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

[DND_Reborn]

My suggestion is we make casters roll.

Then do we take away saving throws? Because that is the roll to see if something happens (sort of). Spell attack rolls are already there as well. We just don't have rolls for utility-type spells.

(To be clear, I agree with you, I am more playing devil's advocate...)

What is the inherent risk, if any, for failing? A spell slot? Or just a failed action so they can try again or use a different spell?

also the speed you get the full power is part of the problem if it was only so good in all three areas at level 20 it would not matter.

I am not entirely clear on your point here. Can you explain further what you mean?

 

[tetrasodium]

Exactly.

The D&D Wizard has the power of Gandalf or (Malory's) Merlin, the versatility of Dumbledore or (Disney's) Merlin, and the frequency of Doctor Fate or (DC Comics) Merlin. That is, phenomenal cosmic power (up to and including literally rewriting reality), the ability to perform almost any act one might want to if you just have enough time to research the appropriate spell, and a power supply that is theoretically limited but practically inexhaustible because it's always at least somewhat under the Wizard's control.

Every other D&D spellcaster has limits on at least one (and usually multiple) of these things. The Sorcerer emphatically lacks the versatility, doesn't quite match the power, and (especially if you want to use spell points much) some of the frequency. The Cleric, Druid, and Bard all emphatically lack the versatility, a bit of the frequency, and the top-end power (unless, like the Bard, they borrow the Wizard's power.) And all other spellcasters simply cannot reach the frequency and power of the D&D Wizard.

And yet, even though those other classes all lose out on at least one part of the Wizard's potency, some of them aren't especially great for balance either. Bard is IMO the closest to being actually balanced, having a limited spell list that it must selectively choose from and substantial non-spellcasting resources that play a major role in the class doing its job. Druid is probably the closest to the Wizard, in that the Land ones can replicate almost all of what the Wizard does, and their spell list, while not topping out quite where the Wizard's does, is still extremely versatile and reaches some pretty high heights.

This reads like the problems you point out are all exclusive to wizard, that is wrong. The most important thing a wizard can do iin combat its debuff & engage in battlefield control of monsters in ways that mitigate & reduce resource (hp spell slot charges etc) attrition or buff their allies to make those allies so they do that by operating more effectively with greater safety. That has always been the case but resource attrition was downplayed so much there is very little value added by reducing it & PCs operate so effectively with such a dense layer of near plot armored levels of safety there is not much value in increasing that even further.

Then After the rest of the game shifted to move from a team game to a group that solos near each other in ways that kicked the wizard's niche out from the "important contribution" bit of d&d's venn diagram the knowledge skills were altered to meet the needs of the do everything great yourself main characters. That was an important part of what the wizard brought to the table before though. Even without knowing how it worked mechanically it's easy to see when laid out & has already been mentioned in the last few pages.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Then do we take away saving throws? Because that is the roll to see if something happens (sort of). Spell attack rolls are already there as well. We just don't have rolls for utility-type spells.

(To be clear, I agree with you, I am more playing devil's advocate...)

What is the inherent risk, if any, for failing? A spell slot? Or just a failed action so they can try again or use a different spell?


I am not entirely clear on your point here. Can you explain further what you mean?

in essence, it is being good in the three areas power, number, and verity and it can get there really fast, if it was only the master of all three at late levels no one would really care as it is not what they interact with most of the time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Then do we take away saving throws? Because that is the roll to see if something happens (sort of). Spell attack rolls are already there as well. We just don't have rolls for utility-type spells.

I thought I was pretty clear I was talking about utility-type spells.

For my money, they're more of a genuine problem with 5E's design than the combat performance of full casters which isn't hugely out-of-line (though I'd like to see some non-casters able to handle "mop-up" type situations too).

What is the inherent risk, if any, for failing? A spell slot? Or just a failed action so they can try again or use a different spell?

The same sort of consequences other characters face for failing rolls.

If they try and make a neat hole with Rock-to-Mud, maybe they cause a massive collapse and a huge amount of noise, or maybe it just totally fails to penetrate and they just turn the outer surface of the wall to mud. With spells like Etherealness you should be forced to make some kind of check to not get lost, rather than it being assumed you're 100% competent at navigating in that state.

As with other characters, it'd be in the purview of the DM. Certainly the spell slot absolutely should be expended. Almost everyone else expends their utility abilities, even when they fail or are useless. It's pretty much only in-combat abilities that are, for some classes, retained on a fail, and even then it's usually actually that they can't be expended unless you succeed.

 

[Krachek]

If we don’t want to rewrite all the spells, we have some solution.

make Spell failure as a standard mechanics. For those who like randomness.

Another solution is to reduce spell casting usage per day. we can use a simple rule, A character can use a number of spell slot per day equal to his proficiency bonus. we increase this number as needed to adjust impact of spells in the adventure.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I thought I was pretty clear I was talking about utility-type spells

Well, I have heard people make this argument but also include combat spells as well, so I wanted to clarify your position.

The same sort of consequences other characters face for failing rolls.

If they try and make a neat hole with Rock-to-Mud, maybe they cause a massive collapse and a huge amount of noise, or maybe it just totally fails to penetrate and they just turn the outer surface of the wall to mud. With spells like Etherealness you should be forced to make some kind of check to not get lost, rather than it being assumed you're 100% competent at navigating in that state.

As with other character, it'd be in the purview of the DM. Certainly the spell slot absolutely should be expended. Almost everyone else expends their utility abilities, even when they fail or are useless. It's pretty much only in-combat abilities that are, for some classes, retained on a fail.

How are these the same sorts of consequences, though? A barbarian doesn't have to roll to enter rage, a fighter doesn't need to roll to use second wind, a rogue doesn't roll to use cunning action, etc. There is no roll nor price of failure for these features. Even most skill checks which "fail" can just mean a lack of progress or even success with a failure.

It sounds more like you are advocating for a roll to see if the spell has the correct effect instead of it is cast successfully? (Again, simply clarifying because others have advocated more for failed spell casting.) That would be fine if the slot is still expended--it would be no different than a creature making a saving throw to see if a spell has effect.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So, not even a Wizard, then?

It is a spell that is on the Wizard spell list but not on clerics. The cleric only got it through their domain. So yes, it is a problem for all wizards (and the few clerics that also get the spell).

You may respond that the problem is the spell itself. But it isn’t one spell, it’s spell after spell after spell, and most of them are on the wizard’s spell list, some exclusively.

• Find familiar,
• LTH,
• Simulcrum,
• Wish
• Hypnotic Pattern
• Forcecage
• Wall of Force
• True Polymorph

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.

If it isn’t that powerful, why isn’t it available to the classes that are supposed to be the best at buffing? Why is it that the wizard has to be the best class at debuffing, multi target damage, with extremely powerful buffing starting at first level, great scouting, and great utility?

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?

Plus more wizard spells being overpowered. Plus every splatbook that comes out adds spells to the wizard’s list, and just a couple to other lists.

Take Tasha’s and compare how many new spells wizards got compared to sorcerers.

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.

But it isn’t an issue with Sorcerers. In my opinion, Sorcerers are pretty balanced compared to other classes. Having very few spells and having to pick spells carefully is a big part of that.

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?

So, how does responding “that isn’t a wizard issue” advance that goal?

Like above for the Jester example with Polymorph. I mean, you know that Polymorph isn’t on the cleric’s general spell list but is on the wizard’s. So, this is clearly an issue that affects wizards more than other spellcasters.

 

[Aldarc]

The real problem I think is that these spells are all "I win" buttons when they're they're not targeting monsters/NPCs, because they don't have a roll.

My suggestion is we make casters roll.

You want to use Transmute Rock's Rock-to-Mud function to punch a hole through a wall? Ok, roll. Make a check. Roll the dice. Like everyone else has to!

The same for pretty much every spell - if everyone else has to make a check to use their abilities, you should too! Let these spells fail! Let them have consequences! Kill the fiat "I win" factor. I say this as someone who more or less exclusively plays full casters too (because all the classes I like best - well except Paladins - are designed that way), so it's not from some outsider animus towards them.

Little surprise that I agree here, especially given this is much how it works in D&D 4e.

Also, we have talked about WWN before, but it's a pretty good showcase of some intentional design balance around spells albeit with a different approach. Spells are massive reality-altering game changers and potential "I win buttons," but there are some pretty hard limits on the amount of spells that a mage can cast, though they may have access to other lesser magical abilities. Plus, mages are weaker outside of their domain of magic. In combat, warriors reign supreme. In the realm of skills, experts reign supreme.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This reads like the problems you point out are all exclusive to wizard, that is wrong.

I literally said that every other spellcaster is also unbalanced, just to a lesser degree than Wizard: "some of them aren't especially great for balance either." Further, I didn't even say that Bard was balanced, just that it was closest. That cannot be true if one thinks that Wizard is the only class with problems. And, per my previous email post, I expressly said that the problem lies with Vancian spellcasting, and Wizard is simply the class that actively avoids any of the tools one might use to fix the faults of Vancian spellcasting.

The most important thing a wizard can do iin combat its debuff & engage in battlefield control of monsters in ways that mitigate & reduce resource (hp spell slot charges etc) attrition or buff their allies to make those allies so they do that by operating more effectively with greater safety.

I disagree. There are numerous situations where the Wizard does not simply enable others to finish the job--where they can single-handedly defeat most or even all of an encounter with the right choice of 1-2 spells. Once you get past the very earliest levels, spending 1-2 spells on an encounter is a perfectly normal cost for the Wizard. Even if you somehow manage to actually reach 6-8 encounters a day, despite that being stupidly over-long compared to what most players are actually interested in doing and most DMs are actually desiring to run, that's still ~9-12 spells a day, something the Wizard can always achieve by level 7 counting Arcane Recovery (or 9 without it.)

This isn't unfixable. There are ways to address it. The problem lies with folks who refuse to permit the possibility of a Wizard that isn't omni-flexible, totally focused on Spells And Only Spells, and generally having the most powerful and diverse selection of spells in the game with the ability to eventually have Cleric-like spellcasting with a lenient DM (once you learn all the worthwhile spells of a given level, you have effectively paid money, otherwise mostly worthless for a Wizard, to get the Cleric "you can memorize any spell on your list" feature.)

That has always been the case but resource attrition was downplayed so much there is very little value added by reducing it & PCs operate so effectively with such a dense layer of near plot armored levels of safety there is not much value in increasing that even further.

The problem is, you need something that consistently provides a stick, not just a carrot, for spellcasters who blow their load ASAP. 5e simply does not have a mechanic that can do this, so the DM is forced to use fiat and framing, and repetitious uses of the same forms of fiat and framing gets old really fast. This encourages the development of a DM/player arms race, where caster players look for ways to maximize their ability to reject "soft" restrictions and leverage the social contract to oppose "hard" restrictions, while DMs must escalate to ever-greater threats and ever-sharper demands in order to push things back toward equilibrium.

And, of course, the usual proposal for how to introduce this "the mechanics need a stick" thing is to make spellcasting horrifically awful, e.g. "madness" mechanics or "casting spells can literally just straight-up kill you every single time," which is simply not going to fly with the average consumer. Such brutal "survival game" mechanics are great for niche settings/campaign concepts or opt-in game modes, but cannot and will not work for everyday players, especially not in this brave new post-podcast world where many new D&D players come to it wanting something closer to a serialized narrative and not at all like a "mercenary company" where the brand is more important than the people.

Then After the rest of the game shifted to move from a team game to a group that solos near each other in ways that kicked the wizard's niche out from the "important contribution" bit of d&d's venn diagram the knowledge skills were altered to meet the needs of the do everything great yourself main characters. That was an important part of what the wizard brought to the table before though. Even without knowing how it worked mechanically it's easy to see when laid out & has already been mentioned in the last few pages.

I have been explicit in my criticism of 3e for a very, very long time at this point, saying almost exactly what you've said here. On another forum, I phrased it as, "4-6 solo adventurers who happen to adventure in the same place at the same time." This was very specifically why I had such issues with 5e's design during the Next Playtest. I explicitly and repeatedly called this out as a likely problem, and was almost universally dismissed.

Being Cassandra is not fun.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How are these the same sorts of consequences, though? A barbarian doesn't have to roll to enter rage, a fighter doesn't need to roll to use second wind, a rogue doesn't roll to use cunning action, etc. There is no roll nor price of failure for these features. Even most skill checks which "fail" can just mean a lack of progress or even success with a failure.

Are you trying to support my point? Because these examples do:

1) Rage - First off, it's not a really utility ability, and where it does touch on utility (advantage on STR checks), you still have to make the roll!

So that's in-line with what I'm saying.

EDIT - To be clear I'm not suggesting spells like Bless, which are all about a numerical benefit, are "utility spells" in this sense. They're not. They're basically combat buffs which might rarely see inefficient usage outside combat. They're already constrained in appropriate ways and already subject to rolling, because all they do is add a random number when you're already rolling.

2) Second Wind - Definitely not a utility ability. I'm not advocating rolling for healing abilities/spells. That's a separate category from utility (to my mind), and they'd just need to be rebalanced if you rolled, which would be a bunch of work for little benefit, whereas making utility spells risky has considerable benefit.

So that's in-line with what I'm saying.

3) Cunning Action - Is never a true utility ability, because it only functions in combat once initiative has been rolled. Again also, if it actually achieves anything impressive, there's almost certainly a roll involved.

So that's in-line with what I'm saying.

As for skill checks, sure, but equally many skill checks being failed can result in fairly serious things happening. And my examples are in-line with that. Rock-to-Mud only making some of the intended wall mud is absolutely "a partial success", for example. The collapse would be a dismal failure (probably on a fairly hard DC).

That's why we need the check though - to determine what happens. Rather it fiat always working 100%. The current result should be like a clean success.

It sounds more like you are advocating for a roll to see if the spell has the correct effect instead of it is cast successfully? (Again, simply clarifying because others have advocated more for failed spell casting.) That would be fine if the slot is still expended--it would be no different than a creature making a saving throw to see if a spell has effect.

In general, yes, as with most other utilities that require a roll.

I'm not talking about some kind of old-school "spellcasting check" like this is a Fantasy Heartbreaker from the 1980s! I think all utility spells that are currently fiat should have a rolled element of risk added to them.