Larian is making quite a few deviations from the rules - so I would only argue that it's the wrong ones like forcing in their elemental surfaces gimmick & not being faithful to the action economy (which is one thing that works really well in D&D 5th edition). I think they could take the combat more or less unmodified into a computer game.
I do think the skill system in 5th edition is probably one of the elements that need the most adaptations, since a computer is not flexible enough. As stated above - the numeric difference in skill and success probability is not sufficient to capture the different aptitudes of characters.
There's a lot of ways an experienced dungeon master can improve his storytelling here, e.g. look at two characters climbing a wall, one is a fit, experienced climber the other one is a weakly mage. Due to how the system is set up it is easily possible that both fail their rolls - but the DM can state that for the mage failure = falling (also keeping in mind that the mage has featherfall as a backup), while for the more experienced character it is a more minor issue, like dropping a weapon or slipping and taking minor damage.
In my experiences computer games usually work best with fixed thresholds for success and failure in dialogue and knowledge checks and much more restricted randomness for things like climbing compared to just translating 5th edition.
After dozens of pages of people praising Larian for sticking to 5e pretty faithfully, its kinda weird to see a 180 from some people that suddenly decided its actually very different from the base rules.
After dozens of pages of people praising Larian for sticking to 5e pretty faithfully, its kinda weird to see a 180 from some people that suddenly decided its actually very different from the base rules.
Not really. The approach has been pretty faithful to 5e overall, but we only just got access to the actual game in order to see the ways in which it is different. It still is pretty faithful from what I can see, but there are plenty of small changes based on being EA and balance - along with some pull in concepts from DOS2.
They're faithful, but they're also not faithful. It depends.
For example, the cantrip that is probably the most useful combat cantrip, Firebolt, got nerfed from 1d10 fire damage to 1d6. But it also very likely sets people on fire (guaranteed unless they are standing in water, I think) and leaves an fire environmental spot on the ground, meaning a probable further 1d4 or more. So it's actually slightly buffed to at least 2-10 fire damage. Just not immediately so.
They're faithful, but they're also not faithful. It depends.
For example, the cantrip that is probably the most useful combat cantrip, Firebolt, got nerfed from 1d10 fire damage to 1d6. But it also very likely sets people on fire (guaranteed unless they are standing in water, I think) and leaves an fire environmental spot on the ground, meaning a probable further 1d4 or more. So it's actually slightly buffed to at least 2-10 fire damage. Just not immediately so.
Nothing like missing your ray of frost only to have it freeze the ground and knock them prone ?
These are cantrips. The lowest level of magic. And in a fit of insanity 5e gives you infinite castings.
In 5e, cantrips are kind of weird because you have unlimited castings but, with the exception of the Artificer, no class can technically ever change them according to the rules.
In theory you just practice casting them so much that casting them is almost second nature. But it still is a bit weird. Especially when it takes you until 18th level to do the same for first and second level spells (and only for wizards).
In 5e, cantrips are kind of weird because you have unlimited castings but, with the exception of the Artificer, no class can technically ever change them according to the rules.
In theory you just practice casting them so much that casting them is almost second nature. But it still is a bit weird. Especially when it takes you until 18th level to do the same for first and second level spells (and only for wizards).
Cantrips are probably one of the most popular features of 5e. It finally brings pure spell casters into the fold as characters with consistent encounter utility. Gone are the obnoxious days of level 1 wizards having 4 hp and 2 spell casts to be useful for a rest. Now they have cantrips and can be consistently useful, and use their bigger spells when needed.
Cantrips are a *fantastic* addition to the game.
If I am fairly certain of anything, it's that cantrips will be a baseline feature for each edition of D&D moving forward for quite some time, until they can replicate the same effect and make it better.
As somebody with a long history in 2nd Ed (and earlier!), having unlimited cantrips does feel MEGA weird to me, but I can see why it's a very good move from a game balance perspective, so I overall approve of the change. It does radically shift the theory of magic within D&D from its Vancian roots, however. That was always something that was quite unique about D&D Mages. Unlike other fantasy settings where magic is a kind of innate power, usable almost at will, Mages in D&D were often non-magical beings who nonetheless found a way to summon it and tap it.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
So - I've had a chance to run a 5e game for the past few years, which included a Fighter and Sorcerer - and from what I saw, the Firebolt and its damage wasnt as impressive as you think.
First - it's most impactful at level 1 (when doing 1d10 is meaningful), but the important element here is that Wizards (or Sorcerers) dont get to add any modifier damage to their attack. So our level 1 Fighter two-handing his Warhammer was dealing 1d10+3 damage from the start. 4-13 vs 1-10 is pretty meaningfully different.
Add to that the fact that the fighter usually has more HP, and a higher AC - and now they've got a ton of valuable combat utility that exceeds Wizard + firebolt. The wizard has other interesting combat utility in the form of his spells, but for raw damage: our 2h fighter was easily outpacing the cantrips of the Wizard.
Which is how it should be IMO. Wizards should have higher burst damage, and more CC/control in battles - but less consistent damage and no tanking.
Its is worth keeping in mind that Firebolt is only 1 cantrip. There are others that deal less damage but do something else (like pulling an enemy closer, etc).
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
So - I've had a chance to run a 5e game for the past few years, which included a Fighter and Sorcerer - and from what I saw, the Firebolt and its damage wasnt as impressive as you think.
First - it's most impactful at level 1 (when doing 1d10 is meaningful), but the important element here is that Wizards (or Sorcerers) dont get to add any modifier damage to their attack. So our level 1 Fighter two-handing his Warhammer was dealing 1d10+3 damage from the start. 4-13 vs 1-10 is pretty meaningfully different.
Add to that the fact that the fighter usually has more HP, and a higher AC - and now they've got a ton of valuable combat utility that exceeds Wizard + firebolt. The wizard has other interesting combat utility in the form of his spells, but for raw damage: our 2h fighter was easily outpacing the cantrips of the Wizard.
Which is how it should be IMO. Wizards should have higher burst damage, and more CC/control in battles - but less consistent damage and no tanking.
Its is worth keeping in mind that Firebolt is only 1 cantrip. There are others that deal less damage but do something else (like pulling an enemy closer, etc).
The thing is though. You are comparing an optimised Fighter to what the Wizard gets by default. And that is part of a bigger pattern within DnD design -- Fighters having to optimise and specialise to just keep up with the potential of caster classes.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
So - I've had a chance to run a 5e game for the past few years, which included a Fighter and Sorcerer - and from what I saw, the Firebolt and its damage wasnt as impressive as you think.
First - it's most impactful at level 1 (when doing 1d10 is meaningful), but the important element here is that Wizards (or Sorcerers) dont get to add any modifier damage to their attack. So our level 1 Fighter two-handing his Warhammer was dealing 1d10+3 damage from the start. 4-13 vs 1-10 is pretty meaningfully different.
Add to that the fact that the fighter usually has more HP, and a higher AC - and now they've got a ton of valuable combat utility that exceeds Wizard + firebolt. The wizard has other interesting combat utility in the form of his spells, but for raw damage: our 2h fighter was easily outpacing the cantrips of the Wizard.
Which is how it should be IMO. Wizards should have higher burst damage, and more CC/control in battles - but less consistent damage and no tanking.
Its is worth keeping in mind that Firebolt is only 1 cantrip. There are others that deal less damage but do something else (like pulling an enemy closer, etc).
The thing is though. You are comparing an optimised Fighter to what the Wizard gets by default. And that is part of a bigger pattern within DnD design -- Fighters having to optimise and specialise to just keep up with the potential of caster classes.
I have to disagree about that being the optimized fighter. By default, a fighter should have at least a 16 in strength (or 16 in dexterity if going for a finesse build), which is where the +3 damage modifier comes from. Same as a wizard/cleric should have 16 in intelligence/wisdom before figuring out any other stats.
Similarly, the higher AC is also almost by default: fighters can wear armor (and start with armor) while wizards can't. Same with hit points: fighters have a larger hit die, so even before adding in constitution modifiers, your default fighter has more hit points.
If anything, cantrips make it easier for new D&D players to play an unoptimized wizard/cleric instead of basically defaulting to fighter. Run out of spell slots? It's okay, you're not totally useless because you have a cantrip that has some use.
This also doesn't take into account that offensive cantrips basically replace standard range weapons that spellcasters already had access to in previous editions. Except with range weapons, you can add damage modifiers, which you can't do with cantrips.
As far as if fighters in general are underpowered compared to spellcasters? I don't think so because 5E has radically rebalanced saving throws, but that's another topic.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
So - I've had a chance to run a 5e game for the past few years, which included a Fighter and Sorcerer - and from what I saw, the Firebolt and its damage wasnt as impressive as you think.
First - it's most impactful at level 1 (when doing 1d10 is meaningful), but the important element here is that Wizards (or Sorcerers) dont get to add any modifier damage to their attack. So our level 1 Fighter two-handing his Warhammer was dealing 1d10+3 damage from the start. 4-13 vs 1-10 is pretty meaningfully different.
Add to that the fact that the fighter usually has more HP, and a higher AC - and now they've got a ton of valuable combat utility that exceeds Wizard + firebolt. The wizard has other interesting combat utility in the form of his spells, but for raw damage: our 2h fighter was easily outpacing the cantrips of the Wizard.
Which is how it should be IMO. Wizards should have higher burst damage, and more CC/control in battles - but less consistent damage and no tanking.
Its is worth keeping in mind that Firebolt is only 1 cantrip. There are others that deal less damage but do something else (like pulling an enemy closer, etc).
The thing is though. You are comparing an optimised Fighter to what the Wizard gets by default. And that is part of a bigger pattern within DnD design -- Fighters having to optimise and specialise to just keep up with the potential of caster classes.
I have to disagree about that being the optimized fighter. By default, a fighter should have at least a 16 in strength (or 16 in dexterity if going for a finesse build), which is where the +3 damage modifier comes from. Same as a wizard/cleric should have 16 in intelligence/wisdom before figuring out any other stats.
Similarly, the higher AC is also almost by default: fighters can wear armor (and start with armor) while wizards can't. Same with hit points: fighters have a larger hit die, so even before adding in constitution modifiers, your default fighter has more hit points.
If anything, cantrips make it easier for new D&D players to play an unoptimized wizard/cleric instead of basically defaulting to fighter. Run out of spell slots? It's okay, you're not totally useless because you have a cantrip that has some use.
This also doesn't take into account that offensive cantrips basically replace standard range weapons that spellcasters already had access to in previous editions. Except with range weapons, you can add damage modifiers, which you can't do with cantrips.
As far as if fighters in general are underpowered compared to spellcasters? I don't think so because 5E has radically rebalanced saving throws, but that's another topic.
Yeah. This. I think it's reasonable to start from a baseline of assuming the player has created a character that uses their stats in a reasonable fashion. I'm fairly certain that when WotC attempted to balance level 1 cantrips vs other level 1 classes, it was with the assumption that those classes will have used the point buy or standard stat association in a reasonable way - and it's important to consider that the above is in no way a min-max build. Just that a fighter who plans on using their attack to deal damage with have synergized their stats to be pretty good at it.
No race/feats/archetypes/etc considered. Just stats and class.
A character can't have more than 15 in an attribute at start using point buy or standard array. Having a 16 is very much optimising it. A d10 is one if the highest damage dice you can have. Sure, there are greater two-handed weapons, so it's not an optimised two-handed fighter. But it's still choosing one of the higher damage weapons instead of going for a d8 or d6. Optimisation over flavour.
And once again. The spell also have a reach of 120, longer than all ranged weapons except the Longbow (including the 1d10 Heavy Crossbow at 100, which by the way only allows you to fire one bolt per action even when you get multiple attacks while Firebolt levels up go eventually give you 4d10). This is not some kind of last ditch cantrip for when your wizard is cornered in close combat, this is a metaphorical longarm in comparison to a Fighters melee weapons (and since only the Longbow is better, once again requires optimisation for a ranged Fighter not to be outclassed).
A character can't have more than 15 in an attribute at start using point buy or standard array. Having a 16 is very much optimising it. A d10 is one if the highest damage dice you can have. Sure, there are greater two-handed weapons, so it's not an optimised two-handed fighter. But it's still choosing one of the higher damage weapons instead of going for a d8 or d6. Optimisation over flavour.
And once again. The spell also have a reach of 120, longer than all ranged weapons except the Longbow (including the 1d10 Heavy Crossbow at 100, which by the way only allows you to fire one bolt per action even when you get multiple attacks while Firebolt levels up go eventually give you 4d10). This is not some kind of last ditch cantrip for when your wizard is cornered in close combat, this is a metaphorical longarm in comparison to a Fighters melee weapons (and since only the Longbow is better, once again requires optimisation for a ranged Fighter not to be outclassed).
You're right that you cannot have above 15. If you include racial strength then you can get that up to 16+
Regardless. There's a presumed optimization because the Spell caster still has to hit. 1d10 doesnt matter a whole lot if they are unable to hit with it - and their bonus to hit will use their spell casting modifier. Meaning that the wizard will also need to be appropriately played in order to be effective with their means to hit.
Even a Shortsword with +2 from damage is 3-8 dmg, with an effective average of 5.5. A Wizard's Firebolt does 1d10 with an effective average of... 5.5. Since I simply reject the idea that using the standard array in order to give your character class's primary stat priority is somehow a departure from the way you are expected to the play the game - it's pretty clear the firebolt isnt some end-all-be-all unbalanced cantrip.
The range bit is inconsequential. You cannot adequately compare the range of Firebolt against a Fighter's AC advantage from better armor, HP and such. Onr id not objectively better than the other.
So at the end of the day, a Fighter and Wizard can hit for roughly the same amount of damage, and each have valuable and distinctly different combat utility. Sounds balanced to me.
As someone who has *literally* just gone through 2 years of table top gaming with first hand experience having a Wizard, Fighter, Bard, Druid and Ranger from level 1 through level 10 (Technically subbed the Wizard for a Sorcerer, Both had Firebolt though)- I can speak from a great deal of personal experience that the only lack of balance was that Rangers are not strong in 5e, and that Fighters are much stronger than their counterparts until the Wizard/Sorcerer gets Fireball.
In fact - while you argue that Firebolt is some offender of upsetting balance, you're missing that there are other cantrips that hit *harder*. For example - Poison Spray is a cantrip our Druid has. it does 1d12 damage provided the opponent fails a Con save. In my experience, most enemies have a lower Con savings throw than AC. That cantrip goes up to 2d12 at level 5.
The range bit is inconsequential. You cannot adequately compare the range of Firebolt against a Fighter's AC advantage from better armor, HP and such. Onr id not objectively better than the other.
In fact - while you argue that Firebolt is some offender of upsetting balance, you're missing that there are other cantrips that hit *harder*. For example - Poison Spray is a cantrip our Druid has. it does 1d12 damage provided the opponent fails a Con save. In my experience, most enemies have a lower Con savings throw than AC. That cantrip goes up to 2d12 at level 5.
It's almost like if there's a wider pattern in DnD of fighters having to specialise and optimise just to keep up with casters.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
Unlimited cantrips, and later higher level spells, make magic users superior to warriors at both the lowest and the highest levels. There is basically no reason to use a non magical fighter at this point unless you like making things harder for yourself. There used to be a sort of balance where warriors would have an easier time during the challenging earliest levels, only to have a harder time later on. Now they always have the harder time. Add on total b.s mechanics like sorcery points and there is practically no limit to the amount of magic you can throw around per battle if you have even an average knowledge of the mechanics. Sorcerer X/Warlock 2 abuses this to the maximum extent to get nearly unlimited castings of everything.
BG3 makes this worse because now all your cantrips have secondary effects that make them even more useful than swinging your weapon around. You can disable, do damage over time, and more all while doing normal spell damage in the first levels. Magic > Fighting in every possible scenario.
5e sacrificed everything on the altar of balance and convenience and I just don't think the end result is very good.
2e warriors would stomp on a mage of equal level during the early levels, it would be an even fight during the mid levels, and the mage has a clear advantage during the high levels. I would say that strikes a sort of balance, without having every class be equal at all times. Where is the enjoyment in always being the weaker choice?
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
Unlimited cantrips, and later higher level spells, make magic users superior to warriors at both the lowest and the highest levels. There is basically no reason to use a non magical fighter at this point unless you like making things harder for yourself. There used to be a sort of balance where warriors would have an easier time during the challenging earliest levels, only to have a harder time later on. Now they always have the harder time. Add on total b.s mechanics like sorcery points and there is practically no limit to the amount of magic you can throw around per battle if you have even an average knowledge of the mechanics. Sorcerer X/Warlock 2 abuses this to the maximum extent to get nearly unlimited castings of everything.
BG3 makes this worse because now all your cantrips have secondary effects that make them even more useful than swinging your weapon around. You can disable, do damage over time, and more all while doing normal spell damage in the first levels. Magic > Fighting in every possible scenario.
5e sacrificed everything on the altar of balance and convenience and I just don't think the end result is very good.
2e warriors would stomp on a mage of equal level during the early levels, it would be an even fight during the mid levels, and the mage has a clear advantage during the high levels. I would say that strikes a sort of balance, without having every class be equal at all times. Where is the enjoyment in always being the weaker choice?
I thought unlimited cantrips sounded like a good idea. People used to complain that in NWN (that's 3.5e, right?) spellcasters were at a severe disadvantage (especially because you can only have a henchman and not a balanced party) because of the heavy resting restrictions in dungeons where fighters would just waltz through.
I used to think that unlimited cantrips would solve that problem, but the way you put it, fighters would always seem to be the inferior choice.
Maybe to implement x amount of cantrips or spells per encounter instead of per rest vs unlimited would have been more balanced.
I certainly like the premise of unlimited cantrips. In 3.5 the idea was that cantrips was these tiny spells that mages do a lot and become very familiar was. Things that don't necessarily have a big mechanical effect but are nice to have for utility or just flavour. Things like causing light to shine, moving a small object, igniting a candle-flame, or dusting yourself off. It didn't make sense to limit these small effects by making them take up cantrips spell slots. It just became a gold (and exp, since creating your own items cost experience points) sink to buy or make wands that do these things for you. Iirc one of the first items you pick up or even start with in NwN1 is a want of unlimited Frost Rays.
But 3e also introduced combat cantrips. Spells that I don't think anyone actually used for anything other than wands either. Now, 3e's combtrips were pretty much pointless. With damage dice like 1d3 or 1d4 and haing to be prepared there's very little I reason to even bother. With unlimited castings they're at least not pointless, but the damage is still very low. I said above that I think the right die for combtrips is d6s or d8s, which are on par with most weapons.
However, that is from a mechanical standpoint. From a flavour perspective there's still the issue of when combat cantrips become well-damaging and constant combat they stop being tiny spells that are more useful for utility and roleplay than anything else. So they're no longer really cantrips in the way they originally was envisioned. It's a step towards a flavour of fantasy that isn't just high magic but where magic is also trivial. "Unfantastical fantasy". The kind were immolating people with magical fire is such a trifle that you can do it all day and the only limit is how long it takes you to get bored of it or for you to develop carpal wrist syndrome from the hand symbols. And I don't really have a solution for that.
Something I was meaning to write about is a compromise for 3.5 I saw in what I remember to have been a mod for NwN2 (I am not 100% certain I recall correctly). There they had spells which as long as you had one such spell prepared you could use a damaging spell ability an unlimited amount of times per day. I'm not sure how they worked for spontaneous casters -- maybe these just needed to have a single spell use left. In 5e terms I think this would translate to being able to use the ability an unlimited amount of times as long as you still have at least one spell slot left or something. I think this is a fairly good compromise for unlimited castings of higher damage.
Another one would be having low damage cantrips by default and having a feat give you improved versions of those cantrips.
Both sides have a point here. I think unlimited cantrips was a fantastic idea, giving mages the ability to do...anything more than once or twice a day. The damage cantrips are a bit too strong though and are causing an actively bad competition for consistent damage effectiveness with other classes who are supposed to be able to deal consistent damage as part of their package.
I'd cut the damage dice down by 1/3 (or even 1/2). Heck, removing direct damage cantrips may be a good idea as well. There's some real good utility in other cantrips already. Maybe have cantrips that add a brief, weak debuff that synergizes with other classes. It gives mages something to do still and would enable other classes to do their thing better, rather than just let low level mages do it all.
I have no problem with unlimited cantrips, myself. My problem is Firebolt doing 1d10 damage, like a two-hand-wielded longsword, at the range of a Longbow. Fighters getting outclassed again at the very thing that is supposed to be what they bring to the table -- sustainable, no-use-up-able damage. I'd prefer it if it was a d6 or d8. Combat cantrips in 3.5 were all 1d4 or 1d3 iirc, which I always felt was too low.
Unlimited cantrips, and later higher level spells, make magic users superior to warriors at both the lowest and the highest levels. There is basically no reason to use a non magical fighter at this point unless you like making things harder for yourself. There used to be a sort of balance where warriors would have an easier time during the challenging earliest levels, only to have a harder time later on. Now they always have the harder time. Add on total b.s mechanics like sorcery points and there is practically no limit to the amount of magic you can throw around per battle if you have even an average knowledge of the mechanics. Sorcerer X/Warlock 2 abuses this to the maximum extent to get nearly unlimited castings of everything.
BG3 makes this worse because now all your cantrips have secondary effects that make them even more useful than swinging your weapon around. You can disable, do damage over time, and more all while doing normal spell damage in the first levels. Magic > Fighting in every possible scenario.
5e sacrificed everything on the altar of balance and convenience and I just don't think the end result is very good.
2e warriors would stomp on a mage of equal level during the early levels, it would be an even fight during the mid levels, and the mage has a clear advantage during the high levels. I would say that strikes a sort of balance, without having every class be equal at all times. Where is the enjoyment in always being the weaker choice?
I thought unlimited cantrips sounded like a good idea. People used to complain that in NWN (that's 3.5e, right?) spellcasters were at a severe disadvantage (especially because you can only have a henchman and not a balanced party) because of the heavy resting restrictions in dungeons where fighters would just waltz through.
I used to think that unlimited cantrips would solve that problem, but the way you put it, fighters would always seem to be the inferior choice.
Maybe to implement x amount of cantrips or spells per encounter instead of per rest vs unlimited would have been more balanced.
Honestly - they're not overpowered. Fighters are still the most consistently useful and functionally important class in combat in D&D. A party with 4 mages would have a much harder time getting through any standard module than a party of 4 fighters, and the reason is because fighters are more than the sum of their parts. They're also far more versatile.
Also lost in this conversation is that spell casters quickly abandon cantrips in favor of their more powerful abilities. The Firebolt (or whatever) is more of a filler move when the right opportunity hasnt presented itself. By the time you have 10 or more non cantrip casts a day, you'll be leaning on those a great deal more than anything else.
Fighters get 2 attacks at level 5, 3 attacks at level 10 and 4 attacks at level 15. They get some of the best utility actions in the game (Second wind for spot healing, Action Surge to add an entire extra attack action) - and both replenish on each short rest.
Both sides have a point here. I think unlimited cantrips was a fantastic idea, giving mages the ability to do...anything more than once or twice a day. The damage cantrips are a bit too strong though and are causing an actively bad competition for consistent damage effectiveness with other classes who are supposed to be able to deal consistent damage as part of their package.
I'd cut the damage dice down by 1/3 (or even 1/2). Heck, removing direct damage cantrips may be a good idea as well. There's some real good utility in other cantrips already. Maybe have cantrips that add a brief, weak debuff that synergizes with other classes. It gives mages something to do still and would enable other classes to do their thing better, rather than just let low level mages do it all.
I recommend you try playing at the table and see how this goes. I dont think there was a single session of D&D I had where the Wizard/Sorcerer dealt more damage than the fighter until the Sorcerer got Fireball at level 5. it's really pretty much a non issue. Fighters do more damage on average (A lot more damage). They tank incoming damage, the create space. They do a *ton*.
The fighter at my table who is not min-maxed right now, has a great axe +1 (which is weak for level 10). He has a +9 to hit. He does 1d12+7 damage per hit. Rerolls any damage dice of a 1 or 2. The wizard's firebolt does 2d10. Period. That's it.
Even if you back up to just level 4, he was doing 1d12+5 with a +7 to hit.
@BallpointMan "I recommend you try playing at the table and see how this goes."
I have. Cantrips are REALLY good. For utility, that's only a positive, but the damage is a little much for low levels. It needs to be scaled back a bit.
@BallpointMan "I recommend you try playing at the table and see how this goes."
I have. Cantrips are REALLY good. For utility, that's only a positive, but the damage is a little much for low levels. It needs to be scaled back a bit.
Cool - When did you play? What classes were in the party? What module or level did you play at? What cantrips did the caster have/use?
@BallpointMan I played bard and had the cantrips. We started with the introductory campaign in the starter box. They are REAL good at level 1.
... Bards have two damage dealing cantrips. One does 1d6 on a failed Con savings throw(5 foot range). The other does 1d4 on a failed wisdom savings throw (and grants disadvantage on its next attack roll). Those are the "REAL good" level 1 cantrips?
For comparison, a Bard also has proficiency in Longsword and Rapier, which do 1d8 before any modifiers (and can use Strength or Dex for that modifier depending on which you choose).
@BallpointMan I played bard and had the cantrips. We started with the introductory campaign in the starter box. They are REAL good at level 1.
... Bards have two damage dealing cantrips. One does 1d6 on a failed Con savings throw(5 foot range). The other does 1d4 on a failed wisdom savings throw (and grants disadvantage on its next attack roll). Those are the "REAL good" level 1 cantrips?
For comparison, a Bard also has proficiency in Longsword and Rapier, which do 1d8 before any modifiers (and can use Strength or Dex for that modifier depending on which you choose).
I think I'm done with this.
Oh yes, because there is no way that people have had different experiences from you, it MUST be all rubbish. There are cantrips other than the two damage ones for bards, and some of the illusion stuff is extremely strong at level 1. I also don't see why a bard's 1d6 somehow means that 1d10 wizard cantrips aren't strong.
I agree with about 90% of what @BallpointMan has said, so I don't have much more to add.
My last point as to why I don't think cantrips are overpowered is that your typical spellcaster isn't optimized to hit with them. So yes, they can do the same average damage as other characters when they connect, but in playing, I haven't seen them consistently hit (except maybe Eldritch Blast - but that's one spell out of many and the character may have been more optimized than I remember). For example, as a cleric, a target needs to fail a decently low saving throw to be affected by a cantrip (13 in my current campaign! I think that's low!). If the target passes, then no effect. For wizards making attacks with cantrips, their attack modifiers aren't generally high enough to consistently hit a target with a decent AC.
The other side of the coin with using (offensive) cantrips is that they take up your entire action. So if you biff your attack roll or the target makes a saving throw, then you're SOL and can't cast any other spells that take an action. For the risk/reward, I think cantrips are balanced about as good as they can be.
Comments
I do think the skill system in 5th edition is probably one of the elements that need the most adaptations, since a computer is not flexible enough. As stated above - the numeric difference in skill and success probability is not sufficient to capture the different aptitudes of characters.
There's a lot of ways an experienced dungeon master can improve his storytelling here, e.g. look at two characters climbing a wall, one is a fit, experienced climber the other one is a weakly mage. Due to how the system is set up it is easily possible that both fail their rolls - but the DM can state that for the mage failure = falling (also keeping in mind that the mage has featherfall as a backup), while for the more experienced character it is a more minor issue, like dropping a weapon or slipping and taking minor damage.
In my experiences computer games usually work best with fixed thresholds for success and failure in dialogue and knowledge checks and much more restricted randomness for things like climbing compared to just translating 5th edition.
Not really. The approach has been pretty faithful to 5e overall, but we only just got access to the actual game in order to see the ways in which it is different. It still is pretty faithful from what I can see, but there are plenty of small changes based on being EA and balance - along with some pull in concepts from DOS2.
For example, the cantrip that is probably the most useful combat cantrip, Firebolt, got nerfed from 1d10 fire damage to 1d6. But it also very likely sets people on fire (guaranteed unless they are standing in water, I think) and leaves an fire environmental spot on the ground, meaning a probable further 1d4 or more. So it's actually slightly buffed to at least 2-10 fire damage. Just not immediately so.
Nothing like missing your ray of frost only to have it freeze the ground and knock them prone ?
These are cantrips. The lowest level of magic. And in a fit of insanity 5e gives you infinite castings.
In theory you just practice casting them so much that casting them is almost second nature. But it still is a bit weird. Especially when it takes you until 18th level to do the same for first and second level spells (and only for wizards).
Cantrips are probably one of the most popular features of 5e. It finally brings pure spell casters into the fold as characters with consistent encounter utility. Gone are the obnoxious days of level 1 wizards having 4 hp and 2 spell casts to be useful for a rest. Now they have cantrips and can be consistently useful, and use their bigger spells when needed.
Cantrips are a *fantastic* addition to the game.
If I am fairly certain of anything, it's that cantrips will be a baseline feature for each edition of D&D moving forward for quite some time, until they can replicate the same effect and make it better.
So - I've had a chance to run a 5e game for the past few years, which included a Fighter and Sorcerer - and from what I saw, the Firebolt and its damage wasnt as impressive as you think.
First - it's most impactful at level 1 (when doing 1d10 is meaningful), but the important element here is that Wizards (or Sorcerers) dont get to add any modifier damage to their attack. So our level 1 Fighter two-handing his Warhammer was dealing 1d10+3 damage from the start. 4-13 vs 1-10 is pretty meaningfully different.
Add to that the fact that the fighter usually has more HP, and a higher AC - and now they've got a ton of valuable combat utility that exceeds Wizard + firebolt. The wizard has other interesting combat utility in the form of his spells, but for raw damage: our 2h fighter was easily outpacing the cantrips of the Wizard.
Which is how it should be IMO. Wizards should have higher burst damage, and more CC/control in battles - but less consistent damage and no tanking.
Its is worth keeping in mind that Firebolt is only 1 cantrip. There are others that deal less damage but do something else (like pulling an enemy closer, etc).
The thing is though. You are comparing an optimised Fighter to what the Wizard gets by default. And that is part of a bigger pattern within DnD design -- Fighters having to optimise and specialise to just keep up with the potential of caster classes.
I have to disagree about that being the optimized fighter. By default, a fighter should have at least a 16 in strength (or 16 in dexterity if going for a finesse build), which is where the +3 damage modifier comes from. Same as a wizard/cleric should have 16 in intelligence/wisdom before figuring out any other stats.
Similarly, the higher AC is also almost by default: fighters can wear armor (and start with armor) while wizards can't. Same with hit points: fighters have a larger hit die, so even before adding in constitution modifiers, your default fighter has more hit points.
If anything, cantrips make it easier for new D&D players to play an unoptimized wizard/cleric instead of basically defaulting to fighter. Run out of spell slots? It's okay, you're not totally useless because you have a cantrip that has some use.
This also doesn't take into account that offensive cantrips basically replace standard range weapons that spellcasters already had access to in previous editions. Except with range weapons, you can add damage modifiers, which you can't do with cantrips.
As far as if fighters in general are underpowered compared to spellcasters? I don't think so because 5E has radically rebalanced saving throws, but that's another topic.
Yeah. This. I think it's reasonable to start from a baseline of assuming the player has created a character that uses their stats in a reasonable fashion. I'm fairly certain that when WotC attempted to balance level 1 cantrips vs other level 1 classes, it was with the assumption that those classes will have used the point buy or standard stat association in a reasonable way - and it's important to consider that the above is in no way a min-max build. Just that a fighter who plans on using their attack to deal damage with have synergized their stats to be pretty good at it.
No race/feats/archetypes/etc considered. Just stats and class.
And once again. The spell also have a reach of 120, longer than all ranged weapons except the Longbow (including the 1d10 Heavy Crossbow at 100, which by the way only allows you to fire one bolt per action even when you get multiple attacks while Firebolt levels up go eventually give you 4d10). This is not some kind of last ditch cantrip for when your wizard is cornered in close combat, this is a metaphorical longarm in comparison to a Fighters melee weapons (and since only the Longbow is better, once again requires optimisation for a ranged Fighter not to be outclassed).
You're right that you cannot have above 15. If you include racial strength then you can get that up to 16+
Regardless. There's a presumed optimization because the Spell caster still has to hit. 1d10 doesnt matter a whole lot if they are unable to hit with it - and their bonus to hit will use their spell casting modifier. Meaning that the wizard will also need to be appropriately played in order to be effective with their means to hit.
Even a Shortsword with +2 from damage is 3-8 dmg, with an effective average of 5.5. A Wizard's Firebolt does 1d10 with an effective average of... 5.5. Since I simply reject the idea that using the standard array in order to give your character class's primary stat priority is somehow a departure from the way you are expected to the play the game - it's pretty clear the firebolt isnt some end-all-be-all unbalanced cantrip.
The range bit is inconsequential. You cannot adequately compare the range of Firebolt against a Fighter's AC advantage from better armor, HP and such. Onr id not objectively better than the other.
So at the end of the day, a Fighter and Wizard can hit for roughly the same amount of damage, and each have valuable and distinctly different combat utility. Sounds balanced to me.
As someone who has *literally* just gone through 2 years of table top gaming with first hand experience having a Wizard, Fighter, Bard, Druid and Ranger from level 1 through level 10 (Technically subbed the Wizard for a Sorcerer, Both had Firebolt though)- I can speak from a great deal of personal experience that the only lack of balance was that Rangers are not strong in 5e, and that Fighters are much stronger than their counterparts until the Wizard/Sorcerer gets Fireball.
In fact - while you argue that Firebolt is some offender of upsetting balance, you're missing that there are other cantrips that hit *harder*. For example - Poison Spray is a cantrip our Druid has. it does 1d12 damage provided the opponent fails a Con save. In my experience, most enemies have a lower Con savings throw than AC. That cantrip goes up to 2d12 at level 5.
You're certainly allowed to think so. I disagree.
It's almost like if there's a wider pattern in DnD of fighters having to specialise and optimise just to keep up with casters.
Unlimited cantrips, and later higher level spells, make magic users superior to warriors at both the lowest and the highest levels. There is basically no reason to use a non magical fighter at this point unless you like making things harder for yourself. There used to be a sort of balance where warriors would have an easier time during the challenging earliest levels, only to have a harder time later on. Now they always have the harder time. Add on total b.s mechanics like sorcery points and there is practically no limit to the amount of magic you can throw around per battle if you have even an average knowledge of the mechanics. Sorcerer X/Warlock 2 abuses this to the maximum extent to get nearly unlimited castings of everything.
BG3 makes this worse because now all your cantrips have secondary effects that make them even more useful than swinging your weapon around. You can disable, do damage over time, and more all while doing normal spell damage in the first levels. Magic > Fighting in every possible scenario.
5e sacrificed everything on the altar of balance and convenience and I just don't think the end result is very good.
2e warriors would stomp on a mage of equal level during the early levels, it would be an even fight during the mid levels, and the mage has a clear advantage during the high levels. I would say that strikes a sort of balance, without having every class be equal at all times. Where is the enjoyment in always being the weaker choice?
I thought unlimited cantrips sounded like a good idea. People used to complain that in NWN (that's 3.5e, right?) spellcasters were at a severe disadvantage (especially because you can only have a henchman and not a balanced party) because of the heavy resting restrictions in dungeons where fighters would just waltz through.
I used to think that unlimited cantrips would solve that problem, but the way you put it, fighters would always seem to be the inferior choice.
Maybe to implement x amount of cantrips or spells per encounter instead of per rest vs unlimited would have been more balanced.
But 3e also introduced combat cantrips. Spells that I don't think anyone actually used for anything other than wands either. Now, 3e's combtrips were pretty much pointless. With damage dice like 1d3 or 1d4 and haing to be prepared there's very little I reason to even bother. With unlimited castings they're at least not pointless, but the damage is still very low. I said above that I think the right die for combtrips is d6s or d8s, which are on par with most weapons.
However, that is from a mechanical standpoint. From a flavour perspective there's still the issue of when combat cantrips become well-damaging and constant combat they stop being tiny spells that are more useful for utility and roleplay than anything else. So they're no longer really cantrips in the way they originally was envisioned. It's a step towards a flavour of fantasy that isn't just high magic but where magic is also trivial. "Unfantastical fantasy". The kind were immolating people with magical fire is such a trifle that you can do it all day and the only limit is how long it takes you to get bored of it or for you to develop carpal wrist syndrome from the hand symbols. And I don't really have a solution for that.
Something I was meaning to write about is a compromise for 3.5 I saw in what I remember to have been a mod for NwN2 (I am not 100% certain I recall correctly). There they had spells which as long as you had one such spell prepared you could use a damaging spell ability an unlimited amount of times per day. I'm not sure how they worked for spontaneous casters -- maybe these just needed to have a single spell use left. In 5e terms I think this would translate to being able to use the ability an unlimited amount of times as long as you still have at least one spell slot left or something. I think this is a fairly good compromise for unlimited castings of higher damage.
Another one would be having low damage cantrips by default and having a feat give you improved versions of those cantrips.
I'd cut the damage dice down by 1/3 (or even 1/2). Heck, removing direct damage cantrips may be a good idea as well. There's some real good utility in other cantrips already. Maybe have cantrips that add a brief, weak debuff that synergizes with other classes. It gives mages something to do still and would enable other classes to do their thing better, rather than just let low level mages do it all.
Honestly - they're not overpowered. Fighters are still the most consistently useful and functionally important class in combat in D&D. A party with 4 mages would have a much harder time getting through any standard module than a party of 4 fighters, and the reason is because fighters are more than the sum of their parts. They're also far more versatile.
Also lost in this conversation is that spell casters quickly abandon cantrips in favor of their more powerful abilities. The Firebolt (or whatever) is more of a filler move when the right opportunity hasnt presented itself. By the time you have 10 or more non cantrip casts a day, you'll be leaning on those a great deal more than anything else.
Fighters get 2 attacks at level 5, 3 attacks at level 10 and 4 attacks at level 15. They get some of the best utility actions in the game (Second wind for spot healing, Action Surge to add an entire extra attack action) - and both replenish on each short rest.
I recommend you try playing at the table and see how this goes. I dont think there was a single session of D&D I had where the Wizard/Sorcerer dealt more damage than the fighter until the Sorcerer got Fireball at level 5. it's really pretty much a non issue. Fighters do more damage on average (A lot more damage). They tank incoming damage, the create space. They do a *ton*.
The fighter at my table who is not min-maxed right now, has a great axe +1 (which is weak for level 10). He has a +9 to hit. He does 1d12+7 damage per hit. Rerolls any damage dice of a 1 or 2. The wizard's firebolt does 2d10. Period. That's it.
Even if you back up to just level 4, he was doing 1d12+5 with a +7 to hit.
I have. Cantrips are REALLY good. For utility, that's only a positive, but the damage is a little much for low levels. It needs to be scaled back a bit.
Cool - When did you play? What classes were in the party? What module or level did you play at? What cantrips did the caster have/use?
... Bards have two damage dealing cantrips. One does 1d6 on a failed Con savings throw(5 foot range). The other does 1d4 on a failed wisdom savings throw (and grants disadvantage on its next attack roll). Those are the "REAL good" level 1 cantrips?
For comparison, a Bard also has proficiency in Longsword and Rapier, which do 1d8 before any modifiers (and can use Strength or Dex for that modifier depending on which you choose).
I think I'm done with this.
Oh yes, because there is no way that people have had different experiences from you, it MUST be all rubbish. There are cantrips other than the two damage ones for bards, and some of the illusion stuff is extremely strong at level 1. I also don't see why a bard's 1d6 somehow means that 1d10 wizard cantrips aren't strong.
My last point as to why I don't think cantrips are overpowered is that your typical spellcaster isn't optimized to hit with them. So yes, they can do the same average damage as other characters when they connect, but in playing, I haven't seen them consistently hit (except maybe Eldritch Blast - but that's one spell out of many and the character may have been more optimized than I remember). For example, as a cleric, a target needs to fail a decently low saving throw to be affected by a cantrip (13 in my current campaign! I think that's low!). If the target passes, then no effect. For wizards making attacks with cantrips, their attack modifiers aren't generally high enough to consistently hit a target with a decent AC.
The other side of the coin with using (offensive) cantrips is that they take up your entire action. So if you biff your attack roll or the target makes a saving throw, then you're SOL and can't cast any other spells that take an action. For the risk/reward, I think cantrips are balanced about as good as they can be.