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

[FrogReaver]

I can see a LOT of wizard players protesting that. No one I know would play a wizard with those limitations in D&D.

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

1. Tiamat is only meant for a single encounter not a whole adventuring day.

ok...and? she also has more then 600 hp. do you think martials should be able to get more hp then tiamat because that hp is only meant to last a single encounter? she's literally a goddess. she's going up against an entire party of level 20s, and it's more then possible that all of them are casters - she's going to be focused far harder then most martials usually will (especially considering she's likely the only enemy piece on the board for most groups fighting her).

also, tiamat's saves are ridiculous. if you use the aspect, her lowest save is a +5...in intelligence. yeah, good luck feebleminding tiamat through 5 legendary resistances when every single other one of her saves has 50/50 odds or better of passing. if you use the other tiamat statblock, her lowest save is still int, but it shoots up to a +8, so now even feebleminding with her resistances gone is a coin flip. the only pcs even approaching having saves this good are those in an aura of protection (i mean...unless your players were psycho enough to roll up a high-charisma-paladin only party and they never stray more then 30 feet away from each other if they can avoid it, in which case...uh...good luck with that, you're gonna need it).

also also, keep in mind that very few groups actually fill out the adventuring day. most groups only have probably 1-4 encounters a day (i know both my groups fall into this category, and one of them isn't even 5e!). the "adventuring day" is a flawed concept to begin with.

2. I also don’t think you understand just how far ahead wizards and casters in general are by level 17.

oh, no, i absolutely do, i just don't think giving martials 4-7 legendary resistances actually addresses that gap in a meaningful way.

that said though, i think the save system in 5e is stupid anyway, and i think legendary resistances are a response to how stupid it is, so...i guess there's that.

almost any number of them would be a ridiculous number as long as the current rest & recovery mechanics alongside PCs with reserves expected to last 6-8 medium to hard encounters remains. Bob: "oop, I used my resist thing, we need to take a long/short rest">GM:"it's really not safe here & you know it">entire group:"so what, lets take a rest" is just too easy for players to force

yeah like i said the adventuring day is a flawed concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

I think upgrading martials is really the only practical way to work the problem, short of minor spell nerfs. Level Up did a great job with a lot of this.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think upgrading martials is really the only practical way to work the problem, short of minor spell nerfs. Level Up did a great job with a lot of this.

I’m generally pro buffing. The problem for me is that I don’t know if you can actually buff them enough without them starting to feel like knock off casters.

Then there’s also the issue that when you propose a substantial martial buff there’s always an insane amount of pushback that it is too much. See the legendary resistance pushback above. Even though it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue on its own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m generally pro buffing. The problem for me is that I don’t know if you can actually buff them enough without them starting to feel like knock off casters.

Then there’s also the issue that when you propose a substantial martial buff there’s always an insane amount of pushback that it is too much. See the legendary resistance pushback above. Even though it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue on its own.

Fair enough. I still think Level Up did a pretty darn good job with the martials.

 

[FrogReaver]

ok...and? she also has more then 600 hp. do you think martials should be able to get more hp then tiamat because that hp is only meant to last a single encounter? she's literally a goddess. she's going up against an entire party of level 20s, and it's more then possible that all of them are casters - she's going to be focused far harder then most martials usually will (especially considering she's likely the only enemy piece on the board for most groups fighting her).

also, tiamat's saves are ridiculous. if you use the aspect, her lowest save is a +5...in intelligence. yeah, good luck feebleminding tiamat through 5 legendary resistances when every single other one of her saves has 50/50 odds or better of passing. if you use the other tiamat statblock, her lowest save is still int, but it shoots up to a +8, so now even feebleminding with her resistances gone is a coin flip. the only pcs even approaching having saves this good are those in an aura of protection (i mean...unless your players were psycho enough to roll up a high-charisma-paladin only party and they never stray more then 30 feet away from each other if they can avoid it, in which case...uh...good luck with that, you're gonna need it).

also also, keep in mind that very few groups actually fill out the adventuring day. most groups only have probably 1-4 encounters a day (i know both my groups fall into this category, and one of them isn't even 5e!). the "adventuring day" is a flawed concept to begin with.

oh, no, i absolutely do, i just don't think giving martials 4-7 legendary resistances actually addresses that gap in a meaningful way.

that said though, i think the save system in 5e is stupid anyway, and i think legendary resistances are a response to how stupid it is, so...i guess there's that.

yeah like i said the adventuring day is a flawed concept.

The high level point I was trying to bring out was that monsters and PCs are built differently.

Trying to say a PC can’t have some ability or more uses of an ability because some strong monster doesn’t is fundamentally faulty reasoning because of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs.

On a side note a max level fighter with 20 con, spending hit dice and 2nd wind maybe 3 times will effectively have 520ish hp that needs to be chewed through in the adventuring day. Which somewhat ironically isn’t actually that far off from tiamant.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair enough. I still think Level Up did a pretty darn good job with the martials.

That’s good. I’ve not really looked at it.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The high level point I was trying to bring out was that monsters and PCs are built differently.

Trying to say a PC can’t have some ability or more uses of an ability because some strong monster doesn’t is fundamentally faulty reasoning because of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs.

trying to say a PC CAN have some ability or more uses of it then a strong monster is fundamentally MORE FAULTY reasoning exactly BECAUSE of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs. PCs and monsters have to be built to withstand different challenges by necessity. you CAN give a PC an ability or more uses of it then a strong monster, sure, but you need to know why you're doing it and what will happen as a result.

you're suggesting we give martials (or at least fighters) lots of legendary resistances to help them compete with casters. okay...except what will that actually do? well, sure, the fighter can throw off a bunch of saving throw effects over the course of the day. that's pretty cool. but the caster is still dominating out-of-combat encounters and performing insane acts of battlefield control relative to that fighter. all we've done here is make the fighter tankier. which...again, sure, that's cool, but it doesn't actually help with the problem.

On a side note a max level fighter with 20 con, spending hit dice and 2nd wind maybe 3 times will effectively have 520ish hp that needs to be chewed through in the adventuring day. Which somewhat ironically isn’t actually that far off from tiamant.

except that's 1 more short rest then the game typically expects. the game expects 2 short rests, so if we want a proper adventuring day (that, again, probably isn't being fulfilled anyway) then that fighter actually has about 485 hp.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right. But even a wizard with any one of the limitations I just mentioned is going to be capable of outperforming a fighter by a large margin. It’s more to highlight the scope of the issue and why some way to bring fighters and other martials up must also be part of the solution.

It’s not just a Wizard problem. IMO.

the warlock's high arcana proves your point... it is a much smaller list then ANY other caster picks from and you only ever get 1/day per spell...

here is a GREAT playtest... make a 17th level wizard for prof, skills, and hd/hp give them ONLY 2/day 5th level slots, and 1 spell known from each level 6-9 each 1/day and the 17 known spells of 1st-5th of the warlock... BUT take those spells from the wizard list.
change cantrips so each one can only be used int most times per day.

then stack that up against a fighter... they STILL out number in options both in play and at creation

 

[FrogReaver]

trying to say a PC CAN have some ability or more uses of it then a strong monster is fundamentally MORE FAULTY reasoning exactly BECAUSE of how differently 5e treats monsters and PCs. PCs and monsters have to be built to withstand different challenges by necessity.

Saying a PC can have some ability or more uses of it than a strong monster isn't faulty reasoning, it's something we constantly see in the game, because PC's and monsters are treated differently.

Perhaps you are trying to say something else is faulty reasoning? If so, please be clear.

you CAN give a PC an ability or more uses of it then a strong monster, sure, but you need to know why you're doing it and what will happen as a result.

Fully agreed. In this case in long adventuring days fighters will be able to shrug off 3-6 failed saving throws. In a standard adventuring day that's maybe 1 per encounter on average. In a shorter adventuring day that tops out at maybe 2 on average. That doesn't sound excessive at all to me.

you're suggesting we give martials (or at least fighters) lots of legendary resistances to help them compete with casters. okay...except what will that actually do? well, sure, the fighter can throw off a bunch of saving throw effects over the course of the day. that's pretty cool. but the caster is still dominating out-of-combat encounters and performing insane acts of battlefield control relative to that fighter. all we've done here is make the fighter tankier. which...again, sure, that's cool, but it doesn't actually help with the problem.

It does help though. We just need a bunch of other abilities that would make sense for the fighter that we can give him as well.

*Note, I've been clear that this modification won't fully solve the problem, but it does seem to be a step in the right direction.

except that's 1 more short rest then the game typically expects. the game expects 2 short rests, so if we want a proper adventuring day (that, again, probably isn't being fulfilled anyway) then that fighter actually has about 485 hp.

I assumed 2 short rests. 224 from hp (124 from class, 100 from con). 220 from hit dice. 26.5 per rest from second wind (3 rests, 1 long and 2 short) = 79.5 from second wind. Totals 523.5 on average. Your numbers are wrong. Though really, why are you even quibling about whether it's 480 or 520? Does that 40 hp really make a difference?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Saying a PC can have some ability or more uses of it than a strong monster isn't faulty reasoning, it's something we constantly see in the game, because PC's and monsters are treated differently.

Perhaps you are trying to say something else is faulty reasoning? If so, please be clear.

yeah, sorry, what i meant was saying PCs can have that because PCs and monsters are different is faulty reasoning. forgot a few words there.

Fully agreed. In this case in long adventuring days fighters will be able to shrug off 3-6 failed saving throws. In a standard adventuring day that's maybe 1 per encounter on average. In a shorter adventuring day that tops out at maybe 2 on average. That doesn't sound excessive at all to me.

except you're still assuming most people use the "standard" adventuring day. they don't. your idea of a "shorter adventuring day" is closer to a LONG adventuring day for a lot of groups (again, i know it is for mine). for these groups, the fighter is going to be able to just flat out succeed on any saving throw effects for the whole day. that's ridiculous.

It does help though.

not for what we want to do.

We just need a bunch of other abilities that would make sense for the fighter that we can give him as well.

yeah. yes. exactly.

I assumed 2 short rests? 224 from hp (124 from class, 100 from com). 220 from hit dice. 26.5 per rest from second wind (3 rests) = 79.5 from second wind. Totals 523.5 on average.

i mean i get now that my issue was i was forgetting to account for the initial second wind from leaving a long rest but why did you write it like this?

anyway, i was also adding con to the second wind. done properly my numbers should've been about 475 hp, and yours should be about 500.

although, again, we're still assuming most groups play with the full adventuring day.

Though really, why are you quibling about whether it's 480 or 520? Does that 40 hp really make a difference?

you raised the number. i was just checking it.

 

[FrogReaver]

the warlock's high arcana proves your point... it is a much smaller list then ANY other caster picks from and you only ever get 1/day per spell...

here is a GREAT playtest... make a 17th level wizard for prof, skills, and hd/hp give them ONLY 2/day 5th level slots, and 1 spell known from each level 6-9 each 1/day and the 17 known spells of 1st-5th of the warlock... BUT take those spells from the wizard list.
change cantrips so each one can only be used int most times per day.

then stack that up against a fighter... they STILL out number in options both in play and at creation

Yea. That's getting closer in power to most wizards we see fiction. We see 1 or 2 big spells per encounter and if the spell fails then fictionally there's usually a reason that the wizard and his companions can attempt to overcome usually by indirect magical means. A different style of RPG likely handles failed spells better - one that allows the DM to invent a narrative complication on a players failed roll. So if the wizards spell failed, the DM could say it was because the enemies had a magical amulet that prevented his magic or something to that effect. I guess for me that's how D&D magic could start feeling magical again, instead of more like 'science'.

Honestly 1 spell per spell level prepared and 1 slot per spell level achieved could simplify the thought experiment a bit. You wouldn't even have to limit cantrips.

 

[FrogReaver]

yeah, sorry, what i meant was saying PCs can have that because PCs and monsters are different is faulty reasoning. forgot a few words there.

But I never claimed that...

except you're still assuming most people use the "standard" adventuring day. they don't. your idea of a "shorter adventuring day" is closer to a LONG adventuring day for a lot of groups (again, i know it is for mine). for these groups, the fighter is going to be able to just flat out succeed on any saving throw effects for the whole day. that's ridiculous.

My proposal would be the same for what I proposed for casters in shorter adventuring days. Cut back on the slots by about half rounded up. Same would apply here, for shorter advenuring days it becomes 1/2 rounded up of whatever value we are using.

i mean i get now that my issue was i was forgetting to account for the initial second wind from leaving a long rest but why did you write it like this?

So you could see where all my numbers came from. Do you disagree with any individual number i provided in the breakdown?

anyway, i was also adding con to the second wind. done properly my numbers should've been about 475 hp, and yours should be about 500.

How on earth do you keep getting it soo off? Maybe provide your breakdown so we can pinpoint the issue.

although, again, we're still assuming most groups play with the full adventuring day.

you raised the number. i was just checking it.

Again, what does it matter if it's slightly off?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But I never claimed that...

seemed like you were to me, but it seems i was wrong, so my bad.

My proposal would be the same for what I proposed for casters in shorter adventuring days. Cut back on the slots by about half rounded up. Same would apply here, for shorter advenuring days it becomes 1/2 rounded up of whatever value we are using.

yeah, sure. that's why i suggested replacing the indomitable effect with it earlier. gets you about there and the scaling is a bit smoother.

So you could see where all my numbers came from. Do you disagree with any individual number i provided in the breakdown?

i was specifically asking about the phrasing of "3 rests". it confused me for a second because it looked like you were assuming 3 short rests despite saying you were assuming 2 the sentence earlier.

edit: also, yeah, 1d10 is 5.5 on average, not 6.5 like your short rest implies. i think that's where we might be having problems.

How on earth do you keep getting it soo off? Maybe provide your breakdown so we can pinpoint the issue.

what the--dude, i literally LINKED my breakdown of it. did you LOOK at it? here, let me walk you through it:

15 - level 1 hp.
19d(1d10+5) - level 2-20 hp.
20d(1d10+5) - hit dice.
3d(1d10+20) - second wind.

add it all together, anydice (which i have linked again here for you) gives us 501 hp.

Again, what does it matter if it's slightly off?

i like checking numbers. i probably wouldn't bother if it was all i'd be doing, but it's essentially a side topic in the same comment so i guess i figure why not.

edit: also, i'm of the opinion that if you're going to make an argument using any sort of statistic or reference, it should be as correct as possible, even if the difference wouldn't actually change anything. take that how you will, i guess?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I’m generally pro buffing. The problem for me is that I don’t know if you can actually buff them enough without them starting to feel like knock off casters.

Then there’s also the issue that when you propose a substantial martial buff there’s always an insane amount of pushback that it is too much. See the legendary resistance pushback above. Even though it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue on its own.

They definitely need to be innately magic infused/mythical unless you use meta currency like Fate points. But they don't need to be D&D spellcasters.

It would also help to be able to use all different kinds of mechanics including dailies, narrative, effect based, etc without it being labeled spells.

Spells have taken up so much design space that there is going to be some overlap in mechanics/effect I suppose. I don't really see 'knock off caster' though unless they are actually casting spells, have the exact same cadance, and same narrative permission.

For example, I would see no problem with a more open ended martial ability that lets someone get from point A to point B within 120' ignoring action economy if they or the narrative could possibly accomodate it in an action hero way x times a day. So sort of a poor man's dimension door. The hero could jump, swing, parkor, etc. AND the DM would help if needed and feasible -- the dragon swoops by at just the right moment and you jump on its head but it shrugs you off and you land at the mouth of the cave. High level action movement without worrying about number of ft., rolling a jump check, etc. This is worse than dimension door but gets closer to the kind of agency and power that spells give, but still in the martial realm.

You probably do have to have abilities that aren't character abilities to have some of these powerful dailies for martials. The ability is a game ability and the player controls the confluence of skill, timing, fate etc. But the game already has that -- why does the Barbarian rage now? Why can the Battlemaster only use this X/times a day? Just fully move on to these as abstract modeling and don't even pretend to map them 1-1.

I know some people hate this but it would make designing mythic martials so much easier.

 

[FrogReaver]

seemed like you were to me, but it seems i was wrong, so my bad.

ok.

yeah, sure. that's why i suggested replacing the indomitable effect with it earlier. gets you about there and the scaling is a bit smoother.

If you were specifically trying to design the ability for a short adventuring day then sure, but no other long rest abilities are designed that way, so personally I wouldn't want to add fighter abilities based on shorter adventuring days without redesigning all abilities in the game around a shorter adventuring day. If you design for a long adventuring day then that few of uses especially before you get the 3rd use is likely going to feel bad. Better than indominatable which has a tendency to whiff, but still.

i was specifically asking about the phrasing of "3 rests". it confused me for a second because it looked like you were assuming 3 short rests despite saying you were assuming 2 the sentence earlier.

I was trying to be clear that the long rest counted for another use of second wind as it's often left off by people inadvertently. Didn't think it would cause confusion rather than clarification.

edit: also, yeah, 1d10 is 5.5 on average, not 6.5 like your short rest implies. i think that's where we might be having problems.

agreed.

what the--dude, i literally LINKED my breakdown of it. did you LOOK at it? here, let me walk you through it:

I see, the link just looked like highlighting to me, didn't even realize the 'about 500' was a link.

15 - level 1 hp.
19d(1d10+5) - level 2-20 hp.
20d(1d10+5) - hit dice.
3d(1d10+20) - second wind.

add it all together, anydice (which i have linked again here for you) gives us 501 hp.

• 1st level hp agreed.
• Subsequent level hp I calculate differently than you. Each level up after first should grant 11 hp if you do the non rolling option. Though you aren't doing it wrong either - just different
• Hit dice i had wrong before as i had taken my level up hp, but hit dice are rolled so your calc is correct.
• Your second wind calculation is correct.

My updated values is 510.5
Which makes sense as it's +9.5 higher than yours which is what would be expected.

i like checking numbers. i probably wouldn't bother if it was all i'd be doing, but it's essentially a side topic in the same comment so i guess i figure why not.

Feels rather like it's quickly becoming the main topic which is unfortunate IMO.

edit: also, i'm of the opinion that if you're going to make an argument using any sort of statistic or reference, it should be as correct as possible, even if the difference wouldn't actually change anything. take that how you will, i guess?

IMO, doing this is fine as long as it can be done without seeming like an attempt to elide the point being made. Seeing as the point that I made still hasn't been commented on, it kind of feels that way. Hopefully that's not the case though.

 

[FrogReaver]

They definitely need to be innately magic infused/mythical unless you use meta currency like Fate points. But they don't need to be D&D spellcasters.

It would also help to be able to use all different kinds of mechanics including dailies, narrative, effect based, etc without it being labeled spells.

Spells have taken up so much design space that there is going to be some overlap in mechanics/effect I suppose. I don't really see 'knock off caster' though unless they are actually casting spells, have the exact same cadance, and same narrative permission.

For example, I would see no problem with a more open ended martial ability that lets someone get from point A to point B within 120' ignoring action economy if they or the narrative could possibly accomodate it in an action hero way x times a day. So sort of a poor man's dimension door. The hero could jump, swing, parkor, etc. AND the DM would help if needed and feasible -- the dragon swoops by at just the right moment and you jump on its head but it shrugs you off and you land at the mouth of the cave. High level action movement without worrying about number of ft., rolling a jump check, etc. This is worse than dimension door but gets closer to the kind of agency and power that spells give, but still in the martial realm.

You probably do have to have abilities that aren't character abilities to have some of these powerful dailies for martials. The ability is a game ability and the player controls the confluence of skill, timing, fate etc. But the game already has that -- why does the Barbarian rage now? Why can the Battlemaster only use this X/times a day? Just fully move on to these as abstract modeling and don't even pretend to map them 1-1.

I know some people hate this but it would make designing mythic martials so much easier.

I think that there's 3 primary solutions or some combination of them and they all will have significant pushback.

• Mythic martials - many people just don't want martials to this scale in the game
• Meta Currency - many people dislike meta currencys on a conceptual level and the closer they get to Fate levels of player narrative control the less they like them.
• Hard Nerf Casters - another option that many people just will never get on board with.

I think there can be some buffs to martials, even fairly significant ones without getting to the level of mythic. I think these could be welcomed. I also think some nerfs to casters would be welcomed - especially on the individual spell front. Probably less with taking away slots or spells know/prepared though. I even think there's some more martial meta currencies similar to indominatable, superiority dice or rage that players can get on board with. That said I think pushing on this front too much or giving too much narrative control to players via these currencies would be a step too far for many players.

I think the way to tackle the problem is nuanced and by getting a feel of what the playerbase will find acceptable and push as far on these fronts as possible without going so far in any specific direction to lose too many players sensitive to changes along that axis.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yea. That's getting closer in power to most wizards we see fiction. We see 1 or 2 big spells per encounter and if the spell fails then fictionally there's usually a reason that the wizard and his companions can attempt to overcome usually by indirect magical means. A different style of RPG likely handles failed spells better - one that allows the DM to invent a narrative complication on a players failed roll. So if the wizards spell failed, the DM could say it was because the enemies had a magical amulet that prevented his magic or something to that effect. I guess for me that's how D&D magic could start feeling magical again, instead of more like 'science'.

Honestly 1 spell per spell level prepared and 1 slot per spell level achieved could simplify the thought experiment a bit. You wouldn't even have to limit cantrips.

TBH jack Vance novels would be more arcane tricksters or eldritch knights with 1/2 caster instead of 1/3 and getting spell prep, int mod plus 1/2 level preped and 1 slot per level (maybe at high level like 12+ get a 2nd 1st level slot)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think that there's 3 primary solutions or some combination of them and they all will have significant pushback.

• Mythic martials - many people just don't want martials to this scale in the game
• Meta Currency - many people dislike meta currencys on a conceptual level and the closer they get to Fate levels of player narrative control the less they like them.
• Hard Nerf Casters - another option that many people just will never get on board with.

I think 6e should do all three...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think 6e should do all three...

I'm fine with mythic martials at appropriate levels, I'm fine with metacurrency as long as it's not built into the structure of the core game (maybe on a class or archetype basis), but I don't think a hard nerf to casters is the answer, and I'm virtually certain it would not be acceptable by either WotC or a significant portion of the D&D population.