D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Aldarc]

It didn't take long to find a quote like this one:

My apologies, Sacrosanct. I missed that one. However, I hardly think that this constitutes a personal attack. This seems to be more of a criticism, IMHO, of WotC's wide net approach as a corporation rather than a personal attack against those who like the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A DM could always shut this down, but why would they? Characters learning about their opponents and being invested in the world are things to encourage, and shutting down for the Wizard shuts it down for all characters.

"I’m trained in Religion (+ 9). What do I know about this demon-looking dude? I’m specifically interested in resistances and special attacks"
"It is immune to spells & attacks from those who know it's true nature, as long as you don't explain this to anyone else, they should be able to continue fighting it effectively."
"WTF, Steve, are you still mad about that thing I did in high school? It was a joke, man, let it go."

 

[Mort]

Why polymorph another party member? Your familiar is right there and won’t lose any class features from being polymorphed.

At least, in 5e, you have the concentration requirement - so you can't do this AND a bunch of other shenanigans. In prior editions, the wizard could summon XYZ to stand in for the fighters and then go on with the rest of his shtick too.

 

[Oofta]

Why would you assume the wizard would use this tactic against a creature with a breath weapon or AoE? Even where it isn’t obvious (dragons have breath weapons? You don’t say!), it seems to me that finding things out about your opponent would be a simple Int check, and wizards are really good at those.
If summoning hordes of minions isn’t a good tactic, you change your tactic. And wizards, the kings of versatility, with 14 spells prepared, are very good at that.
Meanwhile, the fighter has a lot less versatility. If his preferred tactic is ineffective against a particular enemy, there isn’t a whole lot he can do.

Because it's being used to show how much damage a wizard can do? Nobody said fighters are less versatile. It's also a lot easier for many people to run an effective fighter than an effective wizard.

 

[Mort]

"I’m trained in Religion (+ 9). What do I know about this demon-looking dude? I’m specifically interested in resistances and special attacks"
"It is immune to spells & attacks from those who know it's true nature, as long as you don't explain this to anyone else, they should be able to continue fighting it effectively."
"WTF, Steve, are you still mad about that thing I did in high school? It was a joke, man, let it go."

Right?

But then the wizard moves to indirect stuff (buffing allies, casting walls for battlefield control etc.). So even in a case of 100% direct on point screwage - the wizard is STILL likely to have effective options. That really says something.

The only 100% solution is an anti-magic zone, but those get very old very fast (and the DM, at some point, may as well just say they want a different game).

 

[Oofta]

At least, in 5e, you have the concentration requirement - so you can't do this AND a bunch of other shenanigans. In prior editions, the wizard could summon XYZ to stand in for the fighters and then go on with the rest of his shtick too.

Along those lines, in 3E wizards (and some clerics) absolutely dominated the game at around level 15 to the point where my fighter that had been quite effective was relegated to "keep the monsters from getting close to the wizard".

I just don't see that in 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e Concentration only keeps you from casting other Concentration spells. Old-school concentration was required to cast, period. 3e concentration was a skill check. 4e it was called sustain and took an action...

But then the wizard moves to indirect stuff (buffing allies, casting walls for battlefield control etc.). So even in a case of 100% direct on point screwage - the wizard is STILL likely to have effective options. That really says something.

The versatility/flexibility of prepped vs spontaneous casting is what put the 3.5 Wizard in Tier 1 and the Sorcerer in Tier 2....
In 5e, the wizard has both the versatility of daily prep and spontaneous casting. It's a bit much, compared to 3.5...

The only 100% solution is an anti-magic zone, but those get very old very fast (and the DM, at some point, may as well just say they want a different game).

And then everyone else, who need magic items to keep up with higher level challenges, is also hosed.

 

[Mort]

Because it's being used to show how much damage a wizard can do? Nobody said fighters are less versatile. It's also a lot easier for many people to run an effective fighter than an effective wizard.

The common refrain is that fighters are "easier" than wizards - but I don't find that always holds all true.

Fighters have harder initial choices:

Does the fighter sacrifice a bit of combat effectiveness for INT, CHA or WIS? it's not an easy choice. The Wizard picks INT and has a lot going right there, they have to decide on WIS or CHA (vs Dex or Con) but so does the fighter, and the wizard at least already has a good skill stat by default. It's a harder choice for the fighter.

Do you go for primarily melee or ranged (or try for a mix of both). This highly impacts where your stats go, which also impacts to some degree skills and the like. A wizard picks INT.

Fighting style can matter quite a bit for a fighter and influences their entire shtick. Even more so for the subclass. The wizard's subclass is mostly gravy (though, sure, some are just better).

If your a BM - what maneuvers - this will matter quite a bit and if your inexperienced there are "wrong" choices. Wizards get lots of spells and lots of opportunity to course correct if they pick a few 'bad" spells.

The point is - while there is more of an info dump for Wizards, WoTC actually makes it pretty easy for them to course correct and adjust for bad/unfun choices. Fighters are much more stuck and have to make harder decisions.

 

[Oofta]

The common refrain is that fighters are "easier" than wizards - but I don't find that always holds all true.

Fighters have harder initial choices:

Does the fighter sacrifice a bit of combat effectiveness for INT, CHA or WIS? it's not an easy choice. The Wizard picks INT and has a lot going right there, they have to decide on WIS or CHA (vs Dex or Con) but so does the fighter, and the wizard at least already has a good skill stat by default. It's a harder choice for the fighter.

Do you go for primarily melee or ranged (or try for a mix of both). This highly impacts where your stats go, which also impacts to some degree skills and the like. A wizard picks INT.

Fighting style can matter quite a bit for a fighter and influences their entire shtick. Even more so for the subclass. The wizard's subclass is mostly gravy (though, sure, some are just better).

If your a BM - what maneuvers - this will matter quite a bit and if your inexperienced there are "wrong" choices. Wizards get lots of spells and lots of opportunity to course correct if they pick a few 'bad" spells.

The point is - while there is more of an info dump for Wizards, WoTC actually makes it pretty easy for them to course correct and adjust for bad/unfun choices. Fighters are much more stuck and have to make harder decisions.

Meh. It's an occasional decision, once at initiation and every few levels. Even then it's pretty straightforward if you want. Much simpler than a wizard as long as you don't play a battle master or eldritch knight.

Whether or not a wizard can course correct depends on campaign, availability of scrolls and whether you have money to scribe the spell into your book. I'm playing Curse of Strahd, I have yet to be able to add a spell other than the ones I automatically get.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why polymorph another party member? Your familiar is right there and won’t lose any class features from being polymorphed.

Because familiar doesn’t have level and polymorph does level = cr you can turn into.