D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

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.

So here are some posts of people making those claims.

D&D 5E - Are Wizards really all that? - claiming that the wizard can do 7 roles well

"If the wizard is doing almost everything, he's still mediocre in combat.That 9 Roles.

Imagine if someone takes 2 roles off his hands. The Wizard is suddenly doing 7 Role well."

D&D 5E - Are Wizards really all that?

The Wizard isn't really All That The Wizard just has All That The two statements are different. If you look at the Party roles: Damage, Defender, Healer, Support, Control, Explorer, Lockpick, Sage, Scout, Utility, and Face. There are only 2 ahigh level wizard can't do: Defender and Healer...

www.enworld.org

Same person trying to demonstrate doing 7 roles well simultaneously.

"A 15th level wizard has 20 spell prepared, 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots, 5 cantrips, recovers 7 levels of slots, has a ritual book, some magic items, and has a subclass.

Only combat roles are resource intensive and the wizard is bad at 2 of them. Devoting a 2 cantrips and a few slots to Damage, A few to Control, and a few to Support still leaves you with 20-40% of your slots to Explorer, Lockpick, Sage, Scout, Utility, and Face."

D&D 5E - Are Wizards really all that?

I don't agree. Each class does it's primary function better than the wizard can possibly do it. In football each position has a unique skillset, but there is some overlap. Tight Ends and Running Backs both block a lot. Both catch the ball, but TEs do it better, but not as good as the WR who...

www.enworld.org

Different person saying the wizard can do 2-4 PC roles at once.

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

D&D 5E - Are Wizards really all that?

I don't agree. Each class does it's primary function better than the wizard can possibly do it. In football each position has a unique skillset, but there is some overlap. Tight Ends and Running Backs both block a lot. Both catch the ball, but TEs do it better, but not as good as the WR who...

www.enworld.org

Yet a third person saying that the only role the wizard can't do simultaneously is healer.

"The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal... But since every character has the ability to heal with a short rest or heal everything on a long rest, its actually a rather unnecessary "role"."

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Sure, though I don't know what the other party members are supposed to accomplish. I thought this exercise was to show that the wizard could be really effective in combat while also being a really effective to superior rogue.

 

[Garthanos]

I get what you're saying, but I feel like extreme examples illustrate things better.

I could use something less extreme like, if the players had teleport the villain wouldn't have absconded with the treasure, but that just opens it up to dismissals. Such as, that doesn't matter because they'll just find more treasure. At least with an extreme example it isn't so easily dismissed (try arguing whether or not a cataclysm taking place is a trivial campaign footnote).

The party is about to tpk and the wizard whisks an instant escape for the lot of them.

 

[Garthanos]

The party is about to tpk and the wizard whisks an instant escape for the lot of them.

And I also get told Teleport isnt a very good spell... Fanaelialae

 

[Garthanos]

"The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal... But since every character has the ability to heal with a short rest or heal everything on a long rest, its actually a rather unnecessary "role"."

I really wonder if some people do not know the meaning of the word "simultaneously" or are just using a broader definition or something.

I mean there is a bit of possibility if you are not needing role X right now how easy is it to switch roles sort of makes them simultaneous.

 

[Krachek]

Up to nine roles!
should we use RsPG from now? To Emphasis that we play a Roles playing game!

 

[Oofta]

If all you're trying to say is that in your games teleportation doesn't matter, I can accept that 100%.

Is it possible for you to accept that in my campaigns it does matter, because my play style differs from your own in ways that have relevance to this?

I'm saying that if it didn't exist, the stories we tell wouldn't change much. The benefit is artificial.

That doesn't mean it can't add a dimension to the game we wouldn't otherwise have, just that if a group doesn't have it they won't be missing anything outside of a few rare edge cases. It can add flavor to the game if the DM wants, but there are plenty of ways to add flavor, plenty of stories to tell without it.

I don't have a problem with the spell. It can be useful. I just get tired of "wizards rule because they can cast teleport". The game is just as fun and enjoyable without it, the stories just as engaging.

Teleportation doesn't elevate the value of wizards that much because the end result is that you don't really miss it much if you don't have it.

 

[Maxperson]

I really wonder if some people do not know the meaning of the word "simultaneously" or are just using a broader definition or something.

I mean there is a bit of possibility if you are not needing role X right now how easy is it to switch roles sort of makes them simultaneous.

I read it as you can do all of the roles with just the spells you have memorized and the slots for your level without losing one role if you perform another. That's simultaneous in this context.

 

[ECMO3]

I think you are missing one thing...



... single events are not the same as providing a role.

If someone wants to be a face or a sage, the DM should allow them to.

Sure. The DM should allow them to be whatever concept they want to play .... including the Wizard face when there are 3 other faces in the group.

However if 2 people want to both have the experience of the face or the sage, it gets iffy. Because on purpose D&D doesn't have a complex social nor exploration ruleset. D&D does not have a base system to constantly and consistently carve out multiple parts of a social or exploration role without seriously altering the game. If you don't heavily add to or alter the game, one player will be unfulfilled.

First off I don't buy the hypothesis here, because I have played in A LOT of parties with more than one guy good at social checks and more than one guy good at exploration and more than one front liner and I have NEVER experienced what you describe for the reasons you describe. EVERY time I have seen this happen, it is because of the players not because of the defined classes/roles. If I am a face and I am getting overshadowed by someone else doing all the social checks it is NEVER in my experience because that other character was built to be a "face" or because he was a good "face". It is because the PLAYER is stealing the spotlight and that happens with an 8 Charisma Barbarian with no social skills as much as it does with a 20 charisma bard with expertise.

But even if this hypothesis is true there is still a choice at play here. If there are 3 faces in the party and they all CHOSE to play faces and I also CHOOSE to play a face then we are making a CHOICE to play like this and any of us could have CHOSEN to build our respective characters differently. So if my face is overshadowing your face and you don't like it, and it is in fact due to the character and not the personality, then perhaps you should not have played a face.

 

[ECMO3]

People will often focus and speak to the person they perceive as "in charge." This tends to be the person with the biggest "presence" which in D&D means the person with the highest charisma. So it's not all that unrealistic.

IME it tends to be the PLAYER with the best presence, not the CHARACTER with the best charisma.