Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Long Rests vs Short Rests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8267693" data-attributes="member: 6802951"><p>You have based your complaints on the wizard by comparing the at-will single-target damage of a cantrip, to the martial attacks of a martial character. You have not only picked the most slanted possible metric, you have also ignored actual spellcasting - the class feature of the wizard. Even just adding the damage of one of the martial's attacks to the wizard's cantrip damage (haste spell) would have been a better representation.</p><p>If you wanted a fair comparison, even with just comparing damage numbers (since control/debuffs are hard to quantify), you have not been going about it correctly.</p><p>If you have a metric that we can use to evaluate and compare the use of utility spells, that would be extremely cool. I am not aware of one however since they are generally too situational.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can give examples. I didn't want to get bogged down in a "well what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" situation.</p><p>The point is not "Wizards are way better than Fighters because they get this spell."</p><p>It is "A wizard with a generalised loadout can bypass some challenges that would otherwise give the mundane classes a chance to shine, particularly with the way many groups (and some WotC adventures) play."</p><p>But for example, there are multiple spells allowing bypass of a physical obstacle that would otherwise require athletics checks: Levitate, Spider climb, Fly, assorted teleports.</p><p>Likewise social obstacles can be overcome by a number of different spells, either by achieving the aim without needing to go through the obstacle in the first place, or spells like Disguise self, charm person, suggestion, alter self, invisibility etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>OK. What do you think would be needed to be done to buffing, debuffing and control spells to bring them up to scratch?</p><p>Spells like Web, Hold Person, Hypnotic pattern, Banishment, wall spells etc are already thought of as pretty good.</p><p>Concentration is a mechanic designed to "throttle" spell slot usage a little and prevent the 5MWday that caused so many issues in 3.5 for example. What would be a better alternative? Or just keep the mechanic but remove it from selected spells?</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you aren't. You've just picked a single metric (single target damage) to compare, despite the fact that it is the area where the wizard is second weakest (after healing) and the fighter is one of the best. If you had picked almost <em><strong>any </strong>other metric,</em> the wizard would have come out significantly ahead of the fighter.</p><p>Its like deciding what vehicle would be best for your family, and using only the max speed as a metric to decide between an estate and a motorcycle.</p><p></p><p></p><p>OK. What level is this party that your wizard is so underperforming in, what are the other characters, and what sort of length adventuring day is the usual for your group? What is your group's/DM's preferred style of play?</p><p></p><p></p><p>For that particular statement, I don't need to: its right there in the base class features. Even <em>without </em>any of their spells, rituals, etc, the base starting wizard has an array of ability scores, four proficiencies, and a background feature. That is what the base starting fighter has <em>all the time</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because on days with no/little combat, (for example city investigation and intrigue or travel through safer areas) with a little ingenuity and a varied spell list, you can generally find some way to be useful. The fighter doesn't get to swap their extra attack out for expertise in a few skills on a daily basis.</p><p>And when its time to go down into the dungeon, the wizard just switches to their combat-heavy loadout.</p><p></p><p>That is entirely fair, but denigrating a class because you don't like playing to its strengths really isn't.</p><p>If it helps, I've found spell cards quite useful rather that just a list according to spell level. That way you can have smaller, separate piles for out of combat spells, concentration spells, and combat spells. - There can be some crossover but it really reduces the potential information/option overload.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you're not expressing your opinion of the class (until now). You're claiming that it is an objectively bad class because it can't match the Fighter in single-target damage and does not have much better utility.</p><p>"I don't like Wizards because I find them too fiddly" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.</p><p>"Wizards are bad at utility and their rituals are almost useless" is a statement that conflicts with a lot of our experiences, and so people are going to expect you to be able to back that up with actual facts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 8267693, member: 6802951"] You have based your complaints on the wizard by comparing the at-will single-target damage of a cantrip, to the martial attacks of a martial character. You have not only picked the most slanted possible metric, you have also ignored actual spellcasting - the class feature of the wizard. Even just adding the damage of one of the martial's attacks to the wizard's cantrip damage (haste spell) would have been a better representation. If you wanted a fair comparison, even with just comparing damage numbers (since control/debuffs are hard to quantify), you have not been going about it correctly. If you have a metric that we can use to evaluate and compare the use of utility spells, that would be extremely cool. I am not aware of one however since they are generally too situational. I can give examples. I didn't want to get bogged down in a "well what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" situation. The point is not "Wizards are way better than Fighters because they get this spell." It is "A wizard with a generalised loadout can bypass some challenges that would otherwise give the mundane classes a chance to shine, particularly with the way many groups (and some WotC adventures) play." But for example, there are multiple spells allowing bypass of a physical obstacle that would otherwise require athletics checks: Levitate, Spider climb, Fly, assorted teleports. Likewise social obstacles can be overcome by a number of different spells, either by achieving the aim without needing to go through the obstacle in the first place, or spells like Disguise self, charm person, suggestion, alter self, invisibility etc. OK. What do you think would be needed to be done to buffing, debuffing and control spells to bring them up to scratch? Spells like Web, Hold Person, Hypnotic pattern, Banishment, wall spells etc are already thought of as pretty good. Concentration is a mechanic designed to "throttle" spell slot usage a little and prevent the 5MWday that caused so many issues in 3.5 for example. What would be a better alternative? Or just keep the mechanic but remove it from selected spells? But you aren't. You've just picked a single metric (single target damage) to compare, despite the fact that it is the area where the wizard is second weakest (after healing) and the fighter is one of the best. If you had picked almost [I][B]any [/B]other metric,[/I] the wizard would have come out significantly ahead of the fighter. Its like deciding what vehicle would be best for your family, and using only the max speed as a metric to decide between an estate and a motorcycle. OK. What level is this party that your wizard is so underperforming in, what are the other characters, and what sort of length adventuring day is the usual for your group? What is your group's/DM's preferred style of play? For that particular statement, I don't need to: its right there in the base class features. Even [I]without [/I]any of their spells, rituals, etc, the base starting wizard has an array of ability scores, four proficiencies, and a background feature. That is what the base starting fighter has [I]all the time[/I]. Because on days with no/little combat, (for example city investigation and intrigue or travel through safer areas) with a little ingenuity and a varied spell list, you can generally find some way to be useful. The fighter doesn't get to swap their extra attack out for expertise in a few skills on a daily basis. And when its time to go down into the dungeon, the wizard just switches to their combat-heavy loadout. That is entirely fair, but denigrating a class because you don't like playing to its strengths really isn't. If it helps, I've found spell cards quite useful rather that just a list according to spell level. That way you can have smaller, separate piles for out of combat spells, concentration spells, and combat spells. - There can be some crossover but it really reduces the potential information/option overload. But you're not expressing your opinion of the class (until now). You're claiming that it is an objectively bad class because it can't match the Fighter in single-target damage and does not have much better utility. "I don't like Wizards because I find them too fiddly" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one. "Wizards are bad at utility and their rituals are almost useless" is a statement that conflicts with a lot of our experiences, and so people are going to expect you to be able to back that up with actual facts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Long Rests vs Short Rests
Top