DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Since I am coming late to the party, I am only addressing the OP for now...
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.
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.
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.
Over all, I would call it a wash, personally, but otherwise it only slightly favors martials IMO.
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.
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.
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.
Having all casters also allows you an incredible amount of versatility outside of combat you generally won't get with all martials IME.
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.
You are correct, Wizard (at high levels) is vastly superior to martials IME. Now, by high level, I mean exclusively 11th level or higher.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Once you get to spell levels 6 and higher, I would generally agree.Here are my observations:
- First, the most powerful spells use saving throws, not attack rolls
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%).- Monsters tend to make saving throws much more easily than they dodge weapon attacks (that is, than PC's miss with their weapon attacks)
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.
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.- Far more magic items give bonuses to weapon attack rolls than to saving throw DCs
Over all, I would call it a wash, personally, but otherwise it only slightly favors martials IMO.
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.- More magic items boost Strength than Intelligence above 20
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.
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.- Martials get advantage on attack far more frequently than monsters get disadvantage on saves
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.
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.- Concentration prevents many of the best spells from being used simultaneously
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.- Casters have concentration broken fairly easily
An annoyance, at best. For the relatively few creatures who have it, Wizards have sufficient slots to handle it IME.- Two words: "legendary resistance".
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.- 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).
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.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.
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.
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.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.)
Having all casters also allows you an incredible amount of versatility outside of combat you generally won't get with all martials IME.
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 of course what I really want is a mix of the two. Which kind of suggests the game is working as intended.
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.