D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[Uller]

So far we've only played the playtest packet rules and have spent very little time playing at levels 1-2. So maybe I'm off...but we have played several games at level 3 and 4 and I have not noticed the wizard character being ineffective. In our opening game of Dragonspear Castle, the first encounter I rolled was a hydra...I feared we'd open with a TPK...but luckily the wizard had prepared a couple fire spells...scorching ray and burning hands and was able to hit it every round to prevent it from regenerating. Other times we've seen very good use of the guaranteed damage from Magic Missile to finish off strong foe with highly damaging attacks before he could get in another attack. Sleep is always good for a pack of weak foes or silently getting past some guards. To me, the usefulness of a wizard is in how often he happens to have just the right spell prepared to turn a bad situation into a good one quickly. At low levels, the odds of that are low. At higher levels it becomes more and more likely.

I think to be a successful wizard player in 5e (or 3e or earlier), you have accept that (especially at low levels) you won't necessarily have something to do every round or even every fight. If that's not your bag, then playing the wizard is probably not for you.

Hold Person and Tasha's Hideous Laughter are more useful for higher level casters to take a powerful but weak willed foe out of the fight for a few rounds. Yeah, at low levels, it's about a 50/50. But a higher level caster with a higher DC vs a monster with low wisdom, it becomes much more effective. Gotta fight three frost giants? At 8th level you have a 80% chance...Taking one out of the fight for a round or two with a first level spell is very very useful.

 

[Delandel]

So far I find wizards to be weaker than I'd like from levels 1 to 4. I love that you have a ton of different things that you can do, but in combat in particular I feel they under perform. You've got like three useful spells to choose from and the rest feel subpar compared to most other classes' regular actions. Some spells are laughably bad, like crown of madness. Illusions can be good but their power varies heavily based on DM judgment.

Around level 5 things get significantly better, I feel. You start having a healthy amount of spells per day and the level 3 selection is bad as. Fireball damage is serious and you get sweet options like fly. It's awesome.

I wouldn't play a level 1 wizard or sorcerer again. But level 5 or above, most definitely.

 

[Eirikrautha]

--EDITED: Lets keep the snark to a minimum, and focus debate on the issues.

Seriously, the amount of revisionist history in this thread is epic. A first level wizard/mage/magic-user has NEVER been a damage-centric character in any of the editions I've played (1-3.5 + PF). Their forte has been color spray or sleep even then. Heck, a first level magic-user usually had ONE offensive spell (usually magic missile!) that you had to roll to see if you could learn!

Until late 3/PF/4, wizards were pure delayed gratification. You suffered through 4 or so levels until you came into your own, then quickly outpaced the martials in power and utility. Now you actually have reliable damage via cantrips (I dare anyone to argue that a low-level 1e magic-user had any way to reliably damage every round!). You still have utility spells (and cantrips). At higher level you will still have tremendous narrative power, but martials will still rule the direct damage role.

In other words, WotC seems to have fixed a serious balance issue in a way that keeps all classes viable. I'm failing to see the problem...

P.S. The enchanter in my LMoP campaign seems to being doing OK, despite some poor spell choices.

 

[KarinsDad]

Later on, the party again found itself surrounded, this time by zombies. Again, Thunderwave comes out. This time, the zombies make their save, and the wizard does a measly three damage to each of them. However, that measly three damage was done to eight zombies--so 24 damage in one level 1 spell, to a variety of opponents.

I read anecdotes like these and wonder "How does this happen in a game?". Thunderwave is a 15 foot cube. That's 9 squares max. Of which 8 zombies were stacked like cordwood in 8 of those 9 squares. And all 8 zombies made their save?

Were the PCs surrounded by 40 zombies so that 8 zombies were in a 15x15 area all on one side? 8 zombies normally sounds like every NPC foe.

I never see foes arranged so well for wizards. This would never happen in our game because it is not physically possible (shy of being outnumbered by a huge number of foes). Theater of the Mind seems to allow for a lot of leeway that wouldn't happen in games with grids (assuming you use TotM). The most number of PCs that an evoker can avoid with a first level spell is 2, so even if the DM allows more than one creature per 5x5 area, how does a wizard target 8 zombies surrounding the party without targeting more than two PCs of the party?

 

[Evhelm]

I read anecdotes like these and wonder "How does this happen in a game?". Thunderwave is a 15 foot cube. That's 9 squares max. Of which 8 zombies were stacked like cordwood in 8 of those 9 squares. And all 8 zombies made their save?

The 15 foot cube is centered on the caster, a rather daring elf lass in this case. Zombies are clumsy, stupid, and hungry; I ruled that as the turns rolled on they pressed closer and closer into the party, cutting them off. (I think there were a total of 13-15 of them, and they had the party trapped in a 10' corridor where they were pressing in). As they got closer, it increased the feeling of dread that they were being overrun by undead. Thus, though if each zombie had one 5' square to themselves, it would have been probably only four zombies, twice that number had "pressed" into range.

In my games, for the sake of speed, if a spell calls for a saving throw for a group of same-style mobs (i.e. they're all "identical" zombies) then I roll once for all of them. I used to roll individual saves, but the group I'm with has loved the sped up change. It hasn't had any adverse effects on our playstyle and the added speed is well worth any verisimilitude we give up.

Were the PCs surrounded by 40 zombies so that 8 zombies were in a 15x15 area all on one side? 8 zombies normally sounds like every NPC foe.

I'm not quite sure what "8 zombies normally sounds like every NPC foe" means...?

I never see foes arranged so well for wizards. This would never happen in our game because it is not physically possible (shy of being outnumbered by a huge number of foes). Theater of the Mind seems to allow for a lot of leeway that wouldn't happen in games with grids (assuming you use TotM). The most number of PCs that an evoker can avoid with a first level spell is 2, so even if the DM allows more than one creature per 5x5 area, how does a wizard target 8 zombies surrounding the party without targeting more than two PCs of the party?

We do use a grid, but again--zombies pressing in for effect trumped the "sticking to one 5' square each" (I don't see zombies as politely waiting their turn to attack).

In the case of the stirges, the Rogue had been caught out ahead of the party (out of range by one square when the spell went off). Stirges are tiny and flying; nimbly filling the space around the caster and her two companions. In the case of the zombies, the wizard cast Thunderwave at second level, allowing her (at least by my on-the-spot ruling) to avoid a total of 3 friendlies in her cast.

In any case, the party has taken the one-person-takes-damage route before when there's been the opportunity to do extra damage to enemies. (Earlier in the campaign, three bugbears and the rogue all went flying against a wall thanks to another Thunderwave attack). They're looking forward to the Rogue getting Evasion at level seven in order to have fewer issues in the future.

 

[Joe Liker]

In my games, for the sake of speed, if a spell calls for a saving throw for a group of same-style mobs (i.e. they're all "identical" zombies) then I roll once for all of them. I used to roll individual saves, but the group I'm with has loved the sped up change. It hasn't had any adverse effects on our playstyle and the added speed is well worth any verisimilitude we give up.

You're not just giving up verisimilitude. You're giving up the statistical reality that half of the zombies should have gone flying. This is a very real adverse effect for the poor wizard who is left standing next to eight zombies.

If you want to skip dice rolls, it would be fairer and less swingy to calculate the percentage chance that a single zombie would succeed on the save, and then say that's the percentage of zombies that succeeded. It doesn't take that long. Keep this formula handy:

[21 - (save DC) + (targets' stat mod)] / 20

So if the zombies have a Con mod of +3 and the save DC is 14, you get: (21 - 14 + 3)/20 = 50 percent of the zombies succeed on the saving throw. Fifty percent of 8 is 4. Four of the zombies take half damage, while the other four take full damage and go flying.

 

[Evhelm]

That's not a bad idea; in truth this ruling of one-roll-for-all was developed in earlier editions, and I am starting to re-think it for 5e. In 4e, there were a million "kinds" of mobs, and there it wasn't usually an issue because I was still rolling for four or five kinds of mob per AoE spell. In 3e, the likelihood of there being that many mobs that all got a saving throw at the same time was also somewhat slim (unless they were so weak that the saving throw wouldn't matter for them--they died anyway).

Here in 5e with its bounded accuracy, I will probably need new ways to keep the game speedy while still having some additional accuracy.

 

[travathian]

We were just in a "dungeon". There were human guards outside. We had time to prep. If I had the spell, I could have prepped it. We had the four outer guards, a room of a dozen human guards, two higher level humanoids, 5 lizard-like humanoids and about four kobolds. We also had a dozen and a half undead, a half dozen other beasts, a dozen flying beasts, one major (big) monster. Now, I am being a bit vague here due to spoilers.

So yes, there are tons of humanoids out in campaign worlds. There are only a tiny handful worth using a Hold Person on.

So you have 30 years of gaming experience, most of it as a mage, and yet you are valuing the usefulness of Hold Person in 5E on one portion of one adventure? Is this a joke or are you trolling us? I seriously can't tell. Hold Person isn't fundamentally different in 5E compared to any other edition. Maybe your damage focused playstyle is why you don't find it useful. As a utility spell it is incredibly useful. In battle it can both mitigate damage taken and enhance damage dealt. Obviously you wouldn't use it on a "mook" any more than you would waste any other spell slot on them would you? Does that make every other spell less useful too? That is like saying fireball sucks cause my party only faced a couple of enemies with each encounter.

Also, there are not "more humanoid creatures in the MM than I give credit".

There absolutely are. I will quote your exact phrase:

A very tiny percentage of foes in the MM are humanoid."

I guess you will have to define exactly what "very tiny percentage" consists of, but I'd think it means a less than 5%.

Out of the 40 "As" in the index, 4 of them are humanoid.

Cherry-pick much? And misconstrue data much? Combine the ridiculous 21 listings for various dragons, and you have 20 creatures left, making it 4/20, or 20%. Now lets take out all of the Appendix B listings, since you later dont want to seriously count them. Now down to 17. There's two dinosaurs listed, combine them, now down to 16. Two awakened plants? Now down to 15 unique races in A's. Thus 4/15.

I don't consider 27% to be "very tiny", does anyone else?

And many of the humanoids from the MM (21 total) are from Appendix B, the NPCs (i.e. not races, but classes/professions).

Completely false. There are 17 listings for humanoids within the main section of the MM. This does not include additional types within a listing (ie Orc War Chief). So that is just 4 less than Appendix B. Ditching appendix A&B, and combining all of the types into a single listing (ie all dragons count as 1, all orcs count as 1) I think you will find humanoids aren't "very tiny."

I checked this out some time back. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was something like 10% or 15%. If you claim otherwise, please go count it yourself.

Might want to check again. And you think 10-15% is "very tiny"? Don't tell me to prove your made up numbers wrong, the onus is on you to provide proof of facts if you are going to claim them as such.

Lastly, you completely ignored my variety versus number argument. Dragons take up a full 10% of the MM pages, yet they won't even scratch out a single percent of the number of creatures a party will encounter over their careers. When was the last time a group of bandit oozes attacked a caravan? Who ever heard of a group of basilisk slavers? A thieves guild made up of hook horrors? A cult of dragon worshiping cockatrice? The great tribes of phase spiders trying to conquer vast areas. No one, cause it is humanoids that make those up, and those are all common adventure dealings.

Maybe in your 30 years of gaming experience your DM has focused solely on your party fighting "monsters" but in my gaming career plenty of our enemies are humanoid. And Hold Person has been insanely useful, and the 5E mechanics make it more so.

So although your opinion is noted, it doesn't invalidate what I wrote.

No, I'd say I completely obliterated what you wrote.

It seems like half your responses in this thread amount to you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala, I didn't do enough damage, you are all wrong." If your mind is already made up, why bother making a thread?

Lastly,

I read anecdotes like these and wonder "How does this happen in a game?"

That is pretty much my mental response to most of your posts in this thread. How does a character playing a defensive mage complain about damage output, compared to warriors and rogues, and think posting anecdotes actually backs up his point? How does it happen that the mage wants to be a massive damage dealer, yet doesn't pick evoker, and then doesn't pick damage spells . . . it boggles the mind.

 

[keterys]

The 15 foot cube is centered on the caster

Just for clarity, it sounds like you're describing a radius of 15-ft from the caster, but that's not what the spell does. It's a 15 x 15 x 15 cube, ie, only 9 squares if you do happen to use a grid.

It's also possible you're describing the caster as being in the center, which would make it effectively a 5-ft radius from the caster, but the origin actually is supposed to be any point on the face, so think of it more like a 3x3 wave that originates from one side of the caster.

If you've played 4e, you might even call it a blast 3.

 

[ppaladin123]

Low level wizards in 5e are basically scholars who can identify your loot, read ancient languages, and solve puzzles. They can occasionally cast sleep and some minor tricks. You'd hire and bring along someone like this when asked to explore an ancient ruin...mostly because of their command of history, arcana, languages, etc., not because of their combat ability.

Definitely a return to the older feel....can be frustrating for folks who don't want to be a nightlight with a graduate degree for the first few levels of their career. But the feeling of progression is nice, I suppose.