Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Should fighters complain because they don't always hit with their attacks?
D&D 5E Sell me on Wizards
- Thread starter raleel
- Start date
Should fighters complain because they don't always hit with their attacks?
UngeheuerLich
Legend
So far I am pretty imressed how useful the evoker´s level 2 ability is. He deals a lot of damage, but only to those he wishes. What a lot of people forget: a wizard with a decent dexterity can put a bow or crossbow to good use. Our wizard is a wood elf doing tons of damage with his dexterity of 16. For the first few levels, it has been doing a good job for him. He could also use two short swords in melee. Mage armor giving 16 AC helps too.
sithramir
First Post
I also feel the disappointment.
It was pointed out that monsters have less resistances but what is forgotten is:
1. Monsters have more HP in this edition on average
2. Monsters more damage in this edition on average
3. Wizards have much less defensive power at higher levels with only one concentration defense now (which is ruined if you want to use a lot of attack spells that also need it)
At higher levels its seeming harsh to manage one spell per level. The whole reason I played wizards was they had lots of defensive spells.
3.x had a 24 hour spell that protected from the first energy attack. Not broken but hugely useful when the fighters just lost HP's, the rogues had evasion, etc.
The offensive spells needed tweaking back then but now there seems to be no true abjurer with layers of spell mantles like in the books.
Spell duels are pretty much one round or 2 round events now.
Its sad but I play bard more now for the HP AC and skills. I just get less pure wizard spells
It was pointed out that monsters have less resistances but what is forgotten is:
1. Monsters have more HP in this edition on average
2. Monsters more damage in this edition on average
3. Wizards have much less defensive power at higher levels with only one concentration defense now (which is ruined if you want to use a lot of attack spells that also need it)
At higher levels its seeming harsh to manage one spell per level. The whole reason I played wizards was they had lots of defensive spells.
3.x had a 24 hour spell that protected from the first energy attack. Not broken but hugely useful when the fighters just lost HP's, the rogues had evasion, etc.
The offensive spells needed tweaking back then but now there seems to be no true abjurer with layers of spell mantles like in the books.
Spell duels are pretty much one round or 2 round events now.
Its sad but I play bard more now for the HP AC and skills. I just get less pure wizard spells
These things are not comparable. Fighter attacks are not expendable resources. Even battle master attacks are often, if not mostly, applied after a hit, and are refreshed more frequently. Web is area of effect and sticks around, even if it doesn't stick someone immediately, providing a handy area for the other party members to put someone into - although without an open fist monk, I think pushing abilities might be limited to 5'
Edit: fighters also have pushing attack, so handy while you are spending concentration to keep up web. Restrained guys are pretty vulnerable, so fighter push, stick, rogue stab seems like a good way to spend a second level slot.
Last edited:
Fighter attacks are not the equivalent of Daily powers. They are the equivalent of At Will powers.
In my experience, Hold Person is really amazing. The key is coordinating the spell with Melee attackers. Cast hold person and laugh all the way to the bank while the monk flurry of blows with autocrits. At our table we changed the name to the Crit the S$&/ spell.
That is an excellent point. Advantage + critting is quite strong. My group will have a half orc barbarian I expect, so critting the Big Bad will be extra potent.
edit: In fact, the Holds are the ONLY paralysis in spells. that's a pretty big tool in your toolkit as a wizard. Granted, bards, sorcs, and warlocks get both as well, but all of them have to spend spells known on that - a pretty big tool, but a pretty big commitment for them. clerics get hold person, but no hold monster - same with druids.
Last edited:
That assumes that one wants to play an Elf wizard. Sure, having a +5 to hit D8+3 ranged weapon at level one, but most wizards are stuck with at best +4 to hit D6+2 ranged weapons (and daggers two weapon). That's typically 30% to 35% less DPR (AC dependent) which means that if the elven wizard takes out a foe in 2 rounds, the non-elf wizard typically takes the same foe out in 3 rounds. Btw, Firebolt at +5 to hit and D10 damage averages more damage than a Dex 14 light crossbow and even the D8 cantrips are almost as good.
Then there's that pesky using up a first level spell slot for Mage Armor.
The loss of multiple encounter protection spells and the introduction of single concentration spells weakens the wizard heavily. In 3E, a wizard with some combination of mage armor, shield, cat's grace, blur, and mirror image up was extremely difficult to hit and the protection could last for multiple encounters.
Now, shield lasts a single round, cat's grace does not exist, and blur / mirror image lasts a minute which typically means that they are single encounter (and blur requires concentration).
For someone who likes playing a defensive utility wizard who is willing to not hide in the back, 5E has stamped out that concept completely. Such a PC doesn't have the resources.
Unless the opponent saves right away. I definitely get it that IF the DM is rolling crappy, these spells can have very nice utility. It's just a bit frustrating when fighting the BBEG and the third level wizard throws out his only second level spell that he has been saving for 5 encounters, just to watch it fizzle. And this, of course, assumes that the BBEG is humanoid. Saving that spell for the BBEG and finding out that it's a monster is a bit disheartening as well.
For many fights in 5E, spells like Hold Person are a waste. It only takes 1 to 3 successful hits to take out the vast majority of foes, at least at lower levels. So casting hold person so that a monk can take a given foe out in 2 critical hits instead of with 2 normal hits if the extra damage of a critical is not enough seems like a waste as well. Action Economy-wise, Hold Person is typically only good if one can use it on a foe that requires 5 or more hits to take out. Anything less than a lieutenant, it's a waste on and even many lieutenants can be quickly taken down without the need for it.
Note: Hold Person can shine at higher levels when cast on multiple foes. The odds of the DM making all of the saves diminishes, but by higher level, spells tends to be better than Hold Person.
Last edited:
Agreed. However, it does point out the value of dwarven wizards. They can get medium armor proficiency out of the gate. Pretty big leg up to not have to cast mage armor.
It also means you should almost definitely take fire bolt right off, or maybe ray of frost. Poison Spray is pretty strong though. Despite being close range, it is a lot of damage, and doesn't have a to hit roll, so no disadvantage for close range attacks.
Cat's grace does exist under Enhance Ability. It's just not as solid anymore. I think your point probably stands fine, though. The concentration hit is very tough on wizards. I hope there are magic items that give you a concentration "slot"
I'm forced to agree thus far. I've not seen how it's going to work very well. I might be wrong, however.
Similar Threads
