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

[KarinsDad]

You are exhibiting a lack of understanding (? ) of the rules.

You are exhibiting a lack of understanding (? ) of my point.

Cantrips suck just as much at level 5 as all the martial classes double their at will attacks too. (except rogue who is on a slightly different progression).

I dont think they really suck, just do 60% of the damage of Martial at wills. Or a bit less with a rider.

Of course the fighter types get an extra attack at level 5 and double their damage.

Bards don't. Only with cantrips.

Rogues don't. They get a 1D6 boost.

Clerics don't.

Yes, fighter types do double damage.

But at level 5, cantrips can actually do some significant damage. Not great. Still not at fighter levels, but at least similar to bard and cleric normal damage. It feels like the wizard is contributing most rounds when his cantrip damage finally equals other non-fighter-type PCs' damage in the group.

At level 4, the Bard was doing (maybe) 11 average points of damage, the Wizard was doing 5.5 average points of damage.
At level 5, the Bard is still doing 11 average points of damage, but the Wizard is also doing 11 average points of damage.

It feels like the Wizard is contributing more with his cantrips.

At level 4, the Rogue was doing (maybe) 15.5 average points of damage, the Wizard was doing 5.5 average points of damage (35%).
At level 5, the Rogue is now doing 19 average points of damage, but the Wizard is now doing 11 average points of damage (58%).

The contribution feels more significant (and actually as a percentage of overall actual party damage in an encounter, is higher) than at levels 1 to 4. The wizard no longer hits and does 1 point of damage. He might do 2 points a very tiny percentage of the time, but usually it's 4+ at level 5. It no longer feels like he is totally wasting his time with cantrips. He becomes more of a contributor to the group when he is not casting a normal spell.

And we alll know that's fine IF wizard daily burst effects are enough to compensate, which appears to be a matter of some contention.

Which daily bursts would those be at low level? Burning Hands? Shatter?

Because spells like Scorching Ray at 6D6 (and usually 4D6 because one attack out of three usually misses) seem to do about the same damage that the Rogue is doing most rounds. They don't appear to be much of a burst at all.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't understand why you seem to be counting the multiple to hit rolls of scorching ray as a bad thing. It offers more chances to crit, and makes your damage more consistent. If the rogue pooches his attack its much worse for him. You also seem be listing half damage on a save is a wizard disadvantage... that's on par with damage on a miss for the rogue. Plus you can target different saves if you pick a variety of spells, making you more likely to target a monster's weak spot. The rogue is stuck with AC only.

At 3rd level the Rogue does d8 (rapier) + 2d6 + stat. Not magic so subject to resists, conditional (though admittedly pretty easy to achieve). Avg 14.5 damage assuming 17 starting stat (standard array, +2 from race).

Scorching Ray - 3 rolls for 2d6 each. Magic attack. Less swingy, more chance to crit. Avg 21. Approaching 50% more damage.

Catch 2-3 foes in a shatter or burning hands and your total damage improves greatly. Flaming sphere can significantly up your damage over time. If you'd picked evocation you can even exclude a couple of your allies from taking damage, making them even easier to use.

At 5th level the rogue adds another 3.5 damage plus a likely 1 from his stat bump, for a total of 19. You pick up some more damage if that's what you're aiming for. Lightning bolt/Fireball deal 36 on average. Almost twice his damage. Hit two things with one of those spells, your damage ramps up. Oh, and you can nova through your spells if you want, meaning you'll dominate single/low encounter number days. The rogue is pretty much stuck at the same baseline.

Wizards have versatility and unique abilities that cannot be duplicated by martial characters. I find it OK if they aren't total combat monsters because the game is more than just depleting enemy hit points. However in general, you picked the wrong class for damage, and you really picked the wrong wizard specialization/tradition for it.

Also, if you want to knock stuff down or back, ask your DM to let you make up a spell that does more interesting effects you'd have fun with. A mini AE earthquake that deals 2d6, knocks 10' prone on a failed save sounds solid for a 2nd level spell. Also the PHB just came out. Right now you are certainly at the low point for filling every slot with an awesome spell. I can assure you more spells are in the pipeline. Hell, the nature of that particular form of bloat almost guarantees that the wizard's power level improves as the edition ages, by virtue of more borderline or straight up overpowered spells getting added.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now I know that you are either arguing just to argue, or that you just don't understand at all why some people play casters. Some people play casters to have versatile fun, not to spam the same old lock down spell adventuring day after adventuring day.

Let's leave the ad hominem attacks out of this, shall we? You spend the rest of your post proving my point by detailing how un-fun you find 5E wizards--so why are you accusing me of arguing in bad faith for saying you clearly aren't the guy 5E wizards were designed for? You agree with the substance but don't like the way I said it?

Yes, Silence is now niche and PASS Without Trace has mostly taken its place for sneaking, while Counterspell has replaced it as an anti-caster spell. (Which initiative system you use can affect utility of anti-caster Silence BTW.) So what? It's a new game.

No, wizards are not "one trick ponies" solely reliant on Web. If you love knockback and pits of undead, why aren't you casting Thunderwave? Other awesome wizard spells range from Polymorph to Disguise Self to Animate Dead to Minor Illusion/Phantasmal Force to Leomund's Tiny Hut to Arcane Eye to Suggestion. Instead of lecturing me on how I obviously don't grok that people play wizards for versatility because I happen to find Thunderwave dull, try reflecting on the possibilities for versatile wizardry in 5E. Obviously some wizard-inclined players are doing just fine. Either they're just better at the game than you are or you don't enjoy the things they are enjoying about 5E wizards. I've asserted the latter because assuming the former would be rude and unsound. You should return the courtesy.

 

[KarinsDad]

Let's leave the ad hominem attacks out of this, shall we? You spend the rest of your post proving my point by detailing how un-fun you find 5E wizards--so why are you accusing me of arguing in bad faith for saying you clearly aren't the guy 5E wizards were designed for? You agree with the substance but don't like the way I said it?

I apologize, but I do think that anyone who disagrees with someone on most every single point brought up is one of those people who like to argue. I suspect that you will argue about this.

You came up with the ridiculous Longstrider and Expeditious Retreat solo first level wizard against an Iron Golem example. That did not seem like humor. It sounded serious.

You think that spamming low level spells against legendary resistance is not metagaming. How exactly do PCs know that LR works 3 and only 3 times a day? That's a game mechanic. Just like hit points. PCs should not know about hit points either. Just damage, healing and magical spells that protect (i.e. temp hit points). Most creatures that ever fight against a legendary resistance monster do not live to tell the tale, so how exactly is it NOT metagaming for players to spam low level spells against one? Why would they even know that it has such an ability, let alone how often a day it can use it? Tales of such a creature should just say that magic almost never seems to affect it. Period.

You came up with the troll encounter and when I illustrated that it was not a great web encounter based on other factors (like your example started with the PCs holding a tunnel), you kept changing the goal post and finally went off and ran an encounter.

So yes, I find your side of the discussion to be mostly argumentative; sometimes ignoring or putting a spin what I write (for example, your "make up your mind" comment) or coming up with ideas that you then try to defend against all odds.

Yes, Silence is now niche and PASS Without Trace has mostly taken its place for sneaking, while Counterspell has replaced it as an anti-caster spell. (Which initiative system you use can affect utility of anti-caster Silence BTW.) So what? It's a new game.

And that's fine, but that just means that the bard and cleric got nerfed.

No, wizards are not "one trick ponies" solely reliant on Web.

Maybe not, but you wrote "If it weren't for Web spells, there would be a giant hole in my feasible scenarios."

This seems to imply that wizards who do not have web prepped are at a serious disadvantage. Just like Sleep, there shouldn't be a spell that wizards cannot basically do without, without gimping themselves.

If you love knockback and pits of undead, why aren't you casting Thunderwave? Other awesome wizard spells range from Polymorph to Disguise Self to Animate Dead to Minor Illusion/Phantasmal Force to Leomund's Tiny Hut to Arcane Eye to Suggestion. Instead of lecturing me on how I obviously don't grok that people play wizards for versatility because I happen to find Thunderwave dull, try reflecting on the possibilities for versatile wizardry in 5E. Obviously some wizard-inclined players are doing just fine. Either they're just better at the game than you are or you don't enjoy the things they are enjoying about 5E wizards. I've asserted the latter because assuming the former would be rude and unsound. You should return the courtesy.

I think Thunderwave is an extremely situational spell. I think my PC used it once in four levels (died just before level 5). Maybe twice.

I used Disguise Self once. I never got to use Suggestion (although I tried to talk the group into it once, we changed the plan). Polymorph, too high level for low level Wizards.

I used Chromatic Orb once. I used Burning Hands maybe twice. I used Scorching Ray maybe three times.

I used Mage Armor about 6 or 8 different days (that sucked up a lot of resources for an Abjurer, but I did not find out about Alarm until much later, but it still sucks up a prep slot) and the Shield spell maybe 2 or 3 times (with an abjurer, usually I just let foes hit my PC and was often not the target of spells).

I used Web a lot, maybe 5 or 6 times. I used Fog Cloud quite often, at least 4 times. I was practically forced to use these spells because most other spells do not have as much effect on combat. I used Scorching Ray instead of Fog Cloud in the encounter that my PC died in. I had used Web first against the BBEG (4th level PCs against a Bone Naga). It did nothing. Two Naga lightning bolts later, my PC was dying on the ground. With hindsight, Fog Cloud would have kept him alive after the first bolt attack (but there was nothing to indicate that he would be the target a second time since I had moved my PC wizard behind NPCs to get out of the line of fire), but again, the wizard doesn't really shine, even with something like Scorching Ray and even with 3 PCs out of 6 attacking the Naga (the other 3 PCs were fighting the other 4 NPCs).


No doubt. There are dozens of spells at each level. Only a small handful per level are really worthwhile in combat and then, most of them are extremely situational. Thunderwave is a nice example. How often is the Wizard going to move up and Thunderwave foes? If it doesn't knock them back, there's a good chance that they will still be able to get within melee range on their next turn and may be able to run down the wizard.

I enjoy the fact that there are some nice out of combat spells. But what I do not like is that the martial PCs shine round in and round out, dropping a foe most every round or two, whereas the wizard tends to maybe / maybe not cast a worthwhile spell in combat 0 to 2 times per encounter at low level. Mostly, they spam cantrips. zzzzzzz Even when the real spells work, the wizard often gets hit and drops concentration, or the NPCs get around to making their save and the spell is no longer helpful.

One round spells tend to be lame and the game revolves around that. Sure, the players can get lucky and a spell will last for more than a round, but many spells save right away and then again at the end of the NPCs turn. The odds of failing two spell saves tends to be less than 50%, sometimes quite a bit less, so these types of spells tend to last a single NPC turn at least half of the time.


I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I find 5E low level wizard spells and tactics to be subpar. You might not.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I used Web a lot, maybe 5 or 6 times. I used Fog Cloud quite often, at least 4 times. I was practically forced to use these spells because most other spells do not have as much effect on combat. I used Scorching Ray instead of Fog Cloud in the encounter that my PC died in. I had used Web first against the BBEG (4th level PCs against a Bone Naga). It did nothing. Two Naga lightning bolts later, my PC was dying on the ground. With hindsight, Fog Cloud would have kept him alive after the first bolt attack (but there was nothing to indicate that he would be the target a second time since I had moved my PC wizard behind NPCs to get out of the line of fire), but again, the wizard doesn't really shine, even with something like Scorching Ray and even with 3 PCs out of 6 attacking the Naga (the other 3 PCs were fighting the other 4 NPCs).

I'm a bit confused why the naga decided to lightning bolt you twice when you (comparatively) little to it. Semi serious question - have you considered your DM has it out for you? Its a reasonably hard spell to catch two people in if there arent a lot of creatures. I wouldn't say the wizard sucks just because of that. Most any 4th level PC would be paste after eating 8d6 twice in a row without a lot of luck. You do note that the fog cloud should have helped, it was just adjudicated poorly (unless they have some weird blindsight or something).

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm a bit confused why the naga decided to lightning bolt you twice when you (comparatively) little to it. Semi serious question - have you considered your DM has it out for you? Its a reasonably hard spell to catch two people in if there arent a lot of creatures. I wouldn't say the wizard sucks just because of that. Most any 4th level PC would be paste after eating 8d6 twice in a row without a lot of luck. You do note that the fog cloud should have helped, it was just adjudicated poorly (unless they have some weird blindsight or something).

I think that the Naga targeted my PC the first time because I had webbed it. The DM probably thought web might be a threat. Getting restrained can end up messing up spells. It also got a second PC in that attack. It's actually pretty easy to get 2 PCs out of 6 PCs in a straight line.

The Naga targeted my PC the second time because the movement of combat ended up with 4 PCs and 1 NPC basically in a straight line. So, the Naga got as many foes (and one undead ally) in a single bolt. Rare, but the other players did not make the best decisions with regard to this (and the web was still in play, so it limited some of the squares PCs could go into and still melee attack)..

The DM did not have it out for me, it was just bad luck overall.

And, this encounter has nothing to do with why the wizard sucks at low level other than yet another illustration as to how web sounds good on paper, but it doesn't always work out as well in practice. I managed to get the Naga, two NPCs, and the PC fighter in the web. Three of them saved on the spell, one undead didn't. Typically, I would expect at least 2 failed saves out of 4 targets, but that didn't happen.

I did manage to make the first web concentration save (since his arcane ward protected the wizard somewhat from the damage of the first spell, even though I missed the Dex save). I would have preferred to make the Dex save and miss the Con save.


Fog Cloud should have helped if I had cast it, but I didn't. Although down to 2 hit points, I considered the Naga to be a major threat and I did Scorching Ray on it (the ranger wizard did Magic Missile on it twice and another PC attacked it at least once). I was hoping focus fire would help and that the wizard was somewhat safe trying to keep the undead between himself and the Naga, but that did not happen.

Since 3 PCs fell with that second lightning bolt, the Fog Cloud would have probably helped my PC, but the other 3 PCs would have still eaten a lightning bolt, 2 of them falling, and the Naga would have been less wounded. So, it's very possible that by saving my PC with Fog Cloud (even if I included some other PCs in it), it might have ended up in a near TPK for the rest of the group (2 of 5 down and the Naga less wounded). There was only 2 PCs still standing at the end of that fight (and 1 of them had been unconscious). It was a tough fight, exacerbated (in my mind) by the fact that my wizard's lock down spell did almost nothing. But, there was a lot of weird luck going on in that fight (my PC failed both death saving throws by rolling two 1s).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

On the subject of nagas: Contrary to popular belief, spreading damage amongst various foes is NOT a tactically wise situation unless you can kill several of them at once. Damage by itself does little to impair the enemy's ability to attack in game. (Although in rare cases it can make multiple enemies susceptible to something like sleep). An intelligent foe - and nagas, including undead ones, are very intelligent - will therefore keep stacking damage on a particular foe until that foe ceases being a threat. On top of this, as far as enemies go, casters are a PRIME target both because they tend to represent a disproportionate threat and because they are squishier than martial characters. So a naga targeting a PC more than once isn't the DM just messing with a character. Nor would be a naga targetting a wounded enemy. It's the DM playing an intelligent enemy intelligently.

Furthermore - lightning bolt passes through and affects multiple creatures. So hiding behind another combatant doesn't make you less of a target, it makes you more of one. (Provided this combatant isn't an ally of the caster - and even then against an evil spellcaster...). The restrained condition increases the damage a victim will take, but doesn't interfere with spell use unless those spells require an attack roll. Spells like Web which impose the restrained condition are NOT an effective defense against spellcasting by the restrained victim.

There might be valid reasons for some PCs or monsters not knowing some of these things. They probably don't apply to supposedly intelligent wizards who are at least passingly familiar with the arcane arts.

I apologize, but I do think that anyone who disagrees with someone on most every single point brought up is one of those people who like to argue. I suspect that you will argue about this.

Have you considered instead the possibility that people argue with you because you repeatedly make mathematically falsifiable or inconsistent statements (such as regarding damage and Scorching Ray or the autohit function of Magic Missile above) and then have the audacity to both make post-hoc changes to the basis of your arguments AND to simultaneously make disparaging insinuations regarding other peoples' characters?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Never mind

<nt>

 

[KarinsDad]

On the subject of nagas: Contrary to popular belief, spreading damage amongst various foes is NOT a tactically wise situation unless you can kill several of them at once. Damage by itself does little to impair the enemy's ability to attack in game. (Although in rare cases it can make multiple enemies susceptible to something like sleep). An intelligent foe - and nagas, including undead ones, are very intelligent - will therefore keep stacking damage on a particular foe until that foe ceases being a threat.

Yup. But when a Naga can throw a lightning bolt that does 36 damage (at least the first bolt I encountered did) and unwounded 4th level PCs have 22 to 40 hit points, it makes total sense for a naga to try to wound them seriously immediately, especially if they are already wounded or have a melee foe in their face. Low level healing doesn't really do that much in 5E.

On top of this, as far as enemies go, casters are a PRIME target both because they tend to represent a disproportionate threat and because they are squishier than martial characters. So a naga targeting a PC more than once isn't the DM just messing with a character. Nor would a naga targetting a wounded enemy. It's the DM playing an intelligent enemy intelligently.

Yup. I agree. When did I state otherwise?

Furthermore - lightning bolt passes through and affects multiple creatures. So hiding behind another combatant doesn't make you less of a target (provided this combatant isn't an ally of the caster - and even then against an evil spellcaster...), it makes you more of one.

I moved the wizard behind several of his allies to force it to target them if he wanted to target my PC if it had another lightning bolt. Tactics 101. There was no place to get total cover, so I decided that it injuring an ally combined with focus fire might be the best way to end the encounter quicker. If it did not have another lightning bolt and tried an attack vs. AC on my PC, then at least my PC would have a cover bonus (and the ability to cast a Shield spell).

You find this to be a bad tactic? Odd. Can you suggest a better one? As I stated earlier, the only other one I could think of was Fog Cloud, but then again, that would have resulted in a less wounded naga which would have given it potentially an additional round (or maybe more) of casting spells at the PCs. I'm all ears if you got something better, but your sentences here don't offer a better solution, it just states the obvious.

The restrained condition increases the damage a victim will take, but doesn't interfere with spell use unless those spells require an attack roll. Spells like Web which impose the restrained condition are NOT an effective defense against spellcasting by the restrained victim. There might be valid reasons for some PCs or monsters not knowing some of these things. They probably don't apply to supposedly intelligent wizards who are at least passingly familiar with the arcane arts.

True, but it does something that you are not considering. Restrained prevents the Naga (and in this case, two other undead) from moving and casting lightning bolt down a perfect line (and as it turned out, a perfect line ended up unluckily being 4 PCs and 1 NPC two turns later). If restrained, this forces it to choose a less effective attack, or possibly only be able to target one foe with Lightning Bolt if it cannot move and line itself up.

Course, I did not even know it had lightning bolts when I cast the web spell (our DM does not put signs on monsters heads to give clues on which abilities they know, she just gives a general description of the monster and our players tend to not metagame). I cast web because I could get 3 out of 5 monsters in it (including the large one) and was using it to help with potential action economy. It's awesome that people can look bone naga up in the monster manual after the fact and know all of its abilities and display their superior armchair quarterbacking skills (for example, knowing that it has 2 lightning bolts), but that doesn't happen in our game during an encounter.

Additionally as you stated, restrained prevents spells or other ranged attacks with attack rolls. Hindering the enemy is a good thing, so I'm confused about what your actual point might be. Web is actually a good choice here. Unless you have a better recommendation.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Yup. I agree. When did I state otherwise?

The statement wasn't aimed ONLY toward yourself, sir, nor was it intended to be a line by line refutation of everything you said

I moved the wizard behind several of his allies to force it to target them if he wanted to target my PC if it had another lightning bolt. Tactics 101. There was no place to get total cover, so I decided that it injuring an ally combined with focus fire might be the best way to end the encounter quicker. If it did not have another lightning bolt and tried an attack vs. AC on my PC, then at least my PC would have a cover bonus (and the ability to cast a Shield spell).

I do think the presumption that once an enemy has cast a spell it is unlikely to be able to cast it again to be a LITTLE faulty As for a better tactic, it depends on the circumstances and needs of the group. Placing another enemy between yourself and the caster is worthwhile, but possibly subjects yourself to this other enemy's attacks. If there were other PCs similarly near death then drawing the caster's fire would possibly have been a decent tactic. I think from the standpoint of your survival the Fog Cloud might have been better...as I expect you may have concluded. Though it would have cost you the web spell. Depending upon the GM, the minor illusion cantrip may be used to block vision in at least one direction without the necessity of concentration. Dropping prone could have helped protect you from ranged spell attacks. It's not really possible to posit anything beyond that without knowing what resources you had available. There ARE a variety of spells that DO shut down spellcasting. For example - a suggestion to do something time consuming. The sleep spell if the caster has been sufficiently wounded. They each have their downsides of course.