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

[FrogReaver]

I can see a LOT of wizard players protesting that. No one I know would play a wizard with those limitations in D&D.

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

1. Tiamat is only meant for a single encounter not a whole adventuring day.

ok...and? she also has more then 600 hp. do you think martials should be able to get more hp then tiamat because that hp is only meant to last a single encounter? she's literally a goddess. she's going up against an entire party of level 20s, and it's more then possible that all of them are casters - she's going to be focused far harder then most martials usually will (especially considering she's likely the only enemy piece on the board for most groups fighting her).

also, tiamat's saves are ridiculous. if you use the aspect, her lowest save is a +5...in intelligence. yeah, good luck feebleminding tiamat through 5 legendary resistances when every single other one of her saves has 50/50 odds or better of passing. if you use the other tiamat statblock, her lowest save is still int, but it shoots up to a +8, so now even feebleminding with her resistances gone is a coin flip. the only pcs even approaching having saves this good are those in an aura of protection (i mean...unless your players were psycho enough to roll up a high-charisma-paladin only party and they never stray more then 30 feet away from each other if they can avoid it, in which case...uh...good luck with that, you're gonna need it).

also also, keep in mind that very few groups actually fill out the adventuring day. most groups only have probably 1-4 encounters a day (i know both my groups fall into this category, and one of them isn't even 5e!). the "adventuring day" is a flawed concept to begin with.

2. I also don’t think you understand just how far ahead wizards and casters in general are by level 17.

oh, no, i absolutely do, i just don't think giving martials 4-7 legendary resistances actually addresses that gap in a meaningful way.

that said though, i think the save system in 5e is stupid anyway, and i think legendary resistances are a response to how stupid it is, so...i guess there's that.

almost any number of them would be a ridiculous number as long as the current rest & recovery mechanics alongside PCs with reserves expected to last 6-8 medium to hard encounters remains. Bob: "oop, I used my resist thing, we need to take a long/short rest">GM:"it's really not safe here & you know it">entire group:"so what, lets take a rest" is just too easy for players to force

yeah like i said the adventuring day is a flawed concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

I think upgrading martials is really the only practical way to work the problem, short of minor spell nerfs. Level Up did a great job with a lot of this.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think upgrading martials is really the only practical way to work the problem, short of minor spell nerfs. Level Up did a great job with a lot of this.

I’m generally pro buffing. The problem for me is that I don’t know if you can actually buff them enough without them starting to feel like knock off casters.

Then there’s also the issue that when you propose a substantial martial buff there’s always an insane amount of pushback that it is too much. See the legendary resistance pushback above. Even though it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue on its own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m generally pro buffing. The problem for me is that I don’t know if you can actually buff them enough without them starting to feel like knock off casters.

Then there’s also the issue that when you propose a substantial martial buff there’s always an insane amount of pushback that it is too much. See the legendary resistance pushback above. Even though it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue on its own.

Fair enough. I still think Level Up did a pretty darn good job with the martials.

 

[FrogReaver]

ok...and? she also has more then 600 hp. do you think martials should be able to get more hp then tiamat because that hp is only meant to last a single encounter? she's literally a goddess. she's going up against an entire party of level 20s, and it's more then possible that all of them are casters - she's going to be focused far harder then most martials usually will (especially considering she's likely the only enemy piece on the board for most groups fighting her).

also, tiamat's saves are ridiculous. if you use the aspect, her lowest save is a +5...in intelligence. yeah, good luck feebleminding tiamat through 5 legendary resistances when every single other one of her saves has 50/50 odds or better of passing. if you use the other tiamat statblock, her lowest save is still int, but it shoots up to a +8, so now even feebleminding with her resistances gone is a coin flip. the only pcs even approaching having saves this good are those in an aura of protection (i mean...unless your players were psycho enough to roll up a high-charisma-paladin only party and they never stray more then 30 feet away from each other if they can avoid it, in which case...uh...good luck with that, you're gonna need it).

also also, keep in mind that very few groups actually fill out the adventuring day. most groups only have probably 1-4 encounters a day (i know both my groups fall into this category, and one of them isn't even 5e!). the "adventuring day" is a flawed concept to begin with.

oh, no, i absolutely do, i just don't think giving martials 4-7 legendary resistances actually addresses that gap in a meaningful way.

that said though, i think the save system in 5e is stupid anyway, and i think legendary resistances are a response to how stupid it is, so...i guess there's that.

yeah like i said the adventuring day is a flawed concept.

The high level point I was trying to bring out was that monsters and PCs are built differently.

Trying to say a PC can’t have some ability or more uses of an ability because some strong monster doesn’t is fundamentally faulty reasoning because of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs.

On a side note a max level fighter with 20 con, spending hit dice and 2nd wind maybe 3 times will effectively have 520ish hp that needs to be chewed through in the adventuring day. Which somewhat ironically isn’t actually that far off from tiamant.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair enough. I still think Level Up did a pretty darn good job with the martials.

That’s good. I’ve not really looked at it.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The high level point I was trying to bring out was that monsters and PCs are built differently.

Trying to say a PC can’t have some ability or more uses of an ability because some strong monster doesn’t is fundamentally faulty reasoning because of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs.

trying to say a PC CAN have some ability or more uses of it then a strong monster is fundamentally MORE FAULTY reasoning exactly BECAUSE of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs. PCs and monsters have to be built to withstand different challenges by necessity. you CAN give a PC an ability or more uses of it then a strong monster, sure, but you need to know why you're doing it and what will happen as a result.

you're suggesting we give martials (or at least fighters) lots of legendary resistances to help them compete with casters. okay...except what will that actually do? well, sure, the fighter can throw off a bunch of saving throw effects over the course of the day. that's pretty cool. but the caster is still dominating out-of-combat encounters and performing insane acts of battlefield control relative to that fighter. all we've done here is make the fighter tankier. which...again, sure, that's cool, but it doesn't actually help with the problem.

On a side note a max level fighter with 20 con, spending hit dice and 2nd wind maybe 3 times will effectively have 520ish hp that needs to be chewed through in the adventuring day. Which somewhat ironically isn’t actually that far off from tiamant.

except that's 1 more short rest then the game typically expects. the game expects 2 short rests, so if we want a proper adventuring day (that, again, probably isn't being fulfilled anyway) then that fighter actually has about 485 hp.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

the warlock's high arcana proves your point... it is a much smaller list then ANY other caster picks from and you only ever get 1/day per spell...

here is a GREAT playtest... make a 17th level wizard for prof, skills, and hd/hp give them ONLY 2/day 5th level slots, and 1 spell known from each level 6-9 each 1/day and the 17 known spells of 1st-5th of the warlock... BUT take those spells from the wizard list.
change cantrips so each one can only be used int most times per day.

then stack that up against a fighter... they STILL out number in options both in play and at creation

 

[FrogReaver]

trying to say a PC CAN have some ability or more uses of it then a strong monster is fundamentally MORE FAULTY reasoning exactly BECAUSE of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs. PCs and monsters have to be built to withstand different challenges by necessity.

Saying a PC can have some ability or more uses of it than a strong monster isn't faulty reasoning, it's something we constantly see in the game, because PC's and monsters are treated differently.

Perhaps you are trying to say something else is faulty reasoning? If so, please be clear.

you CAN give a PC an ability or more uses of it then a strong monster, sure, but you need to know why you're doing it and what will happen as a result.

Fully agreed. In this case in long adventuring days fighters will be able to shrug off 3-6 failed saving throws. In a standard adventuring day that's maybe 1 per encounter on average. In a shorter adventuring day that tops out at maybe 2 on average. That doesn't sound excessive at all to me.

you're suggesting we give martials (or at least fighters) lots of legendary resistances to help them compete with casters. okay...except what will that actually do? well, sure, the fighter can throw off a bunch of saving throw effects over the course of the day. that's pretty cool. but the caster is still dominating out-of-combat encounters and performing insane acts of battlefield control relative to that fighter. all we've done here is make the fighter tankier. which...again, sure, that's cool, but it doesn't actually help with the problem.

It does help though. We just need a bunch of other abilities that would make sense for the fighter that we can give him as well.

*Note, I've been clear that this modification won't fully solve the problem, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction.

except that's 1 more short rest then the game typically expects. the game expects 2 short rests, so if we want a proper adventuring day (that, again, probably isn't being fulfilled anyway) then that fighter actually has about 485 hp.

I assumed 2 short rests. 224 from hp (124 from class, 100 from con). 220 from hit dice. 26.5 per rest from second wind (3 rests, 1 long and 2 short) = 79.5 from second wind. Totals 523.5 on average. Your numbers are wrong. Though really, why are you even quibling about whether it's 480 or 520? Does that 40 hp really make a difference?