D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

Not true. Like I said, it is resource management. So for that session they are not as good, but they can be great at everything if they choose to during a session. This is especially true if you have a creative player that uses spells uniquely.

Sure. They could potentially be great at everything for a session, but a game day is spread out over multiple sessions. Being great in all three for an entire session means burning through a lot of slots. They're going to be behind in the other sessions, so it balances out.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

50/50 for damage spells that he is likely resistant to. He's resistant to three energies and immune to poison. But you don't know where the weak saves are unless you've read the books.

I mean he really doesn't have a weak one... a +3 is still much better then some monsters have. and I am assuming non damage save or suck spells... but yeah fireball may not be the best choice

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure. They could potentially be great at everything for a session, but a game day is spread out over multiple sessions. Being great in all three for an entire session means burning through a lot of slots. They're going to be behind in the other sessions, so it balances out.

No it doesn't, and that is the entire point of the question.

A fighter cannot choose to be great at exploration unless the DM specifically sets up the exploration for them. A wizard, no problem. A ranger cannot choose to be great at social unless it is specifically geared for them. A wizard, no problem. A cleric cannot choose to be the damage dealer unless it is set up specifically for them. A wizard, no problem.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So it seems like one thing DMs could do at tables where this is perceived to be a problem is to switch up some monster saving throws.

 

[Yaarel]

In most editions of D&D I want the high level wizards gone when I run things because they make it so I can't reasonably get the campaign world to work in my head. I also want the high level clerics and druids and bards and monsters gone too.

High tiers are a different kind of game than low tiers.

The low tiers are more like reallife, or like Game of Thrones or Tolkien.

At low tiers the low-tech world of medievalesque notions can work.

But high tiers are high-tech. It is a different kind of world.

The teleportation, long distance scrying, communing, resurrecting, mind dominating, castle negating, and army defeating spells make it hard for me to picture why any of the medieval trappings are there.

Teleportation is nonproblematic.
Scrying is like hacking into security cameras.
Resurrection is nonproblematic.
Mind-dominating is potent, also manageable.
Castle negating is also like modern life. Think about why we dont use castles today.
Think about how security today works.
5e lacks "army defeating" spells. Maybe Meteor Swarm but its use is limited.

And if the high level casters are gone, I'm not sure why I want a fighter with 200 hp either going around single handedly defeating armies.

If there are lots of high level baddies around I wonder how everything isn't hell on earth. If there aren't, then I wonder why the high level good guys haven't teamed up to clear the countryside of the moderate level ones. And if there aren't other high level good guys then I wonder why the high level bad opponents don't appear until the party is high level. Or if they were there why they haven't nuked anything that might develop into a threat. Bleh.

This actually the part of high tier gaming that is fun. As a DM, I get to watch players creating the setting! They are doing the city-building, the world-building.

As a DM, think about how the city and the world respond. Encourage players to build stable institutions. Enjoy the worldbuilding as it happens in live time.

And so to stop myself from overthinking in my world building and campaign running I'd like the whole thing to stop earlier.

If I'm playing in a game? Meh, I can deal with the world not making sense (in the sociological, political, economic, warfare kind of ways) as long as the DM can put up with my questions about exploiting the gaps. So I'm good with the high level wizards there.

-----

I wonder what would happen if they harkened back to the old basic line way of dividing things.

Say the PHB1 was sort of like BE and 1/2 C with the rules for the characters for that, and PHB2 was the rest of C and MI with all of the things of that level. So the first book focusses on characters dealing with the local area, cities, and kingdoms, and the second focusses on the world and the planes beyond.

This is probably a good idea. The "core" Players Handbook should probably only cover tiers 1-4 and 5-8. Maybe, 9-12.

But have the superheroish levels of 13-16, 17-20, and epic 21-24 in a separate Players Handbook.

Selfishly I could just use the PHB1 when running things. And then if I was playing I could use both.

Yeah.

 

[Mort]

Sure. They could potentially be great at everything for a session, but a game day is spread out over multiple sessions. Being great in all three for an entire session means burning through a lot of slots. They're going to be behind in the other sessions, so it balances out.

First, this is only true if the DM doesn't allow the players to control the pace of play, I've seen plenty of times where DMs do.

Second, as @Scott Christian stated, At least the wizard has the choice to excel, even if he must make sacrifices later in the adventure/adventuring day (assuming again, he even has to). The fighter can generally excel in combat, but it's tough to have him excel in the other pillars - strides are being made in that direction - but it's far from equal.

 

[Cadence]

But high tiers are high-tech. It is a different kind of world.

I also don't run sci-fi unless it's post apocalyptic, or modern unless its really horror based
I can't keep track of all the ways to break things.

Teleportation is nonproblematic.
Scrying is like hacking into security cameras.
Resurrection is nonproblematic.
Mind-dominating is potent, also manageable.
Castle negating is also like modern life. Think about why dont use castles today.
5e lacks "army defeating" spells. Maybe Meteor Swarm but its use is limited.

They all kind of feel problematic to me?

This actually the part of high tier gaming that is fun. As a DM, I get to watch players creating the setting! They are doing the city-building, the world-building.

As a DM, think about how the city and the world respond. Encourage players to build stable institutions. Enjoy the worldbuilding as it happens in live time.

I'm afraid my thinking as a DM would veer to be along the lines of where they forgot to put a ward on something and whether the bad guy would teleport in and disintegrated them, or put the really nasty poison in the city water supply.

As a player, I'd like to help design the city government etc...

This is probably a good idea. The "core" Players Handbook should probably only cover tiers 1-4 and 5-8. Maybe, 9-12.

But have the superheroish levels of 13-16, 17-20, and epic 21-24 in a separate Players Handbook.

Yeah.

I'm guessing we're too late to suggest it to them for 5.5

I wish I had any hope in it happening!

 

[Yaarel]

@Yaarel

Why the "Laugh" at this post:

Nothing in it was meant to be funny or amusing...


This also doesn't make much sense? You said you like my designs for the Fighter class, and then ask "Seriously..." etc.

Wait? Did you quote someone who has me blocked maybe?? If not, I am confused.

No offense intended. It was just surprising timing, when more than one person asked.


I do like your Fighter stuff. I think you have a knack for both its flavor and balanced mechanics.

The "seriously" part is. Why not use your talent to design Fighter features that function well alongside casters at tiers 13-16 and 17-20?

 

[Maxperson]

No it doesn't, and that is the entire point of the question.

A fighter cannot choose to be great at exploration unless the DM specifically sets up the exploration for them. A wizard, no problem. A ranger cannot choose to be great at social unless it is specifically geared for them. A wizard, no problem. A cleric cannot choose to be the damage dealer unless it is set up specifically for them. A wizard, no problem.

Yes. I have said many times in many threads, that's where the fighter needs help. They need to add ways for the fighter to be better in the other pillars. Combat is fine.

 

[Maxperson]

First, this is only true if the DM doesn't allow the players to control the pace of play, I've seen plenty of times where DMs do.

Sure, but then it's a DM problem, not a caster problem. The DM must have 6-8 encounters before a long rest is allowed or balance goes to hell.