Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Actually, in 5e, they are pretty much the same.  The only advantage a fighter gets over a mage in the context of attack rolls is any bonus from magic weapons.  But the way 5e works is (at a basic level):

Attack roll + ability modifier

So a mage casting ray of frost rolls 1d20 + INT modifier.  A fighter rolls 1d20 + either STR or DEX mod (depending on what type of weapon he is using)

It stands to reason that if both PCs have a 16 as their highest ability score, the fighter will have a +3 bonus and the MU will have a +3 bonus to hit as well.

However, ray of frost does not add ability modifier to damage, whereas a fighter does to his weapons.

Therefore, it can be assumed for these purposes that the change to hit for both MU and fighter are the same.  It's damage where it diverts.

Assuming each attack hits, in one round, the MU will do a minimum of 2 points of damage, with a maximum of 16.  The fighter will do a minimum of 8 points of damage, with a maximum of 22.  And that's with a long sword.  If the fighter gives up his shield and goes two-handed weapons, damage increases even more.  Or if they dual wield they do more damage too.

This whole argument is just the falling damage argument all over again.

Because the rules say I can fall infinitely and never take more than 10d6 damage, if I have over 60 HP I can't die from falling, so I might as well jump off this cliff!

Sorry, that kind of bullshit only works when the DM is an automaton playing out the rules rather than actually being a working force in his campaign.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754165ROFL, all three, ok.

...and yet what is the baseline? Pew Pew.  The fact that you discount all arguments because it's something you like doesn't mean that the arguments about setting aren't valid.



Since none of you chose to engage my arguments about setting, I'll assume you so stipulate.  Thanks. :hatsoff:

The baseline is whatever you want it to be that is the whole point of 5e.They want you to make whatever style floats your boat similar to FantasyCraft where they give you options. You don't like a rule? Change it just like it's been done since 1978.

Quote from: Marleycat;754202The baseline is whatever you want it to be that is the whole point of 5e.They want you to make whatever style floats your boat similar to FantasyCraft.

I get that, and it's a laudable goal. At will cantrips seem to be at odds with that.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754201This whole argument is just the falling damage argument all over again.

Because the rules say I can fall infinitely and never take more than 10d6 damage, if I have over 60 HP I can't die from falling, so I might as well jump off this cliff!

Sorry, that kind of bullshit only works when the DM is an automaton playing out the rules rather than actually being a working force in his campaign.

You are a good man and this post is an island of sanctuary in a storm of troubles.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754201This whole argument is just the falling damage argument all over again.

Because the rules say I can fall infinitely and never take more than 10d6 damage, if I have over 60 HP I can't die from falling, so I might as well jump off this cliff!

Sorry, that kind of bullshit only works when the DM is an automaton playing out the rules rather than actually being a working force in his campaign.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition Spelljammer splatbook actually encouraged high levle players to abuse the falling damage rules in order to depart from their ships.

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Ask Sacrosanct, he's the one that posited that there was no difference between one roll for 2d8 and two rolls for 1d8.  He probably was in such a hurry to rush to the defense, he forgot that part.

I expect, to actually aid his argument, that at higher levels then 5th, the "to hit" roll for the fighter will actually outpace the wizard, so that the Pew Pew will be much less useful then just about any other classes' base melee.  The bounded accuracy however means it can't be a huge difference.  I don't have the playtest doc in front of me.  For 1-5 though, it seems pretty clear that the Wizard is expected to have a damage output close to the fighter without casting any limited spells.

Which brings us back to if Rogue, Mage, and Cleric can do X damage plus special abilities, then the Fighter without special abilities needs to do more then X+a few %.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184Saying magic is the same is nothing more than an assumption. An assumption those making it appear blind to.

It's not an assumption. It's a discretionary ruling on something outside the scope of the standard game rules. What does magic mean in your campaign? It's up to you. Always has been.

You are making the assumption that at-will cantrips mean casting does not tax mages in any way. There's nothing in the rules that makes that obvious to me, since there are all sorts of other things PCs can do effectively at-will RAW in game action but which still have endurance limits in the larger scale, and since mages have always had some kind of time and rest limit on casting.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184So, I can project a "ray of frost" so cold it burns the target badly enough to be close to as damaging as a sword blow. Alright, as there are no limits on how often I can cast it, can I create an ice bridge across a pool with it? Why not? Can I "smash" open multiple chests from a distance by just targeting the locks over and over? Why not? Can I start an ice-making business and make a profit (and shouldn't some equivalent of ice cubes be ubiquitous in my setting?) on it? Why not? The answers to these questions might be, "Of course not! Don’t be stupid!" but that is completely arbitrary.

No more arbitrary than a DM telling a player that just because he can smash open a wooden door once per round, doesn't mean he can spend 10 hours smashing down the entire palisade around a village.

 

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184And by arbitrary, I do not mean simply mean DM judgement as opposed to RAW, so spare me that garbage (as CRKrueger pointed out, "But houserules!" means you haven't got an argument). It's arbitrary in that the DM plays the world, and at will cantrips say something about how that world works. Something that should feed into DM rulings.

When you're constantly having to rule against clever, otherwise reasonable uses of a spell or ability because it would have silly implications, then perhaps there's a problem with said spell or ability (or unlimited uses thereof, in this case). Put another way, I don't think anyone here said there were limits to how many times you could cast a cantrip because it made any kind of in-game sense (in the way the sword-swinging limit did), but because not having that limit was obviously going to create absurdity. Yeah, that's the problem. It’s not some weird cult of RAW, it's a rather obvious implication of the rules that says something about the setting.

D&D doesn't have fatigue rules. As others has said, it's because D&D abstracts out a lot of that grit. Always has. It's at the DM's discretion to make rulings on fatigue for spending hours chopping wood, bashing down doors, or casting the weakest of spells.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754197It's interesting that you don't realize the main point of the contention has nothing to do with simulations or math

Tell that to Exploderwizard.  Hell, tell that to yourself.  Or are you on a hypocrisy roll today or something?  If it has nothing to do with math, then why are you arguing about the math?

QuoteIt has to do with how magic feels and what that says about the setting.  Some people either are incapable of seeing it, or just don't care.  .

You're right, I don't care.  And that seems to be a point you can't grasp.  How you "feel" about it doesn't mean shit to anyone but you.  It certainly isn't a reason to say at will is a bad thing, or shouldn't be included.  That argument has even less credibility when you're applying your "logic" inconsistently between editions.

You don't like how it feels?  Good for you.  I got it the first time.  However, I have I hard time taking you seriously about the feel of the game when obviously you haven't even played it.

That makes you a pure theorycrafter.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754205I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition Spelljammer splatbook actually encouraged high levle players to abuse the falling damage rules in order to depart from their ships.

... Ok, well, if I was DMing Spelljammer I would totally allow it because Spelljammer Gravity is whack anyway. Also Spelljammer is my favorite whacky setting.

Quote from: Warthur;754192Presumably because it requires a certain amount of sustained training and dedication to even get to the point where you can do at-wills?

If magic is rare it's because wizards are rare, which means presumably there's some reason why everyone doesn't just become a wizard (it requires intensive study that few can afford and fewer can master, or it requires you to be blessed by the gods of magic at birth, or it requires you to make horrifying pacts which most mortals would quail at... not hard to think of reasons). If wizards are rare, then there's the answer to all your questions: people pick up shovels because they don't have the High Art, deserts still exist because there isn't massive armies of wizards who are happy to go around creating water all day, and so on.

Does the setting say that wizards are rare?  It implies that even kobolds have shaman and sorcerers, does it not?  Also, magic shops but not magic ice shops was a good point.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754206Ask Sacrosanct, he's the one that posited that there was no difference between one roll for 2d8 and two rolls for 1d8.  

Jesus you're fucking stupid.  No, there isn't a difference between:

1d8+1d8

and

(1d8+1d8)

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Check your books, dude! In every edition before 3E, wizard's to-hit chances at low to medium levels are within a point or two of fighters of the same level. I would say this is just a symptom of the broader problem that all editions after Chainmail and before 3E (maybe even pre 4E) give fighters way too anemic of a progression in attack ability. The only remedy is to tack on kool powerzzz as house rules, or spread around magic items. Really, if you are playing 'traditional' D&D using RAW and omitting stuff like weapon specialization, the only advantages to being a fighter are hit points and the freedom to use any weapons and armor.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754208You don't like how it feels?  Good for you.  I got it the first time.  However, I have I hard time taking you seriously about the feel of the game when obviously you haven't even played it.

That makes you a pure theorycrafter.

Isn't this the game that hasn't yet been released?  Can anyone speak with authority about it based on just a playtest?

No, no, no. Doesn't matter. Arguments about feel are irrelevant. That's why Sacrosanct never made arguments about the feel of 4e.