Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Wizards have always been my favorite class, and I love the 5e wizard. It may seem like wizards were severely weakened since 3e, but you have to look at the big picture. Wizards have also made a lot of gains, such as at-will cantrips (including attack cantrips that actually deal decent damage), "spontaneous casting" of prepared spells, being able to cast rituals out of the spellbook, the ability to cast spells in higher level slots for greater effect, and potent specialty school benefits that don't require you to give up other schools of magic. Wizards may have less raw power now (at least at higher levels), but they have a lot more flexibility. There's been a considerable smoothing out of the power curve. Low level wizards are no longer useless and boring, and high level wizards are no longer god-like. IMO, that's a good thing, as I never enjoyed either extreme.
Directly comparing wizards to their older edition counterparts is also largely irrelevant. What matters isn't how a 5e wizard compares directly to older edition wizards, but how they compare to the threats they'll be facing in the new edition. Many of the greatest buffs that wizards got in this edition were indirect, in the form of monsters that no longer have blanket immunities to virtually every energy type, spell resistance, spell immunity, etc., which were extremely common in older editions, especially at higher levels. Playing a higher level wizard in older editions was a nightmare, since so many things had a litany of immunities that made many types of wizards useless. Now that wizards are no longer god-like at higher levels, the game designers didn't have to compensate with an abundance of high level monsters that render magic almost completely irrelevant, as was the case before. In 5e, you can play an evoker, enchanter or illusionist at higher levels without being rendered totally worthless so much of the time. There are still monsters that have spell immunity (like the annoying rakshasa), but such things are now very rare. Even golems are now affected by most spells.
One also shouldn't forget bounded accuracy. Lower level monsters can remain valid threats at much higher levels than they used to in this edition, and wizards are especially good at wiping several weaker monsters off the map. I think it's also important not to underestimate save-or-suck spells in this edition. Just because wizards can't run roughshod over entire encounters with save-or-suck and battlefield control spells doesn't mean those types of spells suck. Even removing a creature's ability to attack your party for a round or two is a very valuable and powerful contribution. Even if a web or hold person only stops a monster for a round or two, it's still well worth it. A round or two of attacks from a monster can far exceed the healing of a 2nd level cleric spell. By preventing that damage, you're saving the healer's resources and negating a great deal of danger to your party. You can also incidentally deal a lot of additional damage by granting your allies advantage on their attacks.
In short, I think we should stop viewing wizards through the lenses of older editions. What matters is how they perform now, relative to everything else in the new edition. In that respect, I haven't been disappointed.
Directly comparing wizards to their older edition counterparts is also largely irrelevant. What matters isn't how a 5e wizard compares directly to older edition wizards, but how they compare to the threats they'll be facing in the new edition. Many of the greatest buffs that wizards got in this edition were indirect, in the form of monsters that no longer have blanket immunities to virtually every energy type, spell resistance, spell immunity, etc., which were extremely common in older editions, especially at higher levels. Playing a higher level wizard in older editions was a nightmare, since so many things had a litany of immunities that made many types of wizards useless. Now that wizards are no longer god-like at higher levels, the game designers didn't have to compensate with an abundance of high level monsters that render magic almost completely irrelevant, as was the case before. In 5e, you can play an evoker, enchanter or illusionist at higher levels without being rendered totally worthless so much of the time. There are still monsters that have spell immunity (like the annoying rakshasa), but such things are now very rare. Even golems are now affected by most spells.
One also shouldn't forget bounded accuracy. Lower level monsters can remain valid threats at much higher levels than they used to in this edition, and wizards are especially good at wiping several weaker monsters off the map. I think it's also important not to underestimate save-or-suck spells in this edition. Just because wizards can't run roughshod over entire encounters with save-or-suck and battlefield control spells doesn't mean those types of spells suck. Even removing a creature's ability to attack your party for a round or two is a very valuable and powerful contribution. Even if a web or hold person only stops a monster for a round or two, it's still well worth it. A round or two of attacks from a monster can far exceed the healing of a 2nd level cleric spell. By preventing that damage, you're saving the healer's resources and negating a great deal of danger to your party. You can also incidentally deal a lot of additional damage by granting your allies advantage on their attacks.
In short, I think we should stop viewing wizards through the lenses of older editions. What matters is how they perform now, relative to everything else in the new edition. In that respect, I haven't been disappointed.
