D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Maxperson]

The details of the multi-classing system is in some part responsible for that versatility... its not about another character.

Okay. Still not being versatile because wizard. If you are getting it from another class, then that other class is in large part responsible. Wizard superiority in threads like this one has to be wizard only, otherwise it's not wizard superiority.

 

[Garthanos]

Okay. Still not being versatile because wizard. If you are getting it from another class, then that other class is in large part responsible. Wizard superiority in threads like this one has to be wizard only, otherwise it's not wizard superiority.

The ability to get from another class without losing much that is versatility a property of the class contributes to that (being a caster). A martial type cannot sensibly take 3 levels of fighter and 4 levels of paladin and 3 levels of monk without nerfing himself out of extra attacks.

I think there is caster supremacy going on not just wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

The ability to get from another class without losing much that is versatility a property of the class contributes to that (being a caster). A martial type cannot sensibly take 3 levels of fighter and 4 levels of paladin and 3 levels of monk without nerfing himself out of extra attacks.

I think there is caster supremacy going on not just wizard.

No, but he can go 3 fighter, 5 paladin, 2 monk and gain a ton of smiting, spells and some ki while only losing 1 attack and be way ahead of the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay. Still not being versatile because wizard. If you are getting it from another class, then that other class is in large part responsible. Wizard superiority in threads like this one has to be wizard only, otherwise it's not wizard superiority.

Seems unnecessarily limiting - especially if we are just talking a 1 level dip into some other class.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, but that means that those other classes are in some part responsible for that power and versatility. It's like the fighter who is hasted and does whatever percentage more DPR. That increase is not the fighter's damage. It's the wizard's. If the wizard can safely knock a door because the cleric cast silence, the cleric is the one that made opening that door something that could be done. Without the cleric, the wizard gets everyone killed so doesn't cast knock. That means that it's not the wizard doing better than a rogue(knock isn't better in any case), but rather two classes combining to be good at exploration, which is appropriate.

I'd disagree here. The hasted damage is a contribution of both the Fighter and the Wizard. What portion of that should be accounted as being from the fighter and what portion from the wizard is very much an open question.

For example take a wizard in one party hasting a Sword and Shield Fighter. Take a wizard in another party hasting a SS Fighter. The actual damage output of the haste spell is dependent on the offensive capabilities of the PC being hasted.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think some of the wizards versatility/power is in how well it combines with other casters I wish fighters and monks combined as nicely.

Exactly! A large chunk of caster versatility is being able to easily shore up their biggest weaknesses through small multiclass dips and feats.

For AC multiclass cleric or hexblade. For constitution/concentration saves take resilient con. If you are a caster that doesn't already get the shield spell then multiclass into a caster that can prepare that. Etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Seems unnecessarily limiting - especially if we are just talking a 1 level dip into some other class.

I don't care if they dip into other classes. What another class adds can't be used to show wizard superiority. Either the WIZARD is superior, or it's not and needs help from other classes. Needing help =/= superior.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd disagree here. The hasted damage is a contribution of both the Fighter and the Wizard. What portion of that should be accounted as being from the fighter and what portion from the wizard is very much an open question.

For example take a wizard in one party hasting a Sword and Shield Fighter. Take a wizard in another party hasting a SS Fighter. The actual damage output of the haste spell is dependent on the offensive capabilities of the PC being hasted.

Yes, but in both cases 100% of the damage from the extra attack that would never have happened without haste is attributable to the wizard. It's not the exact numbers that matter. It's that if you are getting a boost from another class, what comes from that boost cannot show the superiority of the class receiving the help.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem is AS an experienced player, I'm also a firm believer that complexity and power should be entirely uncorrelated with the character trope. I'm actually kind of OK with your assertion that people can opt into the complexity and power level that they want, so having some classes be somewhat stronger isn't the end of the world.

But I also firmly believe I should be able to play a complex, powerful character that resembles Thor or Saitama, rather than always having to be Dr. Strange. If there's a fighter whose main power is toughness and solid damage, that there should be a sorcerous equivalent with pure blasting and only a tiny amount of utility. (Like a warlock but simpler.) Likewise, if there's a wizard with hundred of spells, there should also be a warblade/swordsage type with mystical wuxia techniques who can fly, heal, and kill ten mooks with a powerful sword swipe (a la fireball).

Indeed.

I don't thing complexity or versatility being locked into certain archetypes. I've played RPGs, editions, and strategy games that do that it's not fun.

I remember an old strategy game Warlords Battlecry that had simple, complex, versatile, and one-trick-pony options of high tier.

 

[Giant Octopodes]

I don't care if they dip into other classes. What another class adds can't be used to show wizard superiority. Either the WIZARD is superior, or it's not and needs help from other classes. Needing help =/= superior.

What would show Wizard Superiority in your book? Your point is moot if in your eyes nothing will ever show Wizard superiority, regardless of what it is, which seems to be your stance. So let's not have shifting goalposts or impossible standards, what is it that specifically would need to be shown, in order for you to say that Wizards are superior? Genuinely, it's ok if the answer is "for me, nothing would cut it", but then just saying, you don't need to constantly insist that something "doesn't show it", since for you that would always be true.

Not everyone plays at a table which disallows long rests until the DM decides the players get to take advantage of the benefits provided. By RAW, those can be triggered by the players without DM permission. You've already indicated that if folks Don't run 6-8 encounters between long rests, the casters Will be imbalanced, and it's their fault that such would be the case. But at high levels, you literally can't prevent them from taking a long rest whenever they want other than via DM fiat, houserules, or endless world-ending clocks always forcing immediate actions. Not all tables are comfortable with any of those, and I don't think it's fair to then indicate the unbalances arising as a result of just following RAW for long rests is all their fault.

Stealth advantage to be unseen, sure. Not to be silent. Invisibility would provide no advantage against being heard.

The rogue would at least be quiet.

Right up until he gets eaten by something that can see invisibility, has ears and can hear the unstealthy clod, has blindsight/blindsense or a sense of smell. Which means lots of things.

You refer to a Wizard as an "unstealthy clod" in a system where literally all classes have the same access to the same skills, and say that if they Do go invisible, then they'll still get eaten by just about anything under the sun, because being invisible doesn't help. So how then would a ranger, druid, monk, or anyone else fare? Or even just a Rogue which didn't use expertise on Stealth, since they're potentially identically skilled, and don't have invisibility to help? It's a weird look to argue that invisibility literally does nothing to make you harder to detect, just saying.