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

[jgsugden]

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?

I don't think so. Breadth of power is not a problem. Wizards in mythology and fantasy can do almot anything. Being true to that concept is not a problem.

The only problem I see is that the spell design lacks dynamic elements that match the iconic wizard battles we've seen in fiction.

 

[CreamCloud0]

still, having the PC's wizard trapped in a duel against your own spellcaster nullifying each other's spell every round with another one of their own would be a great way to burn through all their excess of spell slots without them reshaping the entire field of battle

 

[jgsugden]

Those are pretty clearly just multi-round battles.

Two arguments against that: 1.) If they were multiround, the impacts of the spells would land before the response. That is not the case for most of the attacks. 2.) The videos show interactive elements where the response builds off of what their foe did. That is a tie between two events dynamically - interwoven - rather than sequential events that resolve before the next event takes place as you'd see in round by round activitations.

 

[Incenjucar]

The Sword in the Stone fight is just polymorph being cast over and over.

 

[jgsugden]

still, having the PC's wizard trapped in a duel against your own spellcaster nullifying each other's spell every round with another one of their own would be a great way to burn through all their excess of spell slots without them reshaping the entire field of battle

True - but if done well, each 'counteraction' could also have impacts on the greater battlefield. If an Ice Storm snuffs a Fireball, there might be a fog cloud, or ice chunks, or water or other resolutions....

 

[jgsugden]

The Sword in the Stone fight is just polymorph being cast over and over.

It is not mechanically D&D at all.

Look at the story of it and how it unfolds. Dynamic. Back and forth. Interplay. Interwoven. That is how we see great wizard battles. A battle of wits as much as a battle of magic. D&D is lousy at this - but it is very powerful for storytelling.

When you do Improvisation, one of the key rules is to build off of what other do - not negate it. "Yes And" is how we often refer to the idea. It provides better entertainment in the end - and it is something we miss when we improvide with the magic we have in the game. What I am suggesting are more ways to go "yes and" with the spells in the game in order to be dynamic and evocative with the spellcasting in a spellcaster battle.

 

[Incenjucar]

It is not mechanically D&D at all.

Look at the story of it and how it unfolds. Dynamic. Back and forth. Interplay. Interwoven. That is how we see great wizard battles. A battle of wits as much as a battle of magic. D&D is lousy at this - but it is very powerful for storytelling.

When you do Improvisation, one of the key rules is to build off of what other do - not negate it. "Yes And" is how we often refer to the idea. It provides better entertainment in the end - and it is something we miss when we improvide with the magic we have in the game. What I am suggesting are more ways to go "yes and" with the spells in the game in order to be dynamic and evocative with the spellcasting in a spellcaster battle.

Are you under the impression that D&D battles involve people actually taking turns to fight...? In the fiction itself?

Edit: I recognize that question can come off wrong; I'm not trying to make a dig, just trying to understand the perspective.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I've had thief/assassins infiltrate campsites and kill everyone in them by stealth... something the group caster would have had a hard time doing. Even in 5E our rogue (assassin) took out all the guards in a maze leading our group to the center unmolested, something the caster could never have done.

Most DM's I've seen would require a zillion checks to do this, each offering a fail point. Which is the problem with magic vs martial. Martials have to jump through many hoops, rolling multiple checks against different skills. Magic just gets to say "nah" and cash in a resource they get back after a nap.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Harry Potter? There sure doesn't seem to be anything spells can't do, there are a lot of them, children can pull them off, and it's not like they seem to run off spell slots, mana, or uses per diem.

Which is fine when everyone is a caster and it's Calvinball rules for all. There isn't a magus problem in Ars Magica because everyone has a "real" character (magus) and controls some non-magical grunts. Similar to 1st edition where players tended to control a small platoon, so it didnt matter if fighters were tactically uninspiring. In fact it was a feature that you could quickly resolve your henchmen's actions.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen a movie where a "wizard" had the same casting capacity as a D&D Wizard PC.

Because it would be boring and people would complain they are a Mary Sue. Because casting "solve problem X" isn't clever play or interesting to watch.