D&D 5E Overrated Wizard Spells

[Immoralkickass]

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.

Why do you keep talking about 'credentials'? Its not like you can have a certified degree in D&D. D&D is not competitive by nature, so it can't be compared to poker or MTG.

You only make yourself look bad by slating Treantmonk. He does not claim to be anything other than simply sharing his opinions. He backs up his ratings by logical reasoning, and that's more than enough. I too don't always agree with him, but some things are obviously going to be debatable more than not, especially those that rely on DM styles and game experience. His opinions do change over time, so its not like he's a stubborn mule.

I could also say that you come across as smug and arrogant by posting your own credentials here. Are you afraid that nobody would take you seriously unless you posted your resume? Unlike you, he puts in effort to guide new players and help the community in general, and to let them know there are other spells besides Fireball.

 

[mortwatcher]

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.

I mean fighters get this as a maneuver 4x per rest (with added d8 bonus to damage if they hit)

and this spell costs you 0 slots and 10g, I would say it's still pretty amazing even if giving advantage only to 1 attack per round

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Well, if we're gonna start going around puffing out chests and acting all superior, I've been playing since 1981, have designed numerous games and adventures, and won best new game of the year once, and I disagree with you. So by your own standard it seems, people should listen to me and not you?

*Note: I don't think my background matters and I'm not supporting a peeing contest, just making a point.

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.

This actually hurts your case more than helps. Why? Because D&D isn't a competitive game. All of your "expertise" you list is with games that are fundamentally different than how D&D is designed or played. I'm a system analyst by day job, and we have a saying, "Garbage in, garbage out". What that means, is if you start with bad data or bad methodology, no matter how good your math is, you're gonna get a bad result. And what you're doing is starting with bad methodology right from the gate. You're making your evaluations from a competitive viewpoint--powergaming. That's not how most people play D&D. So your final opinions are inherently flawed. I was a helicopter crewchief/mechanic when in the army, but that doesn't give me any special expertise on race car mechanics.

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

Well, you do win the irony award at least.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Guidance does not grant a +2.5 on "most things that matter". It's almost exclusively a non-combat spell. Because it takes an action to cast Guidance, and it's a concentration spell, with a 1-minute duration touch-only which ends on use. Those are major restrictions.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great cantrip. But it's not getting you anything close to "bonus to initiative, acrobatics checks to escape grapple (can't cast the cantrip with an action and make the check with an action), ranged attacks, bonus to finesse melee weapons, dexterity saves (which are not ability checks so not impacted by Guidance), the ability to not just wear light armor but wear found or purchased magical light armor, etc..

The Mage Armor takes up that first level spell slot, and must be upcast to last all day, and excludes the use of found magic light armor (which is not an uncommon event) and all those other great benefits of an increased Dex.

I mean, if it were a +2 Dex AND the use of light armor, you'd agree that's better for many casters than Magic Initiate, right? But for an odd Dex score, it's essentially identical in effect to that.

 

[Greenfield]

On offense there's a long running debate: Save or you're hurt v Save or you're screwed.

With damage spells you're trying to match the fighter at what the fighter does best. Yeah AOE spells are great for wowing the multitudes, but even then battlefield control spells are far more effective in most situations.

That said, Banishment is the better spell. If you can divide the opposition or lock some of them out somehow, you've just saved not only yourself, but probably most of the party.

Regarding the first example: Levitating people tend to be targets for any/every person with a ranged attack. So unless you're facing only mindless melee things that can't pick up a rock, it's a fairly bad choice.

As for your gripe about MA: Would you rather have it last an hour, and have to be recast eight times a day? By your logic that would be the better choice. Shield is nice, but you may end up needing to cast it every round, and that's the magical version of bleeding to death.

 

[BigBadDM]

On offense there's a long running debate: Save or you're hurt v Save or you're screwed.

That said, Banishment is the better spell. If you can divide the opposition or lock some of them out somehow, you've just saved not only yourself, but probably most of the party.

Banishment is overrated too. Both Otiluke and Polymorph are better spells at their level. Banishment can only do one thing. Both Otiluke/Polymorph can be cast on friends (or even an object with otiluke) and has more utility outside of combat. People like Banishment because it makes them go POOF and the CHA save (which isn't that special).

Levitating people tend to be targets for any/every person with a ranged attack. So unless you're facing only mindless melee things that can't pick up a rock, it's a fairly bad choice.

Very few monsters have ranged attacks. Unless you are fighting humanoids all the time, Levitate is a great save or die type spell.

 

[ad_hoc]

Well, if we're gonna start going around puffing out chests and acting all superior, I've been playing since 1981, have designed numerous games and adventures, and won best new game of the year once, and I disagree with you. So by your own standard it seems, people should listen to me and not you?

It's not my standard, it's your standard.

That's the point. You came in here trying to win an argument by referencing an 'expert'. You think his opinion is worth more than another's.

That's nonsense.

My opinion isn't worth more than others here and neither is yours.

Your appeal to authority is rude at best.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's not my standard, it's your standard.

That's the point.

That's not what you said earlier. You decided to list how awesome and skilled you were at all these things, and how everyone else is wrong because they won't listen to you, and say the point of all that was:

Point is, I'm very good at games and evaluating them.

So sorry, it appears to be your standard as well. The only difference here, is that Treatmonk has spent his time and effort studying the actual game of D&D, whereas your reasoning for handwaving all that away is because you're super duper awesome at card games and we should listen to you instead of him

Edit* But I did get quite the chuckle at you accusing me of appeal to authority when you were the one to give a huge screed of your awesome resume and why that's why people should listen to you more. So thanks for that at least.

 

[BigBadDM]

That's not what you said earlier. how everyone else is wrong

I haven't read anything that says he things Treantmonk is wrong--that's a lot of inference.
And while he said he is 'good at games on evaluating them'... he then goes on saying others are just as good if not better. You left that part out for some reason?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I haven't read anything that says he things Treantmonk is wrong--that's a lot of inference.
And while he said he is 'good at games on evaluating them'... he then goes on saying others are just as good if not better. You left that part out for some reason?

Not inference, he literally says it here

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.