D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[EzekielRaiden]

For those complaining about poor thematics, I typically get more flavor and character from the background, backstory and race then I usually do from the class. Class is not typically a big story element for me. Warlocks and Paladins have to get class wrapped up in story a bit, but the rest of the classes are pretty much story-free. You can write just about any story you want with any of the class mechanics tied to your character (except Warlock and Paladin). Warlock and Paladin are difficult because the pact and the oath are specific mechanical elements of the class.

Why can't you get those things from background, backstory, and race and get story things from your class?

I don't understand why having class thematics negates the other things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes - like the Warlock and Artificer. These classes both seem unnecessary in every D&D game.
I find ~6 players for these classes (and 90 Artificers) even in FR to one Wizard.

I think what you're saying is that the wizard is unnecessary there. After all it's the one you seem to claim isn't being used. Meanwhile the warlock is actually doing its job and then some.

 

[ECMO3]

Why can't you get those things from background, backstory, and race and get story things from your class?

You can. I said I don't, and becasue if this, I don't find classes restrictive in this regard (with the exceptions noted)

I don't understand why having class thematics negates the other things.

There are generally no thematics that specifically apply for a class except as it relates to Warlocks and Paladins. There are no mechancial ties to them. There are stereotypes or generalities associated with the classes, but those are mutable.

After Warlocks and Paladins, Clerics are probably a very distant third, but even with them there is no requirement at all to worship or pay homage to a deity and D&D fiction is filled with examples of clerics who do not worship (and in some cases even despise) their deities.

Warlock and Paladin are specific because of the Pact and the Oath specifically. It is pretty hard not to have those things affect the story unless you completely handwave it away.

Characters I am playing right now for example:
Wizard:
The Wizard I am playing right now (Halfling Bladesinger) is a worshiper of Urgolan and martial combatant. I have played her from level 1 to currently level 15. She has a spellbook, she casts spells, but they are mostly melee related, false life or summonings. If you had to sterotype her story and play style you would call her character more of a "light War Cleric or Paladin" in terms of how she acts both in social situations and in combat.

Rogue:
I am also playing a 2nd level Glasya Tiefling Rogue with a 19 Charisma (and 14 Dex). She is escaped from the Feywild, with a flute. She sneak attacks a lot, but she is not that effective in combat, she is mostly a face and skill person.

Bard:
I am playing a Kobold Shadows Bard level 6. She picked up Booming Blade. She is a really creepy apprentice of a Cloud Giant and has the new Cloud Giant feats (including one at 1st level). Her Charisma and many of his spells have a creepy angle and she is high combat melee character. Most of her bard dice go to Psychic Blades and he weaves some spells into combat. She has more of a melee play style and with psychic blades she puts out damage comparable to a stereotypical Rogue.

I could play any of these characters with a similar story and almost any class, not quite any class but almost any.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can. I said I don't, and becasue if this, I don't find classes restrictive in this regard (with the exceptions noted)



There are generally no thematics that specifically apply for a class except as it relates to Warlocks and Paladins. There are no mechancial ties to them. There are stereotypes or generalities associated with the classes, but those are mutable.

After Warlocks and Paladins, Clerics are probably a very distant third, but even with them there is no requirement at all to worship or pay homage to a deity and D&D fiction is filled with examples of clerics who do not worship (and in some cases even despise) their deities.

Warlock and Paladin are specific because of the Pact and the Oath specifically. It is pretty hard not to have those things affect the story unless you completely handwave it away.

Okay, but like...everything affects the character. There's nothing special about class that makes its effect different from the other sources.

If you play a Noble background Barbarian, that implies some interesting contrasting elements. If you play an Urchin Paladin, that implies some interesting contrasting elements. Etc. These things feed into one another, regardless of what you pick. So, why is Wizard in any way special here? It has the inherent flavor of being an educated magic-user (though, as stated, the game is terrible at actually supporting that flavor.) That makes for a highly consonant thing if you choose the Sage background, but a fairly contrasting story if you pick the Sailor background.

Likewise for race. Stereotypically, wizards are elves. But you could be a Dwarf Sailor Wizard, and that's going to have implications.

I don't see why Wizard is in any way distinct or special compared to any other class, including Paladin and Warlock. Yes, those things come with some strong flavor, but you can still do a ton with it, e.g. a Warlock could have a pact with her own future self (a great concept from 4e), or with his ancestors (the Abhorsen series can be parsed as an anti-necromancy Warlock family with a "pact" to their own ancestors), etc. A Paladin's Oath can be purely to himself, or to an eldritch being, or to the crown, or...

It all has to be made to fit together. Nothing is a totally blank slate, not even Fighter or Wizard. That's why it's unflavored oatmeal and not air; oatmeal still has a bit of flavor and texture to it, even if it's pretty minimal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"ever played".... .... ... Want to commit to running a game? Honestly, no. Only played as GM because no one else will.

This is of course the big problem with 5e.

But what I have seen is a Soceror outclasss every other spellcaster. Wizards do not and have NEVER gotten an extra spell slot. Where are you getting that information from? They get spells in the book, but not to cast.

Spells in the wizard's spell book can still be cast as rituals.

Wizards have:

1. The biggest and best spell list.
2. The joint most spells prepared of any base class
3. More spells prepared than a sorcerer even knows - and that's not even counting the other spells in the wizard's book
4. The ability to cast spells they haven't prepared

Any wizard being outclassed by a pre-Tasha's sorcerer is because the wizard is being played badly or the sorcerer is being played exceptionally well. Probably both.

"SERIOUSLY, {BRO} HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED A 2014 WIZARD?"

Yes. It's way more powerful than a pre-Tasha's sorcerer.

Their subclasses have offered very little in the way of customization or powers.

That's because their base class has the strongest spellcasting of any class.

They are the only class that does not gain a class ability at every level.

This is simply not true. The wizard has a class ability (including ASIs) at every even level and gets an extra level of spells at every odd level. The PHB sorcerer doesn't get anything at 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 - and like the wizard only gets ASIs at 4, 8, 12, and 16.

Plus, their spell list REQUIRES material components!!!!

There is no spell that requires material components from a wizard that doesn't require them from a sorcerer. Your problem here boils down to the fact that the wizard has the biggest and bestest spell list of any class.

Chromatic Orb? 50 gp crystal, please.

Which applies whether you are a wizard or a sorcerer.

Chaos Bolt? No cost, same damage, ah, why not?

You do realise that that is the only sorcerer exclusive spell in the game? And "it's better than a terrible spell no one uses" doesn't make it good.

I tell you what. We'll trade the wizard getting access to all sorcerer exclusive spells for the sorcerer getting access to all wizard-exclusive spells. Who do you think wins?

Chaos Bolt is better and can be cast right out of character creation. Wizards have to HOPE they are not playing with D-bags who only "split the treasure" instead of realizing investing into spells for the Wizard matters.

If the wizard is demanding a diamond so they can cast Chromatic Orb it's the wizard being a d-bag. Meanwhile there are plenty of spells the wizard can cast without expensive material components (including every single component-free spell on the sorcerer list except Chaos Bolt) but the martials need expensive armour.

All the spells that a wizard gets, a sorcerer gets, and free. Name me one spell a wizard gets that tops a spell that a Soceror does not get but better.

Find Familiar. Grease. Phantom Steed. Wall of Force.

Recall, that spell components costs money.... ....That is how they nerf wizards. They are also the most costly.

... you have heard of a material component pouch? And you do realise that components aren't normally used up when casting?

There are a tiny handful of spells with expensive components. And the most costly casters are in my experience clerics - 300GP of diamonds that are consumed per Revivify.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Okay, but like...everything affects the character. There's nothing special about class that makes its effect different from the other sources.

You are what you do. In order to become a wizard you more or less need to have devoted yourself to book learning of magic. You can't play a wizard without a spellbook; class has IME the single strongest influence on character because it's what you've decided to do while background is who you were born.

And this is part of the problem with wizard. It's flavour but not terribly interesting flavour.

 

[Zardnaar]

So what you are saying is that the class that is already the most flexible and at high level the most powerful, and already gains more spells known (an extra spell of their specialist school per spell level rather than getting cheaper writing) should have still more given to them?

And the reason for this is that a seriously underpowered class got a few buffs? Seriously have you ever played a 2014 sorcerer?

Yes even then they get more interesting multiclass choices and oddball choices.

2014 a wizard still takes to long to ramp up mostly their level 10 ability. Eg it's great on Enchanters.

Never seen a level 10 enchanter. Been seeing sorcerers being rolled up a lot more even back then. Only reason I saw wizards full stop was "that guy" who always plays wizards.

Even then they were competing with bards and warlocks. I was an early adopter of the lore bard is actually great and the warlock is better early on. Basic tonelock/fiendpact is way more fun than say invoker.

Also was an earl adopter of proficiency in con saves is great hence why I rated transmute a lot higher than general internet.

We noticed a lot of 5E power stuff very early on eg hypnotic pattern, bless, spiritual guardians, lore bards, Paladins, Sorlock and general multickass options between the charisma classes or the warlock dip, sorcerer dip etc.

You're over rating versatility. A single twinned xyz is often better than the wizards spell list.

Later on once wizards get rolling sure they're better but I'm not convinced they're more fun or worth picking over say a light cleric, lore bard, tomelock, Sorlock or even a straight sorcerer.

You also need to know about rituals to really make the wizard shine. That's not obvious to New players and I've never really seen a wizard player caring about rituals that much.

They'll pick them or use them if they find them but the next wizard player who actively "metas" them and trys to aquire extra rituals via buying them will be the first.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay, but like...everything affects the character. There's nothing special about class that makes its effect different from the other sources.

If you play a Noble background Barbarian, that implies some interesting contrasting elements. If you play an Urchin Paladin, that implies some interesting contrasting elements.

With a Paladin yes, because of the oath, which is a mechanical element.

Not with a Barbarian though. I don't find anything at all contradictory with a Noble, high charisma, high intelligence Barbarian. He is just a noble with martial training and a temper/rage ability. If you start looking at certain subclasses you may run into things, but as a class I don't think there is a conflict there at all.

Etc. These things feed into one another, regardless of what you pick. So, why is Wizard in any way special here? It has the inherent flavor of being an educated magic-user (though, as stated, the game is terrible at actually supporting that flavor.) That makes for a highly consonant thing if you choose the Sage background, but a fairly contrasting story if you pick the Sailor background.

I have played sailor wizards, and Dwarf Wizards. I have never played Sage Wizards or for that matter Elf Wizards. A ship wizard is a very appropriate character and I would not call that a contrast at all. Edit: I have played an Elf Wizard in 5E, I forgot about her when I posted this.

I think people tend to look at classes as having specific roles or traits and if you do that they can be confining but for the most part there is not a mechanical reason for that.

I don't see why Wizard is in any way distinct or special compared to any other class, including Paladin and Warlock.

A Warlock has a pact and a Paladin an oath. Those are elements that specifically affect story.

Yes, those things come with some strong flavor, but you can still do a ton with it, e.g. a Warlock could have a pact with her own future self (a great concept from 4e), or with his ancestors (the Abhorsen series can be parsed as an anti-necromancy Warlock family with a "pact" to their own ancestors), etc.
A Paladin's Oath can be purely to himself, or to an eldritch being, or to the crown, or...

A Paladin's oath and a Warlock's pact is specific based on subclass (especially the oath). Sure you can homebrew subclasses or hand waive these elements, but if we are talking about RAW these are restrictive.

It all has to be made to fit together. Nothing is a totally blank slate, not even Fighter or Wizard. That's why it's unflavored oatmeal and not air; oatmeal still has a bit of flavor and texture to it, even if it's pretty minimal.

Sure it has to fit together, but it is not very limiting and a Wizard in particular is a very open book. You can add almost any flavor you want to that oatmeal and for that reason I don't find the Wizard class very restrictive storywise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes even then they get more interesting multiclass choices and oddball choices.

The problem with the sorcerer was that it was weak because it knew too few spells. The problem with the wizard isn't a lack of power; it's that they are boring. When I advocate for a wizard becoming a subclass of sorcerer it's because I think that's precisely how interesting the entire class is.

You're over rating bersatility. A single twinned xyz is often better than the wizards spell list.

The thing about versatility is that there are diminishing returns . The sorcerer, with two spells known per spell level plus one, with the needs of combat doesn't have much left over - but a lot depends on how many casters are there to share the utility load. But yes Twin Spell needed a nerf.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A Warlock has a pact and a Paladin an oath. Those are elements that specifically affect story.

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

A Paladin's oath and a Warlock's pact is specific based on subclass (especially the oath). Sure you can homebrew subclasses or hand waive these elements, but if we are talking about RAW these are restrictive.

Not at all. The "Oath of Devotion"--devotion to what? It can be almost anything. And it's explicit that you can come up with your own oath, as long as it's consistent with the overall concept presented. It doesn't have to be word for word the same.

Sure it has to fit together, but it is not very limiting and a Wizard in particular is a very open book. You can add almost any flavor you want to that oatmeal and for that reason I don't find the Wizard class very restrictive storywise.

But that's my point. You make it sound like the Wizard uniquely has no limits at all, which is false; and that Paladin and Warlock are insanely hyper-limited, which is also false. They're all on a spectrum, nothing is at either extreme (no limits at all; no freedom at all), and they're all much closer together than you claim. That's why I'm so confused here.