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

[cthulhu42]

So it will come as no surprise that I have not read all 70+ pages of this thread, and chances are I won't add anything that hasn't already been said, but our situations are so similar I thought I'd chime in, just in case.

I, too, am playing a 4th level wizard in HotDQ, but I must say that my experience compared to yours is night and day. I've consistently been able to, not just contribute, but be a major player in combat as well as lots and lots of other situations. Furthermore, compared to a low level 3.x wizard (which I played quite a bit of) the 5e wizard is just as, if not even more powerful/handy.

We played a session tonight where my familiar (a hawk) was able to fly on ahead of our caravan and alert us of an ambush some three miles down the road, enabling us to prepare for it. And when the hobgoblins made their move on us I was able to incapacitate eight of the nine of them via sleep.

Later on, during another fight, I was able to land 3 scorching rays on a bad guy, and even nailed a crit on the third ray (we do allow crits at our table for spells with a physical manifestation that require an attack roll, so that might not apply to you) which translated to 30+ points of damage.

When someone in our caravan stole our rogue's new, magic bow, I was able to track it down with detect magic.

Earlier in the campaign our rouge had to murder a bad guy and I was able to help cover up the crime by using prestidigitation to clean up all the blood, and levitate to make to body easily movable into the forest where I hid it high in the branches of a tree.

Earlier still, my familiar (this time in spider form) came in handy again as a spy in the egg hatchery, crawling along the ceiling ahead of us, allowing me to scope out rooms ahead so that we could prepare.

I've also saved lives and valuables with levitate.

Firebolt has been a bread and butter combat spell, which came in especially handy when we were captured once and I was able to still use it to cause a distraction and help our escape. Everyone else had been stripped of weapons, but I still had firebolt.

Forgive me if you've already been drubbed over the head with this, but it seems to me that you might be denying yourself the best tools available in the name of character flavor. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't really fault the design of the game if you refuse to use the best weapons available. As I think someone already pointed out way, way back at the beginning of this thread, it's kind of like playing a fighter and insisting on only using daggers, or a sap. The plain fact is, if you don't use the heavy guns that are provided, you just aren't going to be as effective.

Honestly, and this is strictly my opinion, I think a characters true flavor comes from personality traits, morality, and quirks than what weapon or spell he might use.

If these last 70 pages haven't changed your mind already, I would urge you to give spells like sleep, and scorching ray, and firebolt, and find familiar a chance. They're just means to an end.

In a lot of ways, I really do empathize. It's taken me awhile to get out of the 3.x head space. I know that my 5e wizard, at high level, will never be as powerful as my 3e wiz was. But in the context of the rest of the game, it seems to work, at least thus far. Especially at these low levels. I'm sure you remember the first three or four levels of life as a 3e wizard, when basically all you did was cower at the back of the party and try to get lucky with a crossbow, and maybe toss out a sleep or magic missile at the end of the day, when you hoped that the party was due for a rest pretty soon. Now we get to spam firebolts to our hearts content!

And finally, while I also feel you with regard to spells like hold person having every round saves, and how difficult it is to make them stick for very long, I remind myself that it works both ways. In 3e, god help you if your PC got tagged with a hold person. At best, you got to sit out the fight and watch your companions have all the fun, and at worst, you got to watch a bad guy stroll over and lop your head off with no chance of saving yourself. So yeah, it sucks that I can no longer more or less require a bad guy to save or die, but neither can they, and I think it's not a bad trade off.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Apologies again if this is already well covered ground.

 

[sithramir]

The reason I wouldn't allow that is to force use of a 1st level spell instead of a cantrip. Its more of balance toe because it makes that abusable.

Spending a real slot to do it feels more real because it won't happen as much.

Though I feel the spells limit s shouldn't be written that way either.

 

[cthulhu42]

Whoops, I should have said, I was able to incapacitate FOUR of the nine ambushing hobgoblins with sleep spells, not eight. Still, knocking out almost half of them is a pretty good day, IMO. Especially as these particular hobbs were rocking 18 AC's and our fighters were having a heck of a time hitting them.

 

[Celtavian]

We played a session tonight where my familiar (a hawk) was able to fly on ahead of our caravan and alert us of an ambush some three miles down the road, enabling us to prepare for it. And when the hobgoblins made their move on us I was able to incapacitate eight of the nine of them via sleep.

I see you changed it to a number that fits. That was a "What?"

Later on, during another fight, I was able to land 3 scorching rays on a bad guy, and even nailed a crit on the third ray (we do allow crits at our table for spells with a physical manifestation that require an attack roll, so that might not apply to you) which translated to 30+ points of damage.

Spell crits with attack rolls is how the rule works.

 

[sunshadow21]

After reading through various pages of this thread, I have reached the conclusion that the 5E wizard has the same fundamental problem that the 3rd edition rogue did, and that is that the player has virtually no control over how effective most of the truly cool stuff in his arsenal is going to be. Similar to how the 3rd edition rogue was heavily reliant on the party and the DM to setup ideal scenarios for the rogue to use sneak attack, the 5E wizard is heavily reliant on the DM and party setting up proper scenarios to get the most out of their spells, and the DM being pretty lenient on creative uses for spells not specifically called out in in the spell description. That, and what definitely seems to be an overusage of the concentration mechanic would make me very wary of even considering playing this class, and the wizard is usually one of the first classes I look at. I get that some loss of power was necessary, but between the concentration mechanics, the apparently high saves, cutting out that many spell slots, especially at higher levels, and the rewriting of the spells themselves, I am not convinced that a few cantrips and ritual spells (a tag that becomes virtually ignored at higher levels) is enough to keep the class interesting to a lot of people, even if it can still be entirely effective.

That last point brings up another not so good comparison that keeps coming to mind. The usefulness of their low level spell list seems to come dangerously close to the 3rd edition cleric, where there is at most two or three spells per level even worth considering. This may not seem like a problem to a lot of people, but boredom is a very big issue for many. Few people argued that the 3rd edition cleric was ineffective, and it was considered one of the most powerful classes for a reason, but a significant number of people still played only because they had to, not because they wanted to, and the flavor of the class was the reason. It was effective, but drop dead boring the vast majority of the time. Based on everything I've read about the 5E wizard, it's in pretty much the same boat. It works really well for a narrow band of character concepts, but the class as a whole does not provide mechanical support for the the breadth of concepts the fluff around the class inspires.

Most of the concerns in this thread have always been issues for full spell casters of all stripes, and especially wizards, at low level to a certain degree, but they were countered by the fact that the big stuff when it happened was reasonably reliable and, well, big. At least with magic, 5E definitely went all in on the concept of reliable or big, but never both, and it lost a lot of made magic interesting to me. Having to rely on the DM to be generous in their rulings and the party to setup the situations necessary for my spells to be useful doesn't really sound like a lot of fun to me; like with the cleric or rogue above, it reduces any sense of personal impact I might have as a player when so much of the character's abilities are completely reliant on others. I get that 3rd edition treated the team aspect too lightly, but I can't help but feel that 5E focused too much on it, at least when it came to casters. This is too bad, because I like the concepts of what they did, but the implementation of them just seems overly heavy handed.

As far as the original premise of this thread, I don't think that low level wizards are as bad as some of the negative posts make it sound, but they definitely aren't as good as some of the positive posts make them sound. In the right group with the right DM, I would probably consider playing one, but I would have to have a very high level of confidence that the playing style of that group and DM meshed with my own in order to do so. Anything less than everyone being fully on the same page would almost certainly lead to a lackluster experience.

 

[Staffan]

The illusionist wants to make a door appear in an archway to try to hide the party on the other side or make another open passage appear more welcoming/throw off pursuit or something, "Let's go/They must have gone this way, there's no door blocking it." The spell stipulates 5'x5'. You want to fill a doorway that's say, 3' wide by 7' tall? Sure. I'm going to allow that. The illusion's area is 2 feet more narrow to stretch 2' taller...you are easily meeting the 5'x5' "area" of the spell. No brainer, for me, to say "Yeah/sure/of course you can do that."

If you want to go all rules-lawyerly...

Minor illusion stipulates a 5-foot cube. Neither the spell nor the general AoE rules say anything about the orientation of the cube. The cross-section from one edge of the cube to the opposite one is about 7 ft (5 x √2), and the distance from one corner to the opposite one is almost 9 ft (5 x √3). So you should be able to fit a flat surface of up to 7 ft by 5 ft in it, or a rod or similar thing almost 9 ft tall.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, I never want to "go all rules lawyery." hahaha.

But if you mean the actual math (which I'm also always happy to broad-brush/simplify), there ya go. It's well within the spell's capacity/area to make a door or wall appear in a [presumably] "normal-sized" doorway/archway. Obviously, "double doors" [10' wide], large gates [over 7' tall], portcullis, or other such opening that would be more than 5' wide 7' tall would not be possible with that spell.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you want to go all rules-lawyerly...

Minor illusion stipulates a 5-foot cube. Neither the spell nor the general AoE rules say anything about the orientation of the cube. The cross-section from one edge of the cube to the opposite one is about 7 ft (5 x √2), and the distance from one corner to the opposite one is almost 9 ft (5 x √3). So you should be able to fit a flat surface of up to 7 ft by 5 ft in it, or a rod or similar thing almost 9 ft tall.

Clever! You've persuaded me, and I will now allow door illusions in my game. And I don't even have to feel guilty about it.

 

[Celtavian]

After reading through various pages of this thread, I have reached the conclusion that the 5E wizard has the same fundamental problem that the 3rd edition rogue did, and that is that the player has virtually no control over how effective most of the truly cool stuff in his arsenal is going to be. Similar to how the 3rd edition rogue was heavily reliant on the party and the DM to setup ideal scenarios for the rogue to use sneak attack, the 5E wizard is heavily reliant on the DM and party setting up proper scenarios to get the most out of their spells, and the DM being pretty lenient on creative uses for spells not specifically called out in in the spell description. That, and what definitely seems to be an overusage of the concentration mechanic would make me very wary of even considering playing this class, and the wizard is usually one of the first classes I look at. I get that some loss of power was necessary, but between the concentration mechanics, the apparently high saves, cutting out that many spell slots, especially at higher levels, and the rewriting of the spells themselves, I am not convinced that a few cantrips and ritual spells (a tag that becomes virtually ignored at higher levels) is enough to keep the class interesting to a lot of people, even if it can still be entirely effective.

That last point brings up another not so good comparison that keeps coming to mind. The usefulness of their low level spell list seems to come dangerously close to the 3rd edition cleric, where there is at most two or three spells per level even worth considering. This may not seem like a problem to a lot of people, but boredom is a very big issue for many. Few people argued that the 3rd edition cleric was ineffective, and it was considered one of the most powerful classes for a reason, but a significant number of people still played only because they had to, not because they wanted to, and the flavor of the class was the reason. It was effective, but drop dead boring the vast majority of the time. Based on everything I've read about the 5E wizard, it's in pretty much the same boat. It works really well for a narrow band of character concepts, but the class as a whole does not provide mechanical support for the the breadth of concepts the fluff around the class inspires.

Most of the concerns in this thread have always been issues for full spell casters of all stripes, and especially wizards, at low level to a certain degree, but they were countered by the fact that the big stuff when it happened was reasonably reliable and, well, big. At least with magic, 5E definitely went all in on the concept of reliable or big, but never both, and it lost a lot of made magic interesting to me. Having to rely on the DM to be generous in their rulings and the party to setup the situations necessary for my spells to be useful doesn't really sound like a lot of fun to me; like with the cleric or rogue above, it reduces any sense of personal impact I might have as a player when so much of the character's abilities are completely reliant on others. I get that 3rd edition treated the team aspect too lightly, but I can't help but feel that 5E focused too much on it, at least when it came to casters. This is too bad, because I like the concepts of what they did, but the implementation of them just seems overly heavy handed.

As far as the original premise of this thread, I don't think that low level wizards are as bad as some of the negative posts make it sound, but they definitely aren't as good as some of the positive posts make them sound. In the right group with the right DM, I would probably consider playing one, but I would have to have a very high level of confidence that the playing style of that group and DM meshed with my own in order to do so. Anything less than everyone being fully on the same page would almost certainly lead to a lackluster experience.

I can't much disagree. There aren't good options for enchantment, conjuration, or illusion specialties. Enchantment spells break on damage for dominate person or monster. What's the point of casting a spell to take control of someone to send them into battle only to have them save every time they take damage? Why even take that spell and risk it? Hold person and monster give a save every round regardless of damage making them pointless for crowd control. Even random chance will cause them to break given the low DCs. It's so easy to roll a 14 or 15 rolling multiple times.

Pretty much pushes you into very specific spells to maximize effectiveness. I do miss 3E where casters could specialize in a variety of areas and still be highly useful. You could make a conjuror with a small army and be very potent. Or an enchanter using opponents as pawns. Now the probability of doing either is very low, nearly impossible unless you have the money to use planar binding, which means DM allowance by putting enough treasure in the game to keep up the cost of using it.

Wizard is still very powerful. It is far more dependent on DM leniency with gold rather than the wizard's spell selection and strategy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

After reading through various pages of this thread, I have reached the conclusion that the 5E wizard has the same fundamental problem that the 3rd edition rogue did, and that is that the player has virtually no control over how effective most of the truly cool stuff in his arsenal is going to be.

That's a ringing condemnation, considering how bad the poor rogue had it with SA - whole, stereotypically quite common, types of monsters flatly immune to start.

I don't see how the wizard could be said to have it that bad. Are all undead, constructs and oozes flat out immune to all his spells, all the time? No. Not even close. Some monsters are more resistant to some spells than others, and some relatively rare, 'Legendary,' ones have just onion-layers of won't-be-screwed-by-spells traits that probably aren't worth trying to peel through.

That's not nearly the same thing. The 3e Rogue couldn't just decide one morning to trade in the ability to SA animals for the ability to SA constructs. Wizards can change their spell selection every day. If they have the slightest clue what they might face, they can not just avoid spells that might not be effective, but pick those that might be /particularly/ effective. Even if they have no idea, they can prep a variety of spells so that they're more likely to have at least one applicable spell available in every encounter.

The DM could, in theory, look at a wizard's list of prepped spells and change his whole adventure on the spot to render them all useless, but that seems like the kind of abuse that no PC could be expected to get past.

The usefulness of their low level spell list seems to come dangerously close to the 3rd edition cleric, where there is at most two or three spells per level even worth considering. This may not seem like a problem to a lot of people, but boredom is a very big issue for many.

Two or three 1st level spells, two or three more 2nd, and two or three more 3rd, is 6-9 spells 'worth considering' by 5th level. That doesn't seem /that/ restrictive.

But, yes, it is a 'danger' of a class design like the wizard, that can pick known spells, change prepped spells every day, and spontaneously cast anything prepared round by round, that it could get into a rut of a small number of those spells being so good, so consistently, that he ends up rarely casting anything else. That could tend to make the wizard boring, making all wizards kinda samey - and, ironically, probably points to some of those spells being problematic in some way...

Based on everything I've read about the 5E wizard, it's in pretty much the same boat. It works really well for a narrow band of character concepts, but the class as a whole does not provide mechanical support for the the breadth of concepts the fluff around the class inspires.

You'd think a long spell list and 8 different school specializations might represent a fair bit of variety. But, the above issue of 'sameness' if even a few of those spells stand out as 'obvious bests' can render all that moot. Probably why there's a Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight all casting arcane spells, too.