D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Tony Vargas]

I could go point by point. But I don't think it's TOO controversial to say that, in general, 5e wizards are simply not as powerful (between number of spells, what the actual spells do, concentration, etc.) as their 3e counterparts. the trick WoTC pulled was to have them be quite similar on the surface, but overall - big nerf.

I don't think it should be controversial to note that wizards got more versatile from 3e to 5e, either.

5e certainly has a lot less content - fewer broken spells and spell combos, certainly, because, y'know, fewer spells. 5e nerfed notorious 3e spells, but it also inexplicably broke long-innocuous spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut...
And concentration? Yeah, it keeps you from layering buffs on yourself like CoDzilla would theoretically do, but it also keeps you from layering buffs on allies.
It's like the "wizards can't heal" niche-protection, it also means wizards don't have to blow slots on healing.

Now "memorize spell" (the 1 minute spell swap you mentioned) actually survives into the 2024 RAW wizard? That WOULD be a huge gamechanger - there is such a thing as too much versatility.

There is such a thing as too much versatility, and that Rubicon was crossed in 3.0, 5e has marched on from there!

 

[Minigiant]

I think the conversation constantly shifts from the fact that the Fighter and Wizard in 5e were designed around delving 8+ room dungeons and the balance breaks the second the party steps out the dungeon or can split the dungeon into parts and long rest with magic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the conversation constantly shifts from the fact that the Fighter and Wizard in 5e were designed around delving 8+ room dungeons and the balance breaks the second the party steps out the dungeon or can split the dungeon into parts and long rest with magic.

Sure, the wizard is OP in so many other ways, too, they just keep coming up.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, the wizard is OP in so many other ways, too, they just keep coming up.

The other OP problems with wizard are backboned by that one problem I mentioned.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but non resources based strategies are system agnostic. You don't need D&D 5e (or any game mechanic) for them.

Like, if I build an adventure Purley based on the game mechanics (Adventure Day, attrition model, 6 to 8 medium encounters) based solely on the mechanics I will have tension. I will have a game that works.
If I remove that, I would need to invent other (ingame) things that allow for strategic consideration.
That's like ... playing monopoly but giving every player infinite money.

I don't follow this at all.

In 4e D&D, success at skill challenges is often not resource-dependent. But the approach the players take towards their strategic goals might nevertheless reflect what it is that their PCs are good or bad at; what they anticipate will be the knock-on consequences, for doing Y down the track, of doing X now; etc. I find much the same thing is true of RPGs that don't centre resource expenditure in action resolution, such as Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, and Burning Wheel.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Even so, the 5e wizard is a big dial back from the 3e wizard. The martial-caster gap was SIGNIFICANTLY reduced between 3-5e

Sure; I've never said otherwise and have even explicitly said such things before. But let's not shift the Overton window over this; that the past situation was absolutely horrible, but is not currently absolutely horrible, does not mean that the current situation is therefore perfectly acceptable.

Going from being $10,000 in debt to being $500 in debt is a huge improvement, exactly 95% in fact. But you're still in debt. One can be immensely thankful for not being in a horrible position, while still frustrated that one remains in a bad position.

I skipped from AD&D to 4E. They finally fixed it in 4E then walked it back.

Less cuckoo banana pants than most older editions doesn’t mean it’s not still cuckoo banana pants.

Exactly. Even if it's a lot less, as in my example above, that does not necessarily make it right.

I could go point by point. But I don't think it's TOO controversial to say that, in general, 5e wizards are simply not as powerful (between number of spells, what the actual spells do, concentration, etc.) as their 3e counterparts. the trick WoTC pulled was to have them be quite similar on the surface, but overall - big nerf.

Now "memorize spell" (the 1 minute spell swap you mentioned) actually survives into the 2024 RAW wizard? That WOULD be a huge gamechanger - there is such a thing as too much versatility.

Exactly.

One of the big talking points all during the 5e playtest was that Fighters would rule the roost in combat, and others would make sacrifices from combat in order to get other things instead. Wizards to even be able to keep up with Fighters while still having some room for other stuff too? That blows that whole idea completely out of the water. It means that, in the context of groups which run only a few/short fights per day (contradicting 5e assumptions and instructions), mostly against groups of enemies rather than single "boss" types (which actually conforms to 5e instructions), the Wizard can quite easily be 80%+ of the Fighter's combat strength and also provide non-combat utility effects.

People very frequently described this, back in the Next playtest, as Fighters being a 10 in Combat and a 1-2 in exploration or the like, while Wizards would be a 5-6 in combat and a 7-8 outside it. The numbers here demonstrate that a Wizard without subclass can quite easily be an 8-9 in combat AND a 7-8 outside it.

And, as you say, the 5.5e playtest is now considering giving Wizards even more nice things--making every spell they know just a minute away if it wasn't already prepared. Here's hoping that gets yeeted into the sun, because if it is included, it straight-up invalidates any "there is no Batman Wizard" argument one might make.

 

[Neonchameleon]

5e Concentration only keeps you from casting other Concentration spells. Old-school concentration was required to cast, period. 3e concentration was a skill check. 4e it was called sustain and took an action...

The versatility/flexibility of prepped vs spontaneous casting is what put the 3.5 Wizard in Tier 1 and the Sorcerer in Tier 2....

Point of order. The 3.5 Sorcerer was a full spell level behind the wizard at odd numbered levels (other than 1 and 19). At even numbered levels the flexibility of spontaneous casting was utterly crippled by knowing only one spell of your highest level and two of your second highest. The way it was so blatantly Wizards of the Coast and not Sorcerers of the Coast pretty much on its own forced sorcerers into tier 2 because the wizard could do everything the sorcerer could do but better. (Even spam low level spells thanks to free feats).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Point of order. The 3.5 Sorcerer was a full spell level behind the wizard at odd numbered levels (other than 1 and 19). At even numbered levels the flexibility of spontaneous casting was utterly crippled by knowing only one spell of your highest level and two of your second highest. The way it was so blatantly Wizards of the Coast and not Sorcerers of the Coast pretty much on its own forced sorcerers into tier 2 because the wizard could do everything the sorcerer could do but better. (Even spam low level spells thanks to free feats).

Is your point that Spontaneous casting would have been superior to prepped casting but for the delay in gaining new spell levels and starting each new spell level with only 1 spell of that level known?

Because, the 5e neo-Vancian casters who prep daily and cast spontaneously, like the Wizard, have neither of those issues.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've never once seen the disparity with multiple DMs, multiple styles. Fighters contribute up to 20th level just as much as wizards.

I'm done arguing about this. If everything goes the wizard's way with enemies never having resistance or immunity, if high level monster never have legendary saves, never have AOE attacks, the wizard never loses concentration, has the right spells prepped, only have one or two encounters between long rests, the fighters have no effective magical items that enhance their abilities...sure. the wizard will come out ahead. That’s a DM problem though and one that has multiple fixes.

It doesn't require special conditions beyond:

1. Have fewer encounters per day (e.g. 3-5) than expected (6-8). Most groups do this, or even do less. Even when 5e was in playtest, the 6-8 thing was hotly contested. Note that a typical 5e combat is 3-4 rounds, so 3-5 combats is going to be around 12-16 rounds.
2. Typically face many enemies, not just one singular enemy. Not only do most groups do this, the rules and the designers both say you should.
3. Pick versatile spells. Resistance is essentially irrelevant if you have two good damage types, e.g. fire plus something exotic (e.g. force, radiant, or psychic); less than a dozen monsters in all of 5e have resistance (or better) to both fire and a single one of the others.
4. DM following the explicit statements both from the books and from the designers that magic items are optional--players should never need them.
5. Using "legendary" enemies as rare, impressive things, not run-of-the-mill creatures. Again, something the books say to do, AIUI.

If the DM has to start designing creatures which specifically resist the Wizard's spells, isn't that a problem? If the Fighter was designed to need magic items, wouldn't that be a problem considering the many, many times the designers said otherwise?

We already know DMs in general do not conform to the expected number of combat rounds per day; WotC has openly said so. The design of 5e, making "weak" enemies remain relevant for long stretches of levels but needing to appear in hordes rather than individually, encourages DMs to use large encounters, where Wizards are better. Resistance is easy to circumvent with, as I said, just 1-2 spell choices per spell level, e.g. fireball at 3rd level and sickening radiance at 4th.

AoE attacks are not a concern, so I'm not really sure why you mention that, and while losing concentration does suck, the best damage spells don't require it, and there are already plenty of ways to mitigate that concern unless the DM is actively hunting spellcasters concentrating on things. Which, again, would seem to be a demonstration that there's a problem, if the monsters must target the Wizard to prevent them from becoming OP.

I get it. You like things as they are. You've said as much many times. There are ways to address the problems I and others have without somehow destroying the things you like.

Why does the Wizard get designed so that it must be prevented from becoming overpowered, while the Fighter gets designed so that it must be enabled to become powerful?

 

[Oofta]

It doesn't require special conditions beyond:

1. Have fewer encounters per day (e.g. 3-5) than expected (6-8). Most groups do this, or even do less. Even when 5e was in playtest, the 6-8 thing was hotly contested. Note that a typical 5e combat is 3-4 rounds, so 3-5 combats is going to be around 12-16 rounds.
2. Typically face many enemies, not just one singular enemy. Not only do most groups do this, the rules and the designers both say you should.
3. Pick versatile spells. Resistance is essentially irrelevant if you have two good damage types, e.g. fire plus something exotic (e.g. force, radiant, or psychic); less than a dozen monsters in all of 5e have resistance (or better) to both fire and a single one of the others.
4. DM following the explicit statements both from the books and from the designers that magic items are optional--players should never need them.
5. Using "legendary" enemies as rare, impressive things, not run-of-the-mill creatures. Again, something the books say to do, AIUI.

If the DM has to start designing creatures which specifically resist the Wizard's spells, isn't that a problem? If the Fighter was designed to need magic items, wouldn't that be a problem considering the many, many times the designers said otherwise?

We already know DMs in general do not conform to the expected number of combat rounds per day; WotC has openly said so. The design of 5e, making "weak" enemies remain relevant for long stretches of levels but needing to appear in hordes rather than individually, encourages DMs to use large encounters, where Wizards are better. Resistance is easy to circumvent with, as I said, just 1-2 spell choices per spell level, e.g. fireball at 3rd level and sickening radiance at 4th.

AoE attacks are not a concern, so I'm not really sure why you mention that, and while losing concentration does suck, the best damage spells don't require it, and there are already plenty of ways to mitigate that concern unless the DM is actively hunting spellcasters concentrating on things. Which, again, would seem to be a demonstration that there's a problem, if the monsters must target the Wizard to prevent them from becoming OP.

I get it. You like things as they are. You've said as much many times. There are ways to address the problems I and others have without somehow destroying the things you like.

Why does the Wizard get designed so that it must be prevented from becoming overpowered, while the Fighter gets designed so that it must be enabled to become powerful?

All of the issues are fairly simple to fix. We can imagine hypothetical better systems or we can discuss how to adjust so that the system we have works. Since I'm a pragmatic person, I'll choose the latter every time.