D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Reynard]

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.

I see. I guess I was coming at it from the subject of the thread, which is more about the wizard.

As a matter of pure preference, I would always reign things in than expand them in 5E as solutions to problems. 5E is already too super heroic for my taste, so if the problem is wizards versus fighter power and versatility, limiting the wizard is better.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

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.

Maybe. There are certainly people who make those arguments, although I don't know if the feats are because WotC agreed with those people. I do think that they seem worried about giving the fighter interesting abilities. Indomitable is a good example in my opinion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I see. I guess I was coming at it from the subject of the thread, which is more about the wizard.

As a matter of pure preference, I would always reign things in than expand them in 5E as solutions to problems. 5E is already too super heroic for my taste, so if the problem is wizards versus fighter power and versatility, limiting the wizard is better.

That's fair. Just not my preference.

I like high level games to feel high powered. I feel like that's the direction D&D has leaned in every edition anyway. A high level fighter can go toe to toe with a monster the size of a 747 and kill it. It's disconcerting to me that the same fighter would probably not even be able to qualify for, much less actually win, an Olympic event.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

3e Shatter would fail. It actually shatters objects and ropes don't shatter. 5e Shatter is ill named. It doesn't specifically shatter things like the 3e version and can affect even creatures. It does sound damage which affects everything. Brittle objects get disadvantage on the save.

I would let the 5e version break a rope and then bitterly complain in my head about the horrible name they chose for what the spell does.

 

[Fanaelialae]

3e Shatter would fail. It actually shatters objects and ropes don't shatter. 5e Shatter is ill named. It doesn't specifically shatter things like the 3e version and can affect even creatures. It does sound damage which affects everything. Brittle objects get disadvantage on the save.

I would let the 5e version break a rope and then bitterly complain in my head about the horrible name they chose for what the spell does.

I mean, I'm 99% sure it deals thunder damage so it is clearly a sonic attack. I'm not sure what kind of decibels it would take to "break" a hemp climbing rope, but I strongly suspect that at that intensity it would turn any organic matter in the vicinity into soup. If we're being realistic.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, I'm 99% sure it deals thunder damage so it is clearly a sonic attack. I'm not sure what kind of decibels it would take to "break" a hemp climbing rope, but I strongly suspect that at that intensity it would turn any organic matter in the vicinity into soup. If we're being realistic.

Oh, so you want realism for the wizard but not the fighter, I see.

j/k in case it wasn't clear.

 

[Mort]

Oh, so you want realism for the wizard but not the fighter, I see.

j/k in case it wasn't clear.

You joke (I think) -

But "it's magic" is enough to get by many, many DMs. Many of which would probably force an athletics check for the STR: 20 fighter to jump 20 ft (even though RAW they generally shouldn't) and god forbid the fighter tries to jump 21ft!

Point being, DMs need to remember that the fighter and the wizard "live" in the same world. Realism in a world of magic and myth is not the same as real world realism.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, I'm 99% sure it deals thunder damage so it is clearly a sonic attack. I'm not sure what kind of decibels it would take to "break" a hemp climbing rope, but I strongly suspect that at that intensity it would turn any organic matter in the vicinity into soup. If we're being realistic.

Sure, but being utterly realistic =/= realism. Realism is a scale from 0(primal soup of chaos) to utter reality. Just because some of us want more realism than the game has at default, doesn't mean we're looking to be anywhere near mirroring reality.

 

[Maxperson]

But "it's magic" is enough to get by many, many DMs. Many of which would probably force an athletics check for the STR: 20 fighter to jump 20 ft (even though RAW they generally shouldn't) and god forbid the fighter tries to jump 21ft!

I'm not going to make that fighter roll for 20 feet, but 21 feet is by definition in doubt, or the rule would be, "You can automatically jump a distance equal to your strength score +1" or something. Now, it wouldn't be all that hard to go that extra foot, but it wouldn't be automatic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, but being utterly realistic =/= realism. Realism is a scale from 0(primal soup of chaos) to utter reality. Just because some of us want more realism than the game has at default, doesn't mean we're looking to be anywhere near mirroring reality.

The issue that I'm trying to illustrate is that often that realism is imposed on martials but ignored for casters. I've seen this many, many times at various tables over decades of play.

If the wizard and the fighter are kept to the same scale of realism, then that narrows the gap between them considerably. The problem is that very often IME the realism restriction for martials is very high, while for casters it is almost non-existent. And when that is the case, it widens the gap between the two considerably.