D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Reynard]

Attack 8 times in a round for two rounds. By 20th level with damage extras, I don't think I wizard can match that kind of single target damage.

It's also white room replication. The wizards gets a limited number of spells for his book, and a limited number to memorize. The chances of memorizing everything a fighter can do AND also have utility AND social AND wizard combat is pretty much nil. So yes, a wizard can cast jump and go farther than a 20 strength champion, but is he really going to have that? No. Yes he can cast haste and get an extra attack, but in the scheme of things is that really the concentration spell he's going to be using on himself? Probably not.

The wizard CAN step on the fighter's toes a lot, but in practical game play this doesn't really happen.

Let's just look at the numbers quickly. Note, i'm not arguing with you, I am curious.

Let's assume 1d10+1d6+8 for damage (magic versatile longsword with some sort of elemental damage) at 8 attacks is 136 points of damage. The chance to miss is present but negligible, so let's call it 90% of that for 122 points.

Meteor Swarm does 40d6 damage for 140 on average, but with a low chance of half damage. if there is a 20% chance of failing the save that puts us at the same 90% for 126. Comparable to single foe but of course meteor swarm can hit (optimally) 64 foes as well as hit flying enemies. I think the wizard does the fighters job here better.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Let's just look at the numbers quickly. Note, i'm not arguing with you, I am curious.

Let's assume 1d10+1d6+8 for damage (magic versatile longsword with some sort of elemental damage) at 8 attacks is 136 points of damage. The chance to miss is present but negligible, so let's call it 90% of that for 122 points.

Meteor Swarm does 40d6 damage for 140 on average, but with a low chance of half damage. if there is a 20% chance of failing the save that puts us at the same 90% for 126. Comparable to single foe but of course meteor swarm can hit (optimally) 64 foes as well as hit flying enemies. I think the wizard does the fighters job here better.

And that's not considering that the wizard can have a permanently bound earth elemental, a simulacrum, and possibly another summoned creature on top of that. The only one of those spells that uses resources while adventuring is the summon (and your meteor swarm).

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Attack 8 times in a round for two rounds. By 20th level with damage extras, I don't think I wizard can match that kind of single target damage.

It's also white room replication. The wizards gets a limited number of spells for his book, and a limited number to memorize. The chances of memorizing everything a fighter can do AND also have utility AND social AND wizard combat is pretty much nil. So yes, a wizard can cast jump and go farther than a 20 strength champion, but is he really going to have that? No. Yes he can cast haste and get an extra attack, but in the scheme of things is that really the concentration spell he's going to be using on himself? Probably not.

The wizard CAN step on the fighter's toes a lot, but in practical game play this doesn't really happen.

I mean, that is kinda the problem though. An 18th level Wizard can have Jump as an at will spell and so becomes better than the guy we would expect to be the physical athlete. The fact that most people would call that a poor use of the ability doesn't really make the Champion better.

Consider this hypothetical spell. 5th level, lasts 8 hours and during the duration you can reroll a single failed saving throw. You can upcast the spell at 7th level to get 2 rerolls during the duration and at 9th level to bring it up to 3. I doubt anyone would take the spell to be honest. Yet that is exactly what a fighter gets at the level when the wizard gets the aforementioned spell slots.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

What are you on about? You have all these imaged in your head but you haven't given them positions in the game, so it is hard to determine what your goal is.

"Do cool stuff in combat" doesn't mean anything. Tell me what you actually want. Do you want to expend limited resources for powerful strikes? Do you want to "power up bar" style system so you unlock cool things later in the fight? Do you want disarm opponents, or do you want to turn them to stone with a strike? Be specific and people won't assume things about what you want.

I want a 15+ rogue to be able to teleport between shadows and steal someone's luck/memories/identity. I want a character with high intimidate to scare people to death or high athletics to be able to throw a cow over a hut. Gimme a dragoon leap, where you jump 50 feet in the air and take down a flyer or skewer three guys on your lance. High level non-casters feel almost exactly the same as low level ones. The "wahoo" factor never gets bigger.

Again, not spells, because spell slots are not the whole of magic in the world. Monks have ki. Druids wildshape without spending a slot. The swarmkeeper ranger has magical bugs but they exist without slots. D&D is inherently a high magic game. Some of that needs to bleed over into the fighter's training by allowing them to greatly exceed what is possible in our world. You cannot have a low magic game with PC casters, and certainly not one with 5E's approach where there is magic in every single encounter, and likely every single round.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I want a 15+ rogue to be able to teleport between shadows and steal someone's luck/memories/identity. I want a character with high intimidate to scare people to death or high athletics to be able to throw a cow over a hut. Gimme a dragoon leap, where you jump 50 feet in the air and take down a flyer or skewer three guys on your lance. High level non-casters feel almost exactly the same as low level ones. The "wahoo" factor never gets bigger.

Do you really think that D&D will become what you want?

 

[Reynard]

I want a 15+ rogue to be able to teleport between shadows and steal someone's luck/memories/identity. I want a character with high intimidate to scare people to death or high athletics to be able to throw a cow over a hut. Gimme a dragoon leap, where you jump 50 feet in the air and take down a flyer or skewer three guys on your lance. High level non-casters feel almost exactly the same as low level ones. The "wahoo" factor never gets bigger.

These sound like really cool high level abilities. Subclasses like the Psi Warrior and Phantom rogue have things like this. What's missing?

 

[Undrave]

You seem to be arguing more for reigning in the wizard than bolstering the fighter -- which i completely agree with, btw. I think the reason that people view the wizard as too powerful and versatile is that no one actually enforces the limitations on the class very well. They rest too much. they don't pay attention to components (of any sort). They don't focus on or enforce the limited choice aspect of the wizard's versatility. They don't target them in combat with intelligent enemies (kill the cleric first, tho).

I'm not saying there aren't ways to make the various fighters more versatile or interesting, but we are talking about comparisons, in my experience and opinion wizard dominance comes primarily from lax GMing.

Impliments and component pouches exist specifically to make ignoring components easy. Also, it's not my job as a DM to micromanage the Wizard's collection of rat tails and bat wings. I don't want to have to learn all the components and be like "hold on, do you still have enough sulphur for that Fireball?"

While a lax GM will exacerbate the issue, I don't think it's the main issue.

And what are your feelings on casting shatter on rope?

I would hope that anyone who'd rule that you can't slice a rope with an arrow, because realism, would also not allow a rope to be shattered, because realism.

Considering Shatter is an area of effect, it would severely hurt the person they're trying to rescue, and I don't think a rope would take double damage from it the same way a brittle object would.

Maybe. There are certainly people who make those arguments, although I don't know if the feats are because WotC agreed with those people. I do think that they seem worried about giving the fighter interesting abilities. Indomitable is a good example in my opinion.

I feel like those features were moved to Feats to satisfy the 3.x 'Fighters get more Feats' concept. They added ASIs where they would normally get one of those 'advanced styles' and moved the mechanic to Feats. Probably also the 'Fighter gets X we should too!' thing.

 

[Reynard]

Impliments and component pouches exist specifically to make ignoring components easy. Also, it's not my job as a DM to micromanage the Wizard's collection of rat tails and bat wings. I don't want to have to learn all the components and be like "hold on, do you still have enough sulphur for that Fireball?"

While a lax GM will exacerbate the issue, I don't think it's the main issue.

I was actually referring mostly to the verbal components. A wizard casting a spell is not subtle and should be bringing undo attention to himself on the battlefield and undo attention on the party while exploring.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Considering Shatter is an area of effect, it would severely hurt the person they're trying to rescue, and I don't think a rope would take double damage from it the same way a brittle object would.

If you play the way most DMs I know run it, where wizards can place their AoEs with pinpoint accuracy, then it's not really an issue. Just target above them so you get the rope but not the hangman. As an added bonus, if you don't "shatter" the rope, you might shatter whatever it's tied to (two chances to succeed).

Which is really another realism thing that I see a lot of DMs let spells slide on. Dropping AoEs with perfect accuracy, so that you get all the baddies but your allies are standing just outside it. No roll, just automatically place it exactly. Because magic. Whereas the DM is probably forcing the max strength fighter to roll to see if he can fireman's carry the 90 lb wizard out of danger.

Again, I don't have an issue with it if the DM is imposing the same level of realism on both. It's only when magic gets a pass and martials are bound by realism that I have a problem with it. (No idea if I'd have a problem with the reverse since I've literally never seen it happen.)

 

[Cadence]

If you play the way most DMs I know run it, where wizards can place their AoEs with pinpoint accuracy, then it's not really an issue. Just target above them so you get the rope but not the hangman. As an added bonus, if you don't "shatter" the rope, you might shatter whatever it's tied to (two chances to succeed).

Which is really another realism thing that I see a lot of DMs let spells slide on. Dropping AoEs with perfect accuracy, so that you get all the baddies but your allies are standing just outside it. No roll, just automatically place it exactly. Because magic. Whereas the DM is probably forcing the max strength fighter to roll to see if he can fireman's carry the 90 lb wizard out of danger.

Again, I don't have an issue with it if the DM is imposing the same level of realism on both. It's only when magic gets a pass and martials are bound by realism that I have a problem with it. (No idea if I'd have a problem with the reverse since I've literally never seen it happen.)

Thank you for pointing the aiming thing out!