I agree that casters need a nerf. They essentially keep up with martials damage wise and then also have answers to the rest of the game that martials just don't have. If nerfing their crits brings their damage a little lower then martials they still have a huge amount of versatility to rely on.
I agree that casters need a nerf. They essentially keep up with martials damage wise and then also have answers to the rest of the game that martials just don't have. If nerfing their crits brings their damage a little lower then martials they still have a huge amount of versatility to rely on.
Not just casters. Ranged as well. Spells and ranged attacks already have a HUGE advantage over melee. If I had my way, double damage dice would only apply to melee. I would also throw out damage modifiers to any damage that does not come from a physical source. Using a sword, axe, whip, dagger, or a heavy draw bow like a longbow; add your STR modifier to the damage. I've never understood why a crossbow gets bonus damage. It is mechanical.
Similarly it debunks the common "blaster warlocks are just a magic range damage dealer". Their main schtick (which requires one of their invocations) is essentially what amounts to magic arrows. Taking that away from them, they might as well just play a ranger. Don't see much need for a non-bladelock warlock anymore if they're always going to be worse than just learning to use a bow.
Similarly it debunks the common "blaster warlocks are just a magic range damage dealer". Their main schtick (which requires one of their invocations) is essentially what amounts to magic arrows. Taking that away from them, they might as well just play a ranger. Don't see much need for a non-bladelock warlock anymore if they're always going to be worse than just learning to use a bow.
Aside from, of course, wanting to play a warlock. Most people don't pick their characters based on what gives them the most plusses.
Also, at up to four EB shots, doing 1d10+5 each (plus hex, if you want), not being able to crit really doesn't bring down the warlock's firepower much. And there's all the fun effects you can tack on to the blast. (I'm fond of kicking enemies back into the hunger of hadar they just got out of.)
Crits aren't really worth all that much. It's 1/20th of the damage dice per attack. That ends up being between 0.5 to 2 damage per round based on cantrips and a normal longsword held two handed, depending on level and class. Taking it away from casters doesn't really nerf them - even in the beginning, it's 0.5 per round. You probably wouldn't even notice that reduction if we didn't make a hooh-hah about it.
What it does do is take away from that moment of joy when you get the nat20 because you get advantage on your next attack (that's...nice, a +3 on my next to hit roll...yay...) but no extra clickety clacks, which is the real joy of crits, no?
Ironically, the martials are the ones that are going to be punished by this, because they're the ones taking the hits and a damage reduction to caster-blasters just means those martials are fighting for longer and taking more hits. Plus, you know, those Hail Mary moments when you really need to take down that beast of an enemy NOW, and the spell gets a critical hit...and so rather than dying the monster manages to go on a rampage.
Honestly, if 0.5 per round reduction is worth fighting over, then the disparity between martials and casters really isn't worth fighting over. Even if it is...the game overall would be more improved by making martials more attractive rather than making casters less attractive. Additionally, given that martials are generally more popular than casters according to the class usage statistics on DDB, I'm not convinced that we do need to make martials any more attractive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I got overly frustrated about these changes in the UA, and made more emotional arguments than logical one's. So let me say what I should have said then clearer now:
Everybody at the table should be able to get the full benefits from critting, instead of a discount version of it. Yes, they get inspiration, but that's not nearly as much as everyone else gets, and if they already have inspiration then they'll just have to give it away to another party member. Yes, spellcasters are better than martials, but the new edition can change that. Removing one of the funnest elements of the game from spellcasters, double damage on crits, and making it so they only get inspiration instead (something that everybody else get's too on crits with these new rules) is not a great reward for what natural 20's are for all the other classes.
Natural 20's are the great "Wohooo!" moments of the game and making them into "While, I got inspiration at least," moments instead for spellcasters simply means it won't be nearly as fun. Inspiration is not nearly as big a deal in this UA as it is in 5e, since it is given out to humans and for natural 20's all the time. It's a small benefit from a big roll, one that everybody should be able to enjoy to the fullest extent possible.
To people who say that spellcasters have spells, at a minimum, let them crit on cantrips.
Cantrips (i.e. the things casters always crit with) do not cost resources. They're also much better at critting than a martial weapon is. A martial crit deals, at most, 2d12+[X] damage. A spellcaster's cantrip crit can deal 8d10 inherently magical damage, for no more resource cost than it took the martial to swing their measly pissant 2d12+[X].
Spellcasters don't need crits. Spells are already powerful enough. Is it nice when a low-level spellcaster crits with a basic spell attack? Sure. But hey - spellcasters also get unlimited free ammo for their spells, inherently magical damage, and the ability to effortlessly and freely switch 'weapon types' (i.e. combat cantrips) without having to juggle what's in their hands. They have plenty of edges already. It's not a big deal for them to lose crits.
Yes, as Yurei points out, cantrips can deal more damage than one martial weapon attack, specifically at higher levels, without costing resources. But neither of those things cost resources, and fighters can attack 3-4 times at high levels to easily make up for that, and classes like paladins that only have two attacks can make their attacks even more powerful with things like divine smite.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
I'm fine with weapon attack crits being limited to rolling additional weapon damage dice, and if you do that then you do need to reign in spell crits. That said, I think a better approach would be special crit effects built into the spells--things like "if you score a critical hit with this ice spell, the enemy gets slowed" or "the enemy gets pushed ten feet" or whatever else is appropriate for a given spell. I feel like that might at least help keep the "woohoo!" factor in place like weapon crits have without letting a spell crit just absolutely annihilate an encounter by sheer chance.
Various aspects of this UA are making me have some thoughts that the next edition will be a case of me saying "nope, not for me" and either staying with 5e or going back to 3e. Regarding this Crit side of things though, the wording is a bit odd. I would infer the intent behind it would be that only simple or martial weapons listed on the equipment page of the PHB or unarmed attacks are capable of causing a critical hit....but it just says a weapon or unarmed attack, it makes no reference to having to use Strength or Dextierity to do make the attack, so certain spells may still crit based on the way the UA is worded.
Flame Blade and Shadow Blade came to mind as both create a weapon which you hit with so according to the wording both would be eligible for crit hits.
This wording would also applies a nerf to smite spells as well as Divine/Eldritch Smite abilities (which are always fun to throw onto an atrtack when you roll a nat20) as this proposed crit rule change only doubles the weapons damage dice not any additional dice you add onto it.
All that said I must remind myself that is is very early days so should not read too much into this just yet, although I will keep fingers crossed we're not in for a rehash of 4e for the next edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
This is my guess. If they make all spell damage based on saves then it will become a moot point. Still a bit sad for casters but it does make sense.
That's an interesting theory. I'm not convinced that they'll be getting rid of all those spells like Fire Bolt, Burning Hands and Eldritch Blast. From what I've seen, I don't think they're even changing spells etc from 5e, it's just getting inherited into 1D&D. They'd have to also rewrite some of the subclasses - Sculpt Spells comes to mind - which would then make it complex as to what you can take from 5e (for instance, currently you can take over races from 5e, which also makes it difficult, some 5e races like Fire Genasi have those spells that you are saying might not exist, even ones in MotM).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
"Spellcasters are too powerful" *Looks at my ranger* All spellcasters, or some classes? *Looks at wizards*
There's got to be something for spellcasters as well on a crit, because otherwise, no matter what, it feels like something has been taken away, and only some people get to have fun with this mechanic that used to be for everyone. Inspiration is not enough. In two of my campaigns, I've had inspiration for like 4 sessions now and I keep forgetting to use it, and the DM keeps forgetting to remind me, and has tried to give me inspiration 3 times since. I got a Nat 1 on an investigation check today, and no one remembered it. More mechanics granting it isn't going to fix that. Maybe if casters got advantage on their damage rolls. Though mathematically I'm not sure if that's viable.
I also realized yesterday that the changes to crits might really effect Grave Domain clerics -- their ability to negate crits becomes less powerful (though also less needed, if the mechanic stays as it is), so it'll be interesting to see how that works out. Are there other subclasses that have features revolving around crits, aside from also critting on a 19?
Crits should be fun. For everyone, of every class. Yes, martials need a relative boost but no, this isn't the way to do it.
And the suggestion that all spells will be saves is the worst idea I've ever heard. It makes no sense for many, many spells; it leaves casters never ever ever rolling any dice; and it would kill the new edition.
If I wanted to play diceless, I'd play Amber or LoGaS. Which are good settings held back by their rules.
Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
If rolling a 20 is the, "funnest part of the game," for you, then I really don't know what to say. The, "NAT EFFIN 20!" stuff is cringy as hell to me, and this whole discussion just seems like sour grapes over nothing. You already get free inspiration and auto success for hitting a nat20, all casters are missing are a bonus damage dice. Seems like a good trade off when caster consistently get an additional 50 spells per splatbook at no additional cost through every edition to ever exist.
Cantrips (i.e. the things casters always crit with) do not cost resources. They're also much better at critting than a martial weapon is. A martial crit deals, at most, 2d12+[X] damage. A spellcaster's cantrip crit can deal 8d10 inherently magical damage, for no more resource cost than it took the martial to swing their measly pissant 2d12+[X].
Feel free to correct me here to a more powerful cantrip, but Fire Bolt does 4d10 at L20. It also gets (in 5e) 1 in 20 chance of doing critting. That's an average of 22.275 damage. Compare that to a Fighter with a Longsword who, using an Action (and no abilities, to keep things fair), gets to attack four times and gets to add their ability modifier damage as well, which, at L20 is going to be 5, is 20 damage alone. Add on the damage of the sword, that's 42 damage. Plus four attempts at critting, so that's 43.1 damage. Most martials get at least 2 attacks, so that's still 21.55 - it's hardly getting slaughtered by cantrips. Which isn't to say that cantrips should be boosted at all or that martials shouldn't be buffed, but it's not like cantrips of all things are wiping the floor with martials.
If we're comparing damage here, let's point out that the Fighter damage there - that's the best the Fighter can do. Maybe they're a Battlemaster and can add a die or two, but for the most part, martials are dealing close to their max damage every turn except for when they crit.
The wizard though? He could go through 4, 4-round encounters and never cast a cantrip. He's got 22 spell slots to burn before falling back on what is basically the bottom of the caster barrel (more if he gets a short rest). And most of those slots can fuel attacks that go far beyond a fighter's four swings.
This is the fault in the logic that assumes cantrips need to be balanced with melee attack actions. Melee attacks are all the martials have, but spellcasters have an entire other set of features that greatly outclass those baseline at-will actions.
All that being said, I don't think combat really needs to be changed because the martial-caster gap there pales into comparison to elsewhere. It's outside of combat where spellcasters completely dominate martials to the point that you need to actively hold back to give them any chance to shine. If you've ever played in a high level campaign that isn't just combat, you'll know what I'm talking about. Control Weather. Mass Suggestion. Plane Shift. Clone. Commune with Nature. Contact Other Plane. Legend Lore. Just a few spells in the massive problem-solving toolbox that is spellcasting. Entire sections of an adventure can be circumvented with a spell. Problems solved in an instant.
And what are the martials doing in the meantime? Standing around waiting for combat to start. They get no equivalent to this. No way to contribute outside of combat beyond skill checks - which of course casters also get. And even most of those are obsoleted with magic. Need a lock picked? Knock. Need that boulder moved? Telekinesis. Need me to scout ahead? Find Familiar. Clairvoyance. Scrying.
Martials need epic features in tier 3 and 4, a utility-focused toolbox akin to what spells provide that allows them to contribute outside of combat. Or utility spells need to be pared way back to give martials a chance to shine with their skills. That's where the true imbalance lies, and quibbling over peanuts in combat is not solving that issue.
Martials need epic features in tier 3 and 4, a utility-focused toolbox akin to what spells provide that allows them to contribute outside of combat. Or utility spells need to be pared way back to give martials a chance to shine with their skills. That's where the true imbalance lies, and quibbling over peanuts in combat is not solving that issue.
I was more specifically responding to Yurei claiming that cantrips wipe the floor with martials, I'm pretty sure they don't.
But yeah, your response is more what I'm thinking of in terms of "if we need to change something about the relative powers of martials and casters, then we need to actually change something". the a point of damage or two per round is not even worth it.
I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. I'm loathe to nerf casters because, let's face it, those big powers are fun. On the other hand, martials...yeah. I've not played high level campaigns yet (I'm homebrewing one at the moment, but it's early stages yet), but I see where you're coming from. Maybe martials can muster armies or something, or there sources of power that casters can't use but martials can...I'm not sure what to do about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's all about balance. I read lots of comments about attacks, but how about the defences of the spellcasters? They have lower AC because they are limited in armour type, have limitations for using a shield and have fewer Hit Points because they use lower Hit Dice. That is where the balance is. So taking away their crit does not feel fair.
I agree that casters need a nerf. They essentially keep up with martials damage wise and then also have answers to the rest of the game that martials just don't have. If nerfing their crits brings their damage a little lower then martials they still have a huge amount of versatility to rely on.
Not just casters. Ranged as well. Spells and ranged attacks already have a HUGE advantage over melee. If I had my way, double damage dice would only apply to melee. I would also throw out damage modifiers to any damage that does not come from a physical source. Using a sword, axe, whip, dagger, or a heavy draw bow like a longbow; add your STR modifier to the damage. I've never understood why a crossbow gets bonus damage. It is mechanical.
A lot of spells already can't crit, because they're saving throw spells, instead of attack roll spells.
Similarly it debunks the common "blaster warlocks are just a magic range damage dealer". Their main schtick (which requires one of their invocations) is essentially what amounts to magic arrows. Taking that away from them, they might as well just play a ranger. Don't see much need for a non-bladelock warlock anymore if they're always going to be worse than just learning to use a bow.
Aside from, of course, wanting to play a warlock. Most people don't pick their characters based on what gives them the most plusses.
Also, at up to four EB shots, doing 1d10+5 each (plus hex, if you want), not being able to crit really doesn't bring down the warlock's firepower much. And there's all the fun effects you can tack on to the blast. (I'm fond of kicking enemies back into the hunger of hadar they just got out of.)
I expect all spells will be Save only and no longer attacks in the new system.
This is also because doubling a Sword swing is 1d8 damage, no matter the level of the attacker.
However, if you double a Cantrip from a 5th level caster that is 2d8, 11th is 3d8.
These aren't the same.
Crits aren't really worth all that much. It's 1/20th of the damage dice per attack. That ends up being between 0.5 to 2 damage per round based on cantrips and a normal longsword held two handed, depending on level and class. Taking it away from casters doesn't really nerf them - even in the beginning, it's 0.5 per round. You probably wouldn't even notice that reduction if we didn't make a hooh-hah about it.
What it does do is take away from that moment of joy when you get the nat20 because you get advantage on your next attack (that's...nice, a +3 on my next to hit roll...yay...) but no extra clickety clacks, which is the real joy of crits, no?
Ironically, the martials are the ones that are going to be punished by this, because they're the ones taking the hits and a damage reduction to caster-blasters just means those martials are fighting for longer and taking more hits. Plus, you know, those Hail Mary moments when you really need to take down that beast of an enemy NOW, and the spell gets a critical hit...and so rather than dying the monster manages to go on a rampage.
Honestly, if 0.5 per round reduction is worth fighting over, then the disparity between martials and casters really isn't worth fighting over. Even if it is...the game overall would be more improved by making martials more attractive rather than making casters less attractive. Additionally, given that martials are generally more popular than casters according to the class usage statistics on DDB, I'm not convinced that we do need to make martials any more attractive.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I got overly frustrated about these changes in the UA, and made more emotional arguments than logical one's. So let me say what I should have said then clearer now:
Everybody at the table should be able to get the full benefits from critting, instead of a discount version of it. Yes, they get inspiration, but that's not nearly as much as everyone else gets, and if they already have inspiration then they'll just have to give it away to another party member. Yes, spellcasters are better than martials, but the new edition can change that. Removing one of the funnest elements of the game from spellcasters, double damage on crits, and making it so they only get inspiration instead (something that everybody else get's too on crits with these new rules) is not a great reward for what natural 20's are for all the other classes.
Natural 20's are the great "Wohooo!" moments of the game and making them into "While, I got inspiration at least," moments instead for spellcasters simply means it won't be nearly as fun. Inspiration is not nearly as big a deal in this UA as it is in 5e, since it is given out to humans and for natural 20's all the time. It's a small benefit from a big roll, one that everybody should be able to enjoy to the fullest extent possible.
To people who say that spellcasters have spells, at a minimum, let them crit on cantrips.
Yes, as Yurei points out, cantrips can deal more damage than one martial weapon attack, specifically at higher levels, without costing resources. But neither of those things cost resources, and fighters can attack 3-4 times at high levels to easily make up for that, and classes like paladins that only have two attacks can make their attacks even more powerful with things like divine smite.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Spellcaster are in desperate need of nerfing, so yes. The game is borderline impossible to lose on the player's side past lvl5 (assuming DM's don't just deus ex in "threats"), so any notion of buffing anyone is kind of a ridiculous ask. We are literally at a point where casters just need to get cut off at their knees to restore any semblance of balance to the game.
I'm fine with weapon attack crits being limited to rolling additional weapon damage dice, and if you do that then you do need to reign in spell crits. That said, I think a better approach would be special crit effects built into the spells--things like "if you score a critical hit with this ice spell, the enemy gets slowed" or "the enemy gets pushed ten feet" or whatever else is appropriate for a given spell. I feel like that might at least help keep the "woohoo!" factor in place like weapon crits have without letting a spell crit just absolutely annihilate an encounter by sheer chance.
Various aspects of this UA are making me have some thoughts that the next edition will be a case of me saying "nope, not for me" and either staying with 5e or going back to 3e. Regarding this Crit side of things though, the wording is a bit odd. I would infer the intent behind it would be that only simple or martial weapons listed on the equipment page of the PHB or unarmed attacks are capable of causing a critical hit....but it just says a weapon or unarmed attack, it makes no reference to having to use Strength or Dextierity to do make the attack, so certain spells may still crit based on the way the UA is worded.
Flame Blade and Shadow Blade came to mind as both create a weapon which you hit with so according to the wording both would be eligible for crit hits.
This wording would also applies a nerf to smite spells as well as Divine/Eldritch Smite abilities (which are always fun to throw onto an atrtack when you roll a nat20) as this proposed crit rule change only doubles the weapons damage dice not any additional dice you add onto it.
All that said I must remind myself that is is very early days so should not read too much into this just yet, although I will keep fingers crossed we're not in for a rehash of 4e for the next edition.
If casters need to "get cut off at their knees," then crits aren't the way to do it. Natural 20's happen only 5% percent out of the time, and coupled with the special things they provide, especially in combat, which makes them a rare but super awesome instance. I mean, who wouldn't jump for joy after a natural 20?
As I said, if spellcasters need to be more balanced, this is not the way to do it. They can change the class, or make martials more powerful which would work a lot better, and help level the playing field. Either way, crits are rare, and yet they're massive when they occur. But removing a super fun elements of the game from one group of classes, but not from others, is simply put, not fun at all.
There are so many ways to do this that do not involve removing arguably the funnest element of the game from spells. And many of these ways would actually work a lot better, so why this? Yes, it may not be the only thing they do to balance spellcasters with martials better if WotC feels they need that balancing them is neccessary, but overall, even if it is done along with other things balancing acts, removing one sides fun is not the way to help the other group enjoy the game better.
Crits are awesome because they're rare and memerable. Yes, inspiration is cool but in many people's opinions, it's not even a well-designed mechanic. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but what is an undeniable fact is that in this UA, inspiration is not nearly as big a deal as it is in 5e. It is almost nothing compared to double damage.
And that double damage is one of the best feelings and in my opinion at least, the greatest moment of the game. But I address everyone here with this, how would you feel if you didn't get that awesome moment of a crit while all the martials did, just because you already have good things about your class, should one of the funnest thing about the game be removed for you?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is my guess. If they make all spell damage based on saves then it will become a moot point. Still a bit sad for casters but it does make sense.
That's an interesting theory. I'm not convinced that they'll be getting rid of all those spells like Fire Bolt, Burning Hands and Eldritch Blast. From what I've seen, I don't think they're even changing spells etc from 5e, it's just getting inherited into 1D&D. They'd have to also rewrite some of the subclasses - Sculpt Spells comes to mind - which would then make it complex as to what you can take from 5e (for instance, currently you can take over races from 5e, which also makes it difficult, some 5e races like Fire Genasi have those spells that you are saying might not exist, even ones in MotM).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
"Spellcasters are too powerful" *Looks at my ranger* All spellcasters, or some classes? *Looks at wizards*
There's got to be something for spellcasters as well on a crit, because otherwise, no matter what, it feels like something has been taken away, and only some people get to have fun with this mechanic that used to be for everyone. Inspiration is not enough. In two of my campaigns, I've had inspiration for like 4 sessions now and I keep forgetting to use it, and the DM keeps forgetting to remind me, and has tried to give me inspiration 3 times since. I got a Nat 1 on an investigation check today, and no one remembered it. More mechanics granting it isn't going to fix that. Maybe if casters got advantage on their damage rolls. Though mathematically I'm not sure if that's viable.
I also realized yesterday that the changes to crits might really effect Grave Domain clerics -- their ability to negate crits becomes less powerful (though also less needed, if the mechanic stays as it is), so it'll be interesting to see how that works out. Are there other subclasses that have features revolving around crits, aside from also critting on a 19?
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Crits should be fun. For everyone, of every class. Yes, martials need a relative boost but no, this isn't the way to do it.
And the suggestion that all spells will be saves is the worst idea I've ever heard. It makes no sense for many, many spells; it leaves casters never ever ever rolling any dice; and it would kill the new edition.
If I wanted to play diceless, I'd play Amber or LoGaS. Which are good settings held back by their rules.
If rolling a 20 is the, "funnest part of the game," for you, then I really don't know what to say. The, "NAT EFFIN 20!" stuff is cringy as hell to me, and this whole discussion just seems like sour grapes over nothing. You already get free inspiration and auto success for hitting a nat20, all casters are missing are a bonus damage dice. Seems like a good trade off when caster consistently get an additional 50 spells per splatbook at no additional cost through every edition to ever exist.
If we're comparing damage here, let's point out that the Fighter damage there - that's the best the Fighter can do. Maybe they're a Battlemaster and can add a die or two, but for the most part, martials are dealing close to their max damage every turn except for when they crit.
The wizard though? He could go through 4, 4-round encounters and never cast a cantrip. He's got 22 spell slots to burn before falling back on what is basically the bottom of the caster barrel (more if he gets a short rest). And most of those slots can fuel attacks that go far beyond a fighter's four swings.
This is the fault in the logic that assumes cantrips need to be balanced with melee attack actions. Melee attacks are all the martials have, but spellcasters have an entire other set of features that greatly outclass those baseline at-will actions.
All that being said, I don't think combat really needs to be changed because the martial-caster gap there pales into comparison to elsewhere. It's outside of combat where spellcasters completely dominate martials to the point that you need to actively hold back to give them any chance to shine. If you've ever played in a high level campaign that isn't just combat, you'll know what I'm talking about. Control Weather. Mass Suggestion. Plane Shift. Clone. Commune with Nature. Contact Other Plane. Legend Lore. Just a few spells in the massive problem-solving toolbox that is spellcasting. Entire sections of an adventure can be circumvented with a spell. Problems solved in an instant.
And what are the martials doing in the meantime? Standing around waiting for combat to start. They get no equivalent to this. No way to contribute outside of combat beyond skill checks - which of course casters also get. And even most of those are obsoleted with magic. Need a lock picked? Knock. Need that boulder moved? Telekinesis. Need me to scout ahead? Find Familiar. Clairvoyance. Scrying.
Martials need epic features in tier 3 and 4, a utility-focused toolbox akin to what spells provide that allows them to contribute outside of combat. Or utility spells need to be pared way back to give martials a chance to shine with their skills. That's where the true imbalance lies, and quibbling over peanuts in combat is not solving that issue.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I was more specifically responding to Yurei claiming that cantrips wipe the floor with martials, I'm pretty sure they don't.
But yeah, your response is more what I'm thinking of in terms of "if we need to change something about the relative powers of martials and casters, then we need to actually change something". the a point of damage or two per round is not even worth it.
I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. I'm loathe to nerf casters because, let's face it, those big powers are fun. On the other hand, martials...yeah. I've not played high level campaigns yet (I'm homebrewing one at the moment, but it's early stages yet), but I see where you're coming from. Maybe martials can muster armies or something, or there sources of power that casters can't use but martials can...I'm not sure what to do about it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's all about balance. I read lots of comments about attacks, but how about the defences of the spellcasters? They have lower AC because they are limited in armour type, have limitations for using a shield and have fewer Hit Points because they use lower Hit Dice. That is where the balance is. So taking away their crit does not feel fair.
edit: changed wording
Cedo nulli, Calcanda semel via leti.
Parvi sed magni.