This is another variation of "You are right KD, but it doesn't matter."
It doesn't really matter whether 3e or 2e were different. This is 5e. We don't need to accept the limitations of prior editions or the failures of their design. The question that matters right now is, "Are low level Wizards getting their full share of spot light?" KD takes the position, "No." And you are basically arguing it for him. If I might suggest, I can even see the argument that suggests why this is new. In earlier editions, low level wizards had reliable save or suck. Now with neither reliable save or suck nor reliable damage, it's much less obvious how they take a fair share of spotlight. Again, it doesn't matter that low level wizards are relatively better off in damage capacity compared to prior editions. The point is that in this edition they are disadvantaged in damage and have fewer 'game changing' spells. One take on KD is he's saying, "Heh, wait a minute... what happened to my game changing spells?!?!? If you are going to take those away, why can't I at least go boom occasionally?"
Did you ignore the rest of the post where I clearly show that low level wizard damage numbers are closer to martials than any previous edition? So no, I did not say KD was correct.
If you read my earlier posts, I posted things I've been doing. The game is fairly new. I haven't read every spell or used every combination. So far I've been doing just fine. And I'm not theorizing, I'm speaking from experience. I am playing a low level wizard. I am having as much fun as I have had in any edition of the game, perhaps more so. I feel more useful than previous editions at low level due to cantrips being more effective than previous editions.
The biggest difference I'm finding is I don't get to end battles with one spell. Instead, I get to help end battles with one spell. The difference being that in 3E if my
Charm Person landed, the battle was over. The creature was for all intents and purposes defeated. Same with using a spell like
color spray at low level or
grease on a low dex save creature. Whereas in this edition, my
Tasha's or
Grease may last a round or two. I instead feel as though I'm helping win the day rather than doing it myself by giving the martial damage dealers time to deal with other opponents, while I hold off other enemies long enough for them to do so. Thus feeling very much like I helped win the day without overshadowing every other class.
Maybe, but Sleep and Grease were both good too. Charm Person remained basically broken without DM heavy fiat. True Strike could awesome with the right build, and even a Ray of Enfeeblement could utterly change a combat. Second level spells would bring you the brokenness of Glitterdust, Invisibility and Web, the hilarity of Summon Swarm, and game changers like Hideous Laughter, Alter Self and False Life. It's not hard for me to believe people see this as a downgrade they aren't being compensated for. Granted, I also believe that the brokenness had to go, as we've just mentioned at least 5 spells that I had to nerf for my 3.X game in order to maintain balance.
You seem to me to be arguing KD's part. If you don't want to agree with him, you'll need to focus on how despite the fact that the Wizard is gimped with respect to damage and lacks the game changers of 1e or 3e, the advantages he has in battlefield shaping and controlling the action economy at least make up for the loss in raw damage. So far very few people have attempted that.
They are good for one combat in this edition as well. I'm not arguing KD's point. I'm simply trying to understand why he thinks low level wizards were ever very powerful. It was never the case.
Do you play 5E at all or did you come over here to jump into an argument you know nothing about? If you don't understand why you can't mechanically design spells as they were before due to the new method of monster design and the like, I don't know what to tell you. You should try playing it first, then you'll see a couple of things:
1. Single save effects that continue are going to trivialize encounters. The game isn't built for that type of spell combat. So doubt you're going to see it anytime soon.
2. The 5E wizard isn't weak. He does less consistent damage with cantrips because his burst and effect spells do more than martial capabilities. Even so, the cantrips are still closer in damage to martial attacks than in any previous edition. So a wizard can output damage at a continuous pace occasionally boosting his damage output or combat capability with an effect spell.
So to answer your question, in my experience "Wizards are getting their full share of the spotlight."
You haven't played the game if you think the game changing spells aren't still there. They very much are. My wizard has definitely altered the course of more than a few battles that we were losing. He has been highly effective, more so than martials, at out of combat assistance. Wizards are definitely still very good. KD wants a return to the game breaking of 3E. It's not happening. Sorry. That era is over. I'm ok with it. I had my fun being uber wizard ending battles easily with save or suck spells. I'm ok being part of the team. If KD isn't, there is always older editions to play. 5E is not the game for a person that wants to be a "God" Wizard. It's the type of game for a person that has a lot of fun landing a
Tasha's for a few rounds to slow the ogre from hitting his friends or using
Minor Illusion to effectively scout or hid a door. Different game. Wizards used to dominating with save or suck spells and the like are not going to like it.
Heck, do it and post your experiences! Agree or disagree, I'm sure it'd be an interesting window into pushing the game around.
