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

[KarinsDad]

Invisible and Flying was always too powerful.

I think you might be confusing that with Improved Invisibility and Flight. Invisibility and Flight at most let someone scout and not attack (unless they wanted to go back visible). That can be done somewhat in 5E with a Familiar.

 

[MoonSong]

Another huge change in 5e that makes comparing wizards in 5e to wizards in previous editions very difficult is the way 5e wizards can prepare spells and use spell slots to cast them any way they wish. The increase in utility and choices that come to bear in each situation is amplified by this flexible spell casting.

Even a 5th level wizard (with an 18 intelligence) can prepare 10 spells. As long as he or she has a high enough spell slot, he or she can cast any of the spells at any time. If we compare this with the pure Vancian (prepare a specific spell slot), 5e spellcaster is light years ahead on versatility. This also means that as long as the wizard has enough spell slots, he/she has more versatility than any of the melee or specialty classes. (Clerics may have even more versatility than wizards since they gain free preparation of domain spells and they gain other abilities, many of which are combat oriented).

Right.

Combine this with the fact that wizards can cast any ritual spell they know, at any time (without any spell slot expended or need to have it prepared even), as long as they have over 10 minutes and their versatility expands even further.

Ok, glad you two found the root of the issue. Yes wizards have less useful spells, but they can be more versatile by virtue of spontaneous casting, and ritual casting. I still hold that was a terrible mistake, as it forced a nerf of everything else. Well, it was necessary, being both spontaneous and able to change spells everyday is a fairly potent ability.

I now wonder, which is the excuse for sorcerers, they now have worse spells -at lower levels they can only pick from the exact same nerfed spells wizards can, and very few spells at later levels not on the wizard list, none of them exclusive-, less spell slots -4 to 5 slots at first level became 2 slots, and downhill from there-, less spells to pick from, no familiar, worse weapons, and no change in their reduced spells known -at first level, at later levels they know less and less spells than before-, no ritual casting to speak from either. The class is way worse in many aspects, and it wasn't that powerful to begin with.

 

[Celebrim]

Right none of those tricks would work against an 8 INT Orc, a 1st level thief or a commoner.

No trick automatically works against anyone as a simple matter of fairness and consistency. 8 INT isn't all that stupid. I've known plenty of people with around that intelligence IRL. They get by. Assigned to guard something like a gate, they are at least going to spare an action investigating what's up. Bored, they'll try to strike up a conversation. Ignored, they'll become angry. Seeing a stranger, they'll at least want an introduction. It's not like all orcs are one big happy family, after all. Seeing prisoners, they may desire a bit of sport cruelly teasing them. With little skill and a lack of notable wisdom, they should be easy to trick but the point is - you have to actually trick them. You can't just assume that your plan is going to go off without a hitch because 'magic'. Almost no plan ever does, magic or otherwise, and the sorts of things I've suggested aren't exactly the sort of things that a plan of this sort should overlook or find surprising. If, "Ooops, I didn't consider that the orc guard might actually act like a guard and want to converse with me.", is your idea of, "your creativity", then may I suggest that that word may not mean what you think it means.

Let's not that the 1st level Orc automatically gets a saving throw to penetrate 5e Disguise Self if he takes an action to investigate you. Sure. He's not that bright. He may fail. But the point is, you still got to pull it off.

Even a 1st level commoner - or 1st level warrior more likely from his job - is a person with a brain and a will - even if you've partially stolen it. And in 5e, let's note that Charm Person gives no other benefit beyond the guard sees you as a friendly acquaintance. It gives no bonus to persuasion or deception nor allows you to suggest any course of action. At best, it belays hostility unless you do something to provoke it. It's not reasonable to suggest that the friendly acquaintance begrudgingly lets someone who is a mere friendly acquaintance escape from jail with a bunch of people he doesn't like, knowing that he's himself is likely to be executed if he's discovered to have abetted the break out. That's not a sacrifice even stupid people make for mere acquaintances.

As for your assertion that a 1st level thief has stolen the princess successfully and is bargaining to obtain the Holy Scepter of Bobbybob, well, I find that to be a rather self-serving reinvention of the narrative. I might believe the 1st level thief evil villain has stolen the swineherd's daughter, and is ransoming her for a purse of gold, and perhaps he'll be momentarily swindled by the sight of your illusionary gold - at least long enough to release the swineherd's daughter. After all, he may fail his investigation check to detect the illusion when he gets a chance to observe it. But even a moron is going to quickly realize your purse containing only a minor illusion is empty of any tangible thing, has no weight save for that of an empty purse, and at the very least is entitled to realize that its an illusion - per the letter of the rules - as soon as he reaches to touch his coins. So, frankly, you aren't going to fool even Tad the Slow-Witted brute for very long, much less someone of sufficient intelligence to plot the kidnapping of the princess and plan to acquire a relic and who is probably accustomed to cheats and plans for them as a master of course because deception is what he does. You think people who demand ransoms don't count the money before they release the hostage?

One point of all this, regardless of the edition we are playing, is to allow for actual creativity and planning to work instead of treating spells like a win button. Another point of this is to ensure that characters that have invested resources in being skillful, aren't trivially outdone by the merest application of magic. In short, it's just basic fairness in your judging as a DM.

 

[Ydars]

Just read the whole discussion and have to say that I largely agree with KD; low level wizards are very difficult to play at present, and you really have to be on your game. And I say this from the perspective of someone who used to play the type of Wizard in 3.5E, who used Unseen Servant to control patches of metal marbles mixed with caltrops that I would roll under heavily armoured combatants to screw them(still a decent tactic by the way).

Others have said that damage is not a Wizard's role; but I would counter that by asking 'why not'? D&D is, by default, a very combat heavy game; particularly if you play modules from most publishers, and so every class should be able to contribute damage as a default. Yes, control is important and fun, but damage should be the default. Why have WoTC designed a game where a high Dex Wizard is better off shooting a crossbow than using magic for at-will damage? That is simply bad design. I am not advocating that we go back to the bad old days of 3.5E; just would have liked Fire Bolt to have done 1d10+Int mod damage. Obviously adding Int Mod to AoE spells would be overpowered, but not to a single target cantrip.

There are obvious builds for most of the other classes (two-weapon fighting, human builds using the variant feat rules for humans and the dual wielder feat) that completely outclass the wizard in terms of damage. My Cleric 1/Fighter 1 is dual wielding two Rapiers for 2d8+6 damage at will! My friend Connor's character is dual wielding two longswords as a Fighter 2 for the same. The fighter could do it at first level; show me how a Wizard can match that! Extra actions and attacks magnify the damage disparity.

We both also usually have better chance to hit than a Wizard, as he has to worry about cover and such like for Firebolt much of the time.

It no use arguing that 'this is a return to the way it used to be' or 'wizards needed a nerf' because this is a new edition and should seek to make the game as enjoyable for every player as possible. The whole philosophy of the 5E wizard design reeks of niche protection for the other classes; and as usual, they overdone it! The Wizard now lacks an obvious, default niche, just in case he/she steps on someone else's toes. But lets be clear; I LOVE all the mechanical changes to Save or Die, Buffs via concentration etc; it just that all of them collectively, bash the Wizard into just being a bit part player at the very levels (1-6) where most games seem to happen (though maybe 5E will change that?).

I also note that the whole concentration mechanic came in very late in the process of building the game; it was not the game as late as the last play-test packet (or did not apply to most of the spells it now applies to) according to one blog I read yesterday. Now I love the way the mechanic solves the buff problem, but I feel that its hasty introduction has meant that the extent to which it nerfs the Wizard has not been fully appreciated or compensated for.

The removal of Touch AC has also changed the probability of a spell-caster hitting in a way that has not been discussed here, because although 5E monsters generally have lower ACs, and spell-casters now use their attribute to attack, they are now attacking full AC with their non-AoE will spells and boss monsters seem to often have the higher end ACs with a big miss chance. So the Wizard is basically a 'mook killer' now? How 'fun'!

I love Wizards, but won't play one until more spells appear; they are simply outclassed for modules like HotDG or Phandelver, where combat predominates and the out of combat stuff is fairly fluffly and irrelevant (at least with how our DM is handling it).

However, out of combat, Wizards they look awesome from the ritual perspective; just as long as the DM is giving out spells as treasure often enough to offset the costs.

Having said all of this though, I wonder if, with the Wizard as is, we aren't looking at 'half a class'? By that, I mean that we don't yet know how scribing scrolls works and there are hints from the magic-item rules from the modules, that many wands are effectively eternal wands from 3.5E (i.e. they are 3/day spell forever type things). So maybe Wizards won't come into their own until the DMG is out (or maybe I'm dreaming; the list of fixes I need from the DMG is already huge, though I do love 5E generally) because they are supposed to have a wand and be blasting that way at low levels and using their 1st level slots creatively, as many here have suggested?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

If nothing else, this thread has given me an irresistible urge to make my first 5e character a halfling wizard, just to see what all the fuzz is about (I usually GM, so I don't get many opportunities to be a player).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

And in 5e, let's note that Charm Person gives no other benefit beyond the guard sees you as a friendly acquaintance. It gives no bonus to persuasion or deception nor allows you to suggest any course of action. At best, it belays hostility unless you do something to provoke it. It's not reasonable to suggest that the friendly acquaintance begrudgingly lets someone who is a mere friendly acquaintance escape from jail with a bunch of people he doesn't like, knowing that he's himself is likely to be executed if he's discovered to have abetted the break out. That's not a sacrifice even stupid people make for mere acquaintances.

Uhh...Charm Person imposes the charmed condition, which gives the caster advantage on persuasion, deception, and all other social checks against the target. Which is a pretty hefty bonus.

 

[aramis erak]

Uhh...Charm Person imposes the charmed condition, which gives the caster advantage on persuasion, deception, and all other social checks against the target. Which is a pretty hefty bonus.

Unlike prior editions, it's not "mind control - treat as henchman" and it's not days long.

The "can't attack and can't cast harmful spells on you" effect is pretty nice, but it's not the same thing as prior editions. Not even close, really.

AD&D (both editions) and the Moldvay/Mentzer/Denning/Alston BX/BECMI/B/Cylopedia both have a MUCH stronger Charm. The charmed chap thinks you're his best friend. And can be charmed indefinitely...dolts make a save monthly. Smart guys daily.

So this just-long-enough for a chat is pretty lame by comparison.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Unlike prior editions, it's not "mind control - treat as henchman" and it's not days long.

The "can't attack and can't cast harmful spells on you" effect is pretty nice, but it's not the same thing as prior editions. Not even close, really.

AD&D (both editions) and the Moldvay/Mentzer/Denning/Alston BX/BECMI/B/Cylopedia both have a MUCH stronger Charm. The charmed chap thinks you're his best friend. And can be charmed indefinitely...dolts make a save monthly. Smart guys daily.

So this just-long-enough for a chat is pretty lame by comparison.

While that's certainly true, the present version is nevertheless significantly better than "gives no bonus to persuasion or deception" as was claimed in the passage I quoted. On the other hand the present version is also much more in keeping with the power level of a 1st level spell these days.

 

[KarinsDad]

But lets be clear; I LOVE all the mechanical changes to Save or Die, Buffs via concentration etc; it just that all of them collectively, bash the Wizard into just being a bit part player at the very levels (1-6) where most games seem to happen (though maybe 5E will change that?).

I think a lot of time is spent in campaigns at levels 1 to 6. Even many one shots.

Having said all of this though, I wonder if, with the Wizard as is, we aren't looking at 'half a class'? By that, I mean that we don't yet know how scribing scrolls works and there are hints from the magic-item rules from the modules, that many wands are effectively eternal wands from 3.5E (i.e. they are 3/day spell forever type things). So maybe Wizards won't come into their own until the DMG is out (or maybe I'm dreaming; the list of fixes I need from the DMG is already huge, though I do love 5E generally) because they are supposed to have a wand and be blasting that way at low levels and using their 1st level slots creatively, as many here have suggested?

I'm waiting for my DM to hand out a wand. Or for the DMG to come out and maybe I could craft one. I think that would solidify the damage portion of the PC.


But yeah, a half class is a good definition.


I also think that the type of encounters makes a difference. My DM tends to throw moderate to difficult encounters at us. I think that she might think that easy encounters are an exercise in dice rolling. We haven't had easy kobold-like encounters since the beginning of Greenest with one exception.

Because we have 6 PCs, she tends to throw 6 to 9 foes at us (and twice 12, once easy foes, once hard foes). Cantrips just seem so lame when the party is outnumbered, and most of the low level spells have been nerfed since previous incarnations. So yeah, it's great to cast spontaneously. Be even better if those spontaneous spells did something significant or for any duration against a larger number of foes.

 

[Umbran]

Mandated was a poor word choice on my part, I wouldn't want to be discouraged from playing the character that I wanted to play.

I may use the term "you" occasionally. I'm using it in a generic sense - not you, personally, pkt.

Is there really ever only one character you want to play? And you must play that one *now*? No compromise, no alternatives? You must have this character at this time, and no other will do?

What if I wouldn't enjoy playing a non-frontline warrior, should I then give up my enjoyment? I just think that generally most players should play the player they want to play.

None of what we are talking about is at odds with most players generally getting to play what they want to play.

The thing is that the logic you state runs both ways. You say that your desires should not be limited by others. But the desires of others should not be limited by you, either, now should they? So, what do we do when there's conflict between those desires?

As players, our right and entitlement to have exactly what we want ends when we impinge upon the fun of others. Beyond that point, we depend on the others to allow it - and we should all be willing to give something for what we are getting. This is the essence of cooperation and compromise. Everyone at the table should be willing to flex to allow space for everyone.