D&D 5E What Level is the Wizard vs. the Fighter?

What Level Wizard is equal to a Fighter 1, Fighter 10, and Fighter 20?

  • Less than Level 1

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

  • 11

  • 12

  • 13

  • 14

  • 15

  • 16

  • 17

  • 18

  • 19

  • 20

  • Higher than 20


Results are only viewable after voting.
Oh, sure, I don't question any of that. My point was that Tetrasodium cited those passages as though they indicated the designers never intended magic items to be seen as optional, when very clearly they did intend so, with whatever caveats etc. one would like to add.

And that last bit is, frankly, par for the course for 5e design, as it was for 3e design. They did better than they did in 3e, but easily half (likely more) of 5e's design issues can be tied back to "the designers played and created characters and worlds very different from [what a lot of people play.]" The caster/martial disparity has shades of it, the saving throw stuff shows it (I still distinctly remember the "ghoul surprise" podcast), certain races show it, the oddities lingering in the basic weapons kind of show it (e.g. the trident being literally just a heavier, more expensive, martial-weapon spear), short-rest classes getting the short end of the stick, the CR system still being pretty much a joke, GP is sorely lacking in mechanical value rather than "ooh shiny" value, a few other odds and ends.

3e was DRAMATICALLY worse, no question, 5e is definitely a step up in a lot of ways, but "designed a game without knowing how people would actually play it" is unfortunately one of the problems inherited from 3e.
Declaring magic items "optional" while simultaneously taking so many steps in other aspects of the system design to ensure that the bar to acquire them is well below what could be considered a mere triviality does not support the idea that any serious consideration should be given to the plight of fighters at a table that has decided not to use magic items at all. Quite a few taking part in the Fighter pity party want to redefine "optional" as something closer to "not recommended" or "forbidden" while pairing it with things like quantum spellbooks and quantum spell prep casters rather than simply admitting that a wizard pc is limited by the rules that define the spellbook& prep lists.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

4 level 20 fighters who hit half the time(they hit more often in actual play), will do with a greatsword, 96 points of damage a round. It's actually higher, since they will be re-rolling the first 1s and 2s that they roll on the dice. Those sacks of hit points are going to drop fast. If they hit 3 times a round, which is more likely than 2, then it's 144 points a round.
Is that with or without "optional" feats and "optional" magic items?

For this to be true, they have to all be liars. The books say straight out that the classes are designed to fight the monsters without magic items or feats, and players have the option to play any classes they want, so while rare, parties without a single caster or monk do happen. That's why they say it gets harder if that rarity happens and the group might "need" +1 weapons as the only magic items "necessary."
It's less that they are liars and more the mantra of 5e is

"We made it easy for your DM to fix it."

5e was designed such that if you deviate from the designer's expected norm, it is very easy for your DM to adjust. This was different from 0e-4e wfere adjustment were real work and learn impossible on the fly

5e falls apart if the DM or players cut stuff out and no counter adjustments are made. And the fighter class is most vulnerable to adjustments due to the nature of its job. Hence the level 20 fighter being seen equal to a level 13-16 wizard.
 
Last edited:

Is that with or without "optional" feats and "optional" magic items?
Completely without.
It's less that they are liars and more the mantra of 5e is

"We made it easy for your DM to fix it."
The only fix they felt somewhat necessary was that in a purely non-magical party, you should give them magic weapons. That's it.
5e was designed such that if you deviate from the designer's expected norm, it is very easy for your DM to adjust. This was different from 0e-4e wfere adjustment were real work and learn impossible on the fly

5e falls apart if the DM or players cut stuff out and no counter adjustments are made. And the fighter class is most vulnerable to adjustments due to the nature of its job. Hence the level 20 fighter being seen equal to a level 13-16 wizard.
While I do think the fighter needs a bit of improvement in out of combat pillars, I don't agree with your assessment about how incompetent they are at mid and high levels without magic items.
 

I voted 1-8-16, but really it varies hugely depending on the campaign. I use 1 week long rests which lessens the 15-MAD issue, Wizards rarely want to blow all their spells in one fight. In 3e at high level I'd see parties of literally all Wizards, nothing like that in 5e where it seems everyone contributes at all levels.
 

5e was designed such that if you deviate from the designer's expected norm, it is very easy for your DM to adjust. This was different from 0e-4e wfere adjustment were real work and learn impossible on the fly

I agree with that. Lack of Feats hurts non-casters more; my no-Feats campaign has generous 1e/2e style magic item availability which compensates. The fewer magic items there are, the more non-casters need Feats (and/or Boons etc) to compensate.
 

I agree with that. Lack of Feats hurts non-casters more; my no-Feats campaign has generous 1e/2e style magic item availability which compensates. The fewer magic items there are, the more non-casters need Feats (and/or Boons etc) to compensate.
That's a fun question. Does not having feats hurt martials more? I think Yes. However, I think there's a strong case that not having multiclassing hurts casters more. A single level dip for armor and shield proficiency is a solid investment (even if done later).
 

That's a fun question. Does not having feats hurt martials more? I think Yes. However, I think there's a strong case that not having multiclassing hurts casters more. A single level dip for armor and shield proficiency is a solid investment (even if done later).

I think you're right that casters benefit more from multiclassing, but giving up a casting level is a big deal. When I allow multiclassing I traditionally say "only 1 casting class", but I'm looking at "only 1 casting class per attribute" as that deals with Sorcadin style multi-CHA-caster shenanigans while allowing some reasonable options like a Wizard/Cleric.
At very high levels casters get some great capstone & near-capstone abilities, multiclassing can hurt that. OTOH there are some great non-caster capstones too, like Barbarian Infinite Rage.
 

I think you're right that casters benefit more from multiclassing, but giving up a casting level is a big deal. When I allow multiclassing I traditionally say "only 1 casting class", but I'm looking at "only 1 casting class per attribute" as that deals with Sorcadin style multi-CHA-caster shenanigans while allowing some reasonable options like a Wizard/Cleric.
At very high levels casters get some great capstone & near-capstone abilities, multiclassing can hurt that. OTOH there are some great non-caster capstones too, like Barbarian Infinite Rage.
Cleric gets armor and shields without slot delay. (Assuming you get to level 5+ before doing the mutliclass I think a decent case can be made for it.) I wouldn't say straight up more power, but definitely not weaker than single class caster either.
 

Declaring magic items "optional" while simultaneously taking so many steps in other aspects of the system design to ensure that the bar to acquire them is well below what could be considered a mere triviality does not support the idea that any serious consideration should be given to the plight of fighters at a table that has decided not to use magic items at all. Quite a few taking part in the Fighter pity party want to redefine "optional" as something closer to "not recommended" or "forbidden" while pairing it with things like quantum spellbooks and quantum spell prep casters rather than simply admitting that a wizard pc is limited by the rules that define the spellbook& prep lists.
Calling it a "pity party" is rather more nasty than necessary for the conversation, don't you think? That doesn't seem to be conducive to actually getting people on board with your position.

Further, as noted in my previous post, I did everything I could to avoid the "quantum spellbook" problem, taking up much less than half of the minimum spells known for a 13th level Wizard and precisely a third of their spells prepared. Unlike what TheSword implied with their response, I wasn't expecting these things to be used in consecutive initial rounds of a combat, because yes, that would be Pretty Dumb. My point was that they're excellent defensive choices, for a Wizard actually concerned with "keeping up" with Fighters in terms of defenses. Plus, all the spells I suggested are good spells, ones recommended by guides (shield, misty step, fly, etc.) Fly and misty step even have non-combat utility.

The designers said repeatedly during the playtest of 5e that magic items were supposed to be fully optional, something that many--including myself--balked at over the years. And people continued to insist that it was true, that the DM did not ever need to give out magic items ever, for any reason, no matter what, period. Now, again, perhaps that belief is mistaken. But it's more than a little disingenuous to argue that the text truly supports the idea that magic items were always intended to be present for most if not all groups, when the text explicitly says that isn't the case, as you yourself quoted with the screenshot of that page from Xanathar's.

Again: it is entirely possible that the developers are simply wrong to say that, or that the text contradicts itself, or that the statement is an Obi-Wan-style truth "from a certain point of view," etc. You can, quite easily, argue any of those things and probably more that I'm not considering. But it is explicit, in the text and from the designers' lips, that magic items were intended to be optional, without any explicit caveats or reservations. To pretend that the text literally, actually claims otherwise is to blatantly ignore the actual words on the page. Whether those actual words are correct is absolutely a subject of (furious!) debate, but they're there, and to pretend like they aren't is playing sillybuggers.
 

Cleric gets armor and shields without slot delay. (Assuming you get to level 5+ before doing the mutliclass I think a decent case can be made for it.) I wouldn't say straight up more power, but definitely not weaker than single class caster either.
Yeah, a one-level Cleric dip is extremely tempting for any full caster that doesn't have medium armor and shield proficiency. It delays new spell levels by one, but provides extremely solid defensive benefits. I have a very slightly silly but mostly serious character idea I built up a while back that justifies such a choice in her personal story.

In brief:
Born in poverty, resorted to theft to survive (starts out Rogue 1)
Got caught by a merchant but said merchant saw her intelligence and potential, thus sent her to Bard College in exchange for her earning enough to pay off the costs (Bard 3, Lore)
While in college she found faith in Knowledge itself (Cleric 1, Knowledge), not so much deities of knowledge per se
But she found the church too stuffy and rigid and unwilling to look for broader knowledge, so she goes out to adventure and learn All The Things (sticks with Bard thereafter)
Character can theoretically start as early as level 2, being Rogue 1/Bard 1 and picking up Cleric along the way, but makes more sense to start at level 4-5, having "graduated" from the College of Lore, and either having already found her faith, or finding it soon after her journey begins.

She gets 2 (BG) + 2 (Half-elf) + 4 (Rogue, 2 Expertise), +1 (Bard MC), +3 (Lore, 2 Expertise), +2 (Knowledge, 2 Expertise) = 16 proficient skills, 6 with Expertise (or 5 + Thieves' Tools), meaning she's trained in all but 2 skills and an expert in a third of them. Throw in Prodigy at some point as she advances further with Bard, and she'd have 17/18 proficient skills, 9 of which have Expertise, while being able to speak seven languages (Common, Elvish, Thieves' Cant, and four of her choice). She gets minor Sneak Attack damage, wears medium armor and shields, and has access to all 1st level Cleric spells, freeing up those precious Bard spells known for non-healing options. The only things she pays for this are (a) delayed spell levels, (b) the crappy Bard capstone, (c) her level 19 ASI, and (d) one 7th level spell slot. She is, truly, a renaissance woman in a D&D world.

Someday, perhaps I'll play her. She seems like she'd be very interesting to play, balancing unbridled curiosity with a more "savvy" outlook on life than one would expect from such a scholarly person.

Likewise, for Sorcerer and Paladin, a one-level Warlock dip is extremely tempting, permitting a SAD character. 5e has, in general, reversed the pattern of 3e: martials get relatively little from it, unless they extremely carefully plan their build, and tend to pay a hefty price if they do (Fighter can lose their top-end Extra Attack, Barbarian has a unique stat-cap-increasing capstone, etc.), while casters actually can benefit rather a lot from a one- or two-level dip in something else before continuing on as their main class.
 

Remove ads

Top