D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[Kobold Boots]

Would not Mystic 1/Wizard X be better than Cleric 1/Wizard X for a one level dip?

Mystic 1 with Immortal chosen as the Mystic Order gives you proficiency in heavy armor and shields, INT as your second class' casting stat, and depending on your choices you could end up with all of the following: an at-will that moves the enemy away from you, advantage on initiative switched as a bonus action to +1 to AC, and finally 4 Psi points that can be used to cast a +4 shield-like power twice.

Not bad for a one level dip.

Hi -

1. If Mystic is official material as I don't know what came over from UA into the official rules with the last rulebook, then maybe.
2. If I'm looking to build individual character power and not necessarily utility for the group - sure.
3. If I'm looking to act as a force multiplier by keeping other characters upright - no.

Depends on your focus.

Thanks,
KB

 

[Joseph Thompson1]

I would like to bring up an interesting point regarding Concentration spells, and specifically, enemy concentration spells. Yes, blasting may not be the best primary role; but if an enemy Wizard, Cleric, or other spellcaster is concentrating on a rather nasty spell of their own ( a hold person on your BSF, for instance), it may not be out of the question to throw a Magic Missile or similar spell in an attempt to break their concentration on the spell.

In fact, I think this guide needs an entire subsection on how to deal with enemy Wizards, ways to enhance your dueling abilities. To put it simply, Counterspell is only the first step, and also one of the most expensive ways to stop another caster. Focusing on Silence spells, breaking their concentration, or otherwise draining their spell slots if they have Counterspells/Shields of their own may be the best way to work this out. And for the love of god, NEVER Counterspell an enemy Counterspell. Not only do you loose two slots for the price of one, but depending on the DM, you may also loose the original spell in the process, as you stopped that to cast Counterspell. One other thing to note, Xanathar's Guide has rules for recognizing spells cast by others. You can easily use that to your advantage, by knowing whether a Counterspell is actually required or if Shield would be safer, or perhaps not using any counter at all could be better if the enemy caster is casting a spell that doesn't even do much.

 

[Joseph Thompson1]

Needs info for spells in Xanathar's Guide. Some are extremely good; there's even a damage cantrip that is considerably better then firebolt called Toll the Dead.

 

[rczarnec]

One other thing to note, Xanathar's Guide has rules for recognizing spells cast by others. You can easily use that to your advantage, by knowing whether a Counterspell is actually required or if Shield would be safer, or perhaps not using any counter at all could be better if the enemy caster is casting a spell that doesn't even do much.

The problem with this is that identifying a spell using the Xanathar's rules means that you couldn't shield or counterspell because the identification uses your reaction. You would need somebody else to id the spell for you in order for this to work (or somebody else to counterspell if you id).

 

[Cascade]

In fact, I think this guide needs an entire subsection on how to deal with enemy Wizards, ways to enhance your dueling abilities. To put it simply, Counterspell is only the first step,...

That would be handy.
For example, knowing a wizard or potential counterspell to your own is out there and moving out of LoS and dropping that fireball on the opposing wizard or his group so they can't counter it...or following big AoE spells with sleep or just how powerful placing a web on an enemy that is invisible can be...

 

[Rofel Wodring]

I would like to bring up an interesting point regarding Concentration spells, and specifically, enemy concentration spells. Yes, blasting may not be the best primary role; but if an enemy Wizard, Cleric, or other spellcaster is concentrating on a rather nasty spell of their own ( a hold person on your BSF, for instance), it may not be out of the question to throw a Magic Missile or similar spell in an attempt to break their concentration on the spell.

Magic Missile is a terrible spell to break enemy concentration with. Magic Missile upcast to 4th level will do about 21 damage, which won't even break the generic DC 10 concentration save. It's only really good as a hail mary to stop several spellcasters concentrating on a spell at once.

or otherwise draining their spell slots if they have Counterspells/Shields

No. This is a terrible suggestion. Unless you do one-encounter workdays against single super-casters, you will not win this race.

And for the love of god, NEVER Counterspell an enemy Counterspell.

This is another terrible suggestion. Unless you know for a fact they're going to be casting some turkey spell like Witch Bolt or Otto's Irresistible Dance at the archer, it's a very acceptable price to pay. In a recent module, I counterspelled the counterspell of an archmage who was throwing up a shield; this allowed the paladin and ranger to one-shot them on the first round.

Also, if your DM rules that casting counterspell (or any reaction spell) while in the middle of casting another spell makes you lose your spell, they are screwing you over with a houserule. Don't let them get away with that.

there's even a damage cantrip that is considerably better then firebolt called Toll the Dead.

Toll the Dead requires a Wisdom Saving Throw. It will not be better than Fire Bolt (or any spell that targets ranged AC) most of the time unless you did something like put on a Robe of the Archmagi and Ioun Stone of Mastery while also getting really lucky with a Deck of Many Things.

 

[Leatherhead]

Toll the Dead requires a Wisdom Saving Throw. It will not be better than Fire Bolt (or any spell that targets ranged AC) most of the time unless you did something like put on a Robe of the Archmagi and Ioun Stone of Mastery while also getting really lucky with a Deck of Many Things.

Wisdom is bad. But Ranged AC based attacks suffer from Cover, which should be happening most of the time, as you want to place your [-]meatshields[/-] party members between the business end of a monster and yourself. Mostly so you can also benefit from Cover, because a +2 bonus to your AC will go a long way to prevent enemy archers from turning you into a pincushion.

 

[Joseph Thompson1]

Magic Missile is a terrible spell to break enemy concentration with. Magic Missile upcast to 4th level will do about 21 damage, which won't even break the generic DC 10 concentration save. It's only really good as a hail mary to stop several spellcasters concentrating on a spell at once.

Except, note that the rules for Concentration are based on each hit, not each spell. So things like Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, or Eldritch Blast (at higher levels) will force MULTIPLE dc10 con saves. Making one? plausible. Making three or more in a row? not very likely unless the caster was built specifically for it.

No. This is a terrible suggestion. Unless you do one-encounter workdays against single super-casters, you will not win this race.

I did not mean this as a specific task to work towards, but as something to keep in mind. You don't want to be using Counterspell on an enemy's Magic Missile, for instance, as that is a completely unfair trade in slots; the goal would be to at least try and make sure you don't expend more resources then they do, if not use less.

As far as counterspelling a counterspell, I don't think you quite understand the action economy here. You say you counterspelled the counterspell of an enemy that was casting a shield, which allowed someone to attack the enemy. This makes no sense, because counterspell is a reaction; either you Counterspell it once, he counter-counterspells you, and continues his spell because you used your reaction (or not, depending on the DM's ruling), or you don't counterspell his shield, and he just casts it. In no way can the action economy allow you to counterspell something twice unless it is during, then just after it, as you get your reaction back at the end of your turn. Now, RAW, it IS technically possible to cast a spell, the enemy counterspells you, and then you use your reaction to counterspell the enemy counterspell against your spell; but as I stated before, it would be ill advised, regardless of DM ruling on the matter, because doing so causes you to use two spell slots for the enemy's one, which is definitely more of a victory in the enemy's part, particularly since most wizard duels involve non-wizards still being the primary targets.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except, note that the rules for Concentration are based on each hit, not each spell. So things like Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, or Eldritch Blast (at higher levels) will force MULTIPLE dc10 con saves. Making one? plausible. Making three or more in a row? not very likely unless the caster was built specifically for it.


I did not mean this as a specific task to work towards, but as something to keep in mind. You don't want to be using Counterspell on an enemy's Magic Missile, for instance, as that is a completely unfair trade in slots; the goal would be to at least try and make sure you don't expend more resources then they do, if not use less.

As far as counterspelling a counterspell, I don't think you quite understand the action economy here. You say you counterspelled the counterspell of an enemy that was casting a shield, which allowed someone to attack the enemy. This makes no sense, because counterspell is a reaction; either you Counterspell it once, he counter-counterspells you, and continues his spell because you used your reaction (or not, depending on the DM's ruling), or you don't counterspell his shield, and he just casts it. In no way can the action economy allow you to counterspell something twice unless it is during, then just after it, as you get your reaction back at the end of your turn. Now, RAW, it IS technically possible to cast a spell, the enemy counterspells you, and then you use your reaction to counterspell the enemy counterspell against your spell; but as I stated before, it would be ill advised, regardless of DM ruling on the matter, because doing so causes you to use two spell slots for the enemy's one, which is definitely more of a victory in the enemy's part, particularly since most wizard duels involve non-wizards still being the primary targets.

You are both very right and very wrong.

It is correct that multi-attack spells are concentration busters. Only player characters are "built for it", since they can take feats and monsters don't.

It is perfectly possible to cast a spell, be counterspelled, and then use your reaction on your own turn to counterspell the counterspell. Your comment about spell economy, however, is nonsense. It is much preferable to get off your spell (and thus do something this round) than have concerns over spending two spells.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Except, note that the rules for Concentration are based on each hit, not each spell. So things like Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, or Eldritch Blast (at higher levels) will force MULTIPLE dc10 con saves. Making one? plausible. Making three or more in a row? not very likely unless the caster was built specifically for it.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/610955844918886400 Magic Missile strikes simultaneously, so only one save. Scorching Ray and, even better, Eldritch Blast are better candidates for forcing a concentration save. Of course, while NPC spellcasting creatures such as the Archmage have bad concentration saves, good luck against a Mummy Lord or a Lich. You might need something more robust, or focus on improving melee frontliner damage.

I did not mean this as a specific task to work towards, but as something to keep in mind. You don't want to be using Counterspell on an enemy's Magic Missile, for instance, as that is a completely unfair trade in slots;

Viewing it in terms of slots is meaningless. Counterspelling low-level spells such as Misty Step or Suggestion or even Shield is a perfectly fine use of Counterspell. Your job is to end the fight with as few expended resources as possible. Since hps and spells are resources, it's oftentimes a good idea to trade a 3rd-level spell to take down a Necromancer or a Korred a round early. Punching through the enemy's defenses or locking them down, thus ending combat a round early, is a perfectly fine use of a 3rd to 5th level spell. Yes, if you're fighting one-on-one counterspelling a counterspell of a casting of Fireball or Blight isn't really worth it for an extended workday, but that's because a lot of mages pick spells that don't end encounters. I can't tell you how many times I've mentally sighed at seeing PC mages throw around Lightning Bolt and Blight and even Ice Storm at 9th+ level. I don't think Counterspelling a Counterspell is really worth a slot in those instances, but if we're talking about an upcasted Blindness/Deafness or Banishment? You'd better believe it.

As far as counterspelling a counterspell, I don't think you quite understand the action economy here. You say you counterspelled the counterspell of an enemy that was casting a shield, which allowed someone to attack the enemy. This makes no sense, because counterspell is a reaction; either you Counterspell it once, he counter-counterspells you, and continues his spell because you used your reaction (or not, depending on the DM's ruling), or you don't counterspell his shield, and he just casts it.

Sorry, I misspoke. If you must know **SPOILERS** We're in Dead in Thay. The paladin ran up to the Abjurer NPC with GWF. Archmage used Shield. Bard used counterspell. Another NPC caster (can't remember the class, some low-CR chaff) used Counterspell. I counterspelled the Counterspell. Paladin proceeded to punch through the Arcane ward, Ranger finished the Archmage off. Since they would've had an AC of 20 otherwise, I consider that a fine use of a spell.