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

[HarrisonF]

I view it the exact opposite way. After 4 decades of improving upon the rules, WotC should by now have a ton of examples of too strong and too weak of spells and should not be falling into that rookie trap like they did in many past editions. Haven't they learned spell balance after 4 (or 5 if you count 3.5) editions?

I think that any smaller mis-balancing becomes more obvious with the new prepared slot system. With older editions (3.5 and before), at low levels, you had so few spell slots that you would *only* prepare 1-2 different spells, so it didn't matter much how most of them worked. With 5ed, since you will normally have at least 4 available prepared slots and no need to prepare the rituals, you end up with more options and it is harder to make all of those options as universally awesome, particularly if you are focusing on only combat.

 

[Celtavian]

And for football teams, that coordination often does not work. A defensive line that does a pass rush stunt. Most of the time, the offensive line picks it up.

Getting rid of Delay gets rid of a few D&D minor annoyances, especially minor annoyances of coordination designed to take advantage of the rules (like the wizard who self gains advantage with his familiar without the other side ever getting a chance to disrupt that by killing the familiar immediately after the familiar's turn and before the wizard's turn, or the rogue who more or less guarantee that he will get sneak attack damage cause he makes sure his init is after the first melee PC's init). 5E's lighter combat rules results in less cheese and I consider that a good thing.

Failure doesn't change the fact the coordinated activity happens.

Why would tactical behavior be cheesy? They still have a chance to kill the familiar if they go first. The rogue can still attack someone that hasn't seen him. I do it all the time.

 

[Celtavian]

I view it the exact opposite way. After 4 decades of improving upon the rules, WotC should by now have a ton of examples of too strong and too weak of spells and should not be falling into that rookie trap like they did in many past editions. Haven't they learned spell balance after 4 (or 5 if you count 3.5) editions?

Nope.

 

[KarinsDad]

Failure doesn't change the fact the coordinated activity happens.

Why would tactical behavior be cheesy? They still have a chance to kill the familiar if they go first. The rogue can still attack someone that hasn't seen him. I do it all the time.

Tactical behavior isn't cheesy. Trying to take advantage of a loophole in the rules that results in a major advantage, or trying to convince your DM to allow you to do something which the game does not typically allow, or the designers explicitly yanked out of the new version in order to gain a major advantage, is cheesy.

I have no problem with a rogue winning init and then readying a thrown weapon for when the fighter moves up. He's using the coordination rule ready to accomplish this. I have a problem with a player whining because his rogue has a high Dex, hence, he sometimes goes before some of the melee PCs and hence cannot always get sneak attack damage in the first round. That player should learn to ready an action, or like you said, hide more often.


Btw, I calculated the odds for the Rogue in our group. Our group of 6 PCs had at low level a Rogue (init +3), 2 other melee PCs with initiative modifiers of +2, and +1 (this is before level 4 when the Cleric who is 90% melee took the Alert feat to get to +7), 2 semi-melee PCs that might or might not go into melee on round one with initiative modifiers of +3, and +2, and a non-melee wizard. Assuming that one of the two semi-melee PCs would go into melee on round one of a given encounter, the odds of the Rogue beating all of the melee PCs in initiative are about 60% beating melee 1 times 55% beating melee 2 times 53% beating semi-melee 1 or 2 or 17.5% of the time. One encounter in six more or less.

Now, the odds are worse because the dead wizard got replaced with a paladin. 65% (Rogue bumped Dex to 18) * 35% (Alert feat) * 60% (one semi with Dex +2 became more melee, the other with +3 became more limited melee) * 60% (Paladin has 14 Dex) or 8%, or one encounter in 12. The rogue has the best Dex in the party and only wins initiative over the melee PCs once every other day (less often than that does he have the highest PC init).

Granted, smaller groups, the odds go up, groups that the PCs do not focus on Dex (or the Alert feat), the odds go up, and groups with a lower percentage of melee types, the odds go up. But, if a player is playing a rogue in a small group with few melee types, he should consider hiding more (and/or readying an action to throw a dagger).

 

[Celtavian]

Tactical behavior isn't cheesy. Trying to take advantage of a loophole in the rules that results in a major advantage, or trying to convince your DM to allow you to do something which the game does not typically allow, or the designers explicitly yanked out of the new version in order to gain a major advantage, is cheesy.

I have no problem with a rogue winning init and then readying a thrown weapon for when the fighter moves up. He's using the coordination rule ready to accomplish this. I have a problem with a player whining because his rogue has a high Dex, hence, he sometimes goes before some of the melee PCs and hence cannot always get sneak attack damage in the first round. That player should learn to ready an action, or like you said, hide more often.


Btw, I calculated the odds for the Rogue in our group. Our group of 6 PCs had at low level a Rogue (init +3), 2 other melee PCs with initiative modifiers of +2, and +1 (this is before level 4 when the Cleric who is 90% melee took the Alert feat to get to +7), 2 semi-melee PCs that might or might not go into melee on round one with initiative modifiers of +3, and +2, and a non-melee wizard. Assuming that one of the two semi-melee PCs would go into melee on round one of a given encounter, the odds of the Rogue beating all of the melee PCs in initiative are about 60% beating melee 1 times 55% beating melee 2 times 53% beating semi-melee 1 or 2 or 17.5% of the time. One encounter in six more or less.

Now, the odds are worse because the dead wizard got replaced with a paladin. 65% (Rogue bumped Dex to 18) * 35% (Alert feat) * 60% (one semi with Dex +2 became more melee, the other with +3 became more limited melee) * 60% (Paladin has 14 Dex) or 8%, or one encounter in 12. The rogue has the best Dex in the party and only wins initiative over the melee PCs once every other day (less often than that does he have the highest PC init).

Granted, smaller groups, the odds go up, groups that the PCs do not focus on Dex (or the Alert feat), the odds go up, and groups with a lower percentage of melee types, the odds go up. But, if a player is playing a rogue in a small group with few melee types, he should consider hiding more (and/or readying an action to throw a dagger).

Rogues are so good at Stealth in this game they are doing themselves a disservice not scouting ahead and using Stealth. It's not even much of a contest with stealth any longer. Now that The Sage said cover works versus Blindsight, it's practically impossible to spot a Stealthing rogue.

 

[Zander]

I cannot even comprehend why you think Advantage most rounds for one given class is balanced. It's obviously munchkin territory.

Allowing wizards to gain advantage using an owl familiar isn't unbalanced.

For one thing, it's easy for the DM to counter in game. After falling victim to this trick once, an opponent can ready an action to attack the familiar for when it approaches. Familiars have low ACs and hit points and aren't likely to survive. If the main opponent has minions with ranged attacks, it can direct them to do it. And if the familiar is killed, the wizard loses his action that round because the trigger can no longer occur.

For another thing, low level wizards aren't particularly powerful, so this tactic merely redresses some of the existing imbalance.

For yet another thing, 2nd level and higher rogues can attempt to Hide each round as a bonus action. If they succeed they get advantage and sneak attack damage. So advantage most rounds isn't just for "one given class".

In my party, it's the monk that does the most damage on average, not the wizard with the help of his owl familiar suggesting that wizards with advantage aren't imbalancing.

 

[KarinsDad]

Allowing wizards to gain advantage using an owl familiar isn't unbalanced.

No, it is not. As long as the player doesn't try to convince the DM to modify the rules so that the wizard can do this every single encounter without NPCs getting ever getting an initiative in between the owl's initiative and the wizard's initiative.

It's not advantage that's the issue, it's the gaming the system that's the issue. It's the stacking of init which in turn allows the player to prevent certain actions in the game from ever happening.

Without stacking the init, the Owl moves up to foe on it's turn and Helps, then:

a) the foe can be killed by someone else (which loses the Ow's action, although the other PC might have needed the Help).
b) the foe might have init before the wizard and kill the owl (or the wizard).
c) the foe might just move to attack someone else.
d) a different foe might do something else to hinder the wizard.
e) without being forced to ready to do this, the wizard then can still move after his attack.
f) without being forced to ready to do this, the wizard can stay behind cover or total cover until it is time to attack.

By automatically preventing these types of events between the owl's init and the wizard's init that can occur during a round, it games the system.

For one thing, it's easy for the DM to counter in game. After falling victim to this trick once, an opponent can ready an action to attack the familiar for when it approaches. Familiars have low ACs and hit points and aren't likely to survive. If the main opponent has minions with ranged attacks, it can direct them to do it. And if the familiar is killed, the wizard loses his action that round because the trigger can no longer occur.

I find this ironic. Read my signature below:

The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.

For another thing, low level wizards aren't particularly powerful, so this tactic merely redresses some of the existing imbalance.

Welcome to this thread. I have been saying that a lot in this thread.

For yet another thing, 2nd level and higher rogues can attempt to Hide each round as a bonus action. If they succeed they get advantage and sneak attack damage. So advantage most rounds isn't just for "one given class".

They can, but theoretically (because the hide rules are incomplete), they need total cover or heavy concealment to do so (shy of some special racial ability or a DM who allows hiding while being viewed while in light obscurement). If rogues can be seen, they cannot hide. Not all situations allow for total cover/heavy obscurement (or DMs who generously allowing hiding while being viewed). The reason that your "houserule" is broken is because it allows the wizard to set up his little trick every single encounter and worse, every single round within the encounter.

In my party, it's the monk that does the most damage on average, not the wizard with the help of his owl familiar suggesting that wizards with advantage aren't imbalancing.

Irrelevant. The monk does not do the most damage on a round the Wizard casts a Fireball.

This is still a munchkin tactic.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They can, but theoretically (because the hide rules are incomplete), they need total cover to do so (shy of some special racial ability or a DM who allows hiding while being viewed while in heavy obscurement).

Nitpick: there is no such thing as being viewed while in heavy obscurement. If you are heavily obscured, you are completely concealed. Perhaps you are thinking of light obscurement.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Failure doesn't change the fact the coordinated activity happens.

Why would tactical behavior be cheesy? They still have a chance to kill the familiar if they go first. The rogue can still attack someone that hasn't seen him. I do it all the time.

The reason it's cheesey is because of the rules manipulation. If you want to add a new kind of action to 5E called "Delay", which makes you act after everyone else, then do so. But it shouldn't be added on the fly by a player by "purposefully failing an init check" because the Ready action already does that, and it already comes with its own set of limitations including interfering with Concentration and eating your reaction. By inventing this little "purposefully fail initiative" trick the player is trying to Ready without paying the cost of Readying, and that unwillingness to pay the cost is what makes it appear cheesey. But if you like it, feel free to add it as an option for everyone, not just the wizard in question. I allow something similar in my Speed Factor Initiative variant: you can wait until everyone else has gone before declaring your action.

 

[keterys]

Rogues are so good at Stealth in this game they are doing themselves a disservice not scouting ahead and using Stealth. It's not even much of a contest with stealth any longer. Now that The Sage said cover works versus Blindsight, it's practically impossible to spot a Stealthing rogue.

I assume this advice only applies once you get the "take 10" ability?

It may just be the way I roll, but scouting out stealthed was fairly hit or miss for my rogue. 20% chance of failure is no big deal on an attack roll, but when it's on a "potentially trigger another combat and get jumped when your party is 2-3 rounds away" it's less good.

Though thankfully Cunning Action means that if I do win initiative I can run away and lead a string of enemies to my party, hopefully. That did work out well at least once