Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9164556" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It doesn't require special conditions beyond:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM following the explicit statements both from the books and from the designers that magic items are optional--players should never need them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Using "legendary" enemies as rare, impressive things, not run-of-the-mill creatures. Again, something the books say to do, AIUI.</li> </ol>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?</blockquote>

Verification