D&D 5E Analyzing 5E: Overpowered by design

[FormerlyHemlock]

Here's the reality, Dave. You sound like you're a pretty good min/maxer. I truly suggest you sit down and min/max a wizard. I mean do like you're doing with Crossbow Expert. Follow the letter of the rule rather than the spirit. You will find the wizard is a nasty bastard with a lot of power, just like old editions. He does way more damage than your wizard is doing. He can convert gold to power better than any class in the game at the moment. As with any edition, the path to wizard power isn't easy or straight-forward, but it's there. You need to build and prepare right to bring the pain.

This. This is the essence of "wizard" to me, whether in D&D or Jim Butcher fantasy or Fred Saberhagen or anything else. (Wizard = "wise, learned".) The wizard relies on foresight and preparation. Any game which supports proactive wizardry is a good game, and while 5E hides it pretty well behind the concentration/action economies, that kind of a wizard is still available in 5E. As I gain more system mastery I get happier with 5E wizardry.

I am a little curious how you get a goristro to bind (research a name + Gate?) but it works okay with elementals too. I've been underestimating Planar Binding I think, because of the material component cost, but you're right, wizards are fantastic at turning gold into a small army of demons/elementals/undead. (Yoink! I have my next villain plot.)

 

[Nebulous]

This. This is the essence of "wizard" to me, whether in D&D or Jim Butcher fantasy or Fred Saberhagen or anything else. (Wizard = "wise, learned".) The wizard relies on foresight and preparation. Any game which supports proactive wizardry is a good game, and while 5E hides it pretty well behind the concentration/action economies, that kind of a wizard is still available in 5E. As I gain more system mastery I get happier with 5E wizardry.

This is slightly off topic, but my wizard player and myself are anxiously awaiting Frog God's Book of Lost Spells and the influx of new magic it will bring. Yes, I realize it could be potentially unbalancing, but I think we can filter out things that seem too whacko.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is slightly off topic, but my wizard player and myself are anxiously awaiting Frog God's Book of Lost Spells and the influx of new magic it will bring. Yes, I realize it could be potentially unbalancing, but I think we can filter out things that seem too whacko.

Yes! I need to port over the AD&D spell research rules as well. I miss AD&D's Great Net Spellbook and Net Wizard's Handbook. (http://www.istari.org/gnba/spells/html/)

Anyway, yes, I am also looking forward to Frog God's book(s).

 

[DaveDash]

This. This is the essence of "wizard" to me, whether in D&D or Jim Butcher fantasy or Fred Saberhagen or anything else. (Wizard = "wise, learned".) The wizard relies on foresight and preparation. Any game which supports proactive wizardry is a good game, and while 5E hides it pretty well behind the concentration/action economies, that kind of a wizard is still available in 5E. As I gain more system mastery I get happier with 5E wizardry.

I am a little curious how you get a goristro to bind (research a name + Gate?) but it works okay with elementals too. I've been underestimating Planar Binding I think, because of the material component cost, but you're right, wizards are fantastic at turning gold into a small army of demons/elementals/undead. (Yoink! I have my next villain plot.)

He has found a combination that works for him. In my game though it just wouldn't work.

Simulacrum. Who is my party Wizard going to cast this on? Options arealadin, himself, Lore Bard, Light Cleric. Hmm. There's no good candidate there really for good "at will" damage.
The Paladin would last maybe 3-4 combats tops with 65hp and is he really going to add that much to the Fight? No magic weapon so he will be doing half damage vs anything resistant for a lot of the fight. The actual Paladin has +1 plate and an ioun stone of reserve (shield) which gives him staying power in combat.
Setting up two Paladins before each fight is also more costly resource wise than just one. Is this really worth 1500gp and 8 hours downtime? I don't think it is.
Light Cleric and Lore Bard would be terrible choices.
He is an Abjurer so his simulacrum would probably last longer and be a bit more useful that a Paladin simulacrum
Ultimately though he has decided to focus his efforts on enabling the Paladin (real one) to do oodles more damage than he already does (hold spells, crowd control, etc). It's also not feasible for them to much around every day or so in the Underdark creating new simulacrums, they have a quest to do.

Now lets look at planar binding. They're in the Underdark. Powerful spell casters see everywhere, fiends are common. Enemy spellcasters come with banish memorized as par for the course down here.
Heck my group banished their way through parts of the underdark, it's a bit silly to assume all the NPC casters down here would just forget that one off their spell list. Also given the size of it, it's going to be impractical to take with them. It's better binding something else like a Deva, much better Charisma saving throws.
But still as a DM I wouldn't let a player abuse planar binding constantly just like I wouldn't let a Druid abuse Conjure Woodland Beings.

So he has found the Wizard can be pretty powerful in the right circumstances, I'm all for that, but that size doesn't always fit all Wizards, and it's open to some DM leniency as well.

Whether it's fair or not that the Wizard has to jump through a few hoops to get that power vs the Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter who basically just turns up with a crossbow and some bolts is entirely different.

Edit: Posted from my mobile, so apologies for the bad engrish.

 

[Celtavian]

He has found a combination that works for him. In my game though it just wouldn't work.

Simulacrum. Who is my party Wizard going to cast this on? Options arealadin, himself, Lore Bard, Light Cleric. Hmm. There's no good candidate there really for good "at will" damage.
The Paladin would last maybe 3-4 combats tops with 65hp and is he really going to add that much to the Fight? No magic weapon so he will be doing half damage vs anything resistant for a lot of the fight. The actual Paladin has +1 plate and an ioun stone of reserve (shield) which gives him staying power in combat.
Setting up two Paladins before each fight is also more costly resource wise than just one. Is this really worth 1500gp and 8 hours downtime? I don't think it is.
Light Cleric and Lore Bard would be terrible choices.
He is an Abjurer so his simulacrum would probably last longer and be a bit more useful that a Paladin simulacrum
Ultimately though he has decided to focus his efforts on enabling the Paladin (real one) to do oodles more damage than he already does (hold spells, crowd control, etc). It's also not feasible for them to much around every day or so in the Underdark creating new simulacrums, they have a quest to do.

Now lets look at planar binding. They're in the Underdark. Powerful spell casters see everywhere, fiends are common. Enemy spellcasters come with banish memorized as par for the course down here.
Heck my group banished their way through parts of the underdark, it's a bit silly to assume all the NPC casters down here would just forget that one off their spell list. Also given the size of it, it's going to be impractical to take with them. It's better binding something else like a Deva, much better Charisma saving throws.
But still as a DM I wouldn't let a player abuse planar binding constantly just like I wouldn't let a Druid abuse Conjure Woodland Beings.

So he has found the Wizard can be pretty powerful in the right circumstances, I'm all for that, but that size doesn't always fit all Wizards, and it's open to some DM leniency as well.

Whether it's fair or not that the Wizard has to jump through a few hoops to get that power vs the Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter who basically just turns up with a crossbow and some bolts is entirely different.

Edit: Posted from my mobile, so apologies for the bad engrish.

Why can't your wizard find a great archer to create a simulacrum of and pay him? Is that not possible?

There are so many casters in your campaign that your wizard can't counterspell the incoming banishes? Casters are generally very rare. You have the means to counter what they cast. If your sending multiple casters with banish in a single fight and they're targeting the wizard's invisible stalker or air elemental, not much you can do.

A lot of stuff is open to DM leniency like allowing feats or magic items. Spell components aren't DM leniency. They're in the game. No one can find them better than a wizard who has pretty easy means to travel around with teleport and to find information with spells like contact other plane or similar stuff. If you notice the new wish spell, there is no limit on casting time and it coves components. Did you notice about the wish spell? You can simulacrum with a single action without the snow and ice or the costly component. Wish is a really, really powerful spell now. It's not so costly once you get wish to make simulacrum. In fact, it is quite cheap.

Like I said, wizard's are the most powerful class in the game. Just not as wide a gap. There's lots of little changes you have to wrap your head around that are different that make them incredibly powerful. You could even Planar Binding an enemy you're fighting with wish with one action. If only you had a way to give it disadvantage on saving throws, you might have a good chance of binding something of sick power.

You'll see in your campaign how powerful the wizard is once your player figures out little changes like wish costing nothing to planar binding as any 8th level spell and simulacrum for no cost. Then again he'll have to get to 17th level. Once your wizard figures little things like that out, you'll probably see what I'm talking about when it comes to wizard power. They're back to being very powerful and I love it. I thank Mike Mearls for choosing to power the game up for everyone rather than tone it all down. Just the fact that you can make a very powerful Crossbow Wielder that can be as fun and powerful to play as the wizard is awesome in my book.

 

[DaveDash]

Why can't your wizard find a great archer to create a simulacrum of and pay him? Is that not possible?

Lol. They're on a quest, in the underdark. That's basically a completely new quest by itself.

I agree with you that an archer would make a great target for simulacrum but just think about what you are saying here.

There are so many casters in your campaign that your wizard can't counterspell the incoming banishes? That's cruel design against the wizard. You can't do much when the DM is looking to screw what you're playing. It isn't standard for 5E. Casters are generally very rare. You have the means to counter what they cast. If your sending multiple casters with banish in a single fight and they're targeting the wizard's invisible stalker or air elemental, not much you can do.

He can counterspell their banishment yep, they can counterspell his counterspell. The bard then counterspells their counterspell, and another Drow caster counterspells the bards counterspell. Been there got the t-shirt, and it's a great way for them to chew through spell slots very quickly.
Meanwhile, sooner or later, the fiend will get banished. It's a much more sound tactic I reckon to summon a Planatar, especially since it's going to be able to move around unimpeded most places and has much better charisma saving throws.

Where's any rules about what is standard in 5E? Why are casters rare? There are no such rules. I'm running a WoTC published adventure, so I'll take their canon over your assumptions.

A lot of stuff is open to DM leniency like allowing feats or magic items. Spell components aren't DM leniency. They're in the game. No one can find them better than a wizard who has pretty easy means to travel around with teleport and to find information with spells like contact other plane or similar stuff. If you notice the new wish spell, there is no limit on casting time and it coves components. Did you notice about the wish spell? You can simulacrum with a single action without the snow and ice or the costly component. Wish is a really, really powerful spell now. It's not so costly once you get wish to make simulacrum. In fact, it is quite cheap.

Planar Binding has a lot of DM leniency written all through it. And for the record, I wouldn't allow SS +Crossbow Expert as written in my game. And why on earth would a Wizard waste his 9th level slot on a 7th level slot that may or may not be very useful long term?

Like I said, wizard's are the most powerful class in the game. Just not as wide a gap. You haven't looked at everything yet. There's lots of little changes you have to wrap your head around that are different that make them incredibly powerful. You could even Planar Binding an enemy you're fighting with wish with one action. If only you had a way to give it disadvantage on saving throws, you might have a good chance of binding something of sick power.

Or you could just put Foresight on your Fighter buddy and just basically kill everything in the game instead of blowing your 9th level spell on something like that.

You'll see in your campaign how powerful the wizard is once your player figures out little changes like wish costing nothing to planar binding as any 8th level spell and simulacrum for no cost. Then again he'll have to get to 17th level. Once your wizard figures little things like that out, you'll probably see what I'm talking about when it comes to wizard power. They're back to being very powerful and I love it. I thank Mike Mearls for choosing to power the game up for everyone rather than tone it all down. Just the fact that you can make a very powerful Crossbow Wielder that can be as fun and powerful to play as the wizard is awesome in my book.

And you'll see once you actually start using a lot of this stuff in practice vs in paper it probably isn't all its made out to be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess that's the difference between our playstyles then: I don't see "turning gold into power" (Simulacrum, Planar Binding, Animate Dead, enchanting items) as an abuse of wizardly power (except maybe in a moral sense, depending on what you do with it ). I see it as very close to the core of wizardly power: foresight, artifice, and preparation are what wizards are about. The cantrips and fireballs and other evocations are just thinks the wizard does to pass the time until he can level up and learn real magic, but if you have an evil wizard in control of a kingdom, you can absolutely expect him to have dozens or hundreds of fiends at his command in addition to his own personal spellcasting, and Planar Binding (etc.) are how he does it. I'm influenced by fiction such as Jim Butcher's Dresden Files and Fred Saberhagen's Dracula books (in particular the one with Merlin in it, Dominion).

Essentially, I see wizards as straddling the intermediate line between warfare-as-individual-personal-prowess (default D&D/Fighter paradigm, limited by your own personal HP) and technology-driven industrial warfare (limited by the raw materials you have to make bombs/tanks/bullets). Unlike technological warfare, wizards don't get to scale out by building factories to make factories to make factories (personal spellcasting ability is a bottleneck), and also unlike technology they also have some intrinsic power independent of any logistic pipeline (can throw Fireballs using only spell slots, unlike an ultratech general), but they're about halfway there.

RE: Banishment, it doesn't actually break a Planar Binding (so you could just re-summon the Goristro and it would still be bound). Also it works almost just as well on Prime Material creatures (especially wizards, who have terrible Cha saves) so I'm a bit surprised that the enemy spellcasters aren't indiscriminately Banishing PCs as well as fiends, but in any case it still takes ten Banish spells to banish 10,000 gp worth of air elementals, and the elementals (and PCs) can inflict a lot of damage while those Banish spells are being cast. Planar Binding just one elemental is kind of pointless though, like bringing along a pistol with only one bullet in it: why wouldn't you load at least six bullets?

Did I mention yet that none of my PCs are at a level where this would matter for them yet, and that the first 5E wizard in my campaign to (ab)use Planar Binding will probably be an NPC villain? Your Underdark campaign is your own, but if there are wealthy and powerful enemy spellcasters everywhere in your campaign, I personally would be less frightened of Banishment spells cast in person by NPC villains, and more concerned about the possibility that at any time someone could scry me out and then open up a Transport Via Plants in my vicinity and drop forty Air Elementals on my head with orders to kill me[1]. Sure, it costs 40,000 gold pieces to arrange the hit, but we said "wealthy and powerful" enemies, right? Banishment isn't going to help me survive that unless I manage to Banish myself. ;-)

[1] Alternatively, the enemy could travel to another plane and then Gate me into his presence where all the elementals/demons/whatnot are already waiting.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

There is no such thing as an "overpowered" set of characters in any game I run, for any system.

I make sure that characters generally face challenges that they might be able to overcome, if they play smart. Playing smart might mean running away and returning when they are stronger, or finding a non-combat solution to a combat issue. If I want them to face a bugbear, but know that it would be ridiculously simple for them to kill one, I'll throw two or three at them, or make that one bugbear a spectacularly tough member of it's species.

I rarely use published adventures or settings. If I do, I modify the heck out of them. I control the challenges and the power levels. That way, "underpowered" and "overpowered" are never issues.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no such thing as an "overpowered" set of characters in any game I run, for any system.
[...]
I control the challenges and the power levels. That way, "underpowered" and "overpowered" are never issues.

What do you do to compensate for relative differences between two characters? E.g. if the Fighter is kicking all kinds of ass while the Rogue(/Thief) struggles to find ways to contribute to the party's goals, how do you adjust for this?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There is no such thing as an "overpowered" set of characters in any game I run, for any system.

I make sure that characters generally face challenges that they might be able to overcome, if they play smart. Playing smart might mean running away and returning when they are stronger, or finding a non-combat solution to a combat issue. If I want them to face a bugbear, but know that it would be ridiculously simple for them to kill one, I'll throw two or three at them, or make that one bugbear a spectacularly tough member of it's species.

I rarely use published adventures or settings. If I do, I modify the heck out of them. I control the challenges and the power levels. That way, "underpowered" and "overpowered" are never issues.

That's a valid approach. I do the opposite: I control essentially nothing[1] but telegraph everything. "Here there be dragons!" If players want to fight beholders, they know where to find them. If they want to spend every session fighting small groups of humanoids at 20th level, they can do that too.

[1] I'm overstating things somewhat. It's not a static sandbox, and yes, there may be death cultists summoning Cthulhu in the capital and a vampire infestation popping up and the Duke's son falling in love with a peasant woman and the peasant woman looking for ways to become a hero to prove herself to his parents... but the players do have the option of just letting the death cult win and sticking to the "easy" kobolds instead. It would be more accurate for me to say that I control the world, but strive to create a world which maximizes the players' agency.

(Agency: In sociology and philosophy, agency is the capacity of an agent (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in a world.)