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

[Celtavian]

I wonder why there isn't a bonus to damage? It seems natural that when people use Dex to hit they had dex to damage, use str to hit they use str to damage - so why not add int (or wis or cha) to damage with spells?

(I've not read the PHB in detail or followed any WotC articles which may have had some insight on this)

I'm thinking it's because they do more spike damage with spells and have powerful effects. Fire Bolt does up to 4d10. That's a harder hit than a fighter can do with a regular hit on average. Wizards can have a Flaming Sphere or Mord's Sword up for a bonus action hit on top of our regular cantrip. Or we can unleash a 12d6 chain lightning here and there or a disintegrate. Not to mention you can pretty much kite something with ray of frost. If you hit an average martial with ray of frost, then stay ahead of him, he won't be able to hit you.

I think they're conceding flat damage to martials because casters have massive versatility and will gain more as they release additional books with spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

This thread has inspired me to grab True Strike for my 2nd level sorcerer -- for when I really, really want to pop a Chromatic Orb into a bad guy.

I did this. We were fighting a Roper who was kicking everyone's butt and my wizard cast True Strike on one round followed by Chromatic Orb on the next. Since he got in so close to cast True Strike, the Roper grappled him, pulled him in, and canceled out the advantage with disadvantage. It was a rare time that I rolled significant damage (I managed 16 for the first time ever in the game) and without that working, there probably would have been some PC deaths. A rare chance to significantly contribute to the combat (and by significant, I mean that I did 1/6th the damage of the party out of a party of 6, I didn't actually shine much more than any other PC, several of whom did 16 or more points of damage).

 

[chriton227]

I did this. We were fighting a Roper who was kicking everyone's butt and my wizard cast True Strike on one round followed by Chromatic Orb on the next. Since he got in so close to cast True Strike, the Roper grappled him, pulled him in, and canceled out the advantage with disadvantage. It was a rare time that I rolled significant damage (I managed 16 for the first time ever in the game) and without that working, there probably would have been some PC deaths. A rare chance to significantly contribute to the combat (and by significant, I mean that I did 1/6th the damage of the party out of a party of 6, I didn't actually shine much more than any other PC, several of whom did 16 or more points of damage).

I don't have my MM in front of me to check the roper's reach, but one tactic I expect to start seeing a lot from my players is taking advantage of splitting moves along with the fact that spells only need to be in range the moment they are cast. So if you start 45' away from a roper and have 30' move, you can move up 15', cast True Strike, then move 15' away. This works great against targets with 30' move, it keeps them closing and making melee attacks before you get a chance to take advantage of True Strike.

 

[hayek]

wow. I have to say that you just completely sucked the life out of my D&D game.

I don't understand why you want to force the players down a rail-road and turn the game into some sort of shared hard coded movie. D&D is not a movie or a novel. Just like the Star Trek transporters can break/change most movie plots, D&D is the same way. Plots have to be created that respect the game they are written for. You have to accept that things happen in D&D that don't ever happen in a movie. D&D has its quirks and challenges, but all the solutions to the problems you described are perfectly acceptable. It's not the spells / powers that create those problems it's the poorly written plot that failed to take the nature of the game into consideration.

Fly and invisibility is a perfectly valid solution. It's a D&D solution and that's what makes the game fun and engaging. As for your example, I don't think the wizard would make it past the beholder guarding the dagger, but there is nothing wrong with that solution for a D&D game, if the DM so desires.

Open ended spells allow the players to create unexpected situations that add to the fun. They provide cues for improvisation and role playing. They make the game fun and unique.

I think you misunderstood my post. I agree that wizard spells can break a lot of traditional fantasy plots in ways that are uniquely 'D&D', and that that is awesome. I tried to provide lots of examples at the end of my post of ways in which a wizard can affect the game in unexpected (but awesome) ways. I'm not saying wizards shouldn't be able to do this. Just that they shouldn't be able to do lots and lots of them, starting from a very low level (the flying invisible trick can be accomplished in past editions starting at level 5), while also dishing out as much damage and combat performance as every other class in the game. My argument is that past editions gave wizards too much story-altering power and combat domination all rolled into one, and that 5th edition has scaled things back to a more reasonable level, while still allowing the wizard to do lots of awesome stuff. Not saying 5th edition got the balance exactly perfect by any means, but I think it's better than it has been in past editions.

 

[hayek]

@RotGrub I don't think hayek was trying to say wizards are overpowered or that those are bad solutions. I think he was just pointing out that, in light of all the amazing things wizards can do, the idea that they "suck" is ridiculous.

exactly.

 

[Rhenny]

I think you misunderstood my post. I agree that wizard spells can break a lot of traditional fantasy plots in ways that are uniquely 'D&D', and that that is awesome. I tried to provide lots of examples at the end of my post of ways in which a wizard can affect the game in unexpected (but awesome) ways. I'm not saying wizards shouldn't be able to do this. Just that they shouldn't be able to do lots and lots of them, starting from a very low level (the flying invisible trick can be accomplished in past editions starting at level 5), while also dishing out as much damage and combat performance as every other class in the game. My argument is that past editions gave wizards too much story-altering power and combat domination all rolled into one, and that 5th edition has scaled things back to a more reasonable level, while still allowing the wizard to do lots of awesome stuff. Not saying 5th edition got the balance exactly perfect by any means, but I think it's better than it has been in past editions.

I agree. The best part about playing a wizard in the old days (1e) was using spells in strange ways to turn the tide of an encounter. Unfortunately, by the time the wizard got higher level, he/she could do it too often. The quadratic wizard is less of a problem now, but there is still a chance for a wizard to do something remarkable once in a while.

To me, to be D&D, the wizard (and other casters) need to have truly magical powers. Limiting them by number of slots and by using concentration mechanic seems to work pretty well at the table.

 

[RotGrub]

I think you misunderstood my post. I agree that wizard spells can break a lot of traditional fantasy plots in ways that are uniquely 'D&D', and that that is awesome. I tried to provide lots of examples at the end of my post of ways in which a wizard can affect the game in unexpected (but awesome) ways. I'm not saying wizards shouldn't be able to do this. Just that they shouldn't be able to do lots and lots of them, starting from a very low level (the flying invisible trick can be accomplished in past editions starting at level 5), while also dishing out as much damage and combat performance as every other class in the game. My argument is that past editions gave wizards too much story-altering power and combat domination all rolled into one, and that 5th edition has scaled things back to a more reasonable level, while still allowing the wizard to do lots of awesome stuff. Not saying 5th edition got the balance exactly perfect by any means, but I think it's better than it has been in past editions.

ok great, I'm happy to have read your post incorrectly.

I don't disagree with you, but I do think that many of the non damage based spells are on the low side of the power scale now. In general they are not bad, but some spells should have their level decreased to compensate for the reduction in power.

I get the impression that it was very hard for the designers to deal with ambiguity. They seem to favour hit point damage as the solution to every mechanic in this edition.

 

[keterys]

I'm thinking it's because they do more spike damage with spells and have powerful effects. Fire Bolt[/I] does up to 4d10. That's a harder hit than a fighter can do with a regular hit on average.

That isn't much better than an average hit, tbh, which is important since the fighter is making 4 attacks instead of one. So, for example, 1d8+10 x 4 = 58 damage, compared to the 22 from the fire bolt.

 

[trentonjoe]

I play D&D with a few groups.

One group is a bunch of 30 and 40 year-olds who play tactically sound most of the time. These guys save their spells and cast them in the optimal situations. They complain a little about the wizards.

Another is a collection of 13 and 14 year-olds. These kids LOVE the wizards. These kids cast away without a care in the world. It's awesome.

 

[Celtavian]

That isn't much better than an average hit, tbh, which is important since the fighter is making 4 attacks instead of one. So, for example, 1d8+10 x 4 = 58 damage, compared to the 22 from the fire bolt.

Why would you not include the rest of the post where I addressed that part? 4d10 is not an average hit. The best damage fighter at 17th level will do 2d6+8 damage without an energy weapon (including +3 weapon) or 2d6+18 using Great Weapon Master with a -5 to hit. That is an average of 15 to 25 damage. Your average wizard single Fire Bolt will do 22 or 27 as an evoker. At the moment we don't know if they will have items to boost magical attacks. The Great Weapon fighter does quite a bit more damage per round than the wizard versus his cantrip. You can spike your damage with higher damage spells or spells that do damage with a bonus action.

Not sure why you would expect to do equal damage to a fighter with your basic magic attack, when the fighter is very limited in capabilities and the wizard is not. Fighter and wizard abilities are not equivalent. All the fighter has is his basic attack ability that he'll use over and over again. If they gave casters cantrips as powerful as the fighter's attacks, why play a fighter?