D&D 5E Sell me on Wizards

[Kai Wren]

If a creature has a high save, I tend to try and give some insight into that when the PCs target it.

'The nimble goblin dances out of the way of much of your fire and then laughs at you' or similar can go a long way to telling your players 'this ain't your best option' without straight up saying that.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Fighter attacks are not the equivalent of Daily powers. They are the equivalent of At Will powers.

A fighter could use action surge to get extra attack(s) and then miss, wasting that expendable resource. That's not very different from casting hold person and the monster succeeding on its saving throw.

Besides, just because something is an expendable resource doesn't mean that it should never fail. Save-or-suck effects are high risk, high reward by design. The consequences of failing a saving throw are usually much worse than being hit by a weapon attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

A fighter could use action surge to get extra attack(s) and then miss, wasting that expendable resource. That's not very different from casting hold person and the monster succeeding on its saving throw.

Except now you are comparing 5E Encounter abilities with 5E Daily abilities.

Besides, just because something is an expendable resource doesn't mean that it should never fail. Save-or-suck effects are high risk, high reward by design. The consequences of failing a saving throw are usually much worse than being hit by a weapon attack.

Tell that to the thousands of kobolds that have already died in 5E from a single weapon attack.


Actually, I totally get the high risk, high reward aspect of it and the fact that there should always be a chance for the spell to fail.

But, let's take Hold Person as an example. There are 25 humanoid races and 71 humanoid entries (25 of which come from the NPC appendix) in the Monster Manual. There are ~485 total creatures. So less then 15% of all creatures are humanoid. The vast majority of those humanoids (i.e. almost all) have a Wisdom save in the +0 to +2 range.

The odds of the spell working 0 rounds (i.e. not at all), 1 round, and so on when the PC gets the spell at level 3 are as follows:

Exactly X rounds

0	1	2	3	4	5

40.00	24.00	14.40	8.64	5.18	3.11
45.00	24.75	13.61	7.49	4.12	2.26
50.00	25.00	12.50	6.25	3.13	1.56

X or more rounds

0	1	2	3	4	5
				
100.00	60.00	36.00	21.60	12.96	7.78
100.00	55.00	30.25	16.64	9.15	5.03
100.00	50.00	25.00	12.50	6.25	3.13

The odds of it actually working are 50% to 60% of the time for one or more rounds.

The best one can typically hope for is for 2 rounds of it working, but getting 0 rounds is more likely than getting 2 or more rounds. A significant majority of the time (64% to 75%), it will either be 0 rounds, or 1 round.

On top of that, it's not worth casting this on about a third of the humanoid creatures in the monster manual. Stopping a kobold or grimlock or goblin or acolyte with this is not typically worth it unless the PC wants to capture instead of kill. So here we have a spell that affects less than 15% of the creatures in the book and most players would only really want to cast it on less than 10% of the creatures in the book.


So unless a PC caster knew that he was going to encounter a lot of humanoids (like in a town adventure, or one where the PCs are specifically hunting down a tribe of Orcs), why would he prep this spell at level 3 at all?


Now, this all changes at higher levels. As the spell DC goes up and Hold Person can be cast in higher level slots to affect multiple creatures, the utility of Hold Person increases significantly. But at third level when the spell can be first acquired, it's mostly a waste of a 2nd level spell prep. And even at higher level, it's typically a waste of a spell prep unless the player is wanting to cast it out of a higher level slot on multiple foes.


It's not just the high risk high reward of casting a spell, it's also the high risk of the spell not being worthwhile on any given adventure day. And it's also the low reward of taking a single relatively uncommon (i.e. humanoid worth casting it on) foe out for one or two rounds which is what happens most of the time.

It seems like it is a high reward spell, but that's a bit illusory. Do PCs really run into solo Archmage humanoids a lot? Or when encountering humaniods, do they typically run into a group of humanoids where the PC wizard is betting his action for one round to possibly take out a single NPC for 0 (45%), 1 (25%), 2 (14%) or more (16%) rounds with one of his highest level slots?

 

[raleel]

I think that there is no problem with well known and obvious types of things like the mental capabilities of Ogres, I just draw the line at every single creature ever encountered. In order for the wizard to even have a chance of knowing non-obvious weaknesses, there has to be lore out there for him to know.

Wizards are not the D&D equivalents of zoologists and in fact, dangerous creatures would be very difficult to know many details of. There should be inaccurate myths and legends and such. Any given wizard could also be totally mistaken as to what a given creature is. The concept of knowing that this obviously strong creature has a lousy Con just seems metagamey to me.

I prefer a game of mystery where the PCs discover things by doing instead of by knowledge checks. For general info, sure. For specifics like whether the creature has a higher AC or a better Charisma save, not so impressed with that.

well, certainly. you can play however you'd like! I don't mean to imply that you can't at all.

In my view, some of these things should be fairly tried and true. Goblins are easily manipulated, ogres are tough and dumb, undead don't generally have minds affected by illusions, red dragons kinda like the heat.

The fact that flumphs are surprisingly dextrous probably doesn't fall into this realm

Back long ago there used to be a concept of monster rarity. That sort of seems like a good base line for being able to give general information. And of course, the campaign itself, the tastes of the GM, not to mention the tastes of the players. One could relatively easily assign a DC to this.

The idea is to allow the wizard to feel effective and not be hitting his head against a wall if the PLAYER doesn't know much about what they are facing. I personally can rattle off lots and lots of monster stats, but I've been playing since 1978 and like reading this stuff in my spare time. A guy in my group has only been playing for a few years and does it as a social outlet - no time outside of game at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

The idea is to allow the wizard to feel effective and not be hitting his head against a wall if the PLAYER doesn't know much about what they are facing. I personally can rattle off lots and lots of monster stats, but I've been playing since 1978 and like reading this stuff in my spare time. A guy in my group has only been playing for a few years and does it as a social outlet - no time outside of game at all.

But why should the wizard feel effective with knowledge checks and the bard or fighter or rogue not feel effective? Is it because the wizard has more daily abilities (i.e. spells) that seem wasted if used on the wrong foe? Do you only give a dice roll to any players whose PC has the given skill (arcana, nature, religion, etc.) trained? Or do you give it to every player at the table?

If one watches the TV show Grimm, the protagonists typically do not know the different creature types ahead of time. Even though the main protagonist has a boatload of books of various creatures, he does not have them memorized. He tends to look up the creature after encountering it. Once encountered, the creature then tends to be known.

If fighting trolls (and this assumes that the PCs even know that it is a troll), it's sometimes more fun to have the players not know to throw acid or fire on the troll to prevent it from getting up. Sure, 75% of all players know this anyway, but if the DM just describes hulking creatures attacking from the shadows, is it necessarily to give the names of the creatures? Doesn't it make an encounter more memorable when the PCs focus fire on one creature, then the next creature, and then the first creature gets back up? Some DMs introduce this level of mystery by reskinning monsters. Others by being vague with creature names.

Personally as a DM and as a player, I just prefer a bit more mystery. Yes, I too have been playing as long as you and it's more fun to not just be told how to solve a given encounter problem. It's ok to waste a fire spell once in a while on something that is resistant or immune to fire. Now granted, a DM should explain that the creature in front of you has fire for a hair and beard and that should give the player a strong hint that the creature is fire immune, but telling the player that it's an Azer and also immune to poison seems a bit metagamey.

 

[raleel]

But why should the wizard feel effective with knowledge checks and the bard or fighter or rogue not feel effective? Is it because the wizard has more daily abilities (i.e. spells) that seem wasted if used on the wrong foe? Do you only give a dice roll to any players whose PC has the given skill (arcana, nature, religion, etc.) trained? Or do you give it to every player at the table?

Me? I'd probably give it to everyone, and I probably wouldn't even hide it. If someone asked, I'd probably tell them. Then again, I've come off of 13th Age recently where the whole DM secrecy thing is actively discouraged.

and why? Because a large portion of the wizard's abilities are based on singular things he can't see, and he has a choice. Rogues and fighters? not so much. They hit AC almost all the time. They have very few abilities that are going to be substantially hindered. And really, if they did, I'd probably say something about it.

Simply a different style of play is all.

If one watches the TV show Grimm, the protagonists typically do not know the different creature types ahead of time. Even though the main protagonist has a boatload of books of various creatures, he does not have them memorized. He tends to look up the creature after encountering it. Once encountered, the creature then tends to be known.

Right, and I'm not saying that things that are completely new to the CHARACTERS when they meet them shouldn't be like this. But there is a pretty large raft of knowledge in a world already. No one knows that ogres are dumb? that seems rather absurd. No one knowing that flumphs are dextrous? That seems totally reasonable.

I might point out, Investigation is the skill here. It is, quite literally, "Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge". this sort of thing is, quite literally, "discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse."

It's about using your intelligence based character's intelligence for knowledge that you the player don't have. It is not always going to work, but it will sometimes (at least in my games).

If fighting trolls (and this assumes that the PCs even know that it is a troll), it's sometimes more fun to have the players not know to throw acid or fire on the troll to prevent it from getting up.

For you. not necessarily for anyone else. Heck, maybe for LOTS of people, but there are portions where this is not fun, and just frustrating

Sure, 75% of all players know this anyway, but if the DM just describes hulking creatures attacking from the shadows, is it necessarily to give the names of the creatures? Doesn't it make an encounter more memorable when the PCs focus fire on one creature, then the next creature, and then the first creature gets back up? Some DMs introduce this level of mystery by reskinning monsters. Others by being vague with creature names.

certainly. and these are all valid things.

let me give you an example that doesn't involve intelligence - I played a warlord back in 4e with an 8 wisdom. I got a lot of crap from one player (a quite intelligent guy, and one of my best friends, and a long time player). He argued that I shouldn't be doing things that are patently stupid. I'm like why? I've got an 8 wisdom - thinking things through and realizing consequences is not really his strong suit. He's just barely above "moron" on the risk assessment quotient.

Sure, me as an extremely experienced player KNEW that some of these things were likely to get me killed, but I also knew it was possible, and it was driving the other players forward for more risky, but ultimately more rewarding play.

ended up being a really great character, very memorable, and largely because I ignored my own abilities here.

Personally as a DM and as a player, I just prefer a bit more mystery. Yes, I too have been playing as long as you and it's more fun to not just be told how to solve a given encounter problem. It's ok to waste a fire spell once in a while on something that is resistant or immune to fire.

Sure, and I don't mean to imply that there should be no mystery. Even the best scientists run into unexpected things pretty regularly (aka daily, maybe hourly). They simply don't have all the parameters. That's why things like nilbogs exist

More to the point, you, as the DM, can introduce that stuff. Using it on goblins seems like a waste for their base stats - use it instead on that the mystery is in who is controlling them, etc. The DM has all these things to work with. Heck, going and getting information on a newish thing is a great adventure in and of itself.

Now granted, a DM should explain that the creature in front of you has fire for a hair and beard and that should give the player a strong hint that the creature is fire immune, but telling the player that it's an Azer and also immune to poison seems a bit metagamey.

oh yea - without any appropriate knowledge or skill. If I'm playing a 10 int Folk Hero fighter, azer are just not going to be in my realm. However, saying "azers are dwarf-like, tough and hardy, and are native to the elemental plane of fire" that the wizard read in a book might give them the idea that they are resistant to poison and isn't metagamey at all. In fact if they got the Made, not Born section, that would be a good hint that they are actually as much construct as organism. It is simply a matter of degrees, and can help reinforce the wizard as an academic researcher and purveyor of knowledge.

My point with the numbers above isn't that you should give them the numbers (although I personally have little problem with it), but rather picking your spells smartly is going to have a LARGE impact on your effectiveness. The aforementioned ogre has a 6 point shift between Con and Int. That's going from them saving on an 8+ to a 14+ - BIG difference and make the PLAYER feel a bigger impact, and reinforce what a high intelligence means.

 

[raleel]

<snip post with lots of nice spreadsheets for brevity>

It seems like it is a high reward spell, but that's a bit illusory. Do PCs really run into solo Archmage humanoids a lot? Or when encountering humaniods, do they typically run into a group of humanoids where the PC wizard is betting his action for one round to possibly take out a single NPC for 0 (45%), 1 (25%), 2 (14%) or more (16%) rounds with one of his highest level slots?

This is kind of the point in the wizard doing the research. He's not going to be perfect, but +1-3 most of the time is a good edge to pull. "The evil archmage doesn't really like using minions. the townsfolk have always seen him alone" - gear up your single target, action denying, con-targetting spells. "The evil archmage operates through goblin minions and lackeys" - load up on your area of effect int-targetters or sleep.

Smart spell prep goes a long ways. Use the rogue (or heck, you familiar) to scout it out a bit. Know your party and how you can best leverage them. Play like you have a 15-20 int

 

[KarinsDad]

Play like you have a 15-20 int

Sure, but as DM, I'm going to not say "Err, wait a minute. You know that an archmage will be very resistant to Hold Person.". I'll call for Int checks if the party is stuck or knowledge checks if a player asks for one, but one might as well be playing Monopoly if the DM hands out knowledge checks on every group of monsters. A high Int PC does not necessarily equate to a high knowledge or even a fast thinking PC. By the time the scholar gives the other PCs all of the dirt on the monster, the fighter has already killed it and wiped off his blade.

The very fact that the vast majority of monsters have at most a 2 or 3 difference in most of their saves means that slowing up the game in order for the wizard player to shuffle through a bunch of different spells, just to find the right one because the DM indicated that the foe has a high Con (i.e. 14) and a lower Dex (i.e. 10) seems overkill. Just pick one. With bounded accuracy, you'll do ok the vast majority of the time anyway. There are some situations like Ogres with +3 Con and -2 Wis where it matters a lot, but I suspect that extremely obvious things like that tend to be fairly easy for most alert players to figure out anyway.

Big strong types, do not use Con. Fast types, do not use Dex. Masterminds/leaders, do not use Wis.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Except now you are comparing 5E Encounter abilities with 5E Daily abilities.

So what? How many short rests do you expect a party to take every day? Unless the party takes quite a few short rests every day, a wizard is going to have many more daily spells than a fighter has action surges in a day.

Tell that to the thousands of kobolds that have already died in 5E from a single weapon attack.

Obviously, it's not worth using a save-or-suck spell on a pitifully weak creature. On the other hand, it can be devastating to a boss type character that gets shut down for the entire fight or much of it. Even just taking out the boss for a single round, while simultaneously giving all of your allies advantage and automatic crits if they hit it, can turn a difficult fight into a cake walk.

Actually, I totally get the high risk, high reward aspect of it and the fact that there should always be a chance for the spell to fail.

But, let's take Hold Person as an example. There are 25 humanoid races and 71 humanoid entries (25 of which come from the NPC appendix) in the Monster Manual. There are ~485 total creatures. So less then 15% of all creatures are humanoid. The vast majority of those humanoids (i.e. almost all) have a Wisdom save in the +0 to +2 range.

The odds of the spell working 0 rounds (i.e. not at all), 1 round, and so on when the PC gets the spell at level 3 are as follows:

Exactly X rounds

0	1	2	3	4	5

40.00	24.00	14.40	8.64	5.18	3.11
45.00	24.75	13.61	7.49	4.12	2.26
50.00	25.00	12.50	6.25	3.13	1.56

X or more rounds

0	1	2	3	4	5
				
100.00	60.00	36.00	21.60	12.96	7.78
100.00	55.00	30.25	16.64	9.15	5.03
100.00	50.00	25.00	12.50	6.25	3.13

The odds of it actually working are 50% to 60% of the time for one or more rounds.

The best one can typically hope for is for 2 rounds of it working, but getting 0 rounds is more likely than getting 2 or more rounds. A significant majority of the time (64% to 75%), it will either be 0 rounds, or 1 round.

On top of that, it's not worth casting this on about a third of the humanoid creatures in the monster manual. Stopping a kobold or grimlock or goblin or acolyte with this is not typically worth it unless the PC wants to capture instead of kill. So here we have a spell that affects less than 15% of the creatures in the book and most players would only really want to cast it on less than 10% of the creatures in the book.


So unless a PC caster knew that he was going to encounter a lot of humanoids (like in a town adventure, or one where the PCs are specifically hunting down a tribe of Orcs), why would he prep this spell at level 3 at all?


Now, this all changes at higher levels. As the spell DC goes up and Hold Person can be cast in higher level slots to affect multiple creatures, the utility of Hold Person increases significantly. But at third level when the spell can be first acquired, it's mostly a waste of a 2nd level spell prep. And even at higher level, it's typically a waste of a spell prep unless the player is wanting to cast it out of a higher level slot on multiple foes.


It's not just the high risk high reward of casting a spell, it's also the high risk of the spell not being worthwhile on any given adventure day. And it's also the low reward of taking a single relatively uncommon (i.e. humanoid worth casting it on) foe out for one or two rounds which is what happens most of the time.

It seems like it is a high reward spell, but that's a bit illusory. Do PCs really run into solo Archmage humanoids a lot? Or when encountering humaniods, do they typically run into a group of humanoids where the PC wizard is betting his action for one round to possibly take out a single NPC for 0 (45%), 1 (25%), 2 (14%) or more (16%) rounds with one of his highest level slots?

Hold Person gets to be as powerful as it is as a 2nd level spell because it has the humanoids only restriction. At higher levels, there's hold monster. Hold person is just as powerful as hold monster, a 5th level spell, except that it only affects humanoids. It makes up for having all that power at 3 spell levels lower by having a limit on what types of creatures it can affect. Even if you don't end up encountering humanoids as often in your game, there are plenty of other spells at level 2 that will work on any type of creature. Hold person is just one spell out of many. It seems to me that you have unreasonable expectations for what a single level 2 spell should be able to accomplish.

 

[Celtavian]

I've been looking over the 5E wizard. Seems like he grows in power similarly to all versions of the wizard other than basic. He's fairly weak early on. He grows until he is the most able to swing a battle to the advantage of the party.

My biggest concern is the encounters are so weak that a wizard's power is rarely necessary. Monsters don't output that much damage compared to PC hit points (save for a few notable big attacks like breath weapons). The ability to boost damage output in short bursts might not be as necessary as it was in the older editions. Effect spells are not that worthwhile an investment due to the nature of saving throws. Random rolls even for non-proficient creatures will still lead to very short durations on average. The old school methods of dealing with monsters like hold, fear, sleep, or the like won't be as effective in this edition. Haste is still a great buff, but only for melees. At high level a wizard will definitely be a scene stealer when dealing with final BBEGs. He can unload his high level slots to annihilate something. Not sure that will be particularly well received by the rest of the group.

It will definitely be a different experience playing a wizard in 5E. I'm looking forward to giving it a shot. They are definitely better than 4E wizards. I think with proper system mastery, can be a potent force. Maybe not as steady a damage and effect dealer as other classes, but definitely a contributor in major fights capable of ending them quickly and decisively.