I disagree. You'll feel that way if you're comparing it to previous editions, but examined in context, you'll notice some of those effects are more powerful, some combinations would be overpowered, and some spells that feel like they obviously should be Concentration spells are not, in fact (e.g. Mirror Image). The Concentration mechanic certainly limits spellcasters, but I disagree that it "hamstrings spell casters too severely". Some spells/combinations, maybe, but not overall.
Even though this topic is about Wizards, but another observation about concentration which applies to everyone who uses spells is the loss of concentration spells when hit. It is a much bigger deal to that paladin on the front line losing his buff spells that are a very precious few because of those resources being split between spells and smite.
Sorry to resurrect and old post, but I was browsing and this got my attention.
I've been playing and DMing since 1989. Most of the people I play with are using 3.5 and enjoy it, and universally snubbed 4e. However, recently my son wanted to run a 5e game for us as that is the system he and his high school amigos use for their games. We were totally down for that, so I went ahead and got the core books and skimmed though them. Wizards being one of my favorite classes, I decided to make a Tabaxi Wizard based on J'Zargo from Skyrim for funsies (yes I do the voice).
Right out of the gate I found that Wizards are way better at lower levels than previous editions I've played. I got a d6 hit dice? Sweet! A couple extra hit points never hurts, and a 16 Int and Dex with my race were attainable and nothing anyone couldn't achieve with an Elf. Now I'm running around spamming unlimited Fire Bolts at +5 to hit for 1d10 damage at first level! I was probably the most effective character in the party. Although I'm sure it didn't hurt that my d10's were rolling pretty hot and I was hitting a lot of 8's and 9's on damage, this cantrip scales with level though so I'm sure it will continue to be useful.
Then when we got to second level I specialized in Divination to take the Portent ability. Everyone at the table remarked on what an infinitely useful ability this is, and we used it. The great thing about this ability is that it helps players AND the DM. How many times have you inadvertently locked something cool you wanted to have the party discover behind a skill roll like a secret door or a Diplomacy check? To me, the Portent ability is great because it can eliminate a lot of dice randomness issues that can detract from fun play.
Now that a lot of us are in some sort of quarantine restrictions with reduced work hours, I decided to really go through and read the 5e PHB and DMG cover to cover with a mind to priming myself to potentially be able to run a legit 5e game as a DM. I have to admit, there are some nerfs here. If you look at the 3.5e spell progression vs. 5e, Wizards have had all their high level spells drastically reduced. For 3.5 a 20th level caster has four 7th level slots, four 8th level slots, and four 9th level slots, while the 5e equivalent has two, one, and one. That's 65 levels of spell slots at the top end shaved off right there without even going into in-depth calculations. However, how much that is going to affect someone as a player is probably pretty minimal as I've never played in or ran any games that ever made it past 15th level.
Examining the spells it appears that the goal is to really limit a Wizard from ever permanently affecting the DM's campaign. Spells like Wall of Stone or Wall of Iron are no longer permanent (no more player constructed strongholds or home bases), Simulacrum is limited to one per caster in 5e and no longer regains spells should the caster make it one of himself, Animate Dead has to be used every day to keep potential minions from becoming uncontrolled. This is speculative of course, but I think the omission of Permanency itself as a spell entirely really solidifies the case. Not only are Wizard spells no longer able to permanently affect the campaign world, but the spell that might potentially make them permanent and provide guidance on the costs involved with doing it is conspicuously absent as well.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Wizards are "not worth it" as coined by the OP. It just depends on what you want out of playing one. While noticing that a Wizard's ability to have any permanent affect on the campaign world is functionally eliminated, I also noticed that a lot of their damage spells do significantly more damage or can be made to do so by expending higher slots. While I haven't played at higher levels yet, it's easy to extrapolate that Wizards are for massive damage and AOE's as you continue to advance. They seem perfectly fine in comparison to other classes, although admittedly I haven't played any of the other ones yet.
It really just comes down to what you want out of the game and style of play. I remember when 3e came out a lot people were upset and had problems with it because things that were previously in the realm of DM discretion were now codified in the rules. In 2e most people, myself included, had various house rules for things not covered or left ambiguous. Others simply left it to the realm of DM fiat in the interest of expedience. When the detailed codification of the RAW for 3e ran up against the tradition of a lot of DM's "well this is the way I've always done it" it there were some issues. Players came to the table expecting to play their character's abilities according to the RAW, and DMs who banned or restricted things in the core rules that ran contrary to their traditions ran the risk of being considered arbitrary and unfair. Personally I loved and embraced it in all my games because it's just easier to point to the RAW when a player thinks something is unfair than to try and argue with them about why your way is better.
Now that I've read the 5e PHB and DMG it strikes me as being reminiscent of those 2e days. A lot of things have been shifted back into the realm of DM discretion, and the balance has been shifted back to helping DMs. High level magics have been shaved back and limited. Combat rules of been simplified and streamlined. Item creation is general and ambiguous. And the BIFs mean that every new character comes with three built-in plot hooks for the DM. I'll probably continue using 3.5e just because I like having things like magically constructed cities, undead armies, or other high fantasy concepts in my games. Using things like that in 5e means that when player's ask "How come my guy can't do that?" I'll have to come up with my own spells or rules as to how this is possible that the players don't have access to or simply say, "Because I'm the DM." That's not really my style. But I think that playing a Wizard in either is totally fun and worth it.
Just came across this and think its worth adding one thing that was entirely missed by the OP and all the previous replies - Wizards are the only Intelligence based class. That alone can make them very important and distinguishes them.
I've been a Bard (CHA) in a campaign with a Paladin (CHA), Sorceror (CHA), Cleric (KNW), Druid (KNW), and Fighter (STR). It was a lot of fun but we certainly could've used a Wizard's intelligence at times.
Now I'm a Gnome Wizard in a campaign and beyond spell casting I'm also the party Mechanic. Ship or other vehicle breaks (we're currently in Avernus) I am by far the best at locating the mechanical failure and fixing it. If I don't have parts on hand I have Fabricate ready to go. In a bind on time? Tiny Servants (a wizard exclusive spell) can help me on repair work.
Just came across this and think its worth adding one thing that was entirely missed by the OP and all the previous replies - Wizards are the only Intelligence based class. That alone can make them very important and distinguishes them.
This is no longer true, though, since Artificers were introduced. (It almost wasn't true since the beginning, since Warlocks were conceived as an Intelligence based class.)
Although many campaigns don't use Artificers since they are a UA class. Especially if you play offline, where it isn't an option for someone who creates their character from the Player's Handbook.
Although many campaigns don't use Artificers since they are a UA class. Especially if you play offline, where it isn't an option for someone who creates their character from the Player's Handbook.
They're no longer UA, they were officially introduced with Eberron.
And they will be fully reprinted in Tasha’s. Artificer 1 / Wizard 19 is the most powerful combination in the game. Without considering the School — because if we have a DM crazy enough to allow an Artificer 1 / Chronurgist 19, there’s literally no challenge that this Wizard cannot overcome.
Not even Hexblade Sorcadins are able to achieve the same amount of power, versatility and tankiness, mostly because of the huge opportunity costs of having heavy multiclass (Hexblade 1-2; Paladin 2-6; Sorcerer 3-X). When your ideal Hex Sorcadin starts really shining (level 10 or something), you will be preparing to have Simulacrums, Wall of Forces and the like.
Although many campaigns don't use Artificers since they are a UA class. Especially if you play offline, where it isn't an option for someone who creates their character from the Player's Handbook.
They're no longer UA, they were officially introduced with Eberron.
Just came across this and think its worth adding one thing that was entirely missed by the OP and all the previous replies - Wizards are the only Intelligence based class. That alone can make them very important and distinguishes them.
This is no longer true, though, since Artificers were introduced. (It almost wasn't true since the beginning, since Warlocks were conceived as an Intelligence based class.)
It wasn't really true to begin with; while the classes aren't Intelligence based, both Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights use Intelligence for casting, so you want to have good INT scores on those if you're going to use any attack roll or save based spells, so that makes them possible INT skill characters as well.
Arcane Trickster is arguably the easiest of those two as you can get by with low Constitution and only really need Dexterity, so you can be the book-smart member of the group while not being a full Wizard, and it's flexible enough to build for utility while still being a perfectly capable rogue.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wizards are the most powerful class, no doubt. I like to use necromancy as my subclass, so what if he doesn’t have a lot of hit points or healing magic, that’s why you have clerics, but they have damaging spells.
Well, I see the argument you’re making. Yes, their health bar is so small that they could get squished by a particularly vicious goblin at first level. Yes, they basically can’ use weapons. Yes their spells can be slow. But that’s the thing. Wizards are high-power, low health characters, a glass cannon. It doesn’t really matter at higher levels as everyone has a huge health bar it could make a giant cry. (Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit.) But anyways, the strength in the wizard is in two things: ludicrously powerful spells and utility. Now, at first level, like every other character, wizard are kind of weak. But later, their damage is huge, and not only that, but they have so many spells that aren’t only for fighting, whether it’s charming, flying, and so on, which is why so many people favor wizards over other classes. Long story short, they are not bad, just sometimes slow or sometimes have very little defense. Wizards aren’t bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(He/Him)
A wizard opens a rift in the wall in front of you, walks through, and eyes you, eyes glowing a brilliant blue. “Where are the beans?” He says menacingly, gritting his teeth in frustration. Suddenly squirrels pour out of the rift and swarm over you.
Hi. I really like squirrels, reading, and D&D (obviously). Uh, yeah. I also GM 👍.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Even though this topic is about Wizards, but another observation about concentration which applies to everyone who uses spells is the loss of concentration spells when hit. It is a much bigger deal to that paladin on the front line losing his buff spells that are a very precious few because of those resources being split between spells and smite.
Sorry to resurrect and old post, but I was browsing and this got my attention.
I've been playing and DMing since 1989. Most of the people I play with are using 3.5 and enjoy it, and universally snubbed 4e. However, recently my son wanted to run a 5e game for us as that is the system he and his high school amigos use for their games. We were totally down for that, so I went ahead and got the core books and skimmed though them. Wizards being one of my favorite classes, I decided to make a Tabaxi Wizard based on J'Zargo from Skyrim for funsies (yes I do the voice).
Right out of the gate I found that Wizards are way better at lower levels than previous editions I've played. I got a d6 hit dice? Sweet! A couple extra hit points never hurts, and a 16 Int and Dex with my race were attainable and nothing anyone couldn't achieve with an Elf. Now I'm running around spamming unlimited Fire Bolts at +5 to hit for 1d10 damage at first level! I was probably the most effective character in the party. Although I'm sure it didn't hurt that my d10's were rolling pretty hot and I was hitting a lot of 8's and 9's on damage, this cantrip scales with level though so I'm sure it will continue to be useful.
Then when we got to second level I specialized in Divination to take the Portent ability. Everyone at the table remarked on what an infinitely useful ability this is, and we used it. The great thing about this ability is that it helps players AND the DM. How many times have you inadvertently locked something cool you wanted to have the party discover behind a skill roll like a secret door or a Diplomacy check? To me, the Portent ability is great because it can eliminate a lot of dice randomness issues that can detract from fun play.
Now that a lot of us are in some sort of quarantine restrictions with reduced work hours, I decided to really go through and read the 5e PHB and DMG cover to cover with a mind to priming myself to potentially be able to run a legit 5e game as a DM. I have to admit, there are some nerfs here. If you look at the 3.5e spell progression vs. 5e, Wizards have had all their high level spells drastically reduced. For 3.5 a 20th level caster has four 7th level slots, four 8th level slots, and four 9th level slots, while the 5e equivalent has two, one, and one. That's 65 levels of spell slots at the top end shaved off right there without even going into in-depth calculations. However, how much that is going to affect someone as a player is probably pretty minimal as I've never played in or ran any games that ever made it past 15th level.
Examining the spells it appears that the goal is to really limit a Wizard from ever permanently affecting the DM's campaign. Spells like Wall of Stone or Wall of Iron are no longer permanent (no more player constructed strongholds or home bases), Simulacrum is limited to one per caster in 5e and no longer regains spells should the caster make it one of himself, Animate Dead has to be used every day to keep potential minions from becoming uncontrolled. This is speculative of course, but I think the omission of Permanency itself as a spell entirely really solidifies the case. Not only are Wizard spells no longer able to permanently affect the campaign world, but the spell that might potentially make them permanent and provide guidance on the costs involved with doing it is conspicuously absent as well.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Wizards are "not worth it" as coined by the OP. It just depends on what you want out of playing one. While noticing that a Wizard's ability to have any permanent affect on the campaign world is functionally eliminated, I also noticed that a lot of their damage spells do significantly more damage or can be made to do so by expending higher slots. While I haven't played at higher levels yet, it's easy to extrapolate that Wizards are for massive damage and AOE's as you continue to advance. They seem perfectly fine in comparison to other classes, although admittedly I haven't played any of the other ones yet.
It really just comes down to what you want out of the game and style of play. I remember when 3e came out a lot people were upset and had problems with it because things that were previously in the realm of DM discretion were now codified in the rules. In 2e most people, myself included, had various house rules for things not covered or left ambiguous. Others simply left it to the realm of DM fiat in the interest of expedience. When the detailed codification of the RAW for 3e ran up against the tradition of a lot of DM's "well this is the way I've always done it" it there were some issues. Players came to the table expecting to play their character's abilities according to the RAW, and DMs who banned or restricted things in the core rules that ran contrary to their traditions ran the risk of being considered arbitrary and unfair. Personally I loved and embraced it in all my games because it's just easier to point to the RAW when a player thinks something is unfair than to try and argue with them about why your way is better.
Now that I've read the 5e PHB and DMG it strikes me as being reminiscent of those 2e days. A lot of things have been shifted back into the realm of DM discretion, and the balance has been shifted back to helping DMs. High level magics have been shaved back and limited. Combat rules of been simplified and streamlined. Item creation is general and ambiguous. And the BIFs mean that every new character comes with three built-in plot hooks for the DM. I'll probably continue using 3.5e just because I like having things like magically constructed cities, undead armies, or other high fantasy concepts in my games. Using things like that in 5e means that when player's ask "How come my guy can't do that?" I'll have to come up with my own spells or rules as to how this is possible that the players don't have access to or simply say, "Because I'm the DM." That's not really my style. But I think that playing a Wizard in either is totally fun and worth it.
Just came across this and think its worth adding one thing that was entirely missed by the OP and all the previous replies - Wizards are the only Intelligence based class. That alone can make them very important and distinguishes them.
I've been a Bard (CHA) in a campaign with a Paladin (CHA), Sorceror (CHA), Cleric (KNW), Druid (KNW), and Fighter (STR). It was a lot of fun but we certainly could've used a Wizard's intelligence at times.
Now I'm a Gnome Wizard in a campaign and beyond spell casting I'm also the party Mechanic. Ship or other vehicle breaks (we're currently in Avernus) I am by far the best at locating the mechanical failure and fixing it. If I don't have parts on hand I have Fabricate ready to go. In a bind on time? Tiny Servants (a wizard exclusive spell) can help me on repair work.
This is no longer true, though, since Artificers were introduced. (It almost wasn't true since the beginning, since Warlocks were conceived as an Intelligence based class.)
Although many campaigns don't use Artificers since they are a UA class. Especially if you play offline, where it isn't an option for someone who creates their character from the Player's Handbook.
Chilling kinda vibe.
They're no longer UA, they were officially introduced with Eberron.
And they will be fully reprinted in Tasha’s. Artificer 1 / Wizard 19 is the most powerful combination in the game. Without considering the School — because if we have a DM crazy enough to allow an Artificer 1 / Chronurgist 19, there’s literally no challenge that this Wizard cannot overcome.
Not even Hexblade Sorcadins are able to achieve the same amount of power, versatility and tankiness, mostly because of the huge opportunity costs of having heavy multiclass (Hexblade 1-2; Paladin 2-6; Sorcerer 3-X). When your ideal Hex Sorcadin starts really shining (level 10 or something), you will be preparing to have Simulacrums, Wall of Forces and the like.
Huh. Fancy that.
Chilling kinda vibe.
It wasn't really true to begin with; while the classes aren't Intelligence based, both Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights use Intelligence for casting, so you want to have good INT scores on those if you're going to use any attack roll or save based spells, so that makes them possible INT skill characters as well.
Arcane Trickster is arguably the easiest of those two as you can get by with low Constitution and only really need Dexterity, so you can be the book-smart member of the group while not being a full Wizard, and it's flexible enough to build for utility while still being a perfectly capable rogue.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think Wizard needs to Masterize the [Feature]Arcane Recovery[/Feature] just to gat more decent recovery of the spells spent that day.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
So many campaigns only have a few encounters per day. Full casters don't run out of spell slots that easily because of it once they get to lvl 3
Wizards are the most powerful class, no doubt. I like to use necromancy as my subclass, so what if he doesn’t have a lot of hit points or healing magic, that’s why you have clerics, but they have damaging spells.
And a Wizard with some potions, a Familiar, an Unseen Servant and/or a couple Tiny Servant has gold-dependent improvised Healing Word.
At level 18, wizard can master the spells... which means free magic missile every round
Well, I see the argument you’re making. Yes, their health bar is so small that they could get squished by a particularly vicious goblin at first level. Yes, they basically can’ use weapons. Yes their spells can be slow. But that’s the thing. Wizards are high-power, low health characters, a glass cannon. It doesn’t really matter at higher levels as everyone has a huge health bar it could make a giant cry. (Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit.) But anyways, the strength in the wizard is in two things: ludicrously powerful spells and utility. Now, at first level, like every other character, wizard are kind of weak. But later, their damage is huge, and not only that, but they have so many spells that aren’t only for fighting, whether it’s charming, flying, and so on, which is why so many people favor wizards over other classes. Long story short, they are not bad, just sometimes slow or sometimes have very little defense. Wizards aren’t bad.
(He/Him)
A wizard opens a rift in the wall in front of you, walks through, and eyes you, eyes glowing a brilliant blue. “Where are the beans?” He says menacingly, gritting his teeth in frustration. Suddenly squirrels pour out of the rift and swarm over you.
Hi. I really like squirrels, reading, and D&D (obviously). Uh, yeah. I also GM 👍.