Where is the 5e Mage?

[BurgerBeast]

I'd like players to have the option, as has traditionally been a part of D&D since the beginning (so far as I know), for players to play a mage (an unspecialized wizard).

Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage and is balanced? (I'm pretty terrible at the creative side, and not great at judging balance either.)

[clash]

vecna has this one http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/08/universalist.html. The sorcerer is also a good representation of that.

[JackPhoenix]

It's called wizard with no subclass... because that's what it was, just base class without any special features. Cost of picking specialist was loss of access to some school(s), that is no longer a case, wizard subclasses get all the basic goodies plus some stuff on top.

Perhaps once WotC releases balanced Lore wizard, it'll look like a mage with no specialisation.

[JellyPooga]

IMO, the Diviner Wizard is probably the best facsimile of a base-line "Mage" in core 5ed. Sorcerer is too blasty, Bard is too illusion/enchanty and the other Wizard schools are very much focused on their particular school as far as additional features go. The Diviner though? Portent is strong, but is applicable to whatever you're doing, whether it's blasting, control, buffs or whatever else. Aside from that, the Diviner abilities are pretty generic and divinations are pretty iconically Wizardly.

[Rysto]

The sorcerer is also a good representation of that.

The trouble with the Sorcerer for a generalist mage is that they get so few spells known they're basically forced into being specialists.

[Findulidas]

Perhaps once WotC releases balanced Lore wizard, it'll look like a mage with no specialisation.

I wish they would. Atleast release an UA version which isnt too strong.

[BurgerBeast]

vecna has this one http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/08/universalist.html. The sorcerer is also a good representation of that.

Thanks!


It's called wizard with no subclass... because that's what it was, just base class without any special features. Cost of picking specialist was loss of access to some school(s), that is no longer a case, wizard subclasses get all the basic goodies plus some stuff on top.

Perhaps once WotC releases balanced Lore wizard, it'll look like a mage with no specialisation.

No, it isn't. Your memory must only extend back to 3e, when it was changed to Wizard. The class was known as Mage originally and up to 2e. [edit: Thanks, Willie, for the correction: the class was know as Magic User and then renamed somewhere along the way to Mage.]

As for lore mage, in my opinion it is not the flavour I'm going for. I just want a baseline mage class, not a lore expert.


IMO, the Diviner Wizard is probably the best facsimile of a base-line "Mage" in core 5ed. Sorcerer is too blasty, Bard is too illusion/enchanty and the other Wizard schools are very much focused on their particular school as far as additional features go. The Diviner though? Portent is strong, but is applicable to whatever you're doing, whether it's blasting, control, buffs or whatever else. Aside from that, the Diviner abilities are pretty generic and divinations are pretty iconically Wizardly.

I tend to agree with this, but thought some of the flavour was a little too specialized to be considered generalist, but that might just be a matter of taste.

[JackPhoenix]

No, it isn't. Your memory must only extend back to 3e, when it was changed to Wizard. The class was known as Mage originally and up to 2e.

As for lore mage, in my opinion it is not the flavour I'm going for. I just want a baseline mage class, not a lore expert.

Class (or rather, a group it belonged to) was called wizard, non-specialized wizard was called Mage, according to 2e PHB. It had no class features to speak of, but had access to all spell schools, unlike specialist wizards (Illusionists, Necromancers, etc.), who had extra ability score requirement, extra spell slots and bonuses for spells of their school, while unable to cast spells from opposed school(s).

In 5e, baseline Wizard is what you're talking about, access to all schools and no "extra" class features. But unlike previous editions, 5e subclasses still have access to all spell schools, all baseline Wizard features AND get the subclass features on top. So non-specialised wizard is flat-out worse. You got Wizard for baseline mage, Lore master was suggested because it is NOT focused on any one school. If you want to play without subclass, go ahead, but you're gimping yourself intentionally.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

I'd like players to have the option, as has traditionally been a part of D&D since the beginning (so far as I know), for players to play a mage (an unspecialized wizard).

Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage and is balanced? (I'm pretty terrible at the creative side, and not great at judging balance either.)

The closest thing to an official Mage in 5e thus far is the Lore Master Wizard.

On the homebrew front... I've an Arcanist origin for sorcerers which is fairly "Magey", with focus on increased spell-list and sorcery points, making it more versatile than a typical sorcerer. I think it's pretty balanced, but I'm not sure, since I can't playtest any of my creations and I've had sod-all luck in getting commentary on most of the stuff I've done (though, in fairness, I've done a lot of stuff). Give it a look and see what you think.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516833-The-Misty-Shadow-s-Sorcerous-Origins-PEACH

[Joe the Rat]

Bladesinger.

It provides absolutely no focus or benefit to your spell options. Instead, you can use a weapon and armor, which is incredibly easy to get in this edition, and if you're gonna be a proper mage, doesn't really matter. The bladesong aspect is icing - but save your spell slots for casting! Be a wizard, get a focus staff, whip out a sword, and start Gandalfing your way around.

[Willie the Duck]

No, it isn't. Your memory must only extend back to 3e, when it was changed to Wizard. The class was known as Mage originally and up to 2e.

It's pretty bad form to tell other people what games they have or haven't played or remember. Especially when you seem not to have read JackPhoenix's post very thoroughly, as he his statement is clearly cogent and coherent and conforms to 2e knowledge, whether you agree with his position or not. It's the equivalent of someone not really listening to your argument saying, "well, you clearly don't know what you are talking about."

Also note that Mage was not Mage 'originally,' it was 'Magic User for the first 15 years of the game and only became Mage (subclass of Wizard) in 2e.

To your Original Point, as others have said, the base assumption of PHB 5e is that you will choose one of the 8 specialties and that's how the PHB subclasses are structured. All of them (or the class-base, as JP said it) allow access to all spells so in that way, they all have the same features that the 2e mage had. Each one has some extra bells and whistles that you might consider in violation of 'mage' flavor. Diviner has the most hand-wavy or explainable as not-divination specific. SCAG and UA have put out things like lore and bladesinger which have their own bells and whistles, but not specific to a specific school. Whether you consider a sorcerer, diviner (who never mentions being a diviner), bladesinger (who doesn't tank/melee much), lore wizard, or just picking the base class and ignoring all subtype benefits to be the best flavor fit, is up to you.

[BurgerBeast]

Class (or rather, a group it belonged to) was called wizard, non-specialized wizard was called Mage, according to 2e PHB. It had no class features to speak of, but had access to all spell schools, unlike specialist wizards (Illusionists, Necromancers, etc.), who had extra ability score requirement, extra spell slots and bonuses for spells of their school, while unable to cast spells from opposed school(s).

Nope.

Warrior, Rogue, Priest, and Wizard were not classes. They were broad groups within which classes were categorized. This becomes apparent when you consider that Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin are classes, as opposed to WARRIOR.

I did make a mistake though, the class was renamed Mage somewhere along the way (before it was renamed Wizard). It was originally Magic User [edit: as Willie points out above].


In 5e, baseline Wizard is what you're talking about, access to all schools and no "extra" class features. But unlike previous editions, 5e subclasses still have access to all spell schools, all baseline Wizard features AND get the subclass features on top. So non-specialised wizard is flat-out worse. You got Wizard for baseline mage, Lore master was suggested because it is NOT focused on any one school. If you want to play without subclass, go ahead, but you're gimping yourself intentionally.

If you want to misunderstand my point, and assume that you're bringing up topics I haven't thought about already, go ahead, but you're gimping yourself intentionally.

Here's a tip: consider that I thought about and understood all of this before you mentioned it, and I'm still raising the question. Then you'll realize you're not helping me at all with your "advice." Essentially do what everyone else did when they understood the question.

Edit:


It's pretty bad form to tell other people what games they have or haven't played or remember.

Maybe you should read what he wrote. He ignored my question and proceed to tell me that I was wrong, when I wasn't. So you should aim your advice where it belongs. He literally told me what I was talking about... and I'm rude?


Especially when you seem not to have read JackPhoenix's post very thoroughly, as he his statement is clearly cogent and coherent and conforms to 2e knowledge, whether you agree with his position or not.

Nope.


It's the equivalent of someone not really listening to your argument saying, "well, you clearly don't know what you are talking about."

Again, point the finger where it belongs. He didn't even attempt to answer my question. He instead said that what I was looking for was to play a gimped class that doesn't get any baseline features [edit: only gets the baseline class features and gets nothing in place of subclass features].


Also note that Mage was not Mage 'originally,' it was 'Magic User for the first 15 years of the game and only became Mage (subclass of Wizard) in 2e.

Yes, it was called a Magic User. I stand corrected. It was not a subclass, however. It was a class. Which is why he was wrong. As to why he felt the need to assume I was an idiot, ignore my question, and imply that asking it was stupid, well... you'd have to ask him that.


The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue. Within each group are several similar character classes. (emphasis added)

Table 13 also makes it pretty clear. The classes are Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin, for example. Warrior is the group.


To your Original Point, as others have said, the base assumption of PHB 5e is that you will choose one of the 8 specialties and that's how the PHB subclasses are structured. All of them (or the class-base, as JP said it) allow access to all spells so in that way, they all have the same features that the 2e mage had.

What makes you think I can't read this for myself?


Each one has some extra bells and whistles that you might consider in violation of 'mage' flavor. Diviner has the most hand-wavy or explainable as not-divination specific. SCAG and UA have put out things like lore and bladesinger which have their own bells and whistles, but not specific to a specific school. Whether you consider a sorcerer, diviner (who never mentions being a diviner), bladesinger (who doesn't tank/melee much), lore wizard, or just picking the base class and ignoring all subtype benefits to be the best flavor fit, is up to you.

And, as I thought was pretty clear, I don't want those. I want a subclass that is similar to the mage. So if you want to help, feel free. I'll be here.

[Contrast]

Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage


And, as I thought was pretty clear, I don't want those. I want a subclass that is similar to the mage.

For clarity - what is it you're actually looking for - what do you consider to be the 'spirit' of the original mage. They weren't better at casting they just had access to the full spell list (which everyone does now) compared to specialists who had better abilities but couldn't cast certain spells.

Do you want them to be generically better spell casters? Balance issues aside you said the lore master didn't appeal so I assume thats not it?

So are you looking for a subclass with an expanded spell list compared to a normal wizard? More prepared spells per day maybe?

At the moment it feels like you've aksed for flavourless ice cream and are getting annoyed when people are suggesting vanilla because that tastes of vanilla :smalltongue:

[BurgerBeast]

For clarity - what is it you're actually looking for - what do you consider to be the 'spirit' of the original mage. They weren't better at casting they just had access to the full spell list (which everyone does now) compared to specialists who had better abilities but couldn't cast certain spells.

A generalist. I'm not entirely sure how this will come about, which is part of the problem. The first response answered my question quite well.


Do you want them to be generically better spell casters? Balance issues aside you said the lore master didn't appeal so I assume thats not it?

Not better. About the same in terms of power, but not specialized. The lore master is a different concept, as can be seen from the fact that 3.5 had both mages [edit: generalist wizards] and lore masters.


So are you looking for a subclass with an expanded spell list compared to a normal wizard? More prepared spells per day maybe?

This seems like two ways to solve the problem, yes. I'm not a fan of the first, but the second seems pretty good, as a starting point.


At the moment it feels like you've aksed for flavourless ice cream and are getting annoyed when people are suggesting vanilla because that tastes of vanilla :smalltongue:

Well, that's not what I'm doing.

I asked for a subclass, and one particular person told me: if you want that concept, you'll have to play the class with no subclass. That is not a solution to the problem. It's not even an answer to the question. And the reasons given, besides being wrong, were based on misunderstood evidence.

[Contrast]

I think some of it is a little iffy but I like the ideas of the Sage here might be a good start (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515351-PEACH-Separating-The-Savant-A-different-take-on-the-Wizard-UA).

Or something like this perhaps? (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qUQpFLjuD32PN1V4OrXCgikjDbGC8ARXtoXg41kFkEY/edit?usp=sharing - apologies to the author in my searching I lost track of where I found that one)

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

The lore master is a different concept, as can be seen from the fact that 3.5 had both mages [edit: generalist wizards] and lore masters.
You cannot allow yourself to get hung up on the names/definitions of past editions when comparing them to 5e material.

The 5e Loremaster is the closest thing to a generalist wizard in this edition: its entire schtick is that it devotes itself to understanding and mastering magical lore as broadly and deeply as possible. Versatility is literally it's defining trait, to the point many fans of sorcerers were outraged that it was more of the "versatile caster" than their own class was.

Its first 2nd level feature, Lore Master, doubles your proficiency bonus for Arcana, History, Nature and Religion checks (you still gotta be proficient in the first place) and lets you roll Initiative based on your choice of Int or Dex.

The second level 2 feature, Spell Secrets, lets you change the change the damage types of elemental damage spells (that is, spells that inflict Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, Necrotic, Radiant, or Thunder damage) at will, and change the saving throw type of a single spell per encounter. This means that not only could you throw around all of the "force damage inflicting fireballs" that you want, you could also throw a fireball that is resisted with a Strength check once per encounter.

Level 6's Alchemical Casting lets you modify certain spells by burning an extra spell slot; give up a 1st level spell slot when casting a spell that inflicts damage for +2d6 bonus Force damage, give up a 2nd level spell slot when casting a ranged spell of at least 30 feet to instead upgrade its range to 1 mile, and give up a 3rd level spell slot when casting a spell with a saving throw to increase its DC by +2.

At level 10, you gain the Prodigious Memory trait, which lets you use a bonus action to swap one of your memorized spells out for a prepared spell instead once per encounter.

Finally, level 14 makes you a Master of Magic, letting you cast 1 spell from any spell list (must be a level you can actually cast for, though) once per day.

[Corran]

Hmmm, how about not picking up an archtype, and in exchange every non-wizard spell gets added to your spell list and is now a wizard spell for you?

[suplee215]

I second Lore as the best fit with your only argument being "But the words Lore make me thing of something different". That just seems the only general thing unless you want to homebrew one.

[JellyPooga]

No way. My experience* is that Diviners tend to be heavily focused on their school spells, because their level 6 class feature is tits at encouraging casting Divination spells.

*experience limited to 2 players of Diviners at level 6+. YMMV.

That level 6 ability lets you cast Divinations as well as other spells. Yes that encourages casting divinations, but those are generally only used as and when needed anyway; it's a remarkably limited boon (coming from my experience of playing a Diviner Wizard from 1st up to level 8). For the most part Diviners are pretty generic Wizards with a minor focus on actual divination, or at least they have the option of using them more frequently. The nature of divinations is such that they don't get used exclusively from other spells, whereas the other School specialists do have that option, due to their features making them that much better.

[MaxWilson]

Hmmm, how about not picking up an archtype, and in exchange every non-wizard spell gets added to your spell list and is now a wizard spell for you?

That would be incredibly strong. My powergamer instincts salivate at the thought, but as a DM I would never allow it unless maybe I wanted a campaign with an alternate flavor. It completely eclipses bards, for example, and probably clerics too.

[Corran]

That would be incredibly strong. My powergamer instincts salivate at the thought, but as a DM I would never allow it unless maybe I wanted a campaign with an alternate flavor. It completely eclipses bards, for example, and probably clerics too.
Fair point. It could definitely step on the toes of bards and clerics.

[Occasional Sage]

Hmmm, how about not picking up an archtype, and in exchange every non-wizard spell gets added to your spell list and is now a wizard spell for you?

Fixed that for you.

[Theodoxus]

Hmmm, how about not picking up an archtype, and in exchange every non-wizard spell gets added to your spell list and is now a wizard spell for you?


That would be incredibly strong. My powergamer instincts salivate at the thought, but as a DM I would never allow it unless maybe I wanted a campaign with an alternate flavor. It completely eclipses bards, for example, and probably clerics too.


Fair point. It could definitely step on the toes of bards and clerics.

Eh, it's only as strong as the DM lets it be...

Wizard to scroll shopkeeper: "Pardon, do you have a scroll of cure wounds or lesser restoration?"
Shopkeeper: "Uh, nope, they don't exist."
Wizard: "Bugger"
Shopkeeper: "But I do have a scroll of Bless, if you like."
Wizard: "Another concentration spell? With my hit points, lack of armor and proficiency in constitution saving throws? Are you mad!?!"
Shopkeeper: "... hey, you asked."

[JackPhoenix]

Warrior, Rogue, Priest, and Wizard were not classes. They were broad groups within which classes were categorized. This becomes apparent when you consider that Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin are classes, as opposed to WARRIOR.

Which is literally what I wrote in the post you're quoting. Note that unlike yours, my post is unedited.


If you want to misunderstand my point, and assume that you're bringing up topics I haven't thought about already, go ahead, but you're gimping yourself intentionally.

Perhaps if your post actually had a point, there would be something to understand. The other half doesn't even make any sense.


Here's a tip: consider that I thought about and understood all of this before you mentioned it, and I'm still raising the question. Then you'll realize you're not helping me at all with your "advice." Essentially do what everyone else did when they understood the question.

Here's a tip: consider that people can't read your thoughts. Given you don't know what do you want yourself (as you admit in a later answer to Contrast's post), how should I know what do you want? And given your posts in this thread, assuming you've understood something is quite a stretch.


Maybe you should read what he wrote. He ignored my question and proceed to tell me that I was wrong, when I wasn't. So you should aim your advice where it belongs. He literally told me what I was talking about... and I'm rude?

Yes. I answered your question, you then proceeded to tell me I am wrong when you didn't like the answer based on the fact that the name was changed between editions and managed to be wrong at the same time.


Again, point the finger where it belongs. He didn't even attempt to answer my question. He instead said that what I was looking for was to play a gimped class that doesn't get any baseline features [edit: only gets the baseline class features and gets nothing in place of subclass features].

Which is exactly what you said you want:


I just want a baseline mage class, not a lore expert.

You want baseline mage? It's called wizard in 5e.


Yes, it was called a Magic User. I stand corrected. It was not a subclass, however. It was a class. Which is why he was wrong. As to why he felt the need to assume I was an idiot, ignore my question, and imply that asking it was stupid, well... you'd have to ask him that.

Nitpicking. Difference between groups and classes in 2e is about comparable to the difference between classes and subclasses in 5e (kits would be closer to the concept of subclasses, but that would be adding another extra step (group>class>kit compared to class>subclass in 5e)), unless you're willing to admit you're asking a stupid question when you want us to point you to a subclass that basically amounts to "no subclass, just the baseline Mage Wizard, but if you give me what I'm asking for, I start crying you've misunderstood my stupid question"


What makes you think I can't read this for myself?

Propably the content of your posts.


This seems like two ways to solve the problem, yes. I'm not a fan of the first, but the second seems pretty good, as a starting point.

You do realise that's exactly contrary to how Mages (and generalist wizards) worked, don't you? They had LESS spell slots than specialists.


I asked for a subclass, and one particular person told me: if you want that concept, you'll have to play the class with no subclass. That is not a solution to the problem. It's not even an answer to the question. And the reasons given, besides being wrong, were based on misunderstood evidence.

No, that is the answer to the question you've asked. It was based on your inability to ask non-stupid question. In 2e, Mage was the base Wizard, and specialists modified that base (through bonuses and extra spell slot for their specialization and penalties and inability to cast spells from the opposed schools). In 3e, Wizard was the base Wizard (duh) and picking up specialization modified that base (through extra spell slot and inability to cast spells from opposed schools). In 5e, Wizard is once again the base Wizard, and subclasses are the bonus on top (with no penalties this time). You want to play the base Wizard without the stuff subclasses give to you (i.e. being better with some spells), but you act offended when I suggest... guess what? Playing base Wizard without the stuff subclasses give you, because you apparently want subclass features..

Sorry for answering your question, and pointing out your question was stupid to begin with

@JellyPooga: I think Evokers have more generic flavor than Diviners... Diviner's features include seeing the future, saving spell slots when casting divination spells and having special vision modes, all pretty tied to being a, well, Diviner. Evoker's features focuses on having better damage with blasting spells and avoiding damage to friends with the same... blasting seems more generic to me, pretty much any Wizard does that.

[Theodoxus]

You do realise that's exactly contrary to how Mages (and generalist wizards) worked, don't you? They had LESS spell slots than specialists.

Still, given the differences in 5E, I think it would be nifty if a generalist mage subclass got an additional use of Arcane Recovery. I think changing it to Short Rest is probably too much, but a second one wouldn't be too bad.

If we really cared, and put our heads together, we could probably come up with a few ideas on what to do to create the generalist subclass...

[DivisibleByZero]

The trouble with the Sorcerer for a generalist mage is that they get so few spells known they're basically forced into being specialists.

They aren't forced into anything. You choose your spells. If you choose to specialize, that is your choice.
I played a sorcerer who was quite adept at all "types" of casting: damage/CC/buff/debuff/utility.

The fact is, you only need one or two spells of each:
single target damage (can be ignored until high levels by using cantrips)
AoE damage
single target CC (later AoE)
single target debuff (later AoE)
single target buff (later AoE)
utility

Once you have these covered, when you gain a level you can swap out a lower level spell for an higher levels spell form the same category unless you want to double up.
People's claims that Sorcs need to specialize because of their lower number of spells known is just flat out wrong.
In point of fact, the opposite is true.
If a caster with more spells known specializes, he can still spend a few on other areas to become more well rounded. If a Sorc specializes, he paints himself into a corner. So while people claim that his low number of spells forces specialization, the reality is that his lower number of spells forces generalization if he wants to be effective.
You can choose to specialize, and your lower number of spells forces hyper-specialization, or you can choose to be a generalist, and be effective everywhere. If you choose generalization, you may not *always* have the *perfect* spell for the job, but you'll always have something that works.

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe you should read what he wrote. He ignored my question and proceed to tell me that I was wrong, when I wasn't. So you should aim your advice where it belongs. He literally told me what I was talking about... and I'm rude?


Here are the two posts in question.


I'd like players to have the option, as has traditionally been a part of D&D since the beginning (so far as I know), for players to play a mage (an unspecialized wizard).

Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage and is balanced? (I'm pretty terrible at the creative side, and not great at judging balance either.)


It's called wizard with no subclass... because that's what it was, just base class without any special features. Cost of picking specialist was loss of access to some school(s), that is no longer a case, wizard subclasses get all the basic goodies plus some stuff on top.

Perhaps once WotC releases balanced Lore wizard, it'll look like a mage with no specialisation.

Now, please, if you would be so kind, explain how he ignored your question, told you that you were wrong, and "literally" told you what you were thinking, as opposed to provided a position (arguable obviously, clearly only one interpretation, possibly not-to-your-wishes) answering the question that you asked. Take your time. I have popcorn.

[Willie the Duck]

...
unless you're willing to admit you're asking a stupid question when you want us to point you to a subclass that basically amounts to "no subclass, just the baseline Mage Wizard, but if you give me what I'm asking for, I start crying you've misunderstood my stupid question"

...


Sorry for answering your question, and pointing out your question was stupid to begin with


There's no need to call his question stupid. Don't lower yourself to that level. Everyone else on the thread saw that you had simply given an answer that he did not like. Walk away with your head held high.

[BurgerBeast]

You cannot allow yourself to get hung up on the names/definitions of past editions when comparing them to 5e material.

Agreed.


The 5e Loremaster is the closest thing to a generalist wizard in this edition: its entire schtick is that it devotes itself to understanding and mastering magical lore as broadly and deeply as possible. Versatility is literally it's defining trait, to the point many fans of sorcerers were outraged that it was more of the "versatile caster" than their own class was.

Granted. It’s still decidedly different, in my view.


I second Lore as the best fit with your only argument being "But the words Lore make me thing of something different". That just seems the only general thing unless you want to homebrew one.

That’s not my argument, not did I ever claim it was.

I said:


The lore master is a different concept, as can be seen from the fact that 3.5 had both mages [edit: generalist wizards] and lore masters.

This is not an argument. This is a point: a lore master and a mage are conceptually different things. Mages are not necessarily lore masters. It has nothing to do with the word “lore.” It has to do with what a lore master is and what a mage is.


Fixed that for you.

Those were my thoughts, as well.


Which is literally what I wrote in the post you're quoting.

No, it isn’t.

You wrote this:


Class (or rather, a group it belonged to) was called wizard, non-specialized wizard was called Mage, according to 2e PHB.

So, you wrote “Class was called wizard” which is false. The fact that you put “or rather, a group it belonged to” in parentheses does not add clarity. It introduces a contradiction. Wizard cannot be both the class and the group it belongs to. Wizard is the group. Mage is the class.


It had no class features to speak of, but had access to all spell schools, unlike specialist wizards (Illusionists, Necromancers, etc.), who had extra ability score requirement, extra spell slots and bonuses for spells of their school, while unable to cast spells from opposed school(s).

This is false. Mage had class features. I’m sure you’ll argue the semantics, but you’ll be wrong.


Perhaps if your post actually had a point, there would be something to understand. The other half doesn't even make any sense.

If my post didn’t have a point, then what were you answering? A lack of a point?


Here's a tip: consider that people can't read your thoughts.

I have, which is why I don't expect people to read my thoughts. I expect them to read the words I write.


Given you don't know what do you want yourself (as you admit in a later answer to Contrast's post), how should I know what do you want?

First, that’s not what I said. Second, you can’t know what I want. Third, you can understand what I wrote if you read it (correctly).


Yes. I answered your question,…

No, you didn’t.


…you then proceeded to tell me I am wrong…

About the mage/wizard thing, yes. About your answer: there was none to speak of.


…when you didn't like the answer…

There was no answer. So I didn’t like nor dislike it.


…based on the fact that the name was changed between editions…

It had little to do with the name change. It had to do with the difference between a class and a category of classes. I am pointing to the conceptual difference, not the nomenclature.



…and managed to be wrong at the same time.

Saying I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong.


Which is exactly what you said you want:

You want baseline mage? It's called wizard in 5e.

This came up later (after your answer), and it was a mistake on my part. I wanted a mage, not the baseline wizard. My OP is still there to see.


Nitpicking. Difference between groups and classes in 2e is about comparable to the difference between classes and subclasses in 5e…

No, it’s not comparable at all. 3e got rid of the concept of broader groups, and 4e and 5e maintained that tradition.


(kits would be closer to the concept of subclasses, but that would be adding another extra step (group>class>kit compared to class>subclass in 5e)),

This is the correct analogy. Subclass=Kit; Class=Class, Nothing=Group. There is no 5e analog to the group, which is why you were wrong to draw the initial analogy.


…unless you're willing to admit you're asking a stupid question when you want us to point you to a subclass that basically amounts to "no subclass, just the baseline Mage Wizard, but if you give me what I'm asking for, I start crying you've misunderstood my stupid question"

1. I’m perfectly willing to admit my stupidity. This just happens to be a case in which I’m not being stupid.
2. I’m not asking for “just the baseline wizard,” which is clear in the OP, and which actually would be a stupid thing to ask for, since I’d be asking to play a weakened character on purpose, and the answer would already be provided in the PHB. Since this would be stupid, but it is not actually what I said, it is a straw man, which you erected. That is my point. If you want to erect that straw man, and attribute it to me (or anyone for that matter), then you’re being disingenuous.
3. I’ve not been “crying” at all. If anything, I’ve been laughing.


You do realise that's exactly contrary to how Mages (and generalist wizards) worked, don't you? They had LESS spell slots than specialists.

Yes! Believe it or not, I do!

But here’s the problem: Specialist Wizards in 5e do not work the way they used to, either! So, given that the specialists are changed, how can we change the mage to keep the concept in this new framework? (You might note that all of this is implied in the OP.)


No, that is the answer to the question you've asked.

Wrong.

I asked for a mage subclass.

You told me to play without a subclass.

That is not an answer. That’s avoiding the question.

So, it’s not a matter of liking or not liking the answer. It’s a matter of did you answer the question or not? You did not.


It was based on your inability to ask non-stupid question.

Non-stupid is not a word.


In 2e, Mage was the base Wizard, and specialists modified that base (through bonuses and extra spell slot for their specialization and penalties and inability to cast spells from the opposed schools).

False, in 2e, Wizard was a group of classes that shared some commonalities. Mages were modifications just as much as specialists were, by definition.


In 3e, Wizard was the base Wizard (duh) and picking up specialization modified that base (through extra spell slot and inability to cast spells from opposed schools).

Great, so in 3e, specialists received both benefits and restrictions. This was meant to balance things.


In 5e, Wizard is once again the base Wizard, and subclasses are the bonus on top (with no penalties this time). You want to play the base Wizard without the stuff subclasses give to you (i.e. being better with some spells),...

No. This is the straw man that you erected. And it is obviously not what I want. Obvious because, in the OP, I asked for a subclass and I asked for balance.


...but you act offended when I suggest... guess what? Playing base Wizard without the stuff subclasses give you, because you apparently want subclass features..

I'm not offended.

Yes, I want subclass features, which is what I asked for in the OP, and is why I am telling you that you did not answer my question.


Sorry for answering your question, and pointing out your question was stupid to begin with

Apology not accepted. I can’t accept an apology for something you didn’t do.

I am trying to point out why you didn’t understand the question. I know what you think I asked, and I understand why you think it is stupid. The thing is, you invented that question, not me. And it is stupid. Which is my point. Why would you replace my question with a stupid question, and then complain that it’s stupid?


Here are the two posts in question.

Now, please, if you would be so kind, explain how he ignored your question,…

The quesiton is “Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage and is balanced?”

So, in order to answer this question, one would need to:

1. point me to or come up with a Mage subclass
2. said subclass would have to stay true to the spirit of the original mage
3. said subclass would have to be balanced

JackPeonix failed on the first and last counts.

1. Fail. He did not provide a subclass.
2. Partial success – he stayed true to his conception of the mage class, but any honest reading of my post would discount this as a possible answer, because his conception contradicts both (1) and (3), and therefore cannot match my implied conception as presented
3. Fail. If the suggestion is to play the base class with none of the subclass benefits, then the suggestion is to play a character who is worse than every subclass, by definition. This is not balanced.


told you that you were wrong,…

He said “It's called wizard with no subclass... because that's what it was, just base class without any special features.”

This is not what the 2e wizard was. The 2e wizard was a group of classes. It was not a class.

And even if it was, it is clear from my post that this is not what I am asking for (because I asked for a subclass).


…and "literally" told you what you were thinking,…

I never said this. I said:


He literally told me what I was talking about... and I'm rude?

In response to:


In 5e, baseline Wizard is what you're talking about, access to all schools and no "extra" class features. (emphasis added)


…as opposed to provided a position (arguable obviously, clearly only one interpretation, possibly not-to-your-wishes) answering the question that you asked. Take your time. I have popcorn.

I hope this helps.

[Theodoxus]

BB - honey and vinegar dude. You're coming off as overly vitriolic. I can't read your posts for the negativity. I get enough of it from the pres - and you're not him...

[BurgerBeast]

BB - honey and vinegar dude. You're coming off as overly vitriolic. I can't read your posts for the negativity. I get enough of it from the pres - and you're not him...

Are you being serious? I went to great pains to avoid any personal language and stick to the point. I even edited out all of the opposite side's personal attacks in order to keep it civilized.

Feel free to point out the vitriol, because I don't see any. I'll happily get rid of it.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Are you being serious? I went to great pains to avoid any personal language and stick to the point. I even edited out all of the opposite side's personal attacks in order to keep it civilized.

Feel free to point out the vitriol, because I don't see any. I'll happily get rid of it.

I'm afraid that you'd have to rewrite basically your entire post. The entire thing positively reeks of condescension.



The question is “Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass that stays true to the spirit of the original mage and is balanced?”

So, in order to answer this question, one would need to:

1. point me to or come up with a Mage subclass
2. said subclass would have to stay true to the spirit of the original mage
3. said subclass would have to be balanced

Other people in this thread have tried to help you with what you're looking for, with little success.


There is only one "Generalist" subclass, and people have pointed it out multiple times - the Loremaster subclass, from the Wizard-specific UA (IIRC). However, this fails your third criteria, that of being balanced. It's generally agreed upon (from my experience, at least) that the Loremaster is overpowered. Failing this option, the only other official suggestions have been Diviner and Evoker, which, while not perfect, can be less archetype-focused. People have lives, and it's not likely that you'll find someone to randomly craft you a whole (balanced, remember?) subclass to fill a niche that no one else really seems to need filled, especially with your attitude.
Again, posters have given you the Loremaster and a couple of minimum-impact subclasses as suggestions to play around with, but you've derided them and told them that it wasn't good enough/what you were looking for (paraphrasing here, since you seem to be anal-retentive about specificity).
Again, nothing is available. I'm sure that if you tried to homebrew something yourself and posted it here, we'd be more than happy to help you balance it.

[RedWarlock]

Are you being serious? I went to great pains to avoid any personal language and stick to the point. I even edited out all of the opposite side's personal attacks in order to keep it civilized.

Feel free to point out the vitriol, because I don't see any. I'll happily get rid of it.

Vitriol is more than just insults, it's tone inflection, and, in your case, the way you break apart someone else's reply into tiny little, phrase-by-phrase shreds in order to defend yourself, which carries an implication of intense reaction.

Secondly, just because the name 'loremaster' was used in 3e for a prestige class, doesn't mean the name might not have been borrowed for a subclass in 5e to represent the generalist concept. Much like how, in reverse, the Hexblade from 3e got merged into the Warlock Blade Pact in 5e (matching a similar merge in 4e, the Hexblade Warlock, which was IMO awesome), but then they made up an extra Hexblade thing anyway that doesn't really jive with the 3e/4e concepts, because they wanted to use the name.

Now, to get back to what you want out of this, go to strict mechanics. What does the 'Mage' concept have, for you, that sets it apart from the 5e Wizard whole, taking into account that the subclasses only add, not subtract? Don't use names, just features.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm afraid that you'd have to rewrite basically your entire post. The entire thing positively reeks of condescension.

Example, please.



There is only one "Generalist" subclass, and people have pointed it out multiple times - the Loremaster subclass, from the Wizard-specific UA (IIRC). However, this fails your third criteria, that of being balanced. It's generally agreed upon (from my experience, at least) that the Loremaster is overpowered. Failing this option, the only other official suggestions have been Diviner and Evoker, which, while not perfect, can be less archetype-focused...

The Lore Wizard is a lore expert. This is a different concept than a generalist. Diviners are diviners. Evokers are evokers. I'm asking about a mage.


...People have lives, and it's not likely that you'll find someone to randomly craft you a whole (balanced, remember?) subclass to fill a niche that no one else really seems to need filled, especially with your attitude.

See, now this is an example of condescension. Do note that I never expected anyone to create a home-brew just for me.


Again, posters have given you the Loremaster and a couple of minimum-impact subclasses as suggestions to play around with, but you've derided them and told them that it wasn't good enough/what you were looking for (paraphrasing here, since you seem to be anal-retentive about specificity).

No, I haven't actually. I have only been in disagreement with the person on the thread who did not give me any suggestions, and one other person who came to his defense.


Again, nothing is available. I'm sure that if you tried to homebrew something yourself and posted it here, we'd be more than happy to help you balance it.
[/LIST]

I'm not sure why you would say Again, nothing is available. Up until now, you never said anything like this. Why not just say this to start with? If nothing is available, then that is the answer. Easy peasy.


Vitriol is more than just insults, it's tone inflection, and, in your case, the way you break apart someone else's reply into tiny little, phrase-by-phrase shreds in order to defend yourself, which carries an implication of intense reaction.

1. Show me the tone inflection, if there is any.
2. You may note that I did not break everyone's posts in tiny little, phrase by phrase shreds. One poster, who did not understand my request, accused me of being wrong about something, and offered some useless advice. I pointed it out, and he and one other poster decided to dig in, and accuse me of being vitriolic. So, yes, I parsed this to get to the bottom of it. I would much prefer to answer a false charge against me, than to leave it unanswered.


Secondly, just because the name 'loremaster' was used in 3e for a prestige class, doesn't mean the name might not have been borrowed for a subclass in 5e to represent the generalist concept.

True. But there is a description of the 5e Loremaster. So we can just look at that. It turns out that this is not what happened: the 5e lore master is a different concept than a generalist. We know this. The name was not borrowed for a generalist.


Now, to get back to what you want out of this, go to strict mechanics. What does the 'Mage' concept have, for you, that sets it apart from the 5e Wizard whole, taking into account that the subclasses only add, not subtract? Don't use names, just features.

This is what I'm asking. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking. Granted that specialist wizards do not lose out on schools of magic as a balance for their school-specific benefits, what can we bring to the Mage subclass to make it still a generalist, a decent subclass in terms of power, but not as good at the specialty schools as their relative specialists? That's it.

---

How anyone cannot see the ignorance in the answer "play the class without a subclass. That's what you are asking for," is entirely beyond me.

Person A: I want to play a rogue, but I'm not overly interested in the assassin, the thief, or the arcane trickster. I sort of want to be a generalist rogue. Pretty good at stealth, pretty good at locks and traps, pretty good at climbing, pretty good at disguise and investigation.

Person B: Play a rogue without a subclass. That is what you want.

Yeah. Not a d@#&head thing to say at all. Anyone who wants to play a generalist should receive nothing when the other subclasses receive benefits. Brilliant.

[CantigThimble]

Okay, take the lore master wizard, delete the second level feature 'lore master', call it 'mage' and now it is exactly what you seem to want: a wizard who doesn't rely on any one school more than the others and is very flexible. Perhaps thinking about it as specialist wizards 'sacrificing' access to the universal spell manipulation that the lore master gets in exchange for enhanced abilities with one school would help you reconcile it with your idea of the mage better.

[Theodoxus]

Since you said you didn't ask for someone to make you a homebrew... and yet, there you are, asking for homebrew....

Can anyone point me to, or come up with, a Mage subclass ...

General negativity...

No, it isn't.
Nope.
...gimping yourself...
you're not helping me at all
So you should aim your advice where it belongs.
Nope.
Which is why he was wrong.
I don't want those.
Well, that's not what I'm doing.
No, it isn’t.
which is false.
This is false.
No, you didn’t.
About your answer: there was none to speak of.
There was no answer.
Wrong.
False
No.
1. Fail.
2. Partial success
3. Fail.



Are you being serious? I went to great pains to avoid any personal language and stick to the point. I even edited out all of the opposite side's personal attacks in order to keep it civilized.

Feel free to point out the vitriol, because I don't see any. I'll happily get rid of it.

You don't see how all of that bolded up there reads damn near like a Trump tweet? Especially the one word sentences of pure negativity. Trust me, the fastest way to get someone to stop caring is to simply say "Wrong".


Example, please. Done.

[BurgerBeast]

Since you said you didn't ask for someone to make you a homebrew... and yet, there you are, asking for homebrew....

There is the word "or" in that question. Also, the original claim that I was asking someone to make me a homebrew was designed to imply that I somehow expect it, which I do not.


General negativity...

No. The word "no" is not the same as being generally negative in the way you are implying here. Sometimes the answer is just no. That doesn't imply that the person saying it is being negative.

On top of this, as I pointed out, I am replying to someone who initiated the conversation, and I have no problem with that. There is a difference picking a fight and having the fight pick you.


You don't see how all of that bolded up there reads damn near like a Trump tweet?

I do not. In fact, they do not, unless you supply the tone yourself. This is very much akin to the sort of response Richard Dawkins gets for stating facts in his books (And no, I'm not comparing myself to Richard Dawkins). It's a false equivocation.


Especially the one word sentences of pure negativity. Trust me, the fastest way to get someone to stop caring is to simply say "Wrong".

Have you read what I was responding to? I was returning the favour.


Done.

Nope.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, take the lore master wizard, delete the second level feature 'lore master', call it 'mage' and now it is exactly what you seem to want: a wizard who doesn't rely on any one school more than the others and is very flexible. Perhaps thinking about it as specialist wizards 'sacrificing' access to the universal spell manipulation that the lore master gets in exchange for enhanced abilities with one school would help you reconcile it with your idea of the mage better.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to agree with you on this. I don't think that the level of arcane manipulation involved in energy substitution and pseudo-meta-magic are a good fit for a generalist mage. They seem more appropriate to an academic, deep-understanding, lore master type.

I like a lot of what can be found in the Arcanist class that was linked in the first response. I also liked the suggested ideas about simply getting abilities that focus on versatility. Shorter rituals, access to other spells, or more spells per day. Maybe extra arcane recovery on short rests.

Perhaps another angle, since we've gotten into the discussion about the base class versus subclass argument, is to consider some of the other class structures. For example, I would say that the fighter class is one class that included a generalist archtype: the Champion. Not all classes do this. for example, there isn't really a generalist sorcerer in the the PHB. Both the draconic and the wild mage strike me as too niche to be generalists.

Maybe some inspiration can be drawn from the Champion to come up with ways to build a generalist in other classes. Or, perhaps that particular approach works only within the fighter class, and doesn't lend itself well to others. Perhaps some more thought is required in order to come up with generalist subclasses that fit the class well.

But, to reiterate: I really like the Arcanist. I'd make a few small changes, but I consider it a better fit for what I'm looking for than the lore master.

[Corran]

Oh, here is another idea, inspired by what you said above about rituals (hopefully better than my previous one:smalleek:).
You know how we sometimes stumble on some spells and say ''why didnt they make that to be a ritual''?
It might be a good subfeature for a generalist wizard (assuming generalist is something like an archtype), meaning that you get to add the ritual tag on a number of spells (that needs some further thought, in order to draw a limit to which spells you can do that, byt that's just the base of the idea).

[Âmesang]

Considering I've also had thoughts of creating a sort of "generalist" subclass for sorcerers that's not a bad idea (even if they don't get ritual casting by default). I'll have to check to see which ritual spell's the highest level to use as a comparison.

[BurgerBeast]

Oh, here is another idea, inspired by what you said above about rituals (hopefully better than my previous one:smalleek:).
You know how we sometimes stumble on some spells and say ''why didnt they make that to be a ritual''?
It might be a good subfeature for a generalist wizard (assuming generalist is something like an archtype), meaning that you get to add the ritual tag on a number of spells (that needs some further thought, in order to draw a limit to which spells you can do that, byt that's just the base of the idea).

Yeah, this sounds like it has some real potential.

It's an exciting idea. After some initial excitement, part of my brain went to the idea that this would actually be a cool specialist subclass feature (they can do this with select spells within their specialty school)... but I think it's a really cool idea that can be used for a Mage, and with some added thought I think it'll be pretty awesome.

Thanks.

[Solunaris]

I read through the thread, and I think I have a good handle on what the OP wants. Let me take a crack at making a "balanced" homebrew generalist wizard subclass.




Master Ritualist

When you select this Arcane Tradition at second level, you add three spells with the Ritual Tag to your Spellbook. These spells may come from any class's spell list and count as Wizard Spells for you. As you gain levels in the Wizard class, you gain access to more ritual spells. At third, fifth, seventh and ninth level you add one additional spell with the Ritual Tag to your Spellbook. These spells must be of a level that you have spell slots for and can prepare.

Potent Casting

Starting at 6th level, your understanding of your spellcraft allows you to imbue specific spells with added potency. When you cast a spell that requires a saving throw, you may force all creatures affected by that spell to make their saving throw with disadvantage. Once you have cast a spell in this way, you cannot do so again until you have completed a long rest.

Eschew Materials

Beginning at 10th level your mastery of spellcasting has allowed you forgo inexpensive material components. You no longer need to provide material components for spells that require them unless the components have a combined gold value exceeding 1000 gold pieces.

Improved Arcane Recovery

By 14th level your lack of a specialization has given you more insight into the nature of raw magic. You may now use your Arcane Recovery feature an additional time per day but not more than once in a single short rest.


Honestly, I had a hard time with the 10th level ability since there isn't really a meaningful way to improve base casting that I hadn't already covered in the other levels except for cantrips; but it feels weak to just give more cantrips at 10th when the other subclasses get so much.

In addition to that, the 2nd level ability feels a bit strong compared to the other subclasses but I guess that's ok considering how weak the 10th level ability is.

[Dappershire]

I'm just here to find out how to break one mega quote into a bunch of tiny bite sized quotes. Its for a friend.


Also, what? Maybe I'm not seeing it the way OP is writing it, but I'm not sure I understand the question.

He wants a character that uses magic. That isn't stereotyped by any particular school of magic.

Soooo...he wants something vaguely flavorless. But he wants to add crunch to give it a more potent lack of flavor; rather than taking a subclass, and through fluff, ignoring the flavor? (Sorry, someone mentioned icecream, now im hungry.)

I mean, I know he says a Diviner is a Diviner, and I get that. I do. I feel the same way about the Paladins. Don't call it a Paladin, if they are leg twisting baby killers that don't worship Gods (sorry, ranting. Stopping.) But I've learned that The characters rarely use the title their class affords them. A Diviner isn't a diviner. Maybe they were taught by a diviner. And didn't appreciate all the pigeon entrails and spirit speaking that it entailed. So when they earned their robes, they casually ignored their training, and studied spells that did what they wanted.
Thus, a generalist is born. A hedgemage. A wizard's wizard.

too dull; didn't read- Just reskin whatever you want to be what you're looking for. Balance is an illusion anyways, at least it wont be drastically unOP.

[BurgerBeast]

I read through the thread, and I think I have a good handle on what the OP wants. Let me take a crack at making a "balanced" homebrew generalist wizard subclass.

(snip)

Pretty cool, thanks. I agree with your analysis, too. The level 10 is a tough one, particularly because in the groups in which I play, DMs tend to hand wave material components anyway.


Also, what? Maybe I'm not seeing it the way OP is writing it, but I'm not sure I understand the question.

He wants a character that uses magic. That isn't stereotyped by any particular school of magic.

Sounds like you understand it to me.


Soooo...he wants something vaguely flavorless. But he wants to add crunch to give it a more potent lack of flavor; rather than taking a subclass, and through fluff, ignoring the flavor? (Sorry, someone mentioned icecream, now im hungry.)

See, this doesn't follow, in my opinion. The idea that a non-specialist wizard is flavourless seems incorrect to me. There are a broader range of flavours permitted, but there are flavour implications that come along with being a wizard to begin with, and flavour can come from other places than class alone.

I'm not sure how the fighter analogy doesn't serve to illustrate this. A battle master has a narrower range of flavours than a champion.


I mean, I know he says a Diviner is a Diviner, and I get that. I do. I feel the same way about the Paladins. Don't call it a Paladin, if they are leg twisting baby killers that don't worship Gods (sorry, ranting. Stopping.) But I've learned that The characters rarely use the title their class affords them. A Diviner isn't a diviner. Maybe they were taught by a diviner. And didn't appreciate all the pigeon entrails and spirit speaking that it entailed. So when they earned their robes, they casually ignored their training, and studied spells that did what they wanted.
Thus, a generalist is born. A hedgemage. A wizard's wizard.

But there is a difference between a trained diviner who does not practice, and a wizard who is not a trained diviner (nor any other specialty).


too dull; didn't read- Just reskin whatever you want to be what you're looking for. Balance is an illusion anyways, at least it wont be drastically unOP.

For people who are cool with unrestricted re-skinning, this is a no-brainer. I am not one of them. I think the particular game benefits from having mechanics that match the flavour. It increases internal consistency, improves predictability (from the player perspective), and ultimately empowers players.

[Solunaris]

Pretty cool, thanks. I agree with your analysis, too. The level 10 is a tough one, particularly because in the groups in which I play, DMs tend to hand wave material components anyway.


The problem is that I was trying to balance it around the other subclasses. The 2nd level abilities all give some sort of minor modification related to the school; usually combat oriented but not all that powerful. My 2nd level ability gives the wizard access to more utility in the form of non-combat spells other wizards wouldn't be able to learn. Let's just say that by not focusing on a specific school it opens up more arcane options but keeps then from learning the shorthand other subclasses get. Thinking back on it, I like it more and more.

6th level I am fairly proud of. All the other subclasses get a meaningful addition to combat related to their school and have a narrow focus. My 6th level allows for much more wide use but is still mostly a combat feature. But when you really need that social Suggestion to stick, this can really help. I also felt that it was important to specify that this will cause friendly fire if a party member is caught in the amplified blast. And then the once per day brings it in line with the other major spell modifications at this level.

10th is something I still don't feel good about. I can't move anything else here but I want to give the subclass something good too. For other subclasses, this is a major bump to offence or defense so it probably needs something with a bit more omph than just eschewing materials. The problem is that there isn't really anything left in the base Wizard abilities to improve that doesn't step on the toes of the other classes. I contemplated making this level a Spell Mastery lite but that feels like it would cheapen the actual feature and be grossly op. Another option I thought of was expanding Potent Casting to be per short rest (effectively taking it from once every 6-8 encounters to once every 2-3) but I like getting new toys when I level so that also felt bad. One last idea was to improve cantrips somehow. Make it so that the lack of focus allowed you to amplify your most basic spells; perhaps allowing you to add a stat to damage or flat out increasing the damage dice. I had the thought of allowing the Wizard to cast a cantrip as a bonus action on a turn that they spent their main action casting a spell of 1st level or higher but that is too much like Quicken Spell for my liking.

And the 14th level ability is great I believe. Powerful, flavorful but not so much that it eclipses the others. It allows for more liberal spell casting than other subclasses but doesn't outshine the raw power the other subclasses gain.

All in all, everything but 6th level is good on my end after sleeping on it.

[DivisibleByZero]

BB - honey and vinegar dude. You're coming off as overly vitriolic. I can't read your posts for the negativity. I get enough of it from the pres - and you're not him...



You don't see how all of that bolded up there reads damn near like a Trump tweet?

That's the second time you've said something similar. Please refrain from discussion about real world politics. I'll report it next time.

[Âmesang]

Eschew Materials

Beginning at 10th level your mastery of spellcasting has allowed you forgo inexpensive material components. You no longer need to provide material components for spells that require them unless the components have a combined gold value exceeding 1000 gold pieces.
I may have to "borrow" this for the sorcerer subclass I have planned, albeit as a weaker, 1st-level variant—I always loved giving 3e sorcerers the Eschew Materials feat 'cause I felt the ability to manipulate magic without the need for minor components fit the flavor of them being born of magic… as opposed to someone like a wizard who simply learned the Art and needed a bit of help to replicate the sorcerer's natural ability*.

I suppose a 1st-level sorcerer subclass variant could be a direct translation of the 3e feat—simply replacing a component pouch/arcane focus; might have to add just a bit more to it to bring it in line with other subclass features.


*Of course the fact that wizards stayed in school allowed them other benefits…

[Kuulvheysoon]

I may have to "borrow" this for the sorcerer subclass I have planned, albeit as a weaker, 1st-level variant—I always loved giving 3e sorcerers the Eschew Materials feat 'cause I felt the ability to manipulate magic without the need for minor components fit the flavor of them being born of magic… as opposed to someone like a wizard who simply learned the Art and needed a bit of help to replicate the sorcerer's natural ability*.

I suppose a 1st-level sorcerer subclass variant could be a direct translation of the 3e feat—simply replacing a component pouch/arcane focus; might have to add just a bit more to it to bring it in line with other subclass features.


*Of course the fact that wizards stayed in school allowed them other benefits…

Maybe drop material components of 50gp or less? I know that my party's sorcerer was annoyed that he couldn't cast chromatic orb because he didn't' realize that he needed the diamond.

[Solunaris]

I may have to "borrow" this for the sorcerer subclass I have planned, albeit as a weaker, 1st-level variant—I always loved giving 3e sorcerers the Eschew Materials feat 'cause I felt the ability to manipulate magic without the need for minor components fit the flavor of them being born of magic… as opposed to someone like a wizard who simply learned the Art and needed a bit of help to replicate the sorcerer's natural ability*.

I suppose a 1st-level sorcerer subclass variant could be a direct translation of the 3e feat—simply replacing a component pouch/arcane focus; might have to add just a bit more to it to bring it in line with other subclass features.


*Of course the fact that wizards stayed in school allowed them other benefits…

I'd probably keep in the clause that allows the Sorcerer to Eschew components with a gold value or ones that are consumed, to a reasonable limit. I choose 1000gp be cause of Clone and Simulicarum specifically. At first level 50 or 100 would be very appropriate. Small enough to not make a huge impact, big enough to allow the Sorcerer to cast things like Chromatic Orb with impunity.

[Âmesang]

I can agree with that, especially with a restriction to consumable components only; heck, I upgraded Quintessa's dweomer drain to 5e specifically to deal with high-cost consumable components via draining the magic from 5× compoent cost magic items—more expensive than the needed component, but also more convenient than something so specific. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Belated side note, but after looking through 3e's Cityscape I'm disappointed that the components for Leomund's spacious carriage weren't four mice and a pumpkin. :smalltongue:

[Corran]

How about if the generalist wizard could prepare a few more spells per day?
Or better, if he could swap some of his prepared spells for some other spells that he knows, during a short rest?
Something like that could add a bit of versatility I suppose.

[Solunaris]

How about if the generalist wizard could prepare a few more spells per day?
Or better, if he could swap some of his prepared spells for some other spells that he knows, during a short rest?
Something like that could add a bit of versatility I suppose.

Ooh, that's a good one. That actually might make a far better 10th level ability.

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah that's a great idea! I think switching that in for the level 10 ability completes the subclass. Awesome!

[Solunaris]

Master Ritualist

When you select this Arcane Tradition at second level, you add three spells with the Ritual Tag to your Spellbook. These spells may come from any class's spell list and count as Wizard Spells for you. As you gain levels in the Wizard class, you gain access to more ritual spells. At third, fifth, seventh and ninth level you add one additional spell with the Ritual Tag to your Spellbook. These spells must be of a level that you have spell slots for and can prepare.

Potent Casting

Starting at 6th level, your understanding of your spellcraft allows you to imbue specific spells with added potency. When you cast a spell that requires a saving throw, you may force all creatures affected by that spell to make their saving throw with disadvantage. Once you have cast a spell in this way, you cannot do so again until you have completed a long rest.

Arcane Fluidity

Beginning at 10th level your ability to memorize several spells from differing schools has granted you increased flexibility when preparing spells. Preparing your list of spells at the end of a long rest now only takes 10 minutes no mater how many spells you prepare. In addition, if you spend at least 10 minutes of a short rest studying your spell book you may change a number of your prepared spells equal to your Intelligence Modifier.

Improved Arcane Recovery

By 14th level your lack of a specialization has given you more insight into the nature of raw magic. You may now use your Arcane Recovery feature an additional time per day but not more than once in a single short rest.

How's that for a subclass? I'd still never take it over Abjuration, but then again I like to play front line Casters so I might be a little biased towards traits that improve my ability to eat hits.