D&D 5E What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)

[Vaalingrade]

By the way, I have been playing D&D since 1980, which beats your 20 years by more than double ..... not that it matters to this discussion.

Or ever!

Yet shouting others down is exactly what those who claim there is a problem with Wizards are trying to do. I readily admit that Wizards are a problem at some tables (which I believe are a minority), based on the testimony on this thread and forum.

This entire thread has been people explaining the myriad problems and being told 'lol, no' by wizard fans.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I stand by what I said - I do not believe Wizards are a problem on the majority of tables and there is no objective evidence to refute that opinion. There are lots of anecdotes, but that is all.

Is it anecdotal to say that Wizards have both more ways to, and much more impactful ways of, do things in general?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I do not believe the people posting on this forum are a representative sample of all the people playing D&D and I do not believe their reported experiences are congruent with the majority of people playing D&D.

I stand by what I said - I do not believe Wizards are a problem on the majority of tables and there is no objective evidence to refute that opinion. There are lots of anecdotes, but that is all.

By the way, I have been playing D&D since 1980, which beats your 20 years by more than double ..... not that it matters to this discussion.



Yet shouting others down is exactly what those who claim there is a problem with Wizards are trying to do. I readily admit that Wizards are a problem at some tables (which I believe are a minority), based on the testimony on this thread and forum.

However, there are other people on this forum that use superlatives like "this is why Wizards dominate every encounter" and "Players can't have fun with them in the party".

Both of these statements are objectively false, they are not a matter of opinion, yet those that say them get upvoted as if they were true statements that were somehow relevant to this discussion. This represents the epitome of shouting others down and trying to use the popularity of an argument, and a factually false premise, instead of using reason and the underlying logic of the argument.

Finally, I will note that homebrew and choosing/limited magic items are easy available avenues to nerf a Wizard to meet your needs if this really is a problem at your table, and these are both generally easier to do mechanically than it would be to go the other way and add back in mechanics for things that are removed.

I concur.

While I started the thread, I recognize the issue for myself is I prefer low-magic games, and too many spells, too wide a variety, constant cantrips, etc. is directly opposed to the style of game I like. So, in many ways ALL full-casters are an issue, but Wizards just happen to be the worst offenders in that way.

Wizard (or any caster really) do not dominate every encounter, trivialize every challenge, or prevent other players from having a lot of fun when they are in the party. Now, they can certainly do A LOT and as nearly always the DM, the default magic level of 5E does make challenges which would be difficult for martials much easier for wizards.

For example, an exploration challenge of a chasm. Martials would either have to take time (and risks) climbing down, crossing, and climbing back up. A caster with dimension door might be able to reach the other side with a single spell.

Higher level spells can change the entire swing of an encounter in ways martials simply can't match. Limited spell slots is a poor balance point for such power, however few games ever reach this point, so I can't say really how much of an issue it is. For me, the simple fact it is possible, it a problem.

My solution (as new home-brew) is to slow down the spell progression of casters so full casters cap out at 5th level spells and half-casters at 3rd level spells. Cantrips function on a recharge, so aren't at-will. I've also revamped the spell lists so wizards have fewer spells. There are some other changes to make it more gritty, but those changes make it low-magic for me.

Is it anecdotal to say that Wizards have both more ways to, and much more impactful ways of, do things in general?

More ways? No, it isn't anecdotal. It is right there in the size of their spell list---but it also depends on what they are trying to do.

More impactful ways? Entirely depends on what they are trying to do.

Even if you ask: more things they can do? Now it depends on what spells they have access to (and much of that is DM fiat).

IME, if you are happy with the default "magic-level" in 5E, there really isn't much of a problem with Wizards until you reach tiers 3 and 4. By that point, they have both large enough variety of spells in their spellbooks to be generally well-prepared for most encounters and challenges while also having sufficient spells slots to cast the necessary spells when needed.

 

[Minigiant]

I tend to find Sorcerers and Warlocks the best balanced of the fullcasters. They clearly play like fullcasters, but the holes in their list means they tend to work best in a team.

One thing I liked about 4e was tht it put making classes a team player first and foremost after developing flavor. Sorcerer and Warlock keep this. Wizards didn't due to fan backlash. The hole helped enhanced flavor and allowed classes to go harder in their specialties.

The Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard were all arcane. However since the Wizard was the only one who understood and used the high end of arcane formula, only Wizards could manipulate arcane magic into shapes to control foes and be controllers. However since they were purely arcane and lacked an extra battery, their damage was lower and healing nonexistence. Sorcerer and Warlocks had additional batteries in the origin and patron to pump out power and be strikers/damagedealers. However that battery limited their access to control. Artificers and Bards didn't work purely with arcana so they had access to heals and buffs to be leaders/healer/buffers.

 

[bloodtide]

Uh, that isn't my doing. The game gives spells to spellcasters to create light. So if I were to use an area of magical darkness, what's the solution? Light spells. What's the non magical solution? Oh right, there isn't one, beyond poking and prodding things with 10' poles and tying everyone together with ropes and hoping there's no monster lurking in there.

Right, by the game rules Wizard superior, all other classes suck. My point is the game is wrong too. Wizards can easy button past magical darkness, so it's right there to be used. And not only do the modern rules not have lots of things the wizard can not easy button, but it never says anything like "create your own stuff".

And your 5 is ridiculous. Grod is saying that you don't solve a problem by making it a nuisance. This has nothing to do with whether or not a player accepts that they might encounter difficulty. This has everything to do with the idea that we should somehow just give magic the ability to outright fail because we don't like it.

The solution is to rework the mechanics so that they are balanced in the first place, not to make people regret their choice of being a Wizard.

Yea, and the Grod thing is false and wrong in many ways. Though sure making something a "nuisance" is wrong as the real answer is to crank it up to 11. Oh did the wizards spell get absorbed by the monster to make it more powerful...well, darn, just sucks to be a wizard, eh.

You and 'grod' just dive right for the negative: do things MY WAY or it's automatically wrong. You know, like having mature adult players that can accept that the wizard has to share the spotlight and can't do everything AND that will be part of the scaled game world. The group has to fight a monster in an anti magic cave....the wizard player does NOT break down and cry, regretting he picked a wizard character...they just accept that this fight they won't "do much", if they feel they "can't" do anything other then magic.

I

For example, an exploration challenge of a chasm. Martials would either have to take time (and risks) climbing down, crossing, and climbing back up. A caster with dimension door might be able to reach the other side with a single spell.

My response here is to scale up the game. Note the problem here: why are both the 2nd level group and the 8th level group exploring the same type of boring mundane chasm? 5E does make a point for character tiers, but makes a poor telling of explaining it, even more so for DMs. Why would "heroes of the Realm" be doing something so mundane as "just explore that chasm". Heroes of the Realm should be exploring that fifth dimensional void space chasm that opened right above the kings castle. And oh...can you just easy peeasy 'pop' to the other side of a fifth dimensional void space chasm....hahahahahah..nope

Higher level spells can change the entire swing of an encounter in ways martials simply can't match. Limited spell slots is a poor balance point for such power, however few games ever reach this point, so I can't say really how much of an issue it is. For me, the simple fact it is possible, it a problem.

The simple thing is just scale things up. At 18th it's a Time Chasm, for example.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My response here is to scale up the game. Note the problem here: why are both the 2nd level group and the 8th level group exploring the same type of boring mundane chasm? 5E does make a point for character tiers, but makes a poor telling of explaining it, even more so for DMs. Why would "heroes of the Realm" be doing something so mundane as "just explore that chasm". Heroes of the Realm should be exploring that fifth dimensional void space chasm that opened right above the kings castle. And oh...can you just easy peeasy 'pop' to the other side of a fifth dimensional void space chasm....hahahahahah..nope

The simple thing is just scale things up. At 18th it's a Time Chasm, for example.

The 8th-level group has to get by the chasm to their destination (not really "just explore that chasm", although I see why you might have thought that given me calling it an exploration challenge), the same as a 2nd-level group.

If you had read my other posts you would understand this isn't a solution for me, as I prefer low-magic setting/game. The type of suggestions you're offer don't appeal to me, they are more "far-fetched" and outlandish. I know some groups prefer that, it just isn't for me. My preference is more LOTR, where the party has to decide to scale a mountain or go into the mines, both potential exploration challenges. Here the Wizard isn't just teleporting everyone to Mordor.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem with scaling the challenges up is that you then have to make sure all classes have the ability to deal with these upscaled challenges. Because the game doesn't assume you have a member of any particular class, you have to ask yourself how a Barbarian navigates a time chasm. A Rogue? A Warlock?

Because each class has different tools to work with. For a very very long time now, D&D has been built to lean on the spellcasting classes. "If challenge X, then spell Y".

But if you read the player's handbook, nowhere are the players told "uh, hey bud, you better have a Cleric or a Wizard", nor "at level C, you better have spell D". And of all the magic classes only a few have the ability to change out their spell roster from day to day to deal with ever changing challenges- and a lot of people resent the Wizard for having this ability (just in this thread, there are many posts about cracking down on the Wizard's ability to acquire more spells).

Because this is the flipside of the issue, the reason the Wizard is problematic is because the game has been designed with challenges that, by default, require magic to solve. I've encountered many DM's who say that spellcasters are rare in their setting, and that finding an NPC spellcaster would be difficult (though amusingly, all intelligent monsters know what a spell is). But when a character gets cursed or turned to stone, they either have to go out of their way to create workarounds, or provide a spellcasting NPC, or hand the player a new character sheet.

When I play a Wizard, I spend a lot of my time and effort acquiring spells to handle different situations, not because I'm trying to become overpowered, but because I know, when a situation comes up that the rest of the party can't handle, they're going to look to me for answers. And way more often than not, those answers exist, and they are on my spell list.

Rather than build the game around everyone having equal access to these answers, it's designers have continued to lean on spells. Now granted, in 3e and 4e, acquiring scrolls, consumables, and other magic items to supply these spells was a thing.

But not in 5e. With magic items becoming "optional", and even (Keoghtom's) Restorative Ointment being Uncommon, players have to rely on spells (or DM fiat) more than ever before.

So unless you run very different games for an all-mundane party than a fully-magic party, and tailor the challenges based on their composition, you will inevitably find one group running into a problem the other wouldn't have.

So the problem with Wizards (and by extension, any class that can learn spells of all levels and change them around from day to day), is that the game is built to eventually require them by default, but it never says that is the case.

The DM is never instructed "oh by the way, when you have casters of level T, they can now solve type U challenges". You have to learn that the hard way, by either studying the spell lists in detail, or being very surprised at the table.

And sometimes other players are ok with the Cleric or the Wizard being the "answer man" to solve all their woes. But at other times, they can feel resentful, and rightfully so.

At 11th level, a Fighter gets another attack per round. At 11th level, a Cleric or Druid can give the entire party immunity to poison and the frightened condition, advantage on all Wisdom saves, and increase their maximum hit point total by 2d10, all for 24 hours, on top of curing them of all poisons and diseases.

Maybe you feel those benefits are equal to one another, after all, the Fighter can make a lot more attacks over the course of the adventuring day. Myself? I'm not so sure.

 

[bloodtide]

The 8th-level group has to get by the chasm to their destination (not really "just explore that chasm", although I see why you might have thought that given me calling it an exploration challenge), the same as a 2nd-level group.

Note this is the exact problem. Tier two characters in a Tier one environment. The Heroes of the Realm should not be doing such small mundane things.

Really a lot of this problem is on the DM. The PCs are Super Heroes and the DM says here is a super easy cake walk adventure for some characters like the wizard. Then the DM says "wizards must be the problem".

If you had read my other posts you would understand this isn't a solution for me, as I prefer low-magic setting/game. The type of suggestions you're offer don't appeal to me, they are more "far-fetched" and outlandish. I know some groups prefer that, it just isn't for me. My preference is more LOTR, where the party has to decide to scale a mountain or go into the mines, both potential exploration challenges. Here the Wizard isn't just teleporting everyone to Mordor.

The flaw is D&D is not designed for Low Magic. IF you wanted to have a Low Magic world, the FIRST thing you would need to start with nearly ALL the player character abilities, but mostly magic ones and spells.

You might find scaling up the game works well for you too. I like high magic, but you can do it with low magic. You would need to jump through a lot of hoops to explain why mundane smoke, dirt or mud would ''tone down" the wizard....but you could do it.

If you want a "LotR" games, you need to eliminate almost ALL the Player Characters abilities. No one mortal in LotR has any "special powers''.

But then even LotR is broken. Remember when "Strider" drove away the attacking Witch King with a burning stick...er, how did that work? Oh and why did not the Fellowship just fly to Mt Doom on them giant eagles? Lots of things are just "not done" so the story goes on.

 

[ECMO3]

Or ever!

Yet you felt the need to post that you had 20 years experience playing D&D?

This entire thread has been people explaining the myriad problems and being told 'lol, no' by wizard fans.

I think you need to go back and read this "entire" thread. As a simple example; your last post that I replied to and the post I am replying to now do not do this.

Again this is objectively and undeniably a false statement and ironically your very own post is one of the many examples that make it objectively untrue.

 

[ECMO3]

Is it anecdotal to say that Wizards have both more ways to, and much more impactful ways of, do things in general?

No, but it is anecdotal to say it is a problem and that it causes the game to be less fun.

Never once on this thread, nor any other, have I claimed that Wizards are not more powerful than other classes in 5E. What I have claimed, and what is verifyably true, is 1) this power disparity is not a problem at all tables and 2) I further believe it is not a problem at most tables.

Those two statements (1 & 2) are objectively true, yet when I post them I am accused of "shouting others down"

 

[DND_Reborn]

Note this is the exact problem. Tier two characters in a Tier one environment. The Heroes of the Realm should not be doing such small mundane things.

It isn't a problem at all, unless it is in your view point?

"Heroes of the Realm" might have a 300' wide chasm to traverse in order to head of an advance party of an army that threatens a city or even a kingdom. Time is of the essence and they are 7th level. Hours matter, if not minutes. So, will climbing down, crossing, and climbing up, which wastes such valuable time be done? Not by the Wizard who casts dimension door, leaving most of the party behind. The fighter, rogue, etc. don't have the time to go around the chasm, which could take most of a day, so they must risk a fast and perilous climb as the chasm is 200 feet deep or more, hoping they can make it in time.

That is how tier 2 characters might have to deal with a "tier one environment" --- as you call it.

Really a lot of this problem is on the DM. The PCs are Super Heroes and the DM says here is a super easy cake walk adventure for some characters like the wizard. Then the DM says "wizards must be the problem".

LOL they aren't "Super Heroes" until tier 4.

But yes, magic (not solely wizards) is a problem when you have martials classes, which 5E has designed to be fairly mundane in many ways, who have to face a "mundane" challenge in a scenario where it becomes all but impossible for them--but not for the caster/wizard.

So, blaming the DM (as you seem to be doing) is not the right approach. Balancing the game in more meaningful ways is better IMNSHO. You can either "magic-up" martials to the point they can do things akin to magic, or nerf magic to the point that it isn't a viable "be-all-end-all" for challenges.

The flaw is D&D is not designed for Low Magic. IF you wanted to have a Low Magic world, the FIRST thing you would need to start with nearly ALL the player character abilities, but mostly magic ones and spells.

True, it is design for "medium" magic, but not across the board. It is low magic in tier 1, medium magic in tier 2, high magic in tier 3, and god/super-hero magic in tier 4. Meanwhile, non-casters basically drop off at tier 2 and flatline for the most part. Their power-levels do not advance at anywhere near the same rate as casters overall due to the magic casters have.

You might find scaling up the game works well for you too. I like high magic, but you can do it with low magic. You would need to jump through a lot of hoops to explain why mundane smoke, dirt or mud would ''tone down" the wizard....but you could do it.

My preference (as stated before) is too scale down magic to the level where at worst medium magic happens. This allows martials in tier 2 to remain equal, and both types to advance in power more at a rate to my liking. Why do you think most games stop at 10th level or around there? Sure, interest wains, but many DMs IME don't want super-ultra-uber-fantastic-adventures with PCs who can literally alter reality. YMMV, of course...

So, easy solution: stop class advancement around 10th level. Allow PCs to gain feats or other perks as they continue to adventure, but nothing to the point of what I call "high magic" (6th+ level spells).

Slightly more complex solution: stop class advancement around 15th (so PCs can still handle threats like beholders, liches, and perhaps even an ancient dragon with proper numbers/support), but slow down spells so they hit 5th level spells around 12-13 level.

If you want a "LotR" games, you need to eliminate almost ALL the Player Characters abilities. No one mortal in LotR has any "special powers''.

Yeah, I completely disagree with that, but it isn't worth arguing about. You do you.

But then even LotR is broken. Remember when "Strider" drove away the attacking Witch King with a burning stick...er, how did that work?

As I am not Tolkien or Jackson, I couldn't tell you. Perhaps Strider has undead as a favored enemy and knows the Ringwraiths can be repelled by courage, shown when he boldly advances on them, swinging the fire simply so he can see them more clearly?

Oh and why did not the Fellowship just fly to Mt Doom on them giant eagles? Lots of things are just "not done" so the story goes on.

Sauron might have seen them coming and prepared for them? Remember they were trying to be secretive about their mission??? Flying over lands for leagues and leagues might just give them away.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

No, but it is anecdotal to say it is a problem and that it causes the game to be less fun.

You've never been a martial who was made useless by a Wizard casting a single spell, then.

 

[ECMO3]

You've never been a martial who was made useless by a Wizard casting a single spell, then.

NEVER, EVER in 5E have I had this happen and not been happy about it. And I have played a bunch of martials and a bunch of Wizards in 5E at a bunch of different tables with around 20 different DMs, in addition to DMing myself, and I have never seen it.

I will go even further - in every case I have seen to date, the players are ecstatic when the wizard, or for that matter any PC, makes an encounter trivial. The DM is not always happy about it, but IME to date the players ALWAYS have been happy about it.

Now that is my experience and it includes over 1000 gaming sessions with 5E, but based on posts here, I know that others have had other experiences.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

NEVER, EVER in 5E. And I have played a bunch of martials and a bunch of Wizards in 5E at a bunch of different tables with over 20 different DMs, in addition to DMing myself. And I have never seen it.

Cool.

That's about as anecdotal as it gets, though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think you need to go back and read this "entire" thread. As a simple example; your last post that I replied to and the post I am replying to now do not do this.

Again this is objectively and undeniably a false statement and ironically your very own post is one of the many examples that make it objectively untrue.

So in other words...

'lol no'.

Okay then. We're done.

 

[ECMO3]

So in other words...

'lol no'.

Okay then. We're done

No not "lol no" but rather, you are just factually wrong.

 

[Gubber Bittencourt]

this enters the list of complaints that only exist on the Internet.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN A TABLE THAT PREFERS TO HAVE A SORCERER THAN A WIZARD.

That said, it is necessary to limit some spells. (fireball is not one of them) wall of force, Banishment. are examples of anti confrontation spells that break a climax more than they build.

 

[Gubber Bittencourt]

Cool.

That's about as anecdotal as it gets, though.

Any opinion here is anecdote.

or are you reporting that someone actually did scientific research on the subject?

 

[Azuresun]

Pretty much, yes. 3.5's Tome of Battle, and all of 4e, was designed to make "non-magical" classes ("Martial" has become a loaded term, IMO) more balanced against their magic-using allies. But a very vocal part of the D&D community rejected these ideas, wanting Fighters to be guys with no special abilities other than "hit stuff good" "have lots of hit points" and "wear heavy armor".

Thing is, I have almost never seen those discussions talk about "magic using" classes. It is always the friggin' wizards. Not sorcerers or warlocks. Barely ever clerics. Only certain specific builds of druid or bard, usually those dipping into the best wizard spells.

This suggests that excessively versatile and themeless wizards with no reason not to just grab the best skills from every school are the problem. And though powercreeping everything to to match the outlier is the instinct of players, it's also probably the worse way to balance.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Any opinion here is anecdote.

or are you reporting that someone actually did scientific research on the subject?

Look at the amount of spells that are in the game.

Then look at many things Fighters can do.

Like, Wizards factually have more abilities they can use than Fighters. It's no contest. And with more abilities, they come more ways to solve problems.