D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because you can choose to play a class that can do it all. There should be no reason you have to limit it just so it stacks up better with another class.

That is like saying people who are over 7 foot should not be allowed to dunk in basketball, we need to implement something so the small shooting guards are just as good.

It is targeting people with certain preferences and is an artifact of the rules. So it is more like banning everyone with certain hair length from crossing the halfway line. Sure, you can perform OK on your side of the line, but you're not allowed to reach your max potential if you stick to your personal preferences.
So you have to make the choice of sticking to the image that you identify with and not being allowed to contribute as much as you could, or knuckling under and cutting those dreadlocks or whatever, to be something that you don't want to be just to perform better.
This rule will not inhibit those players who like their hair short to start with. Of those who prefer having long hair, some will prioritise their identity over performance, keep longer hair, and stay on their half. Some will prioritise performance and cut their hair.
This does not make it a good rule.

Yes it would. WellI don't play fighters much, but my enjoyment of Rogues would be less if the Wizard was nerfed or the Rogue was made better to be "balanced"

Why would Rogues being improved lessen your enjoyment of them?

To turn this around why shouldn't I be able to play a Wizard that is a martial hero? Why should I be forced to choose a fighter or barbarian or paladin for that?

We're not. And we're sure that since you don't mind a power discrepancy, you would be fine if that wizard who is aping being a martial hero doesn't do it as well as an actual martial hero.

Why does it matter what classes others play? Also, if I am starting at level 1 I don't even always have my subclass figured out yet! Usually I have an idea and maybe a couple of options but nothing is firm yet unless I am a Warlock or Cleric or Sorcerer.

Moreover whether I announce it first or last, what is the difference. I am going to play what I want to play regardless of what others play. What is the DM going to do? Is he going to overule me and say "no you have to play this kind of wizard because Bob is a fighter and Jill is a Barbarian." That is not a table I would play at.

I am fine with restrictions on the front end (i.e. no bladesingers or no divination wizards or PHB only) and I can choose whether or not to play in that game, but to make such a ruling after the game has started is a breach of the social contract.

I have never went into a game and decided what I was playing based on what others were playing. Others at the table did that at times, but that was their choice. I am going to play the character I want to play whether it "overshadows" others or not. You play the character you want to play and let me play the one I want to play.

It is a social contract thing. You know, showing consideration to the friends that you are playing with. If one wants to play a character with a certain area of expertise then outperforming them at their chosen niche is going to make them feel marginalised, unable to contribute and likely upset.
This is not something that you should be doing to your friends.

Exactly, most don't. That is why it is ok that one is more powerful than the other mechanically.

I believe forcing a player to choose between concept and power in such an outright fashion is bad design.

It doesn't mean it is a bad thing either, and there is no evidence it is a bad thing, especially when far more people play wizards than play fighters.

The fact that more people play wizards than fighters would seem to indicate that, assuming the concepts are equally popular, some of those people are going with wizard for the power even though they might prefer the fighter concept.

No. The rules are there for everyone to read. As long as we are not talking about a beginner, people know what they are buying into.

I mean, since Tasha's there are really only four top races - Goblins, Dwarves, Humans and customs. There are few builds you can make in any class that are not going to be outclassed by one of these four (Bugbears excepted on a few niche builds). Yet other than human these races are not very popular.

Not everyone has access to those builds, and I for one would question dwarves and goblins being of similar general power to humans and custom lineage. Niche builds perhaps. Other people find different races better depending on what they value.
The overall power of race however is significantly less than that of class.

 

[Giant Octopodes]

Yes, let's not have shifting goal posts and go back to wizards, not move the goal posts to wizards plus companions or wizards plus multiclass.

Something conclusive and not the, "Wizards always have enough slots to do whatever I need them to do in order to be superior, monsters never make any saves, spells that the mind and would be illegal make wizards superior at social, and so on."

I would need reasonable proof of superiority over all the rest of the party at the same time in all fields.

Show me with starting wizard spells, plus 2 new spells per level, how you can have the proper mix of spells memorized to beat the rogue at stealth, exploration and social, the cleric at cleric stuff, the fighter in combat, all in the same day. Lay out which slots are used for which spells and how they defeat all those other classes at their specialties, because I'm not seeing it.

You only benefit from a long rest once in a 24 hour period and they can be interrupted. Mansions can be dispelled. Rope tricks can be found and dispelled.

The wizard will at best have a 14 dex, needing con also and int being primary. With +3 proficiency(since the vast majority of PCs never see +4) and +2 for dex, the wizard is looking at +5. Compare that to the rogue who probably has a 16 or 18 and has expertise. +8 or +9 is better than +5. +10 if the player has pushed for a 20.

There are a lot of creatures with alternate senses or can see invisible things. Not all, but enough to make it unwise for the wizard to rely on invisibility and go scouting.

Those PCs are not going to be relying on invisibility and will be using other means to stay out of sight, which will help. The big part is that they are sturdier than wizards, so it's less likely that being surprised by something that could take on the whole party will knock out a ranger or rogue. The druid is probably in a normal animal form, which while weak, will tend to be overlooked by many things, which helps.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that Wizards have superiority over the rest of the party at the same time in all fields. The argument I've seen made goes more in the vein of this: I'm looking at party composition for a party I'm looking to join. They don't have a Rogue or anyone who can effectively scout. I could go with a Rogue, -or- I could go with a Wizard. I could still have proficiency in thieves tools, but if a lock can't be opened non-magically, I have knock to fall back on. I still have proficiency in stealth, but I also have invisibility to fall back on. I have the same options they do, plus options they do not have access to. Plus, then I can help the party teleport / plane shift / whatever when needed. In a fight, I might be doing less damage than a Rogue would (Maybe, big if) but I'll also be contributing with stuff like Tasha's taking things out of a fight entirely, which a Rogue could never hope to do, because the rules do not support them doing so with any means other than HP damage. Thus, taking a Wizard would be a superior choice over taking a Rogue.

Rinse and repeat for the other classes. Not that they can replace the whole party at once, but that for a given party member, they could serve the same roles they serve as or more effectively if they are full casters instead of whatever else. A Wizard wouldn't normally be the face. But a Bard sure could be, and would likely do the job far more effectively than a Paladin would. So on and so forth.

I get that you're unconvinced by this, and that's fine. But some of the things you're arguing just don't make sense. Sure, Mansions can be dispelled, if something is capable of seeing invisible objects, finds wherever it was stashed away, and does so successfully. But what rational beings would do so, having blind faith they can totally still take whatever pops out, after expending spell slots or abilities to achieve the above? How does it make sense from the perspective of the creature doing the dispelling?

And again with the scouting, you continue to argue that "using other means to stay out of sight" is better than doing the exact same thing while also being invisible, which is just factually inaccurate. Rogues -are- sturdier than Wizards, slightly. On average, with similar setups, they'll have 1 more HP per level, and often 1 more AC as well. But they can't misty step or otherwise bamf out of there if something does notice them, so I disagree that it's less likely they will be knocked out by something which notices them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that Wizards have superiority over the rest of the party at the same time in all fields. The argument I've seen made goes more in the vein of this: I'm looking at party composition for a party I'm looking to join. They don't have a Rogue or anyone who can effectively scout. I could go with a Rogue, -or- I could go with a Wizard. I could still have proficiency in thieves tools, but if a lock can't be opened non-magically, I have knock to fall back on. I still have proficiency in stealth, but I also have invisibility to fall back on. I have the same options they do, plus options they do not have access to. Plus, then I can help the party teleport / plane shift / whatever when needed. In a fight, I might be doing less damage than a Rogue would (Maybe, big if) but I'll also be contributing with stuff like Tasha's taking things out of a fight entirely, which a Rogue could never hope to do, because the rules do not support them doing so with any means other than HP damage. Thus, taking a Wizard would be a superior choice over taking a Rogue.

Rinse and repeat for the other classes. Not that they can replace the whole party at once, but that for a given party member, they could serve the same roles they serve as or more effectively if they are full casters instead of whatever else. A Wizard wouldn't normally be the face. But a Bard sure could be, and would likely do the job far more effectively than a Paladin would. So on and so forth.

I get that you're unconvinced by this, and that's fine. But some of the things you're arguing just don't make sense. Sure, Mansions can be dispelled, if something is capable of seeing invisible objects, finds wherever it was stashed away, and does so successfully. But what rational beings would do so, having blind faith they can totally still take whatever pops out, after expending spell slots or abilities to achieve the above? How does it make sense from the perspective of the creature doing the dispelling?

And again with the scouting, you continue to argue that "using other means to stay out of sight" is better than doing the exact same thing while also being invisible, which is just factually inaccurate. Rogues -are- sturdier than Wizards, slightly. On average, with similar setups, they'll have 1 more HP per level, and often 1 more AC as well. But they can't misty step or otherwise bamf out of there if something does notice them, so I disagree that it's less likely they will be knocked out by something which notices them.

More importantly for scouting the wizard has tools where he doesn’t even have to be present.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Question: Why give a level 10 character as your example?
Answer: Because if you had used a level 11 character as an example, the fighter would have given up 2 attacks per turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

Optimizer crowds are some of those pointing out the Wizards are powerful...

Why the …. ?

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

To build on this, people saying wizards aren’t overpowered tend to argue that they can’t defend against everything a DM could throw at them.

But wizards don’t need to defend (or prepare) against everything to shine, only the stuff that is actually thrown at them. If the campaign is about the great lich that has raised an army of the undead, you know that there is going to be a large number of undead enemies.

 

[FrogReaver]

To build on this, people saying wizards aren’t overpowered tend to argue that they can’t defend against everything a DM could throw at them.

But wizards don’t need to defend (or prepare) against everything to shine, only the stuff that is actually thrown at them. If the campaign is about the great lich that has raised an army of the undead, you know that there is going to be a large number of undead enemies.

I think in tier 1 and 2 there are significant restrictions on spells prepared, known and slots. I think it’s fair to ask how a wizard does even half of what is claimed at those levels. But at a certain point wizards have plenty of slots, spells known and prepared. They can’t do everything all at once but they can do a lot when needed.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

Having played/run multiple campaigns yo 20th level (my current one is 16) I've never seen a wizard repeatedly dominate the game.

As far as resting, sure. The PCs can always choose to start a long rest as long as 24 hours have passed. The world is not static, waiting to be triggered like some video game. So good luck dealing with what's transpired or the ambush in the middle of the rest. Sometimes it makes sense to recuperate, sometimes it could mean the group fails. I try to let them know which and then it's up to them.

Controlling pacing is simple if you set up a living world, no metagaming or houserules required.

 

[TwoSix]

Controlling pacing is simple if you set up a living world, no metagaming or houserules required.

Sure. But I think the often ignored flipside to this is that in a living, breathing sandbox world the players have absolutely no obligation to pursue any story hook they don't think is favorable to them. "Time-pressured apocalypse" scenario is often held up as the hard counter to 5MWD and wizard prepping, but that kind of storyline is antithetical to sandbox type play.

Realistically, time pressure and strategic countering of player actions (like ambushes and such) work pretty well for those with trad sensibilities, but less so for those with classic/OSR or storygame-derived styles.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. But I think the often ignored flipside to this is that in a living, breathing sandbox world the players have absolutely no obligation to pursue any story hook they don't think is favorable to them. "Time-pressured apocalypse" scenario is often held up as the hard counter to 5MWD and wizard prepping, but that kind of storyline is antithetical to sandbox type play.

Realistically, time pressure and strategic countering of player actions (like ambushes and such) work pretty well for those with trad sensibilities, but less so for those with classic/OSR or storygame-derived styles.

I'm not sure I could disagree much more. If you choose to take out a hornet nest, you don't just kick it and ask them to pretty please settle down while you take a nap.

Every once in a while PCs end run around obstacles. Sometimes magic is involved, sometimes not. If it happens I just adjust and the game goes on.