D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Shadowedeyes]

All this talk of gishes, and I usually avoid discussing the topic since I know I'm a bit biased on the subject. The Bladesinger is something that is part of the identity of D&D, and yet man, I could definitely do without personally.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here are my observations:
- First, the most powerful spells use saving throws, not attack rolls

The most powerful spells are the ones that just work with no saving throw or attack roll.

What all this adds up to (again, in my experience, below tier IV) is that monsters too frequently make their saving throws, and casters end up contributing very little. And when they do contribute a lot it is not by themselves, but in synergy with a martial. For example, they banish the boss while the martials kill the minions. Or they haste the martial who then novas on the boss.

The martial can be a tool for the wizard to use - but if there's not martial he will adapt just fine. The wizard is not without solid damage spells. Crown of Stars + firebolt = 48 avg damage a turn with attacks. The wizard can still concentrate on something as well.

The wizard can outright kill any enemy that can fit inside a forcecage using sickening radiance.

I asked myself: would I rather have a group of all martials, or a group of all casters? And except for some edge cases, in most battles I would rather have all martials. If you get extremely lucky on dice rolls a group of casters could win a tough fight, but it's far more likely that a couple monsters make their saving throws, they attack the casters who are trying to concentrate, and the whole thing turns into a rout. A group of martials is going to take a lot of damage, but they are also going to pump out a lot of damage, and overall have a better chance of winning. (Once again, my opinion.)

But of course what I really want is a mix of the two. Which kind of suggests the game is working as intended.

At the levels we are talking I'd take all casters any day. There's so much more than can do in any situation. Though a strong archer or grappler is a nice addition.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So I don't get all the handwringing about class balance.

Yes Wizards are all that. They are more powerful than any other class. They are more flexible than any other class and they can be "the best" at any role other than healer.

That is not a problem in games I play though. Despite being the hands down best class some of my parties have no wizards at all, and the ones that have wizards have lots of other fun characters too. I have played parties with 3 fighters. I don't think I have actually played in a party with 3 wizards.

In short I don't see this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If you are overly concerned abotu being "the best" and can't have fun if you aren't by all means play a wizard, but a lot of players simply don't care that there are more powerful builds possible or that their fighter will never be as powerful as a wizard and when you get down to it 5E is so flexible you could play a party full of nothing except Wizards and it would work fine.

In short Wizards are the most powerful class. That is not only ok, it makes for a better game IME.

This is not good game design. The concept of having some players' characters being mechanically superior than others has been used before in games like Arse Magica, but that required a rotating stable of characters and the assumption that everyone would get their turn playing a wizard.
It does not work in a game like D&D where players are generally playing the same character for extended periods, and particularly when the power discrepancy manifests in entire areas of the game where some characters get far fewer options, rather than just slightly lower numbers.

It is still entirely possible to play D&D and have fun even with a power discrepancy between classes, but it is despite that issue, not because of it. A player who wishes to play a less effective character can always do so by playing that way, rather than by having it forced on them by their class.

It is also entirely possible that a game may have a wizard that is not "all that". A wizard that concentrates on combat spells, doesn't try to target weak saves, or just chooses to concentrate less on one of the pillars of play probably isn't going to come off better than another caster who does. If a game does a lot of dungeon-crawling, with lots of combat per day and tends to hand-wave downtime outside the dungeons for example, there probably is no discrepancy between casters as a whole and other classes.
However, it sounds like that is not what is happening here. You are fully aware that Wizards are in fact "all that", you just like it that way.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

The assertion that wizards being more powerful than everyone else makes the game more fun is certainly an interesting take. I'm not sure I agree with it personally. I can't see how it relates to the players(and DM I guess) and their enjoyment of the game.

 

[James Gasik]

It feels like the problem started when 3e decided to put all classes on the same xp track, without actually making the classes equal to one another across all spectrums of play. Most classes have a niche, but the Wizard's niche is "does magic stuff" and AD&D, as we have seen, added a vast amount of possible spells for a Wizard to gain access to.

Secondary concerns like, ease of gaining new spells, no maximum spells known, ability to cast spells successfully in combat, and more staying power can be discussed of course- I believe that going back on these, at this point, would not go over well with most players. Personally, in addition to being less fun, doing this would have other undesirable effects on the game's design.

Since some people don't seem to want some classes to be brought up to the Wizard's level, it seems that the easiest solution may be to go back to AD&D, and let classes less powerful than the Wizard gain levels faster!

 

[FrozenNorth]

It comes down to the fact that many spells have very powerful effects, so rather than run roughshod over the game, some DM's have decided to take a legalistic approach, and not cut magic any slack. Which, I admit, I tend to do myself a lot, because I'm used to shoddily worded spells with way too much text, but that still manage to have tons of corner cases (like in the AD&D and 3e eras).

To build on this, you end up playing the game differently with the different characters.

“Fighter, you want to try swinging from the chandelier instead of move then unload three longsword attacks? Sure, you even get inspiration.”

“Wizard, you want to send your rat familiar into the next room to scout and report back? He gets eaten by a cat. No, you don’t get a Perception check at advantage (Keen Smell) to see the cat before it sees you. No, the cat doesn’t have to roll an attack roll at +0 to hit the rat”.

 

[James Gasik]

To build on this, you end up playing the game differently with the different characters.

“Fighter, you want to try swinging from the chandelier instead of move then unload three longsword attacks? Sure, you even get inspiration.”

“Wizard, you want to send your rat familiar into the next room to scout and report back? He gets eaten by a cat. No, you don’t get a Perception check at advantage (Keen Smell) to see the cat before it sees you. No, the cat doesn’t have to roll an attack roll at +0 to hit the rat”.

Yeah, I don't particularly like going to such extremes, but I do find myself going over spells with a fine toothed comb more than I'd care to.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yeah, I don't particularly like going to such extremes, but I do find myself going over spells with a fine toothed comb more than I'd care to.

Yes, part of the joy of DMing is “yes, and…”ing your players ideas.

Instead, even among those who deny that there is a discrepancy, the consensus seems to be that the DM should “No, because…” the wizard’s use of spells. I teleport into the castle! “No, because the builder used forbiddence!” I use my rat familiar to scout the next room “No, because the dungeon is stocked with cats”

 

[Undrave]

However, it sounds like that is not what is happening here. You are fully aware that Wizards are in fact "all that", you just like it that way.

Literally saying the quiet part out loud...

The assertion that wizards being more powerful than everyone else makes the game more fun is certainly an interesting take. I'm not sure I agree with it personally. I can't see how it relates to the players(and DM I guess) and their enjoyment of the game.

Wizards fans man, all the same...

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, I don't particularly like going to such extremes, but I do find myself going over spells with a fine toothed comb more than I'd care to.

Which isn't fun at all.