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

[Maxperson]

On the other hand, there are quite a few subpar or even trash low level spells in 5E that it makes one wonder. Did anyone even review or playtest those spells? Charm Person being one example of subpar, Witch Bolt an example of trash. Like you mentioned with Tasha's, both of these spells can be awesome given the proper circumstances. Unfortunately, the proper circumstances tend to be so few and far between that many players will almost never prep them. Even Tasha's which is considered a great spell in most of the wizard's guides is mostly limited to combat scenarios. Use it out of combat and at best it's a distraction because it mostly just annoys an NPC since they bust out of the spell so quickly (in non-combat terms). And solo foes in combat tend to bust out of it even faster. It really isn't that good of a spell at very low level compared to Sleep which has way more control (until levels where Sleep finally peters out and Tasha's becomes better) except for less frequent situations against foes with a lot of hit points.

I have a theory that this is deliberate. WotC has a history of doing this with MtG. They make crappy cards in order to make the good cards stand out, because if every card is good, nothing is really good and good becomes the new average. They may be using the same philosophy with spells.

 

[Sadras]

Even Tasha's which is considered a great spell in most of the wizard's guides is mostly limited to combat scenarios. Use it out of combat and at best it's a distraction because it mostly just annoys an NPC since they bust out of the spell so quickly (in non-combat terms). And solo foes in combat tend to bust out of it even faster.

With Solo's you're mostly expending a Legendary Save, so it has some use.

However, I've been thinking that perhaps Tasha's (and maybe similar spells like it), which as you referred to are at best an annoyance out of combat, incur Disadvantage on their saves, making them a tad more useful or perhaps last a minute (no saves).
i.e. the Disadvantage or No Saves condition is lost when cast in an unfriendly environment, such as combat or in the middle of an interrogation.

EDIT: To be fair, if a PC had an interesting idea to use a spell OOC, then I'd usually let them run with the scene and worry less about the mechanics (such as save every round), especially if it were being cast on insignificant NPCs. Needless to say this would be allowed on a case by case basis. The Rule of Cool applies.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have a theory that this is deliberate. WotC has a history of doing this with MtG. They make crappy cards in order to make the good cards stand out, because if every card is good, nothing is really good and good becomes the new average. They may be using the same philosophy with spells.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Personally, I just want good quality overall.

 

[KarinsDad]

This now seems less a problem with the wizard class and more a problem with your DM.

You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions. There are a lot of factors in games.

 

[KarinsDad]

With Solo's you're mostly expending a Legendary Save, so it has some use.

At low levels?

 

[Stalker0]

With a different DM and/or different rolls, he could have also done 20% of the damage that he did, and the other 3 PCs would have had to pick up the other 80% slack... rat bastard DMs, or a wide variety of other variables that could make playing a wizard go from wonderful to tedious or difficult....Unfortunately, the proper circumstances tend to be so few and far between that many players will almost never prep them.

I noted a selection of things here because they all circle around the same thing. And I think its extremely important to note, because its something 5e embraced.

At the end of the day...the Dm controls everything. 3e and 4e in some ways tried to insulate the players from a bad DM...but that plan fails from the start, because the DM is the heart of Dnd. What seperates Dnd from video games or board games or many other games...a living breathing creator of the world and rules as the game goes on.

A bad DM can make any class crappy, and any experience miserable. Doesn't matter if your a wizard, fighter, or XYZ...a bad DM can ensure you will have a terrible experience.

And the reverse is true. A good DM can make any character concept look cool and special.

So when we talk about class balance, we have to recognize that the DM controls a lot of what a player perceives. So the idea of "absolute class balance" simply does not exist. The more important question is....does the system provide enough interesting hooks for a class that the DM and Player have the tools they need to make a concept look cool and special.

And when it comes to the low level wizard, may answer is an emphatic YES. There are a wonderful range of hooks for any low level wizard. Of course, a bad DM can throw these out the window and make the class look like garbage...but even a decent DM has plenty of tools they can use to make the class shine.

 

[KarinsDad]

I noted a selection of things here because they all circle around the same thing. And I think its extremely important to note, because its something 5e embraced.

At the end of the day...the Dm controls everything. 3e and 4e in some ways tried to insulate the players from a bad DM...but that plan fails from the start, because the DM is the heart of Dnd. What seperates Dnd from video games or board games or many other games...a living breathing creator of the world and rules as the game goes on.

A bad DM can make any class crappy, and any experience miserable. Doesn't matter if your a wizard, fighter, or XYZ...a bad DM can ensure you will have a terrible experience.

And the reverse is true. A good DM can make any character concept look cool and special.

So when we talk about class balance, we have to recognize that the DM controls a lot of what a player perceives. So the idea of "absolute class balance" simply does not exist. The more important question is....does the system provide enough interesting hooks for a class that the DM and Player have the tools they need to make a concept look cool and special.

And when it comes to the low level wizard, may answer is an emphatic YES. There are a wonderful range of hooks for any low level wizard. Of course, a bad DM can throw these out the window and make the class look like garbage...but even a decent DM has plenty of tools they can use to make the class shine.

Bad DM, unlucky DM, unlucky player, lucky DM (from monster point of view).


It's a bit unfair to say that every bad experience is because of a badwrongfun DM. It could be other players whose PCs get in the way of the PC Wizard's plan, it could be a change of creature layout half way through a round, etc. One of the issues from my perspective is that I didn't want an Abjurer with a Sleep spell, so my experience from that alone might have been worse than a player who took that spell for his wizard. Or a wizard who doesn't want a familiar compared to one who does. The variability in utility and/or power of 5E spells means that a player who wants to attempt one style of PC might not be successful whereas a player who designs his wizard around a different concept might be a lot more successful. I don't think that these things should be laid at the feet of the DM. A simple example is an evoker. The game is not really designed to have good low level evokers because they do real awesome damage so rarely in a day compared to the greatsword wielding fighter (and sculpt spell is very nice, but doesn't allow the evoker to actually do additional damage, which should be their schtick).


I am also very disappointed in the fact that every level of spells tends to have a few really useful spells, a bunch of so so spells, and some seriously crappy spells. Witch Bolt would be a fine spell if it had any type of control (or penalty) to prevent a foe from just plain walking away. I could definitely see a player wanting to play the Darth Sidious role of wizard. But, no. Find Traps (not a wizard spell, but the concept is the same for other spellcasting classes) could be much nicer than it is by dropping 6 words from the description considering that it costs a spell slot. Etc.

 

[5ekyu]

You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions. There are a lot of factors in games.

Of course there are but those factors meet the characters and outcomes thru the GM.

 

[Stalker0]

It's a bit unfair to say that every bad experience is because of a badwrongfun DM.

Certainly not every experience, but my point remains that DMs have a lot of ability to control the balance of the game. If I'm playing a badass melee fighter....and my DM throws nothing but long ranged combat into the mix....I'll bet that player starts thinking melee fighters are weak. Vice Versa, if all combats start with an ambush right in melee, melee fighters look dominantly powerful.

The wizard is no difference. If I'm playing a fireball slinging evoker (or for low levels shatter), and the enemies never clump up for me....than yeah I'm not going to feel very strong. But good DMs will know to throw the evoker a bone every once in a while, and give them that sweet group of mooks they get to blow up....and suddenly everyone goes "holy crap that wizard is powerful!".

That's why white room analysis on Class abilities here is not going to solve anything. Now if the real issue is certain spells are weak....than lets have that debate. But if the focus is "wizards just plain suck", I'm sorry....but as a DM I have plenty of opportunity to showcase my wizard player's power, and its not even difficult.

 

[Hussar]

Bad DM, unlucky DM, unlucky player, lucky DM (from monster point of view).


It's a bit unfair to say that every bad experience is because of a badwrongfun DM. It could be other players whose PCs get in the way of the PC Wizard's plan, it could be a change of creature layout half way through a round, etc. One of the issues from my perspective is that I didn't want an Abjurer with a Sleep spell, so my experience from that alone might have been worse than a player who took that spell for his wizard. Or a wizard who doesn't want a familiar compared to one who does. The variability in utility and/or power of 5E spells means that a player who wants to attempt one style of PC might not be successful whereas a player who designs his wizard around a different concept might be a lot more successful. I don't think that these things should be laid at the feet of the DM. A simple example is an evoker. The game is not really designed to have good low level evokers because they do real awesome damage so rarely in a day compared to the greatsword wielding fighter (and sculpt spell is very nice, but doesn't allow the evoker to actually do additional damage, which should be their schtick).


I am also very disappointed in the fact that every level of spells tends to have a few really useful spells, a bunch of so so spells, and some seriously crappy spells. Witch Bolt would be a fine spell if it had any type of control (or penalty) to prevent a foe from just plain walking away. I could definitely see a player wanting to play the Darth Sidious role of wizard. But, no. Find Traps (not a wizard spell, but the concept is the same for other spellcasting classes) could be much nicer than it is by dropping 6 words from the description considering that it costs a spell slot. Etc.

If your evoker is being out damaged on a daily basis by the greatsword wielding fighter at anything other than say levels 1-4, there's something seriously wrong. And, even at those very early levels, that evoker is still dishing out some serious damage.

I would suggest actually tracking the damage done and not going with your "gut" feelings. Actually take the time to write down the total damage done by each character in each round of combat. I would wager that you would be very, very surprised.

I mean, you talk about witch bolt and complain it doesn't have any kind of control. But, it actually does. The monster can choose to stay in the fight, taking damage each round. Or it can leave. Which removes it from the fight for at least one round, probably two. Which is a huge tactical advantage in 5e combats where combats usually only last a few rounds anyway. How is the spell not doing exactly what it's supposed to do? What makes the spell so "seriously crappy"?