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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Wall of Force can have the same effect as a 5th level spell.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You received two, then immediately argued that they didn't really show that wizards dominated.

Did I?

One cast by polymorph (by the cleric, who got it from their domain), and the frost worm is a CR 0 bunny.

So, not even a Wizard, then?

the Wizard is one of the strongest buffers at first level, able to give out advantage once a round.

Which with a 65% hit probability increased to 88% for a single attack, really isn't that impactful. And with just 1 hp, easily removed from combat depending on the encounter. Is it a good strategy? Certainly, but again not so much a Wizard issue specifically as a spell issue (which is a perfectly valid issue and in the OP under "Spells are too powerful" point.

A hypnotic pattern has a 50% chance of incapacitating the Nalfeshnee, even with magic resistance. The challenge against a CR 13 monster with magic resistance is rendered trivial with a 3rd level spell.

I think you are overestimating things here. "Trivial", honestly? How?

I'm not sure how you are getting 50% since you aren't providing any information on your scenario. But for the sake of discussion, let's say 9th level PC with spell save DC 17. With the Wis save +6, it needs an 11, advantage bumps that to only a 25% chance of incapacitating it, not 50%. Further, the spell ends if it takes any damage. So, again, how does this make it so its "rendered trivial"?

The usual defense against wizards not being overpowered is that their power is limited by their spell slots. As early as mid-levels, this isn't the case for days with fewer encounters. However, even in days with more encounters, the fact that many low-level spells remain extremely powerful (web, hypnotic pattern, invisibility) means that their power isn't substantially limited by their spell slots.

This leads to a question: Is this an issue for Wizards or all casters?

Or is it a combination of factors: the Wizard spell list, plus access to learning a lot of spells, plus too many spell slots, plus features like better ritual casting and arcane recovery?

Sorcerers are typically much less effective than wizards for a couple of reasons. First, they draw from a much smaller spell list. Second, their much fewer spells known means choosing to learn Web as their 2nd level spell means giving up many of the other extremely useful 2nd level spells.

But they are also much more effective in other ways. I agree their spells known is pitiful, but that is an issue with Sorcerers more so than Wizards.

If you are sincere about wanting to learn about others' experiences, listen, and don't try to find reasons why it isn't really a problem that the Wizard shut down the DM's big set piece because of 1 spell.

Again, not finding a why it isn't a problem, but trying to learn more about why they feel it is a problem. It certainly might be something I don't consider a problem, but that doesn't mean I am not sincere about trying to understand why it is to them.

When I am trying to find the reasons for an issue, understanding how it came about is a factor. The game is designed around certain concepts, and that includes magic and Wizards. Do I agree with many of those concepts? Certainly NOT! But then it leads to questioning is it the Wizard class, their spells, or something else that creates the perceived issue?

 

[Incenjucar]

Certain issues apply to casters. These issues are more extreme for full casters. These are most extreme for wizards, because they are the most full castery of full casters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Certain issues apply to casters. These issues are more extreme for full casters. These are most extreme for wizards, because they are the most full castery of full casters.

Yep. The way D&D handles Vancian spellcasting has problems, but those problems could in theory be addressed through other aspects of design. Classes which are focused on Vancian spellcasting above other things naturally embody these problems most, because full casters have less room for other features to address the issue and are more likely to use spells to address challenges. Wizards are far and away the most reliant on, invested in, and intensifying the issues of Vancian spellcasting, having:

• The best spell list, and certainly the longest spell list;
• The second-best means of accessing that list (list is not universally accessible, like Cleric, but once you have it recorded it's yours as long as you keep your spell book, and Wizard players rightfully dislike DMs screwing with their spell books)
• The second-best ritual casting options after Tomelocks, who can learn more rituals than even Wizards but don't get the free rituals Wizards do
• Arcane Recovery, meaning Wizards cast more spells than even other full casters and thus rightfully expect to be able to solve problems via their one and only core mechanic, Vancian spellcasting
• Literally nothing else. Wizards don't get class features that do things independent of spellcasting, and even subclasses are notoriously thin and change little if anything about the experience of play.

At every opportunity, the Wizard eschews the kinds of design that would mitigate the issues of Vancian spellcasting, usually in the name of making a more "traditional" Wizard, or to make the Wizard more exclusively "magical." And of course the irony is that the one thing which does help mitigate these problems, cantrips, is something many people want to axe because they find frequent-but-basic spellcasting "un-magical." Thus forcing Vancian spellcasting even further into the problematic corner, where its faults can be almost trivially optimized out with even a little bit of clever thinking.

Wizard isn't just an easy and archetypal example. It is also by design the most intense demonstration of the problems with how 5e handles spellcasting (and 3e, which 5e copied almost verbatim on this front.)

 

[delericho]

It's too powerful and too versatile (which is related to, but not quite the same as, too powerful).

Plus, every time WotC want to add something to the game, the Wizard gets more goodies. (Well, unless the elf gets them...)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's too powerful and too versatile (which is related to, but not quite the same as, too powerful).

Plus, every time WotC want to add something to the game, the Wizard gets more goodies. (Well, unless the elf gets them...)

And, of course, trying to address either thing gets the Wizard fanbois up in arms, while trying to provide even a smidgeon of either to other classes (even full casters!) gets them protesting. Or openly, gleefully celebrating when they prevent such changes from occurring.

It's a textbook "heads I win, tails you lose." The Wizard cannot be meaningfully brought down or split up because that RUINS D&D FOREVER!!!!!!111!!1one!!!two!! Non-casters--and sometimes even other spellcasters--cannot be brought up, because that's a horrible affront, stealing the Wizard's precious niche.

 

[ECMO3]

And, of course, trying to address either thing gets the Wizard fanbois up in arms, while trying to provide even a smidgeon of either to other classes (even full casters!) gets them protesting. Or openly, gleefully celebrating when they prevent such changes from occurring.

As a fanboy I love that they add things to Wizards first. Think of the fiction - The Wizard is Gandalf. Gandalf took on and beat a Balrog, by himself while plummeting in a freefall. The other classes are Frodo, Bilbo, Legolas, Brohimir and Aragorn (and some others not in LOTR). They are heroic and necessary, but not as powerful.

Gandalf was more powerful than his allies. Imagine how boring LOTR would have been if Gandalf was nerfed so he could only be as powerful as Strider!

Wizards first and on top works. It is fun for everyone. It makes sense. That is why I like it, when I am playing a Wizard, when I am not playing a Wizard and when I am DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is fun for everyone.

No, it isn't. That is very literally the problem.

 

[ECMO3]

Stealing the spotlight - It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest this is solely a player problem. You can argue it's not solely a wizard problem, but it's certainly something that happens far more often with full casters than other characters.

IME this is entirely a player problem and it is completely divorced from mechanics. A poor player playing a Barbarian with an 8 charisma will try to dominate the social interactions if that is his play style even though almost any other character would be better.

I have never seen class mechanics come into play when it comes to stealing the spotlight and that is playing with well over 10 DMs and 50 players over the last 7 years. The three things I have seen cause some players to steal the spotlight are bad players, shy players and inexperienced players at a table with very experienced players. YMMV

When it comes to shy/introverted players a lot of times that is how they want it, so it is not necessarily bad. There are a lot of players out there, and I mean a lot, that want to mostly listen to the story and not write it. I played a 14 Charisma Rogue at a table with a 22 Charisma Warlock and a Paladin (18 CH maybe?) and I had to handle most of the social interactions because I was not awful (14 charisma and proficiency), the Paladin and Warlock never wanted to talk and the other non-introverts at the table were awful in Charisma. I literally had to ask the Warlock to try to persuade someone at one point because it was important and I knew he was better than me.

 

[ECMO3]

No, it isn't. That is very literally the problem.

Well I have never experienced that. Most of the time there is not even a wizard at the table and when there is he has never been the problem IME. The Wizard mechanics have only improved the games I have played in. YMMV