D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Fanaelialae]

Also, anyone who has ever lifted weights for sport or pleasure knows that you don't always automatically hit your max. Some days it just isn't there. And some days you manage to pull off a PB that is noticeably outside your regular range. Same goes for running, climbing and other physical activity: your performance can change significantly based on variables you aren't even aware of. So I think making folks roll athletics or whatever when operating at the top end of what their strength says they can do is perfectly reasonable.

That's a good point. Also, anyone who's ever tried to cast a spell irl knows that it isn't always successful. So you might want to add Arcana checks in order to successfully cast a spell. For the sake of realism.

In all seriousness though, I see this as one of the biggest reasons for the general state of the fighter . Anything "real" (ie, anything the fighter can do) is bounded well inside the margins of realism. Generally so far from that boundary that the fighter falls short of what real world athletes are capable of. Whereas, because it's magic, casters are almost never limited in this manner.

Forget about emulating Hercules, your average 20th level archery-specialized fighter can't even emulate Robin Hood (splitting the arrow) without having to rely upon DM fiat.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not to model, but to justify calling for that check is all.

Yup, gotcha.

Lots of people ignore or hand wave encumbrance, but upthread there are people dismissing Strength as a stat, and now this.

What I would like to see is cooperation between the Str character and the wizard. “Grab the body! I will teleport us!” (As a DM I would count the body as “gear” under Rule of Cool.)

 

[Reynard]

That's a good point. Also, anyone who's ever tried to cast a spell irl knows that it isn't always successful. So you might want to add Arcana checks in order to successfully cast a spell. For the sake of realism.

You are being glib but quite a lot of RPGs do, in fact, require skill rolls for casting. D&D wouldn't be hurt by adding such rules.

In all seriousness though, I see this as one of the biggest reasons for the general state of the fighter . Anything "real" (ie, anything the fighter can do) is bounded well inside the margins of realism. Generally so far from that boundary that the fighter falls short of what real world athletes are capable of. Whereas, because it's magic, casters are almost never limited in this manner.

Forget about emulating Hercules, your average 20th level archery-specialized fighter can't even emulate Robin Hood (splitting the arrow) without having to rely upon DM fiat.

Sure, if you want to emulate Heracles or Gilgamesh. But a lot of us want to emulate actual people in an actual world and you are acting as if that were a personal attack.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, if you want to emulate Heracles or Gilgamesh. But a lot of us want to emulate actual people in an actual world and you are acting as if that were a personal attack.

Did you read my post? I literally said forget Hercules.

Robin Hood is essentially a real person. In D&D terms, he'd probably be no higher than low-end T2. What he can do is something that real (albeit skilled) people can do. I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but I do find it slightly frustrating that some people can't (or won't) acknowledge that the most exceptional fighter in D&D cannot even match the accomplishments of an exceptional real world person (without relying on DM fiat). I mean, if we're going to limit the fighter to what a real world person can do, could we maybe at least try to emulate the most exceptional people and not just aim for the middle of the pack? Would having a 20th level archer fighter be able to reliably split an arrow wreck the game for you in some way?

 

[Undrave]

Kinda yah. I think there is probably a lot to it. The Wizard is one of the "core 4", so to speak, and going back even further is one of the first two classes the game had. It gets a lot of legacy love. In addition, the flavor text you mention is pretty helpful, in that basically the wizard's flavor text is "Good with magic." That means it's pretty easy to justify adding a spell to their list unless it again, doesn't match the legacy (No Healing for You!) or is designed as an exclusive spell. And it's very simple to come up with a idea for a new spell, as we can see in every new splatbook.

Yup. The Wizard gets new spells because “He’s the Wizard”, including all those melee cantrip Char Op loves so much… Meanwhile, the Fighter often gets the opposite version “He’s just the Fighter” and there’s always someone to whine that “If the Fighter can do X then the Paladin/Cleric/Ranger/Bard should be able to get it too!”. I seriously believe that some of the feats we have in the PHB1 were originally Fighter class features, like ‘advanced fighting styles’ like Great Weapon Mastery, Polearm Mastery, Shield Master, Crossbow Expert etc. They all feel like evolutions of the basic fighting styles found in the Fighter section.

You are being glib but quite a lot of RPGs do, in fact, require skill rolls for casting. D&D wouldn't be hurt by adding such rules.

D&D would benefit from casting not being so ‘fire and forget’.

I think it would be cool if magical stuff in D&D had a bit of a wind up, that when a Caster starts casting, it doesn’t always automatically goes through, with stronger spells waiting until the next turn to resolve, some spells waiting to resolve at Init-10 and only some weak stuff (like Cantrips) being instantaneous. More importantly, the casting could be interrupted following the same rules as concentration.

It would make facing a Spellcaster more interesting, especially if you can tell what they are casting (either because you have the same spell or by doing an Arcana check) and try to either reach them in time or protect yourself from the effect. It would also make the PC Spellcaster more tactical and make having a balanced party more important, as weapon users would be needed to prevent your spellcasting from being disrupted, or from preventing enemies from moving into less advantageous positions. Getting off that Fireball would be more of a team effort!

 

[Maxperson]

So, just so you know I gave you a "Laugh" for this because I find it so ironic. You say things are balanced as they are, but then enforce changing them (bolded).

Things are in fact balanced for 6-8 encounters in an adventuring day. The change I make isn't for balance reasons. It's for how it feels to rush 6-8 encounters into a 24 hour period(per long rest). My change results in..........................................6-8 encounters in an adventuring "day"(per long rest). No irony there at all.

 

[Reynard]

Did you read my post? I literally said forget Hercules.

Robin Hood is essentially a real person. In D&D terms, he'd probably be no higher than low-end T2. What he can do is something that real (albeit skilled) people can do. I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but I do find it slightly frustrating that some people can't (or won't) acknowledge that the most exceptional fighter in D&D cannot even match the accomplishments of an exceptional real world person (without relying on DM fiat). I mean, if we're going to limit the fighter to what a real world person can do, could we maybe at least try to emulate the most exceptional people and not just aim for the middle of the pack? Would having a 20th level archer fighter be able to reliably split an arrow wreck the game for you in some way?

What does splitting an arrow have to do with anything? When would that come up in game in a way that it would matter but not demand some sort of roll (even if to see whether they could split more arrows than their rival archer)? I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish in play from a mechanical perspective. You keep expressing frustration without actually explaining what you want from a mechanical perspective.

 

[Maxperson]

Does it? Even if you assume that adventure days are balanced around 6-8 encounters, that still favours wizards. Even if you’re balancing around 6-8 encounters, you are still going to get more days with 3-4 encounters than 10-12.

There aren't going to be any of either. It's 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. Less unbalances in favor of PCs. More unbalances in favor of the DM. That's why I stretch the day out. There can be a 24 hour period with 1 encounter. Then the next might have 2. None on the third. None on the fourth. The fifth is busy and has 3! Then one each for the sixth and seventh. Voila!

And lo, on the 7th day they got a long rest after 8 encounters.

But let’s look at your second claim, that the wizard who uses his spell slots in social and exploration doesn’t have them available for combat.

11th level wizard. He doesn’t know how many combats he is going to have in the day, so say, for the sake of argument he reserves his 5 highest spell slots for combat.

He is still left with 2 4th level spells, 3 3rd level spells and 3 2nd level spells. There are some massive game changers there: invisibility, major image, enhance ability, suggestion…

Cool. He's using less than 1 slot per combat and has 3 full combats where he's reduced to only cantrips. He's waaaaaaaaaaaay behind the martials in combat. Alternatively, you can choose to cast 3 in combat #1, 2 in combat #2 doing well in those, and then have cantrips only for 6 whole combats. You pick!

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I think this is a great idea for those tables that have a problem with it. I personally have not really seen it affect gameplay. We all know the loopy balance thing exists, especially in a once encounter a day scenario, but no one seems to care. Wizards are fun, as are rangers, as are clerics, as are fighters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

“Showy Shot”

You may spend Inspiration to make a trick shot, such as splitting another arrow or shooting an apple off of somebody’s head, without making a d20 roll. This can only be done up to normal range of your weapon, and can not be done in combat.


How’s that? It’s not realistic (Olympic archers couldn’t intentionally split an arrow with any sort of reliable success rate) but I think it models what Robin Hood does in the legends.

And please nobody post a YouTube video of somebody splitting an arrow, unless they also show how many attempts it took.