE school people that mix and match from both extremes.

I'm sure it's possible to mix them. I'm just not sure that D&D has - or can - do it well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;761490Ding! Winnah. When the game is based on a balanced encounter every encounter is supposed to be challenging but not too challenging, so you get the idea that casters have to maximize damage output, thus the Nova.  Once spells run out, encounters run out = 15 minute adventuring day.

So long as you're not conflating this point with my position, this is a fair assessment of what happens when you focus on encounter-based design: there is definitely a risk of people just nova'ing all over the place.

However, it does not turn into a 15 minute workday: if your resources are balanced around the encounter, not the day, then the party has no reason to stop and rest for an extended period after an encounter.

But that is also dependent upon how your resource management works, and all that fun jazz. There's a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle.

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

There is a difference between wanting to understand the mechanics and wanting to exploit the mechanics. Which is where we get some problem players. The rest could care less.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761442As 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).

Exactly. Hence the test that started the thread.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761501Older editions are quite clearly modeled around a day. In my experience, this leads to the 15 minute workday; we can sit here and argue that GMs "back in the day" used other means to combat this, that doesn't mean that (1) the system didn't allow for it, and (2) that those exact same means aren't still viable in newer editions: I just don't care for a lot of them.

Um. You literally could not do a 15min workday in AD&D. Regaining spells took time, and usually lots of it.

Recovering 1st to 2nd level spells took Four hours, 3rd to 4th took six hours of uninterrupted rest.

Back on topic.

One thing that I complained about in the Next feedback was that the Fighter needed to get another extra attack at level 15. Otherwise HERE the fighter begins to fall behind the mage in base damage output of cantrip vs weapon.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761496There is not a single version of D&D that supports the idea of every challenge being the same difficulty.

4e explicitly states what would be easy, moderate, and difficult encounters, and to vary them. Just because it was built around the idea that encounters are BEATABLE, doesn't mean that it was built around every encounter being the exact same level of challenge.

I'm not really a big fan of 4e, but the lies told about it are astounding.

*shrug* I did not mention 4E in my post at all.
For the purpose of discussion you can take me as talking more about late-era 3E, I suppose. 4E isn't relevant since all the resources recycle per-encounter; its already post the '5 minute workday' era.

As is 5e. Though I was shocked that in a white room scenerio the fighter and wizard are balanced. Thing is the game isn't played in a white room.:)

Why is the mage tossing damage spells? Smart mages toss effect spells. AKA, leave the HP damage to the fighter and let the mage do stuff only the mage can do.

I'd rather cast Slow or Haste than Fireball more times than not, and Sleep beats Magic Missile. Effects, not damage, are the domain of the mage.

Quote from: Spinachcat;761521Why is the mage tossing damage spells? Smart mages toss effect spells. AKA, leave the HP damage to the fighter and let the mage do stuff only the mage can do.

I'd rather cast Slow or Haste than Fireball more times than not, and Sleep beats Magic Missile. Effects, not damage, are the domain of the mage.

It's a white room.... personally I use things like Minor Illusion and Predigistation and let the fighter do his thing until he gives me a signal to drop the hammer unless I have no choice but to go full offensive. I might use Sleep or Haste or Web before then though. You know, to tilt the field a bit for my fighter.:)

Mages are hammer and fighters are the nail. Or is it the reverse?;)

Quote from: Omega;761508Um. You literally could not do a 15min workday in AD&D. Regaining spells took time, and usually lots of it.

Um... what?

I don't think you clearly understand what the intent of the concept of the "15 minute workday" is, if you think this is a valid retort.

Feel free to ask for further clarification.

Quote from: Marleycat;761524Mages are hammer and fighters are the nail. Or is it the reverse?;)

No, no, NO.

Fuck you, this is fucking bullshit.

When I make a fucking character, the effectiveness of that character should not be fucking dependent on the rest of the party make-up. I shouldn't have to ask myself, as a fighter: "am I going to be awesome, or some other asshole's fucking doll to dress up in fucking buffs and what-not?"

A fighter's thing is combat. End of fucking story. A fighter who goes into a fight, that is relatively high level, should just fucking own his opposition, unless up against crazy shit like dragons or armies or fucking gods. If there is a situation where the fighter has to look at a caster before a relatively standard fight and say, "Hey, are you going to buff me before this fight, or what?", that system immediately fucking fails.

The caster should be supplemental; a nice bonus, useful for making up for corners that the fighter has cut in his training. But if a wizard can just magic up a fucking combatant that is no-holds-barred better than the fighter PC, then your system has fucking failed, and fuck you for trying.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761556When I make a fucking character, the effectiveness of that character should not be fucking dependent on the rest of the party make-up.

It is an interesting idea, but I think it is about as far away from mainstream D&D (of any edition!) as you can actually get.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761552Um... what?

I don't think you clearly understand what the intent of the concept of the "15 minute workday" is, if you think this is a valid retort.

Feel free to ask for further clarification.

:) Sounds like your party would die so bad in my dungeons, hostile towns, and wildernesses. Relying on 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep, then hours to re-memorize spells, in the middle of danger tends to be a rookie mistake in my games. And I do tabulate spell components, too. Safe rest is a precious commodity; perhaps your 3e-isms are not as applicable as you think.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761556When I make a fucking character, the effectiveness of that character should not be fucking dependent on the rest of the party make-up. I shouldn't have to ask myself, as a fighter: "am I going to be awesome, or some other asshole's fucking doll to dress up in fucking buffs and what-not?"

Why are you playing RPGs which assume a party format, in that case?

And it's entirely down to you that you see playing a fighter who gets buffed by the spellcasters as being "somebody else's doll". The buffing spellcasters would equally see themselves as glorified squires using their magic so you can go out and get the glory.

Johnson nailed it.  "Full spells is normal" was a direct result of "I deserve a series of encounters tailored to my level" which was new in 3e.  It's a sibling of "fight everything" and if you expect the caster to participate in that fight, they're going to need spells.

So that puts it pretty firmly in the 'design' camp, when dealing with 3e.

Quote from: Spinachcat;761521Why is the mage tossing damage spells? Smart mages toss effect spells. AKA, leave the HP damage to the fighter and let the mage do stuff only the mage can do.

I'd rather cast Slow or Haste than Fireball more times than not, and Sleep beats Magic Missile. Effects, not damage, are the domain of the mage.

Agreed, although the mage having the option to use damage spells is part of the toolbox.

Sometimes you need fireball; like when there are 30 ghasts paralyzing the heck out of the fighters.

But usually a wizard is far better off using illusions, charms, haste, etc...

Quote from: Bill;761594Sometimes you need fireball; like when there are 30 ghasts paralyzing the heck out of the fighters.

That might be a bad example of utility, assuming fireball still explodes in a radius and paralysis impacts DEX saves...

:)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761556No, no, NO.

Fuck you, this is fucking bullshit.

When I make a fucking character, the effectiveness of that character should not be fucking dependent on the rest of the party make-up. I shouldn't have to ask myself, as a fighter: "am I going to be awesome, or some other asshole's fucking doll to dress up in fucking buffs and what-not?"

A fighter's thing is combat. End of fucking story. A fighter who goes into a fight, that is relatively high level, should just fucking own his opposition, unless up against crazy shit like dragons or armies or fucking gods. If there is a situation where the fighter has to look at a caster before a relatively standard fight and say, "Hey, are you going to buff me before this fight, or what?", that system immediately fucking fails.

The caster should be supplemental; a nice bonus, useful for making up for corners that the fighter has cut in his training. But if a wizard can just magic up a fucking combatant that is no-holds-barred better than the fighter PC, then your system has fucking failed, and fuck you for trying.

Where did I ever mention buffing the fighter? That's done better by the Bard or cleric. I explicitly said I would likely use misdirection cantrips, or field tilting spells (Web, Sleep etc) to give the fighter the advantage. Combat is his playground why would I want to mess in his sandbox? Unless he signals me given he would be the battle leader I assume?

It's called teamwork not shit on the fighter's fun.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761605That might be a bad example of utility, assuming fireball still explodes in a radius and paralysis impacts DEX saves...

:)

In the playtest a paralyzed target automatically fails STR and DEX saves.

That has potential. Paralyze a high DEX opponent THEN fireball them.

Quote from: Omega;761495I may have a rather low opinion of Sac. But hands on testing shows that in this case he was correct. They balance out.

This is twice you've done this now.  Why feel the need to qualify your opinion of me before getting to the point?  Why not just say they balance out?  Are you afraid that if you don't put that qualifier up front, people will assume you and I are best buds or something?  And wouldn't that be indicitive of the character of the type of people you're talking to if they make that assumption?  After all, that's the same behavior TBP does that is constantly derided over here--if you don't specifically protest enough, then you're an ardent supporter of whatever doesn't happen to be popular with the "crowd".

Regarding 'balanced encounters', 3.x DMG indicated that encounters were supposed to cover a wide range, including (if memory serves) 5% that were 'overwhelming', which is probably CR 6+ over the current Average Party Level (APL).  So 'every encounter should be able to be beaten' was never a part of the game's core assumptions.

Regarding NEXT and challenges, three monsters have been released in preview; Nothic, Ochre Jelly, and Ogre.  The attack bonus for melee/ranged is +6 which is curious since they have a -1 Dex modifier and a +4 Strength modifier; I have no idea how attack bonuses are supposed to be calculated, but it seems a departure that they're both equally likely to hit.  All of these monsters are listed as CR 2; I'm not certain what that is INTENDED to mean, but clearly with the 7 HD and 59 hit points this bruiser is carrying, he's not intended to be just 50% likely to defeat a Fighter in single-combat.  Maybe their idea of CR is 'a 4-person party of this level will be able to defeat this monster in roughly 3 rounds' - Assuming 50% likely to hit for ~10 damage, that's pretty close...  It still seems like a big pile of hit points...

Which brings me to Wizards versus Fighters...  If monsters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are) and Fighters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are), Wizards need to not have access to 'Fighter substitutes'.  A charmed Ogre is probably as effective as a Fighter in terms of the party's effectiveness.  

Ultimately, having a wizard that doesn't cast spells at all (conserving them until they're necessary) and relying on the Fighter until things get 'hairy' isn't very satisfying.  If the Fighter is succeeding, then the Wizard is just sitting around doing nothing [useful]; if the Fighter is failing, then the Wizard handles the problem and the Fighter realizes that the 'problem' could have been dealt with by the Wizard at any time.  Now, maybe the Wizard can't solve EVERY problem EVERY day, but if he solves all the 'real' problems - the ones that a Fighter can't solve, the Fighter isn't really in the same 'game'.  

And even with restricted spells, there comes a point where you can justify ANYTHING through magic.  Even a low-level wizard can survive in the City of Brass despite the burning heat (protection from elements: fire), but the Fighter, tough as he is, just dies.  

There are ways to address some of the disparity (for example, increasing DR for a Fighter would allow him to survive in a very hot environment), but conceptually the Fighter has some major limitations.  If that's justified because the Fighter is 'the best' at 'fighting', then there has to be some role protection there...  If Wizards or Clerics can 'out-fight' a Fighter (even 1/day) it can be a problem - because the Fighter isn't really as good in their 'domain' as they thought they were.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Regarding 'balanced encounters', 3.x DMG indicated that encounters were supposed to cover a wide range, including (if memory serves) 5% that were 'overwhelming', which is probably CR 6+ over the current Average Party Level (APL).  So 'every encounter should be able to be beaten' was never a part of the game's core assumptions.

Is that actually shown out in any published series of adventures?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Which brings me to Wizards versus Fighters...  If monsters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are) and Fighters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are), Wizards need to not have access to 'Fighter substitutes'.  A charmed Ogre is probably as effective as a Fighter in terms of the party's effectiveness.  

Depends on how you read the "Charm" spell.  I've always interpreted it as "you think you're friends now."  That doesn't mean that your new friend will start murdering his old friends.  It just ticks the reaction meter over to friendly.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Ultimately, having a wizard that doesn't cast spells at all (conserving them until they're necessary) and relying on the Fighter until things get 'hairy' isn't very satisfying.  If the Fighter is succeeding, then the Wizard is just sitting around doing nothing [useful]; if the Fighter is failing, then the Wizard handles the problem and the Fighter realizes that the 'problem' could have been dealt with by the Wizard at any time.  Now, maybe the Wizard can't solve EVERY problem EVERY day, but if he solves all the 'real' problems - the ones that a Fighter can't solve, the Fighter isn't really in the same 'game'.  

And yet the wizard couldn't solve all of those other problems because he'd run out of spells.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618There are ways to address some of the disparity (for example, increasing DR for a Fighter would allow him to survive in a very hot environment), but conceptually the Fighter has some major limitations.  If that's justified because the Fighter is 'the best' at 'fighting', then there has to be some role protection there...  If Wizards or Clerics can 'out-fight' a Fighter (even 1/day) it can be a problem - because the Fighter isn't really as good in their 'domain' as they thought they were.

The Fighter's real strength is that they can continue operating at a constant level of effectiveness all day.  Wizards and Clerics can operate at a heightened level of effectiveness, but not constantly.

Of course, this works better in games where you don't just go through three or four fights, and fights take five or ten minutes to resolve rather than an hour.  If the game is balanced around the idea that the wizard/cleric can be casting every round, and their 'day' will 'end' right when they run out of spells, then you're correct.  And clearly having the wizard stuck lobbing darts round after round most of the time in an hour-long fight is boring...

Wizard vs. Fighter balance *works*, in the type of game that it was designed for.  In the Adventure Path/DragonLance scenario?  Not as much, IMO.

Quote from: robiswrong;761622Depends on how you read the "Charm" spell.  I've always interpreted it as "you think you're friends now."  That doesn't mean that your new friend will start murdering his old friends.  It just ticks the reaction meter over to friendly.

Also, to be nitpicky, I am pretty sure Ogre's don't count as Humanoids, they are Giants. So you would need Dominate Monster, which is a level 8 spell.

Quote from: jadrax;761628Also, to be nitpicky, I am pretty sure Ogre's don't count as Humanoids, they are Giants. So you would need Dominate Monster, which is a level 8 spell.

Don't have my 3.x books handy, but in TSR D&D Ogres could be charmed (they're the upper limit of "humanoid"), and they reacted as a friend, not a mind-controlled slave.

Charm person has always meant being friendly.  It is most assuredly not "dominate" or "control" person.

Also, we can extrapolate how the game was designed to be played by looking at where the emphasis is in the various rules.  So by looking at these, I am positive that D&D is very much a team game.  Party (heck just the use of that term shows this) success often hinges on being able to have each player recognize their strengths and weaknesses and compliment each other.  That's why we have classes to begin with.  Each class is specialized in a certain area.

It's also why I think D&D very much is designed to not have a 5mwd (at least in TSR era D&D).  In order to do that, you have to actively ignore much of the game rules, structure, or events in published materials.  The DMG has lots of information about how to stock and manage a dungeon, and every single adventure I can think of had random encounter tables for every section of it.

So I suppose you can disagree with me, and that's fine.  But I feel very strongly that the game was designed to be played as a team, and 5mwd should not be an occurrance.

For those interested, there is an interesting blogpost about how Charm Person has changed through the editions here:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/spells-through-ages-charm-person.html

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Regarding 'balanced encounters', 3.x DMG indicated that encounters were supposed to cover a wide range, including (if memory serves) 5% that were 'overwhelming', which is probably CR 6+ over the current Average Party Level (APL).  So 'every encounter should be able to be beaten' was never a part of the game's core assumptions.

So...  95 does not equal 100, that is true.  But 95% of the time is far from 'never'.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761643So...  95 does not equal 100, that is true.  But 95% of the time is far from 'never'.

Wait, what? What, exactly, is 95% of the time? That 5% (or whatever it was - no book at the moment) was overwhelming encounters. There was still a significant portion that were tougher than the party, a few more equal, and then far larger numbers weaker than the party. In actual practice these numbers weren't terribly different than a lot of TSR-era published material, or even than randomly generated results from the standard tables. Difficulties in 3.x sprang up around applying them rigidly, or worse, ignoring them altogether to create nothing but ECL=PL encounters. That's not really the fault of the rules themselves, however, as that explicitly isn't what they suggest.

Quote from: robiswrong;761622Is that actually shown out in any published series of adventures?

So, what...a published module isn't enough? We need a series of them?

Quote from: jadrax;761640For those interested, there is an interesting blogpost about how Charm Person has changed through the editions here:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/spells-through-ages-charm-person.html

Thanks for the link. Looks like it doesn't affect Ogres in AD&D; I guess I misremembered because I've been playing a lot of LL and ACKS lately, where it does.

Quote from: robiswrong;761622Is that actually shown out in any published series of adventures?

I believe that Sunless Citadel had a roper in it, somewhere.

The problem is that there was apparently a vocal community of people that freaked out about it. Their position seemed to be that if you have a system for figuring out how to balance encounters, why would you intentionally ignore it sometimes by using monsters that are going to overpower the party?

Most folks here, myself included, would say, "because the world isn't fair," but WotC seemed to cave and didn't do it again. So despite the fact that the DMG specifically recommends that 5% of encounters in an adventure be "overpowering," no other published adventure did that (to my knowledge, at any rate).

QuoteDepends on how you read the "Charm" spell.  I've always interpreted it as "you think you're friends now."  That doesn't mean that your new friend will start murdering his old friends.  It just ticks the reaction meter over to friendly.

So if you run into the ogre's friends, try to convince him to make them friendly towards you. If you run into things the ogre doesn't care about... "ogre, smash!"

Fighter substitute, either way.

QuoteAnd yet the wizard couldn't solve all of those other problems because he'd run out of spells.

If your design is such that the GM has to pay attention and intentionally set things up so that one PC runs out of the resource that makes their class cool so that the other guy has a chance to shine, you may want to reconsider your design.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761667I believe that Sunless Citadel had a roper in it, somewhere.

The problem is that there was apparently a vocal community of people that freaked out about it. Their position seemed to be that if you have a system for figuring out how to balance encounters, why would you intentionally ignore it sometimes by using monsters that are going to overpower the party?

Most folks here, myself included, would say, "because the world isn't fair," but WotC seemed to cave and didn't do it again. So despite the fact that the DMG specifically recommends that 5% of encounters in an adventure be "overpowering," no other published adventure did that (to my knowledge, at any rate).

I wouldn't say "the world isn't fair."  That's sort of a dick move, just a little.  I'd say, "because it fits with the plot/area/habitat/background"

QuoteSo if you run into the ogre's friends, try to convince him to make them friendly towards you. If you run into things the ogre doesn't care about... "ogre, smash!"

Fighter substitute, either way.
.

Um...no.  Like we keep saying, being friends doesn't mean it does whatever you tell them.  Would your friends go try to fight a bull just because you asked?  And sure, send in the ogre to make friends with the other ogres.  But a) that's not replacing the fighter by any means because you're not actually fighting, and b) his friends aren't charmed, so they won't just automatically go along with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761674I wouldn't say "the world isn't fair."  That's sort of a dick move, just a little.  I'd say, "because it fits with the plot/area/habitat/background"

Well, in this instance, it was a roper... not like those things really move all that much. It's not like they dropped in an ancient red and said, "have fun with that!"

But yes, with my "the world isn't fair" comment, I was trying to get at the notion that I put encounters in the world (or generate them by table) such that they make sense, PC level be damned.

QuoteWould your friends go try to fight a bull just because you asked?

Seems a bit more context-sensitive than that. I'm sure that you could convince a friendly ogre to go punch a bull in the face.

QuoteAnd sure, send in the ogre to make friends with the other ogres.  But a) that's not replacing the fighter by any means because you're not actually fighting, and b) his friends aren't charmed, so they won't just automatically go along with it.

Yes, exactly, you're not actually fighting a thing (or group of things) that you otherwise would have been if there weren't a wizard around.

And no, his friends aren't charmed, but having a charmed ogre probably makes the parley attempt a lot easier.

Quote from: robiswrong;761622Depends on how you read the "Charm" spell.  I've always interpreted it as "you think you're friends now."  That doesn't mean that your new friend will start murdering his old friends.  It just ticks the reaction meter over to friendly.

And it's usually reasonable that your 'new friend' will help you deal with some 'problems' if they're not his existing friends.  But that's just one way a 'Fighter Replacement' might be on the table.  I haven't looked at the spell list, but in other versions of the game, besides charm and dominate, there were also things like summon monster.  If the monsters available to you for summoning are SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than your Fighter buddy of the same level...there is no role protection for Fighters.  

Quote from: robiswrong;761622The Fighter's real strength is that they can continue operating at a constant level of effectiveness all day.  Wizards and Clerics can operate at a heightened level of effectiveness, but not constantly.

Patently false.  A Fighter requires hit points to continue functioning.  Unless you're positing that a Fighter's 'job' is not to be on the front line, then there is a fixed number of hits that he can absorb before he ceases to be functional.  Now, the books aren't around yet, but let's assume a 2nd level Fighter has 20 hit points...  And we know that an Ogre is hitting for 2d8+4 with a +6 bonus.  Let's be generous and assume an AC of 18 for the Fighter (or if someone has more reasonable numbers, let's use those).

The ogre would hit 40% of the time, dealing on average 13 points of damage.  If the fight lasts more than 2 rounds, there is a better than even chance that the Fighter is reduced to 'half efficiency' for the rest of the 'day'.  

Without the ability to 'shrug off' or recover 'minor damage', a Fighter does not have any more ability to 'operate at a constant level of effectiveness all day'.  

Quote from: jadrax;761628Also, to be nitpicky, I am pretty sure Ogre's don't count as Humanoids, they are Giants. So you would need Dominate Monster, which is a level 8 spell.

If Ogres aren't subject to charm person (and I'll be reading that link in a moment - thanks!) they're still subject to charm monster.  I'd be surprised if Next doesn't have it, so no, you don't need dominate monster.  Of course, if you DO have it, then any arguments over whether a monster will fight on your side are moot.  You're just kicking the can up the road - you're saying at some point, when a wizard can reliably dominate monsters that are equal or more powerful than a Fighter of his level, a 'Fighter Replacement' can be brought to bear making the Fighter functionally redundant.  

And again, that's just ONE POTENTIAL area of spell effect.  Summoning and calling spells are ANOTHER.  Potentially, animate dead and similar spells are another.  'Pets', in whatever form they come in, are potentially able to fulfill the role of the 'Fighter', which indicates a lack of 'role protection' that other classes enjoy.  

Quote from: mcbobbo;761643So...  95 does not equal 100, that is true.  But 95% of the time is far from 'never'.

I'm away from my books, but some encounters are supposed to be 'totally easy', some are 'minor challenges', some are 'standard challenges', some are 'moderately difficult' and some are 'overwhelming'.  Overall, the percentage adds up to 100%, so, no, 95% of them are not 'balanced'.  If you care for the exact breakdown, I'll try to pull it tonight.  

As far as published modules, most of them have the potential for overwhelming combat - alerting all of the enemies or being attacked from multiple directions can make things very difficult very quickly.  Most of them assume you can avoid or escape from an overwhelming encounter, because if you can't, well, the module won't go very far.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761678Patently false.  A Fighter requires hit points to continue functioning. .

No it's not, unless you're being disingenuous and factoring hit points to a fighter but not the mage.  His statement was under the assumption that every class would have at least some HP remaining.  If you consider HP, it gets even worse for the mage.  One good hit and the mage goes down, regardless of how many spells he or she may still have left.

His point was that the fighter can keep doing his damage every round, every combat, or an indefinite amount of time.  Spell casters cannot.  They run out of spells and durations.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761679No it's not, unless you're being disingenuous and factoring hit points to a fighter but not the mage.  His statement was under the assumption that every class would have at least some HP remaining.  If you consider HP, it gets even worse for the mage.  One good hit and the mage goes down, regardless of how many spells he or she may still have left.

His point was that the fighter can keep doing his damage every round, every combat, or an indefinite amount of time.  Spell casters cannot.  They run out of spells and durations.

If the Fighter's 'job' is to stand up next to the guy with the big sword and the wizard's 'job' is to stand in the back and 'not get hit' then you can absolutely point out that a Fighter has a limited resource that limits how long they can remain effective.  

Further, if we assume that at least SOME OF THE TIME you can retreat and recover, the Wizard will have their full complement of spells the next day, but a Fighter (in any previous edition) would not recover to full hit points without magical aid.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761680If the Fighter's 'job' is to stand up next to the guy with the big sword and the wizard's 'job' is to stand in the back and 'not get hit' then you can absolutely point out that a Fighter has a limited resource that limits how long they can remain effective.  

Further, if we assume that at least SOME OF THE TIME you can retreat and recover, the Wizard will have their full complement of spells the next day, but a Fighter (in any previous edition) would not recover to full hit points without magical aid.

Again, you're applying different standards.  For one, who says the monsters can only attack the fighter?  Or why are you assuming the fighter is the only one who is at risk for hp loss?  Most intelligent opponents I've ever played with target the wizard first.  Heck, they don't even need to kill the wizard.  Just interrupt the spell.

Secondly, you're assuming that wizards and just go rest for a full night whenever they want.  I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but if that's happening that's a player problem, not a game design problem because any DM worth a shit is going to play the game world intelligently, and not pause it every time the wizard wants to rest up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761685Again, you're applying different standards.  For one, who says the monsters can only attack the fighter?  Or why are you assuming the fighter is the only one who is at risk for hp loss?  Most intelligent opponents I've ever played with target the wizard first.  Heck, they don't even need to kill the wizard.  Just interrupt the spell.

Secondly, you're assuming that wizards and just go rest for a full night whenever they want.  I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but if that's happening that's a player problem, not a game design problem because any DM worth a shit is going to play the game world intelligently, and not pause it every time the wizard wants to rest up.

I'm not applying different standards.  I haven't assumed that Wizards can cast 'all day long' or that they will 'always have the right spell'.  I have pointed out that if a 'Fighter Replacement' is available to the Wizard (as it has been in all previous editions), then the Fighter can be replaced.  

Having Fighters is good if you're a wizard.  They're good because they can stand in between you and your opponents and make sure you stay safe while you take care of the problems.  And if you get to the point of having 'fighter replacements' they're still useful as a backup.  You can 'use up' your disposable minions and you still have a resource to rely on.  But it can also quickly become 'the wizard show'.  

This is made much more abundantly clear when the area of conflict isn't 'kill this monster'.  IF wizards can particpate nearly as well or better than a Fighter in 'combat' (the area that the Fighter is supposed to really shine), and the Fighter cannot participate in the types of arenas that 'magic' can (such as planar travel, instantaneous movement, removing or creating barriers, quickly building structures, summoning armies), then there is a clear discrepancy.  

If the Fighter only has 'killing things', then he needs to be 'the best'.  If there's even an argument as to whether or not a Wizard can 'do the job as well', then the Fighter has already lost - because fighting isn't even SUPPOSED to be what a Wizard is for.

QuoteThis is made much more abundantly clear when the area of conflict isn't 'kill this monster'. IF wizards can particpate nearly as well or better than a Fighter in 'combat' (the area that the Fighter is supposed to really shine), and the Fighter cannot participate in the types of arenas that 'magic' can (such as planar travel, instantaneous movement, removing or creating barriers, quickly building structures, summoning armies), then there is a clear discrepancy.

This isn't some PVP scenerio it's a teamwork game. I just don't get why you would even think this way. What you are describing is a playstyle or possibly a player problem, so go ahead and play it that way but don't blame the game for your issue.

Quote from: Marleycat;761691This isn't some PVP scenerio it's a teamwork game. I just don't get why you would even think this way. What you are describing is a playstyle or possibly a player problem, so go ahead and play it that way but don't blame the game for your issue.

Because if you 'want your team to win' and you want to 'contribute to your teams success', you're going to want to create a character that does that.  

When the group that is wizard/wizard/rogue/cleric is outperforming the group that is fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric everytime, the person that chooses to play the fighter isn't contributing as much as he might want to.  

Now, maybe he never realizes, in part because he's unlikely to be playing in a 'more optimized group', but as someone who actually likes Fighters, it'd be nice if they were, you know, good.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761696Because if you 'want your team to win' and you want to 'contribute to your teams success', you're going to want to create a character that does that.  

When the group that is wizard/wizard/rogue/cleric is outperforming the group that is fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric everytime, the person that chooses to play the fighter isn't contributing as much as he might want to.  

Now, maybe he never realizes, in part because he's unlikely to be playing in a 'more optimized group', but as someone who actually likes Fighters, it'd be nice if they were, you know, good.

Again a pure playstyle issue with that I can't help you other then to say you might want to try 5e because the Fighter is really good at what he does this time around. And another good thing is that everybody can attempt any skill with a reasonable chance of success in ordinary situations. So that should help with the issues that 3e really let get out of hand. And what you're speaking about somewhat. The other is that wizards just don't have enough spell slots to be wasting spells trying to out fighter the fighter.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761689I'm not applying different standards.  I haven't assumed that Wizards can cast 'all day long' or that they will 'always have the right spell'.  I have pointed out that if a 'Fighter Replacement' is available to the Wizard (as it has been in all previous editions), then the Fighter can be replaced.  .

Man, you just changed goalposts so hard I just about got whiplash.  The context of this exchange was how the wizard has limited resources (spells), while the fighter can go all day.  Then you said the fighter can't go all day, because he has hp.  To which I mentioned "so do wizards, who have a lot less, and are often the target, so assuming fighters can't go all day because their hp won't last forever but not applying the same rules (being attacked) to wizards is disingenuous."  And now you've completely shifted again to a strawman here.  At least a strawman in this particular exchange because we're talking about hp, nothing to do with knowing the right spell.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761706Man, you just changed goalposts so hard I just about got whiplash.  The context of this exchange was how the wizard has limited resources (spells), while the fighter can go all day.  Then you said the fighter can't go all day, because he has hp.  To which I mentioned "so do wizards, who have a lot less, and are often the target, so assuming fighters can't go all day because their hp won't last forever but not applying the same rules (being attacked) to wizards is disingenuous."  And now you've completely shifted again to a strawman here.  At least a strawman in this particular exchange because we're talking about hp, nothing to do with knowing the right spell.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761618Which brings me to Wizards versus Fighters...  If monsters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are) and Fighters are supposed to be 'scary in melee fights' (which they usually are), Wizards need to not have access to 'Fighter substitutes'.  A charmed Ogre is probably as effective as a Fighter in terms of the party's effectiveness.  

Welcome to the multiple threads of this conversation.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761716Welcome to the multiple threads of this conversation.

That quote you just listed of yours has nothing to do with what he was saying.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his entire point of that post was that wizards run out of spells while fighters don't run out of attacks, and that's a very relevant factor.  One that you said is patently false, when it in fact is not false, but very true.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761722That quote you just listed of yours has nothing to do with what he was saying.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his entire point of that post was that wizards run out of spells while fighters don't run out of attacks, and that's a very relevant factor.

Who is 'he' in this context?  

Wizards run out of spells.  Fighters run out of hit points.  

Wizards may or may not run out of hit points, but it doesn't matter if they run out of spells and not hit points - they're not doing anything.  

There are lots of situations where the wizard will cease to be useful but any claim that the fighter will 'continue to be effective all day long' are absolutely without merit.  

Applying hit point loss to a wizard (or not applying it) isn't indicative of a double-standard - it indicates a recognition of what each class is 'contributing'.  Any old-schooler (you included) will tell me that a Fighter is 'supposed' to stand toe-to-toe and keep the Wizard free to 'blast' or otherwise cast spells.  Once the wizard gets into melee, he's 'useless'.  

So, if we assume that the Fighter does his job, he runs out of hit points (and the wizard doesn't).
If we assume that the Wizard does HIS job, he runs out of spells.  

Neither one of them 'keeps going all day'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761727Who is 'he' in this context?  

Wizards run out of spells.  Fighters run out of hit points.  

Wizards may or may not run out of hit points, but it doesn't matter if they run out of spells and not hit points - they're not doing anything.  

There are lots of situations where the wizard will cease to be useful but any claim that the fighter will 'continue to be effective all day long' are absolutely without merit.  

Applying hit point loss to a wizard (or not applying it) isn't indicative of a double-standard - it indicates a recognition of what each class is 'contributing'.  Any old-schooler (you included) will tell me that a Fighter is 'supposed' to stand toe-to-toe and keep the Wizard free to 'blast' or otherwise cast spells.  Once the wizard gets into melee, he's 'useless'.  

So, if we assume that the Fighter does his job, he runs out of hit points (and the wizard doesn't).
If we assume that the Wizard does HIS job, he runs out of spells.  

Neither one of them 'keeps going all day'.

"He" is robiswrong.  This is what he said:

QuoteThe Fighter's real strength is that they can continue operating at a constant level of effectiveness all day. Wizards and Clerics can operate at a heightened level of effectiveness, but not constantly.

And yes, it very much is a double standard to say fighters run out of hit points and not apply the same rule to wizards.  Everyone has hit points.  Those aren't automatically expended during actions.  Spells are.  If you can't see the fundamental flaw in your analogy, that's very disingenuous.  The only way your analogy would even be remotely true is if fighters were the only class that can lose hit points in battle.  Or if they lost hit points for every attack they made.  Neither is remotely true, so your analogy is very, very wrong.

robiswrong is ironically right.  A fighter can fight 1 battle or 100 battles all at the same level of effectiveness.  Casters cannot.  For some of those battles they may be better than a fighter, but it's not consistent, and has a lot of battles where they are much less effective than a fighter.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761678I'm away from my books, but some encounters are supposed to be 'totally easy', some are 'minor challenges', some are 'standard challenges', some are 'moderately difficult' and some are 'overwhelming'.  Overall, the percentage adds up to 100%, so, no, 95% of them are not 'balanced'.  If you care for the exact breakdown, I'll try to pull it tonight.

Totally easy compared to... your level?  Because what I described was:

 "I deserve a series of encounters tailored to my level"

And you may be right that modules were often built this way.  But even B2 had areas you could stumble into and die for lack of balance.  Of course only a small fraction of games use modules exclusively so we might include home games and the wandering monster charts and the like.

Outside of 3e, I don't think you'll see level as a consideration.  At least not in any codified way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761728robiswrong is ironically right.  A fighter can fight 1 battle or 100 battles all at the same level of effectiveness.  Casters cannot.  For some of those battles they may be better than a fighter, but it's not consistent, and has a lot of battles where they are much less effective than a fighter.

This is most true when there's no such thing as 'tanking'.  But if there IS a tank role, then you have to expect them to take more damage than the glass canons in the back.

D&D doesn't typically have such a role, though,  unless the DM wants it to.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761730Outside of 3e, I don't think you'll see level as a consideration.  At least not in any codified way.

You're mistaken. Go look at TSR-era modules. See the note about what level the adventure was for? Look at the wandering monster tables for different levels of the dungeon. Notice how creatures scale with each level you go deeper? People have been avoiding dropping a Balrog in an area that 1st level characters were likely to encounter for a long time. And both published products and random generation tools followed this. The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

Quote from: Bobloblah;761735You're mistaken. Go look at TSR-era modules. See the note about what level the adventure was for? Look at the wandering monster tables for different levels of the dungeon. Notice how creatures scale with each level you go deeper? People have been avoiding dropping a Balrog in an area that 1st level characters were likely to encounter for a long time. And both published products and random generation tools followed this. The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

Mistaken by not using bold font, I guess.  But I already touched that base on the way around.  Observe...

Of course only a small fraction of games use modules exclusively so we might include home games and the wandering monster charts and the like.

Tell me, are the charts in the DMG broken by level?  I don't recall them that way.  I recall some really nasty shit on the high ends of the ranges, too.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761733This is most true when there's no such thing as 'tanking'.  But if there IS a tank role, then you have to expect them to take more damage than the glass canons in the back.

D&D doesn't typically have such a role, though,  unless the DM wants it to.

Well of course the "plan" is to have the fighter take damage, but that doesn't mean that "only" the fighter takes damage.  Wizards so so squishy, and high targets, that even if only one in four attacks targets him instead of the fighter, it's a big deal.

So you can't say the fighter will lose hp in battle while assuming that the wizard does not.  You have to apply the rules to both evenly.  And since fighters don't lose hp for attacking, they can, theoretically, attack forever whereas wizards run out of spells pretty quickly.  And I believe that was rob's point.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761735The difference with 3.x is that it much more rigidly codified it, and that gave fuel to the fire of encounters being "balanced."

I'd also lay at least some of the blame on DragonLance and its spiritual descendants.

When you take the choice of what you encounter *out* of the hands of the players and put it *firmly* in the hands of the GM, "encounter balance" becomes much more important - you can't hold people accountable for decisions they didn't make.

In old-school D&D, if I wander into an Ogre cave and am not smart enough to run as soon as I realize where I am, it's my own damn fault.

But if the GM has decided that I should encounter a bunch of Ogres and they slaughter the party?  Totally different situation.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761722He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his entire point of that post was that wizards run out of spells while fighters don't run out of attacks, and that's a very relevant factor.

Spot on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761738Well of course the "plan" is to have the fighter take damage, but that doesn't mean that "only" the fighter takes damage.  Wizards so so squishy, and high targets, that even if only one in four attacks targets him instead of the fighter, it's a big deal.

So you can't say the fighter will lose hp in battle while assuming that the wizard does not.  You have to apply the rules to both evenly.  And since fighters don't lose hp for attacking, they can, theoretically, attack forever whereas wizards run out of spells pretty quickly.  And I believe that was rob's point.

Then that's a stupid point.  

Hit points are a resource that both Fighters and Wizards have.  And barring exceptional Constitution, we expect Fighters to have more of it than Wizards have.  It is possible that they will both expend that resource and be unable to fight.  That is exactly what happens in a TPK.  

But Spells are a resource that Wizards have and Fighters don't have.  A Wizard may stop fighting when he runs out of spells but still has plenty of hit points.  Theoretically he could continue to do things, but he usually doesn't.  Attacking with a crossbow every other round isn't very effective.  

So, as far as a Wizard is concerned, hit points aren't as important a resource as spells.  I mean, you absolutely NEED them, but spells allow you to contribute to a fight.  

For a Fighter, we expect them to expend their resource in combat.  Absolutely expect that they will be hit.  With a Wizard, it is possible (even probable) that they avoid any attacks, let alone hits for multiple encounters.  But we can't make that same supposition for the Fighter.  

For 'a fighter can keep fighting all day' to be true, he would have to have a way to renew his resources.  He can't.  

A wizard also can't keep fighting all day.  In order to do so, he'd need to renew his resources.  He can't.  

But if the wizard can outperform the fighter regularly, the fact that the Fighter could theoretically, assuming he hadn't taken any hit point damage (which we expect to happen) STILL wouldn't mean much because of issues of 'splitting the party'.  

Wizards outperforming Fighters is a potential problem, because Fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting things.  If wizards are better than Fighters at the thing that Fighters are 'best' at, and wizards get to do awesome things that Fighters never get to do, there's a fundamental imbalance in the class system.


Edit -
Found this catching up on another thread:

Quote from: robiswrong;760576I always liked to think about "gross balance" and "fine balance".

"Gross balance" is stuff like "can the fighter take more of a punishment than the wizard?"  It's relatively important.  If the wizard is actually better than the fighter at what the fighter's supposed to be good at, then what's the point of playing a fighter? (note: presumption of what a fighter's supposed to be good at.  It's an example for discussion purposes.)

"Fine balance" is stuff like "oh, the fighter can take eight rounds of hits from a CL level 3 critter, when he should actually take seven."  Not super important.

I really, really, hope they don't overly focus on the "fine balance" points.

It looks like he and I are in agreement.  I want to make sure that the Wizard isn't 'actually better than the fighter at what the fighter is supposed to be good at'.  The only caveat is that he may only mean in terms of standing toe-to-toe with an opponent and wielding a sword...  I include abilities that a Wizard might reasonably be expected to gain access to that bring a 'Fighter Replacement' into play under the control of the Wizard.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761737Mistaken by not using bold font, I guess.  But I already touched that base on the way around.  Observe...

Of course only a small fraction of games use modules exclusively so we might include home games and the wandering monster charts and the like.

Tell me, are the charts in the DMG broken by level?  I don't recall them that way.  I recall some really nasty shit on the high ends of the ranges, too.

No, I read your post. Your contention that balancing encounters to level was only codified in 3.x didn't actually specify "outside of modules."  And, yes, the dungeon charts are, although the wilderness charts are not (which was the point). That's dungeon level, but it's made pretty clear that that corresponds to PC level. Above and beyond that there were explicit guidelines for encounters based on level in BECMI and RC. Again, the idea that there was nothing before 3.x is false. 3.x just took it up a notch (or 3).

Quote from: robiswrong;761744I'd also lay at least some of the blame on DragonLance and its spiritual descendants.

When you take the choice of what you encounter *out* of the hands of the players and put it *firmly* in the hands of the GM, "encounter balance" becomes much more important - you can't hold people accountable for decisions they didn't make.

Very, very true.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761747It looks like he and I are in agreement.  I want to make sure that the Wizard isn't 'actually better than the fighter at what the fighter is supposed to be good at'.  The only caveat is that he may only mean in terms of standing toe-to-toe with an opponent and wielding a sword...  I include abilities that a Wizard might reasonably be expected to gain access to that bring a 'Fighter Replacement' into play under the control of the Wizard.

Nope, I'd consider those abilities, too. (Though the exact definition of "what is the fighter good at" is still up for grabs).  But, something like the 3.x druid that can have a companion that's a better fighter than the fighter, and transform into something better at fighting than the fighter for much of hte day, while still being able to cast for the cost of a single feat?  Yeah, that's kinda screwed up.

Where we differ is in the ability of the Wizard to continually do it - you seem to presume that the 5 minute day is a "thing", and so the fact that Wizards can peak over a Fighter completely negates Fighters, while I do not.

A lot of that depends on many things - how the GM is playing, the style of the game overall, how many spells the Wizard gets, which ruleset is in play (which impacts how safe/risky spell use is), etc.

If you look at it, I've *primarily* defended the balance in terms of dungeon crawling, where the five minute day is less reasonable if you have a GM more than ten years old.  In a more "Big Epic Heroes" style of play where we have only the "significant" encounters to the story, there's no random monsters, and (perhaps worst) a totally inert world where nothing happens until the PCs trip over the next "start encounter" button, I'd totally agree that the disparities become much, much more pronounced.

I've also suggested (at least in the past) that in the old-school, open table and multiple character style of play, character imbalance is less of an issue because you're *not playing the same dude every week*, as well as the fact that the fragility of wizards becomes a *real* issue rather than a theoretical one.  I mean, Ars Magica is kind of built on an even greater power disparity, right?  And yet it works because different people play the Wizard every session.

But in a DragonLance or Adventure Path style game?  Yeah, I'm pretty much on board with you.  If the assumption is that your characters *won't* die and that you *will* be playing the same dudes every week, then not only do the negatives of being a wizard become less pronounced, but the disparity in capabilities becomes more noticeable (and potentially aggravating).

Fair enough, three notches suits my position just fine.  It became something the players came to expect, which used to be folly.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761747But Spells are a resource that Wizards have and Fighters don't have.  A Wizard may stop fighting when he runs out of spells but still has plenty of hit points.  Theoretically he could continue to do things, but he usually doesn't.  Attacking with a crossbow every other round isn't very effective.  

So, as far as a Wizard is concerned, hit points aren't as important a resource as spells.  I mean, you absolutely NEED them, but spells allow you to contribute to a fight.  

It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Quote from: mcbobbo;761754It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Nope, you are correct, there are infinite-casting damage cantrips. They require a to-hit roll.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761755Nope, you are correct, there are infinite-casting damage cantrips. They require a to-hit roll.

How much damage do they do in comparison to a "typical" fighter?

I mean, MUs in 1e could shoot their crossbow or bop stuff with a staff all day long, too.  It just wasn't super effective.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761754It was my understanding that 5e gives unlimited, viable dps cantrips.  Is this not the case?  Are we expect to see darts and hand crossbows come back in fashion?  And wasn't that frost thing a to-hit roll, to?  Did it have a long range or a short one?

Quote from: robiswrong;761756How much damage do they do in comparison to a "typical" fighter?

I mean, MUs in 1e could shoot their crossbow or bop stuff with a staff all day long, too.  It just wasn't super effective.

:D
Have you two actually read this thread? That's what this thread (look at the subject) is about...

Quote from: Bobloblah;761758:D
Have you two actually read this thread? That's what this thread (look at the subject) is about...

Is the cantrip actually 1d8 per attack the fighter would get at a similar level?

That seems off.  Giving the wizard a blasty power that does as much as the fighter's attack, but is ranged, at-will?

I'd have to see 5e's rules on things like spell interruption, but... yeah.  That seems a bit much.  If fighters got significant static damage on top of that (1d8+5), while the wizzies got a plan nd8, then sure (as +2 basically doubles output).

Quote from: robiswrong;761770Is the cantrip actually 1d8 per attack the fighter would get at a similar level?

That seems off.  Giving the wizard a blasty power that does as much as the fighter's attack, but is ranged, at-will?

I'd have to see 5e's rules on things like spell interruption, but... yeah.  That seems a bit much.  If fighters got significant static damage on top of that (1d8+5), while the wizzies got a plan nd8, then sure (as +2 basically doubles output).

Also, to be fair, the original comparison does not factor in damage from ability modifiers or magic items.  So while a mage might do 1d8 damage with his at will spell, the 1st level fighter is probably doing 1d8+3.  At higher levels, when the mage is doing 3d8 damage, the fighter is doing (1d8+5)*3 or thereabouts

Quote from: Bobloblah;761758:D
Have you two actually read this thread? That's what this thread (look at the subject) is about...

In case you have Dead on ignore, I asked the question around the notion that Wizards were benched when they ran out of spells.  He specifically cited a crossbow's rof.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761776Also, to be fair, the original comparison does not factor in damage from ability modifiers or magic items.  So while a mage might do 1d8 damage with his at will spell, the 1st level fighter is probably doing 1d8+3.  At higher levels, when the mage is doing 3d8 damage, the fighter is doing (1d8+5)*3 or thereabouts

I'm mostly okay with that.

At 1st level a mage is gonna have their one big boom and that's it.  And a +3 bonus is still adding about 66% of expected damage.  So the wizzie doing 3/5 of the fighter damage works for me.

By the higher levels, that +5 is more than doubling expected damage.

Quote from: robiswrong;761790I'm mostly okay with that.

At 1st level a mage is gonna have their one big boom and that's it.  And a +3 bonus is still adding about 66% of expected damage.  So the wizzie doing 3/5 of the fighter damage works for me.

By the higher levels, that +5 is more than doubling expected damage.

Yeah, the bonuses really make the difference.  It's the difference between:

(3d8): "Aw shit, I rolled 3 one's.  3 points of damage."
(1d8+5)*3: "Aw shit, I rolled 3 one's.  18 points of damage."

We've been talking about Next in the context of prior editions.  I see the possibility of unlimited cantrips potentially further eroding benefits of a Fighter, particularly if the cantrips work at range...  There has been some reference to a melee only cantrip.  

I don't know if every wizard will even have a damaging cantrip.

If so, even more than the Fighter/Wizard balance issues, I worry about impact on setting.  If every wizard can do 'burning hands' at will, the potential for unlimited energy, for instance,  is troubling.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761795We've been talking about Next in the context of prior editions.  I see the possibility of unlimited cantrips potentially further eroding benefits of a Fighter, particularly if the cantrips work at range...  There has been some reference to a melee only cantrip.  

I don't know if every wizard will even have a damaging cantrip.

If so, even more than the Fighter/Wizard balance issues, I worry about impact on setting.  If every wizard can do 'burning hands' at will, the potential for unlimited energy, for instance,  is troubling.

1. No wizard in 5e can do burning hands at will, but that's pedantic
2. so far in playtests, unlimited cantrips have not been an issue at all.  I mentioned this earlier.  Most people who have played 5e have said it's the fighter who is overpowered compared to everyone else.
3.  Mages have had cantrips since 1e.  Didn't break the setting.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617971. No wizard in 5e can do burning hands at will, but that's pedantic

Agreed.   Burning Hands is an area spell, but some fire based single target spell that is at will is what is meant.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617972. so far in playtests, unlimited cantrips have not been an issue at all.  I mentioned this earlier.  Most people who have played 5e have said it's the fighter who is overpowered compared to everyone else.

That's what scares me.  If Fighters are just good at combat and people want to scale them back (even when Wizards can become demigods), that's a symptom of the 'Fighters can't have nice things' that keeps coming up.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617973.  Mages have had cantrips since 1e.  Didn't break the setting.

Never had unlimited cantrips.  I don't think that anyone will 'break' the setting.   Instead they'll just ignore the logical consequences of such abilities.   I think that's a real shame.  Exploring the effects of abilities on the setting is fun.  Nothing introduced should break the setting - but it happens.  Without a hoserule, for instance, there is nothing to stop wraiths from overrunning any 3.x setting. ..

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7617971. No wizard in 5e can do burning hands at will, but that's pedantic
2. so far in playtests, unlimited cantrips have not been an issue at all.  I mentioned this earlier.  Most people who have played 5e have said it's the fighter who is overpowered compared to everyone else.
3.  Mages have had cantrips since 1e.  Didn't break the setting.

This. So far given what I actually seen from the starter set v the playtest it's......

1. Fighter
2. Cleric (if you decide to be a Healbot)
3. Bards
4. Warlocks
5. Shapeshifting Druids
6.'lWizards
7.  It all changes when you go Paladin/Wizard or any other full caster.

Also Burning Hands ISN'T a cantrip.

Quote from: Marleycat;761825This. So far given what I actually seen from the starter set v the playtest it's......

1. Fighter
2. Cleric (if you decide to be a Healbot)
3. Bards
4. Warlocks
5. Shapeshifting Druids
6.'lWizards
7.  It all changes when you go Paladin/Wizard or any other full caster.

Also Burning Hands ISN'T a cantrip.

And I thought I was the only one that ever played a Paladin Wizard in dnd. Damn.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761787In case you have Dead on ignore, I asked the question around the notion that Wizards were benched when they ran out of spells.  He specifically cited a crossbow's rof.

No, I don't have deadDMwalking on ignore, I just completely misconstrued the context. Sorry about that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761802Never had unlimited cantrips.  I don't think that anyone will 'break' the setting.   Instead they'll just ignore the logical consequences of such abilities.   I think that's a real shame.  Exploring the effects of abilities on the setting is fun.  Nothing introduced should break the setting - but it happens.  Without a hoserule, for instance, there is nothing to stop wraiths from overrunning any 3.x setting. ..

I brought this up several days ago and was shouted down by Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and a couple others. I mean, you can just houserule it, dontcha know?

Quote from: Bobloblah;761855No, I don't have deadDMwalking on ignore, I just completely misconstrued the context. Sorry about that.

I brought this up several days ago and was shouted down by Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and a couple others. I mean, you can just houserule it, dontcha know?

I don't recall shouting you down for saying at will cantrips will break the setting.  Do you have a quote?

but really, even if you can't find a quote, cantrips have been there since 1E, and how often did you really run out?  In a game where PC mages are slinging around fireballs, power word spells, conjuring dire beasts, and casting wishes, it's the ray of frost cantrip that will break the setting?  OK...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761860I don't recall shouting you down for saying at will cantrips will break the setting.  Do you have a quote?

but really, even if you can't find a quote, cantrips have been there since 1E, and how often did you really run out?  In a game where PC mages are slinging around fireballs, power word spells, conjuring dire beasts, and casting wishes, it's the ray of frost cantrip that will break the setting?  OK...

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going quote hunting for you right now.

As for cantrips...what are you talking about? There were no cantrips (other than the 1st level spell Cantrip) in either the AD&D or AD&D 2nd PHB. Oh, and Magic-Users/Mages ran out of spells all the time. And is your argument really that there's this 9th level spell (of which spellcasters now get 1/day, apparently), and that's totally the same impact on the setting as every mage in existence being able to cast an infinite number of Rays of Frost?

Quote from: Bobloblah;761864I'm on my phone, so I'm not going quote hunting for you right now.

As for cantrips...what are you talking about? There were no cantrips (other than the 1st level spell Cantrip) in either the AD&D or AD&D 2nd PHB. Oh, and Magic-Users/Mages ran out of spells all the time. And is your argument really that there's this 9th level spell (of which spellcasters now get 1/day, apparently), and that's totally the same impact on the setting as every mage in existence being able to cast an infinite number of Rays of Frost?

I'll have to check, but I thought for sure cantrips were in 1e UA.  And what I'm arguing is that in actual game play, having mages cast at will cantrips isn't going to break your setting any more than in any other prior edition.  In game play, the mages just don't go around casting cantrips all day long like what is being implied.  And out of play, I don't see mages sitting around all day casting cantrips any more than clerics sit around all day casting create food and water to break the agriculture and livestock economies.. And I really don't understand how casting them at will is going to be game breaking when the same caster can launch some really serious stuff on a daily basis

If you don't understand after everything that's been posted in the last few days, I don't think you're ever going to. It's a lot like the "dissociated" argument about 4e...if you don't see it, it doesn't matter how many times various people try and explain to you, you're probably never going to get it; your brain just doesn't work that way.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761870If you don't understand after everything that's been posted in the last few days, I don't think you're ever going to. It's a lot like the "dissociated" argument about 4e...if you don't see it, it doesn't matter how many times various people try and explain to you, you're probably never going to get it; your brain just doesn't work that way.

get what?  I have yet to see anyone actually explain how an at will cantrip will ruin a setting when every other edition was filled with magic that is a whole lot more powerful.  So explain it to me rather than just hand wave it away.  Explain how an at will cantrip will ruin a setting but clerics casting a bunch of create food and water spells every day doesn't?  If you assume a mage who can cast it will cast it all day long, then why aren't other casters in other editions casting their spell loads every day, rest, repeat?

*Edit*  For the record, if someone says they don't like at will cantrips because they don't like the feel of it, don't like that particular mechanic, or just plain leaves a bad taste in their mouth, I totally get all that.  I just can't see how the existence of it can ruin a setting when all other editions (except 4e I imagine) don't.  That seems to be a DM thing anyway, the amount of magic you want in your game world.

Quote from: Bill;761828And I thought I was the only one that ever played a Paladin Wizard in dnd. Damn.

Hehe, it's my Joan of Arc  concept and character. I prefer a Bard mix but I have no clue about 5e Bards currently.

But it's a favorite of mine. Sorry.:)

rodrigues@nissan. Siamo contrari al nome 'Emirato islamico dell'Afghanistan' perché si tratta di una cosa inesistente -ha detto Faizi- Gli Usa erano a conoscenza della posizione del presidente''. Il Guardasigilli ha quindi spiegato che nel provvedimento ci sara' spazio anche per norme relative all'organizzazione del lavoro dei giudici di sorveglianza, ''dando loro dei supporti, vista la qualita' del lavoro che devono affrontare''.Nel corso della riunione e' stata esaminata la relazione trimestrale dell'esercizio 2013 e approvato il budget e il programma artistico della Stagione 2014,?ray ban 3386 (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-3386.php), che verra' presentato al pubblico a luglio. Per questo i gruppi parlamentari riuniti del M5S Camera e Senato ai sensi del Codice di comportamento, hanno deliberato a maggioranza di proporre l'espulsione dal gruppo parlamentare del Senato di Adele Gambaro"."Per quanto riguarda la quantità di additivi per la lavorazione del tabacco italiano - sottolinea il ministo - ci sono state delle pronunce da parte delle commissioni competenti di Camera e Senato, di cui noi abbiamo tenuto conto nel nostro parere,ray ban solaire homme (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-solaire-homme.php), in cui si considera la salvaguardia della produzione italiana". Quando si parla di fumo gli aspetti piu' preoccupanti per i romani - come rileva l'Osservatorio UniSalute - restano quelli legati ai danni alla salute,ray ban discount (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-discount.php), in particolare quelli provocati dal fumo passivo nei non fumatori e nei bambini (49%) e quelli attivi nei fumatori (31%) mentre sono meno percepiti come un danno i costi che gravano sul Sistema Sanitario Nazionale per i danni provocati dal fumo (12%). Infine sulle polemiche legate alla sentenza della Consulta sul legittimo impedimento di Berlusconi, ha detto: ''Spero che le polemiche sulla giustizia dopo la sentenza della consulta sul legittimo impedimento di Berlusconi non possano nuocere al lavoro del governo. Nello specifico - riferisce una nota - supera i 65 milioni di euro il valore complessivo dei beni sequestrati che includono alberghi,prix ray ban clubmaster (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/prix-ray-ban-clubmaster.php), ristoranti, concessionari di autoveicoli e oltre 170 immobili. com-min Inviato da iPad - Roma,lunettes de soleil ray ban hommes (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/lunettes-de-soleil-ray-ban-hommes.php), 18 giu - A causa della crisi in corso negli stati di Adamawa, Borno e Yobe,ray ban predator (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-predator.php), nel nord-est della Nigeria, cominciano ad arrivare rifugiati anche in Camerun oltre che in Niger. Lo ha detto il premier Enrico Letta,magasin ray ban paris (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/magasin-ray-ban-paris.php), in conferenza stampa,lunette de vu ray ban (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/lunette-de-vu-ray-ban.php), al termine del summit a Lough Erne.
 Il documento e' stato approvato all'unanimita', con 274 voti favorevoli (e un solo astenuto).500 incidenti stradali con lesioni a persone. Vorrei che finalmente vincesse. di 52 anni,ray ban rb2140 (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-rb2140.php), originario di Siderno. Il calendario della Commissione alla Camera -afferma un comunicato dei deputati M5S- prevede che il testo della riforma non sia licenziato per l'Aula prima del 18 luglio. - (Adnkronos) - "Voglio bene a Napoli ed ai napoletani; ho un bellissimo ricordo di una gara a Napoli vinta nel 2010. La sua vita gli verrebbe in qualche modo sottratta per finire nelle micro memorie degli occhiali o rilanciata in rete.- (Adnkronos )- Viaggi ed escort elargiti ai politici invece di investire i finanziamenti emessi dalla Regione per la Formazione, ma anche fatture inesistenti e appalti pilotati. Accordingly, seats for standard versions of the Fiesta along with the premium RECARO sport seats for the ST version will be manufacturing at the same site,ray ban femme pas cher (http://rayban.thewoodlandsgreen.org/ray-ban-femme-pas-cher.php), allowing Ford's current supply needs to be immediately and efficiently met. il fratello dia 250 euro di alimenti al mese.
 Con societa' inglesi e spagnole, invece, si potrebbe trattare.
????????
 
 
   http://cwc.hlbrc.cn/Review.asp?NewsID=849 (http://cwc.hlbrc.cn/Review.asp?NewsID=849)
 
   http://www.iappler.com/new-macbook-air-uses-a-400mb-s-high-speed-flash-memory.html (http://www.iappler.com/new-macbook-air-uses-a-400mb-s-high-speed-flash-memory.html)
 
   http://www.moneyscience.com/pg/blog/ComplexityDigest/read/655008/controllability-and-observability-analysis-for-vertex-domination-centrality-in-directed-networks#comments (http://www.moneyscience.com/pg/blog/ComplexityDigest/read/655008/controllability-and-observability-analysis-for-vertex-domination-centrality-in-directed-networks#comments)
 
   http://cwc.hlbrc.cn/Review.asp?NewsID=851 (http://cwc.hlbrc.cn/Review.asp?NewsID=851)
 
   http://www.isofans.com/home.php?mod=spacecp&ac=blog&blogid= (http://www.isofans.com/home.php?mod=spacecp&ac=blog&blogid=)

All it takes is a little common sense so that you stop thinking of "At-Will" meaning unlimited and more meaning "a number of times not worth tracking".

Technically, a fighter can't literally swing his sword every 6 seconds for 16 hours a day either, but will anyone argue that a fighter's sword attack is not an at-will ability?

If a player is trying to abuse the setting with "unlimited" cantrips (shocking grasp! UNLIIIIMIIIITEEEED POOOOOWEEEEER!), I'm just going to say no. That is tiring, you can't keep that up indefinitely, it is fatiguing and you have to stop after a short period of time, no more than say the length of a long fight.

Quote from: Marleycat;761893Hehe, it's my Joan of Arc  concept and character. I prefer a Bard mix but I have no clue about 5e Bards currently.

But it's a favorite of mine. Sorry.:)

Ok, but hands off my Barbarian Wizard!

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761951All it takes is a little common sense so that you stop thinking of "At-Will" meaning unlimited and more meaning "a number of times not worth tracking".

That'd be worth specifying.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761876get what?  I have yet to see anyone actually explain how an at will cantrip will ruin a setting when every other edition was filled with magic that is a whole lot more powerful.  So explain it to me rather than just hand wave it away.  Explain how an at will cantrip will ruin a setting but clerics casting a bunch of create food and water spells every day doesn't?  If you assume a mage who can cast it will cast it all day long, then why aren't other casters in other editions casting their spell loads every day, rest, repeat?

*Edit*  For the record, if someone says they don't like at will cantrips because they don't like the feel of it, don't like that particular mechanic, or just plain leaves a bad taste in their mouth, I totally get all that.  I just can't see how the existence of it can ruin a setting when all other editions (except 4e I imagine) don't.  That seems to be a DM thing anyway, the amount of magic you want in your game world.

Can we identify common ground first?  For example is magic in a setting a binary for you?  "Yes magic" vs "no magic"?  Because if so that's not going to go anywhere conversationally.   If we can agree that limited magic has a different impact on a setting than unlimited magic, then we could start to see if we can find the line.

deadDMwalking lays out traditional (or certainly 3e ) D&D with the crossbow thing.  Wizards spend spells and become close to worthless until they rest.  That's different from Wizards are always able to cast something and never become useless.

It's like Gandalf vs Dr Strange,  really.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761992Can we identify common ground first?  For example is magic in a setting a binary for you?  "Yes magic" vs "no magic"?  Because if so that's not going to go anywhere conversationally.   If we can agree that limited magic has a different impact on a setting than unlimited magic, then we could start to see if we can find the line.
.

I don't think it's such a fine line as to say unlimited has a different impact than limited, because you can have something that's technically limited (like being able to cast only 15 spells per day) but would have the same setting impact as something that's not.  

I.e., If you can do something an unlimited amount of times (like pick pocketing), do you go around pickpocketing an unlimited amount of times all day long?  Of course not.  There's this weird assumption that just because someone can do something whenever they want, they will be doing that something all day long.  And if you only end up doing that something a dozen times in a day or so, that has no different effect than someone who can only do that something a dozen times per day.  They are both doing it a dozen times.

It gets even weirder for me to understand when that same PC, in every edition, has access to much more powerful magic on a regular basis.  Why would casting ray of frost whenever you want break a game where the same people can control the weather, create food, and cause earthquakes?  In most fantasy literature, casters do have at will capability and it doesn't ruin any of those settings.

Like I said, I have no problems with people who just don't like the feel of it.  I get that.  I don't get how it can ruin a setting because it's not logical.  Not from a rules standpoint, and not from a DM standpoint (because he controls all that).

You're right.  It's probably a feelings thing more than anything else, when you put it that way.

In fact I often argue that D&D isn't adapted enough to the existence of magic.  So in that light, this issue is in good company.

Quote from: Marleycat;761825This. So far given what I actually seen from the starter set v the playtest it's......

1. Fighter
2. Cleric (if you decide to be a Healbot)
3. Bards
4. Warlocks
5. Shapeshifting Druids
6.'lWizards
7.  It all changes when you go Paladin/Wizard or any other full caster.

Also Burning Hands ISN'T a cantrip.

er... What Warlock? Im not seeing that class in the playtest???

Quote from: Omega;762008er... What Warlock? Im not seeing that class in the playtest???

There was, along with sorcerers.  But that was a while ago and I imagine new "real" warlock probably looks little like the playtest one.  There will probably be similarities, but only on a very broad scale.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762010There was, along with sorcerers.  But that was a while ago and I imagine new "real" warlock probably looks little like the playtest one.  There will probably be similarities, but only on a very broad scale.

Wasnt in the last two playtests. It stops at Rogue..

If you can do something powerful, like change the weather, even once per day (or for a long time), you absolutely can change the world - or at least, a portion of it.  Adventures have usually been good about this type of thing - exploring the impact that powerful magic can have on the world.

Being able to cast 'touch of fire' 5/day is fundamentally different from being able to do it an 'unlimited' number of times per day.  Touching a pot of water for 30 seconds (5 rounds) probably won't have any effect.  Touching it for an hour probably would - you'd be able to make a work engine that effectively requires no fuel.  You're able to create limitless amounts of energy that can be converted into mechanical work very easily.  

Your 1st level wizard could sit in a comfy chair, have lemonades brought to him, and he just keeps willing his hand to keep boiling that water.  

When you say you could 'theoretically pick an unlimited number of locks per day', you fail to account for the fact that being able to do so has no actual benefit to you.  Casting a magic spell (even a small one) an unlimited number of times could potentially benefit you - or even the whole world.  

There are all kinds of ways that minor magic - if widespread - ought to impact the world in fundamental ways.  Now, having 500 mages in your kingdom each able to do a particular spell 5/day if they prepare it is different than having 100 mages able to cast a spell an unlimited number of times per day...  The things you can do in the later case approximate 'industrialization'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762039If you can do something powerful, like change the weather, even once per day (or for a long time), you absolutely can change the world - or at least, a portion of it.  Adventures have usually been good about this type of thing - exploring the impact that powerful magic can have on the world.

Being able to cast 'touch of fire' 5/day is fundamentally different from being able to do it an 'unlimited' number of times per day.  Touching a pot of water for 30 seconds (5 rounds) probably won't have any effect.  Touching it for an hour probably would - you'd be able to make a work engine that effectively requires no fuel.  You're able to create limitless amounts of energy that can be converted into mechanical work very easily.  

Your 1st level wizard could sit in a comfy chair, have lemonades brought to him, and he just keeps willing his hand to keep boiling that water.  

When you say you could 'theoretically pick an unlimited number of locks per day', you fail to account for the fact that being able to do so has no actual benefit to you.  Casting a magic spell (even a small one) an unlimited number of times could potentially benefit you - or even the whole world.  

There are all kinds of ways that minor magic - if widespread - ought to impact the world in fundamental ways.  Now, having 500 mages in your kingdom each able to do a particular spell 5/day if they prepare it is different than having 100 mages able to cast a spell an unlimited number of times per day...  The things you can do in the later case approximate 'industrialization'.

It doesn't need to be unlimited to run into this though. Temple full of Low level clerics using Create Water to overcome drought or siege has been a thing since 1st edition. Creating unlimited fire with magic in D&D is hardly somthing you need unlimited casting of Cantrips for either, Continual Flame is iirc a level 2 spell?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762039If you can do something powerful, like change the weather, even once per day (or for a long time), you absolutely can change the world - or at least, a portion of it.  Adventures have usually been good about this type of thing - exploring the impact that powerful magic can have on the world.

Being able to cast 'touch of fire' 5/day is fundamentally different from being able to do it an 'unlimited' number of times per day.  Touching a pot of water for 30 seconds (5 rounds) probably won't have any effect.  Touching it for an hour probably would - you'd be able to make a work engine that effectively requires no fuel.  You're able to create limitless amounts of energy that can be converted into mechanical work very easily.  

Your 1st level wizard could sit in a comfy chair, have lemonades brought to him, and he just keeps willing his hand to keep boiling that water.  

When you say you could 'theoretically pick an unlimited number of locks per day', you fail to account for the fact that being able to do so has no actual benefit to you.  Casting a magic spell (even a small one) an unlimited number of times could potentially benefit you - or even the whole world.  

There are all kinds of ways that minor magic - if widespread - ought to impact the world in fundamental ways.  Now, having 500 mages in your kingdom each able to do a particular spell 5/day if they prepare it is different than having 100 mages able to cast a spell an unlimited number of times per day...  The things you can do in the later case approximate 'industrialization'.

It seems to me your big issue is one based on theorycrafting, rather than what happens in actual game play.  The likelyhood of a 5e mage just sitting around all day casting ray of frost doesn't seem to be logically any different than a mage in 1e sitting at home casting all of his spells every day.  Rinse, repeat.

The reality is that neither of these actually do happen.  Theorycrafting.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762059It seems to me your big issue is one based on theorycrafting, rather than what happens in actual game play.  The likelyhood of a 5e mage just sitting around all day casting ray of frost doesn't seem to be logically any different than a mage in 1e sitting at home casting all of his spells every day.  Rinse, repeat.

The reality is that neither of these actually do happen.  Theorycrafting.

It is only one example, but here is what happened in the pathfinder game I am currently playing in.

All the pc's are wizards, and from very early on, were able to craft magic items capable of unlimited level zero spells like ray of frost.
 In fact, i myself proposed creating a magic icebox to sell to the rich, and another player suggested a magic needle of mending to sell to tailors.

The players had the idea out there, but wizards in the setting are quite rare.

The pc wizards never ended up crafting those items; maybe made two.

We ended up focusing more on self protective items, like robes of protection from evil.

The pc's became involved in the politics of the nearby kingdoms and only flirted with becoming rich merchants.

In this one campaign, the lack of large numbers of wizards, and their focus on politics made unlimited low level magic a non issue.

However, to see what 'lots of magic'  does to a setting, just visit Ebberon.

The setting of the above pathfinder game is technically magic light despite the pc's being all wizards.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762059It seems to me your big issue is one based on theorycrafting, rather than what happens in actual game play.  The likelyhood of a 5e mage just sitting around all day casting ray of frost doesn't seem to be logically any different than a mage in 1e sitting at home casting all of his spells every day.  Rinse, repeat.

The reality is that neither of these actually do happen.  Theorycrafting.

The reality of what a player-controlled character will do (because it is, or is not, boring vis a vis what they have come to the game table for) has little to do with what a random slice of your fantasy population will do. Otherwise there are no Fighters who are town guard (no player does that in game!), Wizards who are solely court mages (booooring!), and Clerics who hang around the temple all day playing high priest (this job sucks!).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762059It seems to me your big issue is one based on theorycrafting, rather than what happens in actual game play.  The likelyhood of a 5e mage just sitting around all day casting ray of frost doesn't seem to be logically any different than a mage in 1e sitting at home casting all of his spells every day.  Rinse, repeat.

The reality is that neither of these actually do happen.  Theorycrafting.

Why not?  

If it can happen, and there is a benefit if it does happen, why doesn't it happen?

That's what I mean by 'break the setting'.  If it could happen, but the setting relies on it NOT happening, how is that a good thing?  

Better to make it not possible or make sure it doesn't break the setting.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762066Why not?  

If it can happen, and there is a benefit if it does happen, why doesn't it happen?

That's what I mean by 'break the setting'.  If it could happen, but the setting relies on it NOT happening, how is that a good thing?  

Better to make it not possible or make sure it doesn't break the setting.

Regardless of how big a change in a setting it might cause, it seems reasonable to consider the possible effects.

To me it's a lot like accounting for the fact a 'typical' dnd setting has a metric ton of spellcasters living in the setting.

For example, if there are even a handful of level 9 clerics, wouldn't the kings and the wealthy be raised from the dead pretty often?

Are plagues a real threat if there are paladins, clerics, and druids capable of cure disease?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762066Why not?  

If it can happen, and there is a benefit if it does happen, why doesn't it happen?

Why don't legions of low level clerics solve the food problem in every campaign setting?  Why don't high level mages to control the weather every day to whatever they want?


There's your answer.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762075Why don't legions of low level clerics solve the food problem in every campaign setting?  Why don't high level mages to control the weather every day to whatever they want?

The answer is because they can't. In the former case it's not enough water and food (and a 3rd level spell requiring a 5th level caster) to do what you're suggesting, in the latter case a 6th level spell (requiring a 12th level caster) that typically doesn't last all day. None of these options are a) unlimited casting, or b) available to 1st level characters (of which there are vastly more of in a campaign world).

I'm not saying such spells don't have an impact on the setting - quite the opposite - but that any effect is vastly magnified by being available at first level, and being effectively unlimited.

Quote from: Bobloblah;762091The answer is because they can't. In the former case it's not enough water and food (and a 3rd level spell requiring a 5th level caster) to do what you're suggesting, in the latter case a 6th level spell (requiring a 12th level caster) that typically doesn't last all day. None of these options are a) unlimited casting, or b) available to 1st level characters (of which there are vastly more of in a campaign world).

I'm not saying such spells don't have an impact on the setting - quite the opposite - but that any effect is vastly magnified by being available at first level, and being effectively unlimited.

Create water is a 1st level cleric spell in 1e, 4 gallons created per level, and it's permanent.  So why don't all these low level priests just eradicate problems in dry desert areas?  A lowly curate (4th level) can create 48 gallons of water per day with just his first level spells, and can do even more with the 3rd level spell, in addition to creating 8 cubic feet of food.  He can do this every day.

So a temple of clerics, even if all but the curate is 1st level, should be able to do game breaking things.  So why don't they?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762066Why not?  

If it can happen, and there is a benefit if it does happen, why doesn't it happen?

In many cases, opportunity cost.

Having a wizard sit and make a pot bubble all day is more labor intensive than just lighting a damn fire.  There's more useful things for the wizard to do.

Also, most of these theorycrafting/Tippyverse scenarios presume a large number of wizards who find this the most useful thing to do with their time.  The general availability of wizards as PCs does *not* necessarily imply that they are common within the population.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762095Create water is a 1st level cleric spell in 1e, 4 gallons created per level, and it's permanent.  So why don't all these low level priests just eradicate problems in dry desert areas?  A lowly curate (4th level) can create 48 gallons of water per day with just his first level spells, and can do even more with the 3rd level spell, in addition to creating 8 cubic feet of food.  He can do this every day.

So a temple of clerics, even if all but the curate is 1st level, should be able to do game breaking things.  So why don't they?

*sigh*
You cited Create Food and Water, which is a 3rd level spell. I actually wrote my response to include the 1st level spell, but then saw you were actually referring to the 3rd level spell and changed what I wrote before posting it. The why is the same: there are limited numbers of castings available, and it doesn't produce enough to completely disrupt things. A 1st level Cleric can produce enough to supply 3 other people with their daily water, assuming it's not a dry climate. But then, if it's not a dry climate, why is every fourth person a Cleric dedicated to this when the populace can get their water for free? Can the same be said for the ice that can presumably be produced through infinite castings of Ray of Frost?

And all of that is just theorycrafting if it never actually happens in game.  And the only thing that makes it happen in game is the DM.  A mage with an at will ray of frost doing nothing but casting it all day long is just as likely as a caster in any other edition casting all of their magic all day long.  Both can technically do it, but how many NPC casters go through all of their spells every single day while sitting at home?  Probably none.  And that would be totally up to the DM anyway.

Point is, if casters in AD&D aren't breaking the game world when they have the capacity to do so, why would you think 5e casters would?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762095Create water is a 1st level cleric spell in 1e, 4 gallons created per level, and it's permanent.  So why don't all these low level priests just eradicate problems in dry desert areas?  A lowly curate (4th level) can create 48 gallons of water per day with just his first level spells, and can do even more with the 3rd level spell, in addition to creating 8 cubic feet of food.  He can do this every day.

So a temple of clerics, even if all but the curate is 1st level, should be able to do game breaking things.  So why don't they?

It would take literally thousands of high level clerics casting Create Water a hundred years to put a dent in even the smallest desert. They don't do game breaking things because it's fucking hard. Clerics have more important things to do than waste time on lost causes.

I have argued this before - clerics and druids could elimate deserts.  Or certainly remove the need for an oasis.

Why don't they?  Bad writing.   That's it.  There's this magic that should make their society basically unrecognizable from medieval times.

Take materials for example.  In a world where magic exists, why are they still using preindustrial metalworking?  It can't be the temperature involved because they can open gates to the plane of fire itself.  Shouldn't be know-how with divination spells around.  So why?

And you can't make the "easier" argument for the blacksmithing method.  Blast furnaces exist for a reason.

Air travel is another one.  Benefits here are obvious.  Flying carpets and the like would quickly replace horses unless the carpets are too hard to come by.  And maybe even then.  Bandits would have to become sky pirates because only the poor would be on the ground.

It goes on and on.

And rather than starting a new thread about Wizards, WotC has the wizard preview up.  It's the first I had heard of the semi-vancian system.  What becomes of sorcerers?

robiswrong is right to talk about opportunity cost.  

Using up all of my spells everyday (when I might be attacked, or might need to heal someone) has a high opportunity cost.  But even if I did use all of my spells everyday, the impact to the setting is small if the number of people able to use these spells is small.  A few dozen high-level wizards might be able to deliver important parcels 'next day air' like Fed-Ex if they didn't need their teleport for something else.  

A cleric creating 48 gallons of water in the Sahara, even daily, isn't going to do much.  

If they are instead able to cast the spell 11,520 times (16 hours @ 1/6 seconds), producing 46,080 gallons daily, that's going to make a big difference.

For math folks, the 46,080 gallons is equivalent to roughly 6,227 cubic feet of water.  The flow-rate of the Nile is roughly 100,000 cubic feet/second.  

If we had a temple of 400 1st level clerics trying to bring 'bloom' to the desert, we'd be looking at 18,432,000 gallons daily - or roughly 213 gallons/second or ~29 cubic feet/second.  We're still not going to get another Nile from these types of numbers - but we will get the equivalent of the American River in California.  Let's look at what kind of difference it can make.

If people need roughly a gallon of water per day, you can support a much larger population in the desert with this type of spellcasting.  Even at the 80-100 gallons Americans use daily we're looking at a desert not being a desert anymore.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762115And all of that is just theorycrafting if it never actually happens in game.  And the only thing that makes it happen in game is the DM.  A mage with an at will ray of frost doing nothing but casting it all day long is just as likely as a caster in any other edition casting all of their magic all day long.  Both can technically do it, but how many NPC casters go through all of their spells every single day while sitting at home?  Probably none.  And that would be totally up to the DM anyway.

Point is, if casters in AD&D aren't breaking the game world when they have the capacity to do so, why would you think 5e casters would?

You're wrong. It does happen in game, just not by the players, because players get to choose what their characters do. Players are there to have a good time, whether that's by fightin' stuff, meddling in others' bidness, or generally making a nuisance of themselves. NPCs? Not so much.

The assumptions of one's ruleset can presumably have an impact on the setting. I know you're not entirely blind to this, as I've seen you post about AD&D's implied setting before. For some people this is more important than for others. I get that you think it's unimportant. That's fine. For you. On the other hand, you seem blind to the fact that it might not be okay for someone else. That's not theoretical at all. One of many reasons I appreciate ACKS as much as I do and play it to the exclusion of other versions of the game is that it actually looks very carefully at what some of these implications are and accounts for them (e.g. why aren't castles just built by Walls of Stone? Why aren't magic items mass produced and sold? How many 5th level Clerics are there in a decent sized city? How many light infantry can you hire in a month?).

For me, unlimited Cantrips of a certain sort (e.g. Ray of Frost) cross the line. They imply something considerably different about the setting from earlier versions of the game (lets ignore 4e, considering you're on record as having no more use for it than I do). This isn't the first time this has happened, either. 3.x did something quite similar with the rules surrounding magic item creation. Magic items (using RAW) became much more common. In that case it took the players actually doing it for me to realise how significant the changes were.

For 5E, if I felt at will magic was undesirable, I would just make the at will cantrips essentially level zero spells, with 6 slots per day or whatever.

For me, it would depend on if I was going for a magic heavy, or magic light setting.

As Ive pointed out elsewhere.

One of the big limiters on all this is the absurdly high mortality rate of adventurers. Especially magic users.

But. Once you start industrializing a fantasy world you might get something like Tom Wham's Iron Dragons setting with magically powered trains. Or even the setting of Operation Chaos by Poul Anderson which was a fantasy world extrapolated if it evolved into the modern era. Crystal Balls instead of TV. Flying Carpets instead of cars/planes, and so on. Which I think was the inspiration for TSR's AE Magitech setting. Think there was an Alternity AND a  d20 Modern mini-setting based on the same premise.

Quote from: Bobloblah;762141You're wrong. It does happen in game, just not by the players, because players get to choose what their characters do. Players are there to have a good time, whether that's by fightin' stuff, meddling in others' bidness, or generally making a nuisance of themselves. NPCs? Not so much.

The assumptions of one's ruleset can presumably have an impact on the setting. I know you're not entirely blind to this, as I've seen you post about AD&D's implied setting before. For some people this is more important than for others. I get that you think it's unimportant. That's fine. For you. On the other hand, you seem blind to the fact that it might not be okay for someone else. That's not theoretical at all. One of many reasons I appreciate ACKS as much as I do and play it to the exclusion of other versions of the game is that it actually looks very carefully at what some of these implications are and accounts for them (e.g. why aren't castles just built by Walls of Stone? Why aren't magic items mass produced and sold? How many 5th level Clerics are there in a decent sized city? How many light infantry can you hire in a month?).

For me, unlimited Cantrips of a certain sort (e.g. Ray of Frost) cross the line. They imply something considerably different about the setting from earlier versions of the game (lets ignore 4e, considering you're on record as having no more use for it than I do). This isn't the first time this has happened, either. 3.x did something quite similar with the rules surrounding magic item creation. Magic items (using RAW) became much more common. In that case it took the players actually doing it for me to realise how significant the changes were.

For purposes of discussion, I agree.  4e is off the table.  I think we both consider that an anomaly to the traditional D&D game world.

And for disclosure, none of the 5e games I've played in (the first real version I played that had at will powers), was the ability to be able to do them whenever actually used to cast them all the time.  I.e., they were not a distraction to the game play at all.

Additionally, I can completely understand how and why the existence of unlimited cantrips crosses the line with you.  I'm not a huge fan of them myself, as I have argued in the past when 4e came out.  But I think that is a personal preference issue, rather than a game breaking rules issue.  The way I'm looking at it is that every edition has had caster be able to do some really powerful stuff that can easily be gamebreaking, but they don't.  Why?  Better things to do I guess.  According to the rules of what casters can do, the game world would quickly turn into an area where casters are just messing with everything on regional scales.  But that doesn't happen because DMs typically don't have the caster NPCs do that sort of thing, and player PC mages typically don't tell the DM, "During our down time, I cast disintigrate, move earth, rock to mud spells every day at the local gold mine.

So basically, I don't see how minor at will spells are considered game breaking when every other edition has even more game breaking possibilities in it, and thus is why I consider it more of a personal preference issue.

All that being said, because of how discussions have been going in the past month, I want to be very clear in that I am in no way saying you should just houserule at will cantrips and stop complaining.  You're either going to be OK with it, OK with houseruling it, or just won't play the game because it's too much and screws with what you want.  Either way is OK because it's you who has to have fun, so do so paying the game you want.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;762138robiswrong is right to talk about opportunity cost.  

Using up all of my spells everyday (when I might be attacked, or might need to heal someone) has a high opportunity cost.  But even if I did use all of my spells everyday, the impact to the setting is small if the number of people able to use these spells is small.  A few dozen high-level wizards might be able to deliver important parcels 'next day air' like Fed-Ex if they didn't need their teleport for something else.  

A cleric creating 48 gallons of water in the Sahara, even daily, isn't going to do much.

If they are instead able to cast the spell 11,520 times (16 hours @ 1/6 seconds), producing 46,080 gallons daily, that's going to make a big difference.

I think the latter is a straw man assertion, since no one has said that create water is (or should be) an at-will cantrip.

That said, I think 48 gallons of water a day could have a huge impact. For example, in the history of exploration and navigation, having water was a huge difference that was the determining factor on whether an expedition could continue and/or succeed.

It seems a toss-up to me whether 48 gallons of water a day would have a greater world effect than Ray of Frost at will.

Generally speaking, I think that there are a number spells that would have a huge impact on society, even if cast daily. Plant Growth is a good example of a high-impact spell, for example.

Quote from: jhkim;762155I think the latter is a straw man assertion, since no one has said that create water is (or should be) an at-will cantrip.

That said, I think 48 gallons of water a day could have a huge impact. For example, in the history of exploration and navigation, having water was a huge difference that was the determining factor on whether an expedition could continue and/or succeed.

It seems a toss-up to me whether 48 gallons of water a day would have a greater world effect than Ray of Frost at will.

Generally speaking, I think that there are a number spells that would have a huge impact on society, even if cast daily. Plant Growth is a good example of a high-impact spell, for example.

It is in Pathfinder.

Here is another point.

If a cleric can create water or irrigate a desert.

Then what is to prevent evil clerics and mages from laying waste to huge areas with simple spells or even more havoc with higher order ones.

In one of the Blackmoor modules I believe there was mention of the aformentioned publics work mage who was employed to help with the reclamation of a swamp by casting Lower Water and walls of stone.

Those same spells could be used to dam up rivers and lower the water table to totally screw with someone.

I used exactly that as a plot element for the PCs to figure a solution for.

Solution
Step 1: Kill the wizard. Not easy. But they did it.
Step 2: Cast dispel magic on the Dam. In AD&D Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron vanish if dispelled.

And that is exactly why they arent used to make anything. One dispell and POOF! Its gone.

Which leads to the plot the PCs cooked up to screw with the enemy baron who caused all the starvation.

They had a mage cast Wall of iron. Then forged this into swords and armour. And sold them to the baron as he was arming up for another try at invasion.

Then at a strategic moment they blanketed the army with dispells and whammo 75% of the troops were suddenly unarmed and unarmoured, or alot less armoured.

Cause and Effect.

Really it's as simple as this:  Magic can really screw stuff up A LOT in every edition if you really want to.  It just comes down to your personal preference of what you feel comfortable with.

As a DM, I don't worry about the potential implications of mages casting at will ray of frosts until it gets to the point where it seems like it's becoming abused by the player in game, just like I don't worry about the potential implication of a rogue mage guild laying waste to an entire ecosystem if it never actually happens in the game.

Quote from: Omega;762174In AD&D Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron vanish if dispelled.

Huh. I did not know that.

I wonder why they changed that for 3e. That strikes me as just an odd change; were people upset that you could dispel a wall?

What possible purpose did changing the duration on these effects have? All it seems to have done is created a massive headache in the form of "wizards own the economy, deal with it."

Quote from: jhkimI think the latter is a straw man assertion, since no one has said that create water is (or should be) an at-will cantrip.

Quote from: mcbobbo;762166It is in Pathfinder.

Huh. I missed that. I had thought that Pathfinder 0th level spells worked the same as they did in D&D 3E, but it looks like you're right. In Pathfinder, cantrips/orisons are still prepared, but they are not expended by casting.

That's messed up. Certain cantrips - like Create Water - are potentially game-breaking if they can be cast at will. (It is worth noting that the water created by Pathfinder's orison disappears after 1 day if not drunk, but that is still very significant.)

Hopefully 5E won't follow Pathfinder's example, and will only include cantrips that are reasonable to cast at-will.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;761979That'd be worth specifying.

Why? I ask you because isn't it common sense? If I were a wizard I wouldn't be using my valuable downtime being some factory or office drone. I would be creating some scrolls, potions or researching my next spell. Or setting up some expedition to find some powerful magic item. Or maybe even crafting my own if that's a realistic option.

Quote from: Marleycat;762192Why? I ask you because isn't it common sense? If I were a wizard I wouldn't be using my valuable downtime being some factory or office drone. I would be creating some scrolls, potions or researching my next spell. Or setting up some expedition to find some powerful magic item. Or maybe even crafting my own if that's a realistic option.

In AD&D there were a built in limiters. You needed to be around level 11 to cast Enchant Item. It took days to enchant the item equal to the spell. AND you had to rest 1 day per 100 gp value of the item.

I was hellbent on building my own version of the Apparatus of Kwalish and talked the GM into letting me have a go at it. It took a month and 35k in expenses to build the frame alone. A month to enchant all the little effects in. And then a WHOLE YEAR of recovery where I couldnt even cast spells.

But I built the damn thing!

So does making a single wand of magic missiles. A whole year where the mage (or cleric, etc) is effectively powerless.

Now... Continual light lanterns would be a simple side business. As would running a magical restraunt. Vital if you are running a Spelljammer campaign where fire is a baaaaad idea.

Extrapolating possible magical business can be fun. Long as you dont go overboard and long as you remember that there are limiters.

Quote from: Bobloblah;762065The reality of what a player-controlled character will do (because it is, or is not, boring vis a vis what they have come to the game table for) has little to do with what a random slice of your fantasy population will do. Otherwise there are no Fighters who are town guard (no player does that in game!), Wizards who are solely court mages (booooring!), and Clerics who hang around the temple all day playing high priest (this job sucks!).

An NPC wizard who is willing to just sit at home all day ray of frosting from dusk to dawn isn't as believable as someone being a town guard or a court wizard though. It's not exactly likely to be work which is really stimulating or engaging enough for anyone with the intelligence to be a wizard in the first place, unless they had the sort of intense fixation on repetitive activity we tend to associate more with autistic people than wizards.

Quote from: Warthur;762270An NPC wizard who is willing to just sit at home all day ray of frosting from dusk to dawn isn't as believable as someone being a town guard or a court wizard though. It's not exactly likely to be work which is really stimulating or engaging enough for anyone with the intelligence to be a wizard in the first place, unless they had the sort of intense fixation on repetitive activity we tend to associate more with autistic people than wizards.

I think youd see some of these comprised of former adventurers who had a close brush with death. Or did die, and decided a coushie office job at the castle, magic shop, or militia was perhaps a better choice. Arneson used that for a Blackmoor module.

Or longer term adventurers who got to level 12 and decided to hell with this and retired while they still had all limbs attached.

We discussed this wayyyyyyyyyyyyy back with TSR staff at Gen Con once. Bounced around various ideas that Id guess never got used aside from what ended up applied to personal books or articles.

One suggestion was doing it to fund personal experiments. That stuff aint cheap. etc.

As usual. For me the anomaly can lead to some interesting NPC plot hooks or just background.

We will see soon enough how much 5e changes that dynamic.

Quote from: Omega;762245In AD&D there were a built in limiters. You needed to be around level 11 to cast Enchant Item. It took days to enchant the item equal to the spell. AND you had to rest 1 day per 100 gp value of the item.

I was hellbent on building my own version of the Apparatus of Kwalish and talked the GM into letting me have a go at it. It took a month and 35k in expenses to build the frame alone. A month to enchant all the little effects in. And then a WHOLE YEAR of recovery where I couldnt even cast spells.

But I built the damn thing!

So does making a single wand of magic missiles. A whole year where the mage (or cleric, etc) is effectively powerless.

Now... Continual light lanterns would be a simple side business. As would running a magical restraunt. Vital if you are running a Spelljammer campaign where fire is a baaaaad idea.

Extrapolating possible magical business can be fun. Long as you dont go overboard and long as you remember that there are limiters.

Of course. I hope 5e isn't as draconian about crafting as 2e or ridiculously easy like 3e.There has some middle ground in there between the two.

Quote from: Marleycat;762284Of course. I hope 5e isn't as draconian about crafting as 2e or ridiculously easy like 3e.There has some middle ground in there between the two.

2nd Ed AD&D crafting was Harder? I dont have the books handy bu that just sounds painfull if its meaner than being depowered for a Year just to make a wand of Magic missiles!

Quote from: Omega;7623032nd Ed AD&D crafting was Harder? I dont have the books handy bu that just sounds painfull if its meaner than being depowered for a Year just to make a wand of Magic missiles!

I said that didn't I? 2e was a bit harsh but 3e made it easy to mass produce magic items and I hated that. Though with the way wands and staves work in 5e I hope that it's closer to 2e then 3e.

Quote from: Marleycat;762192Why? I ask you because isn't it common sense? If I were a wizard I wouldn't be using my valuable downtime being some factory or office drone. I would be creating some scrolls, potions or researching my next spell. Or setting up some expedition to find some powerful magic item. Or maybe even crafting my own if that's a realistic option.

It's worth specifying because it isn't common sense and sometimes you would benefit from using these cantrips more than additional spell research - or, more to the point, society would.

XKCD What If? (http://what-if.xkcd.com/91/)
Some discussing of what you could do with harnessing water from your bathtub to generate electricity.