D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[Zardnaar]

I really really dislike the wild sorcerer. It slows too much down. I don't mind magic with random effects, but don't like that way of doing it; it's time consuming and generally tedious rather than interesting for me. So how do I treat it? You don't get many rolls. Unless you're 100% invested in the archetype play a dragon.

That's because, according to most assessments the sorcerer started way behind the wizard. They needed the extra spells known - and that's where the bulk of the creep is for both subclasses. (The only thing from Tasha's I ban is the Twilight Cleric).

Haven't seen a wild sorcerer in action but suspect tgey slow things down.

I've seen the 2E Wildmahe in action a few times I assume it's similar to that.

 

[M_Natas]

The fighter has all of two more feats than the barbarian across 20 levels.

No. I'm saying it's both. As you point out barbarians are more limited. Some classes have better subclasses than others and some subclasses are more flexible than others. There's more range for example in Battle Masters than Cavaliers.

Meanwhile the Sorcerer takes the Careful Spell metamagic and does almost exactly the same thing as the evocation wizard and still has a subclass, and can also pull a lot of what you get out of Scribes with Transmuted Spell.

Careful spell doesn't give 0 damage, it only makes them make the save. So fireball still does half damage with careful spell. Also careful spell costs sorcery points while sculpt spell is free.
Careful spell is for controll. Sculpt spell for damage.
Transmuted spell only gives you the bad damage options while order of the scribe gives you more damage type options. Transmuted spell would be again like the cleric in comparison to the life cleric. Order of the scribe is better in it.

It's this sort of thing that makes me say subclass of sorcerer, and wizards come a definite and distant fourth in terms of variety of the four primary arcane casters while even most of your highlights appear to be within the range of subclass-free sorcerer options. (For the record I find Illusion the best wizard subclass for variety as it's the only one that meaningfully alters what you cast, with Scribes as probably second).

I mean, I'm not against giving the Wizard more options and more variety.
But so far for me the Wizards I played neither felt limited nor like any old other Wizard.

 

[ECMO3]

A Wizard has a spellbook and an education.

A Wizard has a spellbook, he does not need to have an education. The rules also state the form and function of the spellbook are not fixed:

"It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together"

I have also had spellbooks be made of stone tablets and collections of bones.

Those are elements that specifically affect story. (Edit: Hence my "Dwarf Sailor Wizard" example above. Dwarves are generally not strongly associated with academic education, but rather with excessive deference to ancient tradition, and Sailors are generally not known for being well-educated, instead needing a strong back and, ideally, the ability to sing well.)

There is no need for education. The word "education" is not mentioned at all in the Wizard entry on the PHB.

That said, the idea of a sailor or a Dwarf being not strongly associated with education (or Wizardry) is a stereotype. It is fine to lean into that stereotype, but it is also fine not to and to deviate from it.

Not at all. The "Oath of Devotion"--devotion to what? It can be almost anything.

It is listed in the subclass description. Oath of Devotion is actually one of the most restrictive Paladin oaths:

"The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards. Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of their devotion. They hold angels — the perfect servants of good — as their ideals, and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.

Tenets of Devotion​

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."

So RAW if you are playing Oath of Devotion, once you reach 3rd level the oath above "binds you as a Paladin forever"

The class also has consequences for breaking the oath to include potentially "being forced to abandon the class". This is the only class I know of that has words to this effect in the description.

If you are playing levels 1 and 2 before your oath you are right, the oath is irrelevant, but the PHB addresses this to by saying some Paladins do not believe Paladins to be true Paladins until they take the oath.

And it's explicit that you can come up with your own oath, as long as it's consistent with the overall concept presented. It doesn't have to be word for word the same.

I don't see that in the PHB, but it is possible I missed it. Do you have a reference for this? I would think this would clash with the subclass as the oaths listed in the PHB are presented as integral parts of those subclasses, not as concepts.

But that's my point. You make it sound like the Wizard uniquely has no limits at all, which is false and that Paladin and Warlock are insanely hyper-limited,

Not the Wizard uniquely - Wizard, Bard, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Druid and Ranger have pretty close to no story limits. Cleric has a few (mainly the requirement for a Deity) but it is closer to none than it is to Warlock or Paladin which are the two classes that are hyper-limited RAW.

. They're all on a spectrum, nothing is at either extreme (no limits at all; no freedom at all), and they're all much closer together than you claim. That's why I'm so confused here.

Nothing has no limits at all, but everything except Warlock or Paladin has very few story limits IME.

 

[ECMO3]

Socerors can also cast rituals. It takes 10 mins, and rest of the party wants to move on.

Ritual casting is not a Sorcerer ability. Bards, Wizards, Druids and Clerics have it. Warlocks can get it through an invocation and everyone with high enough ability scores can get it through a feat.

Bard, Cleric and Druid rituals are inferior to Warlock, Wizard and Ritual Casting Feat in terms of mechanics though. Wizards do not need to prepare spells to cast them as a ritual, they just need them in their book (and by the way in 5E it is "prepare" and not "memorize"). Bards need to know a spell to cast it as a ritual and Druids and Clerics need to have it prepared.

When it comes to prepared spells, Wizards will have more spells prepared than a Sorcerer of the same level will know and unlike the Sorcerer they can change those spells with a long rest.

No class ability at 3rd .... 3rd level they both get access to level 2 spells, and the Soceror get metamagic. The wizard gets nothing.

Wizards get a subclass ability at 2nd level and they still have that ability at 3rd level when they get 2nd level spells.

nothing at 5th, nothing at 7th.

No it is 6th and 10th, but I do need to point out that a Sorcerer gets no additional ability at 5th or 7th level either.

At this point, it is obvuse that you're not looking at the wizard class, and just ranting and don't know the game.

It is obvious you don't know as much about the rules as you think you do.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I always find it odd how people say Wizards don't get a lot of features, when they're always getting more spell slots, higher spell levels, or more spells on their book. Between those and some of the better subclasses, I find they have a ton of good features.

Druids still rule though.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I always find it odd how people say Wizards don't get a lot of features, when they're always getting more spell slots, higher spell levels, or more spells on their book. Between those and some of the better subclasses, I find they have a ton of good features.

Druids still rule though.

People who say it can mean different things. Some people are arguing that too much of the power budget is in spells, and they'd want more unique wizard features that are not spells.

 

[SteveC]

As someone playing a wizard right now at 12th level, I'm having a great time. We just started the campaign and after some discussion of "why don't you just drop fireballs right now?" I showed off spells like Slow, Confusion, and Hypnotic Pattern. The group gets it now.

We don't have a sorcerer in the game to compare with (just a multiclass hexblade/paladin/sorcerer) but I expect that I will try one the next campaign to see the difference.

 

[ECMO3]

People who say it can mean different things. Some people are arguing that too much of the power budget is in spells, and they'd want more unique wizard features that are not spells.

Some of the subclasses get quite a bit in non-spell options. You are right though that the class does not get a whole lot more than spells, but that is not uncommon in 5e. Some classes are class driven, others are subclass driven, Wizard is kind of in the middle getting a crapton through spells (but little else) and getting some pretty awesome subclass options.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wizards are boring, uninspiring, and the fact that it is suddenly the worse thing in the world if any other class gets even remotely similar access to more of there spell list shows that. They have nothing else but their spells. Every other class has something else, even Sorcerers have something else to add and its often called the discount wizard (despite my liking them a whole heck of a lot more the wizards). Even their subclasses aren't that great, with only a couple getting a decent feature at an early enough level to spice things up.

Honestly, they shouldn't even have the largest spell list anyways. Warlocks and Sorcerers should due to having a greater range on patron/origin options that can draw on different magic sources from. But no, it hurts the wizard's little feelings if they don't have all the spells to make them look like an actually interesting class.

Gods I wish Wizards actually had interesting mechanics and subclasses so other classes can actually get more spell options! I don't even want to hate on the Wizard class, I want them to be more interesting but they aren't and its frustrating! It's the only class I can't stand and it's so hard to come up with a concept that is interesting or desirable that wouldn't just be better using a different class for!

You. See why it's a bad thing in the most recent video about packet 7 where Crawford admits that the wizard's strength and identity is their spell list. That very well night be true but when other classes get meaningful abilities to compensate for not having that spell lot and they get the important spells from the wizard's spell list it's a problem.to fix that problem either the wizard needs more abilities and a new identity or they need a spelist with more wizard exclusive spells than gems like arcane lock & wall of sand if their spell list is to be their strength

Ritual casting is not a Sorcerer ability. Bards, Wizards, Druids and Clerics have it. Warlocks can get it through an invocation and everyone with high enough ability scores can get it through a feat.

Bard, Cleric and Druid rituals are inferior to Warlock, Wizard and Ritual Casting Feat in terms of mechanics though. Wizards do not need to prepare spells to cast them as a ritual, they just need them in their book (and by the way in 5E it is "prepare" and not "memorize"). Bards need to know a spell to cast it as a ritual and Druids and Clerics need to have it prepared.

When it comes to prepared spells, Wizards will have more spells prepared than a Sorcerer of the same level will know and unlike the Sorcerer they can change those spells with a long rest.




Wizards get a subclass ability at 2nd level and they still have that ability at 3rd level when they get 2nd level spells.


No it is 6th and 10th, but I do need to point out that a Sorcerer gets no additional ability at 5th or 7th level either.



It is obvious you don't know as much about the rules as you think you do.

Check the rules glossary. Literally every spellcaster has gotten it free there for quite a few packets now

 

[ECMO3]

Check the rules glossary. Literally every spellcaster has gotten it free there for quite a few packets now

There is no "rules glossary" in the PHB or DMG. For it to be RAW it actually has to be actually be published as such by WOTC, or included in errata. Homebrew, playtest and 3rd party material (like Kobold Press) is not RAW.

There is no official rules I am aware of in any official 5E manual that permit a Sorcerer to cast rituals (aside from the ritual casting feat).