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

[TrippyHippy]

Wizards are cool. That’s what I like to play the most, and 5e is no different. I like the range of magic users in the latest edition - Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Bards - as they all provide interesting archetypes and flavours, while remaining balanced with each other.

Not sure what people are complaining about, to be honest.

 

[Piratecat]

I disagree with the initial premise. I'm sure it varies by DM, but our impression has been "holy crap, Wizards are fun again!" That's largely influenced by unlimited cantrip use (accompanied by some really useful cantrips), good damage on most spells, and the nifty bonus abilities gained by wizards at 2nd level.

 

[KarinsDad]

OP you were using a lot of the crappy spells in 5E. Witch Bolt for example is pants, sleep is very good. This is compounded by the abjurer which IDK if the class is any good or not but you have to use one of your precious spell slots to use its class ability. Wizard spells are not really good for damage until level 5 or so. Spell like sleep, hold person etc are better than burning hands or whatever.

Forumites also tend to over value shield which while decent on occasion does tend to burn through your spell slots and unlike older D&D shield only lasts 1 round.

Actually, although I learned Witch Bolt when I designed my PC, I only prepped it the first day (after which I found out here on the forums how crappy it really is ).

And in 20 encounters, I've only used Shield once or twice. Mostly, I let foes take down my Arcane Ward and then use Shield to get part of it back. But since my PC does not get attacked a lot, that hasn't happened a lot.

Until encounters 17-20, my PC had not even learned Burning Hands or Scorching Ray. We had just made level 4, so I added Scorching Ray to my list and my ally PC ranger / wizard added Burning Hands, so since I had extra materials for scribing new spells, I added Burning Hands. First day I had those two spells. I tried them both out.

I have been using Web and Fog Cloud more. An occasional Chromatic Orb to do some damage. Mage Armor once per day to get my AC up and my Arcane Ward up.

I took Suggestion. Never had a chance to use it. I could have taken Sleep, but the Bard already had it.

I took Detect Magic. I took Identify (not knowing the rules about short rest which I cannot find anywhere except in the DMG .pdf). I took mostly utility spells and only a few offensive ones.

And, I've cast a boatload of cantrips which tend to do 1 to 4 points of damage if I can manage to roll well enough to even hit. I have not even critted once with a cantrip. 4 times, a cantrip has done more than 4 points of damage. It's been a party joke since day one that the wizard is just along for the scenery.


But yes, I could have taken Color Spray. But I'm not too worried about a gang of mooks. The other PCs are VERY capable. I would want Color Spray for a room full of Bugbears, but it might take out a single Bugbear. I might be able to get two Orcs with it, but even there, a crappy set of rolls and the wizard is standing in a room full of Orcs and used his action to give disadvantage to one foe. Sounds like a subpar tactic.

The spell is a level one Kobold delayer. I don't really see us fighting rooms full of Kobolds too often, at least that's not very awesome sounding to me. I also didn't see us staying at level one for long. In 2E and 3E, Color Spray was a fairly decent spell until about level 6 or so. It actually did something real. Here, it's a minion delayer at best.

Sorry, but anyone who argues that 5E Color Spray is better in 5E than it was in 2E or 3E just isn't reading the old spells.


And as my Hold Person math above, it tends to work for a single round if it works at all. Also as per my dungeon experience above, it was worth casting on 2 creatures out of 60. And the funny thing about that is that the party was split up when those two creatures were faced. So as it turned out, my PC wasn't even in that fight. It ended up being 0 creatures where Hold Person was worthwhile in that particular dungeon because the DM ended up splitting up the party (long story).


WotC, while beefing up the abilities of other low level classes, has nerfed the Wizard pretty significantly in 5E. One just has to compare the spells with their former incarnations.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree with the initial premise. I'm sure it varies by DM, but our impression has been "holy crap, Wizards are fun again!" That's largely influenced by unlimited cantrip use (accompanied by some really useful cantrips), good damage on most spells, and the nifty bonus abilities gained by wizards at 2nd level.

3E Wizards had cantrips. 4E Wizards had At Wills.

The 3E cantrips were weak, but the 3E low level spells were stronger.

Not buying the argument that cantrips make wizards fun.

 

[Piratecat]

3E Wizards had cantrips. 4E Wizards had At Wills.

The 3E cantrips were weak, but the 3E low level spells were stronger.

Not buying the argument that cantrips make wizards fun.

That's okay! I don't particularly care if you buy it or not, because I'm not trying to convince you. That's more work than I need this morning. I'm just stating what I've seen.

In particular, though, our low-level wizards are filling a much different niche than the stabby classes. I don't want them to necessarily do as much consistent damage. Instead, they're charming the goblin to give them a guided tour of the cave; they're setting oil on fire from across the room; they're using magic to open doors where there might be traps; they're blasting mobile foes with ice to slow them down. No complaints about feeling less useful.

At high (15th) level, our wizard is utterly delighted about the change in feel from 4e. She feels much more effective. That's not really in the purview of this thread, though.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's okay! I don't particularly care if you buy it or not, because I'm not trying to convince you. That's more work than I need this morning. I'm just stating what I've seen.

Well, you started your response with "I disagree with the initial premise."

The initial premise is that low level wizards basically suck because they cannot pull their own weight in a group. You didn't give an example of that not happening initially, you just stated that the premise is incorrect.

In particular, though, our low-level wizards are filling a much different niche than the stabby classes. I don't want them to necessarily do as much consistent damage.

But you just stated in your previous post that they do good damage. Do you have an example of that?


I'm not expecting to do a lot of damage. I am expecting to contribute in a worthwhile way a few times per adventuring day. That is not happening.

In 20 encounters, my PC has done about 140 points of damage. That's not exactly contributing from a damage perspective. I don't need to be doing damage. I need to be contributing.

Instead, they're charming the goblin to give them a guided tour of the cave;

Except that Charm is now "friendly acquaintance" as compared to the "trusted friend and ally" of earlier versions. If you are a security guard at a company, would you just let a "friendly acquaintance" take a tour of the plant? It's a much weaker spell now. Yes, the DM could blow that off and make Charm Person actually do something real, but it doesn't read that way. Because of that, a player reading the spell might not even take it (I know I didn't) because the utility sounds subpar.

Player 1: "Wait a minute, I charm the guy at the trading store to give us a 10% discount which may or may not happen anymore because he is no longer a friend, just an acquaintance, and after we walk away, he knows he was charmed??? WT??????"

I know that when I read the spell, it sounded like it was going to create more problems in the game than it would solve.


In fact, the player of the ranger / wizard just commented Friday night on the fact that Charm Person sounds so lame. His exact words: "What the hxxx is up with them knowing that they were charmed? How is that useful?". Sure, if you are going to kill the Goblin after taking the tour, that doesn't matter. But in 90% of town encounters, it matters a LOT. It makes the spell drastically subpar.

It's like making invisibility "sort of" invisible.

City guard: "I can see you."
PC: "No you can't."

they're setting oil on fire from across the room; they're using magic to open doors where there might be traps; they're blasting mobile foes with ice to slow them down. No complaints about feeling less useful.

So, they use up an action to throw a flask of oil across the room to hit a single 5 foot square and then the next round, they use another action to set it on fire. In the meantime, the battle is almost won. Wow! That wizard is amazing!!!! (sorry, I couldn't resist )


Yes, I get the whole "they have minor utility in minor ways that may or may not happen".

But, Bards have many of these things. Arcane Tricksters have many of these things.

There is no wow factor here in anything that you posted with regard to the Wizard that other classes cannot also do.

In the meantime, the Bard in our group is healing and casting the same Sleep spell and doing real damage in a fight.

The Arcane Trickster in our group is doing a ton of damage and still using the same Color Spray and using the same Charm Person and using the same cantrips for opening a door without setting off a trap.

At high (15th) level, our wizard is utterly delighted about the change in feel from 4e. She feels much more effective. That's not really in the purview of this thread, though.

That's cool. I do think that higher levels will probably work out better.


But my low level experience has been meh at best. The wizard isn't doing that much that the Bard or Arcane Trickster isn't doing. And people blow that off with "you are not a team player", or "you don't pick the right spells", or "you don't know how to play a wizard", or "I disagree with the initial premise." or even "the player in my group doesn't feel that way" (and they never even asked their player). People are not being objective and looking at earlier versions of the same spells. They are not seeing that many of the other low level classes have many of the same spells that the low level Wizard has.

I'm glad your player loves playing a high level wizard.


My experience, though, is totally opposite. The wizard can do very few things out of combat that other PCs cannot do and he's a joke for the most part in combat. Yes, if my wizard would have taken the Sleep spell, he might have helped out a bit more. I just picked up Minor Illusion. Guess I'll create fake walls in combat for a while until we get to 5th level.

 

[raleel]

Maybe the wizard isn't just isn't for you. If the grass is always greener in another patch when you are playing the wizard, don't play the wizard simple as that.

If you feel like you need to do more damage, don't take abjuration, take evocation, or play a sorcerer or a warlock and hex.

It seems like, based on what I've seen of your party composition, the wizard DOESN'T have a strong niche. You have a bard, an arcane trickster, and a ranger(and perhaps more).Charming, utility, and ranged damaged are all well covered.

Compare to my group - barbarian with pole arm, grappler monk, Halfling rogue assassin, and soon to be cleric/paladin/Druid type. Little ranged, light utility, no charming. Wizard is gangbusters in this sort of group, because he's the best at 10 things. Your group already has the wizard covered in 3 other classes...no wonder you are feeling a little lacking... Everyone else can do part of your thing and then gets something else.

 

[orangefruitbat]

We're at level 2, and the wizard has saved my paladin's butt on more than one occasion (and not just with Sleep). For me, the coolest moment was when the wizard wrapped a burning hands around me, annihilating the two thugs who were just trashing my character. (Yes, there were ways of excluding squares from AOEs in earlier editions, but somehow it just clicked here)

 

[ExploderWizard]

It seems like, based on what I've seen of your party composition, the wizard DOESN'T have a strong niche. You have a bard, an arcane trickster, and a ranger(and perhaps more).Charming, utility, and ranged damaged are all well covered.

Compare to my group - barbarian with pole arm, grappler monk, Halfling rogue assassin, and soon to be cleric/paladin/Druid type. Little ranged, light utility, no charming. Wizard is gangbusters in this sort of group, because he's the best at 10 things. Your group already has the wizard covered in 3 other classes...no wonder you are feeling a little lacking... Everyone else can do part of your thing and then gets something else.

This is a good point. Party composition matters quite a bit. If half the group already has a similar kind of utility magic then your wizard won't shine as brightly at the lower levels. As the party levels up the wizard will have access to abilities that the bard and arcane trickster do not.

 

[fuindordm]

Possible strategies for an abjurer to contribute at low levels (in no particular order)

1. Take a level of cleric, or a feat to get one 1st-level cleric spell. Their abjurations are more varied and better than yours! For example, Sanctuary can help a rogue or fighter get through enemy lines to attack a high-value target, or Shield of Faith can boost your front-line fighter to AC 22 and dramatically increase their staying power. There was another cleric spell that gives an ally damage resistance but you take the other half of the damage; so you can cast it, refresh your ward, and protect your friend all at the same time. Ask your DM if you can revise your character build slightly along these lines.

2. Ask your DM if you can revise your spellbook, in particular the true strike/witch bolt combo that was ruled illegal. Maybe you're dead set against learning sleep because it's so overdone, but maybe you can pick up a better damage dealer.

3. The abjurer's low-level power protects you, but it isn't doing any good if you stay away from combat. This is a little daring, but until you can ward your allies, one option is to get in the thick of things and absorb an attack, letting the damage-dealers stay in the game longer. This is contingent on your having decent HP, you wouldn't want to get taken down by a hit that blows through your ward and drops you to zero. For example, use minor illusion to give your staff a scary blazing aura and move forward to engage the fighter's preferred target. The enemy attacks you, soaks your temporary HP, then the fighter steps up and gets in the attacks. You just bought your friend another round of combat. You can even stay there for several rounds drawing attacks with Shield: get hit, wait for next good roll by enemy, cast shield (refreshing temp HP), repeat.

4. Focus fire. It doesn't matter if your cantrip does only d10 damage, if you cast it in the right place at the right time. Keep track of damage done to enemies, and use your cantrip only on the one who is most badly hurt. Wizards of any kind can be great "finishers". I can't tell you how many times as a DM I've gotten one last hit in on the party because the monster had only 1 HP left. Magic Missile is even better for this, of course.

But I agree with everyone else, wizards don't shine at low levels by design. The abjurer has it particularly hard because their best spells protect the party against magical effects, which are not abundant at low levels. When you start pulling out Dispel Magics and Counterspells to nullify the fireballs coming at the party, they'll be very happy to have you around. When you cast a magic circle to keep out a handful of summoned creatures or protection from energy against a dragon, you're dramatically changing the balance of power in an encounter. But in the low-level world of mercs vs bandits, I understand that you feel at loose ends.

So anyway, there are a couple of strategies that I would consider, if I were playing an abjurer and didn't want to rely on the traditional wizard mainstay spells. And I think it's more than reasonable to ask the DM to let you rebuild the character, since we're all getting used to the new edition.