I'm not sure, why the comparison of classes and spells is so important in regard to the topic, but if you have to, you might want to be a bit more thorough.
First of all though, I stand by what I wrote earlier: I'd like to have spells like Chromatic Orb and Melf's Acid Arrow work as written in the official DND 5e rules. If hazardous surfaces are important for BG3 (for whatever reason), it would be much better to "outsource" them to their own custom spells. The spells on both the Wizard and Cleric spell lists are pretty good, both flavor and balance wise and homebrewing them feels like repairing something, that isn't broken. That usually doesn't end well. Sure, it's nice to have the option to put obstacles in your opponents' way, but:
1. The rule books offer spells for that purpose already (grease, darkness, etc.)
2. The enemy AI tends to overuse effects like that which can get annoying extremly quickly. If a party member dies, you have to reload, or pay for the ressurection in camp - not very fun. If an enemy AI character dies, so what? There are always more, meaning it's not such a huge problem for them.
The use of surfaces and area effects should be a strategic decission, but right now it feels like there is so much of it, that it works against the player most of the time. If anything it makes the proper use of these spells more difficult, because now you have to make sure, that your frontline fighter(s) don't get mixed up in it. And we have spells like Burning Hands and Fireball for that already. That is why I'd like to have the spells as written and (additional) surface effects, if needed at all, implemented as original homebrew spells. That way players have a better way to use or avoid them, as desired and the devs can simply adjust the AI opponents' spell lists, depending on whether or not they want a specific encounter to be AoE heavy or not.
As for the comparison (in this case) of Clerics and Wizards (or Sorcerers) and their respective spells:
First, please note, that these classes are designed with different roles in mind:
Clerics can use shields and medium (or - with some domains - heavy) armor for a reason. They are not some frail back line healing machine, which you see in some MMORPGs. They are capable combatants in their own right, who don't shy away from close combat. Yes, they have healing spells, but they also have offensive, protective and some utility spells, to help the whole party.
Mages (both Wizards and Sorcerers) on the other hand are much closer to traditional glass cannons. They cannot wear armor by default and have the lowest hit dice in the game. To compensate for that (in battle) they have very potent offensive spell options, but also quite potent, if short lived defensive spells. A first level Wizard will typically sit at 14 to 15 DEX and consequently have an AC of 12. Mage Armor changes that to 15, which is nothing to write home about, but reasonable for a mage. And Shield, finally (which isn't in BG3, yet) can be cast as a reaction and will increase the AC by another 5 points for the following round. That means our level 1 mage will sit at a very respectable AC of 20 until their next turn. Does that mean they should actively seek melee combat? No, it's a means for them survive in dire circumstances.
For spells, Chromatic Orb has been compared to Guiding Bolt, so let's look at that comparison:
Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 radiant damage. That's appropriate for someone who channels divine power and helps against some classic creatures of evil. Zombies for example can be difficult to kill (depending on their CON saves) unless the killing blow is a critical hit or radiant damage. In addition the target of Guiding Bolt can be attacked with advantage once, before the end of the caster's next turn. That's great for the frontline fighters and enables a Rogue to use their sneak attack.
In short: The spell requires an attack roll, does a minium of 4/maximum of 24 radiant damage and grants advantage on the next attack roll against the target during the following round.
Chromatic Orb simply deals 3d8 damage of one of 6 types, which the caster can freely choose.
In short: An attack roll again and a minimum of 3/maximum of 24 acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, or thunder damage.
So while Guiding Bolt's minimum damage is one point higher, and it offers a bonus effect, which anyone in the party can make use of, Chromatic Orb is more versatile through the different damage types available, but doesn't offer any additional effects. The maximum damage possible is equal - 24 in both cases.
What if we cast the spells at level 2 instead? Guiding Bolt gets an additional d6 per spell level, while Chromatic Orb gets a d8. That means at level 2 Guiding Bolt has a maximum damage potential of 30, while Chromatic Orb is already looking at 32. Level 3 has 36 and 40 respectively - you get the idea.
Long story (read: wall of text) short: Seems extremely well balanced to me. The class which feels comfortable in melee range gets less damage and a bit of party utility, the class which is weak in melee combat gets more damage and versatility but without the gimmicks.
Two very different classes with different spell lists and playstyles, but again, I don't see how this comparison of class/spell balance relates to existing spells being modified to include hazardous surfaces, or d20 rolls other than attack rolls having critical fails and successes on a natural one and twenty respectively.
TLDR: Critical fails/successes - for anything but attack rolls - should go. We have advantage/disadvantage to account for special circumstances. "Puddles" should not be modded into (and consequently be removed from) existing spells and should instead be implemented as original homebrew spells.
Last edited by Kasai; 17/06/22 12:16 PM. Reason: typos
