D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Scott Christian]

What really matters is whether the people playing characters other than wizards fun. In my experience the a resounding yes. People cheered the meteor storm, no one felt left out because they didn't get that particular moment in the spotlight.

This all the way.

 

[Mort]

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

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?

IMO, Balance should exist between the characters at the table. Meaning every character needs to be able to meaningfully contribute during play. If one PC is easily able to do another PCs schtick, especially if they can still do their own just fine, that's when there tends to be a problem.

In combat, I saw this problem more in 3e, where the wizard could easily step on the fighter's schtick. I haven't seen it in combat in 5e, fighters are pretty good in combat.

Outside of combat, the problem is fighters don't really have a schtick. So it is easy for the fighter to be overshadowed by the wizard (who absolutely has out of combat utility expressly provided for the class), unless the DM takes steps.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

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

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.

Not as it is written or intended.

Absolutely not. They used the word "longswords" because she has more than one longsword. To use the phrase, "Multiattack. The marilith can make seven attacks: six with its longsword and one with its tail" would be factually incorrect, because she does not have one longsword, she has six. English does not make a distinction in this kind of phrasing between these things. If I tell you I have six cookie boxes and that "I intend to eat six of my cookie," you would look at me like I'd grown a second head. But if I say, "I intend to eat six of my cookies," you would have no idea whether I mean eating all type A, everything but type A, exactly one of types A-F, or any other potential combination.

Your description is neither RAI nor RAW. The general rule stands, you may use whatever weapons you like for doing the thing, and there is nothing specific about this which should indicate otherwise.

And yes, it is pointless in a mechanical sense. Much as the trident is pointless in a mechanical sense, being a heavier, higher-training, more-expensive spear. But 5e does several things like that, which are mechanically pointless but thematically important. Thematically, mariliths have 6 arms, and generally wield a sword in each hand. Therefore, they have six swords, though they may choose to attack with only one of those swords if they wish.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wait.

As in a game run by someone else with someone else playing the artificer?

Yes, that is what I wrote. It is no different than if a player is playing an evil PC, which I also don't care to play with.

Why would I use my valuable gaming time to play in a group with rules, classes, alignment, etc. in use that I don't want to play with? There are always other groups and games out there that would be a better fit. After one session, I generally know if I want to come back or not.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Not the person you asked but overshadowing and boredom can be a problem for fighters with new or inexperienced DMs as they have to learn how to spread the spotlight with s pure combat class with little based versatility.

Many people have said 5e has/d big problems with converting players to DMs due to the little support and advice on not only play as intended but how to adjust assumptions. The DMG was NOT written for new players and is more geared to catch up a DM from a previous edition to the new rules.

Most of the "everything is fine" crowd are veterans, have long standing groups, or have social contracts to enforce niches.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Aren't they in the same party? Why would the fighter be responsible for transporting the letter back to the castle?

Both of the examples were solo play.

Edit. And this also misses the point. The first post asked Maxperson to give an example of something a fighter could do that a wizard couldn’t. He responded at 20th level, attack 8 times on two consecutive turns….EXCEPT that is something wizards can do, by using the True Polymorph spell. The converse however, deliver messages over a long distance quickly, is something fighters just simply can’t do. At all.

Frankly, wizards benefit from two kinds of versatility. First, free choice of spells gives them a great amount of versatility in their builds and second, their spellbook and rituals gives them a lot of versatility to tailor their spells day-to-day. The problem is that wizards give up very little for this versatility.

Wizards are most frequently compared to fighters because fighters have the opposite problem. They are overly specialized and in game design terms, they are paying a very steep price for a small advantage in the combat pillar.

In principle, if you are comparing the most versatile class across three pillars to the class that is best at the combat pillar and weak at the two others, the comparison should be embassingly lopsided in favour of the fighter. Except it isn’t.

It is good design that you shouldn’t need a fighter in the party to succeed in the combat pillar. But it is bad design that the class that is supposed to exemplify the combat pillar (and that is an archetype that many players identify with) ends up being so unnecessary.

 

[Reynard]

Both of the examples were solo play.

Why? That is not how 99% of D&D is played. Why would you expect them to design the game to work that way?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why? That is not how 99% of D&D is played. Why would you expect them to design the game to work that way?

Does it really matter? I mean, it's hardly commonplace, but I've played in a number of games where, for various good reasons, the party had to split up. It does happen.

In my most memorable instance, we discovered some information that was extremely time sensitive (I don't recall exactly what, but I think it has to do with an attack on a town). Because I was playing a monk and could travel much faster than the rest of the party, it was agreed that I would run ahead to deliver the information. The thing that makes it memorable is the my monk was nearly eaten by a rhemoraz on the way there (I managed to get up a tree and waited them out).

There are any number of these "corner case" scenarios. And you're technically correct. On their own they're quite uncommon. But the thing is, if you add enough of these "corner cases" together they start being not so uncommon. And I've definitely seen that over the years with magical characters (especially casters) having a far easier time of effortlessly handling these corner cases than mundane martials. Who knows, maybe the games that you play in are so different from the ones that I play in that such opportunities are far less common in your games?

 

[Reynard]

Does it really matter? I mean, it's hardly commonplace, but I've played in a number of games where, for various good reasons, the party had to split up. It does happen.

In my most memorable instance, we discovered some information that was extremely time sensitive (I don't recall exactly what, but I think it has to do with an attack on a town). Because I was playing a monk and could travel much faster than the rest of the party, it was agreed that I would run ahead to deliver the information. The thing that makes it memorable is the my monk was nearly eaten by a rhemoraz on the way there (I managed to get up a tree and waited them out).

There are any number of these "corner case" scenarios. And you're technically correct. On their own they're quite uncommon. But the thing is, if you add enough of these "corner cases" together they start being not so uncommon. And I've definitely seen that over the years with magical characters (especially casters) having a far easier time of effortlessly handling these corner cases than mundane martials. Who knows, maybe the games that you play in are so different from the ones that I play in that such opportunities are far less common in your games?

I don't think it is a bad idea to have mystical warriors with strange powers. 5E is full of such archetypes available to play. I don't understand why folks who want special powers with their sword and board grog don't play one of those instead of demanding that the fighter turns into a demigod.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not the person you asked but overshadowing and boredom can be a problem for fighters with new or inexperienced DMs as they have to learn how to spread the spotlight with s pure combat class with little based versatility.

Have you played a fighter and experienced this? I have never met anyone (anecdotal), that while playing, were upset by their friend the wizard.

Many people have said 5e has/d big problems with converting players to DMs due to the little support and advice on not only play as intended but how to adjust assumptions. The DMG was NOT written for new players and is more geared to catch up a DM from a previous edition to the new rules.

Most of the "everything is fine" crowd are veterans, have long standing groups, or have social contracts to enforce niches.

What people? I am actually asking anyone for specific and personal examples.

When I step back, I can easily see it being a problem. It's like a pond in the backyard that might breed mosquitoes. Yet every time my friends and I are in the backyard, we are never bitten. The problem can be seen, but not felt.