D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

20th level wizard true polymorphs into a marilith. In the following 2 rounds, attacks 7 times each, with the wizard’s familiar making the 8th attack each time.

That's a lot of punches. True polymorph doesn't give you all the weapons.

 

[Maxperson]

If you play the way most DMs I know run it, where wizards can place their AoEs with pinpoint accuracy, then it's not really an issue. Just target above them so you get the rope but not the hangman. As an added bonus, if you don't "shatter" the rope, you might shatter whatever it's tied to (two chances to succeed).

Which is really another realism thing that I see a lot of DMs let spells slide on. Dropping AoEs with perfect accuracy, so that you get all the baddies but your allies are standing just outside it. No roll, just automatically place it exactly. Because magic. Whereas the DM is probably forcing the max strength fighter to roll to see if he can fireman's carry the 90 lb wizard out of danger.

If there's 5 feet or more in-between, I allow it just fine. If the wizard tries to fireball or lightning bolt someone in a 5 foot square and not his ally standing right next to him in the 5 foot square, there's a roll involved. Combat is fluid and between the back and forths, there's a chance that the ally could be hit. You can't be that precise on distance in the middle of combat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's a lot of punches. True polymorph doesn't give you all the weapons.

You only need one weapon to be able to make all six weapon attacks with it though.

 

[Maxperson]

You only need one weapon to be able to make all six weapon attacks with it though.

What's it going to do, attack, switch hands, attack, switch hands, attack... It gets that many attacks because of the number of arms it has.

"Multiattack. The marilith makes seven attacks: six with its longswords and one with its tail."

Longswords, plural. One each and then the tail. So the wizard gets 6 punches and a tail attack, or maybe 1 weapon attack, 5 punches and a tail.

 

[Minigiant]

As long as they're DM-gated features, most people seem to be okay with it. Suggest that these be made into class features (even if they're kept skinned as magic items) and IME you get a lot of pushback. It would be almost fair if we went back to the early days of DM-gating spells. (Not that I think we should.)

I've stated this many times on this forum.

D&D was originally a game where the DM determines the wizards spells or the fighter and rogue's items. The cleriic was the only one who wasn't gated but their spells were weaker or support. But as editions rolled on,the wizard got to pick their spells and only the extra spells were gated. And this change spawns a bajillion topics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What's it going to do, attack, switch hands, attack, switch hands, attack... It gets that many attacks because of the number of arms it has.

"Multiattack. The marilith makes seven attacks: six with its longswords and one with its tail."

Longswords, plural. One each and then the tail. So the wizard gets 6 punches and a tail attack, or maybe 1 weapon attack, 5 punches and a tail.

Nothing about the text says that it must use a unique longsword for each attack. It simply has them, and may use any particular weapons it is currently wielding.

Otherwise you would be saying that if it didn't have any longswords (even if it had other weapons in hand), it couldn't use Multiattack at all. You've already said otherwise, because you mentioned "that's a lot of punches."

This is exactly the same as the rules for a character with Extra Attack wielding two weapons, from the Sage Advice compendium:

When you use Extra Attack, do you have to use the same weapon for all the attacks? Extra Attack imposes no limitation on what you use for the attacks. You can use regular weapons, improvised weapons, unarmed strikes, or a combination of these options for the attacks.

Nothing in the text indicates that you must use each and every weapon individually. You could use one such longsword for all six attacks, or each one individually, or any permutation that adds up to 6 attacks made. AABDEF is just as valid as AAAAAA, ABCDEF, or FFEEDD.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing about the text says that it must use a unique longsword for each attack. It simply has them, and may use any particular weapons it is currently wielding.

It says very explicitly that it gets six with its six longswords(because that's what plural means). If you want to house rule into being able to clearly violate RAI(it's freaking six armed with 6 different longswords for a reason), then go for it. That's not RAW, though.

Otherwise you would be saying that if it didn't have any longswords (even if it had other weapons in hand), it couldn't use Multiattack at all. You've already said otherwise, because you mentioned "that's a lot of punches."

Sure it could. One punch with each hand per the way its RAW multiattack is written and RAI very clearly intends.

This is exactly the same as the rules for a character with Extra Attack wielding two weapons, from the Sage Advice compendium:

No. Maraliths do not have extra attack. What is is, is written like two weapon fighting is written with a weapon in each hand. It would be pointless to give it six hands and six weapons, and then mention attacking with all the weapons if all it needed was one for its attacks.

Nothing in the text indicates that you must use each and every weapon individually. You could use one such longsword for all six attacks, or each one individually, or any permutation that adds up to 6 attacks made. AABDEF is just as valid as AAAAAA, ABCDEF, or FFEEDD.

Not as it is written or intended.

 

[Scott Christian]

The issue is not that they are versatile, it's that they are the most versatile, as /more powerful, and reliable and they increase that versatility and power at a higher slope than Fighters as they level.

To this, I would ask what problems it has caused at your table? (Not in an accusing way, just curious.)

"Great at everything" isn't a good niche. And many of the earlier edition safe guards that off set this power and versalitilty -- lower number of spell slots, longer casting times and spell disruption, very low HPs, etc. -- are gone.

Yeah, I agree with all this. I stated earlier they can choose to be good at everything. Other classes cannot, especially if we are just using the PHB. But again, I have never really seen it cause a disruption to any table. The balance is loopy, no doubt. But maybe balance doesn't need to exist for an RPG?

 

[Scott Christian]

The D&D mechanic of a "saving throw" for a spell displaces the possibility of the caster being the one that makes the d20 check.

If going 4e style, the caster would be rolling d20 "attacks". Then a natural 20 would be a spectacular crit, and a natural 1 would be a spectacular fumble.

But 5e removes the agency from the caster player.

Maybe if the target save crits, the spell fumbles, or if the target save fumbles, the spell crits spectacularly.

But I kinda wish 5e would go back to the way 4e does it, so the caster players can feel more like spellcasters, who are actually the ones making the spell happen.

I actually think there are two reasons they went to saving throws:
1. Spell versatility - to show how different spells affect different creatures. For example, acid splash on trolls. This allowed the player to become more tactical in combat. Which, if I remember correctly, is something Crawford said they were going for.
2. To speed up combat. Spells are already all over the place with damage; whereas, other classes almost always utilize the same one or two damage rolls. This removed newer players becoming confused, and shifted the responsibility to the DM. In my opinion, it was a good move.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Are we really going to call that 'super' strength?

Actually strong, yes. But 'super'?

With a belt of hill giant strength you are stronger than the strongest human (except perhaps if that human is a 20th level barbarian). With a belt of storm giant strength, you're not only stronger than even the max strength 20th level barbarian, but also 1 point shy of the maximum possible in the 5e multiverse. 30 is the absolute limit, even for the most powerful supernatural entities.

I suppose that you could attempt to argue that super strength doesn't exist in 5e, but to me that seems like trying to split hairs. Within the context of 5e, any strength score over 20 is almost completely beyond human limits, and anything over 24 is entirely impossible for humans without magic. Therefore, it stems to reason that it is by definition super[human] strength.