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

[aramis erak]

The difference is that wizards are almost totally reliant on daily spells. If a fighter loses an opportunity to use the Great Weapon Master feat, who cares? He can use it again the following round or the round after that, or the encounter after that. He only loses the opportunity, not the ability. If a wizard casts Web and then gets hit by an arrow and loses the spell, everyone in that Web spell is now free AND the wizard lost the spell slot.

Clerics and Bards have limited spell slots too, but they also can just go up and fight a foe in melee or with ranged attacks. Them using up a spell slot does not use up the same percentage of potential of the PC.

Spells are pretty much everything for a wizard. They have lousy AC, lousy to hit, lousy damage, and lousy hit points. They can have some cool special abilities in combat, but most of them are still related to spells.

If a spell is wasted, it is a much bigger resource lose for a low level wizard PC than if an at will opportunity or encounter ability is lost temporarily by another PC. So yes, the loss of the plan when a wizard has already cast a spell is more of a loss. D&D 101.

That doesn't sound like 5E at all, KD. You're letting prior editions' truisms derail you again.

5E wizards are capable of the same to hits as clerics or rogues. They have a poor selection of weapons without penalty, but are just as competent with them as the cleric with his wider selection. And the armor class? Most of them are running 14-16. (Mage Armor and dex). Plus, with cantrips, they can keep zapping for damage just a little lower than a fighter of same level...

 

[KarinsDad]

That doesn't sound like 5E at all, KD. You're letting prior editions' truisms derail you again.

5E wizards are capable of the same to hits as clerics or rogues. They have a poor selection of weapons without penalty, but are just as competent with them as the cleric with his wider selection. And the armor class? Most of them are running 14-16. (Mage Armor and dex). Plus, with cantrips, they can keep zapping for damage just a little lower than a fighter of same level...

A first level wizard who has cast Mage Armor has already used up 33% of his spells before he even stepped out the tavern door in the morning. In order to get that level of AC, the low level wizard has to give up a significant chunk of his daily spells. 33% at first level, 25% at second level, 12% to 14% at third level.

Some Clerics get all of the weapons and armors, and I cannot believe you are even talking about Rogue weapon capabilities in comparison to Wizard weapon capabilities. Sure, an elven wizard gets the cool Longbow and can have a high Dex, but not all wizards are elves.

And I like this "just a little lower than the fighter" stuff too. The offensive fighter does 2D6+3 reroll ones and twos for 11.33 average points of damage. The offensive wizard does D12 (at very close range of 10 feet, most wizards settle for the D10 at much longer range) for 6.5 average points of damage. In what world is 6.5 (or 5.5) just a little lower than 11.33? The fighter rarely has a cover issue, the wizard can more often be shooting through cover (if he attacks a foe with Fire Bolt at range through the party). On average, the wizard tends to do less than half of the damage of the offensive fighter (two handed weapon or two weapon) and less than 3/4ths of the defensive (sword and board) fighter when using cantrips (which at low levels is often the vast majority of his rounds in an adventuring day). The main exception to this is the Elven wizard with a longbow and a high Dex.

 

[DaveDash]

A first level wizard who has cast Mage Armor has already used up 33% of his spells before he even stepped out the tavern door in the morning. In order to get that level of AC, the low level wizard has to give up a significant chunk of his daily spells. 33% at first level, 25% at second level, 12% to 14% at third level.

Some Clerics get all of the weapons and armors, and I cannot believe you are even talking about Rogue weapon capabilities in comparison to Wizard weapon capabilities. Sure, an elven wizard gets the cool Longbow and can have a high Dex, but not all wizards are elves.

And I like this "just a little lower than the fighter" stuff too. The offensive fighter does 2D6+3 reroll ones and twos for 11.33 average points of damage. The offensive wizard does D12 (at very close range of 10 feet, most wizards settle for the D10 at much longer range) for 6.5 average points of damage. In what world is 6.5 (or 5.5) just a little lower than 11.33? The fighter rarely has a cover issue, the wizard can more often be shooting through cover (if he attacks a foe with Fire Bolt at range through the party). On average, the wizard tends to do less than half of the damage of the offensive fighter (two handed weapon or two weapon) and less than 3/4ths of the defensive (sword and board) fighter when using cantrips (which at low levels is often the vast majority of his rounds in an adventuring day). The main exception to this is the Elven wizard with a longbow and a high Dex.

Meanwhile the Fighter in your instance has to close and engage with the enemy, and he doesn't have great AC to get that damage. Whereas the Wizard can stand behind FULL cover, come out of cover, shoot, and go back behind full cover again. It would be a little ridiculous if he could do that AND have the same damage as a Fighter, would't it?

Then once per day the Wizard can basically win an encounter using Sleep or Burning Hands. Not the crappy spells you picked for your low level Wizard.

Meanwhile the Wizard can also scout (familiar), manipulate things (mage hand), detect and disarm magical traps (DMG rule - Arcana to disable and detect magical traps), detect magic and magical traps (detect magic), allow his party to traverse obstacles (water breathing), protect the party from ambush (alarm), and a whole host of other things the Fighter cannot do.

 

[KarinsDad]

Meanwhile the Fighter in your instance has to close and engage with the enemy, and he doesn't have great AC to get that damage. Whereas the Wizard can stand behind FULL cover, come out of cover, shoot, and go back behind full cover again. It would be a little ridiculous if he could do that AND have the same damage as a Fighter, would't it?

The low level offensive fighter is purposely using lower AC to get NPCs to attack him instead of other PCs. It's the 5E equivalent of stickiness (since the rest of stickiness mostly disappeared in 5E shy of a feat). It's also why fighters get Second Wind so that they can fight up front more. As for it being lesser AC, the difference between a Shield and no Shield is one attack on the fighter in 10. The difference in the fighter's DPR for offensive vs. defensive is 50%. You do the math as to which is typically better since 5E has a lot fewer riders in addition to damage than 4E did.

Then once per day the Wizard can basically win an encounter using Sleep or Burning Hands. Not the crappy spells you picked for your low level Wizard.

Oh, I get it. The wizard is only good in combat if he picks certain specific spells. Got it.

PS. My wizard did have Burning Hands, he just didn't have Sleep. His effectiveness without Sleep says a lot about that spell.

Meanwhile the Wizard can also scout (familiar), manipulate things (mage hand), detect and disarm magical traps (DMG rule - Arcana to disable and detect magical traps), detect magic and magical traps (detect magic), allow his party to traverse obstacles (water breathing), protect the party from ambush (alarm), and a whole host of other things the Fighter cannot do.

The DMG Arcana rule did not exist when I was playing the wizard and we didn't exactly run into a lot of magical traps as is. Water Breathing is a 3rd level spell. Hardly the spell du jour for most low level wizards. I mean, you are really stretching here.

I have already stated that the Wizard can do a host of things out of combat, but my issue is with combat. So if you repeat that wizards can do things other PCs cannot do out of combat, I will yet again agree with you.

 

[DaveDash]

The low level offensive fighter is purposely using lower AC to get NPCs to attack him instead of other PCs. It's the 5E equivalent of stickiness (since the rest of stickiness mostly disappeared in 5E shy of a feat). It's also why fighters get Second Wind so that they can fight up front more. As for it being lesser AC, the difference between a Shield and no Shield is one attack on the fighter in 10. The difference in the fighter's DPR for offensive vs. defensive is 50%. You do the math as to which is typically better since 5E has a lot fewer riders in addition to damage than 4E did.

The Wizard can still avoid all damage by using full cover to his advantage. Full cover > any AC. The Fighter in your example using 2H weapons cannot.

I have already stated that the Wizard can do a host of things out of combat, but my issue is with combat. So if you repeat that wizards can do things other PCs cannot do out of combat, I will yet again agree with you.

If you want to play a class that is the best in combat, you're not playing the right class. You also keep comparing the Wizard to the single best combat class in the game, who has had a huge boost from previous editions, but basically is only really good at that one single thing.

Like I keep telling you, the Wizard is the Rogue (or perhaps more like a Lore Bard) of spell casters. Good all rounder, master of none. I'm not going to roll up a Lore Bard then come into the forums and complain my character sucks in combat compared to a Fighter.
Sorcerer is a more screwed at lower levels than the Wizard, but they do become combat machines pretty quickly. Maybe you ought to play a Sorcerer instead, because I get the feeling you just don't "get" the Wizard. Then soon enough you can start throwing around twinned scorching rays and start feeling like the man in combat.

And all this complaining about low level is ridiculous anyway, since 1st and 2nd level are over very quickly.

Oh, I get it. The wizard is only good in combat if he picks certain specific spells. Got it.

Yes. If I make a NPC Wizard with Jump, Comprehend Languages, etc as his spell selection, he's going to have a much lower CR than if he has fireball, greater invisibility, shield, etc.

Spells are not created equal, and if you lack spell mastery, you're going to have a bad experience with the class. You can't just pick things willy nilly and expect to compete with the other classes.

Like I keep saying, it's a thinking persons/problem solving class.

 

[KarinsDad]

The Wizard can still avoid all damage by using full cover to his advantage. Full cover > any AC. The Fighter in your example using 2H weapons cannot.

Without the front rank guys, the wizard wouldn't have the luxury of hiding in cover. The foes would be in his face.

In effect, the front rank guys are the ones giving cover to the wizard.

Your point is moot.

 

[DaveDash]

Without the front rank guys, the wizard wouldn't have the luxury of hiding in cover. The foes would be in his face.

In effect, the front rank guys are the ones giving cover to the wizard.

Your point is moot.

Lol this is true for ANY ranged class. What's worse for them is they are likely to get disadvantage, meanwhile the Wizard can just throw saving throw spells and not worry about it. In fact, ANOTHER advantage of the Wizard is that they can basically ignore a whole bunch of conditions such as Frightened, disadvantage from ranged attacks, whatever.

Also the whole point of a Wizard is pre-combat preparation. I send in my owl familiar to scout what's ahead, who has pretty good perception. I determine the scope of the encounter and prepare accordingly. If I don't have front line guys to back me up, then I make sure I cause distractions/terrain obstacles/whatever with my massive spell selection. No other class has this versatility.

 

[KarinsDad]

Lol this is true for ANY ranged class.

Actually, it is true for any class period. Any PC can hang in the back and throw ranged attacks, even the fighters. It is expected that the fighters go up front, but it would be funny if they cowered in the back and threw wimpy ranged attacks like wizards at a table. The wizard players would pee in their pants. I'd like to see people claim how wonderful wizards are in that scenario as hordes of Goblins come rushing at them and the rest of the party is hiding back in cover.

 

[DaveDash]

Actually, it is true for any class period. Any PC can hang in the back and throw ranged attacks, even the fighters. It is expected that the fighters go up front, but it would be funny if they cowered in the back and threw wimpy ranged attacks like wizards at a table. The wizard players would pee in their pants. I'd like to see people claim how wonderful wizards are in that scenario as hordes of Goblins come rushing at them and the rest of the party is hiding back in cover.

Heh I've seen a 14th level Abjurer take the lead against a bunch of Spirit Nagas. The Paladin took three lightning bolts to the face and ran the other direction pretty quick. Not low level, but amusing non-the-less.

 

[KarinsDad]

Heh I've seen a 14th level Abjurer take the lead against a bunch of Spirit Nagas. The Paladin took three lightning bolts to the face and ran the other direction pretty quick. Not low level, but amusing non-the-less.

Yeah, until my Abjurer took two lightning bolts to the face, he pretty much walked all over the battlefield, pouring healing potions down PC's throats, tempting monsters to attack him (Shield/Mage Armor/Arcane Ward helps a bit there), etc. I just didn't necessarily enjoy this style of monster distraction. I wanted the PC to be a bit more proactive and it was a little frustrating when a well timed spell did next to nothing. Personal expectations not met.