D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Yaarel]

If you are going to invent your own terminology please don't take existing official terminology and copy the words. It's even worse than finding a new meaning for the word "level" because at least you know level is a confusing word.

But the simple answer is level 9 is, I agree, very different from level 8 if you are a primary spellcaster. Level 5 spells are a lot wider in scope than level 4 spells. It's where you really get the strategic spells like Teleportation Circle or Wall of Stone. It's even very different from level 8 if you are a secondary caster and break into third level spells.

But if you're not a caster? If you're a fighter at level 9 you get to use Indomitable 1/day. Thrilling. If you're a barbarian you get Brutal Critical. What rapture. If you're a monk you get to run over water and up walls - which looks good on paper, but the wizard's been flying and had the water walking ritual long enough that this is late to the party. And the rogue? They get a subclass ability - and their level 9 subclass abilities are often notably bad.

Even if we look at the captstone level 11 abilities? The fighter gets a third attack. Which fundamentally doesn't change their capability - they still kick people's arses in combat, attacking them in the same way and doing damage in the same way, just doing more damage per round. The barbarian's level 11 ability looks good on paper but prevents three papercuts. The monk gets a subclass ability. But it's not huge. Only the rogue really changes what they can do at level 11 (by basically never failing a skill check).

And this is the problem. The four non-casters don't enter what you consider tier 3 at level 9. The fighter and the barbarian never really change the scope of what they do unless they have seriously OP subclasses. The Rogue does at level 11. And the Monk does at level 14.

The BEST spell effect is DEATH NO SAVE. The Fighter class is better at this "spell" than any other class.

The problem isn't Teleportation Circle.

Correct. Teleportation isnt a problem.

It's up against spells like Passwall,

LOL, No!

Passwall is a crap spell that needs a rewrite. At its slot, it is a joke.

Banishment,

Banishment, not sure. It has never caused issues in my campaigns.

Wall of Force,

Wall of Force is strictly better than other wall spells. Either the other wall spells need to become available at lower slots, or else Wall of Force deserves to be one slot higher.

In any case, Wall of Force is the kind of thing that happens at the "name levels" 9-12. Currently, it comes on line at level 9, the same time as Teleportation Circle.

Probably the spell is ok at level 9, and the other wall spells need to adjust according. But I dont think I would cry if it became available at 11 as slot-6 spell. But I will look at it more carefully.

Note the Forcecage spell doesnt happen until the 13-16 levels − when very few players are playing. At these levels, one might not expect it to be a problem, but perhaps it is.

Relatedly, the Otilukes Resilient Sphere is an other force barrier; it becomes available at level 7 (slot-4), but no one seems to complain about it. It has never been a problem in my campaigns.

Wall of Stone (for the permanent effect) and numerous others.

Never had a problem with 5e Wall of Stone. Note the spell specifies that the material only has 30 hit points per inch (min 3 to max 6 for a small wall), so one or more Fighters at the same level can efficiently break thru a Wall of Stone.

The problem is that the rogue and monk turn up late into what you call Tier 3 - and the fighter and barbarian never turn up at all. The problem here is not with the full casters.

In fact, Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian are solid classes that remain extremely popular at every tier. The Fighter is the most popular class at every tier.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The BEST spell effect is DEATH NO SAVE. The Fighter class is better at this "spell" than any other class.

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

The best approach isn't to risk your life to kill your enemy. It's to make them irrelevant. Or even an ally. Of course if you are dealing with a railroad DM who forces you to kill all your opponents and takes away your agency then you can't do this.

As for "DEATH NO SAVE" isn't something the fighter gets. What the fighter gets in your terms is a single spell against which almost everyone has legendary resistance, Because that's what hit points are. Legendary resistance against most damage; if you have just a single hit point left you are fully capable. So the fighter gets "DEATH (WITH MULTIPLE AUTOMATIC SAVES)".

 

[Yaarel]

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

The best approach isn't to risk your life to kill your enemy. It's to make them irrelevant. Or even an ally. Of course if you are dealing with a railroad DM who forces you to kill all your opponents and takes away your agency then you can't do this.

As for "DEATH NO SAVE" isn't something the fighter gets. What the fighter gets in your terms is a single spell against which almost everyone has legendary resistance, Because that's what hit points are. Legendary resistance against most damage; if you have just a single hit point left you are fully capable. So the fighter gets "DEATH (WITH MULTIPLE AUTOMATIC SAVES)".

The fact is, the Fighter continues to be the most popular class of all − especially at the upper tiers!

(By contrast, the Cleric starts off popular but then fails at the upper tiers. Not every class is considered good at the highest levels. The Fighter in particular is a powerful and appealing class at the highest levels!)

Statistically, the complaints about the Fighter are meaningless. ... With regard to combat. The Fighter is well-roundedly the BEST or one of the best at each factor that matters to combat pillar.

On the other hand, the Fighter sucks at the social and exploratory pillars.

Right now, the Fighter only gets two skills at level 1. I feel strongly, that both the class concept and the mechanical need should additionally grant the Fighter class two tool proficiencies, and EXPERTISE in one of these tools. In my campaigns, the tool proficiencies are very powerful, and expertise in a tool can significantly improve noncombat pillars. (Not so much a "diplomancer", but someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to anything relating to the tool.)

At the upper tiers, levels 13-16, the Fighter needs to have the class design space to CHOOSE a magic item, like sword or armor, and write a background story for how the Fighter acquired this item.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The fact is, the Fighter continues to be the most popular class of all − especially at the upper tiers!

And the fact is that Subway is the most popular sandwich chain in the world. This doesn't make its sandwiches good - in fact their bread is so bad it legally counts as cake in Ireland (and I think the rest of the EU) because of all the sugar. Popularity arguments are not relevant to quality.

Statistically, the complaints about the Fighter are meaningless. ... With regard to combat. The Fighter is well-roundedly the BEST or one of the best at each factor that matters to combat pillar.

On the other hand, the Fighter sucks at the social and exploratory pillars.

We are pretty much in agreement here. I don't like the 5e fighter much in combat but that's because I actively want complex tactical fighters (and I've explained that in a recent post on the complex fighters thread). However this is a matter of taste and my big objection to the fighter being non-complex is that we have the Barbarian in that design space and nothing in the complex fighter design space.

The problem is that out of combat the pre-2020 fighter is little other than a glorified commoner. (The Echo Knight, Rune Knight, and Psi Warrior get their things - and the Battlemaster post-Tasha's gets to skillmonkey). We're in agreement that the fighter needs more.

 

[Yaarel]

We are pretty much in agreement here. I don't like the 5e fighter much in combat but that's because I actively want complex tactical fighters (and I've explained that in a recent post on the complex fighters thread). However this is a matter of taste and my big objection to the fighter being non-complex is that we have the Barbarian in that design space and nothing in the complex fighter design space.

Yeah. I sympathize with that. The Fighter needs more options. 4e actually allowed the Fighter and related "martial" classes to be diverse, and if wanted, as complex as a Wizard. But 5e backslid on that issue.

A simple (superhero-style) spellcaster and a complex (tactical leadership) warrior remain desiderata in D&D 5e.

The problem is that out of combat the pre-2020 fighter is little other than a glorified commoner. (The Echo Knight, Rune Knight, and Psi Warrior get their things - and the Battlemaster post-Tasha's gets to skillmonkey). We're in agreement that the fighter needs more.

Just like it is a high priority for every class to contribute to the combat pillar roughly equally,

It is also a high priority to ensure that the design of the Fighter class can contribute to the social and exploratory pillars just as well as any other class.

And the fact is that Subway is the most popular sandwich chain in the world. This doesn't make its sandwiches good - in fact their bread is so bad it legally counts as cake in Ireland (and I think the rest of the EU) because of all the sugar. Popularity arguments are not relevant to quality.

Still, many campaigns are mostly about combat. No matter how one feels, statistically, the Fighter class is "serviceable" for the needs of combat players. The Fighter class is more serviceable than any other class in the 5e game − especially at the highest levels.

 

[Asisreo]

I think I may have seen the argument that dropping meteors on your enemies for big damage is awesome from the perspective of the narrative of combat, and that the fighter really doesn't have any equivalents despite combat being the fighter's pillar to supposedly shine in. But that's a completely different argument.

This, though, is what I think is the most important argument. Because at the end of the day, it's not about whether wizards are technically powerful, but whether they feel powerful when played.

I could make a class that simply says "You are a god, you can do anything for free." And it's powerful, sure, but after a bit it feels less "powerful" and more "the devs decided to make DM'ing a class." As a DM, sure I'm "powerful." But it'd be odd to say that "The DM is the best position because you're the most powerful." Even though some DM's act like that.

Sure, that would make some sense if the Wizard's only spells were increasingly better AoE damage spells. You have the big single target damage dealer vs. the medium damage AoE. The whole point is not only do Wizard's get to AoE damage if they would like to but also can choose other ways to win at combat than damage, movement, infiltrate, gather information, etc. And these effects are even more "different" than what the Fighter can do.

Though, are they that different than the rogue? Because all of that stuff is a rogue's forte and they do it very well from what I've experienced playing and DMing for the class.

The fighter is...a fighter. And I think that it's okay to have a class defined by combat to be the best at adapting to all forms of combat. They can be a great frontliner and backliner without significantly changing their character. In fact, a physical spread of ASI's lets a fighter keep up with any given other more specialized form of martial.

Use the Wizard and Druid as the yardstick not the current Fighter. Find someone design minded with zero exposure to rpgs -- give them the base rules and the Wizard and Druid as example classes. Tell them to design a martial that is no more powerful or versatile than these 2 classes and let them go wild.

What convinces you that they wouldn't re-invent the Eldritch Knight? Or the monk?

Maybe slightly different features, but similar overall builds.

All this to say that you may be looking too astutely at wizards and fighters when their contrast is intentional. They're both generalists, but one is a generalist with a focus on simple reliability and the other has a focus on complex adaptability.

But a martial that shares similar complexities with generalists like wizards are rogues and monks. But instead of complex adaptability, rogues focus on complex reliability and monks focus on simple adaptability.

 

[ECMO3]

they are all presented in the same way in basic alphabetical order with the same pomp. All of them are an equivalent opportunity cost, with the same Proficiency bonus progression and XP progression and they all have 20 levels. You'd have to be reaching REALLY far to, as a newbie coming to this game for the first time, think "Oh there must be more powerful classes". WE know which ones are more powerful because WE are obsessed nerds who argue about numbers on the internet, but a casual first timer? He's not gonna know the Ranger is badly designed and the Monk is a MAD nightmare and the Wizard spells are busted just as a glance.

But the people on this board are not newbies and newbies that play the game are going to be limited primarily by lack of experience and familiarity with the game, not by the mechanics. A newbie playing a wizard is not more powerful than a newbie playing say a Monk (and arguably less powerful due to the mastery necessary to use spells effectively).

To make the Wizard be more powerful than other classes you have to understand the rules sufficiently to eek out those advantages.

And the book sure as hell isn't saying that some are more powerful. Nothing in the presentation hints at this discrepency being a dsign goal (though we know the team is filled with bloody Wizard fans with a bias) If what you're saying is true, that the Wizard is meant to be more powerful then any other option is a trap and a waste of ink. That's a dumb design.

First off, nothing hints at it being the same.

Moreover, you are wrong, the PHB actually states that "Wizards are supreme magic users". So it actually uses the word "supreme" refering to the wizard. That is more than a hint, considering there are 9 magic using classes and only one can be "supreme".

The description of Wizards paints them as over the top powerful. Let's compare Wizard to Fighter descriptions form the PHB:

Wizard:
"Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast. Drawing on the subtle weave of magic that permeates the cosmos, wizards cast spells of explosive fire, arcing lightning, subtle deception, and brute-force mind control. Their magic conjures monsters from other planes of existence, glimpses the future, or turns slain foes into zombies. Their mightiest spells change one substance into another, call meteors down from the sky, or open portals to other worlds."

The same paragraph from the fighter description:
"All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings — as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face."

Are you really suggesting that those two paragraphs imply an equal level of power? One is descibed as "supreme" with "explosive fire", "mind control" "conjuring monsters from other planes of existance and "calling down meteors from the sky"

The other description uses terms like "diverse", "elite foot soldiers" and "metting out death"

I don't know about you but literally bringing a devil onto the planet or calling down a meteor sounds or opening a portal to another plane is godlike, while the fighter description sounds about like your average U.S. Marine - pretty awesome as far as people go, but not godlike.

My wife has never played D&D, I asked her which of those paragraphs sounded more powerful and she said the first.

Spider-man can hold up a mountain, dude's insanely strong and generally has to pull his punches or he'll render his foes paralyzed with one hit (or worse). Call me when a Fighter can break an Olympic record.

Spiderman is probably a druid. Or maybe a Warlock.

 

[ECMO3]

The thing is ranger spells are lower level - and they only get "nearly as many spells per day" if you count the very situational Beast spells. So they are nowhere near as good at casting. Rangers are able to hold their own with casters because they are half-casters with a huge grab bag of abilities. But they aren't notably good compared to full casters. The non-casters need to be brought near their level.

They are lower level, but they do get nearly as many spells a day using Tasha's options. A 14th level caster casts 17 spells a day, a 14th level Ranger using Primal Awaeness gets 15-16 depending on subclass. The better subclasses also have awesome subclass abilities and Ranger abilities on top of that.

I agree they are not notably good compared to full casters, but they are more powerful than Rogues, Figthers, Paladins, Barbarians and Monks. Part of the reason is they are good at everything across the board. They are good casters, not as good as Wizards or Clerics but the better Rangers can come close to the lessor Bards. They are really good at the other two pillars, second only to Rogues and Bards and they do this while sporting martial weapons and d10 hit dice.

I don't agree that other classes need to be improved similarly. Monk maybe, but not the others. I like the way they improved the Ranger, but I like the other classes how they are too. I think making the Ranger more magical made a lot of sense thematically, but doing the same to a fighter, Rogue or Barbarian would not make a lot of sense and would be more difficult from a thematic point of view IMO. A more magical Monk would be ok, Paladins are already heavily magical and are not that far behind I don't think.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This, though, is what I think is the most important argument. Because at the end of the day, it's not about whether wizards are technically powerful, but whether they feel powerful when played.

I could make a class that simply says "You are a god, you can do anything for free." And it's powerful, sure, but after a bit it feels less "powerful" and more "the devs decided to make DM'ing a class." As a DM, sure I'm "powerful." But it'd be odd to say that "The DM is the best position because you're the most powerful." Even though some DM's act like that.

I don't really worry about the wizard feeling powerful after level 4 (and almost no class feels particularly powerful before 5 anyway, with a possible exception for Moon Druid). I've never seen a high level wizard that didn't feel powerful in play.

What I am concerned about is martials feeling powerful when played. Because I don't think they do. They have staying power, but that's not the same.

If the fighter had a no save instant death ability (even once per day) that would feel powerful.

If they could tear through a porticulis like it were made of paper, that would feel powerful.

If they could single handedly stare down an entire regiment of soldiers and make them back down (without relying on DM fiat) that would feel powerful.

But a 20th level fighter cannot do any of these things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree they are not notably good compared to full casters, but they are more powerful than Rogues, Figthers, Paladins, Barbarians and Monks. Part of the reason is they are good at everything across the board.

And you IMO seriously underrate the Paladins. Rangers are Combat/Exploration, and Paladins are Combat/Social. The Paladin's charisma to saves is very powerful, especially if they take a single level dip in hexblade

Now rogues, fighters, barbarians, and monks I'll agree with.