D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't change its AC. I would just apply disadvantage. That models the fact that it has to be some very bad luckfor the archer to miss (rolling two 1s) rather than just screw it up.

Different ways to do it. Though thinking about it, I'd probably give it the AC of 16-18 and then give an archer specialist advantage on the roll, since it's a contest in his specialty and not combat.

 

[Undrave]

As to when you would use it? How about when an NPC is about to be hanged and you want to show off by slicing through the rope with an arrow? I realize that's pushing the bounds of realism, but it's hella cool and definitely something a player might want to attempt. The fighter player is at the mercy of the DM. Meanwhile, the wizard player can cast Shatter on the rope and probably auto succeed (despite the silliness of shattering a rope).

I've looked up online a little and I've seen people hit string and rope with arrows, but the type of arrows they use usually slips right off the rope without damage. So it's possible to hit the rope but you need a specific type of arrows for it to cut...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why would the quickness(dex) let you jump(str) farther?

That's reasonable, and why the champion gets Remarkable Athlete. I'd be okay with the champion ability being applied to fighters in general.

Right, and IMO, that's one of the biggest issues for fighters. A lot of what ought to be part of their core competencies gets silo'd into archetypes, feats, etc, rather than the core class.

Whereas the wizard's strength is that their core competencies are silo'd into spells that any wizard can take. There's literally nothing to stop a diviner from focusing on non-divinatory spells, for example.

 

[Reynard]

Yet a diviner wizard can cast fireball quite effectively.

You seem to be arguing more for reigning in the wizard than bolstering the fighter -- which i completely agree with, btw. I think the reason that people view the wizard as too powerful and versatile is that no one actually enforces the limitations on the class very well. They rest too much. they don't pay attention to components (of any sort). They don't focus on or enforce the limited choice aspect of the wizard's versatility. They don't target them in combat with intelligent enemies (kill the cleric first, tho).

I'm not saying there aren't ways to make the various fighters more versatile or interesting, but we are talking about comparisons, in my experience and opinion wizard dominance comes primarily from lax GMing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've looked up online a little and I've seen people hit string and rope with arrows, but the type of arrows they use usually slips right off the rope without damage. So it's possible to hit the rope but you need a specific type of arrows for it to cut...

And what are your feelings on casting shatter on rope?

I would hope that anyone who'd rule that you can't slice a rope with an arrow, because realism, would also not allow a rope to be shattered, because realism.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, and IMO, that's one of the biggest issues for fighters. A lot of what ought to be part of their core competencies gets silo'd into archetypes, feats, etc, rather than the core class.

You aren't going to get disagreement from me here. Fighters do fine matched up against casters in combat, but fall short in the other two pillars. Remarkable Athlete is an exploration boost, but in my opinion isn't enough to make up the difference. It's fairly tough to think of good fighter exploration/social abilities, though.

Whereas the wizard's strength is that their core competencies are silo'd into spells that any wizard can take. There's literally nothing to stop a diviner from focusing on non-divinatory spells, for example.

That's not a good equivalence there. A diviner is to wizard what champion is to fighter. It's just a narrow focus for the general class. Nothing stops a champion from using his non-champion abilities a lot.

Fighters need boosts, but I don't think comparisons like that do any good.

 

[Scott Christian]

2 spells per level can take 1 combat each level and alternate with social and exploration and still have all the options In fact since you can prep 1 per level plus int mod by level 8 you can prep11 (if you keep to a 16 stat) and do 2 combat spells per level of spell (so 8) and have 3 'other' spells on your normal prep list

since 2e I have found most people have 2-3 'common' prep lists... 1 for 'dungeon delves or known combat days' 1 for travel days and 1 for in town days... sometimes this means you have the wrong set prepped (Hey town got attacked or the dungeon has a lot of social things) but that is the price for versatility

I agree with this. The prep is not always accurate, but I can say I have seen a lot of DMs let this slide, or the player push to know what they are doing. But prep is a real thing that can limit the wizard's multi-faceted approach.

at least a ranger gets spells and spell slots... they can pick up SOME versatility

Good point.

Cleric I have to stop you at...

about half the domains a cleric can pick are heavy armor and martial weapons and either a second attack like a fighter or +1d8 radiant damage.
half the bards and hexblades have medium armor and martial weapons and can get 2nd attack
even wizards with bladesinger can get a second attack and a martial weapon

you have to get to level 11 before the fighter can't have a full caster able to keep up (or at least close) all the while still having spells...

I get that clerics can deal good damage. But I just don't see them being able to control groups or spread damage or manipulate using non-combat tactics the way a wizard can. And the wizard can deal good damage too.

the biggest eye opener I had was when I used the Middle Earth 5e books to run a martial only campaign. There is a class called warden. It is basically a bard (with renamed inspiration and song of rest) that doesn't get spells or counter charm. That pitch (and how we read it) sounded like bull... not getting anything that can replace spells alone should make this the weakest class... but with no other casters we found a 'warden' (bard losing spell casting) was fair and balanced with a warrior (fighter)

That is really cool. I backed The One Ring Kickstarter but haven't had a chance to read through it or play. I am hoping it is similar.

 

[Reynard]

And what are your feelings on casting shatter on rope?

I would hope that anyone who'd rule that you can't slice a rope with an arrow, because realism, would also not allow a rope to be shattered, because realism.

For the record, I wouldn't implement some weird rule where ropes have resistant against arrow attacks. that's nonsensical. As to shatter -- it explicitly calls out doing more damage to crystalline things, so it is intended to be an all purpose object breaker.

Now, if I was in a group where there was a decent archer and a wizard and the wizard cast shatter on a rope the archer could have shot, I would slap the wizard for wasting a spell on a problem that an arrow could have solved. Ostensibly the party is a team and that means uses one anothers' strengths.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You seem to be arguing more for reigning in the wizard than bolstering the fighter -- which i completely agree with, btw. I think the reason that people view the wizard as too powerful and versatile is that no one actually enforces the limitations on the class very well. They rest too much. they don't pay attention to components (of any sort). They don't focus on or enforce the limited choice aspect of the wizard's versatility. They don't target them in combat with intelligent enemies (kill the cleric first, tho).

I'm not saying there aren't ways to make the various fighters more versatile or interesting, but we are talking about comparisons, in my experience and opinion wizard dominance comes primarily from lax GMing.

No, I prefer bolstering the fighter over nerfing the wizard.

You seem to be reading things into my statements that aren't there. I never claimed that you can't challenge a high level wizard. I can and I have. I've claimed that a competent wizard player can choose to play on an entirely different field from the fighter. They can choose to play either the same game as the fighter or not. However, the fighter cannot choose to play on the wizard's field. The fighter has to play the fighter's game.

I think that the fighter ought to be bolstered to be able to play on the wizard's field. Probably not to the same degree as the wizard. The wizard is, after all, much diminished when playing on the fighter's field. But the fighter ought to have the option to play there if they choose. This would most likely entail giving them some save or suck abilities, and maybe even some save or die at high levels. As well as a heap more utility.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You seem to be arguing more for reigning in the wizard than bolstering the fighter -- which i completely agree with, btw. I think the reason that people view the wizard as too powerful and versatile is that no one actually enforces the limitations on the class very well. They rest too much. they don't pay attention to components (of any sort). They don't focus on or enforce the limited choice aspect of the wizard's versatility. They don't target them in combat with intelligent enemies (kill the cleric first, tho).

I'm not saying there aren't ways to make the various fighters more versatile or interesting, but we are talking about comparisons, in my experience and opinion wizard dominance comes primarily from lax GMing.

Like ignoring encumbrance or rules for swapping held items?