-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
I'm not sure many people would take this at low level. But at higher levels where first level spells are a lot less useful, it would be abused almost as much as the "bonus action cantrip" version would be.
yea, I agree, probably too powerful to get advantage as a bonus action. However, canceling disadvantage by itself might be ok. There is definitely some design space here.
It seems like a spell designed more for people who have extra actions or have more to-hit stuff than a wizard - here's looking at you arcane tricksters and eldritch knights. Fuindordm's analysis kind of points to that. Or, perhaps if you can delay much interaction of combat for a round.
It seems like a spell designed more for people who have extra actions or have more to-hit stuff than a wizard - here's looking at you arcane tricksters and eldritch knights. Fuindordm's analysis kind of points to that. Or, perhaps if you can delay much interaction of combat for a round.
I like the idea of Concentration, but it does seem like they went a bit overboard in how many spells use it. Having to choose which awesome buff to have up is great! But having to choose between having a buff vs enchanting an enemy vs creating terrain seems a bit harsher. And yeah, for True Strike in particular it seems awfully unnecessary.
Overall, I've definitely found it brings more good than harm. (Having just converted from a 3.5 campaign where we were getting into the "buff spells / arms race" paradigm of mid-high level encounters). But some spells seem like they could do fine without it, and for True Strike it especially seems ill-fitting.
In fact, I think that's what I've found in general for casters. The caster design as a whole works just fine, but they haven't quite nailed the individual balance from one spell to the next, and there do seem to be some real clunkers out there. (Witch Bolt, in particular, sounds cool in theory but has a lot of flaws preventing it from really being worthwhile).
That said, I think it also comes down quite a bit to expectations. Not just in terms of being used to the power level of casters from previous editions, but also the expectation of the purpose for individual spells.
For example, Scorching Ray in 3.5 was - especially once you got multiple rays - all about the single target damage. It was a great tool for wizards to unload a bunch of damage into a target. But I think trying to use the new one in that role will lead to disappointment. Touch AC is gone, so it is no longer super-accurate. If they do all hit, sure, the damage is decent - but as noted, not only slightly better than what a rogue might be doing in a regular round.
But on the other hand, if you use Scorching Ray when you are dealing with a large group of weak enemies, like Kobolds? Being able to split up your fire and potentially take out several enemies at once actually becomes quite useful. But if you don't run into fights that are great for it, it might not be as 'wow' as you want from a 2nd level spell. Particularly if you've already memorized spells for dealing with groups of enemies (like Burning Hands) and were really expecting Scorching Ray to fill a different role.
Nonetheless, if looking for a wizard to be a blaster of raw, focused damage, I don't think that's happening until higher levels, or without specific class features from things like evoker, sorcerer, etc. If you want to hose an enemy as a wizard, you either need some cool combo (drop a Cloud of Daggers on an enemy and have your friend keep them prone/stunned/grappled in the cloud), or you need to go with status effects. Yes, most status effects require a save and many of them will give the enemy a chance to break free after a round. Still, shutting foes down for even round can be a big deal. Particularly if you can cause some damage in the process (Ray of Sickness / Crown of Madness), or hit multiple foes (Web). Or just settle for a lesser effect (Reduce) that can reliably last the whole combat.
Now, all of that *is* different from how potent some spells could be in the past. In return, though, Wizards do get the consistent usefulness of Cantrips, plus improved survivability compared to the past - and some actually decent class features for once. It certainly isn't a trade-off that is going to work for everyone, sure, but I think a lot of them seeming to 'suck' may come more from errant expectations that it does from them failing to fill the role that this edition has envisioned for them.
Celebrim
Legend
I made the same mistake. Originally was like, "Wow. This is an incredibly powerful spell."
Then I realized that Wizards didn't get it.
One thing that has definitely changed is that in prior editions, Wizards had a significant edge over other casters in terms of spell quality. You had the weakest hit points, weakest AC, and weakest attacks, but you had better spells than anyone else - especially in terms of making things go boom. Now, at 1st level, Bless and Faerie Fire are significantly better at buffing than anything you have, and the Cleric's Guiding Bolt is comparable to what you have in the 'boom' department. The Bard has a very good low level spell list.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
Since it's a cantrip and could then be used every round without any sort of penalty, that would be a bit much. Giving them to have the advantage every other round if it's no longer a concentration spell, isn't really a big deal.
But other than the mage going into direct combat, these are the only spells that True Strike impacts:
Attack: Melee
Bigby's Hand (5)(c)
Contagion (5)
Dispel Evil and Good (5)(c)
Flame Blade (2)(c)
Inflict Wounds (1)
Mordenkainen's Sword (7)(c)
Shillelagh (0)
Shocking Grasp (0)
Spiritual Weapon (2)(c)
Thorn Whip (0)
Vampiric Touch (3)(c)
Attack: Ranged
Chill Touch (0)
Chromatic Orb (1)
Eldritch Blast (0)
Fire Bolt (0)
Guiding Bolt (1)
Melf's Acid Arrow (2)
Produce Flame (0)
Ray of Enfeeblement (2)(c)
Ray of Frost (0)
Ray of Sickness (1)
Scorching Ray (2)
Witch Bolt (1)(c)
As you can see, the ones that require concentration are:
Bigby's Hand
Dispel Evil/Good
Flame Blade
Mordenkainen's Sword
Ray of Enfeeblement
Scorching Ray
Spiritual Weapon
Vampiric Touch
Witch Bolt
So if True Strike were not a concentration spell that used your action in this round to grant advantage in the next round, these are the only spells that would now be affected. Would any of them break the game?
Mordenkainen's Sword (2 attacks/round doing 3d10 damage each) with the first of those attacks gaining advantage is pretty powerful. But it would also require a 13th level caster who is forgoing one round of damage to get a better shot on the next one. So it's probably not that big a deal. To some degree I think Contagion can have a greater effect, and it can already benefit from True Strike.
Witch Bolt does become more powerful, but I think altering it to allow a saving throw on subsequent rounds, but removing the action restriction would counter that a bit as well.
But I also have a player with a wizard who really likes the spell. He's new, so 'doesn't know any better' but on the other hand it's a cool spell in its basic effect and even 1-2 rounds of decent damage has really helped.
Ilbranteloth
I think it is simple enough to say that the targeting of the Witch Bolt gets the advantage and that the sustaining of the lightning arc (Palpatine: Unlimited power!) is what requires the concentration and cancels the concentration of the True Strike (after it has been used anyway).
You have scorching ray in there by accident.
Looking at that list, if the spell requires an attack roll at the beginning and the concentration is for sustaining some effect after the hit, I would let True Strike give Advantage. If sustaining the spell came before a hit, True Strike would cancel out from the second concentration spell being used.
fuindordm
Adventurer
A sorceror in my game got excellent effect by twinning it.
wow. I have to say that you just completely sucked the life out of my D&D game.
I don't understand why you want to force the players down a rail-road and turn the game into some sort of shared hard coded movie. D&D is not a movie or a novel. Just like the Star Trek transporters can break/change most movie plots, D&D is the same way. Plots have to be created that respect the game they are written for. You have to accept that things happen in D&D that don't ever happen in a movie. D&D has its quirks and challenges, but all the solutions to the problems you described are perfectly acceptable. It's not the spells / powers that create those problems it's the poorly written plot that failed to take the nature of the game into consideration.
Fly and invisibility is a perfectly valid solution. It's a D&D solution and that's what makes the game fun and engaging. As for your example, I don't think the wizard would make it past the beholder guarding the dagger, but there is nothing wrong with that solution for a D&D game, if the DM so desires.
Open ended spells allow the players to create unexpected situations that add to the fun. They provide cues for improvisation and role playing. They make the game fun and unique.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
