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

[keterys]

The imp usually feeds someone a potion or goodberry, actually.

While I use a healer's kit and told everyone else to buy one and leave it somewhere I could access, I've never assumed the imp could do so. That said, I suppose if it came down to it I'd be okay with having it use someone's kit on them.

 

[KarinsDad]

As easy as it can be to roll over encounters in 5e, tuned as it is for fast combat, low level characters are fragile. Especially 1st, if there's any challenge to an encounter at all, you're likely to have one or more PCs drop. If they're not brought back up, it can create a death spiral effect, where the loss of the dropped PC's offense leaves a monster up longer, who then drops another PC...

Of course (per another thread) the DM can prevent such issues by dialing down encounters and fudging results when the monsters get lucky. Maybe it's just because I played AD&D for so long, but I feel like the pressure on spell resources for healing is meant to be there, however.

If there's no such pressure, then you don't experience any 'healing burden' and classes that would otherwise be expected to blow slots on healing would feel a little better off. In 3.5, CoDzilla was a pretty extreme example, but it was illustrative.

If you're finding Clerics, Druids, & Bards out-doing Wizards a bit at low level, that could explain it.

That's not the issue. Players do not use Cure Wounds because the DM is making encounters easier.

There appear to be two issues:

1) Combat tends to be 4 rounds or less, 6 or less for a tougher encounter. This means that from an action economy POV, the number of attacks against each PC is less (than say for example 3E or 4E).

2) The abilities allowed by the game system now.

At level one, our Fighter had Heavy Armor Master and Second Wind. At level three, he had parry. At level four, he had Sentinel.

At level two, the Rogue often disengaged. At level three, the Rogue had the Shield spell.

At level one, the Cleric had the use of all armors and weapons and could melee as well as the fighter (although she did not have Heavy Armor Master).

At level three, the archer Ranger was doing D8 more damage per attack (most of the time with Colossal Slayer).


The 5E game added above and beyond combat abilities to the game system that 1E and 2E didn't have for the most part.


I agree with you that at low level, PCs are fragile and can easily go down. I do not agree that at many tables, Cure Wounds in combat is the solution to that. Healing Word seems to be the solution (if necessary) at our table. It still uses up a spell slot, but it isn't used unless the situation is dire. In almost 5 levels now, I can count on one hand the number of times Cure Wounds was used (usually in a higher level slot) at our table, and Healing Word might have been used maybe a dozen times more than that (about 40 encounters or so) on unconscious PCs. Cure Wounds, though, is only used during tough or deadly encounters. About 4 or 5 Healing Potions were also used in combat (mostly in tough fights by casters low on spells).

 

[KarinsDad]

The imp usually feeds someone a potion or goodberry, actually.

While I use a healer's kit and told everyone else to buy one and leave it somewhere I could access, I've never assumed the imp could do so. That said, I suppose if it came down to it I'd be okay with having it use someone's kit on them.

Thanks. We only recently got an NPC druid added to the group (and even then, we eventually decided to not have the NPCs along for the ride unless a PC gets separated or dies, just too many creatures in the melee with 7 PCs), so we haven't yet seen a lot (or even any) Goodberries in action.

 

[Chocolategravy]

The imp usually feeds someone a potion or goodberry, actually.

While I use a healer's kit and told everyone else to buy one and leave it somewhere I could access, I've never assumed the imp could do so. That said, I suppose if it came down to it I'd be okay with having it use someone's kit on them.

Pretty big size difference there for a normal sized kit, but I guess you could argue that halfling/gnome kits would be small so it would only be one size difference for them like a halfling using a normal sized kit would be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, it's totally worth respecting action economy. That said, a healer's kit or goodberry is equally effective at getting someone back up and _almost_ as effective at keeping them up (sadly).

The healer's kit only stabilizes, unless you have the feat, even then, it's 1/short rest. Feats are optional, only the variant human can get one before 4th.

But, yeah, all that healing for 5gp, at 1st level will have an impact on the game...

The bonus action healing word is also tremendously worthwhile in that instance.

It leaves the caster an attack, and at low enough level, the caster's attack action can be relatively worth it, yes.

Cure wounds itself, though? Meh. Good for out of combat and little else.[/quote] Goodberry, Healing Word, and Cure Wounds are all spell resources, though, so they're slots diverted to healing, whichever ones you're using.

The really clever thing is when you realize that your bard _could_ cure wounds someone to keep them in the fight or cast sleep _to end the fight_. We actually were keeping track at one point (different group of characters), in the theory that it might be valuable test data, and we found that offense was _at least_ twice as effective as heals. That is to say, not using a spell for offense meant we used twice as many spells for heals in the long run.

Heh. That flashed me back to 3e discussions. Yeah, the offense-is-king strategy works, and seems to work demonstrably /really/ well, until it doesn't, then you have a TPK. If the DM really wants to challenge you, the strategy just gets you harder fights. Conversely, some DMs balk at a possible TPK and will softball an encounter that starts to turn that way.

You should never count their ability to heal against them, regardless. It's pure addition. It just potentially means you should have even more of them in the party.

Which is hardly the right message to send to D&D Encounters, but I wouldn't expect it to take too long before someone notices how ridiculous a druid is for encounters and decides they should try that out next season.

Too late.

Now we're just getting into perennial issues with D&D. You have classes with different resources, to balance them you need to adventures to cluster around a certain 'day' length (in terms of challenge - mostly rounds of combat). The party needs enough healing to get through those days. The classes that provide the healing thus need more resources (since the healing, itself, helps the party, not them). If healing resources can be swapped for others (spells, mainly), then the classes who provide healing can pull ahead of other, similar classes that don't (like the wizard - which you're finding to be lagging classes that have healing spells in their lists), if they can find a way around the healing burden. There's more than a few ways. The 5MWD, the offense focus your group is using, cheap healing items, and simply having multiple healers instead of only one or two.

So, if you see the wizard lagging the Cleric, Bard & Druid a bit at low level, it's not necessarily the wizard's fault.

I agree with you that at low level, PCs are fragile and can easily go down. I do not agree that at many tables, Cure Wounds in combat is the solution to that. Healing Word seems to be the solution (if necessary) at our table.

Healing Word is nice in that it lets the cleric make an attack, but it heals less. Either are workable. For the tactics you're using, Healing Word is a good fit. But both use up spell slots.

But it sounds like, on top of prioritizing offense to minimize the need for healing, you've also collected a lot of healing resources. You have multiple classes with healing spells in your party, you have a variant human using an optional feat to heal 10d6+10*HD for 5gp, and you're stocking up on potions.

So, those casters are using fewer of their slots for healing, making them seem better relative to the wizard.

Not a problem with the Wizard.

 

[KarinsDad]

Healing Word is nice in that it lets the cleric make an attack, but it heals less. Either are workable. For the tactics you're using, Healing Word is a good fit. But both use up spell slots.

But it sounds like, on top of prioritizing offense to minimize the need for healing, you've also collected a lot of healing resources. You have multiple classes with healing spells in your party, you have a variant human using an optional feat to heal 10d6+10*HD for 5gp, and you're stocking up on potions.

Actually, we do not have a variant human using an optional feat to heal 10d6+10*HD for 5gp. Nobody in our group took that feat. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.


What we have is damage mitigation. One PC with Heavy Armor Master plus Parry plus Second Wind plus Sentinel. Another heavy armored PC with +1 AC ability, shield, and dueling feat (I forget the name, but +prof to AC once per turn). Two more PCs in heavy armor, one with the +1 AC ability.

Yes, we have a lot of PCs who can heal, but they tend not to do so. It gives them options without necessarily using up resources.

Our party is more geared around having 3 to 4 guys (out of 7) up front who have really high AC plus buffs holding off enemy forces while the back ranks help decimate them, combined with having a lot of PCs with spell casting capabilities. If the PCs rarely get hit or they control the battlefield, they rarely have to heal. 5E allows for this option and in fact, encourages it.


Having 7 PCs results in its own set of problems, but it does allow me as DM to throw higher CR foes at the group, and to have things like trapping/hindering/harming environments where 4 PCs would have a real tough time finding enough actions to help each other out and still get a lot of attacks in.

So, those casters are using fewer of their slots for healing, making them seem better relative to the wizard.

Not a problem with the Wizard.

Problem? No. The other PCs being more effective each. Yes.

 

[keterys]

The healer's kit only stabilizes, unless you have the feat, even then, it's 1/short rest. Feats are optional, only the variant human can get one before 4th.

I don't have my book here, but I believe you can bring someone down to 1 hp as often as you want.

You get the 1d6+3+lvl once per rest, it's true. That's why my warlock took it, both to make people more comfortable because no one wanted to be a cleric, and also to not-so-subtly encourage people to take short rests, because I wanted short rests so I could get my spell slots (having seen a group that refused to short rest, so long as they were going fine).

But, yeah, all that healing for 5gp, at 1st level will have an impact on the game...

Sure does. It's a whole lot better than a feat for a single cure wounds per day

Goodberry, Healing Word, and Cure Wounds are all spell resources, though, so they're slots diverted to healing, whichever ones you're using.

Eh, the druid's using 2 1st level slots for good berries each day, at 9th level. That's not exactly breaking the bank _or_ hurting her ability to interact effectively with encounters. Even at 2nd level, it didn't affect her ability, since she was a wolf or bear then.

And 20 hp of goodberry, spent exactly as you want it, is a lot better than 13 hp of cure wounds in 2 random chunks.

Heh. That flashed me back to 3e discussions. Yeah, the offense-is-king strategy works, and seems to work demonstrably /really/ well, until it doesn't, then you have a TPK.

The healing approach TPKs as often, or leads to flight as often, but it's often more subtle.

Damage you don't take, because the enemy is incapacitated or dead, is the most proactive form of healing possible. Healing in 5e requires valuable actions and heals for less than enemies hit for. Only in rare circumstances is it worthwhile to do so.

I've seen many a playtest of high defense high heal parties get into far greater danger because they lacked the ability to finish the enemies. I don't consider it an ideal balance for dnd, but it's certainly been the case for almost the entirety of its existence (3e Mass Heal is a good exception).

So, if you see the wizard lagging the Cleric, Bard & Druid a bit at low level, it's not necessarily the wizard's fault.

In some ways that is true, but the wizard suffers from some awful legacy spells which _are_ its fault. For example, there's no reason Burning Hands had to be such a tiny AE that put the wizard at such risk. If it had been a 10' radius with a 100' range, that would still be a reasonable, not even terribly effective, spell, but one that would improve both the wizard and sorcerer into more reasonable levels.

Similarly, cantrips don't need to be as awful as they are; they could have dropped their die type by one or two stages and added (Int/Cha) to the damage. 1d6+Int firebolt is a lot better than 1d10, and _still_ below the effectiveness of ye olde crossbow or longbow.

But it sounds like, on top of prioritizing offense to minimize the need for healing, you've also collected a lot of healing resources. You have multiple classes with healing spells in your party, you have a variant human using an optional feat to heal 10d6+10*HD for 5gp, and you're stocking up on potions.

You're conflating two posters here - KarinsDad has multiple healers. My group has no one healing. The druid _could_ but is shapeshifted, so does not. I'm our group's sole real healer (as an army trained combat medic), and I do so through out of combat use of the Healer feat and my imp delivering goodberries and healing potions. For clarity, while we have lots of healing potions, as a defense against possible TPK for instance, we use them _very_ slowly, because they're just not necessary often.

The group has a shapeshifting druid, evocation wizard, and fiend-pact warlock (for casters, also a monk and fighter). So we really aren't comparing the wizard to a bard or cleric. The druid shapeshift problem is, well, a problem. It's badly balanced at 2nd level

 

[Celtavian]

That's not the issue. Players do not use Cure Wounds because the DM is making encounters easier.

There appear to be two issues:

1) Combat tends to be 4 rounds or less, 6 or less for a tougher encounter. This means that from an action economy POV, the number of attacks against each PC is less (than say for example 3E or 4E).

2) The abilities allowed by the game system now.

At level one, our Fighter had Heavy Armor Master and Second Wind. At level three, he had parry. At level four, he had Sentinel.

At level two, the Rogue often disengaged. At level three, the Rogue had the Shield spell.

At level one, the Cleric had the use of all armors and weapons and could melee as well as the fighter (although she did not have Heavy Armor Master).

At level three, the archer Ranger was doing D8 more damage per attack (most of the time with Colossal Slayer).


The 5E game added above and beyond combat abilities to the game system that 1E and 2E didn't have for the most part.


I agree with you that at low level, PCs are fragile and can easily go down. I do not agree that at many tables, Cure Wounds in combat is the solution to that. Healing Word seems to be the solution (if necessary) at our table. It still uses up a spell slot, but it isn't used unless the situation is dire. In almost 5 levels now, I can count on one hand the number of times Cure Wounds was used (usually in a higher level slot) at our table, and Healing Word might have been used maybe a dozen times more than that (about 40 encounters or so) on unconscious PCs. Cure Wounds, though, is only used during tough or deadly encounters. About 4 or 5 Healing Potions were also used in combat (mostly in tough fights by casters low on spells).

We use cure wounds often in combat, probably because we design much tougher encounters than standard by choice. Healing Word is lower value. 1d4 versus 1d8 healing. It may have range. It's less bang for the buck than cure wounds.

 

[keterys]

We use cure wounds often in combat, probably because we design much tougher encounters than standard by choice. Healing Word is lower value. 1d4 versus 1d8 healing. It may have range. It's less bang for the buck than cure wounds.

You are almost certainly making the combats more difficult through your use of cure wounds. It is possible that's not the case, of course. There is a narrow window that requires some or all of the following:
1) Person is dropped again because of the 2 hp difference between healing word and cure wounds (ie, is hit for 6, has 5 hp from word vs 7 from cure wounds)
2) Tactical presence was not depreciated (for example, maintaining a bottleneck) due to needing to move to apply cure wounds
3) The cleric's attacks (made in addition to the healing word) did not result in fewer monster attacks

The odds of that are really grim. Tiny, even, but there do exist circumstances where it's true. Perhaps 1/6 of the time at most, but it happens.

 

[KarinsDad]

We use cure wounds often in combat, probably because we design much tougher encounters than standard by choice.

Many of our encounters are fairly tough, but Cure Wounds is not the solution for us. It wastes an action that can be used to do something else (like attack or help or disengage).

Healing Word is lower value. 1d4 versus 1d8 healing. It may have range. It's less bang for the buck than cure wounds.

Really? Dropping 2 average points of healing at range with a bonus action and typically without using any part of the Move action is less bang for the buck?

+2 hit points for ally vs. attack enemy and possibly change action economy.

Hmmm. That's a tough one.


Wow. I don't understand this POV at all. The +2 hit points are typically only useful out of combat. 2 extra hit points will rarely keep someone up if they are attacked again, and higher level slots are really only needed if the foes do a ton of damage and you want the PC to be able to absorb at least one of them. Otherwise, higher level slots are mostly a waste.

For our table, Healing Word is a LOT more valuable in combat than Cure Wounds.


Now granted, at high level, using a 4th level slot for Cure Wounds over Healing Word is 8 extra points of healing, but it still requires an action in combat. At high level, a single cheap Healing potion could make up a fair portion of that out of combat.