Post by UbiquitousPost by Justisaur5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."
I wondered about that when I read the 5e PH. Everything seemed to be nerfed.
Post by Justisaur5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."
I wondered about that when I read the 5e PH. Everything seemed to be nerfed.
Pretty much. It seems much more balanced than any of the previous
editions of D&D, with the exception of 4e - which was way too balanced
(people still find ways to abuse 4e apperantly, though I didn't see it
in any games I played/ran).
5e still uses the 4e 'tiers' concept, though it's hidden and not called
out, everyone improves drastically at 5th level, fighting types get
extra attack, and spellcasters main form of attack - cantrips do 2x the
damage, so effectively everyone does 2x the damage they did (though
there's some class abilities that give a bit more damage in limited
amounts).
I think spellcasters generally do considerably less damage than fighting
types because they get low damage dice and don't get to add ability
score bonuses. They supposedly make up with it with the higher level
spells, but really only the highest level spells they know are going to
have much impact because damage scaling is by slot level not character
level. Also because of the huge increase in hit points that monsters
have what seems like a great spell has about half the effectiveness it
would pre 4e.
Magic missile for instance is 3d4+3 damage, an average of 10.5. Vs a
fighter with a long sword doing say d8+5 (with dueling), which is an
average of 9.5, but the fighter can do that all day, sure he may miss
once in awhile. Taking a typical low level monster - a skeleton, has 13
hp, and AC 13. That fighter is at +5 to hit, so he's hitting on a roll
of 8 or more, and requires 2 hits to kill it. Meanwhile the wizard does
the same damage with a spell he's got 3 of at 1st level, so he could
kill one skeleton in 2 rounds and injure another skeleton, blowing his
wad, then reverting to probably a straight d10 if he took firebolt as a
cantrip, doing about half the damage the fighter does. Take say an
average 5 encounter day and the wizard is looking really bad.
O.k. so maybe magic missile is a poor choice. Sleep might be better,
but when I used it it was pretty useless, I slept a couple kobolds, the
others just woke them back up. We could take something inbetween, say
Burning Hands (though I've found thunderwave more popular) which does
3d6 - again an average of 10.5 in an area, save for half. Lets say
that's 3 opponents (about what I usually see it get). Unfortunately
Burning Hands or Thunderwave put the wizard in some serious danger as
they have to be right up in the monster's face. So their eating up
either their own spells (mage armor/shield) to do that or the cleric's
to heal them, or perhaps both. Lets say over 5 fights, a 'typical
adventuring day' he does that 2 times (having to burn one spell, his
refresh on mage armor to give marginally better safety up close, and
shield to save his ass once), Say half of those save taking 5 damage,
He's done 47.25 damage with those. Lets those fights have 2 or 3
skeletons (easy or hard fights for a party of 4, say a total of 3 with 2
and 2 with 3, so 12 total) so they have a total of 157 hit points.
Actually that would mean he's done more than his fair share since that's
more than 1/4 the HP, and that's before adding in any cantrip damage. Of
course a lot of that is probably wasted as damage over/under what's
needed to kill them. Another way to look at it would be that would let
him kill 3 (each saves then fails the next) out of 12 which would be
exactly his fair share. I suspect it's the uncertainties of actual
combat vs. this averaged damages that make it seem like the wizards are
useless. Or perhaps it's less burning hands off than I represented,
using instead 2 shields to keep from getting knocked out.
At least when I was playing it was probably more the DM kept punishing
us with really hard encounters. He was running a 3e module and changing
out the monsters with 5e versions, it's possible he didn't realize how
much relatively harder they are in 5e, I know I didn't until I
discovered the party/monster size adjustment formulas. Referencing
those skeletons again they are CR 1/4, but unlike with 3e that doesn't
mean that 4 of them are an appropriate encounter for a 1st level party,
that means that 2 of them are an easy encounter, and 3 a hard encounter,
neither of them are a typical encounter. 4-5 CR 1/8 Kobolds are a
medium encounter, not 8 as you would do with CR 1/8 ones in 3e. Even 7
would actually up them to 'deadly' territory.
Which I don't really like, I prefer using larger numbers of monster,
instead in 5e you should typically be fighting lower numbers of monsters
than your group size.
- Justisaur