D&D 5E [poll] Wizard Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

Once a year or so, I think it would be interesting to get a pulse on the satisfaction of the various classes. The game's been out for a few years now, and that's plenty of time to get a good experience on how each plays out.

For the purpose of this poll, I am keeping the answers to a minimum intentionally. When you have too many options, it's harder to really evaluate the results. And for the purposes of this, a general feeling is more than adequate.

Long term goal: Have a survey of each class, then compiled results to be easily referenced for future discussions that may want said information.

Previous polls here (voting still open, so #'s may change):

Barbarian: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?571787-poll-Barbarian-Satisfaction-Survey
Bard: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572038-Poll-Bard-Satisfaction-Survey
Cleric: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572311-Poll-Cleric-Satisfaction-Survey
Druid: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572570-poll-Druid-Satisfaction-Survey
Fighter: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572847-Poll-How-Satisfied-Are-You-With-the-Fighter-Class
Monk: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573153-poll-Monk-Satisfaction-Survey
Paladin: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573453-Poll-Paladin-Satisfaction-Survey
Ranger: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573683-Poll-Ranger-Satisfaction-Survey
Rogue: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?574023-Poll-Rogue-Satisfaction-Survey
Sorcerer: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?574273-poll-Sorcerer-Satisfaction-Survey
Warlock: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?574560-poll-Warlock-Satisfaction-Survey

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have to say I'm very satisfied with wizards. Upon review, there were a few schools that I didn't think would be all that good. But when I actually played them, and when friends played them, I was surprised how good they were. No longer are most wizards evokers. Diviners are extremely effective. So are abjurers. And necromancers. I think they did a really good job with them.

 

[TwoSix]

Two major problems with wizard.

1) They're boring.
2) They're overly broad.

Fighter and wizard are the only two classes I voted dissatisfied with, and its for the same reason. For class design, you should have either a few generic classes, or a greater number of specialized ones. 5e went for the latter option, which is fine, but then they left in fighter and wizard.

Ideally, for me, sorcerer and warlock wouldn't have been classes, wizard would have gotten sorcery points, metamagic and invocations as class options. Then choosing a school would give you features, plus more options for invocations and metamagic choices. The OG generic arcane class, with tons of customization potential.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Two major problems with wizard.

1) They're boring.
2) They're overly broad.

Fighter and wizard are the only two classes I voted dissatisfied with, and its for the same reason. For class design, you should have either a few generic classes, or a greater number of specialized ones. 5e went for the latter option, which is fine, but then they left in fighter and wizard.

Ideally, for me, sorcerer and warlock wouldn't have been classes, wizard would have gotten sorcery points, metamagic and invocations as class options. Then choosing a school would give you features, plus more options for invocations and metamagic choices. The OG generic arcane class, with tons of customization potential.

The problem is if you did that it just goes back to past editions where melee classes would feel super useless as the wizard could do everything. 5e has set limitations for magic casters for good reason.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem is if you did that it just goes back to past editions where melee classes would feel super useless as the wizard could do everything. 5e has set limitations for magic casters for good reason.

Nah, I don't feel that's true. The major limitations to 5e casters are the spells themselves, which aren't as strong as their earlier (non-4e) counterparts, and the concentration mechanic taking away the capacity to layer buffs with enough preparation time.

Obviously, I'm not advocating simply giving wizards sorcery points and invocations on top of their entire current suite of features. Their base spellcasting power would need to be scaled back. Less slots, perhaps, with wizardry (nee sorcery) points making up the difference. Or requiring their spell slots to be prepared ahead of time (classic Vancian instead of neo-Vancian).

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I think they're mostly fine. I mainly dislike:

1. Having 8+ subclasses, particularly ones based on schools of magic, no 'generalist' wizard and the Evoker being included in Basic.
2. Having wizards gain learned spells on level up. I favor a world where powerful magic secrets must be found in deep, dangerous dungeons and aren't simple a feature on your career path. If you have to beat the King of Hell in a riddle contest to learn fireball or your sanity to learn Animate Dead by reading the dreaded Necronomicon, you'll cherish them all the more. When I use wizard subclasses any level-up spells must be from their school of magic or first level.
3. In Basic you can ditch the Evoker subclass, use the base class, and still have them be competitive.
4. The Harry Potter rule: An arcane focus is required to cast spells. It makes capturing and imprisoning casters so much neater. Casters without an arcane focus can still cast cantrips, but need to spend spell slots on a 1:1 basis to do so. These do not recharge without a focus.

I find the wizard one of the easiest classes to deal with (i.e. create or restrict options for), mainly because they're built around their spells and there is not much to the class itself. It's still over-built to my taste, but its usable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Two major problems with wizard.

1) They're boring.
.

A class that has a plethora of reality bending ability is boring?

Reminds me of that saying, "There are no boring PCs, there are only boring players."

 

[Yunru]

The Wizard's spell list is still too broad and too powerful. Other than that, I've not really any problems with them.

 

[TwoSix]

A class that has a plethora of reality bending ability is boring?

Reminds me of that saying, "There are no boring PCs, there are only boring players."

They're mechanically boring, outside of a few interesting features. (Divination's Portent, several of the illusion ones, especially the 14th). Any moderately competent D&D player can make an interesting character, even out of something as bland as an OD&D fighter. I don't give artistic credit to a blank canvas because of what might be painted there.

 

[Bitbrain]

Everyone at my table feels that the Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Evoker, Illusionist, and Necromancer sub-classes are awesome, especially the Abjurer and Diviner.
EVERYONE.