D&D 5E Overrated Wizard Spells

[ad_hoc]

Putting a lot of time and effort studying and working with something literally does make you an expert.

If you are actually studying and working correctly.

There are countless numbers of people out there who spend countless hours working on all kinds of stuff who have no idea what they're talking about.

This includes games. I probably have a better background when it comes to D&D and gaming in general than he does. I'd love to see his background.

I have played the game since the mid-90s so I definitely have a lot of hours involved in learning and studying the game.

I have been a semi-professional poker player for a number of years. I'm one of the best Agricola players in the world (competing with the best online and winning the only NA championship I was able to attend). I am known as one of the best board game players in the large city I live in. When I lived in a small city as a teenager I dominated the M:tG scene in the surrounding area. Unfortunately I was only able to attend one PTQ but I did get top 8. I have played in and won numerous Warhammer tournaments.

That's my resume. Point is, I'm very good at games and evaluating them. I'm not the only one. There are of course people much better than me playing highly competitive games such as poker and M:tG (many top M:tG players actually quit to play poker because money).

I know full well that people overestimate their skill and knowledge in games. I can't tell you how often I have run into people playing poker or Agricola who are sure of themselves that they know best and yet lose all the time. No matter how much I try to teach them how to win they are sure I am wrong. This happens in competitive games where it is easy to evaluate who has better strategy by seeing who wins. These people are even able to convince others with their arguments despite the evidence against them.

So I am not surprised in the least that Treantmonk is able to convince people just by having a platform.

I don't spend time making videos about my opinions on D&D. That doesn't mean I know less than Treantmonk does.

Again, making videos and blog posts doesn't make you an expert. As far as I can tell he has opinions at the same level as anyone else who spends a lot of time thinking about the game away from the game AND which are shaped by the style of play that he has at his table. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here and saying that some of his outlandish opinions are merely because of the way he plays the game. I'm not saying that he is dumb or below average.

H does come across as smug and arrogant to me. He acts as though he is an expert but he just isn't.

 

[Yardiff]

3. In combat, it can take the help action, meaning you and others get advantage against that target. If the familiar gets swatted, well that's an attack that would have otherwise gone against a PC -so even there it served a great purpose (and it can be re summoned with an hours time and 10gp)

The Familiar can help ONE person and give advantage for the first attack they make. While not bad isn't as good as you posted. Though the taking an attack for you is nice.

 

[FrogReaver]

So going back to the shield vs mage armor question.

I'm going to assume shield only provides an estimated +3 AC bonus because you will only use it on attacks that are sure things and oftentimes you just don't know the attack of the creature your fighting to enough certainity to take advantage of it all the way to the +5 range.

Even in this situation:

If you face 3 attacks total on different rounds of the adventuring day then mage armor only has about 6.075% higher chance than shield to deflect more attacks. However, you have a 61.4% chance of not needing benefiting from shield or mage armor. That's an extra spell slot 61,4% of the time, except that you would have needed to already cast mage armor but you didn't already have to cast shield.

I'm coming around to shield being generally better. It isn't strictly always better but I think a strong case can be made that it's generally better.

 

[BigBadDM]

However, you have a 61.4% chance of not needing benefiting from shield or mage armor.

I agree with your statement overall, I pulled this piece out as it is common for the people out there to confuse 'need' with desire (not saying you). It's okay for a wizard to get hit. Many tables I have played Wizards often have the same HP as Rogues as the latter has other abilities to increase besides CON. Wizards are no longer hamstrung to the d4.

If you take in account that it is okay to get hit (on occasion) that 61.4% number you have goes even higher.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with your statement overall, I pulled this piece out as it is common for the people out there to confuse 'need' with desire (not saying you). It's okay for a wizard to get hit. Many tables I have played Wizards often have the same HP as Rogues as the latter has other abilities to increase besides CON. Wizards are no longer hamstrung to the d4.

If you take in account that it is okay to get hit (on occasion) that 61.4% number you have goes even higher.

It can't unless you forego shield the first time you are hit such that shield would negate the hit.

But if you are forgoing shield in that situation then the % of times that mage armor protects you more than shield shoots way higher as well.

At this point mage armor protects you more than shield 38.575% of the time

 

[BigBadDM]

But if you are forgoing shield in that situation then the % of times that mage armor protects you more than shield shoots way higher as well.

At this point mage armor protects you more than shield 38.575% of the time

I'm agreeing with you, they both shoot up. Thus now, "not needing an extra spell slot 61,4% of the time" goes up also. Thus if you are going to allow yourself to be hit on occasion then you don't 'actually' need those spells as much. Therefore...

 

[BigBadDM]

Perhaps a better explanation (or knowing me I'll add more confusion).

The spells are really for two different concepts.
Shield is to prevent death
Mage Armor to prevent being hit.

In your scenario of getting attack 3 times a day, if I have shield I don't care if I get hit as long as it doesn't kill me. If I think it is going to kill me than I use Shield. So a Shield user while getting attacked 3 times a day really only cares about the ONE attack. So really they are just preventing one attack (in the case of this scenario).

A person in Mage Armor doesn't want to be hit--that's why it lasts eight hours. If a person with Mage Armor gets attacked 3 times they are hoping they don't get hit any of the 3 times. That's why they cast the spell in the first place.

It's a different mentality. A shield only user's primary concern is preventing the hit that kills. I mean sure, I don't want to get hit. But I didn't pick up shield in an attempt to prevent every attack against me. That's Mage Armor.

 

[Mistwell]

Opportunity cost. At best it's + 3 ac for a precious feat vs a single spell when you get multiple ones and can recall 3 of then at level 5.

Worst case scenario just suck up a meh ac to level 4 or so.

+3 AC, +1 Initiative, +1 Dexterity saves, +1 Acrobatics checks (like to escape a grapple), +1 on ranged attacks, ability to wear magical armor. That's not a bad feat.

 

[Zardnaar]

+3 AC, +1 Initiative, +1 Dexterity saves, +1 Acrobatics checks (like to escape a grapple), +1 on ranged attacks, ability to wear magical armor. That's not a bad feat.

Opportunity cost.

Take magic initiate, pick guidance, some other cantrip and a cleric or druid 1st level spell.

+2.5 on most things that matter, whatever other spells you did pick, and get plus 3AC via mage armor.

Even better feat.

Or take warcaster/resilient con, and suck up a meh AC until level 4 or so which won't take long.

Guidance spam ftw.

 

[BigBadDM]

Opportunity cost.

Take magic initiate, pick guidance, some other cantrip and a cleric or druid 1st level spell.
+2.5 on most things that matter, whatever other spells you did pick, and get plus 3AC via mage armor.
Even better feat.
Or take warcaster/resilient con, and suck up a meh AC until level 4 or so which won't take long.

I think the point is a +1 Dex feat, those you listed don't round out Dex. There are still other Dex feats worth considering though... personally I go the meh AC route.