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

[Minigiant]

I still don't understand this. Convenyional wisdom says that 5e combat is pretty easy, and using the CR system as written results in easy, unsatisfying encounters. Are you saying that's only true because of spells? Do your fighters regularly lose fights?

Do you see a lot of parties consisting entirely of fighters and rogues? How unpopular IS spellcasting in your corner of the world?

It's not that it's common.

It's more that some people got the idea that they could play no magic, no caster featless D&D5E vs the MM with no DM adjustment.

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh, this is misleading, and why white box analysis isn't great.

Fireball is limited to two per day at 5th in an edition that tells DMs to plan for 6-8 encounters per day. It also is indiscriminate, hitting allies and enemies. That all but requires winning initiative and a cooperative encounter design. Even if you are able to avoid hitting allies, you're unlikely to hit more than 3-5 targets. Even the damage, 8d6 (28), is not that spectacular. A fighter of 5th level can pretty easily be doing 1d8+5 (9.5) or 2d6+3 (10) twice a turn. The fighter catches up on single target damage after two rounds (less with an action surge), and single target damage in a system where you're just as effective at max hp as 1 hp is pretty important..

There's also basically no way in the game to improve fireball except higher spell levels, a higher DC, or the damage resistance feat, while fighters can improve damage and hit rate with higher ability scores, feats that significantly increase damage or add rider effects, class abilities, and magic items and weapons. 5e's track has moved it away from magic items which significantly affects the fighter more than other classes, but they do still exist.

The trouble is that fireball is not the only thing that wizards can do.

I pegged it thusly:

A level 1 Fighter is greater than a level 1 Wizard. At level 1, you're ruled by hp and AC, and Fighters have that.
A level 10 Fighter is about equal to a level 7 Wizard (but a level 11 Fighter is about a level 9 Wizard; Fighter 11 is a power spike).
A level 20 Fighter is about equal to a level 11-12 Wizard. Level 7+ spells are just dumb, and Fighter peaks at level 11-12.

There is a breakdown of fighter damage with a couple different weapons here in this post & there's an excessive spreadsheet here. The extra ASI/Feats at 6 & 14 stacking on each attack makes a big difference beyond 11-12. 20 strength+gwm+sentinel & those plus something likee heavy armor master/shield master/sharpshooter/etc

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.

It's hard to assess a baseline of 3.5 style scroll/looted spellbook availability alongside an expectation of no feats & no magic weapons as the norm as anything reasonable. It's great that you "tried" to avoid a quantum spellbook, but you only managed to do that with spell scroll & maybe spellbook availability not reflected by the o5e books or hardcover adventures other than TYP. Taken a step further I could point out how you are the only one on the poor fighter train who has even acknowledged in a roundabout way that the comparison should not include a quantum spellbook rather than dismissing or scorning the very idea.

It's great that people want to think "feats & magic items are optional" is the same as "feats & magic items being available is very much not the norm outside low levels where they have not yet been obtained", but they are not the same. As someone else mentioned games that are going for that no magic items conan style feel are likely expected to be fighting more orcs bandits & owlbears than demons dragons & golems... A GM is welcome to mix that up in their conan inspired game but doing so requires them to make some changes.

Unfortunately attempts to placate the idea that no magic items is somehow common despite everything in the rules discouraging that also borks balance the other way around but making adjustments to twist the needle back the other way in correction as levels advance is much more difficult than changing something like resist nonmagical b/p/s or dropping ac from probably hit 60%+ to practically guaranteed hit.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's more that some people got the idea that they could play no magic, no caster featless D&D5E vs the MM with no DM adjustment.

Well, you can, especially if you still have half-casters... but even without them you can.

We played an all-monk animal-themed game for several months up to level 8 without casters. And none of the feats we took were "magical", so we could have gotten by without them as well. Even the 2-3 magic items we had really weren't essential by any means.

It is entirely possible. I don't think it would appeal to many peoples' tastes, but you can certainly do it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The reality is that dealing large amounts of damage to a single foe is the most useful ability in the game. It’s useful in most encounters, in most environments, and at every level. Similarly the ability to take damage and hits is almost as useful.

A wizard is much more powerful when they have a fighter between them and the enemy. I am gobsmacked that 13 people think a 1st level fighter isn’t streets ahead of a wizard at level 1. When a wizard gets 2 1st level spell slots and is basically a walking bag of death saves. I smell an ideological agenda, rather than engaging with the reality of playing a wizard at 1st level.

I am shocked, shocked to discover that someone who literally calls themself TheSword values combat above literally everything else.

All teasing aside this is very situational. A fighter is functionally a commoner of their level out of combat while a wizard gets spells. The relative importance of combat is different from campaign to campaign; in my current Wild Beyond the Wychlight campaign the PCs are about to hit level 3. You know how many combats they've had so far? One. (They've had plenty of encounters - just most of them aren't combat). In the previous dungeon crawl campaign with the same group at first and second level the barbarian might have been the strongest PC. But in the current one they're the weakest because the value of a combat focus is very different and the wizard has made bank out of the minor illusion and mage hand cantrips and Investigation and Arcana have been useful.

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).

Not having feats definitely hurts the fighter and the rogue more because those are the two classes that get extra ASI/Feats. But I can't agree with you about multiclassing; there's little reason for a fighter to not multiclass after level 11 while by contrast multiclassing a single level as a wizard into either cleric or artificer means you get to learn top level spells a level late, which can be a serious issue.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, you can, especially if you still have half-casters... but even without them you can.

We played an all-monk animal-themed game for several months up to level 8 without casters. And none of the feats we took were "magical", so we could have gotten by without them as well. Even the 2-3 magic items we had really weren't essential by any means.

It is entirely possible. I don't think it would appeal to many peoples' tastes, but you can certainly do it.

Well monk is specifically called out as the class that is not dependent on mundane equipment, magical equipment, feats, multiclasssing, or anything else outside of the class itself. It's one of the design goals. Monks only need food and water (and alcohol).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well monk is specifically called out as the class that is not dependent on mundane equipment, magical equipment, feats, multiclasssing, or anything else outside of the class itself. It's one of the design goals. Monks only need food and water (and alcohol).

LOL alcohol. Very much so!

But seriously, you can play 5E with all barbarians, fighters, or rogues then, without taking AT or EK subclasses or paths that give you "magic". As others have said there are few monsters which can only be harmed by magical weapons, the only one PCs might face being a lich, and even that you can defeat if you are extremely clever and lucky.

AFAIK, the only other monsters are even higher CR, which in a low-magic more mundane style game you probably won't face without some McGuffin device, etc. to help you.

 

[S'mon]

But seriously, you can play 5E with all barbarians, fighters, or rogues then, without taking AT or EK subclasses or paths that give you "magic". As others have said there are few monsters which can only be harmed by magical weapons, the only one PCs might face being a lich, and even that you can defeat if you are extremely clever and lucky.

I've run groups consisting of all Berserker or Totem Barbarians plus Assassin Rogues, and they worked fine - at high level they had magic weapons & usually other items, though. 5e is so lenient at high level that a Barbarian can usually solo a monster of their CR pretty easily.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've run groups consisting of all Berserker or Totem Barbarians plus Assassin Rogues, and they worked fine - at high level they had magic weapons & usually other items, though. 5e is so lenient at high level that a Barbarian can usually solo a monster of their CR pretty easily.

(Bold added)

The issue, I believe, is with the bolded part. I think the discussion was how possible is it without magic items or casters. I could be wrong as I just chimed in.

 

[S'mon]

(Bold added)

The issue, I believe, is with the bolded part. I think the discussion was how possible is it without magic items or casters. I could be wrong as I just chimed in.

Well in post XGTE 5e a Barbarian or Rogue can make magic items...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well in post XGTE 5e a Barbarian or Rogue can make magic items...

Well, anyone can make them with XGtE, the point was playing those classes in a game without magic items (or casters) at all, not just ones given to you by the DM, but also not allowing you to make any.