D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[Tony Vargas]

The thing is I don't think it's actually lost much since about 1985 and both Unearthed Arcana giving you specialists with chosen spells and predefined stories meaning not every wizard was different. It just hasn't gained much since then.

1e magic-users could be a little unique, since they didn't pick spells, but got some randomly at 1st, then just made the best of what they could find - a party with multiple MUs could always share spells and lose said distinctiveness, of course.
2e specialists got to choose a new spell with each level, but they still had an opposition school, so they were each different.
Then, opposition schools went away, so even specialists gravitate to the few best spells, regardless of school.

For all that players chafed at memorization, weapon/armor proscriptions, difficult requirements for casting and so forth, they at least were ways, however arbitrary-seeming and heavy-handed, to make classes, and thus characters, different.
3e experimented with having only consequences instead of proscriptions, with ways to work around those consequences, and, really, should have been considered a failed experiment...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wizards suck because they aren't allowed to have real class features, and more often than not their subclass features are just kind of milquetoast. It's more or less the same problem the Fighter had for the longest time: Most of the cool stuff was cut away to give to other classes.

Mind you, this isn't for a lack of trying, there is a mountain of discarded UA rules. Which were mostly discarded because they were too close to other classes features (mostly the sorcerer). Which has ironically caused a feedback loop where none of the mage classes are getting the overhauls they need due to people being so terrified of stepping on toes for the longest time.

Because there are too many caster classes and thus they keep thematically and mechanically stepping on each others toes. The game would be better with fewer caster classes that were mechanically flexible and thematically broad but distinct.

 

[homunculus23]

Because there are too many caster classes and thus they keep thematically and mechanically stepping on each others toes. The game would be better with fewer caster classes that were mechanically flexible and thematically broad but distinct.

Yes - like the Warlock and Artificer. These classes both seem unnecessary in every D&D game.
I find ~6 players for these classes (and 90 Artificers) even in FR to one Wizard.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yes - like the Warlock and Artificer. These classes both seem unnecessary in every D&D game.
I find ~6 players for these classes (and 90 Artificers) even in FR to one Wizard.

i would rather remove the wizard, because IMO the bard, sorcerer, warlock and artificer actually have interesting flavour and their own respective mechanics and playstyles, the wizard isn't an interesting class to play, it's just a powerful one.

 

[homunculus23]

i would rather remove the wizard, because IMO the bard, sorcerer, warlock and artificer actually have interesting flavour and their own respective mechanics and playstyles, the wizard isn't an interesting class to play, it's just a powerful one.

That's a real 5e only perceptive - the wizard is classic to so many of the older B/1/2 e players. The new ones are like, "Hey you Bards and Warlocks, get off my magic lawn!" - lol :Grampa wavies fist:

 

[Vaalingrade]

i would rather remove the wizard, because IMO the bard, sorcerer, warlock and artificer actually have interesting flavour and their own respective mechanics and playstyles, the wizard isn't an interesting class to play, it's just a powerful one.

They're also the ones that let you play out the fantasy of casters one knows rather than just a distorted mirror of those from Dying Earth.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's a real 5e only perceptive - the wizard is classic to so many of the older B/1/2 e players. The new ones are like, "Hey you Bards and Warlocks, get off my magic lawn!" - lol :Grampa wavies fist:

something something traditionalists not dealing with sacred cows even if they've become detrimental to the gaming environment. /hj

i would be more than happy to let the wizard to continue to exist if it was properly reigned in to the ballance of everything else, but people who design the wizard will never permit their beloved class the indignity of not being the most powerful thing in the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A wizard dealing with the traditional Vancian restrictions on memorization and casting (and everyone just having significantly fewer slots, TBH) would be reined in enough, I think, and let us continue to have old-school fun grubbing about for spell scrolls & books, while Sorcerers cast spontaneously and Warlocks short-rest-slot-cast and EB away.

Like, one idea bandied about back when Next was news and the first packet hadn't even dropped yet, was casters having relatively few slots, with the slots getting higher level as you went up. I guess, not unlike a Warlock. Would have worked nicely with 5e upcasting.

 

[ECMO3]

Wizards rock. They are my favorite full caster to play in 5E and for me are rivaled by only Ranger and Rogue overall in terms of being fun to play. I have played Clerics, Warlocks and Sorcerers and had fun, but not as much fun as with Wizards. I have played Bards and not had that much fun (playing two now, hopefully that changes).

For those complaining about poor thematics, I typically get more flavor and character from the background, backstory and race then I usually do from the class. Class is not typically a big story element for me. Warlocks and Paladins have to get class wrapped up in story a bit, but the rest of the classes are pretty much story-free. You can write just about any story you want with any of the class mechanics tied to your character (except Warlock and Paladin). Warlock and Paladin are difficult because the pact and the oath are specific mechanical elements of the class.

I have been playing since 1980 and IMO the 5E version of the Wizard is the best yet. I hated playing magic-users (and Clerics, Rogues, Druids, Monks and Thieves) in 1E.

I think as a class they are the most powerful. They have the best spell selection, ritual casting, arcane recovery and very solid subclass abilities on most (not all) subclasses. I think that outruns a Sorcerer by quite a bit and is overall better than metamagic and the extra cantrip.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Wizard is full of post-hoc justifications for what it has always been: the bizarre lovechild of a memelord sh--er, *trash*poster and a combat engineer.

Fireball? Grenade. Sending? Telephone message. Grease? ...literally grease, it's exactly what it says on the tin. Sleep? Knockout gas. Prismatic spray? Flashbang. Etc. Just see the recent thread about how so many Wizard spells are actually Dad jokes given life as one-off magical effects.

The reason the academia aspect doesn't matter (and never has) is that it's the fig-leaf excuse. It doesn't even rise to the level of Batman using his birth name as a mask to cover his activities--because at least Batman enjoys being a billionare playboy, hard-hitting near-rockstar executive, and megabucks philanthropist.

Being an academic is, was, and for the time being will continue to be simply a paper-thin disguise for the thematic emptiness of the Wizard class. Even the 5e Fighter, which is already contentious for its paucity of flavor (some see this as a wonderful blank canvas, others as being constrained to unflavored oatmeal), has more inherent flavor and a better fit to its innate class fantasy than the Wizard does.

The Wizard is the unadorned +5 weapon of classes. It has no flavor, but is objectively super strong. There's little to no reason to choose anything else except flavor, and you'll always have the awareness that you gave up legitimate superior function for (effectively) looking cool.