D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Undrave]

I don't think that it's a bad idea to have mystical warriors with strange powers either. But if you have mystical warriors in a movie with Paul Blart Mall Cop, you have a comedy, not a heroic fantasy. Now, D&D isn't so bad that fighters are actually Paul Blart, but it trends in that direction. That's the issue. A high level fighter adventuring alongside mystical warriors should be 100% Beowulf and 0% Paul Blart, and that's not really entirely the case. I'd gauge the actual game at something more like 67% Beowulf/ 33% Blart.

You really don't want to ever go more than 10% Blart. You could always go full Jackie Chan if you need humour

I can think of a number of examples, but the best one is from a group of newbies that I ran for a few years back (this was the same group with the traitorous wizard that I mentioned earlier in the thread).

One of the players had a ranger who was a cool character. He even got very lucky with a deck of many things and ended up with Artura Pendragon as his follower. But he ended up asking me if he could retire his ranger and roll a druid instead. And, while he didn't say so, I have strong reason to believe that it was because the wizard was often overshadowing the group, despite that I, as DM, was working hard to make sure that everyone got spotlight time and cool things. Moreover, he seemed happier once he was able to play a full caster, even though he seemed to miss his ranger and often inquired as to what was happening to him.

And starting with a Ranger is already difficult... oof. Poor kid.

There are tons of feats that do this exact thing.

Feats are not exclusive.

Can't you spend a feat to get more skills? Or are you talking about expertise or something?

I repeat: Feats are not exclusive.

Can't you spend a feat to get more skills? Or are you talking about expertise or something?

Again: FEATS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE

I feel like you are ignoring the main component of the fighter's versatility: feats.

Don't make me tap the sign again. Besides, Fighters need those feats or ASI to keep up their meagre combat advantage and they don't get THAT many.

I still don't understand why someone is playing a fighter if they want the breadth of versatility the wizard allows, or even what that would look like.

Not necessarily the versatility of a Wizard, but certainly more than they have now. It's getting annoying to be penalized in-game for preferring one fictional archetype to another.

One thing that annoys me in all D&D editions about the Wizard is the ability to learn ANY spell. (And yes, even the 5e Wish spell can heal better than a Cleric can!)

This derives from old school, when the Wizard (namely Magic-User) was THE spellcaster. It covered any spellcasting concept, from sorcerer to enchanter to witch. So it could cast any spell.

In new school, the spellcaster has evolved and radiated into different kinds of spellcasters: Bard, Druid, Psion, Artificer, Sorcerer, Warlock, etcetera.

The entire D&D spell list divides up into about thirteen different spell themes.

I wish the Wizard would have a narrower focus and be more specialized in which kinds of magic the Wizard specializes in. I want this thematic focus for the sake of flavor. But it can also reduce the extreme versatility of the Wizard.

Suppose.

At level 1, the Wizard must choose only two out of these thirteen spell themes. Some might want Necromancy and Fire spells, some might want Enchantment and Force spells.

At each higher tier, the Wizard can select one more theme: at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17. By level 17 that totals six themes, almost half the spell themes in D&D. But not all of them. Perhaps the Wizard only gains new themes at level 9 and 17, totaling only four themes by the Legend tier.

When gaining new spells at each level, the Wizard can only gain spells from one of these known themes. These are the themes that the Wizard has affinity with − a knack for.

If the DM wants, the DM can allow the Wizard to find and figure out how to use other spells that are beyond the known themes. But the DM has control over which spells the Wizard can find. Meanwhile, the gain of spells while leveling still keep up the thematic flavor.

Excellent idea! I would include a sort of 'Hedge Magic' school that any spell caster can learn from that's mostly for every day usages. Stuff like Light, Mend and Sending etc. The kind of services you could sell in a big city you know?

These are high level divination spells − that burn up slots − or require the Wizard to already be "familiar" with the location in the first place.

Or just a familiar. Little level 1 ritual.

No Cleric has ever healed a broken bone.

We could have had broken bones in 4e since we had the DISEASE TRACK! One of the most brilliant yet underused innovation that I really wish had been kept. Perfect to model illness, curses and grievous bodily harm! What's not to love?

What about this thought exercise:

Imagine a world where RPGs didn't start with D&D or any fantasy RPGs. They evolved first as modern or sci fi mostly but the same kind of base mechnics were explored and evolved over the years so we got D20 type games, d6 games, Fate, Cortex, etc. D&D itself with all it's baggage never existed.

My first RPG was 'Dragon Warriors' and in its core book it has only two classes: Knight and Barbarian. Mage and Clerics were added in another book and in a third book they added the Elementalist and Warlock (which was a Gish class).

Dragon Warriors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I sadly don't remember much on how the system actually played hmm...

This is false. Those are spells that might trivialize combat if everything aligns correct, including a missed save.

Sleep doesn't need a save.

For the thread title, they're definitely overtuned. Mostly okay at level low levels, with some really bs spells mixed in like Sleep and Web, but definitely manageable. As you level up though, it's just ridiculous, contingencies, Clone spell, Simulacrum buddy, True Polymorphing the Simulacrum, Planar Binding an army of elementals, etc, and a lot of lower level spells stay powerful. Too many spells are overpowered and not well thought out at all, I'd go the nerf hammer route.

I think there's a bunch of bonkers spells that were added to the game back in the day with the intent that only big bad Spellcasters would have them and the DM wasn't expected to hand them out to PCs... but as restrictions on spells dropped, those legacy spells were dropped into the Wizard spell list. I think a bunch of them should just be removed from the player facing material. Like... why would ANYONE ever use Soul Jar?! If the DM wants to drop these 'forbidden spells' into the adventure in a spell book, it'll be their choice, but don't let a PC just pick them up at level up.

 

[Maxperson]

Because there isn't a demigod class. Give me one that can whirlwind attack by level 5 and throw a cow over a barn by level 10, produce a strength/dex/con themed Limited Wish by 13, and you can keep the chump fighter.

I'm against demigod being a class or subclass. It's a status that can be applied to any race or class combination that exists. This is not a statement against fighters getting super duper supernatural things, but it should have a different name.

 

[Oofta]

There is no standard battlemaster maneuver which allows you to prevent someone from performing an attack or using a held item.
Neither Brawler nor Monk abilities allow you to put someone in a chokehold.
An opposed grapple does not deal damage.
He was pushing off from a piece of furniture, and was actually lower than the opponent (which is good for leverage), shove / knock prone is not at all an equivalent thing.
The whole point was them being incapacitated -without- being unconscious, restrained, or dead. I'm aware the standard rule is that they get knocked unconscious.
Sorry, but no. You can -describe- these things, and try to Make a fight seem cinematic, but mechanically, you cannot -do- these things, with or without maneuvers, within the constraints of the rules as written. They require DM adjudication, or they don't happen.

I doubt many games exactly mimic a choreographed fight. When Bourne is done with a fight, the enemy is unconscious which is a standard rule. Can you get the same flavor? I think you can if it's what you want. But how many genres is D&D supposed to mimic? If a PC wants to incapacitate an NPC in my game it's a grapple followed by some checks and manacles or rope. Most of the time it's just knock them unconscious and then slap them awake (or give them 1 HP of healing) afterwards.

IMHO you're getting way, way too far into the weeds and details into things that is typically explained by fluff and narration. I do this kind of thing now and then without any house rules, another example would be some of the fights/wrestling matches from Critical Role.

 

[Fanaelialae]

At least it's not 3e where the wizard would pen a scroll to summon a Marilith in his free time. Then summon the Marilith to do whatever he needed it to do and still have basically all of his resources to do whatever else needed doing.

Progress (for some, some people liked their casters that far above the pack).

Oof. This. I remember a 3e campaign where the wizard made sure to always have at least one scroll penned of every single spell he learned. It was a PITA for our characters who were constantly waiting around, and a PITA for us at the table while we waited for him to do bookkeeping.

That said, I still remember the time we were facing a horde of devils, convinced it was a TPK, and he whipped out a spell scroll that only dealt damage to things like devils (but absolutely huge damage) and basically ended the encounter before it began.

It saved our butts, but I'm kind of glad that's no longer a thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Sleep doesn't need a save.

Yes, but it has other constraints that are quickly bypassed by the high hit point edition. A CR 2 Gargoyle has 52 hit points. Sleep gets 5d8 hit points worth of creatures. Heck, even a CR 1/2 Gnoll has 22 hit points. You might put one of them to sleep(0 if you're just a bit unlucky), but the others are going to keep going, probably waking their companion in the process.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around, I think, is what you specifically mean by "versatility." I think I came in with the wrong impression believing you meant "versatile just like the wizard in combat" and I don't think that's what you meant. So let's back up and start again.

Not speaking for others but I think of versaility as:

1) able to contribute to a variety of goals
2) able to contribute to a variety of goals in a variety of ways

When I think about the Wizard, they are able to contribute well to many goals --- winning combat, exploration, survival, social, infiltration, etc.

Wizards also get to potentially contribute in a variety of ways. They could infiltrate using teleport but also dominate somone to lead them in. They can do HP damage but can also temporarly take out monsters, etc.

With the Fighter, they have good "winning combat" contributions but poor other contributions (realtive). They also don't get "the absolute best my a mile" winning combat contributions which you would think they would get if they have very little unique ways to contribute to other goals (less versatility for more power in one category could be a thing). They also have one main way they contribute which is lowering HPs by attacking.

There is also another factor that I often lump into versatility as short hand but really is reliability / base mechanics bypass.

The Wizard through spells gets to sometimes bypass the normal attack / defend / HP / skill check / action economy / bounded accuracy mechanics. The Fighter almost always plays within this "round by round" and "discrete checks" realm.

There is no reason any of this needs to be.

The Fighter could have more versality in winning combat. There's no reason the Fighter couldn't have some choke hold move that just takes a monster out of the fight for a few rounds. Or a ability to reliably get from point A to point B dragging an enemy with them and breaking the action economy. Or some way to narratively reposition enemies after attacking them. Or whatever. Ways to significantly contribute to winning that is martial flavored and not just attack more.

The Fighter could be also more versatile in contributing to other goals. Fighter = best in combat and poor in everything else = a poor concept to begin with. Even if it were executed well (which it isn't), I don't think players are willing to have other classes be only ok or poor in combat given it's usually a big part in the game. So they need something else as well. Martial heros are often depicted as leaders of men, tactical geniuses, gadeteers (magic item forger or finder), political power, etc. At least give them one more thing that could help them excel at other goals. And make it significant -- you know, closer to what a Wizard can contribute.

Given the super hero Wizard, I think this is easier to design if high level martials get into mythic martial territory, otherwise you probably need some kind of plot points / metacurrency or class guarunteed magic items.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but it has other constraints that are quickly bypassed by the high hit point edition. A CR 2 Gargoyle has 52 hit points. Sleep gets 5d8 hit points worth of creatures. Heck, even a CR 1/2 Gnoll has 22 hit points. You might put one of them to sleep(0 if you're just a bit unlucky), but the others are going to keep going, probably waking their companion in the process.

Plus it is embarrassingly easy to end the condition.

 

[Reynard]

So for folks that believe that the wizard is, in fact, "all that" -- at what level do you feel that happens.

I always thought that 5th level spells was the real tipping point for casters.

 

[Maxperson]

And they are all powerful choices.


If the disk is not the problem, why did you dismiss it? And the mule?

I forgot the disk was a ritual, and the mule isn't going to fit in a lot of places. Regardless, in that same post I pointed out how those two things wouldn't solve the problem of the wizard having to grab a bunch of swords over multiple rounds.

Why are you not addressing the fact that the wizard would presumably only transform into a marilith if they had time to pick up the swords before battle, and would otherwise transform into a different creature?

They aren't holding 6 swords in two hands, especially with the need to have one hand free. If they have time before the battle, you get 1 sword in hand which still makes it a subpar choice to turn into. It takes time to get the other 5 swords.

 

[Maxperson]

So for folks that believe that the wizard is, in fact, "all that" -- at what level do you feel that happens.

I always thought that 5th level spells was the real tipping point for casters.

In past edition(1e-3e) it was 3rd level spells. In 5e I don't feel that they ever get to be all that, because they have to divide slots up among 6-8 fights and all the utility and exploration that is happening in an adventuring "day."