D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I don't agree. Each class does it's primary function better than the wizard can possibly do it. In football each position has a unique skillset, but there is some overlap. Tight Ends and Running Backs both block a lot. Both catch the ball, but TEs do it better, but not as good as the WR who doesn't block, but specializes in catching. The WR also occasionally runs the ball(end arounds, though technically a catch, is more of a running play) and very rarely one of those positions will throw the ball like a QB.

All the classes are famous at their positions.

This part of the discussion was following ECOM3's position that the Wizard is in fact more powerful than other classes but the game is better for it. I position I haven't seen that often, and was curious about what it meant!

If you believe there is no gap than we are back to the other discussion...

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. The wizard does their job exceptionally well with little need for optimization and essentially no requirement for the DM to ensure they get spotlight time.

The wizard cannot do better than the rogue at skills, stealth or opening locked things. Expertise, the hugely loud noise that brings every monster in a 1 block area to overwhelm the PCs if the wizard uses knock, being able to go invisible, but not being anywhere near as good at being quite, etc. make the wizard subpar when compared to the rogue. The wizard also fails miserably to social well at all with his spells. They are all illegal, make enemies, etc.

The wizard cannot fight as well as the fighter for similar reasons. Bladesingers come close, but a Bladesinger doing fighter stuff isn't being a wizard, so...

The wizard can't even begin to do close to what clerics do.

The wizard has versatility. He can do a lot of different things, but not all in the same day and not all really well unless he chooses to hyper focus his spells into a very few areas, and even then he's not going to be as good as a class designed to excel in those areas.

 

[Maxperson]

This part of the discussion was following ECOM3's position that the Wizard is in fact more powerful than other classes but the game is better for it. I position I haven't seen that often, and was curious about what it meant!

If you believe there is no gap than we are back to the other discussion...

Yeah. I don't get his statement, either.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The wizard cannot do better than the rogue at skills, stealth or opening locked things. Expertise, the hugely loud noise that brings every monster in a 1 block area to overwhelm the PCs if the wizard uses knock, being able to go invisible, but not being anywhere near as good at being quite, etc. make the wizard subpar when compared to the rogue. The wizard also fails miserably to social well at all with his spells. They are all illegal, make enemies, etc.

The wizard cannot fight as well as the fighter for similar reasons. Bladesingers come close, but a Bladesinger doing fighter stuff isn't being a wizard, so...

The wizard can't even begin to do close to what clerics do.

The wizard has versatility. He can do a lot of different things, but not all in the same day and not all really well unless he chooses to hyper focus his spells into a very few areas, and even then he's not going to be as good as a class designed to excel in those areas.

I believe we've both made our positions on the matter quite clear, and I don't expect that either of us is likely change it. Suffice it to say that we disagree on this point and let's leave it at that.

 

[Oofta]

Forbiddance is a logical countermeasure to employ for some secure areas... at a rate of occurrence that would be tied in some way to the frequency with which 11th level casters can be found in the setting. How reasonable it is for a player to expect it should be tied to that frequency. (And it's not even that great of protection since 30 days of 6th level spellcasting and 1000 gp worth of materials can be dispelled with a single spell slot as from as low as 3rd level)

The reason that an area could go unprotected from teleportation is that it is much more difficult and expensive to provide that protection than it is to build walls or install locks. It requires you to dial up the assumptions for available spellcasting. In a setting where there's a bunch of perma-forbidden locations, finding an npc to raise the dead shouldn't be a significant challenge (Raise dead and reincarnate are 5th level spells), fast travel across the setting should be pretty widely available (teleportation circle is a 5th level spell, transport via plants is a 6th level spell), etc.

So, yes it makes sense for these protections to exist. All you have to do is abandon any pretense that your setting is low magic and react accordingly.

A quick search for castle building costs would indicate that they can take literally thousands of workers a decade to construct.

The cost of forbiddence would be a drop in the bucket. I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of labor and the cost to build even a typical wall fortification, especially without modern machinery.

The caster in many cases could either be brought in as a specialist, or just as likely, do it because their leader asks them to. Throw in the fact that it lasts forever.

If it is a very low magic world, why are there wizards that can cast teleport running around? Who taught them the spell?

The D&D standard assumes pretty high level of magic. There may not be a caster available in the local village, but these were some of the biggest single construction projects of their era.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The wizard cannot do better than the rogue at skills, stealth or opening locked things. Expertise, the hugely loud noise that brings every monster in a 1 block area to overwhelm the PCs if the wizard uses knock, being able to go invisible, but not being anywhere near as good at being quite, etc. make the wizard subpar when compared to the rogue. The wizard also fails miserably to social well at all with his spells. They are all illegal, make enemies, etc.

The wizard cannot fight as well as the fighter for similar reasons. Bladesingers come close, but a Bladesinger doing fighter stuff isn't being a wizard, so...

The wizard can't even begin to do close to what clerics do.

The wizard has versatility. He can do a lot of different things, but not all in the same day and not all really well unless he chooses to hyper focus his spells into a very few areas, and even then he's not going to be as good as a class designed to excel in those areas.

I'd argue that the "problem" is three-fold.

1. The number of classes a wizard can replicate over time increases with level
2. The gap in performance between the purpose-built class and the classes it can choose to replicate narrows or evaporates with level
3. The flexibility of prepared spellcasting means that wizards can bounce between roles on a daily basis.

For the rogue, wizards starts with invisibility, knock, and find familiar but then they start start getting scrying, arcane eyes, skill empowerments(!), etherealness, misty step, fly, dispel magic, etc. etc. etc.

There's some similar progression in the damage niche. The bladesinger "not being a wizard" because they are replacing a melee damage dealer still has a full spellcasting progression worth of spell options they could use if they weren't slumming it.

At high levels they can be 2-4 men on the team.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I could have sworn Peyton Manning had a bunch of other teammates out on the field with him. But maybe I'm not remembering right and it's true that everybody else were 2nd stringers watching from the bench.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I could have sworn Peyton Manning had a bunch of other teammates out on the field with him. But maybe I'm not remembering right and it's true that everybody else were 2nd stringers watching from the bench.

So your position is that it doesn't matter if Peyton Manning is consistently the MVP as long as everyone else on the team also gets to play?

 

[Bill Zebub]

So your position is that it doesn't matter if Peyton Manning is consistently the MVP as long as everyone else on the team also gets to play?

I don't respond to posts that tell me what my position is (especially if it's disguised as a question). If you don't understand and would like to ask a clarifying question go ahead.

 

[Undrave]

A closer analogy would be the fighter as Barry Sanders, the Rogue as Terrell Owens and the Cleric as Jerry Rice. The wizard may be Peyton Manning, and get top billing, but he can't get where he's going without those other superstars who are really right there with him(or close to it) in terms of talent, but QBs just get the prestige.

This is why, and I’ll die on that hill, the concept of role in 4e worked so well as a basis for class design: a good D&D party is like a football team! A group of specialists each with their role to play in victory. You can’t be a good team if all you have is a genius QB or an invincible Lineman. And if everybody is amazing at their post, then the team itself becomes impossible to defeat.

The current Wizard is a guy who tries to be every damn role on the team while being just as good as a specialist at it.