D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Ruin Explorer]

But afterward, the Fighter can mop up the rest of the party.

That's... unlikely. If there's say, a Paladin, for example, there's absolutely no way the Fighter is going to win that one (especially not in the level 1-10 range). And a Rogue will likely drop the Fighter before the Fighter has even finished killing the Wizard or Cleric barring some amazing DPS burst (which Fighters can sometimes do, with the right subclass and Feats).

In fact, it's hard to think of a party that couldn't burn through the Fighter's HP (including Second Wind(s)) before he could kill two party members.

What you have to remember is the Fighter has no ability to 1v1 people, whereas the Wizard in question was able to split them up and do that (if I understand correctly). It's immediately 1v3 with the Fighter, so the Fighter has to take 100% of the DPS and CC of three characters until he kills the first, the of two characters, and so on.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To be fair, the Fighter would need to kill the Wizard or Cleric first. But afterward, the Fighter can mop up the rest of the party.

To each their own, but I have serious doubts regarding that outcome. By the time he's done taking down the casters he will likely have taken a lot of damage himself, assuming that a caster doesn't just manage to take him out with a single control spell like Hold Person (or, more likely, Hold Monster since practically no one takes the former). Heck, a caster with a Contingency spell can wreck his entire plan of taking the caster out first.

 

[Reynard]

Any wizard player worth their salt rarely needs to nova to swing a battle. Concentration makes that impractical anyway. There are plenty of spells where a single casting can make most encounters dramatically easier.

The wizard swinging the battle in favor of the party is them doing their job. The wizard swinging the battle in favor of the enemies is... a different problem. Like you said, PVP is a really poor metric to measure whether a wizard is "all that" because 99% of the time it is cooperative and a well played wizard is making everyone else better.

 

[Bill Zebub]

two words: focus fire

two words: corybantic and...ummmm...diaphanous.

 

[Yaarel]

That's... unlikely. If there's say, a Paladin, for example, there's absolutely no way the Fighter is going to win that one (especially not in the level 1-10 range). And a Rogue will likely drop the Fighter before the Fighter has even finished killing the Wizard or Cleric barring some amazing DPS burst (which Fighters can sometimes do, with the right subclass and Feats).

In fact, it's hard to think of a party that couldn't burn through the Fighter's HP (including Second Wind(s)) before he could kill two party members.

What you have to remember is the Fighter has no ability to 1v1 people, whereas the Wizard in question was able to split them up and do that (if I understand correctly). It's immediately 1v3 with the Fighter, so the Fighter has to take 100% of the DPS and CC of three characters until he kills the first, the of two characters, and so on.

To me, the 5e Paladin feels more caster than martial. Indeed, I am especially fond of the 5e Paladin, while less interested in the Paladins of earlier editions. In any case, the Paladin in particular is somewhat of a one-person-army. Heh, for sure, a Paladin has little difficulty taking out a party, especially if catching them by surprise.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The wizard swinging the battle in favor of the party is them doing their job. The wizard swinging the battle in favor of the enemies is... a different problem. Like you said, PVP is a really poor metric to measure whether a wizard is "all that" because 99% of the time it is cooperative and a well played wizard is making everyone else better.

As I said, it illustrates the disparity between casters and martials. Casters have a wealth of tools for swinging a battle. Martials... don't.

Moreover, casters have a wealth of tools for swinging non-combat encounters. Martials... don't.

IMO, it ought to be the job of every class to swing a battle. It shouldn't be the case that the casters get the lion's share of 'cool'. Martials should be able to do cool things too. Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm was cool! Why can't even a 20th level fighter compare?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Really? Clerics, Druids and Bards felt weak to you? At level 1-5? Because I've played a ton of those and they feel extremely strong to me, especially from level 3 onwards. Now, I do agree that Sorcerers (especially) and Wizards (at bit less) do feel fairly weak at levels 1-5.

Yeah, that's fair. Clerics, Druids, and Bards do better because they have more non-spell options. Martials still dominate at that tier, though, in my experience.

 

[Yaarel]

As I said, it illustrates the disparity between casters and martials. Casters have a wealth of tools for swinging a battle. Martials... don't.

Moreover, casters have a wealth of tools for swinging non-combat encounters. Martials... don't.

IMO, it ought to be the job of every class to swing a battle. It shouldn't be the case that the casters get the lion's share of 'cool'. Martials should be able to do cool things too. Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm was cool! Why can't even a 20th level fighter compare?

In my game-engine-y view, ripping off an arm is something that can happen when the target reaches zero hit points. It does make healing less convenient.

 

[Maxperson]

Is that factual? I've never seen it. IME saving throws get worse, relative to save DCs as you level while AC generally gets better as to-hit bonuses go up (though not all the time. Some monsters remain easy to hit).

But a lot of monsters are magic resistant and get advantage on saves or have legendary resistance and just automatically make the saves against the really bad stuff.

My players are currently playing an all caster group that recently reached 10th level. I have a College of Swords Bard, an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, a Scribe Wizard, and a Efreeti Pact Warlock. They have been the most successful with damage spells, except when something is resistant to fire since most of their spells do fire damage. When making saves, the monsters have made a lot of them and now I'm seeing a lot of advantage to my saves and legendary resistances show up.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In my game-engine-y view, ripping off an arm is something that can happen when the target reaches zero hit points. It does make healing less convenient.

In my view, that's like... scraping the bottom of the cool barrel for the last dregs of cool.

Casters can completely neutralize an enemy with a single spell. Not uncommonly, multiple enemies at the same time. They can play the HP attrition game if they want to, but they have other options. Whereas HP attrition is the only game in town for the fighter. Yeah, in many circumstances a fighter can do HP attrition better than most casters. But not by enough of a margin, IMO, to really justify their distinct lack of other options.