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

[KarinsDad]

In this particular instance, the low level wizard was highly useful.

I'm really glad that this worked for your game. Seriously.


Let me tell you about my game yesterday. The PCs found a magic rapier and two rooms later they found a fabulous treasure room. They have 3 days left of food remaining in Undermountain. 8000 GP, 25,000 SP, 6 magic swords, 500 gems, etc. Now, this is supposed to be the treasure room of this famous NPC and the room before it was his crypt. The party is seriously depleted on daily resources and they decide that this is just too good to be true (now granted, they used metagame knowledge here: "There's no way KD would give us this much stuff at level 5"). Something must be wrong with this, so they rest up, get spells back, and once prepared, the wizard casts Identify on the swords and rapier and find out that the rapier is +1, but the rest is fake. They use Investigation (which I allow them to use as 5E appraisal), roll well, and determine that the coins seem to be the wrong weight and that the gems feel like glass. They determine "Fake treasure room, fake crypt leading to treasure room".

3 PCs out of 7 use a rapier, so they decide to give it to the Paladin. The Paladin attunes to the rapier and I give a description of oily black smoke entering the Paladin and the Paladin feeling a presence in her mind. They now have 2 days left of food. They are trapped in a crypt with traps and guardians and soon, their only food supply will be a third level Cleric spell. If the Cleric dies and they do not find a way out, they will eventually die of starvation. The Paladin player wants them to hole up and try to get rid of this item (she correctly thinks it is cursed), but the party is feeling a time crunch here and decide to continue on without acquiring new spells which might get rid of the item.

In a fight later that day, the Rogue puts up a Moonbeam spell from an item and the Paladin ends up taking damage from it. The rapier is a Rapier of Vengeance (and ironically, the Paladin is a Paladin of Vengeance). So, the Paladin fails the Wisdom save and goes off to fight the Rogue. Now, the Paladin is a tank and very hard to hit with attack rolls. She has +1 Plate, with the Defense fighting style, shield, and the Defensive Duelist feat. She has AC 22, AC 25 if parrying; and with Shield of Faith up, AC 24, AC 27 parrying. The Int 8 Fighter calmly walks over, grapples the Paladin (success) with one attack and knocks prone the Paladin (success) with another (his odds of each was about 50%, so 25% to manage both). The Rogue then tries to subdue the Paladin (advantage due to prone), criticals, and knocks the Paladin unconscious with 30+ points of damage (Paladin was already a little bit hurt). The Paladin rarely gets hit, has never gone down, and these two took her down in a single round (pretty much surprised the entire table, granted, luck played a huge factor here).


My point on this. The game designers of 4E put a bunch of Forced Movement powers into the game because they felt that having one or two hard to hit guys holding a front line choke point while a bunch of PCs/NPCs on either bunched up and used potentially weaker ranged attacks was a boring way to play. They wanted both sides to move foes around in order to allow for new tactics and new possibilities and not just have the game played like Checkers. 5E does not have all of the forced movement features of 4E, but DMs should have NPCs use what the edition allows.

Holding a choke point in a lot of encounters can be effective, but it leads to long drawn out boring fights. At least IMO. Fights should be surprising and interesting and full of the unexpected with foes from both sides getting attacks nearly every round. I don't play D&D to have the same old tactics be used over and over again, but to have new stuff happen. The DM can control some of this with terrain, environment, NPC selection and NPC decision making.

But if the DM has the NPCs do two types of actions in the game: "Attack and Dash" or "Disengage and Dash", then he's missing out on a key element of adding coolness to encounters: "NPC decision making".

Our Int 8 Fighter helped drop the Paladin. Not by just swinging his sword, but by wrestling her to the ground. NPCs should do these and similar actions too. They have experience fighting other creatures and should not just be cookie cutter bags of hit points.


Simple example (similar to Celtavian's example, but not necessarily the same), 1 = PC 1, 2 = PC 2, S = flaming sphere, abcdefg are enemies

 _________
| S c e g
|ab__d_f___
|12|

a and b are getting roasted by a flaming sphere and cannot leave without provoking. What do they do?

Grapple / pull

Like the more powerful gnolls in Celtavian's example, these foes have Str 16, but no athletics skill, so +3. The PCs are level 3, so presumably have +5 in acrobatics or athletics (or it could be +3).

 _________
| S cbe g
|  _2d_f__
|1a|

The odds of this being successful on a single attack action is 38.25% (47.5% if both PC and NPC have the same modifier to the roll) and only PC 1 gets an OA. PC 2 now has 3 immediate attackers on him and if he does not escape the grapple, can be pulled even further down the corridor on the next round and totally surrounded. The flaming sphere could be used to attack foes, but that brings it withing range of PC 2 and foe "a" now prevents the line from being reformed.

Alternatively, if b misses a grapple, a could do a shove and push 1 or 2 away, and in either case, c through g could now congo line through the opening (with a few potential OAs).

In the case of a and b being gnoll pack leaders, someone might say "Why would Int 8 gnolls do this?". My first answer is: because the DM is not playing checkers, and the two gnolls in front are also being fried by a flaming sphere, so why not do this?. Thematically, my answer would be "Gnolls are dog-like pack creatures. Their first instinct is to pull a weak member from the herd, surround it, and rip it to pieces.". This is exactly how Gnolls would fight, for example, against those pesky Dwarven lines.

Why play your NPC monsters as: swing, swing, swing? Boring. Use Grapple. Use Shove. Use Dodge. Use every single action type in the PHB, not just normal attack, disengage, and move. Monsters/NPCs should use all of the options in the PHB, just like PCs. And this does not even include optional rules from the DMG. To me, the DMG is there to help the DM make encounters even more memorable. If something there looks like it works (like Overrun), use it.


And don't let your players always dictate where and when encounters are going to occur. They only get to make decisions for the PCs, not the NPCs. This does not mean that the NPCs always make the best tactical or strategic decisions, but it does mean that the PCs do not get to make those decisions for the NPCs (or complain if an NPC makes an unusual decision). The PCs fake out the foes by letting one escape and hence drawing the rest into a trap. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. The first casualty of any battle is often the plan.

 

[Celtavian]

My point on this. The game designers of 4E put a bunch of Forced Movement powers into the game because they felt that having one or two hard to hit guys holding a front line choke point while a bunch of PCs/NPCs on either bunched up and used potentially weaker ranged attacks was a boring way to play. They wanted both sides to move foes around in order to allow for new tactics and new possibilities and not just have the game played like Checkers. 5E does not have all of the forced movement features of 4E, but DMs should have NPCs use what the edition allows.

Holding a choke point in a lot of encounters can be effective, but it leads to long drawn out boring fights. At least IMO. Fights should be surprising and interesting and full of the unexpected with foes from both sides getting attacks nearly every round. I don't play D&D to have the same old tactics be used over and over again, but to have new stuff happen. The DM can control some of this with terrain, environment, NPC selection and NPC decision making.

But if the DM has the NPCs do two types of actions in the game: "Attack and Dash" or "Disengage and Dash", then he's missing out on a key element of adding coolness to encounters: "NPC decision making".

The DM isn't missing out on anything. He is making decisions based on the creatures fought. Why would your gnolls immediately try to grapple? He would take an action to grapple which leaves him restrained giving advantage to every other attacker hitting him. Why would he do that?

You make statements like your viewpoint is somehow smart and interesting. Yet the tactic you state to use is an incredibly poor option that increases his chance to be hit by an enormous amount. On top of that a flaming sphere does 7 points of damage with a missed save. He has to spend time dragging the PC after grappling him to the sphere, while getting hammered with advantage due to being restrained, just to do 7 points of damage....maybe? That's a good tactic? Certainly not for the Fang, who gets multiple attacks. Or the Pack Leaders that hit for more damage.

Our Int 8 Fighter helped drop the Paladin. Not by just swinging his sword, but by wrestling her to the ground. NPCs should do these and similar actions too. They have experience fighting other creatures and should not just be cookie cutter bags of hit points.

Subduing a player that wants to be subdued is a completely different scenario.

a and b are getting roasted by a flaming sphere and cannot leave without provoking. What do they do?

Grapple / pull

Not a smart idea. They'll take more damage than they will do.

Like the more powerful gnolls in Celtavian's example, these foes have Str 16, but no athletics skill, so +3. The PCs are level 3, so presumably have +5 in acrobatics or athletics (or it could be +3).

The odds of this being successful on a single attack action is 38.25% (47.5% if both PC and NPC have the same modifier to the roll) and only PC 1 gets an OA. PC 2 now has 3 immediate attackers on him and if he does not escape the grapple, can be pulled even further down the corridor on the next round and totally surrounded. The flaming sphere could be used to attack foes, but that brings it withing range of PC 2 and foe "a" now prevents the line from being reformed.

They take damage while they're grappling. Give no damage. They are meat for the other party members. If this were your immediate tactic, I would be ecstatic even if they successfully grappled one of the frontline fighters.

Alternatively, if b misses a grapple, a could do a shove and push 1 or 2 away, and in either case, c through g could now congo line through the opening (with a few potential OAs).

If they fail? They lose attacks. And do no damage.

In the case of a and b being gnoll pack leaders, someone might say "Why would Int 8 gnolls do this?". My first answer is: because the DM is not playing checkers, and the two gnolls in front are also being fried by a flaming sphere, so why not do this?. Thematically, my answer would be "Gnolls are dog-like pack creatures. Their first instinct is to pull a weak member from the herd, surround it, and rip it to pieces.". This is exactly how Gnolls would fight, for example, against those pesky Dwarven lines.

I'd welcome this tactic. If you failed, complete win for us as you lose damage your round. If you succeed, win for us. Advantage against that attacker for all attacks. We still have spells like thunderwave on two characters in reserve to push them back.

Why play your NPC monsters as: swing, swing, swing? Boring. Use Grapple. Use Shove. Use Dodge. Use every single action type in the PHB, not just normal attack, disengage, and move. Monsters/NPCs should use all of the options in the PHB, just like PCs. And this does not even include optional rules from the DMG. To me, the DMG is there to help the DM make encounters even more memorable. If something there looks like it works (like Overrun), use it.

So you recommend using every action immediately? It was two rounds before the leader was dead. He's going to immediately run up, give up his three attacks, and start a grapple? His two glaive wielding sons are going to drop their glaives and start a grapple?

And don't let your players always dictate where and when encounters are going to occur.

How do I stop this when they're willing to leave to do so? Make every creature out run them? Works a few times. It's not like they've never been ambushed. It's rare. We don't mind retreating to reset the fight or testing the capabilities of the enemy to set up later. It's a matter of how determined your PCs are to dictate the fight. We consider it vitally important.

They only get to make decisions for the PCs, not the NPCs. This does not mean that the NPCs always make the best tactical or strategic decisions, but it does mean that the PCs do not get to make those decisions for the NPCs (or complain if an NPC makes an unusual decision). The PCs fake out the foes by letting one escape and hence drawing the rest into a trap. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. The first casualty of any battle is often the plan.

No kidding. The above gnoll fight was a very common fight for us. We have had far more difficult challenges. I don't know why you feel you need to tell any of us how to play. We've been doing a long time. That is why all this stuff is second nature to us.

You even list tactics that put everything in our favor, yet consider them smart. I'm not getting that.

Here is how the sequence would have worked:

1. Gnoll Chieftain runs up: Attempts grapple with multiple attacks. Has no movement left to move target. All attacks against him now have advantage as he is restrained. He's getting focus fired and just made it easier to do.

2. Son two, same as Chieftain.

3. Any failure by other one means they do no damage. In the damage race, they give us the edge.

You could have tried it. It would have been unfavorable tactically for them, which would have welcomed.

Why do you keep ignoring that the chieftain was dead in two rounds? That means his second round of attacks he was done. He grapples, he is still done in the second round. His grapple is over. He's done no damage or less. Our guy is free. They're still getting burned.

Is this something you would do just to be interesting? Or do you not understand how the restrained mechanic puts things in our favor? You're attempt to tell us tactics we already calculated is odd. Grappling is nice, but a failure is very, very bad. Even a success isn't much better. Why do you think everyone focused on the leader gnoll? We also had other means at our disposal to drop them. That wasn't even our entire bag of tricks.

Armchair DMing is great in theory. Things work out different in practice. I've been doing this for years. As long or longer than yourself. I need absolutely no help devising tactics from NPCs or PCs. If you would have used the above tactics and failed miserably wasting attacks attempting to grapple giving an even large damage advantage to the PCs, what would you have done then? Decided you used good tactics with a worse outcome? Grapple and shove aren't as good as you make them out to be. We've even tried using them ourselves to give them a try. They more often than not cause a damage deficit and give our enemies a tempo in the damage race to use a chess term. You play as you play. I will play as I play. If ever we end up at the same table, we'll see who is better tactically. Until that happens, I'll take my own advice. The advice you've given in this thread would have made the fight even easier given the circumstances.

I'm still waiting for you to figure out how to make the low level wizard effective. I've done it. My other wizard player has done it. Seems most on this thread have done it. Hopefully you'll get there given the tactical advice you like to give.

Undermountain is a nasty place. I don't envy your party. I don't like being trapped in a dungeon.

 

[KarinsDad]

The DM isn't missing out on anything. He is making decisions based on the creatures fought. Why would your gnolls immediately try to grapple? He would take an action to grapple which leaves him restrained giving advantage to every other attacker hitting him. Why would he do that?

You make statements like your viewpoint is somehow smart and interesting. Yet the tactic you state to use is an incredibly poor option that increases his chance to be hit by an enormous amount. On top of that a flaming sphere does 7 points of damage with a missed save. He has to spend time dragging the PC after grappling him to the sphere, while getting hammered with advantage due to being restrained, just to do 7 points of damage....maybe? That's a good tactic? Certainly not for the Fang, who gets multiple attacks. Or the Pack Leaders that hit for more damage.

I never once said that the foes should grapple immediately. That's your spin.

I never said grappling the PC to the sphere, I said pulling him back into the crowd of other enemies. Look at the diagrams. They have nothing to do with your assumptions here.

The diagrams are merely an illustration of a situation where the NPCs cannot attack in mass, and simple ways for that to change. It has nothing to do with gnolls or orcs or any other specific set of creatures, your game or any other such thing. It's just an example of how to break up a front line.

And no, grappling does not increase one's chance to be hit. Being grappled does, but the grappler is not grappled. Only the grapplee.

The grappler has no penalties and can move back 3 squares (if he has a speed of 6) and drag the grapplee back all he wants. Sure, the other front line PC gets an OA, but that's all he gets. If foe b just stood there and swung, he might get swung back at (by upwards of 2 foes) AND take damage from the flaming sphere.

What makes more sense? Try to get away from the sphere and break up the line? Or stand there and swing? If you say the latter, your superior tactics are not as superior as you claim.

Subduing a player that wants to be subdued is a completely different scenario.

It might be, but it illustrates an important 5e tactical point that you might have missed. Impairing a foe with grapple and/or prone tactics is often a LOT easier than just swinging. In one case, it's attempting to hit AC. In the other case, it's an ability/skill check. Ability/skill checks often have a much higher chance of success in many cases.

Not a smart idea. They'll take more damage than they will do.

Incorrect. Pulling a PC back into the group of NPCs and pulling yourself away from the Flaming Sphere is a very good idea. The successful grappling NPC does not end up adjacent to the sphere at the end of his turn. That NPC is already adjacent to the sphere. He does not want to end his turn adjacent to it. He could disengage and go back into the tunnel away from the PCs and sphere, but for the cost of an OA, he might do a lot more with grapple than if he just stands there and swings and then take damage from the sphere anyway. If he misses with a Grapple, he probably would have missed with a swing.

If they fail? They lose attacks. And do no damage.

If they fail on an attack, they do no damage. What's the difference? You act as if they grapple, they miss. But if they attack, they hit.

And they are already set up to lose. This gives them an opportunity to win. A ton of foes all getting into the fight by round 4 or 5 (as opposed to practically never) is a much harder fight then 1 or 2 foes coming up to suck down attacks from 4 PCs round after round after round. That's an EXTREMELY stupid thing for a DM to have enemies do.


Sorry, but these tactics to break through a line (where other PCs can cure the front liners) are a lot more sound than your claim that NPCs should just stand there and swing. Now THAT"S a really bad idea in this scenario and it's the reason your tactics work so well.

 

[Celtavian]

And your movement when moving through another creature's space when grappling drops to 7.5 feet, approximately one square. Half move for grappled condition. Difficult terrain for moving through another creature's space. It would take a few rounds to put them in a position to be attacked by the pack and coordinate the pack moving out of the way for them to do so. I was wrong about restrained. That's only if your pinned. Either way, advantage to PCs. Loss of damage and movement substantially reduced. Loss of damage due to grapple. Any failures of grapple additional loss of damage. Creature dead second round having done less damage. Gnolls still getting burned by flaming sphere with no heals.

The Shove attempts were a better idea. Even that would have taken a few rounds and we had a couple of thunderwave spells in reserve from two characters for just such an occasion. Or do you think thunderwave is a poor spell as well?

The regular gnolls were never the major threat. It was always only the Fang and Packlords. Those tactics were not ideal at all given the movement rules and the damage race they were in.

 

[cmad1977]

So... Wizards are ok at low level then?

 

[Celtavian]

I was thinking even more about the grapple tactic. What a horrible tactic. I would have loved that tactic. Completely puts the damage race in our favor.

1. Grappling eliminates one hand, permanently eliminating one attack from the gnoll Fang, reducing his attacks to two per round. The PC can attack the gnoll with no penalty doing damage, while the gnoll's damage is reduced. The PC's AC is still the same. He at best can move the PC one square through his guys or wait until they clear a spot to the PC in. Once again the damage race and action economy shifts in our favor as they try to coordinate grappling and moving a target into a space they can swarm him on.

2. If the pack leaders grapple, they lose the ability to use their glaives. They're reduced to bite damage doing lower damage. I'm not even sure the bites could be used as standard attacks given the description doesn't specify. But we would have allowed it as it seems reasonable to bite while grappling.

They lose the damage race at a faster pace. Every missed grapple becomes more costly than a missed attack because they lose damage and their strategy is destroyed. The smarter move was to do like the DM did and have the sons and the father focus fire one target hoping to bring him down and open a space. They did bring the warlock down for a round. If not for the archer moving to fill before the gnolls could flood, that would have been a big problem. That was a tight damage race. It was their best method of bypassing given the circumstances and time frame.

Grappling in range of attackers wasn't a good idea in 3E. It isn't a good idea in 5E. It eliminates your attack ability and defenses. Unless you can clearly swarm, not a great idea. Same as knocking someone prone with your main action unless your setting up a group of melees that can clearly bring to bear their attacks. Otherwise, it's a loss of damage and screws up your ranged attackers badly.

 

[Celtavian]

So... Wizards are ok at low level then?

Yep. Just fine.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yep. Just fine.

Oh that's good to hear. After 91 pages I was hoping a nice conclusion had been drawn one way or the other.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Grappling does not impose the restrained condition on either party. It just reduces the grappled party's movement to zero. That's it. No advantage to attack unless you also push them prone.

 

[keterys]

Oh that's good to hear. After 91 pages I was hoping a nice conclusion had been drawn one way or the other.

As far as I can tell, it's more that there are a bunch of awful spells to avoid (Witch Bolt), a new mechanic that needs to be planned around (Concentration), some fairly high variance based on DM rulings and use of grids, and finally the eternal dnd question of how often your group rests.

They can be just fine. They can also suck. I've seen both