Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ydars" data-source="post: 6434675" data-attributes="member: 62992">Just read the whole discussion and have to say that I largely agree with KD; low level wizards are very difficult to play at present, and you really have to be on your game. And I say this from the perspective of someone who used to play the type of Wizard in 3.5E, who used Unseen Servant to control patches of metal marbles mixed with caltrops that I would roll under heavily armoured combatants to screw them(still a decent tactic by the way).Others have said that damage is not a Wizard's role; but I would counter that by asking 'why not'?  D&D is, by default, a very combat heavy game; particularly if you play modules from most publishers, and so every class should be able to contribute damage as a default. Yes, control is important and fun, but damage should be the default. Why have WoTC designed a game where a high Dex Wizard is better off shooting a crossbow than using magic for at-will damage? That is simply bad design. I am not advocating that we go back to the bad old days of 3.5E; just would have liked Fire Bolt to have done 1d10+Int mod damage. Obviously adding Int Mod to AoE spells would be overpowered, but not to a single target cantrip.There are obvious builds for most of the other classes (two-weapon fighting, human builds using the variant feat rules for humans and the dual wielder feat) that completely outclass the wizard in terms of damage. My Cleric 1/Fighter 1 is dual wielding two Rapiers for 2d8+6 damage at will! My friend Connor's character is dual wielding two longswords as a Fighter 2 for the same. The fighter could do it at first level; show me how a Wizard can match that! Extra actions and attacks magnify the damage disparity.We both also usually have better chance to hit than a Wizard, as he has to worry about cover and such like for Firebolt much of the time.It no use arguing that 'this is a return to the way it used to be' or 'wizards needed a nerf' because this is a new edition and should seek to make the game as enjoyable for every player as possible. The whole philosophy of the 5E wizard design reeks of niche protection for the other classes; and as usual, they overdone it! The Wizard now lacks an obvious, default niche, just in case he/she steps on someone else's toes. But lets be clear; I LOVE all the mechanical changes to Save or Die, Buffs via concentration etc; it just that all of them collectively, bash the Wizard into just being a bit part player at the very levels (1-6) where most games seem to happen (though maybe 5E will change that?).I also note that the whole concentration mechanic came in very late in the process of building the game; it was not the game as late as the last play-test packet (or did not apply to most of the spells it now applies to) according to one blog I read yesterday. Now I love the way the mechanic solves the buff problem, but I feel that its hasty introduction has meant that the extent to which it nerfs the Wizard has not been fully appreciated or compensated for.The removal of Touch AC has also changed the probability of a spell-caster hitting in a way that has not been discussed here, because although 5E monsters generally have lower ACs, and spell-casters now use their attribute to attack, they are now attacking full AC with their non-AoE will spells and boss monsters seem to often have the higher end ACs with a big miss chance. So the Wizard is basically a 'mook killer' now? How 'fun'!I love Wizards, but won't play one until more spells appear; they are simply outclassed for modules like HotDG or Phandelver, where combat predominates and the out of combat stuff is fairly fluffly and irrelevant (at least with how our DM is handling it).However, out of combat, Wizards they look awesome from the ritual perspective; just as long as the DM is giving out spells as treasure often enough to offset the costs.Having said all of this though, I wonder if, with the Wizard as is, we aren't looking at 'half a class'? By that, I mean that we don't yet know how scribing scrolls works and there are hints from the magic-item rules from the modules, that many wands are effectively eternal wands from 3.5E (i.e. they are 3/day spell forever type things). So maybe Wizards won't come into their own until the DMG is out (or maybe I'm dreaming; the list of fixes I need from the DMG is already huge, though I do love 5E generally) because they are supposed to have a wand and be blasting that way at low levels and using their 1st level slots creatively, as many here have suggested?</blockquote>

Verification