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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

---

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 feel like it's kind of a conflict of interest for you to both ask for us to provide reasons for you to collect, then provide only your commentary on those reasons lol (except the ones you're quoting, but that just highlights the problem). Maybe ditch your colour commentary directly below the issues and put it as an opinion somewhere else in the thread?

For example:

Stealing the spotlight - It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest this is solely a player problem. You can argue it's not solely a wizard problem, but it's certainly something that happens far more often with full casters than other characters.

And it can happen even when you don't want it to. I don't play Wizards, but I do play Druids. Over a the course of a campaign, the players get to know what you can do, and between Druid spells, shapeshifting, and the Tasha's familiar thing, you have a pretty incredible toolkit (albeit less incredible than a Wizard). So I can and I do sit back and try to avoid stealing the spotlight, but the reality is I have so much good stuff that I get asked to use it.

And you can try to argue "Oh well it's not bad if you were asked!", but it is.

It is.

If I'm the one solving 50% of the problems, when I'm 20% or less of the group, that's a problem. And even if it's a lower number, odds are, the rest are being solved mostly by another full caster.

Being able to overcome just about all challenges - Your commentary here is more reasonable, but your demand for specific examples really seems like sealioning/bad faith. I can't say if it is, but I'm concerned that if I do give specific examples from actual games, you'll try to argue with the specific examples, rather than accepting them, which ruins the entire point of giving real examples.

The other issue is that hardly anyone plays Wizards anymore. So a lot of examples would be 2E and the like (checked to ensure they could still happen in 3E versions of the game). This is caused mainly by the class being boring AND not giving people a "pop culture" Wizard. The D&D Wizard isn't Harry Potter, isn't a video game wizard, isn't Sparrowhawk, and so on. The 5E D&D Wizard is a weird nerd who knows a ton of spells and INT-based skills, and that's it.

So I'd identify two major problems:

1) Wizards are boring and overpowered, which is a bad combo.

You already have this noted, essentially. Wizards are basically a featureless class whose whole deal is just that they get ALLLLLLLL the Arcane spells, which is a huge and powerful list, and that because they have INT primary, they're likely the best at lore-type skills, which are a huge feature in D&D games. And that's it.

They don't really even have any class features you could trade out for anything (Arcane Recovery and a few subclass bits and bobs). They've got really no weapon/armour proficiencies so they're dull there too.

2) Wizards are the only INT class in all of 5E.

This is a weird stupid 5E design problem. Despite having a bunch of CHA classes, 5E managed to have no INT classes (Warlock could very easily have been INT - it was in 3.XE IIRC) except Wizard. Then it put a bunch of key D&D skills coming off INT, essentially meaning that if you didn't have a Wizard, you're likely to have not-great scores in those because INT doesn't help with anything else (it's not even a common save).

This creates a problem where Wizards are essentially expected to be lore masters in the colloquial sense (further limiting the concepts the class is valid for) whilst also ensuring most groups have poor access to those skills (because they don't have a Wizard).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Any reason the Nalfeshnee didn't just teleport out of the resilient sphere when the party went after the altar?

This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm concerned about. The real answer is typically that the DM didn't think of it at the time (extraplanar beings tend to have large spell lists themselves), or they thought the spell blocked it or whatever, and the appearance of trying to argue that another DM was "doing it wrong" whilst claiming to be asking for good-faith real-world examples is, well, not a good look. At all.

EDIT - And this isn't directed at you personally, but encounters with extraplanar creatures inspire more Monday Morning Quarterbacking from other DMs than literally any other part of D&D. You can explain all sorts of ways you screwed up as a DM, and get helpful advice, but god forbid you even positively describe combat with an extraplanar creature, because I guarantee multiple DMs will barge in to yell about how you didn't remember X spell or Y ability, or failed to use them in some elaborate and bizarre way.

Even Matt Mercer gets hit with this I note. So doesn't matter if you're the Shaq of DMing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

All full casters fall in this category for me.

I have to admit there have been times when playing my Druid in a party with no other full casters (or just a Sorcerer with an eccentric spell selection, which is to say, a Sorcerer lol), I've felt a bit like the host in the Crystal Maze, and you know, the players decide to spend a crystal to get out of a situation, so I just use my stupid Druid powers to solve it (usually in a way I came up with a few minutes before). My brother was the same way with a Wizard in 2E and 3E.

That's not great. It is more a full caster problem than a Wizard problem.

Wizards are the most full caster full caster though, y'know? They're the only full caster where their massive spell list is their entire class identity.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I feel like it's kind of a conflict of interest for you to both ask for us to provide reasons for you to collect, then provide only your commentary on those reasons lol (except the ones you're quoting, but that just highlights the problem). Maybe ditch your colour commentary directly below the issues and put it as an opinion somewhere else in the thread?

Well, at the time I posted them, I only had my commentary. Others have theirs in their own posts. When people post issues I didn't think of, I added them. Some of the current posts have issues, but I am trying to figure out if those issues call under one of the originals I posted or is its own thing.

Stealing the spotlight - It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest this is solely a player problem.

Did I say "solely a player problem"? No. I said IMO (my comments, after all ) that is only a problem when it is a player who is trying to do it.

but your demand for specific examples really seems like sealioning/bad faith. I can't say if it is, but I'm concerned that if I do give specific examples from actual games, you'll try to argue with the specific examples, rather than accepting them, which ruins the entire point of giving real examples.

It isn't bad faith at all--in fact it is the other way around. Personally, I'm tired of listening to people post about how bad Wizards are with broad claims and not backing them up with why they see it that way.

As for "arguing", I'm not. I might question an example if I don't see or understand the rationale behind it, but that is because I am trying to gain a better, more broad, perspective instead of just relying on my own experiences and insight.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm concerned about. The real answer is typically that the DM didn't think of it at the time (extraplanar beings tend to have large spell lists themselves), or they thought the spell blocked it or whatever, and the appearance of trying to argue that another DM was "doing it wrong" whilst claiming to be asking for good-faith real-world examples is, well, not a good look. At all.

Then you're reading it wrong. I am asking because (if the poster knows...) why the DM didn't it clarifies their understanding of how the spells work, etc. When people claim spells are too powerful, for example, I like to know if it is because they are reading it differently than I am. Is it a problem with the spell, or just a difference of ruling how the spell works.

Even in that example I just said the DM's design let to an unforeseen consequence of the spell doing more than it was designed for. If they further rule the sphere block teleport because it blocks all spell effects, that gives me more information to work with.

The other issue is that hardly anyone plays Wizards anymore. So a lot of examples would be 2E and the like (checked to ensure they could still happen in 3E versions of the game). This is caused mainly by the class being boring AND not giving people a "pop culture" Wizard. The D&D Wizard isn't Harry Potter, isn't a video game wizard, isn't Sparrowhawk, and so on. The 5E D&D Wizard is a weird nerd who knows a ton of spells and INT-based skills, and that's it.

Now, this is an issue I didn't identify (because personally I don't find them "boring") so I'll add it to the OP when I am done with this post.

2) Wizards are the only INT class in all of 5E.

Aren't Artificers? I could be wrong since I don't use them in my games.

Anyway, I agree Warlocks could easily have been INT-based as well and in one iteration of our Mod we considered it.

Wizards are the most full caster full caster though, y'know? They're the only full caster where their massive spell list is their entire class identity.

Agreed. Without spells, they have nothing. At least other full and half-casters have other things to fall back on without spells (although admittedly Sorcerers are pretty much just as hamstrung without spells...).

 

[ECMO3]

Agreed. Without spells, they have nothing. At least other full and half-casters have other things to fall back on without spells (although admittedly Sorcerers are pretty much just as hamstrung without spells...).

I would disagree with this. Enchantment, Divination, War Magic and at high levels Necromancy all have significant abilities outside of spells.

Hypnotic Gaze is extremely powerful and you get it at 2nd level. One failed save no ending to the effect as long as you use your action to maintain it and no one else damages the enemy. I have a had a Wizard land it on a boss during a tough fight and the entire rest of the party (except the Wizard) did a long rest before they started attacking him again. They considered not even fighting him again and just waiting around 6 days until the charmed bad guy died of exhaustion while they cast greater restoration on the Wizard.

The 14th level Necromancy effect can get you a Lich as a servant for an hour.

Arcane Deflection from War Magic is an awesome feature that would be worth a 2-level dip on a lot of classes even without spells.

 

[James Gasik]

Awesome! Thanks for the clarification. So, with advantage but no DEX, chances of failing were about 50/50 or maybe 60/40 depending on the DC. Close enough to 50/50 probably that is wasn't really just totally a bad roll (like rolling a 3 when you needed a 5 or 6 to succeed).

Any reason the Nalfeshnee didn't just teleport out of the resilient sphere when the party went after the altar?


So, you're arguing more this is something magic shouldn't be able to do? Does this make it a "spells are too powerful" issue?


I think most people here (at least) have agreed one issue is the large spell list of Wizards.


True, but then again, he might not have them...

To be serious, though, likely there is a good chance they might know one or more depending on their level and the PC concept. Many of those spells also make "exploration" challenges just a bump in the road and IMO should either be really high level or removed. One of the things I like about LotR, for example, is Gandalf don't just teleport the party to Mordor, etc.

I can't explain why it didn't teleport out of the sphere. Probably because the intent of the encounter wasn't to make us fight it to the death, as it was, after all, not something we should have been fighting. The DM had mostly used the teleport to get in the way of people going for the altar. I can't really remember exactly what everyone else was doing, because I'd decided to try and "tank" it, with the Cleric backing me up. It really felt like anyone should have been able to disengage and/or dash to the altar (there was some rubble and stairs to climb to slow people down, I recall).

And it did teleport onto the stairs to block someone, which made me dash to get back in it's face, but once the globe hit it, that was that, the DM had it fume at us impotently.

 

[Dausuul]

The fundamental problem with wizards is lack of focus. Their spell list covers basically everything except healing, and there is nothing pushing back against the tendency to pick the most effective individual spells without regard to whether they fit a concept or theme.

Wizard specializations should push much harder on your spell picks. 2E and 3E were on the right track* with specialists having to sacrifice access to some other school(s). That would go a long way toward both making wizards more varied and unique, and also reining in the tendency of wizards to overshadow other classes by having a spell to solve every problem.

*Mind you, the actual implementation had problems, mostly because some schools were wildly better than others. But the basic idea was sound.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, as for whether or not I believe resilient sphere should exist- I don't know. One of the big problems with magic in D&D is that, long ago, someone decided that X spell of Y level can achieve Z effect. Sometimes editions have changed the precise level of a spell up or down but for the most part, these benchmarks are still being used in design, what, 45 years later?

Fly, for example, is a 3rd level spell effect. Why? Because it is. And the game is supposedly balanced around people not getting flight until 5th (except when it isn't, of course). See the proposed Dragonborn flight ability. When do they get it? At 5 HD.

The game is built upon assumptions about what magic can theoretically achieve, and at what level players should get various effects. But non-magical characters aren't designed the same way. When a Wizard can fly at 5th level, do Fighters and Rogues get flight? Or an ability to counter flight, other than "shoot an arrow at it"?

Well Fighters get an extra attack. That's something, I suppose.

How often has a D&D game designer sat down and said "you know, maybe magic shouldn't have certain effects?". Rarely, because if you suddenly made it to where people couldn't summon monsters, or polymorph, or trap people in inescapable magic cages, some very vocal voices will start grumbling, saying you're taking away things important to D&D, to the point that it doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

The example here is magic missile. We all know that the spell always hits. When 4e came out, "automatically hitting" wasn't really something that worked compared to other abilities. So it was given an attack roll, and did force damage, and that was fine.

Oh wait, no it wasn't. People kept griping that it was "nerfed" and "changed", and used it as a rallying cry for why 4e "wasn't D&D".

So at a certain point, they revised the power. Now it was an "effect" that did a small amount of force damage. No big deal, right?

Except now it no longer interacted with anything that hinged upon it hitting. Or even being properly considered an attack. Ironically, during the season of D&D Encounters where this change was made, the adventure handed out a magic item that gave bonus damage to magic missile. Except, well, lol, it didn't work (I can't remember why, but I think it was worded to cause extra damage when the missile hit it's target)!

So what I'm saying is, some of the issues with D&D magic are the result of sacred cows in it's design, assumptions buried in the bones of the game, that no one really understands, because many were arbitrary decisions, but nobody really seems to want to take the magic system apart and rework it.

Heck, as an "apology edition", 5e went out of it's way to bring back as many old staple spells as it could from earlier editions. That's why the PHB has stuff like fabricate, simulacrum, and gate laying around- spells that are known to be problematic, and WotC barely did a thing to reign them in, figuring "well, if someone is running a game at that level, they can figure it out".

Because advice for high level play, let alone high level adventures, don't make money.

So I'm not saying that resilient sphere is too powerful. Again, it's effect is orthogonal to how the game is normally played. But maybe we should be going back to the drawing board, and deciding what magic can, or cannot do.

Because as the game stand, I think anyone would be hard pressed to say what, exactly, the limits of magical effects are.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, you're probably right. At the same time, if folks are designing their "perfect" 4-5 person party, they probably start by deciding whether it will be a Peace, Twilight, or Life domain cleric and then build around that.

I think we crunched out best 5E party is all cleric.

 

[ECMO3]

The game is built upon assumptions about what magic can theoretically achieve, and at what level players should get various effects. But non-magical characters aren't designed the same way. When a Wizard can fly at 5th level, do Fighters and Rogues get flight? Or an ability to counter flight, other than "shoot an arrow at it"?

Fighters and Rogues can counter flight with shove, grapple and if you are using the DMG the rules for climbing on a creature. To be fair the Wizard can try these things too, but is generally not nearly as good at it.

If the flying creature is pelting them with arrows from Range these won't work, but if he is diving in and attacking them it will.

Some will say they have to waste an action (and usually a reaction) on such things, but the Wizard has to do the same thing by taking an action to cast fly and needs to maintain concentration to avoid plummeting to the earth.