You have based your complaints on the wizard by comparing the at-will single-target damage of a cantrip, to the martial attacks of a martial character. You have not only picked the most slanted possible metric, you have also ignored actual spellcasting - the class feature of the wizard. Even just adding the damage of one of the martial's attacks to the wizard's cantrip damage (haste spell) would have been a better representation.
If you wanted a fair comparison, even with just comparing damage numbers (since control/debuffs are hard to quantify), you have not been going about it correctly.
If you have a metric that we can use to evaluate and compare the use of utility spells, that would be extremely cool. I am not aware of one however since they are generally too situational.
Once again. Give a different one! You are going around in circles complaining that the examples of damage disparities in combat are a bad metric while making efforts to avoid admitting merit in the problems you are arguing against being an issue as you justify why you shouldn't be expected to provide support for your position. Yes buffs debuffs & controls are are "hard to quantify", however the damage disparity gives an objective metric for what kind of weight they need to pull and they fall obscenely short of doing so. Later in this very post you even admit merit to some of the reasons I've already stated they fail at doing so as justification for
not supporting your position. There might be areas we agree on & areas we disagree on, but you are attemting to claim
all areas being called a problem are not problems with little more than trust me to support that
I can give examples. I didn't want to get bogged down in a "well what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" situation.
The point is not "Wizards are way better than Fighters because they get this spell."
One of the positions you have been dismissing as a point lacking merit is that the niche spells are too niche & too far into coincidental corner cases for various reasons people have detailed repeatedly in this thread. if a significant chunk of what you think is the wizard's true strength is something anyone can credibly claim"what if that situation just doesn't come up in the
campaign?" You have confirmed that point is not only one with merit but so true that you can't even avoid proving it while arguing against the other problems.
The easy solution to that quagmire of a"situation" you want to avoid is admitting merit of that problem & moving on to what you feel is a strength. Doing that might look like this "Yea there are too many spells that are too niche to justify the state of everything else given limitations on spells gained/prepared but I still think this other issue is being overblown because yadayadayada". It's not about what class is better or worse, the problem being argued is that wizard is not good enough to justify the state of a wide array of things repeatedly brought up in this thread.
It is "A wizard with a generalised loadout can bypass some challenges that would otherwise give the mundane classes a chance to shine, particularly with the way many groups (and some WotC adventures) play."
But for example, there are multiple spells allowing bypass of a physical obstacle that would otherwise require athletics checks: Levitate, Spider climb, Fly, assorted teleports.
Likewise social obstacles can be overcome by a number of different spells, either by achieving the aim without needing to go through the obstacle in the first place, or spells like Disguise self, charm person, suggestion, alter self, invisibility etc.
The problem there is that it comes with significant opportunity cost in combat while those "mundane classes" are better at both combat
and those other pillars. The spells you allude to are so niche &impossible to predict a need for that those mundane classes will generally just do them rather than waiting for the wizard to take a long rest so the wizard has "some chance to shine". You've said that the wizard's crown is not in combat and are moving on to add that the wizard shouldn't expect to shine in the other two pillars either but once again refuse to give specifics that would allow discussion.
OK. What do you think would be needed to be done to buffing, debuffing and control spells to bring them up to scratch?
Concentration is massively overused. Magic resistance is massively overused. Legendary resistance is massively overused Spells have excessive saves freely given even after the target fails the initial save or nothing happens save. Spells are dramatically undertuned lest they trod on some poor "mundane class" "chance to shine". The solution needs to correct that collective overcompensation trying to thwart the problems of old editions in a meaningful fashion
Spells like Web, Hold Person, Hypnotic pattern, Banishment, wall spells etc are already thought of as pretty good.
Concentration is a mechanic designed to "throttle" spell slot usage a little and prevent the 5MWday that caused so many issues in 3.5 for example. What would be a better alternative? Or just keep the mechanic but remove it from selected spells?
That is literally one of the problems. Wotc didn't stop there, they also went on to downtune the spells themselves to counter the 3.5 problems of those spells on their own then went on to build monsters to thwart the problems of 3.5.
Then went on to raise the bar on martials to counter other problems of 3.5. Everything combines into a giant overcompensation.
Four spells & a vague category of spells is not a class & those spells fall far short of bridging the contribution gap as you yourself all but admit by roping in generally vague & nonspecific niche spells that might maybe shine unless "that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign". We can't have this discussion while relying on a build hiding
behind the quantum ogre to be all things at all times & draw upon any possible spell in any possible situation. We especially can't do that because you refuse to admit there is merit in
any of the problems being raised while failing to provide support for your position that the problems being raised are entirely without merit.
But you aren't. You've just picked a single metric (single target damage) to compare, despite the fact that it is the area where the wizard is second weakest (after healing) and the fighter is one of the best. If you had picked almost any other metric, the wizard would have come out significantly ahead of the fighter.
Its like deciding what vehicle would be best for your family, and using only the max speed as a metric to decide between an estate and a motorcycle.
I & others have asked you repeatedly to give us some other metric that you feel shows the wizard's real domain of greatness
whatever you think that is. The only requirement is that you need to actually support it without foisting support of your position onto those you disagree with or an implied "trust me". Stop complaining you don't like the metric or don't feel it's fair to your position & give a new one that supports itself. The one you choose doesn't even need to prove all problems nonproblems as long as you simply admit x and/or y are still a problem while showing what you think is the true domain of strength for the wizard
OK. What level is this party that your wizard is so underperforming in, what are the other characters, and what sort of length adventuring day is the usual for your group? What is your group's/DM's preferred style of play?
For that particular statement, I don't need to: its right there in the base class features. Even without any of their spells, rituals, etc, the base starting wizard has an array of ability scores, four proficiencies, and a background feature. That is what the base starting fighter has all the time.
Because on days with no/little combat, (for example city investigation and intrigue or travel through safer areas) with a little ingenuity and a varied spell list, you can generally find some way to be useful. The fighter doesn't get to swap their extra attack out for expertise in a few skills on a daily basis.
And when its time to go down into the dungeon, the wizard just switches to their combat-heavy loadout.
That is entirely fair, but denigrating a class because you don't like playing to its strengths really isn't.
If it helps, I've found spell cards quite useful rather that just a list according to spell level. That way you can have smaller, separate piles for out of combat spells, concentration spells, and combat spells. - There can be some crossover but it really reduces the potential information/option overload.
But you're not expressing your opinion of the class (until now). You're claiming that it is an objectively bad class because it can't match the Fighter in single-target damage and does not have much better utility.
"I don't like Wizards because I find them too fiddly" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.
"Wizards are bad at utility and their rituals are almost useless" is a statement that conflicts with a lot of our experiences, and so people are going to expect you to be able to back that up with actual facts.
Is this a joke? Both wizard and fighter include the words "Choose two skills from:" Stop complaining that the problems being raised are because people aren't looking at the wizard's strengths & post a build showing what you think it's strengths are. Keep in mind that the wizard only has so many spells in their spellbook & can't simply pick whatever spells from their class spell list to swap between combat social exploration etc days like you seem to be suggesting now. Which assortment would you choose to support your position given the limits of how many spells a wizard gains & wotc's lack of effort in providing guidance telling GMs they
"will want to be generous" with scrolls/spellbooks/etc like they did with magic weapons . Why do you make those choices & how do they support your position that all of the problems resulting in an undertuned wizard class as a whole?
