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

[DaveDash]

Yeah, until my Abjurer took two lightning bolts to the face, he pretty much walked all over the battlefield, pouring healing potions down PC's throats, tempting monsters to attack him (Shield/Mage Armor/Arcane Ward helps a bit there), etc. I just didn't necessarily enjoy this style of monster distraction. I wanted the PC to be a bit more proactive and it was a little frustrating when a well timed spell did next to nothing. Personal expectations not met.

I do agree with you that life as a Wizard in combat can be underwhelming when you're rolling 1s and 2s on your damaging cantrips.

Not all classes are well balanced in the beginning though. Rogues do tons of damage at level 1 and 2, moon Druids can get absurd amounts of hitpoints, etc.

It's only about level 5 when things start evening out for all the classes, which is why the XP chart euahes you through those early levels quite quickly (Although 3-4 can be pretty slow).

As a Wizard player I'm used to being horribly underpowered early on, and 5e gives you a better early experience than previous editions (except 4th), so for my expectations it's a step up.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Then once per day the Wizard can basically win an encounter using Sleep or Burning Hands. Not the crappy spells you picked for your low level Wizard.

The essential fallacy of this thread is the following syllogism:

"I was a low-level wizard in 5E. I was ineffective. Ergo, low-level wizards are ineffective."

Available evidence suggests that this generalization is false. Low-level 5E wizards are fine in general. If you're struggling to find a niche, there is something unusual about either your table or your tactics. (E.g. Celtavian apparently realized he was way underlevel for the dragons they were fighting and is now happy again with wizards because his DM stopped doing that to them.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Actually, it is true for any class period. Any PC can hang in the back and throw ranged attacks, even the fighters. It is expected that the fighters go up front, but it would be funny if they cowered in the back and threw wimpy ranged attacks like wizards at a table. The wizard players would pee in their pants. I'd like to see people claim how wonderful wizards are in that scenario as hordes of Goblins come rushing at them and the rest of the party is hiding back in cover.

Wizards would love this scenario, it's full of WIN for anyone with mobility, and wizards are great at mobility.

 

[Erechel]

KarinsDad, there is a lot of different combat situations. Of course, you are very biased, and when someone gives you an insight of what a wizard can do in different combat situations, you close the curtain by putting a <i>different</i> combat situation. Your main assumption is that a low level wizard is useless in combat, when it's not, and many people proved that. Yes, he may not be as reckless and powerful as the fighter in front combat, but the very speed of the combat makes irrelevant your assumption of the "limited resources" guy. Also, you have Arcane recovery, that makes you recover a spell at level 1 and 2, so you can easily cast your Mage Armor one hour prior to the expected encounters, rest, and recover it. The spell lasts fo <i>eight hours</i>. You can easily kill an orc with a maggic missile in a round (no attack), then sleep a few (but you don't like it), or Thunderwave them (yes, of course, someone has a save), or take another from combat via Tasha's Hideous Laughter, or darken a place via Fog, or make all slippery via Grease, while you take cover and shoot: you are far from being useless. After you spend the primary spells, you can make your contribution via cantrips. And It's not like you have to use them only in enemies: you can targent (for example) the tents of an encampment with the Fire Bolt, or piles of dirt, or throw acid on the ground, or frost your enemies to slow them. You can add variability and chaos to a battleground. Also I noticed that you don't use to make Moral checks for the enemies that by no means know how limited are your resources. In a fight between two level 1 characters, a wizard and a fighter, with a little luck you can kill him in one round via MM or BH, <i> front lining</i>. Off course, he too can kill you with a little luck, because it's a balanced game. But you can go as this:
Round 1)Fighter (AC 16, Str 16; 12 hp) vs. wizard (AC 12, 16 Intelligence, 7 hp), 20 feet distance: Initiative doesn't matter, but a Mage can easily win it as probably it's his second score).
Mage: casts MM. 9 dm (average -1). Walks back 10 feet.
Warrior: If dashes, doesn't attack; if don't he goes 10 feet, and doesn't hit. If I were the warrior, I will run in the moment that the MM hits. Presupose that the warrior actually dash forward. New distance 10 m.
Round 2) Wizard: walks back, then MM. 6 dm (minimum). The warrior dies.
You see? Two Level 1, wizard wins. Of course, if the Initiative goes wrong, I, as a wizard, can cast Frost Ray or Grease to delay the warrior. Not a sleep spell. If the warrior is an archer, you are probably screwed, but archers always screw the wizards, and you can screw his vision with Fog, or drop prone and go MM (I'll probably do that). If things go awful, I can shield myself. If I was prepared to the battle, I will probably cast a Mage Armor, and then take a short rest, so my armor goes to 15 for the battle.

 

[Erechel]

So, according to you, seing that a mid-distance the mage can kill a warrior in two rounds (average or even minimum damage-1 round in a lucky shot), the melee warrior sucks?

 

[KarinsDad]

But you can go as this:
Round 1)Fighter (AC 16, Str 16; 12 hp) vs. wizard (AC 12, 16 Intelligence, 7 hp), 20 feet distance: Initiative doesn't matter, but a Mage can easily win it as probably it's his second score).
Mage: casts MM. 9 dm (average -1). Walks back 10 feet.
Warrior: If dashes, doesn't attack; if don't he goes 10 feet, and doesn't hit. If I were the warrior, I will run in the moment that the MM hits. Presupose that the warrior actually dash forward. New distance 10 m.
Round 2) Wizard: walks back, then MM. 6 dm (minimum). The warrior dies.
You see? Two Level 1, wizard wins. Of course, if the Initiative goes wrong, I, as a wizard, can cast Frost Ray or Grease to delay the warrior. Not a sleep spell. If the warrior is an archer, you are probably screwed, but archers always screw the wizards, and you can screw his vision with Fog, or drop prone and go MM (I'll probably do that). If things go awful, I can shield myself. If I was prepared to the battle, I will probably cast a Mage Armor, and then take a short rest, so my armor goes to 15 for the battle.

This is so funny it's sad. Nobody here is comparing a wizard vs. a fighter in a one on one fight. Doing so is always unconvincing.

Given that you are doing that, and you set up the combat so that they are a decent enough distance away to give an edge to the wizard and you also are not using the Fighter's Second Wind, I'd say that you are not being objective. Why doesn't the fighter go into total cover until the wizard comes in close enough to melee attack?

Plus, the fighter does not need to be an archer per se, he can just have a longbow and Dex 14. +4 to hit versus AC 12 typically and a single arrow has about a 27% chance of killing the wizard round one (this includes chance to hit and criticals). This is with a subpar attack because you set the distance of the scenario.

With a starting Con of 14 for the fighter, a magic missile spells has about a 30% chance of killing the fighter. If the magic missile spell does not kill the fighter, the fighter uses Second Wind and shoots his subpar arrow again.

The odds of the fighter killing the wizard (again assuming a Con of 14 for the wizard as well) with two arrows is about 65% (about 85% with Dex 16 and archer).

The odds of the wizard killing the fighter with two magic missile spells is about 80%.

So, whoever wins initiative tends to win the fight. The wizard has an edge. If the fighter could melee, the fighter would fare better.


If the Wizard wastes spells and time on Fog Cloud or Frost Ray or Grease or even Shield, he's toast because he'll have no first level spells remaining and a Fighter would tend to have a better chance to hit and has a real decent chance of wiping out the wizard in 2 to 3 rounds.

PS. Dropping prone and casting Magic Missile works if the fighter is not in range. If he is in range, it's a terrible choice because in that case, he'd probably be fighting two handed weapon or two weapon and has a really high chance with advantage of killing the wizard in a single round.

PSS. According to the rules, attacking someone in or out of a Fog Cloud does nothing. Both sides have to pick the correct square in order to attack properly. If they manage it, then the attacker cannot see the defender, so the attacker has disadvantage. The defender cannot see the attacker, so all attacks against the defender have advantage. Advantage cancels disadvantage, so if the attacker can figure out where the defender is located, it's just like a normal attack. I know that doesn't sound right, but it's the quirky rule.


Now, let's give both the fighter and the wizard a cleric helper. Suddenly with just one additional party member, the fighter/cleric team wins the fight more often than the wizard/cleric team unless the wizard has the Sleep spell. But, I have repeatedly said that the Sleep spell is the one spell that allows a low level wizard to somewhat hold his own in a few fights.

 

[Kaychsea]

The problem starts because you are fixated on combat, where I admit the Wizard in the first 2-3 levels does not compare to his 4e version. But even given that your style of play does not lend itself to the 5e model.
Others have pointed out that your spell selection and tactics do not help, whether that is down to your particular play style or table in general obviously we can't know. Either way anyone trying to play a 5e Wizard (or Cleric) as though it is the same as a previous version is in for a fright, unless they are coming from 1e or 2e in which case they are relieved they don't have to be afraid of domestic cats any more.
There are lots of players (many citing their experience here) who are enjoying their experience. So on balance I'd say "No, they don't".

 

[DaveDash]

This is so funny it's sad. Nobody here is comparing a wizard vs. a fighter in a one on one fight. Doing so is always unconvincing.

Given that you are doing that, and you set up the combat so that they are a decent enough distance away to give an edge to the wizard and you also are not using the Fighter's Second Wind, I'd say that you are not being objective. Why doesn't the fighter go into total cover until the wizard comes in close enough to melee attack?

Plus, the fighter does not need to be an archer per se, he can just have a longbow and Dex 14. +4 to hit versus AC 12 typically and a single arrow has about a 27% chance of killing the wizard round one (this includes chance to hit and criticals). This is with a subpar attack because you set the distance of the scenario.

With a starting Con of 14 for the fighter, a magic missile spells has about a 30% chance of killing the fighter. If the magic missile spell does not kill the fighter, the fighter uses Second Wind and shoots his subpar arrow again.

The odds of the fighter killing the wizard (again assuming a Con of 14 for the wizard as well) with two arrows is about 65% (about 85% with Dex 16 and archer).

The odds of the wizard killing the fighter with two magic missile spells is about 80%.

So, whoever wins initiative tends to win the fight. The wizard has an edge. If the fighter could melee, the fighter would fare better.


If the Wizard wastes spells and time on Fog Cloud or Frost Ray or Grease or even Shield, he's toast because he'll have no first level spells remaining and a Fighter would tend to have a better chance to hit and has a real decent chance of wiping out the wizard in 2 to 3 rounds.

PS. Dropping prone and casting Magic Missile works if the fighter is not in range. If he is in range, it's a terrible choice because in that case, he'd probably be fighting two handed weapon or two weapon and has a really high chance with advantage of killing the wizard in a single round.

PSS. According to the rules, attacking someone in or out of a Fog Cloud does nothing. Both sides have to pick the correct square in order to attack properly. If they manage it, then the attacker cannot see the defender, so the attacker has disadvantage. The defender cannot see the attacker, so all attacks against the defender have advantage. Advantage cancels disadvantage, so if the attacker can figure out where the defender is located, it's just like a normal attack. I know that doesn't sound right, but it's the quirky rule.


Now, let's give both the fighter and the wizard a cleric helper. Suddenly with just one additional party member, the fighter/cleric team wins the fight more often than the wizard/cleric team unless the wizard has the Sleep spell. But, I have repeatedly said that the Sleep spell is the one spell that allows a low level wizard to somewhat hold his own in a few fights.

This is what such a situation would look like more likely.

Wizard has Owl familiar out ahead scouting, who more than likely spots the Fighter. If the Fighter is in heavy armour he's going to be easier to spot, if he is more stealthy he is going to be easier to kill, but given your Fighter only has 14 Dex, he's not likely a stealth build. Alternatively he may have some alarm rituals up which alert him to the presence of danger.

Wizard hides and ambushes the Fighter gaining surprise, since he has a much better scout than him and knows he is coming. He can stay out of line of sight from the Fighter and use his owl familiar as his eyes until the Fighter gets close. In this instance if he rolled well in initiative, two magic missiles are likely to kill the Fighter before he can react. If not? He can use expeditious retreat to stay away from the Fighter, help action from his owl familiar, and wear the Fighter down with firebolts from afar. The fighter can attempt to use a ranged weapon, but with 15 AC from Mage Armour and advantage from his owl, the Wizard is going to win a ranged duel.

This is assuming he is even going to attack. He could learn about this Fighter, retreat, and fight him in more favourable conditions after following him for some time with his familiar. After all that's what Wizard's are ALL about. Maybe he uses minor illusion to lure the Fighter close to the lair of a dangerous creature, maybe he does many other things other than getting into a straight up fight in a 1v1 battle, after all he has at least 16 intelligence.

If you're playing Wizards and NOT using all your tools at your disposal to learn, prepare, and act accordingly, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Erechel]

20 feet is an average encounter distance. It isn't "sad" that a fighter and a wizard could duel (I even can justify why in several ways: money, one is a NPC, or it is a slave gladiator's fight). I know that it is an hypotetical situation, but almost all fights you quoted could be equally "sad" (Why always fight against generic bad guys? Your table sounds pretty boring). My point was that no class has an inherent advantage over the other, given the situation, and a short rest can make a difference. Luck and situation, along with tactical considerations, make the difference. With your clerics situation, why don't make two wizards against the cleric and the mage? The wizards kill the two of them very fast, oh no, It's sad to fight like that. what happens with the two evil mage apprentices against a thief and a warrior, Conan's style? Every combination has its strenghts and flaws. Your grudge, I think, its that now the wizards aren't the uber killing machines they used to be, when a single spell could annihilate most foes and render the rest of the characters irrelevant (there are still there, only a bit nerfed). I did not bother using second wind because on average, the wizard can still kill the fighter with two MM. Only two bad rolls give the fighter the edge of the battle.
Prone condition: disadvantage to the attacks that aren't melee, so an archer has disadvantage against the wizard, but the late has a clean shot. Light cover? Same situation, plus wizard can burn crates or barrels both in melee and at long range. 3/4 cover is even better for your wizzie. Only total cover is paired in a gun fight. And I'm using only MM (direct damage dealer), but tasha's and cantrips work just fine.

BTW, the frost ray is a cantrip, and you can use it creatively (say freezing a puddle of water to make it slippery). Grease and fog cloud are divertions, of course, not damage dealers or encounter finishers, but you always have the cantrips (deal, they aren't the best damage dealers, but yet they are useful nevertheless as secondary weapons with some fluff). And we are asuming that the race do not matter. the elf, the gnome, the tiefling and the human can increase their intelligence, the dwarf have constitution AND medium armor. Hobbits and elves still have dexterity, so they have better initiative. and you always can chose to be a human and the Alert feat if you need more (say +7 with dex as second stat). As I said earlier, luck, situation and thought make a great deal of the fight, and a wizard can control the situation easiest than anyone else.

And yet, you still think whatever you want. You are blaming a class because you aren't useful as a player, and nothing anyone says can make you change your mind because you have taken a position, and you don't hear any reason because you don't want to. I don't say a wizard is better in every combat situation (he isn't, but why he has to?), but is far from useless.

 

[Erechel]

ah, and your cleric thingy? Make the wizard shoot him first (on average its an instant kill), and make your cleric stand up against the fighter a round. Then kill the fighter.