D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[TwoSix]

Personally I've never been bothered by somebody else filling the same roll that I do, or being more effective. Maybe this is why I don't get hot under the collar about all this.

I haven't seen it in 5e, really, until you really get to upper tiers, but it was definitely a thing in 3.5. I actively remember our one party had two wizards and a cleric, and we would drop the fighter and rogue off when there were actively dangerous situations with too many enemies. Flying invisible blasting and summons were much safer than having to buff and babysit the non-casters.

 

[Oofta]

And such labor (especially medieval labor), is typically cheap and plentiful. And the results of their labor are not subject to deletion with a single spell slot (yet).

On the other hand, there are a decent number of construction-useful spells as well (Move earth, fabricate, stoneshape, etc.) that could make such a project considerably less expensive or time-consuming. Seems like we can pretty easily get into a quantum worldbuilding debate here.

The caster certainly could be brought in as a specialist to do the casting, but would first have to:

1. Exist, and
2. Exist in a world where teleportation happens frequently enough that countermeasures are deemed necessary.

The thing is, then, the kingdom would have to prevent every 5th lvl and above chump spellcaster from getting close enough to spend 6 seconds on a spell..forever. Or regularly bring in the specialist to re-up the casting. (Hell, they could run a pretty decent scam if they just occasionally got in disguise and dispelled it themselves.)

But all this drives setting assumptions. If you have a caster spending their valuable time and spell slots on this, it stands to reason that there is enough other magic in the setting to warrant it (including folks who know how to teleport).

And the point is, in order to prevent PC spellcasters from running roughshod over some of your encounters, you have to incorporate a level of magic into your setting that can fundamentally change the way it has to operate. Or you just fudge things repeatedly and hope no one notices.

You still have to pay, feed and house unskilled labor. When they number in the thousands it adds up. In addition, building a castle requires a pretty significant amount of skilled labor, you can't just throw a bunch of rocks in a pile. The idea you don't need experts that you will have to pay handsomely is just baffling.

It's funny too. There's nobody available to cast one spell, but suddenly there are plenty of spells to aid in construction. Trying to have it both ways? Making forbiddence takes one spell slot per day fo a single month. A castle takes years, a decade or more to construct.

In order to have any PC from running roughshod over your plans, you do have to set up defenses. Some will be physical, some will be magical. They will always makes sense in context in my campaign.

But even if the PCs somehow know exactly how to bypass all the defenses, good on them! If they teleport directly to the treasure room (which I've never seen happen in a game I've played or run over the decades), so be it. If a DM can't handle the players doing the unexpected, now and then they need to learn to deal with it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think it is perfect game design and I do like it.

People can play whatever class they want. No one is saying "you have to play the second rate fighter while this guy gets to play the fun Wizard". People still want to play that Fighter and Rogue and Monk even though Wizard is more powerful than those and can be as good or better at what those classes strengths are. IF people want to play the best then the entire party can be Wizards if they want to be and the game would not suffer at all, so I don't see the issue.

Not everyone bases the character they want to play upon the power of the class: For many these are completely separate concepts.

Many people want to play the concept of a warrior who does not cast spells, but gets by on skill and determination. They are either willing to tolerate the power imbalance for the sake of the concept, or are part of a group that simply does not suffer from this issue as I outlined in a previous post.
This does not mean that having a power discrepancy between players a good thing. Few people enjoy feeling that they are unable to contribute to the group success and marginalising a large subset of concepts that players might like to identify with in that way is not good design.

If you want to play the non-magical warrior concept, then the system is saying "you have to play the second rate fighter while this guy gets to play the fun Wizard". - but it is only telling you after you have got invested in your character.

 

[Garthanos]

Wizards can't cast silence. This is about WIZARD superiority, right? That means no other classes to help and no feats that anyone can choose. Just wizard stuff

I think some of the wizards versatility/power is in how well it combines with other casters I wish fighters and monks combined as nicely.

 

[Oofta]

Being able to tolerate something is not the same as wanting it, liking it, or not wishing things were better especially in the context of games played with friends.

Presumably most people are there for the camaraderie first and the game second.

I want to play martial types. I like playing them. I don't wish things were "better", especially if that means making them all into 4e clones.

People that play martial types in games I'm involved with seem to feel the same even if you do not.

You're projecting your opinion and bias on everyone else.

 

[Oofta]

This analogy is really getting murky as everyone seems to be making a different point with it now. And then answering their own version.

I don't think anyone is arguing that linebackers aren't important. Or that they need to be as "flashy" in exactly the same way as quarterbacks.

People are arguing 2 things:

1) in D&D, Wizards are superstar quarterbacks like Manning and Brady. If you want to play a linebacker (Fighter), though, D&D makes you play "can't remember his name system guy" that certainly contributes to the win but isn't a superstar. If you get to play Manning as a quarterback, why can't I play Lawerence Taylor or Ray Lewis as a linebacker? Why can't I be flashy in a different way as a linebacker? Where are my game changing sacks or forced fumbles or sending a guy off with a concussion?

and

2) D&D Wizards are flexible enough that not only are they superstar quarterbacks but especially at high level can also fill in for and in some circumstances exceed at linebacker, punter, wide receiver, etc. if they choose to. Fighters can only be linebackers.

Some people already believe you are playing Lawerence Taylor as a 5e Fighter alongside Manning but given the examples of mythic martials we have in fiction, I don't see how the current 5e fighter can be thought of as a 'superstar' in their category. The high level 5e Wizard is clearly a superstar in the fantasy magic user category with crazy amounts of variety, power, and usage at very little cost -- almost never seen in fiction except in the super hero genre like Dr. Strange.

I'm not the one who brought up MVPs and football. I think there's 10 people on the field that are not the QB. To say that they matter less because QB's tend to get the glory (and MVPs) is just silly to me.

That doesn't make any position dispensible, it doesn't mean the other players don't contribute just as much, if not more, to the team's overall success. It just means some roles on the team are not as visible. When I play a fighter, I'm okay with that because I care more about the team than glory.

Besides, martial types in games I play or run contribute just as muchas wizards, they just make different contributions. .

 

[Maxperson]

I think some of the wizards versatility/power is in how well it combines with other casters I wish fighters and monks combined as nicely.

Okay, but that means that those other classes are in some part responsible for that power and versatility. It's like the fighter who is hasted and does whatever percentage more DPR. That increase is not the fighter's damage. It's the wizard's. If the wizard can safely knock a door because the cleric cast silence, the cleric is the one that made opening that door something that could be done. Without the cleric, the wizard gets everyone killed so doesn't cast knock. That means that it's not the wizard doing better than a rogue(knock isn't better in any case), but rather two classes combining to be good at exploration, which is appropriate.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I want to play martial types. I like playing them. I don't wish things were "better", especially if that means making them all into 4e clones.

People that play martial types in games I'm involved with seem to feel the same even if you do not.

You're projecting your opinion and bias on everyone else.

(Sigh).. No. I just realize that people can like doing a thing even if the experience can be improved.

I do appreciate your willingness to state your opinion and tell me how everyone you know "seems" to agree with you before accusing me of projecting my opinion onto everyone else.

No one does it like you man.

At best we're in pot and kettle territory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're projecting your opinion and bias on everyone else.

No one does it like you man.

Mod Note:

Could y’all just knock it off? Address the messages, not the messengers.

 

[Garthanos]

Okay, but that means that those other classes are in some part responsible for that power and versatility.

The details of the multi-classing system is in some part responsible for that versatility no other character required just a DM saying yes to multiclassing.