D&D 5E What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)

[Mind of tempest]

needs most of its spells to be lower level that then scale up verse the high-level bypass spells.

also its archetypes need to be fun and flavour full, make me feel something right now past necromancer and evocation it lacks icons and evil or explosions seem a bit limited plus abjuration just sucks and enchantment feels more psion than wizard.

otherwise what the others have said.

 

[ECMO3]

I like the current Wizard for the most part. IMO the biggest problem with the class is that specialists don't get access to ALL the spells from their schools. If you are a Necromancer Wizard you should have access to all the Necromancy spells, If you are an Enchantment Wizard you should have access to all the enchantments.

It is a little weird to say "you are one of the worlds top experts on Evocation, but you can't get Faerie Fire or Spiritual Weapon because those are not wizard spells"

 

[Cruentus]

Now, I haven't read every response in the thread, so it may have been covered, but where I think spellcasting (in general) falls down is that there is usually a zero opportunity cost to using that particular "main" ability:

Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger - attack (main ability) - roll d20 = success/fail
Thief - sneak, backstab, pick lock, stealth - roll d20 = success/fail
Cleric fighting - roll d20 = success/fail
Wizard/Spellcaster of all types = cast spell = automatic success.

Now, that being said, there are usually "spell attack rolls" for some spells, saves for no/half damage for some spells, etc. But there are others that just always work - utility spells and rituals mostly.

I'd be fine with a wizard having access to "all the spells" if there was a d20 roll to successfully cast. Whether that was an "attack roll" type d20, or a set DC based on level of spell, or some set DC based on wizard level, etc. That way, the wizard is playing in the same ballpark as the rest of the "main" abilities of other classes. Its not a given. Yeah, it would suck if the wizard's Web spell fizzled in the above example, but likely no worse than when the fighter rolls to hit and misses. Or the thief blows his stealth roll, or whatever.

Some of the other options proposed above - less spells, harder access, spell learning, etc. all sound good to me - and that is coming from someone who IS a wizard player. It would definitely make me re-think my role, re-think how I use the class in actual play, and wouldn't be so "rinse, repeat". My last wizard I played had the most damaging spells prepared, a smattering of utility (cause, you know, everyone had darkvision, we had heroes' feast and other rations covered, etc.), so those mattered less than pure damage and control. It became pretty much 'by the numbers'. The only hitch was the save of the monster, and in those cases, I prepared multiple spells to target different abilities. The monster usually had one really bad save. And it only needed one failed save to be rendered out of action when the rest of the party piled on.

 

[Incenjucar]

Spells that work in absolutes, such as Forcecage, are also a problem. There's nothing a fighter can do that is remotely comparable, and encounters have to be designed around the possibility of it being used on the BBEG.

 

[Clint_L]

I think wizards are pretty balanced - their niche is situational flexibility and they are rewarding to play. I don't see everyone flocking to play wizard, partly because they do take a lot of thought and pre-planning to use effectively, so if you just wanna blow stuff up there are better options - a sorcerer with empowered spells can use fireball more effectively, etc. All of which means that they are seen as valuable but not a "must-have" class like, say, a cleric.

The one thing that troubles me a bit is that getting two spells per level can become OP if in a campaign where the DM provides lots of other opportunities for them to get their hands on spells. On the other hand, if you reduce that to one spell/level and the DM is really stingy or just doesn't think about the issue, the class would be kind of crippled. So their relative strength is DM dependent more than most other classes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think that part of the problem is that while wizards and some other magic users are meant to be ballanced by resource management of limited spell slots in practice they simply have too many of them past the first few levels for a single day's adventuring to properly burn through enough of them to cause actual 'is it worth more to use this spell now on a task we could achieve with skills for efficiency/saftey's sake or save it for a situation later that actually requres using magic' situations unless your wizard player is being extremely frivolous with them

 

[ECMO3]

I think wizards are pretty balanced - their niche is situational flexibility and they are rewarding to play. I don't see everyone flocking to play wizard, partly because they do take a lot of thought and pre-planning to use effectively, so if you just wanna blow stuff up there are better options - a sorcerer with empowered spells can use fireball more effectively, etc. All of which means that they are seen as valuable but not a "must-have" class like, say, a cleric.

The one thing that troubles me a bit is that getting two spells per level can become OP if in a campaign where the DM provides lots of other opportunities for them to get their hands on spells. On the other hand, if you reduce that to one spell/level and the DM is really stingy or just doesn't think about the issue, the class would be kind of crippled. So their relative strength is DM dependent more than most other classes.

I agree. The only thing I would say is there are not any must have classes in 5E, including cleric.

We get far more Sorcerers at our table than we get Wizards or any other full caster. When someone is playing a Wizard it is usually me.

 

[Irlo]

Interesting. Like just not scaling at 11th and 17th levels, or lower base damage? Something only d4s and d6s?

Yes, not just reducing scaling at advanced levels. Reduced damage dice. Give characters a reason to use weapons.

 

[Clint_L]

I agree. The only thing I would say is there are not any must have classes in 5E, including cleric.

We get far more Sorcerers at our table than we get Wizards or any other full caster. When someone is playing a Wizard it is usually me.

Yeah, you're probably right. At the same time, if folks are designing their "perfect" 4-5 person party, they probably start by deciding whether it will be a Peace, Twilight, or Life domain cleric and then build around that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, as it happens, the demon was a Nalfeshnee, who, while having magic resistance, has a +0 Dex save. Just figured I'd clarify this point.

Awesome! Thanks for the clarification. So, with advantage but no DEX, chances of failing were about 50/50 or maybe 60/40 depending on the DC. Close enough to 50/50 probably that is wasn't really just totally a bad roll (like rolling a 3 when you needed a 5 or 6 to succeed).

Any reason the Nalfeshnee didn't just teleport out of the resilient sphere when the party went after the altar?

And again, it wasn't that there was anything wrong with the spell in of itself, other than, as I pointed out, the decision that this is something magic should be allowed to do. It's just one of the better examples of "orthogonal play" that I can present. While they don't always do this, on occasion, a spellcaster can make it seem like they're playing 4D chess compared to non-magical characters.

So, you're arguing more this is something magic shouldn't be able to do? Does this make it a "spells are too powerful" issue?

And when you have as large a spell list as the Wizard, these moments have a fairly high chance of occurring. But YMMV; when I played in AL, the spellcasters all seemed to be super impressed by damage spells and barely touched things that didn't cause direct or indirect (like haste) hit point damage. And this is probably the best kind of spellcaster for a balanced game- their spells do damage. Your non-magic characters do damage. They're playing on the same plane.

I think most people here (at least) have agreed one issue is the large spell list of Wizards.

The Wizard? Well he might have a spell like phantom steed. Or teleport. Or shadow walk. Or sending.

True, but then again, he might not have them...

To be serious, though, likely there is a good chance they might know one or more depending on their level and the PC concept. Many of those spells also make "exploration" challenges just a bump in the road and IMO should either be really high level or removed. One of the things I like about LotR, for example, is Gandalf don't just teleport the party to Mordor, etc.