D&D 3E/3.5 how much weaker are wizards(and other casters) in this edition compared to 3.5?

[The Crimson Binome]

Monsters (and NPCs that are calculated as monsters instead of full blown PC rules) are proficient in all saves. You still want to pick which saves due to stat differences, which are higher compared to level bonuses (ie proficiency bonus) in 5th edition. But monster saves definitely scale to CR according to the Monster Manual. (It's annoying to me that this is in a chart but not on the monster stat block, but that's another story.)

Going back to re-read that section of the MM, I can see why you might think that. It does just say that a monster's saving throw bonus is equal to its ability modifier plus the proficiency bonus calculated from its CR.

That only applies to monsters that have proficient saves, though. The preceding paragraph describes the saving throw line of the monster stat block, and how it doesn't apply to most monsters because most monsters don't have any proficient saves.

You can see this if you look at a monster that does have proficient saves, though. A frost giant, for example, has the following stat lines:

STR 23 (+6), DEX 9 (−1), CON 21 (+5), INT 9 (−1), WIS 10 (+0), CHA 12 (+1)

Saving Throws: Con +8, Wis +3, Cha +4

It's a CR 8 monster, so its proficiency bonus is +3, and its listed saves have bonuses that are just equal to the modifier from the stat plus the proficiency bonus. Monsters that don't have the saving throw line just use their stat modifiers for everything.

 

[the_redbeard]

That bottom paragraph is untrue. In 5th edition, monsters are not profient in any saves unless the stat block says otherwise. Then it tells you which saves those are, and what the bonuses are. The most I've seen any one monster have is 5 saves.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Wow. I had certainly read the rules, but I mostly create my own monsters when I DM, and prefer to not have knowledge of monster stats when I play. I see now monsters with these bonuses, and that they are exceptions. That's some terrible writing or presentation in the MM. If that Saving Throw section was all that we had to go on, I'd stand by my interpretation. But I can see from the number of stat blocks _with_ save entries that you are correct.

 

[CapnZapp]

By what metric?
Compared to other PC classes? Compared to a specific monster in each edition?

You mention "fewer spell slots". AFAIK Wizards actually have more spell slots in 5e until high levels due to Arcane Recovery more than making up for the extra slots that a high Intelligence would grant.
Plus the rather significant boost of not having to dedicate each slot to a specific spell. You can pick between Fireball and Haste at the point that you need to cast one of them rather than trying to guess what you'll need at the beginning of the day. If you don't have a suitable spell at the right level, you can upcast many lower level ones instead.

Casting a spell no longer provokes attacks of opportunities, and concentration checks are rather easier. You generally have more HP as well.

In short, in order to answer you, we really have to know why you believe casters actually are weaker in this edition.

I think it's fair to assume the obvious.

In previous editions high-level casters utterly dominate the show, quadratic wizards linear fighters and all.

So let me rephrase, for what I thought was clear when I read the OP:

How much less do wizards (and other casters) dominate (high-level) play in this edition compared to 3.5?

My answer would be, they're significantly weaker. It's a whole new playing field. Prepare to need everybody in your team. Your fellow party members aren't only there to act as meatshields to you. (They still need to act that way, only you need them for more reasons than only to set you up for glory)

 

[CapnZapp]

Wizards are dramatically weaker at high levels. This is due to:

[*]The Concentration mechanic preventing the wizard from layering buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control spells.

You really need no other item in your list. Everything else could be worked-around, if you could still spent a dozen rounds buffing up before combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

Once again, IMHO, I find 5e far more liberating, better balanced, designed and superior to 3.X in almost every way. Not that there aren't issues I have with the system, and improvements that could be made; but there's no way I would go back to 3.x's much more intricate process sim and fiddly bits. YMMV.

Yep, this.

It really is important to make it clear that most of us say "wizards are catastrophically nerfed" as a compliment to 5th edition.

Far too many people can't understand that you critique only what you love.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

TBH i assumed it would be so because that's what a lot of people are saying(yeah i know, mob mentality
is it instead more accurate to say that fighters and rogues got stronger?

I think its more accurate to say (as others have done) that while the wizard is still at the top end of PC power, and the fighter is still thought of as being at the lower end overall, the distance between the upper and lower end is much smaller.

Its really hard to give a general qualitative answer though. Pitting classes against each other doesn't give accurate results for a group-oriented game, and there is no "standard adventuring day" with set encounters and challenges that you could measure performance against.

2)this does seem a bit ridiculous to me. i can just imagine high level wizards mind raping low level ones just for the sake of following them around and buffing them up before the battle. besides wizards would use these buffs for the entire party. if anything they helped everyone shine more rather than making the wizard superior

Maybe sometimes.
Its not just to do with power reduction. Its also to do with "performance throttling": it reduces nova capabilities and pushes the wizard towards being able to perform well throughout a 7-encounter day rather than dumping half of their entire spell slots in pre-buffing for a single encounter.

4) this seems a bit subjective, what does it mean "sparse"? i mean, i assume the total number of spells in the universe is not fixed and more can be researched. after all by definition if it can be thought then magic can do it.

There are specific summoning spells at a set level, rather than having one for every level. A wizard has access to only a few summoning spells rather than "Summon Monster I - IX plus others, and the versatility and power of summon spells is lower.

5) i'd call this dumbing down but then again i don't have any experience yet.

Less maths. More game.

 

[cthulhu42]

It might just boil down to feel.

A high level 3.5 wizard felt epic!

A high level 5e wizard is a bad ass, to be sure, and is absolutely worth playing, but not in the same league as his 3.5 counterpart.

And that's not a bad thing in the context of this edition. As many have already said, the 5E wizard is much more of a team player now.

The last character I played before 5E was a 3.5 wizard that made it to 20th level. And that guy could do some pretty amazing things. So when I first started in a 5E game, I immediately rolled up a wizard... and was immediately disappointed. When I put the class under a microscope and really dug into the spells, it was obvious that my new wizard was never going to be able to pull off the stunts that his predecessor had. Concentration?! What is this crap?! You're telling me I can't fly and be invisible at the same time?! Are you kidding me?! And I get one measly 9th level spell?! And Teleport is suddenly 7th level? How am I supposed to zap the party from one side of the kingdom to the other?!

But then, as the game progressed, I began to see the elegance in the system. At low levels the at will cantrips were so great! And the school specializations, well that was pretty sweet. And that d6 hit dice was nothing to sneeze at! And the more I tinkered with the new spell versions the more I found things to like. Familiar suddenly gave me a lot more options without the constant terror of my familiar getting killed and all the headaches that that used to entail. And Fireball started right out the gate at 8d6 damage; what's not to like about that? Sure, the every round save chances on spells like Hold Person was kind of a drag, but it also meant that my fighter companions wouldn't be taken out of whole combats like they used to, so not a bad trade off, really. And sure, I couldn't stack a lot of spells, but the memory of some high level 3.5 sessions when it took, literally, twenty to thirty minutes just to figure out which buffs needed to be cast in which order on how many allies, etc. made me actually appreciate not ever having to do that again. And no, I wasn't tossing out huge levels of damage, but a Haste here, or a Wall of Force there, was suddenly the difference between winning and losing a combat.

The point is, I was still plenty useful, and in the context of the system, it seemed balanced and right.

That wizard didn't make it into the higher levels, but then I started to DM, and the system made even more sense. The current wizard in our party is 14th level, and he's still not breaking the game. He's got Teleport now, but it's easier to manage. He still puts out plenty of DPR (he's an evoker), but not as much as the barbarian. He does a little battlefield control, takes out the mobs of little guys, softens up the bigger baddies, and he can Fireball to his heart's content while excluding his own party members, which is exactly as awesome as it sounds. He's useful and contributes while helping the other party members to be useful and contribute, and that's kind of what it's all about.

And on the flip side, I can now whip up a high level caster bad guy without pulling my hair out trying to figure out their catalog of spell, the umpteen buffs they'll have on them, and what metamagics they'll be using. In short, it is much easier to DM.

There's things I still miss about 3.5, and, all things being equal, if I had to choose, I might play a 3.5 wizard over a 5E. As a 5E wizard you're probably never going to be Merlin. You're probably never going to build a floating castle. You're probably never going to craft your own Staff of Butt Kicking.

But, that said, I'd rather play in a 5E game, and I'd have no problem playing a wizard in that game.

and if I had to choose which wizard to DM? No contest. 5E all the way.

 

[Phion]

Not weak enough.

This message has been brought to you by the Society for Hitting Things With Swords Hard and Often.

*Tears in eyes* a real patriot.

 

[Njall]

The biggest difference is that spells no longer scale per caster level. They get a flat value. This makes them stronger at lower level, but weaker at higher level.

3.5 burning hands does 1d4 to 5d4.
5e burning hands does 3d4.*

3.5 fireball does 3d6 to 10d6.
5e fireball does 8d4. (a little less than 6d6)*

3.5 cone of cold does 5d6 to 15d6.
5e cone of cold does 8d6.*

*HP is higher across the board in 5e, so I reduced the 5e spells a die size to better compare.


As far as fighters and rogues being more powerful. It's pretty well balanced across all levels. Since spells don't scale, the wizards high levels spells (whatever counts as high for the level) can out damage them, but the fighter/rogue can out damage the wizards lower level spells (whatever counts as low for the level). What's better depends on how long the day is.

For instance, a level 5 fighter might do 4d6+8 (22) to a single target every turn.
While a level 5 wizard could fireball for 8d6 (28) to a big group of enemies, with half (11) damage on a miss. But only a few times per day. Then he's back down to 3d6 (10.5) damage to a small group with his lower spells.


Also 5e while HP scales faster, DC, saves, to-hit, and AC all scale slower. So 100 peasants with bows could take out an ancient red dragon, with heavy losses.

That's only true for spells that deal HP damage, tho. The way spell DC works in 5e, spells that depend on a save scale much better into the higher levels than they used to in 3.x, as DC is now 8 + casting stat bonus + proficiency across the board rather than "10+casting stat bonus+spell level".
Couple that with the way saving throws work in 5e, where even a high level opponent is bound to have at least a couple bad saves, and, as long as a high level wizard has a decent variety of S-o-S spells, he doesn't really need those high level slots to disable an opponent ( legendary resistance nonwithstanding ).

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, a spell like the classic Hold Person is weak at first, when everybody's saves are essentially the same and DC 13 is nothing special.

But at high levels, that same spell is exponentially more powerful, since DC 19 is extremely hard for anyone but the few monsters that are proficient in the spell's save.

(Again, ignoring particulars such as legendary resistance and the specific restrictions on individual spells, to make a point)