D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[Zardnaar]

I really really dislike the wild sorcerer. It slows too much down. I don't mind magic with random effects, but don't like that way of doing it; it's time consuming and generally tedious rather than interesting for me. So how do I treat it? You don't get many rolls. Unless you're 100% invested in the archetype play a dragon.

That's because, according to most assessments the sorcerer started way behind the wizard. They needed the extra spells known - and that's where the bulk of the creep is for both subclasses. (The only thing from Tasha's I ban is the Twilight Cleric).

Haven't seen a wild sorcerer in action but suspect tgey slow things down.

I've seen the 2E Wildmahe in action a few times I assume it's similar to that.

 

[M_Natas]

The fighter has all of two more feats than the barbarian across 20 levels.

No. I'm saying it's both. As you point out barbarians are more limited. Some classes have better subclasses than others and some subclasses are more flexible than others. There's more range for example in Battle Masters than Cavaliers.

Meanwhile the Sorcerer takes the Careful Spell metamagic and does almost exactly the same thing as the evocation wizard and still has a subclass, and can also pull a lot of what you get out of Scribes with Transmuted Spell.

Careful spell doesn't give 0 damage, it only makes them make the save. So fireball still does half damage with careful spell. Also careful spell costs sorcery points while sculpt spell is free.
Careful spell is for controll. Sculpt spell for damage.
Transmuted spell only gives you the bad damage options while order of the scribe gives you more damage type options. Transmuted spell would be again like the cleric in comparison to the life cleric. Order of the scribe is better in it.

It's this sort of thing that makes me say subclass of sorcerer, and wizards come a definite and distant fourth in terms of variety of the four primary arcane casters while even most of your highlights appear to be within the range of subclass-free sorcerer options. (For the record I find Illusion the best wizard subclass for variety as it's the only one that meaningfully alters what you cast, with Scribes as probably second).

I mean, I'm not against giving the Wizard more options and more variety.
But so far for me the Wizards I played neither felt limited nor like any old other Wizard.

 

[ECMO3]

A Wizard has a spellbook and an education.

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.

Those are elements that specifically affect story. (Edit: Hence my "Dwarf Sailor Wizard" example above. Dwarves are generally not strongly associated with academic education, but rather with excessive deference to ancient tradition, and Sailors are generally not known for being well-educated, instead needing a strong back and, ideally, the ability to sing well.)

There is no need for education. The word "education" is not mentioned at all in the Wizard entry on the PHB.

That said, the idea of a sailor or a Dwarf being not strongly associated with education (or Wizardry) is a stereotype. It is fine to lean into that stereotype, but it is also fine not to and to deviate from it.

Not at all. The "Oath of Devotion"--devotion to what? It can be almost anything.

It is listed in the subclass description. Oath of Devotion is actually one of the most restrictive Paladin oaths:

"The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards. Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of their devotion. They hold angels — the perfect servants of good — as their ideals, and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.

Tenets of Devotion​

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."

So RAW if you are playing Oath of Devotion, once you reach 3rd level the oath above "binds you as a Paladin forever"

The class also has consequences for breaking the oath to include potentially "being forced to abandon the class". This is the only class I know of that has words to this effect in the description.

If you are playing levels 1 and 2 before your oath you are right, the oath is irrelevant, but the PHB addresses this to by saying some Paladins do not believe Paladins to be true Paladins until they take the oath.

And it's explicit that you can come up with your own oath, as long as it's consistent with the overall concept presented. It doesn't have to be word for word the same.

I don't see that in the PHB, but it is possible I missed it. Do you have a reference for this? I would think this would clash with the subclass as the oaths listed in the PHB are presented as integral parts of those subclasses, not as concepts.

But that's my point. You make it sound like the Wizard uniquely has no limits at all, which is false and that Paladin and Warlock are insanely hyper-limited,

Not the Wizard uniquely - Wizard, Bard, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Druid and Ranger have pretty close to no story limits. Cleric has a few (mainly the requirement for a Deity) but it is closer to none than it is to Warlock or Paladin which are the two classes that are hyper-limited RAW.

. They're all on a spectrum, nothing is at either extreme (no limits at all; no freedom at all), and they're all much closer together than you claim. That's why I'm so confused here.

Nothing has no limits at all, but everything except Warlock or Paladin has very few story limits IME.

 

[ECMO3]

Socerors can also cast rituals. It takes 10 mins, and rest of the party wants to move on.

Ritual casting is not a Sorcerer ability. Bards, Wizards, Druids and Clerics have it. Warlocks can get it through an invocation and everyone with high enough ability scores can get it through a feat.

Bard, Cleric and Druid rituals are inferior to Warlock, Wizard and Ritual Casting Feat in terms of mechanics though. Wizards do not need to prepare spells to cast them as a ritual, they just need them in their book (and by the way in 5E it is "prepare" and not "memorize"). Bards need to know a spell to cast it as a ritual and Druids and Clerics need to have it prepared.

When it comes to prepared spells, Wizards will have more spells prepared than a Sorcerer of the same level will know and unlike the Sorcerer they can change those spells with a long rest.

No class ability at 3rd .... 3rd level they both get access to level 2 spells, and the Soceror get metamagic. The wizard gets nothing.

Wizards get a subclass ability at 2nd level and they still have that ability at 3rd level when they get 2nd level spells.

nothing at 5th, nothing at 7th.

No it is 6th and 10th, but I do need to point out that a Sorcerer gets no additional ability at 5th or 7th level either.

At this point, it is obvuse that you're not looking at the wizard class, and just ranting and don't know the game.

It is obvious you don't know as much about the rules as you think you do.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I always find it odd how people say Wizards don't get a lot of features, when they're always getting more spell slots, higher spell levels, or more spells on their book. Between those and some of the better subclasses, I find they have a ton of good features.

Druids still rule though.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I always find it odd how people say Wizards don't get a lot of features, when they're always getting more spell slots, higher spell levels, or more spells on their book. Between those and some of the better subclasses, I find they have a ton of good features.

Druids still rule though.

People who say it can mean different things. Some people are arguing that too much of the power budget is in spells, and they'd want more unique wizard features that are not spells.

 

[SteveC]

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.

 

[ECMO3]

People who say it can mean different things. Some people are arguing that too much of the power budget is in spells, and they'd want more unique wizard features that are not spells.

Some of the subclasses get quite a bit in non-spell options. You are right though that the class does not get a whole lot more than spells, but that is not uncommon in 5e. Some classes are class driven, others are subclass driven, Wizard is kind of in the middle getting a crapton through spells (but little else) and getting some pretty awesome subclass options.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wizards are boring, uninspiring, and the fact that it is suddenly the worse thing in the world if any other class gets even remotely similar access to more of there spell list shows that. They have nothing else but their spells. Every other class has something else, even Sorcerers have something else to add and its often called the discount wizard (despite my liking them a whole heck of a lot more the wizards). Even their subclasses aren't that great, with only a couple getting a decent feature at an early enough level to spice things up.

Honestly, they shouldn't even have the largest spell list anyways. Warlocks and Sorcerers should due to having a greater range on patron/origin options that can draw on different magic sources from. But no, it hurts the wizard's little feelings if they don't have all the spells to make them look like an actually interesting class.

Gods I wish Wizards actually had interesting mechanics and subclasses so other classes can actually get more spell options! I don't even want to hate on the Wizard class, I want them to be more interesting but they aren't and its frustrating! It's the only class I can't stand and it's so hard to come up with a concept that is interesting or desirable that wouldn't just be better using a different class for!

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

Ritual casting is not a Sorcerer ability. Bards, Wizards, Druids and Clerics have it. Warlocks can get it through an invocation and everyone with high enough ability scores can get it through a feat.

Bard, Cleric and Druid rituals are inferior to Warlock, Wizard and Ritual Casting Feat in terms of mechanics though. Wizards do not need to prepare spells to cast them as a ritual, they just need them in their book (and by the way in 5E it is "prepare" and not "memorize"). Bards need to know a spell to cast it as a ritual and Druids and Clerics need to have it prepared.

When it comes to prepared spells, Wizards will have more spells prepared than a Sorcerer of the same level will know and unlike the Sorcerer they can change those spells with a long rest.




Wizards get a subclass ability at 2nd level and they still have that ability at 3rd level when they get 2nd level spells.


No it is 6th and 10th, but I do need to point out that a Sorcerer gets no additional ability at 5th or 7th level either.



It is obvious you don't know as much about the rules as you think you do.

Check the rules glossary. Literally every spellcaster has gotten it free there for quite a few packets now

 

[ECMO3]

Check the rules glossary. Literally every spellcaster has gotten it free there for quite a few packets now

There is no "rules glossary" in the PHB or DMG. For it to be RAW it actually has to be actually be published as such by WOTC, or included in errata. Homebrew, playtest and 3rd party material (like Kobold Press) is not RAW.

There is no official rules I am aware of in any official 5E manual that permit a Sorcerer to cast rituals (aside from the ritual casting feat).

 

[jgsugden]

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.