D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Fanaelialae]

What do you mean "load up"? First, players all know that counterspell is just about the most important spell in the game. I believe NPCs should be aware of the same thing. Second, even a single counterspell can cause a Wizard to (effectively) lose a turn, which in 5e is a very big deal. You don't have to "shut down" the Wizard for it to be a big problem.



And if you replace both martials with casters? Sure, you may get lucky with saving throws and lock them all up, but if something goes wrong, and one monster gets loose and causes a caster to lose concentration, freeing another monster from control, things can get out of hand pretty quickly.

The game works best with a mix, in my opinion. Working as intended.

What I mean by load up is that, in order to counterspell a wizard with counterspell, you need two mages with counterspell on the opposing team. Because otherwise the wizard can counterspell their counterspell and it's a wash. So you need a second mage to counter my counterspell.

They also need to remain within 60' of the caster they're shutting down for it to work, which generally means sticking quite close to the wizard, since basic movement will get you about half that (and I only need to be 65' away from them on my turn for this to be effective - it doesn't matter if they get within 35' on their turn).

So clearly if you say that you are counterspelling me on round two and every subsequent round as you claimed, you have two mages that are sticking within 30' of my wizard at all times. You say you've run high level campaigns and you use counterspell like this to challenge your players, yet you're not aware of these prerequisites?


You have to play differently without martials, it's true. But casters like clerics, druids, and even bladesingers can be highly effective at filling in for those roles, while still doing their own roles effectively. I've run sessions where the martials couldn't make it, and it isn't as big an issue as you seem to believe.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Rogues are great in 5e. They are great in combat (with lots of fun options). AND they are great in exploration or social tiers because of their good access to skills combined with expertise (at worst the rogue will do great in 2/3 tiers). What's not to like?

If you want a genuine answer here, it's that 5e rogues are spamtastic. When I'm playing a rogue I want to feel that I'm on paper overmatched and having to work to get the advantage to equalise things. The Cunning Action: Hide/Sneak Attack combo in particular feels fiddlier and therefore spammier than the barbarian hitting things with an axe or the warlock casting eldritch blast.

I want a complex rogue almost as much as I do a complex fighter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If Counterspell really is "the most important spell in the game..." then haven't we conceded that magic is over the top powerful?

Except that counterspell and dispel magic do exist.

Wouldn’t fighters be over-the-top powerful if armor didn’t exist?

 

[James Gasik]

No, because most monsters don't wear armor, they have built-in AC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

. You say you've run high level campaigns and you use counterspell like this to challenge your players, yet you're not aware of these prerequisites?

First, I have said several times in this thread I have never once played Tier IV.

Second, please don’t accuse people of not understanding the rules just because they didn’t include something in their post. It’s obnoxious.

Third, I mentioned within the last few pages of this thread counterspelling counterspell so…draw your own conclusions.

Fourth, everything you say can work both ways. For example, an NPC mage can also be invisible.

I will say it again: if a DM doesn’t want to design challenging encounters, they won’t be challenging.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, because most monsters don't wear armor, they have built-in AC.

It’s called “natural armor”.

But, yes, I should have said “if everybody had AC 10”

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except that counterspell and dispel magic do exist.

Wouldn’t fighters be over-the-top powerful if armor didn’t exist?

A better comparison would be whether using heat metal is OP against specifically countering fighters. And yeah, it kind of is. Despite that heat metal isn't nearly as hard a counter against high level fighters as counterspell is against casters (as long as your counterspell economy is higher than the opposition's). If you're using heat metal against the martials regularly, it's kind of a jerk DM move, and I wouldn't blame the fighter player from asking why the DM is picking on him by always have casters cast it on his character.

 

[James Gasik]

It’s called “natural armor”.

But, yes, I should have said “if everybody had AC 10”

Oh in that case, probably not. It's pretty easy to hit enemies in 5e. Now would Sharpshooter and Greatweapon Master be broken if everyone had AC 10? Definitely.

There are lots of ways to soften up high AC targets and even more ways to get bonuses to hit or advantage, so even something with AC 21 isn't exactly a hard fight, IME.

 

[Fanaelialae]

First, I have said several times in this thread I have never once played Tier IV.

Second, please don’t accuse people of not understanding the rules just because they didn’t include something in their post. It’s obnoxious.

Third, I mentioned within the last few pages of this thread counterspelling counterspell so…draw your own conclusions.

Fourth, everything you say can work both ways. For example, an NPC mage can also be invisible.

I will say it again: if a DM doesn’t want to design challenging encounters, they won’t be challenging.

Yet, knowing all this, you claim that you could counterspell my wizard all throughout important encounters? Either you're building the encounters to literally counter the wizard, or you probably aren't countering the wizard.

Sure, it works both ways. But having a wizard in the party is a pretty normal state of the game. The classic four man party includes a wizard. Including spellcasters in every important encounter whose role is specifically to neutralize the wizard is telling.

It's one thing to build challenging encounters. That's good. Having to build encounters in such a way to specifically challenge one character is not good. That would be like having Heat Metal cast on the fighter in every important encounter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh in that case, probably not. It's pretty easy to hit enemies in 5e. Now would Sharpshooter and Greatweapon Master be broken if everyone had AC 10? Definitely.

There are lots of ways to soften up high AC targets and even more ways to get bonuses to hit or advantage, so even something with AC 21 isn't exactly a hard fight, IME.

Yeah, true. It was an imperfect comparison.