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

[James Gasik]

I'd agree, but we're talking about the wizard, so everything's fair.

Well there's a simple solution to this problem. Make a Psion class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well there's a simple solution to this problem. Make a Psion class.

A new class?

Putting some respect on psionics?

Both are utterly impossible, sir. What do you think the designers are? Wiz... huh.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know, as a DM, I occasionally tag weak points of builds. If you have no ranged attacks, sure I'll occasionally have a flying enemy or enemy archers. But completely turning off a character by saying "haha, Wizzo, zero magic, go throw darts at people like it's AD&D!".

Or swing a sword or fight with whatever when you have to when your magic is spent?

I mean, at lower levels (especially) casters can attack just as well as martials really, dealing respectable damage and continuing to contribute to the game.

Yeah, no. If a class is only "balanced" because they have an off switch, then we're back to Paladins losing their powers at the drop of a hat.

Well, that was actually a GOOD thing IMO, because it was a balance issue when Paladins were more powerful compared to other martials. They were tough to qualify for (legitimately), and had significant restrictions as well. But, if you played your Paladin as Lawful Good, it was rarely an issue you had to worry about losing your powers. In fact, I recall only two times when a paladin player lost his powers temporarily due to a chaotic act, but later recovered them. Never a permanent loss due to an evil act.

D&D is a team game, and everyone has to be able to contribute. Your contribution may go up or down, but turning it to nil isn't fun for you, it isn't fun for the players having to basically fight a man down, and it's not terrifyingly fun for me as a DM.

It isn't nil when casters have no magic, it is just down. Just like a Fighter can't action surge all the time, a Barbarian can't rage all the time, etc. so why should a caster be able to cast all the time?

So I'm not going to target spell foci, components, or spellbooks unless I want to make a point (I think I posted about an incident like this upthread) or for story reasons- and if I do take away your ability to cast spells temporarily, I will make sure you're left with something to do.

Why not? If the enemy recognizes the caster as a big threat and they are available, you're playing your enemies on easy mode for your players IMO. Even if a caster has to resort to the Help or Dodge actions, there is always something to do IME.

The way I see it is this- player comes to me with a cool concept. They want to be a LIGHTNING WIZARD! All their spells do electrical (or maybe sonic to bring the thunder) damage!

Since there's not a ton of these, I might even let them find versions of existing spells that do electrical or sonic damage, like SHOCK SPHERE instead of fireball.

There's a decent number actually IMO, especially if you combine Thunder damage, but sure there's no reason to not have lightning hands (akin to Emperor Palpatine) instead of burning hands.

But you know what I probably won't do very often? Use enemies that have resistance or immunity to all their spells. If I know they have a backup plan, sure I might from time to time.

But otherwise, it's like telling the dedicated archer player "welp, better get out your stabby stick, they have a guy who cast wind wall." Doing this from time to time? Sure. Often enough that it shuts down the players fun? Probably not.

Well, IMO you should just use whatever enemies fit the story and narrative and not give a fig as to whether the players are rendered ineffective or not, otherwise it just sounds like easy mode again.

Anti-magic zones are just silly. What's even sillier is that if these exist, then that's where all the monsters who are resistant or immune to non-magic weapons would hang out, so they would also be Anti-everything zones!

Nothing wrong with anti-magic areas if (again) it fits the story/world/etc. but I wouldn't have a ton of them LOL!

But nothing I can think of short of a Lich has immunity to non-magic weapons, and frankly such a creature in an Anti-Magic zone would be severely gimping itself.

 

[James Gasik]

A new class?

Putting some respect on psionics?

Both are utterly impossible, sir. What do you think the designers are? Wiz... huh.

Well what I meant was, then everyone would be too busy complaining about psionics to bother Mr. Wizard. : )

 

[James Gasik]

Or swing a sword or fight with whatever when you have to when your magic is spent?

I mean, at lower levels (especially) casters can attack just as well as martials really, dealing respectable damage and continuing to contribute to the game.


Well, that was actually a GOOD thing IMO, because it was a balance issue when Paladins were more powerful compared to other martials. They were tough to qualify for (legitimately), and had significant restrictions as well. But, if you played your Paladin as Lawful Good, it was rarely an issue you had to worry about losing your powers. In fact, I recall only two times when a paladin player lost his powers temporarily due to a chaotic act, but later recovered them. Never a permanent loss due to an evil act.


It isn't nil when casters have no magic, it is just down. Just like a Fighter can't action surge all the time, a Barbarian can't rage all the time, etc. so why should a caster be able to cast all the time?


Why not? If the enemy recognizes the caster as a big threat and they are available, you're playing your enemies on easy mode for your players IMO. Even if a caster has to resort to the Help or Dodge actions, there is always something to do IME.


There's a decent number actually IMO, especially if you combine Thunder damage, but sure there's no reason to not have lightning hands (akin to Emperor Palpatine) instead of burning hands.


Well, IMO you should just use whatever enemies fit the story and narrative and not give a fig as to whether the players are rendered ineffective or not, otherwise it just sounds like easy mode again.


Nothing wrong with anti-magic areas if (again) it fits the story/world/etc. but I wouldn't have a ton of them LOL!

But nothing I can think of short of a Lich has immunity to non-magic weapons, and frankly such a creature in an Anti-Magic zone would be severely gimping itself.

Oh currently I think the only things that would be immune are lycanthropes, who have other ways to be attacked, but powerful resistant creatures would be bad enough.

I'm not sure how not taking away people's toys (or at least, all of them) is "easy mode". If we're playing hockey, I can't just arbitrarily take away someone's stick and still say we're playing hockey. So taking away someone's ability to even use so much as a cantrip seems similarly ridiculous.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

There seems to be 160 statblocks total who are immune to nonmagical b/p/s, although some can be harmed with adamantine or silver.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh currently I think the only things that would be immune are lycanthropes, who have other ways to be attacked, but powerful resistant creatures would be bad enough.

Yeah, since silver weapons work against them, I didn't even bother with them.

Powerful creatures which even have resistance to non-magical weapons still typically rely on magic or magical features to make them actually powerful IME. There might be a few exceptions, but none I can think of offhand.

I'm not sure how not taking away people's toys (or at least, all of them) is "easy mode".

I meant more in that it was "easy mode" because (from the sounds of it) those decision on not targeting foci, etc. would be playing many creatures to a "less-than-optimal" level, i.e. "easy mode" for the players because their characters aren't being challenged as much as they could be by the same opponents.

Sure, there are plenty of less intelligent creatures who won't recognize the threat a caster poses, but other than those targeting casters first is generally a good strategy, and taking away their "toys" is an easy way to do that--especially at mid- to high-levels IME.

If we're playing hockey, I can't just arbitrarily take away someone's stick and still say we're playing hockey. So taking away someone's ability to even use so much as a cantrip seems similarly ridiculous.

It isn't quite an apt analogy but ok, I can run with it. A player who loses his stick can still skate "interference" for a teammate who has a stick. They can also kick the puck (probably not "legal" in a game, but I don't play hockey or know very much about it...).

In a similar fashion, taking away magic (or when it is spent) still leaves a caster options: Help, Attack, Use an Object, Stabilize a fallen ally, etc.

I mean, what would a Fighter do if you took away his weapons? He still finds a way to help out, right? I've had entire parties be captured and escape, using no weapons until they managed to subdue someone, etc. Casters were right there with them, fighting along side, until their foci/spellbooks/etc. were recovered.

Not having your toys for an encounter or even a few is hardly the end of the world. I mean, I am not advocating to do this every time, but enough that most of my PCs and parties I play with take measures to keep themselves as viable as possible (backup weapons, unarmed fighting or grappling, spells without needing foci, etc.).

It certainly does not make the game "not fun" for me or my players to take these toys away by limiting spellcasting--in fact it makes the game more challenging and exciting. YMMV, of course.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There seems to be 160 statblocks total who are immune to nonmagical b/p/s, although some can be harmed with adamantine or silver.

I don't doubt it, which is why I said upthread the Lich is the only one I know off immediately.

Now, how many of those statblocks don't rely on magic or magical features as well?

 

[James Gasik]

I don't doubt it, which is why I said upthread the Lich is the only one I know off immediately.

Now, how many of those statblocks don't rely on magic or magical features as well?

It doesn't really matter, I mean, even if the Lich can't use his spell attacks or spells, he still has his paralyzing touch and you can't kill him, no matter what you do!

Actually that does sound like a cool idea, the players fall into a long-sealed cavern where magic doesn't work, and they have to flee a lich who is trapped down there...but while cinematic, I've never found "chase scenes" to work out right in an actual game.

I'll leave that to a better gamemaster to try. Would be great in a story or video game cutscene though.

 

[James Gasik]

As for a Fighter whose weapon got taken away? Why do we have those improvised weapon rules anyways? Just pull a Samson and grab a jawbone to take out mooks with, right?