D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

[jgsugden]

It is noted in a D&DBeyond video interview with WotC: The rogue and wizard had little because they didn't need anything. They didn't put in content for the sake of putting in content.... they just added where they saw an opportunity to make a meaningful improvement that addressed specific widespread player concerns.

 

[Ashrym]

See, I don't think that analogy works well at all. If Arana were divided up in to sub-sections the way real-world medicine is? Sure.

But in the non-granular mechanics of D&D, to use your medical professionals with the D&D rules for skills, it would be that the EMT who ONLY studied emergency/first-response medicine is as good at ALL medicine as a doctor who went to medical school.

A Rogue with Expertise Arcana and an Int of 12 knows as much about wizarding and all matters arcane other than actual spell casting, than an actual Wizard with a standard array 16 Int and regular proficiency. They basically have the same level of ability at this skill all the way to 12th. Then at 13th the rogue is better the rest of the way. That assumes Wizard maxes their Int by 8th and the rogue doesn't touch their 12 Int.

Same holds true for a knowledge cleric with their Domain ability.

It's just weird.

The problem with that argument is that the rogue class doesn't actually give proficiency in arcana in the first place. A rogue has to go out of his or her way to add it somehow, and it's not that arcana is not broken down into categories -- arcane magic is broken down. Arcana is just one aspect information that's not even a part of the core class. I can make a wizard who is not proficient in arcana at all, uses just his INT bonus (for a reasonable bonus still) and cast 9th level spells.

To be clear, my in my analogy one is spell casting and one is arcana. They are different things in 5e like those two example are different things in real life.

That rogue who has expertise in arcana is just an Indiana Jones trope (expert knowledge) and it doesn't give him access to bard, warlock, sorcerer, or wizard spell casting. Those two mechanics are independent of each other. The connection you are making is concept fluff, and done by taking proficiency in arcana by the wizard.

In the extremes for the rogue example it's +13 for the rogue and +11 for the wizard in the end, and +5 for either in the beginning. The gap isn't significant enough for the extra investment to consider wizards having some kind of disadvantage here.

 

[tetrasodium]

It is noted in a D&DBeyond video interview with WotC: The rogue and wizard had little because they didn't need anything. They didn't put in content for the sake of putting in content.... they just added where they saw an opportunity to make a meaningful improvement that addressed specific widespread player concerns.

It's 2 fold & has to do with changes betweeen 3.5 & 5e. Back in 3.5 you had gold bags full of weapons to get past DR (damage resistance) because a LOT of creatures would reduce your damage by X points (sometimes double digit X even!) if it wasn't a particular damage type. The same was true for monsters that were vulnerable to a given damage type (double damage iirc). In 5e there are very few monsters that are resistant or vulnerable to a given damage type other than "nonmagical piercing slashing or bludgeoning" & DR is not really a thing at all. If you have a magic weapon, are a level 6monk/moon druid, or are casting a spell then your attacks count as magical for purposes of being able to overcome resistance/immune to ononmagic p/b/s.

The second part is because in 5e spells can be upcast to get greater effect. In 3.5 you couldn't cast a third level spell like fireball from a 5th level slot to get extra dice, you cast a 5th level spell like acid cloud or something (I'm not bothrring to look for 5th level3.5 spells & just using an example. Often that other leveled spell was a different save, worked differently (ie instant vrs DoT), used a different save if any, had a different area (ie burst/wall/cone/line). All of this combined with the DR is why it would have been gosdly back in 3.5 where it was reasonable to burn a feat just to do that. In 5e it's only slightly more meaningful than declaring the color ofthe paint on the shield you just purchased from a rural blacksmith who specializes in horse shoes & nails

 

[Son of the Serpent]

It's 2 fold & has to do with changes betweeen 3.5 & 5e. Back in 3.5 you had gold bags full of weapons to get past DR (damage resistance) because a LOT of creatures would reduce your damage by X points (sometimes double digit X even!) if it wasn't a particular damage type. The same was true for monsters that were vulnerable to a given damage type (double damage iirc). In 5e there are very few monsters that are resistant or vulnerable to a given damage type other than "nonmagical piercing slashing or bludgeoning" & DR is not really a thing at all. If you have a magic weapon, are a level 6monk/moon druid, or are casting a spell then your attacks count as magical for purposes of being able to overcome resistance/immune to ononmagic p/b/s.

The second part is because in 5e spells can be upcast to get greater effect. In 3.5 you couldn't cast a third level spell like fireball from a 5th level slot to get extra dice, you cast a 5th level spell like acid cloud or something (I'm not bothrring to look for 5th level3.5 spells & just using an example. Often that other leveled spell was a different save, worked differently (ie instant vrs DoT), used a different save if any, had a different area (ie burst/wall/cone/line). All of this combined with the DR is why it would have been gosdly back in 3.5 where it was reasonable to burn a feat just to do that. In 5e it's only slightly more meaningful than declaring the color ofthe paint on the shield you just purchased from a rural blacksmith who specializes in horse shoes & nails

Thankyou. This answered my question i think.

 

[tetrasodium]

The problem with that argument is that the rogue class doesn't actually give proficiency in arcana in the first place. A rogue has to go out of his or her way to add it somehow, and it's not that arcana is not broken down into categories -- arcane magic is broken down. Arcana is just one aspect information that's not even a part of the core class. I can make a wizard who is not proficient in arcana at all, uses just his INT bonus (for a reasonable bonus still) and cast 9th level spells.

To be clear, my in my analogy one is spell casting and one is arcana. They are different things in 5e like those two example are different things in real life.

That rogue who has expertise in arcana is just an Indiana Jones trope (expert knowledge) and it doesn't give him access to bard, warlock, sorcerer, or wizard spell casting. Those two mechanics are independent of each other. The connection you are making is concept fluff, and done by taking proficiency in arcana by the wizard.

In the extremes for the rogue example it's +13 for the rogue and +11 for the wizard in the end, and +5 for either in the beginning. The gap isn't significant enough for the extra investment to consider wizards having some kind of disadvantage here.

I covered the knowledge skill condensation earlier. dozen(s) of skills were condensed into a couple knowledge skills. It wasn't that the wizard used to be better & now it doesn't really do more than still be pretty decent. It used to be that not even a wizard could fully keep up with all of the knowledge skills & it was too much for anyone else to even bother with instead of their own skills other than the occasional 1-2 knowledge skills relevant to their class (which the wizard still probably knew better because they were probably important ones like knowledge religion in an undead heavy campaign.

In the old system a wizard got 2+int mod skill points/level , a rogue got 6+int mod(?), a fighter & I think pretty much everyone else got 2+int mod skill points. The rogue was too busy putting those skill points in skills like, hide, move quietly, spot, listen, disable device, acrobatics(used to be wayyy more useful), detect traps, etc & didn't have room to waste on heavy knowledge skill investment... nor did it bother beyond feat/PrC prereq requirements because the wizard would handle that. Int no longer gives bonus skill points or proficiencies so skill monkey/knowledge guy was basically removed from wizard

 

[Azzy]

The second part is because in 5e spells can be upcast to get greater effect. In 3.5 you couldn't cast a third level spell like fireball from a 5th level slot to get extra dice,

No, you just cast it with a third-level slot and it autoscales with your level.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, you just cast it with a third-level slot and it autoscales with your level.

your right, I messed up on that point but the rest about dr/saves/area/etc still applies it meant your 5th evel slots were acid cloud or whatever & couldn't be fireball unless you had prepped it with a +3 metamagic

 

[Krachek]

So read the most recent Unearthed Arcana....Major flavor/Mechanical bonuses for Sorcerer, followed by Bard and Warlock.....and next to nothing for the Wizard...unless you are a Diviner (& even then not much gain).

-Any flavor/enhancement to the Spellbook....nope.
-Any Expertise like enhancement to the Arcana or Investigation skill.....nope....that Arcane Trickster with Expertise Arcana is a better scholar than Wizard,
(and has a better True Strike alternative with Aim now)
-Automatic Tool Prof in Calligrapahy...nope


WOTC needs more love for Barbarians and Wizards in 5e

I was asking why Dm seem to hesitate to push live their home brew.
you answer it.

you adjust a rule to help character of player A,
player B: why do you hate me?

 

[Ashrym]

I covered the knowledge skill condensation earlier. dozen(s) of skills were condensed into a couple knowledge skills. It wasn't that the wizard used to be better & now it doesn't really do more than still be pretty decent. It used to be that not even a wizard could fully keep up with all of the knowledge skills & it was too much for anyone else to even bother with instead of their own skills other than the occasional 1-2 knowledge skills relevant to their class (which the wizard still probably knew better because they were probably important ones like knowledge religion in an undead heavy campaign.

In the old system a wizard got 2+int mod skill points/level , a rogue got 6+int mod(?), a fighter & I think pretty much everyone else got 2+int mod skill points. The rogue was too busy putting those skill points in skills like, hide, move quietly, spot, listen, disable device, acrobatics(used to be wayyy more useful), detect traps, etc & didn't have room to waste on heavy knowledge skill investment... nor did it bother beyond feat/PrC prereq requirements because the wizard would handle that. Int no longer gives bonus skill points or proficiencies so skill monkey/knowledge guy was basically removed from wizard

In 3.5...

There weren't "dozens" of knowledge skills condensed into a couple of knowledge skills. There were 10 knowledge skills. Rogues got 8 skill points, bards and rangers 6 skill points, druids and monks 4 skill points, and most classes got 2 skill points. Everyone got INT bonus and the INT gap between rogues and wizards didn't typically exceed the 6 point gap between rogues and wizards.

The difference then wasn't just the points, it was the cross-class cost when bards and wizards were the only 2 classes that had all knowledge skills as class skills and there were a lot of skills in which to invest. The difference now is the removal of niche protection. A wizard can take proficiency in "rogue" skills now just as much as a rogue can take proficiency in "wizard" skills now.

Wizards are still at or near the top end of arcana use. INT checks cover that, and wizards are better off in general given the number of INT proficiencies that exist. INT is a significant part of knowledge checks in general while proficiency and expertise are specific.

I don't see an issue with the Indiana Jones trope of where a rogue has a none to little advantage over a wizard in knowledge.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not implausible - there is so much spellcasting to go around in 5e...
...which fighter and barbarian sub-classes would rise to Tier 3? Something outside the PH, surely? The Totem Barbarian and BM are at best Tier 4, the EK would be a pretty marginal Tier 3 candidate.

Nope. The majority of PHB options are Tier 3 or above. You overestimate the power of Spellcasting.