| Author |
 Topic  |
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Aug 2014 : 18:28:20
|
Today is the general release of the Player's Handbook!
My copy should be in the mail waiting when I get home. Unfortunately, I have 7 more hours until I can open it up and start reading/playing.
As much as I want to support the local gaming store, and I'm on a first name basis with the owners, I cannot put $50 down on it, so I did order it from Amazon. $29.97 for it and still showing that price today.
|
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2014 : 20:50:56
|
| Enjoy! I got mine a couple weeks ago from my FLGS. I'm quite pleased, and I'm in love with the Bard. Sadly, I'll probably only be on the DMG side of this edition for the foreseeable future. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
 |
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2014 : 22:50:32
|
| My FLGS is a preferred retailer, so I've had mine for a little bit, but I'm still not all of the way through, in part because I'm juggling reading through it, my normal novel reading, prepping my Age of Rebellion game, and playing in a 13th Age game. What I have read so far, I'm really liking. |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2014 : 17:46:04
|
| I did not look at the bard yet. Read up to the races and then skimmed. Looks good. Looks familiar. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2014 : 23:36:19
|
I really dig it so far. Gonna remake all my classic characters in this form, just to see how it stacks up and what rolls would look like.
I'm not fully switching over, but what's some adventures to try it out? ;) |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6669 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 01:35:25
|
I'm waiting for the DMG to see what format magic items will take. Then I'm going to have some fun.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 08:49:30
|
| While it won't replace my 4e games, it's different enough that I might purchase it. I'll give it a full year before I know for certain. I downloaded the basic rules and plan to run something soon with it. I also like that it's simple enough that converting material from 3e or 4e won't be all that bad. I'm looking at starting with the 4E Warden (Druid sub-class). |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 11:13:49
|
From what I've read, I think this makes low level wizards overly powerful... The ability to cast cantrips unlimited number of times AND those cantrips can deal 1d10 damage at range and at first level? That is unbelievably powerful - more powerful than wizards ever became in most campaigns in old rules. Also - by comparison to the power of the cantrips some other spells no longer seem worth it.
I LOVE the idea of ritual magic however, though I don't understand the barometer for determining which spells can be casts as rituals. Not having to waste spell slots on identify spells however is genius. I think if this was expanded slightly, to include most "utility" spells, it would make learning some rarely used spells more desirable for adventurers.
I also think, given the new power they've given spellcasters, that they should bring the old "create ____" spells back into the game. |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 13:40:25
|
| I'll not argue that wizards have more cajones than before. But even with two mages, 2 fighters, a cleric, and 2 rogues, I've almost wiped a party with just five goblins. And it wasn't bad tactics on either party or poor die rolls. It's a very lethal game, I'd say the extra power balances out. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
Edited by - Delwa on 29 Aug 2014 13:49:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36812 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 16:41:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'll not argue that wizards have more cajones than before. But even with two mages, 2 fighters, a cleric, and 2 rogues, I've almost wiped a party with just five goblins. And it wasn't bad tactics on either party or poor die rolls. It's a very lethal game, I'd say the extra power balances out.
5 goblins almost killed 7 PCs? Perhaps it's the fact that I have limited data, but that does not seem to be any kind of balanced. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 16:50:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'll not argue that wizards have more cajones than before. But even with two mages, 2 fighters, a cleric, and 2 rogues, I've almost wiped a party with just five goblins. And it wasn't bad tactics on either party or poor die rolls. It's a very lethal game, I'd say the extra power balances out.
5 goblins almost killed 7 PCs? Perhaps it's the fact that I have limited data, but that does not seem to be any kind of balanced.
Most of it was the environment. The other part was a successful ambush on the caravan the PC's were in. The goblins targeted the oxen at range from behind cover, and killed the ox, blocking the road. They then retreated into the forest, and the melee PC's persued. Some very guerrilla style fighting ensued, there were bad and good die rolls on both sides. In the end, the PC's killed the goblins, but they were all down to one or two HP.
Edit: but that aside, if you check out the D&D Next FB group, several people have commented on how lethal the Starter Set adventure can be. Same kind of thing, goblins versus PC's. Alone, toe-toe a single goblin is dead against even a mage. But if goblins fight like goblins, they're very much a challenge. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
Edited by - Delwa on 29 Aug 2014 16:58:22 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 20:39:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
From what I've read, I think this makes low level wizards overly powerful... The ability to cast cantrips unlimited number of times AND those cantrips can deal 1d10 damage at range and at first level? That is unbelievably powerful - more powerful than wizards ever became in most campaigns in old rules. Also - by comparison to the power of the cantrips some other spells no longer seem worth it.
From my playtesting, it's rather meh when compared to anyone wielding a weapon. A Ranger using a Longbow deals 1d8 + Dex modifier. IF that modifier is +3 your looking at a 4 - 12 damage range at-will. The cantrips, on the other hand, only ever deal d10 (though it does scale a bit as they level) with no modifiers attached. I think the Evoker mage might get some additional benefits but I could be wrong.
On the whole, Casting a 1st level spell is always going to be a more powerful option. Looking at Magic Missile in a 1st level slot, it deals 3d4 + 3 damage that you can spread around OR focus fire on a target. That's always going to be better than a 1d10 fire bolt.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
I LOVE the idea of ritual magic however, though I don't understand the barometer for determining which spells can be casts as rituals. Not having to waste spell slots on identify spells however is genius. I think if this was expanded slightly, to include most "utility" spells, it would make learning some rarely used spells more desirable for adventurers.
I believe if a spell has a limited combat application, it's often toted as a Ritual. For example, a Wizard isn't going to prepare Clairaudience / Clairvoyance when they're going into a Dungeon but it's useful for those down times when time permits.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36812 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2014 : 22:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
From what I've read, I think this makes low level wizards overly powerful... The ability to cast cantrips unlimited number of times AND those cantrips can deal 1d10 damage at range and at first level? That is unbelievably powerful - more powerful than wizards ever became in most campaigns in old rules. Also - by comparison to the power of the cantrips some other spells no longer seem worth it.
From my playtesting, it's rather meh when compared to anyone wielding a weapon. A Ranger using a Longbow deals 1d8 + Dex modifier. IF that modifier is +3 your looking at a 4 - 12 damage range at-will. The cantrips, on the other hand, only ever deal d10 (though it does scale a bit as they level) with no modifiers attached. I think the Evoker mage might get some additional benefits but I could be wrong.
On the whole, Casting a 1st level spell is always going to be a more powerful option. Looking at Magic Missile in a 1st level slot, it deals 3d4 + 3 damage that you can spread around OR focus fire on a target. That's always going to be better than a 1d10 fire bolt.
Not always. A poor roll -- and we've all had them -- could see that magic missile only doing 6 or 7 points of damage. Granted, poor rolls can affect anything, but there is no guarantee that 3d4 will roll better than 1d10. Even with the best possible rolls on both, you're talking about a 5 point different.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I believe if a spell has a limited combat application, it's often toted as a Ritual. For example, a Wizard isn't going to prepare Clairaudience / Clairvoyance when they're going into a Dungeon but it's useful for those down times when time permits.
And this is why I hate the idea of ritual magic. Clairaudience/clairvoyance can have utility in a dungeon; they are not just for downtime. For example, the mage can magically do some scouting, helping the party prepare for an encounter or know whether or not to go a certain way.
I don't like the idea of making spells function differently if there isn't an immediate combat application for them. Magic is magic, and for a lot of spells, the applications are limited only by the imagination.
Magic doesn't know what it's being used for... So why should the access methods vary so wildly, depending on the intended application?
I don't have to follow an entirely separate process for plugging a lamp into an electrical outlet, as opposed to plugging in an electric edger. No matter what I'm doing with it, the power source is the same, and the interface is the same. I don't see why magic should be different. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 29 Aug 2014 22:13:18 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2014 : 00:56:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
From what I've read, I think this makes low level wizards overly powerful... The ability to cast cantrips unlimited number of times AND those cantrips can deal 1d10 damage at range and at first level? That is unbelievably powerful - more powerful than wizards ever became in most campaigns in old rules. Also - by comparison to the power of the cantrips some other spells no longer seem worth it.
From my playtesting, it's rather meh when compared to anyone wielding a weapon. A Ranger using a Longbow deals 1d8 + Dex modifier. IF that modifier is +3 your looking at a 4 - 12 damage range at-will. The cantrips, on the other hand, only ever deal d10 (though it does scale a bit as they level) with no modifiers attached. I think the Evoker mage might get some additional benefits but I could be wrong.
On the whole, Casting a 1st level spell is always going to be a more powerful option. Looking at Magic Missile in a 1st level slot, it deals 3d4 + 3 damage that you can spread around OR focus fire on a target. That's always going to be better than a 1d10 fire bolt.
Not always. A poor roll -- and we've all had them -- could see that magic missile only doing 6 or 7 points of damage. Granted, poor rolls can affect anything, but there is no guarantee that 3d4 will roll better than 1d10. Even with the best possible rolls on both, you're talking about a 5 point different.
Looking at poor rolls, I'll take 6 damage (assuming all 1's) vs. 1 damage.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I believe if a spell has a limited combat application, it's often toted as a Ritual. For example, a Wizard isn't going to prepare Clairaudience / Clairvoyance when they're going into a Dungeon but it's useful for those down times when time permits.
And this is why I hate the idea of ritual magic. Clairaudience/clairvoyance can have utility in a dungeon; they are not just for downtime. For example, the mage can magically do some scouting, helping the party prepare for an encounter or know whether or not to go a certain way.
I don't like the idea of making spells function differently if there isn't an immediate combat application for them. Magic is magic, and for a lot of spells, the applications are limited only by the imagination.
Magic doesn't know what it's being used for... So why should the access methods vary so wildly, depending on the intended application?
I don't have to follow an entirely separate process for plugging a lamp into an electrical outlet, as opposed to plugging in an electric edger. No matter what I'm doing with it, the power source is the same, and the interface is the same. I don't see why magic should be different.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is? If you want to prepare a spell like clairaudiance / Clairvoyance you can still do that and cast the spell as normal. If, however, you want to use the spell slot for something else, you can still cast it with an increase in time. Who doesn't like flexability?
EDIT: Also, Rituals don't use up spell slots which is nice. If I'm playing a Wizard and I want to use Clairaudience/Clairvoyance to scout ahead, I'm going to want some time to do so so I can get the full use out of the spell. If time is a constraint then there's a possibility that might not occur. By taking 10 minutes of time in a "safe" area (otherwise known as a place PCs can shore up and take a quick rest) the spell can still be useful AND I don't expend a casting of my limited amount per day to do so. This is why we see Rituals tagged to spells like Augury, Comprehend Languages, Identify, and Water Walk because their usefulness isn't immediately beneficial to any particular combat in lieu of another spell selection. So if you DO want to prepare them, you're able to do so (unlike 4E where there was no choice) or you can still gain their benefit for a minimal time increase. And, I have no doubt that there will be some feat or thing out there in the future that decreases the time spend on casting Rituals. |
Edited by - Diffan on 30 Aug 2014 02:24:55 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11857 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2014 : 00:56:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
From what I've read, I think this makes low level wizards overly powerful... The ability to cast cantrips unlimited number of times AND those cantrips can deal 1d10 damage at range and at first level? That is unbelievably powerful - more powerful than wizards ever became in most campaigns in old rules. Also - by comparison to the power of the cantrips some other spells no longer seem worth it.
From my playtesting, it's rather meh when compared to anyone wielding a weapon. A Ranger using a Longbow deals 1d8 + Dex modifier. IF that modifier is +3 your looking at a 4 - 12 damage range at-will. The cantrips, on the other hand, only ever deal d10 (though it does scale a bit as they level) with no modifiers attached. I think the Evoker mage might get some additional benefits but I could be wrong.
On the whole, Casting a 1st level spell is always going to be a more powerful option. Looking at Magic Missile in a 1st level slot, it deals 3d4 + 3 damage that you can spread around OR focus fire on a target. That's always going to be better than a 1d10 fire bolt.
Not always. A poor roll -- and we've all had them -- could see that magic missile only doing 6 or 7 points of damage. Granted, poor rolls can affect anything, but there is no guarantee that 3d4 will roll better than 1d10. Even with the best possible rolls on both, you're talking about a 5 point different.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I believe if a spell has a limited combat application, it's often toted as a Ritual. For example, a Wizard isn't going to prepare Clairaudience / Clairvoyance when they're going into a Dungeon but it's useful for those down times when time permits.
And this is why I hate the idea of ritual magic. Clairaudience/clairvoyance can have utility in a dungeon; they are not just for downtime. For example, the mage can magically do some scouting, helping the party prepare for an encounter or know whether or not to go a certain way.
I don't like the idea of making spells function differently if there isn't an immediate combat application for them. Magic is magic, and for a lot of spells, the applications are limited only by the imagination.
Magic doesn't know what it's being used for... So why should the access methods vary so wildly, depending on the intended application?
I don't have to follow an entirely separate process for plugging a lamp into an electrical outlet, as opposed to plugging in an electric edger. No matter what I'm doing with it, the power source is the same, and the interface is the same. I don't see why magic should be different.
Wooly,
Think of it this way... you can memorize clairvoyance / clairaudience in the new edition... or you can just take some extra time while in the dungeon and not have to use one of your slots. I don't have a problem with basically you "not using the weave and instead taking the long route to activate a certain magical spell". So, I see one possible explanation is casting memorized clairvoyance as "using the weave" and I see casting a ritualized version of clairvoyance as "bypassing the weave and calling upon the core building blocks of magic". |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36812 Posts |
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 17:26:40
|
What you are forgetting, comparing 1d10 firebolt to the 3d4 magic missile is simple - and HUGE. You get 1 magic missile. I get infinite firebolts. You have 1 spell. I have a million.
Even the the Simbul used to only be able to cast 61 spells total. Some were very big spells, but she had to stop when she ran out. Now a 1st level wizard can go on casting FOREVER.
This is totally new to any kind of D&D. Never before has a 1st level wizard had anything approaching power. 1st level wiz vs. 1st level fighter, normally the fighter would win. Now the 1st level mage stands equal or superior in combat to everyone else. Your archer you mentioned is gonna run out of arrows but my piddly 1st level mage can go right on casting his firebolts.
Imagine 100 1st level mages gathered. Boom. You have an army? An orc horde? An Army of skeletons and zombies? No problem, we'll cantrip them all to death and dust.
Hell - even a troll army would not stand a chance against these new fire-flinging 1st level archmages. Very bad planning in my book. |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 18:38:27
|
| Even Mages have to sleep. And they have limited HP. It wouldn't take long before any army would send a strike team to take out your mage. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4690 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 19:08:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Even Mages have to sleep. And they have limited HP. It wouldn't take long before any army would send a strike team to take out your mage.
Every one needs to sleep, well elves revere maybe, that make all a prefect target when less then flat footed. A single blow kill no matter hit points. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 19:57:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
What you are forgetting, comparing 1d10 firebolt to the 3d4 magic missile is simple - and HUGE. You get 1 magic missile. I get infinite firebolts. You have 1 spell. I have a million.
A fighter has infinite sword swings. At-will firebolts is no different than swinging a bastard sword, except that it can be used at range. Which is an advantage since arrows probably still only deal d6 or d8 damage, but that's a small advantage... an average 1-2 points of damage per successful attack.
And look at what's involved in making a successful attack. Defaulting to 3e for a second because I haven't read the finer points of 5e combat yet, fighters use Str for their hit rolls, archers use Dex. A wizard casting a ranged-touch attack like firebolt will probably use Dex too... a stat which he's unlikely to have maxed. Simply put, a wizard will hit less often, balancing or overbalancing the slightly higher average damage from a hit.
Even if a wizard used Int for his ranged spell attack rolls, the slightly higher damage would be (over)balanced by his ridiculous lack of armor, and hit points, and healing spells. It takes a lot less oomph to kill a wizard* than it takes to kill a fighter of the same level. * - at higher levels wizards can be more dodgy due to teleport etc... but fighters can benefit from teleportation circles and protective magic items just like anyone else.
Archers running out of arrows? Maybe, but it might take a while if he has a barrel (or a bag of holding or portable hole) of arrows. It's situational.
Giving wizards at-will damaging spells merely gives them the ability to participate in combat situations which aren't life-and-death. This is something they've never had until now. A smart wizard in 1e-3e just did whatever he could to avoid notice in minor combat situations, saving his finite spells for important confrontations. This is a tough roleplaying situation because the entire party is perpetually reminded that the wizard is severely dependent on everyone else.
A troll army might be scared off for a few rounds by a wall of 100 fireflinging mages, but after that the story changes. Once they realize that the fire burns but comes nowhere close to killing them --5 points of damage on a hit, and more misses than hits-- the trolls will swarm and maul the wizards, and dine well that night. At most the trolls might lose 1 or 2 of their number, and the survivors would be slower to flee from mages next time so ultimately it would be very bad planning on the humans/demihumans' part.
At-will combat spells merely enable the wizard to pull his own weight in combat. It's like he has a sword that he can use at (probably short) range; it can't be disarmed, but he's vulnerable to silence.
He still has a ridiculous lack of armor, hit points, and healing spells. He's just as vulnerable as he's always been. He's now simply able to contribute. |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 19:59:38
|
| You make the point yourselves guys - if everyone needs to sleep, that is not something making a mage less powerful - it is even across the board. Everyone has limited hp, though the new edition gives everyone a little more than they used to get, including mages. My point is, if mages were always this powerful, I doubt I'd ever have chosen to play another character class: they start out kick ass and pretty much become archmages in power by the time fighters are able to specialize in 2 weapons. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 20:06:47
|
There is also the fact that a wizard throwing firebolts is a lot more visible than any melee combatant, particularly in dusk/dark conditions. Every intelligent foe knows that a wizard is capable of doing more than just flinging firebolts. This raises his "threat level" and makes his life considerably more difficult.
There are also environmental factors. Standing on a prairie? Firebolt is a bad idea. Innocent bystanders? Even if you win this fight the local constabulary might view you as a serious threat. Having the ability to cast at will doesn't make it a reliable defense/offense. |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 20:21:22
|
Indeed. So instead of memorizing his 1 spell slot as magic missile - he's gonna choose a defensive spell - say shield for sake of argument. He's also going to stand behind everyone - as has always been typical - no change here. But before he could not lend much help to a party. 1 bang or 1 whatever. Now he can blast away while the melee players are a shield wall for him and the cleric keeps em alive. 1d10 until all foes fall, with whatever help the rest of the party can muster - depending on class.
Honestly it blows my mind you can't see how the biggest limitation that was always in place for low level mages to prevent them from being too powerful has been reversed 180 degrees.
Another thing I forgot to mention is this - you pick your cantrips at level 1 and your specialty at level 2. So an ILLUSIONIST could pick this damaging cantrip. Talk about crazy talk. Whole new game for spellcasters if you ask me. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2014 : 21:36:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
But before he could not lend much help to a party. 1 bang or 1 whatever.
This is your idea of preventing a wizard from being too powerful? You seem to be implying that this was good or desirable.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
1d10 until all foes fall, with whatever help the rest of the party can muster - depending on class.
This has always been true for every other class. An attempt is finally being made to make wizards equal to other classes.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Whole new game for spellcasters if you ask me.
Indeed. One worthy of consideration.
This is no longer relevant to the original topic, and it's clear we're not going to convince each other. I hope we both enjoy the new game. If not, then as always house rules are still an option. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2014 : 02:45:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
What you are forgetting, comparing 1d10 firebolt to the 3d4 magic missile is simple - and HUGE. You get 1 magic missile. I get infinite firebolts. You have 1 spell. I have a million.
Just to clarify, Magic Missile at 1st level is 3 missiles that can target 3 different targets and more if you prepare it in a higher level slot. This instantly makes it more versatile than fire bolt because you can target more creatures in a single round. Also, don't forget that fire bolt requires an attack roll vs. AC and can be difficult when monster's AC gets higher (no more "touch" attacks anymore) while magic missile is auto-damage, no save.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Even the the Simbul used to only be able to cast 61 spells total. Some were very big spells, but she had to stop when she ran out. Now a 1st level wizard can go on casting FOREVER.
Yea, that's not that terrible. In fact, I'd say that MOST wizards aren't going to want to go adventuring after they've wasted the majority of their big offensive weapons. No one wants to be limited to only cantrip spells.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
This is totally new to any kind of D&D. Never before has a 1st level wizard had anything approaching power.
Apparently you skipped 4E where wizards got at-will spells and cantrips and Pathfinder where cantrips are At-Will too OR Reserve Feats which could be obtained as early as 3rd level. Actually, it's been pretty prevalent within the last 8 years or so.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
1st level wiz vs. 1st level fighter, normally the fighter would win. Now the 1st level mage stands equal or superior in combat to everyone else. Your archer you mentioned is gonna run out of arrows but my piddly 1st level mage can go right on casting his firebolts.
And I'd still take a longbow (d8 + Dexterity modifier) over Fire bolt any day of the week. Ammo or no.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Imagine 100 1st level mages gathered. Boom. You have an army? An orc horde? An Army of skeletons and zombies? No problem, we'll cantrip them all to death and dust.
And when a lot of them miss the target's AC, then what?
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Hell - even a troll army would not stand a chance against these new fire-flinging 1st level archmages. Very bad planning in my book.
At this point, I'm pretty sure your not even debating the supposed "problem". I don't really know what to say other than, maybe 5E isn't for you? Plenty of opportunities to play other editions of the game. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2014 : 03:35:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
You make the point yourselves guys - if everyone needs to sleep, that is not something making a mage less powerful - it is even across the board. Everyone has limited hp, though the new edition gives everyone a little more than they used to get, including mages. My point is, if mages were always this powerful, I doubt I'd ever have chosen to play another character class: they start out kick ass and pretty much become archmages in power by the time fighters are able to specialize in 2 weapons.
From my play-test experience, few classes match the fighter for un-bridled damage and explosive destruction. The Barbarian comes in a very close second and the paladin a near 3rd. Basically the fighter and his 4 attacks per round (of which he can move around all he likes), his critical hit chances heavily improved (18-20 by 15th level) AND the MOST ability score Improvements / Feats of any other class make him a pretty hard class to pass up if your looking for that sort of power. Not to mention Action Surge which DOUBLES his attacks 1/battle (2/battle at 17th) makes him a whirling death machine. And you wanna complain about 1d10 firebolts all day long?
From this perspective say a Wizard at 11th level casts Fire bolt on a Fighter. The fighter takes 3d10 damage (because cantrips scale with wizard class). That's an average of 11 damage. The figher then rolls up and attacks with his great sword and a Strength of 20 (2d6 +5) three times. He hits say....twice for an average of 22. He then action surges and gets three more attacks and hits for all three with an average damage of 33. Now compare the two, which once is a bit stronger?
Now obviously a wizard at that high of a level has better options to throw at a fighter and the Fighter will probably have some magical items and such. These things are all done in a vacuum and often have so many other characteristics that comparing the two is difficult. All I'm saying is that at-will spells have been a thing for quite some time. In 4E I never had a problem with it, nor has it been in our v3.5 games where people took the Reserve Feats (Complete Mage) or in Pathfinder. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31792 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2014 : 04:00:27
|
I've just been notified by email that my copy has finally arrived at my doorstep.
It's infuriating for me to have to be at work while the promise of adventures with a new edition PHB is so far away!  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2014 : 15:20:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I've just been notified by email that my copy has finally arrived at my doorstep.
It's infuriating for me to have to be at work while the promise of adventures with a new edition PHB is so far away!
Yea, I could see that as a pain in the butt. Since I was off the last two days I wanted to take the chance to go see the books at the local FLGS but sadly BOTH my and my wife's cars died on the same day so now we're stuck with just a rental until one of them gets fixed.
However I created my first "real" 5E character using the Basic PDF packet (and a little help from the last playtest one) to create a Knight. I'll post him below:
Sir Kerian Désol
Medium Chondathan human, lawful neutral
-------------------------------------
Armor Class 18 (scale mail, shield)
Hit Points 13 (1d10 + 3)
Speed 30 ft.
-------------------------------------
STR 18 (+4) DEX 14 (+2) CON +17 (+3) INT 12 (+1) WIS 13 (+1) CHA 16 (+3)
-------------------------------------
Saving Throws Str +6, Con +5
Senses passive Perception 11
Skills Animal Handling (+3), Athletics (+6), Insight (+4), Persuasion (+5)
Languages Chondathan, Common
-------------------------------------
ACTIONS
Longsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (1d8 + 4) slashing damage, or (1d10 + 4) slashing damage if used with two hands.
Lance. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: (1d12 + 4) piercing damage. Sir Kerian has disadvantage on attacks within 5 ft.
Heavy Crossbow. Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 100/400 ft., one target. Hit: (1d10 + 2) piercing damage.
REACTIONS
Protection. If an attack targets another creature within 5 ft. of Sir Kerian, he may use his reaction to impose Disadvantage on the attack roll. Sir Kerian must be wielding a shield to use this ability.
-------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT Scale mail, shield, longsword, heavy crossbow with 20 bolts, explorer's pack, gaming set (Three-Dragon Ante)
Personality Traits: "I face problems head on. Simple, direct solutions are the best path to success." Sir Kerian is also always polite and respectful of others, as is the knightly way.
Ideals: "I do what I must and obey just authority."
Bonds: "Those who fight beside me are worth dying for."
Flaws: "My hatred for my enemies is blind and unreasoning." |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31792 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2014 : 03:04:49
|
Finally had the chance to skim through most of it.
It's certainly decoratively impressive. And I've noticed a great many Realms references specifically characterising core D&D elements. That's cool stuff, but I'm not sure I like the idea of there being so little GREYHAWK stuff in the core material. Unless I missed something in my skimming. Maybe a full read will reveal some hidden GH gems in the text. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2014 : 05:44:17
|
Well, it's not really my intent to begrudge your affection for Greyhawk. Buuttt...
Putting GH in the PH would go against their stated intent of making the Realms the flagship setting. I'm not in favor of filling the PH with Realms references; matter of fact I don't even want the Realms to be the setting they focus on. I think the settings need to be kept out of the Core rules as completely as possible. Just sayin... after Pikachuing ("I choose you!") the Realms, other settings shouldn't be given much/any wordcount.
Greyhawk (and Dragonlance) gods appear on page 295; Eberron gods are on the next page.
It's 5th edition and they still haven't removed Bigby-and-company's names from a bunch of spells. By my estimation Greyhawk has more representation than any other setting.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36812 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2014 : 12:41:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It's 5th edition and they still haven't removed Bigby-and-company's names from a bunch of spells. By my estimation Greyhawk has more representation than any other setting.
Actually, didn't they do that back in 3rd edition? I recall them stripping the names from a bunch of spells, and most of those names were from Greyhawk. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Player's Handbook
