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

[ECMO3]

The wizard can. It's only up to the DM to not give them all as treasure.

It is not just treasure, it is treasure, time and gold. Playing Wizards it is rare that I can scribe all the scrolls I do find and that is usually only a handful over an entire campaing.

Also it is not the DM chooseing "not" to give them treasure as much as it is the DM choosing "to" give them treasure. Most WOTC campaigns do not have piles and piles of spells lying around for the Wizard to copy and the two I do know of that have a decent amount do not afford the time to scribe them all.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay, but being a generalist in fighting means way WAY less than it does for being a generalist in magic and typically comes at way more of a cost.

Generalist fighter
Cons: needs to be raising 2 stats, feats required to keep up on DPR are often meant to enhance specialisation so wont benefit your build across the board, already possible to attack at both melee and range with finesse and thrown weapons, usually doesn't matter what kind of nonmagic B/S/P damage you're using on most enemies, versatility doesn't naturally reach outside combat pillar without feats.

You do not need feats to be a generalist, nor do you really need to use a single ASI. A fighter with a 16 stat will do good damage at all levels. Not as good as someone who specialized, but good damage.

Pros: increases the ways to deal damage at both melee and ranged distances.

Also increases usefulness of weapons you find. The 8 dex martial is going to struggle with an oath bow and the 8 strength martial is going to struggle with a Vorpal longsword. The generalist can use both of them effectively.

Also it does not just increase the ways to do damage, it increases the effectiveness. Anyone with a high strength can make a ranged attack, but beyond 30 feet or so they are doing it with disadvantage and often are limited to one attack. Someone with a longbow can reach out to 150 feet without disadvantage, use extra attack until he runs out of ammunition and reach out to 600 feet overall, while doing more damage than a thrown weapon.

Similarly anyone can use a Rapier to do 1d8 with dexterity in melee, but they can't wear the best armor effectively (without racial abilities) and are behind on damage compared to someone who is using a heavy weapon, even without considering any build towards that.

Finally the real power here is a fighter can do both if they play a generalist while also specializing. I can play a strength brawler getting PAM, Sentinel and GWM and I can still be very effective with a longbow until enemies close to melee range. Not as effective as someone who specialized as a bowman, but a lot better than someone with another class who has to devote resources to support a spell casting stat and who is capped at 2 attacks a turn.

I can specialize in ranged, get Sharpshooter and archery and still wear plate and use a Maul if enemies get within melee range.

Generalist wizard
Cons: needs to find more spells in the world to expand your versatility beyond what you already get to pick as default.

More spells, more time and more gold. Usually more time than is available in published campaigns

Pros: only dependant on one stat, doesn't require feats to keep up DPR, offers both melee and ranged options, magic damage is standard for most spells, large array of weakness targeting energy damage types, ways to control the battlefield beyond inflicting pure damage such as de/buffs, hazards and effects, can heavily influence the game in various ways outside of the combat pillar,

Considering only class abilities - A fighter with a 16 ability, no feats and no ASIs into strength or dex is going to do more DPR than a wizard of the same level.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, so? I don't see the relevance of this to the point I was making. It is a nonsequitor to the idea to which you responded.

Let's say a necromancer and a chronurgist were engaged in battle. Each has their focus. Let's say that each is also only limited to their focus. Which of the following is more evocative and interesting?

Necromancer: I use Vampiric Touch ... 19 to hit ... and ... deal 22 damage. I heal 11.
Chronurgist: I cast Slow on him. DC 16 Wisdom.
Necromancer: 18 save. I cast Danse Macabre and have the 5 skeletons attack. 13,16,8,15,18.
Chronurgist: 2 hit.
Necromancer: 7 and 6 damage. Total 13.
Chronurgist: OK. Time Ravage? DC 16 Constitution. 85 necrotic damage if you fail plus a buncg of effects. Half on a successful save.
Necromancer: I'm resistant . Fail the save, still take 42.
Chronurgist. But you die in 30 days, have disadvantage on attack rolls, saves and ability checks - and move half speed. You need a 9th level spell to fix it.

Or:

Necromancer: I use Vampiric Touch ... 19 to hit ... and ... deal 22 damage. I heal 11.
Chronurgist: Wait a second: I cast slow as a reaction. When cast this way, it gives you disadvantage on the attack. As you rech out to hit me, I use the slow magic to give me a chance to dodge!
Necromancer: Doh! 12 ... that missed, right?
Chronurgist: Yup. OK. I'll go for Time Ravage. DC 16 Constitution. 85 necrotic damage if you fail plus a bunch of effects. Half on a successful save.
Necromancer: I use Tether Essence's reaction - make a Constitution Save yourself. DC 17.
Chronurgist: As a reaction I use Temporal Leap and jump forward 1d6 rounds in time, avoiding the Tether Essence.
Necromancer: Nice. I'm resistant. I fail the save, but still take 42.
Chronurgist. But you die in 30 days, have disadvantage on attack rolls, saves and ability checks - and move half speed. You need a 9th level spell to fix it.
Necromancer: OK, but I'm casting Danse Macabre to get ready for when you reappear.

This is not a new idea, but it is an idea that has never been executed well in D&D. Instead, we drop a few reaction defense spells in the game and call it a day. They get kind of boring. I'd rather they dropped shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs, counterspell, and other reaction defense spells in favor of giving each existing spell a reaction use that was defensive or battlefield control related (grease, web, etc...)

That's my point.

That idea will never happen in D&D as the Wizard is too far in the Versatility Trope to allowed more focus. And the core stewards of D&D officially, WOTC, and no disciplined enough to toned wizards down to allow for that change.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Can you research your own spells in 5e?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Can you research your own spells in 5e?

Not by RAW, but I've seen plenty of people do it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Can you research your own spells in 5e?

This is what I use in my homebrew:

It is mainly for Wizards, but you could have known spell casters do it as well to increase their number of known spells if you wanted (I would limit it to an additional number of known spells equal to their spellcasting ability modifier, however, so it doesn't get out of hand).

 

[Minigiant]

No they can't. This is untrue. They only get 4 spells in their book of each level 2nd-8th as part of their class.

For 3rd level for example, they get two new spells in their book at 5th level and two more 6th level. They can't have more than four as part of their class unless they take fewer spells of 4th-9th level and it is a one for one trade. IF they take fifth 3rd level spell when the wizard makes 7th level and only can only add one 4th level spell instead of two and will end up with three total 4th level spells instead of four.

To get more than that 4 spells the DM must give them to the wizard in terms of scrolls, time and gold. The DM needs to afford the wizard all three of these things if they want to add any more spells to their book.

So if your Wizards are all God wizards with a spell for every situation then that is because you, the DM, gave that power to them.

You're not getting my point about access.

By default, a wizard is good at:

1. All 8 spells schools
   1. Abjuration
   2. Conjuration
   3. Divination
   4. Enchantment
   5. Evocation
   6. Illusion
   7. Necromancy
   8. Transmutation
2. Any unofficial magic schools
   1. Chronurgy
   2. Graviturgy
3. Almost every caster role
   1. Buffs
   2. Control
   3. Damage
   4. Debuffs
   5. Exploration
   6. Defending
   7. Social
   8. Utility

So when a spell is added to D&D, you cave to jump through hoops to not give it to the wizard if it isn't healing, resureection, plant based, or animalistic. And the spells that fall to exit the wizard spell list black hole grow lamer.


What is wrong with the wizard is that you can't do anything fun with it because its flavor is being good at almost everything magical. Therefore every single other caster gains flavor by gaining something over base spellcasting by taking a weakness.

• The bard can heal and has better social spells
• The sorcerer can alter their spells
• The warlock has higher magic endurance and tweaking of cantrips
• The cleric has better healing and resurrection
• The druid can heal and has more versatile conjurations

 

[jgsugden]

I’ll hand it to you. It takes guts to argue that wizards need more options in a thread about how they’re overpowered.

Well, I am pretty amazing. However, you're making a false correlation there: More options does not inherently mean increased power.

That's my point.

That idea will never happen in D&D as the Wizard is too far in the Versatility Trope to allowed more focus. And the core stewards of D&D officially, WOTC, and no disciplined enough to toned wizards down to allow for that change.

I still have no idea why you've been arguing what you were as it seems unrelated to what I think you're saying in thay final paragraph - but you should note that they've massively overhauled magic in every edition change so far. Further, WotC isn't one thing - it is a company made up of a lot of employees, and the approaches they have taken has changed a lot over time. You're oversimplifying their capabilities because that oversimplification serves your view. They are very capable of making changes.

 

[Minigiant]

I still have no idea why you've been arguing what you were as it seems unrelated to what I think you're saying in thay final paragraph - but you should note that they've massively overhauled magic in every edition change so far. Further, WotC isn't one thing - it is a company made up of a lot of employees, and the approaches they have taken has changed a lot over time. You're oversimplifying their capabilities because that oversimplification serves your view. They are very capable of making changes.

I'm not understating WOTC's capabilities. I stating that the community won't allow WOTC the room.

The community won't allow wizards to be weakened enough in order to give it more interesting stuff. The last thing WOTC, the community tanked the edition and many swapped games.

The base idea of the D&D wizard is too close to the edge of balance. This gives WOTC no real space to design within the parameters the community allows. That's why the 5e wizard has the least class features and the most boring/blandest subclass. There is little room to be fun.

 

[bloodtide]

What is wrong with the wizard is that you can't do anything fun with it because its flavor is being good at almost everything magical. Therefore every single other caster gains flavor by gaining something over base spellcasting by taking a weakness.

The wizard has the weakness of being weak physically.

I'm not sure the wizards flavor is "being good at magic", but it should be something close to that. I'd say the wizard should be the intelligence magic user. That is they are the ONLY ones in the world that know and study magic in great detail.

The bard sings songs and dabbles in magic, the sorcerer just 'does magic' naturally, the warlock is granted some magic from another, the clerics magic comes from faith(and granted by another again), and the druids magic comes from nature, faith (and granted by another again). But none of them know really anything about magic. None of them really study magic. They just use magic.

If anything the wizard should be able to understand all magic, and use it against others. This fits in nicely that the wizard would be the only one that can create spells too.