The wizard in your Group is the Problem for a lot of long rests? So bards, druids and Clerics should have the same Problems, even if these classes have some more capabilites of fighting beside casting spells. But wizards can throw some cantrips too, wich are quite useful in 5th Edition.
Since earlier Editions a lot has changed. Back in the days a wizard could cast fly, invisibility and Stoneskin at the same time and had a lot of Spell slots. He also had to prepare certain spells per slot. For example you had to devide your 5 Level 1 Spell slots into 3 Magic missiles, 1 shield and 1 Mage armor. And you could cast the spells only as often as they were prepared. Today you prepare a list of spells and can choose the right spell for the right situation as needed, as long as you have a spellslot for the appropriate level left. Today everything is a little equalized. I don't know how Rogues or Fighters on your table feel, when you literally quadruple the power of the wizard. And how long will it take until the wizard realize, that he can pull of the forcecage and sickening radiance combo 3 times a day instead of only once. Of yourse it is "better" to have more spellslots but it's a lot worse in terms of Player Charakter balancing.
In fifth edition, a 20th level mage has only 22 total spell slots, and access to fewer spells like the ones listed above by RonKubo.
I don't understand your statement. While 22 Spellslots is correct a 20th level Wizard has a minimum of 40 Spells in his book of which he should be able to prepare 27 (1 per level + Int Mod 5 + 2 from Signature Spells feature) I have only listet 14 Spells, which are all found on the wizards spell list. So a player should be able to prepare these 14 Spells and 10 other of lower levels without a problem.
This thread is 2 or 3 years old. Perhaps starting a new one that addresses something specific about the wizard class would be in order.
But in case anyone is wondering how truly powerful a wizard is... I will use a real life comparison...
Has anyone seen the movie 'Now you see me?'
In it a group of professional magicians, or illusionists as we call them, used their skills, talents, and superior intellect to outsmart and out maneuver their adversaries, robbing banks and escaping encounters... all while entertaining the masses (both in rl and in the movie).
They did all this without casting a single cantrip.
Wizards in D&D are capable of doing all of this without casting a single cantrip.
There's an old adage that goes something like... "Always be the smartest person in the room."
Another way to look at it is if any other class took an 8 in their main stat they would suffer way more than a wizard with an 8 INT... I might actually try that in a game just for shats & giggles.
Yeah... play a wizard with 8 INT and you just get a few less spells prepared but there are spells and choices that could make for not only a very interesting character but quite a powerful one.
Dealing damage isn't ALL a character should do. That's boring and usually the role in which we position beginners to learn the game. That said, all of D&D revolves around defeating enemies, again and again and again, and therefore dealing damage. But you missed my point. The total number of spells available to the Wizard is what I claim sucks. In second edition, a 20th level wizard had 37 total spell slots. In fifth edition, a 20th level mage has only 22 total spell slots, and access to fewer spells like the ones listed above by RonKubo.
That's what sucks. That's what we changed for the Wizard class alone and, it's improved the class immensely. Having access to 3 or 4 spells in the 6th - 8th level range is just, "better". Better for the class, better for the team, better game flow for the DM because the group isn't constantly looking for a place to rest... just better all around.
Substantial misunderstanding of spell slots and the class features here.
A level 20 Wizard has 22 spell slots, but regains 10 spell levels worth of slots (2 extra 5th level slots, or a bunch of extra 1st and 2nd level), has 1 free 3rd level spell per short rest, 2 spells at level 1 and 2 he can cast an unlimited amount of times, Cantrips an unlimited amount of times… and also a fair amount of other Specialist features they can use with to enhance their spells.
edit: I would contend that adding 15 spell slots to the Wizard opens this up for rampant abuse and completely imbalances the entire game. The game already heavily favours the Wizard class and adding this just pushes it out of reach of every other class. My only recommendation, if you use this, would be to remove Cantrips, two other schools of magic, upcasting, class Features, and go back to a 1d4 Hit Die.
Ive played multiple wizards (and Land Druids) in multiple campaigns and have never needed to rest more than anyone else. Maybe you’re misunderstanding something about the rules?
Also, I think it was on page 3 someone was saying something about wizards not getting magic weapons a and armor. While it’s true they don’t get swords and axes or chain/plate mail (at least not without wasting a feat) the very much do get armor (bracers, rings, cloaks, robes) and weapons (rods, staves, wands, rings, as well as the odd magic dagger or light crossbow) and. These actually add to their versatility. After all just how many fireballs are you actually going to throw in a day? If it’s less than 7 L3 then use your wand and memorize some. Other spell that you don’t have a weapon for. With the right defensive items you go from being squishy to somewhere between difficult to hit (bracers, ring, cloak of displacement and 16 Dex=AC16 at disadvantage) to “where the heck is she anyway” (robe of the archmagi, bracers, ring of protection, cloak of displacement and 16 Dex=AC21 with disadvantage on their attacks). Or your attuned to a staff and a couple of wands and can blast with the best of them while using your memorized spells for everything else.
Offering wizards more spell slots has increased game flow, not decreased it. It's like a rollercoaster that lasts longer for the character, for the party, and for the DM. It's proven to be better in every way. Doesn't change the potency of the class. Just augments the duration the class may remain relevant.
Wizards don't need more than the the free spells learned at level up. Compared to other arcane casters wizards prep more than those other casters know and can swap out because most full arcane casters are based on spells known. Compared to clerics and druids the spell lists are so different that it's largely irrelevant but the wizard spell list gives plenty of options to add good spells to the spellbook.
Wizard ritual casting is better than cleric, druid, or (cringe) bard ritual casting by quite a bit.
People play wizards to select from the huge list and take advantage of ritual casting, spell prep swapping, and arcane recovery. That's different than the sorcerer or warlock, and other full casters like bards, clerics, or druids tend to have more support oriented spells.
Regarding the recent bump:
Wizards used to have more slots to prep spells but they also had to prep specific spells instead of just use slots. Using slots is more versatile. Having less slots is mitigated by rituals and cantrips. Not being so over the top like 3.x isn't the same thing as sucking.
While yes they don't need more spells than the free as like by level 6ish they have as many known as a warlock ever will, them having more is very appropriate for the theme. It is something as a GM I'd feel remiss in not leaning into. They picked wizard for a reason, and likely the idea of pulling in new spells form tomes was a large part of it. I'd of preferred free transfer from scrolls, spell books, paying money to enter new spells would be researching spells without the crib sheet of a scroll. I'd of reduced how many they cast in a day(remove arcane recovery probably) and reduced how many they can prepare in a day. Full known spell style casters knowing less than a wizard can flexibly prepare was a insane design choice imo. I guess they could have just bumped known up a lot like double them for sorcerer and lock, time 1.5 for bard.
I don‘t fully understand what you‘re suggesting here.
Wizards should have less spells prepared AND less spell slots then other fullcasters in exchange for free transcription of spells into their book?
its just a comment on their design decisions. Making the core difference of their class take excesses of time and money when no other class has a pay to play feature like that doesn't work for me. But they should have from the start have had less in preparations/casts than other arcane casters.(the divines with full access to their lists also should have less preparations) And this is for the biggest and best spell list and the ability to change out their spells daily. A sorcerer, warlock, bard all have less known spells than a wizard can prepare and change daily. That is insane. They are stuck with their choices and get less, the wizard changes his to the specific challenges they expect to face that day. Yeah, they should have less prepared than the other classes know. Whether that's done by reducing the wizards prepared spells or increasing other classes knowns I don't have an opinion on. And yes, the class with the most flexible spell list probably shouldn't have arcane recovery built in. If every full caster did maybe.
The wizard is the best class in the game, maybe the bard is close, nothing else is. Bringing other classes up or reducing the wizard a bit in their next game wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they don't go too far. Seesawing balance isn't better.
It has taken me some time to realize what concerns me on your opinion. You're arguing, that the wizard shouldn't be the most flexible caster in the game. That bogs me, because the class is all about spellcasting and has not much else to offer. Spellcasting is literally the reason you are here for. Intelligence is the weakest attribute in the game, seriously. It's so darn useless 99 % of the time. Sometimes it's cool for roleplaying because you are the "smart guy", but in terms of gamemechanics it's pretty useless. So every caster that uses wisdom or charisma as his spellcasting ability has a huge advantage compared to a wizard. Wisdom brings perception (which is also often used instead of investigation), insight and medicine. These 3 are pretty common skills in the game and charisma comes with deception, persuasion and intimidation. These 3 together are maybe the most used skills of the game? And these are usualy the high stakes roll that really draw everyones attention.
A bard and warlock can wear armor, have a ton of other abilities (Casting spells at will, giving out inspiration) and have a d8 as hitdie. Bards have become one of the best caster-classes in 5th edition out of nowhere. Additionally they even are arguably the better skillmonkeys than rogues. As a bard i'm not even mad, that the wizard is "better" (more flexible) at spellcasting, because the bard is better at EVERYTHING else! I have never heard a bard complaining about wizard beeing better casters then they are. Warlocks feel really unique with all their pact-abilities and their spellslot-managment. This class should be a weaker and less flexible spellcaster by design. it doesn't help to compare his spellcasting with the Wizard. The Warlock shouldn't compete with the Wizard in this discipline, and you can see that in the design.
Sorceres had a bad time prior to TCoE, but when you look at the new Sorcerer subclasses you will find a more potent (not flexible) caster in the sorcerer than in the wizard. At level 4 the Aberrant mind knows 9 Spells and 6 Cantrips. Combined with the feat Metamagic adept, he will have 4 Metamagic Options and 6 Sorcery points. That is pretty strong.... At Level 10 he will know 20 Spells and 7 Cantrips and is at the apex of his power. Wich is awesome, because he has a reasonable chance of reaching his apex in most campaigns. These classes compare best of all casters. The Sorcerer should probably be the stronger caster and the Wizard probably the more flexible and persistent. This balancing act has been somewhat unsuccessful in design, as Metamagic, while extremely potent, has not quite been able to compensate for the severe limitation in spell selection, until now.
Clerics are easily in the league of wizards when it comes to the "best class of the game". Easily. Seriously, better hit die, better spellcasting ability, better combat proficiencies, healing (healing word), resurrecting, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, Divine interventions and more prepared spells as any other caster and access to ALL spells without a cost or a spellbook that could be lost. To be fair you mentioned that divine casters should also have less spells prepared but i just wanted to mention it here, since we are comparing fullcasters.
Druids are maybe the most flexible casterclass when it comes to battlefield-role. Thy can change between tank, damage-dealer, supporter or battlefield controller between long rests. Sure they are not as good as arcane casters when it comes to spellsellection, but their list is pretty decent and all in all it's a fantastic and powerful class.
Long story short: Yes, the Wizard is pretty powerful, but i don't feel like the wizard is outmatching other spellcasters by a lot because other casters are MAYBE weaker casters but have a lot of other things to offer to compensate this fact. In 5e the noncasters are often the classes that fall behind the casters by a lot, and here is the main balance-issue in the game.
I don‘t fully understand what you‘re suggesting here.
Wizards should have less spells prepared AND less spell slots then other fullcasters in exchange for free transcription of spells into their book?
its just a comment on their design decisions. Making the core difference of their class take excesses of time and money when no other class has a pay to play feature like that doesn't work for me. But they should have from the start have had less in preparations/casts than other arcane casters.(the divines with full access to their lists also should have less preparations) And this is for the biggest and best spell list and the ability to change out their spells daily. A sorcerer, warlock, bard all have less known spells than a wizard can prepare and change daily. That is insane. They are stuck with their choices and get less, the wizard changes his to the specific challenges they expect to face that day. Yeah, they should have less prepared than the other classes know. Whether that's done by reducing the wizards prepared spells or increasing other classes knowns I don't have an opinion on. And yes, the class with the most flexible spell list probably shouldn't have arcane recovery built in. If every full caster did maybe.
The wizard is the best class in the game, maybe the bard is close, nothing else is. Bringing other classes up or reducing the wizard a bit in their next game wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they don't go too far. Seesawing balance isn't better.
That's because the intent behind adding additional spells to spell books was meant to be gravy above the free additions per level. That's why copying spells in nothing more than a short blurb in part of a side bar.
I would point out that a suit of plate costs a lot of money too. It's enough for 30 spell levels of copying. It's not like spending money to improve one's prospects is unique to wizards, but I would love to have the ability to just buy being better on some of my characters. ;-)
Intelligence is the weakest attribute in the game, seriously. It's so darn useless 99 % of the time. Sometimes it's cool for roleplaying because you are the "smart guy", but in terms of gamemechanics it's pretty useless. So every caster that uses wisdom or charisma as his spellcasting ability has a huge advantage compared to a wizard. Wisdom brings perception (which is also often used instead of investigation), insight and medicine. These 3 are pretty common skills in the game and charisma comes with deception, persuasion and intimidation. These 3 together are maybe the most used skills of the game? And these are usualy the high stakes roll that really draw everyones attention.
A bard and warlock can wear armor, have a ton of other abilities (Casting spells at will, giving out inspiration) and have a d8 as hitdie. Bards have become one of the best caster-classes in 5th edition out of nowhere. Additionally they even are arguably the better skillmonkeys than rogues. As a bard i'm not even mad, that the wizard is "better" (more flexible) at spellcasting, because the bard is better at EVERYTHING else! I have never heard a bard complaining about wizard beeing better casters then they are...
Investigation uses INT, which is an important skill, and the other INT checks are only useless if players and DM's are ignoring them. Arcana is used for magical traps and possibly crafting scrolls while nature is used for harvesting poison from monsters as useful examples.
Bards are not the best skill monkeys because rogues have more skill proficiencies, gain expertise more quickly, and add reliable talent; and eventually stroke of luck. Jack-of-all-trades is a small bonus to a broad range that cannot be leveraged like reliable talent or picking up more proficiencies. Bards have strong skill benefits but they aren't rogues. Lore bards are closer but that's a subclass and doesn't represent all bards. Lore bards still lose out because bardic inspiration dice gets burned through quickly and bigger bonuses have diminishing returns over low roll protection so the rogue has a better success ratio when rolling checks.
And the rogue evasion, uncanny dodge, cunning action, and sneak attack damage for strong combat options bards typically lack in addition to skills.
Bards are not the best spell casters in 5e, lol. They lack the preparation mechanic that makes artificers, clerics, and druids much better with rituals and wizards are a step up from that mechanic only needing the spells to be present in the spell book. This leaves them well behind other ritual casters and generally only pick up a few rituals.
The other full spell casters with the spells known mechanic carry metamagic (sorcerers) for much stronger spell options when needed or invocations (warlocks) for much cantrip potential among other things.
2 spells from any list at 10th, 14th, and 18th level gets over-rated for what it actually does. The only strong point for bard spell casting is taking advantage of spells that use ability checks. Other spell casters recover slots better and/or apply modifications to spells better. That's especially true for other arcane spell casters, but bards fall more into support style casting like clerics and druids without the advantages of spell prep mentioned.
Bards are as baseline as full casters can get. Compared to wizards the wizard wrecks in the ritual casting mechanic, carries more cantrips, uses more slots per day via arcane recovery, and spell mastery is GOAT.
Bards have a lot of advantages because they use skills and inspiration on top of spells, but they don't cast nearly as well as wizards do.
Over all we agree. The wizard is the better caster as he should be.
i didn‘t want to say that the bard IS the better skillmonkey, but there were several discussions over this topic in the past. If you want to know my opinion on this topic: i don‘t care. They‘re both pretty good skillmonkeys with different benefits.
Disagree that bards are mediocre spellcasters. Theire spellist is unique and in my opinion better then the warlock and sorcerer spellist. It‘s maybe even better then the clerics list, because it combines som great divine and arcene spells (Healing word, heat metal, forcecage, tasha‘s hideous laughter, otto‘s irresistable dance, hypnottic pattern) in a single list but that is a matter of taste. magical secrets (and jack of all trades) doesn’t just give them a huge boost but also allow the bard early access to spells of the halfcaster-lists and allow the bard some combos that no other caster can pull of. Sure it comes online very late, but these 6 (or 8) spells should not be underrestimated.
EDIT:
I forgot to address the skills argument. I only gave the example to show that even the abilities that use intelligence are used less often and are usually not crucial to the narrative. Investigation is a trap. No DM will hide a crucial piece of information or plotpoint behind an investigations check (That's true for any check...), because that will lead to dead ends. Investigative players will come up with clever solutions without ever rolling a die. Often players argue or ask if they can roll a perception check instead, which i often allow, because why not? My players make intelligence rolls all the time (they like to be the smart ones ;-)), but that doesn't change the fact that these rolls often have much less influence on the course of the story than charisma rolls and hardly any influence on combat-related rolls. Identifying magic traps, making scrolls, and extracting poisons are good examples of rarely used skill rolls, and run right into my argument. But it doesn't matter, more important was my statement that intelligence is one of, if not the "weakest" attribute in the game when it comes to game mechanics.Intelligence is probably the weakest saving throw of the three weak ones (STR, INT, CH) and has only mediocre abilities to offer besides being Spellcasting ability for the wizard and only since a short time for another class. That is one of reasons that wizards are a bad class for multiclassing.
Over all we agree. The wizard is the better caster as he should be.
i didn‘t want to say that the bard IS the better skillmonkey, but there were several discussions over this topic in the past. If you want to know my opinion on this topic: i don‘t care. They‘re both pretty good skillmonkeys with different benefits.
Disagree that bards are mediocre spellcasters. Theire spellist is unique and in my opinion better then the warlock and sorcerer spellist. It‘s maybe even better then the clerics list, because it combines som great divine and arcene spells (Healing word, heat metal, forcecage, tasha‘s hideous laughter, otto‘s irresistable dance, hypnottic pattern) in a single list but that is a matter of taste. magical secrets (and jack of all trades) doesn’t just give them a huge boost but also allow the bard early access to spells of the halfcaster-lists and allow the bard some combos that no other caster can pull of. Sure it comes online very late, but these 6 (or 8) spells should not be underrestimated.
EDIT:
I forgot to address the skills argument. I only gave the example to show that even the abilities that use intelligence are used less often and are usually not crucial to the narrative. Investigation is a trap. No DM will hide a crucial piece of information or plotpoint behind an investigations check (That's true for any check...), because that will lead to dead ends. Investigative players will come up with clever solutions without ever rolling a die. Often players argue or ask if they can roll a perception check instead, which i often allow, because why not? My players make intelligence rolls all the time (they like to be the smart ones ;-)), but that doesn't change the fact that these rolls often have much less influence on the course of the story than charisma rolls and hardly any influence on combat-related rolls. Identifying magic traps, making scrolls, and extracting poisons are good examples of rarely used skill rolls, and run right into my argument. But it doesn't matter, more important was my statement that intelligence is one of, if not the "weakest" attribute in the game when it comes to game mechanics.Intelligence is probably the weakest saving throw of the three weak ones (STR, INT, CH) and has only mediocre abilities to offer besides being Spellcasting ability for the wizard and only since a short time for another class. That is one of reasons that wizards are a bad class for multiclassing.
The thing is bards are great with skills and ability checks. It's one of the reasons I like to play them. Rogues are just better because of the level progression for some of the benefits and reliable talent allows auto-success on so much that everyone else (including bards) still fail a roll that it's really easy to leverage and one of the reasons I like rogues so much. Cunning action and reliable talent are both great abilities that seem to have over-taken iconic abilities from past additions.
I don't disagree that CHA and WIS often get used more than INT, but using any ability score in a check is an action predicated by the player. If a player isn't taking actions to use said attribute then that's on the player. IME arcana getting used for magical traps and investigation are common. So are other checks but they do tend to fall under the DM decisions and suffer from extra information the DM would have to have added, and that is why I see them fall behind. Work for the DM causes those checks to be used less often. That's not the same thing as INT not being useful when players push that use through their own actions, however.
Bards are mediocre for multiple reasons.
They are still restricted by spells known, unlike every other ritual caster. That restriction leads to bards having few rituals available. Wizard ritual casting mechanics without prepping opens up spells prepped plus rituals known to easily exceed the bard's available options at any given time. Clerics are very similar because domains plus prep allows for so many spells available it's easy to add rituals. Druids are a bit tighter because spells prepped isn't far ahead of bard spells known most of the game, but the prep mechanic allows them to switch those rituals in and out on a daily basis as needed, which isn't an option for the bard.
When the ritual caster is limited by spells known they are far behind every other ritual caster in that aspect of spell casting.
That also leads into the preparation vs known spells. As I mentioned with the druid, the bard cannot swap spells out easily. I agree the bard has a great spell list, but having a great spell list means nothing if a character cannot access the full list. A spell on a list means nothing if it cannot come into play for that character.
Bards cast what they know, not what's on their list. The spell prep classes not only have a few more spells available at any given time, but also can access other spells on their spell list by resting so they can make use of the list in ways bards, sorcerers, or warlocks cannot.
In addition to not having access to that full list of spells, bards do not recover slots as well as other spell casters. All wizards have arcane recovery. All sorcerers can create slots from sorcery points. All clerics can use channel divinity to replenish spell slots (as of TCoE). All warlocks can use invocations for SLA's and spam short rests for pact magic slots.
The majority of spell casters can modify or amp their spells. Wizards gain benefits with any school based on which tradition they take but the inherently add benefits regardless. All sorcerers learn meta-magic. All clerics gain blessed strikes (as of TCoE; potent cantrip prior). All warlocks can modify the snot out of eldritch blast via invocations, and sometimes other spells.
Bards have the worst aspects of any major spell caster baked in to the class. The only benefit is they tend to have a few more spells than other spells known casters and they can benefit from using spells with ability checks. Other classes have better access to their spell list and/or cast more spells per day and/or cast spells at better potency. There's very little move from the baseline casting because other classes add better potential with their spells as they level while bards add inspiration and skill benefits instead of spell benefits.
Like I said, I see a long list of reason why bards are mediocre spell casters. They are a great class for the versatility the skills and spells and inspiration can give. Other spell casters focus more on casting spells and are better. Sorcerers have the raw power. Warlocks have the at-will capability. Clerics, druids, and wizards have the broader range of spell options.
Even artificers toss in bonus spells prepped in every subclass for comparable spells known but the SSI puts them ahead in spells per day. 15 spell slots plus 10 SSI slots beats 22 spells slots. 25 spells prepped (every subclass guarantees spells) with access to the full list is better than 22 spells known. The bard advantage is access to higher level spells but even the benefit to spells with ability checks it marginalized by flash of genius while artificers have infusions too.
Bards are near the bottom end of the full caster spectrum while the top end of the half caster spectrum competes.
In the wizard example (keeping on topic): the wizard has more ritual available while prepping more spells than the bard knows; the wizard can more easily adjust spells for the day; the wizard can cast more spells per day because of arcane recovery; the wizard knows more cantrips and can change them on a rest (as of TCoE). Spell mastery and signature spell blow that out of the water in comparison.
I think wizards get over-rated, tbf, but they are not hurting by any stretch. Bards get more over-rated based on magical secrets but for what magical secrets actually does it doesn't deserve how often it gets over-rated. Taking a spell from any list is nice but unless that spell uses an ability check then a bard is no better with it than any other class, and often worse given the options other classes have to improve spells.
Bards are restricted in terms of Ritual casting and spells known but, THEY CAN USE WEAPONS while the wizards can't !!!!!!! Bards can use armors when the Wizards can't. Bards can sing Music while the Wizzards can't. Yes, the Bards are a bit "" Learners of ALL , Masters of NOTHING "", but they can still survive on the battlefield while a typical wizard needs a teleport scroll, or an utility spell to go away from a very tricky situation.
So, keep in mind that always the Wizard needs a companion, minion, or a pet to help surviving on everywhere he/she goes. The bard can still survive on the wild jungle, while the wizard is as fragile as a mosquito.
I was on another server and it came up that wizards are no longer fragile or... squishy. To prove the point some started debating whether you could play a wizard and never cast a spell, not even a cantrip.
How likely is it for this character to survive or even thrive?
maybe the bladesinger could get by doing that. but they would not thrive and thats more of a sublcass not being squishy and "needing" a spell, not the wizard. Yeah I guess dwarf gets medium armor but with d6 hp that still seems squishy to me.
Bards are restricted in terms of Ritual casting and spells known but, THEY CAN USE WEAPONS while the wizards can't !!!!!!! Bards can use armors when the Wizards can't. Bards can sing Music while the Wizzards can't. Yes, the Bards are a bit "" Learners of ALL , Masters of NOTHING "", but they can still survive on the battlefield while a typical wizard needs a teleport scroll, or an utility spell to go away from a very tricky situation.
So, keep in mind that always the Wizard needs a companion, minion, or a pet to help surviving on everywhere he/she goes. The bard can still survive on the wild jungle, while the wizard is as fragile as a mosquito.
No one survives on their own in this game, the threats are group based as its a group game. But a lot of your list doesn't matter. The bard has armor, woo hes got 2 more AC, though quickly that doesn't matter as mage armor covers it with little cost from the mages resources. He can use weapons, cantrips are just as good for the most part and the wizard has enough weapons on his list to get by if those can't be used for some reason. The bard will be better at skills but its not like the wizard has no skills they will still have their race and background skills. Both of them are pretty damn fragile unless they take a subclass to change that. Yes a bard is more versatile without magic and that is useful, its why I put bard up there as one of the best classes in the game, 2nd best really. They are the 2nd best casters and have a long list of abilities outside of casting so they don't need to use their spells as much. A very potent class and the eloquence bard in the right team is just insane imo.
Bards are restricted in terms of Ritual casting and spells known but, THEY CAN USE WEAPONS while the wizards can't !!!!!!! Bards can use armors when the Wizards can't. Bards can sing Music while the Wizzards can't. Yes, the Bards are a bit "" Learners of ALL , Masters of NOTHING "", but they can still survive on the battlefield while a typical wizard needs a teleport scroll, or an utility spell to go away from a very tricky situation.
So, keep in mind that always the Wizard needs a companion, minion, or a pet to help surviving on everywhere he/she goes. The bard can still survive on the wild jungle, while the wizard is as fragile as a mosquito.
A bard using a rapier for d8+3 damage is better than a wizard casting firebolt for 3d10? Bards have some of the worst direct damage in the game because the base class at-will damage spells a extremely low and the base class lacks extra attack.
Light armor isn't better than mage armor, and shield is a pretty big bonus. Wizard defensive spells are pretty decent.
The hit die gap is 1hp+1hp/level. That's not a huge factor in the squishiness gap. Bards are pretty squishy too by default, and wizards and take similar steps as bards to avoid being squishy.
Where both classes really shine with spells is in battlefield control and status effects, but the wizard adds better damage and defensive options in the spells alongside that similarity.
The bard's focus is using skills with or instead of magic to stretch out the spell power. They still aren't as good a caster as other casters (but decent enough), and they still aren't as good of warriors as other martial classes (but they can add an option to be relevant). The issues people had with 3.x bards still exist but they are better concealed behind some nice toys now. ;-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The wizard in your Group is the Problem for a lot of long rests? So bards, druids and Clerics should have the same Problems, even if these classes have some more capabilites of fighting beside casting spells. But wizards can throw some cantrips too, wich are quite useful in 5th Edition.
Since earlier Editions a lot has changed. Back in the days a wizard could cast fly, invisibility and Stoneskin at the same time and had a lot of Spell slots. He also had to prepare certain spells per slot. For example you had to devide your 5 Level 1 Spell slots into 3 Magic missiles, 1 shield and 1 Mage armor. And you could cast the spells only as often as they were prepared. Today you prepare a list of spells and can choose the right spell for the right situation as needed, as long as you have a spellslot for the appropriate level left.
Today everything is a little equalized. I don't know how Rogues or Fighters on your table feel, when you literally quadruple the power of the wizard. And how long will it take until the wizard realize, that he can pull of the forcecage and sickening radiance combo 3 times a day instead of only once. Of yourse it is "better" to have more spellslots but it's a lot worse in terms of Player Charakter balancing.
I don't understand your statement. While 22 Spellslots is correct a 20th level Wizard has a minimum of 40 Spells in his book of which he should be able to prepare 27 (1 per level + Int Mod 5 + 2 from Signature Spells feature) I have only listet 14 Spells, which are all found on the wizards spell list. So a player should be able to prepare these 14 Spells and 10 other of lower levels without a problem.
This thread is 2 or 3 years old. Perhaps starting a new one that addresses something specific about the wizard class would be in order.
But in case anyone is wondering how truly powerful a wizard is... I will use a real life comparison...
Has anyone seen the movie 'Now you see me?'
In it a group of professional magicians, or illusionists as we call them, used their skills, talents, and superior intellect to outsmart and out maneuver their adversaries, robbing banks and escaping encounters... all while entertaining the masses (both in rl and in the movie).
They did all this without casting a single cantrip.
Wizards in D&D are capable of doing all of this without casting a single cantrip.
There's an old adage that goes something like... "Always be the smartest person in the room."
Another way to look at it is if any other class took an 8 in their main stat they would suffer way more than a wizard with an 8 INT... I might actually try that in a game just for shats & giggles.
Yeah... play a wizard with 8 INT and you just get a few less spells prepared but there are spells and choices that could make for not only a very interesting character but quite a powerful one.
Substantial misunderstanding of spell slots and the class features here.
A level 20 Wizard has 22 spell slots, but regains 10 spell levels worth of slots (2 extra 5th level slots, or a bunch of extra 1st and 2nd level), has 1 free 3rd level spell per short rest, 2 spells at level 1 and 2 he can cast an unlimited amount of times, Cantrips an unlimited amount of times… and also a fair amount of other Specialist features they can use with to enhance their spells.
edit: I would contend that adding 15 spell slots to the Wizard opens this up for rampant abuse and completely imbalances the entire game. The game already heavily favours the Wizard class and adding this just pushes it out of reach of every other class. My only recommendation, if you use this, would be to remove Cantrips, two other schools of magic, upcasting, class Features, and go back to a 1d4 Hit Die.
Ive played multiple wizards (and Land Druids) in multiple campaigns and have never needed to rest more than anyone else. Maybe you’re misunderstanding something about the rules?
Also, I think it was on page 3 someone was saying something about wizards not getting magic weapons a and armor. While it’s true they don’t get swords and axes or chain/plate mail (at least not without wasting a feat) the very much do get armor (bracers, rings, cloaks, robes) and weapons (rods, staves, wands, rings, as well as the odd magic dagger or light crossbow) and. These actually add to their versatility. After all just how many fireballs are you actually going to throw in a day? If it’s less than 7 L3 then use your wand and memorize some. Other spell that you don’t have a weapon for. With the right defensive items you go from being squishy to somewhere between difficult to hit (bracers, ring, cloak of displacement and 16 Dex=AC16 at disadvantage) to “where the heck is she anyway” (robe of the archmagi, bracers, ring of protection, cloak of displacement and 16 Dex=AC21 with disadvantage on their attacks). Or your attuned to a staff and a couple of wands and can blast with the best of them while using your memorized spells for everything else.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Offering wizards more spell slots has increased game flow, not decreased it. It's like a rollercoaster that lasts longer for the character, for the party, and for the DM. It's proven to be better in every way. Doesn't change the potency of the class. Just augments the duration the class may remain relevant.
[REDACTED]
Casual part-time D&D adventurer
Artificer multiclass
Old thread that was bumped but:
Wizards don't need more than the the free spells learned at level up. Compared to other arcane casters wizards prep more than those other casters know and can swap out because most full arcane casters are based on spells known. Compared to clerics and druids the spell lists are so different that it's largely irrelevant but the wizard spell list gives plenty of options to add good spells to the spellbook.
Wizard ritual casting is better than cleric, druid, or (cringe) bard ritual casting by quite a bit.
People play wizards to select from the huge list and take advantage of ritual casting, spell prep swapping, and arcane recovery. That's different than the sorcerer or warlock, and other full casters like bards, clerics, or druids tend to have more support oriented spells.
Regarding the recent bump:
Wizards used to have more slots to prep spells but they also had to prep specific spells instead of just use slots. Using slots is more versatile. Having less slots is mitigated by rituals and cantrips. Not being so over the top like 3.x isn't the same thing as sucking.
While yes they don't need more spells than the free as like by level 6ish they have as many known as a warlock ever will, them having more is very appropriate for the theme. It is something as a GM I'd feel remiss in not leaning into. They picked wizard for a reason, and likely the idea of pulling in new spells form tomes was a large part of it. I'd of preferred free transfer from scrolls, spell books, paying money to enter new spells would be researching spells without the crib sheet of a scroll. I'd of reduced how many they cast in a day(remove arcane recovery probably) and reduced how many they can prepare in a day. Full known spell style casters knowing less than a wizard can flexibly prepare was a insane design choice imo. I guess they could have just bumped known up a lot like double them for sorcerer and lock, time 1.5 for bard.
I don‘t fully understand what you‘re suggesting here.
Wizards should have less spells prepared AND less spell slots then other fullcasters in exchange for free transcription of spells into their book?
its just a comment on their design decisions. Making the core difference of their class take excesses of time and money when no other class has a pay to play feature like that doesn't work for me. But they should have from the start have had less in preparations/casts than other arcane casters.(the divines with full access to their lists also should have less preparations) And this is for the biggest and best spell list and the ability to change out their spells daily. A sorcerer, warlock, bard all have less known spells than a wizard can prepare and change daily. That is insane. They are stuck with their choices and get less, the wizard changes his to the specific challenges they expect to face that day. Yeah, they should have less prepared than the other classes know. Whether that's done by reducing the wizards prepared spells or increasing other classes knowns I don't have an opinion on. And yes, the class with the most flexible spell list probably shouldn't have arcane recovery built in. If every full caster did maybe.
The wizard is the best class in the game, maybe the bard is close, nothing else is. Bringing other classes up or reducing the wizard a bit in their next game wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they don't go too far. Seesawing balance isn't better.
It has taken me some time to realize what concerns me on your opinion. You're arguing, that the wizard shouldn't be the most flexible caster in the game. That bogs me, because the class is all about spellcasting and has not much else to offer. Spellcasting is literally the reason you are here for. Intelligence is the weakest attribute in the game, seriously. It's so darn useless 99 % of the time. Sometimes it's cool for roleplaying because you are the "smart guy", but in terms of gamemechanics it's pretty useless. So every caster that uses wisdom or charisma as his spellcasting ability has a huge advantage compared to a wizard. Wisdom brings perception (which is also often used instead of investigation), insight and medicine. These 3 are pretty common skills in the game and charisma comes with deception, persuasion and intimidation. These 3 together are maybe the most used skills of the game? And these are usualy the high stakes roll that really draw everyones attention.
A bard and warlock can wear armor, have a ton of other abilities (Casting spells at will, giving out inspiration) and have a d8 as hitdie. Bards have become one of the best caster-classes in 5th edition out of nowhere. Additionally they even are arguably the better skillmonkeys than rogues. As a bard i'm not even mad, that the wizard is "better" (more flexible) at spellcasting, because the bard is better at EVERYTHING else! I have never heard a bard complaining about wizard beeing better casters then they are.
Warlocks feel really unique with all their pact-abilities and their spellslot-managment. This class should be a weaker and less flexible spellcaster by design. it doesn't help to compare his spellcasting with the Wizard. The Warlock shouldn't compete with the Wizard in this discipline, and you can see that in the design.
Sorceres had a bad time prior to TCoE, but when you look at the new Sorcerer subclasses you will find a more potent (not flexible) caster in the sorcerer than in the wizard. At level 4 the Aberrant mind knows 9 Spells and 6 Cantrips. Combined with the feat Metamagic adept, he will have 4 Metamagic Options and 6 Sorcery points. That is pretty strong.... At Level 10 he will know 20 Spells and 7 Cantrips and is at the apex of his power. Wich is awesome, because he has a reasonable chance of reaching his apex in most campaigns. These classes compare best of all casters. The Sorcerer should probably be the stronger caster and the Wizard probably the more flexible and persistent. This balancing act has been somewhat unsuccessful in design, as Metamagic, while extremely potent, has not quite been able to compensate for the severe limitation in spell selection, until now.
Clerics are easily in the league of wizards when it comes to the "best class of the game". Easily. Seriously, better hit die, better spellcasting ability, better combat proficiencies, healing (healing word), resurrecting, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, Divine interventions and more prepared spells as any other caster and access to ALL spells without a cost or a spellbook that could be lost. To be fair you mentioned that divine casters should also have less spells prepared but i just wanted to mention it here, since we are comparing fullcasters.
Druids are maybe the most flexible casterclass when it comes to battlefield-role. Thy can change between tank, damage-dealer, supporter or battlefield controller between long rests. Sure they are not as good as arcane casters when it comes to spellsellection, but their list is pretty decent and all in all it's a fantastic and powerful class.
Long story short: Yes, the Wizard is pretty powerful, but i don't feel like the wizard is outmatching other spellcasters by a lot because other casters are MAYBE weaker casters but have a lot of other things to offer to compensate this fact. In 5e the noncasters are often the classes that fall behind the casters by a lot, and here is the main balance-issue in the game.
That's because the intent behind adding additional spells to spell books was meant to be gravy above the free additions per level. That's why copying spells in nothing more than a short blurb in part of a side bar.
I would point out that a suit of plate costs a lot of money too. It's enough for 30 spell levels of copying. It's not like spending money to improve one's prospects is unique to wizards, but I would love to have the ability to just buy being better on some of my characters. ;-)
Investigation uses INT, which is an important skill, and the other INT checks are only useless if players and DM's are ignoring them. Arcana is used for magical traps and possibly crafting scrolls while nature is used for harvesting poison from monsters as useful examples.
Bards are not the best skill monkeys because rogues have more skill proficiencies, gain expertise more quickly, and add reliable talent; and eventually stroke of luck. Jack-of-all-trades is a small bonus to a broad range that cannot be leveraged like reliable talent or picking up more proficiencies. Bards have strong skill benefits but they aren't rogues. Lore bards are closer but that's a subclass and doesn't represent all bards. Lore bards still lose out because bardic inspiration dice gets burned through quickly and bigger bonuses have diminishing returns over low roll protection so the rogue has a better success ratio when rolling checks.
And the rogue evasion, uncanny dodge, cunning action, and sneak attack damage for strong combat options bards typically lack in addition to skills.
Bards are not the best spell casters in 5e, lol. They lack the preparation mechanic that makes artificers, clerics, and druids much better with rituals and wizards are a step up from that mechanic only needing the spells to be present in the spell book. This leaves them well behind other ritual casters and generally only pick up a few rituals.
The other full spell casters with the spells known mechanic carry metamagic (sorcerers) for much stronger spell options when needed or invocations (warlocks) for much cantrip potential among other things.
2 spells from any list at 10th, 14th, and 18th level gets over-rated for what it actually does. The only strong point for bard spell casting is taking advantage of spells that use ability checks. Other spell casters recover slots better and/or apply modifications to spells better. That's especially true for other arcane spell casters, but bards fall more into support style casting like clerics and druids without the advantages of spell prep mentioned.
Bards are as baseline as full casters can get. Compared to wizards the wizard wrecks in the ritual casting mechanic, carries more cantrips, uses more slots per day via arcane recovery, and spell mastery is GOAT.
Bards have a lot of advantages because they use skills and inspiration on top of spells, but they don't cast nearly as well as wizards do.
Over all we agree. The wizard is the better caster as he should be.
i didn‘t want to say that the bard IS the better skillmonkey, but there were several discussions over this topic in the past. If you want to know my opinion on this topic: i don‘t care. They‘re both pretty good skillmonkeys with different benefits.
Disagree that bards are mediocre spellcasters. Theire spellist is unique and in my opinion better then the warlock and sorcerer spellist. It‘s maybe even better then the clerics list, because it combines som great divine and arcene spells (Healing word, heat metal, forcecage, tasha‘s hideous laughter, otto‘s irresistable dance, hypnottic pattern) in a single list but that is a matter of taste. magical secrets (and jack of all trades) doesn’t just give them a huge boost but also allow the bard early access to spells of the halfcaster-lists and allow the bard some combos that no other caster can pull of. Sure it comes online very late, but these 6 (or 8) spells should not be underrestimated.
EDIT:
I forgot to address the skills argument. I only gave the example to show that even the abilities that use intelligence are used less often and are usually not crucial to the narrative.
Investigation is a trap. No DM will hide a crucial piece of information or plotpoint behind an investigations check (That's true for any check...), because that will lead to dead ends. Investigative players will come up with clever solutions without ever rolling a die. Often players argue or ask if they can roll a perception check instead, which i often allow, because why not? My players make intelligence rolls all the time (they like to be the smart ones ;-)), but that doesn't change the fact that these rolls often have much less influence on the course of the story than charisma rolls and hardly any influence on combat-related rolls.
Identifying magic traps, making scrolls, and extracting poisons are good examples of rarely used skill rolls, and run right into my argument. But it doesn't matter, more important was my statement that intelligence is one of, if not the "weakest" attribute in the game when it comes to game mechanics.Intelligence is probably the weakest saving throw of the three weak ones (STR, INT, CH) and has only mediocre abilities to offer besides being Spellcasting ability for the wizard and only since a short time for another class. That is one of reasons that wizards are a bad class for multiclassing.
The thing is bards are great with skills and ability checks. It's one of the reasons I like to play them. Rogues are just better because of the level progression for some of the benefits and reliable talent allows auto-success on so much that everyone else (including bards) still fail a roll that it's really easy to leverage and one of the reasons I like rogues so much. Cunning action and reliable talent are both great abilities that seem to have over-taken iconic abilities from past additions.
I don't disagree that CHA and WIS often get used more than INT, but using any ability score in a check is an action predicated by the player. If a player isn't taking actions to use said attribute then that's on the player. IME arcana getting used for magical traps and investigation are common. So are other checks but they do tend to fall under the DM decisions and suffer from extra information the DM would have to have added, and that is why I see them fall behind. Work for the DM causes those checks to be used less often. That's not the same thing as INT not being useful when players push that use through their own actions, however.
Bards are mediocre for multiple reasons.
They are still restricted by spells known, unlike every other ritual caster. That restriction leads to bards having few rituals available. Wizard ritual casting mechanics without prepping opens up spells prepped plus rituals known to easily exceed the bard's available options at any given time. Clerics are very similar because domains plus prep allows for so many spells available it's easy to add rituals. Druids are a bit tighter because spells prepped isn't far ahead of bard spells known most of the game, but the prep mechanic allows them to switch those rituals in and out on a daily basis as needed, which isn't an option for the bard.
When the ritual caster is limited by spells known they are far behind every other ritual caster in that aspect of spell casting.
That also leads into the preparation vs known spells. As I mentioned with the druid, the bard cannot swap spells out easily. I agree the bard has a great spell list, but having a great spell list means nothing if a character cannot access the full list. A spell on a list means nothing if it cannot come into play for that character.
Bards cast what they know, not what's on their list. The spell prep classes not only have a few more spells available at any given time, but also can access other spells on their spell list by resting so they can make use of the list in ways bards, sorcerers, or warlocks cannot.
In addition to not having access to that full list of spells, bards do not recover slots as well as other spell casters. All wizards have arcane recovery. All sorcerers can create slots from sorcery points. All clerics can use channel divinity to replenish spell slots (as of TCoE). All warlocks can use invocations for SLA's and spam short rests for pact magic slots.
The majority of spell casters can modify or amp their spells. Wizards gain benefits with any school based on which tradition they take but the inherently add benefits regardless. All sorcerers learn meta-magic. All clerics gain blessed strikes (as of TCoE; potent cantrip prior). All warlocks can modify the snot out of eldritch blast via invocations, and sometimes other spells.
Bards have the worst aspects of any major spell caster baked in to the class. The only benefit is they tend to have a few more spells than other spells known casters and they can benefit from using spells with ability checks. Other classes have better access to their spell list and/or cast more spells per day and/or cast spells at better potency. There's very little move from the baseline casting because other classes add better potential with their spells as they level while bards add inspiration and skill benefits instead of spell benefits.
Like I said, I see a long list of reason why bards are mediocre spell casters. They are a great class for the versatility the skills and spells and inspiration can give. Other spell casters focus more on casting spells and are better. Sorcerers have the raw power. Warlocks have the at-will capability. Clerics, druids, and wizards have the broader range of spell options.
Even artificers toss in bonus spells prepped in every subclass for comparable spells known but the SSI puts them ahead in spells per day. 15 spell slots plus 10 SSI slots beats 22 spells slots. 25 spells prepped (every subclass guarantees spells) with access to the full list is better than 22 spells known. The bard advantage is access to higher level spells but even the benefit to spells with ability checks it marginalized by flash of genius while artificers have infusions too.
Bards are near the bottom end of the full caster spectrum while the top end of the half caster spectrum competes.
In the wizard example (keeping on topic): the wizard has more ritual available while prepping more spells than the bard knows; the wizard can more easily adjust spells for the day; the wizard can cast more spells per day because of arcane recovery; the wizard knows more cantrips and can change them on a rest (as of TCoE). Spell mastery and signature spell blow that out of the water in comparison.
I think wizards get over-rated, tbf, but they are not hurting by any stretch. Bards get more over-rated based on magical secrets but for what magical secrets actually does it doesn't deserve how often it gets over-rated. Taking a spell from any list is nice but unless that spell uses an ability check then a bard is no better with it than any other class, and often worse given the options other classes have to improve spells.
Bards are restricted in terms of Ritual casting and spells known but, THEY CAN USE WEAPONS while the wizards can't !!!!!!!
Bards can use armors when the Wizards can't. Bards can sing Music while the Wizzards can't. Yes, the Bards are a bit "" Learners of ALL , Masters of NOTHING "", but they can still survive on the battlefield while a typical wizard needs a teleport scroll, or an utility spell to go away from a very tricky situation.
So, keep in mind that always the Wizard needs a companion, minion, or a pet to help surviving on everywhere he/she goes. The bard can still survive on the wild jungle, while the wizard is as fragile as a mosquito.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
I was on another server and it came up that wizards are no longer fragile or... squishy. To prove the point some started debating whether you could play a wizard and never cast a spell, not even a cantrip.
How likely is it for this character to survive or even thrive?
maybe the bladesinger could get by doing that. but they would not thrive and thats more of a sublcass not being squishy and "needing" a spell, not the wizard. Yeah I guess dwarf gets medium armor but with d6 hp that still seems squishy to me.
No one survives on their own in this game, the threats are group based as its a group game. But a lot of your list doesn't matter. The bard has armor, woo hes got 2 more AC, though quickly that doesn't matter as mage armor covers it with little cost from the mages resources. He can use weapons, cantrips are just as good for the most part and the wizard has enough weapons on his list to get by if those can't be used for some reason. The bard will be better at skills but its not like the wizard has no skills they will still have their race and background skills. Both of them are pretty damn fragile unless they take a subclass to change that. Yes a bard is more versatile without magic and that is useful, its why I put bard up there as one of the best classes in the game, 2nd best really. They are the 2nd best casters and have a long list of abilities outside of casting so they don't need to use their spells as much. A very potent class and the eloquence bard in the right team is just insane imo.
A bard using a rapier for d8+3 damage is better than a wizard casting firebolt for 3d10? Bards have some of the worst direct damage in the game because the base class at-will damage spells a extremely low and the base class lacks extra attack.
Light armor isn't better than mage armor, and shield is a pretty big bonus. Wizard defensive spells are pretty decent.
The hit die gap is 1hp+1hp/level. That's not a huge factor in the squishiness gap. Bards are pretty squishy too by default, and wizards and take similar steps as bards to avoid being squishy.
Where both classes really shine with spells is in battlefield control and status effects, but the wizard adds better damage and defensive options in the spells alongside that similarity.
The bard's focus is using skills with or instead of magic to stretch out the spell power. They still aren't as good a caster as other casters (but decent enough), and they still aren't as good of warriors as other martial classes (but they can add an option to be relevant). The issues people had with 3.x bards still exist but they are better concealed behind some nice toys now. ;-)