D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Cadence]

I think most people in this thread would agree that the issue is nowhere near as dramatic at lower levels.

However, speaking on behalf of those who do regularly play campaigns that approach 20th level, it would be nice if the fighter managed to maintain reasonable effectiveness alongside the wizard.

Even if you, yourself, never touch those levels. I don't find the idea that it's okay for high levels not to work well because not many people go to those levels, to be an especially compelling argument. Most people don't take their car over 70 MPH but people would be quite upset, I think, if they did accelerate past 70 and the engines consistently dropped out.

And now I'm curious where you live that most people don't accelerate past 70 mph...

I think there is a difference between asking for 80 mph, 90mph, 120mph, and keeping up with a helicopter.

 

[Stalker0]

I think most people in this thread would agree that the issue is nowhere near as dramatic at lower levels.

However, speaking on behalf of those who do regularly play campaigns that approach 20th level, it would be nice if the fighter managed to maintain reasonable effectiveness alongside the wizard. Even if you, yourself, never touch those levels. I don't find the idea that it's okay for high levels not to work well because not many people go to those levels to be an especially compelling argument. Most people don't take their car over 70 MPH but people would be quite upset, I think, if they did accelerate past 70 and the engines consistently dropped out.

and I respect that, I just think we really need to break out these discussions into those tiers.

The problem I see what these threads (of which there are many) is they always let low and high tier arguments bleed into each other, and people rarely specify which tier they are referencing when they provide perspective. Two people can have the opposite perspective (and be 100% right) because they play at different tiers.... and that serves no one.

The superior format would be to discuss this at the "core levels" ie 3-8, and then arguments at other tiers can be discussed in their own threads, so that people are can focus on when these problems (assuming they do occur) actually take place.

 

[Garthanos]

And probably more monsters than the party can handle since the noise is likely to bring multiple encounters at once.

Or its not because the choice was tactical and correct and the reason the knock was decided to be used was because they didnt think that was likely given the distraction they had already arranged or because of any of a dozen reasons.... also gee again sounding like DM has to arrange all his scenarios to account for the wizard (with his versatility) having options others do not and can never or actually they can (atleast low level versions) because of multiclassing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And now I'm curious where you live that most people don't accelerate past 70 mph...

I think there is a difference between asking for 80 mph, 90mph, 120mph, and keeping up with a helicopter.

NJ. Plenty of people do drive over 70, but they stand out because of it. If you're keeping up with traffic, you're probably going around 70 (maybe 75 if everyone is in a rush, like around holidays).

Yeah, the analogy does break down a bit.

Maybe something better would be a low-end electric vehicle vs a high-end Porsche or Ferrari. If you're both driving on the highway, keeping up with traffic, there's not a huge difference. On the other hand, if they both try to floor it and go all out, there's no comparison.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depends on how it was magically locked. If it's a simple Arcane Lock spell, then yes of course it would work. The spell literally says it lasts until dispelled On the other hand if it's locked via say a magic item or some other non-spell magical way, then it wouldn't. I would think that the vast majority of the time, though, it will be Arcane Lock and dispel would work.

That's true, but also using up precious slots and with time limits. The summon spells last an hour and with exploration, they are likely to be used up before you get too far. The rogue is better off searching for that hour and leaving the summons for combat.

Sure, but you aren't saving against effects well if you're squeezing. I'd impose disadvantage on dex saves since you can't move well.

Sure. I'm just going to come up with the encounters as creatures, though. It's too much work to set it up with terrain, items, etc. So if it was fire giants, I'd just say something like encounter #1: 2 fire giants.

Sure, though i'd also ask for some gauge of distance, close medium or far and maybe how many could be hit with a fireball (we can extrapolate up or down from there depending on AOE size).

Also I think it's fair to assume a very basic non-optimized Fighter, Cleric, Rogue in the party?

 

[FrozenNorth]

That was literally the claim of at least one person in this thread. That they can do 3-4 roles really well. And the way people always counter any argument my side put forth with the wizard having the exact spells handy, with slots handy, to overcome the utility situation AND combat situation AND beat the rogue AND beat the fighter AND always have the right spell for the situation prepared...

But why do you ALWAYS come back to that claim?

Other posters have proposed other metrics by which wizards are overpowered. Such as they can do their jobs well and still have a bunch of spell slots left over. Such as that compared to fighters, they can have a strong contribution across three pillars without being bad at any. Such as the fact that saying 6-8 combat encounters is not really a balancing factor since even WotC doesn’t follow it.

It also isn’t a claim that anyone made. It’s a conflation of several different claims.

• Wizards have the resources to overshadow other characters (not all other characters at the same time);
• A Wizard can be specced to replace virtually any role (except clerics) and still have the spell slots to do other stuff.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

and I respect that, I just think we really need to break out these discussions into those tiers.

The problem I see what these threads (of which there are many) is they always let low and high tier arguments bleed into each other, and people rarely specify which tier they are referencing when they provide perspective. Two people can have the opposite perspective (and be 100% right) because they play at different tiers.... and that serves no one.

The superior format would be to discuss this at the "core levels" ie 3-8, and then arguments at other tiers can be discussed in their own threads, so that people are can focus on when these problems (assuming they do occur) actually take place.

Based on various playtest surveys, the bulk of gaming seems to happen in the 3-8 level mark, with "reasonable" amounts of gaming happening in the 1-2 and 9-10 level marks.

Outside of 10th level the amount of time people spends at a level seems to taper off quite a bit. 11-12th levels do see some play but more as a "last adventure in the campaign" kind of thing.

I think most people in this thread would agree that the issue is nowhere near as dramatic at lower levels.

However, speaking on behalf of those who do regularly play campaigns that approach 20th level, it would be nice if the fighter managed to maintain reasonable effectiveness alongside the wizard.

Yes, discussions would be a lot more productive if we seperated threads to common assumptions instead of everyone arguing for and against their own mental models and sometimes disclosed / sometimes not house rules.

I like the idea of levels 3-8 and 9+ or maybe 3-8, 9-14, 15+. With or without the 6-8 encounters per day rigidly enforced.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to prioritize "core levels" just because that is what people mostly play today. I have a strong suspicion that the reason there isn't more high level play is directly related to the fact that class balance and high level magic make the game unwieldy/unfun/borked at high levels for many people.

 

[FrozenNorth]

High level arguments aren't really that useful for these discussions. For example, reliable talent is an 11th level rogue ability. Very few campaigns actually go to 11th level, and if they do its only for a short time. 11th level rogues are unicorns. Likewise, we shouldn't be looking at wizards with 6th level spells....5th level and below is where we should spend the bulk of our time judging them for this debate.

Maybe more people would play high level D&D if power disparities weren’t so great at high levels? Also, if you actually want to play high level D&D seems a bit harsh to say “sorry, it’s not balanced, and we won’t fix it because not enough people play it”.

 

[Garthanos]

I have a strong suspicion that the reason there isn't more high level play is directly related to the fact that class balance and high level magic make the game unwieldy/unfun/borked at high levels for many people.

Indeed it is potentially a chicken and egg issue my favorite character types become faded in some fashion.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I know. I've created a work around for that and give casters back 2 spells a night. That seems to be too many, though and next campaign I will probably reduce it to 1. And there isn't a part of the adventuring day that is most likely to have encounters. You adventure for 16 hours and when resting monsters can and often do wander in when you are in a hostile area, which any area with 6-8 encounters in a 24 hours period is.

Seems that favours wizards over other classes. It takes one action for the wizard to cast mage armor. Meanwhile, the dwarf fighter is spending the combat at 9 AC.