D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[KarinsDad]

See again different assumptions.

I expect the mage bobbing up and down etc to get targeted by magic missiles or save damage effects - not by whatever the least favorable attack might be.

A lot - keeps coming back to this - a lot comes from how diverse the challenges are and how much of them are just the brute force more manageable options.

You keep wanting everybody to create forum polls - do you think the forum is in any way a representative sample of anything other than forum folks?

So, NPC spell casters who have magic missile are a dime a dozen at your table?

At our table, it's mostly monsters. Sure, there are times when NPCs cast spells, but Magic Missile is very easy for a wizard to avoid. Minor Illusion of a box around himself (can't target MM on a foe you cannot see). Shield spell. Be behind total cover. MM is actually quite lousy as a DM attack against a 5E wizard once it is done once unless the DM rules that the simultaneous damage of magic missile is separate sources of damage and requires 3 concentration rolls (which is a crappy ruling for death saving throws, but YMMV). If the DM throws MM, then always have Shield spell available to thwart it in the future. Meh. No way I would take WC just to prevent NPC arcane casters from MMing my PC.

As for least favorable attacks, more than 21 points of damage from a single source is REALLY REALLY rare at low levels. Almost all concentration rolls at nearly all tables are DC 10 below level 10. Typically, shy of a critical, a creature probably has to usually be CR 10 or so before they do more than 21 points with a single non-critical attack (there may be some rare exceptions). Spells like Fireball can easily do more than 21 if the save is failed, but at that point, the low level PC has taken an average of 28 hit points (shy of Absorb Elements) and concentration is the least of his worries. 4th level wizards typically have either 22 or 26 hit points, so … I'm not seeing where WC helps here. Regardless of circumstance, if the concentration roll is above DC 10, the 4th level wizard is already toast. At that point, even higher level wizards are in serious trouble.


Yes, a forum poll is a representation of forum folk. However, forum folk tend to be more knowledgeable on average about the game than non-forum players.


I think that your implication that at your table, encounters are challenging and at tables where players of wizards don't take WC at level 4, encounters are wimpier is greatly in error (or did you mean something other than wimpier when you said "more manageable"?).

 

[FrogReaver]

You believe everything corporate people say to you? I suppose it might be true, and I've just gotten REALLY lucky that every 5e game I've seen or played in used feats, but color me skeptical.

Let's ignore variant human's for just a moment. I really don't think many people use a feat at level 4.

Classes that generally always take +2 stat at level 4
Rogue
Monk

Classes that don't have a feat that is clearly better at level 4 than +2 ASI
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Warlock
Wizard
Paladin
Ranger

Classes that have a feat that is better than +2 ASI at level 4
Barbarian
Fighter


The thing is that even classes that have a feat or feats that would clearly be stronger at level 4, many players of those classes aren't taking those feats till later if at all. For the classes that have good feats but not necessarily feats that are better than +2 ASI at level 4, even more players choose the +2 ASI at that point IME.

So, I don't know about all levels but unless variant human is nearly the only racial choice made I don't see how anyone comes away with a majority of players are using feats by level 4. Now I do agree that most games have at least 1 player that takes a feat by level 4.

If you've only taken damage 9 times while using concentration spells over 13 levels, you are either avoiding concentration spells or the DM is being very, very friendly to you. A wizard should be taking damage in most combats, so if you were using a lot of concentration spells, you would be way over 9 checks.

In my games and many others, backline characters generally get attacked much less than front line characters. A wizard with mage armor has about 16 AC. As a quick estimate I'd say that leaves him at 50% chance of being hit when attacked. Shield lowers that to about 25%. When he's hit he will have a about a 35% chance of passing his concentration save (unless the enemy does really high damage). With wise shield use I'm going to estimate that the wizard only gets hit by 35% of the attacks coming his way. This means that on average a wizard needs to be attacked nearly 3 times to make a concentration check. If he made 9 concentration checks that would mean about 27 attacks have came his wizards way which equates to about 2 per level.

I find a wizard taking 2 attacks per level to be a little low but not totally unreasonable.

 

[mortwatcher]

if you held a gun to my head and forced me to take a feat at lvl. 4 as wizard (which I wouldn't and would rarely recommend to any caster really)that needed to help me with concentration checks (which at that level you are concentrating on what exactly, suggestion/Tasha? - you don't really have a vast selection of concentration spells at that time), I would much rather take Resilient - Con. Not only will that by the next level be almost as good as having an advantage (static +3 vs the 4.5 average an advantage will give), it will also just keep getting better, will give me the potential to pass those really hard saves (in the end, you can only roll a 20, two dice or not) has a possibility of rounding up my odd con score, and helps me on ALL con saves, not just concentration.
Warcaster is honestly much nicer on druids/clerics, because they will use the other bits of the feat (like casting with weapon in hand and shield in another, since I don't have shield proficiency as a wizard).

 

[Ovinomancer]

if you held a gun to my head and forced me to take a feat at lvl. 4 as wizard (which I wouldn't and would rarely recommend to any caster really)that needed to help me with concentration checks (which at that level you are concentrating on what exactly, suggestion/Tasha? - you don't really have a vast selection of concentration spells at that time), I would much rather take Resilient - Con. Not only will that by the next level be almost as good as having an advantage (static +3 vs the 4.5 average an advantage will give), it will also just keep getting better, will give me the potential to pass those really hard saves (in the end, you can only roll a 20, two dice or not) has a possibility of rounding up my odd con score, and helps me on ALL con saves, not just concentration.
Warcaster is honestly much nicer on druids/clerics, because they will use the other bits of the feat (like casting with weapon in hand and shield in another, since I don't have shield proficiency as a wizard).

Just because it's my hobby horse: advantage is not worth 4.5 or 5 or any ither equivalent flat bonus. It's worth can only be evaluated at specific rolls, and then as a change in odds, not an equivalent flat bonus (despite the apparent similarity in that soecific circumstance).

 

[Maxperson]

See again different assumptions.

I expect the mage bobbing up and down etc to get targeted by magic missiles or save damage effects - not by whatever the least favorable attack might be.

A lot - keeps coming back to this - a lot comes from how diverse the challenges are and how much of them are just the brute force more manageable options.

You keep wanting everybody to create forum polls - do you think the forum is in any way a representative sample of anything other than forum folks?

Not to mention, archers generally aren't idiots. If some guy is bobbing up and down, some of them are going to ready actions to shoot him when he stands, negating that tactic completely.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing is that even classes that have a feat or feats that would clearly be stronger at level 4, many players of those classes aren't taking those feats till later if at all. For the classes that have good feats but not necessarily feats that are better than +2 ASI at level 4, even more players choose the +2 ASI at that point IME.

So, I don't know about all levels but unless variant human is nearly the only racial choice made I don't see how anyone comes away with a majority of players are using feats by level 4. Now I do agree that most games have at least 1 player that takes a feat by level 4.

So first thing. My response about being skeptical about characters not taking feats was in response to the post about what Crawford said, so it was about characters not taking feats across their entire adventuring career. Not taking a feat by 4th level is going to be a higher percentage.

Second, the list of classes not having feats that are better than +2 to a stat by level 4 is subjective. I consider sentinal to be amazing for paladins and I took that at low level and used it to great effect. I think spell sniper is one that some people might consider to be better at low level than bumping the 18 to a 20, as is Observant or . ACs and saves are low enough that a +1 to hit and to DCs is not really needed, so feats do more for you.

In my games and many others, backline characters generally get attacked much less than front line characters. A wizard with mage armor has about 16 AC. As a quick estimate I'd say that leaves him at 50% chance of being hit when attacked. Shield lowers that to about 25%. When he's hit he will have a about a 35% chance of passing his concentration save (unless the enemy does really high damage). With wise shield use I'm going to estimate that the wizard only gets hit by 35% of the attacks coming his way. This means that on average a wizard needs to be attacked nearly 3 times to make a concentration check. If he made 9 concentration checks that would mean about 27 attacks have came his wizards way which equates to about 2 per level.

I find a wizard taking 2 attacks per level to be a little low but not totally unreasonable.

I find that groups that don't find a way to get to the wizard tend to lose faster than groups that do, so groups wanting to survive make the attempt to get to the back.

 

[5ekyu]

So, NPC spell casters who have magic missile are a dime a dozen at your table?

At our table, it's mostly monsters. Sure, there are times when NPCs cast spells, but Magic Missile is very easy for a wizard to avoid. Minor Illusion of a box around himself (can't target MM on a foe you cannot see). Shield spell. Be behind total cover. MM is actually quite lousy as a DM attack against a 5E wizard once it is done once unless the DM rules that the simultaneous damage of magic missile is separate sources of damage and requires 3 concentration rolls (which is a crappy ruling for death saving throws, but YMMV). If the DM throws MM, then always have Shield spell available to thwart it in the future. Meh. No way I would take WC just to prevent NPC arcane casters from MMing my PC.

As for least favorable attacks, more than 21 points of damage from a single source is REALLY REALLY rare at low levels. Almost all concentration rolls at nearly all tables are DC 10 below level 10. Typically, shy of a critical, a creature probably has to usually be CR 10 or so before they do more than 21 points with a single non-critical attack (there may be some rare exceptions). Spells like Fireball can easily do more than 21 if the save is failed, but at that point, the low level PC has taken an average of 28 hit points (shy of Absorb Elements) and concentration is the least of his worries. 4th level wizards typically have either 22 or 26 hit points, so … I'm not seeing where WC helps here. Regardless of circumstance, if the concentration roll is above DC 10, the 4th level wizard is already toast. At that point, even higher level wizards are in serious trouble.


Yes, a forum poll is a representation of forum folk. However, forum folk tend to be more knowledgeable on average about the game than non-forum players.


I think that your implication that at your table, encounters are challenging and at tables where players of wizards don't take WC at level 4, encounters are wimpier is greatly in error (or did you mean something other than wimpier when you said "more manageable"?).

This is getting sillier by the moment.

As I stated earlier, a difference between challenges between tables that would affect these was the way terrain (dungeon selves was one example) and the nature of enemy ( sluggers, less range, fewer or rare casters, etc) would reduce the frequency of mages being exposed to damage. Now you retort with how rare attackers with spells are and how it's mostly monsters and so... it seems we agree. (That was what I meant as "manageable" BTW. More limited types of threats or more circumstantial control curtailing some of the risks.)

You focus on MM but ignore the save spells - cantrips in fact but also slotted spells. Then again fewer monsters have them in play so that oversight can be forgiven. But getting back to the forest, not the trees, it's fairly common at our tables for casters to know enough to know the benefits of having both an AC attack and a Save attack (often in cantrips) so that they have the option opto use to deal with a variety of threats. That basic how-to is also common to non-pc casters of a combat or adventure nature. So, again, a difference in our tables. (That was what I meant by least favored attacks, not whatever place you drug out the trying to get to 22 dmg at all. Just simple decisions about having options to go after saves instead of AC - very basic tactical choices - sometimes ignored in white rooms analysis but very important in actual play.)

Which is fine, of course. Different tables, different needs result in different values.

But it's clear we are working from very different places as far as what we see in play, challenges we see as frequent and apparently even some very basic tactical foundations - so no point in carrying this further.

 

[5ekyu]

if you held a gun to my head and forced me to take a feat at lvl. 4 as wizard (which I wouldn't and would rarely recommend to any caster really)that needed to help me with concentration checks (which at that level you are concentrating on what exactly, suggestion/Tasha? - you don't really have a vast selection of concentration spells at that time), I would much rather take Resilient - Con. Not only will that by the next level be almost as good as having an advantage (static +3 vs the 4.5 average an advantage will give), it will also just keep getting better, will give me the potential to pass those really hard saves (in the end, you can only roll a 20, two dice or not) has a possibility of rounding up my odd con score, and helps me on ALL con saves, not just concentration.
Warcaster is honestly much nicer on druids/clerics, because they will use the other bits of the feat (like casting with weapon in hand and shield in another, since I don't have shield proficiency as a wizard).

"(which at that level you are concentrating on what exactly, suggestion/Tasha? - you don't really have a vast selection of concentration spells at that time), "

Uhh.. yeah ok so, again possibly a table difference.

At our table it's unlikely the wizard gets another feat option until 8th.

So the feat at 4th is rarely chosen based on "what does it do for me at 4th right now" as much as its chosen for "what will it do for me from 4th thru 7th and beyond."

So given that gap until the next feat (at ourctsble, possibly different at yours) extends thru the first half of tier-2 (and beyond) and includes 3rd and 4th level spells, it's the rather efficient concentration spells at 3rd and 4th that give the concentration sprll appeal even more weight. I am sure with a little look you can see some concentration spells in that range worth preserving.

But again, that's how we look at things at our table with the challenges they face. Different tables with different experiences and different assumptions might have very different priorities.

As an example, at our table I would say it's like 3 out of 4 that take feats over ASI at 4th. The numerical gains from going from +3 to +4 are not valued as highly as the gains in other aspects and options feats bring. Similarly, I guess it's not seen as critical to be +7 vs +6 (or DC 14 vs DC 15) as some of the added options feats bring. From what I gather this is less common among the white room warriors for whom the hard numbers fit more easily into calculations of benefit.

But I think another aspect that influences things at our table never shows up in white rooms - generally its seen as more fun to have a feat that gives you "more cool stuff you can do" (subjectively) than an extra +1.

That also influences feat choices. So, while resilience may in your games be the better choice, in our games it would be the duller choice - though it has been taken for at least one.

Different tables different values.

 

[5ekyu]

Not to mention, archers generally aren't idiots. If some guy is bobbing up and down, some of them are going to ready actions to shoot him when he stands, negating that tactic completely.

Yeah I agree - but with the confusion over even basic tactical choices like least favored or manageable - I did not want to even risk going into the 201 class level issues like ready action vs casters from cover or the limits of illusion cantrip in fluid combat.

It's a much different combat being described - almost different games.

 

[mortwatcher]

But I think another aspect that influences things at our table never shows up in white rooms - generally its seen as more fun to have a feat that gives you "more cool stuff you can do" (subjectively) than an extra +1.

That also influences feat choices. So, while resilience may in your games be the better choice, in our games it would be the duller choice - though it has been taken for at least one.

Different tables different values.

I understand the points above, and those are probably in the realm of different table expectations and gameplay

but warcaster does not really make your character do anything cool, you are just rolling extra dice, which is about as number crunchy as +1. I completely get it with feats like sentinel/polearm master that make you do cool stuff that you didn't do before, but warcaster seems rather bland in that aspect to me