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


log in or register to remove this ad

Stalker0

Legend
I'm not "worried about survivability". I'm pointing out Wizards have the same relative issues with survivability that they always have.

That is empirically not true. Wizards now have a d6 hd, compared to d4's from previous addition. That is an extra 2 hp at 1st level, a full 50% more than a 3rd edition wizard would have before con mods. Are wizards squishy? Of course. Are they as squishy as they have almost been? No they are not.
 

jgsugden

Legend
Suggestion: Always check to see how old a thread is before responding. This is not to say you can't respond to an ancient comment, but it is usually a waste as opinions may change or people may have left.

This conversation burned out 10 months ago.
 

That is empirically not true. Wizards now have a d6 hd, compared to d4's from previous addition. That is an extra 2 hp at 1st level, a full 50% more than a 3rd edition wizard would have before con mods. Are wizards squishy? Of course. Are they as squishy as they have almost been? No they are not.

A: Nice necro, that's incredible.

B: If you're going to necro, at least read what you're necro'ing and don't randomly skip words. The key word you either skipped or don't understand is "relative". What you're describing there is emphatically absolute, not relative.
 

Stalker0

Legend
A: Nice necro, that's incredible.

B: If you're going to necro, at least read what you're necro'ing and don't randomly skip words. The key word you either skipped or don't understand is "relative". What you're describing there is emphatically absolute, not relative.

Wasn't my necro, didn't notice it myself.

It is relative in terms that the fighter classes did not receive equivalent HD increases. The barbarian and fighter have as many hp as they had in 3e. So yes, relatively speaking, the wizard is less squishy compared to the front line than they were in 3e.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
oe1fp.jpg
 

ccs

41st lv DM
This is propably moot at this point but treantmonks guide to wizard addresses this. As a wizard you do not want to deal damage.

Hmm. Take Treantmonks advice with a grain of salt. He writes in a vacuum, is only focused on the math & doesn't account for RP/campaign reasons to make various choices.
He's also really sloppy & will simply dismiss something with a "Nope" or such rather than telling the impressionable noob why (he thinks) not.


You seem to long for the days where wizards were 1 man parties as you could replace others with mercenaries. Now the classes are more balanced.

The only environment where this has been true is in games run by a poor DM.

As wizard for you it is utility and control. Damage goes to sorcerers.
You help others deal damage.

Not if you don't choose utility/control. :)
Granted, sorcerers have some nifty damage tricks, but causing damage isn't theirs exclusively.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Most people on the forums don't seem to know how to play wizards or maybe only a couple of sub classes (Diviner/Invoker/Abjurer it seems). Wizard will never be good at damage although fireball is useful every now and then.

Treantmonks guide is OK but a few spells have been rated wrong IIRC.

Wizard 101. Dont use damage spells generally, use spells that target cha saves or wisdom saves, avoid direct damage spells generally (exceptions fireball/lightning bolt), and avoid spells that have con saves.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
Most people on the forums don't seem to know how to play wizards or maybe only a couple of sub classes (Diviner/Invoker/Abjurer it seems). Wizard will never be good at damage although fireball is useful every now and then.

There are people on this forum that think the way to play a wizard is to sit back with a crossbow and never cast a spell because actually casting spells doesn't feel magical.
 


Remove ads

Top