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

[Cannyjiggit]

Evhelm, remember that Thunderwave is a cube area of effect, not a sphere. Consequently, you can't affect all monsters that "surround" your character, only the ones that fit in a cube that the caster stands on it's side.

Surely if the caster is the centre of the bottom face of the cube (or top face if you ate going to rule that its the wizards hand position that matters) then the rest of the cube forms around the caster. You just need to think in 3D. This may also include the caster in the area of effect but thats not such an issue for an evoker.

 

[steeldragons]

Surely if the caster is the centre of the bottom face of the cube (or top face if you ate going to rule that its the wizards hand position that matters) then the rest of the cube forms around the caster. You just need to think in 3D. This may also include the caster in the area of effect but thats not such an issue for an evoker.

Not as specifically called out and diagramed in the Magic chapter of the PHB on p.204. The cube is from the caster's point of origin and a cube in the direction away from that point of origin.

But your interpretation is creative and seems like a perfectly reasonable houserule to make. Above all, it makes for cool scenes like the caster throwing creatures surrounding him/her off with the spell. That's some comicbooky goodness right there.

 

[Cannyjiggit]

Not as specifically called out and diagramed in the Magic chapter of the PHB on p.204. The cube is from the caster's point of origin and a cube in the direction away from that point of origin.

But your interpretation is creative and seems like a perfectly reasonable houserule to make. Above all, it makes for cool scenes like the caster throwing creatures surrounding him/her off with the spell. That's some comicbooky goodness right there.

I don't have the PHB to hand but remember the diagrams and believe the asterisk marking the point of origin on the cube diagram is on a face rather than a corner. Therefore the only other definition needed is what is "away". I would say that any direction including up or down would class as away and it is this determination of what is "away" determines the direction creatures are thrown (so up or down has the disadvantage of not moving things out of range from opportunity attacks).

The only sticking point would be if the DM rules (quite reasonably if thats what he/she decides) that the caster is always wholly outside the cube in which case, down starts the cube at the floor and is therefore useless and up starts the cube above the caster so will depend on the casters height.

Imagine this combat takes place in an area where everyone is flying and then work backwards on those rulings.
Hmmm, flying carpet battles, I may be getting an idea for an exotic adventure next time I'm DM

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I don't have the PHB to hand but remember the diagrams and believe the asterisk marking the point of origin on the cube diagram is on a face rather than a corner. Therefore the only other definition needed is what is "away". I would say that any direction including up or down would class as away and it is this determination of what is "away" determines the direction creatures are thrown (so up or down has the disadvantage of not moving things out of range from opportunity attacks).

The cube area description just specifies that the point of origin may/must be anywhere on a face. Which would include the corner. It is the Thunderwave spell description that stipulates that the origin is "from you" and that victims are pushed "away from you". I don't see any reasonable way to interpret the area effect as being around the caster. There ARE actually some minor balance considerations - being able to push enemies upward under normal circumstances would affect the average damage the spell does. As 10 feet is enough for another 1d6 falling damage.

 

[seebs]

What you are calculating is DPR (damage per round). Which is a good yardstick of overall average damage.


But what I was discussing is straight up damage. The rogue often does 15 or more points of damage if he hits because he often gets sneak attack (even without a second weapon, average is 1d4+2D6+5 = 14.5 plus criticals). No, he does not always get sneak attack damage, nor does he always hit.

In which case, what you are discussing is... basically completely irrelevant to anything anywhere.

Imagine, if you will, a character who deals 1000 damage if they roll 4 consecutive natural 20s, 0 otherwise.

Your standard of just discussing "damage", not "DPR", makes that character sound really, really, good.

This is what you were discussing. So yes, if he can manage to get sneak attack damage, his DPR average is better than average magic missile damage (in the AC 14 case and in many cases).

Yes, it is.

None of this has anything to do with why wizards are still awesome, same as always. Wizards are not about damage. Furthermore, there are significant ways in which magic missile is superior to the rogue's damage even when the rogue is doing all that damage. Which were already pointed out.

 

[KarinsDad]

In which case, what you are discussing is... basically completely irrelevant to anything anywhere.

Imagine, if you will, a character who deals 1000 damage if they roll 4 consecutive natural 20s, 0 otherwise.

Your standard of just discussing "damage", not "DPR", makes that character sound really, really, good.

No. I also pointed out his odds of doing zero damage.

Looking at normal damage is called a paradigm shift to looking at DPR. A lot of people just look at DPR. That's one metric.

If the Rogue does 10 to 20 points of damage 90% of rounds and 0 points of damage 10% of rounds fighting two weapon, the 0 damage is mostly white noise. It happens one encounter in three and is soon forgotten. Yes, it adds into the total DPR equation, but from the players' perspectives, the Rogue is hitting "all of the time" and the Wizard is not. The Rogue is doing 10 to 20 points of damage, and the Wizard is doing 1 to 8 points of damage (or 1 to 10 or 12 for those who have certain specific cantrips).

The Rogue is contributing to the outcome of the fight every single encounter and virtually every single round, the Wizard is not unless he uses a spell and even then, his Burning Hands does a whopping 15 to 20 points of damage except in the most favorable of conditions, the level of damage that the Rogue typically does at least one round per encounter.


Even on rounds when the Rogue is fighting single weapon, his odds of hitting are similar to the Wizard's, but his damage is typically double because it is rare that he doesn't get sneak attack damage.


One PC contributes solidly to combat. The other, not so much. And most spells (with the exception of cantrips) have been hit by the nerf bat. Their durations are terrible. The ability to have up multiple non-instantaneous spells simultaneously is almost non-existent. And even their effects (for the most part, not always) have been watered down.

 

[KarinsDad]

Furthermore, there are significant ways in which magic missile is superior to the rogue's damage even when the rogue is doing all that damage. Which were already pointed out.

There are corner cases where a few mooks or super heavily damaged foes can be dropped via magic missile whereas the Rogue is limited to a single target bow shot that might miss.

This probably happens in one encounter in 20 or 30 and is not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[seebs]

There are corner cases where a few mooks or super heavily damaged foes can be dropped via magic missile whereas the Rogue is limited to a single target bow shot that might miss.

This probably happens in one encounter in 20 or 30 and is not pertinent to the discussion.

There's also lots of things that are more easily hit by force effects than by physical stuff.

Mostly, though... If you're looking at damage, you're usually playing wizard wrong. I'd guess that I did points of damage in at most a third of my combat rounds in our entire Pathfinder campaign, and I was devestatingly effective. Damage is not the wizard's strong point, and comparing their damage to a rogue's damage is like comparing their hit points to a barbarian's hit points. Wrong metric. Wizard's about reshaping combats, not hitting things.

 

[KarinsDad]

There's also lots of things that are more easily hit by force effects than by physical stuff.

At higher level. This thread is about levels one to four. It's rare for a foe to have weapon damage resistance at low levels.

Mostly, though... If you're looking at damage, you're usually playing wizard wrong. I'd guess that I did points of damage in at most a third of my combat rounds in our entire Pathfinder campaign, and I was devestatingly effective. Damage is not the wizard's strong point, and comparing their damage to a rogue's damage is like comparing their hit points to a barbarian's hit points. Wrong metric. Wizard's about reshaping combats, not hitting things.

Like I said in my earliest posts here, show me.

Make a list of cantrips that can be used 2 rounds out of 3 to shape an encounter because cantrips at low level are the wizard's bread and butter.

Show me a lot of spells that affect the outcome of an encounter as much as the Fighter does, or the Cleric does, or the Barbarian does. Sleep is practically the only one. Even illusions like Silent Image are relatively non-practical most of the time. Sure, you could create the illusion of a creature to distract enemies a little, but the creature doesn't make any sound. It doesn't do any damage. That attacking fake beholder is cool looking, but ultimately disbelieved when the first NPC arrow flies through it. Yes, the wizard stopped a single attack. He spent an action and a Delay spell to prevent an action. Status quo. Hardly memorable in the tales of yore.

It's one thing to claim that low level wizards reshape combats on any consistent basis, it's another to illustrate it.

For your POV to have any teeth to it, you have to show what you mean. Give a half dozen examples where the Wizard comes anywhere near reshaping a combat. I'm open because I cannot find such spells in the PHB. At level one, Sleep is the main one. Fog Cloud often harms the party more than it helps them.


Hold Person. One round average. It can reshape the battle if the situation is such that the BBEG that it is worth casting on, fails his save and is in range of most other PC attacks. This assumes, of course, that the BBEG is humanoid.

Web is fine. Not great. But fine. Foes get out of it fairly quick (some are not significantly slowed down at all).

Suggestion? Limited, but it could have one foe leave the conflict (but not attack his ally). Or not if he saves or if the DM rules that the suggestion is unreasonable. One has to really get to second level spells (with the exception of Sleep) to get to the point that the Wizard can even contribute a few times a day, let alone reshape the combat.


Sorry. I don't see it. Please show me the spells that I missed. To me, Color Spray, Charm, and Shield have been nerfed since their 3E days. As has many other spells.

 

[Piratecat]

Actually, if I'm remembering correctly, fog cloud is amazing but situational; you need to be attacked by ranged foes for it to do its job. I may be thinking of earlier editions, though.

KD, I'm most interested in how you plan to fix it if you think wizards are underpowered. That's a lot more interesting to me than complaining or debating that they are.

EDIT: unless you're just having fun with the debate and don't want a solution, in which case, carry on!