D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Gammadoodler]

I'm curious what arguments for wizards not being "all that" remain. Those that do and don't require DMs' thumbs on the scale.

What I have for Do:

• Magic items are more for martials
• At 6-8 encounters/rest it's fine..but the DM needs to have those 6-8.
• Fighters can do skills stuff outside the explicit rules if they ask the DM (though so can wizards)
• Spells aren't that big a deal, if it's meant to be a challenge, the DM has to provide a way to interact with it.
• Encounters can be designed to interact with any of the classes mechanical shortcomings.

What I have for Don't

• No one's ever complained at my game
• I've seen fighters do all kinds of cool stuff in my games (no specifics provided)
• Wizards can't prepare for every eventuality. A daily spell list will have a gap somewhere.
• Wizards can't replace every class in the party at peak efficiency in every role (number of replaceable party members and relative efficiency up to debate, but at least one or two at respectable efficiency)
• Fighters are really popular (according to D&D beyond)
• Everyone at the table is there to have fun, so class balance doesn't really matter.
• Gaps in performance aren't as noticeable until a tier of play most tables do not get to.
• Wizards have fewer chances to do damage by virtue of attacking characters getting more attacks per turn.

Is that about right?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm curious what arguments for wizards not being "all that" remain. Those that do and don't require DMs' thumbs on the scale.

What I have for Do:

• Magic items are more for martials
• At 6-8 encounters/rest it's fine..but the DM needs to have those 6-8.
• Fighters can do skills stuff outside the explicit rules if they ask the DM (though so can wizards)
• Spells aren't that big a deal, if it's meant to be a challenge, the DM has to provide a way to interact with it.

What I have for Don't

• No one's ever complained at my game
• I've seen fighters do all kinds of cool stuff in my games (no specifics provided)
• Wizards can't prepare for every eventuality. A daily spell list will have a gap somewhere.
• Wizards can't replace every class in the party at peak efficiency in every role (number of replaceable party members and relative efficiency up to debate, but at least one or two at respectable efficiency)
• Fighters are really popular (according to D&D beyond)
• Everyone at the table is there to have fun, so class balance doesn't really matter.
• Gaps in performance aren't as noticeable until a tier of play most tables do not get to.

Is that about right?

I think the one you missed is the one I started with: that a good chunk of Wizard effectiveness (in combat) depends on targets failing saving throws, and for a long list of reasons that generally happens less often than fighters miss their attacks. A related factor is that Wizards get fewer spells per turn than fighters get attacks, so are far more prone to unlucky streaks. At the end of a four round combat it’s quite possible that a Wizard has done nothing. That’s pretty unlikely for a Fighter most of the time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the one you missed is the one I started with: that a good chunk of Wizard effectiveness (in combat) depends on targets failing saving throws, and for a long list of reasons that generally happens less often than fighters miss their attacks. A related factor is that Wizards get fewer spells per turn than fighters get attacks, so are far more prone to unlucky streaks. At the end of a four round combat it’s quite possible that a Wizard has done nothing. That’s pretty unlikely for a Fighter most of the time.

That ignores the fact that, unlike with AC, you can target weak saves. Moreover, if you play smart and use the right spells, you can set yourself up to win whether or not the creature makes the save (because many spells have an effect even on a successful save).

 

[Bill Zebub]

That ignores the fact that, unlike with AC, you can target weak saves. Moreover, if you play smart and use the right spells, you can set yourself up to win whether or not the creature makes the save (because many spells have an effect even on a successful save).

And that ignores the fact that you have to both know the monster's weaknesses* and have the right spells prepared, and even then there's a decent chance that it's still easier for the fighter to hit.

And even after all that, there's the statistics of many attacks vs. fewer. The Wizard is just gonna whiff more often than the fighter.

*That, in turn, can depend both on how well the player knows the monster manual, and how closely the DM adheres to hit. When fighting high CR opponents it's quite possible you're going to be facing exotic, extra-planar beings you know nothing about.

Pop quiz: it's Jubilex! Quick, what ability score should you target? (We'll ignore his her its advantage on saving throws, and legendary resistance...)

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think the one you missed is the one I started with: that a good chunk of Wizard effectiveness (in combat) depends on targets failing saving throws, and for a long list of reasons that generally happens less often than fighters miss their attacks. A related factor is that Wizards get fewer spells per turn than fighters get attacks, so are far more prone to unlucky streaks. At the end of a four round combat it’s quite possible that a Wizard has done nothing. That’s pretty unlikely for a Fighter most of the time.

Save for half is pretty common which means 'guaranteed' damage in many cases, though some control spells do suffer in the way you describe.

How likely it is that a fighter has been able to do damage has a lot to do with encounter setup and IMO this gets more and more true as levels increase (and less and less in the fighter's favor)

Somewhat inclined to call this a push?

 

[Bill Zebub]

How likely it is that a fighter has been able to do damage has a lot to do with encounter setup and IMO this gets more and more true as levels increase (and less and less in the fighter's favor)

Encounter setup does have a lot to do with it, for both martials and casters.

Which means if the "opportunities for player X to shine" is an issue at a table, the DM has a lot of control over that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Save for half is pretty common which means 'guaranteed' damage in many cases, though some control spells do suffer in the way you describe.

A lot of monsters, especially at high level, have resistance or immunity to all sorts of damage types. So make that 1/4 or zero damage.

How many monsters have resistance or immunity to magic weapons? (I know, I know...WotC said magic weapons are optional, but let's be real.)

 

[Gammadoodler]

Encounter setup does have a lot to do with it, for both martials and casters.

Which means if the "opportunities for player X to shine" is an issue at a table, the DM has a lot of control over that.

So this would be in the thumbs on the scale section?

 

[Oofta]

So this would be in the thumbs on the scale section?

Isn't the thumb on the scale if only spells can overcome an obstacle?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Isn't the thumb on the scale if only spells can overcome an obstacle?

Sure. It goes both ways. But it's not exactly an exotic list of obstacles where, currently, a magical solution isn't vastly preferable.