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

[KarinsDad]

So, where's the problem?

The link you provided shows that the wizard is among the top damage dealing classes. You happened not to be that wizard one day. That happens. But, again, overall, if your wizard isn't among, if not the top damage dealing character in the group, that's on the player.

And, how is "move away or take more damage" once in a blue moon for Witchbolt. That's exactly what it does. As far as "target the wizard" goes, well, again, that's on you. Cast the spell on something engaged with an ally, and, I dunno, move back? If the baddy comes after your wizard, he eats opportunity attacks from your allies - again, exactly what this spell is supposed to do. Never minding that you're an abjurer and hitting you and then you failing the concentration check is pretty low percentage as well.

So, we have a spell that forces a choice - either move away (thus removing you from the fight for a time), move to the wizard (thus causing even more damage from opportunity attacks) or ignore it and eat the automatic damage. Again, not sure what the problem is here.

1) The example I provided in the link doesn't actually illustrate that the wizard is a top damage dealer.

If we look at this, we see the example of a DM that is either so generous that I wouldn't want to even play in his campaign (i.e. foes almost always fail saving throws, the wizard's familiar always makes his stealth roll and even the non-stealthy PCs almost always make their stealth rolls), or a player so lucky that he should go buy lottery tickets as per my analysis here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...o-Suck-in-5E&p=7551528&viewfull=1#post7551528

So yeah, using that example for anything at all is extremely suspect and even beyond anecdotal. It's an example of a person posting a so obviously biased example to illustrate a point, that s/he only illustrates that the example was biased. When the odds of someone making all of the rolls are 1 in 210 (I didn't even count how often his fellow PCs made stealth rolls, just his familiar, his attack rolls, and his foe's missed saves) and the odds of doing the type of damage that s/he claimed are 1 in 26 in the same example, then yeah, don't listen to that person. It's a trap! That doesn't happen 99.9% of the time in an adventuring day at most tables.

2) I'm really surprised that you would state the virtues of Witch Bolt as a control spell. It too is often consider by many to be: It's a trap!

So the wizard has to be within 30 feet to cast the spell, however the spell states:

The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell's range or if it has total cover from you.

So, backing away is a bad idea. Backing away beyond 30 feet means that the spell ends and the wizard for a first level spell slot did 1 more point than a Fire Bolt spell (assuming he hit). So, the wizard has to stay within movement range of nearly every monster in the MM.

And, if his allies (assuming more than one) are between him and the target, the target got a cover bonus to the wizard's attack. Plus, other NPCs can attack the wizard, at 30 feet his target can use ranged attacks on him, the wizard himself cannot go behind total cover. Plus, the player of the wizard doesn't want to use this on a goblin. He wants to use it on the BBEG to do constant damage. But, BBEGs often have high AC, so yeah. It's just generally a bad idea the vast majority of the time.

3) You are correct that Arcane Ward provides the wizard with protection versus losing the Concentration, but it still does so at the cost of a resource. Pros and Cons. This too is a bit of a trap. Having played an abjurer, I know from experience that the player can easily go into situations where he thinks that he is safer than other wizards and finds out that no, targeting an NPC and bringing the wrath of multiple NPCs down onto the wizard can easily suck down his Arcane Ward and just end up with the wizard getting wrecked because he was out in the open taking damage. In the case of Witch Bolt, it's a bit of a double whammy. The wizard cannot regenerate Arcane Ward with another abjuration spell without dropping the Witch Bolt, he cannot cast other spells that require an action to cast, etc. He's standing out in the open picking his nose.

So the wizard casts witch bolt, his allies may or may not get opportunity attacks on his foe (or use their OA on foe 1 which allows foes 2 and 3 to run past), one or more foes decides to attack the wizard which might bring down his arcane ward, and on the next round, the wizard can use his action to automatically do 1 point more on average than if he cast Fire Bolt. Sure, the damage is automatic as opposed to a roll, but having foes in your face and having no action remaining and most likely having your arcane ward depleted hardly seems like control to me. It seems like the wizard is in trouble. This sounds like the exact opposite of control.


Oh, and I grant you that there are scenarios where foes cannot get to the wizard like the fighter holding a doorway. But in many of those scenarios, the foe can move to total cover to get away from the spell. The fighter gets an OA, but the foe would have taken auto-damage the next round anyway.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. I always considered witch bolt more of a warlocky option anyway. 2 or 3 d12 of automatic damage adds up quickly.

I guess I just have to say that this is a problem I’m totally not seeing.

But how would you fix it?

 

[Maxperson]

3) You are correct that Arcane Ward provides the wizard with protection versus losing the Concentration, but it still does so at the cost of a resource. Pros and Cons. This too is a bit of a trap. Having played an abjurer, I know from experience that the player can easily go into situations where he thinks that he is safer than other wizards and finds out that no, targeting an NPC and bringing the wrath of multiple NPCs down onto the wizard can easily suck down his Arcane Ward and just end up with the wizard getting wrecked because he was out in the open taking damage. In the case of Witch Bolt, it's a bit of a double whammy. The wizard cannot regenerate Arcane Ward with another abjuration spell without dropping the Witch Bolt, he cannot cast other spells that require an action to cast, etc. He's standing out in the open picking his nose.

So the wizard casts witch bolt, his allies may or may not get opportunity attacks on his foe (or use their OA on foe 1 which allows foes 2 and 3 to run past), one or more foes decides to attack the wizard which might bring down his arcane ward, and on the next round, the wizard can use his action to automatically do 1 point more on average than if he cast Fire Bolt. Sure, the damage is automatic as opposed to a roll, but having foes in your face and having no action remaining and most likely having your arcane ward depleted hardly seems like control to me. It seems like the wizard is in trouble. This sounds like the exact opposite of control.

War Caster. Makes those concentration checks much more likely to succeed without the need to expend resources.

And Witchbolt is a 1st level spell. It seems just fine as a first level spell with the limitations it has. If your resources are running low, it could be worth it to d12 a round. Your argument that the wizard's allies are providing cover making it difficult to hit the enemy really doesn't fly for me. It's too easy to move, cast the spell without anyone being in the way, and then move back for allied cover to be an issue that often.

Oh, and I grant you that there are scenarios where foes cannot get to the wizard like the fighter holding a doorway. But in many of those scenarios, the foe can move to total cover to get away from the spell. The fighter gets an OA, but the foe would have taken auto-damage the next round anyway.

Sentinal. Tactics are good.

 

[KarinsDad]

War Caster. Makes those concentration checks much more likely to succeed without the need to expend resources.

Assuming that a low level wizard actually has this. IME, most don't.

And Witchbolt is a 1st level spell. It seems just fine as a first level spell with the limitations it has. If your resources are running low, it could be worth it to d12 a round. Your argument that the wizard's allies are providing cover making it difficult to hit the enemy really doesn't fly for me. It's too easy to move, cast the spell without anyone being in the way, and then move back for allied cover to be an issue that often.

Unfortunately, you are assuming that the wizard is within 30 feet of the foe to begin with. Many encounters do not start that way. If the wizard hangs back, which many players do with squishy wizards, then yeah, most of the time, s/he will spend some or all of the PC's movement just getting in range and the front rank of melee PCs will often provide a cover bonus. Always? No. But, often enough. And even when they don't, the wizard is still getting within 30 feet (normal movement rate) of a foe.

It's somewhat rare that the enemies are behind or to the side of the front rank so that a PC wizard has an unobstructed view and none of the other NPCs can easily get to the wizard. It happens, but the very fact that it happens means that the wizard is often even more susceptible to counterattack.

You are also assuming that the player of a low level wizard would want to prep a witch bolt on a given day. It seems like it would often just take up a precious prep slot.

Sentinal. Tactics are good.

Yeah. Not all low level PCs have feats or the exact feat needed, but if you want to make up perfect scenarios where Witch Bolt is useful, I guess you can try. Course in the scenario of actually using witch bolt, again it wouldn't be wasted on goblins. Typically it would be used on a tougher foe with a lot of hit points in order to whittle that foe down. Given that, many foes with a lot of hit points within 30 feet of a wizard can eat an OA in order to go attack the wizard (since not all low level melee PCs have Sentinel). Foes with a lot of hit points often do more damage than normal as well. For a PC with a 16 Int, it doesn't sound like an intelligent strategy. YMMV based on PC abilities and the exact scenario.

 

[Gadget]

As much as it pains me to say it, there are some really bad spells in the game, and I just can't agree with anyone who thinks that Witch Bolt is a decent spell in any put the must contrived situations (storm sorcerer with twin spell, etc.). The fault is really on WOTC there. A cantrip is almost always better, especially when you have other options you can keep open.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Meh. I always considered witch bolt more of a warlocky option anyway. 2 or 3 d12 of automatic damage adds up quickly.

I guess I just have to say that this is a problem I’m totally not seeing.

But how would you fix it?

Witch bolt doesn't do 2 or 3 d12 of automatic damage. The initial damage does scale if you waste a higher level spell slot on it, so can do 2 or 3 d12 of damage, but it requires a hit roll so isn't 'automatic'. The continuing damage doesn't scale, it is always 1d12 so doesn't go up to 2 or 3 d12. It also requires the caster to use their action every round to maintain it, which I wouldn't call 'automatic'. Witch bolt is kind of functional but limited at really low levels and becomes a waste rather rapidly. For a warlocky thing, hex is just absurdly superior.

 

[Stalker0]

If we are turning this thread into “witch bolt sucks”, I’m on board.

I’ll argue that low level wizards are good and that certain low level spells are bad. That’s a reasonable position and one I can get behind

 

[KarinsDad]

Meh. I always considered witch bolt more of a warlocky option anyway. 2 or 3 d12 of automatic damage adds up quickly.

I guess I just have to say that this is a problem I’m totally not seeing.

But how would you fix it?

I think that the issue with the spell is that it is damage only. The wizard gives up his safety, a lot of his movement, and his action every round in order to do basically a hair better than cantrip level damage. It controls the wizard more than it controls the target.

There are a few old threads where people argued for weeks about how bad it was. I tried using it with the wizard that this thread was started over, but dropped the idea after a few gaming sessions. Course, that might be due to my horrible dice rolling, I really don't remember 4+ years later. I do remember that we attempted to improve it with a house rule at higher level slots where the damage later on was equal to the damage in level 1 which would practically force the NPC target to move away or get fried.

But now, I would probably put a Wisdom (or some other stat) save in for the foe to move at half speed (or not move at all if desired) at the start of each of its turns. That might add enough control so that the target itself might not be able to attack the wizard quite as often. His NPC allies might, but not the target itself. The target could still do ranged attacks and such, but would only have about a 40% chance each round (give or take) of actually being able to move and either attack the wizard, or move out of the effect. By not allowing the target to move, my PC would feel like Darth Sidious.

 

[KarinsDad]

If we are turning this thread into “witch bolt sucks”, I’m on board.

I’ll argue that low level wizards are good and that certain low level spells are bad. That’s a reasonable position and one I can get behind

I think that my initial post was heavily influenced by the fact that I didn't want my wizard to be a cookie cutter "let's pull out Sleep" PC. When there is a spell that almost every player uses that is so good (i.e. no roll to hit, no save, one or more foes typically affected), it does sharply influence how effective that PC might be.

In my mind, though, that does illustrate just how imbalanced many of the spells in the game are. If you don't pick the better spells, you are a bit behind the 8 ball.

 

[200orcs]

In my mind, though, that does illustrate just how imbalanced many of the spells in the game are. If you don't pick the better spells, you are a bit behind the 8 ball.

I think some spells are very situational but a lot of spells are both really good and bad at the same time depending on your play style and your DM. If you look at the three main wizard guides you will see that they rate spells differently with a few exceptions.

I DM, in the last campaign I run the first few levels my encounters would some time feel too easy for the players, and other times they would be rather challenging for the same difficulty. I realized that it was all dependent on did the Bard cast sleep or not.


Here is the thing though, I rolled a Sorcerer for a newer game I am a PC in, and of course I got sleep. It didn't work out so well at all. Most of the time I couldn't even cast it because the NPCs would surround us so I could out my own party to sleep.

I won't say that there are some spells that don't suck, but some of them totally depend on party composition, player choices and the DM.

And that's not touching Illusion spells that can be totally useless or amazing depending on the DM and the player's creativity.