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

[Joe Liker]

@RotGrub I don't think hayek was trying to say wizards are overpowered or that those are bad solutions. I think he was just pointing out that, in light of all the amazing things wizards can do, the idea that they "suck" is ridiculous.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

First off, thanks for a well thought out and detailed post. Kudos.

As regards to your last sentence, I'm still trying to figure out the role of a low level Wizard. Blaster? Not really. Controller? If so, not for long. Protector? Not much there either. Buffer? No. Debuffer? Nope. Iron Mage? That's totally out of the question without multiclassing. There are a few spells like Sleep and Illusions that allow for a little control, but they really are extremely situational. And yes, there are spells that allow for all of these, just mostly in a subpar way (with the possible exception of Sleep).


With regard to concentration, a side effect of it is that it also encourages wizards to "stay in the back where you belong". I have played a lot of Iron Mages starting with 2E and a lot more so with 3E and 4E, and that concept is almost totally gone. One really needs to be wearing armor to get there in 5E. Just using spells is mostly out of the question.

 

[aramis erak]

First off, thanks for a well thought out and detailed post. Kudos.

As regards to your last sentence, I'm still trying to figure out the role of a low level Wizard. Blaster? Not really. Controller? If so, not for long. Protector? Not much there either. Buffer? No. Debuffer? Nope. Iron Mage? That's totally out of the question without multiclassing. There are a few spells like Sleep and Illusions that allow for a little control, but they really are extremely situational. And yes, there are spells that allow for all of these, just mostly in a subpar way (with the possible exception of Sleep).

Archer. They're just as competent in ranged combat as any other non-martial, don't need ammo, and have access to potent ranged damage, superior to that of a bowman.

 

[MrMyth]

First off, thanks for a well thought out and detailed post. Kudos.

Well, it was my first ENWorld post in years, after 5E lured me back. So glad it was a good one.

As regards to your last sentence, I'm still trying to figure out the role of a low level Wizard. Blaster? Not really. Controller? If so, not for long. Protector? Not much there either. Buffer? No. Debuffer? Nope. Iron Mage? That's totally out of the question without multiclassing. There are a few spells like Sleep and Illusions that allow for a little control, but they really are extremely situational. And yes, there are spells that allow for all of these, just mostly in a subpar way (with the possible exception of Sleep).

Of their 1st level spells, I think the ones that have the most oomph are in the Controller / Debuffer role. Color Spray, Grease, Ray of Sickness, Sleep, and Tasha's all can have a solid impact on a combat. None of them are likely to win the combat by themselves, sure, and some of them are hit or miss. But that's the nature of many spells. Maybe Tasha's will do nothing, or maybe it will land, you have someone grab the laughing target, and then you've got a key enemy shut down for most of the combat, even if they break out of the spell early.

With 2nd level spells, I think you start to see some decent buffing options enter the mix, with Enlarge and Magic Weapon. Reduce is a solid debuff, while Gust of Wind and Web are very effective control spells. And once you hit 3rd level spells, I think you really start to see some game-changers hit the table.

Are other spells useless? Not necessarily. But they won't really stand out. Having Magic Missile or Chromatic Orb or the like is fine for when you don't really need any other unique effects and just want to help toss some damage into something. (Or when you already are Concentrating on something important, but still want to throw out more than a cantrip to try and overcome a key adversary.) But even there, if looking for damage, I think I'd tend towards something like Thunderwave, which can synergize with your other control effects.

With regard to concentration, a side effect of it is that it also encourages wizards to "stay in the back where you belong". I have played a lot of Iron Mages starting with 2E and a lot more so with 3E and 4E, and that concept is almost totally gone. One really needs to be wearing armor to get there in 5E. Just using spells is mostly out of the question.

The impact of Concentration is definitely the single element of 5E I'm going to be paying the most attention to during my games. Is the answer to just always try and stay out of danger? Build with a heavy focus on being able to make your Con saves? Or just accept that you'll lose concentration often and prepare to put up a new concentration effect when one goes down?

It does seem like you *can* build towards being a remarkably durable wizard. But yes, usually not through spells alone. Still, I'm not sure it is a problem that it might take feats or a splash of multiclassing to build into such a role - so long as there are ways to build such a character and have them be effective.

Still, for the average wizard - how much of a burden is the resource of concentration? I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, but agree that of the new mechanics in 5E, it may perhaps have the biggest influence on style of play as a whole.

 

[KarinsDad]

Archer. They're just as competent in ranged combat as any other non-martial, don't need ammo, and have access to potent ranged damage, superior to that of a bowman.

The martial archers in our game get D8+3 damage and +7 to hit at level one (DPR 6.225 against AC 12).

D10 damage (for those players wanting to take Firebolt) and +5 to hit is DPR 4.125 against AC 12. 66% of the damage (in this example) of a martial archer (3.375 DPR and 54% for those wizards taking a D8 cantrip).

Basically 2/3rds damage does not make an archer wanna be (and yes, I do realize that you wrote non-martial).

An Elven wizard with Dex 14 and a longbow does a hair more (4.45 DPR).


So yeah, still a subpar role.


Player Fighter Archer: "Yup, killed 12 Kobolds today. It's great to do a minimum of 4 points of damage."
Player Wizard Archer: "I hit 8, but I had 3 bad rolls, two 1s and a 3 for damage. Sigh."


When an archer with a bow rolls low, he can still do 2 to 4 times the damage that a "spell casting archer" rolling low does.

Archer is less valid of a role than most of the others. It's like being a henchmen archer, even if a wizard focuses on that.


Player Fighter: "Dude, do you have 'NPC Henchmen' stamped on your forehead?"
Player Wizard: "Yeah, but just you wait. In 4 more levels, I'll be up to 80% of a full party member and will contribute in half of the encounters."

 

[S'mon]

@OP - sounds good to me 0 playing the Starter Set the Wizard PCs had seemed well-balanced, but I was worried that with only 1-2 fights/day in my games they would be overpowered. Sounds as if this is not the case at low level, anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

@OP - sounds good to me 0 playing the Starter Set the Wizard PCs had seemed well-balanced, but I was worried that with only 1-2 fights/day in my games they would be overpowered. Sounds as if this is not the case at low level, anyway.

It also depends on whether the player knows that he will only be in 1 to 2 fights per day. If he doesn't know that, the wizard is even weaker due to not casting any low level spells in some combats.

 

[trentonjoe]

What's an iron mage? Someone who gets into melee combat? There are certainly builds for this.

Mountain Dwarf in medium armor, 12ish dex and the shield spell. Use posion spray, ray of frost and shocking grasp to move around combat.
Dragonborn with high dex, mage armor and shield. Breath weapon as damage AoE and the above spells.
Human with Mobility feat- probably don't need mage armor AND shield here but you can run around the battle field and poison spray things like crazy.

You aren't as good as a fighter but you'll be able to hold your own in combat and still do other wizard type stuff like rituals and utility spells.

 

[Evenglare]

sounds like you need to do one of a couple of things. A: play a new game where the wizard is up to your standards. B: roll up a new character that isn't a wizard. Sounds like you don't like the wizard or what it has to offer, it sucks but there is literally nothing you can do if you want to accept what is printed in the book, other than send wizard's a detailed message why they need to retcon their wizard (which I highly highly doubt will happen) or C: make up your own wizard homebrew and present it to your DM and try and get him to let you play it. Those are literally the only possibly solutions to your problem. It sounds like arguing isn't going to get anywhere with you as you simply shoot down EVERY single approach from others describing what wizards are and what you can do with them.

So those 3 are basically it. Have fun!

 

[Celebrim]

Of their 1st level spells, I think the ones that have the most oomph are in the Controller / Debuffer role. Color Spray, Grease, Ray of Sickness, Sleep, and Tasha's all can have a solid impact on a combat.

If I was playing a low level wizard in 1e, I'd go for a necromancer controller/debuffer. For a 1st level Wizard, Sleep is almost required to have a strong character. Some combination of Ray of Sickness, Tasha's and Grease seem like reasonably useful choices for controlling, with False Life and Shield in the Defensive role. Chill Touch and Ray of Frost may occasionally be useful as well. Rituals like Find Familiar, Identify, and Unseen Servant give me lots of out of combat utility. You are initially an 'adventuring scholar' with some potential control effects and Sleep can be a win button. Eventually, some low level damage utility like Magic Missile or Chromatic Orb can be added on to make you an archer in your secondary role.

5th level has always been huge for a wizard, and it remains huge in 5e. You suddenly get double damage to your cantrips plus access to comparatively huge new battlefield control in the 3rd level spells.

Higher level, you are clogging up the battlefield with zombies. From what I've seen discussed, as a wizard against single targets you aren't as effective as some other builds, but you have broad battlefield utility, particularly in moving allies around the battlefield. For that reason, the other build that seems particularly viable is Conjurer, since bounded accuracy gives you much more utility for your summons and you have enhanced ability to manipulate the battle space.

Basically, the Wizard no longer is the party artillery. The idea in earlier versions of D&D was that you were a glass cannon, and the martials were meat shields that protected you long enough to destroy whatever you were facing. That style of play is largely gone so far as I can tell, because there are much stronger damage dealing builds. Trying to build the Wizard as a damage dealer is likely to be frustrating. My main problem with the Wizard looking it over right now, is that at low level it doesn't hold a candle to the Bard, Cleric (Bless!!), or Druid (Fairy Fire!!) in terms of buffing/debuffing and also just doesn't have enough good battlefield control options and also doesn't have strong nova damage (other than Sleep). I'd be perfectly OK with the Wizard as controller rather than striker (in 4e terms), but at least at low level its battlefield control is too unreliable to consistently make up for its lower available damage. Without Sleep, you're just a bit weak. For that reason, if I was the DM, I'd probably slightly tweak Fog Cloud and a few other spells to allow just a tad more control options at low level.

Higher level, I'm worried that the Druid and Bard just do what you'd want to do better than you do. However, if it is concentration that is the limiting factor, then it's pretty much going to hit all the spellcasters and not just Wizards.