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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Actually, no I'm not. True Strike combined with Witch Bolt has nothing to do with my opinion of 5E wizards.

Saving every round. Only one concentration spell. Yes, those are reasons I dislike the 5E wizard and in fact, all 5E casters. Buffers, blasters, whatever. They are fairly well handcuffed. I do not know of a single RPG or MMORPG where spell casters are handcuffed this much. They might exist, but I don't know about them or play them. 4E is about the only such system and that one was almost all about one round spells. I thought it meh in 4E. I find it worse in 5E. Now the spells may or may not last more than a round, but you only get one of them. WT?

Shadowrun casters are roughly as "handcuffed" as 5E casters. To wit, Shadowrun casters must spend concentration to maintain spells, and each spell you maintain gives you a penalty on everything you do to the point where you often only want to ever maintain one spell at a time. Shadowrun gives you the option of maintaining multiple spells, but then, 5E lets you maintain many spells without concentration (Mirror Image, Blindness, Blink, etc.) so I'll call that a wash. Also, 5E casters aren't penalized at ability checks or attack rolls while maintaining a spell.

Another interesting similarity is that 5E's Planar Binding behaves similarly to Shadowrun's spirit binding. In both cases you turn piles of gold into invisible bodyguards. Shadowrun limits the absolute number of bound spirits you can have at a time, whereas 5E limits (via spell slots) the rate at which you can bind them and the duration of their binding, but the similarities are striking: rich wizards spend money on regeants/gems to bind extraplanar entities to do their dirty work.

/tangent

 

[mlund]

Shadowrun casters are roughly as "handcuffed" as 5E casters. To wit, Shadowrun casters must spend concentration to maintain spells, and each spell you maintain gives you a penalty on everything you do to the point where you often only want to ever maintain one spell at a time. Shadowrun gives you the option of maintaining multiple spells, but then, 5E lets you maintain many spells without concentration (Mirror Image, Blindness, Blink, etc.) so I'll call that a wash. Also, 5E casters aren't penalized at ability checks or attack rolls while maintaining a spell.

13th Age took a really solid approach to handling the previous generation d20 caster's primary design flaws. Yeah, he's largely "handcuffed" compared to the Quadratic Wizard of Olde, but they gave players a lot more flexibility with how they use their spells than the Pseudo-Vancian casters ever had. Simply cutting down the spell-slot tree and replacing it (top-level Wizards engine 7 more total spell slots than level 1 wizards, they are just -better- slots) fixed a lot of problems. Limited duration and stacking utility on "buff" spells and added flexibility for "utility" spell slots along with the ritual casting features worked out extremely well.

That said, I'm not disappointed with my 5E Wizard either. Again, the ritual casting element has largely fixed the "utility spell vs. ammunition" question I had back in 3.X (a problem I solved by grotesque abuse of Scribe Scroll back in the day). The combat cantrips mostly do the job that scaling slots for at-will spells resolves in 13th Age. There's still a spell-slot tree, but it's much leaner than the 3.X one and the use of cantrips means those slots can be filled with special effects instead of generic combat ammo and save-or-die nonsense like I used to have. I just wish 5E had the equivalent of the "Cantrip Mastery" and "Vance's Polysyllabic Invocation" talents from 13th Age. Those really give even low-level Wizards some awesome license to improvise and customize with their magic. The low-level wizard in 5E can feel a little dull if all you're doing is using spells by-the-book.

Marty Lund

 

[Zander]

This is why I'm glad I'm not your DM any more. (Seriously, I want to be your DM again.)

LOL! My current DM has put into place all sorts of limitations on arcane magic way beyond the rules including virtually prohibiting some magic items because I'm playing a wizard. I'm not a munchkin though: my wizard is a dwarf which is sub-optimal.

You should come around on Saturday. You know where we are. It would be wonderful to see you.

It depends on how one interprets the sentence "On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn't ended" combined with the rule "You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration".

Anything that can end concentration (damage, going to zero hit points, or casting another concentration spell) would appear to instantly turn off the bonus. True Strike appears to have explicit verbiage in it to prevent getting advantage on another concentration spell. It seems that it needs to be concurrent (as per your words) according to the True Strike spell.

Yes, one can try to say that the concentration of the second spell does not occur until after the attack roll of the second spell, but nothing in the rules seems to support this type of interpretation.

Strictly speaking, in the RAW, you're right. But I don't think it's in the spirit of the rules to prevent concatenation of True Strike and Witch Bolt.

For the record, I would like to distance myself from insults directed at you or anyone else for interpreting the rules in any particular way.

That's actually pretty clever. I wouldn't allow it in my game because I think that the game designers purposely went out of their way to prevent players from moving their initiative in order to "game the system" like this (there have been threads here about Rogues lowering their initiative so that they can act after the fighter in the first round). And actually, I cannot find a rule that one can purposely miss their check or drop it to one. I think that the game supplies a mechanic for lowering one's initiative. It's called readying an action.

So, I would allow the wizard to roll normally and the familiar to roll normally. If on round one, the wizard beats the familiar's initiative, then he can ready before the familiar on every single round. If the familiar's init beats the wizard's, the wizard's round one ready action occurs during the familiar's turn on round two. The wizard PC just does not get to control who gets to do an action between himself and his familiar. He cannot force a situation where no PC or NPC can possibly act between himself and his familiar without them readying an action. That's gaming the mechanics.

It's true that in the RAW, you can't purposefully fail a check including your dex check for initiative. But it lacks verisimilitude if it's not allowed. If someone is asked to bend the bars of a prison window or jump across a chasm, they shouldn't be forced to do their best. If you don't want to try hard to bend those bars or clear that gap, you shouldn't have to. Similarly, if you don't want to act as quickly as you can, you shouldn't have to. That's not the same thing as readying which is using your reflexes to respond to a specific trigger. It's simply allowing others to act before you when you could have gone first.

If anyone else also wants to go last, either PC or monster, I would table rule that all of the contestants for last place have to make an unmodified d20 roll to determine their order, a kind of reverse initiative.

Note that going last in initiative does have its downsides. I have found myself next to an opponent who has come up to me because I didn't act when I could have. I'm then forced to either cast Shocking Grasp, which was not the spell I had intended to use, with advantage or just make a normal attack with neither advantage nor disadvantage (the advantage being conferred by my owl being negated by the proximity of my opponent). So it's not without its drawbacks.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's true that in the RAW, you can't purposefully fail a check including your dex check for initiative. But it lacks verisimilitude if it's not allowed. If someone is asked to bend the bars of a prison window or jump across a chasm, they shouldn't be forced to do their best. If you don't want to try hard to bend those bars or clear that gap, you shouldn't have to. Similarly, if you don't want to act as quickly as you can, you shouldn't have to. That's not the same thing as readying which is using your reflexes to respond to a specific trigger. It's simply allowing others to act before you when you could have gone first.

Except that initiative is one of the few checks that is only a check because that's the game mechanic.

In other words, wanting to delay in a round is fine. Forcing the order is not. By doing this, the player is forcing a situation where no PC or NPC can act in between his actions and his familiar's actions. But that lacks verisimilitude as well. It's mechanics because the initiative system is supposed to be simultaneous in the game, not parsed out and segregated. The only reason turns are segregated is because of the mechanics of the system. PCs are moving simultaneously, attacking simultaneously, etc. It's just handled as segregated. This means that unlike other checks, the player is allowing the PC to influence the mechanics out of character.

It might seem like the same check as trying to bend bars, but it's not. It just happens to be a check. The game designers could have made it not a check at all and we would still have an initiative order. The main reason they made it a check is because they want it modified by Dex.


Let's put this another way. If the character (not the player) wants to delay and suck, how is it that he can guarantee in character that he goes before any other PC or NPC "at that point in time"? Mechanically, there is an "end of round". In character, there isn't. Characters do not know about end of rounds or end of turns. Players do. So characters should not know how to react slowly so that they go at the end of the first round. That is not in character. It's not a decision a character should be allowed to make.

Just because you found this cool mechanical loophole does not mean that a DM should allow it. Roll the dice like everyone else. IMO. And I would say the same to the player of a rogue who wants to always make sure that he goes immediately after the fighter so that he always has a sneak attack target. The character should not be able to guarantee that. Combat should be chaotic, not precisely ordered and determined by one or more players at the table.


Now, I could see a DM making a house rule for someone who wanted to do this type of thing where the PC who wanted to delay a bit rolls a D12 instead of a D20 (or some other houserule). But again, it should still be random. There should still be the chance that other PCs and NPCs go between the wizard's and familiar's inits (or the rogue's and fighter's init's).

But no, a player cannot say that he can just do this because he wants to do this. When a roll is involved, he rolls just like every other player. If he wants to lower his initiative, I might allow him to not add his Dex mod. But, that's as far as I would probably go as a DM. A player who is hell bent on this type of cheese in order to get advantage on nearly every round doesn't find traction at my table. There is already a mechanic for a character controlled lowering of effective initiative. It's called readying. The player does not get to manufacture a new way.

Note that going last in initiative does have its downsides.

It doesn't matter. Just because it has a downside does not mean that a player should be allowed to create his own houserule.

 

[Zander]

Except that initiative is one of the few checks that is only a check because that's the game mechanic.

Really? Has WotC confirmed that? If that was their intention, I suspect they would have said so. They certainly wouldn't have put Initiative in the Dexterity section on pages 176-7.

In other words, wanting to delay in a round is fine. Forcing the order is not.

As I already said, if a monster or other player wanted to try and squeeze between the wizard and his familiar, I would have them roll off. It's not forced.

By doing this, the player is forcing a situation where no PC or NPC can act in between his actions and his familiar's actions. But that lacks verisimilitude as well. It's mechanics because the initiative system is supposed to be simultaneous in the game, not parsed out and segregated. The only reason turns are segregated is because of the mechanics of the system. PCs are moving simultaneously, attacking simultaneously, etc.

No, it's not supposed to be simultaneous. A round is roughly 6 seconds long per the RAW. I used to do historical European martial arts. Sometimes we had mass combats where everyone lined up on one side of the salle would attack everyone on the other. Some people acted faster than others and, if you wanted to, you could delay a moment to see what was what before piling in. I never tried coordinating with someone else to make it difficult for opponents to go between us, but it certainly would have been possible if we had both paused.

Just because you found this cool mechanical loophole does not mean that a DM should allow it.

True. The DM should allow it because not acting as fast as you can and coordinating with someone doing the same is realistic and because it doesn't unbalance the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

True. The DM should allow it because not acting as fast as you can and coordinating with someone doing the same is realistic and because it doesn't unbalance the game.

It's not about not acting as fast as you can. Actions are simultaneous. If one wants to move slower, for example, move 20 feet instead of 30 that round.

Your concept is coordinating with another PC or the familiar. And that's fine. The game already has a mechanic for that. It is called readying.

Your problem seems to be that you found a way to do something outside of the normal rules (i.e. lowering your initiative, otherwise known as Delaying in earlier editions) and think that because you think it is balanced, a DM should allow it.


As a DM, I think it is very unbalanced. In fact, I almost never give PCs or NPCs advantage (or disadvantage) unless the rules explicitly call it out. Why? Because it's the equivalent of about +4 or +5 to the roll. That's huge. Not only that, but handing out Advantage for things like "I climb above the creature on the ledge and attack it from above" really waters down real game advantage like Inspiration.

So if you were playing a wizard in my game, yup, you can Ready an action (allowed in the rules) to have the Familiar do help (also allowed in the rules). But, you cannot just add a first round Delay houserule to my game to try to get Advantage most rounds. Sorry. That's unbalanced IMO and that's not going to fly. You may think that it is no big deal, but I think it is totally unfair to the other players who do not have a cute little way to get advantage most rounds.

I cannot even comprehend why you think Advantage most rounds for one given class is balanced. It's obviously munchkin territory.

 

[Celtavian]

I still don't understand why you can't Delay resetting your initiative to act at a certain time in the order. I would think that level of coordination is very possible, especially coordinated groups. Football teams do this all the time. Adventuring groups that have been together a long time should be able to coordinate in a similar fashion as though it is second nature.

 

[Celtavian]

Saving every round. Only one concentration spell. Yes, those are reasons I dislike the 5E wizard and in fact, all 5E casters. Buffers, blasters, whatever. They are fairly well handcuffed. I do not know of a single RPG or MMORPG where spell casters are handcuffed this much. They might exist, but I don't know about them or play them. 4E is about the only such system and that one was almost all about one round spells. I thought it meh in 4E. I find it worse in 5E. Now the spells may or may not last more than a round, but you only get one of them. WT?

The game might need another pass to cut Concentration from some spells. But overall I like the concentration mechanic. It allows non-casters to disrupt casters without killing them. I find it a nice narrative device for building tension. I've changed my mind on the Concentration mechanic. I am not finding it as limiting as I did initially.

I think that there is a good case that WotC did not balance out low level wizard spells. They run the gamut from super effective (Sleep or Find Familiar) to fairly crappy/specialized (Witch Bolt or Ray of Sickness).

With D&D being around for 40 years, there is no need for that. All spells should have a decent amount of effectiveness.

C'mon now, man, You and I have been playing this game way too long to make this argument. There are tons of spells in every single edition that are never used due to being vastly inferior options. Even in the few 4E games I played, the rules pushed you towards certain spells like Flaming Sphere because it provided more bang for the buck for the slot rather than an immediate effect that ended quickly. This edition is no different. Half the fun of each new edition is figuring out what spells the game designers made the most powerful option at a given level. It would be nice if every spell was useful, but they aren't. Been that way since back in the red book basic days.

Just so happens it is Find Familiar and Sleep in 5E. Sleep in 3E was pretty useless. I rarely saw anyone take that spell over color spray. Color Spray was the new sleep for 3E due to sleep's casting time and hit dice limitation. Color Spray was useful for all levels. A 1st level spell that could stun creatures for one round with a first level slot could be potent at level 15. Grease was a cornerstone 3E spell as well useful at all levels. Certain spells being vastly superior to others is as common to D&D as hit points.



I don't necessarily disagree with this. But, I think that like with all past splat books, all classes will tend to go a bit nuts. So, I'm kind of glad that WotC is not rushing to put out more PC splat books.[/QUOTE]

 

[KarinsDad]

I still don't understand why you can't Delay resetting your initiative to act at a certain time in the order. I would think that level of coordination is very possible, especially coordinated groups. Football teams do this all the time. Adventuring groups that have been together a long time should be able to coordinate in a similar fashion as though it is second nature.

And for football teams, that coordination often does not work. A defensive line that does a pass rush stunt. Most of the time, the offensive line picks it up.

Getting rid of Delay gets rid of a few D&D minor annoyances, especially minor annoyances of coordination designed to take advantage of the rules (like the wizard who self gains advantage with his familiar without the other side ever getting a chance to disrupt that by killing the familiar immediately after the familiar's turn and before the wizard's turn, or the rogue who more or less guarantee that he will get sneak attack damage cause he makes sure his init is after the first melee PC's init). 5E's lighter combat rules results in less cheese and I consider that a good thing.

 

[KarinsDad]

C'mon now, man, You and I have been playing this game way too long to make this argument. There are tons of spells in every single edition that are never used due to being vastly inferior options.

I view it the exact opposite way. After 4 decades of improving upon the rules, WotC should by now have a ton of examples of too strong and too weak of spells and should not be falling into that rookie trap like they did in many past editions. Haven't they learned spell balance after 4 (or 5 if you count 3.5) editions?