Yeah, I was probably talking more about #2 than #1. Course, we are playing HotDQ and due to time constraints and such, we have had very little in the way of "out of combat", a lot less then we normally do.
-
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
Yeah, I was probably talking more about #2 than #1. Course, we are playing HotDQ and due to time constraints and such, we have had very little in the way of "out of combat", a lot less then we normally do.
The evoker does substantially more damage than other casters. His attacks are less swingy. Once he gets to level 14, his cantrips do max damage unless they release errata or the ability is house ruled. Even Mearls stated that per the rule, you can max your cantrip damage without taking damage from your maximize ability. Only problem is if you use it on a cantrip, you're probably not going to be able to use it on anything else because of the number of additional dice of damage after each use. There is that drawback. That's why I don't think it needs errata myself. Maximizing a cantrip all the time is nice. But after even a few uses, you pretty much better never maximize a fireball or cone of cold or you'll kill yourself.
Given your insistence in this thread I find it somewhat ironic you said the above about Barkskin.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Well, this is my point exactly. If someone wants to make an argument about wizards then it doesn't make sense going to evokers who are specialists.
Also, this is a thread about low level casters. I don't think anyone has worried about the ability of high level wizards to feel that they are making a significant contribution with their spells.
What constitutes low level? I'm 7th. I haven't had problems being highly effective. At the same time, it is definitely different from 3E/Pathfinder. You are definitely weaker than a 3E/Pathfinder wizard. I think they intended it to be that way. Every class is weaker than 3E/Pathfinder comparatively except the rogue (a class that is comparatively stronger).
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Under 5th level.
1st-4th is called out in the book as the 'apprentice' levels or some such. These are also the levels which Karinsdad is talking about.
1st-4th is called out in the book as the 'apprentice' levels or some such. These are also the levels which Karinsdad is talking about.
I had no trouble being effective at those levels. Though I guess an argument can be made that sleep and shield are the obvious superior options at those levels.
I was discussing RAW there. What are you discussing?
The fact that time and time again you have been sniffy at the way that people have been explaining why they don't think that 1-4 wizards are underpowered when it seems that it's just not what you want or expect.
As others have pointed out it's not combat damage that makes the wiz playable or even enjoyable, but in that regard it's no worse than pre-4e versions, it's the variety of effect that a bit of imagination can bring to the table that sets them apart.
In 5e, just as in earlier versions, they start to make more of an impact when they get the big AoE spells.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Didn´t start with it, but Karin´s Dad... just wanted to show, that the values of the actual game match up with his expectations.
I really disagree with your assesment, that damage calculations should not be done with the specialist in doing damage. In 3e I would totally agree with you, but since in 5e everyone is a specialist, it makes no sense for me comparing with a diviner when speaking about damage... although his pre rolled d20 should really help doing a lot of damage when he really needs it.
Similar Threads
