D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Gammadoodler]

That all is perfectly logical.

And…if you think wizards are too powerful, why, among all the possible fictions you could adopt, would you pick one that makes wizards more powerful?

I imagine making wizards OP in the setting is maybe not a satisfying solution for wizards being OP in the rulebook?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A combat between a PC melee fighter and an invisible opponent, or an archer who is hard to reach, still has the player of the fighter engaging the combat rules - taking turns, declaring actions, etc. The exception would be a melee fighter against a flying archer or similar sort of foe - which I think would often be seen as adversarial!

When the GM has a NPC or trap or whatever cancel the wizard's spell, on the other hand, the wizard player doesn't get to keep playing the game. Their move has been negated.

this reminds me of my friends that play Magic... (I have not since the 90s) who say there is a sister game where you sit there with cards and watch OTHER people play magic... it is big with red/blue decks that negate your stuff then blow up your mana sources (I guess there are things other then land now?) but they don't have enought monsters to kill you out right so 2 3 sometimes as much as 5 turns go by where you can't do anything and they are hitting you with 1/1 monsters... it is pretty annoying (as I would imagine)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You never trust the 'Defense against the Dark Arts' teacher.

we found the BBEG!!!!

 

[DND_Reborn]

You never trust the 'Defense against the Dark Arts' teacher.

Well, almost never...

You could probably trust one, and maybe a couple others are doubtful.

 

[Undrave]

And the champion fighter is not as simple as a combat-based class can get. It isn't very complex, but it can certainly get simpler.

What? Is extra attacks too hard to grasp?

I'm sorry but if you think the Champion is too complex, you're just playing the wrong game.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, I didn't get that from your post. It seemed more like you didn't like them knowing so many spells (which is what creates the versatility).

But, to answer this question, we've revamped the spell lists so wizards have 200 spells instead of nearly 300 (over 300 now probably).

However, this decreases the sameyness issue (only 1/3 spells overlap between classes instead of 2/3), but nothing addresses wizards all picking the "best" spells except (IME):

1. Checks to learn spells (which we have...)
2. Gaining spells at random (which I don't think many people would like)

For our checks to learn spells (not just wizards, all casters!) if you fail you cannot try again until your spellcasting modifier increases (either via ability modifier or proficiency bonus). The DC is 10 + the spells level made using your spellcasting modifier.

Random is too punitive a think. There are a handful of "the best" spells that 2 picks a level lets you get. Random, though, makes it very likely that you will basically be a bumpkin in a fight and not much use outside of one. The group I run for just found some spellbooks that had been collected by someone else, so I hadn't figured out what was in them. We rolled randomly for the spells inside and when were were done(while rolling really) we all had a good laugh as we tried to figure out what circumstances or intent would cause a wizard to pick these mixes of spells. Then one player was like, "Well no wonder they all died to this guy."

Checking to learn spells might work, but having played 1e/2e, you were going to succeed at some really good spell, it was just a matter of which one. I also think picking 1 spell would keep all of the best spells from being picked, while still allowing some of the good ones to be selected.

One of the reasons the wizard is so great at versatility is that he is picking the great versatility spells and the great combat spells, something he can't do with 1 pick a level. Having to rely on scrolls, books, NPC wizards, etc. that I control means that a lot of the gained spells will be more limited in terms of versatility, because they will most likely not be top tier spells. It could happen, but random determination for most of those avenues to spells means that the wizard will still be versatile(that's his role), but not incredibly so.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Random is too punitive a think.

I had a DM that was thinking about doing 1 you pick 1 the DM picks... but that game never got off the ground

 

[Mort]

I had a DM that was thinking about doing 1 you pick 1 the DM picks... but that game never got off the ground

As a DM, I would be hesitant to do that. I don't want to accidentally screw the player (or be perceived as screwing the player) by picking something that they don't like or that turns out to be a useless pick. And while I like to plan stuff wide but not deep, I do have SOME idea of things to come and that could overly influence any picks of mine (not a HUGE concern, but it's there).

 

[Maxperson]

As a DM, I would be hesitant to do that. I don't want to accidentally screw the player (or be perceived as screwing the player) by picking something that they don't like or that turns out to be a useless pick. And while I like to plan stuff wide but not deep, I do have SOME idea of things to come and that could overly influence any picks of mine (not a HUGE concern, but it's there).

That was my thought as well. It would be stressful to worry about whether I'm giving something too good, because I don't want to be perceived as screwing the player, giving something proper, or giving something too weak.

 

[James Gasik]

I would just have more scrolls and captured spellbooks appear. Maybe with more options, the players will experiment with other spells?