I want you to look at the spell list.
Like, really look at it. Count the number of spells. Figure out what percent of any given edition's PHB is just Wizard spells.
Now put that in context as a class feature. Sneak Attack takes a short paragraph to explain. Spellcasting takes over 25% of the entire book.
Now break that down into the number of discrete actions that those spells allow, the problems they allow the caster to overcome with minimal risk of failure, and imagine if they were isolated class features.
What if Rogues at level 17 could, once per day, take three turns in a row.
What if Rangers at level 5 could, twice per day, give themselves +2 AC, double move speed, and an extra attack for the rest of an encounter?
What if Fighters at level 10 could fly? Like, if they wanted to they could just fly for 8 hours straight. Or any time they faced a remotely tall thing they wanted to get on top of?
Maybe at level 7 they could just teleport themselves 500 feet in any given direction, sight unseen, once per day?
Or at 3rd level Rogues could walk on walls and ceilings for 2 hours per day (more at higher levels), no climb or athletics check required.
What if Barbarians were immune to any falling damage for distances less than 1000 feet, four times per day?
If these were actually written out as class features it would look insane, but they're spells (Time Stop, Haste, Fly, Dimension Door) so they get a pass.
Or, to put it in another context, the Wizard gets over 126 individual class features that range from long range artilliary attacks to straight up environment-nullification to forcibly teleporting targets into alternate dimensions.
And yet the capabilities of weapon using classes, Rogues and Fighters in particular, remains not merely grounded, but tightly constrained in very odd ways. Fighters get 11 class features. 21 if you count duplicates, upgrades, and stat boosts, still less than 1/6th of the Wizard spell list. Compared to the reality-destroying powers afforded by any spell slot 3rd level or higher, a Fighter's superiority dice and Second Wind look positively quaint.
If I wanted characters to all have the same limited number of powers I'd play Dungeon World or any of the thousand other fantasy RPGs.
I want spellcasters with lots of options.
Nah.
The new forums are off to a cracking start
There's some significant problems with wizards and 5e in general, but I plan on fixing them if I can, rather than a wholesale ban. But that's just me.
The_Jester wrote:
Lol, OP...You're assuming the wizard can't and won't ever cast any of those spells on their allies.
Remember, D&D is a coop, not a competition.
Whenever we play, the wizard casts blur on the fighter, spider climb on the rogue, etc, etc, etc. Wizards can help PCs, you know. Even if the spell entries all say "on you" not "on you or an ally" we always ignore that. Wizards aren't that evil and selfish, lol. (I hope.)
PS: Every edition (including 4e) had lots of magic in it.
Foxface wrote:
No sense in getting a new 5e forum if we can't inaugurate it with a tactical nuke. 
spelley wrote:
OP, you should do whatever you feel you need to do to enjoy the game. This could even mean playing a different game. Whatever you wanna do!
I don't think it's helpful to tell other people that they should ban a class, however, and I get the feeling you're more doing this to test the boundaries of the new forums rather than actually asking a question or wanting a discussion.
You could have asked things like, is the wizard too useful? Does he have too many spells? Etc.
I kind of feel like you're just looking for attention here. Am I wrong?
This is a joke post from the OP, right?
seti wrote:
I'm just glad the first post wasn't "FIRST!"
Between the lower number of spells per day and concentration I think casters will be mostly in line with non-casters, we will have to wait and see.
The major concern on my radar is the saving throw system, it looks like most monsters don't get any modifiers to their saving throws besides the ability score mod. My worry is that it is way to easy to fail a saving throw, when you combine smart game play and the fact a spellcaster can have a DC that ranges from 13-19 for PC's focused on it. The fact that there seems to be some save or suck/die spells too, makes it a bad combination. From what we can tell at the moment.
But I like the variety of spells, and rituals. Later on more fun options for martial characters couldn't hurt, we will probably get a splat book for that.
Without wizards, my nephew won't get to play a necromancy specialist wizard like he's been dying to do ever since he first learned about D&D. He already knows it's a good possiblity it'll come with the Player's Handbook in august. I'm not going to break the poor kid's heart.
Besides, I like wizards. 
*Cough*
Well... that was weird.
Unless they've totally overhauled the maneuvers since the playtest (which, yes, I hope to god they have) then you'll be sorely disappointed... sort of. (The playtest version of superiority dice are a decent idea with lackluster implementation, namely that there's no way to dump dice you don't need since you get bonus damage only if you fail the roll.)
Here's the deal - the 5e Fighter isn't bad. Neither are the Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian. Arguably some of these are even at their best showing (Barbarian), or on par with their best prior versions. The Fighter's numerous skill bonuses (which, in Basic, can only be spent on skill bonuses as Feats are a module) give them a solid stat advantage that allows them to safely wade into a lot of different situations, same as the Rogue's Expertise. The structure of the martial classes encourages a more freeform approach to challenges, using the more open-ended skill system (rooted much closer to base stats, which the Fighter has a solid edge in) to construct solutions. That's a decent little ecosystem.
But she's not playing the same game as the Wizard past a certain point. The Wizard can burn all their high level spells on challenge-crushing utility spells and still keep pace with the fighter in combat by relying on lower level disables and damage spells. Magic Missle basically keeps pace with the fighter the whole way through the game, and even should a Wizard be completely depleted, cantrips only leave them lagging slightly, throwing spells from a pretty safe distance (unless Ray of Frost got its feet chopped off.)
The same doesn't apply in the other direction, though. The Wizard with a bucket full of spells doesn't have an edge in overcoming obstacles, they just negate them. High level wizards don't make skill rolls, they just spider climb/dimension door/fly/passwall/charm/disguise/featherfall/darkvision/invisibility/move earth/polymorph/gate/wish their way through, devaluing anyone who doesn't have equally potent, codified abilities.
I am banning the Wizard in my games and introducing the Mage.
It doesn't look like the wizard has 'wish', LFK. (And I hope they don't get it.)
I do see your points, but I also see other people's points. I totally agree that wizards need some limitation, and if they get damage on a miss (with 'daily' powers/AKA leveled non-cantrip spells), so should everyone else. 4e did that, and a vocal minority complained profusely. I think wizards should have spell school limits, and I think some spells should be reserved for (hopefully) upcoming psions. Spells like 'Dominate person/monster', for example. I think damage dice should also be mitigated so casters aren't tossing around 10D6+ spells like nothing, while melee PC's are still doing 1d8+4.
I think what a lot of people forget here is that not all D&D players started in the 80's. There are many younger people who play and want to play. I know several people (my age* and younger) who first played with 3e or 4e. Or just 4e. There are tons of players who don't even know what TSR was.
*I just turned 38, if anyone must know.
I'd count on wish making an appearance in the game. Hopefully with a healthy helping of advice to go along with it.
The caster argument has been done to death, and never with any appreciable result. Some people like classic Vancian casters, and some people do not like classic Vancian casters. I think that's about the extent of what there is to be learned on the subject.
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
I will miss the class equality of choices from 4th edition. I've never been a fan of wizards having a ton more options than martial classes but it is a sacred cow. Maybe choosing a specialist wizard, like a necromancer, evoker or illusionist, will make the spell selections more narrow. Nice to see Thunderwave making the 1st level spell selection.
DSZ wrote:
LFK wrote:
DSZ wrote:
OP is clearly joking. Though I do have to say that 5E is what happened when people revolted to giving the Wizard's goodies to everyone else.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
ORC_Ragnar wrote:
LFK, D&D is not a competitive game. It's a so-called role-playing game.
You should try MMORPGs. I just recently started playing one called "Neverwinter". It's fun, you should check it out.
Siphersh wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Diffan wrote:
This thread is really bad taste LFK. I'm amazed the Orcs have not closed it.
Diffan wrote:
Cool story, bro.
Siphersh wrote:
Prom wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
Honestly, in all my time playing 3.5, I've never had the primary casters invalidate the other PCs. Ever. I've not played about 10-12th level either, but it goes to show the problem isn't universally present at least.
@LFK: I think you're overreacting. Give the damn thing a try before banning it!
They seem to have put a lot of effort into balancing (numerically) the other classes compared to the casters. If you tried the playtest fighter, you know it's a beast in combat. A boring beast, but still a beast.
Scribe scroll was the problem in 3e at lower levels because it allowed the wizard to prepare a whole bunch of utility spells for very cheap and the wizard could invest in those scrolls because he didn't really need to buy a magic weapon and a magic armor. At higher levels, the low level spell slots were made obsolete by the higher level spell slots so a wizard could afford to use all of them on utility spells (and long duration buffs). Without scribe scroll and with only a limited amount of high level spell slots, the wizard is nothing like in the previous editions.
And what are the spells that are bothering you anyways?
A lot of the "wizards are overpowered" threads almost always are "wizards have cool toys but fighters don't, it's not fair". No charm person? No problem, I'll beat the guy into submission. No knock? No worries, I have a sledge hammer. No Invisibility? Why do I need such a coward's tool when I can kill those monsters? No fly spell? Time to take out my magic bow! Etc... High level divination spells such as Find the Path are a pain in the arse to deal with. Boring and unbalanced are two seperate problems.
It would help to remember that, in terms of what characters can and can't do, there's more to the game than what's codified in the rules. For people who simply MUST have myriad descriptions of these things, I am sure that some sort of module will come along when the rules inevitably bloat. In the meantime, it'd be nice to not immediately fall back into "fighters can't do cool things because they don't have a list of powers." The game can, and has been played, plenty and well enough, without any of those things, and since the system will eventually be hackable, it is certain that lovers of minutiae will get their wish. The only other thing I would add to this is that fighters and rogues have been stars at our table. They're the classes of choice, by head count. our wizards and clerics slow us down because they always have their head in the books trying to figure out what spell to cast. Not sure that's really a "cool" thing at all, but I wouldn't ban the class. If I did that, what would my control freaks at the table do? :-)
This thread... seriously.
New forums I was hoping to start with something pleasant. Cmon dude. 
seti wrote:
LFK wrote:
OP, I won't try to refute your points, plenty of other posters have done that.
Remember, though, that some players prefer to play straight forward character classes; characters that just charge in swinging, and some players prefer tons of options to wade through. For these people, having less options for some classes is not considered a negative.
The wizard isn't overpowered in combat. The fighter can keep up and likely win most fights. Though the wizard will likely do better against hordes of enemies.
The wizard is overpowered in utility. Nothing the fighter has can match that.
mellored wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
mellored wrote:
seti wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
0745 @WotC
mellored wrote:
How about the OP bans wizards from his table, and I allow them at mine? I think that would work for us, because none of our players whine about being outshined. Then again, they're reasonable human beings, so...
LFK
I really don't think a game could be created to make you happy that would sell very well at all as a D&D game. Either the wizard has to be boring as drying wallpaper or the fighter has to by hopped up on wuxia. Neither approach is very palatable to a big swath of those who like to play D&D.
So let me suggest something, but first let me emphasize that I'm not TELLING you to do anything. It's just a suggestion given the state of the game. If D&D ever meets your needs, you are going to be playing a game that never knows a moments peace. A relentless and continuous attack from those who want a different D&D is going to be unceasing. Do you want to live in that space? I might if I were you just seek another game that is less apt to have such a strong playerbase that disagrees with you. Banning the wizard in your games is another option though I'd think you'd have to ban the cleric and bard too for the same reasons.
Edit:
And as an example, I'm one of those people that is sure he could never be happy using a ruleset that you approved. I want magical wizards and I want a mundane and simple fighter. Both factor big in my games and both are fun for my groups.
Gnarl wrote:
The fighter can think out of the box and come up with creative ways to overcome challenges, he can use the enviornment to his advantage, he can use equipement and object like rope and grapple, he can do anything his creative player can think of given the tools at hand.
The wizard can do EVERYTHING the fighter can and still cast plenty of utility spells that help him and his allies overcome challenges.
I think the people who keep championing that fighters can do all this stuff forget the casters can do all that same stuff and more.
But to be honest that is kinda the point of the spellcasting classes, it is core to D&D experience for the most part.
Paraxis wrote:
I like potentially diverse wizard class spells. In fact, in my Lankhmar and Conan games we allow wizards to choose from ANY spell list, which makes it even more diverse.
That said, I've raised the spell level of some spells that I find cliche, overused, annoying or unbalanced. For example: magic missile, invisibility, survival spells (create/find food/water), massive explosions (fireball), detect evil/alignment, anything-to-do-wth-alignment, and stuff that always annoyed me in prior editions (grease, web, black tentacles, fly, etc) all got bumped a level. That list also included anything that the masters on the boards said "these spells are essential to an optimized such and such class."
We also required all spellcasters to take a non-spellcaster class at leas each 3 levels (e.g. fighter, rogue, aristocat', etc.)
That made for a much more interesting game that was magic-lower and required players to think beyond their character sheets (or at least LOOK at their skill lists).
I'm interested to see how I can ruin wizards in 5e for our upcoming Lankhmar game.
I cannot disagree though that an inordinate amount of the players guides are dedicated to spells.
I think if they gave unique options to martial classes like being able to cripple others instead of dmg...for instance when a thief sneak attacks he attacks a characters STR (like old MM shadows str dmg attack)...give the generic dmg dice to the casting class and give precision (deadly) attacks to the martials only. Anyway i have been playing since Dungeons and Dragons old boxed set red, blue, green and black master sets...played every edition and am super excited to play 5th! Anyone else reloading the page to see if the pdf is up like me ; ) ???
LupusRegalis wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
"For a great many of us, it feels unsatisfying to play when one or two classes can have all the answers. It doesn't matter that those answers are one-time use or once per day. It doesn't matter that the rogue can open locks all day long, whereas the wizard can Knock open a door only as many times as he has slots. What matters is that, for that moment, the rogue is rendered irrelevant. It's one thing for the wizard to do something amazing (summon fireballs, fly, teleport, etc) and another thing to do something amazing while stepping on the toes of a teammate."
While I agree with a lot you have said the knock spell is not useful if you want to be quiet.
Even more, if a wizard uses his spell slot for a knock spell if a rogue is with the party he deserves to be §$%ed for stupidity.
Yes, he can solve that problem as reserve Bobby if no rogue is arround. Only hope there are no guards behind that door in that case.
We can't ban Wizards, because "Of the Coast" would just look stupid as a logo.
I'm going to say that this topic and some of the discussion in here is against the spirit of the new forum rules, right? I mean, I think I see edition warring, or at least some mean spirited comparisoning (made that word up.)
Gnarl wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
DSZ wrote:
DSZ wrote:
LFK wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
I am ok with Wizards being powerful. Most fantasy fiction wizards tend to be powerful. I've never quite understood the need for rigid play balance among the classes. Each class has its niche but aren't necessarily equal. Each has its role to play. The idea of banning wizards in a fantasy rpg is inherently ridiculous, especially in D&D. If there is a need to level things out, then the DM can handle it -- there are risks and things that pursue only Wizards -- demons and devils, other wizards seeking spells; tomes that might drive them mad, etc, etc. Wizards should be powerful -- but power is not without cost.
mellored wrote:
Karathx wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and close this one as I don't think we can have any more meaningful conversation than what I'm seen in here already. Also, it's probably a good idea to get people playing for a bit, with all the options available to them, before we start claiming facts on how things play out.
LFK wrote: