D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

jgsugden

Legend
We're mixing up the discussions of 5E and the next edition now.

In 5E, all I can say is that I've played (and DMed for) all the spellcasting classes many times. In my experience, I've seen very effective versions of every class - although rogue and artificer struggled most. In terms of the spellcasting classes: Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, clerics, bards ... they've all been really effective and powerful. The most broken I've seen was a Fighter 2 / Sorcerer 17 / Hexblade 1. It is the only PC in 5E that I've seen that I believe was too powerful. In slightly more than 1 turn (via readied actions that went off right before their next turn and a simulacrum created with wish) they unleashed 1 9th level spell, 2 8th level spells, 2 7th level spells, a 6th level spell, and triggered a few other effects that were thr equivalent of high level spells as well. It was Ar-mege-ddon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
We're mixing up the discussions of 5E and the next edition now.

In 5E, all I can say is that I've played (and DMed for) all the spellcasting classes many times. In my experience, I've seen very effective versions of every class - although rogue and artificer struggled most. In terms of the spellcasting classes: Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, clerics, bards ... they've all been really effective and powerful. The most broken I've seen was a Fighter 2 / Sorcerer 17 / Hexblade 1. It is the only PC in 5E that I've seen that I believe was too powerful. In slightly more than 1 turn (via readied actions that went off right before their next turn and a simulacrum created with wish) they unleashed 1 9th level spell, 2 8th level spells, 2 7th level spells, a 6th level spell, and triggered a few other effects that were thr equivalent of high level spells as well. It was Ar-mege-ddon.
While that might be true in some respects about mixing, there's also the elephant crawford dropped in the more recent video where he explained the wizard's strength & identity to be their spell list. That's not a new or different strength & identity from the 2014 wizard, just one that has been stated openly like the sorcerer's often stated "wizard but hot" rather than being left to guess.

With the strength & identity shifted from "I guess... sorcerer but not hot" to a defined thing it allows clear discussion about if the class has been meeting the bar for that since 2014 or not along with why it does or does not meet it. Even if you limit the analysis strictly to 2014 rules or 2014+the splatbooks we've seen since the 2014 wizard's ritual caster ability is in no way capable of contributing enough to even consider if the ritual spells available alone are capable of meeting that bar firmly enough to justify how much overlap there is in their spell list. Since it never met the bar & people were bringing up the value of ritual caster for the wizard as a big deal I don't think it's reasonable to just dismiss the strong indications that everyone is likely to be getting ritual spellcasting as well in the neat future.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
A Wizard has a spellbook, he does not need to have an education. The rules also state the form and function of the spellbook are not fixed:

"It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together"

I have also had spellbooks be made of stone tablets and collections of bones.


There is no need for education. The word "education" is not mentioned at all in the Wizard entry on the PHB.
I mean, they are "scholars of the arcane" and their apprenticeship takes "...countless hours of study." The Lure of Knowledge portion also says, "The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse."

Whether they were educated or not prior to apprenticeship, they are educated scholars by the time they are done, even if it's an informal education. The lack of the word education in the class write-up doesn't mean a whole lot given all the other stuff said.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
As someone playing a wizard right now at 12th level, I'm having a great time. We just started the campaign and after some discussion of "why don't you just drop fireballs right now?" I showed off spells like Slow, Confusion, and Hypnotic Pattern. The group gets it now.

We don't have a sorcerer in the game to compare with (just a multiclass hexblade/paladin/sorcerer) but I expect that I will try one the next campaign to see the difference.
i think a big thing is that A wizard is fun to play with in isolation, in both meanings of 'in isolation'

1) one wizard is fun to play, even two three or four wizards can be fun to play but as you continue it'll quickly become apparent that there is little incentive, benefit or framework to specialise separate wizards into specific builds, themes and archetypes other than whatever choices you impose upon yourself, there is little reason for an abjuration wizard to not take fireball or hypnotic pattern, some people see this as making the wizard a blank canvas to put their own design on, other people see this as making them an empty toybox being forced to build their own entertainment.

2) when compared to the wizard other arcane spellcasters can end up seeming lacking, they may have their own toys that do their own unique things but compared to the sheer quantity of things the wizard specifically can do they come off as underperforming in arcane capabilities, this is not because they are below the curve but because the wizard is ahead of it, it might be fun to be the wizard but it is not fun to be the sorcerer or warlock standing in their shadow.
 

nevin

Hero
You. See why it's a bad thing in the most recent video about packet 7 where Crawford admits that the wizard's strength and identity is their spell list. That very well night be true but when other classes get meaningful abilities to compensate for not having that spell lot and they get the important spells from the wizard's spell list it's a problem.to fix that problem either the wizard needs more abilities and a new identity or they need a spelist with more wizard exclusive spells than gems like arcane lock & wall of sand if their spell list is to be their strength


Check the rules glossary. Literally every spellcaster has gotten it free there for quite a few packets now
which means it's identity is completely at the mercy of the DM and how available spells are. Perhaps that's why so many people can't agree.
 

The wizard class is a sucky design, sure., It's had what distinctiveness, depth, interest, and challenge it may have presented as the original Magic-User slowly stripped away with each successive edition. It's become more powerful/less restricted in many ways, but less interesting.
It's lonely and boring in Tier SS. 🤷

Cry us a river.
Don’t forget that their power increases with every book that includes new spells. Every new spell adds to the power of all wizard subclasses.

And because “casting spells” is their thing, the vast majority of spells added to the game get added to the wizard spell list, unless it involves healing.
 

Raiztt

Adventurer
When I played from 1st to 20th level in The Shackled City, my conjurer focused specialist wizard dominated almost every problem that we faced and usually by himself (thanks to powerful spells and creative applications thereof).

Until wizard is returned to its 3.5 glory, there will be no peace.

1) Super-strategic types who really love analyzing the hell out of spells and situations and coming up with cunning plans relying on various OP Wizard spells. These guys have been around since 1E, probably earlier.
This is the way.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
which means it's identity is completely at the mercy of the DM and how available spells are. Perhaps that's why so many people can't agree.
That makes a big difference but in terms of 5e it means that the system repels itself from the wizard being able to meet it's identity on an objective level. This is the edition that tries to remove the need for players to be given gold magic items scrolls & spellbooks. the 5e HC adventures take that a step further by teaching GMs that it's normal & expected to give out few if any scrolls spellbooks & little gold till late in the campaign when things are likely to be wrapping u. Spellcaster magic items are few & far between in those as wellbut generally equally or exclusively usable by the other spellcasters.
 

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself
This has been an interesting thread with a lot of people giving different, and contradictory opinions on why wizards are lame. They're too powerful, not powerful enough, have too many spell options, too few good ones, and their class features are either too powerful or boring. At least people are consistent in saying they're a lame class, though.

From the perspective of someone playing one and using the "optimal" play style, I can say the only thing I can fault them on is that there are some spell levels that don't have a lot of really strong choices. I'm looking at 7th level spells for next level, and my options are force cage and ... something else. I'm not taking Simulacrum due to a discussion with the DM and not wanting to wreck the game, so with that off the table, I will be picking one spell. If I could suggest one thing on the class design front, I'd really like it if there were more decent options. Some of the spell options are just really bad, so I'd like to see more spells made competitive.

Having just played in a campaign that went up to 7th level, I can say that the game supports multiple play styles for a wizard, but they're not all equally powerful. And I think that's okay. In that last game, the wizard was playing an Evoker, and did damage with their spells. We were still in the levels where that's reasonably competitive, so they felt strong, especially against groups. From what I've already seen in the higher level game, this would not really continue.

Is this new wizard I'm playing going to be boring? I don't think so, because I have the most options on the table of the entire group. The cleric and I have pretty much settled into the roles of managing encounters, and that is fun. I honestly don't think it's too much different from any previous edition (other than 4th). Are the rest of the group all having fun? Yes, since they are doing their thing of causing lots of damage. And causing havoc with sneaking around and invisibility.
 

ECMO3

Hero
I mean, they are "scholars of the arcane" and their apprenticeship takes "...countless hours of study." The Lure of Knowledge portion also says, "The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse."

An apprenticeship itself implies a trade, not a traditional academic education. I could see where you would draw the connection between "education", "study" and "scholar", but that is not how I interpret these and I think those terms are meant to be broader than just an education IMO .... as would be said about someone who is a football player and "studies" film and is a "scholar" of the game which does not necessarily mean a formal education.

Bottom line is I don't interpret scholar and study the same way you do. I don't see this as limiting in terms of play and I see magic itself as an applied field of study for a Wizard, not necessarily an academic one.

I will also note your interpretation would pretty much eliminate Wizards as a viable multiclass option for anyone who was not educated prior to the start of adventuring.

..."likely to come to an ordinary life"... is a stereotype, prefaced by "likely" which by definition means there are exceptions. Further a similar diclaimer about lifestyle could be said for most classes. Saying a Wizard is likely to be a Sage is the same as saying a Wizard is likely to have a low strength or Elves are likely to be thin or Dwarves are likely to have a beard. It is all true in the gameworld, but all meaningless mechanically as I can take my wizard and put all my ASIs into Strength or play a fat Elf (like Mr. Witch from Witchlight) or a clean-shaven Dwarf and be totally within the rules.

The key difference mechanically is a Wizard is "likely" to fit into this Sage mold, where a Paladin MUST have an oath and a Warlock MUST have a pact and patron.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top