D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[DND_Reborn]

Since I am coming late to the party, I am only addressing the OP for now...

There is either consensus here that the Wizard, at high levels, is vastly superior to martials, or the people who believe so are just the most strident and incessant in expressing their opinions, but either way I don't see much pushback against that narrative.

However, I'm not so sure.

You are correct, Wizard (at high levels) is vastly superior to martials IME. Now, by high level, I mean exclusively 11th level or higher.

But here is the thing with that: VERY FEW PLAYERS ACTUALLY PLAY AT THAT LEVEL consistently enough to actually make an informed statement.

Mostly, we see white room analysis and theory crafting about it. Now, a lot can still be done with those, but it isn't the same as first-hand experience IMO.

Some caveats for the following:
1) I recognize this doesn't address the complaint that casters get to do "cool things" while martials just get to make attack rolls. This is about the supposed difference in actual power/effectiveness in combat.
2) I have literally zero experience above level 15, so this only addresses tiers I to III
3) In the absence of magic items my argument would change, but while a goal of 5e was supposed to be that magic items are optional, I've never actually seen in played that way.

1) With the above proposition that Wizards are "vastly superior", you are (intentionally) limiting that proposition to combat only. Now, I have no issue with that but for many people the utility of Wizards is part of the vastly superior issue. Strictly in combat, Wizards are still very powerful IF BUILD FOR COMBAT, while martials can often excel in combat in tiers 3 and 4 with nearly any build IME. Obviously, with AoE spells and certainly targeting spells, and with the number of spell slots available at this point, Wizards can have an incredible impact on many combat encounters even given the 6-8 adventuring day system.

2) Fair enough, but IMO tiers 1 and 2 are not "high level" and do not suffer the same issues tier 3 and 4 can see given the imbalance. IME, in tier 1 Wizards are strong enough, but lack of sufficient spell variety and spell slots, martials can easily out-perform Wizards in combat. Tier 2 evens things out and IMO is the best balanced part of the game.

3) I have never seen a game reach tier 2 and have "NO" magic items. Technically, potions of healing are magic items and often seen in tier 1, often out of apparent necessity. All that being said, I have seen games vary greatly in the amount of magical items played. Personally, I prefer what I call the "rare but powerful" approach: magic items (even healing potions) are fairly to very rare, but I try to make each item unique and often more powerful than its generic counterpart. I believe looking at things from a low-, medium-, and high-magic item game is best over all when considering their plausible impact in the game.

Here are my observations:
- First, the most powerful spells use saving throws, not attack rolls

Once you get to spell levels 6 and higher, I would generally agree.

- Monsters tend to make saving throws much more easily than they dodge weapon attacks (that is, than PC's miss with their weapon attacks)

That is because hitting in 5E is ludicrously easy! In general, it is fairly established hitting has about a 65% (+/- 5%) success rate throughout all tiers of play (this assumes proficiency and using your prime ability, of course). So, PCs will typically only miss about 1 in 3 times (roughly 35%).

Now, saving throws do not keep pace with DCs in 5E. And we have the proficient vs. non-proficient issue. In tier 4, save DCs will likely be 18 or 19. While monsters will make a proficient save about half the time (or better in some cases), they will fail miserably more often if they are non-proficient in that save. By this level, many monsters have 2-4 proficient saves, so if we assume an average of roughly 3, the over all save probability of a monster would be about 45% IME.

So, while this is better than the odds of the PC missing (45% vs 35%), I would not say it is "much more easily" done. Also, in lower tiers, with fewer proficient saves, the odds shift and a bit, but not much.

- Far more magic items give bonuses to weapon attack rolls than to saving throw DCs

True, but it doesn't really matter IME. First, there are more magical weapons, but there are also a lot of magical armors/items to bump AC. While there are few items that increase spell save DCs, there are also few (albeit more) items which improve saves.

Over all, I would call it a wash, personally, but otherwise it only slightly favors martials IMO.

- More magic items boost Strength than Intelligence above 20

Also true, but in a funny way this can work in the Wizard's favor. In a typical group, you will likely have a single Wizard, so most INT items will by default go to the Wizard. Meanwhile, if you have more than one STR-based martial, those items are contested between PCs more likely.

Having a higher STR makes hitting more likely, but you are already so likely to hit the impact isn't as powerful as when a Wizard gets to boost spell save DC IME.

- Martials get advantage on attack far more frequently than monsters get disadvantage on saves

Yep. The only thing a high-level Wizard can do at this point is have spells which target various saves, hoping to target a non-proficient save, in which case the odds of the creature making the save is much lower than normal.

Advantage for martials is more felt when the chance of crits increase. And while true, Wizards have spells which do require attack rolls and can benefit from advantage as well.

- Concentration prevents many of the best spells from being used simultaneously

This is 5E's big factor to keep things in balance, however I can say for myself in actual play it is rarely a factor. Mainly because when I select spells, I choose spells with fixed-durations, concentration, and instantaneous durations. I will regularly have a fixed-duration spell going with a concentration spell and using instantaneous spell offensively.

- Casters have concentration broken fairly easily

This I have to disagree with, especially in tiers 3 and 4. Nearly every caster by this point will have Resilient for CON saves and since the DC is base 10, a creature must deal 22 points of damage to force a higher DC. I'm not saying I don't see it broken, but it is not "fairly easily" IME. Now, in tiers 1 and 2, I can see this more often, but if I have a Wizard with a lot of concentration spells, I will take Resilient for CON before bothering with a ASI to bump INT.

- Two words: "legendary resistance".

An annoyance, at best. For the relatively few creatures who have it, Wizards have sufficient slots to handle it IME.

- While many creatures have resistance/immunity to mundane weapons, resistance/immunity to magic weapons is very rare. Meanwhile, resistance/immunity to magical damage types is at least as common, if not more so, but can't be negated by picking up a magic wand (maybe it should).

Resistance to difference magical damage types is typically a non-factor IME since I generally (again in tiers 3 and 4) have multiple damage type spells.

What all this adds up to (again, in my experience, below tier IV) is that monsters too frequently make their saving throws, and casters end up contributing very little. And when they do contribute a lot it is not by themselves, but in synergy with a martial. For example, they banish the boss while the martials kill the minions. Or they haste the martial who then novas on the boss.

I would say much of your assessment is fairly accurate in tiers 1 and 2, and if off only by a little in tier 3 giving different experiences.

However, Wizards with 6th and higher levels spells especially and single-handedly turn the tide on those occasions when the BBEG does fail a save, etc. Martials rarely have this kind of "immediate" impact, but they do contribute more over all on the average round-by-round. That is my experience, anyway.

I will agree that the best results are when the two work in synergy with each other.

I asked myself: would I rather have a group of all martials, or a group of all casters? And except for some edge cases, in most battles I would rather have all martials. If you get extremely lucky on dice rolls a group of casters could win a tough fight, but it's far more likely that a couple monsters make their saving throws, they attack the casters who are trying to concentrate, and the whole thing turns into a rout. A group of martials is going to take a lot of damage, but they are also going to pump out a lot of damage, and overall have a better chance of winning. (Once again, my opinion.)

In tier 1, maybe. But I would rather have all casters, personally. With the wide variety of subclasses available in 5E, the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard can do extremely well in combat. With cantrips in abundance in 5E, you can have a group of call casters without a single weapon. In tier 1, with the right cantrips, a creature will fail the save about as often as it gets hit by a weapon.

Having all casters also allows you an incredible amount of versatility outside of combat you generally won't get with all martials IME.

But of course what I really want is a mix of the two. Which kind of suggests the game is working as intended.

Over all I agree again. The only issues IMO are casters are to "free" with cast any prepared/known spell instead of preparing spells specifically for specific slots. And then there is the other side, which isn't so much about combat, but that martials don't get to do "cool stuff" like some people want. I don't see this as an issue myself, and have repeatedly offered suggestion to bring the Fighter / Wizard issue more into balance, but no one (myself included) ever seems to get much traction with it because so many people want so many different things...

But, in answer to your thread title: Yes, Wizards are "all that". I play them a lot (more than any other class probably, with Rogue a close second?) and have since AD&D/Basic in the 70's. Once a Wizard reaches a certain point, there is little as powerful IME. In 5E, a high level Monk (of all the martials) would be the only possible contender, but even that is a rare chance in my experience and analysis. In tier 4, especially, you have such powerful spells at 9th level, that is a fluke if a Wizard loses a battle.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

- First, the most powerful spells use saving throws, not attack rolls
- Monsters tend to make saving throws much more easily than they dodge weapon attacks (that is, than PC's miss with their weapon attacks)

I find it depends monsters that have there good save targeted will get 50/50 or maybe even 70/30 in a great day... but targeting bad saves could leave you with 10% or less chance of hitting

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

There is either consensus here that the Wizard, at high levels, is vastly superior to martials, or the people who believe so are just the most strident and incessant in expressing their opinions, but either way I don't see much pushback against that narrative.

However, I'm not so sure.

Some caveats for the following:
1) I recognize this doesn't address the complaint that casters get to do "cool things" while martials just get to make attack rolls. This is about the supposed difference in actual power/effectiveness in combat.

I feel that a good part of the reason that you have difficulty seeing your first paragraph is revealed in this last statement.

Here are my observations:
- First, the most powerful spells use saving throws, not attack rolls
- Monsters tend to make saving throws much more easily than they dodge weapon attacks (that is, than PC's miss with their weapon attacks)
- Far more magic items give bonuses to weapon attack rolls than to saving throw DCs
- More magic items boost Strength than Intelligence above 20
- Martials get advantage on attack far more frequently than monsters get disadvantage on saves
- Concentration prevents many of the best spells from being used simultaneously
- Casters have concentration broken fairly easily
- Two words: "legendary resistance".
- While many creatures have resistance/immunity to mundane weapons, resistance/immunity to magic weapons is very rare. Meanwhile, resistance/immunity to magical damage types is at least as common, if not more so, but can't be negated by picking up a magic wand (maybe it should).

- The most powerful spells do not use saving throws. The second most powerful are the ones that target unusual saves.
- Monsters' saves only advance level with DC if you're throwing spells at their best saves. It is always possible to miss an attack on a 1, but entirely possible to throw a spell that a monster is unable to beat the DC.
- A strength-based character who has worked to advance their Strength as they level can be overtaken by a non-strength-based character more easily than any other character type .
- Breaking concentration really is not easy.

But of course what I really want is a mix of the two. Which kind of suggests the game is working as intended.

It is really cool to hear that your group does not have this issue.

Most of the criticisms against the Wizard seem to boil down to:

"I dont want my Fighter to use magic ... therefore nobody else should use magic either."

That is a very unusual observation. May I ask where you made it?

That sort of melodramatic hyperbole causes me to dismiss all associated arguments, which means I may miss some interesting points.

the people who believe so are just the most strident and incessant in expressing their opinions,

Soooo…you want spells in everything but name?

How did you manage to read that statement, and believe that what you just said is an accurate reflection of what was said in it?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I was more referring to it just feeling boring and unimaginative (my opinion) to have these non-magical abilities work just like magical abilities.

I don't want them to work exactly the same either because I like variety, but there are only so many kinds of ways to model things in terms of game mechanics. And putting sweeping, arbitrary, historical preference based limits on what mechanics can be used and what narrative heft a martial ability can have just hamstrings design too much.

For instance, there is no reason all martial abilties have to operate under the standard action economy. You could have abilities that just let them do stuff instead of have to make discrete skill checks.

Imagine an ability that allows a martial to reliably go from point A to point B. So something like "you find some way from point A to point B no further than 500 ft apart if at all action hero possible. The DM may even have the enviroment cooperate to make this possible." So it's kind of a poor man's dimension door with less reliability than a spell (may require some DM arbitration). But it would allow a more reliable trope -- you parkour from pillar to pillar, just as you are about to fall you dig your sword into the stone to slow you, and leap on to the Dragon's head, it shakes you off and you land at point B. Maybe in another situation this would involve bashing down door or grates -- but all part of the same reliable action.

This is not muttering incantations, vanishing and then reappearing. But it gives the martial some narrative control (albeir weaker than the spell) to say I can guaruntee that because I'm a martial badass I can get from A to B.

This is just one possibility that can't even be explored if we remove off all the mechanical and narrative space of spells from consideration.





action

 

[Yaarel]

That is a very unusual observation. May I ask where you made it?

Any time someone suggests that D&D stop at levels 8, 10, or 12, it often enough relates to an aggressive attempt to remove high level Wizards from the D&D game.

Heh, so that the precious Fighter can remain low level and subpar, without feeling inferior in comparison to a high-magic Wizard.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Any time someone suggests that D&D stop at levels 8, 10, or 12, it often enough relates to an aggressive attempt to remove high level Wizards from the D&D game.

Heh, so that the precious Fighter can remain low level and subpar, without feeling inferior in comparison to a high-magic Wizard.

I don't want to stop the game at those levels, but stop casters at 6th level spells and move 7th-9th for Epic 21-30th levels.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't want to stop the game at those levels, but stop casters at 6th level spells and move 7th-9th for Epic 21-30th levels.

Heh. I had you as one of them in mind. But dont want to name names.

I tend to like your designs for the Fighter class, if less so your ones for the Wizard class.



Seriously, are you unable to design a Fighter that can keep up with Wizard spells?

 

[Mort]

I don't want to stop the game at those levels, but stop casters at 6th level spells and move 7th-9th for Epic 21-30th levels.

But that just, even further, gates those away from the large majority of players - may as well eliminate them.

I much prefer to give fighters more options that "bring them up."

How, well, Level Up already had plenty of ideas.

And even standard 5e had introduced maneuvers that do things outside of combat. The recent Dragonlance UA had added to that by finally proposing to expand superiority dice beyond the 4 and only 4 model.

Personally, I would also love to see some options for "mythic" fighters. Options that allow for well beyond the "human" Norm without restoring to standard "use magic." But I suspect it'll have to be 3rd party for that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Heh. I had you as one of them in mind. But dont want to name names.

I like tend to like your designs for the Fighter class, if not so much for the Wizard class.

LOL, Ha! I suspected as much! (j/k)

For me, ideally, D&D would be three tiers:

1-10 "Mundane"
11-20 Heroic
21-30 Superheroic/ Epic

Given the nature of the Fighter (or Martial) vs Wizard (or full Caster) concerns, they are out of sync sort of.

When I think of spells like Time Stop, Resurrection, and such, I see them as truly EPIC spells. They belong in the tier where Thor and the Hulk are doing Epic feats of strength, demi-gods and the like is what the PCs are. They have truly ascended beyond any sense of normal.

Spells such as Teleport (AD&D, not Teleportation Circle) at 5th level is Heroic and such spells are potentially earthshaking, Raise Dead and the like are the stuff of awe and wonder, but within the realm that normal commoners can comprehend and believe-powerful but possible (as opposed to the Epic stuff which is incomprehensible, etc. to them).

The "Mundane" (for lack of a better term) is standard fantasy fare. Spells such as Fireball, Fly, and Revivify are the pinnacle here. Commoners have heard of or even seen such "mighty magic" in operation and respect its power.

Currently, we have Martials mostly limited to the Heroic concept, while with such powerful spells, Casters can easily fall into the Epic concept.

So, do we shift the dynamic and have Epic Martials at levels 13+ or move those spells into levels 21+? Either approach could work IMO, but I personally favor the later option. And FWIW, I am a staunch Wizard player, but I am not keen on those "Epic" spells in regular game play because as DM I seem them as too powerful to the game I like to run.

 

[Cadence]

Any time someone suggests that D&D stop at levels 8, 10, or 12, it often enough relates to an aggressive attempt to remove high level Wizards from the D&D game.

In most editions of D&D I want the high level wizards gone when I run things because they make it so I can't reasonably get the campaign world to work in my head. I also want the high level clerics and druids and bards and monsters gone too. The teleportation, long distance scrying, communing, resurrecting, mind dominating, castle negating, and army defeating spells make it hard for me to picture why any of the medieval trappings are there. And if the high level casters are gone, I'm not sure why I want a fighter with 200 hp going around single handedly defeating armies either.

If there are lots of high level baddies around I wonder how everything isn't hell on earth. If there aren't, then I wonder why the high level good guys haven't teamed up to clear the countryside of the moderate level ones. And if there aren't other high level good guys then I wonder why the high level bad opponents don't appear until the party is high level. Or if they were there why they haven't nuked anything that might develop into a threat. Bleh.

And so to stop myself from overthinking in my world building and campaign running I'd like the whole thing to stop earlier.

If I'm playing in a game? Meh, I can deal with the world not making sense (in the sociological, political, economic, warfare kind of ways) as long as the DM can put up with my questions about exploiting the gaps. So I'm good with the high level wizards there.

-----

I wonder what would happen if they harkened back to the old basic line way of dividing things. Say the PHB1 was sort of like BE and 1/2 C with the rules for the characters for that, and PHB2 was the rest of C and MI with all of the things of that level. So the first book focusses on characters dealing with the local area, cities, and kingdoms, and the second focusses on the world and the planes beyond.

Selfishly I could just use the PHB1 when running things. And then if I was playing I could use both.