D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Whatever, man. Build encounters however you want. I'm not going to argue if you want to keep putting words in my mouth. I try to make sure everybody is challenged in the important fights, and set up lesser encounters so that each player has some chances to feel like a god. But you do you.

 

[Oofta]

Whatever, man. Build encounters however you want. I'm not going to argue if you want to keep putting words in my mouth. I try to make sure everybody is challenged in the important fights, and set up lesser encounters so that each player has some chances to feel like a god. But you do you.

In my games I make sure everyone has a chance to shine. If that means a heavy portcullis or something written in a language no one knows so the caster with comprehend languages feels cool, so be it.

I don't see a problem with that. Besides the really critical things are decision points, what the players decide to do or not do.

In combat if that means the group faces a pair of beholder and their anti-magic cones, or a counterspelling wizard with improved invisibility now and then so be it.

 

[Scott Christian]

If we discuss balance, I personally think 1e did something no other edition has - it had balance, but that balance came at different stages in the game. The fighter was stronger and could survive early levels much better than the wizard, which as we all know, could die from a cat scratch. But later, the wizard became much more powerful. And in the middle, they were equal.
It is an interesting design. Maybe not the best for today's audience, but it is interesting.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Whatever, man. Build encounters however you want. I'm not going to argue if you want to keep putting words in my mouth. I try to make sure everybody is challenged in the important fights, and set up lesser encounters so that each player has some chances to feel like a god. But you do you.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If I misunderstood something, or made an incorrect inference, just say so. It sounded from your last few posts, regarding counterspell, that you would make sure to have it in important fights to counter the wizard. But if that's not what you meant, then feel free to let me know what you actually meant.

Sure, making sure that everyone is challenged in important fights is good DMing. What we're discussing is whether you need to apply more pressure to certain characters, as opposed to others, in order to do that. Because if you do, then that implies an imbalance exists.

I know from my own high level games that I spend a lot more brainpower on how the wizard could trivialize the big fight than the fighter. But I definitely don't include counterspell in every fight because that wouldn't be fun for the wizard player. Occasionally being hard countered (a flying enemy vs a melee fighter) can be an interesting challenge, but if it's done regularly it just starts to feel punitive.

 

[Undrave]

That affects people in a cone?

I used a cone for the sake of mechanical simplicity.

here is a big difference between being a "bad" option and being weaker than other classes.

I disagree.

 

[ECMO3]

I disagree.

well that is a personal thing. I play weak classes regularly and enjoy it, so does most of the community I think.

 

[Fanaelialae]

well that is a personal thing. I play weak classes regularly and enjoy it, so does most of the community I think.

Okay, you like playing weak classes. Would it bother you if there were a different class that did what the weak class did, but was stronger? For example, a regular fighter and a mythic fighter.

 

[Yaarel]

Well the description of the tier before that includes transformative events like a druid becoming a force of nature I really think that is the epic in question not that underfed/underflavored over 20 bit. (don't remember the exact wording but Its nearly identical story wise to 4e's epic tier where in one example the primal classed character does exactly that.) .Where are the tools for that those boons seem a Johnny come lately. I would say the non-casters do not actually have anything to lead up to that (as mentioned no WoW factors), at minimum in mid paragon the 4e character will be exceeding "natural" human ability; possibly in 2 attributes ... In other epic destinies they realise they are a demigod in still others a fated ruler of a kingdom etc. But its generally a gradual event with things building up to that

If I am understanding your post correctly, then I agree.

The Fighter class needs access to superhuman effects − probably via special magic item, like a sword or armor − at the tier of levels 13 to 16.

Epic level features need to be present at tier 17-20, such as some form of 4e-style immortality at level 17, and choosing a boon for the feat at level 19, or as a capstone for level 20.

Then the transition to boons in tier 21-24, are smoother.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay, you like playing weak classes. Would it bother you if there were a different class that did what the weak class did, but was stronger? For example, a regular fighter and a mythic fighter.

Probably not if it was RAW, if it is homebrew, this has to be part of the discussion before characters are drawn up.

A lot of people here have talked about how powerful classes steal the show and overshadow other players. As I stated earlier I have never seen this happen because of the class or mechanics, when I have seen it it is because of players. So I don't buy that there is a real problem here.

That said if you agree on homebrew ahead of time it is fine, but many times I see players try to talk the DM into homebrew after other characters made their characters according to the rules laid out. Three specific examples - "I want my Barbarian to dual wield battle axes, can we homebrew this so they don't have to be light for TWF" and "Archfey is one of the weakest Warlocks, can I change the Fey Presence ability to a bonus action" and "My Warlock is out of spell slots but the Wizard is still casting, can I use an action to roll a d20 and get a spell slot back on an 11 or better" finally after session 6 when my Rogue was kiting in and out of combat using cunning action - "Can we give all characters hide and disengage as a bonus action, because my Warlock doesn't really have anything to do after I make my attack on my turn"

The DMs allowed the first two examples and did not allow the last two. All four examples used the same argument being used here "balance" .... The first two examples very much got players at the table upset and the last two certainly would have as well even though they were reasonable in terms of balance (and even with the change to a bonus action, Archfey is still a weak Warlock)

When you go into a game and the DM says "create characters using these rules" and then some people do while other people try to find ways/reasons to modify the rules it does upset players and cause problems.

 

[nevin]

If we discuss balance, I personally think 1e did something no other edition has - it had balance, but that balance came at different stages in the game. The fighter was stronger and could survive early levels much better than the wizard, which as we all know, could die from a cat scratch. But later, the wizard became much more powerful. And in the middle, they were equal.
It is an interesting design. Maybe not the best for today's audience, but it is interesting.

But even with all the changes wizards are only overpowered when the DM gives the players too much information. If the wizard has a good spellbook and knows what they have to deal with they can at medium to high levels be overpowered. If you want to run a low level magic game, they are overpowered, (and you are running the wrong system). If you simply control the information and don't let them know what's comeing every encounter they become useless far more often than most DM's realize. I love to play wizards. I've played entire 8 hour sessions where I had the wrong spells memorized to be effective. A wizard that knows Assasins are comeing and what day will be nearly unkillable. Wizards that know they are coming but don't know who what or how, can be forced to memorize spells to plan for everything and become far less effective because they can't plan for a certain encounter.