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

[Celebrim]

If so, that's a great problem. It's simply fixed with new spells, which are inevitably going to come (and which are fun for players to create themselves.)

At this point, that's my conclusion as well.

And in general, it's also a good position to be in even if the Wizard is slightly weak, because spells are a wizard's class abilities and in the past there has been a tendency to see power creep introduced as spells are introduced that either do old things better or allow the Wizard to have win buttons in solutions where it formerly had to rely on other classes. At this point, if the Wizard was shining at low levels, I'd be worried that we'd see repeats of the power creep problems to the point that it becomes tier 1 again - it's got the best solution for any problem, no matter what it is.

However, a couple of persons have suggested that several of the low level spells are 'noob traps' that KD has fallen into, which I feel is bad design. If some of the 1st level spells are noob traps, and sleep is dominating, it suggests several of the spells are too weak or too situational (same thing, different solutions) and/or that sleep is too good. Is anyone currently suggesting the low level wizard is too strong?

 

[Celtavian]

So far KD hasn't convinced me that 5e Wizards are weak, but rather that they have a problem that they haven't had since 1e. Namely, that 5e Wizards are narrow rather than versatile. Basically, if you boil down his argument, it seems to come down to the true statement, "If you don't take the best spell available at each level, for example Sleep, the resulting character cannot influence the combat as reliably as other classes making more optimal choices."

It would seem to me that the problem is then that what is lacking at 1e is diverse options for how you influence the combat and not just 1 spell that everyone seems to agree is superior in reliability and potential scope to all the other choices. The fix would to me appear to be, "Make more alternative good spells so that being a low level wizard feels less like you have to be a Hypnomancer.

Or, if those people who know 5e better than I do don't agree, then at least show KD build options that do showcase the wizard's versatility. There seems to be general agreement that KD's wizard is poorly built, and possibly poorly utilized. But most proposed solutions seem to either amount to a) choose sleep or b) get a DM that is more flexible with the rules. Either that or they are conceding he's mostly right, but claiming that it is alright because at N level Wizards rock - an approach to 'balance' I thought we'd agreed since the 1e era wasn't really fun for everyone.

I am not convinced KD is right, but I agree with him that people are providing very little useful contradiction.

How is this different from 3E or 2E? I play a lot of wizards. Low level spells were always fairly narrow and low level wizards did very low damage.

3E/Pathfinder

1st level spell:
Color Spray: If you weren't taking this spell, you were gimping yourself.
Silent Image: Good for utility.
Charm Person: Good for crowd control of a single humanoid target.
Fog Cloud: Situationally useful.
shield: Good defense.
Mage Armor: Defense.

There weren't any low level damage spells that were very good.

It didn't improve a huge amount at 2nd level. 3rd level spells is when the wizard started to have a few good damage options. Even then, the effect wizard was much more powerful. The spells chosen were very narrow as well.

Why does KD think something has changed is what I don't understand. The low level wizard in every edition of D&D I've ever played was a very weak damage dealer. In 3E the wizard as an inferior single target damage dealer that relied more on save or suck or no save or suck spells. I don't quite understand this strange expectation for a low level wizard. One of the biggest drawbacks to playing a wizard was the slow, painful leveling to five or so. Prior to that you weren't very strong. After that your power increased exponentially until a prepared wizard trumped everything else in the game.

There seems to be this willful self-deception that the low level wizard was something other than it currently is. That is not the case. Never was. Levels 1 to 4 were always fairly painful for a wizard. Cantrips for 1d3 acid damage were far weaker than cantrips in this game, especially compared to the amount of damage martial characters were outputting. I never met a wizard save with high level metamagic that could match the damage output of a martial character save with aggregate AoE damage.

So where exactly is Karin's Dad coming up with this damage and power disparity that is supposedly unique to 5E? As far as my experience goes, low level wizards have always been weaker than their martial counterparts. It is why so many players I know don't like to play them. Drives them nuts to have so few spells while the raging barbarian or archery ranger is killing everything. What exactly was the expectation for a low level wizard in 5E compared to previous editions?

If you run the numbers, the damage capacity of a low level 5E wizard compared to their martial counterparts is closer than in any edition of D&D I've played. 1d10 damage versus 2d6+4 compared to 1d3 or 1d4+1 compared to 2d6+9 is much closer.

At 3rd level a wizard using magic missile did 2d4+2 damage for an average of 7 points. An average melee with a 18 str and a two-handed weapon with Power Attack did 2d6+9 for an average of 16 points of damage. Even if she shot his burning hands 3d4 damage he did 7 points to a small group compared to 16 or more. If the martial crit, he utterly destroyed wizard damage.

Damage is tighter in this edition between martial and caster than any other. Measuring solely cantrips doesn't take into account all the wizard can do. It's a false argument that doesn't stand up to the comparison to other editions. Low level wizards were always weak sauce. They are closer to the martials in damage in 5E than they ever were in previous editions save for perhaps 4E, which I have no experience with.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, the rogue should be doing significantly more damage than the wizard, in general, because that's the rogue's combat niche. That said, you seem to be assuming the rogue always has sneak attack, which surprises me a little.

There's no rogue in my 5e game yet, but it looks really easy to get SA as long as there is someone else in melee with a standing enemy on your turn. Almost trivial. But as I said, that's on paper, not in play.

Usually, I'd expect the wizard to be plinking away with the crossbow (which won't be great, but won't be horrible) when they don't have more suitable combat actions handy, which is going to be fairly often.

It's almost always better to use a cantrip: comparable damage (and higher damage once you're 5th level) and no spell slot expended.

Like I said in my earliest posts here, show me.

Make a list of cantrips that can be used 2 rounds out of 3 to shape an encounter because cantrips at low level are the wizard's bread and butter.

Show me a lot of spells that affect the outcome of an encounter as much as the Fighter does, or the Cleric does, or the Barbarian does. Sleep is practically the only one.

Cantrips don't seem to be game-changers, but the wizard shouldn't change the nature of the battle every round IMHO. However, sometimes there's a game-changing moment via cantrips; both ray of frost and shocking grasp can really enable a badly wounded pc to escape from a dangerous foe.

Other than that, 5e game's wizard has used thunderwave to prevent multiple pc deaths when gricks were munching on the fallen. I'll vouch for that one.

It wasn't the wizard, but last night the paladin used protection from evil and good and a bottleneck to face down a horde of 8 zombies while the other two pcs with him hung back and used ranged attacks. PfE&G was a game changer; he only got hit twice in that entire encounter, and he prevented the zombies from engaging the other two pcs. It wasn't but it very well could have been a wizard casting that spell. (The pcs were 2nd and 3rd level, for the record.)

Shatter has actually undergone a substantial upgrade into a combat spell. It was also a game-changer in a couple of encounters, when the monsters were all wounded but still up and the pcs mostly down. (Thank God for sculpt spell!)

He's just barely turned 4th level, so I haven't seen much else yet. His only encounter with his new second level spells (invisibility and scorching ray), his dice were cold, so I can't assess SR fairly yet (and he didn't use invisibility).

Wizards seem okay to me. Low-damage? Yes. But they get to do the right damage to the right target at the right time. A fighter is a crowbar or a machete; a wizard is a multitool.

 

[trentonjoe]

Sleep is only good (and it's really good) against things with low hp. Our 1st level wizard was dominating at 1st level when we fought kobolds and other things with less than 12 hit points. Sleep stinks (even 2nd level sleep) against CR 2's and higher. Tasha's is a much better choice at that point.

Any spell that causes a loss of action is worth casting in my opinion.

 

[trentonjoe]

II think making spells like Shield last for a minute would help. The concept of protecting yourself for a single round, or spells lasting for a single round seems so 4E-ish.

Shield is one of the best spells around at 1st level. It basically ignores a hit, in many cases it's better than a CLW spell.

I wouldn't mind seeing it last 1 round/spell level though.

As a 4th level spell slot it lasting 4 rounds would be neat.

 

[Jaracove]

In all other editions, Wizards got too powerful too quickly, so perhaps it's just a case of perspective.

I'm pretty sure you wizard will become a lot more powerful later in the game; as they always do.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sleep is only good (and it's really good) against things with low hp. Our 1st level wizard was dominating at 1st level when we fought kobolds and other things with less than 12 hit points. Sleep stinks (even 2nd level sleep) against CR 2's and higher. Tasha's is a much better choice at that point.

Sleep is still great for opponents that have been beaten down. It doesn't suddenly lose its effectiveness against higher level CR monsters. You just need to beat them down a bit first. Taking out a few CR3 monsters with a level 1 spell is still a pretty big deal, even if you've had to beat them down first, because you've essentially prevented them all from taking a final action.

I.e., if you've got something like a barlgura down to a dozen HP or so, why waste a higher level spell when a 1st level sleep works just fine to prevent it from getting off 3 attacks before you can kill it. Especially since sleep has no save, and no attack roll needed. It's reliable.

 

[trentonjoe]

How do you know when it has less than 20 hit points? Do you make a medicine check or something?

 

[Celebrim]

How is this different from 3E or 2E? I play a lot of wizards. Low level spells were always fairly narrow and low level wizards did very low damage.

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?"

Color Spray: If you weren't taking this spell, you were gimping yourself.

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.

 

[keterys]

Well, to be fair - this is supposed to be the edition of D&D in which everything is the most D&D D&D it can be. Isn't "wizards suck at low level" iconic D&D?