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

DND_Reborn · Mar 20, 2023

nevin said:
If the wizard does not have too much information on what they will be doing nothing. If you play modules or just dungeon delve and the wizard has access to all spells then players that know the modules or types of encounters the DM likes, will always be functioning at max effect.

I think a lot of people would disagree with this as with a proper spell selection, a Wizard can be prepared as well as other classes (if not better) for most situations--especially at tier 3 and tier 4 (though not often seen in actual play IME). YMMV, of course.

Anyway, I actually discussed with a player the other day an idea to nerf casters by allowing them to prepare a number of spells depending on the spell levels. Your total has to no more than your caster level plus your spellcasting ability modifier.

For example, a Wizard 5 with INT 18 would be able to prepare 9 spell levels. It could be:

Two first, two second, one third (2+4+3=9) or
Four first, one second, one third (4+2+3) or
One first, one second, two third (1+2+6)
and so on...

So, such a Wizard could only have 3-6 spells prepared typically instead of 9 spells.

At higher levels, it makes the really powerful magic costly to prepare! Even at 20th level with +5 modifier, a 9th level spell would cost you 9 of of your 25 spell levels to prepare (over one-third of them!).

This would also require a similar decrease for known spell casters (not much, but probably a bit...).

tetrasodium · Mar 21, 2023

James Gasik said:
Having given this way too much thought, I think the problem with the Wizard is that their strength is very situational. They have a tool for just about every conceivable situation, but they can't have them all at once. The right spell selection at the right time can invert the difficulty of encounters, or overcome challenges in ways the DM hadn't expected, and it's these moments that most people who feel the Wizard is too strong are really complaining about.

Because the opposite can be true as well; there's a fairly low floor for the class, where it sits at the bottom of the hit point pool, lacking armor, and having to spend vital spell slots on defense. Times when enemies make saves or are immune/resistant to damage and status effects, or where there's no optimal place to drop an area spell without harming allies.

Even the mightiest of spells, which can wreck a large percentage of enemies, can be foiled by an enemy spellcaster with dispel magic or counterspell, foes that can teleport, etc..

There's a reason "Schrodinger's Wizard" became a meme after all. So when the Wizard is firing on all cylinders, they can seem unstoppable, able to outperform almost every other class. But their ability to do that is very dependent on factors that cannot be predicted.

How open is the DM to shenanigans? What are their rulings on edge cases like? What is the party makeup? What enemies are common to the campaign? How much advance knowledge about a given situation does the Wizard have? Can they long rest before a big engagement? How many spells have they been able to put in their spellbook, which takes opportunity, time, and a decent gold investment?

How limited are they on valuable material components? What magic items do they have access to? Does the DM allow them to scribe scrolls? Are scrolls often found as treasure? How rigorously do they rule on things like getting the scroll to hand, opening it and reading it? Do they even allow reaction or bonus action scrolls?

What house rules are in play? What spells are allowed? PHB only? All WotC products? 3rd party? Are there bans to consider?

Then you have player skill; a Wizard who thinks fireball is the be all and end all of magic and spams firebolt and shield when not casting it can be a menace, but is likely far easier to deal with than the armchair tactician who focuses entirely on destroying the enemy's ability to act.

The ceiling for the Wizard's performance is unbelievably high, but whether or not they can be consistent is completely up in the air.

The main issues with the Sorcerer, I realize, are that they are more extreme than the Wizard; with their lower versatility they can seem crippled at times, but when their spells are the right ones for the job, the addition of Sorcery points to augment them can theoretically let them go beyond even the Wizard- but the opportunities are far less likely.

Because of these variables, rating the Wizard is impossible. It's like the DM who gripes about the Monk because powerful enemies keep failing saves against Stunning Strike; you can mathematically prove that the Monk isn't as good as all that, but they will go back to that time when the Monk made all the saves, ran around the battlefield with impunity, were immune to missile fire, dodged all attacks, and completely demolished the BBEG!

Personally, I think it's high time WotC sat down with the spell list and realized that a lot of their balancing is still based on legacy decisions from as long as 50 years ago. Do they need 9 levels of spells? Are Fireball and Fly really 5th level abilities?

Maybe it's time to cut down on versatility, or pare away the destructive powers of the Wizard and give them exclusively to the Sorcerer.

There's a lot of ways the Wizard can be rebuilt and rebalanced, but the problem is doing that requires change. Lots of change. And for people who feel that the sacred cows of the spell list are part and parcel of what makes D&D, well, Dungeons & Dragons, that might be a bridge too far, which is always something that Wizards of the Coast will have to consider.

I also agree but think the shift from vancian to spontaneous casting in 5e exacerbates the bold bit. Back in the day it was a nontrivial thing to spec for utility/control/damage & that specialization went even further into things like feat/PrC selection. I think that 6e could improve things to some degree with the flex-vancian spell prep but it remains to be seen to what degree & in what ways.

James Gasik · Mar 21, 2023

tetrasodium said:
I also agree but think the shift from vancian to spontaneous casting in 5e exacerbates the bold bit. Back in the day it was a nontrivial thing to spec for utility/control/damage & that specialization went even further into things like feat/PrC selection. I think that 6e could improve things to some degree with the flex-vancian spell prep but it remains to be seen to what degree & in what ways.

Yes, the current spell preparation is really nice for new Wizard players, but experts don't need that kind of versatility, lol.

Bill Zebub · Mar 21, 2023

I think what is wrong with the wizard is that it doesn’t have trade-offs, except in the daily load-out. But you never really have to give up one thing in order to be strong in something else.

tetrasodium · Mar 21, 2023

James Gasik said:
Yes, the current spell preparation is really nice for new Wizard players, but experts don't need that kind of versatility, lol.

with experienced players it creates a paradox with dramatically less versatility. Every prep slot is equally valuable so there's no more room for niche spells that were once taken because "hey what else am I going to devote that L1/L2 slot to now that I'm level xx?" so now the wizard devotes all of their prep slots to preparing the full selection of A+ & S tier spells of their highest levels

ECMO3 · Mar 21, 2023

tetrasodium said:
with experienced players it creates a paradox with dramatically less versatility. Every prep slot is equally valuable so there's no more room for niche spells that were once taken because "hey what else am I going to devote that L1/L2 slot to now that I'm level xx?" so now the wizard devotes all of their prep slots to preparing the full selection of A+ & S tier spells of their highest levels

I am not sure I agree with that. for several reasons:

1. I think they base it a lot on their subclass. Animate Dead is not A+ or S tier but I will bet every high level necromancer still has it on their prepared spells. Same for things like Hold Person for an enchanter or fireball for an evoker..

2. I think characters tend to build thematically and arrange their spell selections accordingly.

3. People tend to take and keep blasting spells that are decidedly not A+. Every Wizard player other than myself that I have played with not only took Fireball, which is decent but not great in tier 2, but kept it well into tier 4 at which point it sucks.

ECMO3 · Mar 21, 2023

Bill Zebub said:
I think what is wrong with the wizard is that it doesn’t have trade-offs, except in the daily load-out. But you never really have to give up one thing in order to be strong in something else.

I think that is what makes the Wizard class itself great. As class there are no tradeoffs, the Wizard can be awesome at anything and that is why it is the best designed class in the game because the player can make it what he or she wants.

That said, while the class has no weaknesses, there absolutely are tradeoffs in your actual build. You can't have a Wizard that is good at control, good at blasting, good at melee, good at exploration and good at social all at the same time. You can have a Wizard that is great at any one of those things and good at another one or two and then poor at the rest of them.

If your campaign has unlimited spells with money and time to scribe them, you can have a Wizard with the spells in their book to do all of that well but even then they still won't be able to prepare enough spells to do them all well and if they try they won't be good at anything.

So to sum up in most campaigns there are tradeoffs based on what spells you put in your book and in campagins where that is not limited there are still tradeoffs in what you can prepare.