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

[DND_Reborn]

Arcane recovery is most definitely not "nothing else".

It would be if it wasn't for the fact that Land Druids also have it.

With casters such as Clerics, Bards and Druids, they get good non-spell features, but there is a strong assumption that a decent proportion of their spells will have to be used to heal the group. It is quite rare that any of those extra features compete with the extra spells that the wizard gets instead.

That assumption really isn't in 5E IME, but YMMV of course, with all the other sources of healing PCs have.

And I would say, depending on class/subclass selection, things like Channel Divinity and Wild Shape certainly can be on a level to compete with the extra slots Wizards get. Sorcerers can also exchange sorcery points for enough extra spell slots to compete if they want, and with many invocations being at-will spells (like free Mage Armor all the time), those also can compete with the extra slots. Are they completely equal? Who knows... It depends too much on the game/player/build/etc. to judge, but IME they certainly can compete!

The biggest problem I have with the wizard is that they can do All The Magic. Not each individual wizard, but if it's something you can do with magic, the wizard can probably do it (except healing). This eats up humongous amount of design space that could instead be used for more narrow casters, ideally with good theming.

Yep. Narrowing the focus of Wizards would free up significant design space for other classes, even some non-casters.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In overall class design, the wizard is not problematic: it is a fairly well-designed class. The issue that I have found is that spells are very versatile and powerful, and Wizards are Best at Spells.

I agree with every point except the first. I don’t think wizards are a well-designed class. Their core class is too powerful and their sub-classes (except bladesinger) don’t really change how the class plays.

Take the rogue for instance. An arcane trickster and an assassin feel very different, and they play very different. Even moreso for a champion, battlemaster and an Eldritch night. Meanwhile, since wizard spells are so powerful, most wizards I have seen take the same spells and basically come off as pretty interchangeable.

The solution would be to weaken the Core class and buff up the subclasses. Have it so that every wizard’s spellbook isn’t : find familiar, shield, invisibility, fireball, polymorph.

 

[FrozenNorth]

While Wizards are "Best at Spells", I've argued other spellcasters have additional features (Channel Divinity, Wild Shape, Metamagic, Inspiration, Invocations, etc.), so wizards have superior ritual casting as their "additional feature". Do you think that is an adequate reason for their being Best at Spells, since they have nothing else?

I would argue that Wizards need more short rest resources and fewer long rest resources to align them with other classes. Part of the problem is that days with few encounters favor long rest classes and the Wizard’s power is concentrated in his long rest resources.

However, on the topic of being “Best at spells”, I would argue that Arcane Recovery isn’t a big part of that. The real source of “Best at Spells” is:

• largest, widest and most diverse spell list;
• best ritual casting in the game (barring Tomelocks).

 

[FrozenNorth]

This is the biggest issue IME when people talk about Wizards (or spellcasters in general, or any class) as a problem--they rarely can give actual examples.

I mean, why would we give examples? They take a long time to type, and every time, they get dismissed by “as a DM, you are doing it wrong”.

But here’s one I don’t even begrudge the player. Party was fighting a powerful monster, with high strength and con. They were 8th or 9th level I think. Wizard drops a Web.

Monster fails the Dex save. Takes their action to break out of the web, can’t maneuver out of the web, wastes a second turn trying to get out. Monster completely useless at least two turns and all it cost was a 2nd level spell at a time when the casters had 5th level spells.

 

[FrozenNorth]

There really isn't anything wrong with the spell, but with the set-up in combination. The DM offered destroying the altar as a way to defeat the demon, so trapping the demon became the solution instead of actually fighting the demon.

So, you say no one ever gives examples, a poster types a 4-paragraph example, and you attempt to dismiss it in two sentences.

By blaming the DM.

I rest my case.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree with every point except the first. I don’t think wizards are a well-designed class. Their core class is too powerful and their sub-classes (except bladesinger) don’t really change how the class plays.

The core class really isn't all that powerful. It is their spell list and the spell designs which are too good IMO.

Have it so that every wizard’s spellbook isn’t : find familiar, shield, invisibility, fireball, polymorph.

Definitely! I agree with this completely. It is part of the OP about too large of a spell list, but I often see the same spells over and over again, such as the examples you give.

I mean, why would we give examples?

Because they help to identify what is really wrong.

Is it the class?
Is it spell design?
Was it the encounter?
Was it just "bad luck" or an unlikely roll?
Is it players' play-style?
and so on...

There could be any number or combinations of factors that lead to a situation where a player or DM feels something is a problem.

Consider @James Gasik's example (D&D 5E - What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)). Resilient Sphere doesn't allow the creature inside to be harmed. BUT the DM set up another way for the demon to be defeated by destroying the altar. The spell did precisely what it was meant to do: incapsulate a creature to either protect it or stop it from harming others. Without the altar addition, when the spell ended the battle would have resumed.

Also, at that level most demons have magic resistance. So, was it also "bad roll" favoring the players?

So, is it the class, the spell, or a fluke unexpected side-effect because of how the DM set up the encounter?

But here’s one I don’t even begrudge the player. Party was fighting a powerful monster, with high strength and con. They were 8th or 9th level I think. Wizard drops a Web.

Monster fails the Dex save. Takes their action to break out of the web, can’t maneuver out of the web, wastes a second turn trying to get out. Monster completely useless at least two turns and all it cost was a 2nd level spell at a time when the casters had 5th level spells.

Where does the problem lie here then?

The wizard class? Not really, Sorcerers can cast web as well as Wizards, as can Bards via Magical Secrets and certain subclasses gain it as a class spell (Circle of Land - Underdark Druids for instance).

Is it the spell? Maybe. Was the monster Large? Should the spell include advantage for Large and larger creatures? Or should the spell be altered in some other way if it is the problem.

Was it just "bad rolls"? The monster failed the save, then failed to escape until two rounds later (if I am reading you correctly). Does this mean poor monster design, or do we fault the swingy nature of the d20 itself?

So, you say no one ever gives examples, a poster types a 4-paragraph example, and you attempt to dismiss it in two sentences.

By blaming the DM.

I rest my case.

First, I did not "attempt to dismiss it" (just like I didn't attempt to dismiss your example above). I proposed a reason why the spell had an impact in a fashion that was never intended in the spell itself. Even the poster stated they didn't find a problem with the spell compared to other spells.

So, does that also mean an issue is the power-level, as was one point I outlined in the OP?

IMO it was an unseen consequence by the DM then. It happens. I've done such things many times over the decades, where players use a spell, item or feature in a way I didn't foresee and turned what should have been difficult into something easy.

I don't "blame" people for making oversights. It happens to the best of us because they are unexpected.

Anyway, @James Gasik goes on to say that the problem as he saw it was more how that one spell made all their other efforts immaterial. Which leads back the the issue of spells being too powerful. Otherwise, any magical feature can do the same. I've seen Channel Divinity also alter the course of entire encounters, making the other PCs seem impotent by comparison.

My point is (as a + thread) about identifying what is really going on when posters say Wizards are a problem, too powerful, etc.

Your first posts above was great, and I even gave one a "like" before I read the last two. But you seem to be more taking issue with my responses than with the issue.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree with every point except the first. I don’t think wizards are a well-designed class. Their core class is too powerful and their sub-classes (except bladesinger) don’t really change how the class plays.

Take the rogue for instance. An arcane trickster and an assassin feel very different, and they play very different. Even moreso for a champion, battlemaster and an Eldritch night. Meanwhile, since wizard spells are so powerful, most wizards I have seen take the same spells and basically come off as pretty interchangeable.

The solution would be to weaken the Core class and buff up the subclasses. Have it so that every wizard’s spellbook isn’t : find familiar, shield, invisibility, fireball, polymorph.

Actually, I've found a few of the "Specialist" Subclasses can alter how the class plays. The issue is, they might require you to use spells of your specialization to do so, and that's not always the best play.

I'm going to use School of Abjuration here- Arcane Ward is a good, flavorful mechanic. You can protect yourself, and eventually others from taking damage, as long as you keep casting Abjuration spells. The problem? Not enough good Abjuration spells, and too many of those require concentration, to prevent you from spamming them the way the subclass seems to think you will.

The schools of magic are not remotely balanced against one another, and so every Wizard is best played as a generalist, who cherry picks the best spells to use. And rather than go back and fix this problem, WotC is perfectly happy just creating tons of new spells- some of which are garbage, and some of which are strictly better than old ones.

Every time they crank out a new book and shove a couple dozen spells into it, they make spellcasters more versatile, and potentially more powerful. But how often do they create new weapons? Armors? Feats? Fighting Styles?

 

[James Gasik]

The core class really isn't all that powerful. It is their spell list and the spell designs which are too good IMO.


Definitely! I agree with this completely. It is part of the OP about too large of a spell list, but I often see the same spells over and over again, such as the examples you give.


Because they help to identify what is really wrong.

Is it the class?
Is it spell design?
Was it the encounter?
Was it just "bad luck" or an unlikely roll?
Is it players' play-style?
and so on...

There could be any number or combinations of factors that lead to a situation where a player or DM feels something is a problem.

Consider @James Gasik's example (D&D 5E - What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)). Resilient Sphere doesn't allow the creature inside to be harmed. BUT the DM set up another way for the demon to be defeated by destroying the altar. The spell did precisely what it was meant to do: incapsulate a creature to either protect it or stop it from harming others. Without the altar addition, when the spell ended the battle would have resumed.

Also, at that level most demons have magic resistance. So, was it also "bad roll" favoring the players?

So, is it the class, the spell, or a fluke unexpected side-effect because of how the DM set up the encounter?

So, as it happens, the demon was a Nalfeshnee, who, while having magic resistance, has a +0 Dex save. Just figured I'd clarify this point.

And again, it wasn't that there was anything wrong with the spell in of itself, other than, as I pointed out, the decision that this is something magic should be allowed to do. It's just one of the better examples of "orthogonal play" that I can present. While they don't always do this, on occasion, a spellcaster can make it seem like they're playing 4D chess compared to non-magical characters.

And when you have as large a spell list as the Wizard, these moments have a fairly high chance of occurring. But YMMV; when I played in AL, the spellcasters all seemed to be super impressed by damage spells and barely touched things that didn't cause direct or indirect (like haste) hit point damage. And this is probably the best kind of spellcaster for a balanced game- their spells do damage. Your non-magic characters do damage. They're playing on the same plane.

Sure, the Wizard can fry a bunch of enemies at once in a limited fashion, but the Fighter can do better single-target damage, and he's not limited by spell slots, just hit points.

As an aside, I always shake my head when people gripe about Wizards doing "too much damage" or want to nerf spells like fireball, when the reality is, trust me, you want your Wizards using damage spells! This was the lesson that should have been learned after 3e, where damage spells were terrible- fireball was doing the same damage it had since the 70's, and monsters suddenly had way more hit points than they did back in AD&D. So canny players started looking at their spell list, and realizing that defanging monsters into uselessness was the way to go!

And it's this moment, when spellcasters realize that they can get way more done by turning a hard encounter into a cakewalk, that really highlights the differences between classes. That spells offer more narrative power over time is just the icing on the cake, but depending on your campaign, that can be some thick frosting.

I mean, think about how many challenges exist that would be nigh-insurmountable for a high level Fighter to tackle, but can be solved with the casting of a single spell. Let's say you need to warn the King that his army is marching into a trap.

Well, you can try to run real fast. Or find a fast horse.

The Wizard? Well he might have a spell like phantom steed. Or teleport. Or shadow walk. Or sending.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, why would we give examples? They take a long time to type, and every time, they get dismissed by “as a DM, you are doing it wrong”.

I agree entirely. That's a big problem with 5e's rulings not rules, talking about almost any problem turns into someone blaming the GM to dismiss it.

The core class really isn't all that powerful. It is their spell list and the spell designs which are too good IMO.


Definitely! I agree with this completely. It is part of the OP about too large of a spell list, but I often see the same spells over and over again, such as the examples you give.


Because they help to identify what is really wrong.

Is it the class?
Is it spell design?
Was it the encounter?
Was it just "bad luck" or an unlikely roll?
Is it players' play-style?
and so on...

There could be any number or combinations of factors that lead to a situation where a player or DM feels something is a problem.

Consider @James Gasik's example (D&D 5E - What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)). Resilient Sphere doesn't allow the creature inside to be harmed. BUT the DM set up another way for the demon to be defeated by destroying the altar. The spell did precisely what it was meant to do: incapsulate a creature to either protect it or stop it from harming others. Without the altar addition, when the spell ended the battle would have resumed.

Also, at that level most demons have magic resistance. So, was it also "bad roll" favoring the players?

So, is it the class, the spell, or a fluke unexpected side-effect because of how the DM set up the encounter?


Where does the problem lie here then?

The wizard class? Not really, Sorcerers can cast web as well as Wizards, as can Bards via Magical Secrets and certain subclasses gain it as a class spell (Circle of Land - Underdark Druids for instance).

Is it the spell? Maybe. Was the monster Large? Should the spell include advantage for Large and larger creatures? Or should the spell be altered in some other way if it is the problem.

Was it just "bad rolls"? The monster failed the save, then failed to escape until two rounds later (if I am reading you correctly). Does this mean poor monster design, or do we fault the swingy nature of the d20 itself?


First, I did not "attempt to dismiss it" (just like I didn't attempt to dismiss your example above). I proposed a reason why the spell had an impact in a fashion that was never intended in the spell itself. Even the poster stated they didn't find a problem with the spell compared to other spells.

So, does that also mean an issue is the power-level, as was one point I outlined in the OP?

IMO it was an unseen consequence by the DM then. It happens. I've done such things many times over the decades, where players use a spell, item or feature in a way I didn't foresee and turned what should have been difficult into something easy.

I don't "blame" people for making oversights. It happens to the best of us because they are unexpected.

Anyway, @James Gasik goes on to say that the problem as he saw it was more how that one spell made all their other efforts immaterial. Which leads back the the issue of spells being too powerful. Otherwise, any magical feature can do the same. I've seen Channel Divinity also alter the course of entire encounters, making the other PCs seem impotent by comparison.

My point is (as a + thread) about identifying what is really going on when posters say Wizards are a problem, too powerful, etc.

Your first posts above was great, and I even gave one a "like" before I read the last two. But you seem to be more taking issue with my responses than with the issue.

With regards to @FrozenNorth's web example I think that's more on web & the kind of changes I mentioned earlier where 5e tries too hard at meeting the needs of main character players who don't want x class to be x class or can't be bothered to work as part of a team. Compare the 5e web to the 3.x web.

• They both (effectively) start with a dex save even if it was called a reflex save before
  • Right off the bat things change dramatically from there but the 5e version causes a save or restrained (speed zero) so the target is simply disabled if it lacks ranged attacks or has nobody in melee
    • The target can make a strength save as an action to simply ignore the entire web & jump back in immediately
  • The 3.x version depends on some systemic differences though
    • First they can make a strength check or escape artist check (usually an action) and if successful they can move five feet through a web that might have up to a 20ft radius area to get through
      
      Second you have total cover if there is 20ft of web between you & someone else while a more likely 5 feet simply provides cover so even trapping a ranged attacker in a web has value
      • Both of those hook into the critical difference of resource attrition (prepared spells/hp pools/etc) shorter adventuring days & delaying part of an encounter or dramatically reducing the odds of ranged attacking mooks from hitting made an enormous difference. None of those things matter in 5e though because resource attrition has been downplayed so far it obliviates anything that depended on it so what remaimns feels wrong when it plays out

 

[BookTenTiger]

The biggest problem I have with the wizard is that they can do All The Magic. Not each individual wizard, but if it's something you can do with magic, the wizard can probably do it (except healing). This eats up humongous amount of design space that could instead be used for more narrow casters, ideally with good theming. For example, I'm fairly certain that one of the reasons they haven't given us a proper psion for 5e is that there's pretty much nothing you could do with a psion that you couldn't do with a wizard, and now that wizards have neo-Vancian casting that doesn't really give power points much of an advantage.

Come to think of it, I think the 3.5e psion is a pretty good model for a genericish caster. There's a central list of powers that all psions have access to, but the juicy stuff is exclusive to psions focusing on that discipline. For example, any psion can learn energy bolt (the equivalent of lightning bolt, but any energy type), but only kineticists can learn energy ball (same for fireball). Any psion can learn various mind-effery like cloud mind, mental disruption, or mindwipe, but only telepaths can delve into proper mind control like charm or dominate, or read someone's mind with read thoughts.

I agree with this, based on my experience of playing a Wizard in a three-year 5e campaign. I chose to play a wizard who specialized in non-damaging spells (since the rest of the group was made up of living weapons). However... There was really no mechanical incentive or limits to guide me in this. My wizard could have been a pacifist for 9 levels and then taken a spell that allows him to hit six people with a magic sword. The only reason I didn't take the spell is because it didn't fit my character concept.

If I were designing the wizard class, I'd definitely want to put in a system of trade-off. I choose to be better at casting X spells, but it means I'm worse at casting Y spells. Or I gain access to A B and C spell schools, but lose access to X Y and Z.

That would just be more fun for me than every wizard having access to all the spells.