D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[Treantmonklvl20]

There are two ways to use Vampiric Touch + Grim Harvest:

1.) You can abuse it to regain HP between combats by killing inoffensive creatures like chickens (1 cp each!).

2.) You can use it during combat to try to tank. I have a PC who does this with his necromancer: plays him basically like a fighter. AC 15 (Robe of the Archmagi) + 4 (DX bonus, he's an elf with good rolled stats) + Shield spell = AC 19 or 24, which combined with the bonus HP from Vampiric Touch makes him a pretty formidable tank.

However, I think #1 is the primary usage.

I'll go out of order and start with 2: I'm of mixed opinion how formidable a tank using Vampiric touch is going to be for a number of reasons, but whether it makes you a good tank or not is irrelevant to my guide, as tanking is not a tactic the guide is built for.

1) OK, so you are casting a 3rd level spell outside of combat and the gains are that every chicken you kill you get 9hp back. I'll give you creativity points for sure. I do have some reservations still:
a) It seems like a trick to take advantage of a loophole that was never intended. I'm always leery of taking advantage of those as a player, and I'll definitely put a stop to them when I'm DM
b) I also have concerns about practicality. You are bring a bunch of live chickens with you while adventuring? How many are you bringing, how are you keeping them from running off, how are you keeping them from clucking and making a ruckus?
c) Don't expect to use them if the damage you took was from an area spell

My biggest concern is a).. Once again, points for creativity though (xp given)

 

[Mercule]

Awesome. I generally GM. When I play, though, I tend to prefer martial (striker, generally) characters because a) I always hated planning the whole day in the morning and b) I like the tactical play for them. I didn't see your 3.5 guide, but this looks really helpful for getting that tactical fun, for me.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Thank you for the responses!

1. Protection from Evil: This is an extremely good spell in a campaign featuring undead, fiends, or the types of creatures it protects against.

My "orange" rating warns against spells that are circumstantial. I agree it is a good spell against the creatures it works against. I prefer selecting spells that have broader use (and thus recommend them).

2. Dispel Magic: This spell is powerful in 5E.

I mostly agree (exception: I still think counterspell is better though). I did struggle with the purple rating, which I think is fairly clear in my spell description. I still think there is redundancy in selecting both spells for preparation (although I'm glad to admit situations will occur where only one or the other will be needed). I still think it's OK to have both spells prepared despite the overlap, thus the purple rating. In my defense, I do say in the comments that it is a good spell. I do this with a lot of spells where I find redundancy, like Fear/Slow/Hypnotic Pattern. The redundancy affects the rating of the spells I consider the secondary choice.

3. Magic Circle: This spell is essential to taking advantage of gate and planar binding later in level or for managing creatures you want to bind. If you plan to bring summoned allies with you later, you must take this spell at some point.

Note that I recommend neither Gate nor Planar Binding in my guide (which hurt a bit as I've always been a planar binding fan in past editions, but the wording is horribly vague in 5e).

4. wall of fire: And similar spells. These spells can be great in conjunction with knockback effects.

Yes, there are certainly ways to use combinations to find use for spells. Wall of Fire and Thunderwave I think is a pretty difficult setup, but I could certainly see possibilities if you teamed up with another party member with the charge feat for example. I do think this kind of use is pretty specialized though.

5. Planar Binding:

I will take a second look at Planar Binding. I found the wording very vague and that bothered me, as a DM will scrutinize a spell like this one. If you take a look at any of my past wizard guides, I've certainly praised the value of a planar bound creature, the very first guide I ever wrote was my Guide to the Malconvoker, a PrC that specialized in summoning and planar binding. I think you are also limited by the significant reduction in summon options in 5e too though.

Note: I love the new summoning rules. It is one of the new rules of 5E that sold me on the game. The new method for summoning and binding a powerful creature mirrors fiction much better than 3E or Pathfinder. It has a very traditional feel. The image of the wizard or witch creating a binding circle, summoning a creature, and forcing it to serve using a long, complicated ritual is pure traditional fantasy.

The binding circle, summon (which used to be part of planar binding), and forcing it to serve (which used to involve opposed Cha rolls) were all a part of 3.5 and Pathfinder.

I've run out of time. Time to go to work. I'll look over your post some more this afternoon.

 

[Celtavian]

Overchannel doesn't work with high level spell slots. Pg. 201 PHB states spells cast using higher level slots are considered the level of the slot. Still probably deserves a Green or Blue rating. It is pretty good. The fact that you can use it on cantrips for endless maximized cantrips is helpful. Gives the Evoker pretty good bang with cantrips. Just have to make sure not to start using it on cantrips until you blow it on a higher level spell.

 

[Celtavian]

I will take a second look at Planar Binding. I found the wording very vague and that bothered me, as a DM will scrutinize a spell like this one. If you take a look at any of my past wizard guides, I've certainly praised the value of a planar bound creature, the very first guide I ever wrote was my Guide to the Malconvoker, a PrC that specialized in summoning and planar binding. I think you are also limited by the significant reduction in summon options in 5e too though.


The binding circle, summon (which used to be part of planar binding), and forcing it to serve (which used to involve opposed Cha rolls) were all a part of 3.5 and Pathfinder.

That's what confused me at first. I'm using to planar binding being one spell. They made separate spells to accomplish the same effect. I don't mind as I found summoning overly powerful and slowed the game down too much (especially the Master Summoner). I didn't want the ability removed from the game. The concentration conjuration spells were extremely limiting. So when I found planar binding allowed for no concentration summoning, I was thrilled. They effectively toned summoning down, while still leaving a powerful enough version in the game to be attractive and potent.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You are missing the joke. It's meant to be arrogant and condescending in a jocular fashion. That's why he calls it the GOD wizard. He's been writing the guide since 3E in the same jocular fashion. .

When I said "I must be missing the joke", that wasn't meant to be sarcasm; I meant it literally. I must have missed the joke. And from your explanation of his history, it looks like I did. Not everyone knows who he is, or his style he's known for, so when that person runs across a guide that basically is "you're doing it wrong and you're a waste of space", you can't blame them for taking it at face value.

I don't hang out on 3e forums and don't play it, so I have no idea who he is. So when I read it, I immediately had flashbacks to WoW, because all those condescending statements and insults in his guide were word for word statements made in WoW all the time, and in complete seriousness. So that's the context I was reading it in.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd like to see your guide.

I'd far read treeant's guide today and YOUR completely different guide tomorrow, Sacrosanct.
'

You want to know my guide for playing a wizard?

1. Does playing a character who memorizes spells (weaving reality to blasts of powerful and destructive magic) from a spellbook and casts them seem appealing to you?
2. Play a wizard. And play him or her how you want, from personality, to spell choice, to everything else as you envision him or her.
3. Are you guys having fun? You're doing it right. Don't let anyone tell you that you put the wrong score in the wrong attribute, or that you didn't min/max, or that you prepared a spell that a player who is not you doesn't like.


There you go. That's my guide to playing a wizard.

 

[Celtavian]

When I said "I must be missing the joke", that wasn't meant to be sarcasm; I meant it literally. I must have missed the joke. And from your explanation of his history, it looks like I did. Not everyone knows who he is, or his style he's known for, so when that person runs across a guide that basically is "you're doing it wrong and you're a waste of space", you can't blame them for taking it at face value.

I don't hang out on 3e forums and don't play it, so I have no idea who he is. So when I read it, I immediately had flashbacks to WoW, because all those condescending statements and insults in his guide were word for word statements made in WoW all the time, and in complete seriousness. So that's the context I was reading it in.

That's understandable. WoW did have a lot of people like that. Even had a site that catered to them called Elitist Jerks. Treantmonk is all in good fun. He's not like the WoW jerks.

 

[Mistwell]

You want to know my guide for playing a wizard?

1. Does playing a character who memorizes spells (weaving reality to blasts of powerful and destructive magic) from a spellbook and casts them seem appealing to you?
2. Play a wizard. And play him or her how you want, from personality, to spell choice, to everything else as you envision him or her.
3. Are you guys having fun? You're doing it right. Don't let anyone tell you that you put the wrong score in the wrong attribute, or that you didn't min/max, or that you prepared a spell that a player who is not you doesn't like.


There you go. That's my guide to playing a wizard.

I'd like to see more effort put into your guide, with your thoughts on each aspect of the wizard's class abilities at various levels, choices along the way, and each spell at the various levels. I'd like to see what situations you think of that are applicable, good and bad, to those abilities and options and spells. It takes effort I know, and time, but it's something I genuinely want to see. You're obviously under no obligation to provide it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's understandable. WoW did have a lot of people like that. Even had a site that catered to them called Elitist Jerks. Treantmonk is all in good fun. He's not like the WoW jerks.

I know that now, thank you for the clarificaton. And knowing is half the battle