D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Gammadoodler]

I agree, but I still don't understand why this is a "problem". Why is this a bad thing?

If you don't see a problem with the potential to make the other players' characters vestigial rather than essential, I don't know how to help you.

 

[ECMO3]

This is not good game design. The concept of having some players' characters being mechanically superior than others has been used before in games like Arse Magica, but that required a rotating stable of characters and the assumption that everyone would get their turn playing a wizard.
It does not work in a game like D&D where players are generally playing the same character for extended periods, and particularly when the power discrepancy manifests in entire areas of the game where some characters get far fewer options, rather than just slightly lower numbers.

It is still entirely possible to play D&D and have fun even with a power discrepancy between classes, but it is despite that issue, not because of it. A player who wishes to play a less effective character can always do so by playing that way, rather than by having it forced on them by their class.

It is also entirely possible that a game may have a wizard that is not "all that". A wizard that concentrates on combat spells, doesn't try to target weak saves, or just chooses to concentrate less on one of the pillars of play probably isn't going to come off better than another caster who does. If a game does a lot of dungeon-crawling, with lots of combat per day and tends to hand-wave downtime outside the dungeons for example, there probably is no discrepancy between casters as a whole and other classes.
However, it sounds like that is not what is happening here. You are fully aware that Wizards are in fact "all that", you just like it that way.

I think it is perfect game design and I do like it.

People can play whatever class they want. No one is saying "you have to play the second rate fighter while this guy gets to play the fun Wizard". People still want to play that Fighter and Rogue and Monk even though Wizard is more powerful than those and can be as good or better at what those classes strengths are. IF people want to play the best then the entire party can be Wizards if they want to be and the game would not suffer at all, so I don't see the issue.

I know Wizards are "all that" and I love playing Bladesingers, but I play Rogues more and Rogues are one of the weaker classes in the game. I also play Fey Wanderers quite a bit. Probably not quite as much as Bladesingers but close and athough lRangers are strong but they are not "all that".

 

[ECMO3]

If you don't see a problem with the potential to make the other players' characters vestigial rather than essential, I don't know how to help you.

Players choose the classes they play and I have NEVER seen this be a problem due to class at a table.

I've seen this be a problem due to player personalities, role play and knowledge of the rules (experienced players with newbies at the same table). But I have never seen class cause this issue even though Wizard is undeniably a more powerful class and can be better at almost everything.

If a player CHOOSES to play a vestigial class, that is their choice and unless they are a new player they are usually ok with it, because if they weren't they would play a Wizard or at least something on the more powerful side.

When Wizards at our table take out a BBEG with a save or suck every player at the table cheers. No one says "I wish I got to hit him a few more times and be the star of the show"

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I think it is perfect game design and I do like it.

People can play whatever class they want. No one is saying "you have to play the second rate fighter while this guy gets to play the fun Wizard". People still want to play that Fighter and Rogue and Monk even though Wizard is more powerful than those and can be as good or better at what those classes strengths are. IF people want to play the best then the entire party can be Wizards if they want to be and the game would not suffer at all, so I don't see the issue.

I know Wizards are "all that" and I love playing Bladesingers, but I play Rogues more and Rogues are one of the weaker classes in the game. I also play Fey Wanderers quite a bit. Probably not quite as much as Bladesingers but close and athough lRangers are strong but they are not "all that".

Why is this perfect game design though?

I don't doubt people still play the Fighter and Rogue despite knowing they are weaker, persumably because they like the concept of a martial hero.

Would your enjoyment of the Fighter or Rogue lessen if the these classes got mythic martial abilities at high level or guarunteed magic items or plot points or whatever makes them closer in versaility and power to high level Wizards?

How is it a good thing to be forced to play a sub par class if you want a certain concept (martial hero)? As I've said I can sort of see the appeal of playing the "everyman" on the team with "superhero" (although I'd prefer plot points or something instead of just relying on table norms to make this work), but wouldn't it be better design to at least include a mythic martial that gets closer at high level to the Wizard for those that want the concept but ALSO closer power/versaility parity?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Players choose the classes they play and I have NEVER seen this be a problem due to class at a table.

I've seen this be a problem due to player personalities, role play and knowledge of the rules (experienced players with newbies at the same table). But I have never class cause this issue even though Wizard is a more powerful class and can be better at almost everything.

If a player CHOOSES to play a vestigial class, that is their choice and unless they are a new player they are usually ok with it.

Being able to tolerate something is not the same as wanting it, liking it, or not wishing things were better especially in the context of games played with friends.

Presumably most people are there for the camaraderie first and the game second.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree, but I still don't understand why this is a "problem". Why is this a bad thing?

The only real problem is potential overshadowing.

Like I said before. It's Good Advice for a DM to have the wizard player pick subclass after everyone else announces their class, subclass, and specialty so the wizard doesn't step on their toes.

 

[Maxperson]

I think they can generally can do a lot better with spells like knock, friends, charm person/monster etc.

Knock in a dangerous area(most areas you need to use it in) will likely bring multiple encounters to you at once, which could TPK the group. Charm Person and Friends would be highly illegal in any civilized area. Friends makes the target hostile to you and the charmed person knows it was charmed. That and charm doesn't accomplish much. All it does is make the target regard you as a friendly acquaintance. Not even a friend. Just some guy you see and talk to every few months at a friend's party. If a friend couldn't persuade the merchant to give a discount, a friendly acquaintance won't have a chance, so no roll to get advantage on.

Do you really think casting weak social spells that are going to make enemies and/or result in the wizard going to jail or being a fugitive from justice is better than the party face just trying to talk the guy into it? Do you think risking a TPK with every knock spells is better than the rogue unlocking it quietly?

Invisibility is going to give you advantage on most stealth checks, which will generally be better than expertise and it also makes you fully obscured.

Stealth advantage to be unseen, sure. Not to be silent. Invisibility would provide no advantage against being heard.

Not only can the wizard sneak better than the Rogue, he can sneak in places the Rogue has no chance or ability to sneak in.

The rogue would at least be quiet.

Further skill expert and prodigy are things the Wizard can use

Ahh, but now it's not the wizard being better, it's the feats he chooses just like anyone else can.

and that is before we even bring up etherealness or dimension door.

The vast majority of wizards will never reach a level to cast etherealness and dimension door blindly is dangerous. I would be shocked if my players were so stupid as to use that spell for exploration, hoping that nothing solid is where they want to dimension door to.

Knock does make a loud noise, but silence well silences it.

Wizards can't cast silence. This is about WIZARD superiority, right? That means no other classes to help and no feats that anyone can choose. Just wizard stuff.

But a bladesinger is a Wizard.

Not when he's being a fighter. He might have the wizard class, but he's not throwing around spells like a wizard unless he isn't being a fighter. He can't do both at once, and he can't be a better fighter than the fighter in any combat that he's being a good wizard.

They can't heal or raise dead allies. They can do just about everything else a Cleric does and do most of it better.

Clerics keep people up or bring them back from unconsciousness and bring back dead companions, so yes, he can't be a better cleric than a cleric. I agree. And there are tons of cleric spells that the wizard doesn't have, so your argument falls flat.

I agree he can't do it all in the same day but I disagree about focus. A Wizard who runs a high Charisma and gets a bunch of Charm spells is going to be a great face,

If Face is his prison nickname, yes.

Charms are going to be illegal mind control in any civilized area and the target knows he has been charmed, so he's going to be running to the local authority as soon as the charm breaks. Not to mention, unless you're rolling the wizard is going to have high int and mid to high dex/con. He can't have a high charisma unless he makes himself much easier to kill by dropping AC or hit points.

one who pushes dex and relies on illusions is going to be a great scuot/sneak.

Right up until he gets eaten by something that can see invisibility, has ears and can hear the unstealthy clod, has blindsight/blindsense or a sense of smell. Which means lots of things.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Like I said before. It's Good Advice for a DM to have the wizard player pick subclass after everyone else announces their class, subclass, and specialty so the wizard doesn't step on their toes.

Personally I've never been bothered by somebody else filling the same roll that I do, or being more effective. Maybe this is why I don't get hot under the collar about all this.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally I've never been bothered by somebody else filling the same roll that I do, or being more effective. Maybe this is why I don't get hot under the collar about all this.

See, it doesn't generally bother me either. When I play casters, I intentionally hold back to avoid stealing the spotlight.

But I have seen people who are bothered by it. For example, the newbie who I mentioned earlier in this thread who retired a Ranger character that he loved in order to play a Druid. He didn't get hot under the collar either. He just gave up on a really great character. That's why it bothers me. IMO, it is not good for the overall health of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

I've seen this be a problem due to player personalities, role play and knowledge of the rules (experienced players with newbies at the same table). But I have never seen class cause this issue even though Wizard is undeniably a more powerful class and can be better at almost everything.

The problem is AS an experienced player, I'm also a firm believer that complexity and power should be entirely uncorrelated with the character trope. I'm actually kind of OK with your assertion that people can opt into the complexity and power level that they want, so having some classes be somewhat stronger isn't the end of the world.

But I also firmly believe I should be able to play a complex, powerful character that resembles Thor or Saitama, rather than always having to be Dr. Strange. If there's a fighter whose main power is toughness and solid damage, that there should be a sorcerous equivalent with pure blasting and only a tiny amount of utility. (Like a warlock but simpler.) Likewise, if there's a wizard with hundred of spells, there should also be a warblade/swordsage type with mystical wuxia techniques who can fly, heal, and kill ten mooks with a powerful sword swipe (a la fireball).