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

[Todd Roybark]

Todd, I have to ask you this question: why do you hate WOTC?

Hate is a strong term, but 5 years into 5e, and I can say that from my perspective there has been very little new or original content.

It seems to be a mantra on this board “That Wizards do not need it”

but why?

Because of the Find Familiar, Counterspell, and Contingency spells?

Please....in the rules as written a Divine Caster can prepare any spell on their list subject to a limit of level and Ability Modifier.

That Pally/Hexlock already was rather versatile.
Given that a Druid of the Land is almost Identical to the Wizard in terms of spell recovery, shouldn’t that subclass not need the versatility boost?

 

[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

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.

Like I said earlier, it's not just any one thing, it's that basically all of what used to be the wizard's domain has been pretty much given to other classes in nearly equivalent forms & like the sorc/warlock spell versatility vrs the wizard cantrip versatility even when wizards are thrown a bone trying to put in some kind of supporting leg on the table where a wizard can at least say "I'm great with this" it's overly limited & the version of what they had given to other classes is just as good as the wizard if not better.

You could say that the wizard spell prep allows you to replace the entire list during a long rest but warlock/sorerer only one spell as an example of being "better" but that ignores the fact that it's unusual to replace more than 1-2 spells & not needing to invest the national GDP levels of gold sunk into building a spellbook far outweigh the minor limitation of maybe needing to take two long rests.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope. You overestimate the power of Spellcasting.

That'd drop more sub-classes from Tier 3, if we can't consider, say, 1/3rd-casting to provide more meaningful versatility.

 

[Ashrym]

it's not just any one thing, it's that basically all of what used to be the wizard's domain has been pretty much given to other classes in nearly equivalent forms

It's not "nearly equivalent form". Like you said, changing a spell on long rest isn't the same as changing multiple spells on a rest. It's also the actual spells available on that spell list.

Getting rid of niche protection means other classes can do things we once thought were "our thing". Skill were one of the areas of the game that were opened up, in in the case of arcana (or any other "knowledge skill") it still favors wizards because of the 5e focus on ability scores. Quite frankly, that looks to me like wizards took a bit of "bardic knowledge" away when those checks were in addition to knowledge. That's just one of the side effects. WotC couldn't very well redesign their skill expectations without actually redesigning their skill expectations.

Changing the spell preparation mechanic by separating preparation and slots was a massive change for wizards in the direction of 3.x bards and sorcerer benefits. We shouldn't really complain about what was lost and ignore such a significant gain.

I volunteer to give up arcana expertise on my rogue if you give up neo-Vancian casting on your wizard if we ever play together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That'd drop more sub-classes from Tier 3, if we can't consider, say, 1/3rd-casting to provide more meaningful versatility.

Nope. EK is Tier 3 (or 2, with the state of their spell selection right now, assuming an open game), because their one of the best fighter subclasses. But a big part of that is their level 7 feature.

Champion might be at the bottom of Tier 3, but it keeps up with solidly T3 options too well to drop it below that.

5e just isn’t as wide a power range as 3.5 or earlier editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Champion might be at the bottom of Tier 3, but it keeps up with solidly T3 options too well to drop it below that.

Sorry, but all DPR all the time rates Tier 4 at best, if you're awesome at it, Tier 5 if awesome only comes with a happy power build using optional rules.

I get that 5e is balanced around rough overall single-target DPR (and healing treated as an equivalent thereof), over the semi-mythical 6-8 encounter day, but that's not all their is to class balance, let alone class Tier.

5e just isn’t as wide a power range as 3.5 or earlier editions.

Sorry, can't agree. Class Tier isn't raw power or just what can the best build do, there's versatility over a range of challenges. Neo-Vancian casters have that in spades, almost can't scrape it off if they try. Full casters to spare. Everyone else aspires to contribute meaningfully across a range of challenges (Tier 3), definitely not everyone makes it.

 

[Hussar]

@Tony Vargas, I get where you're coming from, but, as someone who has extensive experience in both 4e and 5e, I've got to say that I'm not seeing it in play. The spread between classes is nowhere near as pronounced as you seem to think it is. I'm just not seeing the power imbalance that you are.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's not "nearly equivalent form". Like you said, changing a spell on long rest isn't the same as changing multiple spells on a rest. It's also the actual spells available on that spell list.

Getting rid of niche protection means other classes can do things we once thought were "our thing". Skill were one of the areas of the game that were opened up, in in the case of arcana (or any other "knowledge skill") it still favors wizards because of the 5e focus on ability scores. Quite frankly, that looks to me like wizards took a bit of "bardic knowledge" away when those checks were in addition to knowledge. That's just one of the side effects. WotC couldn't very well redesign their skill expectations without actually redesigning their skill expectations.

Changing the spell preparation mechanic by separating preparation and slots was a massive change for wizards in the direction of 3.x bards and sorcerer benefits. We shouldn't really complain about what was lost and ignore such a significant gain.

I volunteer to give up arcana expertise on my rogue if you give up neo-Vancian casting on your wizard if we ever play together.

you might try reading the whole post, I can see why you trimmed the quote too, keep reading & you see this paragraph

You could say that the wizard spell prep allows you to replace the entire list during a long rest but warlock/sorerer only one spell as an example of being "better" but that ignores the fact that it's unusual to replace more than 1-2 spells & not needing to invest the national GDP levels of gold sunk into building a spellbook far outweigh the minor limitation of maybe needing to take two long rests.

In short, the limitation of 1/long rest is effectively meaningless making the original version practically the same value. It's like the difference from having a winning lottery ticket for seventy five million dollars but you need to visit the north pole to claim it & having someone else being given a winning lottery ticket for balance reasons but that ticket is only seventy four point 8 million dollarsbut they can only spend a quarter million per day

 

[Tony Vargas]

I get where you're coming from, but, as someone who has extensive experience in both 4e and 5e, I've got to say that I'm not seeing it in play. The spread between classes is nowhere near as pronounced as you seem to think it is. I'm just not seeing the power imbalance that you are.

I've come to rather the opposite conclusion over time: 4e isn't quite as huddled all in Tier 3 as we long thought. Yeah, it's neatly balanced in resources (pre-E) & class roles &c, but, between having run with eClasses well into Epic, and seeing certain classes struggle for out of combat relevance even in the structure of skill challenges, I have to admit there's some bleed out of that ideal.
5e, OTOH, though it does necessarily, and intentionally evoking past editions as it set out to, restore LFQW and Tier 1 (and then some) casting and the like, because they've just been part of D&D so long, does avoid Tier 6 (in itself, a meaningful design accomplishment, because it's not just 'weak' or 'ineffective' it's just plain flubbed), and Tier 5 is rather lonely, but that's as much as I can grant it in good conscience.
But it's not that the spread between Tier 1 classes and Tier 5 sub-classes is any narrower than in 3e, it's that the distribution is different, there are more Tier 2 & classes, and classes that used to languish in a lower Tier instead have sub-classes splayed among Tiers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, but all DPR all the time rates Tier 4 at best, if you're awesome at it, Tier 5 if awesome only comes with a happy power build using optional rules.

I get that 5e is balanced around rough overall single-target DPR (and healing treated as an equivalent thereof), over the semi-mythical 6-8 encounter day, but that's not all their is to class balance, let alone class Tier.

Sorry, can't agree. Class Tier isn't raw power or just what can the best build do, there's versatility over a range of challenges. Neo-Vancian casters have that in spades, almost can't scrape it off if they try. Full casters to spare. Everyone else aspires to contribute meaningfully across a range of challenges (Tier 3), definitely not everyone makes it.

Absolute rubbish. I’m sorry, man, but it is.

Every class is able to contribute meaningfully in all pillars, at a fairly close range of efficacy. If we upgraded the half dozen or so weakest subclasses and the couple weakest classes, we might even have a game with only 2 Tiers.

The idea that being able to completely rip through an encounter via damage on a reliable basis only merits Tier 4 is preposterous, but even if we accepted it, no class in 5e is just that.