D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[FrozenNorth]

@Maxperson

Here is the claim I was pushing back on:

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.

In response, you have provided three quotes of other posters who you claim are arguing that a wizard, with the proper mix of spells memorized, can beat the rogue at stealth, exploration and social, beat the cleric at cleric stuff, beat the fighter in combat, all in the same day.

Quote 1 (Minigiant)

Sure it can.

A 15th level wizard has 20 spell prepared, 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots, 5 cantrips, recovers 7 levels of slots, has a ritual book, some magic items, and has a subclass.

Only combat roles are resource intensive and the wizard is bad at 2 of them. Devoting a 2 cantrips and a few slots to Damage, A few to Control, and a few to Support still leaves you with 20-40% of your slots to Explorer, Lockpick, Sage, Scout, Utility, and Face.

The wizard won't be as good at these roles as other classes but they'd be decent or better at them.

@Minigiant literally states that the wizard won't be as good as specialists at their role, but that they will be decent. So @Minigiant is stating that a high level well-built wizard has plenty of slots to fulfill their role, and still maintains a bunch of extra slots and extra prepared spells to participate in other roles or pillars.

He is not stating that they will beat rogues at stealth, beat fighters at single target damage and beat clerics at healing, all at the same time.

So, do you disagree with @Minigiant 's actual argument, that if a wizard that can fulfill its traditional role and still has 20%-40% of its slots and prepared spells left over to fulfill other roles, the wizard class is overpowered?

Quote 2 (Cruentus)

The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal... But since every character has the ability to heal with a short rest or heal everything on a long rest, its actually a rather unnecessary "role".

I've DM'd entire parties of spell casters, and they did perfectly well without any of the other "roles" present. That's either a bug or a feature, depending on your view. Its a bug in my mind. No niche protection, no clear role, everyone casts magic, everyone just as able to damage/absorb damage/remove social and exploration pillars/exit stage right quickly, etc. No real downside.

And, if you add in a level 2 (Oooh! A whole 300xps needed; the horror!) or so dip in fighter - extra HP, action surge, and second wind rolled in too...

This is even further from the position you are arguing against. @Cruentus is talking about an entire party of spellcasters, not a single spellcaster playing all 4 roles by themselves.

So, do you disagree with @Cruentus 's actual argument that the fact that if a party of 4 wizards is as good or better at dealing with exploration, social and combat challenges than a party made up of a fighter, a wizard, a rogue and a cleric, then the wizard class is overpowered?

Quote 3 (Gammadoodler)

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.

@Gammadoodler 's post is the closest to the position that you are arguing against. Note that even @Gammadoodler doesn't go as far as saying that the wizard can beat other classes at their game.

@Gammadoodler 's post also doesn't state whether he is assuming 6-8 combat encounters per day. Despite your often repeating the guideline that parties should face 6-8 encounters (not combat encounters) per day, the rules provide that characters recover their abilities on a long rest, regardless of the number of encounters they have faced in the day. Furthermore, the actual adventures put out by WotC don't support that 6-8 encounters per day is the average.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The BEST spell effect is DEATH NO SAVE. The Fighter class is better at this "spell" than any other class.

No, it isn’t. DEATH NO SAVE is completely useless in exploration and social challenges.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Personally, I think D&D is more fun when it broadly emulates the tropes of inspirational material like REH, JRRT etc. Where familiars are magical things that catch their victims by surprise, rather than part of a rational special-ops operation with its own ecology of measure and counter-measures.

I think it's possible to have balanced wizards in the form of D&D I prefer. But maybe not in 5e?

Aesthetically I prefer that, too. And, yeah, that’s not really D&D 5e.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah, I'm not up for that. I want 1000% less slaves in my D&D, thank you. And 0% PC slavers.

Perhaps slave is the wrong word and I apologize if that offended you are anyone.

The spell states they always obey your command and my thoughts on that are you are commanding it to this plane and command it to do your will. I think of the relationship similar to conjure elemental or summon shadowspawn or something like that.

 

[Yaarel]

No, it isn’t. DEATH NO SAVE is completely useless in exploration and social challenges.

The Fighter needs additional class features to contribute to social and exploratory challenges.

 

[Maxperson]

In response, you have provided three quotes of other posters who you claim are arguing that a wizard, with the proper mix of spells memorized, can beat the rogue at stealth, exploration and social, beat the cleric at cleric stuff, beat the fighter in combat, all in the same day.

Quote 1 (Minigiant)


@Minigiant literally states that the wizard won't be as good as specialists at their role, but that they will be decent. So @Minigiant is stating that a high level well-built wizard has plenty of slots to fulfill their role, and still maintains a bunch of extra slots and extra prepared spells to participate in other roles or pillars.

He is not stating that they will beat rogues at stealth, beat fighters at single target damage and beat clerics at healing, all at the same time.

So, do you disagree with @Minigiant 's actual argument, that if a wizard that can fulfill its traditional role and still has 20%-40% of its slots and prepared spells left over to fulfill other roles, the wizard class is overpowered?

You didn't read a bit farther down in post #599 where he says...

"That's the point, buddy.

If the wizard is doing almost everything, he's still mediocre in combat.That 9 Roles.

Imagine if someone takes 2 roles off his hands. The Wizard is suddenly doing 7 Role well.
And if the fighter optss to take the wizard's damage load... look the DM is crying in the corner."

That's 9 roles mediocre and 7 roles well.

Quote 2 (Cruentus)

This is even further from the position you are arguing against. @Cruentus is talking about an entire party of spellcasters, not a single spellcaster playing all 4 roles by themselves.

So, do you disagree with @Cruentus 's actual argument that the fact that if a party of 4 wizards is as good or better at dealing with exploration, social and combat challenges than a party made up of a fighter, a wizard, a rogue and a cleric, then the wizard class is overpowered?

This is flat out wrong. Again, his very first sentence...

"The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal..."

His later paragraph about the party of casters further cements the claim with this statement...

"Everyone just as able to damage/absorb damage/remove social and exploration pillars/exit stage right quickly, etc."

Everyone can do every role simultaneously.

Quote 3 (Gammadoodler)

@Gammadoodler 's post is the closest to the position that you are arguing against. Note that even @Gammadoodler doesn't go as far as saying that the wizard can beat other classes at their game.

@Gammadoodler 's post also doesn't state whether he is assuming 6-8 combat encounters per day. Despite your often repeating the guideline that parties should face 6-8 encounters (not combat encounters) per day, the rules provide that characters recover their abilities on a long rest, regardless of the number of encounters they have faced in the day. Furthermore, the actual adventures put out by WotC don't support that 6-8 encounters per day is the average.

All of them said what I claimed they said. And if he's not using 6-8 encounters, then any problem is created by him. Also WotC adventures are not relevant. They break all kinds of rules that they put forth aaaaaaand, they are not rules in the slightest, so have no bearing on actual rules or guidelines.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That wild claim makes me want to DM for you.

What would you do if a player asked “Hey, what does my character know about Juiblex? »?

Would you allow them to make a Religion or Arcana check to identify weaknesses?

What about if the party knew their ultimate about was Juiblex (which seems likely, as a demon lord is an end-of-campaign threat)? If the wizard consulted a library of demon lore, would an Investigate check allow them to discover Juiblex’s weaknesses?

 

[Gammadoodler]

You didn't read a bit farther down in post #599 where he says...

"That's the point, buddy.

If the wizard is doing almost everything, he's still mediocre in combat.That 9 Roles.

Imagine if someone takes 2 roles off his hands. The Wizard is suddenly doing 7 Role well.
And if the fighter optss to take the wizard's damage load... look the DM is crying in the corner."

That's 9 roles mediocre and 7 roles well.

This is flat out wrong. Again, his very first sentence...

"The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal..."

His later paragraph about the party of casters further cements the claim with this statement...

"Everyone just as able to damage/absorb damage/remove social and exploration pillars/exit stage right quickly, etc."

Everyone can do every role simultaneously.

All of them said what I claimed they said. And if he's not using 6-8 encounters, then any problem is created by him. Also WotC adventures are not relevant. They break all kinds of rules that they put forth aaaaaaand, they are not rules in the slightest, so have no bearing on actual rules or guidelines.

The context of my post was in relation to an ongoing American football team analogy posters were using at the time, where there are 11 men on the field at the same time, and offense, defense, and special teams groups of players.

My '2-4 players' are not players at the game table. Replace a full team no. Able to handle more and more roles with smaller and smaller gaps in performance as level increase, yes.

Separately, you've acknowledged that 6-8 encounters is bad design. Any issues stemming from a failure to use it is a result of that bad design assumption.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Disregarding the cleric stuff, since I am not sure what that means, but for the rest I will give it a shot. You did not mention what level so I will just say level 8 (20 spells in book, 12 prepared). I bolded the leveled spells below.

Goblin Bladesinger - S8, D18, C10, I18, W10, Ch14
Urban Bounty Hunter Background.
Proficiencies: Persuasion, Stealth, Insight Investigation, Thieves Tools

The Fighter in Combat
Booming Blade (combined with extra attack from bladesinger and nimble escape from goblin)
Protection from evil and good
Shield
Haste or Cause Fear


The Rogue in exploration
Find Familiar (as ritual) - Bat or Hawk typically depending on situation
Arcane Eye
Knock
Find Traps
Gift of Alacrity
Disguise Self
Mage Hand
Minor Illusion

The Rogue in Stealth
Invisibility (combines well with nimble escape)
Darkness (combined with blindsight from bat above and nimble escape)


Rogue in Social
Friends
Minor Illusion
Find Familiar (as ritual) - Raven
Charm Monster
Suggestion
Disguise Self


That is without any feats. This could be done better with feats. Also I went with a melee build here for the fighter comparison, but you could do a ranged build too. In comparison to the Rogue - you have a Rogue doing exploration, stealth and social. A Rogue can be great at any of those but can't typically be great at all of those at the same time until very high levels.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You didn't read a bit farther down in post #599 where he says...

"That's the point, buddy.

If the wizard is doing almost everything, he's still mediocre in combat.That 9 Roles.

Imagine if someone takes 2 roles off his hands. The Wizard is suddenly doing 7 Role well.
And if the fighter optss to take the wizard's damage load... look the DM is crying in the corner."

That's 9 roles mediocre and 7 roles well.

@Minigiant is still in the thread. I will let him clarify what he meant, but I suspect that my interpretation of his post is more accurate than yours.

This is flat out wrong. Again, his very first sentence...

"The only role it can't fill simultaneously on the team is healer, a la a cleric who might use healing during combat, which as everyone knows is sub optimal..."

His later paragraph about the party of casters further cements the claim with this statement...

"Everyone just as able to damage/absorb damage/remove social and exploration pillars/exit stage right quickly, etc."

Everyone can do every role simultaneously.

As far as I’ve seen, @Cruentus isn’t participating in the thread any more. Clearly, you and I interpret his post differently. As I said, the more realistic interpretation of @Cruentus ’s post is that a party of wizards will outclass a party of non-spellcasters.

Here’s the thing. If it is possible to interpret a poster’s comment in two ways, one of which is ridiculous, « a single wizard can replace three other party members simultaneously », why would you continuously refute the ridiculous interpretation rather than the non-ridiculous interpretation?

All of them said what I claimed they said. And if he's not using 6-8 encounters, then any problem is created by him. Also WotC adventures are not relevant. They break all kinds of rules that they put forth aaaaaaand, they are not rules in the slightest, so have no bearing on actual rules or guidelines.

@Gammadoodler has responded that you misinterpreted his post.

The effect that your posts give, the fact that you keep on arguing that wizards are overpowered only if they can outclass three specialists , at their specialty, in a single day… well, the impression it gives is that you know wizards are overpowered outside your artificial constraints of 6-8 combat encounters per day (no, you can’t bypass any) so you are only arguing against the weakest argument anyone is making.