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

[DND_Reborn]

If the wizard does not have too much information on what they will be doing nothing. If you play modules or just dungeon delve and the wizard has access to all spells then players that know the modules or types of encounters the DM likes, will always be functioning at max effect.

I think a lot of people would disagree with this as with a proper spell selection, a Wizard can be prepared as well as other classes (if not better) for most situations--especially at tier 3 and tier 4 (though not often seen in actual play IME). YMMV, of course.

Anyway, I actually discussed with a player the other day an idea to nerf casters by allowing them to prepare a number of spells depending on the spell levels. Your total has to no more than your caster level plus your spellcasting ability modifier.

For example, a Wizard 5 with INT 18 would be able to prepare 9 spell levels. It could be:

Two first, two second, one third (2+4+3=9) or
Four first, one second, one third (4+2+3) or
One first, one second, two third (1+2+6)
and so on...

So, such a Wizard could only have 3-6 spells prepared typically instead of 9 spells.

At higher levels, it makes the really powerful magic costly to prepare! Even at 20th level with +5 modifier, a 9th level spell would cost you 9 of of your 25 spell levels to prepare (over one-third of them!).

This would also require a similar decrease for known spell casters (not much, but probably a bit...).

 

[tetrasodium]

Having given this way too much thought, I think the problem with the Wizard is that their strength is very situational. They have a tool for just about every conceivable situation, but they can't have them all at once. The right spell selection at the right time can invert the difficulty of encounters, or overcome challenges in ways the DM hadn't expected, and it's these moments that most people who feel the Wizard is too strong are really complaining about.

Because the opposite can be true as well; there's a fairly low floor for the class, where it sits at the bottom of the hit point pool, lacking armor, and having to spend vital spell slots on defense. Times when enemies make saves or are immune/resistant to damage and status effects, or where there's no optimal place to drop an area spell without harming allies.

Even the mightiest of spells, which can wreck a large percentage of enemies, can be foiled by an enemy spellcaster with dispel magic or counterspell, foes that can teleport, etc..

There's a reason "Schrodinger's Wizard" became a meme after all. So when the Wizard is firing on all cylinders, they can seem unstoppable, able to outperform almost every other class. But their ability to do that is very dependent on factors that cannot be predicted.

How open is the DM to shenanigans? What are their rulings on edge cases like? What is the party makeup? What enemies are common to the campaign? How much advance knowledge about a given situation does the Wizard have? Can they long rest before a big engagement? How many spells have they been able to put in their spellbook, which takes opportunity, time, and a decent gold investment?

How limited are they on valuable material components? What magic items do they have access to? Does the DM allow them to scribe scrolls? Are scrolls often found as treasure? How rigorously do they rule on things like getting the scroll to hand, opening it and reading it? Do they even allow reaction or bonus action scrolls?

What house rules are in play? What spells are allowed? PHB only? All WotC products? 3rd party? Are there bans to consider?

Then you have player skill; a Wizard who thinks fireball is the be all and end all of magic and spams firebolt and shield when not casting it can be a menace, but is likely far easier to deal with than the armchair tactician who focuses entirely on destroying the enemy's ability to act.

The ceiling for the Wizard's performance is unbelievably high, but whether or not they can be consistent is completely up in the air.

The main issues with the Sorcerer, I realize, are that they are more extreme than the Wizard; with their lower versatility they can seem crippled at times, but when their spells are the right ones for the job, the addition of Sorcery points to augment them can theoretically let them go beyond even the Wizard- but the opportunities are far less likely.

Because of these variables, rating the Wizard is impossible. It's like the DM who gripes about the Monk because powerful enemies keep failing saves against Stunning Strike; you can mathematically prove that the Monk isn't as good as all that, but they will go back to that time when the Monk made all the saves, ran around the battlefield with impunity, were immune to missile fire, dodged all attacks, and completely demolished the BBEG!

Personally, I think it's high time WotC sat down with the spell list and realized that a lot of their balancing is still based on legacy decisions from as long as 50 years ago. Do they need 9 levels of spells? Are Fireball and Fly really 5th level abilities?

Maybe it's time to cut down on versatility, or pare away the destructive powers of the Wizard and give them exclusively to the Sorcerer.

There's a lot of ways the Wizard can be rebuilt and rebalanced, but the problem is doing that requires change. Lots of change. And for people who feel that the sacred cows of the spell list are part and parcel of what makes D&D, well, Dungeons & Dragons, that might be a bridge too far, which is always something that Wizards of the Coast will have to consider.

I also agree but think the shift from vancian to spontaneous casting in 5e exacerbates the bold bit. Back in the day it was a nontrivial thing to spec for utility/control/damage & that specialization went even further into things like feat/PrC selection. I think that 6e could improve things to some degree with the flex-vancian spell prep but it remains to be seen to what degree & in what ways.

 

[James Gasik]

I also agree but think the shift from vancian to spontaneous casting in 5e exacerbates the bold bit. Back in the day it was a nontrivial thing to spec for utility/control/damage & that specialization went even further into things like feat/PrC selection. I think that 6e could improve things to some degree with the flex-vancian spell prep but it remains to be seen to what degree & in what ways.

Yes, the current spell preparation is really nice for new Wizard players, but experts don't need that kind of versatility, lol.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think what is wrong with the wizard is that it doesn’t have trade-offs, except in the daily load-out. But you never really have to give up one thing in order to be strong in something else.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, the current spell preparation is really nice for new Wizard players, but experts don't need that kind of versatility, lol.

with experienced players it creates a paradox with dramatically less versatility. Every prep slot is equally valuable so there's no more room for niche spells that were once taken because "hey what else am I going to devote that L1/L2 slot to now that I'm level xx?" so now the wizard devotes all of their prep slots to preparing the full selection of A+ & S tier spells of their highest levels

 

[ECMO3]

with experienced players it creates a paradox with dramatically less versatility. Every prep slot is equally valuable so there's no more room for niche spells that were once taken because "hey what else am I going to devote that L1/L2 slot to now that I'm level xx?" so now the wizard devotes all of their prep slots to preparing the full selection of A+ & S tier spells of their highest levels

I am not sure I agree with that. for several reasons:

1. I think they base it a lot on their subclass. Animate Dead is not A+ or S tier but I will bet every high level necromancer still has it on their prepared spells. Same for things like Hold Person for an enchanter or fireball for an evoker..

2. I think characters tend to build thematically and arrange their spell selections accordingly.

3. People tend to take and keep blasting spells that are decidedly not A+. Every Wizard player other than myself that I have played with not only took Fireball, which is decent but not great in tier 2, but kept it well into tier 4 at which point it sucks.

 

[ECMO3]

I think what is wrong with the wizard is that it doesn’t have trade-offs, except in the daily load-out. But you never really have to give up one thing in order to be strong in something else.

I think that is what makes the Wizard class itself great. As class there are no tradeoffs, the Wizard can be awesome at anything and that is why it is the best designed class in the game because the player can make it what he or she wants.

That said, while the class has no weaknesses, there absolutely are tradeoffs in your actual build. You can't have a Wizard that is good at control, good at blasting, good at melee, good at exploration and good at social all at the same time. You can have a Wizard that is great at any one of those things and good at another one or two and then poor at the rest of them.

If your campaign has unlimited spells with money and time to scribe them, you can have a Wizard with the spells in their book to do all of that well but even then they still won't be able to prepare enough spells to do them all well and if they try they won't be good at anything.

So to sum up in most campaigns there are tradeoffs based on what spells you put in your book and in campagins where that is not limited there are still tradeoffs in what you can prepare.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not enough good choices in pointy hats. Honestly, it's a shocking state of affairs.

 

[James Gasik]

Not enough good choices in pointy hats. Honestly, it's a shocking state of affairs.

Matter of fact, there's lots of Wizards running around these days who don't wear hats at all! Even robes have gone out of style!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Matter of fact, there's lots of Wizards running around these days who don't wear hats at all! Even robes have gone out of style!

Simply appalling.

 

[ECMO3]

Matter of fact, there's lots of Wizards running around these days who don't wear hats at all! Even robes have gone out of style!

I like my Wizards to be in heavy armor with a full faced helmet!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think a lot of people would disagree with this as with a proper spell selection, a Wizard can be prepared as well as other classes (if not better) for most situations--especially at tier 3 and tier 4 (though not often seen in actual play IME). YMMV, of course.

If an optimized player makes a monk or ranger and really tweeks it out, and a guy who sucks at optimization makes a wizard yeah the wizard fall flat... the thing is that when equalized (same level of optimization) is when the wizard shines

 

[GMforPowergamers]

with experienced players it creates a paradox with dramatically less versatility. Every prep slot is equally valuable so there's no more room for niche spells that were once taken because "hey what else am I going to devote that L1/L2 slot to now that I'm level xx?" so now the wizard devotes all of their prep slots to preparing the full selection of A+ & S tier spells of their highest levels

yeah but some 1st level spells keep up way too well.

Shield will negate some attacks at 1st level and at 20th, Tasha's laugh is a save or lose spell at 1st and 20th (sleep doesn't scale well though) Detect magic and identify (although mostly as rituals) are always useful.
It's second level spells when I don't find many winners
at third we have counterspell and firball and haste alll right back to as useful at 20th as they were at 5th

 

[tetrasodium]

I am not sure I agree with that. for several reasons:

1. I think they base it a lot on their subclass. Animate Dead is not A+ or S tier but I will bet every high level necromancer still has it on their prepared spells. Same for things like Hold Person for an enchanter or fireball for an evoker..

2. I think characters tend to build thematically and arrange their spell selections accordingly.

3. People tend to take and keep blasting spells that are decidedly not A+. Every Wizard player other than myself that I have played with not only took Fireball, which is decent but not great in tier 2, but kept it well into tier 4 at which point it sucks.

No, you need to look at how all the pieces worked in 3.x & earlier. Lets say Bob is level 8.
in 2e he has: 4 level 1 slots 3 level 2 slots 3 level 3 slots & 2 level 4 slots & can prep that many spells of those levels
in 3.x he has: 4 level 1 slots 3 level 2 slots 3 level 3 slots & 2 level 4 slots & can prep that many spells of those levels
In 5e he has : 4 level 1 slots 3 level 2 slots 3 level 3 slots & 2 level 4 slots

On the surface those look the same, but the difference lies in prep & where his bread & butter or big gun spells live. That 2e & 3.x character of Bob's is going to have exactly as many spells as they have slots even if some of them are duplicates of top shelf spells. The 5e version might have 8 level 3-4 spells prepped with the remaining 4 spread across a few top shelf spells for levels 1&2.

Level 8 was not chosen randomly, that's the breakeven point before the 5e PC begins losing prep slots. When you factor in that some of those lost slots would have been devoted to spells that are now growing from "meh" to solid choices or even top shelf spells due to caster level scaling the diversity is almost certain to expand. Meanwhile the 5e spells only improve by upcasting & the gains from upcasting are almost always terrible in ways that ensure Bob might not even have a full 5 spells prepped from L1&L2 slots unless they already had those spells in their standard rotation.

yeah but some 1st level spells keep up way too well.

Shield will negate some attacks at 1st level and at 20th, Tasha's laugh is a save or lose spell at 1st and 20th (sleep doesn't scale well though) Detect magic and identify (although mostly as rituals) are always useful.
It's second level spells when I don't find many winners
at third we have counterspell and firball and haste alll right back to as useful at 20th as they were at 5th

Absolutely 100% & my posting history will back that up... but those spells are the exception not the norm. Shield in 5e is an abomination that never should have made it past the cocktail napkin level of design as written. The other two you mention are only (very) slightly less awful & still in need of serious rework.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Shield in 5e is an abomination that never should have made it past the cocktail napkin level of design as written.

There is part of me thinks that it would make more sense to just be a 'negate attack' and move it to second level

The other two you mention are only (very) slightly less awful & still in need of serious rework.

I think hold person charm person and tasha's all need to go back to the drawing board

 

[Vaalingrade]

I like my Wizards to be in heavy armor with a full faced helmet!

Same, actually. Often with a big, flowy cape like Conrad from Rune Soldier Louie

 

[James Gasik]

Same, actually. Often with a big, flowy cape like Conrad from Rune Soldier Louie

I'm a fan of Gilbungle the Dwarven Wizard from Handyman Saito:

 

[wizard71]

First, THIS IS A (+) THREAD. Please do not post something like "Everything LOL".
Justify your reasons (hopefully more than just "I don't like them."), or please don't bother posting. Thanks!

Common issues I see complaints about are (in no particular order):

Poor players who feel Wizards should be gods.
I've never experienced this, personally, but I know others have. IMO this is really more about the player than the class, but for anyone whose experienced this and wishes to share their story, I'd be interested to hear about it how you feel the issue is the class and not the player.

Stealing the spotlight from other PCs/players.
I've seen this, but not because the PC was a "wizard" but more so because a player wants to have the spotlight. They make a character which tries to be the best at everything, instead of letting other PCs have their moments to shine.

Being able to overcome just about all challenges.
With many spells Wizards are able to overcome exploration or social challenges in ways other classes just can't. Now, this really isn't exclusive to Wizard, but is more of an issue with spells in general and Arcane spells in particular. Although there are some divine and primal spells, the majority of them are arcane, so naturally seen as the larger issue.

For myself, I've seen some spells do this, but for casters they need to know or have the spell prepared--and I have seen often enough a player lament not having a spell which would make things easy to overcome. I just don't see this in actual play, so I would love to hear actual examples and not just white-room/theory-crafting.

Too large of a spell list.
Now, this one I agree with, but probably not for the same reason others might. IMO probably half the spells are useless and/or pointless--or just outright silly. 90% of the spells I see are almost always the same ones. I just don't think we need so many.

Too many spells in the spellbook.
I agree with this in the idea that wizards gain TWO spells per spell level to add to their spellbook. I think one would be better, and acquiring more would be through finding scrolls or spellbooks, research or downtime activity, etc. with rely more on DM fiat. Alternatively, allow two but re-instate a system for actually learning a spell, so that wizards don't necessarily always learn the spells the player wants--at least not on first try.

Cantrips are an issue.
I see different thoughts on this:
1) Combat cantrips make wizards boring pew pew all the time. Magic is less magical. (Along with this, but perhaps a separate issue, even utility-type cantrips can make magic feel less magical).
2) The opposite view: being able to pew pew is more magical than firing a crossbow when running out of spell slots.
3) Cantrips such as light and dancing lights make environmental factors such as darkness a non-issue.

Spells are too powerful.
Not a common complaint, of course, but one I agree with. Arcane spells especially seem to outstrip the relative power compared to other spells, and certainly compared to what non-casters can even attempt.

The class is boring. (@Zardnaar)


Player Expectations. (@James Gasik)


So, I sort of get this one. But IME it isn't so much about "wanting non-magical classes to be unable to do likewise" as it is about keeping the game grounded. Also, IME spellcasting-players rarely care as much about the more mundane tasks, such as setting up a campsite.

Hardly anyone plays Wizards anymore. (@Ruin Explorer)

This isn't something I've experienced personally as Wizard as a class is played about as much as any other class in my games (or ones I play in). However, I certainly understand how people joining D&D and wanting to play a pop culture Wizard would be disappointed.

---

I'm sure there are more, those are just the ones I can think of at the moment. I'll update this list when people add things I didn't think of.

Again, I am really interested in actual experiences in real game play if you have an issue. This is not meant to be a "Wizard-bashing" thread, but more of an attempt to identify actual problems instead of theoretical or white-room.

I am happy with cantrips as they are. Perhaps allow them to add your stat bonus (Int, Wis Chr) to damage roll to keep pace. I don't buy the argument that light and dancing lights ruin exploration when everyone and their sister either has Darkvision or a class ability that eliminates darkness. They even allow you to poach Devil's Sight with a feat in Tasha's.

 

[ECMO3]

On the surface those look the same, but the difference lies in prep & where his bread & butter or big gun spells live. That 2e & 3.x character of Bob's is going to have exactly as many spells as they have slots even if some of them are duplicates of top shelf spells. The 5e version might have 8 level 3-4 spells prepped with the remaining 4 spread across a few top shelf spells for levels 1&2.

I would say half the Wizards I have seen played get Lemunds Tiny Hut and most of them do not prepare it. So that only leaves them 7 3rd and 4th level spells they can prepare unless they have found magic items, gold and had enough time to scribe more.

That aside, yes you may have a Wizard that does that but I think there are actually more that do the opposite - prepare maybe 3 or 4 3rd and 4th level spells with the rest spent on 1st and 2nd level spells and I would argue this is actually a more powerful build.

Here are a couple examples:

Example 1 (your example): Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Mage Armor, Misty Step, Fear, Fireball, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Greater Invisibility, Psychic Lance, Evards Tenticles, Polymorph

Example 2 (better): Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil and Good, Magic Missle, Tasha's Mind Whip, Suggestion, Misty Step, Counterspell, Fear, Polymoprh

Example 2 is objectively better IMO. The reason is the first example has the best 1st and 2nd level spells in the game but the opportunities to use them may not come up enough to actually use all the slots. Sure you will cast mage armor, you will cast shield every time you are hit, you will cast silvery barbs if you are critted or an enemy fails a save on your crowd pleaser (but you are not casting a lot of them) and you will use misty step if you need to escape something. Basically the first character has some great spells he can cast and then a bunch of conditional spells. The second guy has a LOT more flexibility. Guy #1 has Greater invisibility, one of the best spells in the game, but then he is going to go invisible to spam cantrips!

Will guy 2 miss having fireball? Maybe. Will he miss Psychic Lance? Probably not when you can use Tasha's mind whip on 3 enemies with the same slot and still be able to spam it on single enemies with a 2nd level slot. Will he miss Dispel Magic? Absolutely he will, but he will miss it just as much if he has it prepared and used all his 3rd level slots. Will guy number 2 ever use PEG? I think he has a good chance of it being useful and a significant chance of it being gamebreaking.

Absolutely 100% & my posting history will back that up... but those spells are the exception not the norm. Shield in 5e is an abomination that never should have made it past the cocktail napkin level of design as written. The other two you mention are only (very) slightly less awful & still in need of serious rework.

Shield is one of my favorite spells in the game. I don't understand the hate.

 

[James Gasik]

Shield is one of my favorite spells in the game. I don't understand the hate.

It comes down to a few things. One, it messes with bounded accuracy by allowing you to boost your AC by a huge amount for 1 round. That's not a big deal at low levels, but it doesn't take long before you have a lot of level 1 slots and you're now doing much of substance with them, so there's really no cost to loading up on Shields.

Two, it basically can take away a monster's turn as a reaction. It's generally only used when you would take a hit, and then you not only turn that into a miss retroactively, the +5 AC has a good chance to turn off their other attacks as well. Most enemies want to target your AC, and this means that Shield can be better than Counterspell, especially since it protects against OTHER enemies attacking you.

And then there's just the general hatred some DM's have for being told "um, actually", lol. Messing with their die rolls, forcing rerolls, or simply saying "nuh uh, you miss!" just rubs some people the wrong way (go find a Silvery Barbs debate if you want proof).

And finally, it's easy to get the ability to use Shield even if you're not playing a class that gets it natively.

I'm not defending any of these stances; personally, I have yet to use Shield because I want more mileage out of a spell slot than a one-turn safety net, and I don't have an issue with it, but these are complaints people have. I'm also not going to say my point of view is "correct"; it just doesn't suit my playstyle.

I'd love to go back to Shield just being an AC buff for the combat instead of this weird "counter attacks and oh magic missile too" spell.