I went to 7 days for a long rest and that completely solved the 5e balance issues. The imbalance in 5e comes from the difficulty of running 6-8 fights per LR if a LR is only 8 hours.

For low magic DnD I use the OSRIC 1e clone with weapon spec, random MU spells, max hp at 1st level and halve official NPC levels so eg Elminster is MU 13.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135204I'm obviously not the OP, but one thing I've noticed is that 5e seems to have embraced D&D's IMO already broken spell casting system--along the game's HP bloat from characters basically multiplying their HP by their level--and made high damage spells standard. Even lower level spells can do multiple dice of damage, such as Burning Hands (LV 1) inflicting 3d6 to all targets in a 15' cone, and even cantrips--which can be casted unlimited times per day--doing 1d10 points of damage (1d6 if it can affect multiple targets) as a base, which is more damage than you can do with a sword. And a cantrip's damage increases, gaining up to three additional dice based the caster's level (4d10 by level 17). Meanwhile a longsword always does 1d8 (2d8 on a crit) +STR damage.

Granted, a Fighter (and only Fighters) can get up to three bonus attacks by level 20. But that's four separate attacks you have to roll to hit for individually, and only as part of a full attack action, which doesn't always apply. Meanwhile a level 20 mage has 4d10 damage cantrips and a crapton of high damage spells, including Meteor Swarm, which does 20 freaking d6s of fire damage, plus an extra 20d6 of blunt damage (you have to roll 40d6 total, like this is freaking Shadowrun) across a 40' radius sphere up a mile away.

I have no clue how I would fix this (at least not right off the bat), but taking a hammer to the spell system would inevitably be part of the solution, cuz IMO pumping up all warriors to a wizard's already broken level would only make things worse.

Cantrips are dog shit compared to a fighter attacking with a Longsword. At early levels, a Fire bolt is doing 1D10 damage, plus nothing. The fighter has Dueling fighting specialization so does 1D8+2+STR bonus, which is probably 3. So 1D10 vs 1D8+5. The latter is clearly better. Cantrips then gain more damage yeah, but they don't keep up with Fighter damage. Multiple attacks are better than stacking more damage into a single cantrip. At level 5, the Wizard does 2D10 damage with a Fire bolt. The Fighter meanwhile has two attacks and has probably increased STR. So each attack does 1D8+6 damage. And the fighter does not have everything riding on one attack roll, like the Wizard. This is a positive, rather than a negative as it makes it more likely at least one of the attacks will hit and do damage. The fighter can also split his attacks. Say he kills one enemy with attack one, okay, on to the next one. The Wizard meanwhile cannot do that with a cantrip. And this is with a longsword, not the biggest damage dealer in the game but chosen for added defensive capabilities, vs Fire bolt, the Wizard cantrip that does the most damage. If you want to compare a real damage focused fighter, you need someone with a great sword and great weapon specialization. 2D6 plus STR bonus damage per hit, re-roll any 1s and 2s on the first roll.

IME only warlock eldritch blast damage is anywhere near Fighter damage. The big Wizard advantage is AoE vs mook hordes. But that usually means soften up the mooks for the Fighters.

My Princes of the Apocalypse campaign group is:
2 Fighters
1 Monk
1 Barbarian
1 Cleric
1 Druid
1 Sorcerer

At 6-8 fights/LR all 7 are well balanced ime.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1135239Sounds like 5e is continuing the legacy of 3e, which made fighters a lot less unique and spellcasters much more powerful than their 2e counterparts. Here is an article(the site seems to let you view 3 articles for free per month, so hopefully y'all can still see it) about changes made between 2e and 3e that explain a lot. (I'll remember CoDzilla forever.)

So one solution would simply be to play an older edition(or retroclone thereof). If you want to keep things mostly the same, perhaps add additional casting time(and with it, chances to interrupt) to spells. Or if that's not to your liking, I'm sure someone's come up with a version of E5 or E6 for 5e by now. That always seemed like an elegant enough solution.

Not really. 5e toned down spellcasters very much from 3.5, it just did so in a different way than AD&D did. Concentration, limited spell slots, spells being toned down etc. I find most people complaining about how powerful spellcasters are and how weak Fighters are in 5e have either not really read the rules, or played the game, or they've been adding in a bunch of house rules to make Fighters and other non-magical characters worse.

Linear fighter / quadratic wizard. The problem is less that fighters are underpowered, and more that magic is "safe to use". Thus, the surest path to personal power is arcane knowledge (spellcasting). I believe that this was an emergent problem at the very beginning of the game - even at Gygax's own table. 3e definitely exacerbated the problem.

Quote from: RandyB;1135284Linear fighter / quadratic wizard. The problem is less that fighters are underpowered, and more that magic is "safe to use". Thus, the surest path to personal power is arcane knowledge (spellcasting). I believe that this was an emergent problem at the very beginning of the game - even at Gygax's own table. 3e definitely exacerbated the problem.

5e rolled it back a LOT.
That said, my epic 20 5e game just replaced its Rogue Arcane Trickster with a Wizard Bladesinger. The power increase is very noticeable - suddenly they have access to stuff like Teleport.

Quote from: Blankman;1135271Cantrips are dog shit compared to a fighter attacking with a Longsword. At early levels, a Fire bolt is doing 1D10 damage, plus nothing. The fighter has Dueling fighting specialization so does 1D8+2+STR bonus, which is probably 3. So 1D10 vs 1D8+5. The latter is clearly better. Cantrips then gain more damage yeah, but they don't keep up with Fighter damage. Multiple attacks are better than stacking more damage into a single cantrip. At level 5, the Wizard does 2D10 damage with a Fire bolt. The Fighter meanwhile has two attacks and has probably increased STR. So each attack does 1D8+6 damage. And the fighter does not have everything riding on one attack roll, like the Wizard. This is a positive, rather than a negative as it makes it more likely at least one of the attacks will hit and do damage. The fighter can also split his attacks. Say he kills one enemy with attack one, okay, on to the next one. The Wizard meanwhile cannot do that with a cantrip. And this is with a longsword, not the biggest damage dealer in the game but chosen for added defensive capabilities, vs Fire bolt, the Wizard cantrip that does the most damage. If you want to compare a real damage focused fighter, you need someone with a great sword and great weapon specialization. 2D6 plus STR bonus damage per hit, re-roll any 1s and 2s on the first roll.

Yes, a Fighter does marginally more base damage once you figure in STR bonuses and feats, but that's the only thing he does, and he needs a weapon to do that. Meanwhile the Wizard has a whole arsenal of spells, on top of a decent damage ranged attack that can't be disarmed or run out of ammo or uses. And while you could argue that there's an advantage to rolling each attack separately vs having extra damage dice as part of a single attack, that's a double edged sword, since missing multiple attacks means that the difference is split across multiple rounds.

And multiple attacks only apply as part of a full round action, which means you only have them if you do nothing else that round. If you have to move to reach your opponent you don't get multiple attacks. Level 5+ Wizards always get multi-dice damage attacks, even if they have to move within range or take cover.

Even if you take great swords into account, that's still a melee weapon attack that requires a weapon and two hands to use, and for you to get up close to your target, not an innate ranged attack that can be used indefinitely and never runs out. The only ranged weapon in the game that does 1d10 is the heavy crossbow and that takes time to reload and runs out of ammo.

Also, Concentration aside, I'm not sure how toned down spell casters really are. 5e Cantrips are vastly more powerful and useful than any other edition of the game, and unlike 3e, you get to use them unlimited times a day. Damage spells no longer seem to scale with caster level (other than cantrips), but they all do decent damage. And you seem to have them every single spell level, unlike earlier editions where all you had was Fireball, then you had to wait to gain access to 6th level spells to get Chain Lightning and do marginally more damage. Now every spell level has a decent damage dealer, and they all do more damage than a Fighter of comparable level.

Granted, you could say that Fireball does less maximum damage now doing only 8d6 (vs 10d6 max before), but that's 8d6 right out of the gate vs 5d6 starting damage before. And almost every single other spell that isn't Fireball does more damage now. So that's not so much a nerf (which you don't even notice till level 9, and it's actually a buff till then), as much as it is a reshuffling.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135295Yes, a Fighter does marginally more base damage once you figure in STR bonuses and feats, but that's the only thing he does, and he needs a weapon to do that. Meanwhile the Wizard has a whole arsenal of spells, on top of a decent damage ranged attack that can't be disarmed or run out of ammo or uses. And while you could argue that there's an advantage to rolling each attack separately vs having extra damage dice as part of a single attack, that's a double edged sword, since missing multiple attacks means that the difference is split across multiple rounds.

And multiple attacks only apply as part of a full round action, which means you only have them if you do nothing else that round. If you have to move to reach your opponent you don't get multiple attacks. Level 5+ Wizards always get multi-dice damage attacks, even if they have to move within range or take cover.

Even if you take great swords into account, that's still a melee weapon attack that requires a weapon and two hands to use, and for you to get up close to your target, not an innate ranged attack that can be used indefinitely and never runs out. The only ranged weapon in the game that does 1d10 is the heavy crossbow and that takes time to reload and runs out of ammo.

Also, Concentration aside, I'm not sure how toned down spell casters really are. 5e Cantrips are vastly more powerful and useful than any other edition of the game, and unlike 3e, you get to use them unlimited times a day. Damage spells no longer seem to scale with caster level (other than cantrips), but they all do decent damage. And you seem to have them every single spell level, unlike earlier editions where all you had was Fireball, then you had to wait to gain access to 6th level spells to get Chain Lightning and do marginally more damage. Now every spell level has a decent damage dealer, and they all do more damage than a Fighter of comparable level.

Granted, you could say that Fireball does less maximum damage now doing only 8d6 (vs 10d6 max before), but that's 8d6 right out of the gate vs 5d6 starting damage before. And almost every single other spell that isn't Fireball does more damage now. So that's not so much a nerf (which you don't even notice till level 9, and it's actually a buff till then), as much as it is a reshuffling.

Wrong on so many levels. There is no such thing as a full round action in 5e or any limitation on how far you can move and use your attacks. A fighter with four attacks (so level 20) can action surge, cut down the person next to him, move ten feet and cut down two more people there, move another ten feet and attack three more times, and still have ten feet of movement and two attacks left. See, this is what I mean, someone is complaining about how bad Fighters are in 5e and they don't even know the rules of the game, instead confusing them with 3.X. Full round actions are no longer a thing. They were only a thing in one edition. Stop trying to analyze the rules if you don't fucking know them. If you are actually playing in, or worse DMing, a game where the DM has instituted some full round action house rule, know that you're playing with house rules designed to shit on fighters.

Ranged weapons? A Longbow does 1D8 + Dex modifier. Cantrips don't get ability bonuses to damage (unless you are a Warlock with Agonizing Blast, but Warlocks have only two spell slots anyway), and 1D8+3 is better than 1D10 any day of the week, and twice on Sundays (when the Fighter uses Action Surge), having both a higher floor and higher ceiling. Hell even if you are using a Shortbow you'll do 1D6+3, which is still better than a straight 1D10 most of the dime, considering it runs 4-9 rather than 1-10. And at 4th level that's almost certainly becoming 1D6+4.

Big damage spells next. First a point about earlier editions. No, the spell levels between 3rd and 6th level were not empty of damage spells. First off at spell level 3 (I'm going off the AD&D 2e PHB and OSRIC here) you had Lightning Bolt and Melf's Minute Meteors (2e) as well as Fireball, and the area effect spells were always dangerous as hell to use in a fight. At spell level 4 you had Evard's Black Tentacles (2e), Ice storm, and Shout (2e). At the 5th spell level is where you will find Cloudkill and Cone of Cold, some fucking iconic spells. And the first and second spell levels had direct damage dealing spells too.

Now you can say that a Fireball does more damage at base now, with 8D6 if cast with a level 3 spell slot vs 5D6 when you are level 5. But a Fireball (and so many other spells) scales with level in AD&D. In 5e they don't, you have to use a higher level spell slot if you want to beef up damage. And let's compare those 5D6 vs 8D6. 5D6 is going to average out at 17.5 points of damage. 8D6 is going to average out at 28 points of damage. Okay, that's a pretty big difference. And in AD&D, an average Ogre has 19 HP (4D8+1), in 5e, an average Ogre has 59 HP (7D10+21). A Fireball that does maximum damage in AD&D, wven with just 5D6, is going to vaporize any but the toughest ogre, and even just an average hit is going to almost kill an average ogre. A max damage 5e Fireball, cast with a third level slot, isn't going to kill even an average ogre. One that does average damage isn't even going to take half its HP away. And if the Ogre saves and takes half damage, you just did less damage with a 3rd level spell slot than what a Longsword-wielding 5th level Fighter should be pumping out on average to that Ogre, on rounds when he isn't doing anything special (17.85 points of damage).

Scaling-wise, cantrips scale so that Wizards and other spellcaster can have any hope of keeping up with Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins in combat. Cantrips are actually good for something now, but a Wizard tossing around a Fire Bolt is not that much different from wizards in older editions using crossbows or throwing daggers. It's what you do when you don't have any better spell options or want to conserve your spells. And yes, no actual spells scale automatically anymore, which removes a large part of the so-called quadraticness from the Wizard.

A Wizard also gets far fewer spell slots in 5e than in most older editions (notable exceptions being B/X and the first ten levels of BECMI) at least after you get past the very early levels. In 5e, a 10th level Wizard has 15 spell slots, in AD&D 2e a 10th level Mage has 15 spell slots (these are distributed nearly the same too, although an AD&D Mage has one more 2nd level slot and one fewer 4th level slot) while a 3.5 Wizard has 16 slots plus 4 cantrip slots plus bonuses from their Intelligence, which is likely to be at least four bonus slots at level 10. At level 20, a 5e Wizard has all of 22 spell slots, only 6 of which are for spells of 6th level or higher, plus two free uses of two third level spells and unlimited uses of a 1st and a 2nd level spell. An AD&D Mage has a varying number of spell slots depending on if they have the Intelligence to use higher level spells (you need an 18 Int to be able to cast 9th level spells, a 16 Int for 8th level spells, a 14 Int for 7th level spell, a 12 Int for 6th level spells and a 10 Int for fifth level spells). Assuming an Intelligence of 16 (high but not insanely so) the Wizard has 32 spell slots available, of which 7 are for 6th and 7th level spells. A 3.5 Wizard meanwhile has 36 spell slots plus four cantrip slots plus whatever bonus slots they get for their Intelligence, likely to be at least 6, probably more.

As can be seen, a 3.5 Wizard has tons more spell slots available than a 5e Wizard does, and even the AD&D 2e Mage is beating out the 5e Wizard in that regard, at least once you get past tenth level.

What I get from all this is that you almost certainly haven't actually played 5e and are confused about the rules of the game. You also don't seem particularly versed in earlier editions of the game. I think you should inform yourself on the games you are going to be discussing and comparing before you do so.

Quote from: S'mon;11352865e rolled it back a LOT.
That said, my epic 20 5e game just replaced its Rogue Arcane Trickster with a Wizard Bladesinger. The power increase is very noticeable - suddenly they have access to stuff like Teleport.

But they lost Expertise and Sneak attack and Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge and Evasion and Reliable Talent and Blindsense and Slippery Mind and Elusive and Stroke of Luck and Spell Thief and all the other cool Arcane Trickster stunts. Teleport in 5e is less reliable than a Star Trek transporter too. There's a pretty good chance you're going to show up injured and not actually where you wanted to go when you use it. And there's no Teleport without Error/Greater Teleport either (double casting Plane Shift can work though).

Quote from: Blankman;1135306Wrong on so many levels. There is no such thing as a full round action in 5e or any limitation on how far you can move and use your attacks. A fighter with four attacks (so level 20) can action surge, cut down the person next to him, move ten feet and cut down two more people there, move another ten feet and attack three more times, and still have ten feet of movement and two attacks left. See, this is what I mean, someone is complaining about how bad Fighters are in 5e and they don't even know the rules of the game, instead confusing them with 3.X. Full round actions are no longer a thing. They were only a thing in one edition. Stop trying to analyze the rules if you don't fucking know them. If you are actually playing in, or worse DMing, a game where the DM has insituted some ful lround action house rule, know that you're playing with house rules designed to shit on fighters.

Ranged weapons? A Longbow does 1D8 + Dex modifier. Cantrips don't get ability bonuses to damage (unless you are a Warlock with Agonizing Blast, but Warlocks have only two spell slots anyway), and 1D8+3 is better than 1D10 any day of the week, and twice on Sundays (when the Fighter uses Action Surge), having both a higher floor and higher ceiling. Hell even if you are using a Shortbow you'll do 1D6+3, which is still better than a straight 1D10 most of the dime, considering it runs 4-9 rather than 1-10. And at 4th level that's almost certainly becoming 1D6+4.

Big damage spells next. First a point about earlier editions. No, the spell levels between 3rd and 6th level were not empty of damage spells. First off at spell level 3 (I'm going off the AD&D 2e PHB and OSRIC here) you had Lightning Bolt and Melf's Minute Meteors (2e) as well as Fireball, and the area effect spells were always dangerous as hell to use in a fight. At spell level 4 you had Evard's Black Tentacles (2e), Ice storm, and Shout (2e). At the 5th spell level is where you will find Cloudkill and Cone of Cold, some fucking iconic spells. And the first and second spell levels had direct damage dealing spells too.

Now you can say that a Fireball does more damage at base now, with 8D6 if cast with a level 3 spell slot vs 5D6 when you are level 5. But a Fireball (and so many other spells) scales with level in AD&D. In 5e they don't, you have to use a higher level spell slot if you want to beef up damage. And let's compare those 5D6 vs 8D6. 5D6 is going to average out at 17.5 points of damage. 8D6 is going to average out at 28 points of damage. Okay, that's a pretty big difference. And in AD&D, an average Ogre has 19 HP (4D8+1), in 5e, an average Ogre has 59 HP (7D10+21). A Fireball that does maximum damage in AD&D, wven with just 5D6, is going to vaporize any but the toughest ogre, and even just an average hit is going to almost kill an average ogre. A max damage 5e Fireball, cast with a third level slot, isn't going to kill even an average ogre. One that does average damage isn't even going to take half its HP away. And if the Ogre saves and takes half damage, you just did less damage with a 3rd level spell slot than what a Longsword-wielding 5th level Fighter should be pumping out on average to that Ogre, on rounds when he isn't doing anything special (17.85 points of damage).

Scaling-wise, cantrips scale so that Wizards and other spellcaster can have any hope of keeping up with Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins in combat. Cantrips are actually good for something now, but a Wizard tossing around a Fire Bolt is not that much different from wizards in older editions using crossbows or throwing daggers. It's what you do when you don't have any better spell options or want to conserve your spells. And yes, no actual spells scale automatically anymore, which removes a large part of the so-called quadraticness from the Wizard.

A Wizard also gets far fewer spell slots in 5e than in most older editions (notable exceptions being B/X and the first ten levels of BECMI) at least after you get past the very early levels. In 5e, a 10th level Wizard has 15 spell slots, in AD&D 2e a 10th level Mage has 15 spell slots (these are distributed nearly the same too, although an AD&D Mage has one more 2nd level slot and one fewer 4th level slot) while a 3.5 Wizard has 16 slots plus 4 cantrip slots plus bonuses from their Intelligence, which is likely to be at least four bonus slots at level 10. At level 20, a 5e Wizard has all of 22 spell slots, only 6 of which are for spells of 6th level or higher, plus two free uses of two third level spells and unlimited uses of a 1st and a 2nd level spell. An AD&D Mage has a varying number of spell slots depending on if they have the Intelligence to use higher level spells (you need an 18 Int to be able to cast 9th level spells, a 16 Int for 8th level spells, a 14 Int for 7th level spell, a 12 Int for 6th level spells and a 10 Int for fifth level spells). Assuming an Intelligence of 16 (high but not insanely so) the Wizard has 32 spell slots available, of which 7 are for 6th and 7th level spells. A 3.5 Wizard meanwhile has 36 spell slots plus four cantrip slots plus whatever bonus slots they get for their Intelligence, likely to be at least 6, probably more.

As can be seen, a 3.5 Wizard has tons more spell slots available than a 5e Wizard does, and even the AD&D 2e Mage is beating out the 5e Wizard in that regard, at least once you get past tenth level.

What I get from all this is that you almost certainly haven't actually played 5e and are confused about the rules of the game. You also don't seem particularly versed in earlier editions of the game. I think you should inform yourself on the games you are going to be discussing and comparing before you do so.

Oh, shit! I'm still going by 3e combat rules out of habit, so I guess the rest of my points don't mean squat.

Ranged weapons are still weapons. You can't even fire a 1d10 heavy crossbow more than once per round, and you don't need a weapon or ammo to use Fire Bolt. But if a bow is so good you can still swap Fire Bolt for a bow if you're an elf, till you run out of ammo.

You also forgot to add Melf's Acid Arrow if you're gonna bring up every low damage spell older editions had, and Lighting Bolt is basically Fireball in a straight line, and not as iconic, hence, why I didn't bring it up. When I said "all you had was Fireball" I meant that as a figure of speech. I know other damage spells TECHNICALLY existed, but with the exception of Fireball (and its re-skinned companion, Lightning Bolt), they're all lukewarm at best, if not outright crap (like Acid Arrow). I did forget about Cone of Cold, which was another decent damage spell I rarely used, so I'll grant you that. But Ice Storm was GARBAGE compared to Fireball, doing less damage than it and taking one full round to cast, despite being one level higher, which was precisely my point about older damage spells and Fireball being "all you had". But in 5e they increased its damage, along with many other spells. Making them more useful now, even without the damage scaling, which for most spells other than Fireball/Lighting Bolt, Cone of Cold and Chain Lightning, was garbage. And even Cone of Cold and Chain Lightning didn't really do THAT much damage compared to Fireball (especially in 2e) when you consider they're several levels higher.

And while Cantrips may theoretically scale in order to allow casters to keep up with warriors, that still goes against the notion that casters were "toned" down in 5e, which was what I was talking about. Because at least as far as cantrips are concerned they had the complete opposite. And you even counted cantrip spell slots of 3e when comparing the number of spell slots between 3e vs 5e, despite 5e casters being able to cast cantrips UNLIMITED times a day, which is why they don't have any. Yet somehow they still count as lost spell slots between editions despite not existing now because they've been replaced with UNLIMITED casting (of BETTER spells!)? And they may have marginally toned down higher level spell slots in 5e, but that balances out with cantrips actually being useful and unlimited, damage spells overall sucking less now, and caster class levels being standardized and streamlined to stack with each other when multi-classing rather than splitting them across classes.

Quote from: GameThug;1135187Can anyone recommend a 5E hack that rebalances the core classes so Fighters in particular don't suck so bad?

simple, remove all damage causing cantrips

I did not notice fighters sucking.  At what point would you experienced folks say they start to suck?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135318Oh, shit! I'm still going by 3e combat rules out of habit, so I guess the rest of my points don't mean squat.

Ranged weapons are still weapons. You can't even fire a 1d10 heavy crossbow more than once per round, and you don't need a weapon or ammo to use Fire Bolt. But if a bow is so good you can still swap Fire Bolt for a bow if you're an elf, till you run out of ammo.

You also forgot to add Melf's Acid Arrow if you're gonna bring up every low damage spell older editions had, and Lighting Bolt is basically Fireball in a straight line, and not as iconic, hence, why I didn't bring it up. When I said "all you had was Fireball" I meant that as a figure of speech. I know other damage spells TECHNICALLY existed, but with the exception of Fireball (and its re-skinned companion, Lightning Bolt), they're all lukewarm at best, if not outright crap (like Acid Arrow). I did forget about Cone of Cold, which was another decent damage spell I rarely used, so I'll grant you that. But Ice Storm was GARBAGE compared to Fireball, doing less damage than it and taking one full round to cast, despite being one level higher, which was precisely my point about older damage spells and Fireball being "all you had". But in 5e they increased its damage, along with many other spells. Making them more useful now, even without the damage scaling, which for most spells other than Fireball/Lighting Bolt, Cone of Cold and Chain Lightning, was garbage. And even Cone of Cold and Chain Lightning didn't really do THAT much damage compared to Fireball (especially in 2e) when you consider they're several levels higher.

And while Cantrips may theoretically scale in order to allow casters to keep up with warriors, that still goes against the notion that casters were "toned" down in 5e, which was what I was talking about. Because at least as far as cantrips are concerned they had the complete opposite. And you even counted cantrip spell slots of 3e when comparing the number of spell slots between 3e vs 5e, despite 5e casters being able to cast cantrips UNLIMITED times a day, which is why they don't have any. Yet somehow they still count as lost spell slots between editions despite not existing now because they've been replaced with UNLIMITED casting (of BETTER spells!)? And they may have marginally toned down higher level spell slots in 5e, but that balances out with cantrips actually being useful and unlimited, damage spells overall sucking less now, and caster class levels being standardized and streamlined to stack with each other when multi-classing rather than splitting them across classes.

Yes. If you're still holding on to that 3.X rule, who the hell knows what other faulty rules assumptions you are making.

Cloudkill automatically killed anything with 4 HD or fewer, gave a saving throw vs Poison at -4 to creatures with 4+1 to 5+1 HD to not instantly keel over and die and creatures with up to 6 HD getting an unmodified save vs poison or dying instantly. The cloud also rolled away from you. It was an amazingly effective killer of armies, effectively mustard gas, the spell. Yet you don't mention it at all. The reason I didn't mention Melf's acid arrow is that it is a 2nd level spell, so didn't fit in the imaginary gap of damage spells you constructed between 3rd and 6th level spells. Melf's Acid arrow is not useless though, it is basically a trollkiller spell as it will continually cause acid damage to the troll over many rounds, screwing up the troll's regeneration.

The only Ice Storm I know has a casting time of 4 and does 3D10 damage in a 40 foot by 40 foot area, no saving throw. It had a more predictable area of effect than a fireball and at 7th level, when first available, did damage somewhere between what a creature would take from a fireball on a successful saving throw vs an unsuccessful one. Doesn't sound useless to me, although probably slightly underpowered compared to a fireball, but again more predictable. So again you are way off base about rules details here.

Cantrips don't scale up in 5e so that Wizards and Druids and Clerics can keep up damage-wise with the warrior classes, they scale up so that they're not hilariously left behind. The spellcasters get more damaging cantrips, but highly limited actual spell slots. If all you do as a Wizard is throw Cantrips around, any Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues in the party are going to massively outshine you in combat, and you're not going to be much good outside of combat with your cantrips either. Sometimes useful, sure, but not more than that. I've also never been in a 5e game where running out of arrows was a major concern (a bit unfortunately in my opinion, but I'm usually the only person in my groups who cares about counting torches and the like). Bags of Holding are some of the most common magic items available now, so transporting massive loads of arrows isn't going to be much of an issue most games.

If you know how to use a bow, the bow is better than fire bolt as a weapon, even if you are a wizard. That is, until the Cantrip bonus damage starts coming online, but a bow in the hands of a Fighter or Ranger is still going to be better than a Fire bolt.

As for the cantrip slots, you'll note I counted them separately precisely because I didn't want to count them in with the main number of spell slots a Wizard got in 3.5. I decided to mention them (they weren't in my first draft of the post) for completeness sake. And no, high level spell slots have not been "marginally toned down" in 5e. In 3.5 a 20th level Wizard had 4 level 6 spell slots, 4 level 7 spell slots, 4 level 8 spell slots and 4 level 9 spell slots. That is without any bonus slots due to high Intelligence, and that is already 16 high level spell slots. A 20th level AD&D 2e Mage with 18 Intelligence on the other hand gets 4 level 6 slots, 3 level 7 slots, 3 level 8 slots and 2 level 9 slots. That's only 12 slots for high level spells. A 20th level 5e Wizard meanwhile gets 2 level 6 slots, 2 level 7 slots, 1 level 8 slot and 1 level 9 slot. That's a total of 6 high level spell slots, and those plus a third 5th level spell slot are all the spell slots a 5e Wizard (or Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid or Bard) gets between levels 11 and 20.

The design intent here, and with a lot of other Wizard abilities, is pretty clear. The Wizard never runs out of magic completely. They can keep using cantrips forever if they need to. But they don't have nearly as much high level spellpower as earlier edition magic users. One Meteor Swarm is the limit. In 3.5 your Wizard would have been able to throw around four of those before needing a recharge, and they'd still have 12 high level slots left. The 5e Wizard, after using four high level spell slots only has two left. So the 5e Wizard never has to resort to throwing darts at the enemy, but also has nowhere near the top level magic capacity available in previous editions. Many of the spells themselves have changed too. Teleport is now a 7th level spell and unless you are teleporting to a permanent teleportation circle, someplace you have an important piece of or a place you know intimately like your own home, then you have a bigger chance of fucking up than getting it right. Knock makes a booming sound when you use it, completely negating stealth. Charm Person makes the charmed person view you as a friendly acquaintance rather than a trusted ally, only lasts an hour and the person always knows they've been charmed.

Quote from: oggsmash;1135323I did not notice fighters sucking.  At what point would you experienced folks say they start to suck?

Never. Or rather, it depends on the player, the group, and the DM. Any class can suck if they're played by a bad player, in a group that doesn't like or understand the class, or in a game with a DM that makes everything harder for the class. Wizards become a bit shit if they never find any scrolls or spellbooks. Bards don't live up to their full potential in a group that hates social engagement and just wants to fight everything. A War cleric is kind of useless if no one else in the group is playing some sort of fighting character. Fighters can get screwed if the DM sets Skill check DCs way too high and has the players roll for a bunch of shit they should never need to roll for, while simultaneously being super generous with interpreting magical effects (a combination that seems to be super common among people who think Fighters suck in 5e) as well as if the DM only uses enemies that can't be harmed by nonmagical weapons and the fighter never gets any magical weapons or oils of sharpness and none of the spellcasters get Magic Weapon to help the poor guy out.

But if you don't have any such problems, Fighter are fine all through the game.

If I wanted to play (5e) D&D in feel with a different ruleset, I'd go with Shadow of the Demon Lord.