D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Fanaelialae]

Not if the spell didn't exist which was my premise. It's also impossible if no one can cast it or no one has the address.

if the spell is not available, the scenario won't come up if the DM wants to retain players. It's basically a spell tax that is occasionally useful as a shortcut or as a narrative device.

You still don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

It's not a tax, it's a tool. A choice.

The DM decides when the cataclysm will happen, probably before the campaign even begins. The DM has no way of knowing whether the party will have teleport, or where they will be when (if) they learn of the impending cataclysm.

They could be extremely clever and find out about it in their first adventure (maybe they capture and interrogate an important cultist the DM had expected they would simply kill).

They could miss all the clues and only find out about the cataclysm as it occurs.

Or, it could be somewhere in between, in which case a quick travel ability like teleport could prove invaluable.

All of their choices are important. If they spend a few weeks in town making magic items and researching spells, instead of investigating the cult, they're all the more likely to run out of time.


Now, yes, there exists a different style of DMing where, no matter what the PCs do, they will arrive at the cataclysm ritual just in time to stop it. And, yes, this is an equally valid style.


However, what I am trying to explain to you is that when you say that teleport has little actual value, you're primarily referring to the latter style of campaign. Your arguments are completely nonsensical in terms of the former style, because whether or not you have access to teleport may indeed matter very much regarding how the campaign unfolds.

 

[Oofta]

Well this is the crux. There is a big difference between "our wizard doesn't have teleport circle, we are screwed" and "no one has the teleport circle address, we are screwed".

If the wizard has the spell, great they cut some time, go to the action, wizard feels great. If they don't, but manage to bargain with an old rival of theirs for the spell and address (possibly having to make a great sacrifice in teh process), cool....neat roleplay moment.

So you can have scenarios where a party is able to overcome a challenge that requires magic without having magic...but at the same time showcase the notion that "man it would have been great to have that spell".

My scenario was that the spell didn't exist at all. If the spell did not exist at all, very little would change.

I'm done chasing after new goalposts.

 

[Stalker0]

The spell takes 10 minutes to cast and you need the target's sigil. It's not automatic in my campaigns, nobody is going to hand out the keys to the kingdom for whoever asks.

But this is just one of those things about how awesome the Wizards when it's really just fluff. If the spell didn't exist, very little would substantially change.

The DM is always deciding the fiction. If you need to get from A to B and it's important to the campaign you will be able to get from A to B. Teleportation Circle is practically a spell tax that ultimately changes nothing other than making the wizard feel important.

I think where you would potentially see a difference is a game where there are no spellcasters, a player dies, and then brings in a wizard. So you have setup your encounters and narrative (and lets assume a sandbox like game for this argument) based on a party with no magic, and now you have a spellcaster.

In this scenario, the wizard might "run over" some of the non-magic assumptions you had originally placed. While you could change gear, it might feel artificial to the players, especially in a sandbox.

 

[Undrave]

Is there a cantrip that makes a red dot of movable light? No reason to leave cats out!

Dancing Lights

That was literally the claim of at least one person in this thread. That they can do 3-4 roles really well. And the way people always counter any argument my side put forth with the wizard having the exact spells handy, with slots handy, to overcome the utility situation AND combat situation AND beat the rogue AND beat the fighter AND always have the right spell for the situation prepared...

Of course, it’s harder to do if you use the optional rest rule instead of RAW, but I don’t think we’re arguing the Wizard can do four roles at the same time. I think a Wizard could do 2 and then switch them out easily on long rest. And having the ‘right spell prepared for the occasion’ is the high that Wizard player chase.

You’re right that the Wizard having the “I Win” button ready doesn’t happen 100% of the time… but it sure as hell happens more often with the Wizard than with the Fighter. That’s the big thing. The Martial types never get an “I win” button, and even if the Wizard doesn’t have the perfect spell, his less than perfect spell choice (or just their skill selection) can still make a solid impact in whatever situation they’re in. There’s a LOT of things a clever player can do with Prestidigitation and Mage Hands, for exemple.

And then you roll initiative when every monster in the area converges on the massive sound of the knock spell.

Call it ‘doing it the hard way’. It’s always possible to weight the pros and cons of using Knock. It’s an option you have available to you. What if the monsters were already aware of your existence and had sounded the alarm? Better to have a clear escape route than let them box you in. Maybe once past that door you’ll have a clear line of sight to dimension door away or something, or you have your own allies waiting outside.

It’s a valid option in some circumstances .

Where do you see disadvantage/advantage? I can't find anything that says creatures have disadvantage on anything other than attack rolls. Maybe I'm just blind, but I don't see it.

They do have to rely on something other than sight, many creatures do.

Wouldn’t being invisible be the same as being fully behind cover? They could still hear you behind the bookcase in the library but not see you.

Even if you, yourself, never touch those levels. I don't find the idea that it's okay for high levels not to work well because not many people go to those levels, to be an especially compelling argument. Most people don't take their car over 70 MPH but people would be quite upset, I think, if they did accelerate past 70 and the engines consistently dropped out.

Yeah it's pretty nuts that Fighters get hampered by 'realism' once you reach crazy high level... you're finishing the game, who cares if it goes bonkers? The bonkier the better! Level 20 should be full of broken things from EVERY classes.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The DM decides when the cataclysm will happen, probably before the campaign even begins. The DM has no way of knowing whether the party will have teleport, or where they will be when (if) they learn of the impending cataclysm.

They could be extremely clever and find out about in their first adventure (maybe they capture and interrogate an important cultist the DM had expected they would simply kill).

They could miss all the clues and only find out about the cataclysm as it occurs.

Or, it could be somewhere in between, in which case a quick travel ability like teleport could prove invaluable.

All of their choices are important. If they spend a few weeks in town making magic items and researching spells, instead of investigating the cult, they're all the more likely to run out of time.
Now, yes, there exists a different style of DMing where, no matter what the PCs do, they will arrive at the cataclysm ritual just in time to stop it. And, yes, this is an equally valid style.

However, what I am trying to explain to you is that when you say that teleport has little actual value, you're primarily referring to the latter style of campaign. Your arguments are completely nonsensical in terms of the former style, because whether or not you have access to teleport may indeed matter very much regarding how the campaign unfolds.

I know exactly what you are saying and mostly agree, but wish people would not always use the most extreme examples as it opens things up to (often false) retorts.

But the point stands -- there are games set up that are mostly indifferent to PCs resources. Even in these games I do see some DM curration in terms of setting the initial timeline or having the "background actions" build up to higher level stuff. So you have a bunch of events that can significanly change the world happening in the background (but not end the world right away!) and whether the PCs bust up the plans or not will change what happens (maybe X country takes over Y, etc) next but there will still be choices to adventure. In this set up having magic vs not will likely change what/how/how often you can and can't effect things.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I know exactly what you are saying and mostly agree, but wish people would not always use the most extreme examples as it opens things up to (often false) retorts.

But the point stands -- there are games set up that are mostly indifferent to PCs resources. Even in these games I do see some DM curration in terms of setting the initial timeline or having the "background actions" build up to higher level stuff. So you have a bunch of events that can significanly change the world happening in the background (but not end the world right away!) and whether the PCs bust up the plans or not will change what happens (maybe X country takes over Y, etc) next but there will still be choices to adventure. In this set up having magic vs not will likely change what/how/how often you can and can't effect things.

I get what you're saying, but I feel like extreme examples illustrate things better.

I could use something less extreme like, if the players had teleport the villain wouldn't have absconded with the treasure, but that just opens it up to dismissals. Such as, that doesn't matter because they'll just find more treasure. At least with an extreme example it isn't so easily dismissed (try arguing whether or not a cataclysm taking place is a trivial campaign footnote).

Point is, someone who wants to downplay an argument can always find something, whether it be that the other person's argument is too extreme or too trivial. But facts remain the same regardless.

 

[Mort]

A DM that sets up scenarios you can't possibly stop will not be a DM for long.

Only if the fallout from failing to stop the scenarios isn't, itself, fun and interesting.

 

[Oofta]

Only if the fallout from failing to stop the scenarios isn't, itself, fun and interesting.

My understanding was an end of the world scenario. That's generally not fun.

I recently set up some scenarios where teleportation circle was useful in the game I DM. But I did it because the spell was available. If it hadn't been, I would have come up with different options.

 

[Fanaelialae]

My understanding was an end of the world scenario. That's generally not fun.

I recently set up some scenarios where teleportation circle was useful in the game I DM. But I did it because the spell was available. If it hadn't been, I would have come up with different options.

A cataclysm is not the same as the end of the world. Krynn had a cataclysm (literally called The Cataclysm iirc) and it was still there after the fact, albeit worse for wear.

 

[Mort]

My understanding was an end of the world scenario. That's generally not fun.

End of the world as you know it certainly CAN be fun. Heck, isn't it the whole basis of Dragonlance? and beaten to the punch by @Fanaelialae while typing.

I recently set up some scenarios where teleportation circle was useful in the game I DM. But I did it because the spell was available. If it hadn't been, I would have come up with different options.

What if the spell is "available" but no one chooses to take it, for whatever reason (maybe no one picked a wizard and no one wanted to devote the spell slot to it)? You might make the adventure "possible" in some other way, but you don't have to compensate completely.