D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[GMforPowergamers]

That’s what I was guessing.
Wizards won’t feel so OP in an all wizards party. But the complaint will then go on spells. there is spells that are so underpowered, they are only effective in combat and have no use in social and exploration encounter!

yeah we pretty much make group choices at character creation about power levels... twice i have run and twice I have played (two diffrent players of mine each DMed it once) no full caster games... my 2 went even father and no half casters to start either... we LOVED to get to play the more martial concepts without feeling like we gave up on power and options

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I think it's fine that the wizard has 20 options to choose from, 12 of which are obviously useless, 3 would appear to work but actually wouldn't have an effect, 1 that seems good but would actually be detrimental, 2 that are unoptimal solutions, and 2 that would actually work smoothly.

the problem comes with those 20 (12/3/1/2/2) change depending on the circumstance... scouting 12 useless 2 work smoothly... combat 12 useless 2 work smoothly, gather intel 12 useless 2 work smoothly, gather supplies 12 useless 2 work smoothly, set camp 12 useless 2 work smoothly, impress the king 12 useless 2 work smoothly, find secret hidden passag 12 useless 2 work smoothly, fast travel 12 useless 2 work smoothly...

but a fighter has 2 or 3 options not 20, so they have 1 or 2 works amazing in combat, and 1 suboptimal solution to impress the king and 1 would appear to work but actually wouldn't have an effect with find secret hidden passage...

so in a 18 problem adventure (not day, whole adventure over many days) you have 11 combats in it you have the fighter doing his 2 awesome things and the wizard doing there 2 smooth things... then you have 3 gather intel... and the fighter has nothing and the wizard uses his go smoothly, you have to impress the king once and the wizard has a go smoothly and the fighter has he does have an option even if subobtimal, we set camp twice and the fighter has nothing but the wizard has 2 things that work smoothly, and we have to find a secret passage, and the fighter has his appear to work but actually wont have an effect the wizard has something that works smoothly...

this says the wizard preped the right things and used the right things... lets say the combats each take 2-4 (average 3) rounds and each other needs 2 actions... lets say 1/3 of the time the wizard either doesn't have something preped or known or just chooses the wrong option...

47 action, 15 times things didn't work for the wizard compared to 12 times the fighter has no option and 2 times he only has suboptimal things... the wizard can look back and say "Oh if I preped better" the fighter can look back and say "I did everything right and got 1 time more then the wizard doing only 2/3 right"

This gets even WORSE if 1 combat the wizard has the right SoS/SoD/shenaagins prepped and just out right action 1 ends the fight... you know the part the fighter focuses on.

 

[Oofta]

The great thing about 5E is no one has to be the fighter ... or the rogue .... or the cleric ..... or even the wizard.

4 wizards works as a party just fine. Maybe a little weak at low levels if the builds are not coordinated (4 blasters who dumped Charisma and Wisdom for example), but usually even that will be fixed by level 4 - either through spells and feats or through a TPK.

In my experience it's fixed via TPK.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But without context, how can you directly attribute those options to a beneficial outcome?

Take a familiar, for instance. Have them scout the wrong place and, even if it's just a cat, it could alert the guards. And unlike a PC scout, you can't dispatch the patrol unit that spotted you.

This is cherry picking:

1. If you don't think that the familiar is the right tool for the job don't send them. The fighter simply doesn't get this option.
2. If we're sending a PC the wizard's probably better than the fighter (not having inherent disadvantage and with more supporting tools)
3. There are three excellent default places for the familiar to scout that the fighter basically can't: Backwards, Up, and On the Wizard's Shoulder
   1. Backwards: You want someone to alert you if you're being followed. Then it doesn't matter so much if they spot the familiar - it's done its job. The fighter's only option would be to stay out of the fight if they want to scout for what's behind them.
   2. Straight Up. Where they can see far - and lots of people don't look up. It gives you an entirely different perspective.
   3. On the Wizard's Shoulder gives you someone helping use their perception to aid yours. The familiar basically being used for the Aid Other option.

So to sum up. Sometimes the familiar is extremely useful and the wizard is vastly better than the fighter. Sometimes it's just slightly useful (even if only giving you another check) in which case the wizard is still better than the fighter.

And I think it's fine that the wizard has 20 options to choose from, 12 of which are obviously useless, 3 would appear to work but actually wouldn't have an effect, 1 that seems good but would actually be detrimental, 2 that are unoptimal solutions, and 2 that would actually work smoothly.

Meanwhile I do not think that it's fine that the fighter has about three options, one being obviously useless, one appearing to work, and one which is very unoptimal.

The problem isn't that the wizard has options. It's that the fighter is a glorified commoner and doesn't have significant options of their own beyond those of a commoner.

 

[Gammadoodler]

In terms of racial features? Quite a lot, actually. You're going to see the rogue pop up alot because...they're one of the most utility martials. Monks also have good utility.

A lightfoot halfling rogue's naturally stealthy feature mixes well with their cunning action, letting them essentially guarantee being hidden every turn as a bonus action by virtue of being near their allies and hiding behind them. A wizard can't just bonus action hide and I'm unfamiliar with any spell that let's them replicate that feature of the rogue.

Not only do any additional skills from race/background become a potential expertise target for a rogue, but they synergize with Reliable Talent. While a wizard taking a racial proficiency means they get a maximum of +11, the rogue picking the same option gets a bonus maximum of +17 with a lowest roll being a 27. Not to mention, certain races have tool proficiencies that act as expertise under certain conditions that will also gain the Reliable Talent benefit, like the gnome's Artificer Lore.

A wood elf's Fleet of Foot is a great way to give a monk a bit more distance with their extra movement and potential bonus action dash. A wizard might not need to move around the battlefield or moving along surfaces or liquids as swiftly depending on their gameplan. But also, the Fleet of Foot Barbarian gives the eagle totem a 45ft fly speed, 90ft in a dash. And this isn't a regular leap, either. This is a free 90ft flight. Meaning a barbarian can even maneuver in mid-air while moving in the air. A wizard getting an extra 5ft movement doesn't affect as much, especially since they usually want to be at range.

A shadow monk can get an extra casting of Darkness for free as a Drow. Considering the shadow monk wants to mainly be in darkness, them having 120ft darkvision is beneficial especially for seeing hostile creatures before they see the party.

Funnily, a barbarian with Aspect of the Eagle and a race with darkvision can pretty much see normally even in pitch darkness because dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on perception checks. I don't know of a wizard spell that can replicate this either.

I think you and I may experience games where social and exploration are handled very differently.

I've never been a part of a game where bonus actions are tracked outside of combat. Similarly I've not encountered many scenarios outside of combat where having the party barbarian go into a 6-second rage is a particularly good option, unless there is zero chance of subsequent combats.

As far as Aspect of the Eagle, perception is a skill check. The wizard answer to spell checks is almost always one of 'enhance ability' or 'skill empowerment', except that the wizard gets to choose what they're gonna be good at every time they cast, aaaannd the spells also cover perception checks outside of vision, aaaaand for at least 'enhance ability', the spell covers other wisdom based checks like 'insight'.. aaaaand can be upcast to target multiple party members.

For the hour, they can concentrate on it, 'enhance ability' is strictly better in dim light and darkness and doesn't become irrelevant as soon as someone turns on the lights...and it's only a second level spell.

 

[Asisreo]

the problem comes with those 20 (12/3/1/2/2) change depending on the circumstance... scouting 12 useless 2 work smoothly... combat 12 useless 2 work smoothly, gather intel 12 useless 2 work smoothly, gather supplies 12 useless 2 work smoothly, set camp 12 useless 2 work smoothly, impress the king 12 useless 2 work smoothly, find secret hidden passag 12 useless 2 work smoothly, fast travel 12 useless 2 work smoothly...

but a fighter has 2 or 3 options not 20, so they have 1 or 2 works amazing in combat, and 1 suboptimal solution to impress the king and 1 would appear to work but actually wouldn't have an effect with find secret hidden passage...

Yes, but that's the thing: the wizard is being rewarded for their clever play. It works for the wizard because that's their playstyle, but it's not risk-free or easy player-wise. There's plenty opportunities to do great but there's also plenty opportunities to screw it up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, but that's the thing: the wizard is being rewarded for their clever play. It works for the wizard because that's their playstyle, but it's not risk-free or easy player-wise. There's plenty opportunities to do great but there's also plenty opportunities to screw it up.

Yeah, but that's the thing. The fighter has just as many opportunities to screw it up as the wizard because there are just as many situations they face. They just don't have the toolkit to deal with it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, but that's the thing: the wizard is being rewarded for their clever play. It works for the wizard because that's their playstyle, but it's not risk-free or easy player-wise. There's plenty opportunities to do great but there's also plenty opportunities to screw it up.

this is the perfect statement, and I would like to transplant it to another thread with your permission... the thing I (and some in my group, and I believe in other groups as well) is want THAT clever play rewarded on a non spell caster.

 

[Asisreo]

This is cherry picking:

1. If you don't think that the familiar is the right tool for the job don't send them. The fighter simply doesn't get this option.

But that's the thing. How would your wizard truly know the familiar isn't the right tool? If all your wizard knows is that the enemy's base is ahead, why wouldn't they do what they always do? It may end up being detrimental, but the wizard might not be able to predict it.

If we're sending a PC the wizard's probably better than the fighter (not having inherent disadvantage and with more supporting tools)

But are they better than the shadow monk or the rogue? Plus, even a strength fighter can give up 1 AC as long as they have a +2 dex, and not have stealth disadvantage.

But a fighter isn't specialized in stealthing, so again, what about the shadow monk and rogue?

So to sum up. Sometimes the familiar is extremely useful and the wizard is vastly better than the fighter. Sometimes it's just slightly useful (even if only giving you another check) in which case the wizard is still better than the fighter.

But sometimes the familiar is detrimental.

Meanwhile I do not think that it's fine that the fighter has about three options, one being obviously useless, one appearing to work, and one which is very unoptimal.

The problem isn't that the wizard has options. It's that the fighter is a glorified commoner and doesn't have significant options of their own beyond those of a commoner.

It's clear you're displeased with the fighter, but your interpretation of the fighter doesn't prove it underperforms anywhere. It just means you have a preference and the fighter doesn't provide that for you.

The question is: what makes your distaste for fighter a priority?

Let's flip it. Some people have the opinion that the fighter, and all martials, are too complex to enjoy their fantasy of fight-only musclehead. Do you think your opinion holds more merit than the

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's flip it. Some people have the opinion that the fighter, and all martials, are too complex to enjoy their fantasy of fight-only musclehead. Do you think your opinion holds more merit than the

no... this is why I argue having to break up the fighter.... Keep the champion (aka as simple as can be) give them some flavorful subclasses.

Take the Eldritch knight and make a 1/2 caster Arcane class (use the artificer chart so they get cantrips) and make them somewhat complex with some spell options... my prefered name for this is Magus, but spellsword, spellblade, duskblade, bladesinger, gish, and many others are all options. By making it it's own class you open up multi subclass varriants. ones that focus more on self buffs, ones that focus on big boom spells... and you open up class spesfic spells (ones that like the cantrips in later books aka green flame blade and booming blade) interact with weapon attacks in a way wizards most likely shouldn't

Take the battlemaster and make it it;s own class (this is the one I really want) My preferred name is warlord or swordsage, but there are lots of choices here too. Give them options options options, choices at level up "What powers do you take" choices round by round ect. I put my own concept using the warlock chaise up in another thread. This opens up subclasses as well (in my example 2 subclasses that you can mix and match) so you can have flavor and options.

now this way is a GREAT way to help us all have fun