• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

I agree that inexperienced players gravitate toward playing wizards. I always suggest that a first time player, try playing a fighter or barbarian as thier first character because spell casting is a strategic proccess that requires lots of planning, preparation, and reading through spell descriptions. Once a player feels comfortable playing as a warrior, and has seen how a rogue or spell caster behaves, then they are free to write up a wizard and see how quickly they can kill thier character or party. New players love to cast fireball and the first time they cast fireball, I tell the players to remain quite while the Wizard tells me where they center the spell, which usually devastates the party. Oh well, I guess that wizards master never prepared the Wizard for combat. Fireballs are loud and can start uncontrollable fires. Fireball damage can collapse mines. Fine with me.

Oh, I have been known to give first level wizards a staff of the magi, just so I can watch them kill thier character quickly. That's always a good laugh. If the character doesn't kill themself with a staff of the magi, then they learn too quickly that people everywhere of all levels of experience want to hunt them for thier treasure.

Many enemies will see spellcasters as thier biggest threat and might give the fighter an attack of opportunity just so they can stop the spell caster. It's dangerous being a spell caster with no armor and poor melee abilities.

I love creative spellcasters at my table. I like when my players surprise me and defeat my well thought out plans. That makes the game exciting for me as a DM.

On the rare chance that I get to play, Wizards are one of my favorite classes to play. I focus more on controlling a battlefield with grease spells or other spells that can affect a zone. I usually only keep a couple of damage spells such as burning hands prepared. Most of My damage spells are to keep enemies from overcoming me in melee. My job in a wizard role is to help the team do the things that the other characters can't do such as bending the rules with spells. DMs hate my characters, regardless of class and do everything they can to limit my abilities such as making a whole dungeon an anti-magic zone, because I too easily thwart thier plans. I also love playing bards because they tend to be a more challenging role to play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ECMO3

Hero
Has anyone thought about using the "killing blow" system for xp in games where the wizard is a problem? In this system you would not split xp between the party, but award the full xp to the character that landed the "killing blow".

I personally have never seen the imbalance as a problem in my games, but in theorycrafting a solution without disrupting the system or classes - how about you only give xp to the character that lands the killing blow?

Wizards rarely kill enemies, even blasting spells can rarely take out a CR-appropriate level enemy encounter. It is ususally the fighters and other martials racking up the kills.

If we put in a system where the wizard casts say hold person and the fighter kills all the paralyzed bad guys then the fighter would get all the XP.

This would make the fighter (and other martials) gain levels much faster which would give them a big power advantage to better balance against the Wizard's spells.

Other classes would suffer in this approach relative to the fighter, but they would not suffer as much as the wizard and they are generally not as far behind as the fighter to start with
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Has anyone thought about using the "killing blow" system for xp in games where the wizard is a problem? In this system you would not split xp between the party, but award the full xp to the character that landed the "killing blow".

I personally have never seen the imbalance as a problem in my games, but in theorycrafting a solution without disrupting the system or classes - how about you only give xp to the character that lands the killing blow?

Wizards rarely kill enemies, even blasting spells can rarely take out a CR-appropriate level enemy encounter. It is ususally the fighters and other martials racking up the kills.

If we put in a system where the wizard casts say hold person and the fighter kills all the paralyzed bad guys then the fighter would get all the XP.

This would make the fighter (and other martials) gain levels much faster which would give them a big power advantage to better balance against the Wizard's spells.

Other classes would suffer in this approach relative to the fighter, but they would not suffer as much as the wizard and they are generally not as far behind as the fighter to start with
The problem with the killing blow is that there's no guarantee that it's going to be fair either. Back in 4e, I had a Bard with an at-will, Vicious Mockery, that did d6+Cha psychic damage and imposed a -2 penalty on the target's next attack roll. I often threw it out there to debuff enemies before their turn. At least half of the time, whatever I targeted instantly fell over dead, insulted so awesomely they had a brain aneurysm.

In the YouTube series, the unimaginatively named (but awesome) "Tales from my D&D campaign", the party's Artificer has the same luck, taking things out with their Wand of Force Orb with such regularity it's a running gag.

Basically, it just goes to show that "doing the most damage" =/= "kills the most enemies".* Worse, I think if players realized how they could earn more xp, they'd deliberately take actions to ensure they were the ones to get the killing blow, and be resentful of "kill thieving". And this doesn't just affect Wizards; Monks would be "penalized" for daring to use their ki on Stunning Fist to make a combat less dangerous, instead of just using flurry of blows.

*and if it did, I imagine Rogues would get the most kills, since they have the highest single-attack damage output that doesn't cost them any resources.
 

jgsugden

Legend
Side note: It feels wrong to have a + thread about what is wrong with something, but ok.... Kind of like, "Don't complain because my complaints are more relevant..."

What is wrong with wizards is what is wrong with all spellcasters in D&D: They lack spell options to give them that iconic 'wizard battle' where wizards throw spells back and forth with each spell neutralizing the other spell with their magic. One wizard hurls a fireball and the other hurls an ice storm to snuff the flames. One wizard enchants his foe's ally to attack the wizard and the foe changes swaps the visage of the wizards to get the ally back to attacking the enchanter. We need to introduce mechanics to the wizard that give the 'volley back and forth' feel to magic so that it feels more dynamic.

Yes, I know we have absorb elements, shield, silvery barbs and counterspell. Those are very simplistic. I'm looking for more elegant ways to use magic. If each spell had a 'reaction cast' that would allow it to be used as a reaction to offset certain things, it would give us more of that dynamic feel, but that is onlty one option.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Side note: It feels wrong to have a + thread about what is wrong with something, but ok.... Kind of like, "Don't complain because my complaints are more relevant..."

What is wrong with wizards is what is wrong with all spellcasters in D&D: They lack spell options to give them that iconic 'wizard battle' where wizards throw spells back and forth with each spell neutralizing the other spell with their magic. One wizard hurls a fireball and the other hurls an ice storm to snuff the flames. One wizard enchants his foe's ally to attack the wizard and the foe changes swaps the visage of the wizards to get the ally back to attacking the enchanter. We need to introduce mechanics to the wizard that give the 'volley back and forth' feel to magic so that it feels more dynamic.

Yes, I know we have absorb elements, shield, silvery barbs and counterspell. Those are very simplistic. I'm looking for more elegant ways to use magic. If each spell had a 'reaction cast' that would allow it to be used as a reaction to offset certain things, it would give us more of that dynamic feel, but that is onlty one option.
While that would be cool, it would only come up when two casters clash- which isn't going to happen all the time.
 

jgsugden

Legend
While that would be cool, it would only come up when two casters clash- which isn't going to happen all the time.
It happens anytime the PCs encounter a spellcaster.

You can also have the situations to which a 'reaction' use of a spell be applicable include things other than enemy spellcasters casting a spell. They could trigger in certain environments, or in response to certain types of attacks. For example, casting wind wall as a reaction when archers attack.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
It happens anytime the PCs encounter a spellcaster.

You can also have the situations to which a 'reaction' use of a spell be applicable include things other than enemy spellcasters casting a spell. They could trigger in certain environments, or in response to certain types of attacks. For example, casting wind wall as a reaction when archers attack.
Would non-casters gain these sorts of interactions as well?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Isn't the problem with the wizard its spell list:

  • That the Wizard spell list has always been "Every magical effect except healing and resurrection"?
  • That because its list of possible magic is so poorly limited that you can't do anything with the class?
  • That the community knows this but can't agree on what to cut that the class' base remained boring and you can't dive deep into any element that doesn't have iconic spell giving a classically strong effect already?
 

jgsugden

Legend
Would non-casters gain these sorts of interactions as well?
Not from this source as we're taking them from spells.

However, we already have mechanics with reactions where melee characters can trip an enemy when they move, or deflect an attack to another opponent. This is in the same vein - but is specifically focused on evoking the feel of magic battles we see in popular media where the spellcasters use magic to respond to an incoming magical assault interactively, rather than having it be so much of a I go, then you go, then I go type feel. The great storytelling comes from the wizards doing a "Yes and" beat where they build upon what their foe is doing to avoid the impact of it.


and of course ....

 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top