D&D 5E (2024) The Great Wizard Extinction.

[Micah Sweet]

Talking like Doctor Strange is a core wizard ability.

Shame the scientific approach generally has no mechanical effect.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Shame the scientific approach generally has no mechanical effect.

I managed to pull off some technobabble (playing an artificer rather than a wizard though).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I managed to pull off some technobabble (playing an artificer rather than a wizard though).

Cool! How was your technobabble applied mechanically?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cool! How was your technobabble applied mechanically?

I reversed the functioning of the villain’s monster-making machine.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well to be fair, from levels 5,6,7 the 5e fireball is better than the the 3.5 version (3.5 doesn't get better until level 9)....and as you noted earlier we should be careful about including higher level builds in our discussion. But yeah the 5e fireball does more damage in general, and its save scales naturally (3e fireball DC did not change without some add ons).

Now 5e casters have fwer spells (though a lot more flexibility in how they use them). And 5e creatures have more hp. So yes I don't think fireball is great in 5e.

But I don't know if the 5e fireball is actually worse than 3e on paper, its just the hp boost that tended to make it less effective.

A 5d6-7d6 is still more effective than a 5E 8d6 one.

3.5 monsters have around half or a third of the 5.5 ones.

That 5d6 5th level fireball in effect is a 10-15d6 5E one. An orc in 5E making its save survives an average 8d6 fireball.

 

[Mistwell]

Are we talking an armor feat?

If your talking multiclassing, then no....stats have shown multi-classing is pretty rare among most builds...its the thing we internet optimizers like to do, not the common folk.

Right I was talking from an optimization and my own perspective. Like I also said, I don't think most wizard players do it or need to do it.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm very familiar with it.

Then why did you mock it?

Its not free though

How on earth did you get the impression from my post that I thought it was free?

and im not always a fan of being behind when it comes to feat or new level of spell access. This opinion changes if you're starting at higher level. Generally I favor MCing out after level 5 or 6 depending on concept

Man all I did was tell you what I was playing...and you mocked it and pretended I was declaring that was representative, or somehow why wizards or good, or whatever point you were making which had nothing to do with what I said.

You are giving up sonething clerics and druids get for free. Thise classes are also tuned fairly high atm.

Yeah, as someone playing the thing I said I was playing, you knew I was aware of what I was giving up. Because I SAID I WHAT I WAS GIVING UP IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO.

Come on Zard, what the heck man?

I regard the power classes of 5.5 as Fighter, Paladins, Clerics Sorcerer btw.

And I think Sorcerers are as a generalization a tad weaker than Wizards.

And as you highlighted low levels, Barbarians are objectively more powerful than them all at low levels.

Druids, Bards and Warlocks not far behind though. Warlocks great tier 1 comparatively but falls behind slightly tier 2.

MCing opens the door to many variables and you have to rate the build vs class.

I never said, or implied, that multiclassing was required for Wizards to be good. All I did was tell you what I was playing right now, and you weirdly warped that and continue to do so.

And a lot are bd until xyz levels. Eg bad you tube videos claiming 400 damage or whatever and its a level 14 CME build I can do in my sleep. Cheers Colby and Treantmonk lol.

Treantmonk explicitly likes Wizards for control and rituals, not damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then why did you mock it?

How on earth did you get the impression from my post that I thought it was free?

Man all I did was tell you what I was playing...and you mocked it and pretended I was declaring that was representative, or somehow why wizards or good, or whatever point you were making which had nothing to do with what I said.


Yeah, as someone playing the thing I said I was playing, you knew I was aware of what I was giving up. Because I SAID I WHAT I WAS GIVING UP IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO.

Come on Zard, what the heck man?


And I think Sorcerers are as a generalization a tad weaker than Wizards.

And as you highlighted low levels, Barbarians are objectively more powerful than them all at low levels.


I never said, or implied, that multiclassing was required for Wizards to be good. All I did was tell you what I was playing right now, and you weirdly warped that and continue to do so.


Treantmonk explicitly likes Wizards for control and rituals, not damage.

Wasn't intending to mock you but multiclassing changes things a lot. Do you dispute that the charisma based MC characters have more options than the wizard? Theres to many variables as well once MCing enters the mix.



New Paladin and Ranger offers some interesting possibilities though. Great dip levels.

Some other things.
You're aware Treantmonk kinda gets mocked elsewhere along with Colby at d4? I know you like them and reference them a lot.

Chromatic orb huh. Took him long enough. His build sucks as well. My wife's better at building it than he is. We're doing it faster and better lol.

Treantmonk builds also kinda suck. He's decent for guidelines fir say strikers and he's not even that goid at building them.
.

Latest video he's using only 2024 material. He wanted to add hex to his build but wasn't using 2014 material. Much like Treantmonk he doesn't know you can 2024 phb. Yet another bad build. Much like Treantmonk. I mock those guys because theyre bad@game or at least not as good as they think they are.

 

[Stalker0]

I strongly disagree, because the difference between PCs and NPCs is functionally narrative and metagame (as in, outside the confines of the setting), and that has no bearing to me on what abilities should be allowed. Whether or not the creature in question has done what is needed to acquire the ability is all that matters to me, and nothing outside the setting applies to that as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree, because its not just a narrative difference but a mechanical one. I don't need a monster book to justify how it gets the stats that it gets, its job is to provide me creatures with stats that suit a certain challenge.

I don't care why this gladiator guy has an X AC, and a Y hitpoint....I just need to know if that is a challenge for my lvl 8 party. If my party asks, he got some special fighting bonus from Kord when he was 11....whatever.

What I don't want is to go back to 3.5 npc creation where everything had to work just liek the PC math, and so you got this laundry list of abilities and feats that were added to ensure the NPC could actually do its job "per the rules", which creates a bloated unneeded mess.

NPCs don't follow the rules, its as simple as that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree, because its not just a narrative difference but a mechanical one. I don't need a monster book to justify how it gets the stats that it gets, its job is to provide me creatures with stats that suit a certain challenge.

I don't care why this gladiator guy has an X AC, and a Y hitpoint....I just need to know if that is a challenge for my lvl 8 party. If my party asks, he got some special fighting bonus from Kord when he was 11....whatever.

What I don't want is to go back to 3.5 npc creation where everything had to work just liek the PC math, and so you got this laundry list of abilities and feats that were added to ensure the NPC could actually do its job "per the rules", which creates a bloated unneeded mess.

NPCs don't follow the rules, its as simple as that.

Agree to disagree on just about every point you make here.