D&D 5E (2014) Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[FormerlyHemlock]

I assume this advice only applies once you get the "take 10" ability?

It may just be the way I roll, but scouting out stealthed was fairly hit or miss for my rogue. 20% chance of failure is no big deal on an attack roll, but when it's on a "potentially trigger another combat and get jumped when your party is 2-3 rounds away" it's less good.

Though thankfully Cunning Action means that if I do win initiative I can run away and lead a string of enemies to my party, hopefully. That did work out well at least once

Shadow Monks are also fantastic at stealth and scouting. And the "lead the enemies back to where the party is waiting inside of a Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Fortress" is great if you can make them follow you.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nitpick: there is no such thing as being viewed while in heavy obscurement. If you are heavily obscured, you are completely concealed. Perhaps you are thinking of light obscurement.

Yup. Duh! Fixed that.

 

[Zander]

No, it is not. As long as the player doesn't try to convince the DM to modify the rules so that the wizard can do this every single encounter without NPCs getting ever getting an initiative in between the owl's initiative and the wizard's initiative.

It's not advantage that's the issue, it's the gaming the system that's the issue. It's the stacking of init which in turn allows the player to prevent certain actions in the game from ever happening.

Without stacking the init, the Owl moves up to foe on it's turn and Helps, then:

a) the foe can be killed by someone else (which loses the Ow's action, although the other PC might have needed the Help).
b) the foe might have init before the wizard and kill the owl (or the wizard).
c) the foe might just move to attack someone else.
d) a different foe might do something else to hinder the wizard.
e) without being forced to ready to do this, the wizard then can still move after his attack.
f) without being forced to ready to do this, the wizard can stay behind cover or total cover until it is time to attack.

By automatically preventing these types of events between the owl's init and the wizard's init that can occur during a round, it games the system.

Welcome to this thread. I have been saying that a lot in this thread.

So you agree that wizards are underpowered at low levels but when someone suggests a method of rebalancing the rules that adds verisimilitude, they're "gaming the system"?

Read my signature below:

Just because something is said in a sig, doesn't make it true.

And your sig is false. The fact that a tactic can be undone using a readied action doesn't prove the rules for that tactic are broken. It's more likely that they're broken if readying can't prevent them.

They can, but theoretically (because the hide rules are incomplete), they need total cover to do so (shy of some special racial ability or a DM who allows hiding while being viewed while in heavy obscurement). If rogues can be seen, they cannot hide. Not all situations allow for total cover (or DMs who generously allowing hiding while being viewed). The reason that your "houserule" is broken is because it allows the wizard to set up his little trick every single encounter and worse, every single round within the encounter.

It isn't broken because it has downsides that I have already outlined in this thread but you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Irrelevant. The monk does not do the most damage on a round the Wizard casts a Fireball.

On a round the wizard casts Fireball: correct. But a wizard can't cast Fireball every round and not at all until he reaches 5th level. From then on, if he is facing multiple opponents in each combat, he might do more damage than a monk per fight. But if there are one or two tough opponents per encounter or lots of encounters per day or both, the monk will do more damage overall. And that's when the DM allows dex checks for initiative to fail.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just because something is said in a sig, doesn't make it true.

True, but I found it ironic that the first thing you wrote was "the NPCs can ready an action to stop this".

Ok, for the NPCs to ready to avoid this tactic, not ok for your wizard to ready to use the normal owl Helps wizard tactic. It has to be above and beyond the normal use of init and readying for your PC.

It isn't broken because it has downsides that I have already outlined in this thread but you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

The same as the list of upsides that I just mentioned that you are unwilling to acknowledge (I listed 6 upsides there).

Face it. We disagree on this. I think that advantage is a HUGE thing that shouldn't be handed out willy nilly, just because a player comes up with some clever combo that modifies how init is rolled in the normal rules. You think that it's ok because other PCs do more damage most of the time. Err, what???


This is like spawn camping in an MMO shooter. Some players say "what's the big deal?", most players say "what an axxxxxx!".

 

[Zander]

The same as the list of upsides that I just mentioned that you are unwilling to acknowledge (I listed 6 upsides there).

Sure, there are upsides. Why else would you do it? But the upsides minus the downsides equals a rebalancing of low level wizards.

Face it. We disagree on this. I think that advantage is a HUGE thing that shouldn't be handed out willy nilly, just because a player comes up with some clever combo that modifies how init is rolled in the normal rules. You think that it's ok because other PCs do more damage most of the time. Err, what???

A rule or combination of rules (or the interpretation thereof) is putatively considered broken if as a result a PC or monster is disproportionately more or less deadly than its level or CR would suggest. So if there are classes doing more damage on aggregate than the wizard, it indicates that the rule isn't broken. And if without it, the wizard is doing considerably less damage, it suggests the wizard class is underpowered at low levels - something I think we agree on.

This is like spawn camping in an MMO shooter. Some players say "what's the big deal?", most players say "what an axxxxxx!".

I haven't played a computer/console game in 20 years and have never played an MMO so I can't comment about that specifically.

Back to D&D... I suspect most DMs would agree that low level wizards are underpowered and that giving them advantage on more attack rolls than the RAW allows doesn't make them excessively powerful.

 

[chriton227]

Sure, there are upsides. Why else would you do it? But the upsides minus the downsides equals a rebalancing of low level wizards.
...
Back to D&D... I suspect most DMs would agree that low level wizards are underpowered and that giving them advantage on more attack rolls than the RAW allows doesn't make them excessively powerful.

My issue is that the fix you are proposing doesn't just buff low level wizards to counter their weakness (real or perceived), the fix you propose will buff wizards across all levels, even levels where they are not weak or are even considered quite powerful. Is it worth disrupting the class balance for the mid to high levels in order to address a class balance issue for the low levels, especially given that the XP charts are designed to rush you through those low levels so you can spend a higher proportion of your play time at the mid and high levels?

 

[KarinsDad]

Rogues are so good at Stealth in this game they are doing themselves a disservice not scouting ahead and using Stealth. It's not even much of a contest with stealth any longer. Now that The Sage said cover works versus Blindsight, it's practically impossible to spot a Stealthing rogue.

Impossible? It's actually not that hard.

Turn on the lights. Cut down the shrubs.

Granted, it is a lot tougher with Invisibility, but then again, as a DM, I have no problem with my players using up resources in order to gain intelligence.


I am currently reading "Night of the Hunter". Drizzt went stealth out in front, Bruenor kept Drizzt in sight, Regis hung back with the rest of the party using low light vision and the low light of a covered candle, keeping Bruenor in sight (which doesn't work well with the game mechanics).

I'd actually like to see if my players would go for this. But hanging back close to darkvision range (for the less steathy PCs in the back) means that the darkvision PCs up front might get in a surprise round, but then in round one, the other PCs are moving up and not necessarily getting an attack in. Is giving a surprise round to a few PCs (some of them lightly armored like Rogues) worth losing round one attacks by other PCs? Maybe, maybe not.


But rogues going ahead and scouting seems like it could sometimes be a bit problematic. For one, this is harder to pull off if the Rogue PC does not have darkvision. Also, there could be other PCs with similar abilities (possibly darkvision, stealth, good Dex) and if more than one PC has this covered, it means that either one player gets to try it while the other players who could try it hang back (taking away from their abilities), or multiple PCs go scout (in which case the odds of them being discovered increase).

 

[Zander]

My issue is that the fix you are proposing doesn't just buff low level wizards to counter their weakness (real or perceived), the fix you propose will buff wizards across all levels, even levels where they are not weak or are even considered quite powerful. Is it worth disrupting the class balance for the mid to high levels in order to address a class balance issue for the low levels, especially given that the XP charts are designed to rush you through those low levels so you can spend a higher proportion of your play time at the mid and high levels?

It won't make nearly as much difference at higher levels as it does at lower levels because:

1. At higher levels, monsters will be wise to it and deal with it right away or get their minions to do it. An ogre probably won't know that the wizard with an owl on his shoulder is likely to pause a moment so the two can act together, but a 700-year-old red dragon or centuries old vampire has a good chance of having seen this before and know how to deal with it.
2. Higher level spells are mostly saves, not attack rolls. And the few that are attack rolls such as Mordenkainen's Sword, aren't very powerful.
3. PC attack modifiers increase faster with level (when you include magic item bonuses etc) than the AC of monsters do with CR. So at higher levels, the benefit of advantage is less than it is at low levels.

 

[Celtavian]

Impossible? It's actually not that hard.

Turn on the lights. Cut down the shrubs.

Granted, it is a lot tougher with Invisibility, but then again, as a DM, I have no problem with my players using up resources in order to gain intelligence.


I am currently reading "Night of the Hunter". Drizzt went stealth out in front, Bruenor kept Drizzt in sight, Regis hung back with the rest of the party using low light vision and the low light of a covered candle, keeping Bruenor in sight (which doesn't work well with the game mechanics).

I'd actually like to see if my players would go for this. But hanging back close to darkvision range (for the less steathy PCs in the back) means that the darkvision PCs up front might get in a surprise round, but then in round one, the other PCs are moving up and not necessarily getting an attack in. Is giving a surprise round to a few PCs (some of them lightly armored like Rogues) worth losing round one attacks by other PCs? Maybe, maybe not.


But rogues going ahead and scouting seems like it could sometimes be a bit problematic. For one, this is harder to pull off if the Rogue PC does not have darkvision. Also, there could be other PCs with similar abilities (possibly darkvision, stealth, good Dex) and if more than one PC has this covered, it means that either one player gets to try it while the other players who could try it hang back (taking away from their abilities), or multiple PCs go scout (in which case the odds of them being discovered increase).

I do it all the time. It's so damn fun in this game. Sure, there is the danger of the rare counter-rogue. There should be that danger.

Usually, the rogue as scout has so many advantages it's almost impossible for anything less than another rogue to give them problems. Cunning Action and Dash generally allow the rogue to outrun enemies that spot him to get back to the party. Not having Darkvision would hurt, then again not having Darkvision for almost any class is a weakness that can be exploited.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do it all the time. It's so damn fun in this game. Sure, there is the danger of the rare counter-rogue. There should be that danger.

Usually, the rogue as scout has so many advantages it's almost impossible for anything less than another rogue to give them problems. Cunning Action and Dash generally allow the rogue to outrun enemies that spot him to get back to the party. Not having Darkvision would hurt, then again not having Darkvision for almost any class is a weakness that can be exploited.

We have a PC rogue with stealth/darkvision (18 Dex), a PC paladin with plate and boots of elvenkind and stealth/darkvision, a PC ranger/wizard with stealth/low light (16 Dex), a PC bard with stealth/low light (Bard bonuses to stealth), an NPC ranger with stealth/darkvision (Dex 16 archer), and the NPC druid with darkvision but without stealth (but he can wild shape into a creature that does have stealth).

That only leaves the fighter in plate with stealth and the cleric in plate with darkvision but without stealth (but she has the Alert feat, so she is never surprised).

And most of these PCs have Dex 14 or 16 (one or two have a 12 iirc).

Heck, the whole party might as well group stealth.

After the ambushes in LMoP, the players were all gung ho on high Dex and stealth. Talk about a group that is hard to surprise.


Our group does not have no stinking rogue hogging the limelight by going off and splitting the party, the whole party just stealths when it is appropriate.