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

[Tony Vargas]

Legendary resistance. magic resistance.

Are comparatively rare and only affect saves, some spells take attack rolls others neither attack nor save.
MR's Advantage on a save is of little benefit when your save bonus is low....

Enemies saves scale with level as well.

Rarely all of them. Enemies will virtually always have at least one bad save.

Its rare that swapping weapons will swing an opponents AC by 5 or 10 points.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If we are taking into account enemy defenses scaling then I’d say wizards get the short end of the stick there. Legendary resistance. magic resistance. Enemies saves scale with level as well. Heck even hp scales with level.

If all that gets factored in then combat wise I wouldn’t classify the wizard as quadratic either (at least for combat)

Higher-level spells generally have better area of effect as well as better damage.

More specifically to Wizards, their high number of spells available allows them the range to have spells that target different saves better than any other caster. Creatures are often not proficient in saves and few creatures have an even array of stats, so a prepared caster can generally target a weak save which does not increase by CR.

. . . . And that's before we start considering that wizards do other things better than simply dealing damage.

 

[Ashrym]

The classes that can swap have a built in explanation for it, as they are granted spells from an outside source like a deity as a result of prayer.

So rangers who swap spells on level up have an explanation that sorcerers do not? Or battle masters who swap maneuvers? Or warlocks who swap invocations?

I don't think so. It's a common mechanic to be able to change while leveling.

 

[Ashrym]

You cant make everyone perfectly...

In this case it's the spell versatility detractors who might be expected to be the ones included in people who cannot be happy all the time.

It's an argument that works both ways.

Attack bonus is opposed by AC, which does tend to rise with CR (less the case with save bonuses), and damage bonuses aren't strongly tied to level (stats cap at 20, magic items aren't assumed).

The difference in AC at higher level is small. It's the frequency of high AC monsters that increases, IME. High AC exists at low levels but it's just not often given.

I think I need a closer look at that. It's anecdotal for now but you got me curious.

Rarely all of them. Enemies will virtually always have at least one bad save.

AC is always arbitrarily granted in gear selection or expectation of how hard a monster should be. Actual scaling is from ASI's to DEX or something. I find higher CR's are more likely to have high ability score and more like to add proficiencies.

Again, my experience and maybe a closer look.

Wizards are the most likely to bypass saves, though. The broad list and number of spells prepped sees to that.

And that's before we start considering that wizards do other things better than simply dealing damage.

I think any focus on wizard damage outside of AoE trash mob work is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just realized, we've been terribly non-responsive to the title question.

Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

Trademark dilution.

 

[Leatherhead]

Its rare that swapping weapons will swing an opponents AC by 5 or 10 points.

It's actually quite common to get a 3 to 5 swing in AC, so long as you actually use the Cover Rules as intended. For some reason people often overlook those rules in white room discussions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's actually quite common to get a 3 to 5 swing in AC, so long as you actually use the Cover Rules as intended.

Sure, and DEX saves... but not any other saves.

 

[pemerton]

Personally I stopped screwing around with wizard spell books ages ago. It just became a jerk move.

One of the reasons I prefer the spellshard approach. It eliminates "your book got wet" & a bunch of other absurd across the table comments I've seen players & gm's direct at wizards... "Really? my spellshard set in adamantine on an adamantine necklace got burned by that fireball under my clothes & armor?"

A method of preventing jerk moves

Here is the way Burning Wheel treats spellbooks (which are an optional rule from the Magic Burner, p 189):

If a wizard character possesses more spells than he can hold in his crowded memory at one time, the extra spells are kept written in his precious, really-too-big-to-carry-around spell book or similar campaign-appropriate edifice. . . .

The spell book rule is not designed to cut a mage off from the source of his power. It exists only to limit what he has access to right now.​

There's no reason a similar sort of outlook couldn't be applied in D&D, without any need to actually change any rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

Here is the way Burning Wheel treats spellbooks (which are an optional rule from the Magic Burner, p 189):

If a wizard character possesses more spells than he can hold in his crowded memory at one time, the extra spells are kept written in his precious, really-too-big-to-carry-around spell book or similar campaign-appropriate edifice. . . .​

​

The spell book rule is not designed to cut a mage off from the source of his power. It exists only to limit what he has access to right now.​

There's no reason a similar sort of outlook couldn't be applied in D&D, without any need to actually change any rules.

I think the reason people screw with wizard spellbooks (mostly newer/less experienced types who do it) is because there are still a lot of crufty bits of elevated status fluff still clinging to spellbooks that dates back to the LFQW days of 2.0 & 3.5. Just ditching the spellbook for spellshards or something like you mention & saying it's done due to supreme durability & such nullifies the cruft's impact without making a mess of lore. This is the spellshard on rising page 279 & it does a good job of that

SPELLSHARD
wondrous item [common]
This polished Eberron Dragonshard fits in the hand & stores information similar to a book. The shard can hold the equivalent of oe book that's no mare than 320 pages (coincidentally so is rising) long. A shard can be created blank or already filled with information. When the shard is created, the creator can set a passphrase that must be spoken to access the information stored within.

While holding the shard, you can se an action t open your mind to the shard, seeing the content in your mind. On subsequent rounds, reading the text or scribing new text on new blank "pages" in the shard requires concentration(as if concentrating on a spell) and takes the same amount of time it takes you to read & write normally. Thinking of a particular phrase pr topic draws you to the first section in the shard that addresses it

A wizard can use a spellshard as a spellbook with the usual gold & time to "scribe" a spell into the shard

All that's missing is a note on durability... but considering eberron shards are also used to power magic items

 

[Arnwolf666]

I think the reason people screw with wizard spellbooks (mostly newer/less experienced types who do it) is because there are still a lot of crufty bits of elevated status fluff still clinging to spellbooks that dates back to the LFQW days of 2.0 & 3.5. Just ditching the spellbook for spellshards or something like you mention & saying it's done due to supreme durability & such nullifies the cruft's impact without making a mess of lore. This is the spellshard on rising page 279 & it does a good job of that

All that's missing is a note on durability... but considering eberron shards are also used to power magic items

that’s a cool solution. It just doesn’t fit my medieval Europe like setting very well. Very Eberron though.