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

[Maxperson]

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

War Caster is just too good not to take as a caster. So assuming you are not a variant human that gets it at 1st level, you still get it at 4th level, which is still low level.

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.

No. I'm not assuming he's withing 30 feet. I'm assuming he's withing 60 feet if he's going to cast the spell. Move 30 feet to 30, then cast the spell. If he's not within 60 feet, he casts a different spell. Sometimes being farther than 60 feet is going to happen. That doesn't mean that Witchbolt isn't going to be useful a lot of the time.

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.

Sure. It may be rare that the enemies are behind or to the side of the front rank, but it's common that the wizard can move sideways and get an unobstructed view, then move back.

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.

The entire point of this debate is to show you that there are different perspectives out there. Just because YOU hate the spell and think it's useless, does not mean that everyone else does. I can easily see the spell being good enough for use under commonly encountered circumstances.

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.

It doesn't require a perfect scenario. It requires a common scenario. Wizards commonly have War Caster as it's an amazing feat for a caster to have. Wizards are commonly in circumstances that they can walk sideways to get clear views of enemies and then back again.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

War Caster is just too good not to take as a caster. So assuming you are not a variant human that gets it at 1st level, you still get it at 4th level, which is still low level.

I don't think it's good enough to be a 'if you don't take this at 4th you're wrong', it's definitely not 'conventional wisdom' that you take it (the standard advice is 'get your stat to 20 ASAP), and in my experience it's nowhere near universal. Its usefulness depends on your spell selection and fighting style - a moon druid who wants to hold concentration while meleeing in forms or a cleric who wants to maintain guardian spirits will find it vital, while an evoker who stands back and blasts or warlock who only maintains hex will find it less useful than +1 to hit, damage, and save DC. On my current characters, I have a warlock who opted for CHA increases, a moon druid who grabbed warcaster, and a paladin/warlock who is getting CHA first.

It's definitely not a safe assumption that a low-level wizard will have warcaster.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

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.

For all classes, if you choose not to use good and useful abilities because you consider it 'cookie cutter' to actually be effective, then the class will suck. This has nothing to do with 'low level wizards in 5e', it's 'if you don't build and play your character in an effective way, you won't be effective'. If you play a rogue who eschews thief's tools and finesse weapons because it's 'cookie cutter', or a barbarian who never rages because that's too predictable, you'll suffer from the same suckage, but it's not a problem with the class.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it's good enough to be a 'if you don't take this at 4th you're wrong', it's definitely not 'conventional wisdom' that you take it (the standard advice is 'get your stat to 20 ASAP), and in my experience it's nowhere near universal. Its usefulness depends on your spell selection and fighting style - a moon druid who wants to hold concentration while meleeing in forms or a cleric who wants to maintain guardian spirits will find it vital, while an evoker who stands back and blasts or warlock who only maintains hex will find it less useful than +1 to hit, damage, and save DC. On my current characters, I have a warlock who opted for CHA increases, a moon druid who grabbed warcaster, and a paladin/warlock who is getting CHA first.

It's definitely not a safe assumption that a low-level wizard will have warcaster.

Different stroked for different folks. Again, though, the point is that while some will view things one way, other view them another. Witchbolt is not a universally bad spell. I would view it as decent for some characters, but crappy for others. I don't think it would qualify as good for any character. Those are my opinions.

 

[5ekyu]

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

Yeah... Witch Bolt to me is a spell with potential to be above average but in a few cases, not as a broad widely applicable sense.

So to me, its a tool i want in a toolbox but likely never prepare outside of specific cases.

Fwiw - i see it not as a control spell but as a exploiting control spell.

It only needs one to-hit roll. That means i can stack a number of boosts (expendable ones) such as a helping ally (advantage) and bardic die to get that first hit in vs a high AC enemy. After that its ongoing damage from one spent slot.

But the key is needing the control as well. An ally grappling the foe is great.

Thats gonna add up to a lot more than 1 pt above a firebolt.

But again, a high ac foe we can control... Not an everyday event but one where witchbolt helps as part of the toolkit.

However, witchbolt not being awesome does not result in weak wizards.

 

[KarinsDad]

For all classes, if you choose not to use good and useful abilities because you consider it 'cookie cutter' to actually be effective, then the class will suck. This has nothing to do with 'low level wizards in 5e', it's 'if you don't build and play your character in an effective way, you won't be effective'. If you play a rogue who eschews thief's tools and finesse weapons because it's 'cookie cutter', or a barbarian who never rages because that's too predictable, you'll suffer from the same suckage, but it's not a problem with the class.

One spell though?

That's eschewing "good and useful abilities" because a player passes on one spell?

The other spells are really not designed well and it is a problem with the class if that's the case.

 

[KarinsDad]

The entire point of this debate is to show you that there are different perspectives out there. Just because YOU hate the spell and think it's useless, does not mean that everyone else does. I can easily see the spell being good enough for use under commonly encountered circumstances.

Where did I state that I hated it? I actually really liked the spell until I tried to use it in practice. It has potential, but there are a lot of variables that have to come into play in actual game practice. Tell you what. Create a poll. That'll let you know what the community here thinks about the spell.

It doesn't require a perfect scenario. It requires a common scenario. Wizards commonly have War Caster as it's an amazing feat for a caster to have. Wizards are commonly in circumstances that they can walk sideways to get clear views of enemies and then back again.

Commonly? Not at my table. War caster is nice, but then so is a lot of other options. I have to wonder how often the players at your table have the wizard get attacked that they have to have war caster in order to make Concentration saves. Gish build? Sure.

No doubt. As a DM, I go out of my way to have encounters where the group is surrounded and/or back rank PCs get attacked on occasion. But the only class PC that has taken War caster at my table have been druids. For a wizard, it almost seems like paranoia to take it.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

One spell though? That's eschewing "good and useful abilities" because a player passes on one spell?

If you eschew one ability, then I suppose you could technically say that it's "eschewing a good and useful ability" instead of "abilities", if you really want to be a pedantophile. If you literally only applied this philosophy to one single spell that would be odd, most people who state a philosophy apply it to more than one thing. If your make decisions for your character on the basis of "this is effective and people use it so it's 'cookie cutter' and I won't use it", you will end up with a character who 'sucks'.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you eschew one ability, then I suppose you could technically say that it's "eschewing a good and useful ability" instead of "abilities", if you really want to be a pedantophile. If you literally only applied this philosophy to one single spell that would be odd, most people who state a philosophy apply it to more than one thing. If your make decisions for your character on the basis of "this is effective and people use it so it's 'cookie cutter' and I won't use it", you will end up with a character who 'sucks'.

Most people? Sorry. Someone who decides to buck trends is the opposite of most people.

In my case, I just didn't want to cast Sleep. I had had a lot of mages over the decades where Sleep was the go to spell at low level and I wanted to try something else. It's not that complicated. You appear to be making more of it than it was.

 

[jgsugden]

War Caster is just too good not to take as a caster. So assuming you are not a variant human that gets it at 1st level, you still get it at 4th level, which is still low level.

No. MOST wizards do not have WC by 4th level. Per Jeremy Crawford, the WotC research indicates that the majority of games do not even use feats.

Relatively few wizards have WC by 4th level. MOST (non-human) wizards have it by the time they reach 20th if te game uses feats, but it battles with the following options that are widely taken:

Raising Intelligence (usually twice)
Alert (less common than WC for wizards, but still widely taken)
Luck
Racial Feats (Deep Gnomes getting so many spells is very enticing)
Keen Mind / Observant (for the +1 Int primarily)
Resilient (Con)

There are also Dragonmark Feats and other campaign specific feats competing with these, as well as a lot of less 'efficient' feats that are favored by some PCs, such as Spell Sniper, Elemental Adept, Durable, Tough, Inspiring Leader, Magic Initiate (Warlock), Ritual Caster (Cleric - there are some goodies in there for clerics that a wizard can enjoy) that might be taken before WC. Also, if it is a melee wizard, there are a lot of other feats competing for the starring roles.

I've run several wizards. None of them had WC at 4th. The earliest I've taken it is 12th. My most recent wizard, a Svirfneblin Enchanter, has made exactly 9 concentration checks between levels 1 and 13, and his OA opportunities that matter have been very, very rare - despite his desire to use Hypnotic Gaze a lot putting him into melee range - a lot.

I've seen about 20 5E wizards run for a prolonged time. I do not recall many, if any, of them having it before 12th... I'd be shocked if any of them had it before 8th.