Anyone else kind of think cantrips are bullshit in 5e?
I can understand giving mages a few extra spellslots (vs. old school where they get 1), but it seems like bullshit to me that a first level sorceror can cast a 1d12 damage attack at ZERO cost indefinitely.
Is there something I'm missing? This idea seems fucked to me.
>>45548021
This is what happens when you cater to the World of Warcraft crowd.
Roleplaying is more than just combat and mechanical advantages!
>>45548021
While I agree that 1d12 may be a bit much, I think giving them a "free" attack spell IS a good idea. I mean, Fighters can swing their swords as much as they want, right?
>>45548021
Other than eldritch blast and dragon-blood sorcerer cantrips that match a particular element, they are objectively less powerful than "dude has a crossbow." Literally meaningless.
>>45548021
No. Go fuck yourself.
>>45548155
Firebolt:
Evocation Cantrip
Range:120 feet
Deals 1d10 fire damage and ignites anything that it hits.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's loads more.
>>45548155
Sacred Flame:
Evoction cantrip
Range: 60 feet
Automatically hits for 1d8 damage (depending on saving throw.
It just sometimes feels like monsters are made of soggy cardboard in this game desu.
>>45548021
Anyone else kind of think greataxes are bullshit in 5e?
I can understand giving fighters a few extra abilities (vs. old school where they get none), but it seems like bullshit to me that a first level fighter can do a 1d12+strength modifier damage attack at ZERO cost indefinitely.
Is there something I'm missing? This idea seems fucked to me.
>>45548335
Yeah, that's what fighters are supposed to be able to do.
Mages are supposed to be able to hit hard occasionally, and spend the rest of the time trying to avoid getting turned into paste you fucking dumbass.
And besides that most cantrips AUTOMATICALLY hit, the target needs to make a saving throw to avoid damage, while a fighter might not necessarily even hit their target you fuckwit.
>>45548335
the problem is that DnD isn't supposed to play like fucking Dragon Age. The idea has always been that a wizard has spells prepared for specific situations, and has to figure out when is best to use those spells. One of the strengths of martial classes was their ability to use their weapons as many times as they want per day. Indefinite damaging cantrips just make mages less unique.
>>45548602
>>45548388
The wizard is still literally going to do the same damage (or better) with a crossbow for the first 5 or so levels (and after that the fighter damage outscales it by a lot).
Giving an attack cantrip only removed the need to carry around a crossbow.
>>45548602
No it hasn't. You are worshipping a fiction. 3.5 =/= all D&D design philosophies ever.
It barely does anything in the campaigns I've run.
Fighters are literally manhandling everything from level 1 to level 10.
Like, half the time, fighters kill most things through their action surge before a single spell is cast.
>>45548335
Mages can use axes too. They're just crap at em.
Fighters can't use magic. Why play a fighter if a mage can do just as well? Are they just a novelty class for roleplay reasons without any mechanical merit?
>>45548678
Fighters are leagues better than casters in 5e, at least until later levels once the gamebreaker spells come in.
Level 5 fighters have to have the entire dungeon built to handle them because they're silly.
>>45548678
>Why play a fighter if a mage can do just as well?
But they can't. The only characters doing at will damage comparable to fighters are Sorclocks.
>>45548678
By the same token, the fighter can be an elf and grab the at-will, or use one of it's ASIs to take the feat for cantrips.
>>45548249
>>45548315
And someone with a bow is dealing 1d8 + dex at early levels, and quickly outpacing that damage with multiple attacks and any other damage boosts at later ones.
All that damaging cantrips do is make it so a Mage isn't constantly whining to rest because he blew his load too early, and lets him actually contribute without having to pull out a crossbow. In most cases, they'd do better damage with a crossbow, but it's not as thematic as just letting them shoot fireballs.
>>45548804
>Sorclocks.
good thing multiclassing isn't a base rule
>>45548021
As someone else pointed out, it's only actually a problem when a Sorcerer dips far enough into Warlock for access to Agonizing Eldritch Blasts he can Metamagic.
Outside of that, cantrips really aren't a big enough deal to be an issue. Warrior-types still outdamage most cantrips that aren't Agonizing Eldritch Blasts, and those are designed to be a Warlock's primary means of attack. The cantrips just make sure you're always capable of doing SOMETHING halfway decent.
>>45548678
Because a Mage will still have terrible hitpoints and AC unless he remembers to invest in that stuff, and his damage won't be as good as you think it is.
To use your example from the OP, a Wizard has to get within 10 feet of someone to deal 1d12 poison damage. This will deal anywhere from 1 to 12 damage, or 0 if it's immune to poison (rather common). This leaves him very open to counterattack.
A fighter can instead swing a greatsword, dealing 2d6 damage, with 16 strength. This will deal anywhere from 5 to 15 damage, and on average will be dealing 10, just 2 less than poison spray's Max. He also doesn't mind getting close, and the damage will be even higher.
For another comparison, take that same Wizard with Fire Bolt. 1 to 10 damage, but Fire immunity is also rather common.
For comparison, an archer fighter is at a +2 to hit over the wizard, assuming all other stats are equal, and will be dealing 4-11 damage, a nice boost, which only gets larger if they're using a Heavy crossbow or get multiple attacks.
>>45548388
> besides that most cantrips AUTOMATICALLY hit
What?
None of the 1d10 cantrips automatically hit. You roll for attack like any archer.
Everyone in this thread has shown it doesn't cause any game problems, op is just salty because a caster's main damage option is now way cooler than his barbarian's.
(barbarian damage is still better)
>>45548249
>Ranged hit-dependent 1d10 with no stat modifier.
>(5.5)X(assumed 50% chance of hitting)=2.75 DPT
ooh scary
>>45548315
>1d8 with no stat modifier that is completely avoided on a save
>(4.5)X(assumed 50% chance of successful save)=2.25 DPT
Oh no, here comes the damage
Meanwhile, even if you're from a class with literally zero damage boosting effects, simply holding a d10 weapon is almost double that damage
[(5.5)+3(modified human can have 16 on secondary and primary with standard array)]X[50% assumed hit chance)=4.5 DPT, and that's with literally no magic and no damage boosting effects whatsoever.
There are dumb things about 5e, but infinitely repeatable cantrips as the pathetic consolation prize for a caster who's out of spell slots and who didn't take dex secondary+crossbow, isn't one of them. Even if you're stuck with the weaker light crossbow (3.75 DPT) that's a 36% increase in DPT from the most powerful non-eldritch-blast cantrip, for almost no expenditure of resources (I mean, you DO want dex as your secondary stat, for defensive reasons.)
I know that there are several points that make spellcasters look way better than the humble Fighter, but that's all on-paper bullshit. In my experience the best low-level ability in the game, bar none, is Second Wind. A Cleric may be able to drop a 1st level spell slot and blast a fool with Guiding Bolt or whatever, but once he's been hit once or twice he's got to scurry away and expend spell slots and actions to patch up. The Fighter, meanwhile, keeps right on ticking with a bonus action. After 1st level the availability of Action Surge multiplies this. These are use-on-the-fly no-planning-needed fight-swinging survivability abilities that frankly made the paladin and barbarian players in my group super-jealous repeatedly. Yes, your Paladin can smite. But he also has a serious action economy problem when a situation goes pear-shaped.
Second Wind and Action Surge don't really scale well compared to spellcasting, but they're fuckhuge advantages during the first 5 or 6 levels. Let the squishy dude in the robes have his little pew-pew laser spell. It'll just draw more arrow fire away from the proper heroes on the front line.
>>45548388
There aren't many cantrips with saving throws, and of those that do, you don't get half-damage on the save. If anything, they're less accurate against most targets.
>>45549062
That's because 5e breaks action economy the opposite direction from 3.5 where casters broke it.
Rogue's bonus action dashes or hides are a pain in the ass too.
>>45549040
its only as cool as you or your DM can describe how the barbs axe bites into a goblins flesh.
>>45549181
I wasn't complaining about it. Historically Fighter and Thief are my two favorite classes. All my favorite characters as a player have been one of those two in previous editions. The vanilla Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue are both playable in practice, basically always useful in all adventuring situations (obstacles, fights, etc), and both conceptually and mechanically accessible for folks that don't want to make playing a TTRPG their second job.
>>45549040
OP here, I'm the DM for my group.
It really seems to me like my players tear through any enemies like wet cardboard (I'm also >>45548249 & >>45548315). I thought that some of that might be the fact magic users can cast at will cantrips now.
It just pisses me off how easily monsters get taken down, especially since I come from GURPS where the PCs need to be careful or get fucked up. I mean, it seems like my monsters can't even hit the players the 60% of the time.
>>45549062
>Action Surge don't really scale well compared to spellcasting
Action surge is probably the best scaling ability in the game, from the raw power perspective (spells get way more versatile and gamebreaking obviously).
>>45549316
It scales great for damage output, but not for any other purpose. An extra action used to dash still only gets you your movement rate, same at 20th level as at 5th. An extra action used to disengage is also the same at 20th level as at 5th.
>>45549286
Give your monsters a greater initiative, more HP.
You can custom your encounters if the PC are too strong just sayin
>>45548388
>most cantrips AUTOMATICALLY hit
lolwut?
>Acid Splash: Save 100% negates, functionally a hit roll but your opponent rolls it
>Booming Blade: Actual rider to an existing weapon attack, now THERE's a powerful cantrip, still hit dependent though, and only marginally better than just swinging a weapon, and on a class that's probably not going to have STR as a primary.
>Chill Touch: Hit Dependent
>Eldritch Blast: Genuinely good and better than just swinging a weapon... IF you have the warlock ability that makes it good, and warlocks have so few spell slots that they may as well be martials. Admittedly, probably the most powerful cantrip, so good it's practically a warlock class feature.
>Fire Bolt: Hit dependent
>Frostbite: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>Green-Flame Blade: See Booming Blade
>Lightning Lure: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>Magic Stone: Just like having a shortbow, but you can only have 3 arrows at any given time... also hit dependent
>Poison Spray: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>Produce Flame: Hit dependent AND costs you action economy
>Ray of Frost: Hit Dependent
>Sacred Flame: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>Shillelagh: MINOR boost to regular weapon hits, on a class that doesn't get any other bonuses to weapon damage.
>Shocking Grasp: Hit Dependent
>Sword Burst: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>Thorn Whip: Hit Dependent
>Thunderclap: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>True Strike: Weapon rider, but a shitty one. Also, weapons are hit dependent
>Vicious Mockery: 100% avoided on a save, so same as hit dependent
>>45548049
>>45548161
Yeah, you're right, roleplaying IS about more than combat and mechanical advantages! But since you can't balance /roleplaying/, why not balance combat, just because?
>>45549286
Okay, you're newish to 5e dnd so I forgive you a bit.
Though really, a whole load of things could cause those problems, from misguided expectations to misapplication of mechanics in encounter building, but seriously, unlimited cantrips is nowhere near the core of this problem. It's so nowhere near that it's way out.
Just look at all the actual maths people have given in this thread.
>>45549286
Yeah, that's probably due to you not knowing how to plan and run monsters.
GURPS tends toward death spirals, so it's pretty easy to have monsters be threatening.
5e's CR system doesn't really hold your hand, and outright attacks it.
>>45549286
That doesn't mean cantrips or too strong (but it does bring the question of how that brought that conclusion), it means you aren't balancing the encounters right. What was the last fight they had, and what is party composition?
>>45549642
Yeah, I definitely see that now.
>>45550006
Probably the best example of it was the first level dungeon that they raided
>Human Rogue
>Human Bard
>Dwarven Monk
>Elven Cleric (Tempest Domain)
>Elven Fighter (mostly uses bows and shit)
They basically were infiltrating this goblin hideout. They absolutely annihilated a group of 6 or so goblins plus a bugbear that was hired as extra muscle. Using this (http://dhmholley.co.uk/encounter-calculator-5th/) calculator, that should be a deadly encounter but they blew through it and cruised into the rest of the dungeon.
I've done some thinking since I started this thread, and I believe I've come to a conclusion. Cantrips aren't bullshit, Challenge Ratings are.
Pic related, it's the lair they were assaulting.
>>45550435
M8, how long you been DMing? Challenge ratings have always been bullshit.
>>45550435
The monk is one of the most powerful classes around level 2.
>>45550546
DMing D&D? Not to long. My parents didn't let me (cuz muh witchcraft) so I ran GURPS instead. Bought 5e like, 2 or 3 months ago.
>>45550435
At level 1, a part of 4 adventurers can will find anything with a challenge rating of 1 to be challenging, but not deadly. So assuming that you've got 6 adventurers(1/4 cr each), then you've got a total of 1 and 1/2 cr. A bugbear counts as 1 cr, and 6 goblins count as 1 and 1/2 cr, bringing it to a total of 2 and 1/2 cr.
tl;dr:
Adventurer equivalent: 1&1/2 cr
Encounter: 2&1/2 cr
Of course, the problem with the challenge rating system is the fact that it doesn't take characters who are min/maxed or characters with better gear into account. So yeah, basically, the CR system is wrong, and you should instead use it more as a loose guide than a strict rule.inb4 I cannot into math
>>45550435
They actually probably got lucky. That shouldn't have been overly easy.
>>45550637
Well that explains that. Welcome to the club anon. Many things in DnD simply don't work. Have fun finding out which ones!
>>45548388
>Mages are supposed to be able to hit hard occasionally, and spend the rest of the time trying to avoid getting turned into paste you fucking dumbass.
Why?
Why does that even have to be the case?
Why can't a wizard contribute to damage dealing in combat reliably, if a player wants them to?
>>45550707
How would that be mechanically different than being an archer?
>>45550765
Mechanically? Probably very little difference.
Thematically? Quite a bit. Not to mention the other utility that an archer won't have (and vice-versa).
>>45550765
An archer hit harder, better, and can do fun things with his arrow.
A mage in 5e got shitty damage so they don't run away like tards in combat or draw a crossbow.
>>45550836
What utility would an archer have that a spellcaster wouldn't?
>>45550872
In 5e, you can make an archer that can trip, disarm, frigthen, etc. an opponent. Fighter battlemaster. Lot of fun.
>>45548021
This makes me sad. I'm not mad about cantrips and stuff, or increased combat effectiveness or the weird obsession that games have with everyone being equally good at fighting. I'm just sad.
Because it locks modern day wizard/mage players out of one of the greatest pleasures they could ever get to know: earning their power.
In elder times, the mage class was a real challenge and everyone knew it. But the rewards were great also,and you earned every bit of it. You gathered every spell, none gained automatically by leveling, you had to seek out components. Eventually you would become mighty indeed.
Its bizarre to me that mages are talked about in terms of how hard they hit these days. It was never about hitting. A low level mage that thought his job was doing damage was in a lot of trouble. Magic missile is for wands. If you want to win fights, take sleep. Be cautious and clever. Think like a wizard, not a machine gun.
I blame computer games.
>>45550960
I'm sad because I doubt I will ever play a wizard like this.
It must be fun, and rewarding.
>>45550960
Dude, you are fucking playing a game.
You want to be bound by rules, and earn your power with time?
Play a fucking MMO.
>>45550960
You're an idiot for a very, very, very long list of reasons. But lets look at the main ones.
1. The signature spells of old school D&D were Fireball and Lightning Bolt originally, meant to replicate catapults and other siege equipment magically [this being the case in Chainmail and OD&D]. It was sheer fluke that Save or Die ended up being more useful in practice.
2. All the box art and all the cover art and all the fluff is based on evocation as one of the most common tools of the wizard. The desire to shoot fire from your hands has consistently been one of the primary draws of the magic using class.
3. The "mages start out shit but become gods" is terrible terrible game design, for two reasons.
3A: Because it means the game is at no point balanced. Its literally the worst design you could do, because at early levels, the mage struggles to contribute and because at higher levels, everyone else is insignificant next to the mage. Sure, something like this can be made to 'work', per a certain definition but its infinitely easier [and more fun imo] to simply make mages function at every level of the game on par with other classes. Something 5e does, at least in the single digit levels.
3B: People get tired of the restraints on low level mages and incrementally remove them, both rules designers and DMs. The 3.X Wizard is one of the most atrocious creations in terms of game balance tabletop has ever seen, and how was it spawned? They literally just took the AD&D Wizard and 'lightened the load' on low level mages. This game design is regarded as archaic, and rightly so. Its not very good.
Don't get me wrong, I like OSR as much as the next guy, and I'll play a weakling old school mage if thats the name of the campaign. But I do consider it, as a general thing, a step forward that thats no longer the case in most games.
>>45551149
>You want to be bound by rules,
>>45548021
>1d12
What fucking cantrip does this?
>>45551241
Poison Spray does. That range of 10 feet seems less than optimal though.
>>45551241
A cantrip with a 10 foot range and an easy save to fully resist.
itt: 3aboos who can't into math
>>45551078
It's fucking boring, esp. given there's nothing saying that your campaign will ever reach high levels. I hope you enjoy your lawn darts, cuz you'll be throwing more of those than spells.
>>45548021
>1d12 POISON
>CON Saving Throw
>10ft. range
So most common immune damage, at almost melee range against a save most monsters and warriors are good at.
burnautism pls
>>45548249
Fire damage being the most common resisted
>>45548315
And ZERO damage on a DC save
>>45548908
Page 163 phb invokes it as an optional rule yes.
However I don't think it particularly breaks anything as long as the player can explain/justify the multiclass through in game actions.
>>45548908
>>45551833
Multiclassing is as much an optional rule as feats.
People brand new to D&D might not use them. For a bit.
That's it.
>>45551745
Firebolt doesn't force a save. You hit them, they take damage, end of story.
The DM is at liberty to penalize players for abusing cantrips, like a Druid who casts Shillelagh once a minute, or a Cleric who adds Guidance to every ability check the party makes. The players could be warned that their cantrips produce audible and visible effects that might alert guards, or they might take a level of exhaustion from repeated casting during a long journey.
>>45550435
5e is pretty weird at low levels, and tends to be pure luck. Cantrips will seem initially powerful but once you've hit level 5 they'll be pretty irrelevant.
>>45551895
Feats even in 5e I don't particularly consider as "optional" even if they technically are, particularly sometime in the double digit levels where you'll want martials to have access to something more than a +2 to a stat to help compare against spells like shapechange and gate
>>45550435
I was in a four man group playing a one shot starting at level 1, we came upon a group of three orcs and were completely annihilated in under 2 rounds because our rolls were shit and the orcs were the opposite.
Low levels leaves a lot more to luck.
>>45552011
... You're aware you just agreed with me, right? That's what I was saying.
>>45551895
They're are two types of optional rules:
Optional Rules, which are add-ons to the system (see AD&D 1e's Non-Weapon Proficiencies, 3.5's Unearthed Arcana)
and
"Optional" Rules which claim to be optional but are written into the system, are constantly pushed in subsequent publications, and can't be easily removed (see AD&D 2e's Non-Weapon Proficiencies, 3.5's tactical battlemap fetish and wealth by level)
>>45550435
So you can't plan an encounter for shit. Good to know. Those goblins probably didn't even use tactics or keep at range or find cover and i'm sure the Bubgear just stumbled upon them like an asshole. Your players won the initiative, right? That or your players aren't braindead.
Assuming level 2, the Tempest Cleric can aninhilate at least half those enemies with a single Thunderwave (moreso with Destructive Wrath) or even use their lvl 1 power to deal 2d8 damage as a Reaction, which can actually murder a Goblin outright.
A Monk can attack up to three times, and Goblins have only 7 HP as average (and 12 at most) so if the monk has a modicum of luck, it can kill three of those within a single turn.
A single Bard can outright dominate a Bugbear 1v1.
So, there you have it. It could have been an Average encounter for half that party. Taking into account the extra characters (Rogue, Figther) then you threw them something that was not a big threat unless the players were simply retarded.
Likewise, if you actually had the enemies fight properly, that could have been an actuall good fight.
And this is assuming they faced everything at once. Which they probably didn't.
Just pay more attention to the monsters, and the tactics. Blaming your inexperience and ineptitude on cantrips is stupid.
What makes this even more egregious is that THERE ISN'T A SINGLE SORCERER, WIZARD OR WARLOCK THERE. Just WHAT made you think "Direct Damage Cantrips are troublesome" when none of those classes uses them?? (Except Sacred Flame for the cleric)
>>45552114
Yes indeed, we are on the same page.
>>45551951
He said that Sacred Flame is completely resisted with a saving throw, which is true.
Fire Bolt deals the same average damage as a light crossbow with a +2 dexterity modifier, making it the most damaging long-range cantrip in the book. They seem like well-balanced options to me.
>>45552116
Yes, literally what I was saying.
They're optional, which means people new to the game won't use them when just figuring things out. And that's it. They'll be used by everyone else, all the time.
>>45551241
Poison Spray. Objetively the worst cantrip
>CON save for full resist
>fucking everything is immune to Poison
>Puny range
>>45550435
>Cantrips aren't bullshit, Challenge Ratings are.
Oh yeah, nobody's denying that. Most of the encounters in the Starter Set campaign are classed as deadly if you do the math. The best way to test the difficulty of a dungeon is to simulate the encounters by yourself, and tweak them as you go.
>>45548066
Agreed. And for similar reasons, fighters and rogues need cool limited use attacks and situational utility abilities that refresh on a similar timescale to the casters' spells.
>>45548021
Anyone else kind of think weapons are bullshit in 5e?
I can understand giving fighters a fighting chance (vs. making them useless), but it seems like bullshit to me that a first level fighter can swing a 1d8+Strength damage sword at ZERO cost indefinitely.
Is there something I'm missing? This idea seems fucked to me.
>>45548249
>>45548315
>It just sometimes feels like monsters are made of soggy cardboard in this game desu.
>soggy
>fire spells
So, you're saying those two cantrips are weak and ineffective?
>>45552804
i like you
>>45548315
Sacred Flame is certifiably worse than any ranged weapon. It's only useful because you can toss that shit on a nigga without prepping a crossbow or pulling javelins out of your ass.
>>45548066
and wizards can swing there quarterstaffs and stab with there daggers as much as they want to.
>>45548875
thats what darts are for.
>>45548021
>but it seems like bullshit to me that a first level sorceror can cast a 1d12 damage attack at ZERO cost indefinitely.
You know who can also "cast" a 1d12 damage attack at ZERO cost indefinitely? A barbarian with a greataxe. Except the barbarian can apply his strength modifier to it, which will be pretty big considering its his primary stat.
The only thing cantrips do is give casters a zero cost attack option equivalent to an unenchanted weapon without stat modifiers. It basically replaces the crossbow or knife casters would use in 3.5e. I don't see the problem.
>>45548315
A saving throw based crossbow (without stat modifiers) rather than an AC based one. Big whoop.
You mean like the barbarian can do all day.
Honestly JUST a 1d12 attack peters out really fucking fast. That's only 6 or 7 damage on average I think.
>>45554270
6.5, nigga. You're dead on.
It's shit. Even a shortbow on a character with 16 DEX is strictly better, much less a real ranged weapon worth a damn.
>>45554099
And miss all day long.
>>45548021
A first level fighter can make a 2d6+5 attack at zero cost indefinitely. What's the difference?
>>45549286
Ah...basically you don't know how to make your monsters challenging or customizing them to fit the scenario.
Get good. Don't blame the game.
>>45551957
Why wouldn't a Cleric use buffs for someone's abilities?? That's like punishing a healer cause "they like always be healing yo".
>>45551957
>penalize players for using their abilities when they can
literally what the fuck
>>45551957
>or they might take a level of exhaustion
>I reserve the right to take his literal At-Will Use-Whenever-He-Wants away when I see fit because it satisfies my autism regarding how I see spells functioning, even though according to the game rules they don't actually function like that
Oh D&Dfags. Your autism surrounding spells has always been something special.
All my tavern wenches are rogues with knife expertise!
>>45558358
Not him but
>He would use a ruling I wouldn't like in the game
>stop liking what i don't like
>autism autism autism
>It's never mentioned as tiring so it could never be tiring
Jesus Christ, you're a faggot.
>>45560656
sauce m8
>>45548021
It's fine, you should be doint 1d12+5 damage per attack anyway. quit whining.
in the old days, wizards would either blow thier two or three spells for that encounter (if you need anymore you're doing it wrong.) and either throw rocks or wander off and make the dm run a side adventure with the fight was still being resolved.
so yea, you're bad.
>>45552935
Soggy with lighter fluid.
>>45548678
>Fighters can't use magic. Why play a fighter if a mage can do just as well? Are they just a novelty class for roleplay reasons without any mechanical merit?
Fighters ARE a novelty class, actually. It's D&D; if you're not playing a caster class, you're playing objectively wrong.
RPGs are games by and for smart people, so it stands to reason that they're not going to want to play the dumb jock class. The classed based around brainpower, and not simple muscle, are the ones which will appeal to true gamers, and so it's absolutely reasonable for them to be better.
Don't complain about classes true gamers shouldn't be playing anyway.
>>45564036
Agreed, in any setting where magic is a real thing, and is as superior as most D&D games, then only a fool would not seek it out.
It's like a modern person refusing to use electricity. Semi-intelligent savages at best.
>>45564036
>>45565056
IF the game includes them in the same class section, rather than seperating one into PC classes and the other into NPC classes (which one depends on whether it's intended to be a high powered or low powered game) then non-magical folks should be exceptional specimens of martial-nes to be on par with whatever the average for a PC mage of the same level is. The problem here isn't fluff, you can fluff your setting however you want, it's a game being dishonest with its players.
>>45564036
>RPGs are games by and for smart people
>"I cast this OP spell to solve the mystery/ kill the demon lord / infiltrate the enemy lair"
>"I'm le smart! XD"
No.
>>45565212
Agree or not, the current devs at WotC noted the class disparity as a feature, not a bug.
If you want a game where being an athlete or the like is supposed to be competitive with making reality your bitch, then go for something like Exalted or Savage Worlds.
D&D isn't now, and very rarely in the past was, even vaguely egalitarian between casters and mundane.
>>45565382
Using the right tool for the job is very smart.
Two people hunt werewolves.
One brings a pointy stick.
The other brings a submachinegun with Silver bullets.
Who is smarter?
>>45548021
>Anyone else kind of think cantrips are bullshit in 5e?
As has been said in these types of threads before: no one, because resorting to a crossbow or some shit as a person whose entire class is based around MAGIC is bullshit boring garbage.
>>45565212
>it's a game being dishonest with its players.
It's about rewarding the people who have spent time and money on the game to realize this, and who are intelligent enough to disregard the fake "advice" about playing martial characters. Mastering the system and the intelligence to recognize that the authors are trying to trick you into playing suboptimal classes should carry with it mechanical rewards.
That's called "good system design", and more companies should do it more often. That's one of the reasons why 4e was such a flop: there's no sense of accomplishment for mastering a system where it's entirely laid out in front of you in the first place.
>>45565403
>the current devs at WotC noted the class disparity as a feature, not a bug.
This is fine... if it is clearly stated in the class section and not on some subforum that only the optimization community will see. See the difference? Creating an openly skewed system to promote a particular ideal of verisimilitude is one thing, but being intentionally deceptive to your customers is another entirely.
>>45565898
And yet still it sells.
While I have sympathy for players of earlier editions, by now, with internet access fairly ubiquitous, it is a small thing to educate oneself before a purchase.
That d20 was so pervasive during the turn of the century did many people the great disservice of thinking the system was solid for any type of game, rather than being pretty much a unitaskers. However, we learned from the OGL blight, I hope, and systems that match their settings are again fairly easy to find.
Simply put, and not meant as a snark or attack, have considered playing games that aren't D&D? Those who dislike a thing, or the makers of a thing, should not support it with their time or money.
>>45565403
>never even read 5e books
>>45566242
>Simply put, and not meant as a snark or attack, have considered playing games that aren't D&D?
The thing is that it's not "games that aren't D&D" it's "games that aren't 3e." The problem is that 3e was so successful in its marketing that people equate the locus of 3e with the locus of D&D. There are lots of "D&D" editions that aren't 3e, most of them even, it's just that the four best selling editions are all 3e
>3e is 3e
>3.5 is 3e
>PF is 3e
>5e is 3e
I don't take issue with our mutual recognition that the conceits and flaws of 3e that have now been accepted as features by the majority of "the community." What I take issue with is you taking those flaws/features, and equating them with ALL of D&D, and that's just not true. Hell, most versions of D&D aren't 3e, and don't share its flaws. I can't speak much for BCMI or 1e, but I can confidently say from experience that 2e and 4e are quite different.
>>45548388
>spend the rest of the time trying to avoid getting turned into paste you fucking dumbass.
It turns out doing nothing most of the time is boring bullshit.
>>45566418
>5e is 3e
Having spell slots and a centralized resolution mechanic based on the d20 does not make 5e the same as 3e.
Past that and some similar names for things, 5e and 3e are so hugely different that saying they're the same gets dumber every time someone says it.
>>45566503
No, but in the context of the conversation I was having, claiming class disparity as a feature, pandering to the optimization community (As >>45565403 pointed out,) and the other flaws claimed as features by 3e (as >>45566242 pointed out DOES.
Also, it's much more than that. Other than no more save-or-done (which is admittedly an improvement) the game is more similar to 3e than any other TTRPG game on the market past or present. If you are the sort of person like >>45565488 who's spent so much time analyzing the minutia of 3e to the point of being able to claim "system mastery," then any deviation would seem signifigant, however, to the majority of people, the games are nearly identical. Granted, all of the minor changes are improvements, but they are minor relative to.... any game that isn't OGL
>>45549576
Maybe YOU can't balance roleplaying.
