Balancing Wizard Damage Spells

Right now wizard cantrips do about as much damage as fighter at-will attacks. This already bodes poorly for the fighter because wizard spell slot spells do more damage than the cantrips.

I personally think wizard spell damage should be reduced across the board. The wizard has much more combat utility than the fighter so they should never be giving a fighter a run for their money in the damage department.

My suggestion is to reduce cantrip damage to d6 instead of d8. Then on top of this, use new math for spell damage by slot where spells can deal an average of 1d6 + 1d6 per spell level.

This way you get burning hands dealing 2d6 as a level 1 spell, scorching ray dealing 3d6 as a level 2 spell, fireball dealing 4d6 as a level 3 spell, all the way up to meteor dealing 10d6 as a level 9 spell.

This would bring wizard (and other casters) damage more in line with fighter damage.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

There needs to be rules for scaling spells that apply to all spells across the board. Of course that means starting over with a new magic system.

Cantrips should never do more damage than a spell does. The current damaging at will cantrips are nothing more than an appeasement cookie to the 4e fans.
I like spell damage as they are now. Cantrips are the problem, thay need a nerf. By the way Im a 4th ed. fan and I dont like most of the current cantrips. They lack in imagination so they over compinsate in damage. So keep stupid remarks like that to yourself.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Right now wizard cantrips do about as much damage as fighter at-will attacks. This already bodes poorly for the fighter because wizard spell slot spells do more damage than the cantrips. I personally think wizard spell damage should be reduced across the board. The wizard has much more combat utility than the fighter so they should never be giving a fighter a run for their money in the damage department. My suggestion is to reduce cantrip damage to d6 instead of d8. Then on top of this, use new math for spell damage by slot where spells can deal an average of 1d6 + 1d6 per spell level. This way you get burning hands dealing 2d6 as a level 1 spell, scorching ray dealing 3d6 as a level 2 spell, fireball dealing 4d6 as a level 3 spell, all the way up to meteor dealing 10d6 as a level 9 spell. This would bring wizard (and other casters) damage more in line with fighter damage.




The only damage that I think it should be reduced is the cantrip damage. I thik they scale too much. But a combat focused Wizard should be so good at combat than a combat focused Fighter, so it should be able to deal a lot of damage. Also, Wizards are way less resistant than Fighters.


Cantrips should never do more damage than a spell does.



Agreed.


The current damaging at will cantrips are nothing more than an appeasement cookie to the 4e fans 


As a 4th Edition fan, I would prefer bringing 4e things on something else. I already stated my positions over at-will cantrips.
I agree, the damage dealing cantrips for the wizard and cleric are too high. A shortsword deals d6, while a magical effect that hits saves instead of AC deals d8 and then increases from there.
I like spell damage as they are now. Cantrips are the problem, thay need a nerf. By the way Im a 4th ed. fan and I dont like most of the current cantrips. They lack in imagination so they over compinsate in damage. So keep stupid remarks like that to yourself.



This, I think, is the key. 


The cantrips should be less about doing damage - and more about applying minor controller effects.  If all you are doing is applying damage, you aren't really doing anything intresting.  Drop the damage to 1d6 (scaled) at most, but add in controller effects (which may well scale with level).  


You could even dump the damage altogether (for example, bring back the old Ray of Frost - no damage but immobilized, with an option to use your action to break free).


Carl         
If anything, spell damage needs to increase.

If the OP and anyone following his logic had their way, might as well just get rid of the wizard altogether. Why would anyone bother playing a wizard if he could only deal as much damage as a fighter, when a fighter has more hit points, better AC, and all around survivability?

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

Don't forget that the fighter is an AEDU class now.

You have to compare the following:
Fighter's at-will + combat expertise vs. wizard's at will and spells of level 1-5.
Fighter's combat surge vs. wizard's spells of level 6-9.

Comparing the level 1-5 spells + cantrips against the fighter's at-will attacks + expertise is kind of hard because the wizard has so many AOEs and nobody on these boards agrees on a reasonable model to compare AOE damage with non AOE attacks. The damage should also be compared taking the length of the typical adventuring day into account. Now that they introduced encounter mechanics, you have to make assumptions both on the number of encounters and the number of rounds. It would also be interesting to compare the damage when you have a shorter adventuring day and a longer adventuring day.

I'm not going to bother with the at-will+combat expertise vs. level 1-5 spells because that's an invitation to get insulted by other board members. Every time I compared damage using 4th edition's AOE damage vs. single target model, I got insulted so I'll pass.

Just at a glance, if the math is wrong, it's not by a long shot.

However:
1) Fighter's get their ability modifier to damage (say +3) so technically, they are doing more damage with their at-will attacks unless I missed the part where casters add their ability score modifier to damage.

2) Combat surge is too weak. The level 11-20 haven't been playtested otherwise they would have noticed it. Your typical 6-9 spell deals 10d6 damage (AOE). So a fighter should deal 10d8 damage with his combat surge (in 4th edition, you upgrade the die size by 1 when comparing single target vs.  AOE). You can't use your deadly strike a second time when using combat surge because it's once per turn. It's probably an oversight from the game designers.

3) They might need to adjust expertise so that you can use more than one expertise dice at a time at higher levels. I'll have to test it though, this is guesswork.

4) Meteor swarm is overpowered. 48d6... Seriously?


You also mentioned something about the number of options. I wouldn't call those expertise tricks options because they're not tactical, they're basically variable buffs. They're fun but it's not the kind of stuff that's going to push or stun your opponent.

Wizards get 1+level options. So at level 10, that's 11 options. A fighter gets 3 martial feats + multiple attacks. That's 11 options vs. 4 options. But the number of options a wizard gets decreases during the day. The fighter might need an extra martial feat or two at levels 1 to 10. I'm not going to comment on levels 11+ because they're clearly not tested and still work in progress.


The math doesn't feel that wrong. I would playtest it first because if casters are too powerful, it's not by much.
If anything, spell damage needs to increase.

If the OP and anyone following his logic had their way, might as well just get rid of the wizard altogether. Why would anyone bother playing a wizard if he could only deal as much damage as a fighter, when a fighter has more hit points, better AC, and all around survivability?



As long as monsters HP dont get crazy like 3rd or 4th, Dailies are right about where they need too be. Maybe add int modifier into them as an option. Honestly what wizards need is more controller spell that actually control( Im looking at you stinking cloud) and not just do ton of damage.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Right now wizard cantrips do about as much damage as fighter at-will attacks. This already bodes poorly for the fighter because wizard spell slot spells do more damage than the cantrips. I personally think wizard spell damage should be reduced across the board. The wizard has much more combat utility than the fighter so they should never be giving a fighter a run for their money in the damage department. My suggestion is to reduce cantrip damage to d6 instead of d8. Then on top of this, use new math for spell damage by slot where spells can deal an average of 1d6 + 1d6 per spell level. This way you get burning hands dealing 2d6 as a level 1 spell, scorching ray dealing 3d6 as a level 2 spell, fireball dealing 4d6 as a level 3 spell, all the way up to meteor dealing 10d6 as a level 9 spell. This would bring wizard (and other casters) damage more in line with fighter damage.



1) Daily spells are fine, for the most part. A few spells are overpowered (stinking cloud, I am looking at you!), but most are ok. 

2) Cantrips do need a nerf, but your suggestion would not work well. At level 1 wizards are well balanced. You don't want to reduce their damage at level 1. What you need to do is change the way they scale. Cantrips should deal 1dX damage at level 1, 2dX damage at level 9, and 3dX damage at level 19.  
Reducing cantrip damage at level 1 wouldn't hurt the wizard that much as it only reduces average damage by 1. The cantrips also should come with an additional effect (like ray of frosts slow) which helps balance them doin less damage.

As for why I want spell slot damage decreased, it is simple.

If scorching ray does 6d6 damage, it does more damage than a similar leveled fighter. By 5th level the wizard will have enough 6d6 damage attacks that they can out damage the fighter over the course of the day. On top of that, the wizard still has utility spells, AoE spells, and battlefield control spells. If the wizard can do more single target damage than the fighter while still having the option for more utility and control then the wizard is clearly always the superior choice. If the wizards single target damage was reduced then the wizard would still be a valuable addition to any party due to their AoE, Control, and Utility, but would not dominate combat damage as well.

If anything, spell damage needs to increase.

If the OP and anyone following his logic had their way, might as well just get rid of the wizard altogether. Why would anyone bother playing a wizard if he could only deal as much damage as a fighter, when a fighter has more hit points, better AC, and all around survivability?



While lawolf does tend to go a little overboard, if posters like this had their way they may as well get rid of everything but the wizard. Merely having more AC and hit points doesn't make a class balanced. If a wizard is doing more damage than a fighter at will AND has the sort of daily spells it does right now, there is no point for anyone to play a fighter. I say that as someone who largely likes the daily spells, and only thinks a few of them (stinking cloud, I am looking at you) are overpowered. 

2) Cantrips do need a nerf, but your suggestion would not work well. At level 1 wizards are well balanced. You don't want to reduce their damage at level 1. What you need to do is change the way they scale. Cantrips should deal 1dX damage at level 1, 2dX damage at level 9, and 3dX damage at level 19.  



Are the levels 1, 9 and 19 a guess or do you want to make the cantrips comparable to a cleric or rogue's damage with weapons?

That sounds reasonable. It would probably make casters slightly under the fighter  in terms of damage which is perfectly acceptable.
Reducing cantrip damage at level 1 wouldn't hurt the wizard that much as it only reduces average damage by 1. The cantrips also should come with an additional effect (like ray of frosts slow) which helps balance them doin less damage. As for why I want spell slot damage decreased, it is simple. If scorching ray does 6d6 damage, it does more damage than a similar leveled fighter. By 5th level the wizard will have enough 6d6 damage attacks that they can out damage the fighter over the course of the day. On top of that, the wizard still has utility spells, AoE spells, and battlefield control spells. If the wizard can do more single target damage than the fighter while still having the option for more utility and control then the wizard is clearly always the superior choice. If the wizards single target damage was reduced then the wizard would still be a valuable addition to any party due to their AoE, Control, and Utility, but would not dominate combat damage as well.



The daily spell situations isn't anywhere near what you are claiming it is. A wizard can do more when it nova's. But, so long as the cantrip is considerably weaker than a fighter's at-will attack, things will be fine in terms of the day. And, a wizard should be able to do more with a nova, generally speaking (at level 20 a fighter using a heroic surge should be doing as much or more single target damage as a wizard using a 6-9th level spell, the 4-5th level spells should do more damage than what a fighter can manage at-will, the 3-4th level spells should do the same damage but with more riders/a larger AoE footprint, and cantrips-2nd level spells should be weaker--in terms of single target damage--than what a fighter can do; things should slowly scale up to this scenario, with the most recent daily spell level gained by a wizard dealing significantly more than what a fighter can do in a single round). 


 

2) Cantrips do need a nerf, but your suggestion would not work well. At level 1 wizards are well balanced. You don't want to reduce their damage at level 1. What you need to do is change the way they scale. Cantrips should deal 1dX damage at level 1, 2dX damage at level 9, and 3dX damage at level 19.  



Are the levels 1, 9 and 19 a guess or do you want to make the cantrips comparable to a cleric or rogue's damage with weapons?

That sounds reasonable. It would probably make casters slightly under the fighter  in terms of damage which is perfectly acceptable.



I am following the scale laid out by the cleric and rogue. And, while a wizard will deal less at-will, its dail spells will allow it to nova for a good deal more. 
Reducing cantrip damage at level 1 wouldn't hurt the wizard that much as it only reduces average damage by 1. The cantrips also should come with an additional effect (like ray of frosts slow) which helps balance them doin less damage. As for why I want spell slot damage decreased, it is simple. If scorching ray does 6d6 damage, it does more damage than a similar leveled fighter. By 5th level the wizard will have enough 6d6 damage attacks that they can out damage the fighter over the course of the day. On top of that, the wizard still has utility spells, AoE spells, and battlefield control spells. If the wizard can do more single target damage than the fighter while still having the option for more utility and control then the wizard is clearly always the superior choice. If the wizards single target damage was reduced then the wizard would still be a valuable addition to any party due to their AoE, Control, and Utility, but would not dominate combat damage as well.



The daily spell situations isn't anywhere near what you are claiming it is. A wizard can do more when it nova's. But, so long as the cantrip is considerably weaker than a fighter's at-will attack, things will be fine in terms of the day. And, a wizard should be able to do more with a nova, generally speaking (at level 20 a fighter using a heroic surge should be doing as much or more single target damage as a wizard using a 6-9th level spell, the 4-5th level spells should do more damage than what a fighter can manage at-will, the 3-4th level spells should do the same damage but with more riders/a larger AoE footprint, and cantrips-2nd level spells should be weaker--in terms of single target damage--than what a fighter can do; things should slowly scale up to this scenario, with the most recent daily spell level gained by a wizard dealing significantly more than what a fighter can do in a single round). 


 



If a waizard uses all his spells for damage, he can out dps the fighter. But he loses all his utility doing that. Most wizards are going to mix what spells they have and that will balance it out.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Here is a little math light example.

At level 5 a scholarly wizard can cast 6 1st level spells, 5 2nd level spells, and 4 3rd level spells per day.

Most fights last 3 rounds and most days last 4 fights.

A wizard who focuses mostly on combat spells will easily out damage the 5th level fighter. The wizard can cast burning hands for 3d8 (miss half) 6 times. Each use does more average damage than a fighters melee attack and has the possibility of hitting multiple enemies. Then the wizard can use either scorching ray or melf's acid arrow 5 times, again for more average damage than the fighter. For attack 12 the wizard can use a cantrip for only slightly less damage than a fighter attack.

This wizard still has all 4 of his level 3 spell slots saved for utility!!!!

So we have a wizard who did more single target damage, more AoE damage, and still had a bunch of utility!!!
At level 5 a scholarly wizard can cast 6 1st level spells, 5 2nd level spells, and 4 3rd level spells per day.



Isn't it 5 1st level spells, 4 2nd level spells and 3 3rd level spells?

I think you added the bonus prepared spells as bonus spell slots. Or I misunderstood something about spell slots.
You get to recover a first, a second, and a third level spell once per day.
Here is a little math light example. At level 5 a scholarly wizard can cast 6 1st level spells, 5 2nd level spells, and 4 3rd level spells per day. Most fights last 3 rounds and most days last 4 fights. A wizard who focuses mostly on combat spells will easily out damage the 5th level fighter. The wizard can cast burning hands for 3d8 (miss half) 6 times. Each use does more average damage than a fighters melee attack and has the possibility of hitting multiple enemies. Then the wizard can use either scorching ray or melf's acid arrow 5 times, again for more average damage than the fighter. For attack 12 the wizard can use a cantrip for only slightly less damage than a fighter attack. This wizard still has all 4 of his level 3 spell slots saved for utility!!!! So we have a wizard who did more single target damage, more AoE damage, and still had a bunch of utility!!!



Let's not get into the AOE debate just for clarity.

In a 3 round fight.
The fighter deals 3x(2d8+3) plus 3d6 expertise. That's 46.5 damage per fight.

The wizard uses 3 daily spells (let's go nova!).
3 first level spells: 3x3d8. That's 40.5 damage per fight (with save half).
3 2nd level spells: 3x6d6. That's 63 damage per fight.
3 3rd level spells: 3x6d6. That's another 63 damage per fight (with save half).

You're right, that is a little high.
You get to recover a first, a second, and a third level spell once per day.



How do you get 6 1st level spells with 4 slots + arcane recovery?
Why would anyone bother playing a wizard if he could only deal as much damage as a fighter, when a fighter has more hit points, better AC, and all around survivability?


Because the wizard can learn how to fly.

This and other magical things that a Wizard can learn that a Fighter cannot. A wizard can also deal damage to multiple enemies over a very large area, potentially hitting far more targets at the various levels than the fighter ability of Volley could ever hope to achieve.

Combat is not all AC and hit points and the game is not all combat.
You get to recover a first, a second, and a third level spell once per day.



How do you get 6 1st level spells with 4 slots + arcane recovery?


I think he is mixing up the Scholarly wizard ability to prepare extra spells of a given level with extra spell slots. For example, a 5th level Scholarly wizard should be able to prepare 9 spells (1 first level spell, 1 second level spell, 1 third level spell, and 6 spells of any level), while it has 4 first level spell slots, 3 second level spell slots, and 2 third level spell slots (plus 3 arcane recoveries, generallly used as one per level).

I think he is mixing up the Scholarly wizard ability to prepare extra spells of a given level with extra spell slots. For example, a 5th level Scholarly wizard should be able to prepare 9 spells (1 first level spell, 1 second level spell, 1 third level spell, and 6 spells of any level), while it has 4 first level spell slots, 3 second level spell slots, and 2 third level spell slots (plus 3 arcane recoveries, generallly used as one per level).



That's what I thought. It's still 12 spells though. So in a 12-round adventuring day, that's one per round.

And in any adventuring day of 12 rounds or less, the wizard's damage is a little high.

I think he is mixing up the Scholarly wizard ability to prepare extra spells of a given level with extra spell slots. For example, a 5th level Scholarly wizard should be able to prepare 9 spells (1 first level spell, 1 second level spell, 1 third level spell, and 6 spells of any level), while it has 4 first level spell slots, 3 second level spell slots, and 2 third level spell slots (plus 3 arcane recoveries, generallly used as one per level).



That's what I thought. It's still 12 spells though. So in a 12-round adventuring day, that's one per round.

And in any adventuring day of 12 rounds or less, the wizard's damage is a little high.



And that's the thing about people saying that a typical Wizard would want to have non-combat / non-damaging spells in the mix. With the new spell preparation system, they could easily put in a ton of non-combat spells, especially the Scholarly wizard (now with 50% more prepared spells). So all of those non-combat spells would be there and as long as they weren't needed, the Wizard could blast at higher than Fighter levels of damage all day long. Maybe even relying on only 3 damaging spells (one per level) while having 6 non-combat / non-damaging spells prepared for those "just in case" moments.
Oops, you're right about spells prepared. But even so, the point remains.

A wizard who focuses on all damage spells does more single target damage per day than a fighter without ever needing to use a cantrip. On top of this the wizard is doing more single target damage with his AoE spells - meaning that for just 2 targets the wizard more than doubles the fighters damage.

So the wizard has the option of doing both better single target and AoE damage than the fighter, exerting massive battlefield control (zones, walls, etc), or providing utility both in and out of combat. The fighter on the other hand has 1 option - dealing damage (which happens to be less than an optimized wizard).

That is why I say there is a problem. The fighter should do significantly more single target damage than the wizard at all levels. The wizard gets the benefit of AoE, control, and utility. These benefits should come at a cost to the wizard.

Note: even with my suggested reduction in wizard damage, they still do damage about the same damage as the fighter.
Cantrips should be changed to 1d8 + ability mod for those that just deal damage and 1d6+ ability mod for those with a secondary effect. They also should require an attack roll instead of a saving throw (so that they don't hit more often than weapon attacks) and should scale at the same rate as cleric and rogue weapon attacks (which right now is 2[W] at level 9 and 3[W] at level 19). Then they will be balanced, IMO.
Cantrips should never do more damage than a spell does.



If cantrips didn't scale, they'd be worthless at higher levels. Clerics, for example, would be better off just using a crossbow than using lance of faith, and I don't think that's right. They should be about equal to basic attacks for those classes.

If cantrips scaled up to 3[W] damage, as I think they should, they still wouldn't be better than 1st level spells. Inflict wounds does 4d8 damage. Burning Hands and Thunderwave deal 3d8 to multiple targets. Magic Missile does 3d4 +6 and always hits.
In general I don't think spell damage out put is a problem right now.   That being said, I would be willing to see wizard damage tone down if there were more controller elements added into the wizard class/spells.  During the PAX expo last year listening to Mike Mearls speak, he pretty much all out said that he favors the damage wizard what I have dubbed the "blaster caster" model over the control archetype wizard.  As a player I prefer the more control oriented wizard and I always have even back when I started in 2E, but that is not the direction I feel Next is headed right now.  For example, I would be perfectly happy with Ray of Frost dealing Int Mod damage only but immobilizing or at least reducing a targets speed to 10 feet period, vs. the now where it just reduces speed by 10 feet.  I have found this to be completely useless from a control perspective, especially when we played it during at low levels using this version, because alot of the fights were at relatively close quarters the reduced speed mattered not at all.
So ignoring cantrip damage, you guys are ok with the wizard doing more single target damage than the fighter? (While using his AoE spells)
Right now wizard cantrips do about as much damage as fighter at-will attacks.



I see you use the word "about".  I guess you do because if you claimed that cantrips did the same or more damage it would be easier to recognize the flaw in your arguemnt.  Base damage, cantrips are almost competative, but after all the bonuses fighters get to damage from ability scores feats and such the cantrip is nearly worthless in comparison.

Fighters do much more damage than cantrips, by far.  They also have more hp, and better AC.  

The problem you are describing DOES NOT EXIST.  

Wizard cantrips do the lowest damage of all classes basic attacks, and wizards also suffer the lowest survivability.  This is only balanced because a Wizards more limited spells offer incredible power. 
So ignoring cantrip damage, you guys are ok with the wizard doing more single target damage than the fighter? (While using his AoE spells)



Yolu are acting like there is some 3rd option.

You have a wizard with low hp and low ac & limited number of spells per day, and a fighter with high hp and high ac & unlimited attack actions per day.

Either the wizard does more damage, or the fighter does more damage.

Are you honestly trying to argue that the class with more hp, higher ac, unlimited combat actions is the one that should also do more damage per round? 

And the area damage arguement is tired and flawed.  Most critical boss fights are vs 1 big baddie, where area is useless.  Most small encounters where area can be used, positioning and friendly fire concerns make it difficult to use.  For most fights that are actually a challange, killing a single bad guy ASAP to reduce enemy attacks against the part is much more valuable than doing damage over all of them with an AOE but not killing any of them.  Is area a nice perk?  Sure, but so is the fact that a fighter can fight fine while silenced.  Also, all that said, fighter does have some area capability.  Having access to some area spells is not a game changer and it's not a valid excuse to castrate single target dps.
Karnos, you don't understand math. Go read cyberdaves write up about how wizard cantrips do only 1 pt less average damage per round than a fighter at-will.

Also, the wizards AOE spells (burning hands, fireball, etc) do way more single target damage than a fighters single target attack.
I personally always liked the idea of spells being disruptable as a balancing factor. So they might do more damage, but a wizard can't always be guaranteed to get a spell off in melee.
I personally always liked the idea of spells being disruptable as a balancing factor. So they might do more damage, but a wizard can't always be guaranteed to get a spell off in melee.



The problem with that is since there is no "defender" mechanic what would stop the bad guys who are of at least average intelligence, or even low intelligence but who have combat cunning from all targeting and focusing fire on more squishy spellcasters types then all ganging up to take down the stronger targets.  This is a problem I have with DnD Next now in general is a lack of role mechanics and spell disruption increases that.  The lack of role mechanics was always something that bothered me and my DM about previous editions of DnD and it was a bit of Deux Ex Machina/tacit agreement that existed between players and DMs that kept the above scenario from happening.  As it stands 4th corrected that.  This is not to suggest I don't think Next has some very good ideas or argue over editions I am just pointing out one flaw that I see in the mechanic you described is all, but spell disruption does help to balance things which a fighter doesn't have to worry about traditionally.

Karnos, you don't understand math.



Game balance it's not all about math. The best at combat class is not the one with higher damage. There are many other factors. No, I don't think that the damage of a at-will attack of the Fighter should be higher than non cantrips damage spells of the Wizard. Yes, I think the cantrips should scale less, but the other damaging spells are fine. Actually, do not count me on this "the Fighter should be the best at combat" thing. 
So you want the wizard to be best at single target damage, AoE, control, and combat utility...

Got it.
So you want the wizard to be best at single target damage, AoE, control, and combat utility...

Got it.
So you want the wizard to be best at single target damage, AoE, control, and combat utility...

Got it.
The problem with that is since there is no "defender" mechanic what would stop the bad guys who are of at least average intelligence, or even low intelligence but who have combat cunning from all targeting and focusing fire on more squishy spellcasters types then all ganging up to take down the stronger targets.  This is a problem I have with DnD Next now in general is a lack of role mechanics and spell disruption increases that.  The lack of role mechanics was always something that bothered me and my DM about previous editions of DnD and it was a bit of Deux Ex Machina/tacit agreement that existed between players and DMs that kept the above scenario from happening.  As it stands 4th corrected that.  This is not to suggest I don't think Next has some very good ideas or argue over editions I am just pointing out one flaw that I see in the mechanic you described is all, but spell disruption does help to balance things which a fighter doesn't have to worry about traditionally.




Yeah the defender mechanic should certainly use a boost.

One issue I actually had with 4E was that I didn't feel the defender was needed enough. Given how the shift mechanic worked, it was often the case where the ranger or wizard didn't care so much that the monster was in his face, since he could just shift and shoot. I actually liked how 4E handled defenders, especially the essentials Defender aura, but they just needed to make more of a need for them, beyond "My AC is slightly higher".

I'd like to see more of a situation where archers and casters really need the defender aura to keep the monsters off them. Then they become a lot more tactically useful.

So you want the wizard to be best at single target damage, AoE, control, and combat utility...

Got it.

He is using limited resources. The Fighter has already better armor and HP, and his damage is reliable. In the way you say, the Fighter would have the best armor, the best HP, and the best damage, better than spells of limited use, and while that the Wizard is made of glass compared to the Fighter. This is not balanced. Not at all.
The Wizard cannot do all 3 things at all times at max rate. He may go for max damage, or max AoE, or max control, or he can be in between, but in that way he would not be so good at everything.
What I'm saying is to stop this talking of "Fighters should be the best at combat! The best armor, the best HP, the best damage (better than limited use spells)! The best at everything combat!". Yes, their limited uses Wizard's spells deals way more damage than an at-will of the Fighter. Nothing wrong. They are limited use and the Wizard has way less HP and armor. A combat focused Wizard should be so good at combat than a combat focused Fighter.
Now if you talking about lowering down the damage cantrips, I having nothing against it. But I don't think that the non cantrips damage spells needs a nerf.



P.S.: I actually think that the Wizard may be underpowered compared to the Cleric, the Druid, in general, with other spellcasters (especially when the Druid, the Cleric, the Paladin and the Ranger choose their prepared spells directly from their spells list and can change every day, while the Wizard must first learn the spells and then prepare, and they don't change spells know every day) and especially at the early levels, but that is in comparison to another casters, not Fighters.
Sign In to post comments