So...what is a Wizard's "Thing"?

[Thanatos 51-50]

I was speaking to a potential player who expressed interest in playing as an arcane spellcaster and asked me to give them the rundown on the class options he could take from that.

"Well," I told him "There's a Fighter subclass, a Rogue Subclass, a Bard, a --"
He then cut me off and clarified that he meant "real" Arcane casters, and not Bards.

Well, there's Wizards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers, right?

Sorcerors are *mainly* wellsprings of magical power. There's either the elemental-master, slightly-beefier Draconic version, or the "Fun stuff happens" Wild Magic guy.
Warlocks get fun powers, invocations, and their spells are always cast at max level all the time

Wizards...

I drew a blank.
"I think they know more spells?" I said, "Like, they can know the most with spellbook shenanigans?"

Is that... is that really their only "Thing"? Why would I choose, mechanically, to play a boring ol' Wizard over a Warlock or a Sorceror? They don't really have a cool spellcasting niche. I told him I'd look into it again,as I haven't looked at Wizards a lot (I'm not a fan of casters in general), and let him know.
I'm kind of drawing a blank here, guys.

Halp?

[Wartex1]

They're the academics, having the most spells known and largest spell list, having signature spells, and school specializations.

[JAL_1138]

First off, 5e bards are 9th-level casters who know more spells than sorcerers, can have better AC without spending spell slots, and can use a component pouch instead of an instrument--might want to point that out.

Second, yeah. School specialization buffs spells in that school or opens up better ways to use them--an Evocation specialist never has to worry about friendly fire on AoEs, for instance.

[Easy_Lee]

The expanded spell lists and school specializations are the reasons to pick wizard. Specializations are actually a big deal, with conjuration, divination, and illusion being some common favorites. At later levels, the signature spell thing lets them take two spells to cast infinitely, with misty step and shield being popular.

Wizards are the "I have a spell for that" class. The fun in playing a wizard comes from trying to find new spells, manage your spells, and figure out which spells you're going to need and when. A prepared wizard is more prepared than just about any class. Their polar opposite would be paladins, who are tanky and have a set of abilities that makes them moderately prepared for anything at all times, but seldom able to pull an immediate win short of a chain of smite crits.

[DivisibleByZero]

Warlocks are single target blasters with a couple of extra magical tricks, that can basically have either great out of combat utility or have respectable melee capability. They make outstanding scouts, or ritualists, or gishes, and are extremely flavorful no matter which path you choose.

Wizards can potentially always have the right tool for the job, but can only be really good at one school of magic. They specialize in one school, and can be adequate at pretty much any school.
They have extreme versatility in spellcasting, but only a focused specialization.
Their versatility comes from their adaptability.

Sorcerers are less adaptable and know less spells, but can do more with the ones that they do know. They may not always have the right tool for the job, but the tools that they have can be made even better.
Pretty much anything they can do can be considered a specialty, and that specialty can change as the situation warrants, but with a limited tool kit they aren't considered versatile. Their versatility comes not from their adaptability like the wizard's, but from the small set of magic that they know becoming more versatile than any other caster.

[Safety Sword]

Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space.

[SharkForce]

specialization is not required in a school to be really good at that school. a diviner wizard can make perfectly good use of enchantment spells, or evocation spells, or transmutation spells.

but anyways, basically wizards are the class that can know pretty much all spells on their list, potentially. practically speaking, that is seldom possible, and in the case of some spells not desirable (mordenkainen's sword, for example). but they do have the biggest and best spell list of all the arcane casters, and are the only arcane caster with even the theoretical chance to have access to every spell on their list.

[Ashrym]

At his response to bard you have my permission to have applied gentle mocking at his request for help with a closed mind. ;-)

Too bad he's not a bard fan. They are rather fun.

On topic, wizards are scholarly and the only arcane class that uses spell preparation and a spell book. They have the widest variety of spell options among the arcane casters. Typically this gives them the biggest tool box.

[PhantomRenegade]

Yeah its pretty much what people have said here, Wizards are the academics, the ones who know magic.

A sorcerer might be able to cast spells but he probably only understands them on an instinctual level, a wizard on the other hand would be able to tell you exactly what makes a particular spell tick on a systemic level.

They are also the ones who get the most spells yes, but that's not a small thing, they have a huge pool of spells and thus are extremely adaptable, while at the same time being able to perform true magical feats in their particular school of specialization.

[Easy_Lee]

specialization is not required in a school to be really good at that school. a diviner wizard can make perfectly good use of enchantment spells, or evocation spells, or transmutation spells.

Indeed, diviners have to considering that the divination school does not have many spells to begin with. However, diviners have two of the most universally useful features: Portent and Expert Divination.

[SharkForce]

Indeed, diviners have to considering that the divination school does not have many spells to begin with. However, diviners have two of the most universally useful features: Portent and Expert Divination.

my point was merely that anyone claiming that, say, a non-conjurer wizard can't be good at conjuring things is being silly.

a conjurer will be a better conjurer than an evoker, and an evoker will be better at evoking than an illusionist, and an illusionist will be better at using illusions than a conjurer. but the conjurer and illusionist can throw a perfectly good fireball, the illusionist and evoker can summon an elemental without any difficulties, and the conjurer and evoker can make perfectly good use of a phantasmal force or a hallucinatory terrain.

each gets some little perks in their specialization, but each of them are also fully capable spellcasters in the other areas of specialization.

the same can be said of any specialization, and in the right campaign any specialization can be a good choice (necromancers in particular suffer in campaigns where your party isn't comfortable with you having undead minions).

[Thanatos 51-50]

So, okay. Wizards do just get the most toys. Noted.

Since it has come up: Conjuration is the school that really jumped out at me, too, along with illusionists and transmuters alchemists.
I think abjurers might fit his particular play style best, though.

[Slipperychicken]

Why would I choose, mechanically, to play a boring ol' Wizard over a Warlock or a Sorceror? They don't really have a cool spellcasting niche. I told him I'd look into it again,as I haven't looked at Wizards a lot (I'm not a fan of casters in general), and let him know.
I'm kind of drawing a blank here, guys.

They get "spellbook shenanigans" (i.e. spells known is limited only by gold, downtime, and the DM's whims), high knowledge and investigation skills (which a competent DM will make useful by allowing them to find monsters' weaknessss and maybe extra treasure), and their specialization perk. Also, their rituals and preparation mechanic mean that they can take a lot of situational spells (such as detect magic, identify) without worrying much about the opportunity cost. Then, they can be well-prepared when the time comes for those spells. Also saves you a lot of hassle if your DM is the type who thinks short-resting to identify a magic item is too easy.

[Capac Amaru]

When a daddy mage loves a mommy mage very much, he takes his magic wand and...

[Easy_Lee]

When a daddy mage loves a mommy mage very much, he takes his magic wand and...

And his robe and wizard's hat?

[Capac Amaru]

And his robe and wizard's hat?

They both put on their robe and wizard's hat, obviously. Otherwise it won't work properly.

[TheOOB]

Fluff wise, wizards are academic mages.

Mechanics wise wizards are the most pure spellcasters of any of the classes. They have the most varied and powerful of the spell lists, can can learn and cast as many of those spells as they can get away with. Virtually all of their abilities make them better casters, but outside of their casting they have very little.

[Grek]

In 5e, Wizard is the arcane class that gets the most Spells Known. Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock all get limited numbers of spells while Wizards get to learn as many as they want/can afford.

[Kane0]

They're also pretty much the only INT based class so far, so being almost the only class without INT as a dump stat is definitely a niche.

[Slipperychicken]

They're also pretty much the only INT based class so far, so being almost the only class without INT as a dump stat is definitely a niche.

I think it's also worth mentioning that magical traps can be both detected and disabled by Intelligence(Arcana): A skill which the wizard will have the highest modifier in, unless a high-level rogue or bard decided at first level that he really needed expertise in Arcana rather than the usual picks like stealth, perception, or sleight of hand.

[Dhavaer]

They have a better spell list than sorcerers or warlocks, aren't beholden to anyone for their powers (unlike warlocks) and have subclasses in the PHB that don't make them scaly or self-destructive (unlike sorcerers).

[Shining Wrath]

A Wizard is the smartest guy in the room, unless there's another Wizard in the room.

A Wizard has a spell book, which is both good and bad.

A Wizard can cast more and better rituals than anyone else.

What others have said about the goodness of specialization.

[goto124]

I want to make a modern wizard. Like the normal wizard, but refluffed to cast spells out of her smartphone.

'There's an app for that.'

[Chronos]

Not only do wizards have the largest spell list, but that spell list also contains a lot more in the way of situational and utility spells than the other casters' do. Want a familiar? Wizard. Want to magically lock doors? Wizard. Want to make a magic item look nonmagical? Wizard. Want to be a one-person factory? Wizard. And that's just at low levels-- I haven't even gotten to the things like living in a castle literally made out of magic, that you can completely redesign every week.

Between this, their excellent ritual casting ability, and their preparing whichever spells they want each day, wizards are the best at general utility.

[Bigby]

I want to make a modern wizard. Like the normal wizard, but refluffed to cast spells out of her smartphone.

'There's an app for that.'

Why does this sound so awesome.

[Safety Sword]

Why does this sound so awesome.

Because sadly, that is what society has been reduced to...

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, Aaron Williams (of Nodwick and PS238 fame) has a webcomic called Use Sword on Monster which includes a wizard who uses a tablet to cast spells.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Because sadly, that is what society has been reduced to...

This is a new meaning of the word `reduced` not previously known to me.

[Ardantis]

I think it's also worth mentioning that magical traps can be both detected and disabled by Intelligence(Arcana): A skill which the wizard will have the highest modifier in, unless a high-level rogue or bard decided at first level that he really needed expertise in Arcana rather than the usual picks like stealth, perception, or sleight of hand.

I did not know that. Thank you for posting it.

[Stan]

Wizards are the nerds of magic. Sorcerers and Warlocks get magic handed to them so never take the time to really understand it. It's like the difference between someone who watches baseball because they played in high school and someone who watches baseball because they're a stats geek.

Because of their geekish intensity to magic, wizards can do more with it than anyone - more spells, can switch out spells daily, better use of rituals, and specialization toys.

[ruy343]

There have been many regurgitations of the fact that wizards are the academics of the game, and that they have the right tool for the job, biggest spell list, etc. However, to essentially summarize everything that has been said into a list, with a few points of my own:


They know approximately twice as many spells as other casters, and with a long rest can prepare specifically for their upcoming encounters
They can learn spells outside of leveling up (when you find a scroll, you could choose to learn the spell instead of casting it, for example)
The abilities of their chosen schools often give you great RP opportunities (transmuter, conjurer, illusionist, and enchanter all come to mind). They often get abilities that allow for creative, outside-the-box thinking, which other classes are often limited in.
Wizards are great support/team players, because they get greater freedom in the spells they can know and prepare. At highest level, they can prepare 25 different spells per day (choosing among them for which ones to cast), while sorcerers can only know 15 spells overall.
At the highest levels, wizards can cast several lower-level spells at will, which is downright awesome.


Hope that helps.

[Safety Sword]

This is a new meaning of the word `reduced` not previously known to me.

Society used to have people who could do all sorts of things such as spell words, use the correct words in sentences, communicate verbally and in written form in a recognised language and work whilst not constantly looking down into a mobile device.

The reduction I speak to is that of human spirit and real socialising and networking (as opposed to "social networking").

It's all down hill from here, humans.

[Dhavaer]

Society used to have people who could do all sorts of things such as spell words, use the correct words in sentences, communicate verbally and in written form in a recognised language and work whilst not constantly looking down into a mobile device.

The reduction I speak to is that of human spirit and real socialising and networking (as opposed to "social networking").

It's all down hill from here, humans.

Society used to have people who could recite epic poems from memory. *sigh* Writing ruined so much.

[Ashrym]

They know approximately twice as many spells as other casters, and with a long rest can prepare specifically for their upcoming encounters

Preparation is an important distinction but twice as many known sounds inaccurate unless I am misunderstanding.

25 prepared plus 2 for the signature spell capstone, some traditions get a bonus spell known. Valor bards get 22 spells known and lore bards get 24 spells known. Warlocks get 15 known plus 4 arcanum for 19 plus some SLA's in the invocations. A typical 20th level warlock would have 21-23 spells known similar to bards and can get up to wizards.

Out of those 4 arcane casters it's only sorcerers that have the really limited spells known in comparison to wizards.

[Shining Wrath]

Society used to have people who could recite epic poems from memory. *sigh* Writing ruined so much.

Society used to have people who knew how to knew how to eat raw meat right off the bone.

Fire was a step backward.

[Wartex1]

Society used to have people who knew how to knew how to eat raw meat right off the bone.

Fire was a step backward.

Society used to have people who knew how to absorb nutrients via osmosis.

One-way digestive systems ruined so much.

[Slipperychicken]

Society used to have people who could recite epic poems from memory. *sigh* Writing ruined so much.

Society used to have people who could drink the same water their neighbors defecated in. Parents these days don't even let children wallow in their own urine anymore, much less someone else's. Plumbing ruined that experience for us.

[PhantomRenegade]

Society used to have people who knew how to absorb nutrients via osmosis.

One-way digestive systems ruined so much.Society used to have complete lack of entropy.

The Big Bang ruined everything.

[Safety Sword]

See, many examples of man's backward progress...:smallamused:

Edit: Apologies for the thread hostage taking...

[Chronos]

Actually, linguistic skills are at an all-time high, largely thanks to all the devices we carry around. People who text all day are better at communication than people who don't, because they get a lot more practice at it.

[Psikerlord]

The wizard is the most versatile arcane caster in the game. That's their thing. Sorcerer spell lists are very small. Bards aren't too bad, but don't really have any blasty stuff. Plus some specialization abilities are strong (eg diviner, enchanter, evoker)

[Ashrym]

Actually, linguistic skills are at an all-time high, largely thanks to all the devices we carry around. People who text all day are better at communication than people who don't, because they get a lot more practice at it.

It's short lived when they hit or get hit by a bus. Great focus, poor multitasking. Possibly not the evolutionary step forward one might think.

[Wartex1]

It's short lived when they hit or get hit by a bus. Great focus, poor multitasking. Possibly not the evolutionary step forward one might think.

That's called natural selection.

[Ashrym]

That's called natural selection.

Good call. :)

[ChubbyRain]

Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space.

Actually rope trick isn't that bad on space and neither is the Magnificent Mansion spell.

OP:

Wizards are really whatever you want them to be. You can straight up make any general type of character.

Controller? Yes
Defender? Yes
Leader? Yes
Striker? Yes

And what's more is that they can switch up their tactics any day or within a single battle and not worry about it. Since they don't have to assign specific spells to be cast out of specific slots... They become very flexible with their casting.

Are they the most broken class? That probably goes to the cleric. But they can be anything you want them to be with a little bit of work and still have almost all their other options in their back pocket.

This is like if you could choose to be a champion fighter or a battle master within the same combat. One round you are a champion and the next round you are a battle master.

[Safety Sword]

Actually, linguistic skills are at an all-time high, largely thanks to all the devices we carry around. People who text all day are better at communication than people who don't, because they get a lot more practice at it.

What a load of bull.

[ChubbyRain]

What a load of bull.

I wish I was good at internet slang in order to prove your point but I literally can't type how the next generation speaks online and via text. Some weird shorthand witchcraft is what it is.

[goto124]

I can't seem to find the magitablet in the Use Sword On Monster comic, any help please?

[HoarsHalberd]

What a load of bull.

Can we please stop the generation war here. Every generation in living memory has, rightly or wrongly, thought the generation after them were worse and generally find themselves unable to shift from this position due to either cognitive dissonance or being correct depending on your point of view. Now everyone stop. I just summed up the next twenty posts of unhelpful back and forth nonsense.

On Topic: Wizards in 5e are basically the most versatile magic class, and the best way to explain them to a newcomer is to explain their subclasses, as they have the most effect on the role or "thing" the Wizard will do. An evoker is the most blasty wizard and the most "reliable" blaster, the illusionist is bar none the best at illusion magic, the necromancer is the undisputed best necromancer... etc etc.

[Elderand]

I think wizard being great ritual casters hasn't come up enough.
Yes anyone can get the equivalent through a feat and tome warlock can get an even better version but both of those have opportunity cost (very high one for the feat, slightly lower one for the warlock)

Every wizard do it natively and better than any other class with native ritual casting. They are superb at it. That mean any wizard can have some good utility spells on hand no matter what he prepared for the day, that's invaluable and boost their in play versatility a lot.
In fact, if you have a wizard in the party it boost every other caster versatility since it allows them to prepare different spells. (the ranger doesn't need to prepare alarm if the wizard has it in his book)

[Gwendol]

I don't quite understand why clerics and druids aren't being listed for comparison. They too are full casters.
The divine/arcane divide is less than it used to be.

[comk59]

I'm AFB, but is an actual distinction between an arcane spell and a divine spell even there any more? I remember that it used to be part of the spell description back in 3rd, but I don't know if that's the case in 5e.

[hymer]

I'm AFB, but is an actual distinction between an arcane spell and a divine spell even there any more? I remember that it used to be part of the spell description back in 3rd, but I don't know if that's the case in 5e.

The FR Weave of Magic is explained in the PHB, so there is a distinction between Arcane and Divine Magic in fluff. But I'd be hard pressed to come up with a rules difference in what we have so far.

[Yuki Akuma]

Too bad he doesn't like Bards. They're actually one of the most (if not the most) versatile full casters in the game now.

[Naanomi]

Arcane and Divine magic are formally defined but don't matter outside of setting stuff (elemental evil module calls on the distinction for the laws of their main town)

[Dimcair]

So, okay. Wizards do just get the most toys. Noted.



If you feed the wizard appropriate amounts of spells.

If the Wizard does not find a lot of spells it looks like that: 8th level Cleric has roughly 100 spells to choose from, a 8th level Wizard 30.

/edit: Also, their lvl 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls.... yay....


correct me if i am wrong

[Elderand]

/edit: Also, their lvl 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls.... yay....


correct me if i am wrong

Signature spell is significantly better than creating two 3rd level scrolls.
It's 2 extra third level spell prepared, cast for free once each per short rest and also able to cast them normaly.

[SharkForce]

If you feed the wizard appropriate amounts of spells.

If the Wizard does not find a lot of spells it looks like that: 8th level Cleric has roughly 100 spells to choose from, a 8th level Wizard 30.

/edit: Also, their lvl 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls.... yay....


correct me if i am wrong

their level 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls... per short rest. also, those spells are added to their spells prepared, which means a level 20 wizard with 20 int actually has 27 spells prepared (assuming no magical items that boost int beyond 20), not 25.

having said that, the wizard generally has a better spell list, even if they don't inherently get to choose from the full list, and even if they didn't, practically speaking not all spells are equally valuable. having the top 20 (not 30 btw) out of 100 is actually almost as good as having the full 100 in many cases. though obviously, if available, it's still nice to have the full 20.

just saying though, i'm not going to lose *too* much sleep over not having leomund's trap or nystul's dweomer spells in my spellbook. if i could add them, i totally would (just because they aren't *usually* useful doesn't mean they will never be useful). but if the DM told me i couldn't find them, i wouldn't be all that worried, either.

[Dimcair]

their level 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls... per short rest. also, those spells are added to their spells prepared, which means a level 20 wizard with 20 int actually has 27 spells prepared (assuming no magical items that boost int beyond 20), not 25.


Only marginally better than having two scrolls,
but the point I was trying to make is that I find that
in the light of other lvl 20 features the feature is on the weaker side, so I would not bring out the signature spells as a major benefit that somehow makes Wizards completely different from other spell casters.




having said that, the wizard generally has a better spell list, even if they don't inherently get to choose from the full list, and even if they didn't, practically speaking not all spells are equally valuable. having the top 20 (not 30 btw) out of 100 is actually almost as good as having the full 100 in many cases. though obviously, if available, it's still nice to have the full 20.


Absolutely right, but the same here. Wizards are often called the most versatile casters, but it really depends on your DM. If its one of those 'I hate magic and I am super stingy about it' kind of guys you will most likely just break even with the selection of other spell casters.

[HoarsHalberd]

If you feed the wizard appropriate amounts of spells.

If the Wizard does not find a lot of spells it looks like that: 8th level Cleric has roughly 100 spells to choose from, a 8th level Wizard 30.

/edit: Also, their lvl 20 class feature is the ability to save the cost of creating two level 3 scrolls.... yay....


correct me if i am wrong

I have no idea where you got 100. Cleric's have 60 spells to choose from. Likewise an 8th level wizard will have 16 assuming they have had no chance to get their hands on any other sources.

And their level 20 class feature is: X+1 free castings of two level 3 spells per day where X is the number of short rests you get. And also +2 spells prepared per day. Even if you don't get any short rests, the +2 spells prepared is worth it and it gives one free casting of each spell.


Only marginally better than having two scrolls,
but the point I was trying to make is that I find that
in the light of other lvl 20 features the feature is on the weaker side, so I would not bring out the signature spells as a major benefit that somehow makes Wizards completely different from other spell casters.

No, it isn't marginally better than having two scrolls. The recommended daily amount of short rests is 2-3. Thus it is 3-4 times better than having two scrolls just from that half of the ability. It also gives you +2 spells prepared. Which is kind of a big deal as it gives 8% more spells ready for that day than you would otherwise. Having a spell scroll won't allow you to cast the spell on it with your slots.


Absolutely right, but the same here. Wizards are often called the most versatile casters, but it really depends on your DM. If its one of those 'I hate magic and I am super stingy about it' kind of guys you will most likely just break even with the selection of other spell casters.

Well every class gets shafted by an antagonistic DM. "The entire dungeon is covered with phosphorescent moss and is made up of open corridors with loud squeaky doors." "Well that's the rogue buggered." "We're doing a delicate, political intrigue story where deception is key." "Would have been nice to know before I made my Oath of Devotion paladin." Etc, etc.

[SharkForce]

you're kidding right?

fighter capstone: 4th attack per round.
ranger capstone: not even worth mentioning.
bard capstone: you always have at least 1 inspiration at the start of a fight.
sorcerer capstone: you recover 4 spell points (not enough to buy even one level 3 spell, if you were wondering) on a short rest.
monk capstone: you always have at least 4 ki at the start of a fight.
cleric capstone: you are guaranteed to summon your deity instead of having a chance to. once per week. and there goes the game, because seriously, who thought it was a good idea to include this ability? the DM has either planned for it, and it does very little, or hasn't planned for it, and there goes all the hard work they put into the session.


the wizard capstone is solidly superior to these. it isn't druid or barbarian capstone levels of awesome, but it is pretty danged good. it takes one of your major weaknesses (limited resources) and greatly reduces it. i don't get why people think level 3 spells are not good. they're freaking amazing. they have the same DC as your level 9 spells, and the effects can be devastating; a fear or hypnotic pattern in the right place can cost most of your enemies their next round. a fireball can clear out dozens of mooks that would have been a major nuisance. a counterspell at the right time can turn an entire fight around.

getting more resources on a class where practically speaking the only thing keeping it from dominating every fight is resources is not a bad capstone.

it isn't the most amazing capstone in the game. but then again, the most amazing capstone in the game (druid) is generally considered to be ridiculously OP, so i'm not too worried about that.

[Dimcair]

Level three spells are good, but aren't they also just the level of spells you can put on a scroll? And a scroll usually just equals gold.

If you have the gold you have the scrolls, what do you save/gain except for gold?

There are some instances where scrolls could be rendered less useful but other than that? So I get a level 20 feature that I can buy? No thanks, I'd like something that actually adds flavor to a class.

[ChubbyRain]

I actually think that every level 20 capstone should be as crazy powerful as the druid's.

Make everyone stupid powerful at that level and you don't need to worry about PC to PC balance.

[HoarsHalberd]

Level three spells are good, but aren't they also just the level of spells you can put on a scroll? And a scroll usually just equals gold.

If you have the gold you have the scrolls, what do you save/gain except for gold?

There are some instances where scrolls could be rendered less useful but other than that? So I get a level 20 feature that I can buy? No thanks, I'd like something that actually adds flavor to a class.

The ability to cast the spells however you want in addition to the free uses of it. +2 Spells prepared per day is already better than the bard, sorcerer or ranger capstones. Not to mention that over the course of a three day dungeon grind it's equivalent to taking 18-24 spell scrolls of those spells with you. And third level spells is 20 days to make one. Which means it would take around a year of preparation to make that number of spell scrolls for a three day romp. If you're on a week long romp it would take over 2 years prep time.

[BW022]

Is that... is that really their only "Thing"? Why would I choose, mechanically, to play a boring ol' Wizard over a Warlock or a Sorceror? They don't really have a cool spellcasting niche. I told him I'd look into it again,as I haven't looked at Wizards a lot (I'm not a fan of casters in general), and let him know.
I'm kind of drawing a blank here, guys.

Halp?

The wizard does have a niche.

Offensive Spells
The wizard is on-par with the sorcerer with respect to offensive spells. If you want to blast enemies using magic missile, fireballs, or meteor swarms... either class is fine. Both have good defensive spells. The wizard does have more crowd control spells. The sorcerer's font and meta-magic can give them slightly more burst damage, but wizard with arcane recovery and larger spell selections is usually tops. Sorcerer may only have say fireball. If you know you are going up against a fire giant... not much the sorcerer can do. Wizard can easily have both fireball and lightning bolt in their spell book and prepare the most appropriate one.

Utility Spells
The wizard is pretty much the king of these -- other than extremely specific situation such as druids outdoors. They have a later spell list than other classes, their spells are more widely distributed, they can learn any spell (i.e. copy it into their spell book for just gold), far more of their spells are rituals, and they are the only class (other than ritual casting feat) which can cast ritual spells without preparing them. The later is huge as it means they can fill their spell books with rituals and still be able to cast alarm, comprehend languages, detect magic, etc. without having to waste prepare slots or spells known on these. A sorcerer is loath to take detect magic or comprehend languages at first level as this is half their known slots.

Knowledge Skills
The wizard is likely to have the best knowledge skills over most other classes due to their likely higher intelligence. Arcana, history, nature, and religion are a niche in non-combat situations. In some campaigns (political settings, researching, mysteries, etc.) a wizard can certainly be useful. And in combat, wizard is far more likely to know specific weaknesses, abilities, etc. of monsters they are likely to face. Even a non-trained wizard is likely to have a better knowledge than most classes which have the skill until extremely high levels.

Familiar
Depends upon how your DM runs the campaign, but in most situations a familiar is a massive advantage. As a scout, a hawk, bat, or rat is far better than a typical ranger or rogue. As spies, they can sit outside a window and listen to conversations. As guards they can do watches as wake people. They provide the wizard with extra perception checks. They might be able to answer questions or remind the wizard of something. They can carry messages. Possible make distractions.

For this feature alone, I would take a wizard over sorcerer in any solo or two person party.


Warlocks are not primary casters. For much of the campaign, they may only get two or maybe three per short rest and have only one spell per 6th+ level spells. They can only typically cast one spell per combat and then need to rely on weapons, armour, eldritch blast, and evocations. They have few direct damaging spells. Bards lack the offensive spell punch and tend to rely on weapons, armour, and buffs during combat. Warlocks are not primary spell casters -- they only have two or three spells per short rest through much of their progression and only one daily spell per level above 5th. Pretty much one spell per combat which is typically a buff/defensive spell and then they have to rely on weapons, armour, or eldritch blast. Sorcerers are likely the closest. It is then a personal preference. Sorcerer might be slightly better at blasting, but wizards are more flexible.

[Shining Wrath]

you're kidding right?

fighter capstone: 4th attack per round.
ranger capstone: not even worth mentioning.
bard capstone: you always have at least 1 inspiration at the start of a fight.
sorcerer capstone: you recover 4 spell points (not enough to buy even one level 3 spell, if you were wondering) on a short rest.
monk capstone: you always have at least 4 ki at the start of a fight.
cleric capstone: you are guaranteed to summon your deity instead of having a chance to. once per week. and there goes the game, because seriously, who thought it was a good idea to include this ability? the DM has either planned for it, and it does very little, or hasn't planned for it, and there goes all the hard work they put into the session.


the wizard capstone is solidly superior to these. it isn't druid or barbarian capstone levels of awesome, but it is pretty danged good. it takes one of your major weaknesses (limited resources) and greatly reduces it. i don't get why people think level 3 spells are not good. they're freaking amazing. they have the same DC as your level 9 spells, and the effects can be devastating; a fear or hypnotic pattern in the right place can cost most of your enemies their next round. a fireball can clear out dozens of mooks that would have been a major nuisance. a counterspell at the right time can turn an entire fight around.

getting more resources on a class where practically speaking the only thing keeping it from dominating every fight is resources is not a bad capstone.

it isn't the most amazing capstone in the game. but then again, the most amazing capstone in the game (druid) is generally considered to be ridiculously OP, so i'm not too worried about that.

The PHB suggests that the most likely form of a deity's response is to grant the cleric a power equivalent to a clerical spell - which is not the same as to personally appear and solve the encounter by fiat.

Druid capstone of unlimited Wild Shapes is full-on awesome with awesome sauce.

[Chronos]

Oh, and in reference to the thread title, A Wizard's Staff has a Knob at the End.

[Strill]

Wizards can learn an unlimited number of spells, can recover spell slots on a short rest, and get their arcane school specializations. They also get a familiar.

[Vogonjeltz]

Is that... is that really their only "Thing"? Why would I choose, mechanically, to play a boring ol' Wizard over a Warlock or a Sorceror? They don't really have a cool spellcasting niche. I told him I'd look into it again,as I haven't looked at Wizards a lot (I'm not a fan of casters in general), and let him know.
I'm kind of drawing a blank here, guys.

The Ritual casters are Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

Out of those, Wizard has the most ritual spells (17), followed by Druid (12), Cleric (12), Bard (12)

It's unique (unshared by the other ritual casters) spells are: Alarm, Contact Other Plane, Find Familiar, Phantom Steed, Rary's Telepathic Bond, and Tenser's Floating Disk


Ritual Spells broken down by class access:
Alarm - w1
Animal Messenger - d2, b2
Augury - c2
Beast Sense - d2
Commune - c5
Commune with Nature - d5
Comprehend Languages - w1, b2
Contact Other Plane - w5
Detect Magic - w1, d1, c1, b1
Detect Poisons and Disease - d1, c1
Divination - c4
Drawmij's Instant Summons - w6
Feign Death - w3, d3, c3, b3
Find Familiar - w1
Forbiddance - c6
Gentle Repose - w2, c2
Identify - w1. b1
Illusory Script - w1, b1
Leomund's Tiny Hut - w3, b3
Locate Animals or Plants - d2, b2
Magic Mouth - w2, b2
Meld Into Stone - d3, c3
Phantom Steed - w3
Purify Food and Drink - d1, c1
Rary's Telepathic Bond - w5
Silence - c2, b2
Speak with Animals - d1, b1
Tenser's Floating Disk - w1
Unseen Servant - w1, b1
Water Breathing - w3, d3
Water Walk - d3, c3



This is a new meaning of the word `reduced` not previously known to me.

If I asked you what the hell Wizard's get, would I regret it?

[RedMage125]

He then cut me off and clarified that he meant "real" Arcane casters, and not Bards.


OP: Your friend is seriously mistaken, and it probably stems from familiarity with previous editions.

Bards are now full-casters with 9th level spells, which they can cast wearing armor.

Despite being arcane casters, bards have healing spells on their list, which, combined with Song of Rest, means that nobody "needs" to play the party cleric/druid, because a Bard CAN adequately be the healer for a party of 4-5 characters, in addition to the buffs/debuffs the bard is used to.

Valor Bards are a better "gish" class than the Eldritch Knight, with full casting, medium armor and all weapon proficiencies.

All in all, I would say Bards are more of a "real" caster than a warlock. Warlocks get their spell slots back on a short rest, but still have only 2 or 3 spell slots for most levels of play. Their cantrips are better than anyone else's, yes. But those are still cantrips. Warlocks are ranged blasters (bladelocks are melee skirmishers) with a limited capacity for utility magic. And in my experience, a lot of those spell slots get used on spells that are combat-related, such as Hex, Infernal Rebuke, etc.

I think your wizard question has been answered pretty well.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

If I asked you what the hell Wizard's get, would I regret it?

I'm sorry? My statement was merely in reference to Safety Sword's both decrying modern society and possibly suggesting that the `there's an app for that` wizard wouldn't be awesome.

If you asked me what the hell Wizards get (away, vile apostrophe!), I would essentially repeat what everyone else has said about versatility and knowing all the spells. Also, Portent. Nothing like telling the DM `you fail the save`.

[Wartex1]

OP: Your friend is seriously mistaken, and it probably stems from familiarity with previous editions.

Bards are now full-casters with 9th level spells, which they can cast wearing armor.

Despite being arcane casters, bards have healing spells on their list, which, combined with Song of Rest, means that nobody "needs" to play the party cleric/druid, because a Bard CAN adequately be the healer for a party of 4-5 characters, in addition to the buffs/debuffs the bard is used to.

Valor Bards are a better "gish" class than the Eldritch Knight, with full casting, medium armor and all weapon proficiencies.

All in all, I would say Bards are more of a "real" caster than a warlock. Warlocks get their spell slots back on a short rest, but still have only 2 or 3 spell slots for most levels of play. Their cantrips are better than anyone else's, yes. But those are still cantrips. Warlocks are ranged blasters (bladelocks are melee skirmishers) with a limited capacity for utility magic. And in my experience, a lot of those spell slots get used on spells that are combat-related, such as Hex, Infernal Rebuke, etc.

I think your wizard question has been answered pretty well.

I wouldn't call a Bard a "real" Arcane caster because I don't see a Bard as Arcane.

A Bard, to me, is the Red Mage to the Wizard's Black Mage and the Cleric's White Mage. It combines the two, but isn't really either.

[Ashrym]

I wouldn't call a Bard a "real" Arcane caster because I don't see a Bard as Arcane.

A Bard, to me, is the Red Mage to the Wizard's Black Mage and the Cleric's White Mage. It combines the two, but isn't really either.

Bards can follow the red mage tropes but not all bards are the red mage trope.

A bard who learns fireball, dispel magic, bestow curse, phantasmal force, invisibilty, suggestion, sleep, charm person, thunderwave, tasha's hideous laughter, and dissonant whispers knows more spells from the similar lists than a warlock or sorcerer does, and about the same as a wizard prepares. That's at 6th level when a lore bard knows 11 arcane spells when a wizard can prepare 10 spells, usually.

The bard is arcane per the PHB and runs standard spell progression. Your perception is your block and not someone else's. That bard can be the red mage, or the white mage, or the black mage. It all depends on spells selected.

Bards are arcane casters who rely more on skill and inspiration than other arcane casters, and have the broadest selection of spells.

Not entertaining the bard as an alternative to a wizard is a bit closeminded when both are arcane casters built around utility with a wide variety of control spells, particularly with many shared spells in the list.

[Wartex1]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that there is no "divine" or "arcane" separation in 5E at all, and the Red Mage concept wasn't that the bard was terrible at both, but that the bard had a more mixed spell list, so it has more of a Red Mage flavor.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that there is no "divine" or "arcane" separation in 5E at all, and the Red Mage concept wasn't that the bard was terrible at both, but that the bard had a more mixed spell list, so it has more of a Red Mage flavor.

I too found no difference in the way magic functions, only its source. I don't think that red mages were ever meant to have multiple sources of magic, more that they were meant to have spells from both clerical "white mages" and wizardly "black mages."

[Ashrym]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that there is no "divine" or "arcane" separation in 5E at all, and the Red Mage concept wasn't that the bard was terrible at both, but that the bard had a more mixed spell list, so it has more of a Red Mage flavor.

The thing is, the list has a lot of options but the bard can't learn them all. It's an active choice to be the red mage. The variety in the list substitutes for more subclasses. 5 bards in a party can give us a nature list, cleric substitute, controller wizard list, mixed red mage list, and a diviner / necromancer list for 5 completely different spell casting concepts. That's what happens when the list is broad, learned instead of prepared, and 1/3 spells is from any spell list in the game. If the spells were prepared then they would definitely have access to the redmage concept regardless but the current system enforces customization which leads to the choice of a variety of styles.

My current lore bard has no healing spells or status removal and doesn't plan on taking any. He's the scholarly arcanist style.



As for separation of divine and arcane in 5e....





The Weave of Magic


The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.


Mortals can’t directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can't light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn. But surrounded by the Weave, a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast foes, transport hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or even reverse death itself.


All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding— learned or intuitive—of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power— gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.


Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell. And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways— or not at all.

"The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic."
"The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic."



"sasha1985 ‏@sasha19851 23 Aug 2013
@mikemearls will bard be arcane or something left up to the player?


Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 25 Aug 2013
@sasha19851 arcane"


Edit: not that there's any real mechanical difference in arcane vs divine. Class lists have mechanics based on classes and it's more accurate to state bards cast bardic magic while wizards cast wizardly magic. The fact that both are different types of arcane magic has very little meaning. A better way of putting it might be that bards aren't the right flavour of arcane magic for you.

[VoxRationis]

Well every class gets shafted by an antagonistic DM.... "We're doing a delicate, political intrigue story where deception is key." "Would have been nice to know before I made my Oath of Devotion paladin." Etc, etc.

Said Steve Rogers' player when the second movie came around.

[RedMage125]

The thing is, the list has a lot of options but the bard can't learn them all. It's an active choice to be the red mage. The variety in the list substitutes for more subclasses. 5 bards in a party can give us a nature list, cleric substitute, controller wizard list, mixed red mage list, and a diviner / necromancer list for 5 completely different spell casting concepts. That's what happens when the list is broad, learned instead of prepared, and 1/3 spells is from any spell list in the game. If the spells were prepared then they would definitely have access to the redmage concept regardless but the current system enforces customization which leads to the choice of a variety of styles.
The funny thing is, this relates to something I refer to as Red Mage Fallacy.

The summation of which is "Versatility In Choice is not an advantage if that Choice cannot be changed".

I named it thus back in 4e when people were discussing how Humans' floating +2 to any one stat was "balanced" against all other races +2 to two fixed stats (this was further exacerbated by other races getting a choice between stats for the second +2). Basically, once you decide on a stat for your human PC (let's say DEX for a Rogue), it is locked, and you are now behind all other +2 DEX races that also have a bonus to another stat.

But the concept also applies to things like a glut of feats (which is why the 3.5e Fighter sucks so bad, but the PF Fighter is better).

As far as the 5e Bard, it really only applies marginally, as the Bard's choice of spells can be changed one at a time when he levels, but for the most part, as you said, the Bard chooses what kind of spell list to build and more or less sticks with it, being a "healer", a "gish", a "red mage", an "enchanter", or an "illusionist" or whatever, as he sees fit.



My current lore bard has no healing spells or status removal and doesn't plan on taking any. He's the scholarly arcanist style.



Funny, My Dragonborn Valor Bard goes with a "Warrior Skald" concept. He's a warrior and a keeper of lore and tales of honor. His instrument was a hunting horn, which was great flavor for spells like Thunderwave and Sleep (blows in the horn and blasts them back, or a low note drops them). He does have Cure Wounds for out-of combat healing. I've since taken War Caster, so I no nlonger need an instrument.

The instrument he uses for Song of Rest, however, is Bagpipes :D I want you all to imagine a 7 foot tall dragon-man in half-plate playing the bagpipes while he and his companions chill out for an hour. Lulz ensue.

[ChubbyRain]

The funny thing is, this relates to something I refer to as Red Mage Fallacy.

The summation of which is "Versatility In Choice is not an advantage if that Choice cannot be changed".

I named it thus back in 4e when people were discussing how Humans' floating +2 to any one stat was "balanced" against all other races +2 to two fixed stats (this was further exacerbated by other races getting a choice between stats for the second +2). Basically, once you decide on a stat for your human PC (let's say DEX for a Rogue), it is locked, and you are now behind all other +2 DEX races that also have a bonus to another stat.

But the concept also applies to things like a glut of feats (which is why the 3.5e Fighter sucks so bad, but the PF Fighter is better).

As far as the 5e Bard, it really only applies marginally, as the Bard's choice of spells can be changed one at a time when he levels, but for the most part, as you said, the Bard chooses what kind of spell list to build and more or less sticks with it, being a "healer", a "gish", a "red mage", an "enchanter", or an "illusionist" or whatever, as he sees fit.


Funny, My Dragonborn Valor Bard goes with a "Warrior Skald" concept. He's a warrior and a keeper of lore and tales of honor. His instrument was a hunting horn, which was great flavor for spells like Thunderwave and Sleep (blows in the horn and blasts them back, or a low note drops them). He does have Cure Wounds for out-of combat healing. I've since taken War Caster, so I no nlonger need an instrument.

The instrument he uses for Song of Rest, however, is Bagpipes :D I want you all to imagine a 7 foot tall dragon-man in half-plate playing the bagpipes while he and his companions chill out for an hour. Lulz ensue.

I assume that the song in which you play is AC/DC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDCs7ijNUVM

If not, then I'll call "bad wrong fun" for once in my life...:smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

I can see one reason why bards could be OP: if certain spells are better than others, and bard allows you to access all of the broken ones. However, if that is the case then the game has a much bigger problem.

[Shining Wrath]

The funny thing is, this relates to something I refer to as Red Mage Fallacy.

The summation of which is "Versatility In Choice is not an advantage if that Choice cannot be changed".

... SNIP ...

As far as the 5e Bard, it really only applies marginally, as the Bard's choice of spells can be changed one at a time when he levels, but for the most part, as you said, the Bard chooses what kind of spell list to build and more or less sticks with it, being a "healer", a "gish", a "red mage", an "enchanter", or an "illusionist" or whatever, as he sees fit.


Funny, My Dragonborn Valor Bard goes with a "Warrior Skald" concept. He's a warrior and a keeper of lore and tales of honor. His instrument was a hunting horn, which was great flavor for spells like Thunderwave and Sleep (blows in the horn and blasts them back, or a low note drops them). He does have Cure Wounds for out-of combat healing. I've since taken War Caster, so I no nlonger need an instrument.

The instrument he uses for Song of Rest, however, is Bagpipes :D I want you all to imagine a 7 foot tall dragon-man in half-plate playing the bagpipes while he and his companions chill out for an hour. Lulz ensue.

The Ranger remains the worst spell selection - choose at level up like a sorcerer, but far fewer choices.

[Chronos]

Was the bagpipe on fire (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e5J116IM6M)?

[Ashrym]

I can see one reason why bards could be OP: if certain spells are better than others, and bard allows you to access all of the broken ones. However, if that is the case then the game has a much bigger problem.

In theory a 5th level spell is just as powerful as any other 5th level spell so it's not possible to have "better" 5th level spells. In reality, however, spells are useful for different functions and become apples to oranges even within the same spell level. It's obvious some have more frequently useful functionality than others so magical secrets is definitely a strong benefit.

Also in reality, variety doesn't contribute to potency. The spell selection options are nice but each spell choice is already available to other classes in the game and the bard will never twin a wish spell or empower and add CHA mod damage to a meteor swarm, for example. The bard won't recover any spells on a short rest like a wizard or druid, or create additional spell slots through font of magic. It doesn't matter what spells are added when you are the first one out of spell slots; everyone who can add more slots is much definitely doing better at that point.

It's not possible to be overpowered using the same options already available to other characters but with minimum available potency and minimum available spell slots. Bards cast the same spells at the baseline while other spellcasters add to that baseline.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm sorry? My statement was merely in reference to Safety Sword's both decrying modern society and possibly suggesting that the `there's an app for that` wizard wouldn't be awesome.

If you asked me what the hell Wizards get (away, vile apostrophe!), I would essentially repeat what everyone else has said about versatility and knowing all the spells. Also, Portent. Nothing like telling the DM `you fail the save`.

I was referencing The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect have this conversation:

Arthur: If I asked you where the hell we were, would I regret it?
Ford: We're safe.
Arthur: Oh good.
Ford: We're in a small galley cabin in one of the spaceships of the Vogon Constructor Fleet.
Arthur: Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word safe that I wasn't previously aware of.

Get it? You mentioned a new meaning of the word reduced, a variant on arthur's last line there, and I riffed on that by mentioning a variant on his first line. My apologies for the apostrophe.

[Chronos]

It's also possible for the bard to be broken via interactions between different spells. For instance, by RAW (which should probably be houseruled away), the Find Steed spell has a very powerful interaction with Cone of Cold. Ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, since no class with Find Steed has or can gain Cone of Cold, and no class with Cone of Cold has or can gain Find Steed. But a bard can get both, and so has access to that brokenness.

[Wartex1]

It's also possible for the bard to be broken via interactions between different spells. For instance, by RAW (which should probably be houseruled away), the Find Steed spell has a very powerful interaction with Cone of Cold. Ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, since no class with Find Steed has or can gain Cone of Cold, and no class with Cone of Cold has or can gain Find Steed. But a bard can get both, and so has access to that brokenness.

Though I'm fairly certain any reasonable DM would immediately put a staple in the forehead of a player who tried to do that, especially because it relies on some pretty loose interpretation and Munchkinry.

[CNagy]

It's also possible for the bard to be broken via interactions between different spells. For instance, by RAW (which should probably be houseruled away), the Find Steed spell has a very powerful interaction with Cone of Cold. Ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, since no class with Find Steed has or can gain Cone of Cold, and no class with Cone of Cold has or can gain Find Steed. But a bard can get both, and so has access to that brokenness.

Find Steed says that any spells you cast that only target you can also target the Steed. Cone of Cold has no targets. All spells that target you have a range of self, but not all spells with a range of self target you.

[Ashrym]

It's also possible for the bard to be broken via interactions between different spells. For instance, by RAW (which should probably be houseruled away), the Find Steed spell has a very powerful interaction with Cone of Cold. Ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, since no class with Find Steed has or can gain Cone of Cold, and no class with Cone of Cold has or can gain Find Steed. But a bard can get both, and so has access to that brokenness.

You are mistaken. Multiclassing paladin and evoker grants both spells but the evoker also adds INT to damage, can overchannel cone of cold, and has more accessible spells than the bard does because of spell preparation while the bard just used 2/6 or 2/8 of his magical secrets.

A sorcerer could do the same multiclass and add CHA damage (less likely element type, however) and empower it.

Both multiclassed characters could also cast it more frequently.

Unforeseen interactions could be a risk but it would also need to not be replicated by multiclassing.

[DivisibleByZero]

Find Steed says that any spells you cast that only target you can also target the Steed. Cone of Cold has no targets. All spells that target you have a range of self, but not all spells with a range of self target you.

Some people just don't understand that Range:self and targeting oneself are not the same thing.

[Ashrym]

Some people just don't understand that Range:self and targeting oneself are not the same thing.

I might be one of them. Doh. Noted for future reference.

[DivisibleByZero]

I might be one of them. Doh. Noted for future reference.

Yeah.
Range: self and targeting yourself aren't necessarily the same thing.

The other big one that people have issues understanding in conjunction with Find Steed is the Smite spells. They are Range:self, but you are smiting (and therefore targeting) an enemy. The text of the spell even uses the word "target" in reference to the enemy, and yet people think that they can share/duplicate Smite spells.
You can't.
I mean, c'mon! It tells you who the target is, and yet because it has Range:self, people think it targets themselves.
It doesn't.

Range:self simply means you are the point of origin for the effect. The effect may or may not target you, but it originates with you instead of at another point in space. That's all Range:self means.

[Geodude6]

Here's how I explained it:

Wizards are like Batman. Given sufficient preparation time, they can overcome anything because their magical knowledge is just so vast. If something comes up that they haven't prepared for, they can, with some difficulty, work around it. Most of your decisions with this class will involve preparing your spells for the day in the most effective manner.

Sorcerers are like Magneto. On paper his abilities are rather limited, but there's a lot he can do with those abilities...and frankly he cheats like crazy. Most of your decisions with this class will involve doing different things with the powers you already have.

Warlocks are like Iron Man. There are a lot of different ways to set up your abilities and you can revise and revise and revise as new things come up that you haven't foreseen, but in combat they just have a few options, usually being "shoot the thing" (Eldritch Blast) Most of your decisions with this class will be out-of-combat.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are they the most broken class? That probably goes to the cleric. But they can be anything you want them to be with a little bit of work and still have almost all their other options in their back pocket.
Is there a thread discussing this point?
(I have heard similar observations on the Druid, Circle of the Moon).
I'd be interested in seeing the points pro and con the cleric being "broken" or not.

[Ashrym]

Is there a thread discussing this point?
(I have heard similar observations on the Druid, Circle of the Moon).
I'd be interested in seeing the points pro and con the cleric being "broken" or not.

If I were to say "broken" it wouldn't be the cleric. It would more likely be sorcerer metamagic combined with high levels spells, or MC paladin burst damage combos.

I don't see any cleric issues but just not have anything immediately coming to mind.