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

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

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

I'm mostly okay with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Burning Hands ISN'T a cantrip.

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

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

Also Burning Hands ISN'T a cantrip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it's a favorite of mine. Sorry.