D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Garthanos]

Since some people don't seem to want some classes to be brought up to the Wizard's level, it seems that the easiest solution may be to go back to AD&D, and let classes less powerful than the Wizard gain levels faster!

Yuck fake levels.. ie levels that do not mean power level

 

[James Gasik]

Yuck fake levels.. ie levels that do not mean power level

I'm not a fan either, but as long as people are ok with some classes having more broad spectrum capability than others, and push back against attempts to rebalance the classes, I'm not sure what else you can do.

 

[Undrave]

Since some people don't seem to want some classes to be brought up to the Wizard's level, it seems that the easiest solution may be to go back to AD&D, and let classes less powerful than the Wizard gain levels faster!

Lots of people I know ditched XP entirely and now use milestones. I feel it’s a bit boring (you never know when you’re about to level up) but I dunno if they’d want to go back to counting XP.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not a fan either, but as long as people are ok with some classes having more broad spectrum capability than others, and push back against attempts to rebalance the classes, I'm not sure what else you can do.

Level disparities are a hacky and poor balancing tool. Let's say that at X level you think the fighter should have the abilities for level X+1. Just give the X level fighter everything he would get at X+1. It's a much cleaner implementation. Yeah, you'll have to add more to a high level fighter to make up for what you borrowed from the higher levels, but that's much better than letting the fighter run out of road while the wizard still has more levels to look forward to.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Lots of people I know ditched XP entirely and now use milestones. I feel it’s a bit boring (you never know when you’re about to level up) but I dunno if they’d want to go back to counting XP.

Yeah, I'm never going back to XP. Like a lot of subsystems like encumbrance, I find it to just be unnecessary paperwork.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, I'm never going back to XP. Like a lot of subsystems like encumbrance, I find it to just be unnecessary paperwork.

Maybe it's just too granular.

Here's a system that I just "invented" off top of my head. (I'm sure there are systems out there like this; I just don't know any.). Divide both fights and challenges/goals/objectives into 3 tiers, with 1 point for "easy/minor" (such as a fight where the party didn't take much damage and not many resources were used), 3 points for "hard/major" (such as a fight that could have been a TPK, or a major campaign goal achieved), and 2 points in the middle. Deciding on tier is more art than science, but the basic idea is that you assign the points afterward, once you see how hard it actually was.

Then just have each successive level require more points.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Maybe it's just too granular.

Here's a system that I just "invented" off top of my head. (I'm sure there are systems out there like this; I just don't know any.). Divide both fights and challenges/goals/objectives into 3 tiers, with 1 point for "easy/minor" (such as a fight where the party didn't take much damage and not many resources were used), 3 points for "hard/major" (such as a fight that could have been a TPK, or a major campaign goal achieved), and 2 points in the middle. Deciding on tier is more art than science, but the basic idea is that you assign the points afterward, once you see how hard it actually was.

Then just have each successive level require more points.

Yeah, I used a system similar to this in one of my campaigns a while back and it worked fairly well. I think every level took 1000 experience points. Then I just set the rewards up based on that.

I used 1000 points because I wanted a fairly granular system (each XP was worth 0.1% of a level, so I could do small rewards when warranted). You could easily make it 100 or even 10 points per level, if you were willing to dispense with that degree of granularity.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, part of the joy of DMing is “yes, and…”ing your players ideas.

Instead, *even among those who deny that there is a discrepancy”, the consensus seems to be that the DM should “No, because…” the wizard’s use of spells. I teleport into the castle! “No, because the builder used forbiddence!” I use my rat familiar to scout the next room “No, because the dungeon is stocked with cats”

Is it logical that the castle has forbiddence? Does it make sense for the enemy to have cats and dogs because rats are a common nuisance?

If castles have walls, doors have locks, chests have traps and chandeliers may or my not hold the weight of a fighter in armor, why should important areas go unprotected against teleport?

I don't set up anything to specifically nerf wizards (or any other class). But if it makes sense that the group will encounter a red dragon and the wizard only has fire based spells, or if the BBEGhas a counter to scrying it's not my problem.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

In short Wizards are the most powerful class. That is not only ok, it makes for a better game IME.

Ok, I'll bite. How does having a clearly more powerful class make for a better game?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ok, I'll bite. How does having a clearly more powerful class make for a better game?

I'll take a stab at this, because I think I get where he's coming from.

Imagine you're on a team with Peyton Manning and you win the Superbowl every year. Winning the Superbowl is fun for everyone on the team, including the linebacker whose name no one ever remembers and even the guys who are riding the bench. They get Superbowl rings too. They're winners too, right?

Those of us who want a higher standard for fighters think that riding the bench, even at the Superbowl, is not an acceptable standard. Even being a random linebacker is not good enough.

If the wizard gets to be Peyton Manning, then the fighter ought to be William "the Refrigerator" Perry (a legendary linebacker). That's the standard (IMO) that the game ought to be aiming for.