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

[Redwizard007]

edit: effectively a double post

 

[Redwizard007]

Yeah but you're probably not doing it at level 1, barring a Variant Human with Sentinel (if Feats are allowed). Tunnel Fighter fighting style is UA content (and only really shores up OA focused builds like Sentinel and Battlemaster), Protection and Interception uses your reaction, so it's once per turn and you can't make opportunity attacks, and Superior Technique gives you one crummy Superiority Die.

Nothing is baseline, and most of these options are Fighter-only. Then add to that the fact that, like I said, not every martial wants to be a protector, and will probably build for "the damage", and very little really protects the casters at all, often forcing them to protect themselves.

In addition to a half dozen Battlemaster maneuvers (that are also available via a feat,) there are

Nets
Grappling
Shoving
Stunning Strike
Open Hand Technique
Master of Tactics
Unwavering Mark
Ancestral Protectors

That's off the top of my head. There are options if someone wants to make a defend-your-friends type of build. The top 3 don't even require any relevant resources. If one adds feats, this really becomes a non-issue all together.

 

[Haplo781]

The original 3 classes have the same problem: they're too broad. Fighter (fighting man) is "weapon guy;" cleric (priest) is "god guy;" wizard (magic user) is "magic guy." All the other classes started off as specialties (the original subclasses) of those.

As the game evolved, those specialties spun off.into their own classes, but the original classes stuck around and never gave up any part of their identity. So you got the druid as "nature priest," but the cleric was still the "everything priest." Ranger was the "nature fighter," but fighter was still the "everything fighter."

Wizard's thing is "doing magic," and magic can do anything. So the wizard is a big amorphous blob of "do anything."

 

[Micah Sweet]

The original 3 classes have the same problem: they're too broad. Fighter (fighting man) is "weapon guy;" cleric (priest) is "god guy;" wizard (magic user) is "magic guy." All the other classes started off as specialties (the original subclasses) of those.

As the game evolved, those specialties spun off.into their own classes, but the original classes stuck around and never gave up any part of their identity. So you got the druid as "nature priest," but the cleric was still the "everything priest." Ranger was the "nature fighter," but fighter was still the "everything fighter."

Wizard's thing is "doing magic," and magic can do anything. So the wizard is a big amorphous blob of "do anything."

Also not fixable in D&D.

 

[James Gasik]

In addition to a half dozen Battlemaster maneuvers (that are also available via a feat,) there are

Nets
Grappling
Shoving
Stunning Strike
Open Hand Technique
Master of Tactics
Unwavering Mark
Ancestral Protectors

That's off the top of my head. There are options if someone wants to make a defend-your-friends type of build. The top 3 don't even require any relevant resources. If one adds feats, this really becomes a non-issue all together.

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

 

[tetrasodium]

This was a sacrifice of sticky game mechanics, but it allows a more cinematic and action filled turn. It also fits the (relatively) rules-light concepts of 5e quite well. There are still sticky features scattered throughout the sub-classes, fighting styles, and feats that can create a functional tank.

Not it doesn't. It turns combat into lemming boxing where everyone on both sides just puts "well I guess I'll attack again" on loop

 

[tetrasodium]

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

Worse 5e was designed for the gm to throw gobs & gobs of monsters at the group, tracking which monster among 5 10 or more* useless mooks is a nontrivial overhead for results that still don't really matter.

*Let's say I have 5 players, it's going to take a silly amount of monsters to challenge the party unless I'm thriving out cthulu in power armor in order for a solo monster to last more than one round (if that). 5-10+ is a conservative number of monsters

 

[ECMO3]

The game doesn’t end at level 8, that's just the breakeven point where the problem accelerates. It continues on for another several levels where a pc who once made big gains in low level spell slots & prepped low level spells that have been scaling by caster level & are now are just expanding well beyond the tiny number of high level slots they have.

Level 8 was the example used that I replied to..

I think at higher levels it is even worse to load up on high level spells. A 14th level caster can cast one 6th and one 7th level slot a day. Preparing 8 spells of 6th and 7th level and 11 for all other levels combined is going to result in a weaker character if you play a normal adventuring day with 6+ combats. If you play 1 or 2 combats then sure it would be better.

 

[Redwizard007]

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

My dude, at low levels AoO are all the "sticky" you need. A 7hp goblin can't risk a single hit.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i pick the fighter for the class fantasy of it.
the fantasy of being a fighter is not that of being second banana to the wizard, it is one of being a muscled one-man-army tornado of steel and death who can endure the hammering blow of a titan and brush off the inferno breath of a red dragon with hp to spare.
i don't want to be told when my fighter doesn't match up to the wizard's capabilities in different but equal ways that 'well you made the choice to be lesser', no i didn't, that just came as an unwanted attatched strings to the thing i actually wanted.