D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

[tetrasodium]

WIS is a useful stat MAD or not, clerics count fully towards spell level progression and gain subclass features at 1st level, it's an armor upgrade, and it's a lot of 1st-level spells known and prepped.

1 level of cleric is a decent splash.

All of that is true

It doesn't run into MAD at all for a one level dip. In fact it can reduce MAD for that one level dip, by making DEX less of a requirement, with armor and shield proficiency reducing the need for a DEX above 14.

There are a LOT of no-save cantrips. Some of the best cantrips in the game are no-save. You get armor and shield proficiency, Guidance and Bless and Healing Word, Magic Missile and Detect Magic with one, or Identify and Command for the other. Of all those, ONLY Command uses Wisdom. And then you get some cantrips you were going to want for your Wizard levels anyway - light, mage hand, minor illusion (best cantrip in my opinion), mending, message, prestidigitation, etc.. And you're of course getting TWO expertise out of one of those builds.

But really it's about armor and shield proficiency, along with Guidance, Bless, and Healing Word. These are things you will want for your entire wizarding career. It's a pretty well-known and well-respected single level dip. In fact it's the core of Treant Monk's GOD Wizard build. You should check it out. It might not be YOUR thing, but it's definitely a well respected and admired build by many people.

Now you raise good points.., those are worthy considerations for certain builds. the original ones you made were... not. A one level dip in an archtype for one of the more popular classes however still has nothing to do with the problems being discussed with wizard

 

[Mistwell]

All of that is true

Now you raise good points.., those are worthy considerations for certain builds. the original ones you made were... not. A one level dip in an archtype for one of the more popular classes however still has nothing to do with the problems being discussed with wizard

1. It's the same point I was making, you just didn't understand it or I didn't explain it well enough (though I think many do because most people follow TreantMonk)

2. The problem being discussed was expertise in Arcana and people mentioning Rogue - which doesn't work great with many Wizards. However, Knowledge Cleric 1 works well with most Wizards. Hence germane to the topic. But hey, if you're not getting anything out of my point, feel free to ignore it.

3. I don't happen to think there is a problem with the Wizard. I happen to think it's one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game, if not THE most powerful and versatile. I just think it's not that easy to play at first, until you get the hang of it.

 

[tetrasodium]

1. It's the same point I was making, you just didn't understand it (though most people do because most people follow TreantMonk)

2. The problem being discussed was expertise in Arcana and people mentioning Rogue - which doesn't work great with many Wizards. However, Knowledge Cleric 1 works well with most Wizards. Hence germane to the topic. But hey, if you're not getting anything out of my point, feel free to ignore it.

3. I don't happen to think there is a problem with the Wizard. I happen to think it's one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game, if not THE most powerful and versatile. I just think it's not that easy to play at first, until you get the hang of it.

Yes there was some discussion about arcana & knowledge skills as a couple people tried to argue that one piece of the wizard in isolation... but actually no. The knowledge skills being dim & distributed is only one of the many reasons that the wizard class is lacking by virtue of having too many of the things it should shine on either missing from 5e or copied to other classes with their own goodies in ways that are pretty much on par in just about every meaningful way.

As to your point 3... Is the wizard a good & competent class? yes... however the scorlock, cleric, rogue and bard all have their own little niche of awesome and equal or outshine the wizard in too many of what should be the wizard's realm of awesome. If you are going to build a character specializing in one or more of the areas wizards should shine in you are often better off using one of those other classes and getting both.

 

[Ashrym]

I was hoping someone would ask! Follow the below link!

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit

I love that video.

however the scorlock, cleric, rogue and bard all have their own little niche of awesome and equal or outshine the wizard in too many of what should be the wizard's realm of awesome.

The bard's niche of awesome is less skill than the rogue, worse healing than the cleric, and less options than the wizard?

Bards still have the 3e flaws but now they are cleverly hidden behind the distraction of a few cool toys.

I'm curious about the ways you believe these classes are outshining what should be the wizard's realm of awesome. I agree they all have positives but I'm not sure I'm following you here.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes there was some discussion about arcana & knowledge skills as a couple people tried to argue that one piece of the wizard in isolation... but actually no. The knowledge skills being dim & distributed is only one of the many reasons that the wizard class is lacking by virtue of having too many of the things it should shine on either missing from 5e or copied to other classes with their own goodies in ways that are pretty much on par in just about every meaningful way.

As to your point 3... Is the wizard a good & competent class? yes... however the scorlock, cleric, rogue and bard all have their own little niche of awesome and equal or outshine the wizard in too many of what should be the wizard's realm of awesome. If you are going to build a character specializing in one or more of the areas wizards should shine in you are often better off using one of those other classes and getting both.

Right, and I disagree. In fact I think the issue you're running into is baggage you're carrying over from prior editions (I think 3e specifically), and trying to compare the wizard and other classes in prior editions to this one instead of comparing the wizard to other classes only within this version of the game. That's where your "what should be the wizard's realm of awesome" is coming from. In survey after survey, WOTC isn't finding people agree with you as a generalization. And, over time, a majority of the players of the game never played a prior edition. They don't view the wizards "appropriate realms of awesome" the same as you do.

I find it funny you also cite a multi-class (Sorlock) against a single class (Wizard) and act like that is the Wizard's stuff being distributed out to other classes. If multi-classing "doesn't count" then why wouldn't Cleric 1/ Wizard X "count" for the issue I highlighted with expertise in skills? It's a double standard. That combo yields a wizard with expertise in intelligence skills, and more versatility in some lower level spells and armor class. It's as valid as a sorcerer / warlock combination, if not more so because it's not based purely on matching up ability scores but instead on theme (knowledge).

It's good that the other classes have their own little niche of awesome which you think is equal to the wizard. I just disagree with your premise that the wizard was "supposed" to dominate all those domains of awesome. The wizard is the most versatile caster and the one most able to utilize battlefield control - that's their niche, and they are the best at it. They are also the ones at higher levels that can simply completely alter how challenging encounters can be with a single spell, like wall of force, polymorph, true polymorph, force cage, simulacrum, contingency, wish, etc.. And while other classes can try and access some of these in some ways, only the wizard accesses all of them automatically.

I just think what you want the wizard to do is mostly baggage from 3e, instead of focusing on what they do well in this edition.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MoonSong]

from reading your multi reply to myself and others I see a few problems with it. First off, nobody is saying that the sorcerer boons from 3.5>5e were broken or that they should be reversed. Many of the problems being discussed do not show up in tier 1 (level 1-4 play) to any significant degree, it doesn't really matter what a first level sorcerer or anything else can do either. The sorcerer being "spell starved" & frequently taking either MC or feats to improve on that because nobody is talking about nerfing the sorcerer spell versatility UA & are instead talking about the rest rather than onLevel for scorlock versions is evidence for why the wizard Cantrip Versatility should also be on long rest. Your defense of the sorcerer is both bizarre & misplaced to the point that I'm just going to suggest you get some sleep rather than dragging this off topic by going any further.

Ok, I've slept...
My point mostly is, it isn't the same to change one spell per day out of 13 spells prepared, than change one spell per day out of 9 spells known. To get the same effect, you'd have to be able to change 5 spells per day out of 9 spells known. Spell versatility as written doesn't infringe on the wizard niche. -Note that I'm not a fan of spell vesatility as it is-. However, giving wizards the chance to quickly change cantrips would infringe on the Warlock and Sorcerer niches, as having more cantrips is an important part of balance for both classes.

Also, the wizard still has primacy on many powerful effects that are simply off-limits for warlocks and sorcerers.

I didn't want to name names, that's a bit impolite. But anyway:

You see, this is exactly what I was saying.

The Sorcerer is more popular than the Wizard or the Rogue. Displacing two of the core 4, but somehow that counts as "barely coming together" because the Wizard has more subclasses (despite those subclasses being not that desirable).

It's a long and hard road to overcome the prior edition biases. Which makes it hard to even just talk about doing anything with the Wizard.

If this was true, it would be nice. Do you have a source?

I was talking mechanically coming together. A pure phb sorcerer doesn't bring half as much to the party as a wizard of the same level. Now, I personally don't care for power, but it hurts acceptance in the table, and DMs who advertise are still more likely to accept a wizard over a sorcerer. Many still treat sorcerers as defective wizards.

 

[Bardic Dave]

And on a related note, whenever someone says any of the following:


"The optimal build is ..."

"Something something DPR ..."

"Wizards need more power because ..."

You look at them say, "THAT'S NUMBERWANG!"

Let's rotate the board!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its a . . . Mitchell & Webb(?) sketch that was popular in D&D forums because of its relevance in highlighting some issues of the game.
Essentially its a skit involving two heroes: BMX Bandit who is a skilled but mundane 'realistic' hero, and Angel Summoner - who can summon hordes of celestial superbeings.
The main thrust of the sketch (and why is was regarded as relevant to D&D, particularly 3.5e) is that BMX Bandit is frustrated that any task he can do, Angel Summoner can do much better and easier. Even when Angel Summoner tries to stick to a 'support role', the difference in versatility and magnitude of their powers means that it is still all about Angel Summoner's contribution, rather than BMX Bandit's.
This leads to BMX Bandit insisting on trying to do something themselves and getting killed in the attempt where Angel Summoner could have easily won.
And next episode Angel Summoner will be paired with Gymkhana Girl, another 'realistic' hero(ine).

This sketch wasn't just used to illustrate class tier discrepancies in 3.5, but also the issues in having highly-optimised vs interesting-concept characters in the same party.

I don't really have an issue with it for a couple of reasons:
1) There is only a need to roll if the DM thinks that there is a chance a character does not know something. I would regard a question involving a facet of the cleric's own faith, or a spell the wizard has in their spellbook as something that they probably automatically know (or at least a reduced DC perhaps).
2) Most knowledge skills are much wider than what those classes would focus on. Arcana covers much more than just spells. Religion covers much more than just the cleric's own and related faiths. Nature covers more than what the Druid has personally experienced.
3) Skills are often no substitute for magic. The Bard Sage might remember more about the history of a magic item, - but the wizard can cast Identify. The Outlander Rogue may have studied more books regarding flora and fauna from distant lands, but the Ranger has class abilities that shortcut the need without needing a roll.
4) Practical vs Theoretical: The surgeon analogy is a good one. A Wizard is very much an engineer, with the training to use complex tools (spells), and enough theoretical knowledge to design new tools. The Rogue with Arcana expertise is just a theorist: while the wizard was training in how to make the precise gestures and intonations needed to actually cast a spell, the rogue was learning about planar history, or dragon biology.
A multidisciplinary professor in Biology probably knows more about mitochondrial DNA descent than a surgeon, but the surgeon actually has the training to perform a medical procedure.

And having the two in a party is an opportunity for them to collaborate and accomplish even greater things.

 

[Fallen Rain]

TreantMonk doesn't know games as well as he thinks