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

[KarinsDad]

I don't find cantrips that underpowered at low levels, especially since proficiency bonuses are the same across all the classes at the same level. Am I missing something, are they really that underpowered, as the wizard, and warlock in my group are doing pretty well at levels 1-3 with their attack cantrips.

Split the party up.

Have 3 or 4 foes go fight the Fighter and the Rogue (or Cleric and Bard, or whatever it is that you have).

Have 3 or 4 of the same type of foes go fight the Warlock and the Wizard.

Let us know if the cantrips really help out.

 

[Boarstorm]

Because wizards should do just fine in the front lines?

And without their spells, no less.

 

[raleel]

I don't know.

Maybe it is because 4E introduced At Will Wizard powers that could do nearly the same damage as At Will powers from other classes, but then went back to wimpy cantrips.

ray of frost did 1d6+ int + slow in 4e, now it does 1d8 + slow. The difference is small, and 1d8 is comparable to base weapon damage. 1d6+int was actually less than many classes could do. it did 2d6+int at level 21, approximately 2/3 through the levels. Now it does 3d8 at level 11, and 4d8 at level 17. That's totally within range of 5e's weapon damage, and also better damage than the previous edition.

It's probably the only one that is directly comparable here, as most of the others became level 1 spells. Maybe scorching burst is sort of comparable to acid splash.

Maybe it's because the Shield spell could be stretched over multiple encounters in 1E to 3E, but in 5E lasts a round.

maybe. maybe. 1 minute/level is not really "multiple encounter" territory. it might be if they are pretty close. Also, I would note that +4 AC means a crapton less in 3e than in 5e.

Maybe it's because multiple protection spells could be cast in a single encounter to protect fellow PCs, but with concentration, now it is one spell.

This is a fair criticism, I think. There is a good reason for it, I think. Fortresses of invulnerability don't make for that fun of a game, and make escalation more of a thing.

Maybe it's because NPCs now get a saving throw every single round.

another fair criticism, but also for a good reason. Save every round was put in to prevent wiping encounters with one spell. You want the monsters to cast Hold PC and you are done?

 

[KarinsDad]

If you already have three front-line fighters in the party, is your first choice to take another front-line fighter, or do you instead go for a niche in the party that isn't filled?

This isn't about rules - it is about player choices to respect the fact that there are other players at the table.



The thing is, KD, that all those changes are not necessarily, in and of themselves, a weakening. They must be analyzed in the context of the changes in math between editions.

Not allowing a wizard to stack a ton of protective spells, for example, is really only enforcement of that math - you can't have bounded accuracy if spellcasters blow the roof off required target numbers on a regular basis. 5e dials back a bit of the arms race - you should not *need* to be able to stack numbers to the roof in 5e to get through the adventure.

No doubt.

But if this were totally true from a math perspective, than the bonuses would be +5 for concentration spells, not +2.

Instead, the spells are +5 for one round spells (like Shield) and +2 for concentration spells (like Blur or Haste).

Does anyone really think that +2 to AC helps that much in a 4 round encounter from a math perspective?

A +4 mook versus a AC 15 wizard hits 50% of the time. With +2 to AC, that drops to 40% or a 20% savings.
A +8 BBEG versus a AC 15 wizard hits 70% of the time. With +2 to AC, that drops to 60% or a 14% savings. Against a foe that does significantly more damage.


The issue is not just that it is only one spell at a time. It's that the spell duration is significantly reduced as well. Very few protection spells (with the exception of Mage Armor) last for a significant amount of time.

On the other hand, offensive spells by non-Wizards (Hunters Mark for Rangers or Hex for Warlocks) can last for many encounters.

 

[Umbran]

While I probably wouldn't pick a front-line warrior in that case, I wouldn't want it mandated that I couldn't pick a front-line warrior either. I believe that it should still be my choice.

I didn't see KD say it was mandated. Just that the players chose to not step on each other.

There is a certain amount of negotiation and cooperation that should go on among players. With the freedom to choose comes the responsibility to choose thoughtfully, with your other players in mind.

 

[pkt77242]

Split the party up.

Have 3 or 4 foes go fight the Fighter and the Rogue (or Cleric and Bard, or whatever it is that you have).

Have 3 or 4 of the same type of foes go fight the Warlock and the Wizard.

Let us know if the cantrips really help out.

Well I think the problem might be your expectations, because of course they won't hold their own like a fighter (or even a rogue) as they won't have as many HPs or as good of an AC. That doesn't mean that they don't do as much damage it just means that they have less HPs and a lower AC.

 

[chriton227]

Maybe it's because multiple protection spells could be cast in a single encounter to protect fellow PCs, but with concentration, now it is one spell.

Maybe it's because NPCs now get a saving throw every single round.

Are you actually being objective? I cannot be the only one who sees how weak saving every round is, or one protection spell at a time is.

And PCs get a saving throw every round too. I find this change to be a very good thing. I remember playing in 3.x sessions where I got hit with a Hold Person and failed the save. Check to see if anyone has Remove Paralysis or Dispel Magic prepped, and if not, go home because it will be a long time (frequently hours) before you get to do anything. I would say probably 30% or more of encounters included casters once we reached about 6th level, and among support casters spells like hold person were not uncommon.

Or the nightmare of a dispel magic at moderate to high levels, we routinely went up against casters and (particularly in 3.0 with hr/lvl stat buffs) it wasn't particularly uncommon for a prepared enemy or PC to have a stack of 10+ effects running that each had to be checked for dispel, then the entire stat block readjusted for the spells that dropped (especially bad when multiple spells had different nonstacking bonuses to the same thing).

Stacking multiple buffs is also what enabled the CODzilla builds. Who needs fighters when your cleric or druid dishes out more damage and is tougher on top of being able to heal and having a bunch of utility spells? Or a rogue when you have a flying mage with improved invisibility and knock who is better at stealth, better at opening locks, faster, and can drop massive AOE damage if needed?

 

[pkt77242]

I didn't see KD say it was mandated. Just that the players chose to not step on each other.

There is a certain amount of negotiation and cooperation that should go on among players. With the freedom to choose comes the responsibility to choose thoughtfully, with your other players in mind.

Mandated was a poor word choice on my part, I wouldn't want to be discouraged from playing the character that I wanted to play. What if I wouldn't enjoy playing a non-frontline warrior, should I then give up my enjoyment? I just think that generally most players should play the player they want to play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] said it earlier. You absolutely cannot compare a modifier in 5e to a similar modifier in any other edition. You have to take the mechanical affects of a spell/ability in the context of 5e math only

 

[Celebrim]

And PCs get a saving throw every round too. I find this change to be a very good thing. I remember playing in 3.x sessions where I got hit with a Hold Person and failed the save. Check to see if anyone has Remove Paralysis or Dispel Magic prepped, and if not, go home because it will be a long time (frequently hours) before you get to do anything. I would say probably 30% or more of encounters included casters once we reached about 6th level, and among support casters spells like hold person were not uncommon.

Or the nightmare of a dispel magic at moderate to high levels, we routinely went up against casters and (particularly in 3.0 with hr/lvl stat buffs) it wasn't particularly uncommon for a prepared enemy or PC to have a stack of 10+ effects running that each had to be checked for dispel, then the entire stat block readjusted for the spells that dropped (especially bad when multiple spells had different nonstacking bonuses to the same thing).

Stacking multiple buffs is also what enabled the CODzilla builds. Who needs fighters when your cleric or druid dishes out more damage and is tougher on top of being able to heal and having a bunch of utility spells? Or a rogue when you have a flying mage with improved invisibility and knock who is better at stealth, better at opening locks, faster, and can drop massive AOE damage if needed?

I think all of this is true. I'd like to think that KD agrees.

I think the heart of the discussion is KD's realization that he's got less hp, less AC, and less damage dealing capability than anyone else in the party. In general, I haven't seen that denied. In the past, he made up for all of that by doing the brokenness you talk about, plus lots of other things that aren't as broken. He felt he know how to contribute and how to play the class. Now, he's frustrated.

So, just as a hypothetical, lets say that the wizard is averaging 3 damage a round and martial classes are averaging 5 damage per round. (Not trying to be exact, just trying to describe how I'd like to see this discussion framed.) Can you show different methods that reliably allow the wizard to either prevent 2.5 damage a round or boost an allies damage by 2 damage a round? That is, can the Wizard dominate the action economy, either by debuffing enemies, buffing allies, or stealing actions?

Early in the thread back when people were actually listening to each other, several attempts were made at this, but KD - with some justification I think - noted that most of the highlighted features were mainly relevant at higher levels. Other attempts were made that depended heavily on creative interpretations of the spells, which again I think badly argues the point. Can we get some more argument along the lines of, "On average, a wizard can steal an enemies action every third round." I know those hypotheticals are harder to prove, but if you can show that there are lots of opportunities to steal actions, and a range of tactics to employ, I think it's going to be more persuasive than going over 3e's problems for the 1000th time.