D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[raleel]

I ran into a situation this last game where I felt that I wanted more damage, actually, contrary to the normal god-wizard way.

We were down one damage dealer in the party (paladin of vengeance) and I rolled poorly on a couple of ice knives (lore-transformed to fire battle axes) against the frost giants. The giants we were fighting were busting my hypnotic patterns, which was quite frustrating (though reasonable) and they were not sticking super well (60%, instead of my preferred 75%+ stick ). Irritatingly tough with so many hit points. Jedediah the owl familiar was pulling his weight, though, doing fly by help actions and making sure the rogue was always getting in his hit.

I didn't have many good options - right now the best I can think of was to split the giants up and lay in a hypno on singles that are pulled off from the group. Not enough grouping to make flaming sphere really worth it at all. High strength saves makes web useless, high con saves hurts a lot of other things. Our lore bard got in an excellent fog cloud which helped a bunch so I might leverage that in the future, but the concentration slot hampers it, but this or an (not minor) illusion probably is going to be the best choice.

 

[jgsugden]

Treatmonk has not been posting much - none this year (prior to last week), I think.

I like reading these guides to see where I agree and disagree, but I really do not like the format. There is a lot of extraneous discussion for spells that nobody will ever take and the guides do not really guide you through the decision making processes we face as players. They consider elements of the class in isolation instead of placing them in the context of the decision making point when we must consider them. I'd rather see a wizard guide go through and discuss your options as you face them - character creation and then level by level advancement with discussion of how options selected relate to each other rather than placing feats in place, spells in another, etc...

 

[smbakeresq]

I ran into a situation this last game where I felt that I wanted more damage, actually, contrary to the normal god-wizard way.

We were down one damage dealer in the party (paladin of vengeance) and I rolled poorly on a couple of ice knives (lore-transformed to fire battle axes) against the frost giants. The giants we were fighting were busting my hypnotic patterns, which was quite frustrating (though reasonable) and they were not sticking super well (60%, instead of my preferred 75%+ stick ). Irritatingly tough with so many hit points. Jedediah the owl familiar was pulling his weight, though, doing fly by help actions and making sure the rogue was always getting in his hit.

I didn't have many good options - right now the best I can think of was to split the giants up and lay in a hypno on singles that are pulled off from the group. Not enough grouping to make flaming sphere really worth it at all. High strength saves makes web useless, high con saves hurts a lot of other things. Our lore bard got in an excellent fog cloud which helped a bunch so I might leverage that in the future, but the concentration slot hampers it, but this or an (not minor) illusion probably is going to be the best choice.

Interesting posts that is similar to my experience last week playing and DM with kids.

First off, I don't think Lore Wizard plays as OP as it reads. It does expand your spell list since every damaging spell is changeable to get around resistance, that's pretty good. However I do think it is thematic, for example an acid evoker doesn't have much choice spell wise. More importantly being able to get your damage across all the time still doesn't stack up to completely screwing creatures with blind, paralysis, hypnotic patterns, watery spheres, etc. To me it allows you to learn utility spells that help out in a general way, like water breathing for example.

The alchemical stuff reads great too, unless you are like our group and are not guaranteed a short rest or long rest every other encounter. Getting to the BBEG for us means you been ground down to about half your HP and spells, trying to rest in dungeons against intelligent enemies means counter-attacks are coming. Adding damage to spells is great but in general it just brings blasting wizards damage to good level but not great levels, as discussed earlier. In 30 years of adventuring I still haven't seen an encounter start a mile away, when playing the old Archmage I always thought changing spells from range of touch to 30' feet was more important than 30' to one mile.

The other features are good but really its a do over if you choose a bad spell for a situation and an extra spell slot at level 14 in an emergency. The bonus to initiative might be the best overall feature to lock up enemies before they go. The bonus to skills is good but I always pay the 300 xp to start as a Knowledge cleric to get those skills and more and Bless and Guidance and Armor at first level, its cheap.


As far as Fog Cloud my son saved our group and killed my monsters with it. When I think of Fog I think of fog on the ground, when fog is high in the air its a cloud to me. My 11 year old reasoned that Fog Cloud means Fog or Cloud, so when fighting a bunch of giants from SKT he cast it over PC and Giants alike, and just started it 7' off the ground, explaining that the giants heads are in the clouds so it affects them but the PC can still run under the cloud and attack with advantage. I know its my son and I am biased, but it seemed reasonable to me.

I couldn't stop thinking would the giants stoop down to look under the fog cloud? Have you ever been in fog and tried to look under it? Me either.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Treantmonk, can you give your opinion on the following 3 UA Wizards traditions.


Wizard:
Lore
Theurgy
War Magic

To be honest, I don't even read UA anymore. Our group doesn't touch UA with a 10' pole.

In general, I've found UA entries to be poorly balanced, and optimizers like myself best not even consider them.

That said, I like the idea of a Lore wizard. That's a concept I recommend in my guide by dipping a level of knowledge Cleric.

Sorry, not much help with this one.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

It's up to him, not trying to make him do anything he doesn't want to. I just would like to know his surface thoughts.

I've read his Wizard guides since Pathfinder and almost all his thoughts line up with mine on how a Wizard is best played.(I especially love how the guides are written from the perspective of a Wizard as well)

When it comes to Wizards, his words are gold to me(so I can't help but to ask).

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

P.S.

Thank you! I'm always gratified to hear people who've enjoyed what I've had to say or found it helpful.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Treatmonk has not been posting much - none this year (prior to last week), I think.

I like reading these guides to see where I agree and disagree, but I really do not like the format. There is a lot of extraneous discussion for spells that nobody will ever take and the guides do not really guide you through the decision making processes we face as players. They consider elements of the class in isolation instead of placing them in the context of the decision making point when we must consider them. I'd rather see a wizard guide go through and discuss your options as you face them - character creation and then level by level advancement with discussion of how options selected relate to each other rather than placing feats in place, spells in another, etc...

It is interesting you mention this, I was making a Ranger last week and checked the various guides that told me that races with dex bonuses were good, and feats were good, and some spells were good, and I was frusturated and thought that instead of just rating things, it would be a lot more help if the guide actually guided you through character creation and progression in the best way to be effective. It is not lost on me that my guide has the same issue. If time allows over the next few weekends, I may play around with other formats, as I think the standard "guide" format (this is good, this is bad, this is OK) isn't really as helpful as it should be.

 

[jgsugden]

It is interesting you mention this, I was making a Ranger last week and checked the various guides that told me that races with dex bonuses were good, and feats were good, and some spells were good, and I was frusturated and thought that instead of just rating things, it would be a lot more help if the guide actually guided you through character creation and progression in the best way to be effective. It is not lost on me that my guide has the same issue. If time allows over the next few weekends, I may play around with other formats, as I think the standard "guide" format (this is good, this is bad, this is OK) isn't really as helpful as it should be.

It is very helpful. Even when I disagree to a huge disagree with something you say, I find it helpful to read the discussion. I think guides like this one provide a great service - but I do think that having an additional section that walks players through the decision points helps. I'd revise my earlier statement to say that a guide such as this should have a walkthrough section that goes through creation and decision making guidance as the character advances.

One area where this is really important, in my eyes, for a wizard is in building the spellbook. The balance between adding rituals, spells you often prepare, and spells you rarely prepare to your spellbook is key, as is the urgency with which they need to be added and the method of obtaining (free at level, found or bought). Saying a spell is good is fine - but understanding whether it is a spell you want ASAP and thus need to select as soon as you can get it for free if you do not already have it or whether it is one of those good spells you can wait to get is a huge difference.

 

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Hey Trentmonk,

there have been a lot of posts after the last time you visited. I would love to know what you think about my examples for Phantasmal Force:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ds-5e/page40&p=7007704&viewfull=1#post7007704

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Hey Trentmonk,

there have been a lot of posts after the last time you visited. I would love to know what you think about my examples for Phantasmal Force:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ds-5e/page40&p=7007704&viewfull=1#post7007704

Hi SpoCk0nd0pe. You say in your initial post "Seems like no save, just suck and take (not huge amounts but ok-ish) damage for a lot of creatures"

I don't read it that way. To quote the spell:

"On a failed save, you create a phantasmal object, creature or other visible phenomenon of your choice..."

In other words, if the save is successful, nothing happens. Now if the first save fails...

"with an Int (investigation) check gainst your spell DC. If the check succeeds, the target realizes the phantasm is an illusion and the spell ends."

Now I agree with you, that if the first save fails, then the investigation check fails, the target is pretty hooped. However, that requires 2 failed "saves" (one is a save, the other an ability check).

Getting 2 chances to avoid the effects of one spell is not very good IMO. That said, if both checks are failed, I agree that creativiy can really screw the very unlucky target.

Now it is indeed true that both checks are Int checks, so a creature with a low Int is very susceptable, however, that said, imagine a creature with a 10 Int, with no investigation proficency, against a 3rd level caster with a 16 Int. That is a DC of 13 if I'm not mistaken. 2 chances at +0 to defeat DC 13 if we are to crunch the math is 64% in other words, 36% for the spell to stick. If opponent has an 8 Int (-1), that becomes a 58%. If Int is 6 then 51%. In other words, against a very, very low Int creature, it's basically a coin toss for the spell to work at all. That's my concern with the spell. It's not that it's an Int save, it's like an Int save with advantage.

 

[Mistwell]

nevermind