D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Yaarel]

I want to ask how these legendary heroes are ever challenged by anything when they can carve out lakes, chop down mountains, hold their breath for three days, shoot down the sun, etc...

Is the answer that they don't do those things on a regular basis and they're the offensive equivalent of plot armor?

The answer is, they do these things at higher levels, including legend and epic levels. Earlier they are more normally vulnerable.

 

[Oofta]

I never claimed that a wizard could change the entire party into ancient red dragons. But I think whoever did claim that responded to you, admitted that they were mistaken and it was actually one age category younger, and that it could be accomplished using True Polymorph (you wait an hour until the spell becomes permanent, so it would take one day per party member, but totally feasible).

They're absolutely in the same ballpark. If wizards were equivalent to their mythic counterparts, they probably wouldn't get spells higher than 5th level (and a lot less of them overall).

D'oh. My bad on the dragons.

I still disagree.

 

[Undrave]

I never claimed that a wizard could change the entire party into ancient red dragons. But I think whoever did claim that responded to you, admitted that they were mistaken and it was actually one age category younger, and that it could be accomplished using True Polymorph (you wait an hour until the spell becomes permanent, so it would take one day per party member, but totally feasible).

They're absolutely in the same ballpark. If wizards were equivalent to their mythic counterparts, they probably wouldn't get spells higher than 5th level (and a lot less of them overall).

Yeah a lot of mythical magical feats involved divination more than outright spell slinging. Like Merlin dreaming of the white and red dragon fighting under that castle.

 

[Fanaelialae]

D'oh. My bad on the dragons.

I still disagree.

Okay then. Show me. Let's reverse the roles. Rather than me trying to prove to you mythic fighter counterparts, you prove to me mythic wizard counterparts.

Pick any 3 wizard spells of 7th level or higher. Justify their existence using a mythic wizard figure who used its mythic equivalent. It's only fair, however, that you adhere to the same criteria as you've been applying to fighters, so you can only draw on western culture and cannot use innately supernatural entities like gods or demigods.

 

[Krachek]

You're reading into things. Collaborative creation is not synonymous with cooperation.

For example, let's imagine that you and I decide to write a book together. If we riff off of each other's ideas with a lot of "yes and" that's cooperative. But if we instead constructively challenge each other ideas in order to create a better book, it's still collaborative.

Ok, let say we collaborate playing DnD.
We collaborate to what?
it’s a game, so I guess we collaborate to have fun or a satisfying experience.
How do a player playing wizard, collaborate to help a player playing fighter have a satisfying experience?

 

[Oofta]

Okay then. Show me. Let's reverse the roles. Rather than me trying to prove to you mythic fighter counterparts, you prove to me mythic wizard counterparts.

Pick any 3 wizard spells of 7th level or higher. Justify their existence using a mythic wizard figure who used its mythic equivalent. It's only fair, however, that you adhere to the same criteria as you've been applying to fighters, so you can only draw on western culture and cannot use innately supernatural entities like gods or demigods.

We've beaten this horse to death. I've played up to 20th in multiple campaigns now, unlike 3.5 I just don't see the massive difference.

They're different and have different roles. But wizards are not all that.

If I have time I'll think about it, but I don't see how it's going to change anything.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ok, let say we collaborate playing DnD.
We collaborate to what?
it’s a game, so I guess we collaborate to have fun or a satisfying experience.
How do a player playing wizard, collaborate to help a player playing fighter have a satisfying experience?

Collaborative play can mean many things. If we're running an evil campaign, then it may be that both the wizard and the fighter are looking for ways to screw the other over, because that is the expectation.

In a non-evil campaign, it might mean that we're all creating a shared narrative surrounding the characters, but nothing more. The wizard player doesn't have any obligation towards making sure that the fighter player has a good time, unless that's part of that table's contract.

Ideally the players are collaborating towards a satisfying experience, but I've known plenty of players over the years who prioritize their own satisfaction. This is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed that those players tend to favor wizards (and to a lesser extent, rogues).

 

[Yaarel]

I have no problem with gods and demigods doing cool stuff. I'd even be OK with some of the stuff if we had epic levels. But we don't.

There are 5e epic levels. The DMs Guide has each level get an epic feat, namely a "boon".

In my view, a character can advance a four-level Epic tier of levels 21-24.

To write down a "level 25" simply means completing level 24. At level 25, there is little difference between the power of the character and being a DM. So, the character defacto retires. Even so, the DM can continue to use the character for various plots when encounters with Epic characters are useful.



Rethinking size:

Regarding size specifically, Large can come with Strength and Constitution prereqs, and even be available at level 1. The Large size wont confer mechanical advantage, but other mechanics might refer to it, such as, probably, grappling. Certain Large races can add an additional 1d6 damage to their attacks as part of their racial design space. Generally speaking, Large +1d6, Huge +2d6, and Gargantuan +3d6, but again these arent automatic, but are conferred separately with the size as a prereq.

A Large weapon doesnt deal more damage − the higher Strength does that. Rather, a Large creature who fails to use a Large weapon incurs disadvantage on attacks. Likewise, anyone using a wrongsize weapon incurs disadvantage.

 

[Krachek]

At this point I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that wizards are correctly mechanically balanced against other classes because D&D is also a social activity?

Pretty much that!
if the table promote collaboration to share the spot light, and players help each other’s to promote ideas and character development, the fighter is fine.

if the table promote competition to gain the spot light, place rolls, spells and abilities, then the fighter is not good choice. Specially if there is a lot of social and exploration encounter.

 

[Krachek]

Collaborative play can mean many things. If we're running an evil campaign, then it may be that both the wizard and the fighter are looking for ways to screw the other over, because that is the expectation.

In a non-evil campaign, it might mean that we're all creating a shared narrative surrounding the characters, but nothing more. The wizard player doesn't have any obligation towards making sure that the fighter player has a good time, unless that's part of that table's contract.

Ideally the players are collaborating towards a satisfying experience, but I've known plenty of players over the years who prioritize their own satisfaction. This is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed that those players tend to favor wizards (and to a lesser extent, rogues).

I just realize that I’m just so lucky to play for years with players that care about the global fun around the table. And that privilege is not commonly shared.