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

[KarinsDad]

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.

I do agree that this is probably the case.

However, I also think that at higher levels, my wizard will shine more being the only PC who can cast Fly or Fireball or whatever. It's just a very long walk to the days of contribution. Much longer than when my first level wizard in 3E could cast Color Spray and actually take out a bunch of foes. He could cast Charm without the knowledge of the city guards looking for him because he charmed one of them.

The spells really are nerfed in 5E. One round effects, like in 4E, are the rule instead of the exception. It's not just party composition. And contributing in 5E is nowhere near contributing in 4E (but I do tend to avoid 4E in this conversation because I consider it to be a D&D anomaly).

Even at third level in 5E, my wizard could cast Web and nobody else could. He managed to cast it once where it did not instantly collapse the next round due to a smaller 5E area and no anchoring points. Helpful, but not really a lot of chances to shine, especially considering that about half of the foes have gotten out of the 5E Web on the first round.

 

[Celebrim]

Low level wizards are awesome. There's two evokers in my group, lvl2 each.
During their adventures they have:
- burned down a tavern with Burning Hands, killing 4 burly fighters
- wrapped a metal chain around a bugbear and used Shocking Grasp on the chain from a safe distance
- froze a set of stairs with Ice Blast while 4 kobols were coming down it - four enemies prone in one action? take it away rogue & fighter
- used Mage Hand to dump a pot of boiling water on a kobold leader.
- used Shocking Grasp on said leader for extra damage (being wet and standing in a puddle)
- used Mage Hand to insert burning embers under the armor of a well protected knight
- took out a pack of wolves with Sleep

This was over the course of four play sessions. Note how only Sleep and Burning Hands were levelled spells. The rest are cantrips!

As with old D&D, wizards rule the universe if played correctly.

"Correctly" here is subjective. Most of what you describe isn't actually using the spell, but playing with a DM that is very amendable to the use of stunts in game. "Stunts" are when you do something creative to obtain advantages outside of the rules. Some DMs disallow stunts at all. Some DMs treat stunts as color that have no mechanical effect. Some DMs allow stunts, but only if you pass some sort of additional hurdle that makes the stunt risky. Some DMs, like yours, allow stunts off all sorts because they like the effect they have on the narrative. But claiming that the above is playing the wizard correctly, is like claiming that jumping on a barrel and rolling it down the stairs while balancing on it, and then jumping up and grabbing the chandelier to launch a swinging kick before back flipping off of it use your weight to thrust your rapier down into the neck of the ogre is playing your rogue properly.

Personally, I like stunts, but I'm more of the assume risk to again advantage style of DM. The stunts you describe would generally be allowed, but would require you passing some sort of additional check with failure indicating your action wasted.

In other words, you Ice Blasted the stairs you'd just dumped the bucket of water on with magic hand, but the cold was insufficient to form ice over a large area or at all, or the being wet and standing in the puddle meant that instead of grounding through the body of the kobold leader (the default situation is not that the leader is ungrounded entirely!) the electricity grounded through his clothing reducing the damage he took instead of increasing it, or that you tried to dump the boiling water on the leader but misjudged the distance and timing in the melee and dumped it instead on the floor, and so forth. Some of your stunts strike me as really difficult to pull off consistently, and notably I suspect that if this was the DM using NPC wizards to pull them off on PCs, you'd be less impressed by the fairness of the rulings.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Interestingly, the first incarnation of this character was as Cleric 1 / Wizard X. I really waffled between that (AC, weapons, and healing, wizard spells one level later) and straight wizard, but finally decided on going straight wizard in the end.

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.

No need. I have about 12 first level spells and 4 second level spells in my books. The only questionable second level spell is Rope Trick which I thought I would use for safe short rests, it just hasn't happened yet. I suspect it might some day. I only have one bad first level spell (even after the DM houseruled it).

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.

I do this quite often. I don't actually cast Shield too much (and I just acquired Minor Illusion), but I get into melee in about a third of encounters. I've also walked right across the middle of a wide open battlefield with archer foes, just to give the unconscious fighter a healing potion. I have no problem getting into melee range. I feel that this is part of the schtick of an abjurer.

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.

Yup. Do this all of the time too. Haven't done it with Magic Missile yet.

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.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[raleel]

The spells really are nerfed in 5E. One round effects, like in 4E, are the rule instead of the exception. It's not just party composition. And contributing in 5E is nowhere near contributing in 4E (but I do tend to avoid 4E in this conversation because I consider it to be a D&D anomaly).

that's true - but you gotta make room for the other classes somewhere They are nerfed, but probably for a good reason. And these are impacting your other classes as well, to a lesser extent.

Even at third level in 5E, my wizard could cast Web and nobody else could. He managed to cast it once where it did not instantly collapse the next round due to a smaller 5E area and no anchoring points. Helpful, but not really a lot of chances to shine, especially considering that about half of the foes have gotten out of the 5E Web on the first round.

What's your character's Intelligence?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The wizard isn't doing that much that the Bard or Arcane Trickster isn't doing.

What you can do that neither of them can do is, essentially, rituals. If what you want to do is what no one else can do, you want to do a bunch of rituals. By the time you have second-level spells, that looks like...

• Alarm: Everyone can sleep soundly while you're around.
• Comprehend Languages: You can talk to anyone you want.
• Detect Magic: You know if there's magic in the area.
• Find Familiar: You're excellent at scouting and delivering touch spells.
• Identify: You are the go-to person to identify magic items.
• Illusory Script: Great for secret messages
• Tenser's Floating Disk: You're great at moving heavy things around.
• Unseen Servant: You never have to touch anything
• Gentle Repose: Good when your friends drop.
• Magic Mouth: Fun for communication.

...essentially making you a fantastic communicator, a knowledgeable sage, and a skilled scout. And the bard and trickster can't touch you there (without blowing a feat on it anyway). And you do all that without spending a single spell slot.

5e in general seems to be designed so that if you try and fill the same niche as someone else, you'll be largely comparable to them -- if what is important is to disable your enemies, you'll find that most classes can do that to one degree or another if they want to. The differences between classes are not dramatic and insurmountable walls, they're subtle variations.

If what you want to do is something on one else can do as a wizard, you'll have to concentrate on the rituals you get that no one else does. But it might be better to have a convo about the niches your party actually lacks. It sounds like with a bard, a trickster, and a ranger, you might do good with a melee-oriented spellcaster. You could always try a wizard who mixes it up in melee with twin daggers and spells like Thunderwave and Blade Ward and False Life -- sounds like no one else is doing that.

 

[Herobizkit]

... or play a Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerer with an elemental spec, if all you want to track is Damage.

The Sorcerer is Superman; the Wizard is Batman. :3

Also being on a party of 6 is tough. Means most 'roles' are covered or superseded by others being efficient at taking out foes. This, among other reasons, is why I generally play Bards in modules. I like being the communicator/sage/lore monkey and many folks just don't like said role.

Also also, Valor Bard in 5e becomes a terrifying spellcaster once they start pulling class-limited spells and adding them to their spell list.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A party of 6 is tough. Recruit one more person and divide into two parties of 3!

 

[KarinsDad]

What's your character's Intelligence?

16, now 18. Even with a +0 for a foe (some foes are better), it's not really that improbable for a DM to roll 13 or better on the dice.

 

[Tormyr]

I do agree that this is probably the case.

However, I also think that at higher levels, my wizard will shine more being the only PC who can cast Fly or Fireball or whatever. It's just a very long walk to the days of contribution. Much longer than when my first level wizard in 3E could cast Color Spray and actually take out a bunch of foes. He could cast Charm without the knowledge of the city guards looking for him because he charmed one of them.

The spells really are nerfed in 5E. One round effects, like in 4E, are the rule instead of the exception. It's not just party composition. And contributing in 5E is nowhere near contributing in 4E (but I do tend to avoid 4E in this conversation because I consider it to be a D&D anomaly).

Even at third level in 5E, my wizard could cast Web and nobody else could. He managed to cast it once where it did not instantly collapse the next round due to a smaller 5E area and no anchoring points. Helpful, but not really a lot of chances to shine, especially considering that about half of the foes have gotten out of the 5E Web on the first round.

When you don't have any anchoring points, cast web on the floor. You still get a 20'x20' area covered in 5' of webbing on the floor, and it will not collapse.

However, most magic wielding classes have some method of casting fireball. Certain Clerics, Rogues, Monks, Sorcerers, Fighters, and maybe Paladins have a domain or class option that opens it up.

 

[billd91]

You lose concentration when you start to cast the second concentration spell.

When you start casting it or when you're done with the casting part of it and it enters its duration? The PH doesn't make those distinctions, so it doesn't really make any more sense to say you lose previous concentration when you start to cast the follow-up spell than you lose previous concentration when you finish casting it. So, what seems to make the most sense? It certainly works for me, as a DM, to consider the concentration for the true strike to lead right up to when it must shift over to maintain the witch bolt - so I don't have a problem with the true strike applying to the witch bolt's attack roll.

It's possible that WotC specifically designed things so that the true strike would only apply to non-concentration spells and prevent the witch bolt caster from gaining such easy access to automatic ongoing damage. But I find arguments the other way just as persuasive. So, rather than get too hung up on what the RAW says and going through agonizing legal wrangling, what does the table's DM say? If he says it doesn't apply to witch bolt, use true strike for spells like scorching burst instead.