Why Wizards are Great

[Easy_Lee]

This is a little blurb about why Wizards are so great in D&D, in general. I'm going to talk about somethings that I don't think most people consider when making characters.

The primary strength of the wizard class is versatility. They have the most spells out of any class (by far) and their spells cover just about everything besides healing. Healing in 5e is weak. Avoiding damage is better, and wizards are good at that.

But why is that such a great thing? Surely I can build a character who does more damage, or is more defensive or stealthy. But this misses a crucial piece of D&D: the DM.

Consider the following: a halfling land druid and human shadow monk show up to the same table. These are smart players. Between Silence, Pass Without Trace, Invisibility, Wildshaping, Darkvision, Water Walking, Spider Climb, and the various side there Druid spells, there should be no reason why these two ever have to enter combat. Nothing could possibly happen to force them into a fight with all of their different means of avoiding conflict.

Nothing except the DM.

I've had DMs dictate my actions to me. I've seen DMs tell the players they were surprised by monsters who they never got a check to notice. I've seen DMs fail to tell players about huge noisy creatures standing in the middle of brightly lit rooms as the players walk in. I've seen DMs require stealth checks for an invisible insect to fly across a room without getting smashed. I've seen DMs ignore rules, change things on the fly, rule inconsistently about mechanics...all in an effort to ensure that the party encounters challenges. Because that's what the DM wants.

And if the DM wants something to happen, it's going to happen.

DMs like to challenge players, throwing a variety of encounters at them in whatever way is most likely to result in a fight. You can't possibly have features to deal with every encounter. Unless you're a wizard. The only thing that a wizard can't deal with is an anti-magic field. For everything else, they have spells for it.

That's why Wizards are so powerful. You can't predict what the DM will do, even if you understand the rules and read the campaign ahead of time. With wizards, you don't have to. You just have to cast whatever spell is appropriate. And the more spells WotC adds to the game, the easier that becomes.

[Degwerks]

Great blurb!

[Willie the Duck]

Well, I will agree that it is a good blurb. It just isn't exactly ground-breaking, since that's basically what the wizard is known for. The often cited as most powerful (and derided as evidence that the system had problems as a result) version was the 3e 'batman wizard,' and their whole schtick was having a response for anything.

However, I do have a question--what, specifically, is it that wizards have that other spellcasters would not have in this scenario when the DM forces the feces against the rotating air-wheel? A warlock has combat beat-down (mostly in direct damage), the cleric has buffing and damage (spirit guardians and spiritual weapon have area and targeted per-combat damage totals that rival anything wizards throw out), bards have some of the best save-or-suck (in-as-much as 5e has it). When the DM says, 'sorry, best laid plans of mice and men.' and turns over your sneaky, stealthy apple cart, what is it specifically that a wizard does that the other spellcasters do not?

[Umbranar]

I am a long time 3.5 player and there it is even more obvious. Wizards are great. With the right spells and class combinations you can end an encounter before anyone acts.

In 5th the big ass magic weapon race is basically over. I can't cast 24 buffs on myself and my party anymore which is great in my opinion. I actually have to choose now.

My current party contains a barbarian as damage dealer/tank, a ranger with a bow for good single target damage, a paladin as tank, a cleric for all the goodness that class brings, a druid who switches between frontline combat and backline casting from time to time and me the Wizard. I am a conjurer specialist and I try to control the battlefield as well as I can. Still the best trick till now is....Fireball. How strange the mass damage is why the party looks at me when a big group of juicy enemies is clustered. Even 14 ogres who much have tons of hp. **** the Evards Black Tentacles, toss in a 4th level fireball! Still I stay true to my beliefs that controlling the battlefield is better.

The power of the class is now much more clear as we have killed 2 other wizards and found there spell books full with tasty spells I do not know yet! And so my versatility grows. So many options! I love it :)

[Unoriginal]

Except that a Wizard can only prepare bonus Int + wizard level spells per day, and can only cast a limited number of them.

So you definitively "have to predict" what the DM will throw at you to be efficient. Sure, you get more spells as you level, but your lower level spells also get less relevant compared to the challenges the DM decides happen.

And as you said yourself "if the DM wants something to happen, it's going to happen", so saying that the Wizard is at an advantage is nonsense: if the DM wants something to happen, the Wizard is not going to be able to counter it.

Don't get me wrong, wizards are good, but so are all the other classes.


The only thing the Wizard has an advantage at is that some people still want magic to be bs OP like in 3.X, so they'd go along with more of the Wizard's ideas because lol magic while trying to impose more """"""realistic""""""" limits on others' plans.

[Blue Lantern]

This whole argument seems absurd to me, as the Wizard is the easiest caster to limit, controlling the access to spell scrolls, or screw up (hello spellbook) for a DM if he really wants to.

[Specter]

Except that a Wizard can only prepare bonus Int + wizard level spells per day, and can only cast a limited number of them.

So you definitively "have to predict" what the DM will throw at you to be efficient. Sure, you get more spells as you level, but your lower level spells also get less relevant compared to the challenges the DM decides happen.

And as you said yourself "if the DM wants something to happen, it's going to happen", so saying that the Wizard is at an advantage is nonsense: if the DM wants something to happen, the Wizard is not going to be able to counter it.

Don't get me wrong, wizards are good, but so are all the other classes.

The only thing the Wizard has an advantage at is that some people still want magic to be bs OP like in 3.X, so they'd go along with more of the Wizard's ideas because lol magic while trying to impose more """"""realistic""""""" limits on others' plans.

I was gonna say that. Also, Bards, Clerics and Druids are/can be just as versatile. The only ones that lag behind in that are Sorcerers and Warlocks.

[Kryx]

the Wizard is the easiest caster to limit
The Wizard has access to 44 spells by default. Even if you try to limit him he'll have double the amount of spells of almost all other classes.

[cZak]

It's a nice feature, considering rituals & such.
But it's still limited by your DM's 'mood of the moment'

The swimming pool for the wizard in/re spells is deeper than other classes, but they still have a limited surface area in which to breathe

[Willie the Duck]

The Wizard has access to 44 spells by default. Even if you try to limit him he'll have double the amount of spells of almost all other classes.

One stolen spellbook later...

[Kryx]

One stolen spellbook later...
Might as well directly nerf the class - it's the same effect.
Though in the context of this thread I see how it defeats easy's argument.

[JeenLeen]

One stolen spellbook later...

While it's true that a wizard can be crippled by their spellbook being stolen, having that happen is generally a really jerk move by the DM. It'd be equivalent, if not worse, to having a rust monster destroy a fighter's magic armor and weapons. Can it happen? Yes. But it's a jerk move and not really fair to incorporate into discussion.

However, even in a game where such is possible, a wizard would have safeguards. Duplicate spellbooks, spellbooks with wards, spellbook kept in the Bag of Holding the wizard keeps worn around their neck and tucked into their clothing. Technically stealable, but... not realistically going to happen.

So--I guess I'm arguing this isn't a valid point to bring up, but, even if it were, a properly prepared wizard would be prepared for it. assuming wealth by level to pay for scribing duplicate copies of spellbooks

[Blue Lantern]

The Wizard has access to 44 spells by default. Even if you try to limit him he'll have double the amount of spells of almost all other classes.

At level 20, of which he can prepare 25, at the same level Druids and Clerics have a choice pool between 2.5 and 3 times the size. Even a paladin has about 50 spell he can prepare from.

Bards and Warlocks have less spells but have other options between, expertise, invocation and such. So to say that the wizard is the only class that has features to deal with challenges is an absurd notion.

But let's be real, the opening post is not even about wizard, is the umpteenth rant about poor players that have to suffer at the mercee of tyrannical DMs that can only find satisfaction by squashing the players action. Because God forbid a player ever gets to hear the word no once in a while.

[Willie the Duck]

Might as well directly nerf the class - it's the same effect.
Though in the context of this thread I see how it defeats easy's argument.


While it's true that a wizard can be crippled by their spellbook being stolen, having that happen is generally a really jerk move by the DM.

My comment was in response to Kryx's response of the statement, "the Wizard is the easiest caster to limit." So, jerk move or not (of which I generally agree), the relative ease of constraining a wizard's power was literally the topic at hand.


But it's a jerk move and not really fair to incorporate into discussion.

Huh?


So--I guess I'm arguing this isn't a valid point to bring up

Double-huh?

Okay, if you think it's not particularly important because no DM would do it (or player group tolerate it happening) then make that case. But not acceptable to bring up? What the holy what?

[Kryx]

At level 20
You're implying that isn't true at all levels.

Level 1 spells known:
Bard: 4
Sorcerer: 2
Warlock: 2
Wizard: 6

Level 5 spells known:
Bard: 8
Sorcerer: 6
Warlock: 6
Wizard: 14

Level 11 spells known:
Bard: 15
Sorcerer: 12
Warlock: 12
Wizard: 26

Level 17 spells known:
Bard: 20
Sorcerer: 15
Warlock: 18
Wizard: 38

Level 20 spells known:
Bard: 22
Sorcerer: 15
Warlock: 19
Wizard: 44

See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504) to see for yourself.


of which he can prepare 25
Adding in 20% of all rituals for the wizard (which the wizard does not have to prepare)
Level 1 spells prepared (known for others):
Bard: 4
Cleric: 6
Druid: 4
Sorcerer: 2
Warlock: 2
Wizard: 6

Level 5 spells prepared (known for others):
Bard: 8
Cleric: 15
Druid: 9/13 (land)
Sorcerer: 6
Warlock: 6
Wizard: 12

Level 11 spells prepared (known for others):
Bard: 15
Cleric: 26
Druid: 16/24 (land)
Sorcerer: 12
Warlock: 12
Wizard: 20

Level 17 spells prepared (known for others):
Bard: 20
Cleric: 32
Druid: 22/30 (land)
Sorcerer: 15
Warlock: 18
Wizard: 26

Level 20 spells prepared (known for others):
Bard: 22
Cleric: 35
Druid: 25/33 (land)
Sorcerer: 15
Warlock: 19
Wizard: 31

See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504) to see for yourself.


at the same level Druids and Clerics have a choice pool between 2.5 and 3 times the size.
2.5 and 3 times the size? That's not accurate at all... A cleric has 99 spells on their list total. 99/44 = 2.25 and that's the absolute bare minimum amount of spells that a Wizard can known. Most GMs will give a wizard at least 1 spell per level (20 additional spells) without effort and Wizards can then choose to acquire more with gold. In actuality that number is probably 64 + whatever the wizard learns - probably about 100+ in most games. And that's 100+ of the top tier spells chosen by the player, not the trash spells.


Even a paladin has about 50 spell he can prepare from.
This is pure deception and your d20 roll is very low. A Paladin has 45 spells on their list. A Wizard can prepare 44 and has 230 on their list..


the opening post is not even about wizard, is the umpteenth rant about poor players that have to suffer at the mercee of tyrannical DMs that can only find satisfaction by squashing the players action.
The post is ridiculous - I fully agree. But you've heavily distorted the facts about wizard spellcasting.



The kicker - the spell list that everyone talks about so much:
Level 1 spell list:
Bard: 22
Cleric: 15
Druid: 20
Sorcerer: 23
Warlock: 11
Wizard: 34

Level 5 spell list:
Bard: 63
Cleric: 52
Druid: 59
Sorcerer: 78
Warlock: 36
Wizard: 110

Level 11 spell list:
Bard: 94
Cleric: 83
Druid: 109
Sorcerer: 118
Warlock: 57
Wizard: 187

Level 17+ spell list:
Bard: 113
Cleric: 99
Druid: 126
Sorcerer: 137
Warlock: 71
Wizard: 230

See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504) to see for yourself.

The spell list is what people are talking about when they talk about versatility.

[Easy_Lee]

One stolen spellbook later...

Fun fact: the feat Keen Mind adds one Int and prevents the wizard from losing spells (though he'll have to re-copy them). A conjurer with Keen Mind doesn't even need to re-copy; he can just conjure it from memory using Minor Conjuration. Plus wizards can have backup spell books.

So, like everything else having to do with wizards, there's a contingency for that.

[Finieous]

But let's be real, the opening post is not even about wizard, is the umpteenth rant about poor players that have to suffer at the mercee of tyrannical DMs that can only find satisfaction by squashing the players action.

His posts do seem to establish a pattern suggesting remarkably bad luck with DMs. Like, all of them. :smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

His posts do seem to establish a pattern suggesting remarkably bad luck with DMs. Like, all of them. :smallbiggrin:

I DM more often than I play, actually. But I've seen some ****. I have regular exposure to AL and see the kinds of players and DMs who pass through there. Like I've said before, if you have a good DM then you're going to have a good time no matter what you do. As such, I've developed a liking for classes and character concepts that let me have a good time regardless.

[Citan]

This is a little blurb about why Wizards are so great in D&D, in general. I'm going to talk about somethings that I don't think most people consider when making characters.

The primary strength of the wizard class is versatility. They have the most spells out of any class (by far) and their spells cover just about everything besides healing. Healing in 5e is weak. Avoiding damage is better, and wizards are good at that.

But why is that such a great thing? Surely I can build a character who does more damage, or is more defensive or stealthy. But this misses a crucial piece of D&D: the DM.

Consider the following: a halfling land druid and human shadow monk show up to the same table. These are smart players. Between Silence, Pass Without Trace, Invisibility, Wildshaping, Darkvision, Water Walking, Spider Climb, and the various side there Druid spells, there should be no reason why these two ever have to enter combat. Nothing could possibly happen to force them into a fight with all of their different means of avoiding conflict.

Nothing except the DM.

I've had DMs dictate my actions to me. I've seen DMs tell the players they were surprised by monsters who they never got a check to notice. I've seen DMs fail to tell players about huge noisy creatures standing in the middle of brightly lit rooms as the players walk in. I've seen DMs require stealth checks for an invisible insect to fly across a room without getting smashed. I've seen DMs ignore rules, change things on the fly, rule inconsistently about mechanics...all in an effort to ensure that the party encounters challenges. Because that's what the DM wants.

And if the DM wants something to happen, it's going to happen.

DMs like to challenge players, throwing a variety of encounters at them in whatever way is most likely to result in a fight. You can't possibly have features to deal with every encounter. Unless you're a wizard. The only thing that a wizard can't deal with is an anti-magic field. For everything else, they have spells for it.

That's why Wizards are so powerful. You can't predict what the DM will do, even if you understand the rules and read the campaign ahead of time. With wizards, you don't have to. You just have to cast whatever spell is appropriate. And the more spells WotC adds to the game, the easier that becomes.
Hey ;)
Errr, hmm, well...
Isn't it just some unassumed rant against your own DMs?

Because...

1) "DM twist rules"...
Many of the examples you gave are totally common by me.
- Surprised by a monster without a check? Well, if my party was strolling around like they were untouchable, I assume the DM will just have confronted our passive checks against the Sneak roll of the creature. Or maybe the creature had so ample time to hide and did so well that it didn't even have to roll a check, so the DM instead made it a DC 20, which everyone failed because, again, party was not on the lookout.
- Stealth check for an invisible insect? Well, you don't provide any context: maybe the insect made noise in a quiet environment, or there were creatures with keen smell or touch, or whatever...
Hard to say whether DM biaised or not without any context.

2) "DM wants to challenge players".
Yeah, no argue on that. But you know what? Usually the players themselves ALSO want to be challenged. So no problem really. ;)

3) Wizards "just have to cast whatever spell is appropriate."
Seriously? If you are really playing in a game DMed by someone with that particular mindset you described, Wizard won't help you anymore than any other caster really, unless at high level (because at high level many more spell known), in two cases from what I see...
- DM does not know what spells you have prepared usually (bonus: he does not even know what spells you learned all this time).
- DM is following an official campaign, which you already know of one way or another.

Don't misunderstand me, clearly Wizard provide much more versatility than any other casters. But even them aren't all powerful "I have a solution for everything" characters. Nobody can be it in fact. Because, as you wisely stressed right at the beginning of your post, in the end, everything that happens does so because of (or thanks to) DM approval (especially the fact that a Wizard would find chances to learn spells besides leveling ;)). ;)

[Finieous]

I DM more often than I play, actually. But I've seen some ****. I have regular exposure to AL and see the kinds of players and DMs who pass through there. Like I've said before, if you have a good DM then you're going to have a good time no matter what you do. As such, I've developed a liking for classes and character concepts that let me have a good time regardless.

Yeah, that could be. I've now played a little AL (enough to get my AT to 9th level), and if I were to make any generalizations about the DMs, it would be that they're often too permissive. Mostly they just seem to want players to have fun and get through "the content" in the allotted time. On the other hand, there's always one or two players at the table I could do without, but that's not a constraint on what my character can do.

Since I don't know you I can only judge by your posts on the board, but I've also noticed a pattern where you post a build or combo that has various rules issues and then seem to become somewhat consternated when others point them out. This could totally be a misconception based on small sample size, but it strikes me these patterns may be related, and after all, self-awareness is good for all of us.

[Blue Lantern]

You're implying that isn't true at all levels.
[...]
This is pure deception and your d20 roll is very low. A Paladin has 45 spells on their list. A Wizard can prepare 44 and has 230 on their list..
[...]
The post is ridiculous - I fully agree. But you've heavily distorted the facts about wizard spellcasting.
[...]
The spell list is what people are talking about when they talk about versatility.

First of all, kudos to you for remembering how many spells each class has at every level, but I think is unfair that you assume I am being deceptive because I don't have all the spell lists memorised by heart.

Second, I wasn't implying anything, nor I have denied that the wizard have the most versatile spell list among all spell casters, my point is that the OP claims that wizards are immune to DM fiat because of their entire spell list, and I only pointed out that it is an absurd argument because without DM approval a Wizard only has access to a limited portion of that spell list in the first place.

[SharkForce]

Fun fact: the feat Keen Mind adds one Int and prevents the wizard from losing spells (though he'll have to re-copy them). A conjurer with Keen Mind doesn't even need to re-copy; he can just conjure it from memory using Minor Conjuration. Plus wizards can have backup spell books.

So, like everything else having to do with wizards, there's a contingency for that.

oh, it gets even better than that.

can you cast minor illusion? if so, keen mind allows you to remember in perfect detail your spellbook as long as you've seen it in the last month... and minor illusion lets you see it again as often as you want :)

[Willie the Duck]

oh, it gets even better than that.

can you cast minor illusion? if so, keen mind allows you to remember in perfect detail your spellbook as long as you've seen it in the last month... and minor illusion lets you see it again as often as you want :)

So, highly expensive expenditure of precious resources (ASI) allows you to avoid a vulnerability? I would hope so, given the cost!

[Kryx]

kudos to you for remembering how many spells each class has at every level
I typed it up from my spreadsheet just for you. :)


I think is unfair that you assume I am being deceptive because I don't have all the spell lists memorised by heart.
If you didn't say things that were factually inaccurate then I wouldn't expect you to know the data. As soon as you start speaking about the data without actual, factual, information then it becomes an issue of misinformation at best.


it is an absurd argument because without DM approval a Wizard only has access to a limited portion of that spell list in the first place.
They have access to the best 44+ (likely 100) of those spells. Everything above 44 is up to the GM, but those can't be taken away without doing somethat that is considered very faux pas.
I want to stress here: Even if the Wizard only ever has 44 spells those spells are the 44 spells that the player thinks are either best for his character or best in the game. That's orders of magnitude better than every spells known caster and even other prepared casters due to the size of his list.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, that could be. I've now played a little AL (enough to get my AT to 9th level), and if I were to make any generalizations about the DMs, it would be that they're often too permissive. Mostly they just seem to want players to have fun and get through "the content" in the allotted time. On the other hand, there's always one or two players at the table I could do without, but that's not a constraint on what my character can do.

Since I don't know you I can only judge by your posts on the board, but I've also noticed a pattern where you post a build or combo that has various rules issues and then seem to become somewhat consternated when others point them out. This could totally be a misconception based on small sample size, but it strikes me these patterns may be related, and after all, self-awareness is good for all of us.

You may be basing that on some of my older posts. I've changed over the past few years, mostly from exposure to new systems and groups.

A lot of the stuff I used to post relied on specific rulings, which is fine for home games but a death sentence in AL. Because the DMs have to move things along, and because I've observed so many AL tables at this point, I've developed a strong liking for clear rules over interoperable rulings, because I've seen new players' assumptions crushed one too many times. I've also developed an approach based on cleverness at the table rather than cleverness in the book.

All this is to say that the Wizard has a wide variety of specific actions he can take, many of which apply to a variety of situations. It's a class that emphasizes cleverness at the table rather than clever character building. My experience is that such design is the ticket for success in D&D in general.

But if you think I'm hard on DMs, I agree that I am. It's because they have power. I get the impression that there are quite a few DMs on these forums. If I can encourage a few to be more mindful, I'll be happy.

[Sigreid]

While it's true that a wizard can be crippled by their spellbook being stolen, having that happen is generally a really jerk move by the DM. It'd be equivalent, if not worse, to having a rust monster destroy a fighter's magic armor and weapons. Can it happen? Yes. But it's a jerk move and not really fair to incorporate into discussion.

However, even in a game where such is possible, a wizard would have safeguards. Duplicate spellbooks, spellbooks with wards, spellbook kept in the Bag of Holding the wizard keeps worn around their neck and tucked into their clothing. Technically stealable, but... not realistically going to happen.

So--I guess I'm arguing this isn't a valid point to bring up, but, even if it were, a properly prepared wizard would be prepared for it. assuming wealth by level to pay for scribing duplicate copies of spellbooks

It's not really a jerk move. At low levels a wizard likely has most of his spells memorized. By mid level a wizard that hasn't invested in a backup is a fool. A wizard who has specialized so narrowly for the day that he's crippled until he gets his spare book is also a fool.

[SharkForce]

So, highly expensive expenditure of precious resources (ASI) allows you to avoid a vulnerability? I would hope so, given the cost!

not that expensive, really. barbarians and paladins and monks can be pretty desperate for ASIs. fighters would probably be a bit worried about it if they didn't get extras. wizards, not so much. you probably want resilient con... eventually. maybe warcaster, though double investment is probably excessive. and then you pretty much only need a couple of ASIs to get your int up to 20, and you probably aren't in a desperate rush for that either, since the biggest difference isn't until your final point of proficiency bonus. and 2 of those feats even give you useful attribute bonuses.

if 5e had equivalents to sharpshooter, crossbow expert, great weapon master, and polearm mastery, or even just sentinel, shield expert, or mobile, except for a spellcaster, an ASI (or rather, half of one - keen mind gives an int bonus, which is obviously useful for a wizard) would be a signifcant cost.

currently? not a big deal. there are feats that a spellcaster could choose that make them a little better at being a spellcaster, certainly. spell sniper, elemental adept, magic initiate, resilient, warcaster... and there are a few that are just nice to have in general, like inspiring leader, observant, alert, lucky, and healer. but i wouldn't say there's really any "must-have" feats, for the most part. the closest to that would be resilient, and while i think it's good enough that i would almost always take it if the game went to higher levels... i don't think it's really an absolute requirement for a functional spellcaster. advantageous, certainly, since it allows for you to make a few more mistakes before everything goes to pieces (and being able to make more mistakes before your plan goes to pieces is super useful in a fight), but it isn't anything like polearm master where you just straight-up get better at doing almost everything a melee warrior wants to do.

[smcmike]

If you didn't say things that were factually inaccurate then I wouldn't expect you to know the data. As soon as you start speaking about the data without actual, factual, information then it becomes an issue of misinformation at best.

You don't need to jump down people's throats for being wrong. Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar, or indicate any sort of malicious intent. If you are right, you might as well be nice about it.


As far as the original post goes, I think it's probably worth putting more thought into what it means to be ready for anything the DM throws at you. No matter what class you play, a big part of the DM's job is to present you with interesting challenges. Careful planning may turn some challenges trivial, at which point it becomes the DM's job to develop new challenges. The more complete your abilities, the harder the DM's job is, and the more likely he will be to make a mistake or lash out in frustration.

So maybe the solution for a bad DM is to play a simple character. If he just wants to throw combat encounters at you, charge into them, greatsword held high.

[Blue Lantern]

I typed it up from my spreadsheet just for you. :)


If you didn't say things that were factually inaccurate then I wouldn't expect you to know the data. As soon as you start speaking about the data without actual, factual, information then it becomes an issue of misinformation at best.

Right. I forgot that this is not a normal discussion board but a (Rule) Law board where the fact that I was guilty of forgetting the exact number of spells a class has has by ~11 for the Cleric and ~5 for the Paladin means my argument is completely invalid. How silly of me.


They have access to the best 44+ (likely 100) of those spells. Everything above 44 is up to the GM, but those can't be taken away without doing somethat that is considered very faux pas.
I want to stress here: Even if the Wizard only ever has 44 spells those spells are the 44 spells that the player thinks are either best for his character or best in the game. That's orders of magnitude better than every spells known caster and even other prepared casters due to the size of his list.

Arguable, I think I would prefer having the entire Cleric or Druid list over only 44 wizard spells, and I talk from experience here. I had played a wizard in a game where the DM did not give a single scroll in the loot and during all the adventure I could buy maybe 4 or 5, and all of them low level.
But at least disagreeing whether 44 wizard spells are more or less versatile than other prepared spell casters is a more honest argument than nitpicking the 0,3 difference between the wizard minimum and the cleric.

And what most DM do is not particularly relevant when the point of the discussion is about DM that are actively screwing the players. I already acknowledged that if the DM is not stingy with scrolls the wizard is the most versatile spell caster.


PS- I also disagree that threatening the wizard spellbook is a very faux paux. As long as it is not just a f*** you to the player there are many scenarios where it is a possible outcome.

[Easy_Lee]

As far as the original post goes, I think it's probably worth putting more thought into what it means to be ready for anything the DM throws at you. No matter what class you play, a big part of the DM's job is to present you with interesting challenges. Careful planning may turn some challenges trivial, at which point it becomes the DM's job to develop new challenges. The more complete your abilities, the harder the DM's job is, and the more likely he will be to make a mistake or lash out in frustration.

This sentiment is exactly why I created this thread.

When I DM, I present encounters, problems, or choices, then wait to see what the players choose to do. I like to surprise my players with the narrative, not with my rulings.

My least favorite DMs see it as their job to thwart player plans or create difficult situations for the characters, because that makes for "interesting challenges." Let me tell you friend, nothing frustrates me more when I play than carefully laying a plan that I know will work, based on the rules, only to have it not work when the DM changes the rules. Because I DM, I know what they're doing and why they're doing it. And I don't appreciate it when it's done to create artificial challenge.

But if I'm going to be challenged at challenge level X (meaning lucky die rolls) no matter what I do, then the best thing I can do is ensure I have the maximum number of options open to me. Odds are good that the DM will accept at least one of those options without challenge. And since wizards have to spend resources to do anything special, it makes many DMs a little more likely to accept their actions as good enough (because spending resources equals challenge, right?).

This is more a meta thread than anything else. It relies on knowledge that the DM:

Wants to throw odd situations at the players
Wants the players to be "challenged," via resource expenditure and die rolls
Might change the rules on the fly for a given area of the game to prevent a plan from going too smoothly
Might disagree with me about how the rules work, leading to situations where entire builds can be invalidated

All of the above led me to conclude that the class with the most flexibility would be the overall best character at a given table. Wizards have the most spells with the most possible effects. They can pick up new spells during the campaign, can ritual cast, and can shift gears in the middle of a campaign to do a completely different set of tasks competently.

So they're a strong contender for most powerful class in the meta that is D&D. Not because of the mechanics, but because of how DMs run games.

To be clear, I'm not calling you or anyone else out here. I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

[Willie the Duck]

<all of post #27>
I'm not really sure what to say except, "okay, if you see it that way." I'm certainly not in disagreement that other classes are more in need of their ASIs then wizards are. If your Int is not odd, taking Keen Mind instead of +2 Int will keep your spell selection and save DCs down by 1 for 4 levels. That's not nothing. And even if there's nothing in particular that a wizard needs to do with their ASIs, they still only get 5 (6 for vuman) over 20 levels. So it is a significant expenditure. Maybe not largest one ever makes (choices of race, class archetype and initial attribute distribution I think are the biggest sunk costs for characters), but the effect is probably commensurate with the cost. You get a +1 Int along with the benefit, and the benefit is useful, but not make-or-break. As Sigreid mentioned, you still can recoup your spell slots without it, you just can't change which ones you have memorized (and you can re-write-down the ones you have memorized.



They have access to the best 44+ (likely 100) of those spells. Everything above 44 is up to the GM, but those can't be taken away without doing somethat that is considered very faux pas.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the culture of your own gaming group is a universal standard. I don't believe that it is a widely held position that the stealing of spellbooks is a very serious faux pas, anymore. I believe that back in 3e--when stealing of your spellbook meant no more spellcasting (minus a feat that maybe you didn't take) until you got to your very expensive backup (you did have a back, didn't you?) whose cost ate into your WBL-- that was right up there with the DM sicking an ogre with the Sunder feat and an adamantine heavy mace to go snap the fighter's +5 flaming holy sword--you just didn't do it. But in 5e, it's not that crippling (you will still get spells tomorrow morning), it's easier to recover your spells (just write the memorized ones into a new book), and you can afford backup spellbooks (with the money for which you have no other use ).

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards learn two new spells per level, but their number of prepared spells only goes up by one per level.

Stealing their spellbook is essentially removing half of the spells they picked while leveling up. Which is, yes, a **** move. :smalltongue:

[Kryx]

But at least disagreeing whether 44 wizard spells are more or less versatile than other prepared spell casters is a more honest argument than nitpicking the 0,3 difference between the wizard minimum and the cleric.
I could individually list wizard spells and show how they are significantly stronger than those on offer to both the cleric and druid, but I expect that wouldn't be valued much either.

The argument that you've presented simply isn't backed up by the number of the game nor the power level of spells available to each class.

[Kryx]

But in 5e, it's not that crippling (you will still get spells tomorrow morning), it's easier to recover your spells (just write the memorized ones into a new book), and you can afford backup spellbooks (with the money for which you have no other use ).
It is indeed less costly than I expected on second read. But you can't have the argument both ways - either it's costly and a tool you consider when trying to argue against the Wizard's strength, or if it's removal has little consequences as you say then the idea of removing a spellbook doesn't have much value in the discussion we're currently having. It can't go both ways there.

[Blue Lantern]

I could individually list wizard spells and show how they are significantly stronger than those on offer to both the cleric and druid, but I expect that wouldn't be valued much either.

The argument that you've presented simply isn't backed up by the number of the game nor the power level of spells available to each class.

I'll take personal experience over abstract and without context math any time of the day, thank you very much.

[Kryx]

I'll take personal experience over abstract and without context math any time of the day, thank you very much.
The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game. That's not by accident.

[Unoriginal]

The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game. That's not by accident.

You can thank people who still think it's 3.X for this, though.

On the other hand, if you have the datas showing that the Wizard's spells are demonstrably better, in a way that cannot be explained by the difference in class features between Wizard and other classes, then I'd be happy to see them.

[Blue Lantern]

The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game. That's not by accident.

1) Common acceptance by this forum <> universal truth.

2) That common acceptance assumes no limitation on the spell known which, for the third time, is not the argument of this thread.

[Sigreid]

Less costly assumes it is stolen while some are prepared. Most likely it'd be stolen at night as a Wizard likely has it in their possesion during the day. At night they likely spent at least a few, if not all, spell slots during the say so the amount memorized could possibly be very low.



This statement right here you are mixing your editions. You don't forget spells by using the spell slots. Wizards only need to re-memorize when they want to change what they have available.

[Willie the Duck]

Read this very post and you'll see that the idea is still very prevalent.

Well, I see you and one other person, I don't know how prevalent that makes it. These boards certainly are not representative of the gaming public, so I'd say none of us really know.


Less costly assumes it is stolen while some are prepared. Most likely it'd be stolen at night as a Wizard likely has it in their possesion during the day. At night they likely spent at least a few, if not all, spell slots during the say so the amount memorized could possibly be very low.

I am going to point out that having spent spell slots should not deplete the numbers that are memorized. That mechanic seems to have disappeared with this edition.


But you can't have the argument both ways - either it's costly and a tool you consider when trying to argue against the Wizard's strength, or if it's removal has little consequences as you say then the idea of removing a spellbook doesn't have much value in the discussion we're currently having. It can't go both ways there.
I never said anything of the sort. I said:

One stolen spellbook later...
and that was it. Literally nothing more to the point. If there's something else I've argued that I'm forgetting, please bring it forward, and we can discuss it. I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of feathers I've ruffled with such an innocuous statement. It seems self-evident that that, regardless of how commonly it is used, is a pretty inarguable thing a DM can throw at their wizards that would be considered a limitation.

As to costly, I did say that an ASI to prevent this vulnerability is a costly form of protection, and I stand by that. Feats are expensive, even if some classes have a few to burn. I don't think that's relevant to this part of the discussion, though.

[smcmike]

This sentiment is exactly why I created this thread.

When I DM, I present encounters, problems, or choices, then wait to see what the players choose to do. I like to surprise my players with the narrative, not with my rulings.

My least favorite DMs see it as their job to thwart player plans or create difficult situations for the characters, because that makes for "interesting challenges." Let me tell you friend, nothing frustrates me more when I play than carefully laying a plan that I know will work, based on the rules, only to have it not work when the DM changes the rules. Because I DM, I know what they're doing and why they're doing it. And I don't appreciate it when it's done to create artificial challenge.

But if I'm going to be challenged at challenge level X (meaning lucky die rolls) no matter what I do, then the best thing I can do is ensure I have the maximum number of options open to me. Odds are good that the DM will accept at least one of those options without challenge. And since wizards have to spend resources to do anything special, it makes many DMs a little more likely to accept their actions as good enough (because spending resources equals challenge, right?).

This is more a meta thread than anything else. It relies on knowledge that the DM:

Wants to throw odd situations at the players
Wants the players to be "challenged," via resource expenditure and die rolls
Might change the rules on the fly for a given area of the game to prevent a plan from going too smoothly
Might disagree with me about how the rules work, leading to situations where entire builds can be invalidated

All of the above led me to conclude that the class with the most flexibility would be the overall best character at a given table. Wizards have the most spells with the most possible effects. They can pick up new spells during the campaign, can ritual cast, and can shift gears in the middle of a campaign to do a completely different set of tasks competently.

So they're a strong contender for most powerful class in the meta that is D&D. Not because of the mechanics, but because of how DMs run games.

To be clear, I'm not calling you or anyone else out here. I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

I think I understand where you are coming from.

My initial point was that IF you are confronted with a DM who is willing to do anything to counter your abilities, adding more abilities won't necessarily help, and narrowing your abilities won't necessarily hurt. You might have a point about wizard abilities appearing to cost resources, but now we're in the realm of speculation about DM perception, which is a step further than I'm interested in.

[TheUser]

I think if we want to get into the Kings of handling DM fiat then we need to talk about subtle spell sorcerers and how any other spellcaster can be easily locked out of spellcasting.

Let us take for example a wizard and a sorcerer.

Both have the dimension door spell and both are now in a bind where they must escape.

If both have exhausted their compliment of level 4+ spells the wizard must complete a short rest in order to get the slot back and teleport to safety. The sorcerer can juggle spell slots/sorcery points around until a new level 4 slot is synthesized. Probably taking 1-3 rounds depending on what slots remain and how many sorcery points are still in reserve.

The wizard must deal with the possibility that enemy casters within 30/60ft and have line of sight may just counterspell the escape attempt. The subtle sorcerer cannot be counter spelled for 1 sorcery point and does not worry.

If for some reason the wizard is forcibly submerged in a liquid or within the confines of a silence field, they cannot escape with dimension door (unless they can breathe said liquid, can't remember the relevant sage advice but it's there). In fact simply being grappled by a mook that is devoting all of their efforts to disrupting the flow of words from the wizards mouth while maintaining a grapple would require their action to break free before properly evoking a verbal component.


The point is, short of dropping an antimagic field/using mind control on a subtle sorcerer there is little else a DM can do.

Wizards are a walking bag of openings waiting to be exploited. 44 spells is great but how many of them have a vocal component?

[SharkForce]

I'm not really sure what to say except, "okay, if you see it that way." I'm certainly not in disagreement that other classes are more in need of their ASIs then wizards are. If your Int is not odd, taking Keen Mind instead of +2 Int will keep your spell selection and save DCs down by 1 for 4 levels. That's not nothing. And even if there's nothing in particular that a wizard needs to do with their ASIs, they still only get 5 (6 for vuman) over 20 levels. So it is a significant expenditure. Maybe not largest one ever makes (choices of race, class archetype and initial attribute distribution I think are the biggest sunk costs for characters), but the effect is probably commensurate with the cost. You get a +1 Int along with the benefit, and the benefit is useful, but not make-or-break. As Sigreid mentioned, you still can recoup your spell slots without it, you just can't change which ones you have memorized (and you can re-write-down the ones you have memorized.

matter of perspective, i guess. wizards will get 5 ASIs by level 20, and really only have urgent need for 2 (and a use for a third one that is probably better than an ASI elsewhere, but not desperately needed). that means they have 2-3 ASIs just sitting around that they can put wherever they like... doesn't sound like a very high cost to me. and it isn't like that's the only thing the feat can do either.

also, save DC doesn't really get important until your proficiency score is high enough to make a big difference. there is certainly a difference between 13 and 14, but it isn't anywhere near as valuable as the difference between 18 and 19.

[Kryx]

You don't forget spells by using the spell slots. Wizards only need to re-memorize when they want to change what they have available.
Ah, that's true. Apologies for my poor reading. I've never had a book stolen from me nor stolen it from any of my players so I haven't given it much thought. My bad.


Well, I see you and one other person, I don't know how prevalent that makes it. These boards certainly are not representative of the gaming public, so I'd say none of us really know.
Wow... I cannot read. I thought disagree was "agree" in this statement: "I also disagree that threatening the wizard spellbook is a very faux paux"
There are 3 of us who commented against it, but I admit defeat here due to my poor reading.

I need to not make definitive statements based on reading tonight.. Cya guys tomorrow, sorry!

[Waazraath]

I think if we want to get into the Kings of handling DM fiat then we need to talk about subtle spell sorcerers and how any other spellcaster can be easily locked out of spellcasting.

Let us take for example a wizard and a sorcerer.

Both have the dimension door spell and both are now in a bind where they must escape.

If both have exhausted their compliment of level 4+ spells the wizard must complete a short rest in order to get the slot back and teleport to safety. The sorcerer can juggle spell slots/sorcery points around until a new level 4 slot is synthesized. Probably taking 1-3 rounds depending on what slots remain and how many sorcery points are still in reserve.

The wizard must deal with the possibility that enemy casters within 30/60ft and have line of sight may just counterspell the escape attempt. The subtle sorcerer cannot be counter spelled for 1 sorcery point and does not worry.

If for some reason the wizard is forcibly submerged in a liquid or within the confines of a silence field, they cannot escape with dimension door (unless they can breathe said liquid, can't remember the relevant sage advice but it's there). In fact simply being grappled by a mook that is devoting all of their efforts to disrupting the flow of words from the wizards mouth while maintaining a grapple would require their action to break free before properly evoking a verbal component.


The point is, short of dropping an antimagic field/using mind control on a subtle sorcerer there is little else a DM can do.

Wizards are a walking bag of openings waiting to be exploited. 44 spells is great but how many of them have a vocal component?

All of this. A crappy DM is a crappy DM, no class is gonna change that. Any caster can get shafted with:
- surprise attacks (no buffs going, starting the encounter in melee)
- opponents that cleverly target the caster when concentration spells are up
- counterspells (really strong this edition)
- mobile enemies that target low AC / HP casters while skipping the tanks

In addition, wizards have the spell book, as a huge liability when a DM wants to play games.

Then again, a DM with such a mindset will hit the sorcerer in its weak spots, and misuse the lack of spells known. (making an encounter where fly would be great if the sorcerer didn't choose fly, etc.). There's no fighting that, in game (just find another game I suppose).

[Kryx]

On the other hand, if you have the datas showing that the Wizard's spells are demonstrably better, in a way that cannot be explained by the difference in class features between Wizard and other classes, then I'd be happy to see them.
One last one for the night. Lets do a brief comparison on 9th level spells (fewest spells, most powerful, so easiest to see the difference. The differences would probably be similar at lower levels). Let's compare Wizard to Druid as it's the Prepared spellcaster with the largest spell list:

9th level:
Druid: Foresight, Shapechange, Storm of Vengeance, True Resurrection
Wizard: Astral Projection, Foresight, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swam, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Wall, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, Weird, Wish

2/4 of the Druid options are on the Wizard list. One is resurrection which is a good role to have, the other is storm of vengeance which is AoE after a few rounds which isn't so great.
The Wizard has some mediocre and mid power level options. According to Treantmonk (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZHzEjiHvtDItZE2ixfoYwqi7brTO-ag8uBJndE5saro/edit) (since I can't be trusted to read tonight): Astral Projection is mid tier, Foresight is pretty good, Gate is really bad, Imprisonment is really bad, Meteor Swarm is pretty good, Power Word Kill is kinda bad, Prismatic Wall is really good, Shapechange is mid tier, Time Stop is quite good, True Polymorph is really good, Wish is really good, Weird is really bad.

So overall the Wizard has 6 green or blue spells (quite good or really good) whereas a druid has 2 (Foresight and True Resurrection).

The Wizards 6 good spells allow him to:

Create a large wall that does a lot of damage if bypassed or slows down enemies for many rounds (Prismatic Wall)
Wish for most anything (Wish)
Can't be surprised, Adv on attacks/ability checks/saving throws, dis on attacks against you (Foresight)
Highest damage spell in the game to blow up cities (Meteor Swarm)
Extra rounds to heal, self buff, or run away (Time Stop)
Transform yourself or an ally into a Dragon. Campaign over for everyone else. (True Polymorph)

The Druids 2 good spells allow him to:

Resurrect a dead creature
Can't be surprised, Adv on attacks/ability checks/saving throws, dis on attacks against you (Foresight)


It's no contest at 9th level that the Wizard has more spells to choose from and those spells give the Wizard far more versatility than the Druid's spells give the Druid.

[Easy_Lee]

Wizards also have more spell variety at every level, including cantrips. Teleportation spells, Shield, every sort of damage type, feather fall, etc.

[SharkForce]

tbh, i'm surprised shapechange isn't ranked higher. turn into any creature, plus don't lose your class features... yeah, ok, it's not going to break the world like you can with true polymorph, but that doesn't mean it isn't very strong.

[Kryx]

Wizards also have more spell variety at every level, including cantrips. Teleportation spells, Shield, every sort of damage type, feather fall, etc.
Exactly - their spell list is significantly more diverse allowing significantly more versatility.


tbh, i'm surprised shapechange isn't ranked higher. turn into any creature, plus don't lose your class features... yeah, ok, it's not going to break the world like you can with true polymorph, but that doesn't mean it isn't very strong.
Probably somewhat due to:

beware, as this is a concentration spell, and unless you can figure out a way to avoid taking damage, you may find your concentration disrupted in the middle of melee (this would be bad.)

But the larger reason is the ability to use true polymorph on allies is so much stronger than what Shapechange can offer. Shapechange isn't bad - it's a middle tier spell, but it doesn't quite live up to the others on the list I'd say. I decided to draw the line at "good or better" for comparison.

[Chugger]

Are you people kidding me? Really?

Wizards are _awesome_! They can prestigidiate or however you spell/say it (see even their spells are so amazing you can't pronounce them!!!) away stains and keep laundry clean and make crappy rations taste like lobster or filet mignon.

They summon unseen servants - armies of them - to keep the inn room that the party rents clean and tidy!

Got insomnia? They got a non-addictive cure for that, too - sleep!

Instant Motel-6 when on the road - via Rope Trick and/or Leomunds Tiny Hut! Rest and relaxation while unseen servants massage away the cares and worries of the day.

Seriously...you people....

[Citan]

Hey all ;)
Many things to bounce onto tonight. ^^

In order (somewhat)...

About Wizard's spellbook being stolen

It's not really a jerk move. At low levels a wizard likely has most of his spells memorized. By mid level a wizard that hasn't invested in a backup is a fool. A wizard who has specialized so narrowly for the day that he's crippled until he gets his spare book is also a fool.
THIS. So much THIS. Unless...
- The Wizard is still low level (like, <7).
- The mean used to rob/destroy the book was clearly illogical, "magic", well obvious DM biais, borderline cheat.

About Wizard having much leeway in ASI attribution

not that expensive, really. barbarians and paladins and monks can be pretty desperate for ASIs. fighters would probably be a bit worried about it if they didn't get extras. wizards, not so much. you probably want resilient con... eventually. maybe warcaster, though double investment is probably excessive. and then you pretty much only need a couple of ASIs to get your int up to 20, and you probably aren't in a desperate rush for that either, since the biggest difference isn't until your final point of proficiency bonus. and 2 of those feats even give you useful attribute bonuses.

That's your personal opinion, certainly not something that could be presented as a global assentiment.
A Wizard needs...
- At least 18 INT, probably 20: no need to explain.
- At least 16 DEX, possibly 20: because AC helps much survive, until at least level 10 or so, especially on a d6 die character.
- At least 16 CON, possibly 20: because you really want more HP to survive attacks and better concentration.
Of course this may widly vary from one character to another, depending partially on the choice of School (Bladesinger/Abjurer/Evoker > less need for CON bump for example), or the choice of feats that may replace stat bumps.

But a Wizard that starts only 14 in DEX and CON to manage a starting 17 INT will have much trouble surviving the first tier, from all that I witnessed (okay, admitedly not that much ;)), even with allies trying to protect him. Unless he blows a vast chunk of resources just protecting himself. Grabbing Keen Mind at level 4 means he will stick with low HP and AC until level 8, thus having to use many Shields, using illusion spells to create covers or blowing Misty Step / Invisibility for emergency getaways.

On Wizard's "supremacy"


They have access to the best 44+ (likely 100) of those spells. Everything above 44 is up to the GM, but those can't be taken away without doing somethat that is considered very faux pas.
I want to stress here: Even if the Wizard only ever has 44 spells those spells are the 44 spells that the player thinks are either best for his character or best in the game. That's orders of magnitude better than every spells known caster and even other prepared casters due to the size of his list.
Saying that these 44 spells are probably the ones the player thinks are best for him is a very sound argument. Indeed, he chose them (well, you make the assumption the player wouldn't make ANY mistake when choosing the spell and consequently be stuck which a disappointing spell, which is largely false for unexperienced players, but well...).

But of the whole game? HA.HA.HA.
Just confer to the oh-so-many threads talking about multiclass just to get Bless, Spirit Guardians, Thorns Whip, Shillelagh, Conjure X, Pass Without Trace, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Aura of Vitality and the like.
Be my guest, open a thread asking people to broadly rate their top 50 spells. You would be surprised at how many low level spells would be present, and how many from other lists than Wizard...

By the way...

One last one for the night. Lets do a brief comparison on 9th level spells (fewest spells, most powerful, so easiest to see the difference. The differences would probably be similar at lower levels). Let's compare Wizard to Druid as it's the Prepared spellcaster with the largest spell list:

9th level:
Druid: Foresight, Shapechange, Storm of Vengeance, True Resurrection
Wizard: Astral Projection, Foresight, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swam, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Wall, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, Weird, Wish

It's no contest at 9th level that the Wizard has more spells to choose from and those spells give the Wizard far more versatility than the Druid's spells give the Druid.
GG for conveniently using an extremely narrow and biaised comparison (9th level only? Plus not accounting for all other features Druid and Cleric have which make them more versatile, starting with the fact they know all spells) to try to induce a very false "deduction" (the differences would probably be similar at lower levels).

The truth is: Clerics are more versatile than Wizard in the first tier (spells level 1/2/3) because they still have a somewhat wide selection of different spells, although it does restrict severely towards buff/heal/divination at higher levels while Wizard still gets a very large selection of various kind of spells (barring heal), plus the majority of the best rituals of the game (well, unless you count Arcana Wizards which can get Wish IIRC).
Druid are more versatile than Wizard until level 9 spells (at which time Wizard gets Wish), because they can freely change all their prepared spells among the full 126 (thanks for counting by the way), without any DM's goodwill, without any liability (spellbook). Plus they can use them while Wild Shaped in the end.
As a side note, Clerics with an open-minded DM that would allow powerful Divine Intervention (seeing the coming days or the like in sufficiently detailed way, or maybe even alter the flow) would trump everyone else, because knowing the future means having the ability to take the best possible course of action.

[Kryx]

GG for conveniently using an extremely narrow and biaised comparison (9th level only?
It took me half an hour to compare the guides and type that up. If you'd like to do the same for early levels please do.

Clerics have some good spells, but the versatility offered isn't nearly as wide as the Wizard's choices.

[Beelzebubba]

So they're a strong contender for most powerful class in the meta that is D&D. Not because of the mechanics, but because of how DMs run games.

No, they are the strongest class by far because of the mechanics. Always have been. And, after 4E lost in the Great Grognard War of 'but Fighters have to be *realistic* in my Fantasy Dragon Elf Game, while Wizards Are Magic and Can Do Anything', their superiority in mechanics will always be there.

You said it yourself. Martials plan, and ask, and attempt, and roll. Wizards decide, DO, and then the DM deals with the consequences.

Don't pretend this realization of yours is special. It's been that way since Chainmail, when a Wizard was an artillery piece worth 4 Fighting Men.

[SharkForce]

early on, a wizard doesn't need 18 int. it's nice, but not world-altering. DC 14 and DC 15 are not that different.

early on, the difference between con 14 and con 16 is like, 5 hit points. by the time you're level 20 even, you'd be looking at a whopping 20 extra hit points. certainly nice to have, but... that's not exactly going to be a huge difference.

dex? well, again, that's certainly nice to have. but no, going from 15 AC to 16 AC is not going to rock your world. the more the merrier, certainly, but it isn't like you're going from 20 to 21 or anything like that (which would be huge value early on) or from 15 to 19 (like you could get from a 1-level fighter dip or something).

those things are certainly nice to have, but i could easily see giving them up for something else if it interests you.

[Vogonjeltz]

I could individually list wizard spells and show how they are significantly stronger than those on offer to both the cleric and druid, but I expect that wouldn't be valued much either.

The argument that you've presented simply isn't backed up by the number of the game nor the power level of spells available to each class.

Wizards lack healing entirely and have next to no status removal spells.

Spells are limited use and are just replicating something a character can already do either innately or through use of a device.

The reason spells are limited use is because they execute relatively quickly. The downside is a player has no way of knowing, in advance, which spells they're really going to need and which ones are superfluous or wasted space until crunch time happens and they either happen to have the right thing at the right time or they fail.


The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game. That's not by accident.

Are you referencing an actual opinion poll from somewhere or is this just your assumption?

Wizards are, far and away, the worst class in combat; they have no apparent value in Social encounters; and contribute next to nothing in the Exploration tier (mobility spells do not constitute Exploration capacity).

A Wizard without a very capable team to carry it is borderline useless. A team without a Wizard is completely fine.

[Jerrykhor]

Wizards are, far and away, the worst class in combat; they have no apparent value in Social encounters; and contribute next to nothing in the Exploration tier (mobility spells do not constitute Exploration capacity).

A Wizard without a very capable team to carry it is borderline useless. A team without a Wizard is completely fine.

You just went full retard. Never go full retard.

[Citan]

It took me half an hour to compare the guides and type that up. If you'd like to do the same for early levels please do.

Clerics have some good spells, but the versatility offered isn't nearly as wide as the Wizard's choices.
Well, I'm sorry you wasted 30 minutes of your time for something that would require only 3mn of actual thinking.

Per your own words, the maximum versatility is achieved through the sheer number of spell available to prepare from and its variety.

At level 1, Druid "knows" ~22 spells (including EE). Wizard knows 6.

At level 3, Druid adds another ~20 spells (including EE). Wizards knows 10, 2 of which are 2nd level. So >40 vs 10.

Plus the fact that Wizard gets many more "niche" spells than Druid, but whereas the Druid can still prepare them just the day it's needed, the Wizard has to either find them first or sacrifice a "learn slot" just for the potential of those rare situations arising.

Etc etc. Only at level 13 can Wizard really ramp up the competition with Simulacrum, by...
- Preparing a set of spells...
- Then creating a Simulacrum...
- Then overhauling his own selection on next long rest...
Effectively making up to double number of prepared spells.
Meaning that while Druid can prepare 18 spells cherrypicked from a ~70+ list, Wizard can have up to 18*2 spells prepared, so basically more than the number of spells he knows by default, or more probably just enough to cover all spells in his spellbook (admittedly, a DM who didn't provide at least two handful of extra spells by that time is a bit of a ****, unless the setting imposes so and he warned the player in session 0).

Only at level 17 can he really boast being equal or better than Druid because of the Wish spell that can replicate any spell.

In addition to that, Druid gets a built-in ability that is in essence extremely versatile in the form of Wild Shape, whereas most Wizard schools provide benefits that are combat oriented and tightly linked to spellcasting.

Nail on coffin: Druid gets every type of spell available, with some representatives at nearly every level: healing, buff, debuff, AOE, single-target, conjuration, utility, rituals... Only "resurrection" are Clerics exclusive.

So basically whatever way you look at it, Druid trumps Wizard from A to Z for more than half of the caster progression, and is arguably still better unless the Wizard specifically uses high-level investment to change that with Simulacrum.
The only thing to regret is Wizard rituals, because many are really great, but a Ritual Caster easily gets that covered. ;)

Only in a game with an overly generous DM that basically offers you 3-4 additional spells of your level every game session, would the Wizard be able to catch up and beyond earlier...

Same principle with Clerics, although those are fairly more restricted with the kind of spells they get past 3rd level, which is why you they drop out in "versatility" past that point.

[Sigreid]

[QUOTE=Citan;22359294]Hey all ;)
Many things to bounce onto tonight. ^^


About Wizard's spellbook being stolen

THIS. So much THIS. Unless...
- The Wizard is still low level (like, <7).
- The mean used to rob/destroy the book was clearly illogical, "magic", well obvious DM biais, borderline cheat.

1. I would expect a wizard beyond level 3 or so to have started a backup and have it stashed somewhere.
2. As a DM, I at least am not going to have the wizards book arbitrarily destroyed.
3. The BBEG hiring the thieves guild to steal it, complete with the accompanying chance to catch the thief in the act is totally fair game though.
4. What has been stolen can be recovered if the players put the effort into it.
5. Given the chance the BBEG will pay to have the thieves steal the paladin's holy avenger just as happily.

[Pichu]

Well, they're called Wizards of the Coast, not Sorcerer's of the Plain or Warlocks of the Forest :smallbiggrin:

[Kryx]

Well, I'm sorry you wasted 30 minutes of your time for something that would require only 3mn of actual thinking.
Off to a great start! Yay!

Likely levels 1 and 2 should be ignored for comparison as they are 1 or 2 sesssions each. Similarly levels above 15 are often not explored by groups so I can understand the desire to skip higher level spells as well - totally valid. I only chose that level due to the limited amount of spells as doing a full comparison of say 3rd level spells would require significantly more effort on my part. There was no attempt to deceive.

I doubt many would contend that a Wizard is a power house class at early levels. Wizards, as a class, take time to power up. Druids and Clerics peak earlier in their spells known and spells prepared, though if you compare spell for spell across similar roles the Wizard surely pulls ahead in defensive capabilities, AoE capabilities, utility capabilities. It doesn't fulfill the healing that the druid does, but the Wizard has access to signficantly stronger spells. Compare fireball/lightning bolt vs Erupting Earth for example. They are different roles and I'm not here to say the Druid role is worthless, only to say that the Wizard role offers significantly more versatility and power in the roles that the two classes do share (blasting, cc and utility).
One other thing that hasn't been brought up is that Wizards don't need to have the spell prepared to cast it as a ritual which is rather significant for comparing total spells prepared (Wizard is ahead of the Druid at all tiers, though a Land Druid can keep pace and pulls ahead around level 7, though 8 of his spells are decided for him).

Side note: I actually much prefer the playstyle of the Sorcerer over the Wizard. I've never been a Wizard guy, but I can recognize the power that they bring to parties.

Based on the start of your post I don't expect we'll have a fruitful discussion if I put in more effort so I'll leave it at that simple version.

[Willie the Duck]

Off to a great start! Yay!

I am going to make an observation, and you can ignore it if you like, but I'm putting it out there. You seem highly annoyed that you would be asked to back up your case, and also under the impression that you are the one being mistreated. To the former, that's the entire point of these discussions. To the later, you seem to have come onto this thread with a hefty chip on your shoulder and not really behaved any better than you seem to feel like you have been treated. You have been biting and condescending and hacking and bashing at others (pretending that Blue Lantern not having the numbers in front of him was misinformation, somehow I'm trying to have it both ways on spellbook steeling). You've made and appeals to authority ("The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game"), and comments such as "The argument that you've presented simply isn't backed up by the number of the game nor the power level of spells available to each class." that honestly, you really need to back up (back up the case that their argument isn't backed up) but seem hostile to the fact that you would have to do so. You might disagree, but from where I'm sitting, you are looking exactly like your opposition.

Anyways, onto the meat of the discussion.


It took me half an hour to compare the guides and type that up. If you'd like to do the same for early levels please do.


Likely levels 1 and 2 should be ignored for comparison as they are 1 or 2 sesssions each. Similarly levels above 15 are often not explored by groups so I can understand the desire to skip higher level spells as well - totally valid. I only chose that level due to the limited amount of spells as doing a full comparison of say 3rd level spells would require significantly more effort on my part. There was no attempt to deceive.

I think these combined highlight the real problem. We haven't really done an in depth analysis of the whole scenario of wizard compared to not wizard. And that's entirely reasonable because that requires an utterly huge amount of work. Frankly, it ought to include an analysis of not just all wizard spells, but all of all class's spells, and how they use them (either in things like a sorcerer's subtle spell abilities as TheUser brought up to 'tactical' analysis such as 'clerics would use this in melee, while a wizard would probably not'). A half hour is chump change compared to what it would actually take.

In lieu of that, it would probably be more fruitful for all of us to couch our language in terms along the lines of "it's all going to be subjective depending on what your priorities are, but in my opinion, I would disagree and say that the benefits a wizard has outweigh any limitations. You see... <blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.>' because it's not like we are going to 'prove' anything one way or the other. Not without a lot more work than I hope any of us has the time to put in on something like this. The OP was smart in making an entirely subjective premise--we can agree or disagree, but in the end we'll all agree that it depends on subjective qualities like what-a-DM-will-do. What we're approaching (and I believe we're still discussing your disagreement with Blue Lantern's statement that "the Wizard is the easiest caster to limit"), is just too broad. We should pull back and remember we're discussing opinions.

[Kryx]

I am going to make an observation, and you can ignore it if you like, but I'm putting it out there. You seem highly annoyed that you would be asked to back up your case, and also under the impression that you are the one being mistreated.
You've read me incorrectly. That was a response to his condescending wording.


To the later, you seem to have come onto this thread with a hefty chip on your shoulder and not really behaved any better than you seem to feel like you have been treated.
Fully agreed that I haven't worded things so great. I take responsibility for that, my apologies.


pretending that Blue Lantern not having the numbers in front of him was misinformation
He made definitive statements that were not close to correct, it wasn't just smudging the details. If you'd reread my reply you can see that the details he uses to make definitive statements are quite inaccurate. When it was pointed out he chose to double down, choosing to ignore new information and choosing to ignore numbers in favor of his subjective experience.

On the other hand when I made definitive statements about replacing the spellbook I was called out for them, and rightfully so! My statements regarding the spellbook were quite misinformed and I've owned up to that misinformation. I apologized for it and edited my posts to remove that misinformation.

I'm here to learn more about D&D and peoples experiences with it. Misinformation is counter to that goal. I don't expect everyone to have perfect knowledge of the game's design, but I would expect people to take feedback (like I have on the spellbook replacement issue).


somehow I'm trying to have it both ways on spellbook steeling
You've said it was only 1 short bit and you've tried to back away from the statement, but your implication was that stealing a spellbook was a large factor. Then when we discuss that further you and others say it's barely impactful as the cost to replace it is minimal. Either it's impactful and it's worth mentioning or it isn't impactful and your post and the implication has no meaning. It can't be both.


The Wizard is commonly accepted as the most powerful class in the game
This statement is more definitive than I'd like to defend. Let me alter it to add "one of". I did not mean to imply that the wizard, alone, was above all other classes. Simply that it was in the top tier of classes. The Wizard bring a great deal of versatility to a group while a Barbarian brings tankiness and crazy damage and a Paladin brings burst damage, healing, curing poisons/diseases, etc. Each haf their own role, but in the realms of versatility the Wizard surely stands above Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. There is more debate with regard to Cleric and Druid as their roles are different, but showing that either of those classes can match the versatility would be an uphill battle.
To that extent here are a few posts at the top of google that all discuss Wizard as one of the top tier classes:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44856/is-the-old-linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards-problem-still-around-in-5e-basic
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?455464-Classes-Rated-By-Tier
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465012-Most-powerful-class-in-5e&p=6659959&viewfull=1#post6659959
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2hc24f/the_strongest_5e_class_at_level_is/

I fully agree with the general mindset in those threads that 5e is a very different game than older editions. 5e has made the roles of a group significantly more important.


A half hour is chump change compared to what it would actually take.
Exactly, which is why I believe the request for more data while providing none is unfair. In this regard I have spent a fair amount of time presenting a significant amount of data. If you expect more analysis from me then I'd happy to continue this more cordial conversation if you yourself brought analysis as well. But as you say in this post that likely isn't your goal.


In lieu of that, it would probably be more fruitful for all of us to couch our language in terms along the lines of "it's all going to be subjective depending on what your priorities are, but in my opinion, I would disagree and say that the benefits a wizard has outweigh any limitations. You see... <blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.>'
This is the point, though. Subjective opinions without anything to substantiate them don't hold much value when comparing classes - which is what this thread is doing.
Comparing individual spells (via guides) or hard numbers (via graphs like the ones on https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44856/is-the-old-linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards-problem-still-around-in-5e-basic) bring significant value to the discussion as it breaks away from individual subjective opinions in favor of either math or a more collective experience in guides as they are changed with feedback from others. Subjective opinions without substantiation brings nothing but disagreement.

[Waazraath]

This is the point, though. Subjective opinions without anything to substantiate them don't hold much value when comparing classes - which is what this thread is doing.
Comparing individual spells (via guides) or hard numbers (via graphs like the ones on https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44856/is-the-old-linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards-problem-still-around-in-5e-basic) bring significant value to the discussion as it breaks away from individual subjective opinions in favor of either math or a more collective experience in guides as they are changed with feedback from others. Subjective opinions without substantiation brings nothing but disagreement.

How is the site you link to anything else than opinion put into a graph? The page doesn't even specify what the "DPAD" is that is mentioned on the Y-axis. Collective experience, fair enough. But it should be taken into account that sometimes there are very vocal minorities that keep pushing points. I don't know how many 'martials drool casters rule bla bla" threads I've seen, in which the majority of the people who respond say "nope they don't". But for a casual reader, it might become "a collective opinion" that there is a significant martial/caster disparity in 5e, or a great difference in power between sorcerers and wizards.

Imo, for stuff like DPA, math is great. Great that people (like you) put a lot of work in it, to show what are optimal choices. But for stuff that is depending on the DM, party composition, kind of adventure played, everything that complex (which is most of the game actually, minus DPR), math isn't the solution. As far as it gives any results at all, they are misleading. Better stick to 'collective experience' then, but with keeping the thing mentioned above in mind.

[Kryx]

But it should be taken into account that sometimes there are very vocal minorities that keep pushing points.
Fully agreed. That's why I linked to a person like Treantmonk who is by far the most renowned guide maker. His ratings, which are heavily critical of spells with optimization in mind, were the fairest I could have chosen from due to his reputation and his critical mindset.


But for stuff that is depending on the DM, party composition, kind of adventure played, everything that complex (which is most of the game actually, minus DPR), math isn't the solution.
Hmmm I think we're mixing up what I meant by math. If you look at the first page I used simple math (addition) to count things like effective spells known, spells prepared, spell lists, etc. Those factors play a significant role when determining internal balance among casters - which is exactly what we were doing. Other factors are involved, but my initial post was made to refute the statements that were not accurate to those numbers.

[Beelzebubba]

I think if we want to get into the Kings of handling DM fiat then we need to talk about subtle spell sorcerers and how any other spellcaster can be easily locked out of spellcasting.

Let us take for example a wizard and a sorcerer.

Both have the dimension door spell and both are now in a bind where they must escape.

--

Wizards are a walking bag of openings waiting to be exploited. 44 spells is great but how many of them have a vocal component?

Next: do it with a Druid or Cleric who don't get Counterspell at all. Let alone an instant teleportation option like Dimension Door.*

A Wizard can absolutely shut them down with no recourse.



* Be quiet, Mr. Grassland Druid. You'd get Counterspelled anyway.

[90sMusic]

Anytime I consider playing a wizard, I ask myself "why wouldn't I just be a bard?"

While it's true wizards can learn something like 44 spells by level 20, a lore bard can learn 30 spells by level 20 and 8 of them can be from any class in the game. Plus they get useful perks like cutting words, inspiration, and access to healing, resurrection, restoration, etc type magics as well as the offensive stuff. They can be proficient in as many as 10 skills depending on race selection, plus expertise in 4 of them, plus jack of all trades for everything else.

Their casting stat is charisma which is a much more useful ability score than intelligence in 5th edition the majority of the time.

I've just never been able to justify playing a wizard when I want to wield magic. They may have 14 more spells by level 20 but honestly it's hard enough to pick spells as it is, most of that extra crap you don't even use or want and ends up just being taken because you needed to take "something". And they can pickup and learn more spells purely by DM fiat but again, it ends up being crap you don't even really need or want because you are already given so many and the spell selection 5e is rather lackluster.

If folks enjoy playing wizards, I say good for you and more power to you, but I just can't do it. They just feel like the weaker choice to me.

[Jerrykhor]

Anytime I consider playing a wizard, I ask myself "why wouldn't I just be a bard?"

While it's true wizards can learn something like 44 spells by level 20, a lore bard can learn 30 spells by level 20 and 8 of them can be from any class in the game. Plus they get useful perks like cutting words, inspiration, and access to healing, resurrection, restoration, etc type magics as well as the offensive stuff. They can be proficient in as many as 10 skills depending on race selection, plus expertise in 4 of them, plus jack of all trades for everything else.

Their casting stat is charisma which is a much more useful ability score than intelligence in 5th edition the majority of the time.

I've just never been able to justify playing a wizard when I want to wield magic. They may have 14 more spells by level 20 but honestly it's hard enough to pick spells as it is, most of that extra crap you don't even use or want and ends up just being taken because you needed to take "something". And they can pickup and learn more spells purely by DM fiat but again, it ends up being crap you don't even really need or want because you are already given so many and the spell selection 5e is rather lackluster.

If folks enjoy playing wizards, I say good for you and more power to you, but I just can't do it. They just feel like the weaker choice to me.

While I don't think a Bard is any weaker than the Wizard in terms of overall power level, a Wizard's strength is not just the sheer number of spells available, but also what spells is available. As a Bard, don't you miss not having some of the best spells in the game? I don't know about you, but I would certainly miss Find Familiar, Misty Step, Mirror Image, Fly, Counterspell, Banishment, Wall of Force, Simulacrum, Wish, and all the powerful nukes to destroy your enemies with.

Also, while Charisma is a good stat, there are a bunch of Charisma classes in the PHB, while the Wizard is the only Intelligence class, and still the best ritual caster in the game from the get go.

But then again, Bard and Wizard do their own thing and rarely step on each others toes, unlike Sorcerer and Wizard.

[90sMusic]

While I don't think a Bard is any weaker than the Wizard in terms of overall power level, a Wizard's strength is not just the sheer number of spells available, but also what spells is available. As a Bard, don't you miss not having some of the best spells in the game? I don't know about you, but I would certainly miss Find Familiar, Misty Step, Mirror Image, Fly, Counterspell, Banishment, Wall of Force, Simulacrum, Wish, and all the powerful nukes to destroy your enemies with.

Also, while Charisma is a good stat, there are a bunch of Charisma classes in the PHB, while the Wizard is the only Intelligence class, and still the best ritual caster in the game from the get go.

But then again, Bard and Wizard do their own thing and rarely step on each others toes, unlike Sorcerer and Wizard.

Err.

My bards nearly always have Counterspell and Wish if the game goes that long. Find Familiar on some builds, when I feel like it, but can also get Find Steed that only Paladins usually have access to. If I really needed the other spells, I could get em. Otherwise, once Wish is available it shores up the lack of anything else for those fringe situational abilities.

Having 8 spells from any class's list is a wonderful thing.

[skaddix]

Isnt that the point though sure the Bard can get 8 Spells from any list which helps with versatility absolutely but there is a lot of options for those slots.
But I think the main point is Bards are fine...Sorcerers on the other hand got screwed in every way and metamagic alone is hardly compensation given its high cost and limited efficiency converting to spells. WOTC pretty much screwed them in every way possible as compared to Wizards. Fewer Spells Known, Less Spells Able to Cast as Wizards get a superior recovery option without sacrificing metamagic, worse class features and at least on the core books inferior subclasses

I prefer the theme of sorcerers personally myself but Sorcerers got screwed in 5e. And pray to the gods that some of the UA stuff like Lore Master and Mystic Theurge never sees the light of day.


Wizard is the best because their spell list can do pretty much everything but heal and rez. They have maximum versatility.

[Kryx]

a lore bard can learn 30 spells by level 20 and 8 of them can be from any class in the game.
The Bard magical secret spells are built into the original 22. The 2 from lore aren't, so it'd be 24 total.


The chosen spells count as bard spells for you and are included in the number in the Spells Known column of the Bard table.

Bard fulfills a different role than a wizard with it's group buffing and healing. It has 113 spells on it's list and 8 more from any class does help bridge the gap, but it isn't quite comparable in versatility terms.

Bards are a good class though.

[Citan]

Off to a great start! Yay!

Likely levels 1 and 2 should be ignored for comparison as they are 1 or 2 sesssions each. Similarly levels above 15 are often not explored by groups so I can understand the desire to skip higher level spells as well - totally valid. I only chose that level due to the limited amount of spells as doing a full comparison of say 3rd level spells would require significantly more effort on my part. There was no attempt to deceive.

I doubt many would contend that a Wizard is a power house class at early levels. Wizards, as a class, take time to power up. Druids and Clerics peak earlier in their spells known and spells prepared, though if you compare spell for spell across similar roles the Wizard surely pulls ahead in defensive capabilities, AoE capabilities, utility capabilities. It doesn't fulfill the healing that the druid does, but the Wizard has access to signficantly stronger spells. Compare fireball/lightning bolt vs Erupting Earth for example. They are different roles and I'm not here to say the Druid role is worthless, only to say that the Wizard role offers significantly more versatility and power in the roles that the two classes do share (blasting, cc and utility).
One other thing that hasn't been brought up is that Wizards don't need to have the spell prepared to cast it as a ritual which is rather significant for comparing total spells prepared (Wizard is ahead of the Druid at all tiers, though a Land Druid can keep pace and pulls ahead around level 7, though 8 of his spells are decided for him).

Side note: I actually much prefer the playstyle of the Sorcerer over the Wizard. I've never been a Wizard guy, but I can recognize the power that they bring to parties.

Based on the start of your post I don't expect we'll have a fruitful discussion if I put in more effort so I'll leave it at that simple version.
Hey sorry if I came a bit harsh but you should have expected so with how you stated opinions as truths !

Plus you may have noticed I made your argument for you. I just took your own words, confronted its to the reality of the game and drew the obvious conclusions.

Druid just have the best versatility one could ever dream of as long as you put dm on the side. Your poor comparison between Fireball and Earth Tremor is irrelevant to the point you made yourself which is versatility aka having as many tools available for as many different situations as possible. Druid may not (correction : dont and never will) have the best Aoe. Fortunately other casters have their own expertise. But they do have some AOE.

Druid are in fact the only one able to have one spell of every kind prepared and can change at will. Even Clerics cannot boast such variety (because spelllist too specialized) nor Bards in spite of Magic Secrets (learned once and for all).

You are right to stress that Wizards can cast rituals in spellbook without preparing them... But they need to have them in the spellbook in the first place.

Which brings us back to the main particularity of the Wizard : his greatness depends, much more than other classes, on DM. If the Dm never gives any extra spell (which is a **** move no argue on that. You play a Wizard for the sake of learning many spells) the Wizard is plain inferior in versatility to the Druid for most of the time as I explained in my previous post.

Even with a nice DM providing extra spells on a regular basis the Wizard will still be far behind Druid, unless that regular basis is like 3 spells every session. Which makes th opportunity cost of grabbing niche spells that much higher by the way (it does cost at least time and money and sometimes you may have to choose between spells to learn only of them for example).

So, while theorically Wizard could indeed learn all spells and trump any other in practice rare are the players that would enjoy this kind of power because it requires a DM nice and skilled enough to keep and develop a coherent world over many years, in which each PC can gradually make a place and strive towards grand goals, including the Wizard's one to know every spell...*

In most games, before lvl 13 Druid is plain better for someone who wants to experiment a lot of spells and be ready for anything, while at level 13 a Wizard can use Simulacrum to make a 1 : 1 ratio between spellbook and spells ready, which evens the comparison although in a specific way : Druid still bests him on adventure potential since access to all spells up to lvl 7 ones (around 100 ? AFB), but Wizard bests him on spells immediately available (up to 18*2 although without extras the Wizard has only 28 in spellbook. But I would expect a Wizard of that level with any normal DM to actually know around 40 spells at the very least tbh).

The larger your pool of spells is, the higher the chance you have one fitting the expected needs for the next day.
It is simple maths (or rather plain logic) really. I thought you liked logic train of thinking ? : )

With that said Wizard do have access to more divination spells than Druids so if they invest into it they may have a better chance to accurately anticipate what is coming on next day (depends on DM again though). Does not change the learning problem but can definitely improve the practical efficiency through better preparation choices (I m sure everyone here has already lived that tragicomical situation in which you could really use a particular spell right now, which you have access to, but seemed too niche to be worth preparing ^^).

As for last tier, I'd argue that any caster with Wish basically reached maximum versatility because rarely do you need more than one "niche" spell per day.
So with a jerk DM Bard gets the palm. With a nice DM obviously it is Wizard.

*Or, just agree with other players to make a full Wizards party like "arcanic band of brothers" and have everyone provide his learned spells to others. As long as everyone cooperates that is the simplest and reliablest way to quickly expand your spellbook, with or without the DM -although if he is a jerk he can still own you with material components to some extent XD). ; )

[Vogonjeltz]

You just went full retard. Never go full retard.\

Although I love Tropic Thunder as well, that doesn't in any way answer my criticisms of the Wizard class in general.

Did you have some secret knowledge demonstrating that the Wizard class isn't the worst in combat?
Remember, cantrips are mathematically inferior attacks to weapon attacks, and the spells that aren't are also limited use, meaning that the damage dealing capability they provide is easily exceeded by weapon attacks in short order. Worse, they are by far the most fragile class with the worst AC, least hit points, and lacking the Strength to avoid being manipulated by enemies in combat (most combat maneuvers revolve around Strength) nor base access to the key combat proficiency, Athletics (which, again, the vast majority of combat contests are going to use).

How do you think they contribute to Social Interaction? No There's a slim argument to be made for the Enchanter, but there are many more hours to the day than there are slots available to cast Charm Person, and charm spells generally have extreme negative repercussions involved if they get used. Wizards also lack a focus on Charisma, the key attribute for this pillar. They simply aren't equipped to be a very effective party face.

Ok, that leaves Exploration. Do Wizards have skills or key stats for this? No, not really. They focus on Int instead of Wisdom and most of their proficiencies are in knowledge, that might do for some kind of research or identifying something, but it isn't going to help the party navigate the wilderness, avoid death by exposure/starvation/thirst, deal with traps, or avoid ambushes/wild beasts. Those latter threats are the centerpieces or the Exploration pillar.

Did you have something that mitigates any of those plainly obvious facts?

Magic is fun and awesome, but I don't let a few flashy tricks blind me to the cold hard fact that Wizards don't really contribute to the three pillars.


1. I would expect a wizard beyond level 3 or so to have started a backup and have it stashed somewhere.

I doubt we can really expect this.

Most of the time the costs (in both gold and time) would exceed the resources available (your average hoard split four ways won't cover the costs, meaning multiple hoards are required to pay for that backup). Spell books are worth a small fortune in terms of sunk costs and losing one is a serious blow.

[Sigreid]

I doubt we can really expect this.

Most of the time the costs (in both gold and time) would exceed the resources available (your average hoard split four ways won't cover the costs, meaning multiple hoards are required to pay for that backup). Spell books are worth a small fortune in terms of sunk costs and losing one is a serious blow.

Barring a multi class need for armor upgrades or a setting up a nice home base, a wizard's only real expenses are food/entertainment, spell components and the spell book. As the fighter upgrades his armor, the wizard should, in my opinion be looking to his backup. His important spells, or the ones he is not likely to have memorized first.

Also, just because the book is gone right now, doesn't usually mean there's no chance of getting it back. It is a jerk move to have it destroyed on a failed save vs. dragon breath. It is a jerk move to have it taken with 0 chance of preventing it. It's not a jerk move to have a thief try to steal it and the wizard to be limited to what he has currently memorized until he either finds a way to get it back or gets to his replacement.

[Jerrykhor]

\

Although I love Tropic Thunder as well, that doesn't in any way answer my criticisms of the Wizard class in general.

Did you have some secret knowledge demonstrating that the Wizard class isn't the worst in combat?
Remember, cantrips are mathematically inferior attacks to weapon attacks, and the spells that aren't are also limited use, meaning that the damage dealing capability they provide is easily exceeded by weapon attacks in short order. Worse, they are by far the most fragile class with the worst AC, least hit points, and lacking the Strength to avoid being manipulated by enemies in combat (most combat maneuvers revolve around Strength) nor base access to the key combat proficiency, Athletics (which, again, the vast majority of combat contests are going to use).

How do you think they contribute to Social Interaction? No There's a slim argument to be made for the Enchanter, but there are many more hours to the day than there are slots available to cast Charm Person, and charm spells generally have extreme negative repercussions involved if they get used. Wizards also lack a focus on Charisma, the key attribute for this pillar. They simply aren't equipped to be a very effective party face.

Ok, that leaves Exploration. Do Wizards have skills or key stats for this? No, not really. They focus on Int instead of Wisdom and most of their proficiencies are in knowledge, that might do for some kind of research or identifying something, but it isn't going to help the party navigate the wilderness, avoid death by exposure/starvation/thirst, deal with traps, or avoid ambushes/wild beasts. Those latter threats are the centerpieces or the Exploration pillar.

Did you have something that mitigates any of those plainly obvious facts?

Magic is fun and awesome, but I don't let a few flashy tricks blind me to the cold hard fact that Wizards don't really contribute to the three pillars.



I doubt we can really expect this.

Most of the time the costs (in both gold and time) would exceed the resources available (your average hoard split four ways won't cover the costs, meaning multiple hoards are required to pay for that backup). Spell books are worth a small fortune in terms of sunk costs and losing one is a serious blow.
I don't need to answer to your stupid opinions, just like how everyone here has ignored you. God forbid a good class even has any weaknesses at all, and you're simply focusing on their weaknesses instead of their strengths. I don't call the Fighter rubbish just because they have next to no magic, or don't have any built in social and exploration skills.

If you can't see why the wizard is a good, balanced class then you are stupid and there is no point in talking to you.

[qube]

On versitility - considering I'm a believe it only to be common sense that a party of 4 druids or 4 clerics are much more viable then 4 wizards -- this would mean that the former two are able to
able to cover more bases
able to compensate better for bases they haven't covered


Barring a multi class need for armor upgrades or a setting up a nice home base, a wizard's only real expenses are food/entertainment, spell components and the spell book. As the fighter upgrades his armor, the wizard should, in my opinion be looking to his backup. His important spells, or the ones he is not likely to have memorized first.considering the expenses for a fighter upgrade is very quickly written ("plate armor - 1,500 gp" Done. Considering he'd already have his sword & shield from his starting gear). Or, if he upgrades gradually , chain-splint-plate costs 1,775 gp.

Oppositely, the wizard seems to have a lot more costs ... I don't have my PHB here to quickly skim the spell, but esp. on higher level, the cost of spell components can become quite high, no? Top of my head (as my party's wizard is saving up for one) secret chest costs 5,000 gp. Yes, not consumable; but still this sole 4th level spell cost 3 times the amount the fighter will ever spend.

So, I'm not sure 'only' - as is has the implication of not being much in - in "wizard's only real expenses are [...] spell components" is fair.

[Unoriginal]

\

Although I love Tropic Thunder as well, that doesn't in any way answer my criticisms of the Wizard class in general.

Did you have some secret knowledge demonstrating that the Wizard class isn't the worst in combat?
Remember, cantrips are mathematically inferior attacks to weapon attacks, and the spells that aren't are also limited use, meaning that the damage dealing capability they provide is easily exceeded by weapon attacks in short order. Worse, they are by far the most fragile class with the worst AC, least hit points, and lacking the Strength to avoid being manipulated by enemies in combat (most combat maneuvers revolve around Strength) nor base access to the key combat proficiency, Athletics (which, again, the vast majority of combat contests are going to use).

How do you think they contribute to Social Interaction? No There's a slim argument to be made for the Enchanter, but there are many more hours to the day than there are slots available to cast Charm Person, and charm spells generally have extreme negative repercussions involved if they get used. Wizards also lack a focus on Charisma, the key attribute for this pillar. They simply aren't equipped to be a very effective party face.

Ok, that leaves Exploration. Do Wizards have skills or key stats for this? No, not really. They focus on Int instead of Wisdom and most of their proficiencies are in knowledge, that might do for some kind of research or identifying something, but it isn't going to help the party navigate the wilderness, avoid death by exposure/starvation/thirst, deal with traps, or avoid ambushes/wild beasts. Those latter threats are the centerpieces or the Exploration pillar.

Did you have something that mitigates any of those plainly obvious facts?

Magic is fun and awesome, but I don't let a few flashy tricks blind me to the cold hard fact that Wizards don't really contribute to the three pillars.

As much as I don't like the "wizurds r supirior guyz" talk, I have to disagree with you.

Sure, Wizards don't have anything special to contribute with in Social, but their combat spells, limited as they are, still make them a significant force on the battlefield, especially against large groups of weak enemies. As for Exploration, the Wizard can contribute with spells like Tiny Hut, divination, and all the spells they have that facilitate transportation.

Wizards aren't better than the other classes, but they aren't worse either.

[skaddix]

On versitility - considering I'm a believe it only to be common sense that a party of 4 druids or 4 clerics are much more viable then 4 wizards -- this would mean that the former two are able to
able to cover more bases
able to compensate better for bases they haven't covered

considering the expenses for a fighter upgrade is very quickly written ("plate armor - 1,500 gp" Done. Considering he'd already have his sword & shield from his starting gear). Or, if he upgrades gradually , chain-splint-plate costs 1,775 gp.

Oppositely, the wizard seems to have a lot more costs ... I don't have my PHB here to quickly skim the spell, but esp. on higher level, the cost of spell components can become quite high, no? Top of my head (as my party's wizard is saving up for one) secret chest costs 5,000 gp. Yes, not consumable; but still this sole 4th level spell cost 3 times the amount the fighter will ever spend.

So, I'm not sure 'only' - as is has the implication of not being much in - in "wizard's only real expenses are [...] spell components" is fair.

Well sure but that is because 4 Druids or 4 Clerics can put some beef on the front lines in melee range.

[TheUser]

Well sure but that is because 4 Druids or 4 Clerics can put some beef on the front lines in melee range.

4 bigby's hands. Kek

[qube]

Well sure but that is because 4 Druids or 4 Clerics can put some beef on the front lines in melee range.Well sure, but if that is
important
something wizards have trouble with
Surely this has a negative impact on how versatile they truly are.


4 bigby's hands. KekKek indeed. That's a lvl 5 spell. You DO realise that D&D 5E is balanced towards more then 1 encounter per day, right? you got any idea by what level this would be a viable tactic?

(and lets hope nobody's concentration breaks)

[Willie the Duck]

Wow. If I had known what a clusterf___ mentioning stealing spellbooks would turn into...

Look. A spellbook is still a large expenditure. It, like platemail, are counter-examples of the line that there's nothing to spend money on in 5e.

That said, spellbook snatching is not the it's-too-cruel-so-the-DM-won't-do-it no-man's-land that it was in 3e. Unlike in 3e, you still have the spells you have prepared, so the de-spellbooked wizard no longer becomes a glorified commoner with a crossbow once the last of their tightly rationed remaining spells are gone. Likewise, you still have the spells you have prepared to write into a new book (even if you have cast them). Further, and undoubtedly the most importantly, there is no WPL or expected magic item purchases, so a wizard who does spend their gp on backups does not feel that they are paying for the security at the expense of moving that Int booster +2 to a +4 or ring of protection from +2 to +3.

We can go in circles for another 20 pages about how much of a financial burden the backup spellbook is, but the point is that you can do so (without feeling self-nerfed). Eventually this cost will become trivial, and the time period when it isn't trivial is also when it is easiest to recoup your loses if you do lose a spellbook without a backup (you are much more likely to find a low-level spellbook as treasure, or a local wizard in town willing to let you copy, than at higher levels, but at higher levels, you can afford a backup. None of this makes the loss of a spellbook a trivial endeavor, but it brings it back in line with the warrior-type losing a magic weapon.

[SharkForce]

On versitility - considering I'm a believe it only to be common sense that a party of 4 druids or 4 clerics are much more viable then 4 wizards -- this would mean that the former two are able to
able to cover more bases
able to compensate better for bases they haven't covered

considering the expenses for a fighter upgrade is very quickly written ("plate armor - 1,500 gp" Done. Considering he'd already have his sword & shield from his starting gear). Or, if he upgrades gradually , chain-splint-plate costs 1,775 gp.

Oppositely, the wizard seems to have a lot more costs ... I don't have my PHB here to quickly skim the spell, but esp. on higher level, the cost of spell components can become quite high, no? Top of my head (as my party's wizard is saving up for one) secret chest costs 5,000 gp. Yes, not consumable; but still this sole 4th level spell cost 3 times the amount the fighter will ever spend.

So, I'm not sure 'only' - as is has the implication of not being much in - in "wizard's only real expenses are [...] spell components" is fair.

wizard spell components don't really get expensive until (assuming you use default treasure rules) it becomes fairly irrelevant. fighters want plate and then they're done, sure, but they want their expensive thing when money is hard to come buy. wizards want money eventually, but by the time they need it, money is fairly plentiful.

or, in other words, wizards want money at a time when there wouldn't otherwise be a particularly great way to turn money into power.

as to the idea that a group of wizards can't fill certain roles... you'd be surprised. a wizard with the healer feat does a pretty good job of keeping the party healed (particularly when combined with how good a group of wizards will be at controlling enemies so that not much damage is taken). a wizard with the inspiring leader feat does quite a bit to keep an entire party of wizards from being all that squishy. bladesingers can provide a lot of tankiness over the course of an adventuring day, and abjurers can help there as well. if multiclassing is allowed, a small dip into various cleric domains can provide a lot of assistance as well.

now, that isn't to say that a wizard is going to be as reliably tough as a similarly-supported fighter, or that a wizard will be just as good at keeping people alive as a cleric (although if theurge ever becomes official, maybe they will), but it isn't so much that wizards *can't* fill those roles (even social scenarios), just that they won't be quite as good as the dedicated experts. but the thing is... you don't need to be the best to be effective. you just need to be good enough to get the job done.

[Kryx]

The comparison of 4 members of a single class is a totally invalid way to compare the power of a class in a typical party. Cleric and Bard characters can fulfill many party roles, but what was being discussed regarding the wizard was the fulfillment of their role (assuming the other roles of a party are filled by others).

A Bard's jack of all trades is entirely applicable here - Jack of all trades, but master of none. Guestimate numbers: Bard is probably 7/10 for healing, 10/10 for face, 2/10 for blasting, 6/10 for control, 3/10 for personal protection, 6/10 for group protection, 5/10 for utility, etc. The Wizard is probably 10/10 for control, 8/10 for blasting, 4/10 for face, 0/10 for healing, 9/10 for personal protection, 5/10 for group protection, 9/10 for utility.

So a Wizard cannot fulfil many roles, but in a typical party they will excel at several roles like no other class can. That's the versatility we're talking about.