D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Neonchameleon]

But that's the thing. How would your wizard truly know the familiar isn't the right tool? If all your wizard knows is that the enemy's base is ahead, why wouldn't they do what they always do? It may end up being detrimental, but the wizard might not be able to predict it.

On the other hand you can play the odds. There are times when scouting as the rogue is detrimental. All they can do is play the odds.

But are they better than the shadow monk or the rogue?

At times yes. First the shadow monk and the rogue can not fly. Or slip through tiny spaces. Secondly if you do something too foolish with your familiar the immediate consequences are that you need 10GP of incense and 10 minutes. Meanwhile if you do something too foolish with the sort of people that are paranoid enough to have deliberate anti-familiar protections and you're playing a monk or a shadow rogue the immediate consequences may be that you need to roll up a new character.

Is the familiar always better? No. You play the odds. And playing the odds is part of the skills of any PC.

Plus, even a strength fighter can give up 1 AC as long as they have a +2 dex, and not have stealth disadvantage.

But a fighter isn't specialized in stealthing, so again, what about the shadow monk and rogue?

The wizard isn't specialised in stealthing either. But despite not being specialised it has a tool that is basically unlimited use that means that there are situations it's better than the shadow monk or rogue.

So: Fighter and wizard are both unspecialised at stealthing. And because of the presence of one spell that doesn't even use a spell slot you want me to compare the wizard with the two most strongly stealth-focused options in the game. I think that speaks volumes about the difference in adaptability, don't you?

But sometimes the familiar is detrimental.

The familiar is never detrimental. Sometimes it is better to not use it and instead either park it on your shoulder or dismiss it. But that doesn't make having the option detrimental unless there's an actual trade-off.

It's clear you're displeased with the fighter, but your interpretation of the fighter doesn't prove it underperforms anywhere. It just means you have a preference and the
fighter doesn't provide that for you.

Indeed. And there is no reason it shouldn't.

The question is: what makes your distaste for fighter a priority?

The question is what doesn't? Why do you want other people to not have fun playing what they want to?

Let's flip it. Some people have the opinion that the fighter, and all martials, are too complex to enjoy their fantasy of fight-only musclehead. Do you think your opinion holds more merit than the

If they can suggest reasonable ways to simplify the barbarian I'll support them. One of the two issues here is that the fight-only musclehead is more barbarian than fighter. The other is that variety is good.

I'll also support the simple pyromancer as a concept so it's easy to play a spellcaster.

 

[Asisreo]

Yeah, but that's the thing. The fighter has just as many opportunities to screw it up as the wizard because there are just as many situations they face. They just don't have the toolkit to deal with it.

Not necessarily. It's not one-to-one, it's context dependent.

Heck, a wizard might be doing something to avoid combat while the fighter might want to actively encourage it. And neither of them "failed." One might be the more optimal solution than the other, but it's simply depends.

Or maybe the fighter decides that it's best to use their Know Your Enemy feature to assess their options with more scrutiny.

 

[Asisreo]

no... this is why I argue having to break up the fighter.... Keep the champion (aka as simple as can be) give them some flavorful subclasses.

And why do you think your opinions hold more merit?

And the champion fighter is not as simple as a combat-based class can get. It isn't very complex, but it can certainly get simpler.

now this way is a GREAT way to help us all have fun

But then your problem isn't the fighter class or the wizard class. You simply don't have your favorite class-type in the game. I can empathize with that, I would like a few different classes in the game too.

But just because I don't have a class centered around exchanging hit points for spells slots and vice-versa doesn't make the existing classes better or worse.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And why do you think your opinions hold more merit?

becuse it allows everyone to play the martial character they want without forcing some weird compramise like we have now.

And the champion fighter is not as simple as a combat-based class can get. It isn't very complex, but it can certainly get simpler.

then let them roll it back even more (again I think needing the class to be the gish and the simple and the complex DOES lead to it not being a perfect fit for any of those)

But then your problem isn't the fighter class or the wizard class. You simply don't have your favorite class-type in the game.

more or less

But just because I don't have a class centered around exchanging hit points for spells slots and vice-versa doesn't make the existing classes better or worse.

again, it depends, I think the fighter is badly designed... however I also think the wizard is badly designed... I would break up the wizard too.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Remarkable Athlete adds a +3 to strength, dexterity, and constitution checks. At +5 modifier, that's +8, with no skill proficiency.

Or maybe the fighter decides that it's best to use their Know Your Enemy feature to assess their options with more scrutiny.

It's worth noting that fighters do not get both of these "powerful" social/exploration features. Every wizard is getting access to the wizard spell list to choose spells from.

A spell list that has only grown over the course of the edition, while the "powerful" social exploration options have not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I find it interesting how, somehow, once the wizard starts to underperform, it seems like other spellcasting classes bunch themselves into the conversation. It feels like the single-class fighter has to out-compete all 8 spellcasting classes at once. Even when it should only be about the wizard.

to be fair I would let the fighter have the monk and rogue too... (although hesitant with monk, but since it isn't much help) then it is magic vs non magic...

also I love that you add a champion feature then say I can't add a bladesiger feature... are we counting subclasses or not?

 

[Gammadoodler]

In terms of racial features? Quite a lot, actually. You're going to see the rogue pop up alot because...they're one of the most utility martials. Monks also have good utility.

A lightfoot halfling rogue's naturally stealthy feature mixes well with their cunning action, letting them essentially guarantee being hidden every turn as a bonus action by virtue of being near their allies and hiding behind them. A wizard can't just bonus action hide and I'm unfamiliar with any spell that let's them replicate that feature of the rogue.

Not only do any additional skills from race/background become a potential expertise target for a rogue, but they synergize with Reliable Talent. While a wizard taking a racial proficiency means they get a maximum of +11, the rogue picking the same option gets a bonus maximum of +17 with a lowest roll being a 27. Not to mention, certain races have tool proficiencies that act as expertise under certain conditions that will also gain the Reliable Talent benefit, like the gnome's Artificer Lore.

A wood elf's Fleet of Foot is a great way to give a monk a bit more distance with their extra movement and potential bonus action dash. A wizard might not need to move around the battlefield or moving along surfaces or liquids as swiftly depending on their gameplan. But also, the Fleet of Foot Barbarian gives the eagle totem a 45ft fly speed, 90ft in a dash. And this isn't a regular leap, either. This is a free 90ft flight. Meaning a barbarian can even maneuver in mid-air while moving in the air. A wizard getting an extra 5ft movement doesn't affect as much, especially since they usually want to be at range.

A shadow monk can get an extra casting of Darkness for free as a Drow. Considering the shadow monk wants to mainly be in darkness, them having 120ft darkvision is beneficial especially for seeing hostile creatures before they see the party.

Funnily, a barbarian with Aspect of the Eagle and a race with darkvision can pretty much see normally even in pitch darkness because dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on perception checks. I don't know of a wizard spell that can replicate this either.

Apologies for the double reply, but wanted to ask a separate question.

You've noted some racial features you think work better for martials (even if we've had to go to subclass levels of granularity).

Would like to flip the question. How many racial features are flat out redundant for a wizard?

E.g any elf that plays paladin, barb, or fighter just doesn't benefit from racisl weapon expertise. Similarly with mountain dwarves and racial armor proficiency. Goblins' bonus action hide on any rogue. Halfling bravery on a paladin. A couple races' poison resistance on a monk. Probably others.

What are the wizard equivalents?

 

[Mort]

It's worth noting that fighters do not get both of these "powerful" social/exploration features. Every wizard is getting access to the wizard spell list to choose spells from.

A spell list that has only grown over the course of the edition, while the "powerful" social exploration options have not.

Yeah, that's a big factor.

The designers are EXTREMELY careful and quite conservative when expanding the fighters list of options. Even when they do (like in Tasha's) the fighter usually has some HARD choices. For example Tasha's gave the blind fighting style for fighters. here is a style that, when you need it, is extremely good and even has uses in the exploration tier. BUT the fighter has to pick between it and some likely more "universaly" useful styles (Archery, Dueling, Defense), a difficult choice.

On the other hand, the designers just throw spells out there with near every supplement, and, unless the DM actually bans the spells they are virtually guaranteed to get access.

It's lopsided and puts a heavy a burden on the DM to police/weed out problems.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But without context, how can you directly attribute those options to a beneficial outcome?

If we are both assuming an impartial GM, and assuming equally clever players, than the number of beneficial outcomes is proportional to the number of options.

So, the character with more options is better off.

Take a familiar, for instance. Have them scout the wrong place and, even if it's just a cat, it could alert the guards. And unlike a PC scout, you can't dispatch the patrol unit that spotted you.

Scout with a familiar in the wrong place, and you are out a familiar. Scout with a PC in the wrong place and you are completing the adventure with 3 PCs instead of 4.

And I think it's fine that the wizard has 20 options to choose from, 12 of which are obviously useless, 3 would appear to work but actually wouldn't have an effect, 1 that seems good but would actually be detrimental, 2 that are unoptimal solutions, and 2 that would actually work smoothly.

Assuming both an impartial GM and equally clever players, keeping the same proportions, the fighter has 5 options, 2 of which are obviously useless, 1 of which would appear to work but wouldn’t have an effect, and 1 which would either be detrimental, unoptimal or work smoothly.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

And why do you think your opinions hold more merit?

And the champion fighter is not as simple as a combat-based class can get. It isn't very complex, but it can certainly get simpler.

But then your problem isn't the fighter class or the wizard class. You simply don't have your favorite class-type in the game. I can empathize with that, I would like a few different classes in the game too.

becuse it allows everyone to play the martial character they want without forcing some weird compramise like we have now.

We will never get consensus on whether the current Fighter is inadequate and, if so, how to go about fixing it. That's why I like to talk about adding a different, new martial class rather than fixing the Fighter, and keeping the existing classes for those that like them.

I think this is a pretty common position for those that want a very different martial -- you know, extending the olive branch and saying let's have both.

I don't see as much of that on the other side though. Lots of :

"it's fine, the game doesn't need it since it's not an issue for me",
"you have the eldrich knight. You know, any limited use abilites are spells anyway so you'd just be recreating this",
"no way, creating this could potentially take away resources from new stuff I would like",
"we could have something like this but only if you reign it in -- I don't want everyone playing this new martial instead of the fighter even though, yeah it is less powerful/versatile than the wizard and supposedly my players don't care about power and play concept anyway",
"I don't want what I perceive as superhero classes in the game at all, even if optional", etc.