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

[Redwizard007]

edit: effectively a double post

 

[Redwizard007]

Yeah but you're probably not doing it at level 1, barring a Variant Human with Sentinel (if Feats are allowed). Tunnel Fighter fighting style is UA content (and only really shores up OA focused builds like Sentinel and Battlemaster), Protection and Interception uses your reaction, so it's once per turn and you can't make opportunity attacks, and Superior Technique gives you one crummy Superiority Die.

Nothing is baseline, and most of these options are Fighter-only. Then add to that the fact that, like I said, not every martial wants to be a protector, and will probably build for "the damage", and very little really protects the casters at all, often forcing them to protect themselves.

In addition to a half dozen Battlemaster maneuvers (that are also available via a feat,) there are

Nets
Grappling
Shoving
Stunning Strike
Open Hand Technique
Master of Tactics
Unwavering Mark
Ancestral Protectors

That's off the top of my head. There are options if someone wants to make a defend-your-friends type of build. The top 3 don't even require any relevant resources. If one adds feats, this really becomes a non-issue all together.

 

[Haplo781]

The original 3 classes have the same problem: they're too broad. Fighter (fighting man) is "weapon guy;" cleric (priest) is "god guy;" wizard (magic user) is "magic guy." All the other classes started off as specialties (the original subclasses) of those.

As the game evolved, those specialties spun off.into their own classes, but the original classes stuck around and never gave up any part of their identity. So you got the druid as "nature priest," but the cleric was still the "everything priest." Ranger was the "nature fighter," but fighter was still the "everything fighter."

Wizard's thing is "doing magic," and magic can do anything. So the wizard is a big amorphous blob of "do anything."

 

[Micah Sweet]

The original 3 classes have the same problem: they're too broad. Fighter (fighting man) is "weapon guy;" cleric (priest) is "god guy;" wizard (magic user) is "magic guy." All the other classes started off as specialties (the original subclasses) of those.

As the game evolved, those specialties spun off.into their own classes, but the original classes stuck around and never gave up any part of their identity. So you got the druid as "nature priest," but the cleric was still the "everything priest." Ranger was the "nature fighter," but fighter was still the "everything fighter."

Wizard's thing is "doing magic," and magic can do anything. So the wizard is a big amorphous blob of "do anything."

Also not fixable in D&D.

 

[James Gasik]

In addition to a half dozen Battlemaster maneuvers (that are also available via a feat,) there are

Nets
Grappling
Shoving
Stunning Strike
Open Hand Technique
Master of Tactics
Unwavering Mark
Ancestral Protectors

That's off the top of my head. There are options if someone wants to make a defend-your-friends type of build. The top 3 don't even require any relevant resources. If one adds feats, this really becomes a non-issue all together.

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

 

[tetrasodium]

This was a sacrifice of sticky game mechanics, but it allows a more cinematic and action filled turn. It also fits the (relatively) rules-light concepts of 5e quite well. There are still sticky features scattered throughout the sub-classes, fighting styles, and feats that can create a functional tank.

Not it doesn't. It turns combat into lemming boxing where everyone on both sides just puts "well I guess I'll attack again" on loop

 

[tetrasodium]

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

Worse 5e was designed for the gm to throw gobs & gobs of monsters at the group, tracking which monster among 5 10 or more* useless mooks is a nontrivial overhead for results that still don't really matter.

*Let's say I have 5 players, it's going to take a silly amount of monsters to challenge the party unless I'm thriving out cthulu in power armor in order for a solo monster to last more than one round (if that). 5-10+ is a conservative number of monsters

 

[ECMO3]

The game doesn’t end at level 8, that's just the breakeven point where the problem accelerates. It continues on for another several levels where a pc who once made big gains in low level spell slots & prepped low level spells that have been scaling by caster level & are now are just expanding well beyond the tiny number of high level slots they have.

Level 8 was the example used that I replied to..

I think at higher levels it is even worse to load up on high level spells. A 14th level caster can cast one 6th and one 7th level slot a day. Preparing 8 spells of 6th and 7th level and 11 for all other levels combined is going to result in a weaker character if you play a normal adventuring day with 6+ combats. If you play 1 or 2 combats then sure it would be better.

 

[Redwizard007]

Nets are expensive, Stunning Strike is a level 5 ability. Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels and you have to build towards wanting to do that, it's not something handed to you.

Except for maybe grappling and shoving, but that takes your attack action, which means you aren't actually killing the monsters.

EDIT: I take it back, nets are cheap, I haven't used one since they cost 20 gp and required Exotic Weapon Proficiency, lol.

EDIT 2: though they still have the same problem as grappling.

My dude, at low levels AoO are all the "sticky" you need. A 7hp goblin can't risk a single hit.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i pick the fighter for the class fantasy of it.
the fantasy of being a fighter is not that of being second banana to the wizard, it is one of being a muscled one-man-army tornado of steel and death who can endure the hammering blow of a titan and brush off the inferno breath of a red dragon with hp to spare.
i don't want to be told when my fighter doesn't match up to the wizard's capabilities in different but equal ways that 'well you made the choice to be lesser', no i didn't, that just came as an unwanted attatched strings to the thing i actually wanted.

 

[tetrasodium]

My dude, at low levels AoO are all the "sticky" you need. A 7hp goblin can't risk a single hit.

an creature can dash in circles around an opponent without triggering an AoO. Even if it does trigger a single AoO 5e monsters are tuned with low AC & tons of HP to ensure that it doesn't really matter

 

[James Gasik]

My dude, at low levels AoO are all the "sticky" you need. A 7hp goblin can't risk a single hit.

But an Orc can with 15 hit points. A CR 1/2 Thug has 32 hit points! A Drow Elf, with the same CR as the goblin has 13 hit points and can drop Darkness on your melee.

 

[Redwizard007]

an creature can dash in circles around an opponent without triggering an AoO. Even if it does trigger a single AoO 5e monsters are tuned with low AC & tons of HP to ensure that it doesn't really matter

Tons of HP? Goblins have 7. Bandits and cultists get 9. A black bear 19. The cockatrice has 27. Mephits 17. Giant spiders 11. Gnolls 22. There is no way an intelligent creature with single digit HP will willingly tank an AoO, and all of these should be fleeing combat after 2 to 3 hits at most. The only way this looks like tons of HP is if you have a party of bards facing off against gnolls.

 

[Redwizard007]

But an Orc can with 15 hit points. A CR 1/2 Thug has 32 hit points! A Drow Elf, with the same CR as the goblin has 13 hit points and can drop Darkness on your melee.

The thug is just insane, and I had forgotten them. I'll grant you that one.

The orc and drow are still falling to 2-3 hits from 1st level PCs, less if optimized. I wouldn't expect them to willingly face-tank an AoE.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tons of HP? Goblins have 7. Bandits and cultists get 9. A black bear 19. The cockatrice has 27. Mephits 17. Giant spiders 11. Gnolls 22. There is no way an intelligent creature with single digit HP will willingly tank an AoO, and all of these should be fleeing combat after 2 to 3 hits at most. The only way this looks like tons of HP is if you have a party of bards facing off against gnolls.

Correct me if I skipped one, those are all CR1/2 or less creatures yes? Most of those are already able to take more than one hit & you really haven't even gotten beyond monsters for low level parties. LMOP runs to like level 4 or 5, are you considering that an end game full on campaign or something?

 

[Micah Sweet]

i pick the fighter for the class fantasy of it.
the fantasy of being a fighter is not that of being second banana to the wizard, it is one of being a muscled one-man-army tornado of steel and death who can endure the hammering blow of a titan and brush off the inferno breath of a red dragon with hp to spare.
i don't want to be told when my fighter doesn't match up to the wizard's capabilities in different but equal ways that 'well you made the choice to be lesser', no i didn't, that just came as an unwanted attatched strings to the thing i actually wanted.

You know, I love that archetype of the one-man-army fighter, but you don't really see them in situations that also include a fantasy wizard in situations where the wizard isn't  clearly being narratively restrained. That kind of fighter really needs to shine alone.

 

[Redwizard007]

Correct me if I skipped one, those are all CR1/2 or less creatures yes? Most of those are already able to take more than one hit & you really haven't even gotten beyond monsters for low level parties. LMOP runs to like level 4 or 5, are you considering that an end game full on campaign or something?

That was a response to this

Most of those are higher than level 1, which was my point; it's very hard to be able to effectively defend spellcasters at low levels..

He was concerned about tanking at low levels, so I went fishing for low level monsters. Regardless of level, 5e monsters tend to go down fast.

For higher levels, yes they can take an AoO without to much worry, but the other means of being sticky shine. From level 1 to 20, a typical creature of CR equal to the party lives less than 2 rounds. Every one of their attacks matter.

There are lots of ways to be "sticky," from AoOs, inflicting disadvantage on attacks, negating hits, negating damage, granting advantage to your attackers, debuffing speed, forced movement, and more. Some are easier to pull off than others, but martials have access to loads of options.

 

[James Gasik]

About those Goblins, since they can Disengage as a bonus action, I don't think they need to worry about opportunity attacks anyways.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You know, I love that archetype of the one-man-army fighter, but you don't really see them in situations that also include a fantasy wizard in situations where the wizard isn't  clearly being narratively restrained. That kind of fighter really needs to shine alone.

I think part of the issue is that both fighter and wizard are performing the same task in the same scenario of defeating enemies, just that the fighter stabs and the wizard fireballs, they need parallel tasks to properly shine, where the fighter is holding the literal endless hoards of undead at bay while the wizard is behind them figuring out some arcane lock or barrier or casting the minute long emergency teleport to get them all out of there.
Where they’re both performing equally important but completely different kinds of tasks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think part of the issue is that both fighter and wizard are performing the same task in the same scenario of defeating enemies, just that the fighter stabs and the wizard fireballs, they need parallel tasks to properly shine, where the fighter is holding the literal endless hoards of undead at bay while the wizard is behind them figuring out some arcane lock or barrier or casting the minute long emergency teleport to get them all out of there.
Where they’re both performing equally important but completely different kinds of tasks.

Absolutely. But you can't arrange that short of narrative controls, what with free will and all.