D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Gammadoodler]

Exactly. If you don't change the class itself, if the level difference was enough, you would at best elevate the Fighter to actually being clearly best at contributing to winning combat, but what dynamic does that set up?

Most fights, the martials go in and kill everything? Spellcasters mostly stay out of it or use control and support spells? Spellcasters handle the out of combat?

That dynamic works pretty well in Stars without Number (at least in my experience anyway).

You just have to balance the challenges more between combat and noncombat. And I assume it changes how some combat encounters are balanced.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder if a better analogy is basketball. There are some teams where there was a superstar - but they dished the ball and folks still remember everyone on the starting five (and maybe the 6th and 7thplayer) without too much work.

And there are others where there's only one or two players anyone thinks about, because the others didn't even get to shine in their role.

I erased my comment but it was basically this.

It's fine if the Wizard gets to dribble, shoot, and dunk like Kobe if the fighter gets to sunk and block like Shaq and the Rogue gets to steal like Fox and the Cleric shoots like Fisher.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I wonder if a better analogy is basketball. There are some teams where there was a superstar - but they dished the ball and folks still remember everyone on the starting five (and maybe the 6th and 7thplayer) without too much work.

And there are others where there's only one or two players anyone thinks about, because the others didn't even get to shine in their role.

It's the same deal though. If you get to play Michael Jordan as Shooting Guard (Wizard), then you should get to play Shaq as the Center (Fighter) not Luc Longley.

I'm not saying there isn't any room in a rpg to play Luc but that shouldn't be the only option at Center. You should be able to field an all time NBA team if you want.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I erased my comment but it was basically this.

It's fine if the Wizard gets to dribble, shoot, and dunk like Kobe if the fighter gets to sunk and block like Shaq and the Rogue gets to steal like Fox and the Cleric shoots like Fisher.

Ha, got it in before me. Exactly.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. The wizard does their job exceptionally well with little need for optimization and essentially no requirement for the DM to ensure they get spotlight time.

Unless heavily optimized, I would say that most of the other classes are merely adequate at their roles.

And an optimized multi-class caster can do other roles better.

Just as an example, take the fighter. He's the linebacker right? Responsible for protecting the QB? Then why the heck is something like Sentinel a feat instead of baked directly into his kit!?

Because almost everything in 5e is stealable. Especially if its kind of role defining as 5e wants role flexibility. Easy multiclassing and having what I would expect as core features in powerful feats have that as a natural repercussion.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Gandalf?

There are probably better LotR scholars here than me, but Gandalf seems pretty limited compared to a high level D&D wizard. (books, not sure about movies as haven't watched in a long time)

Gandalf does some overt magical stuff that I remember -- like help the elves create a raging river, kill 2? goblins with lightning, set some wolves on fire (but not outright kill them), crack a bridge in half, appear terrifying, create light? But it's definitely not frequent (no where near a D&D wizard daily load out!) and the effects he can produce seems quite limited and not nearly as powerful:

• he can't teleport everyone to Rivendale or The Lonely mountain or really do much travel / exploration magic; hence the long dangerous journeys
• he wants to avoid bands of goblins and not confront them directly
• invisibility seems to be a trait of a super super powerful artifact and not something he can do
• he can light a fire in a blizzard but that's no where near a Tiny Hut/ Secure Shelter

A lot of his magic seems subtle "inspiring people" that have been effected by the shadow or despair.

He did fight a Balrog off camera for days and win after dying. I guess he could have used a bunch of high level stuff in that fight but unclear. He may have been much more powerful than we see, but even if so something was restricting that power to actually use it (not his Age to directly intervine, couldn't risk Sauron's eye, etc.) that D&D wizard's don't have.

Doesn't seem like a good comparison.

 

[ECMO3]

The wizard cannot do better than the rogue at skills, stealth or opening locked things. Expertise, the hugely loud noise that brings every monster in a 1 block area to overwhelm the PCs if the wizard uses knock, being able to go invisible, but not being anywhere near as good at being quite, etc. make the wizard subpar when compared to the rogue. The wizard also fails miserably to social well at all with his spells. They are all illegal, make enemies, etc.

I think they can generally can do a lot better with spells like knock, friends, charm person/monster etc.

Invisibility is going to give you advantage on most stealth checks, which will generally be better than expertise and it also makes you fully obscured. Not only can the wizard sneak better than the Rogue, he can sneak in places the Rogue has no chance or ability to sneak in. Further skill expert and prodigy are things the Wizard can use and that is before we even bring up etherealness or dimension door.

Knock does make a loud noise, but silence well silences it.

The wizard cannot fight as well as the fighter for similar reasons. Bladesingers come close, but a Bladesinger doing fighter stuff isn't being a wizard, so...

But a bladesinger is a Wizard.

You are really stuck on this idea of "wizard stuff", a Bladesinger wielding a sword is a wizard.

The wizard can't even begin to do close to what clerics do.

They can't heal or raise dead allies. They can do just about everything else a Cleric does and do most of it better.

The wizard has versatility. He can do a lot of different things, but not all in the same day and not all really well unless he chooses to hyper focus his spells into a very few areas, and even then he's not going to be as good as a class designed to excel in those areas

I agree he can't do it all in the same day but I disagree about focus. A Wizard who runs a high Charisma and gets a bunch of Charm spells is going to be a great face, one who pushes dex and relies on illusions is going to be a great scuot/sneak. Now that is a build to make a wizard a better fighter than a fighter or a better scout than a Rogue or Ranger, but that is very doable.

A Wizard can be a really, really good face, but I will admit they can not do that as well as a Bard or Fey Wanderer Ranger that really builds towards it, but they can be the next best thing after those and they can be better than your standard Bard or Fey Wanderer.

 

[ECMO3]

I'd argue that the "problem" is three-fold.

1. The number of classes a wizard can replicate over time increases with level
2. The gap in performance between the purpose-built class and the classes it can choose to replicate narrows or evaporates with level
3. The flexibility of prepared spellcasting means that wizards can bounce between roles on a daily basis.

For the rogue, wizards starts with invisibility, knock, and find familiar but then they start start getting scrying, arcane eyes, skill empowerments(!), etherealness, misty step, fly, dispel magic, etc. etc. etc.

There's some similar progression in the damage niche. The bladesinger "not being a wizard" because they are replacing a melee damage dealer still has a full spellcasting progression worth of spell options they could use if they weren't slumming it.

At high levels they can be 2-4 men on the team.

I agree, but I still don't understand why this is a "problem". Why is this a bad thing?

 

[ECMO3]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! A Wizard should NOT be able to dominate melee! A party of Wizard shouldn't be able to outmelee the party of Fighter while having more skills and ways to easly overcome obstacles in other pillars. It's bonkers!

Why not? The player playing a fighter can play a wizard instead if he wants to!

This is not an actual problem at any table I have actually played at and the number of wizards are actually underepresented compared to other classes - Fighters and Rogues in particular.

Then wouldn't you like if the Bladesinger was part of a whole class where you could ACTUALLY start as a Bladesinger from level 1 and they got variations like the 4e teleporting Swordmage?

No, I am not a fan of the swordmage, either the 4E class or the hombrew options I have seen. I love the Bladesinger thoguh.

 

[pemerton]

Gandalf?

Doesn't seem like a good comparison.

I tend to agree with bert1001. If you actually look at the impact of Gandalf on the unfolding of the story in LotR, it's significant but not overwhelming.

But it can be hard to implement that in D&D because it requires putting some sorts of limits around the character which aren't derived straightforwardly from what he is capable of (he is capable of soloing the Balrog, but very rarely performs at that level of ability).

When I ran a MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic version of LotR/MERP, I was pretty happy with my Gandalf design. But in play he still turned out to be a bit OP! - the devices that were intended to generate the limits around deployment of maximum capability worked, but at a whole-of-party level rather than individual player level.

In the D&D paradigm I think it's probably easier to step up the martial PCs to Achilles/Heracles-type levels.