Why are wizards so underrated by community

[Prorok]

I see a lot of admiration for warlock and sorcerer...and so few people simply recommend wizard. I can't understand it.

As a wizard:

1. I have enormous freedom of spells. Depending on the fight, I can set completely different ones. But I still have more of them than, for example, a sorcerer. I don't have to respec every now and then.
   
2. It's easier for me to experiment with different spells and have more fun playing the game
   
3. Use some spells from the conjuration and necromancy schools... and then change the slots to other spells. Currently, as a necromancer, I can go into battle with 9+ different creatures (2x imp, 4x skeletons, mummy, elemental, shovel) and there is also Danse Macabre...

[jack_of_tears]

I have no idea, I think it's just the "cool" thing to do. Gale is always in my party and never fails to demonstrate his worth.

[Forblaze]

Warlock and sorcerer are both significantly stronger in BG3 than in 5e. Warlock's multiattack stacks with other sources of multiattack, making it a really good multiclass option. Haste is probably the strongest spell in the game, and sorcerers being able to twin it is huge.

They're also both charisma based classes, which makes them suited for a main character.

[Knavenformed]

Originally posted by Forblaze:

They're also both charisma based classes, which makes them suited for a main character.

This.
Being able to make the whole battleground an advantage with the different tile based AOEs or a triple cast hold person just winning a battle completely, just talking your way to a favorable outcome while being a supportive powerhouse is phenomenal.

[Tenor Sounds]

Because most people who care to post about the "best" and "worst" classes are theory-crafting, trying to create the perfect character/party based on their stats and equipment; a Wizard's general versatility and role-play potential is not something they value as highly as more damage output and pumping their persuasion stat to the max.

[Veritas]

bg3 does not impose the 1 spell, 1 cantrip per turn restriction so blaster casters (so sorcerer, warlock namely) have a lot more burst than they "should." and this game is very encounter focused, they are handplaced, generally small with only a handful of "big" enemies in the fight, and often just one. So classes that frontload their power to wipe out targets have a massive advantage here. things like paladin smite, gloomstalker assassins, etc.

There also is no artificer so wizard multiclass prospects are pretty limited, especially with only 12 levels.

[Prorok]

Sure, metamagic is cool (goog example with haste)... but still... isn't it boring to play with the same spells almost all the time? Or doing respec often?

My main character is a wizard and currently I have 22 intelligence and 16 charisma, which is completely sufficient with proficiency.

[bzz]

Yeah ok you can have 9+ creatures on the battlefield but what about 2x haste ? I can chop down literal armies before you even end your first turn.

Now u know why

Originally posted by Prorok:

... but still... isn't it boring to play with the same spells almost all the time? Or doing respec often?

Why would it be boring ? You aren't playing one character, there are 3 other party members

[Broan]

It's not that they are underrated. Wizards are extremely useful and fun.

BUT I would never recommend a Wizard to a new player without making them a tutorial of sorts, Wizards have the longest Spelllist possible and that can and will be very overwhelming to many inexperienced Players to have too many options and having to read through every Spell and their mechanics.

This is even more true if said new Player never played D&D ever before. Having to learn all the Base mechanics of D&D requires some time and quite some reading - To load even way more stuff on them by recommending a Wizard is no goodwill imo. It can be frustrating very fast and that would be a shame, just because you overwhelm someone with one of the rather more complicated classes. Absolutely fun, versatile and powerful, but complicated to get into.

And on top of that i don't think it's that easy to understand what each wizard school exactly does and which they will have fun with, sure there are necromancy and illusion, self explanatory i guess, but the rest? not so much. Again needing more Time to read through to understand things.

And i don't think it's the best way to introduce a player to magic, let alone d&d in general, by letting them spend hours to read through stuff to understand their class.
Many people will be way better off with Sorcerer or Warlock due to their more straightforward mechanics and yes, obviously they are charisma based, which is always helpful for new players or in general because having good charisma on your main character is always a nice thing.

[Greenegg]

No fight requires a wizards versatility and wide array of tools. In a real D&D campaign the DM would tailor encounters around the parties composition and playstyle. In BG3 the game can't do that so all fights are made to be beaten by any party comp

what that means is that raw damage (like a fighter with 6 attacks, critting on a 16+) outclasses the situational utility wizards bring simply because damage is applicable in every situation.

Wizards aren't weak, a lot of their spells are extremely useful, but the game just isn't designed to take advantage of their strengths like a human DM would so they always kinda feel weaker than just bringing another class.

but as I said earlier, the game is balanced to be beaten by any comp, so they're still perfectly playable and viable.

[Horrorscope CC97]

Solasta they are king, but here they are still great, but as some said there are some stronger alternatives. They are still great AND they have all that spell utility for any occasions.

[アンジェル]

Originally posted by Prorok:

Why are wizards so underrated by community
I see a lot of admiration for warlock and sorcerer...and so few people simply recommend wizard. I can't understand it.

As a wizard:

1. I have enormous freedom of spells. Depending on the fight, I can set completely different ones. But I still have more of them than, for example, a sorcerer. I don't have to respec every now and then.
   
2. It's easier for me to experiment with different spells and have more fun playing the game
   
3. Use some spells from the conjuration and necromancy schools... and then change the slots to other spells. Currently, as a necromancer, I can go into battle with 9+ different creatures (2x imp, 4x skeletons, mummy, elemental, shovel) and there is also Danse Macabre...

Wizard is for the smart people. Not for those who underrate it.

[Scheneighnay]

Because DnD memes always stereotype them as always dying to everything and running out of spell slots after 5 seconds

[bzz]

Originally posted by アンジェル:

Wizard is for the smart people. Not for those who underrate it.

cope. if anything wizards are vegans of dnd

[Forblaze]

Originally posted by bzz:

cope. if anything wizards are vegans of dnd

That's what he said

[Prorok]

Originally posted by Broan der Rentner:

It's not that they are underrated. Wizards are extremely useful and fun.

BUT I would never recommend a Wizard to a new player without making them a tutorial of sorts, Wizards have the longest Spelllist possible and that can and will be very overwhelming to many inexperienced Players to have too many options and having to read through every Spell and their mechanics.

This seems to me to be a very good argument. Especially since I know how long it took me to get the different spells right :)