D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Garthanos]

Exactly! A large chunk of caster versatility is being able to easily shore up their biggest weaknesses through small multiclass dips and feats.

For AC multiclass cleric or hexblade. For constitution/concentration saves take resilient con. If you are a caster that doesn't already get the shield spell then multiclass into a caster that can prepare that. Etc.

Optimizer crowds are some of those pointing out the Wizards are powerful...

 

[ECMO3]

Why is this perfect game design though?]

Because you can choose to play a class that can do it all. There should be no reason you have to limit it just so it stacks up better with another class.

That is like saying people who are over 7 foot should not be allowed to dunk in basketball, we need to implement something so the small shooting guards are just as good.

Would your enjoyment of the Fighter or Rogue lessen if the these classes got mythic martial abilities at high level or guarunteed magic items or plot points or whatever makes them closer in versaility and power to high level Wizards?

Yes it would. WellI don't play fighters much, but my enjoyment of Rogues would be less if the Wizard was nerfed or the Rogue was made better to be "balanced"

How is it a good thing to be forced to play a sub par class if you want a certain concept (martial hero)?

To turn this around why shouldn't I be able to play a Wizard that is a martial hero? Why should I be forced to choose a fighter or barbarian or paladin for that?

 

[ECMO3]

But I also firmly believe I should be able to play a complex, powerful character that resembles Thor or Saitama,

You can do that with a Wizard, or to be honest several classes.

 

[ECMO3]

The only real problem is potential overshadowing.

Like I said before. It's Good Advice for a DM to have the wizard player pick subclass after everyone else announces their class, subclass, and specialty so the wizard doesn't step on their toes.

Why does it matter what classes others play? Also, if I am starting at level 1 I don't even always have my subclass figured out yet! Usually I have an idea and maybe a couple of options but nothing is firm yet unless I am a Warlock or Cleric or Sorcerer.

Moreover whether I announce it first or last, what is the difference. I am going to play what I want to play regardless of what others play. What is the DM going to do? Is he going to overule me and say "no you have to play this kind of wizard because Bob is a fighter and Jill is a Barbarian." That is not a table I would play at.

I am fine with restrictions on the front end (i.e. no bladesingers or no divination wizards or PHB only) and I can choose whether or not to play in that game, but to make such a ruling after the game has started is a breach of the social contract.

I have never went into a game and decided what I was playing based on what others were playing. Others at the table did that at times, but that was their choice. I am going to play the character I want to play whether it "overshadows" others or not. You play the character you want to play and let me play the one I want to play.

 

[Minigiant]

Why does it matter what classes others play? Also, if I am starting at level 1 I don't even always have my subclass figured out yet! Usually I have an idea and maybe a couple of options but nothing is firm yet unless I am a Warlock or Cleric or Sorcerer.

Because for a lot of roles, there is only room for 1 PC to perform the role.

For example,outside of an intrigue game there will only be enough Face challenges for one person to feel like the Face. There will be times when the chosen Face isn't optimal (Druid/ranger talking to animal/plants, dwarf talking to dwarf, only John speaks Celestial etc.). But the players wanted to play a face and..

Harsh Truth

untill the campaign is built around the social or exploration pillars, there typically is one enough room for 1 PC to do Role and feel like they are playing it. Some of the can do 2 (ie Wilderness Explorer and Dungeon Explorer)

D&D isn't Fate or Exalted. The noncombat roles are narrow and shallow. Heck the DMG and PHB don't even really have modules and variant for them.

D&D typically can't run 2 Faces or 3 Sages or 4 Explorers.

 

[Maxperson]

What would show Wizard Superiority in your book? Your point is moot if in your eyes nothing will ever show Wizard superiority, regardless of what it is, which seems to be your stance. So let's not have shifting goalposts

Yes, let's not have shifting goal posts and go back to wizards, not move the goal posts to wizards plus companions or wizards plus multiclass.

Genuinely, it's ok if the answer is "for me, nothing would cut it", but then just saying, you don't need to constantly insist that something "doesn't show it", since for you that would always be true.

Something conclusive and not the, "Wizards always have enough slots to do whatever I need them to do in order to be superior, monsters never make any saves, spells that rape the mind and would be illegal make wizards superior at social, and so on."

I would need reasonable proof of superiority over all the rest of the party at the same time in all fields.

Show me with starting wizard spells, plus 2 new spells per level, how you can have the proper mix of spells memorized to beat the rogue at stealth, exploration and social, the cleric at cleric stuff, the fighter in combat, all in the same day. Lay out which slots are used for which spells and how they defeat all those other classes at their specialties, because I'm not seeing it.

Not everyone plays at a table which disallows long rests until the DM decides the players get to take advantage of the benefits provided. By RAW, those can be triggered by the players without DM permission. You've already indicated that if folks Don't run 6-8 encounters between long rests, the casters Will be imbalanced, and it's their fault that such would be the case. But at high levels, you literally can't prevent them from taking a long rest whenever they want other than via DM fiat, houserules, or endless world-ending clocks always forcing immediate actions. Not all tables are comfortable with any of those, and I don't think it's fair to then indicate the unbalances arising as a result of just following RAW for long rests is all their fault.

You only benefit from a long rest once in a 24 hour period and they can be interrupted. Mansions can be dispelled. Rope tricks can be found and dispelled.

You refer to a Wizard as an "unstealthy clod" in a system where literally all classes have the same access to the same skills

The wizard will at best have a 14 dex, needing con also and int being primary. With +3 proficiency(since the vast majority of PCs never see +4) and +2 for dex, the wizard is looking at +5. Compare that to the rogue who probably has a 16 or 18 and has expertise. +8 or +9 is better than +5. +10 if the player has pushed for a 20.

and say that if they Do go invisible, then they'll still get eaten by just about anything under the sun, because being invisible doesn't help.

There are a lot of creatures with alternate senses or can see invisible things. Not all, but enough to make it unwise for the wizard to rely on invisibility and go scouting.

So how then would a ranger, druid, monk, or anyone else fare? Or even just a Rogue which didn't use expertise on Stealth, since they're potentially identically skilled, and don't have invisibility to help? It's a weird look to argue that invisibility literally does nothing to make you harder to detect, just saying.

Those PCs are not going to be relying on invisibility and will be using other means to stay out of sight, which will help. The big part is that they are sturdier than wizards, so it's less likely that being surprised by something that could take on the whole party will knock out a ranger or rogue. The druid is probably in a normal animal form, which while weak, will tend to be overlooked by many things, which helps.

 

[ECMO3]

Knock in a dangerous area(most areas you need to use it in) will likely bring multiple encounters to you at once, which could TPK the group.

Sure and if the Rogue fails his thieves tools check then you can't get in at all.

This is aside from the fact that the wizard, or any character, can get thieves tools proficiency. So a Wizard can try with a lockpick and then decide whether or not to cast knock, or dimension door, or gaseous form ....

Charm Person and Friends would be highly illegal in any civilized area.

So is killing and looting, yet we do a lot of that. Further if it is illegal to use friends to give you advantage on the deception check to convince the guards you are supposed to be in this section of the castle, then it is equally illegal to just lie to them about it with expertise in deception.

There are times when a good score and expertise are better than friends, but friends will work on any charisma check (even intimidate when you are trying to get the band of orcs to surrender) and numerically it will generally match expertise.

Friends makes the target hostile to you and the charmed person knows it was charmed. That and charm doesn't accomplish much. All it does is make the target regard you as a friendly acquaintance.

Charm Person sets the charmed condition, which gives you "advantage on any ability check to interact socially".

Not even a friend. Just some guy you see and talk to every few months at a friend's party. If a friend couldn't persuade the merchant to give a discount, a friendly acquaintance won't have a chance, so no roll to get advantage on.

In this case it is no worse than having a 20 Charisma and expertise. No "face" can do this then, and yes it is impossible to talk your way out of something.

Do you really think casting weak social spells that are going to make enemies and/or result in the wizard going to jail or being a fugitive from justice is better than the party face just trying to talk the guy into it? Do you think risking a TPK with every knock spells is better than the rogue unlocking it quietly?

Anything that is going to get the wizard jailed is going to get your other "face" jailed too.

Stealth advantage to be unseen, sure. Not to be silent. Invisibility would provide no advantage against being heard.

Sure, but being unable to see would pose disadvantage on the check for those that rely on sight.

Further as noted earlier, invisibility makes you obscured. A 20th level Rogue with expertise in stealth and a 22 dexterity he got from a tome has less of a chance of hiding in a well lit room than a 3rd level invisible wizard with no proficiency at all.

And that is before we even consider darkvision ..... which the Wizard has a spell for or etherealness where he is not even on the same plane.

Ahh, but now it's not the wizard being better, it's the feats he chooses just like anyone else can.

Sure but he can choose those feats. Your point is the wizard can't be as good, yes he CAN. Not saying he should or that it is a good build but he CAN have a stealth ability as high as any Rogue BEFORE he boosts it further with magic.

The vast majority of wizards will never reach a level to cast etherealness and dimension door blindly is dangerous. I would be shocked if my players were so stupid as to use that spell for exploration, hoping that nothing solid is where they want to dimension door to.

Scouting ahead at all is dangerous and being at the whim of the dice, even with advantage and reliable talent is dangerous, and that is before you consider blindsight.

Not when he's being a fighter. He might have the wizard class, but he's not throwing around spells like a wizard unless he isn't being a fighter. He can't do both at once, and he can't be a better fighter than the fighter in any combat that he's being a good wizard.

I don't care he is still a wizard. If he is in melee, dominating melee then by definition he is not "throwing around spells" but he is still a wizard, no "like" about it.

And no one said he could do both at once, I only said he can dominate melee if he wants.

Clerics keep people up or bring them back from unconsciousness and bring back dead companions, so yes, he can't be a better cleric than a cleric. I agree. And there are tons of cleric spells that the wizard doesn't have, so your argument falls flat.

SOME Clerics do. The last cleric I played (tempest cleric with 1-level Fathomless Warlock dip) had healing word prepared and no other healing spells at all. She did none of this.

Most of her spell casting was either offensive (thunderwave, shatter, call lighting, dissonant whispers), battlefield control (fog cloud, silence) or defensive (shield of faith, sanctuary, Armor of Agathys)

The only time she cast a healing word is when a party member went down. I think I could have built a wizard to do that job just as well.

If you watched critical role you will note Jester did heal her party members often, but she did some but not a whole lot.

Charms are going to be illegal mind control in any civilized area and the target knows he has been charmed, so he's going to be running to the local authority as soon as the charm breaks.

Not in any I have played in. Not in any I've seen on online streams.

Again, in critical role Jester used a magic item (dust of deliciousness) and a spell that wipes memories (can't remember it) to get someone to reverse a curse on another character. It worked and no one got arrested.

Critical role is high level play and I did not see any of that.

Not to mention, unless you're rolling the wizard is going to have high int and mid to high dex/con. He can't have a high charisma unless he makes himself much easier to kill by dropping AC or hit points.

First of all rolling is the default, second there is no minimum intelligence, dexterity or constitution to play a wizard.

There is a trade off to everyting but spells cover a lot of ground. FWIW I have played a lot of wizards and I have only played one that had a higher constitution than charisma. She is a multiclassed Shadar Kai Cavalier-bladesinger I am still playing and she has a 12 con and 10 charisma and to be honest I am regretting that and wish I did it the other way around.

Most of the time on point buy I am shooting to start with an 8 strength, 16 Dex, 17 Intelligence, 10 constitution on a wizard. Then when it comes to Wisdom and Charisma split the remaining 7 with either a a 13 in one and a 10 in the other or a 14 charisma and an 8 wisdom.

I have a build I am working on that actually starts with a 8strength, 8 dex, 12 con, 16 Int, 17 Wis, 14 Charisma. It is going to be a Mountain Dwarf order cleric, enchantment Wizard in heavy armor who is going to go weaponless. To be honest it is more cleric than wizard, so I am not sure if it is really applicable to this discussion.

Right up until he gets eaten by something that can see invisibility, has ears and can hear the unstealthy clod, has blindsight/blindsense or a sense of smell. Which means lots of things.

If it can see the invisible wizard then it can see the unobscured Rogue too.

 

[ECMO3]

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

Exactly, most don't. That is why it is ok that one is more powerful than the other mechanically.

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.

It doesn't mean it is a bad thing either, and there is no evidence it is a bad thing, especially when far more people play wizards than play fighters.

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.

No. The rules are there for everyone to read. As long as we are not talking about a beginner, people know what they are buying into.

I mean, since Tasha's there are really only four top races - Goblins, Dwarves, Humans and customs. There are few builds you can make in any class that are not going to be outclassed by one of these four (Bugbears excepted on a few niche builds). Yet other than human these races are not very popular.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure and if the Rogue fails his thieves tools check then you can't get in at all.

This is aside from the fact that the wizard, or any character, can get thieves tools proficiency.

Which makes most them subpar rogues due to a lower dex bonus. Besides, you can recheck picking locks, so unless the party is being chased, the rogue doesn't even have to roll. He's going to succeed eventually. And if the party IS being chased, you want the rogue who has the best bonus to be trying to pick it, not someone with a lower bonus or the wizard who is going to bring yet more creatures down on the group with knock.

So is killing and looting, yet we do a lot of that.

I don't recall it being illegal to kill monsters. If you're talking about humans, elves and such, yes, killing them could get you arrested or turned into fugitives.

Further if it is illegal to use friends to give you advantage on the deception check to convince the guards you are supposed to be in this section of the castle, then it is equally illegal to just lie to them about it with expertise in deception.

You do understand the difference between mind rape and an attempt to talk someone into something, right? Advantage is not the distinction.

There are times when a good score and expertise are better than friends, but friends will work on any charisma check (even intimidate when you are trying to get the band of orcs to surrender) and numerically it will generally match expertise.

IF you get a roll. Friends does not guarantee one. If the outcome of the attempt to intimidate is not in doubt, your spell isn't going to help.

Charm Person sets the charmed condition, which gives you "advantage on any ability check to interact socially".

But does not guarantee rolls. If the outcome is not in doubt, there is no ability check. How does the DM determine that, he looks at what the spell does. It makes the target regard the caster as a friendly acquaintance. Therefore, anything a friendly acquaintance absolutely would not do for the caster is not going to get a roll. If it's possible that a friendly acquaintance would do what is asked, say delivering a letter to the innkeeper, you get advantage on that roll.

In this case it is no worse than having a 20 Charisma and expertise. No "face" can do this then, and yes it is impossible to talk your way out of something.

That's objectively false. Charm let's the victim, and it is a victim, know that it has been charmed. A 20 charisma and expertise is not mind rape, so it will not have the same effect with failure. Charm is objectively worse to use than a 20 charisma and expertise.

Sure, but being unable to see would pose disadvantage on the check for those that rely on sight.

Yes, I said that earlier. But only sight. Not the other ways to detect an invisible creature, like hearing.

Further as noted earlier, invisibility makes you obscured. A 20th level Rogue with expertise in stealth and a 22 dexterity he got from a tome has less of a chance of hiding in a well lit room than a 3rd level invisible wizard with no proficiency at all.

In a well lit empty room, yes. So in a very rare corner case the wizard wins. Yay!!

And that is before we even consider darkvision ..... which the Wizard has a spell for or etherealness where he is not even on the same plane.

Darkvision? A creature relying on that has almost no chance of seeing that rogue. That creature has disadvantage

Sure but he can choose those feats. Your point is the wizard can't be as good, yes he CAN. Not saying he should or that it is a good build but he CAN have a stealth ability as high as any Rogue BEFORE he boosts it further with magic.

If the wizard is relying on feats, other classes, other party members, items, etc., then it is not wizard superiority.

SOME Clerics do. The last cleric I played (tempest cleric with 1-level Fathomless Warlock dip) had healing word prepared and no other healing spells at all. She did none of this.

Most do, and even healing word > than wizard at being a healer.

I think I could have built a wizard to do that job just as well.

Without going to feats, items or another class?

Not in any I have played in. Not in any I've seen on online streams.

If the DM isn't making mind rape illegal, he's making charm more powerful and useful than it is supposed to be. It's a 1st level spell for God's sake. It's supposed to be on par with Magic Missile.

Again, in critical role Jester used a magic item (dust of deliciousness) and a spell that wipes memories (can't remember it) to get someone to reverse a curse on another character. It worked and no one got arrested.

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances where charm might be used or useful. It's just not the awesome sauce people portray it to be.

First of all rolling is the default, second there is no minimum intelligence, dexterity or constitution to play a wizard.

Great. A low int = lots more saves for monsters and the wizard loses what "domination" he might have had. Low dex or con = squishy wizard that gets hit a lot.

If it can see the invisible wizard then it can see the unobscured Rogue too.

That you have to put in unobscured is telling. But then I conceded that a rogue in a brightly lit empty room is worse than an invisible wizard. Corner cases don't counter what I am saying.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No, but he can go 3 fighter, 5 paladin, 2 monk and gain a ton of smiting, spells and some ki while only losing 1 attack and be way ahead of the game.

With a minimum of 13 in Strength, Dex, Wis, and Cha just to do it and oh you need Con too for hp and saves..along with some pretty incompatible class features..this..is a challenging build to pull off.

"Way ahead of the game" seems like a pretty significant exaggeration under most circumstances.

Hope you rolled stats like a freaking boss.