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

[Jessica]

I play a 7th level High Elf Necromancer in Adventurers League and, while low levels feel like the slog you suffer through to get to the more rewarding parts of the class, Wizards do not suck at low levels. Sleep completely wrecks some low level encounters(I was the super star in the Tomb of Moving Stones) and as you get higher up in level you get more ways to just ruin things and help your group out so much. Once you get to 3rd level, you get one of the best party aid spells in the game in Hold Person. Not only can you CC someone with it, but you can damage them through it and all of your party members at point blank range can start critting the living hell out of it. Now that I'm level 7 and with a large group of friends of the non-breathing persuasion(4 skeleton archers and 3 zombies), I am probably the most self sufficient person in our party and have the greatest effect on the adventure. If more people would treat 5e Wizards more like 4e Wizards then there would be a lot less people complaining about the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure if you're comparing "wizard school" to a modern university, a nineteenth century one, or a mediaeval one.

"Wizard School" is an oxymoron, or an anachronism, or, well, some big word meaning 'stoopid.' ;P

D&D's vision of wizardry - like the 20th century's perception of the concept of a wizard, in general - is rooted in Hermetic tradition, which is, like the Sith, a tradition passed from all-powerful, manipulative Master, to scheming, power-hungry, Apprentice. No A-levels or SATs or dormitories involved. Apprenticeship is just how you learned any craft in a medieval setting. Spellcraft'd likely be no exception.

That said, wizard schools can be fun, anyway. Especially if you have a young Harry Potter fan in your campaign.

 

[pemerton]

"Wizard School" is an oxymoron, or an anachronism, or, well, some big word meaning 'stoopid.'

<snip>

Apprenticeship is just how you learned any craft in a medieval setting. Spellcraft'd likely be no exception.

When it comes to wizard schools I prefer Earthsea to Harry Potter - the former just has a bit less of the "John Brown's Schooldays" to it. But in any event, whether one does wizard training through wizard schools or apprenticeship, there is still no reason to suppose that a PC wizard can't have been schooled in some esoteric language during that apprenticeship.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When it comes to wizard schools I prefer Earthsea to Harry Potter - the former just has a bit less of the "John Brown's Schooldays" to it. But in any event, whether one does wizard training through wizard schools or apprenticeship, there is still no reason to suppose that a PC wizard can't have been schooled in some esoteric language during that apprenticeship.

Either way, there's every reason to think he would be exposed to a variety of exotic languages - that was a hallmark of scholarship (learning Latin & Greek, for instance) until very, very recently (like, the second half of the 20th century, and prettymuch only in America).

 

[pemerton]

Either way, there's every reason to think he would be exposed to a variety of exotic languages

Unless I'm having a lot of comprehension trouble, I think we're in agreement!

 

[KarinsDad]

Once you get to 3rd level, you get one of the best party aid spells in the game in Hold Person. Not only can you CC someone with it, but you can damage them through it and all of your party members at point blank range can start critting the living hell out of it.

"All" might be a bit of an exaggeration most rounds.

Let's look at level 3 when the Wizard gets the spell. His DC (Int 16) is 13. Most monsters have a Wis modifier of about +0. So, a 60% chance of success.

If half of the party has an initiative after the Wizard and before the targeted foe (which happens on average), then for a 5 PC party, that's typically 2 PCs (assuming that they are melee PCs and assuming that they are in movement range of the targeted foe and do not provoke OAs to actually get there).

40% chance nobody gets a critical.
24% chance only 2 PCs get a critical chance.
36% chance the entire party gets a critical chance (assuming that the foe was not killed in the 24% chance timeframe)

So even with the proper conditions for casting a Hold Person, 2/3rds of the time the entire party does NOT get to attempt to critical.

And this assumes that the party is fighting humanoids. The vast majority of 5E creatures (over 80%) are not humanoids, so Hold Person is often campaign dependent on its utility.


Granted, Hold Person does get better at higher levels since it can be used against more foes and the DC increases whereas the Wisdom bonus does not necessarily increase.


The point is that Hold Person can be nice when the situation for it is applicable, but there are typically many more situations where the Wizard wouldn't cast it, even if foes are humanoid. Is it often cast when the foes are all mooks? Will it often be cast if none of the Wizard's allies can get close enough to critical the foe?

That is one issue with low level Wizards that people tend to ignore when they post that low level wizards do not suck. The wizards can shine a lot when the conditions are appropriate, but there are a lot more times in encounters when their spells do next to nothing, or it is not worth using up a precious spell slot, or they have to use a less useful spell if they are going to cast because the really cool spell won't help in the given situation. A significant portion of the time in encounters, a low level wizard (shy of certain bow builds) spends every round spamming cantrips. zzzzz. Hey, could you wake me up when it's my turn?

 

[Jessica]

"All" might be a bit of an exaggeration most rounds.

Let's look at level 3 when the Wizard gets the spell. His DC (Int 16) is 13. Most monsters have a Wis modifier of about +0. So, a 60% chance of success.

If half of the party has an initiative after the Wizard and before the targeted foe (which happens on average), then for a 5 PC party, that's typically 2 PCs (assuming that they are melee PCs and assuming that they are in movement range of the targeted foe and do not provoke OAs to actually get there).

40% chance nobody gets a critical.
24% chance only 2 PCs get a critical chance.
36% chance the entire party gets a critical chance (assuming that the foe was not killed in the 24% chance timeframe)

So even with the proper conditions for casting a Hold Person, 2/3rds of the time the entire party does NOT get to attempt to critical.

I'm sorry it isn't guaranteed success and that it might be a bad idea to risk casting a shut down/debuff spell on a target that is going to go immediately after you. However if you use it intelligently then it's an absolutely crazy party aid spell. Our 6th or 7th battle of the day, we had a level 3 Fighter, a level 3 Monk, and my level 4 Necromancer and we fought against 3 bugbears and we dropped one of them in less than a round thanks to Hold Person.

And this assumes that the party is fighting humanoids. The vast majority of 5E creatures (over 80%) are not humanoids, so Hold Person is often campaign dependent on its utility.

Most offensive spells are like this. Tasha's Hideous Laughter doesn't work on creatures with low Int. Magic Missile doesn't work against arcane casters who have a brain in their head. Fireball doesn't work that well against fire resistant creatures. The undead from Animate Dead are crap against enemies with resistance/immunity to non-magic damage. There are few all purpose spells in 5e.

The point is that Hold Person can be nice when the situation for it is applicable, but there are typically many more situations where the Wizard wouldn't cast it, even if foes are humanoid. Is it often cast when the foes are all mooks? Will it often be cast if none of the Wizard's allies can get close enough to critical the foe?

That's the case with spellcasters in general though. You generally have to gauge when certain spells are going to be effective and then use them then. Even my level 7 Land Druid with a Staff of Fire has to think really carefully when to use Fireball because if I don't get initiative before the enemy then often times I have to either blast a friendly, place fireball less optimally, or just not use it.

That is one issue with low level Wizards that people tend to ignore when they post that low level wizards do not suck. The wizards can shine a lot when the conditions are appropriate, but there are a lot more times in encounters when their spells do next to nothing, or it is not worth using up a precious spell slot, or they have to use a less useful spell if they are going to cast because the really cool spell won't help in the given situation. A significant portion of the time in encounters, a low level wizard (shy of certain bow builds) spends every round spamming cantrips. zzzzz. Hey, could you wake me up when it's my turn?

Welcome to 5e. Dominant strategies proliferate and MANY classes spend a lot of time spamming the same ability or attack. Maybe when you get to such a high level that your depth of spell slots allows you to go through lower level spell slots faster without worry then maybe it will be less cantrip spammy? Chances are not even then because as you get to higher levels then low level spell slots tend to become utility spells or defensive spells. I'm level 7 and I think the last time I burned a level 1 spell slot on something besides Shield or Mage Armor was around level 3 or so.

 

[KarinsDad]

Most offensive spells are like this. Tasha's Hideous Laughter doesn't work on creatures with low Int. Magic Missile doesn't work against arcane casters who have a brain in their head. Fireball doesn't work that well against fire resistant creatures. The undead from Animate Dead are crap against enemies with resistance/immunity to non-magic damage. There are few all purpose spells in 5e.

Actually, percentage-wise, most offensive spells in 5E have a lot more utility than Hold Person (there are exceptions like Banishment, but most offensive spells affect creatures in general).

Of the examples you gave:

20-% of all listed creatures: Hold Person
70+% of all listed creatures: Tasha's Hideous Laughter
90+% of all listed creatures: Magic Missile (including dragons)
92+% of all listed creatures: Fireball (96+% if we are only talking immunity)
75+% of all listed creatures: Animate Dead (and only some of the most powerful creatures like demiliches, liches, and the tarrasque are immune to weapon damage, so Animate Dead is almost always applicable 99%, it might not be the best choice, but it is almost always a choice)

Granted, in a campaign where the PCs mostly interact with human, elves, etc., Hold Person's utility increases. In those cases, however, PCs tend to not cast Hold Person on most of those NPCs, so it tends to be self limiting.

But a low level Wizard can prep Hold Person and never cast it for an entire adventuring week. The same typically cannot be said of Tasha's. Yes, damage will typically negate Tahsa's, but even if it does, that's still about nearly as much time as Hold Person usually lasts, it just has a much higher number of potential targets and does not result in melee crits. The target is still prone until its next turn which allows multiple PCs to still melee attack with advantage.

Our 6th or 7th battle of the day, we had a level 3 Fighter, a level 3 Monk, and my level 4 Necromancer and we fought against 3 bugbears and we dropped one of them in less than a round thanks to Hold Person.

The same might have happened with Tasha's.

But if it had been 3 Specter's (or a wide variety of other CR 1 creatures), Hold Person wouldn't have helped at all.


Note: To be fair, Hold Person in higher level slots is amazingly powerful against multiple humanoids. The odds of at least one NPC failing multiple saves is high. For example, a level 4 Hold Person against 3 humanoid +0 Wis NPCs has a 96% chance (or higher) of affecting at least one NPC and a 81% of chance of affecting at least one NPC for more than a round. But Hold Person at second level can easily fizzle though and there goes one of the low level Wizard's big guns for the day.

 

[Jessica]

Actually, percentage-wise, most offensive spells in 5E have a lot more utility than Hold Person (there are exceptions like Banishment, but most offensive spells affect creatures in general).

Of the examples you gave:

20-% of all listed creatures: Hold Person
70+% of all listed creatures: Tasha's Hideous Laughter
90+% of all listed creatures: Magic Missile (including dragons)
92+% of all listed creatures: Fireball (96+% if we are only talking immunity)
75+% of all listed creatures: Animate Dead (and only some of the most powerful creatures like demiliches, liches, and the tarrasque are immune to weapon damage, so Animate Dead is almost always applicable 99%, it might not be the best choice, but it is almost always a choice)

Granted, in a campaign where the PCs mostly interact with human, elves, etc., Hold Person's utility increases. In those cases, however, PCs tend to not cast Hold Person on most of those NPCs, so it tends to be self limiting.

But a low level Wizard can prep Hold Person and never cast it for an entire adventuring week. The same typically cannot be said of Tasha's. Yes, damage will typically negate Tahsa's, but even if it does, that's still about nearly as much time as Hold Person usually lasts, it just has a much higher number of potential targets and does not result in melee crits. The target is still prone until its next turn which allows multiple PCs to still melee attack with advantage.

I've played through HotDQ, PotA, and the expedition adventures that go along with them and I have always had amazing opportunities to make use of Hold Person. Whether to stop them from taking turns or to board the crit train to painville. Even if only 20% of the enemies in the MM are humanoids, humanoids are a common and archetypal enemy for a lot of campaigns. Some campaigns are going to be the exception, but its pretty common to fight orcs, bugbears, gnolls, humans, drow, etc.

The same might have happened with Tasha's.

Nope. Because they wouldn't have auto-critted on the target of Tasha's and the target would get a save after every hit.

But if it had been 3 Specter's (or a wide variety of other CR 1 creatures), Hold Person wouldn't have helped at all.

Nah, really?

If you want to continue arguing that low level Wizards are weak, more power to you. There are plenty of people who had great success with Wizards at low levels by playing well and making good decisions. If you go for control then a lot of powers are going to have restrictions on who they can target. If you don't like it then go for damage or utility. Maybe you just shouldn't be playing a Wizard if you can't seem to get them to work at low levels or maybe you just have to suffer through low levels until your Wizard becomes the superstar.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Most offensive spells are like this. Tasha's Hideous Laughter doesn't work on creatures with low Int. Magic Missile doesn't work against arcane casters who have a brain in their head. Fireball doesn't work that well against fire resistant creatures. The undead from Animate Dead are crap against enemies with resistance/immunity to non-magic damage. There are few all purpose spells in 5e.

Can't agree with this one I'm afraid, at least w/rt resistance. Skeleton archers from a level 9+ necromancer are still pretty awesome even against foes with resistance to nonmagical damage. The main reason for this: skeletons bypass the action and concentration economies. You can't cast 10 Fireballs at once but you can sure order 56 skeletons to shoot arrows at anyone your fighter buddy shoots at, which even against an AC 18 enemy with resistance to normal weapons would still deal 100+ points of damage per round. (56 is way more than you would normally have of course; between 4 and 30 is what I usually see at the table, for necromancers up to 12th level so far.)