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

[Celebrim]

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.

LOL. In another thread, I was complaining about the spell and suggested as a fix that it should do exactly this. Good to know I'm on the same page as the designers.

I still think the designers were overly cautious with the spell. If the skill interaction of the spell is well and fairly defined, the other nerfs aren't needed.

Nonetheless, hefty advantage or not, the point is that you now need to pass an appropriate persuasion test (with advantage to be sure) against the guard. It doesn't just automatically work.

 

[Umbran]

Yep. But man, who needs healing spells when you can have two AC buffs or temp HP buffs or damage reduction buffs going at once! Healing...so inefficient.

Especially when everyone can heal some on a short rest, and heal everything on a long rest. In a game designed so one may well be able to make a workable party with no healing magic at all (especially in a campaign that isn't much dungeon crawling, and maybe only has one or two combat encounters on a given day), who cares if one needs to ditch a few healing spells to be good in the combats?

 

[Umbran]

So, just as a hypothetical, lets say that the wizard is averaging 3 damage a round and martial classes are averaging 5 damage per round. (Not trying to be exact, just trying to describe how I'd like to see this discussion framed.) Can you show different methods that reliably allow the wizard to either prevent 2.5 damage a round or boost an allies damage by 2 damage a round? That is, can the Wizard dominate the action economy, either by debuffing enemies, buffing allies, or stealing actions?

While I think 5e is pretty well designed, I don't think it comes down to a point-for-point, round-for-round, bit-for-bit in combat only kind of balance consideration.

 

[Dausuul]

I would not anticipate the DMG making significant adjustments to class balance. Remember that fighters can use magic items too; whatever a wand does for a wizard, it's probably on par with what a magic weapon of equal rarity does for the fighter. And low-level wizards probably won't be scribing a lot of scrolls.

 

[pkt77242]

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?



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.

I generally agree with you but my point is more that everyone should play what they want to play. I have played in very unbalanced groups (4 wizards, 1 Paladin, and 1 fighter) and they can be just as much fun as playing in a balanced group. I think that people get too caught up on "don't step on my player's toes" instead of just enjoying their character. It is unlikely that someone is going to build the exact same character as someone else in the group (unless it is a Drizzt clone, then everyone builds Drizzt clones), so what if you have a fast talking Bard and an Enchanter in the group, heck it even makes it even faster to get rumors around town as you can split the group up and cover twice as much ground. In a way people tend to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.

 

[Celebrim]

While I think 5e is pretty well designed, I don't think it comes down to a point-for-point, round-for-round, bit-for-bit in combat only kind of balance consideration.

I never suggested that it did.

However, one of this historical problems with D&D has been that even if spell-casters were balanced with non-casters in combat (which in many cases they have been), casters were far and away better problem solvers out of combat than non-casters. I thick we'd also agree that 5e has tried to address this as well by ensuring all classes have more out of combat role as problem solvers - everyone can heal, everyone can identify items, everyone has useful skills, etc. Also there has been a concerted effort to greatly weaken spells as out of combat solutions to keep spellcasters from stealing spotlight. As such, we can no longer rely on the divide of, "Well, even though your character is slightly less useful in combat, it shines out of combat." to pick up the slack if the classes don't have nearly equal combat roles.

I've been looking at the spells and rules seriously for the 1st time now that KD as brought this up, and while I think it's possible to play the 1st level wizard as it currently exists with roughly equal balance to martial classes, but only by selecting a very narrow range of spells. Overall balance between the existing low level spells is surprisingly low, leading I think to unnecessary system mastery testing and a rather surprising lack of diversity in wizard concepts. All low level wizards are going to look very similar, and if they don't, the drop off in quality is steeper than it should be. In a lot of ways, at low levels the class feels to me comparable to bards in 3e, in that they are in theory flexible and a little bit good at everything, but in practice only a couple of builds are really viable or they descend into 'master of no trades' territory.

I mean, it's a pretty bad situation for a low level wizard when I'm looking at the spell list and being somewhat envious of the cleric's options in direct damage, and the druid's options in debuffing foes and controlling the battlefield. The general design of "A wizard is his spells" from older editions seems to have been retained, but the advantage in spell quality that wizards traditionally enjoyed over other casters is at best reduced and arguably non-existent. Again, I'm not agreeing with KD that the 5e Wizard is 'weak' per se, but I do think he's opened my eyes to just how narrow it is at low levels, and Ydars analysis rings true to me.

For my part, I'm 4 years into probably an 8 year long 3.X campaign so I've no need of a new system anytime soon. I still don't think 5e has a real chance to make it big in the market, but the rules are a lot better conceptually than anything I dared hope for and I'd like the system to succeed. But while I'm not seeing 3e's complete brokenness, what I'm definitely not seeing is a system that I would feel completely polished and needs any less tweaking than I felt 3e did. I'd probably have dozens of pages of house rules on day 1. Still, thinking about 5e has been at least as informative for me as a designer as 4e was and some its ideals will probably creep into my game at some point, and unlike 4e, I think as a player or DM I'd be satisfied to be using the system and not wanting to abandon it entirely.

 

[Puggins]

We can make a basic analysis of wizard contribution vs. fighter contribution in terms of damage dealing. Before we do, there are some basic observations that would be difficult to argue against:

1) In terms of casting spells allowing saving throws, the wizard is close to at her worst at 1st level. Most low level opponents have dex saves of +1 or +2. This, by and large, doesn't go up as levels increase. A troll, ogre or adult dragon can't even match +2. Wizards, meanwhile, are increasing their DC by one every four levels or so, given increases in proficiency and ability scores.

2) The scaling of effectiveness varies drastically as levels increase. Magic missile cast using a 1st level slot loses its effectiveness as levels increase. Shield, meanwhile, scarcely loses effectiveness- it might even gain effectiveness as the consequences of some hits become more and more dire.

3) Sleep retains its spot as the spell with the biggest potential to swing battles. Removing three goblins or an orc from an encounter ramps the difficulty down drastically. Of course, color spray is even more effective, as long as you don't mind getting close to the action for a round.

Combine all these and you come to the conclusion that spells vary drastically in effectiveness at low level, and that the list of spells that you want to take at first level is narrower than the full list of spells. This is no different than previous editions, honestly. Magic missile was a complete waste of a spell at 1st level (it isn't in this edition). Burning hands was iffy at best. Sleep and Grease ruled the roost.

from my perspective as a DM whose party is about to get to 4th level, I've seen the party wizard swing encounters using sleep and witch bolt. I've also seen him be relatively ineffective for an entire combat. On balance, I'd say he's contributed on a satisfactory basis to the party.

Of course, spell choice is absolutely key. choosing shield or mage armor at 1st level isn't practical- they'll come into their own as you level up, but slots are simply too precious to use those spells regularly. Sleep or color spray work spectacularly. True Strike + Witchbolt on a heavy hitter is devastating.

How about pure damage? We can do a basic analysis making some broadly true assumptions.

A 1st level fighter will generally have a +6 to hit and will do an average of 8.5 damage (weapon + str or dex). She can do slightly more, but at a cost of defense.

A 1st level wizard will generally have a +6 to hit and will do 5.5 damage with firebolt on an unlimited basis. This is a baseline. The wizard's spells will have a DC of 14.

Low level monsters generally have ACs of 12 to 14- we'll use 13. They have reflex saves of +2 (lower is more common than greater).

Under these assumptions, a fighter swinging her sword generates approximately 6 damage a round, while a wizard shooting firebolts generates 3.9 damage.

What about if a wizard uses a 1st level spell slot? Things change by a bit.

A 1st level magic missile spell generates 10.5 damage. A wizard who leads with a magic missile spell will essentially match a fighter through 4 rounds. Combats that last greater than 4 rounds will favor the fighter.

A 1st level burning hands spell, on the other hand, has the potential to pull the wizard into the lead for quite a while. Every opponent hit by the spell takes an average of 7 damage. If the wizard hits two opponents with the spell then she'll match the fighter's damage output for five rounds. If she hits three opponents then the fighter will only pull even after nine rounds. Most fights will not last anywhere near as long as that.

So does that mean that the wizard is as good as the fighter? I don't know. She's certainly more versatile, contributing ritual casting and a three spell slots that will likely swing combats if used effectively. Since you're likely to need less than eight combats to level to 2nd level, swinging three of the tougher combats sounds pretty reasonable to me, but YMMV. I don't see the wizard as a completely inept character, certainly.

 

[Celtavian]

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?

I've played both Mines of Phandelver and Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I've been one of the strongest classes in the group.

Minor Illusion combined with Stealth makes you a great scout.

Sleep and Tasha's have turned a few battles our way. Sleep shortens battles and mitigates damage in tight fights when your martials are getting low on hps and your healer is exhausted on healing. A well-placed Tasha's using a ready action has allowed my party members to unleash on enemy bosses giving them advantage on attacks against a prone foe that can't take actions. I've always used well-timed spells with every wizard I've played. Most brute bosses don't have Wisdom saving throw proficiency or a bonus on the save, I've been able to give quite an advantage to our group.

Fire Bolt is great for finishing off targets the martials are fighting or putting them in damage range for an extra attack from your Great Weapon fighter or being finished themselves. Just take cover out of the way, fire away. A 120 foot range is great range.

Shocking Grasp has been great for allowing me (and my party members) to move without provoking AoOs from opponents. As Karin's Dad mentioned, most monsters don't have much to do with their reaction but an AoO. Preventing them from using an AoO is a big deal. A lot of humanoid monsters have metal armor for advantage on the hit roll. Shocking Grasp is also great for use on casters preventing them from throwing up a shield if you hit them.

The Shield spell has saved me from hits many times.

The lack of talk about Find Familiar on this thread shows some folks haven't read the spell. I used my rat for advanced scouting. I brought along extra material component uses changing him into a bird for overhead scouting. I use the rat in combat. He uses the Help action to give me or another member of the party advantage on attacks. So a wizard using his familiar can give advantage on attacks if he so chooses to two different characters. Wizard players not using the find familiar spell are seriously gimping themselves. As far as I know the familiar can't attack, but can use the Help action to set up other attacks. Find Familiar is a ritual spell that does not require a spell slot.

As far as to hit rolls, what are you talking about? They do not need to make hit rolls for many of their spells. When they do they get to use their spell casting stat, their best stat. Same as every other class. No one else gets extra bonuses to hit. Proficiency bonus is the same for everyone. Only thing that might separate the two is if magic weapons are introduced. If they don't introduce a means for a wizard to get a bonus on attacks and damage rolls from magic items, then it might be imbalanced.

It seriously sounds like you have yet to play a wizard in 5E. My hit chance against bosses or any target in the game is the same as the fighter, bard, rogue, barbarian, etc., etc. The only fighting style that gives a hit bonus is Archery style. That's it. If you are a Fighter/Wizard, the archery style works with ranged spells. Imagine that.

Play the game first before you comment. You're missing out on a lot of what a wizard can do and don't seem to be accounting for simple differences like the fact that touch AC is no longer necessary because proficiency bonus and attack rolls are normalized for all classes. I'm not sure what Karin's Dad is doing with his wizard, but it seems I'm doing a whole lot more with mine. Even my fellow players are saying "Damn. The wizard is a badass." I've just reached level five. Tiny Jeb has been doing bad ass stuff since level 1. I only expect he'll get more bad ass as he gains more levels.

 

[the Jester]

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

YMMV, but a single first level spell that acts as mind control for days seems overpowered to me.

 

[Celtavian]

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



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.

Because you have not found a way to be as effective as you feel wizards should be does not make the wizard a half-class. I believe if I were playing with your group, your party members would be quite surprised at how effective and helpful the wizard is in and out of battle. I know my own group was surprised by how potent the wizard was in battle compared to the way another wizard was playing the class, though they did very much like the Diviner ability to alter rolls. I still suggest you take a close look at Find Familiar. It is much more potent in this game at lower level. I also suggest you pick the timing and targets of your spell carefully. If you do this, you will find yourself being far more effective in combat.