D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

More importantly for scouting the wizard has tools where he doesn’t even have to be present.

For limited situations and at higher levels, yes.

 

[Maxperson]

I think in tier 1 and 2 there are significant restrictions on spells prepared, known and slots. I think it’s fair to ask how a wizard does even half of what is claimed at those levels. But at a certain point wizards have plenty of slots, spells known and prepared. They can’t do everything all at once but they can do a lot when needed.

90something percent of games don't get to tier 3. Tier 1 and 2 are all that should really be considered in this discussion. And I agree that at higher levels they can do a lot. They can't do a role better than another class, though, because the class abilities of the other classes add to the role. A rogue is more than just skills while scouting. A paladin is more than just damage in combat.

Even a high level wizard cannot be better than that class role totality.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Do you think the ‘fighters get more ASI’ concept could be applied to martials/half-c/casters as a balancing factor? The standard number of ASI increases is what? 5 times? Half-casters keep 5 ASI, martials get 7 and full casters get 3, a caster’s spells is more than enough compensation for the reduction in base stat scaling IMO.
Edit: fighters would even have an extra feat or two baked into their progression so they don’t loose their current sorely needed boosts.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Do you think the ‘fighters get more ASI’ concept could be applied to martials/half-c/casters as a balancing factor? The standard number of ASI is what? 6? Half-casters keep 6 ASI, martials get 8 and full casters get 4, a caster’s spells is more than enough compensation for the reduction in base stat scaling IMO.
Edit: fighters would even have an extra feat or two baked into their progression so they don’t loose their current boosts.

I think it's kind of a meh solution.

IMO, martials should be getting class-exclusive features that when they get used makes everyone at the table sit up and take notice, like when a wizard drops a big spell. I think part of the problem is actually that they tried to balance the fighter in part with bonus ASIs, in lieu of such exclusive abilities. But then they ran into the issue of not being able to make the feats too strong because everyone has access to them.

The fighter is basically a specialist that's constructed as if it were a generalist. IMO, the designers need to pick a lane. Either he ought to be the specialist, in which case he should be the best at what he does by a much more significant margin. Or he should be a generalist, in which case he should have a broader base available to him.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It can be done if you roll. But really, I don't know why monk was there in the first place, so we can ditch that. Fighter/Paladin is pretty good.

Yeah..rolling well is a surefire solution to MADness, but not a good indicator of multiclass compatibility/viability.

Fighter/paladin is pretty good, mostly because almost all the fighter's best toys are in the first 5 levels. This is both a feature and a bug.

On the plus side, the fighter gets to do fighter things right away and pretty effectively in the early levels.

On the negative side, fighter toys don't get significantly more powerful after those low levels..AND the fighter things you were doing at low levels see a precipitous drop in either usefulness or applicability or both.

On the mixed side (depending on your perspective) other classes can take the best fighter toys without investing significantly in the class.

Edit: In terms of class balance as it relates to multiclassing, there is something worthwhile about asking what class mix yields the best outcomes at different tiers of play. Similarly, there is something worthwhile about addressing how many levels of a class a wizard might need to effectively do that classes' job as well or better than that class and vice versa.

To my mind after about these levels, a class can probably start doing its job better with additional wizard levels (if the stats align.. but could use other caster levels for similar results)
Barbarian: mostly incompatible with casting
Fighter: 2-5 levels
Monk: 1 level maybe. Not sure anyone would actually agree on what the monks' role even is.
Paladin: 6-8 levels
Ranger: 3-5 levels
Rogue: 1-3 levels

I don't think there is a parallel for wizards.

 

[Maxperson]

I'v played Cleric, I've played Druid, I've played Bard... found all of them BORING. You pour over the giant spell section and write up your little list and then you just use the same spell over and over again, pressing the same button the same way again and again and it never actually changes. There's always an obviously optimal spell to play so you can't really add any sort of interesting flavour.

I love wizards, because of their versatility. They can be very fun to play. I also love fighters, rogues, 5e paladins, rangers, etc., because those are very fun to play as well.

We are in agreement about the wizard being about more spells. That's what wizard does, so if that's not your thing, then the class is probably not for you. I disagree with you on cleric and druid, though. Clerics have a bunch of built in roleplay based on their chosen deity/philosophy, which colors their behavior, goals, and more. Clerics are far more than just their spells. Druids are the same, but with a nature orientation and some of the subclasses are really neat, adding more flavor.

Bards are bards, and until the need for music and singing are gone from the class I won't play one. I also won't play a druid, but that's because it's more work than it's worth to track all the different stats and hit points of the creatures I turn into. D&D for me is about relaxation, not work.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

90something percent of games don't get to tier 3. Tier 1 and 2 are all that should really be considered in this discussion. And I agree that at higher levels they can do a lot.

This is not a great reason to design a game and classes this way though. Perhaps one of the reasons games are not played at tier 3 and tier 4 is that class balance gets too out of whack and high level magic gets too powerful, particularly on the problem solving front? It's not only a table time issue, as you could just start campaigns at 10th level.

 

[Garthanos]

Tier 1 and 2 are all that should really be considered in this discussion.

LOL, narrow it down so you do not have to actually discuss the problem.

 

[Maxperson]

This is not a great reason to design a game and classes this way though. Perhaps one of the reasons games are not played at tier 3 and tier 4 is that class balance gets too out of whack and high level magic gets too powerful, particularly on the problem solving front? It's not only a table time issue, as you could just start campaigns at 10th level.

I don't think so. Problem solving does get easier, with regard to the easier problems. The things you are facing at those levels, though, aren't as easily solved. I know because my group is one of the 1% or whatever that routinely hits the high teens to 20th level. If the DM is presenting the same kinds of problems as you encountered in tiers 1 and 2, then the things will definitely be a cakewalk on the problem solving front.

I still don't see the wizard being better in a role than one of the specialist classes, though, because as I said, those classes are more than just their role. The class abilities also work towards those specialties and the wizard can't match the totality. The wizard's strength is in being versatile and being able to be a decent to good plug for the weak spots in the party, while still being decent to good in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL, narrow it down so you do not have to actually discuss the problem.

When 95% of the players aren't reaching those levels, why are they in a discussion about the class as a whole?

Person 1: "Wizards are broken and can do anything better than a specialist."
Person 2: "I've never seen that happen."
Person 1: "Well, it happens at level 15, so they're still broken and better at level 5!"
Person 2: "Um, it really doesn't work that way."

If you have an issue with super high levels, and as I said in other posts I haven't seen it at high levels, either, then there should be a discussion about level 7+ spells, not the class.