Things in the last packet that need to be fixed:

56 posts / 0 new
Last post

Assassinate needs clarification: it should read that you may only use the ability when a target is not aware of your attack instead of presence. 

Sneak Attack needs to be reworked from the ground up; it should be something like this: you gain advantage when you attack a foe that is adjecent to one of your allies. (In other words, make assassinate the sneak up and kill them like a lurker power, and make sneak attack the power that makes you attack in sneaky ways so that you can get advantage more often.)

 Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).

Trap the Soul needs to be rewritten: it is both horribly overpowered, and too expensive to ever use unless you can use it in a situation where it is overpowered. This spell needs to be rewritten from scratch.

Wish should not be able to make uncommon or rare magical items without a magical McGuffin: I am fine with the spell making such magical items if the player has also undergone some quest/story related experience during which the DM gives the player a magical McGuffin that allows the caster to use the spell to make such an item. But, no player should ever be able to make such an item without DM approval, let alone make such an item once per day. 

Polymorph still seems overpowered: I am not sure what else to say about this one.

Glancing Blow is underpowered: I would really like glancing blow to let you add the combination of any ED you roll, not just the best number rolled. Right now it sucks. This power, however, has the potential to be both very cool and not overpowered. One of the ways in which a fighter shines in combat should be that, unlike the other classes, he will be dealing his ED as damage whether he hits or misses. 

Flurry of Blows might be overpowered: though, if they make the change to Glancing Blow that I just suggested, everything will be fine. So really, I think Flurry of Blows is fine. I just think it is overpowered compared to Glancing Blow. 

Feint is underpowered: either let it grant advantage to all attacks until the end of your next turn (not just the next attack), or make it a move action. 




Two-Weapon fighting needs to have its wording clarified, and the -2 to attack with your main hand removed (at least if you use two light weapons). It should be clarified that when you are Two-Weapon fighting with two light weapons you must choose which weapon is your main-handed weapon before you attack.




Two-Handed weapons need some support.




Meteor Swarm needs to specify that the areas of effect of the meteors cannot overlap, or else the spell becomes broken in terms of power.

Earthquake kills people if they are caught in a fissure. The fissure closes when your concentration ends. You can end your concentration at will. This spell can be used to auto-kill targets. That needs to be fixed. 




The spell "Command" needs a self-preservation clause, or else you can "command" someone to commit suicide. 

That is what I got for now (I need to go keep working on PhD related matters)... 


Assassinate needs clarification: it should read that you may only use the ability when a target is not aware of your attack instead of presence. 



/sign

Sneak Attack needs to be reworked from the ground up; it should be something like this: you gain advantage when you attack a foe that is adjecent to one of your allies. (In other words, make assassinate the sneak up and kill them like a lurker power, and make sneak attack the power that makes you attack in sneaky ways so that you can get advantage more often.)


Sneak attack is fine. Doubling expertise dice is a pretty large amount of damage and often worth giving up advantage for. It's high risk, high reward. But that isn't a bad thing.

I would say it is reasonable to just remove one advantage. In other words, if you have advantage from 2 sources (like dual-wield and stealth) then you should still get it.

Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).


It's not. Compare it to fighter damage at an equivalant level.

Trap the Soul needs to be rewritten: it is both horribly overpowered, and too expensive to ever use unless you can use it in a situation where it is overpowered. This spell needs to be rewritten from scratch.


It reminds me of a deck of many things where either the party gets screwed horibly or gets way too much, either way its too disruptive to the game. That being said more options is never bad as a DM can more easily ban a spell from his game than add new ones.

I would like a sentence that says if the target willingly take ownership of the gem (whether or not he knows its cursed) gets no saving throw.

Wish should not be able to make uncommon or rare magical items without a magical McGuffin: I am fine with the spell making such magical items if the player has also undergone some quest/story related experience during which the DM gives the player a magical McGuffin that allows the caster to use the spell to make such an item. But, no player should ever be able to make such an item without DM approval, let alone make such an item once per day. 


You should not be able to cast a new Wish until you physically recover from the old one. A 17th level wizard making items once every couple days of downtime seems fine.

Polymorph still seems overpowered: I am not sure what else to say about this one.


It needs an additional restriction that the creature must be native to the environment. Turning a high level for into a sea kraken would instantly kill it outside of water.

As for beneficial forms breaking some adventures, that seems fine. D&D is often about solving problems in clever ways, not always number crunching and dice rolls. If the players devise a creature that trivialises my adventure, I am fine with that. That behavior should be rewarded.

Glancing Blow is underpowered: I would really like glancing blow to let you add the combination of any ED you roll, not just the best number rolled. Right now it sucks. This power, however, has the potential to be both very cool and not overpowered. One of the ways in which a fighter shines in combat should be that, unlike the other classes, he will be dealing his ED as damage whether he hits or misses. 


The problem isn't that, the problem is its a trap. Any fighter worth anything will hit almost everything with a 10. People have been pointing that out since the 1st packet and it continues to be ignored. Maybe they know something about monster ACs that we don't but it seems useless. It should work on 9s and less.

Flurry of Blows might be overpowered: though, if they make the change to Glancing Blow that I just suggested, everything will be fine. So really, I think Flurry of Blows is fine. I just think it is overpowered compared to Glancing Blow. 



No, its clearly overpowered. Multiple attacks has always been overpowered unless static modifiers are mitigated and not simply doubled (or trippled in this case). After several years of rangers completely humiliating every other striker in 4th edition without using anything but Twin Strike, they still don't get it aparently.

Feint is underpowered: either let it grant advantage to all attacks until the end of your next turn (not just the next attack), or make it a move action. 


Feint is fine. Advantage is very powerful. Sure you are giving up an action, but next round you get to roll twice so big deal. There are situations where its better to wait a round. 

Two-Weapon fighting needs to have its wording clarified, and the -2 to attack with your main hand removed (at least if you use two light weapons). It should be clarified that when you are Two-Weapon fighting with two light weapons you must choose which weapon is your main-handed weapon before you attack.


Yeah the packet is clearly not written by word-smiths. I would cut them some slack since we are dealing with rough drafts here and not finished products. Professional editing is expensive.

Two-Handed weapons need some support.


One of the smartest things in 4th edition is the introduction of multiple [W] attacks. It meant that your weapon dice continued to matter when static modifers surged into insane numbers. Who cares if my damage is 1d8+52 or 1d12+52?

The best and most obvious answer (and I don't understand why they didn't do this) is to remove the static Martial Damage Bonus and replace it with an extra [W] instead.

Meteor Swarm needs to specify that the areas of effect of the meteors cannot overlap, or else the spell becomes broken in terms of power.


/sign 

Earthquake kills people if they are caught in a fissure. The fissure closes when your concentration ends. You can end your concentration at will. This spell can be used to auto-kill targets. That needs to be fixed. 


/sign 

The spell "Command" needs a self-preservation clause, or else you can "command" someone to commit suicide. 


They need a rulebook text for mind control effects. There are too many spells and monsters to include that text under every entry and every spell that functions in this way.

It's not. Compare it to fighter damage at an equivalant level.


Yeah, 81 uncontested damage once a day vs ~50 damage most rounds (with a successful attack) seems pretty alright to me.


After several years of rangers completely humiliating every other striker in 4th edition without using anything but Twin Strike, they still don't get it aparently.


Statics are way lower now though. The stat mod doesn't grow by much, magic weapons are not likely to provide much more than +2 typically, and random spells and abilities that give damage bonuses are nearly non-existent.


The best and most obvious answer (and I don't understand why they didn't do this) is to remove the static Martial Damage Bonus and replace it with an extra [W] instead.


They definitely ought to do something along these lines; it's weird that weapon choice barely matters at all (and that two-handed weapons trade a scaling +1 AC for a completely static +1 damage).


Sneak Attack needs to be reworked from the ground up; it should be something like this: you gain advantage when you attack a foe that is adjecent to one of your allies. (In other words, make assassinate the sneak up and kill them like a lurker power, and make sneak attack the power that makes you attack in sneaky ways so that you can get advantage more often.)

 
Sneak attack is fine. Doubling expertise dice is a pretty large amount of damage and often worth giving up advantage for. It's high risk, high reward. But that isn't a bad thing.


 


Sneak attack is not fine. It is garbage. The amount of DPR you lose from giving up advantage means that you need to hit around 70% of the time to break even, 75% or more of the time to start seeing damage gains. Making the power just make it easier to get advantage will always help the rogue, not just help the rogue when he can already hit the thing easily.

I would say it is reasonable to just remove one advantage. In other words, if you have advantage from 2 sources (like dual-wield and stealth) then you should still get it.


 


If they made that RAW, I would be fine with that.

Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).

 
It's not. Compare it to fighter damage at an equivalant level.


 


I have. Magic missile is overpowered. Cast as a 9th level spell magic missile has a DPR of 81. A fighter, using his surge, has a DPR of between 64.74 and 78.36 damage. The only way to block magic missile is with the shield spell. Meanwhile, it deals more single target damage than a fighter using a surge (which should not really ever happen) and it can be split up to attack up to 18 weaker foes (which a fighter cannot do either). That is overpowered. If there were a few more ways to stop people from being targeted by the spell I would be fine with it. As it is now, it is too much. Which is why I said that any cover should block the missiles.


 
Trap the Soul needs to be rewritten: it is both horribly overpowered, and too expensive to ever use unless you can use it in a situation where it is overpowered. This spell needs to be rewritten from scratch.

 
It reminds me of a deck of many things where either the party gets screwed horibly or gets way too much, either way its too disruptive to the game. That being said more options is never bad as a DM can more easily ban a spell from his game than add new ones.

I would like a sentence that says if the target willingly take ownership of the gem (whether or not he knows its cursed) gets no saving throw.


 


Wow. So they should take an overpowered spell and make it even worse! No thanks. I don’t want overpowered spells in my game. I don’t want to have to fine comb spells (the way I am for this playtest) to avoid such trite. If they want my money they can fix it.


 
Wish should not be able to make uncommon or rare magical items without a magical McGuffin: I am fine with the spell making such magical items if the player has also undergone some quest/story related experience during which the DM gives the player a magical McGuffin that allows the caster to use the spell to make such an item. But, no player should ever be able to make such an item without DM approval, let alone make such an item once per day. 

 
You should not be able to cast a new Wish until you physically recover from the old one. A 17th level wizard making items once every couple days of downtime seems fine.


 


Not to me. I am fine if it is common magic items, but uncommon and rare magic items should require DM permission (via a magical McGuffin which the DM has to give you).


 
Glancing Blow is underpowered: I would really like glancing blow to let you add the combination of any ED you roll, not just the best number rolled. Right now it sucks. This power, however, has the potential to be both very cool and not overpowered. One of the ways in which a fighter shines in combat should be that, unlike the other classes, he will be dealing his ED as damage whether he hits or misses. 

 
The problem isn't that, the problem is its a trap. Any fighter worth anything will hit almost everything with a 10. People have been pointing that out since the 1st packet and it continues to be ignored. Maybe they know something about monster ACs that we don't but it seems useless. It should work on 9s and less.


 


It is not a trap, and has not been since the last playtest packet. You don’t have to roll a 10 anymore. Your attack result must be a 10. Since your attack bonuses count towards your attack result, by the end of the game the maneuver works even when you roll a 1. Its damage is crap right now though. It needs to be better.

Flurry of Blows might be overpowered: though, if they make the change to Glancing Blow that I just suggested, everything will be fine. So really, I think Flurry of Blows is fine. I just think it is overpowered compared to Glancing Blow. 

 

No, its clearly overpowered. Multiple attacks has always been overpowered unless static modifiers are mitigated and not simply doubled (or trippled in this case). After several years of rangers completely humiliating every other striker in 4th edition without using anything but Twin Strike, they still don't get it aparently.


 


As most of your bonuses can only be used once a turn, and only your stat bonus can be applied multiple times a round, if they fix glancing blow the way I suggested it will not be that big a deal. The damage bonus from glancing blow and the damage bonus from flurry of blows (to your DPR) will pretty much even out. It is only so noticeably overpowered right now because the fighter doesn’t have any sort of maneuver that increases his DPR by a comparable amount.

Feint is underpowered: either let it grant advantage to all attacks until the end of your next turn (not just the next attack), or make it a move action. 

 
Feint is fine. Advantage is very powerful. Sure you are giving up an action, but next round you get to roll twice so big deal. There are situations where its better to wait a round. 


 


No it is not. Granting one person (not necessarily yourself, by the way) advantage does not increase the group’s DPR enough to make up for the DPR you will cost the group by not attacking the creature. The net result is a loss of DPR. That should not be the case. Right now it is worthless. It needs to be fixed. Either it needs to grant advantage until the end of your next turn (and the whole group can attack it to make use of that advantage), or it cannot cost an action (though it would be fine if it cost a move).


Two-Weapon fighting needs to have its wording clarified, and the -2 to attack with your main hand removed (at least if you use two light weapons). It should be clarified that when you are Two-Weapon fighting with two light weapons you must choose which weapon is your main-handed weapon before you attack.


Yeah the packet is clearly not written by word-smiths. I would cut them some slack since we are dealing with rough drafts here and not finished products. Professional editing is expensive.



 


I am cutting them slack. I am providing them with playtesting data so that they can fix the final product…


Two-Handed weapons need some support.

 
One of the smartest things in 4th edition is the introduction of multiple [W] attacks. It meant that your weapon dice continued to matter when static modifers surged into insane numbers. Who cares if my damage is 1d8+52 or 1d12+52?

The best and most obvious answer (and I don't understand why they didn't do this) is to remove the static Martial Damage Bonus and replace it with an extra [W] instead.


I would actually be fine with that… I think that sounds like a good idea.
Yeah, 81 uncontested damage once a day vs ~50 damage most rounds (with a successful attack) seems pretty alright to me.



81 damage once per day, when a fighter is doing upwards of 50 at will, might be reasonable. Then again the fighter is giving up versatility for doing one thing well for longer, so maybe a 9th level should be equal to what a fighter of that level can do, not more.

My point is there is a lot of debate about exactly how powerful dailys should be compared to at-wills. And the designers have no idea either.

Fortuneately for them number crunching like this is easy. Obviously the designers are not going to get secretly blindsided by Magic Missile. They know it does 81 damage. The question of whether or not that is the target for an end-game daily is the question, and that debate is still ongoing.

So be patient.

Statics are way lower now though. The stat mod doesn't grow by much, magic weapons are not likely to provide much more than +2 typically, and random spells and abilities that give damage bonuses are nearly non-existent.


They thought they had static modifiers under control in 4th edition. Twin Strike got no ability mod and querry dice were once per turn. But every new book that came out seemed to introduce some new feat, item, or paragon path that dumped on one more static bonus. It didn't take long before Twin Strike was not merely a problem, but flat-out broke the game.  

New static modifiers will happen and Flurry of Blows will be the elephant in the room every time it does. 

I have. Magic missile is overpowered. Cast as a 9th level spell magic missile has a DPR of 81.



The wizard can only do 81 DPR once a day, and it comes at the opportunity cost of casting any other 9th level spell that day.  That's fine.
They thought they had static modifiers under control in 4th edition. Twin Strike got no ability mod and querry dice were once per turn. But every new book that came out seemed to introduce some new feat, item, or paragon path that dumped on one more static bonus. It didn't take long before Twin Strike was not merely a problem, but flat-out broke the game.



No argument that more static mods crept into the game as time went on, but a lot of the stuff that made multiple attacks an issue existed right from the start:

- Enhancement bonuses that scaled with level
- Power bonuses to damage on rings and from warlord abilities
- Vulnerability increasing damage by a flat amount per attack.

At any rate, looking at how explicit they are being that martial damage bonus only happens once per round, it seems like this might be a mistake they don't repeat. 
I have. Magic missile is overpowered. Cast as a 9th level spell magic missile has a DPR of 81.



The wizard can only do 81 DPR once a day, and it comes at the opportunity cost of casting any other 9th level spell that day.  That's fine.



No it is not. Being a fighter comes at the cost of not getting spells at all. Your surges are directly analogous to the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. To keep wizards balanced, a fighter should be doing more single target DPR when using a surge that a wizard will have when casting any 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level spell. A fighter, using his surge, has a DPR of between 64.74 and 78.36 damage (depending on monster AC). That means that even if the fighter will hit 95% of the time, magic missile is still superior. That is not fine. That is not fine at all. That is horribly overpowered, as the spell is not only better at single target DPR but is great at precision DPR against multiple weaker foes. Either they can majorly nerf its DPR, or they can add in more ways in which one can avoid becoming a target to that spell (cover/concealment makes you an invalid target). 

In fact, magic missile currently deals almost double the DPR of ANY other high level spell. They should really halve the number of darts it gives you... 

Sneak attack is not fine. It is garbage. The amount of DPR you lose from giving up advantage means that you need to hit around 70% of the time to break even, 75% or more of the time to start seeing damage gains. Making the power just make it easier to get advantage will always help the rogue, not just help the rogue when he can already hit the thing easily. 


Not when you take into account other uses for expertise dice. Missing with your +1 d4 dagger is not that big a deal compared to the several d6 bonus damage you gain from sneak attack. It only becomes a serious problem when you assume you are giving up several d6 of Deadly Momentum damage.

But there are other uses for those dice, so they won't really be wasted on a miss. And the nova damage of a sneak attack hit on the first round of combat can potentially trivialise an encounter if you drop an important enemy before he acts.

Again, probably worth the risk. That being said I do think it should only remove one set of advantage, not all if you have multiple.

Wow. So they should take an overpowered spell and make it even worse! No thanks. I don’t want overpowered spells in my game. I don’t want to have to fine comb spells (the way I am for this playtest) to avoid such trite. If they want my money they can fix it. 


A lot of high-end spells have the potential to be extremely disruptive. Have you read Clone?

I think your problem with Trap the Soul is that you don't like the mechanic of Save or Die. I can understand that, but it comes down to an issue of play style. Some players love them, and spells like this should exist for them. 

Not to me. I am fine if it is common magic items, but uncommon and rare magic items should require DM permission (via a magical McGuffin which the DM has to give you).


At some point a DM needs to let the players take some control of the campaign. Mother May I works fine for low level item disbursement but by level 17 shouldn't the players be afforded some autonomy with regard to what items they get to make?

It is not a trap, and has not been since the last playtest packet. You don’t have to roll a 10 anymore. Your attack result must be a 10. Since your attack bonuses count towards your attack result, by the end of the game the maneuver works even when you roll a 1. Its damage is crap right now though. It needs to be better. 


I read the manuever differently but you may be right.

That said, any damage on a miss is not crap. Most classes get nothing if they miss. If you don't like the "best roll" mechanic then just never spend more than one die on it. That way you get a free d6 damage when you miss, which is nice, and still have other dice for parry or whatever.

No {feint} is not. Granting one person (not necessarily yourself, by the way) advantage does not increase the group’s DPR enough to make up for the DPR you will cost the group by not attacking the creature. The net result is a loss of DPR. That should not be the case. Right now it is worthless. It needs to be fixed. Either it needs to grant advantage until the end of your next turn (and the whole group can attack it to make use of that advantage), or it cannot cost an action (though it would be fine if it cost a move).


Costing only a move is severely overpowered. Moves are nothing. Giving up a move to gain advantage is just giving rogues free advantage all day every day.

And you are right that it is a DPR loss, but that isn't the point. They didn't write up Feint as a DPR boost to be used every other turn. It is just an option. An almost free one. It does not need to be anything more than sometimes useful. And there are definately several situations where attacking now is not so great (because of some spell, or condition, or whatever) but next round will be fine. Or a situation where passing on your turn to give another player advantage on his attack is the best plan (like a powerful spell that requires an attack roll or a fighter using an arrow of slaying).
No it is not. Being a fighter comes at the cost of not getting spells at all. Your surges are directly analogous to the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. To keep wizards balanced, a fighter should be doing more single target DPR when using a surge that a wizard will have when casting any 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level spell. A fighter, using his surge, has a DPR of between 64.74 and 78.36 damage (depending on monster AC). That means that even if the fighter will hit 95% of the time, magic missile is still superior. That is not fine. That is not fine at all. That is horribly overpowered, as the spell is not only better at single target DPR but is great at precision DPR against multiple weaker foes. Either they can majorly nerf its DPR, or they can add in more ways in which one can avoid becoming a target to that spell (cover/concealment makes you an invalid target). 


In fact, magic missile currently deals almost double the DPR of ANY other high level spell. They should really halve the number of darts it gives you... 




Your math is a little off. Players will usually use surges when they miss so they can get their Deadly Momentum and Martial Damage Dice. So over the course of a day, surges will account for a more sizable increase in damage than what you get in your counting.

Obviously Power Word Kill is laughably bad compared to Magic Missile. But does that mean Magic Missile is overpowered or that Power Word Kill is underpowered? 

Obviously the designers don't need us to crunch numbers for them, they can do that themselves. They need to see how the classes play. And I don't think either of us can say for certain if 81 damage is too high or not. Things like this really need to be played at a table in a full level 17 adventure, not number crunched without all the variables taken into account.
I agree on the assassinate point in principle. Your fix certainly makes sense from a narrative point of view. On the other hand, though, it makes sense to make it based on presence, as otherwise there would be a fair amount of arguments that could spring up over whether you can actually attack for extra damage.

It could be complicated a bit in otherwise requiring a surprise roll, and if you successfully surprise them you could still assassinate if your presence is known. 
The rules for when skill and martial damage dice recharge need to be clarified.  

The rules for power word need to be included.

The rules for when you get trained in a skill twice need to be included.

The rules for when/how you get training in special weapons need to be included. 

This last one is just a wish of mine.  Right now you can use feats to add a dash of magic to a fighter/rogue but there aren't very many feats which you can use to add fighting ability to a wizard.   

Eric888, I am coming to the conclusion that you don't really understand how statistical probability works... a lot of what you have said is flat out untrue and doesn't really make any sense from the point of view of statistical math. My math was not off, at all. I can prove that. I will. I don't really have the time right now (I need to write 1000 words today, for work). But once I am done my quota, I am going to come back here and post the numbers for sneak attack and the math behind a fighter's DPR with surge. Magic missile is flat out broken. It allows a wizard to out single-target damage a fighter with its 11th-20th level resource, which is something that should never happen. Power word kill is not underpowered. It is doing EXACTLY what it should. Its DPR is comparable to what a fighter can do with a surge, but slightly lower. As it is basically a single target damage spell, that is how it should be. Sneak attack is nowhere near as effective as it should be until you can hit more than 75% of the time. The amount of damage you statistically get to add before that point in time usually falls between 0-1 points of damage. That is a joke. 

As for Trap the Soul, I am sorry, but no go. I am not ok with "options" like that being in the game. Not if they want my dollar. I am fine with "save-or-die" spells. But they must work like all the other save-or-die spells in the game; that spell must be rewritten in a way that doesn't allow a player to take out a god in one round by breaking the bank--not cool. And no, other spells do not (for the most part) allow for anywhere near that level of disruption. (Those that do also need errata.)  

I am out for now. But I will be back to post hard data and math explaining things.  


Not when you take into account other uses for expertise dice.



What other uses does a rogue get again? 

Missing with your +1 d4 dagger is not that big a deal compared to the several d6 bonus damage you gain from sneak attack. It only becomes a serious problem when you assume you are giving up several d6 of Deadly Momentum damage.




I don't know what you mean by "Deadly Momentum damage." But, by 20th level you will be dealing +6d6+20 damage from class features. You will be adding +5 damage from your stat on top of that. If you only hit 60% of the time, by giving up advantage you give a 24% boost in accuracy. You will also be giving up on + %4.75 of a crit. That amounts to a total of DPR loss of (((3.5*6) martial damage dice + 3.5 weapon damage + 5 stat damage + 20 martial damage bonus)*0.1925) +  (((6*6) martial damage dice + 6 weapon damage + 5 stat damage + 20 martial damage bonus + 3.5 critical weapon damage die)*0.0475)=12.8775. What you gain for that is +6d6 with a 55% of hitting and a 5% of landing a critical, or (3.5*0.55)+(6*6*0.05)=13.35. So, your total damage gain with a 60% of hitting, at level 20, is 0.4725 points of damage. Tell me again how that is a great damage bonus please...

Here is a list of the sort of damage bonuses you will see based on your percentile chance of hitting:

















































































































































































Difference%
Accuracy0.50.550.60.650.70.750.80.50.550.60.650.70.750.8
1-1-0.7975-0.54-0.22750.140.56251.04-12%-9%-6%-2%1%5%10%
3-0.1250.261250.721.251251.8552.531253.28-1%2%6%10%14%19%24%
50.751.321.982.733.574.55.526%9%13%17%22%27%32%
80.1250.893751.82.843754.0255.343756.81%4%8%12%16%21%26%
911.95253.064.32255.747.31259.044%8%12%16%20%25%30%
110.6251.773753.124.663756.4058.3437510.482%6%9%13%18%23%28%
14-0.6250.536251.923.526255.3557.406259.68-2%2%5%9%13%18%23%
17-1.875-0.701250.722.388754.3056.468758.88-5%-2%2%5%10%14%19%


But there are other uses for those dice, so they won't really be wasted on a miss.



Not for a rogue there is not.



A lot of high-end spells have the potential to be extremely disruptive. Have you read Clone?



Yes. It is not a problem. It just lets you come back to life after you die. 


That said, any damage on a miss is not crap. Most classes get nothing if they miss. If you don't like the "best roll" mechanic then just never spend more than one die on it. That way you get a free d6 damage when you miss, which is nice, and still have other dice for parry or whatever.



You always have dice for parry. You get all your dice back every turn. You just happen to have only one reaction per round. And no, damage on a miss is not always good. If you got to sum your martial dice, then this power would equal out the bonus damage from flurry of blows. By nerfing this power and boosting flurry of blows they created a problem. Now they either have to nerf flurry of blows (which I think would be a mistake) or return glancing blow to what it could do last packet.  


Costing only a move is severely overpowered. Moves are nothing. Giving up a move to gain advantage is just giving rogues free advantage all day every day.



They can get free advantage, without spending a move, all day every day, with a feat anyway. Letting do so without the feat, but at the cost of a move, is not a big deal. It is not "severely overpowered." And most of the time, it won't even be the rogue who get's the benefit. It will be someone else in the party. Or, like i said, it can be an action; then, however, it should grant advantage on as many attacks as the group can make until the end of the rogue's next turn. One or the other. As it stands now it is junk. 

And you are right that it is a DPR loss, but that isn't the point. They didn't write up Feint as a DPR boost to be used every other turn. It is just an option. An almost free one. It does not need to be anything more than sometimes useful. And there are definately several situations where attacking now is not so great (because of some spell, or condition, or whatever) but next round will be fine. Or a situation where passing on your turn to give another player advantage on his attack is the best plan (like a powerful spell that requires an attack roll or a fighter using an arrow of slaying).


When you only get 5 skill tricks, wasting one on this junk is not "almost free." It needs to be more useful than the odd round in which you can't attack and deal damage (for some reason), but you still have an action to spend. 


Your math is a little off. Players will usually use surges when they miss so they can get their Deadly Momentum and Martial Damage Dice. So over the course of a day, surges will account for a more sizable increase in damage than what you get in your counting.



My math was not off. I don't think you really understand statistical math. Your best option is not to choose to use a surge after you have already attacked and missed. If you do that, your damage bonus will be smaller (statistically speaking) than it would be if you chose to surge before making a single attack. Your damage bonus will be up to +6d6+20. You can hit the easiest things to hit in the game with 95% certainty. The hardest thing to hit, in the game, has an AC of 18. You will be able to hit that AC with 65% certainty. Once we know you have missed with your first attack, if you only choose to expend your surge after you miss, then your statistical boost to damage from class that round will be between 53.2 (if you can hit 95% of the time) and 36.4 points of damage (if you can hit 65% of the time). On the other hand, if you choose to surge before making a single attack roll (thus giving yourself 2 chances to hit), then your chance of hitting with maximized bonus damage once in your turn goes up to between %99.75 and %87.75, which gets you between 55.86 and 49.14 points of bonus damage.

Meanwhile, with a 1d12 weapon, you have two attacks with an average damage for an attack of 11.5. Critical damage for an attack is 18. So, your attacks will be dealing between: (.9*11.5)+(.05*18)= 11.25 and (.6*11.5)+ (.05*18)=7.8 damage statistically speaking. Two of those is between 22.5 and 15.6 damage. 

Thus, your DPR will be between 78.36 (if you hit 95% of the time) and 64.74 points of damage WITH a surge. So, what I said is still true. Magic missile is both a better AoE and single target damage spell than a fighter using a surge. That is COMPLETELY unacceptable.  Single target damage is the area of the game where the fighter should shine. 

Obviously Power Word Kill is laughably bad compared to Magic Missile. But does that mean Magic Missile is overpowered or that Power Word Kill is underpowered?



It means that magic missile is overpowered, because it deals more DPR than a fighter using a surge, and the two areas of the game where a fighter should always shine brighter than the wizard are survivability and single target damage (no matter what spells the wizard is casting). 

Obviously the designers don't need us to crunch numbers for them, they can do that themselves. They need to see how the classes play. And I don't think either of us can say for certain if 81 damage is too high or not. Things like this really need to be played at a table in a full level 17 adventure, not number crunched without all the variables taken into account.



Obviously, from time to time, they do. Because from time to time they mess up. It happens. Catching that is what playtesters are for. And, while I think that actua play data is very important as well, I don't need play data to see when the numbers on something like this are very badly out of wack. 

And even then, it is not like I said they should nerf it into oblivion. I just said that cover should make someone an invalid target for magic missile. Though, now that I have seen all the numbers again, I think it should be cover, the spell shield, or any non-magical shield.
Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).



Magic Missile is problematic in multiple ways. It auto-hits, which I've always thought was stupid, and the way they made it scale makes it the most powerful single target attack spell in the game. They need to make it require attack roll(s). They also need to redesign the spell to scale properly so that it's balanced with other spells. There are too many creatures in the Monster Manual that wizards can one-shot with this spell, guaranteed. That's not acceptable.


Wish should not be able to make uncommon or rare magical items without a magical McGuffin: I am fine with the spell making such magical items if the player has also undergone some quest/story related experience during which the DM gives the player a magical McGuffin that allows the caster to use the spell to make such an item. But, no player should ever be able to make such an item without DM approval, let alone make such an item once per day.



I don't think Wish should be able to make magic items at all, or wealth, at least not in its current form. It used to have an experience point cost that made those options balanced. Now, it just puts the wizard in time out for a couple days. The problem is, when a wizard has downtime between adventures, he can afford to amass vast amounts of magic items and wealth. The downtime is no penalty during that situation. But on the other end of things, during an adventure, the downtime is such a brutal penalty that nobody will ever use Wish for anything other than duplicating low level spells. They need to find a better drawback for the spell, one that isn't too crippling mid-adventure but still hurts between adventures. As much as I hate to recommend this, maybe the spell should have an expensive material component. I normally hate such things, but in this case it might be the best way to balance the spell.
I agree on the assassinate point in principle. Your fix certainly makes sense from a narrative point of view. On the other hand, though, it makes sense to make it based on presence, as otherwise there would be a fair amount of arguments that could spring up over whether you can actually attack for extra damage.

It could be complicated a bit in otherwise requiring a surprise roll, and if you successfully surprise them you could still assassinate if your presence is known. 



Quite contrary, not defining the exact needed circumstances for "presence" being known is what would spring up the arguments: If you're hidden, is your target "aware of your presence" (the rules on Stealth from How to Play seems to indicate they're not aware)? If the target have heard that you are in the same city as them, do they then know of your presence? Or do they have to know you're in the same dungeon complex as them? The same room? Do they have to see you? If I shoot someone in a room from hiding outside the door after my companions have stormed the room, the target is certainly aware of their presence, but probably not mine; but what if I attack normally, then run away and hide, and then return to attack from hiding? If they're still aware of my presence after me hiding, then when do they stop being aware of my presence (if for example I come back a month later)? Or is this a totally arbitrary concept depending on DM mood ("He knew you were coming for him, so in effect he was aware of your presence.")?

This should be written as "when you're hidden from your target", if that's what presence known means, or otherwise clarify the meaning of presence known, preferably tying it to a game mechanic so it's always clear if you can use assassinate or not.

And while I'm on the subject of hiding, why would anyone ever want the Vanish skill trick? What's the use of getting an extra move action when using your action to hide? How often do you really have to move more than your basic move to get to cover? Or do I just read it wrong and this really means I can use my move action to hide (that would perhaps rock a bit too much)?
What other uses does a rogue get again? 

 
They already said rogues will be able to pick up maneuvers in other ways. They just didn't include those in these playtest materials.

I don't know what you mean by "Deadly Momentum damage." But, by 20th level you will be dealing +6d6+20 damage from class features. You will be adding +5 damage from your stat on top of that. If you only hit 60% of the time, by giving up advantage you give a 24% boost in accuracy. You will also be giving up on + %4.75 of a crit. That amounts to a total of DPR loss of (((3.5*6) martial damage dice + 3.5 weapon damage + 5 stat damage + 20 martial damage bonus)*0.1925) +  (((6*6) martial damage dice + 6 weapon damage + 5 stat damage + 20 martial damage bonus + 3.5 critical weapon damage die)*0.0475)=12.8775. What you gain for that is +6d6 with a 55% of hitting and a 5% of landing a critical, or (3.5*0.55)+(6*6*0.05)=13.35. So, your total damage gain with a 60% of hitting, at level 20, is 0.4725 points of damage. Tell me again how that is a great damage bonus please...

 

Becuase it is all at once. This is why number crunching < playtesting. If you use sneak attack, and hit, the damage is insane. It is high risk, but it can drop powerful enemies before they even get an action, and a lot of enemies have one-shot abilities (like spellcasters) that are quite strong. 


Yes. {clone} is not a problem. It just lets you come back to life after you die. 

 
It lets you come back without anyone in your party needing to survive to bring you back. It means the party can't ever lose. Yes, its a problem.

You always have dice for parry. You get all your dice back every turn. You just happen to have only one reaction per round. And no, damage on a miss is not always good. If you got to sum your martial dice, then this power would equal out the bonus damage from flurry of blows. By nerfing this power and boosting flurry of blows they created a problem. Now they either have to nerf flurry of blows (which I think would be a mistake) or return glancing blow to what it could do last packet.


You can't use dice for parry AND glancing blow equally, you have to split your dice pool. And when did the designers ever claim that Glancing Blow was suppoed to be the fighter's answer to Flurry? They are completely different mechanics on completely different classes. 


They can get free advantage, without spending a move, all day every day, with a feat anyway. Letting do so without the feat, but at the cost of a move, is not a big deal. It is not "severely overpowered." And most of the time, it won't even be the rogue who get's the benefit. It will be someone else in the party. Or, like i said, it can be an action; then, however, it should grant advantage on as many attacks as the group can make until the end of the rogue's next turn. One or the other. As it stands now it is junk. 

 
Free advantage, all the time, as a class feature, and you don't see a problem? TWF is a level 9 feat that has prereqs.

And even if they have that, you mention that rogues can already get "free advantage" so whatever and then point out in your next sentence that the advantage from feint can go to someone else in the party. You know those can both happen right?

Nothing would be more frustrating for a DM than watching the rogue and fighter have advantage every round all the time. It would be Righteous Brand all over again.


They already said rogues will be able to pick up maneuvers in other ways. They just didn't include those in these playtest materials.


 


Sure they did. Some 9th level feats give you a maneuver. But it is far from a sure thing that a rogue will ever be able to use the damage on anything other than damage.

Becuase it is all at once. This is why number crunching < playtesting. If you use sneak attack, and hit, the damage is insane. It is high risk, but it can drop powerful enemies before they even get an action, and a lot of enemies have one-shot abilities (like spellcasters) that are quite strong. 


 


What a load of bologna. Sorry, but it is not a big benefit.


It lets you come back without anyone in your party needing to survive to bring you back. It means the party can't ever lose. Yes, its a problem.


No its not. This is not a game about winning or losing. As long as the party, during play, is working well, the fact that a person can come back after death is not a big deal. Honestly, who really cares about something like that?

You can't use dice for parry AND glancing blow equally, you have to split your dice pool. And when did the designers ever claim that Glancing Blow was suppoed to be the fighter's answer to Flurry? They are completely different mechanics on completely different classes.


No you don’t. You are getting the rules of different playtest packets mixed up. You can use your dice once per turn. Your turn is one turn. Someone else’s turn is another turn.


Free advantage, all the time, as a class feature, and you don't see a problem? TWF is a level 9 feat that has prereqs.


It is not free. It costs a move action. And you must make a contested check. No, I don’t see that as a problem. I do see a problem with an action that is a trap though. As it stands right now, it is a trap.

No you don’t. You are getting the rules of different playtest packets mixed up. You can use your dice once per turn. Your turn is one turn. Someone else’s turn is another turn.




This is the literal reading of what it says in the rules right now, but it's definitely not intended:

twitter.com/Trevor_WotC/status/281069046...

Trevor is not one of the designers, as far as I know. He is one of the staff. Trevor is an awesome guy, but I don't know that he knows what was actually intended. Especially because Mike explicitly said they wanted it to work that way in one of his L&L articles. 

Well, Mike actually said that HE wanted it to work that way in an LnL article.  The last article where he mentioned it, Parry was actually something that wasn't going to use expertise dice at all, so it either didn't end up going that direction or those changes haven't been released yet.

At any rate, the actual text for Parry seems to imply that you might have a reason to not spend all your expertise dice (it specifically mentions the possibility that you use Parry but don't spend any dice).  If expertise dice are actually supposed to recharge every turn there's no reason not to spend all of them when you Parry (since there's no circumstance where you can get a second reaction on the same turn).
Well, I guess we will find out based on what changes they make in the next packet... but right now it is every turn. 
I think Trevor is clearly wrong because at the "start" of your turn doesn't work. In the last packet they refreshed at the end so you did not have to guess whether or not you might need to Parry. Instead you could alway parry and it would just count against your Deadly Strike (or rather its new nameless equivalant) damage next turn.

Start of turn is far worse design, since its hard to split your dice pool when you don't know if you'll need them or not.

I'm guessing the dice pool are supposed to be split, but Cyber-Dave is right that a strict litteral reading leaves no conlusion other than every turn, monster and yours. 
The rules for when you get trained in a skill twice need to be included.    



Not only that, but duplication of cantrips gained from a feat and class needs to be addressed as well.
And what about gaining new skills, I now need to spend a feat to learn basics of how to listen? Either need to do it like third whee skill points were just added or second non weapon proficiencies, every few levels you learn a skill, speed of sklills learned is based on class.

This last one is just a wish of mine.  Right now you can use feats to add a dash of magic to a fighter/rogue but there aren't very many feats which you can use to add fighting ability to a wizard.   



Why? Why should a wizard be able to heal people? Why should a fighter need to cast magic period? Take that stuff away. Leave magical healing to divine spell casting (and maybe bards when they show up). Leave arcane destruction to Wizards. Oh, and give us decent spell tables not the jokes they have now.
Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).

I agree Magic Missile is a little overpowered, but it seems within reason bounds now. Consider a Level-10 Wizard using a Spelllevel-5 slot. (Calculations assume about 75% of average damage when saving for half-damage about 50% of the time.)

• Magic Missile (hitting 100% of the time, no save): appoximately 9 damage per spell level versus one target.
• Fireball: approximately 4 damage per spell level versus about two or three targets.
• Cone of Cold: 4 damage per spell level versus about two-or-three targets.

Magic Missile seems extra powerful but not broken. Maybe its ok to ensure Wizards use it as a signature Wizard spell.



Even so, your idea of making any COVER negate the Magic Missile effect, is an interesting one. So, targets can hide behind cover to avoid the spell. It also adds an interesting strategic element when Wizards try to position themselves so no cover blocks between themselves and their targets. This helps prevent the autohit from becoming boring.

Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).

I agree Magic Missile is a little overpowered, but it seems within reason bounds now. Consider a Level-10 Wizard using a Spelllevel-5 slot. (Calculations assume about 75% of average damage when saving for half-damage about 50% of the time.)

• Magic Missile (hitting 100% of the time, no save): appoximately 9 damage per spell level versus one target.
• Fireball: approximately 4 damage per spell level versus about two or three targets.
• Cone of Cold: 4 damage per spell level versus about two-or-three targets.

Magic Missile seems extra powerful but not broken. Maybe its ok to ensure Wizards use it as a signature Wizard spell.



Even so, your idea of making any COVER negate the Magic Missile effect, is an interesting one. So, targets can hide behind cover to avoid the spell. It also adds an interesting strategic element when Wizards try to position themselves so no cover blocks between themselves and their targets. This helps prevent the autohit from becoming boring.




Right. It is a very slight nerf (as it does not change its damage), and it adds an intresting element to the game. How do you feel about non-magical shields working to negate the effect as well? I think it is fair to give martial characters a way to protect themselves from the spell alongside wizards...

How do you feel about non-magical shields working to negate the effect as well?

It depends on the description of the Shield spell.

The Shield spell doesnt actually create “shield” armor. Rather the spell creates “half cover”. So, the mundane cover that is at least half should negate Magic Missile. By contrast, carrying a shield would remain vulnerable to Magic Missile because there is no “cover”.

That said, in some editions of D&D certain oversized shields do offer “cover”, and these would negate Magic Missile too.

I would be happy with that...
I would be happy with that...



I would be happy with that too. Not only does the effectiveness cover keep the Magic Missile spell from becoming boring, but it works well as a “controller” spell.

Targets have a choice between hiding behind cover or eating the damage. Thus Magic Missile would influence the targets mobility at the scene of the combat, threatening them and restricting them to certain zones, while allowing allies freer mobility elsewhere.


 
The use of cover works well in theater-of-the-mind style too. Saying vaguely, “The target takes cover behind the pillar”, is easy to visualize without resorting to a gridded map.
I'd much rather have Magic Missile require an attack roll than be outright negated by anyone carrying a shield or behind partial cover. The problem with Magic Missile is that it automatically hits. I dislike any spell that just works without any kind of roll or saving throw. I'm not fond of the new Scorching Ray for the same reason.
Automatically hitting is sort of magic missiles thing. It has been since 1e. I hope that aspect sticks around... just because i like balance doesn't mean I want to throw tradition out the window. 

No you don’t. You are getting the rules of different playtest packets mixed up. You can use your dice once per turn. Your turn is one turn. Someone else’s turn is another turn.




This is the literal reading of what it says in the rules right now, but it's definitely not intended:

twitter.com/Trevor_WotC/status/281069046...



That link is dead and/or that tweet is gone. 
Beginning of the turn does work fine and actually can put more tactics in the players court. Both make sense. I don't care if your dice are 'wasted' because you made a bad decision. Many PCs deal with that on a per round basis.

The half-cover idea for MM is a neat one and perhaps just the fix that MM may need. I don't view it as broken as is, but I'm willing to take some mathematical evidence, and haven't done the full analysis myself just yet, over an adventure day into consideration.



 
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I think Magic Missile is fine. If you have the power to change reality with six seconds of utterance but instead choose to shoot darts of force damage, that's your choice. You can only do that once per day. The fighter can be attacking every round. With Whirlwind Attack, they can kill 5+ enemies in one go with proper positioning. It's kind of offesnive to wizards to say 'This spell that is supposed to be of the most advanced magic available to those who call themselves mages is less effective than any warrior of equal caliber.' 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are supposed to be the game changers by definition, the equivalent to air strikes from FPS's and bombs from shoot-em-up. If they're used, they're used in the most dire situations to great effect. Taking that away would ruin the satisfaction of getting just one casting of them per day.

The reason cover doesn't stop magic missile is because of the fluff of how it works. It's targeted as soon as the caster picks a target, and it will fly around cover to strike its target.

If there's one thing that's off, though, it's the 'two missiles per spell level' part of it. I think one missile for 1d6+3 would do the trick in making it a little weaker.

 
I think Magic Missile is fine. If you have the power to change reality with six seconds of utterance but instead choose to shoot darts of force damage, that's your choice. You can only do that once per day. The fighter can be attacking every round. With Whirlwind Attack, they can kill 5+ enemies in one go with proper positioning. It's kind of offesnive to wizards to say 'This spell that is supposed to be of the most advanced magic available to those who call themselves mages is less effective than any warrior of equal caliber.' 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are supposed to be the game changers by definition, the equivalent to air strikes from FPS's and bombs from shoot-em-up. If they're used, they're used in the most dire situations to great effect. Taking that away would ruin the satisfaction of getting just one casting of them per day.



It is overpowered. But I am too tired to go over why again. There are people on these boards who believe that a wizard should be able to do everything that every other class can do, with a high level spell, better than any other class. I don't agree. Seeing just how much a wizard does get, I think it is fair to say that non-situational single target damage, survivability, and group protection (as in protecting an adjacent ally from damage) should be the forte of a fighter, and a wizard should never overshadow him if they are both spending a resource of equal value. If you don’t agree, so be it. But I won’t play or buy any game that doesn’t agree with that philosophy. That is my deal breaker. 


The reason cover doesn't stop magic missile is because of the fluff of how it works. It's targeted as soon as the caster picks a target, and it will fly around cover to strike its target.



Then why does the shield spell, which grants 1/2 cover, block magic missile?

If there's one thing that's off, though, it's the 'two missiles per spell level' part of it. I think one missile for 1d6+3 would do the trick in making it a little weaker.
 



So, hold on: I just want to make people have to target foes who are not behind cover. I am happy leaving the damage as is. You, on the other hand, want them to drop damage to the point where it only deals 58.5 DPR as a 9th level spell (instead of dealing 81 DPR). Really!? Ok. I would rather make it tactically unique myself. I like that people will rush for cover against a spellcaster who can cast magic missile. But, whatever... either change would float my boat.  
Dumping your only 9th level spell to equal the DPS of a fighter for one round is nowhere close to overshadowing.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
Shield functions as a magical field of force that is also specifically tailored to resist Magic Missile. It doesn't create a floating shield in front of you, it creates a field of force around you. The half cover is essentially a way of using game elements to express its AC bonus, and allows it to be stacked on with Mage Armor to create one hard-to-hit Abjurer.

Also, yes, one round of being badass does not equate to being badass all the time every day. If you go through five fights in a day, the wizard can do it in one round of one of them, and then will be wishing he had a Wish spell available when the Cleric dies in the fourth. 
Dumping your only 9th level spell to equal the DPS of a fighter for one round is nowhere close to overshadowing.




Except, after he dumps his 9th level spell into magic missile, he can cast his 8th, 7th, and 6th level spells that way as well. A fighter using the best weapon he can (1d12) and all 4 of his surge (his 6-9th level spell analog) abilities only manages to match the wizard's DPR over 4 rounds in his 4th round. So, the wizard can do the same DPR as the fighter and better nova DPR than the fighter over 4 rounds of 11th level plus abilities. It can also cast wish, gate, meteor swarm, or whatever else. Yes, being able to do the same thing, and more, when the fighter can only do that one thing, does overshadow the fighter. 


And let us not even start to talk about “wasting spell slots to cast wish.” The wizard gets to memorize a number of spells equal to 1+his level. A 20th level wizard can memorize 21 spells. You don’t have to match spells up to particular slots. You can cast what you need when you need it. So, if you don’t need that DPR you won’t use it. If you do, you can pump out magic missiles to your heart’s content. Either way you have gotten a high level spell worth of power. The only thing is, where you can pump out the damage of a fighter using a greatsword with a surge at range and do other things a fighter can only really do one thing. At that thing, the wizard should never be able to overshadow the fighter. That sort of damage has to become situational as a result. 

Shield functions as a magical field of force that is also specifically tailored to resist Magic Missile. It doesn't create a floating shield in front of you, it creates a field of force around you. The half cover is essentially a way of using game elements to express its AC bonus, and allows it to be stacked on with Mage Armor to create one hard-to-hit Abjurer.

Also, yes, one round of being badass does not equate to being badass all the time every day. If you go through five fights in a day, the wizard can do it in one round of one of them, and then will be wishing he had a Wish spell available when the Cleric dies in the fourth. 




Ah. I see. 

Things work however the rules say they work. Making cover negate magic missile makes the rules more interesting. It helps to keep magic missile balanced. It doesn't reduce the spells damage. You really prefer for the spells damage to be dropped to one bolt that does 1d6+3? Fine. That would make me happy. I would rather the cover rout, but 1d6+3 would be balanced. It breaks tradition (magic missile has always done d4s of damage), it is less interesting, it won't make people rush for cover when a wizard appears on the stage, but fine... 

Dumping your only 9th level spell to equal the DPS of a fighter for one round is nowhere close to overshadowing.




Except, after he dumps his 9th level spell into magic missile, he can cast his 8th, 7th, and 6th level spells that way as well. A fighter using the best weapon he can (1d12) and all 4 of his surge (his 6-9th level spell analog) abilities only manages to match the wizard's DPR over 4 rounds in his 4th round. So, the wizard can do the same DPR as the fighter and better nova DPR than the fighter over 4 rounds of 11th level plus abilities. It can also cast wish, gate, meteor swarm, or whatever else. Yes, being able to do the same thing, and more, when the fighter can only do that one thing, does overshadow the fighter. 


And let us not even start to talk about “wasting spell slots to cast wish.” The wizard gets to memorize a number of spells equal to 1+his level. A 20th level wizard can memorize 21 spells. You don’t have to match spells up to particular slots. You can cast what you need when you need it. So, if you don’t need that DPR you won’t use it. If you do, you can pump out magic missiles to your heart’s content. Either way you have gotten a high level spell worth of power. The only thing is, where you can pump out the damage of a fighter using a greatsword with a surge at range and do other things a fighter can only really do one thing. At that thing, the wizard should never be able to overshadow the fighter. That sort of damage has to become situational as a result. 


With surge, you do more damage per hit on avg (73.5) than a wizards 8th level MM (72).  
So, for one round the wizard has better damage, while using dailies. 

When the dailies run out (4 rounds?) the wizard has two rounds 45 avg damage and then down to 36 and below. The fighter is still doing his 52.5 damage per hit[edit].

So show me where it breaks down? I'm not against being wrong here. But they're not using equal resources. The fighter can do it all day. The wizard only overshadows if he can do it better than a fighter. Doing it for one round as your super daily should harldy be considered that.

Also you can't mix and match your arguments. Either we're overshadowing and doing single target 
damage as our conversation or we're not. So let's talk about single target damage for now, because the discussion was about MM and how it is OP.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
Oh, I also forgot to add the original hit into the 73.5. So that number jumps to 85 damage on hits (larger than 9th level MM 81).
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.