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

[jgsugden]

Not at all... in the traditional party of four cleric, wizard, fighter, rogue- the wizard is only 1 in 4. If every traditional party wizard chose war caster, the majority font use fests could still be very true...

Right. So, pretty much nobody is using Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, etc... That would pretty much need to be true for this assertion to had any merit.

The idea that a MAJORITY of wizards take this by 4th level is, quite frankly, unrealistic. 10% would be too high in my mind. I assume the vast majority want that extra prepared spell, the higher DCs, the higher attack bonus, higher knowledge skills, etc...

I'm done.

 

[KarinsDad]

On Monday, in a village raid combat every caster wound up at melee range more than once, just doe to the scene and the threats and needs.

Yes, but how many of those casters have War Caster, and how many were concentrating on a spell when they were attacked?

As always, the challenges and needs are what determines the value and appeal of this trait over that trait and those vary by campaign.

No doubt. But, the math still doesn't support WC at level 4 for most wizards in most campaigns as an optimal choice. Only so many limited spells, lots of other non-concentration spells to cast in many circumstances. Players of squishy PCs tend to avoid attacks. So if the DM is throwing damaging attacks at a wizard often, then other things become more important: like hit points and AC because no matter how many saves a player makes, getting hit for damage a lot means falling unconscious a lot. WC or no WC, going unconscious drops a concentration spell. Even +2 Con at level 4 makes more sense than WC for a wizard that is often getting attacked.

 

[Maxperson]

The Wizard? Not the Druid? Not the Cleric? These other PCs don't have the ability to control and sway combat?

I thought this was a thread about wizards. My bad.

The +2 Int at level 4 instead of a feat works on nearly every single round for either "to hits" or "saves". War Caster for a wizard at level 4? Maybe it might help once a day because the wizard is probably only going to cast maybe 4 Concentration spells a day out of his 8 spells. There might also be a Mage Armor spell, maybe a Shield spell, a few mostly damage spells.

At low level, the math doesn't work with your assumptions. Wizards just don't, at least in my experience, get attacked so many times while concentrating in an adventuring day that the player is worried about a concentration spell here or there. A 6 encounter day, 4 rounds per encounter is upwards of 7 spells and 17 cantrips and often Mage Armor outside of combat. Most of those rounds, the caster is probably not concentrating, or he is concentrating behind partial or full cover (or concealment if the player uses some tricks like Minor Illusion to become an unseen attacker while concentrating).

Earlier in the thread you talked about DMs who take it easy on the group. Now it seems like you have a DM who takes it easy on the group. In my experience, both as a DM and a player, wizards get hit a lot. 4 concentration spells a day is at probably 4 concentration saves, perhaps more, assuming the targets don't make the initial saves and just avoid the spell completely.

And as levels go up, it tends to be even less important because PCs have more spells per day. If one fizzles, cast another.

Not so many that you want to waste spells.

War Caster really is mostly important for PCs that get into melee like gish builds, or druids who want to concentrate on a spell in melee. The name of the feat tells you most of what you know about it. It's pretty much is a waste on a traditional wizard build.

Yep. It's a feat for wizards who get into fights and want to keep their concentration spells going.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. So, pretty much nobody is using Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, etc... That would pretty much need to be true for this assertion to had any merit.

Right. The preponderance of great feats, combined with my experiences in the games I run and play in, as well as the ones I watch and join at conventions(all of which have had a bunch of feats), have me convinced that the statement that most 5e PCs don't use feats is wrong. Don't believe everything corporations tell you.

 

[KarinsDad]

Earlier in the thread you talked about DMs who take it easy on the group. Now it seems like you have a DM who takes it easy on the group. In my experience, both as a DM and a player, wizards get hit a lot. 4 concentration spells a day is at probably 4 concentration saves, perhaps more, assuming the targets don't make the initial saves and just avoid the spell completely.

My last wizard (not the one who started this thread) was a Life Cleric 1 / Wizard X necromancer that walked around in plate mail and shield and would throw out a Shield spell if needed. Got attacked quite a bit because he was often at or near the front, but typically only got hit maybe a half dozen times a day, even though we really didn't have an easy DM. Undead minions mean that a lot of concentration spells weren't needed. If relatively safe from combat, concentration spells could come out. If in the thick of it, that was less of an option (except for Fog Cloud which I liked to cast when seriously outnumbered). Course, our group as a whole did a lot of summoning of creatures and such, so that helps a lot on action economy. My wizard was purposely scary looking (black armor, black helmet, etc.) so that foes would either attack him because he seemed like such a threat, or wouldn't because he seemed too nasty, depending on how the DM decided a given foe would react to him. However, Mirror Image or Blink was sufficient in the big battles. We took on giants and dragons and demons and a vampire and a wide variety of foes, often in decent numbers (I think the DM threw more foes at us because we did have so many minions and summoned allies). Never went unconscious. Rarely went bloodied. He was more effective than my original wizard, mostly because he focused on action economy (and of course his AC helped a lot).

Yep. It's a feat for wizards who get into fights and want to keep their concentration spells going.

Yeah, my necromancer wizard didn't need it. Course, I learned a lot about how to not play a wizard in the years since this thread started. Ideas that worked in earlier versions don't necessarily translate to 5E.

I would expect that there are more players who play multiclass 1 or 2 class one / wizards than there are players who take War Caster before level 12. It just helps so infrequently when a creative player can use terrain or allies or minor spells to avoid damage.

 

[Hussar]

To be honest [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], in, what is it now, five years of 5e? I've never seen anyone take warcaster. It's just never been an issue. Again, taking it at 4th level seems very, very pointless. Advantage on Concentration checks, when, presuming a 14 Con (not unreasonable for a wizard) we're talking about needing an 8 or better on a d20 if you get hit while concentrating on a spell seems rather gilding the lily. You're making the check twice as often as not, so, why bother burning a feat on it? Much better to bump Int, which makes all your spells more effective.

I mean, in your example, the wizard would have to make, at most, 4 concentration checks per adventuring day. He's going to cast a LOT more spells than that. Mathematically, he should make 2 or 3 of those 4 checks without the feat. Taking the feat basically means he'll make one, maybe two extra Concentration checks. Seems a rather loss leader to me considering what else the character could be doing with feats.

Higher level? Sure. That makes a LOT more sense when you're eating attacks that are dealing far more than 20 points per shot and thus bumping the concentration check above 10. But at low levels? Meh, there's a lot of feats or ability score bumps I'd put in front of Warcaster.

 

[KarinsDad]

Right. The preponderance of great feats, combined with my experiences in the games I run and play in, as well as the ones I watch and join at conventions(all of which have had a bunch of feats), have me convinced that the statement that most 5e PCs don't use feats is wrong. Don't believe everything corporations tell you.

If you are that convinced, start a poll and ask the community.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, but how many of those casters have War Caster, and how many were concentrating on a spell when they were attacked?



No doubt. But, the math still doesn't support WC at level 4 for most wizards in most campaigns as an optimal choice. Only so many limited spells, lots of other non-concentration spells to cast in many circumstances. Players of squishy PCs tend to avoid attacks. So if the DM is throwing damaging attacks at a wizard often, then other things become more important: like hit points and AC because no matter how many saves a player makes, getting hit for damage a lot means falling unconscious a lot. WC or no WC, going unconscious drops a concentration spell. Even +2 Con at level 4 makes more sense than WC for a wizard that is often getting attacked.

The point remains that "optimal" and decisions about what is optimal varies greatly by campaign and by party. A group with strong healing might not make 4hp for the wiz more important than keeping that fog cloud, hold person or hypnotic pattern or levitate going.

In quite a few cases, controlling one key guy while the minions be minions can turn a tough encounter into an easy one and being able to manage thru several low damage minion hits and keep concentration is big. Quite possibly they font get near beating the healing rate fast enough to get the wiz at a point where that 4hp would be key.

But if getting attacked to you drives you to see getting an extra hp per level as better than advsntage on concentration for key spells, my guess is your combats look or play quite different.

As always, it comes down to the challenges but I have to say I have never seen a wizard use their 4th level option for +2 Con but have seen it used for WarCaster more than a few.

Now, I myself am fond of other feats at 4th - like Mage Slayer as I tend to ho more active than resistant early- but that varies a lot because each character, party and campaign are different. But WC is up there on the priority list and taken at 4th it's really for 5th threy 7th and there are some key concentrations there too.

 

[KarinsDad]

The point remains that "optimal" and decisions about what is optimal varies greatly by campaign and by party. A group with strong healing might not make 4hp for the wiz more important than keeping that fog cloud, hold person or hypnotic pattern or levitate going.

In quite a few cases, controlling one key guy while the minions be minions can turn a tough encounter into an easy one and being able to manage thru several low damage minion hits and keep concentration is big. Quite possibly they font get near beating the healing rate fast enough to get the wiz at a point where that 4hp would be key.

But if getting attacked to you drives you to see getting an extra hp per level as better than advsntage on concentration for key spells, my guess is your combats look or play quite different.

As always, it comes down to the challenges but I have to say I have never seen a wizard use their 4th level option for +2 Con but have seen it used for WarCaster more than a few.

Now, I myself am fond of other feats at 4th - like Mage Slayer as I tend to ho more active than resistant early- but that varies a lot because each character, party and campaign are different. But WC is up there on the priority list and taken at 4th it's really for 5th threy 7th and there are some key concentrations there too.

Hmmm. Very odd.

I see what you are saying, but I have never seen it at the table. Two players of Druids (one moon, one land) have taken WC to help ensure that their summoned pets would stick around.

We have had 4 wizards over the 5E years (IIRC) and none of them have taken it, even at higher levels.

By the way, I too have never seen a wizard take +2 Con. It just seems as good of an option for a wizard at level 4 if the DM often targets him as war caster. It helps on saves and it helps with hit points.

Even with WC, his concentration spell stays up, but he still typically has a foe in his face or shooting stuff at him.


Let's look at the math. A wizard with CON 14 (which happens almost all of the time at level 1 at our table) saves on any attack of 21 or fewer damage 65% of the time.

If he takes +2 Int, 5% of his cantrips and spells work when they wouldn't have worked. 5 encounters per day, 4 round encounters, he gets in one extra success.

To match this success with the advantage concentration save, his 65% goes to 87.75% (a 12 CON goes from 60% to 84%). So, about 1 time in 4.5 that he is concentrating would he makes a save that he normally wouldn't make. But if he is concentrating, chances are that he is not standing out in the open so that foes can attack him (at least not at my table). And if he isn't concentrating (which is what actually happens at low level due to the limited number of spell slot and prepped spells), than WC isn't helping him. So in the 5 encounter day, on one encounter IF he is (typically) out in the open and being attacked, it would help. If he is not out in the open, it doesn't help. If he isn't attacked (my preference as a wizard), it doesn't help. If he is attacked in a surprise round, it typically doesn't help (cause he doesn't usually have a concentration spell up before combat unless it is Invisibility or some such).

Heck. Out in the middle of a field, a wizard could cast a spell, fall prone and be safer from ranged attacks, stand up on his next turn, cast a spell, fall prone, rinse and repeat and probably not take much damage until foes got within melee range.

All in all, the +2 Int will be more helpful more often.


But like I said, create a poll. Ask the community how often wizard PCs take WC at level 4. Argumentum ad populum doesn't prove how often WC would help, but it would illustrate how many people tend to agree with you.

 

[5ekyu]

Hmmm. Very odd.

I see what you are saying, but I have never seen it at the table. Two players of Druids (one moon, one land) have taken WC to help ensure that their summoned pets would stick around.

We have had 4 wizards over the 5E years (IIRC) and none of them have taken it, even at higher levels.

By the way, I too have never seen a wizard take +2 Con. It just seems as good of an option for a wizard at level 4 if the DM often targets him as war caster. It helps on saves and it helps with hit points.

Even with WC, his concentration spell stays up, but he still typically has a foe in his face or shooting stuff at him.


Let's look at the math. A wizard with CON 14 (which happens almost all of the time at level 1 at our table) saves on any attack of 21 or fewer damage 65% of the time.

If he takes +2 Int, 5% of his cantrips and spells work when they wouldn't have worked. 5 encounters per day, 4 round encounters, he gets in one extra success.

To match this success with the advantage concentration save, his 65% goes to 87.75% (a 12 CON goes from 60% to 84%). So, about 1 time in 4.5 that he is concentrating would he makes a save that he normally wouldn't make. But if he is concentrating, chances are that he is not standing out in the open so that foes can attack him (at least not at my table). And if he isn't concentrating (which is what actually happens at low level due to the limited number of spell slot and prepped spells), than WC isn't helping him. So in the 5 encounter day, on one encounter IF he is (typically) out in the open and being attacked, it would help. If he is not out in the open, it doesn't help. If he isn't attacked (my preference as a wizard), it doesn't help. If he is attacked in a surprise round, it typically doesn't help (cause he doesn't usually have a concentration spell up before combat unless it is Invisibility or some such).

Heck. Out in the middle of a field, a wizard could cast a spell, fall prone and be safer from ranged attacks, stand up on his next turn, cast a spell, fall prone, rinse and repeat and probably not take much damage until foes got within melee range.

All in all, the +2 Int will be more helpful more often.


But like I said, create a poll. Ask the community how often wizard PCs take WC at level 4. Argumentum ad populum doesn't prove how often WC would help, but it would illustrate how many people tend to agree with you.

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?