D&D 5E Does the wizard need more spells learned per level?

[Aldarc]

I do not disagree with you. The most egregious, in my mind, is the rogue. I think rogues should be really good at picking locks and finding traps, and yes they should be able to do some good damage when they can backstab from time to time, but in general combat they should be a weaker class. Yet they pretty much rock in 5th edition. I still love a lot of what's going on in 5th edition, but I do agree with you, even it has problems with trying to balance for combat too much.

I'm surprised that the rogue is the most egregious to your mind and not the wizard, especially given how wizards' magic can outperform the rogue's combat output and exploration pillar. They even have a number of defensive abilities that lessen the impact of their squishiness.

A lot of this argument about how wizards are stronger than martial classes is based on the presupposition that all classes should be as equally balanced as possible. Personally I reject that pressupposition.

In my ideal world, wizards are puny and weak at low levels, but fearsome and powerful at the highest levels. I like that, to be honest.

And I, hopefully respectfully, reject your presupposition. It's great to have a sense of progression for characters, but I don't think that wizards are somehow entitled to quadratic progression while martial characters are relegated to linear progression. In my ideal world, all classes are fun, rewarding, and relatively balanced at all tiers of play. IMHO, classes should be relatively balanced across levels because of a simple pragmatic reality of tabletop gaming, especially with D&D: not every tier of gameplay sees an equal amount of playtime.

A low level wizard should not be balanced with the notion that they will be gods at top tiers who outshine their martial comrades when most campaigns will probably not extend past 8th level. Wizards should be viable at the lower tiers, which also means that they should probably get taken down several notches at the top tier. I don't think that we can presume any longer that wizards will be "rewarded" for reaching top tier or that fighters deserve less reward for achieving top tier than wizards.

It's likely for this reason that we have seen wizards (and other full casters) gain at-will cantrips, boosts to their HP, and more spells at low level in comparison to the earliest editions. Conversely, it seems ridiculous to me that players who chose martial characters get screwed at higher tiers of play by "virtue" of not being wizards. What happens to campaigns that start at mid or high levels? There was no sense for either the fighter being stronger or wizard being weaker then. By that point, in some editions, it has become the Wizard (and Friends) Show. Players should not be punished or rewarded in the endgame for their class choices. Instead, players should feel they are being rewarded at all levels of gameplay.

 

[machineelf]

I'm surprised that the rogue is the most egregious to your mind and not the wizard, especially given how wizards' magic can outperform the rogue's combat output and exploration pillar.

I'm not sure I agree that they can. At least, I remain to be convinced of that, though I could be, perhaps. But often a wizard has a few high-level damage spells, and if the target succeeds on their saving throws (or is a rogue and just steps out of the way of things like fireball damage!), then the wizard may find herself out of spell slots quickly with only low level damage spells or cantrips left.

I have not found wizards to be the masters of combat in all the games I've run. Far from it. I find it interesting if your experience is different.

And I reject your presupposition.

OK, we reject each other's presuppositions. That's cool.

If a player doesn't agree that combat damage per round is main factor in creating "balanced" classes, and instead just has fun doing the unique things a certain class can do, then they will not be punished in the end game, or in other levels. Sometimes I just want to play a cleric that heals, or a rogue that is good at picking locks, and I expect a fighter, or a wizard, to do more damage than me in a fight. That's OK.

The insistence that every class should be equally good in combat is a silly presupposition, to me.

But at least we both acknowledge our own presuppositions, and can agree to disagree.

 

[schnee]

You know, I mischaracterized you and I'm sorry about that.

I've seen the video game assessment lead on to a line of thinking that becomes quite insulting:
"Those kids need it -> I don't -> My game was gritter and didn't need 'balance', we did it with our thinking -> Kids needed it dumbed down to their level = I'm tougher, stronger, my way of gaming is better." Seen that far too often, and I jumped to a conclusion.

 

[machineelf]

You know, I mischaracterized you and I'm sorry about that.

I've seen the video game assessment lead on to a line of thinking that becomes quite insulting:
"Those kids need it -> I don't -> My game was gritter and didn't need 'balance', we did it with our thinking -> Kids needed it dumbed down to their level = I'm tougher, stronger, my way of gaming is better." Seen that far too often, and I jumped to a conclusion.

Well I don't know, maybe I fit your assessment and criticism. I appreciate the apology, though you didn't need to give one. Voicing different opinions is the whole point of a forum

I know the kind of game I like to play, and I enjoy giving my reasons as to why I do think it's better, at least for me. But in the end, if someone else likes different things, then all that matters is that they are having fun. (4th edition was like an MMO in tabletop format though, )

 

[machineelf]

Conversely, it seems ridiculous to me that players who chose martial characters get screwed at higher tiers of play by "virtue" of not being wizards. What happens to campaigns that start at mid or high levels? There was no sense for either the fighter being stronger or wizard being weaker then. By that point, in some editions, it has become the Wizard (and Friends) Show. Players should not be punished or rewarded in the endgame for their class choices. Instead, players should feel they are being rewarded at all levels of gameplay.

Let me make one clarifying point here about my position. I don't think there should be zero balance. I just don't think there should be "perfect" balance when it comes to combat. I do think fighter types should be able to do a good amount of consistent damage. But not all classes should be great at fighting. The cleric shouldn't. The rogue shouldn't, really. The Wizard should be able to do amazing things, but they should have a limited pool where they can quickly run out of magic ability. But having said all that, there shouldn't be a huge disparity between the classes in combat, just some disparity.

For the reasons you stated, each class should be fun to play in every level, with each class bringing something unique and interesting to the table. But that unique and interesting thing doesn't always have to be combat in equal measure with every other class.

These are just my opinions, obviously.

 

[schnee]

(4th edition was like an MMO in tabletop format though, )

The thing is, you're not wrong! And the evolution of the gaming rules to get to that point from Basic through to 4E is fascinating.

I saw it all first hand, and it was a slow burn; one rule change to make things 'better' would uncover one (or two) more problems, which merited another go, etcetera and so on. Just like the historical evolution of all of those weird pole-arms that Gygax loved, a change in one army's offense would merit a change in the opponent's defense, and back and forth, and so on.

I agree with the video game thing, if only for one reason; it solved combat, in an un-ambiguous way, removing DM fiat from the equation entirely - for the very first time. That requires mechanics that have been under the DM's absolute control the entire game to be actually built. To do so in a way that resolves with dice is a very odd thing for a 'theater of the mind' play style. I can imagine many experienced DMs being really off-put by that, and the type of changes that are necessary to make that happen.

I do appreciate that you state a preference, and respect that.

 

[jrowland]

My 2cp:

I am playing a wizard / diviner. Because I can cast divination and then regain slots, I can effectively increase my spells per day. However, my DM has issued 0 spellbooks/scrolls, and is dead against "magic shops" so the 2 spells per level is all I get. I choose a divination every level (so a sub-optimal choice), so that contributes to the "i need moar spells" feeling.

I think 3 new spells per level in a no magic-shop, dm doesn't award spell scrolls game is fine.

That said, a DM should award spell scrolls/spellbooks. Warlocks/Sorcerers/bards, etc can use those scrolls too...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, there is truth to that, but you're only speaking of *some* of the people from that era, and I'd argue the ones that are the least impactful to people just getting in to the game. The louder ones are like the Sad Puppies of the Hugos - they'd rather poison the well to new blood than change.

I would like to say you're being overly-pessimistic, there, but I suppose that's consistent with what we've seen in the community over the last, what, decade or so, I suppose.

Eh, I agree and disagree again, as one myself - I started with Blue Box in '77.
I'm seeing a heck of a lot of younger players picking up D&D again.

Nod. The time that stands out in my mind for the dearth of younger players coming into TTRPGs was the 90s - corresponding with the explosive introduction of CCGs, eventually mitigated as LARPs took off. Around the time d20 went open-source, it seems like new players started filtering back to RPGs. When organized play expanded from the RPGA 'living whatever' model, to the more newbie-friendly WPN 'Encounters' format, though, it really turned around. Encounters tables were overwhelmingly new/younger players, I'd often be the oldest guy at the FLGS. I'm not sure what impact 'Expeditions' and 'Epics' had, but now that it's all AL, we still have many of those same younger players, and more returning players, as well, so a more balanced mix.

The grognards who dismiss story games, insult 4.x with the 'video game' characterization, and other things like that are not good ambassadors. They scare people away, half with their insistence on things never changing from what they like, and half from their dismissive view of other games that have far different intents and mechanics.

They were the opposite of 'good ambassadors' for 4e, sure, but now that 5e is conforming more with their vision of the game, they can be contributing members of the community, again - or at least not actively sabotage the effort to get the game out there.

 

[jayoungr]

Coincidentally what you just stated is one of the big problems I have with 5e; everyone IS balanced for combat. Every class can contribute meaningfully to combat and it’s debatable whether or not the fighter is even the best at it.

Beastmaster Ranger says hello.

 

[LapBandit]

This is my view:
Spells are magic items.
Reward accordingly.