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

[KarinsDad]

Sure the concentration stuff makes battlefield control a bit more difficult, but D&D 101 also says that combat is only part of the game. And since we're talking low-level combat, a wizard can do 1d10 hitting as often as a fighter who (with shield) does 1d8. An archer does 1d8 and a wizard does 1d10, and no ammunition rules. All as infinite as the fighter's sword-swinging. By the time either fighter gets a second attack, wizard has fireball. Wizard AC sucks, but it always has. And if you are worried about the concentration checks, get War Caster to increase.

Defensive fighter (typically) does 1D8+3. Minimum 4. The wizard only does 1D10 if he took the Fire Bolt cantrip and even then, his range of damage is 1 to 10, not 4 to 11. Apples and oranges with regard to effectiveness (the fighter's minimum is the same as the wizard's average). When comparing a fighter to a wizard, it's 2D6+3 vs. D12 (offensive fighter with most damaging weapon vs. offensive wizard with most damaging cantrip) and D8+3 versus D8 (defensive fighter with lesser damaging weapon vs. versatile wizard with lesser damaging cantrip). So, 10 average damage vs. 6.5; or 7.5 average damage vs. 4.5. Either way, the fighter does about 3 more points of damage on average, and has higher maximums and minimums. Fighters don't run into the issue of hitting and only doing 1 or 2 points of damage which in the vast majority of situations, is the same as missing.

War caster is a waste. I shouldn't have to take a feat, just to be partially effective and to partially remove one of the gimp du edition of spell casters. War caster is not a cool feat, it's a "Guess what, you can suck less" feat.

 

[Kikuras]

Defensive fighter (typically) does 1D8+4. Minimum 5. The wizard only does 1D10 if he took the Fire Bolt cantrip and even then, his range of damage is 1 to 10, not 5 to 13. Apples and oranges with regard to effectiveness (the fighter's minimum is the same as the wizard's average). When comparing a fighter to a wizard, it's 2D6+4 vs. D12 (offensive fighter with most damaging weapon vs. offensive wizard with most damaging cantrip) and D8+4 versus D8 (defensive fighter with lesser damaging weapon vs. versatile wizard with lesser damaging cantrip). So, 11 average damage vs. 6.5; or 8.5 average damage vs. 4.5. Either way, the fighter does about 4 more points of damage on average, and has higher maximums and minimums. Fighters don't run into the issue of hitting and only doing 1 or 2 points of damage which in the vast majority of situations, is the same as missing.

War caster is a waste. I shouldn't have to take a feat, just to be partially effective and to partially remove one of the gimp du edition of spell casters. War caster is not a cool feat, it's a "Guess what, you can suck less" feat.

My point was not to illustrate that a wizard was equivalent to a fighter in combat, my point is that in combat the 5e wizard is able to contribute more than in any other D&D edition (I don't know about 4e, I didn't play). And as has been stated before, combat is only a part of the game. D&D 101. You're sticking a square peg in a round hole and are angry it's not working, meanwhile ignoring the the square hole.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point was not to illustrate that a wizard was equivalent to a fighter in combat, my point is that in combat the 5e wizard is able to contribute more than in any other D&D edition (I don't know about 4e, I didn't play).

In 4E, wizards did about 85% of the at will damage of non-wizards, not the 55% of 5E. In 3E and earlier, wizards did not do as much damage without spells, but most of their spells were a lot more effective and lasted a lot longer.

And as has been stated before, combat is only a part of the game.

This thread is about combat, not the other portions of the game.

D&D 101. You're sticking a square peg in a round hole and are angry it's not working, meanwhile ignoring the the square hole.

If you say so. Personally, I just think that there are a lot of people who have not run into 5E wizard frustration yet. Compared to 4E, their cantrips are worse. Compared to 3E and earlier, their spells are worse (their cantrips are better, but I don't play a wizard to spam slightly better cantrips).

Most of the other classes got better (Sorcerers are an exception), regardless of edition. Buff clerics and druids got worse than 3E, but they've gained other abilities to partially make up for that.

 

[Kikuras]

In 4E, wizards did about 85% of the at will damage of non-wizards, not the 55% of 5E. In 3E and earlier, wizards did not do as much damage without spells, but most of their spells were a lot more effective and lasted a lot longer.



This thread is about combat, not the other portions of the game.



If you say so. Personally, I just think that there are a lot of people who have not run into 5E wizard frustration yet. Compared to 4E, their cantrips are worse. Compared to 3E and earlier, their spells are worse (their cantrips are better, but I don't play a wizard to spam slightly better cantrips).

Most of the other classes got better (Sorcerers are an exception), regardless of edition. Buff clerics and druids got worse than 3E, but they've gained other abilities to partially make up for that.

I think you make valid points, but I'd still probably play a 5e low-level wizard over 3.5 or older. I can say that concentration has rather nerfed spells that were once good battlefield control, encouraging the wizard to focus more on immediate duration spells to maximize the effectiveness of the magic, which is more of a sorcerer thing. So perhaps it's not that they suck, but rather they suck compared to 4e?

 

[DaveDash]

Cantrips suck at low levels, but arcane casters have a lot more options than just "hit things hard" like the martial classes. They're also not subject to B/P/S damage resistance, and you get enough of them you can usually have different damage types.

Since I've been told this thread is about low level Wizards, concentration doesn't come into play that much at low levels, since you're unlikely to use more than one spell per encounter.

Ritual casting is also awesome and gives Wizards good utility outside of combat.

The problem KarinsDad has is that Wizards now play differently to how he is used to, and the class is about spell mastery. The difference spell selection makes has a profound effect on the power level of the class, not all spells are created equally.
Wizards are also the problem solver class, and good problem solving often begins BEFORE combat. If you just want to hurl firebolts at your enemies then you're not grasping the full extent of the class and its power.

I really question how much of an issue this really is however. Level 1-2 are over so quickly you almost blink and they're gone. After that you start getting enough spells to use one per fight, and some of those spells are encounter winners.

I also wonder if KarinsDad has ever played an AD&D wizard? You spent your first few levels being worse than a peasant except for one spell a day, and those levels took a lot longer to get through than in 5e.

 

[Malovaan]

I should probably preface the rest of my post with the following: I'm completely new to D & D. Myself and a few friends decided to give D&D a go a few months ago, started off with the dungeon world rule-set as an "easy" way to get into it, then after some sessions decided to move our characters over to D&D 5e, starting from L1 again to learn this rule-set (though sort of carrying on from the old story-arc the DM was creating). Sadly my hapless ranger got himself killed at the end of the last dungeon world session, so I got a fresh start - this time with a wizard.


I have to say, after three sessions, I have yet to feel at all impotent in comparison to my comrades. The party dynamic is perhaps a bit off, as we're down to 3 (as our thief moved away) - a hill-dwarf barbarian, human cleric and my human wizard, but its been great fun all the same. We've had some fun fights, and I've gotten to make interesting different moves in each, unlike the barbarian who seems relegated to "I hit him with my axe". I've used burning hands on some advancing cultists to great effect; magic missile-d a bugbear who then turned on me to deal a deadly blow, only to be thwarted by my 'shield' spell; used false life to make myself slightly more able to take a hit; used mage hand, prestidigitation and detect magic out of combat for various things. And on top of that, can chuck a fire-bolt anywhere when I need to! Haven't yet had the chance to use sleep (only took it at L2), but that's on my list of things to make great use of.

Maybe I need a lot more experience to say anything about the strength of the wizard, but as of yet I certainly don't feel gimped in comparison to the barbarian and cleric in my party, I'd say we each have our own strengths which we can use to make up for the others' weaknesses.

 

[KarinsDad]

I also wonder if KarinsDad has ever played an AD&D wizard? You spent your first few levels being worse than a peasant except for one spell a day, and those levels took a lot longer to get through than in 5e.

I've played d&d wizards for almost 40 years now on and off. It's my preferred class and the first class I've played in every edition. My first PC was a blue book wizard. Our group was surrounded by "natives", he cast Sleep on about half of them, took them out, and got shot in the back with an arrow and died. First encounter (technically second encounter, he more or less stayed out of the first fight completely).

So yes, I'm fully aware of old style wizards. They could easily be more effective than 5E wizards, but only a few times a day at low level. But every class was less effective in AD&D (and pre-AD&D). All PCs died at zero hit points and a fighter could have two foes and die in round one. Everyone tended to be a glass cannon and rolling up a new PC was not uncommon, especially at low level. The difference in the game now is that PCs do not die at zero hit points and they have more hit points per level. Wizards get cantrips instead of throwing daggers, so they do D6 to D12 damage when they hit instead of D4. On the other hand, fighters do D8+4 to 2D6+4 instead of D8+1 (for fighters with 16 or 17 Str, 18 Str fighters rarely existed without house rules or cheating). Everyone was wimpier back in the day. Then again, monster damage was lower. Healing was more important in combat.

But without concentration rules and save every round rules, if a 1E wizard did get a spell off, it tended to do something and more than for a round or two.

And many players started playing multiclass wizards (like elves) back in the day because they had better hit points, better armor, better weapon attacks, and could still cast spells. No doubt about it. 5E wizards can survive easier than 1E wizards, but then again, so can all classes. Back in the day, Sleep could take out a dozen Orcs. Today, it is lucky to take out 2. Shield could last for more than a single encounter if the party moved on. Today it lasts a round. So yes, I remember the earlier version wizard quite well. I remember both the good and the bad.

 

[HarrisonF]

I've played a low level wizard (forest gnome diviner) in 5ed. I have played wizards extensively for most editions (except 4th which I skipped). In combat, they were always battlefield controllers and I played god and enjoyed it.

For levels 1 and 2, in combat you pretty much cast Sleep. It is so unbelievable balanced for those levels (ie. taking out 3-4 Kobolds per cast and ignoring your martials), that it alone makes wizards good. Now it is kinda boring to just spam one spell, but effective (and other classes only have one attack option in these levels). You may occasionally cast Magic Missile, but probably not since the martials have already killed the BBEG while you are taking care of all of the minions. I took other combat spells, but never actually found a reason to use them over Sleep. My DM used to joke with me that he was going to throw a group of elves at me as my nemesises.

To maximize my spells available, I didn't cast any defensive spells (go go gadget AC 13). I figured worst case I would die and then I could make a new low level wizard. This allowed for 3 and 4 Sleeps per day at levels 1-2. That still isn't a lot, so I would end up using cantrips and their anemic damage. The most fun of those was picking on myself when I repeatedly failed to kill a kobold in one shot. It did make it more exciting when I actually managed to kill one. No one really cared though, since Sleep was so massively dominate otherwise.

At level 3, things get a bit more interesting and you might end up casting Web and maybe Hold Person for CC. Web is definitely a bit harder to use than Sleep (what are these saves?!?!?), but it can still generally be good. I also played as a diviner, so saves didn't bother me too much since I could see the future of when to use the perfect spell that they would fail a saving throw against. Hitting a webbed cultist with firedart also made me do almost martial damage (d10 + 2d4), so that was fun! One round of Hold Person and your teammates getting auto-crits is enough to make the game easy-mode. Keep in mind you can still use Sleep liberally at these levels, but it only became 50% of the spells I cast.

At level 5+, you aren't really "low-level" anymore, and spells like Hypnotic pattern become the new Sleep without HP limits, but with saves. Also Fireball allows you to really participate in damage, woo! Cantrips, while still low on the damage meter, end up doing less swingy damage due to extra dice available.

Overall, I am definitely more entertained by level 5+ wizards since you have more options. The low levels spells could use a few more options that are as good as Sleep to make it more rounded. Since you said you didn't use Sleep, I could see you not being as effective in low level combats. Also if you were fighting an army of elves, level 1 wizards would be sad.

Out of combat, wizards are as strong as ever. Familiars for scouting, rituals for alarm and detect magic and others, illusions, and knowledge skills (since everyone dumps Int) really adds a lot to the party. Sadly with Minor Illusion at will and my owl, my gnome diviner ended up as a better stealthy scout character than our ranger.

 

[DaveDash]

I've played d&d wizards for almost 40 years now on and off. It's my preferred class and the first class I've played in every edition. My first PC was a blue book wizard. Our group was surrounded by "natives", he cast Sleep on about half of them, took them out, and got shot in the back with an arrow and died. First encounter (technically second encounter, he more or less stayed out of the first fight completely).

So yes, I'm fully aware of old style wizards. They could easily be more effective than 5E wizards, but only a few times a day at low level. But every class was less effective in AD&D (and pre-AD&D). All PCs died at zero hit points and a fighter could have two foes and die in round one. Everyone tended to be a glass cannon and rolling up a new PC was not uncommon, especially at low level. The difference in the game now is that PCs do not die at zero hit points and they have more hit points per level. Wizards get cantrips instead of throwing daggers, so they do D6 to D12 damage when they hit instead of D4. On the other hand, fighters do D8+4 to 2D6+4 instead of D8+1 (for fighters with 16 or 17 Str, 18 Str fighters rarely existed without house rules or cheating). Everyone was wimpier back in the day. Then again, monster damage was lower. Healing was more important in combat.

But without concentration rules and save every round rules, if a 1E wizard did get a spell off, it tended to do something and more than for a round or two.

And many players started playing multiclass wizards (like elves) back in the day because they had better hit points, better armor, better weapon attacks, and could still cast spells. No doubt about it. 5E wizards can survive easier than 1E wizards, but then again, so can all classes. Back in the day, Sleep could take out a dozen Orcs. Today, it is lucky to take out 2. Shield could last for more than a single encounter if the party moved on. Today it lasts a round. So yes, I remember the earlier version wizard quite well. I remember both the good and the bad.

Sleep can win encounters at level 1-2. At level 1-2 you're fighting CR 1/4 things and sleep can take out ~4 of them.

Burning hands you can do massive damage for level 1-2.

Magic Missile does about the same damage as a sneak attack Rogue but also never misses.

Then there are all your utility spells. Find Familiar -> Owl. Amazing. 10gp is a pitiful price to pay compared to older editions where you could lose a point of con!
Mage Hand, Minor Illusion also awesome. Being able to mage hand things saves your party resources and sometimes lives, it's also the ultimate problem solving spell.

Wizards now can hide behind full cover, pop out cast a spell, then go behind full cover again. If someone readies an action on them, they can use shield. Shield is now WAY better than what it used to be in that regard. Also certain archetypes of Wizards (Abjurer) are VERY tanky. Arcane Ward is amazing.
After 15 levels I have only dropped the Abjurer once, and that's been in a hard Dragon fight.

Once you get level 2 you get some amazing defensive spells, one of the best single target damage spells in the game (scorching ray), and some encounter winners like Hold Person. Do you know if you hold person a monster and shoot it from with 5ft you auto crit right (on a hit)? You can do insane damage doing this.

Flaming Sphere is also a very good spell at this level. It does decent damage AND acts as crowd control at the same time.

Misty step increases your survivability.

I'm also not buying this whole low AC thing. You can get 15 AC at low level reasonably easily (and use full cover to your advantage as mentioned above) which is par for the course for MOST low level characters, except you can boost up to 20AC for when you really need it.

 

[KarinsDad]

After 15 levels I have only dropped the Abjurer once, and that's been in a hard Dragon fight.

You must not be doing it right.

My Abjurer died at level 4 in an encounter with 4 undead and a Bone Naga. Two lightning bolts will do that.