In discussions on "balance" of an RPG, is there much weight put on how well spells of the same level (or equivalent) are close in power?
Having played a few different casters now, I'm finding it hard to not always take the same old spells (bless for divine casters just seems much, much better than other first level spells. Shield is another pretty decent spell on the arcane side, although I haven't had a lot of experience with them, so there's probably a better example...)
Obviously, there are situational differences in utility, so different spells will be more or less powerful/useful depending on the campaign. Nonetheless, it still seems to me that two fifth level spells 'should' be around about equal in power level, but often aren't.
Is this just an accepted thing? Or is the counter-argument that, since you can often choose whatever you like, it's not really a balance issue for an RPG unless one class gets all the good spells and another gets all the crappy ones?
I think spell balance is based on both power level and availability level.
What I mean by this is that some spells are higher level because the game designers want it available later in the career of spellcasters than other spells. For example, teleport is a high level spell not because it is super powerful to travel really quickly (which it is) but because it disrupts journey times.
In 5E, I was shocked at how much damage some 1st level spells cause: 4d6 guided bolt and 3d10 inflict wounds in particular. A 1st level NPC cleric can one-shot 2nd or 3rd level PCs with ease!
Also, some low level spells are just TOO useful. For example, my 12th level cleric almost always casts bless (even if I have to use a 3rd or 4th level slot to give it to all my party members), which means I almost never get a chance to cast other spells with the Concentration mechanic. It's getting more frustrating at higher levels because there are so many other neat spells, like spiritual guardians and banishment and blade barrier. At least I don't really like the 4th level cleric spells, so I don't mind burning a 4th level slot to cast a 6 person bless or a 2d8+5 spiritual weapon or a 6d10 inflict wounds or 7d6 guided bolt.
With other mods involved, some spells are significantly better. For example, a well built blaster wizard could convince a mediocrely built buff cleric that blasting spells are inherently better. Not because they are, but because trait abuse and metamagic abuse and class feature abuse (and when I say abuse I mean taking advantage of), will make you better.
Our diviner is VERY blasty, but even without all the evoker goodness, he is still a very potent damage dealer. (He would be even better if he could ever roll above average!) But his diviner Portent ability can be very useful if he rolled low, and "gives" that low roll to an opponent's saving throw. Very nasty when combined with disintegrate!!! Or my cleric's contagion spell.
I think that Bless (and Guidance) are backwards for 5e, in a system where they avoid flat bonuses in favor of a Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, they give you the flat bonuses back in a lvl 1 spell and cantrip.
In general, some spells are more powerful based on how exclusive they are I think.
I think granting advantage on attacks and saves would be very powerful, and also granting adv/dis so consistently would step on the toes of so many other conditions and circumstances as to be irrelevant.
EDIT:
Also, rolling for the bonus is more fun than just getting a flat bonus. There's more chance and luck involved, and that can add to the drama.
And this is coming from someone who HATES rolling 1d4. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Yeah, I don't mean Bless should grant advantage. Compare for example to Faerie Fire, also level 1. But I don't like the 1d4. Of course, what does that leave for Bless?
1d6? ;-)
Faerie Fire also allows a Dex save. And affects possibly more targets.
I really like the 5E druid spell list.
I can't really think of an alternative to rolling 1d4 for bless.
Maybe a magical tactical divination/transmutation spell where you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls per ally also threatening the same opponent.
Super Gang Up maybe?
You could give it the Haste treatment and have it only affect one target, still worth casting I think. That's just a nerf though, not addressing the +1d4.
I don't think it needs to be nerfed, I just wish there was a Spell Specializaton feat that let you pick 1 concentration spell and not need to concentrate on it.
I like the fact that spells aren't all equal, at least it doesn't bother me for prepared casters. It certainly doesn't bother me that bless is that useful for clerics, because that's what priests do. Same with shield for wizards. Some apps you put on the first page of your iphone because you use them all the time. Some get less priority but are as useful in the right situation.
The only spell list where the unevenness anoys me more is for the ranger who has so precious few spells known that one simply cannot afford to take the more situational spells. I wish more of its spells were baked in the class itself (as for natural awareness), leaving more choice of spells as, well, a choice.
Don't forget that creatures generally have more hp in 5th ed and a 5th level fighter with 40+ hp is seen as a challenge for a level one party.
Shield isn't really above curve, it just becomes more valuable at higher levels when you've got more slots to play with. Bless annoys me partially for the power, but mostly for using bonuses at all.
On the other hand, I'm fine with the ranger not being able to go for situational spells, since they're not primary spellcasters. Then again, if they have primary casters taking the necessities, maybe they can go for the situational stuff.
I know our party ranger has been a lifesaver.
He uses hunter's mark so consistently, it really should be a class feature.
His cure wounds has saved the party by saving my cleric! :-P
Pass without trace has been our go-to exploration spell.
Spike stones have been used as critical battlefield control on many occasions.
Basically, the ranger has been our critical trump card player. In addition to being deadly in combat.
The party is cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. So all the classic core members. We also have (had) a ranger, and he's been an excellent and well-rounded 5th member. Specialized in archery, but capable in melee, has very useful skills, spells, and class features. Late in the campaign, we added a barbarian to the party, and he's an awesome tank. Really soaks the damage.
On the other hand, I'm fine with the ranger not being able to go for situational spells, since they're not primary spellcasters
No, but neither is the paladin and he is much more versatile thanks to prepared casting. Heck, even the eldritch knight has more spell known and that's 1/3 caster.
Our Paladin is mostly spending his slots on smite (as the feature, or the spells) or bless.
A single casting of Hunter's Mark could easily last the ranger two combats, so his mechanic is more efficient in terms of eating fewer slots. I think it comes out about even.
Our Paladin is mostly spending his slots on smite (as the feature, or the spells) or bless.
A single casting of Hunter's Mark could easily last the ranger two combats, so his mechanic is more efficient in terms of eating fewer slots. I think it comes out about even.
Most of the paladin's slots will be spent on smites, same as most of the cleric's concentration will be dedicated to bless, but both have a lot of options when uncommon situations come around. The ranger doesn't really have those options because his spell selection is the narrowest in the game and at least one of it's "core ability" eats-up one of its few known spells. The paladin would be in the same situation if it knew only three spells at level 2, one of which had to be the basic smite feature disguised as a spell.
I'm ok with some spells being better / cast more frequently than others (and I include smites as "spells"), but it's nice to have options for less frequent situations. Prepared casters have more options, especially druids/clerics/paladins who know all their spells. I find it too bad that the ranger who is supposed to be a resourceful character, and who was made a half caster, ends-up with so little spells in his repertoire, that's all.
Away from rulebook, but can rangers change their spells known when they go up in level?
Our ranger used to cast hail of arrows and lightning arrow, but hasn't in a while, so I wonder if he swapped them out for something, or has just focused his tactics on what seems to work for him (hunters mark, pass without trace, spike growth).
I know my cleric has tried branching out with bane, but almost exclusively uses bless and hasn't really got to use spiritual guardians lately. He used to cast spiritual guardians and wade into melee using the Dodge action, and then using spiritual weapon as his bonus action (he's very spiritual!). His AC was 20, which when Dodging, was pretty tanky at low-to-mid levels. He finally got some magical armor and shield at level 11, so his AC is now 22 (my AC was 20 from level 2 or 3 through 11).
Away from rulebook, but can rangers change their spells known when they go up in level?
Yes. It specifically says they can when they level up.
Away from rulebook, but can rangers change their spells known when they go up in level?Yes. It specifically says they can when they level up.
Cool. At least that gives the rangers some flexibility in their spell choice.
Of course, once they unlearn a spell, they'll need to use it almost immediately. :-P
Cool. At least that gives the rangers some flexibility in their spell choice.
Of course, once they unlearn a spell, they'll need to use it almost immediately. :-P
typical...