D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[James Gasik]

Also, "Know Your Enemy" isn't a social ability. It's only function is to give the Battlemaster knowledge of the target's combat ability.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Remarkable Athlete is an exploration feature. It's used to make better ability checks (that don't rely on skills) and jump larger distances (like gaps).

Student of War is general non-combat, usually exploration.

Know Your Enemy is mostly social.

Clearly, they aren't wizard-like, but it's not like they're completely devoid of exploration-based features.

this is correct... there are minor abilities for social and exploration, but you nailed the issue (maybe by mistake)

Clearly, they aren't wizard-like,

what makes a wizard better at exploring then a rugged fighter?
what makes a wizard better at social and political intrigue then a charismatic fighter?

the only answer is "MAGIC"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Has anyone's opinion actually shifted one way or another as a result of discussion in this thread? Or have people simply entrenched their heels even deeper behind their lines in the sand?

I actually left the thread and came back cause in another thread someone said there was a consensus here that it's not an issue unless your DM house rules it to be... but I can see no one has reached any such conclusion

 

[Asisreo]

Also, "Know Your Enemy" isn't a social ability. It's only function is to give the Battlemaster knowledge of the target's combat ability.

It's technically social, in that it can use the social pillar to assess things about a potential threat. A 4 minute conversation can get the fighter to know a lot about an enemy, including how powerful they are and how they may tend to fight.

You're right that it's not something that's overtly makes social encounters more successful, but through social encounters, you can gain better insight on an NPC.

It can also be useful assessing whether a creature is as they appear. If a lithe old lady somehow exceeds your constitution score or a lumbering creature exceeds your dexterity, there may be more than meets the eye about them.

 

[Asisreo]

what makes a wizard better at exploring then a rugged fighter?
what makes a wizard better at social and political intrigue then a charismatic fighter?

the only answer is "MAGIC"

But why can a wizard not be better at specific circumstances than a fighter?

It should be noted that a wizard, even with plenty of spells to choose from, has to choose discreet and sometimes very niche options for adventuring.

Certainly, a wizard has tried "speak with animals" on a beast-like creature only to find it's a monstrosity.

Likewise, there may be times where a wizard thinks "Blight is too niche to bother," then the next whole adventure revolves around plant-type enemies and locales.

It's like this:

The wizard chooses more niche exploration features one-by-one but the generality of exploration depends on what they pick up. Meanwhile, a martial may have more generalized exploration abilities in the form of skills or features, but they don't have a particular answer for a particular scenario.

 

[James Gasik]

It's technically social, in that it can use the social pillar to assess things about a potential threat. A 4 minute conversation can get the fighter to know a lot about an enemy, including how powerful they are and how they may tend to fight.

You're right that it's not something that's overtly makes social encounters more successful, but through social encounters, you can gain better insight on an NPC.

It can also be useful assessing whether a creature is as they appear. If a lithe old lady somehow exceeds your constitution score or a lumbering creature exceeds your dexterity, there may be more than meets the eye about them.

Seems a stretch. Now if you wanted to say it's an exploration ability, since it lets you determine how deadly an enemy is, that seems more credible. Really, this should be a Rogue ability, so your scout can better assess the strength of an encounter...but I've rarely had any good luck with scouting ahead in over 30 years of playing D&D (it almost always ends up with having to run from a solo encounter) so it probably wouldn't do any good even if it was.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I actually left the thread and came back cause in another thread someone said there was a consensus here that it's not an issue unless your DM house rules it to be... but I can see no one has reached any such conclusion

Can't speak for others, but allowing the "wizard's aren't op" folk to have it out with the "wizard's are op and that's how the game is supposed to be" folk has seemed an efficient way to let things progress.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But why can a wizard not be better at specific circumstances than a fighter?

it depends... if you give each class a niche that works. When the fighter niche is 'hit hard and have lots of ability to take hits' and the casters can choose to be as good as an unoptimized one, or almost as good as an optimized one at those 2 things what is the point?

It should be noted that a wizard, even with plenty of spells to choose from, has to choose discreet and sometimes very niche options for adventuring

I'm not sure that is true

Certainly, a wizard has tried "speak with animals" on a beast-like creature only to find it's a monstrosity.

okay, but how can a fighter even attempt this?

Likewise, there may be times where a wizard thinks "Blight is too niche to bother," then the next whole adventure revolves around plant-type enemies and locales.

If the adventure us entirely in 1 day (so no chance to reprep the next day) and you end up with LESS optimal choices, but still can keep up with the fighter what is the point of saying this?

It's like this:

The wizard chooses more niche exploration features one-by-one but the generality of exploration depends on what they pick up. Meanwhile, a martial may have more generalized exploration abilities in the form of skills or features, but they don't have a particular answer for a particular scenario.

except the fighter doesn't have

skills or features,

that the casters don't

 

[Asisreo]

Seems a stretch. Now if you wanted to say it's an exploration ability, since it lets you determine how deadly an enemy is, that seems more credible. Really, this should be a Rogue ability, so your scout can better assess the strength of an encounter...but I've rarely had any good luck with scouting ahead in over 30 years of playing D&D (it almost always ends up with having to run from a solo encounter) so it probably wouldn't do any good even if it was.

I can understand your POV.

Honestly, the feature highlights how discussing the pillars as distinctly separate isn't really the greatest anyhow.

Social encounters can be used to avoid combat making it affect the combat pillar or it can be used to convince an NPC to lend passage to an otherwise inaccessible adventure location making it affect the exploration pillar.

Combat encounters can be used to bypass social encounters or to get past an enemy blocking a path.

Exploration can be used to avoid talking or fighting with an NPC.

We can't just say that because a character has more exploration features, that makes them better in those sequences, since perhaps parley or warfare could be a more efficient avenue.

 

[Asisreo]

okay, but how can a fighter even attempt this?

Who knows how the fighter can help? Maybe if the player is clever, they can somehow use their ability scores, skills, or tools to help the party with whatever they need. The point, though, is that the wizard and fighter, in this scenario, is at best at even footing.

If the adventure us entirely in 1 day (so no chance to reprep the next day) and you end up with LESS optimal choices, but still can keep up with the fighter what is the point of saying this?

The adventure might not be entirely in 1 day. Even with prep time, the wizard has to level up before adding Blight to their spell list.

Whether they can keep up with the fighter is also dependent on their spells. If the wizard has fog cloud or darkness, it won't be as effective against blights since they have blindsight. Even more, the wizard may waste several turns trying to affect the fight. Even worse, in the specific example of darkness against blights, they only hinder their own party rather than helping.

Blights also have False Appearance and if, for example, both the fighter and wizard are surprised due to this, the wizard is in a naturally more disadvantaged state.

But there's a lot more factors to consider. I'm not saying a wizard without blight against plants are worthless, but we can't really determine how effective a character is in any given scenario when the character isn't even made.