I miss powerful wizards...

[darknite]

Having gotten a wizard to 20th level in 5e I have to admit, while I like how the game limits and simplifies the magic system with some good mechanics, particularly concentration, I feel like magic just isn't as magical as it used to be.

Concentration - Yes, I like this. The days of hyper-buffing for combat are over - no more flying, invisible, hasted strike teams (at least via the same caster). I recommend you check out Piratecat's Defenders of Daybreak ... http://www.piratecat.org/spira/ ... for a great chronicle of a high level party doing this in a 3e-ish game. Concentration is a simple and elegant way to limit the dominance of casters in 5e.

However I think there should be some ways for casters to increase their ability to concentrate - either number of simultaneous spells and/or the capacity for keeping them up if hurt/incapacitated, etc. This could be a feat, a function of level (say by caster class tier - 2 at Tier 3 and 3 at Tier 4), stat (perhaps NOT the casting stat to keep it interesting), or the like. Something to differentiate the caster at Archmage level from a starting Apprentice other than spells available and DC.

Spell Slots - Again, I think 5e pretty much gets this right. Though the limit of 6-9th level spells is pretty rough at high level, especially when your only spell has a good chance of not working and you only get one a day. You really have to resource conserve to pop one of those spells off at the right time or risk wasting it. It would be nice if there were ways to expand these slots a bit with Feats or class options.

Saves - Boy, here's where we really start seeing 5e magic lose its' shine. Saves are too common, easy and repeatable over time for many spells. The save at the end of every turn thing just drains the awesomeness out of so many spells. I don't think I've ever seen a monster effected by save-at-the-end-of-turn spells actually be effected for the entire duration. Legendary Saves take the wind out of a caster's spell choices as well - how many players spend their time counting uses of Legendary Saves before popping a precious, high-level spell? All of them.

Duration - The vast majority of magic lasts a minute or maybe 10. Only one feature I can think of can extend this time. It would be nice if there were more, accessible methods of scaling spell duration.

Damage/Effect - With a few exceptions, magic damage pales in comparison to other attack types. Fireball is nice at 5th level but hardly a go-to at 11th. A Disintegrate is cool, if the target misses their save, and even isn't really that much damage to foes for the kinds you're fighting at that point. High level spells need to be awesome - and in most cases (as we've seen Treantmonk spell out) they're not. Upcasting is often not an equitable option, either, since high level spell slots are paltry.

Yeah, I know, there's been problems with magic being too powerful in D&D. I get it. But the more I dabble in high level magic in 5e the more tepid magic seems today. I'm not asking for a big adjustment here. I think a opening some options to caster PCs as they progress - be they feats, variable class options, magic items, et al - that address these issues, much as happens for martial characters, would be cool.

In particular the variable class option - ie at Level X you can choose THIS boost option OR THAT boost option, would be an interesting solution.

Thoughts?

[Damon_Tor]

Having gotten a wizard to 20th level in 5e I have to admit, while I like how the game limits and simplifies the magic system with some good mechanics, particularly concentration, I feel like magic just isn't as magical as it used to be.

Concentration - Yes, I like this. The days of hyper-buffing for combat are over - no more flying, invisible, hasted strike teams (at least via the same caster). I recommend you check out Piratecat's Defenders of Daybreak ... http://www.piratecat.org/spira/ ... for a great chronicle of a high level party doing this in a 3e-ish game. Concentration is a simple and elegant way to limit the dominance of casters in 5e.

Concentration on buffs is easily overcome by money and prep time via the Glyph of Warding spell. This spell is what allows a wizard to kill the Tarrasque in one round. Wizards are still the best class in the game.

[Skyblaze]

The main contention here is "This is a game and it needs to be balanced". Most of the annoyances you list are to make it far more even against martial classes. Even with all of these restrictions the wizard is consistently ranked as the most powerful class in 5e.

[darknite]

Concentration on buffs is easily overcome by money and prep time via the Glyph of Warding spell. This spell is what allows a wizard to kill the Tarrasque in one round. Wizards are still the best class in the game.

So give me an hour to draw an immobile Glyph, which needs to be the same level as the spell I want to cast above 3rd level, and it's 'easily overcome'? Get serious.

[MrStabby]

I think I would say that everything you have listed is better as a hard limit. Complaining that you can only cast wish once per day? Feats that circumvent this are pretty dangerous. Given that a high level spell can win a combat nearly outright or entirely circumvent it we are asking "how many of the party's combats each day should the caster be able to win by themselves?".

Maybe I could get behind an extend spell feat. It seems like that would be less likely than the others to take fun from the other players.

[darknite]

The main contention here is "This is a game and it needs to be balanced". Most of the annoyances you list are to make it far more even against martial classes. Even with all of these restrictions the wizard is consistently ranked as the most powerful class in 5e.

Perhaps. But as I said, magic just doesn't feel as magic as it used to. Game balance is a thing, too. But you don't see martials sitting around counting Legendary Saves as they pummel a dragon 5 times a round for 20+hp a hit all day long.

[Toofey]

Concentration on buffs is easily overcome by money and prep time via the Glyph of Warding spell. This spell is what allows a wizard to kill the Tarrasque in one round. Wizards are still the best class in the game.

You know that Glyphs of warding can't be moved more than 10' right?

either way, Mages are hella powerful, the concentraition mechanic is IMO a little overbroad (a few too many spells are in it) but it's fine and easy enough to work around. And with the way the rules work there's plenty of ways for wizards to be powerful in and out of combat. I feel like this comes from people wanting more damage when blasting and equating damage potential to power (and the Wizard is no slouch in the damage potential department all reports to the contrary be damned) but that's really not what a wizard's power is about.

In short if you don't think Wizards are powerful enough (really at any level) git gud.

[Willie the Duck]

Having gotten a wizard to 20th level in 5e I have to admit, while I like how the game limits and simplifies the magic system with some good mechanics, particularly concentration, I feel like magic just isn't as magical as it used to be.
...
Yeah, I know, there's been problems with magic being too powerful in D&D. I get it. But the more I dabble in high level magic in 5e the more tepid magic seems today.
...
Thoughts?

I think between these points, you are absolutely right. 100%. The only difference is whether that is a good thing. Because, you're right. Magic is weaker in 5e than it was in 3e. Instead of this thing which utterly disrupted the very foundational structure of the game system, made playing any other classes unfun, and created the mentality that WotC had it in for non-wizards (even though high level magic users were pretty darn powerful in the TSR days as well), which is sometimes fun to do (when you are the wizard), in 5e level 20 wizards are merely the most powerful option (for someone capable of putting their abilities to good use). Obviously there aren't going to be a lot of people champing at the bit to go back to those days, but I do get the appeal. There are games like Ars Magicka or Mage:the Ascension where everyone is a wizard (or games like GURPS or HERO where everyone can be one if they want). Would that help your itch for uber mage characters?

[KorvinStarmast]

Perhaps. But as I said, magic just doesn't feel as magic as it used to. Game balance is a thing, too. But you don't see martials sitting around counting Legendary Saves as they pummel a dragon 5 times a round for 20+hp a hit all day long. Teamwork. That's one of the things that 5e does a good job, IMO, of emphasizing. This isn't a single player CRPG you are dealing with here. In the swords and sorcery genre, the game itself had slipped a bit too far towards sorcery at the expense of swords. (While I understand that 4e tried to address that, I never played it so have no feel for truth or not of that).

The balance point, or the pendulum, swings back a bit toward swords.

Good. That martial probably needs a buff to make his wisdom save versus the Fear of an Ancient Dragon so that he can whack at it with his stick/sword/blade rather than flee.

[Skyblaze]

Perhaps. But as I said, magic just doesn't feel as magic as it used to. Game balance is a thing, too. But you don't see martials sitting around counting Legendary Saves as they pummel a dragon 5 times a round for 20+hp a hit all day long.

I mean, what do you want in magic? (Sorry to exaggerate) An auto win button? Full casters can cause time to stop, cause literal past events to become undone, make someone unable to cast spells or think coherently for a month, make a clone, block all magic, create huge fortresses, cause meteors to fly from the sky, control humans/monsters, and much more. Yes, there is a lot of restrictions around all of that because if there wasn't they would be completely unstoppable.

Martial classes can hit one target consistently. Spell casters can damage or destroy hordes of enemies in one go.

[Man_Over_Game]

Be a Sorcerer, for Twin Spell
Get a level 20 boon, and ask your DM for Concentrating on two spells at once.
Make/request a homebrew item, maybe something that works like Contingency but holds Concentration on a spell that targets you for its entire duration
Get a friend who can cast a Concentration spell

Simulcrum

[darknite]

I think between these points, you are absolutely right. 100%. The only difference is whether that is a good thing. Because, you're right. Magic is weaker in 5e than it was in 3e. Instead of this thing which utterly disrupted the very foundational structure of the game system, made playing any other classes unfun, and created the mentality that WotC had it in for non-wizards (even though high level magic users were pretty darn powerful in the TSR days as well), which is sometimes fun to do (when you are the wizard), in 5e level 20 wizards are merely the most powerful option (for someone capable of putting their abilities to good use). Obviously there aren't going to be a lot of people champing at the bit to go back to those days, but I do get the appeal. There are games like Ars Magicka or Mage:the Ascension where everyone is a wizard (or games like GURPS or HERO where everyone can be one if they want). Would that help your itch for uber mage characters?

Thanks for understanding the underpinning of my post. Perhaps there isn't a solution to bringing PC-castable universe-shattering spells back to D&D for balance reasons. I'd like to hope there are, while also not diminishing the contributions and abilities of other classes. But maybe there aren't...

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Having gotten a wizard to 20th level in 5e I have to admit...

Saves - Boy, here's where we really start seeing 5e magic lose its' shine. Saves are too common, easy and repeatable over time for many spells. The save at the end of every turn thing just drains the awesomeness out of so many spells. I don't think I've ever seen a monster effected by save-at-the-end-of-turn spells actually be effected for the entire duration. Legendary Saves take the wind out of a caster's spell choices as well - how many players spend their time counting uses of Legendary Saves before popping a precious, high-level spell?
.....Thoughts?

I love this edition. Everyone is a member of the team. If we make any changes we have to help martials out as well.

Saves are a thing, maybe if they scaled with level cast the all or nothing wouldn't seem so silly.

Something like "5th level spell ad 5 to your spell save DC for this spell"

At first glance it seems like a mid 20's number is possible so spell saves may have to be modified to take your level or CR into account....

Still seems like a Wisdom save for a Level 8 spell shouldbe tougher. Or dodging a Level 8 Fireball should be more difficult.

Interesting.

[darknite]

Be a Sorcerer, for Twin Spell
Get a level 20 boon, and ask your DM for Concentrating on two spells at once.
Make/request a homebrew item, maybe something that works like Contingency but holds Concentration on a spell that targets you for its entire duration
Get a friend who can cast a Concentration spell

Simulcrum




Good point about Simulacrum. And this Wizard just go the Boon of High Magic (thanks, Zass Tam!). I'm happy to keep playing as is. But magic, as practicable by a PC, for good or ill, is not what it used to be.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I've given a player an item that gave a second concentration slot. It was pretty crazy the things that he could do even at 3rd or 5th level. I can't imagine Level 10+. He was easily the best in the party at pretty much everything except tanking, including social encounters because of his spells. Now, the party in question didn't mind being outshined most of the time and he was good at not taking it too far. He really just tried to help the rest of the party out typically. But most parties would be less understanding in my experience and most players would be more selfish, even subconsciously. So just know the effect this has on the game if you ever do it.

I like the ability to extend the duration of certain spells.

I agree that many many spells often feel useless because of the opportunity cost of the spell level vs the ease of passing the save. I don't know of a good way around that without rewriting and balancing spells. I just pick spells that mostly don't have saves and I've never found myself wanting at all.

I could see getting a couple 7th and 8th level spell slots. I don't think it'd be that game breaking, and the rest of the party might actually appreciate this change because it makes their high level Wizard friend a little more reliable.

I don't typically focus on damage as a Wizard, so I'm not the one to comment on that. I haven't had a hard time doing plenty of damage when I've needed to though.

All in all, 5e Wizards might not be as good as 3e Wizards, but they're still the only class in SS+++ Tier. Nothing in 5e really compares already, so making them more powerful is fine but it'll probably have a negative affect for the other players at most tables.

[Man_Over_Game]

With the Bounded Accuracy philosophy of 5e, which bridges the power difference between levels 1-20, it'd break that philosophy and the design goals of 5e altogether.

I do agree that saving throws should be more consistent, though, but too large of a fix will imbalance the game pretty heavily.

It's a bit of a stretch, but here's a fix that I use that may work for you:
Saving Throws are defined as 8 + Proficiency + Spellcasting modifier. By just making the 8 a 10 will cause Saving Throws to be that much more consistent.

To balance things back to roughly normal levels, I implement a minor fix in my own games where if you have an odd ability score (such as a 9 in Dexterity), you get a +1 to its relevant saving throws and skills. The goal here was to incentivize players to consider odd stats as beneficial without breaking the entire system.

Combined, you have much more devastating saving throws, but also a much more accessible way to increase your saving throws, so as a result, the player's stats (and their decisions) will have much more impact to what happens in-game.

[JackPhoenix]

Still seems like a Wisdom save for a Level 8 spell shouldbe tougher. Or dodging a Level 8 Fireball should be more difficult.

And it is. When you first get Fireball, your save DC is about 14-15. When you'll get to level 15 to be able to cast Fireball from 8th level slot, your DC is at least 2 higher thanks to higher proficiency bonus, plus possibly more due to increased casting ability or magical items.

[ImproperJustice]

Eh.....

A buddy of mine and were just talking about this, this morning.

I have an upper level caster and he has an upper level Fighter.

When we are in a battle against a major enemy, what he needs most is for me to do something so he can hit the bad guy, and the bad guy can’t hit him back.
Otherwise, it’s a slug fest that depletes his precious hit points.

During low threat encounters, I need him to clear the board with minimal assistance so I can preserve my precious spell slots for the big Bads.

In the middle of all this, we need the Rogue / Ranger to find the enemy, and clear a path so we don’t waste precious resources (spells and hit points), and the Cleric / Bard/ Monk/ Warlock fills any gaps the rest of us are missing.

So long as we continue to work together, then we can keep this delightful synergy going until we save the day.

Yeah. Wizards got knocked down a peg. But they needed to. Now they are part of a team with everyone else, and I like it.

[Unoriginal]

How powerful should magic be?

That's a question that all works with magic have to answer.

From the easy spellcasting of Harry Potter to the "spend several hours preparing and several minutes performing a precise ritual to summon a being of power, then make it submit, and you'll die or be crippled if you fail" of the Bartimeus Trilogy, a setting's magic is defined by what it can't do often more than by what it can do, because the word "magic" can be used to mean anything.

D&D 3.X is not the same work as D&D 5e. And neither are the same work as 4e, AD&D, or the time Gary Gygax sat down with his kids to explore Castle Greyhawk for the first time.

5e magic is weaker than 3.X, it is true. It is, in my opinion, a great thing. The Wizard is not "the strongest class", it's just one of the classes, and that is a good thing. And I like the power level the casters have currently.

If you want magic to be more powerful, well, it's a question of tastes. You could make it so in your game, if you wanted to, just by lifting some limitations. And if you ask "but what about the other classes?", ask yourself this: the classes are balanced now, and you don't like it, so would you really like if the wizard got a boost and then everyone else got a boost too?

Basically: is your problem the limits of magic in 5e, or the limits on what your character can do within the group or the scenario?

Fact is, 5e has it that even the most powerful wizard can be killed by someone waving a stick a lot. I think it's great, if you don't, well, change it or try a system where it can't happen.

[MaxWilson]

Damage/Effect - With a few exceptions, magic damage pales in comparison to other attack types. Fireball is nice at 5th level but hardly a go-to at 11th. A Disintegrate is cool, if the target misses their save, and even isn't really that much damage to foes for the kinds you're fighting at that point. High level spells need to be awesome - and in most cases (as we've seen Treantmonk spell out) they're not. Upcasting is often not an equitable option, either, since high level spell slots are paltry.

Yeah, I know, there's been problems with magic being too powerful in D&D. I get it. But the more I dabble in high level magic in 5e the more tepid magic seems today. I'm not asking for a big adjustment here. I think a opening some options to caster PCs as they progress - be they feats, variable class options, magic items, et al - that address these issues, much as happens for martial characters, would be cool.

In particular the variable class option - ie at Level X you can choose THIS boost option OR THAT boost option, would be an interesting solution.

Thoughts?

This last one is the big one. 5E magic just isn't a very big deal, with a few exceptions for spells that are wildly more powerful than the norm (Conjure Animals, Healing Spirit, Simulacrum, Planar Binding), generally in specific ways (healing or conjuring). The result is that 5E mages can break the game in maybe a dozen ways, and it's always the same ways, generally only at levels 13+. They are also very hard to kill or even permanently damage. This is very different from AD&D mages which can break the game in various ways starting as early as 7th level, but are also so frail they can be killed by a couple of housecats. It leads to 5E play being relatively samey, and if you're looking for a game where magic is more significant and where sneaking around inside an enemy base invisible and laying Fire Traps while trying not to get caught is a valid form of guerilla warfare, you might consider a different game like Ars Magica or AD&D.

[LudicSavant]

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fact is, 5e has it that even the most powerful wizard can be killed by someone waving a stick a lot.

A quote I happen to like a lot:

No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.

That, in my opinion, is how it should be. The wizard is capable of quite a lot. But he depends on his buddies to keep the aforementioned knife from his back, as well as to handle those things he cannot. An equal partner, not a master.

[MaxWilson]

“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.”

Unfortunately for Teldra, this turned out not to be true, at least for nine-foot-tall Jenoine wizards.

[Keravath]

After reading the thread ... I think the title should be "I miss over-powerful wizards".

Which is absolutely fine if you played a wizard in previous editions but everyone who played something else probably doesn't miss them much at all.

In 1e, wizards suffered through the worst possible initial game experience ... d4 for hit points ... no armor ... very few spells ... having to roll to see if you could scribe a spell you found to your spell book. If you ever played a wizard to level 15+ ... the spells could be world ending ... wish was far less constrained. You could stack any buff you could cast. Later editions through 3.5e+ had very similar balance though I think the early wizard survivability and usefulness was increased by adding cantrips and other features.

Then we come to 5e ... where wizards are STILL powerful ... time stop, simulacrum, foresight, wish ... incredible abilities that can end encounters effectively but generally not change the entire world with a single casting.

However, the reduction in power of the wizards at high levels goes with greatly increased survivability at low levels and a rebalancing of all classes so that at level 20 they all bring something worthwhile to epic encounters. No matter what class you are playing ... you can feel like you make a difference. Which is part of why wizards don't feel as strong. Their power has been reduced a bit and everyone else has been bumped up ... especially the non-caster classes.

The level 20 wizard is no longer a god but a demi-god while the rest are no longer peons but now also heroes or demi-gods themselves. :)

As for legendary saves ... creatures usually have 3/day ... there are a lot of lower level detrimental spells that can be used to burn off these saves ... if you are a lone caster then you will have a problem. However, D&D 5e does the whole team thing much better ... if you have other casters also working on affecting the target then it doesn't take that long to work through the legendary saves ... they become another factor in the action economy more than anything else. (Frustrating as it is for a caster when faced with them ...).

[LudicSavant]

Wizards are very... unevenly powerful in 5e. Depending on how they're used, they can be overwhelmingly strong to the point that the game basically revolves around them (master planner with contingencies for everything exploiting a dozen crazy tricks at a time, and to top it off doesn't know the meaning of the word "squishy"), or they can be a joke (the squishy guy who forgets that rituals exist and spends their turn casting Witch Bolt).

This leads to people having very different experiences with Wizards, since their skill floor and skill cap are so far apart. At any levels, really.

[Max_Killjoy]

One of the things I like about 5e is that it's a less exponential power scale than previous editions -- which I referred to as the "exploding scale of silly". Almost any discussion of 3.x would at some point devolve into wizards et al playing 5-D nested-contingency speed-chess.

To do that, to put a lid on that stuff, they really had to reel in some of the casters, it wasn't avoidable, as they were the most exponential.

[Calimehter]

So give me an hour to draw an immobile Glyph, which needs to be the same level as the spell I want to cast above 3rd level, and it's 'easily overcome'? Get serious.

I believe the Glyph trick is intended to work with the Demiplane spell. You set the glyphs up in there, and then just pop in and trigger them whenever and wherever you need them. I've never played it myself, but it seemed legit (if cheesy) when I last glanced at it.

[Unoriginal]

{scrubbed}

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Wizards are very... unevenly powerful in 5e. Depending on how they're used, they can be overwhelmingly strong to the point that the game basically revolves around them, or they can be a joke (the squishy guy who forgets that rituals exist and spends their turn casting Witch Bolt).

This leads to people having very different experiences with Wizards, since their skill floor and skill cap are so far apart. At any levels, really.

This is Wizards exactly in 5e. It's extremely player dependent. I think they're probably the hardest class to play at their peak, but they easily have the highest power cap in the game. Alternatively, if you just play an uncreative blaster or illusionist, you'll feel pretty vulnerable a lot of the time.

Give me a party of Wizards manned by good, creative players and I'd take odds against any party of equivalent level with roughly equal magic items. I've actually always wanted to play a full Wizard party, but a lot of my friends don't want to do all the bookkeeping and spell memorizing it takes to play a Wizard.

[JackPhoenix]

This is Wizards exactly in 5e. It's extremely player dependent. I think they're probably the hardest class to play at their peak, but they easily have the highest power cap in the game. Alternatively, if you just play an uncreative blaster or illusionist, you'll feel pretty vulnerable a lot of the time.

That was true in 3.5 as well. You had the broken TO builds on one side, and you had people who took feats like Toughness to improve wizard's low HP, spammed blasting spells until they ran out of slots and had no idea what metamagic is.

[Doug Lampert]

Unfortunately for Teldra, this turned out not to be true, at least for nine-foot-tall Jenoine wizards.

And note that that was an artifact level knife "one shot one kill" knife too.

And it's not true for Vlad either, in the book where he says it, he needs his antimagic artifact to get the knife to hit, and the wizard gets better later.

In the book where he says it, Aleria is casting spells and fighting, and takes a greatsword entirely through her body back to front, she keeps casting spells and fighting without it much bothering her and then heals herself when the battle is over.

That quote is Vlad being snarky, in his setting magic is ALMOST as overpowered as in 3.5, he's a witch, a sorcerer, has an artifact level antimagic device which gets an upgrade to god-killing level artifact, and has two flying poisonous allies; he regularly needs all of that. His friends include 3 wizards: Sethra, who would be at most mildly annoyed by a knife to the back, and Aleria (mentioned above and how she reacts to it), and Morollan (also unlikely to care about a knife to the back).

[PhoenixPhyre]

And note that that was an artifact level knife "one shot one kill" knife too.

And it's not true for Vlad either, in the book where he says it, he needs his antimagic artifact to get the knife to hit, and the wizard gets better later.

In the book where he says it, Aleria is casting spells and fighting, and takes a greatsword entirely through her body back to front, she keeps casting spells and fighting without it much bothering her and then heals herself when the battle is over.

That quote is Vlad being snarky, in his setting magic is ALMOST as overpowered as in 3.5, he's a witch, a sorcerer, has an artifact level antimagic device which gets an upgrade to god-killing level artifact, and has two flying poisonous allies; he regularly needs all of that. His friends include 3 wizards: Sethra, who would be at most mildly annoyed by a knife to the back, and Aleria (mentioned above and how she reacts to it), and Morollan (also unlikely to care about a knife to the back).

True. But the concept is right.

[Mith]

If we made spellcasters more frail and dangerous to cast (d4 HD and perhaps more ritual style casting where high level spells taking longer to go off), would that be a sufficient balance point to make damage higher on spells (if you feel like it should be better)?

In my experience, with a equal CR, the high level spell attack does a significant chunk of damage against your front line characters, and could fry your mid HP to low HP characters on a good roll. So I am not sure if boosting damage is a good way to do it.

I can see an argument for an argument for scaling saves, even though it ends up being fiddly.

A thought I had for an alternative for saves is instead of rolling saves every round, you are under the effects of the spell for a number of rounds equal to the amount you failed your save by. If I were doing this, I would give all non-proficient saves half proficiency. I think this cuts down on the "roll the dice all the time to get out quickly" that makes people not like saving through spells, but still sticks within bounded accuracy.

[Morty]

Before I quit my 5E campaign at level 6, our wizard already had more options than everyone else, blasted away with fireballs and locked down enemies with illusions due to their using Intelligence saves that neither orcs nor giants are proficient in. Just because 5E doesn't cater to the power fantasy of a super-powerful wizard as much as 3E doesn't mean its wizards are somehow weak.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like the multiple saves thing, both as a DM and as a player. It allows for powerful disabling spells (hard CC) without having the "oh, you lost initiative so now you're dead/out of combat on turn 1" rocket-tag problem of SoD/SoS spells.

A hidden design concept that seems to have gone into 5e is that you should expect to get hit/fail your saves but that doing so should not be terminal. I'll do some math work later to show this, but I'm pretty sure there's a clear "expected average duration" for various effects based on average DCs/saves. And spells are balanced around that. Hold person can be powerful because it doesn't last (on average) more than a few rounds. Spells that defy this are unusually powerful (eg banishment).

I once (in error) gave my party items that boosted their save DCs. It strongly limited the CRs of creatures that could threaten them because a single mass disablement spell locked the lower ones down for the duration. They literally could not make the saving throw even on a 20. It was boring.

[MaxWilson]

In the book where he says it, Aleria is casting spells and fighting, and takes a greatsword entirely through her body back to front, she keeps casting spells and fighting without it much bothering her and then heals herself when the battle is over.

Hahahaha, I love Aliera, she's hilarious.

I put the amulet into its case and recalled a certain face, and voice, and above all, attitude. She was short, bad-tempered, very good at any number of things.

"Vlad? I'm rather busy just at the--"

"Aliera, Kragar is hurt. Dying."

"Yes?" she said. "And?"

"And I need to save him."

"Best of luck with that."

"Aliera."

"What?"

"It's Kragar."

"I'm glad you understand."

"Aliera, he was hit because he's been helping me."

There was a pause. Then a psychic sigh. "Are you with him?"

"Yes."

There was a pop of displaced air, and she said, "Fine then. But you owe me."

[Zuras]

(Snip)
That quote is Vlad being snarky, in his setting magic is ALMOST as overpowered as in 3.5, he's a witch, a sorcerer, has an artifact level antimagic device which gets an upgrade to god-killing level artifact, and has two flying poisonous allies; he regularly needs all of that. His friends include 3 wizards: Sethra, who would be at most mildly annoyed by a knife to the back, and Aleria (mentioned above and how she reacts to it), and Morollan (also unlikely to care about a knife to the back).

To be fair, the setting is less 3.5 and more an original AD&D campaign where the DM just threw out all the restrictions on max levels for multiclassed gestalt elves and then followed the natural consequences. The initial books, if viewed from the wizards’ perspective, is basically a high level party realizing they had 3 20th+ level Fighter/Magic Users but still needed a Thief.

[iTreeby]

How powerful would it be to give a casting ability that let's spells continue after the target passes a save that would normally end the effect, provided that the target fails a new save on the next turn and concentration is still maintained?

Alternatively how powerful would it be to add language like hex or hunters mark that let's you apply effects to new targets after the previous targets die?

How powerful are these abilities compared to the abilities wizards get and how many times would you want to use these abilities per long rest if you had to trade something like signature spell to get them?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

That was true in 3.5 as well. You had the broken TO builds on one side, and you had people who took feats like Toughness to improve wizard's low HP, spammed blasting spells until they ran out of slots and had no idea what metamagic is.

Yeah that's fair. I wasn't comparing that to 3.5 though. Just stating that LucidSavant's comment was accurate in my experience.

[Particle_Man]

Anyhow, didn't one of the non-magical "musketeers" outright kill a Jenoine Wizard (at the cost of her own life) in the prequel books of the Taltos world?

Doesn't Conan kill wizards? I mean, I don't mind Wizards being powerful, but they should not be undefeatable.

[Malifice]

Concentration on buffs is easily overcome by money and prep time via the Glyph of Warding spell. This spell is what allows a wizard to kill the Tarrasque in one round. Wizards are still the best class in the game.

How so?

When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures...

[MaxWilson]

Anyhow, didn't one of the non-magical "musketeers" outright kill a Jenoine Wizard (at the cost of her own life) in the prequel books of the Taltos world?

I doubt it. I'm not even convinced that the Jenoine presence in those books isn't a dramatic invention by Paarfri of Roundwood, and in any case I don't remember that Jenoine being killed, merely its presence being banished. (Besides, it doesn't look or act much at all like the actual Jenoine that we know about from Vlad's accounts, which is what makes me suspect that Paarfri doesn't know what he's talking about and is inventing things from whole cloth.)

As an aside, the best part of Tiassa and Hawk is getting to see what Khaavren looks like when Paarfri isn't the narrator. :)


Doesn't Conan kill wizards? I mean, I don't mind Wizards being powerful, but they should not be undefeatable.

Sure! I personally like it when wizards are fragile but have access to powerful magic, akin to advanced technology. That leads to good adventures: "the wizard Werdna was powerful enough to set up this labyrinth and stock it with horrible monsters, and your kingdom's army cannot hope to challenge his army on the field of battle and win, but he's also frail enough that if you penetrate the labyrinth and surprise him while he's wooing Lady Griddlebone, you may be able to end his rule forever!"

You don't get good adventures out of "the Lord Ruler has an AC of 20 when Bladesinging and can maximize his Magic Missile for 70 points of damage once per day."

=============================


How so?

When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures...

You have an old copy of the PHB. Check the new printings or the errata.

[Joe dirt]

wizards are easily the most powerful class in the game, they didnt name the company that produced 5e "wizards of the coast" for nothing

[Unoriginal]

they can be overwhelmingly strong to the point that the game basically revolves around them (master planner with contingencies for everything exploiting a dozen crazy tricks at a time, and to top it off doesn't know the meaning of the word "squishy")

I'm sincerely asking and not trying to set up a strawman or anything similar, but do those "master planner" wizards actually exist in an actual 5e game?

Because based on my personal experience, any time that I see it discussed on forums and the like, the whole "master planner" thing seems more "theoretically, a wizard could do this" whiteroom shenanigans that'd require the wizard to know the DM's notes to work, those "a dozen crazy tricks at a time" turns out to be "the DM gave the guy free power ups/made the plan work because 'eh, it's magic' or 'eh, it's fun' or basic rule abuse" (or nearly so), and "not knowing the meaning of the word 'squishy'" is more often than not "had to give up a lot of other stuff to be less squishy than your average wizard"

So, again, aware that my experience is limited, I sincerely ask: do you have any example of that "master planner" who can make "the game basically revolves around them" ?


wizards are easily the most powerful class in the game

They are not. Unless you can show us datas proving your claim.

Next point of order...

[Max_Killjoy]

At some point, I have to ask some people why they're playing D&D, where other types of characters are at least supposed to matter, instead of something like the OWD Mage, where only Mages really matter, and "but magic is about remaking reality!" is the whole point rather than an excuse for powergaming cheese.

[Clistenes]

5e certainly makes it harder to play demigod... Any class can become a very efficient murder machine at high levels, but you can't do stuff like creating your own demiplane country, army of Simulacra of Golems and fleet of Star Destroyer-like flying fortress-ships...

[DrowPiratRobrts]

They are not. Unless you can show us datas proving your claim.

Next point of order...

He did say Wizards are most powerful, not "best." That seems like a pretty reasonable claim considering the spell they learn, the ability to scribe spells, the ability to do things in the game that other classes can't touch on a consistent basis.

Even though other classes can dip into the Wizard spells sometimes, it seems pretty clear that the best way to get access to the largest amount of the most powerful spells in the game is to play a Wizard.

[Angelmaker]

3.5 was complete caster supremacy.

4.0 reigned everyone in on a base level - everyone was basically a caster with differnt fluff. You may or may not like that, but balancing wise that IS the best edition.

5 went back to a mor diverse system, and the same problems from 3.5 keep creeping up. Martials MAY be about as good in combat (which is HIGHLY dependant on how many combats you encounter each day - any fullcaster or even partial caster that is allowed to nova even further skews the balance towards caster) as casters, but casters have way more versatility. When every new spell allows you basically to do something out of the ordinary, you can apply creative solutions to problems to which most martials have an INCREDIBLY limited set of tools.

If we then again give martials more options, imho we would end up back at fourth edition, plus how would you even do that? It'd be basically so much homebrew, you could as well start a more balanced approach from scrap.

Don't get me wrong: i am all for making casters have more interesting and varied options, i even had a homebrew feat which allowed casters to have a second concentration slot and it worked jsut fine (mostly because the palyer didnt abuse it) - but give martials something nice in return, so they aren't just one trick ponies. At least free ritual casting with a nice set of homebrew rituals or something is direly needed.

To me the paladin is about the baseline of what a martial characteer should be able to do - lots of combat focused spells and utility, plus a few support things for your melee buddies and most importantly out of combat utility. Paladins in my oppinion are one of the best designed classes in 5e. While barbarians do feel totally right for combat, tey lack what the paladin chassis brings in utility.

So in short: give casters more options and buff all melee utility to paladin level and 5e will be a better game.

[Unoriginal]

He did say Wizards are most powerful, not "best." That seems like a pretty reasonable claim considering the spell they learn, the ability to scribe spells, the ability to do things in the game that other classes can't touch on a consistent basis.

No, it is not a reasonable claim.

If you want to argue pure, raw power, the *Cleric* is the most powerful.

At lvl 10, they get Divine Intervention, which gives them 10% chances per day to get what is basically a Wish but better (as with no side effects). And if it fails they can just re-try the next day. And at lvl 20 they don't need to roll.



Even though other classes can dip into the Wizard spells sometimes, it seems pretty clear that the best way to get access to the largest amount of the most powerful spells in the game is to play a Wizard.

Other classes don't need to "dip" into Wizard spells. And having a Wizard amount of spells does not make you the most powerful.



To me the paladin is about the baseline of what a martial characteer should be able to do - lots of combat focused spells and utility, plus a few support things for your melee buddies and most importantly out of combat utility.

So your solution to what you think is the martial's problem is "make them caster".

Just like you described 4e.

[Kane0]

The easy part: add a metamagic feat you can take to extend a couple times per day, similar to the battlemaster maneuver feat

The hard part: correct all the bad spells, one by one. Treantmonk and others have already provided an excellent starting point.

The crazy part: extra concentration and save manipulation can be obtained via item, epic boon or other means.

[Max_Killjoy]

To me the paladin is about the baseline of what a martial characteer should be able to do - lots of combat focused spells and utility, plus a few support things for your melee buddies and most importantly out of combat utility. Paladins in my oppinion are one of the best designed classes in 5e. While barbarians do feel totally right for combat, tey lack what the paladin chassis brings in utility.

So in short: give casters more options and buff all melee utility to paladin level and 5e will be a better game.


Which takes us back to not having a class or two for the players who want to play their Fighter or Rogue as a non-magic, non-casting character who succeeds on the strength of their arm, the sharpness of their wit, the fire in their heart, and the steel of their blade.

If you want to say that D&D is a system about characters who have magic, and those without need not apply, then maybe that's a thing you can do, but...

[DrowPiratRobrts]

No, it is not a reasonable claim.




Can't argue with that logic...but seriously class abilities like "Malleable Illusions" and "Illusory Reality" are simply game-breaking in the hands of a creative player. Wizards consistently get to do things that no other classes can do, and these things also happen to hold some of the greatest potential for changing the game completely. That's pretty powerful. Even if the Wizard isn't objectively the most powerful class, there's certainly enough data to support it being a reasonable claim.

[Joe dirt]

I'm sincerely asking and not trying to set up a strawman or anything similar, but do those "master planner" wizards actually exist in an actual 5e game?

Because based on my personal experience, any time that I see it discussed on forums and the like, the whole "master planner" thing seems more "theoretically, a wizard could do this" whiteroom shenanigans that'd require the wizard to know the DM's notes to work, those "a dozen crazy tricks at a time" turns out to be "the DM gave the guy free power ups/made the plan work because 'eh, it's magic' or 'eh, it's fun' or basic rule abuse" (or nearly so), and "not knowing the meaning of the word 'squishy'" is more often than not "had to give up a lot of other stuff to be less squishy than your average wizard"

So, again, aware that my experience is limited, I sincerely ask: do you have any example of that "master planner" who can make "the game basically revolves around them" ?



They are not. Unless you can show us datas proving your claim.

Next point of order...

sure i can show u how to build an OP wizard, i played one in a game and the DM got disgusted because my character was at a different power level than the other characters, that my character had to be "retired". Which was ok to me since the DM was literally making encounters to keep my wizard occupied, rather than normal encounters.

[Unoriginal]

sure i can show u how to build an OP wizard, i played one in a game and the DM got disgusted because my character was at a different power level than the other characters, that my character had to be "retired". Which was ok to me since the DM was literally making encounters to keep my wizard occupied, rather than normal encounters.

I'd be happy if you showed how you did it, yes, thank you.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I'd be happy if you showed how you did it, yes, thank you.

One thing that helped me understand some of the less immediately obvious ways that the Wizard can reign supreme is Treantmonk's Guide. I'm guessing you've likely seen it, but if not you should give it a read. He talks a lot about how to play a Wizard in a way that manipulates everything around you, including strengthening your allies in many ways. One small but important example is to largely avoid spells that allow a saving throw, and choose instead the spells that just affect the world regardless of how the DM or other creatures feel about it.

[Unoriginal]

One thing that helped me understand some of the less immediately obvious ways that the Wizard can reign supreme is Treantmonk's Guide. I'm guessing you've likely seen it, but if not you should give it a read. He talks a lot about how to play a Wizard in a way that manipulates everything around you, including strengthening your allies in many ways. One small but important example is to largely avoid spells that allow a saving throw, and choose instead the spells that just affect the world regardless of how the DM or other creatures feel about it.

I am familiar with his work. I disagree with it, or at least his conclusions.

That he chose to name the role he favor the "god", despite the claim of letting others have all the glory, speaks volume.

If anything in the world is going to help Wizards "reign supreme", it's not Treantmonk's Guide.

Being a buffer/debuffer/control wizard does not make you a god. It makes you another member of the team. Not superior, not the best, not a god. Just an adventurer who happens to be doing their job.

Maybe writing a guide would be a worthwhile endeavor.

[Angelmaker]

So your solution to what you think is the martial's problem is "make them caster".

Just like you described 4e.

Apologies for being unclear. I advocate buffs to melee, which should not be an earnest point of contention. In which way this happens I am agnostic about. Me, personally, I don't see many options besides giving martials magic in a FANTASY game. I'd like to give them jetpacks instead of a fly spell but that's hardly an option, no?


Which takes us back to not having a class or two for the players who want to play their Fighter or Rogue as a non-magic, non-casting character who succeeds on the strength of their arm, the sharpness of their wit, the fire in their heart, and the steel of their blade.

If you want to say that D&D is a system about characters who have magic, and those without need not apply, then maybe that's a thing you can do, but...

I played a champion, a brute and two barbarians. While i only played one paladin. And i can clearly tell which chassis is more powerful.

Take note: I am not saying that 5e is a bad game or that martials are unplayable. I am not even saying you should not looking at increasing options for caster classes.

However, looking at diversifying casters (thus increasing the power gap even further) without taking a good long look at a buff for martial classes is a bad idea.

As i said above, I am agnostic about the way this happens, but leaving the fighter subclass untouched with the argument "fighters should be simple, thus they are paying a price" is a terrible design philosophy. If you'd roll all fighter subclasses into one fighter subclass ( i.e. Battlemaster, champion and eldritch knight in one subclass) you could still play him as the stick-fighter by ignoring those options easily enough while the class could also do something besides that.

Edit: a simple way to increase martial prowess without touching their fluff would be to open up a few skilltricks that'd give access to stuff like climbing speed with high enough athletics, etc. - non magical albeit epic skill tricks, allowing martials to do something cool. Maybe even allow them to transport others while doing this with high enough level out of pure strength and skill.

[Unoriginal]

I advocate buffs to melee, which should not be an earnest point of contention.

It is, to me.


Me, personally, I don't see many options besides giving martials magic in a FANTASY game.

How about making them good at adventuring, which 5e martials are?

Why does it have to be magic? Why would it have to be magic?

[Damon_Tor]

I believe the Glyph trick is intended to work with the Demiplane spell. You set the glyphs up in there, and then just pop in and trigger them whenever and wherever you need them. I've never played it myself, but it seemed legit (if cheesy) when I last glanced at it.

Yes, that's the way to do it. Preferably by using clone to become "native" to that demiplane then keeping Banish as your contingency, with the trigger "I say [code phrase] or make [code gesture] or become incapable of doing both." This way you can re-enter your demiplane whenever you like as a free action by speaking or gesturing. You leave the demiplane simply by releasing concentration on banish, no action required. Triggering the glyph could be as simple as "you show up" or another code phrase(s)/gesture(s), but can also happen without any use of actions. In other words, you can get these buffs immediately with virtually zero counters apart from things like anti-magic fields.

[MaxWilson]

I advocate buffs to melee, which should not be an earnest point of contention.

Agreed. 5E is D&D: Gunfight Edition. Mobile strategies and ranged attacks are implausibly strong, to the point of dominating melee outside of contrived circumstances.

This should not be an earnest point of contention.


Yes, that's the way to do it. Preferably by using clone to become "native" to that demiplane then keeping Banish as your contingency, with the trigger "I say [code phrase] or make [code gesture] or become incapable of doing both." This way you can re-enter your demiplane whenever you like as a free action by speaking or gesturing. You leave the demiplane simply by releasing concentration on banish, no action required. Triggering the glyph could be as simple as "you show up" or another code phrase(s)/gesture(s), but can also happen without any use of actions. In other words, you can get these buffs immediately with virtually zero counters apart from things like anti-magic fields.

I say, that's quite clever. I'm not at all sure that Clone does make you native to the demiplane (it seems to me that's not how 5E's Clone spell works, given the verbiage in Clone about souls) but if it does then everything else follows from there. Clever use of Contingency there--nicely done!

Even better that you can now buff yourself to a fare-thee-well even without using Contingency at all, just casting Banishment. The biggest flaw I can see in the plan is that you could theoretically make your save against Banishment, which by strict rules as written would make it have no effect, but a reasonable DM would not hold to the strict rules as written on this point.

[Man_Over_Game]

It is, to me.



How about making them good at adventuring, which 5e martials are?

Why does it have to be magic? Why would it have to be magic?

Martials are good at adventuring, but I'd probably say I'd trust the Wizard/Bard/Druid to provide more for adventuring than a Fighter/Barbarian. The Rogue has some unique skills, but even several of those can be bypassed with a level 2/3 spell (Knock, Pass Without Trace, Silence).

Martials do have consistency, but often, I find you don't need to break into an expert level lock every day. Usually Stealth is something Rogues use for stealth-related combat bonuses, and not to evade detection while adventuring.

At least, not more than 1-2 times a day.

I do agree that Martials should be better without magic, but making them do more than what's humanly possible would probably count as supernatural, which a lot of people would just say is similar to magic.

The Trickery Cleric's ability to create an illusion, for example, doesn't mention the word "magic" anywhere, and by the 5e universe, just happens to be supernatural but not magic (so it can't be dispelled). Most people would just say "well, yeah, of course that's 'magic'", but it's technically as magical as the Rogue's sneak attack or their ability to force a d20 to end on a 20.

Diviners, in the same sense, don't use magic for their Portent ability, they can just supernaturally see into the future.

While Martials don't have to use spells, I don't see any way of them keeping up with casters without being some kind of supernatural/semi-magical boons.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. 5E is D&D: Gunfight Edition. Mobile strategies and ranged attacks are implausibly strong, to the point of dominating melee outside of contrived circumstances.

This should not be an earnest point of contention.



I say, that's quite clever. I'm not at all sure that Clone does make you native to the demiplane (it seems to me that's not how 5E's Clone spell works, given the verbiage in Clone about souls) but if it does then everything else follows from there. Clever use of Contingency there--nicely done!

Even better that you can now buff yourself to a fare-thee-well even without using Contingency at all, just casting Banishment. The biggest flaw I can see in the plan is that you could theoretically make your save against Banishment, which by strict rules as written would make it have no effect, but a reasonable DM would not hold to the strict rules as written on this point.

Erm, I'm sorry, guys, but Banishment incapacitates you, ending the Concentration of Banishment, and you're only ever permanently banished if it runs its full course without ending early.

[Joe dirt]

I'd be happy if you showed how you did it, yes, thank you.

sure thing, first of all u need to know about is how to organize ur spells, and about action economy, think of it like this, when ur character does a thing, that is an action, and then you have to wait until next turn. So basically, take anyway to increase the number of actions in a round is key to making something "OP".

I think someone mentioned treatmont guide, this is good start, but its incomplete with some of the the latest stuff. It also overlooks certain spell combinations that are certainly broken and can take your character to over the top powerful.

so to start with, take the reaction damage prevention spells of first level... why? because of action economy. spells like shield, absorbe elements, feather fall, counter spell.... while circumstantial, they do not take up ur precious "action" and prevent damage.

take as many bonus action spells as well, spells like misty step, and dragons breath are a must pick for my OP wizard build, because once again they do something without taking up ur precious "action"

spells that can straight out increase the number of actions you can take are spells like unseen servant, animate dead, or animate objects, these spells can do many things to increase your "actions" per round,

take unseen servant for example, many people already use it to "clean" a room they know is loaded with traps, but few know that this spell does not require concentration so u can for example cast unseen servant just before going into a dungeon or battle and then order the unseen servant to " follow me around and if i ever go unconscious grab this potion on my belt and feed it to me"... now u have a poor mans healer that doesnt tie up the cleric's action to bring you back.

but the most broken thing u can do with a wizard is earn endless money. thats right, endless coin, and what can u do with that coin even in a low magic setting where the dm doesn't allow one to buy magic items? why you can buy expensive nonmagical components for powerful spells, thats what. how about a eventually a bunch of planar bound elementals for example?

so how does one generate the kind of coin that one must retire their character?... well with fabricate spell + tool skills, with this u could in theory make a character that can build just about anything and then sell it... so what did i do to earn the wrath of my dm? i took 50 copper coin (because they weighed 1 lb) and put the copper coin in the sand, and cast fabricate, i have skills in both smithing, and glassblowing, along with many other skills and used it to turn those 50 copper coin into a spyglass worth according to the PHB 1000 gp.

i can put forward the spells/build that i choose for this character but be warned if u build it, they will hate you ;) and i get it, if u build this character put away the super man S, until the party is in dire straights. then like clark kent taking off the glasses, come out swinging

[MaxWilson]

Erm, I'm sorry, guys, but Banishment incapacitates you, ending the Concentration of Banishment, and you're only ever permanently banished if it runs its full course without ending early.

It only incapacitates you sometimes.


If the target is native to the plane of existence you're on, you banish the target to a harmless Demiplane. While there, the target is Incapacitated. The target remains there until the spell ends, at which point the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied.

If the target is native to a different plane of existence that the one you're on, the target is banished with a faint popping noise, returning to its home plane. If the spell ends before 1 minute has passed, the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied. Otherwise, the target doesn't return.

Returning to your home plane doesn't incapacitate you. Yes, this means that a banished Glabrezu can just Dispel Magic on the Banishment to return immediately--one of the many reasons why Banishment is overrated.

Also, in this hypothetical scenario, you're not trying to accomplish permanent Banishment--you're just trying to visit your Demiplane briefly.

[Spiritchaser]

I remember a "party" of two wizards in 2e, and they could stack enough buffs to be absurd, with enough patience they could get through most things with ease. It was fun, it was memorable... it was not balanced.

It almost goes without saying that you can have fun in an unbalanced game, but for better depth, for parties of nearly equal contributors, to avoid frustration of new players and DMs, some reasonable level of balance is a very good thing.

I still feel that full casters have a significant power advantage over pure martials, it's just not aweful anymore.


I'm reminded of a dearly departed MMO called City of Heroes. It was not, by any pole vault of the imagination as balanced as WoW, but it was good fun, and it was balanced "enough" I don't think 5e is quite balanced enough yet, but it seems to be relatively close.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, that's the way to do it. Preferably by using clone to become "native" to that demiplane then keeping Banish as your contingency, with the trigger "I say [code phrase] or make [code gesture] or become incapable of doing both." This way you can re-enter your demiplane whenever you like as a free action by speaking or gesturing. You leave the demiplane simply by releasing concentration on banish, no action required. Triggering the glyph could be as simple as "you show up" or another code phrase(s)/gesture(s), but can also happen without any use of actions. In other words, you can get these buffs immediately with virtually zero counters apart from things like anti-magic fields.

Still not seeing how, even granting all the wizard buffs you want, you can "defeat the Tarrasque in one turn". How are you getting through 3 legendary resistances, his spell-reflection carapace, and his gobs of hit points (and decent saves) in one turn without using wish/simulacrum loops (which are banned at any reasonable table)? You can still, even with haste, only take one action in a turn.

Oh, and that doesn't work. If you're native to the demiplane, when you're banished there you're stuck. Releasing the concentration does nothing. And if you're not native, then you can't get there for free. Misread the spell.

Edit: but clone doesn't make you a native of the demiplane either, so that trick doesn't work. Remember, in 5e spells only do what they say they do. Nothing else.

[Unoriginal]

but the most broken thing u can do with a wizard is earn endless money. thats right, endless coin, and what can u do with that coin even in a low magic setting where the dm doesn't allow one to buy magic items? why you can buy expensive nonmagical components for powerful spells, thats what. how about a eventually a bunch of planar bound elementals for example?

so how does one generate the kind of coin that one must retire their character?... well with fabricate spell + tool skills, with this u could in theory make a character that can build just about anything and then sell it... so what did i do to earn the wrath of my dm? i took 50 copper coin (because they weighed 1 lb) and put the copper coin in the sand, and cast fabricate, i have skills in both smithing, and glassblowing, along with many other skills and used it to turn those 50 copper coin into a spyglass worth according to the PHB 1000 gp.

...Right, so I'll put this one in the "turns out to be 'the DM gave the guy free power ups'" category.

Why? Let's read the Fabricate spell:



Fabricate

You convert raw materials into products of the same material. For example, you can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of trees, a rope from a patch of hemp, and clothes from flax or wool.


Glass isn't the same material as sand. Glass is mostly made of sand, yes, but not only, and not random sand either.

You can't cast Fabricate on a pile of iron and a pile of carbon and have it come out as steel.

Then:


the quality of Objects made by the spell is commensurate with the quality of the raw materials.


A random pile of sand and a pile of copper points from your pocket are of, how do you say, no quality. Even if you could make glass from sand, you'd be lucky if that glass is even see-through, let alone good enough for a spyglass.


And as third point:

Being skilled in glassblowing does not help you make a spyglass.

A telescope's lenses are made via glass-cutting, which is a completely different field, and in specific you need to know about the rules of optics to cut those lenses the right way.



For the rest, sorry, but having Animated Dead, Objects or Unseen Servants and a bunch of spell that use Reaction or Bonus Action do not make you OP. It makes you useful.

[Damon_Tor]

The biggest flaw I can see in the plan is that you could theoretically make your save against Banishment, which by strict rules as written would make it have no effect, but a reasonable DM would not hold to the strict rules as written on this point.

Which is why you keep Cha at 8. No proficiency, -1 from your stat, so the highest you can possibly roll is 19. At level 17+ a wizard's spell save DC is 19 (allowing for a 5% chance of "success" and thus failure) but the good news is there are a few ways to improve your spell DC and/or intelligence. And failing that, just keep a low-rolled Portent in your back pocket.

[Damon_Tor]

Still not seeing how, even granting all the wizard buffs you want, you can "defeat the Tarrasque in one turn". How are you getting through 3 legendary resistances, his spell-reflection carapace, and his gobs of hit points (and decent saves) in one turn without using wish/simulacrum loops (which are banned at any reasonable table)? You can still, even with haste, only take one action in a turn.

I've posted this before. Unlimited buffs are unlimited. Wish is any spell >9. This isn't hard:

You are a level 17 Divination Wizard, level 3 Assassin Rogue

You're an elf or half elf of some kind. Barely matters what type, you just want the feat.

1. Use Clone inside a Demiplane you created. Kill yourself once the clone is mature. You are now the clone, the clone is native to that Demiplane.
2. Your Contngency Spell is Banishment. The trigger is whenever the Wizard says "OH ****!" or holds up a middle finger or ever becomes unable to do both of those things. His Cha modifier is -1, his save DC is 19. He auto-"fails" his save and so is reliably returned to his demiplane. Here he can either choose to hold the spell for a full minute and stay, or he can gather his buffs and return to the fight simply by dropping his concentration.

Approach stealthfully. Whatever, no problem, he's got no perception to speak of outside of his truesight.

Get to within 200 feet of the terrasque. Trigger your contingency to get your BUFFING PARLOR demiplane.

Recieve the buffs you've stored in a variety of Glyphs of Warding there (created with wishes to avoid the cost. Alternatively, the cost could be paid by using True Polymorph to turn mice into diamonds then grinding them up with Fabricate. 17th level wizards can effectively create infinite wealth)

You get:
Level 1 Chromatic Orb (So you can cast Absorb Elements at level 8 to add 8d6 damage to one attack)
Haste (Double Move speed and one extra attack)
Level 7 Shadowblade (5d8 weapon that deals psychic damage)
Tenser's Transformation (2d12 Force Damage, 2 attacks if you don't already have this capability)
Enlarge (+1d4 Damage)
Lvl 3 Crusader's Mantle (+1d4 radiant damage)
Guidance (+1d4 to one ability check, initiative or stealth in our case)
Bless (+1d4 to attack rolls)
Enhance Ability (Cat's Grace) (Advantage on Dexterity Checks, including Stealth and Initiative)



If you're feeling particularly like an *******:
Level 8 Searing Smite (8d6 Fire Damage, one attack)
Level 1 Thunderous Smite (2d6 Thunder Damage)
Level 1 Wrathful Smite (1d6 Psychic Damage)
Level 8 Branding Smite (8d6 radiant damage)
Level 3 Blinding Smite (3d8 radiant damage)
Level 1 Zephyr Strike (1d8 force)


Your own Concentration will be spent casting Shapechange (lvl 9) on yourself, becoming a Planetar (+5 Dex modifier, two attacks, +5d8 radiant damage to weapon attacks, 120 foot flying speed) As soon as you cast this, you return to where your contingency activated, because your concentration has broken by casting Shapeshift.

Feats:

Alert: +5 Initiative
Great Weapon Master: Bonus Action Attack
Lucky: 3 extra d20s per day
Elven Accuracy: +1 Int, 1 extra d20 on non-str attacks when you have advantage



Attack 1
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Sneak Attack 2d6
Crit 2d6
Absorb Elements (lvl 8) 8d6
Crit 8d6
Thunderous Smite 2d6
Crit 2d6
Wrathful Smite 1d6
Crit 1d6
Branding Smite 8d6
Crit 8d6
Blinding Smite 3d8
Crit 3d8
Staggering Smite 4d6
Crit 4d6
Level 1 Zephyr Strike 1d8
Crit 1d8
Total 28d8(8)+4d12+4d4+50d6(30)+5

Attack 2
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5

Attack 3
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5

Attack 4
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5
Grand Total 88d8+50d6+16d12+16d4+20
Average Damage 396+175+104+40+20=735


Edit: but clone doesn't make you a native of the demiplane either, so that trick doesn't work. Remember, in 5e spells only do what they say they do. Nothing else.

"Native" isn't a term defined by Dungeons and Dragons: it's not a condition like blinded or charmed. "Native" is a word in the English language, and as such it means in Dungeons and Dragons exactly what it means in the real world:


native adjective [ not gradable ]
us ​ /ˈneɪ·t̬ɪv/
​
of or relating to the place where you were born:
This was his first visit to his native land in 30 years.
Larry is a native Texan (= He was born in Texas).
His native language is Spanish, but he speaks English without a trace of an accent.

Someone or something native to a place was born or started to develop there:
Corn is native to North America.

native noun [ C ]
us ​ /ˈneɪ·t̬ɪv/
​
a person born in a particular place:
He was a native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Indiana University.

Ergo, a clone created in a demiplane is native to that demiplane: he was born/created there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So even granting you all that, that's 2 rounds, not 1. One for casting shapechange, one for attacking. Oh, and you're spending 4 ASIs on feats, most of which don't even benefit you for the other 99.99999999999999% of the time (GWM? On a wizard/rogue?) Oh, and you're down an ASI. Meaning your INT isn't 20 (or your other stats suck). Oh, and you've spent minimum of 130 game days preparing this--120 for the clone alone. And those must come at level 20, since you can't do wish before then. Heck, most games never get to 20, let alone spend 1/3 a year of downtime where you know exactly what you need (and when you'll need it) at the end of it.

We call this Schrodinger's wizard--a wizard can do anything if we assume he always has exactly the right loadout for that process. Yet that same wizard would be hamstrung through the rest of the game--stupid feat choice, weird multiclass, etc.

[Rusvul]

Actually, I'd never considered that. It's somewhat limited, but for a high level wizard who can cast demiplane--or a lower-level one with a portable hole and a kind DM--glyph of warding could be an effective (but expensive) trick. Pre-cast a bunch of longer-duration Concentration buffs (or hell, even spells without concentration that you'd like to save spell slots on) and then pop into your demiplane/portable hole and trigger all the buffs you want. Expensive, and might cost you an 8th level spell slot, depending, but not that expensive, especially for mid-to-high-level characters. Off the top of my head, fly, stoneskin, polymorph, detect thoughts, magic weapon and any investiture of x spell. Even spells not otherwise worth concentrating on, like flame arrows and protection from evil and good become potentially worthwhile: worth your concentration? No. Worth 200gp? Possibly.

So maybe concentration's not easily overcome, but it can be overcome.

[Damon_Tor]

So even granting you all that, that's 2 rounds, not 1.

Oh dear, 12 seconds instead of 6. You sure told me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh dear, 12 seconds instead of 6. You sure told me.

Being pedantic is the flaw I chose at character creation.

But the rest is still fatal. Like all "wizards are gods" claims, they depend on the absence of a campaign and a DM. And the rest of the group. Great for theorycraft, absolutely meaningless as to the actual game. You're building for a single scenario in a vacuum, the ultimate white room encounter with perfect information.

I have no patience for this kind of stuff--all it does is make it seem like there's lots of problems with the game when, as played, these never come up. Come back with actual issues.

[Damon_Tor]

I have no patience for this kind of stuff--all it does is make it seem like there's lots of problems with the game when, as played, these never come up. Come back with actual issues.

I never said there was a problem with wizards. I was refuting the OP when he argued they weren't powerful enough.

[Mith]

I like the multiple saves thing, both as a DM and as a player. It allows for powerful disabling spells (hard CC) without having the "oh, you lost initiative so now you're dead/out of combat on turn 1" rocket-tag problem of SoD/SoS spells.

A hidden design concept that seems to have gone into 5e is that you should expect to get hit/fail your saves but that doing so should not be terminal. I'll do some math work later to show this, but I'm pretty sure there's a clear "expected average duration" for various effects based on average DCs/saves. And spells are balanced around that. Hold person can be powerful because it doesn't last (on average) more than a few rounds. Spells that defy this are unusually powerful (eg banishment).

I once (in error) gave my party items that boosted their save DCs. It strongly limited the CRs of creatures that could threaten them because a single mass disablement spell locked the lower ones down for the duration. They literally could not make the saving throw even on a 20. It was boring.

When I am doing the idea of "your under the effect of the spell for the number of rounds equal to your degree of failure", this is less to do with wanting to break 5e design assumptions, and more re frame it so that the effect ends up being the same without the round by round saves.



I don't miss 3e-style powerful wizards.

I wouldn't mind AD&D/Classic-style "powerful" wizards: true HP & AC glass cannons, any hit automatically disrupts concentration, for that matter declare casting at beginning of round and any hit before it goes off disrupts it. Oh, and slow XP gain, damage cantrips worth maybe half their current damage levels (on par with a dagger if they get a rider), and maybe toss in some actual material component logistical tracking if I'm feeling particularly wicked.

Otoh not many other people want any of that. And that's what it took to balance spellcasters, especially magic users.

I think 5e does okay at giving most people what they want:
-Cost-free casting, especially on full casters.
- Approximately equal in power to a martrial approach. More or less.

Now let's talk about how they've still not fixed cost-free ranged attacking ...


I agree with most of this but specific book-keeping. I like the idea that you make material components up as you go along, which can go into your spell effects. Roll all 1s on your Fireball? Must have ben using damp sawdust.


As far as declared spells before hand, I like the idea of taking longer to cast higher level spells that will make you a target. I don't know if I would do auto fail Concentration, but I can see it being a higher DC maybe 10+Spell DC or half damage taken, which ever higher.


As far as XP gain, I like the idea of doing Gold = XP, and spell books = scroll collection (you can prepare spells without casting them off of scrolls you have prepared.) Combine with Skill Training rules, and you sink your gold into equipment, training skills, or levelling up.

[Pex]

I agree 5E wizards are weaker in comparison to previous editions, but that's not inherently a bad thing. What matters to me is if they are effective at what they are supposed to be doing. I think they are. They are powerful.

The only thing I really don't like about them is Concentration. I'm fine with the concept but not its implementation. A spellcaster should be able to concentrate on more than one spell at high levels. How many is debatable. Half Proficiency round up is a start, but I'm not married to that formula. Some spells are concentration that shouldn't be, mainly any spell where you're supposed/likely to be in melee to use it, such as Magic Weapon or Flame Blade or Protection From Evil and Good, affecting all spellcasters not just wizard.

If there are other things I'm not thrilled with them I can chalk it up to personal taste and takes nothing away from 5E. I get over it easily and play on without a problem. It's only Concentration that sticks in my craw I'm always annoyed with it.

[John Campbell]

Anyhow, didn't one of the non-magical "musketeers" outright kill a Jenoine Wizard (at the cost of her own life) in the prequel books of the Taltos world?
"Do you know, I believe I have bested a Jenoine in single combat."

Tazendra wasn't non-magical. She was a Dzur warrior/wizard, and moreover a Lavode, which means she was a really good warrior/wizard, even by Dzur hero standards. And she used sorcery to defeat the Jenoine.


Doesn't Conan kill wizards? I mean, I don't mind Wizards being powerful, but they should not be undefeatable.

Yeah. Conan's a very different setting than D&D, and it was a consistent theme in the stories that a sufficiently awesome barbarian can overcome dark magics just through his steely will and massive thews. I played in a Conan campaign using the Modiphius system recently, and in the climactic scene, I killed an evil wizard, his cultists, and two summoned eldritch abominations just by hitting them with my axe, while resisting their magics with courage and prowess. One of the abominations, literally the most powerful monster in the book, I took down in a round and a half, and killed it with a defensive reaction to its own action. (My character was kind of ridiculously optimized for axe murder.) But of the three PCs and roughly a dozen NPC minions that walked into the evil wizard's lair, I was the only one who walked out sane and alive.

AD&D worked that way to some extent... fighters had, across the board, the best saves in the game (other classes generally had one specialty save that was better than the fighter's, but the fighter was better at everything else), so the save-or-dies that turned into win buttons in 3.x were much less reliable, because fighters would just shrug them off with their steely wills, and there were ways for the fighters to improve their saves but no real way for the casters to improve save DCs.

And monsters typically used fighter saves.

[Joe dirt]

...Right, so I'll put this one in the "turns out to be 'the DM gave the guy free power ups'" category.

Why? Let's read the Fabricate spell:



Glass isn't the same material as sand. Glass is mostly made of sand, yes, but not only, and not random sand either.

You can't cast Fabricate on a pile of iron and a pile of carbon and have it come out as steel.

Then:



A random pile of sand and a pile of copper points from your pocket are of, how do you say, no quality. Even if you could make glass from sand, you'd be lucky if that glass is even see-through, let alone good enough for a spyglass.


And as third point:

Being skilled in glassblowing does not help you make a spyglass.

A telescope's lenses are made via glass-cutting, which is a completely different field, and in specific you need to know about the rules of optics to cut those lenses the right way.



For the rest, sorry, but having Animated Dead, Objects or Unseen Servants and a bunch of spell that use Reaction or Bonus Action do not make you OP. It makes you useful.

sigh... the last i heard from my science book is that glass comes from sand, but im no scientist, so i could be wrong, and your missing the point entirely i guess. even if your dm was crazy enough to rule that glass wasnt made from sand then you could have say the paper making skill and go off into the forest and make 10 cubic feet of paper at 2 sp a piece, 10 cubic feet of paper is quite the fortune. especially since starting at level 7, u can cast the spell 2 times a day. if u teamed up with a druid u can cast plant growth to regrow what u used and nature is happy and probably the most broken example, but it could also be arrow or anything else in the PHB, and with the thieves tool skill u can make traps on the fly too.

so get this, i had many skills just for this spell and was also dipping into the knowledge cleric just so i could literally build anything out of the PHB non magical list, but one of the skills i had was thieves tools, and if u read the fabricate spell it has quite the range, so i was wanting to get a bad mayor, so i put into his bathroom a trap of the ceiling crushing him using an invisible eye and a hiding spot outside his residence

ur 3rd point is not a point since the PHB only covers glassblowing as a skill, this covers cutting the glass too. its not a separate skill

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow, it only took a couple pages to get to where I can just quote myself from another recent thread...



These threads...

Every time I think to myself, "You don't get to game any more, if you just let yourself enjoy D&D 5e for what it is, you might find a good gaming group..."

...I read one of these threads, and think "nope".

[MadBear]

1. Wizards are weaker then in 3.x and that's great news for everyone.

2. Divine intervention isn't as good as Wish.

Divine intervention states: " The DM chooses the Nature of the intervention; the effect of any Cleric spell or Cleric domain spell would be appropriate."

So while the DM can of course choose to do more, they are likely to stick to spells within the Clerics wheelhouse. Also:

"If your deity intervenes, you can't use this feature again for 7 days."

So after it works, you're likely not using it again during the same dungeon.

Meanwhile with Wish:

You can duplicate any 8th level spell or lower from any list. Anywhere. Basically it's the ultimate flex tool. So that's pretty great. Really great actually. The fact that you can do other things with it is nice, but not really all that important by comparison.

There's also one other important fact. And since it's a spell, you can cast it once a day. This means that wish shouldn't be compared to divine intervention. Instead divine intervention should be compared to wish being cast 7 times, since that's the right amount of equal time.

[Knaight]

At some point, I have to ask some people why they're playing D&D, where other types of characters are at least supposed to matter, instead of something like the OWD Mage, where only Mages really matter, and "but magic is about remaking reality!" is the whole point rather than an excuse for powergaming cheese.

Probably because the very D&D magic being decried as no longer powerful is still pretty ridiculous by oWoD or even Ars Magica standards.

[JumboWheat01]

I always thought wizards were plenty powerful enough even in 5e. Compared to some other casters, sure, they don't have as many spells on hand ready to go at once, but with limited spell slots, too many options is almost as bad as too few. On the other hand, unlike any other spell caster save Tomelocks, they don't have to have a spell prepared to cast it as a ritual. That adds so much utility power without diminishing their combat power.

Eventually, they can turn any one First level spell and any one Second level spell to at will spells. Shield every turn? Sure. Misty Step all day instead of walking? Fun fun. Grease an area for kicks instead? Giggle away. Or maybe unlimited Magic Missiles? Who needs to worry about spell attack rolls or saves?

In the end, you even get a free casting of a pair of Third level spells. Free spell usage is always nice, eh?

Sure, compared to 3.5, you have Concentration eating up your buff or control spells, limiting your power (though you can still Firebolt away while concentrating,) and you don't have the godly number of spell slots, but hey, at least you no longer need to sacrifice anything for your school specializations! Feel free to be a Transmuter without having to give up a couple spell schools all together. And with equal stats, you have just as much chance of smacking something with a quarterstaff or pinging it with a crossbow as a Fighter does. Sure, the Fighter can do it more often in a single round, but hey, at least you can actually hit things if you want to! Oh, and spell attack rolls use your casting stat instead of how touch spells used your physical stats back in 3.5. That's handy.

Wizards still seem plenty strong to me. And with a good party around them, a smartly played Wizard can make the party's life so much easier with a well placed bit of control, or a team boosting buff, or a handy utility spell when out of combat. An Evoker can even drop a heavy AoE blast on a group of enemies and exclude their allies from taking any damage at all, leaving the Fighter fully ready to cleave anything surviving down.

[Damon_Tor]

Pretty weak, limited, a lot of downtime and every spellcaster with acess to wish can do it, but better.
The Cleric and The Sorcerer can do it at level 11.

Sorcerers cant do it at all except for divine soul, because they don't have Glyph of Warding, and Wish can only stand in for one spell at a time.

And Planar Ally does not force genies to cast wish for you, Drako.

[Calimehter]

But the rest is still fatal. Like all "wizards are gods" claims, they depend on the absence of a campaign and a DM. And the rest of the group. Great for theorycraft, absolutely meaningless as to the actual game. You're building for a single scenario in a vacuum, the ultimate white room encounter with perfect information.

I would agree that Damon_Tor's use of these combos is too extreme for most DM tolerances and rules interpretations. You don't have to go to those extremes to get some use out of the basic concept though.

A simple Plane Shift works (assuming further downtime to craft a 250gp tuning fork for your own demiplane). Shift in, buffing Glyphs go off, Shift out, and then (assuming the Plane Shift didn't take you right back where you wanted to go) Teleport to where you just were. It involves more rounds of time (i.e. more risk of the enemy doing something while you are away) and an investment of higher level spell slots . . . but heck, now you can take your teammates with you to enjoy the buffs as well, and you don't have to play games with Clone/"nativity" or Banishment issues. If you have a lot of buffs going off, you are still breaking the concentration (and probably action) economy, just with more investment and less taxing of the DM's tolerance.

Heck, in my own games, you must make a Glyph that is at least assumed to be 'harmful' (I have a older PHB copy), but even then the trick is useful in reverse . . . that is, you are trying to 'tag' an opponent with Plane Shift to send them back to your own Demiplane, with the intent to have a huge pile of Glyphs go off on him (either to kill outright and leave the body in a nigh-inaccessable place, or to disable him so thoroughly by save-spamming debuffs that the party can then Shift in next round and slit his incapacitated throat). This is harder to pull off than the buff version because you have to hit an opponent with Plane Shift, and it has to be an opponent who is worth all the effort (i.e. somebody who possibly has Legendary Saves), but the possibility of it working still exists, and you don't lose the invested resources if your opponent makes the save vs. Plane Shift. It is 'Save or Die' 3.5 style . . . but with a lot more prep time and investment of resources, which makes it a lot better than the 3.5 version IMO.

No matter where you fall on the spectrum on this 'trick', the real take home point . . . and the reason this discussion even belongs in this thread . . . is that a Wizard with a lot of high level spell slots, spells, resources, and time to prepare is still a potent force to reckon with. :)

[JNAProductions]

So, Damon, you only get auto-crits if you SURPRISE your foe.

Winning Init only gives you advantage. So your damage is not 735 on average, but 375 (assuming all hits, no crits).

It also relies on an iffy reading of Banishment.
It also takes 9 days of casting a 9th level spell, so if the Tarrasque, for example, is discovered to be slumbering underneath a city and is now rousing, you better hope he takes 10 days (nine prep days, and then you need your 9th back for Shapechange) to wake up properly, otherwise it doesn't work.

And, as was pointed out, it's an INCREDIBLY specific build. It works, if your DM agrees with your ruling on Clone AND you manage to Surprise the Tarrasque instead of just winning Init, but it's pretty janky on anything else.

[Damon_Tor]

Planar binding forces it.

subtle suggestion or similar also do it.

A creature with access to Wish isn't going sit there while your level 11 ass casts Planar Binding for an hour. It has wish, it can just dispel the circle you've bound it in. Then it will kill you. Or make you wish you were dead.

[Damon_Tor]

So, Damon, you only get auto-crits if you SURPRISE your foe.

Winning Init only gives you advantage. So your damage is not 735 on average, but 375 (assuming all hits, no crits).

All you need to get surprise is to successfully hide before you roll initiative, simple stealth vs perception. It's why I noted it was important to begin combat outside the Terrasque's truesight radius (and to have a movespeed high enough to close that distance in a single move)

[Unoriginal]

{Scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

All you need to get surprise is to successfully hide before you roll initiative, simple stealth vs perception. It's why I noted it was important to begin combat outside the Terrasque's truesight radius (and to have a movespeed high enough to close that distance in a single move)

And you have enough space to hide as a Enlarged Planetar everywhere you go?

[JackPhoenix]

Recieve the buffs you've stored in a variety of Glyphs of Warding there (created with wishes to avoid the cost. Alternatively, the cost could be paid by using True Polymorph to turn mice into diamonds then grinding them up with Fabricate. 17th level wizards can effectively create infinite wealth)

You get:
Level 1 Chromatic Orb (So you can cast Absorb Elements at level 8 to add 8d6 damage to one attack)
Haste (Double Move speed and one extra attack)
Level 7 Shadowblade (5d8 weapon that deals psychic damage)
Tenser's Transformation (2d12 Force Damage, 2 attacks if you don't already have this capability)
Enlarge (+1d4 Damage)
Lvl 3 Crusader's Mantle (+1d4 radiant damage)
Guidance (+1d4 to one ability check, initiative or stealth in our case)
Bless (+1d4 to attack rolls)
Enhance Ability (Cat's Grace) (Advantage on Dexterity Checks, including Stealth and Initiative)

If you're feeling particularly like an *******:
Level 8 Searing Smite (8d6 Fire Damage, one attack)
Level 1 Thunderous Smite (2d6 Thunder Damage)
Level 1 Wrathful Smite (1d6 Psychic Damage)
Level 8 Branding Smite (8d6 radiant damage)
Level 3 Blinding Smite (3d8 radiant damage)
Level 1 Zephyr Strike (1d8 force)

Nice try, but most of those are invalid for Glyph of Warding. "The spell must target a single creature or an area." Self-only spells don't target anything.

Shadowblade? No target
Tenser's Transformation? No target
Crusader's Mantle? No target
Bless? Targets multiple creatures
All those smite spells? No target

[Unoriginal]

Nice try, but most of those are invalid for Glyph of Warding. "The spell must target a single creature or an area." Self-only spells don't target anything.

Shadowblade? No target
Tenser's Transformation? No target
Crusader's Mantle? No target
Bless? Targets multiple creatures
All those smite spells? No target

Indeed. The target is mentioned in the spell's text, if there is any. Range of self isn't target of self.

And if it was self-targeting, then the glyph would be targeting itself.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, I forgot: Tenser's Transformation would prevent you from casting Shapechange.

[Damon_Tor]

And you have enough space to hide as a Enlarged Planetar everywhere you go?

There are more than enough ways to generate concealment. The simplest of which is "attack at night". But if you had to you could just add another Glyph with Greater Invisibility in it.


Nice try, but most of those are invalid for Glyph of Warding. "The spell must target a single creature or an area." Self-only spells don't target anything.

Self spells target "self". https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656 (I really don't feel like I should have to back that up with a link, but here it is.)

[JNAProductions]

There are more than enough ways to generate concealment. The simplest of which is "attack at night". But if you had to you could just add another Glyph with Greater Invisibility in it.

Self spells target "self". https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656 (I really don't feel like I should have to back that up with a link, but here it is.)

The caster is the Glyph.

So... You have one buffed-up Glyph, but nothing on you.

[JackPhoenix]

Self spells target "self". https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656 (I really don't feel like I should have to back that up with a link, but here it is.)

That's great, but it's not the kind of targetting GoW needs (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/30/can-you-cast-a-spell-with-a-range-of-self-into-a-glyph-of-warding-and-have-it-target-the-person-triggering-it/).

[Damon_Tor]

Also, I forgot: Tenser's Transformation would prevent you from casting Shapechange.

That one's a good point. A timing issue. You'll have to get the Tenser's to cast after Shapechange, which interferes with the Banish/Contingency combo and the no-action speed of the whole thing. So either you drop Tensers and keep the speed or keep Tensers and get to your Demiplane manually.

But it doesn't interfere with the core concept here.

[JNAProductions]

That one's a good point. A timing issue. You'll have to get the Tenser's to cast after Shapechange, which interferes with the Banish/Contingency combo and the no-action speed of the whole thing. So either you drop Tensers and keep the speed or keep Tensers and get to your Demiplane manually.

But it doesn't interfere with the core concept here.

But the targeting DOES.

[Max_Killjoy]

The the Glyph targets itself?

[PhoenixPhyre]

One other issue: glyph requires the spell to be cast be prepared by the caster of the glyph. This means (to me), that you can't store a spell you emulated using wish--you prepared wish, not bless, etc. Which cuts out most of those buffs even disregarding targeting--they're not on your wizard list at all.

[Damon_Tor]

The caster is the Glyph.

There's nothing in the glyph that implies the caster is anything but the caster. Line by line:


Spell Glyph: You can store a prepared spell of 3rd level or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph. The spell must target a single creature or an area.

As noted, a "self" spell meets this criteria.


The spell being stored has no immediate effect when cast in this way. When the glyph is triggered, the stored spell is cast.

Not "cast by the glyph". Just "cast". No change of caster occurs.


If the spell has a target, it Targets the creature that triggered the glyph.

And this line makes it absolutely clear. Does the spell have a target? Yes it does, it has to. Therefore it targets the creature that triggered the glyph.


If the spell affects an area, the area is centered on that creature. If the spell summons hostile creatures or creates harmful Objects or traps, they appear as close as possible to the intruder and Attack it. If the spell requires Concentration, it lasts until the end of its full Duration.

And that's it.

[Damon_Tor]

One other issue: glyph requires the spell to be cast be prepared by the caster of the glyph. This means (to me), that you can't store a spell you emulated using wish--you prepared wish, not bless, etc. Which cuts out most of those buffs even disregarding targeting--they're not on your wizard list at all.

That's fair.

[JNAProductions]

So, by that reading, if I set a personal spell (say, Branding Smite) on a Glyph of Warding, and someone later triggers it when I'm on another plane of existence, I get Branding Smite. Since, after all, the caster didn't change.

Which ALSO means you would have to maintain Concentration on it-after all, you're still the caster.

No, other parts of the spell make it clear to treat the Glyph as the caster. Your DM might rule otherwise, but I'd be inclined to think most would not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That doesn't mean what you want it to. Consider the case where someone else triggers the glyph. Then you have a target: self spell targeting someone other than the caster. Which is illegal.

Glyph has to have a target: one creature or target: area. Not self. So no cones, no lines, no self-only buffs.

[Damon_Tor]

So, by that reading, if I set a personal spell (say, Branding Smite) on a Glyph of Warding, and someone later triggers it when I'm on another plane of existence, I get Branding Smite. Since, after all, the caster didn't change.

No, because the target is always the creature who triggers it. So if someone else triggers it, the target would be them (except they wouldn't be legal targets because the range it still "self" so it fizzles).


Which ALSO means you would have to maintain Concentration on it-after all, you're still the caster.

Except the Glyph spell explicitly except it from concentration requirements.


No, other parts of the spell make it clear to treat the Glyph as the caster.

Such as... ?

[JNAProductions]

Why are they exempt from Concentrating on it?

The logical answer is that they're not the caster-the Glyph itself is. Can you find text to the effect that "The triggering creature is the caster of the spell"?

[XmonkTad]

How so?

When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures...
From the errata:

Glyph of Warding (p. 245). The first sentence clarifies that the magical effect needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences of the first paragraph now read as follows: “The glyph can cover an area no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.”



Why are they exempt from Concentrating on it?
Last sentence of the Spell Glyph section: "If the spell requires concentration, it lasts until the end of its full duration."
I had assumed this meant that there was no need to maintain concentration, as it would last the full duration without it.

As to the OP, I admit it, I do feel like there is a certain reality-shattering power that is lacking from 5e. I miss it, but there were a lot of reasons to get rid of it, and it hasn't impacted my fun. It has made it a lot easier for new player to get into, and that's the part about the caster power cap I like the best.

That being said, there are still plenty of things that are just the providence of casters and casters only: Wall of force, plane shift, and hitting someone from 605 feet away are caster-only, and no martial can duplicate these effects with anything more than the palest of imitations. If you're going to give casters some sort of boons that up their power a lot you may want to consider giving martial classes access to the "Magic Mart" of older editions. Sure we end up with the Christmas Tree problem all over again, but 'tis the season!

[DrowPiratRobrts]

It's only create a clone that your soul takes control of it. You are still native of your original plane. You are still "you" on all aspects.
" its soul transfers to the clone,"

And then we went down the ontology rabbit hole in the middle of a D&D thread about magic...

[KOLE]

And then we went down the ontology rabbit hole in the middle of a D&D thread about magic...

It's simulacra turtles all the way down.

[Gastronomie]

A lot of people theorycraft about Glyph of Warding, but do your DMs actually allow them at their tables?

I mean, the restrictions are pretty severe. Especially the part about how moving the Glyph around dispels it, meaning you can't use it except in your base. How often are the adventurers the side being attacked?

[Malifice]

I've posted this before. Unlimited buffs are unlimited. Wish is any spell >9. This isn't hard:

You are a level 17 Divination Wizard, level 3 Assassin Rogue

You're an elf or half elf of some kind. Barely matters what type, you just want the feat.

1. Use Clone inside a Demiplane you created. Kill yourself once the clone is mature. You are now the clone, the clone is native to that Demiplane.
2. Your Contngency Spell is Banishment. The trigger is whenever the Wizard says "OH ****!" or holds up a middle finger or ever becomes unable to do both of those things. His Cha modifier is -1, his save DC is 19. He auto-"fails" his save and so is reliably returned to his demiplane. Here he can either choose to hold the spell for a full minute and stay, or he can gather his buffs and return to the fight simply by dropping his concentration.

Approach stealthfully. Whatever, no problem, he's got no perception to speak of outside of his truesight.

Get to within 200 feet of the terrasque. Trigger your contingency to get your BUFFING PARLOR demiplane.

Recieve the buffs you've stored in a variety of Glyphs of Warding there (created with wishes to avoid the cost. Alternatively, the cost could be paid by using True Polymorph to turn mice into diamonds then grinding them up with Fabricate. 17th level wizards can effectively create infinite wealth)

You get:
Level 1 Chromatic Orb (So you can cast Absorb Elements at level 8 to add 8d6 damage to one attack)
Haste (Double Move speed and one extra attack)
Level 7 Shadowblade (5d8 weapon that deals psychic damage)
Tenser's Transformation (2d12 Force Damage, 2 attacks if you don't already have this capability)
Enlarge (+1d4 Damage)
Lvl 3 Crusader's Mantle (+1d4 radiant damage)
Guidance (+1d4 to one ability check, initiative or stealth in our case)
Bless (+1d4 to attack rolls)
Enhance Ability (Cat's Grace) (Advantage on Dexterity Checks, including Stealth and Initiative)



If you're feeling particularly like an *******:
Level 8 Searing Smite (8d6 Fire Damage, one attack)
Level 1 Thunderous Smite (2d6 Thunder Damage)
Level 1 Wrathful Smite (1d6 Psychic Damage)
Level 8 Branding Smite (8d6 radiant damage)
Level 3 Blinding Smite (3d8 radiant damage)
Level 1 Zephyr Strike (1d8 force)


Your own Concentration will be spent casting Shapechange (lvl 9) on yourself, becoming a Planetar (+5 Dex modifier, two attacks, +5d8 radiant damage to weapon attacks, 120 foot flying speed) As soon as you cast this, you return to where your contingency activated, because your concentration has broken by casting Shapeshift.

Feats:

Alert: +5 Initiative
Great Weapon Master: Bonus Action Attack
Lucky: 3 extra d20s per day
Elven Accuracy: +1 Int, 1 extra d20 on non-str attacks when you have advantage



Attack 1
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Sneak Attack 2d6
Crit 2d6
Absorb Elements (lvl 8) 8d6
Crit 8d6
Thunderous Smite 2d6
Crit 2d6
Wrathful Smite 1d6
Crit 1d6
Branding Smite 8d6
Crit 8d6
Blinding Smite 3d8
Crit 3d8
Staggering Smite 4d6
Crit 4d6
Level 1 Zephyr Strike 1d8
Crit 1d8
Total 28d8(8)+4d12+4d4+50d6(30)+5

Attack 2
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5

Attack 3
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5

Attack 4
Base (Shadow Blade lvl 7) 5d8
Crit 5d8
+Dex +5
Planetar 5d8
Crit 5d8
Tenser's Transformation 2d12
Crit 2d12
Enlarge 1d4
Crit 1d4
Crusader's Mantle 1d4
Crit 1d4
Total 20d8+4d12+4d4+5
Grand Total 88d8+50d6+16d12+16d4+20
Average Damage 396+175+104+40+20=735



"Native" isn't a term defined by Dungeons and Dragons: it's not a condition like blinded or charmed. "Native" is a word in the English language, and as such it means in Dungeons and Dragons exactly what it means in the real world:


native adjective [ not gradable ]
us ​ /ˈneɪ·t̬ɪv/
​
of or relating to the place where you were born:
This was his first visit to his native land in 30 years.
Larry is a native Texan (= He was born in Texas).
His native language is Spanish, but he speaks English without a trace of an accent.

Someone or something native to a place was born or started to develop there:
Corn is native to North America.

native noun [ C ]
us ​ /ˈneɪ·t̬ɪv/
​
a person born in a particular place:
He was a native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Indiana University.

Ergo, a clone created in a demiplane is native to that demiplane: he was born/created there.

Thanks for putting in the time and effort, but none of this works.

[Malifice]

Self spells target "self". https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/606193562317766656 (I really don't feel like I should have to back that up with a link, but here it is.)

Thats not what the quote says though.

'A range of self means the caster is the target, as in shield, or the point of origin, as in thunderwave (PH, 202).'

Self spells target self OR they make you the point of origin for the spell.

Smite spells make you the point of origin (you cant share them with your Steed from Find Steed for example).

Ditto most of the spells you mention above.

[Gastronomie]

It's pretty weak "combo" actually.Thanks for the verification.

Now, back on the original topic, my opinion is that "help this class isn't overshadowing everything else" isn't a very good argument. If you want to be master of all, you should play a game that isn't about teamwork and cooperation.

[King of Nowhere]

Wizards are very... unevenly powerful in 5e. Depending on how they're used, they can be overwhelmingly strong to the point that the game basically revolves around them (master planner with contingencies for everything exploiting a dozen crazy tricks at a time, and to top it off doesn't know the meaning of the word "squishy"), or they can be a joke (the squishy guy who forgets that rituals exist and spends their turn casting Witch Bolt).

This leads to people having very different experiences with Wizards, since their skill floor and skill cap are so far apart. At any levels, really.

this, and it applies to 3.x too. the problem with wizards is that there is too much disparity between how welll they are played. balance them for high optimization, and they are unplayable for everyone else. balance them for casual play, and they break the game at high optimization.
that's why table tweaks are always needed

[LudicSavant]

I'm sincerely asking and not trying to set up a strawman or anything similar, but do those "master planner" wizards actually exist in an actual 5e game?

Because based on my personal experience, any time that I see it discussed on forums and the like, the whole "master planner" thing seems more "theoretically, a wizard could do this" whiteroom shenanigans that'd require the wizard to know the DM's notes to work, those "a dozen crazy tricks at a time" turns out to be "the DM gave the guy free power ups/made the plan work because 'eh, it's magic' or 'eh, it's fun' or basic rule abuse" (or nearly so), and "not knowing the meaning of the word 'squishy'" is more often than not "had to give up a lot of other stuff to be less squishy than your average wizard"

So, again, aware that my experience is limited, I sincerely ask: do you have any example of that "master planner" who can make "the game basically revolves around them" ?

Great question Unoriginal!

First of all, let me say that I understand where you're coming from. I've seen those sorts of threads, where people hastily claim "OP" or "broken" and then... can't really back it up. In fact, I've seen this done for basically every class in the game. In every edition I've played, too. It's a whole lot of noise to sift through.

I'll answer the "squishy" question first, since it's a lot more specific and therefore can be addressed much more directly.


and "not knowing the meaning of the word 'squishy'" is more often than not "had to give up a lot of other stuff to be less squishy than your average wizard"

There are quite a lot of ways to not be squishy as a Wizard, without giving up much. In the interest of brevity, I will provide just one example, though it is far from the only one.


For the cost of a single Dexterity-boosting half-feat (Moderately Armored), a Hobgoblin Abjurer has
- More effective hit points than a Fighter (Abjurer's Ward more than makes up the HD difference).
- The same AC as a Dex fighter.
- Exactly the stat modifiers you want (Con/Int).
- The excellent "Saving Face" ability which lets you turn a failed saving throw into a successful one (so long as you failed by 5 or less), after you've seen the roll, 1/short rest.
- You know how people sometimes say that Eldritch Knights are the tankiest of Fighters? Well, you have access to all of the spells that facilitate that, except that you have a lot more of them.
- The ability to defend effectively against certain kind of tactics that a Fighter might struggle with (e.g. you have stuff like Counterspell and know how to use it).
- Later on, you even get Advantage on all saves against spells and Resistance to all damage from spells.
Doesn't seem to be giving up all that much for durability that's arguably better than a typical Fighter's. Just picking a generally good Wizard race and taking a single half-feat.



When it comes to the theoretical white room shenanigans you mention, I wouldn't say that's what I'm talking about with the mention of the "master planner." I just mean someone who takes advantage of all of the clever little tactical tools a Wizard has. If anything, pointing to any single tactic as the strength of the Wizard is, to me, sort of missing the point of the class (though they do have some really bloody strong single tactics). The Wizard's strength lies in their versatility, resourcefulness, and ability to do a whole lot of things at a time.

It's not going to make you a master Wizard just by knowing that, for example, Magic Mouth earpieces are amazing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-(-Official-Rules-Technique-)), or that Continual Flame gives you permanent magical Darkness repellant if you upcast it to third level, or that you can have your familiar administer Goodberries or potions to fallen allies (who needs Healing Word? Also, both uses have been confirmed to work on Sage Advice), or that you can cast rituals while moving and thus keep everyone on phantom steeds in travel segments, or that you can cast Water Breathing as part of your morning routine every day and have it affect the entire party essentially in perpetuity. Or that you can do all of these things and have some animated minions and a Contingent 5th level spell that you can cast without an action... all while you still haven't cast any spell slots today.

It's no single trick, it's the fact that there are a bajillion of these cool little techniques and they all add up. So, I could say something like "hey, I can use an Overchanneled Magic Missile as a Hexblade 1 / Evoker X to deal 112 damage that can't miss with a 5th level slot," and that'd be a neat trick, but it's just one more for the ever-growing bandoleer.

The reason that this might not get across easily in many forum discussions is because the range of creative tactics available for even a single spell can potentially take up entire threads, and you know a lot of spells, and can use a lot of them together. And while none of them is an answer to everything, there's a good chance that one of the things in your Batman toolbelt is an answer to whatever you wanna deal with.

[Max_Killjoy]

this, and it applies to 3.x too. the problem with wizards is that there is too much disparity between how welll they are played. balance them for high optimization, and they are unplayable for everyone else. balance them for casual play, and they break the game at high optimization.
that's why table tweaks are always needed

It requires another layer of a judicial DM applying sensible limits.

For example, if I were DMing, none of these stupid Glyph of Warding tricks would work, no matter how the raw wording of the rules can be parsed, and if a player didn't like it, they could find another table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It requires another layer of a judicial DM applying sensible limits.

For example, if I were DMing, none of these stupid Glyph of Warding tricks would work, no matter how the raw wording of the rules can be parsed, and if a player didn't like it, they could find another table.

And thankfully (for me), 5e is much more amenable to this sort of DM adjudication than 3e ever was. That's the essence of "rulings over rules". Do what's right for the table, printed words notwithstanding.

[MaxWilson]

That being said, there are still plenty of things that are just the providence of casters and casters only: Wall of force, plane shift, and hitting someone from 605 feet away are caster-only, and no martial can duplicate these effects with anything more than the palest of imitations. If you're going to give casters some sort of boons that up their power a lot you may want to consider giving martial classes access to the "Magic Mart" of older editions. Sure we end up with the Christmas Tree problem all over again, but 'tis the season!

Nitpick: siege weaponry.

Also, casters have a really tough time in general affecting someone even 155' away, let alone 605'. Longbows outrange ~97% of spells already--the rare exceptions tend to be 9th level spells like Meteor Swarm and Storm of Vengeance.

I agree with your basic point though--especially from an adventure-making standpoint, the weakness of 5E magic is irritating, because I have to invent new subsystems for my bad guys to use for their badness instead of just making them evil wizards, or else give up and use DM fiat for everything (which I'm not willing to do) or settle for making all of their schemes small potatoes. E.g. if I want a bad guy who's mind-controlling an entire creepytown to make them all into yes-men for the sake of his sick ego, in AD&D it would be reasonable to just say, "He's an 11th level wizard and there's a custom spell he's researched for that," but in 5E there's no reasonable way to make this something doable with spell slots so I need another explanation or I have to give up on this adventure idea.

[MaxWilson]

A lot of people theorycraft about Glyph of Warding, but do your DMs actually allow them at their tables?

I will very occasionally use them in traps, but they tend to be too deadly/too good at killing PCs (which is un-fun), so most of my traps actually come from trap gremlins instead, not traps deliberately created by evil wizards. Trap gremlin traps are much cheaper to create but due to the psychology of trap gremlins they always have flaws which just coincidentally happen to make them more fun for players to engage with.

There's nothing particularly fun about "you open the box and suddenly you're encased in a spherical Wall of Force while a Cloudkill engulfs you for 5d8 damage per round, and BTW there's an Earth Elemental attacking you with its fists now," especially if you have no access to teleportation or Dispel Magic. It's a good way of protecting an evil wizard's spell book, but it's not a fun way to die, so IMO it is the DM's job to ensure that it is logical for most traps not to be like that. Trap gremlins are my solution to that.

I've never had a player express interest in a Glyph of Self-buffing. The closest I've ever seen is healers who are interested in setting up Glyph of Raise My Dead Body If Someone Hauls Me Over To It, if they are the only one in the party with Raise Dead access. (Ditto for Greater Restoration.) But I don't remember anyone ever actually doing it, just expressing interest.

[Max_Killjoy]

And thankfully (for me), 5e is much more amenable to this sort of DM adjudication than 3e ever was. That's the essence of "rulings over rules". Do what's right for the table, printed words notwithstanding.

That is one of the ways in which 5e mitigates my old problems with D&D-like systems that peaked in 3.x

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is one of the ways in which 5e mitigates my old problems with D&D-like systems that peaked in 3.x

Yours, mine, and a whole bunch of other people's.

[Unoriginal]

If you want magic effects that are beyond the power of spells for your bad guys, just say they are using a ritual for it.

It justifies it and also gives the PCs a chance to stop the villain's next attempt at doing it.

[MaxWilson]

If you want magic effects that are beyond the power of spells for your bad guys, just say they are using a ritual for it.

This is one of the things I referred to when I said "...I wind up having to invent my own subsystems or..." Inventing a ritual magic system is one thing I've tried in the past, but it's annoying that I have to do it. (Though it can sometimes be useful to have such a system in your pocket once you do invent it, in case players want to get involved in alchemy/etc.)

In AD&D this isn't necessary, you can just use regular Vancian magic to set up most things. Many high-level AD&D spells in fact seem designed for setting up adventure scenarios. E.g. Simulacrum clearly isn't supposed to be a combat force-multiplier like it is in 5E--it's a spell for "something is wrong with the king and you have to figure out what and fix it"/"oh no he's been replaced by a simulacrum! go rescue the real king". And Prismatic Wall is for "there's a (Permanent) Prismatic Wall blocking your way through the dungeon, you have to figure out how to unlock all of its layers so you can bypass it."

[XmonkTad]

Nitpick: siege weaponry.

Oh, yeah. I keep forgetting about that.



Also, casters have a really tough time in general affecting someone even 155' away, let alone 605'. Longbows outrange ~97% of spells already--the rare exceptions tend to be 9th level spells like Meteor Swarm and Storm of Vengeance.

The combo I was thinking of when I wrote that was the 1200ft sorclock who takes Spell Sniper + Eldrich Spear + Distant spell. Doable at level 5.

But now that I think about it a bit, this is actually a point in the favor of martials. Longbow arrows aren't exactly a class resource that you're depleting to hit someone 600ft away, whereas for a caster it takes a fair bit of investment just to be able to even attempt an attack on something 600 feet away. Certainly an improvement over scry-and-die, but perhaps a bit restrictive.

[Damon_Tor]

First of all, let me say that I understand where you're coming from. I've seen those sorts of threads, where people hastily claim "OP" or "broken" and then... can't really back it up.

Note I've never claimed the wizard is OP or broken. Again, I came to the thread to refute the idea that wizards are not powerful enough. I'm perfectly happy where they are presently.

[LudicSavant]

Note I've never claimed the wizard is OP or broken. Again, I came to the thread to refute the idea that wizards are not powerful enough. I'm perfectly happy where they are presently.

That comment was not directed at you.

[MaxWilson]

The combo I was thinking of when I wrote that was the 1200ft sorclock who takes Spell Sniper + Eldrich Spear + Distant spell. Doable at level 5.

But now that I think about it a bit, this is actually a point in the favor of martials. Longbow arrows aren't exactly a class resource that you're depleting to hit someone 600ft away, whereas for a caster it takes a fair bit of investment just to be able to even attempt an attack on something 600 feet away. Certainly an improvement over scry-and-die, but perhaps a bit restrictive.

Yes, it is fairly restrictive from a story point of view--magic isn't usable on anything more than a few steps away. If you can't hit it with a baseball, you probably can't magic it.

Even more annoying from that perspective are the short ranges on high-tech weaponry from the DMG, because with magic at least you can say, "Well, it's magic, it has inherent limitations," but if you know anything at all about firearms you're likely to react to disbelief to a DM who tells you that even a legendary warrior cannot hit anything at all with a hunting rifle at 85 yards, or with a laser rifle/antimatter rifle at 125 yards. Instead you'll be like, "But I hit stuff at twice that range all the time, and I'm a terrible shot! Why can't a legendary warrior do better than I can?" and hopefully the DM will then toss the DMG equipment list and write new ones--which is why I don't complain too much about WotC not writing rules for e.g. magic rituals, since I know that when they do write rules, they're usually slapdash anyway.

The point here is, WotC writers often seem to have no real conception of how distance works in the real world. One gets the impression that all of their rules are designed for people who play on tiny battlegrids where 60' feels like a long ways because the grid is only 120' long. If you go outside and look around and measure some distances, 60' feels like nothing at all.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, it is fairly restrictive from a story point of view--magic isn't usable on anything more than a few steps away. If you can't hit it with a baseball, you probably can't magic it.

Even more annoying from that perspective are the short ranges on high-tech weaponry from the DMG, because with magic at least you can say, "Well, it's magic, it has inherent limitations," but if you know anything at all about firearms you're likely to react to disbelief to a DM who tells you that even a legendary warrior cannot hit anything at all with a hunting rifle at 85 yards, or with a laser rifle/antimatter rifle at 125 yards. Instead you'll be like, "But I hit stuff at twice that range all the time, and I'm a terrible shot! Why can't a legendary warrior do better than I can?" and hopefully the DM will then toss the DMG equipment list and write new ones--which is why I don't complain too much about WotC not writing rules for e.g. magic rituals, since I know that when they do write rules, they're usually slapdash anyway.

The point here is, WotC writers often seem to have no real conception of how distance works in the real world. One gets the impression that all of their rules are designed for people who play on tiny battlegrids where 60' feels like a long ways because the grid is only 120' long. If you go outside and look around and measure some distances, 60' feels like nothing at all.

This is where we get into my aggravation with rules that don't model / map anything, and are just designed around what sounds good in a vacuum or within a white-room mechanical framework.

[LudicSavant]

This is where we get into my aggravation with rules that don't model / map anything, and are just designed around what sounds good in a vacuum or within a white-room mechanical framework.

Oh my goodness yes. 5e's sense of distances (or lack thereof) is really frustrating.

"Hey, you're a supernaturally fast Monk. You can spend ki points to run even faster!"
"Uhm, you know that those movement speed figures you gave me mean that even if you burn ki to triple move at 20th level, you'll still be a slower than an Olympic sprinter, right?"

And then your Dashing Champion is just proceeding at a little above a power walk pace towards a line of archers.

[Asmotherion]

Putting everything into scale the Wizard is still the most versatile class in the game. You want to do something? The Wizard has 3 spells for it and will choose the best suited.

What's really changed is the complexity of the mechanics that new players needed ages to learn and older players with their level of mechanic mastery could find ways to a) avoid traps b) find loopholes and c) exploit mechanics for better or for worse for greater effects (than designers intended?).

i'm still a big fun of 3.5 and still play from time to time. if you miss the "super Wizard" you should do so too. But modern age D&D designed for more and more new players and has a need for game balance and simplicity in rules to be accesable to a larger public otherwise new players (or ones who do not favor the Wizard or a spellcaster as their class of choice) will simply quit the game for an alternative RPG.

[Zorrah]

Power has a price. The price I've paid for my power is thus.

D&D pre 3.0 - I am the squishiest, hands down - at 1d4 HD. I do have some protection magic to make up for it. My spell slots are so limited, no cantrip slots and am only useful once or twice per day at low levels. I spend twice as much time at low levels than the thief because it takes me twice as much XP.

DCC - I am the squishiest, hands down - at 1d4 HD. I do have some protection magic to make up for it. Spell slots are not a thing, but every cast requires me to roll for it. My own magic can turn against me if I roll low enough. If I fail to cast, I lose the spell for the day, so a full day of rolling badly means I may not even cast. XP Tables are equal.

D&D 3.0 - I am the squishiest, hands down - at 1d4 HD. I do have some protection magic to make up for it. I now have cantrips to keep my day slightly longer, but they are incredibly limited at 3 or 4 per day at low levels still. Cantrips are barely passable in combat, despite the limit. XP tables have equalized.

Pathfinder - I am still squishiest - but finally at a 1d6 HD. Still protection magic, but I now have spell like abilities that are reasonable, but still way too limited, as well as bonus spell slots to keep me going on longer days. Cantrips mean that I'm not completely useless in combat and they never run out, but they are still really pathetic (attack cantrips are 1d3 damage unless only targeting a specific type of mob).

D&D 4.0- Yes, the squishiest, but HP in 4e are plentiful for all. Due to the mechanic of adding int to AC, I'm not as MAD to get that sliver of survivability. We don't have spell slots, we have at will, encounter, and daily powers, same as the fighter, same as the rogue, same as all other martial characters. We didn't earn our powers so we have none beyond anyone else.

D&D 5.0. I am still squishiest - but at a 1d6 HD. Cantrips are unlimited and are as good as a crossbow or a longsword, so really I can blast all day. I no longer had to go through my trials and tribulations to earn my powers. What price have I paid? Certainly not anything like the Wizards of Old.

Now with that out of the way, what we still have. We don't have Save or die. Yeah, I don't miss it. I did see one of guides I read had said, if they make the save, you contributed nothing to the fight and you suck now. If they fail the save and it lands, congrats, you made the rest of the party feel worthless. Or you took out one mob out of a group of mobs. We have save or suck spells, though, not as good as the old days, as they can attempt to break out of them every round.

I find wizards to be both powerful and satisfying, and they fit the roles suited to them.

Though, if you find wizards lacking, here's some ideas I could think of for homebrew that kind of makes them a little more powerful without breaking them.

Exertion of will. If a wizard lands a save or suck spell that can attempt to be broken once per round, allow the wizard to take an action to exert his will, to either have them make the save at disadvantage or maybe fail it entirely (remember, you're spending your action to have this happen).

Legendary saves could be auto used. While abuseable in a way, I do like this idea as it still means that such creatures aren't going to be taken in one spell, but the wizards and his allies that are trying to burn through them, can do so more reliably. The DM could do this seamlessly, almost without the players knowing if he doesn't tell them.

[Calimehter]

It requires another layer of a judicial DM applying sensible limits.

For example, if I were DMing, none of these stupid Glyph of Warding tricks would work, no matter how the raw wording of the rules can be parsed, and if a player didn't like it, they could find another table.

A very fair ruling IMO, and not very hard to justify along with banning any of the other (thankfully few) "exploits" in 5e.

It doesn't even have to be a hard ban. One can just say "Cramming multiple Glyphs into one area strains the Weave. Your auto-successful Intelligence(Arcana) check tells you that attempting to do so is about as good an idea as casting an out-of-scope Wish [or a nastier version of the Wild Magic table] and will likely have the same results. Do you wish to proceed?"

--------------------

Of course, the OP was pining for stronger wizards, so they might let it fly, and might even be happy to know the option exists for that combo if they didn't know it before. The 5e toolbox works for more than one campaign, after all. :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

This is where we get into my aggravation with rules that don't model / map anything, and are just designed around what sounds good in a vacuum or within a white-room mechanical framework.

They are acceptable (at least within the same order of magnitude of the 120 yards per minute of TSR-era D&D, itself vaguely acceptable if you hew 100% to its original assumptions) if you consider it the overall distance gained in a medieval skirmish, where everyone is being cautious and judicious and jockeying for advantageous position and every-other second is spent reassessing the situation and what everyone else did in the moment etc. etc. etc. The game has never really moved past that line of thinking, IMO. My personal headcanon is that this is the average net movement, where only 1-in-3 or 1-in-5 rounds are actually moments of combat activity, and the rest are spent with no net effect. After all, the six-second round is also incredibly arbitrary and silly in most instances (depending if you are doing formation battlefield maneuvers on one end of the spectrum, or tunnel-fighting or the like on the other).


The point here is, WotC writers often seem to have no real conception of how distance works in the real world. One gets the impression that all of their rules are designed for people who play on tiny battlegrids where 60' feels like a long ways because the grid is only 120' long. If you go outside and look around and measure some distances, 60' feels like nothing at all.

I deeply suspect they are very well aware, and their response would be 'how many of our audience cares about realism vs. how many would get frustrated with engagements that happened at quarter miles+ apart?' Given how much more playable the Warhammers and Battletechs often are compared to realistic wargames, I can at least understand why realism is sacrificed.

[KorvinStarmast]

How so?

When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph that harms other creatures... The recent errata changed that.

[JackPhoenix]

The recent errata changed that.

And by "recent", you mean "the one from october 2016".

[Pex]

And thankfully (for me), 5e is much more amenable to this sort of DM adjudication than 3e ever was. That's the essence of "rulings over rules". Do what's right for the table, printed words notwithstanding.

A DM can do the same thing in 3E. The only difference is if someone mentioned it in the 3E Forum he would be ridiculed for using the Oberoni Fallacy. 3E is innocent. In the 5E Forum DMs are encouraged to use the Oberoni Fallacy.

[LudicSavant]

A DM can do the same thing in 3E.
Entirely agreed on this part.


The only difference is if someone mentioned it in the 3E Forum he would be ridiculed for using the Oberoni Fallacy. 3E is innocent. In the 5E Forum DMs are encouraged to use the Oberoni Fallacy.

The Oberoni Fallacy isn't someone saying "Hey, my tire's flat, let's use this jack to fix it!" There's nothing fallacious about that.

The Oberoni Fallacy is someone saying "Hey, I own a jack, therefore my tire was never flat, and therefore I don't need to use the jack to fix it." It's a fallacy because the "reasoning" makes no sense, violates the laws of causality, and creates a contradiction.

Or to put it another way, the Oberoni Fallacy is saying "it was never broken if the ability to fix it exists." Which is a just plain bad argument, which is why it's a fallacy.

People committing the Oberoni Fallacy is actually really harmful to people's ability to have constructive discussions about DM adjudication and houseruling. Encouraging someone to use the fallacy diminishes their ability to adjust the rules to suit their game. Because owning tools and declaring that all cars are perfect as they are doesn't make you a mechanic.

[Sindal]

*scoots past aaaalllllll the combo talk and potential*

Now I haven't played any edition other than 5e. So my knowledge of what happened before isn't the best source.

However:
This complaint strikes more of a complaint about magic than the wizard itself.
The OP seems to want a way to distinguish between low level mages and high level mages and be able to use their late level abilities more often, which is most prevalent in wizard (Not counting all the other full casters who have the same sort of slots and magic rules). And arguably the distinguishing factor is that the wizard now has 'access' to all these really cool, powerful, wish granting, time stopping, town destroying, replicating abilities that they can select 'daily' depending on what they decided they want to do that day. The fact that some of them come with limitations is just something you kinda have to learn to, ya know, work with. Like everyone else.

The only real problem is:
What your asking for, there simply just isn't a valid enough excuse to grant it above of what they already get because what it sounds like is "Having all these super powerful abilities is great and all, but can we remove the limitations a bit?". Things are designed to be scarce and restrictive because if it's not, magic starts stepping on toes. Magic has a spell to simulate any skill or action someone without magic is trying to accomplish in almost all cases. The more leeway you give someone to do that, the more "I don't actually need that person to do the thing they're good at" becomes a problem. Legendary resistances were probably created BECAUSE of magic. Because there are alot of spells that are along "If you don't pass this check, you are screwed". Large intimiating boss monsters shouldn't be able to be screwed at the get go 'because your magical'. They're magical too you know

It may not be as powerful as you would like them to be. And that's fine. Everyone's different and have had different experiances and tastes
But it's pretty darn powerful.

[Osrogue]

If you think your wizard is too weak, ask your DM to play a lore wizard.

Then laugh as the big bad tries to make your DC 21 intelligence saving throw hold monster turn after turn that you cast spontaneously.

I hate lore wizards.

[Toofey]

I like how we're granting passing between planes is less than 10' None of those Glyph tricks work RAW. It take a contortionists reading to claim they do.

[Damon_Tor]

I like how we're granting passing between planes is less than 10' None of those Glyph tricks work RAW. It take a contortionists reading to claim they do.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I never suggested the glyphs would leave the Demiplane.

[Willie the Duck]

The Oberoni Fallacy isn't someone saying "Hey, my tire's flat, let's use this jack to fix it!" There's nothing fallacious about that.

The Oberoni Fallacy is someone saying "Hey, I own a jack, therefore my tire was never flat, and therefore I don't need to use the jack to fix it." It's a fallacy because the "reasoning" makes no sense, violates the laws of causality, and creates a contradiction.

Or to put it another way, the Oberoni Fallacy is saying "it was never broken if the ability to fix it exists." Which is a just plain bad argument, which is why it's a fallacy.

People committing the Oberoni Fallacy is actually really harmful to people's ability to have constructive discussions about DM adjudication and houseruling. Encouraging someone to use the fallacy diminishes their ability to adjust the rules to suit their game. Because owning tools and declaring that all cars are perfect as they are doesn't make you a mechanic.

Agreed. Misusing the Oberoni Fallacy to apply to a system with the expectation of DM adjudication as a stated design goal is just sloppy intellectualism, and not productive. However, people genuinely making Oberoni Fallacies in the midst of a DM adjudication discussion muddies the water.

[Toofey]

Oh you're talking about a murder demiplane. I don't really have the problem because you have to use the fairly high level deplane to trap people in your murder box, and have to have devoted fairly a lot of resources overall. I guess I'm not over impressed by that trick, but I also don't think wizards are underpowered in the first place.

There's an alternative based on Secret chest which I find problematic.

edit: I've missed chunks of the thread, but it seems like a lot of it involves abuses of Glyphs, and it requires a... generous reading of that spell to make most things like that work.

[JNAProductions]

Oh you're talking about a murder demiplane. I don't really have the problem because you have to use the fairly high level deplane to trap people in your murder box, and have to have devoted fairly a lot of resources overall. I guess I'm not over impressed by that trick, but I also don't think wizards are underpowered in the first place.

There's an alternative based on magic chest I think (I could be mixing eds and all messed up) which I find problematic.

Just to be clear, they're talking about using Glyphs of Warding to buff themselves out the wazoo, then 'port back to the fight and do damage.

However, there's several flaws with it-some of it requires DM adjudication to go their way, other parts flat out do not work based on the rules.

[Toofey]

yeah "LOOK UPON MY BOX" is the closest variant of that dance that's remotely rules compliant but it requires a DM that doesn't view being summoned as moving 10' or more.

[MaxWilson]

This is where we get into my aggravation with rules that don't model / map anything, and are just designed around what sounds good in a vacuum or within a white-room mechanical framework.

Yeah, 5E has lots of that. Stay far away from it and every other WotC game.

[Willie the Duck]

This is where we get into my aggravation with rules that don't model / map anything, and are just designed around what sounds good in a vacuum or within a white-room mechanical framework.

Here (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/11/gygax-on-scale.html)is some discussion on D&D scaling.

[Benny89]

I like everything they did to Wizards in 5e. I am all for making experience of all players more even and I never liked domination of magic classes in older edition.

I would even buff more of 1-5 wizard spells and nerf more of his 7-9 and remove/rework Wish. But that is just my inner opinion, please don't jump on me.

Anyway, I think they did good job in 5e. I only agree with OP on one thing- concentration limit to 1 spell. It's the same for Wizards, paladins, clerics etc.

However I think they should be a mile stones where you can concentrate on more than 1 spell. Maybe on level 14-15? 2 spells at once would be imo nice for casters in late game. Again- my opinion.

Now wizards are part of team and damage was shifted more to marial classes, especially single target DPR and Nova damage.

Now Paladin is king of nova damage while classes like for example X-bow Expert fighter is king of DPR. Wizards got their role as AOE damage dealers with good CC and protection options, but they don't have as good CC as Druids and not as good support as clerics and they don't have as much utility and mundane abilities like Bards.

The balance in 5e is very good and magic nerf was huge part of it.

In older edition at some point team was just an escort for a wizard/sorcerer. Now everybody can do amazing stuff on high-levels and wizard needs protection because he can't hyper buff himself anymore so he is much more vurneable.

I just wish a Wish wasn't so broken.

[jas61292]

I just wish a Wish wasn't so broken.

I usually disagree when people use the term "sacred cow", but that is precisely what Wish is. It is hideously unbalanced, terribly designed in general, and, if you ask me, not even thematic. The ultimate arcane power is... to wish for something? That's so dumb.

It literally only exists because "Wish is the best spell in D&D." It would never make it into the game if it didn't have a history, because it is such a poor piece of game design.

[cesius]

Having gotten a wizard to 20th level in 5e I have to admit, while I like how the game limits and simplifies the magic system with some good mechanics, particularly concentration, I feel like magic just isn't as magical as it used to be.
Cool, subjectively, "just isn't as magical," and my reply is also subjective on why I agree in some places and don't in others.



Concentration - Yes, I like this. *SNIP*
However I think there should be some ways for casters to increase their ability to concentrate - either number of simultaneous spells and/or the capacity for keeping them up if hurt/incapacitated, etc. This could be a feat, a function of level (say by caster class tier - 2 at Tier 3 and 3 at Tier 4), stat (perhaps NOT the casting stat to keep it interesting), or the like. Something to differentiate the caster at Archmage level from a starting Apprentice other than spells available and DC.
I agree to both, and think it could be elegantly handled. Magic items are one way (and we see this already) in that a spell effect is enabled by wearing the item; no concentration required. Expanding ioun stones or foci to 'hold' one concentration would be simple and also manageable via disarm or destroying the item. The second possibility (and no reason it couldn't be both) is that casters can concentrate on one spell per ability modifier or 1/2 proficiency modifier, each concentration spell increases DC by 2 or so, and taking damage means a concentration check for each spell.



Spell Slots Though the limit of 6-9th level spells is pretty rough at high level, especially when your only spell has a good chance of not working and you only get one a day. You really have to resource conserve to pop one of those spells off at the right time or risk wasting it. It would be nice if there were ways to expand these slots a bit with Feats or class options.
I disagree because the limitations introduce meaningful choices from moment to moment. With things like Arcane Recovery (scales on level), Spell Mastery, Signature Spell, and Sorcery Points (scales on level) the lower and middle tier spells become more meat-and-potato so the caster resource management paradigm rests largely on high tier spells. On the other hand, one has many more spells, of a variety of levels, to fall back on if the big one is a flub.



Saves - Boy, here's where we really start seeing 5e magic lose its' shine. Saves are too common, easy and repeatable over time for many spells. The save at the end of every turn thing just drains the awesomeness out of so many spells. I don't think I've ever seen a monster effected by save-at-the-end-of-turn spells actually be effected for the entire duration. Legendary Saves take the wind out of a caster's spell choices as well - how many players spend their time counting uses of Legendary Saves before popping a precious, high-level spell? All of them.
I don't think anyone likes feeling that they've wasted a turn. Any class with limited resources is going to be particularly burned by this when the dice are against them. I think this is where other people's comments about teamwork and "master planner" come into play. A party working together or careful spell choice and item use to impose Disadvantage on saves or tease out Legendary Saves are going to see more success.



Duration - The vast majority of magic lasts a minute or maybe 10. Only one feature I can think of can extend this time. It would be nice if there were more, accessible methods of scaling spell duration.
I could see this being a common, second option for casting a spell at a higher level. This lets Extend Spell still be useful.



Damage/Effect - With a few exceptions, magic damage pales in comparison to other attack types. Fireball is nice at 5th level but hardly a go-to at 11th. A Disintegrate is cool, if the target misses their save, and even isn't really that much damage to foes for the kinds you're fighting at that point. High level spells need to be awesome - and in most cases (as we've seen Treantmonk spell out) they're not. Upcasting is often not an equitable option, either, since high level spell slots are paltry.
Fireball was specifically designed to be better as a 3rd level spell and not scale as well (though some argument could be made that it still scales fine). Disintegrate's average 75 points of Force damage is nothing to sneeze at from a single action at 9th level; see above regarding saves. Leveraging class options to make that spell matter becomes important rather than in previous editions where one had to leverage feats. In this regard, the interaction between spell choice and class options becomes more important.



In particular the variable class option - ie at Level X you can choose THIS boost option OR THAT boost option, would be an interesting solution.

I think these options exist, but they're much more silo'ed then they were previously. Metamagic feats for all casters have been nixed into specific classes and subclasses rather than being available for all. Multiclassing can help, but unless substitution levels are brought back then I think the fixes go in the opposite direction of the design intent of spell casting classes in 5e.

[MaxWilson]

I agree to both, and think it could be elegantly handled. Magic items are one way (and we see this already) in that a spell effect is enabled by wearing the item; no concentration required. Expanding ioun stones or foci to 'hold' one concentration would be simple and also manageable via disarm or destroying the item. The second possibility (and no reason it couldn't be both) is that casters can concentrate on one spell per ability modifier or 1/2 proficiency modifier, each concentration spell increases DC by 2 or so, and taking damage means a concentration check for each spell.

While I'm not personally interested in changing the concentration rules, if I were I'd draw inspiration from the Dresden Files and say "You can concentrate on up to N levels of spells at a time, where N is your maximum casting level." If you can cast 7th level spells then sure, you can manage to concentrate on Greater Invisibility and Suggestion and Expeditious Retreat simultaneously. Harry does this kind of stuff occasionally, although for him Greater Invisibility would probably be effectively a 9th level spell since he's so bad at veils. :-P

[Gastronomie]

I'm surprised at how so many people think it should be possible to concentrate on several spells at the same time, because my opinion is "that would be quite overpowered without extremely severe limitations".

If anything my idea is that spellcasters need to be nerfed at higher levels, not buffed.

[Zonugal]

The idea that wizards aren't strong enough is pretty absurd, in my eyes, when we have folks like master illusionists.

An 18th-level Illusionist, with a two-level Warlock dip, can create any inanimate, nonmagical object for one minute.

The example given is creating an entire bridge over a chasm!

They're effectively the Green Lantern!

And they need to be stronger!?!?!

[Unoriginal]

The idea that wizards aren't strong enough is pretty absurd, in my eyes, when we have folks like master illusionists.

An 18th-level Illusionist, with a two-level Warlock dip, can create any inanimate, nonmagical object for one minute.

The example given is creating an entire bridge over a chasm!

They're effectively the Green Lantern!

And they need to be stronger!?!?!

Some people's reaction, given a Green Lantern Ring, is "where's my Infinity Gauntlet?".

[MaxWilson]

The idea that wizards aren't strong enough is pretty absurd, in my eyes, when we have folks like master illusionists.

An 18th-level Illusionist, with a two-level Warlock dip, can create any inanimate, nonmagical object for one minute.

The example given is creating an entire bridge over a chasm!

They're effectively the Green Lantern!

And they need to be stronger!?!?!

The annoying thing about 5e is that *magic* isn't magical enough. In your example, the heavy lifting is being done by a specific character trait, which only ever behaves one way, not by a spell.

It's not about whether a given wizard has access to at least one powerful exploit. It's about whether the rules are able to evoke a desired fantasy feel, including for villainous BBEGs. E.g. "She turned me into a newt" doesn't even work in 5e without 9th level True Polymorph, and even THAT ends when the target drops to 0 HP. 5E's version of teleport blocks may take a whole year to erect and still go down to a single casting of Dispel Magic. There's no way at all for magic to grant the BBEG awareness of or power over those who speak his name aloud. Etc.

5E magic is primarily tactical in scale, with a few unexplained anomalies that are larger scale in very specific ways like Mirage Arcane and Mass Suggestion IX. Some people don't love the resulting flavor.

[Gastronomie]

The annoying thing about 5e is that *magic* isn't magical enough. (snip) Some people don't love the resulting flavor.Yeah, which is all probably true, except in that case it's probably a better idea to switch to a different system. Trying to homebrew house rules in a way that goes against the core design structure of a system will probably wreck the whole thing up, making it a better idea to try something else completely different from the start.

I believe 5e is wonderful and it serves me well, but it's impossible for a single system to satisfy absolutely everyone. The people who "don't love the resulting flavor" are definitely not the target audience of this system.

[Knaight]

The annoying thing about 5e is that *magic* isn't magical enough. In your example, the heavy lifting is being done by a specific character trait, which only ever behaves one way, not by a spell.

It's not about whether a given wizard has access to at least one powerful exploit. It's about whether the rules are able to evoke a desired fantasy feel, including for villainous BBEGs.

In the context of criticism about power though, that doesn't necessarily apply so much. A level 1 spell lets you understand every language ever spoken. A level 2 spell pries the truth from the lips of most in its area, and those few that resist and lie to you can't do it without showing you that they resisted. Level 3 spell lets you spend less than a day on a ritual that makes over 7 acres of farmland twice as fertile for an entire year (though that probably works out to one harvest as you enchant the plants and not the land). A 4th level spell lets you lift 32,000 tons of water, sweeping a small fleet to shore in a storm against hostile weather. A 5th level spell lets you raise the dead.

It's not what magic is capable of that makes it not feel magical. It's the system these individual feats of magic exist within; and more than that it's the sterility of the presentation. A list of spells, written like a technical document, tied to a fire and forget vancian system with no real risk or mystery to it sucks the magic right out, regardless of how individually impressive the spells are.

[Unoriginal]

In the context of criticism about power though, that doesn't necessarily apply so much. A level 1 spell lets you understand every language ever spoken. A level 2 spell pries the truth from the lips of most in its area, and those few that resist and lie to you can't do it without showing you that they resisted. Level 3 spell lets you spend less than a day on a ritual that makes over 7 acres of farmland twice as fertile for an entire year (though that probably works out to one harvest as you enchant the plants and not the land). A 4th level spell lets you lift 32,000 tons of water, sweeping a small fleet to shore in a storm against hostile weather. A 5th level spell lets you raise the dead.

It's not what magic is capable of that makes it not feel magical. It's the system these individual feats of magic exist within; and more than that it's the sterility of the presentation. A list of spells, written like a technical document, tied to a fire and forget vancian system with no real risk or mystery to it sucks the magic right out, regardless of how individually impressive the spells are.

Mystical rituals that require secret knowledge, ceremonies and exotic materials to pull off also exist in 5e. Their effects, as described in various books, range from improved Blessing to full on apotheosis. Nothing wrong with using them.

Spells are only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mystical rituals that require secret knowledge, ceremonies and exotic materials to pull off also exist in 5e. Their effects, as described in various books, range from improved Blessing to full on apotheosis. Nothing wrong with using them.

Spells are only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to magic.

Agreed. The printed spells are merely the ones that are "adventurer-grade", working-day spells. Things that you can cast relatively routinely at the appropriate levels. The "required curriculum". They are not (nor are they intended to be) a comprehensive list of all the things magic can do. The whole world of rituals/ceremonies/mystical practices is way wider than that and not inherently restricted to spell-casters. Some are, some aren't. Some require only exhausting persistence and precision, others require spells to be cast as part of the ritual.

The nature and exact powers of these rituals differ from world to world. Examples from my setting include:

* Chants that gain power from more voices. These produce small effects that only last while the chant is ongoing, but can be performed by anyone. Farmers use them to drive away pests or to make weeds easier to pull. Smiths use them to keep the metal more pliable for longer or to keep the fire burning hot. Etc.

* Blood magic, ranging from the simple "shed blood while saying certain words and focusing on an intent" (inefficient but easy) to "compress the whole soul of a creature while they live into a brick that can be consumed as fuel for apotheosis or other major rituals".

* Summoning devils is a matter of ritual. Sure, being able to pre-cast protection spells and practice drawing ritual circles and learning the prescribed contract forms helps, but it isn't necessary. Look at all those fiend warlocks who didn't have any spell-casting knowledge before they made their Pact (which involved contact with a fiend).

* Creating magic items is a matter of technique and sacrifice--you bind a small fragment of your soul into the item.

* Rune magic involves certain shapes and then a force of will to empower them. Hard, especially if you're not a dwarf or goliath who have racial affinity to the runes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Mystical rituals that require secret knowledge, ceremonies and exotic materials to pull off also exist in 5e. Their effects, as described in various books, range from improved Blessing to full on apotheosis. Nothing wrong with using them.

Spells are only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to magic.

I do think that what's on the underwater part of the iceberg and what's not might be a bit off.

That is... maybe some spells like Wish shouldn't be part of the "adventure grade" / "workday" spells, but rather be ritual-only spells that require a lot of prep work.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm surprised at how so many people think it should be possible to concentrate on several spells at the same time, because my opinion is "that would be quite overpowered without extremely severe limitations".
If anything my idea is that spellcasters need to be nerfed at higher levels, not buffed.

To be fair, most people are opining that they wish they could do it, but without it being overpowered. So not unlike wishing you could eat all the holiday goodies that are popping up this time of year without gaining weight (or burning more calories) -- you know it's not possible, but hey, you can still wish, right?


Yeah, which is all probably true, except in that case it's probably a better idea to switch to a different system. Trying to homebrew house rules in a way that goes against the core design structure of a system will probably wreck the whole thing up, making it a better idea to try something else completely different from the start.

I believe 5e is wonderful and it serves me well, but it's impossible for a single system to satisfy absolutely everyone. The people who "don't love the resulting flavor" are definitely not the target audience of this system.

I've been pretty consistent on saying that the 5e designers have been crazy like a fox, if they've been crazy (or stupid, or whatever one would accuse them of being). They have made a compromise system which seems to hit all the right buttons for most of the people most of the time. That said, just about everyone has something they dislike about it. Particularly something that they wanted to see come over from their favorite other edition (or that editions that 'would have been perfect, if they took another stab at it.'). OP liked the 3e high level spellcasters, and wishes that could have (perhaps 'somehow,' 'against all odds') made it into this edition.

And than that said, you are of course right. D&D in general is probably not the best platform for insanely powerful arch-wizards playing N-dimensional chess against each other and having plans within plans within plans and so forth. Certainly not when giving martial classes Hong Kong cinema wire-fu abilities is a controversial option. I think I've already suggested Ars Magica and the White Wolf Mage games (of all stripes) as good options. Still, D&D will always be (probably not literally true, but for the foreseeable future) the entry point for most TTRPGers as well as the one for which people will most easily find a group. So in that regard it kind of has to do all things for all people, or else people will be disappointed.

[cesius]

It's about whether the rules are able to evoke a desired fantasy feel, including for villainous BBEGs. E.g. "She turned me into a newt" doesn't even work in 5e without 9th level True Polymorph, and even THAT ends when the target drops to 0 HP. 5E's version of teleport blocks may take a whole year to erect and still go down to a single casting of Dispel Magic. There's no way at all for magic to grant the BBEG awareness of or power over those who speak his name aloud. Etc.

5E magic is primarily tactical in scale, with a few unexplained anomalies that are larger scale in very specific ways like Mirage Arcane and Mass Suggestion IX. Some people don't love the resulting flavor.
I agree completely about the flavor issue, but I think the separation of that flavor from PC abilities (daily adventuring tools) is on purpose. I think partly it's still some 4e sensibilities in the mix where NPCs and PCs are not designed on the same chassis. The level of magic you're describing, as I read it, is meant to be special and mark the BBEG as different from what is normally available. "How did they get so much power, or learn to cast such a spell, etc?" ask the PCs in awe and fear-type stuff. Such legendary abilities are exactly that: Legendary Actions. Or, alternatively, legendary items. WotC's assumption here strikes me as similar to the Ed Greenword-style of wizardry (for better or worse) where some no name wizard can learn a single lost spell or find some lost item and all of a sudden have the power to take on a kingdom. It's the fact that everyone else (i.e. PCs) don't normally have access to it that makes it special and dangerous. I don't think WotC did a good job of providing a framework for creating non-monstrous BBEG of that style. Maybe one of the campaign splatbooks has a CR20 archmage or even a CR8 Mage with a special item, but I don't recall seeing one off the top of my head in the Monster Manual.


Something similar happened to a character in a campaign I was in. It was meant to be relatively low magic items until tier 3, but the GM had us face some Kuo-toa at level 5. The priest had the usual lightning scepter which the fighter took from his corpse and proceeded to gain a wide-spread reputation as that unbeatable mercenary with the lightning stick. This matched a lot of the narrative styles of WotC house writers where a lesser threat becomes oversized with the application of a few choice magic items.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, which is all probably true, except in that case it's probably a better idea to switch to a different system. Trying to homebrew house rules in a way that goes against the core design structure of a system will probably wreck the whole thing up, making it a better idea to try something else completely different from the start.

I believe 5e is wonderful and it serves me well, but it's impossible for a single system to satisfy absolutely everyone. The people who "don't love the resulting flavor" are definitely not the target audience of this system.

Oh, I completely agree, and that's why I personally am not remotely interested in rewriting the 5E concentration rules, but I *am* interested in playing some AD&D2 when my 5E projects wrap up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I were to rewrite wish, it'd be part of an overhaul of the magic system.

1. Separate the spell lists into "ceremonies" and "spells".
1a. Ceremonies can be performed by anyone of the appropriate level with the appropriate knowledge. Long cast times, expensive components. This would include most of the transportation spells (teleport, planeshift, etc), possibly the resurrection spells, much of the utility (speak with X, locate Y) spells. Might get easier with more participants.
1b. Spells are the things that can be cast promptly using spell slots.

Yes, this would involve reducing the spell lists by a huge fraction at all levels.

2. Split wish into two parts.
2a. The "unsafe" uses part would become a ceremony with substantial cost, possibly even the life of a participant.
2b. The spell emulation part would become a meta-spell, available to all characters capable of casting 9th level spells and would be renamed something else like "Metaspell".

Metaspell
9th level, no school.
Cast time, duration, target, components, etc: Special.

With your supreme command of magic, you attempt to emulate another spell of 8th level or lower. The spell acts in all ways like the emulated spell (as if cast from a 9th level slot), except that the casting time varies (see table below) and an expensive material component must be substituted for any existing material components (or added if the spell to be emulated has no material component).

If the spell to be emulated is from a different class's list, treat it as if it is one tier higher for determining the cost and casting time.


Spell Level
Cost
Casting Time


0-2
None
1 action


3-5
500 gp
1 hour


6-8
5,000 gp
8 hours


Off-list 6-8
10,000
24 day



(Numbers ballparked). The idea is that you can easily cast a spell you just don't happen to have prepared, but casting off-list is harder. This also removes the "I can cast without components to save cost" problem.

A wizard might get a class feature that lets them treat on-list spells of their specialty school as being one step lower than they are. A cleric might get a feature that lets them treat spells aligned to their deity's portfolio as if they were on-list for this spell. Etc.

[JNAProductions]

Quality Stuff Snipped

Sounds good.

Also sounds like what 4E did.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds good.

Also sounds like what 4E did.

Yup. I like the concepts of 4e's rituals, just not the implementation. Same with a lot of other 4e things.

[JNAProductions]

Yup. I like the concepts of 4e's rituals, just not the implementation. Same with a lot of other 4e things.

Yeah. I liked 4E myself-it was not "classic" D&D, but it was a good system.

Honestly, I feel it would have gone over WAY BETTER if instead of marketing it as "D&D-BRAND NEW AND IMPROVED!" they marketed it as D&D Tactics. Basically, not a fourth edition of D&D, but a D&D style tactical game (with roleplaying elements).

[Dark Schneider]

Remember that all this also applies to foes against you.

- Concentration: agree that all buff spells should have the (elegant) option for more targets scaling level. Also, the check should be made with the spellcasting ability instead CON. A caster with CON as main? Does not fit well. It is concentration, after all, it should be something more mind than body, so the spellcasting ability is fine.

- Spell slots: cannot say about that until reach the level.

- Saves: I think is fine, if not, hold person was a killing spell, at level 2 only. Again, remember that also applies to you if affected by a spell. Also, as magical resistances were removed, it is a proper way to show that higher the number, higher the resistance, in a not all-or-nothing way.

- Duration: they decided that combat spells (1 minute) last 10 rounds, if combat last longer, you have to cast it again. The problem is that this collides against the "spell slots", as some protection over lvl 6th you can't cast them again even if you want. I think all 6th lvl or greater should have 10 minutes instead 1, also any spell scaled to >=6th lvl.

- Damage/effect: I think they do the same damage than always. But magic is more masses oriented instead single target. If you do 8d6 to 4-5 targets...OK that is a nice number. I miss some single target damage spells too.

[JNAProductions]

So, if you make Concentration casting stat based, you make casters much more SAD. A backline Wizard already only takes a few hits and so doesn't need a ton of HP, making their Concentration saves Int-based makes them need even less stats.

[Dark Schneider]

Yes, but casters getting a strong body to hold their spells...

If we sum requiring concentration plus it is made with a CON saving throw, a stat not for casters, and a saving throws not for casters... A Figther with Magic Initiate is able to hold a spell much better than a pure caster? That does not fit very well.

Why a caster should get CON to do his job? Needs a Fighter INT to do his?

[Willie the Duck]

Were I remaking the game, I would definitely make Wish be a constrained multi-purpose 'anycast' style spell, and then make it a required component for the making of 'True Wishes' which could only be made through the craft magic item feature of the game (which takes longer or shorter, depending on the rules you use). Trying to make a spell which emulates one of the most cherished treasures one can find in your treasure haul was an idea which should have been fixed a long time ago.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but casters getting a strong body to hold their spells...

If we sum requiring concentration plus it is made with a CON saving throw, a stat not for casters, and a saving throws not for casters... A Figther with Magic Initiate is able to hold a spell much better than a pure caster? That does not fit very well.

Why a caster should get CON to do his job? Needs a Fighter INT to do his?

Con isn't a martial stat or a caster stat. It's an everybody stat.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, but casters getting a strong body to hold their spells...

If we sum requiring concentration plus it is made with a CON saving throw, a stat not for casters, and a saving throws not for casters... A Figther with Magic Initiate is able to hold a spell much better than a pure caster? That does not fit very well.

Why a caster should get CON to do his job? Needs a Fighter INT to do his?

The tougher you are, the better you can take a hit. A Fighter, who trained the school of hard knocks, is much better at staying focused after taking a blow to the brains than a caster in their ivory tower.

Fluff it however you want-there's a very clear MECHANICAL reason for this.

[Max_Killjoy]

The tougher you are, the better you can take a hit. A Fighter, who trained the school of hard knocks, is much better at staying focused after taking a blow to the brains than a caster in their ivory tower.

Fluff it however you want-there's a very clear MECHANICAL reason for this.

Makes me wish there were a better way to crossover between Monk and Sorcerer, since those are the two classes (by fluff) most focused on mastering inner forces, and it would maybe represent a caster with "mind body balance" or who doesn't subscribe to mind-body duality at all.

[Dark Schneider]

The tougher you are, the better you can take a hit. A Fighter, who trained the school of hard knocks, is much better at staying focused after taking a blow to the brains than a caster in their ivory tower.

Fluff it however you want-there's a very clear MECHANICAL reason for this.
Concentration, nearest to meditation, is not something about resisting damage. That are HP that is completely different.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think WotC did a good job of providing a framework for creating non-monstrous BBEG of that style. Maybe one of the campaign splatbooks has a CR20 archmage or even a CR8 Mage with a special item, but I don't recall seeing one off the top of my head in the Monster Manual.

Not a BBEG, but the evil wizard Glasstaff is this (even being named after his magic glass staff). In term of BBEGs, the threat Jaralaxl represent is certainly dependant on his magic items and capacity to attune to more than 3 items (while fearsome without them, he'd be MUCH weaker) and the Xanathar magic items certainly help him stand above the rest.




Something similar happened to a character in a campaign I was in. It was meant to be relatively low magic items until tier 3, but the GM had us face some Kuo-toa at level 5. The priest had the usual lightning scepter which the fighter took from his corpse and proceeded to gain a wide-spread reputation as that unbeatable mercenary with the lightning stick. This matched a lot of the narrative styles of WotC house writers where a lesser threat becomes oversized with the application of a few choice magic items.

Great story. Was the reputation deserved, though? As in, did he ever get defeated?

[urandom]

I do wish there was a more structured way to concentrate on more than one spell (other than glyph of warding, which feels either broken or useless depending on situation). It really does limit what both the party and the enemies can do in a way that feels... restrictive rather than fun. IMHO the vast majority of interesting spells are concentration. I recognize that balance with non casters requires some sort of cost to this, but I do wish they had found a way.

My bigger issue with wizards in particular is that I feel they are supposed to be the masters of versatile magic. They don't have the raw power of sorcerers or the tank and crazy class features of clerics and druids, but they always have the right spell for the situation. In 5e that's aggressively not true. As a class wizards have the second least spells prepared. Only sorcerers have it worse. Freaking clerics all have much more spell versatility with domain spells. At lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared. Even if they happen to have a chance to prepare for a particular challenge (something that in my experience isn't actually that common), clerics have all the spells on their list while wizards have to get lucky to find them, and then pay out the nose to actually copy them.

Now wizards do get better spells (at least at later levels), and simulacrum and wish are so ridiculously good its funny, but most campaigns don't even get to simulacrum, much less wish. At lower levels Wizards need to prepare those great spells if they want that advantage, and can't afford to spend a spell prepared on fun utility/situational spells.

Personally I loved the way low-mid level 3.5 wizards played (ignoring crazy optimization mind). Low damage and very squishy, but cleverness was rewarded with amazing battlefield control and arcane versatility. I'm not saying its imbalanced in 5e. Wizards are still strong, but they don't quite scratch the itch.

[cesius]

Great story. Was the reputation deserved, though? As in, did he ever get defeated?
Not against humanoids of comparable or lower CR; the extra 4d6 lightning damage pretty much wrecked face and let him focus on defensive character options. The down side was this led to his character becoming something a blood knight and bit more one-dimensional than he had originally been played as.

[Unoriginal]

My bigger issue with wizards in particular is that I feel they are supposed to be the masters of versatile magic. They don't have the raw power of sorcerers or the tank and crazy class features of clerics and druids, but they always have the right spell for the situation.

That is not what they are supposed to be. That is what people say about them, but it's more a meme/a mis-perception as the result of 3.X overpowering that side of the the wizard than the truth. What the wizard is supposed to be is "the one who can prepare arcane spells because they've studied for it".

The whole "always has the right spell" thing is not accurate, no matter what whiteroom discussions say.



In 5e that's aggressively not true. As a class wizards have the second least spells prepared. Only sorcerers have it worse. Freaking clerics all have much more spell versatility with domain spells. At lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared. Even if they happen to have a chance to prepare for a particular challenge (something that in my experience isn't actually that common), clerics have all the spells on their list while wizards have to get lucky to find them, and then pay out the nose to actually copy them.

As is intended.


Not against humanoids of comparable or lower CR; the extra 4d6 lightning damage pretty much wrecked face and let him focus on defensive character options. The down side was this led to his character becoming something a blood knight and bit more one-dimensional than he had originally been played as.

Ah, a bit sad. But as long as the player enjoyed doing it, it's worth it.

Though the DM was generous ruling the lightning came from the scepter rather than from the Archpriest's insane faith.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do wish there was a more structured way to concentrate on more than one spell (other than glyph of warding, which feels either broken or useless depending on situation). It really does limit what both the party and the enemies can do in a way that feels... restrictive rather than fun. IMHO the vast majority of interesting spells are concentration. I recognize that balance with non casters requires some sort of cost to this, but I do wish they had found a way.

My bigger issue with wizards in particular is that I feel they are supposed to be the masters of versatile magic. They don't have the raw power of sorcerers or the tank and crazy class features of clerics and druids, but they always have the right spell for the situation. In 5e that's aggressively not true. As a class wizards have the second least spells prepared. Only sorcerers have it worse. Freaking clerics all have much more spell versatility with domain spells. At lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared. Even if they happen to have a chance to prepare for a particular challenge (something that in my experience isn't actually that common), clerics have all the spells on their list while wizards have to get lucky to find them, and then pay out the nose to actually copy them.

Now wizards do get better spells (at least at later levels), and simulacrum and wish are so ridiculously good its funny, but most campaigns don't even get to simulacrum, much less wish. At lower levels Wizards need to prepare those great spells if they want that advantage, and can't afford to spend a spell prepared on fun utility/situational spells.

Personally I loved the way low-mid level 3.5 wizards played (ignoring crazy optimization mind). Low damage and very squishy, but cleverness was rewarded with amazing battlefield control and arcane versatility. I'm not saying its imbalanced in 5e. Wizards are still strong, but they don't quite scratch the itch.

Wizards have the widest array of spells to chose from. Yes, clerics get their entire list, but the cleric list is much smaller and more focused.

[cesius]

My bigger issue with wizards in particular is that I feel they are supposed to be the masters of versatile magic. They don't have the raw power of sorcerers or the tank and crazy class features of clerics and druids, but they always have the right spell for the situation. In 5e that's aggressively not true. As a class wizards have the second least spells prepared. Only sorcerers have it worse. Freaking clerics all have much more spell versatility with domain spells. At lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared. Even if they happen to have a chance to prepare for a particular challenge (something that in my experience isn't actually that common), clerics have all the spells on their list while wizards have to get lucky to find them, and then pay out the nose to actually copy them.
This tends to be a disconnect within game designers when it comes to versatility: is one talking depth or breadth? More casting gives versatile breadth (throw different things at the problem until it sticks, Bard 1/2 proficiency bonus to non-proficient skills) versus versatile depth (have just the right thing ready to throw at the problem, any class with proficiency and max appropriate stat for a specific skill for the right set of challenges). Wizards have the most options and coverage of spells in the game. The 'skill' in playing them has rarely been getting enough spell slots, it's been having the right spell prepared; most 3.5 power builds had one or more ways to have a few spells always prepared or swappable with prepared spells and ways to get more spells beyond two per level and "DM may I find". In some ways, this is were the power of Domain spells does indeed shine as they're always prepared and they can add depth to the cleric's otherwise more limited spell list.

[urandom]

That is not what they are supposed to be. That is what people say about them, but it's more a meme/a mis-perception as the result of 3.X overpowering that side of the the wizard than the truth. What the wizard is supposed to be is "the one who can prepare arcane spells because they've studied for it".

The whole "always has the right spell" thing is not accurate, no matter what whiteroom discussions say.

You are welcome to prefer a different type of wizard, but its not like I'm wrong or somehow inaccurate and I'm confused about how you can even say that its not the 'truth' (especially considering this is more about preference and cultural expectation than some sort of gygax stamped one true wizard). What does being the 'one who can prepare arcane spells because they've studied for it' mean in a actual flavor or gameplay sense? I'm not even sure where you are getting that from given the distinction between prepared and spontaneous was made in 3rd. Regardless, if a class relying studying and preparation has any game implications for versatility it would imply having correct spell for the situation to me.


As is intended.

Certainly the rules are intended, but that's not really relevant to the discussion, is it? The question is about how that makes the wizard play, and whether that matches our preferences and expectations.


Wizards have the widest array of spells to chose from. Yes, clerics get their entire list, but the cleric list is much smaller and more focused.
The thing is spells only matters if its in your spell book (very dm dependent) and you get the chance to prepare it ahead of time, and you have space for potentially minor utility spells when you need the fighting spells to survive. However I do agree at later levels the wizard spell list stays great and versatile while the cleric spell list peters off. Most campaigns don't really reach that though.


This tends to be a disconnect within game designers when it comes to versatility: is one talking depth or breadth? More casting gives versatile breadth (throw different things at the problem until it sticks, Bard 1/2 proficiency bonus to non-proficient skills) versus versatile depth (have just the right thing ready to throw at the problem, any class with proficiency and max appropriate stat for a specific skill for the right set of challenges). Wizards have the most options and coverage of spells in the game. The 'skill' in playing them has rarely been getting enough spell slots, it's been having the right spell prepared; most 3.5 power builds had one or more ways to have a few spells always prepared or swappable with prepared spells and ways to get more spells beyond two per level and "DM may I find". In some ways, this is were the power of Domain spells does indeed shine as they're always prepared and they can add depth to the cleric's otherwise more limited spell list.
Definitely true. Versatility is a multifaceted concept. Wizard spell list covers more options than eg the cleric list, and some individual spells on the wizard list are very powerful and versatile (eg polymorph). If a wizard sticks to these powerhouse spells they will play great. Conversely if a wizard has a chance to round out his spell book, and a chance to prepare ahead of time for a particular challenge he might be able to prepare slightly more specific spells for the situation than a cleric or druid. Though I still think that this situation is rare, it will limit the wizards general strength, and all the sudden challenges that come up are more likely to be met by casters with more spells prepared.

In 3.5 there was much more expectation of a certain amount of gold (it was actually written into the rules), and a certain amount of magic item/spell accessibility. That's not true in 5e. It downright encourages highly limited gold/magic items. Certainly this is still dm/campaign dependent. Maybe you will have all the spells in your book that you could want.

[Willie the Duck]

You are welcome to prefer a different type of wizard, but its not like I'm wrong or somehow inaccurate and I'm confused about how you can even say that its not the 'truth' (especially considering this is more about preference and cultural expectation than some sort of gygax stamped one true wizard).

I don't think that is what he is saying. I believe his point is that wizards never really were that in D&D, so if you expected that, the issue is where that expectation came from. Of course you can desire the wizard to be that, no argument.

And to a greater or lesser degree, he's right. The 3e wizard did evolve this conceptual meme where it had an answer to every situation (facilitated, inasmuch as reality matched the reputation, by having ubiquitous cheap-and-easily-made scrolls to supplement what they had memorized). And 5e certainly isn't the class that has the most different spell options to choose from when running into a new situation (here you two are in agreement).

Regardless, the primary overarching value that a wizard has, in excess to the other full casters, is the (potential for) the greatest number of spells to choose from at the point of spell memorization. Yes, at lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared, but the wizard will have a (potential) much greater pool of options to choose to memorize from. So if a wizard has advanced warning, they have the greatest number of solutions to bring to bear at a given situation. That's what wizards are good for.


The thing is spells only matters if its in your spell book (very dm dependent) and you get the chance to prepare it ahead of time, and you have space for potentially minor utility spells when you need the fighting spells to survive.

Yes, and the wizard, more than most classes and builds (other than weapon-specific martial builds, I suppose), are very DM-dependent.


In 3.5 there was much more expectation of a certain amount of gold (it was actually written into the rules), and a certain amount of magic item/spell accessibility. That's not true in 5e. It downright encourages highly limited gold/magic items. Certainly this is still dm/campaign dependent. Maybe you will have all the spells in your book that you could want.

Yes, exactly. So everyone is pretty much on the same page then.

[Unoriginal]

You are welcome to prefer a different type of wizard, but its not like I'm wrong or somehow inaccurate and I'm confused about how you can even say that its not the 'truth' (especially considering this is more about preference and cultural expectation than some sort of gygax stamped one true wizard). What does being the 'one who can prepare arcane spells because they've studied for it' mean in a actual flavor or gameplay sense? I'm not even sure where you are getting that from given the distinction between prepared and spontaneous was made in 3rd. Regardless, if a class relying studying and preparation has any game implications for versatility it would imply having correct spell for the situation to me.

There is a difference between "the class that has a spell prepared for each circumstances" and "the class that can prepare spells".

Wizards are versatiles in the sense they can select among a list of spells with various effects, and if they have the right spell at the right time, they're great.

What people tend to assume when they see that is "the wizard will have the right spell for each situation, so they're very versatile". Which is not what the class is about. It's not "the wizard will have the spell", it's "the wizard may have the spell".

In other words, it's a gamble. But somehow the perception shifted from "gambling that your spell selection will fit the dangers encountered this day" to "wizards are always prepared gods". It's a reason why people often accuse blaster wizards to not live up to the class's full potential, talking about how many versatile options they're missing out on... while forgetting that in the grand gamble that is selecting your spell, that you'll have to fight is generally a safe bet, unlike the other options.

If you'd rather have it be different or if you prefer other kinds of wizardry, I'm not telling you it's badwrongfun, because it isn't, it's just a matter of tastes. But I'm disputing your characterization of the current wizard.


I don't think that is what he is saying. I believe his point is that wizards never really were that in D&D, so if you expected that, the issue is where that expectation came from. Of course you can desire the wizard to be that, no argument.

And to a greater or lesser degree, he's right. The 3e wizard did evolve this conceptual meme where it had an answer to every situation (facilitated, inasmuch as reality matched the reputation, by having ubiquitous cheap-and-easily-made scrolls to supplement what they had memorized). And 5e certainly isn't the class that has the most different spell options to choose from when running into a new situation (here you two are in agreement).



Indeed, well put.

The 3. X wizard created an expectation of "ready for everything" that is not actually present in the class, but because of how the system handled the spell-earning scroll-making and item-crafting, not to mention the expected-gold thing, the wizard could be made to lose the "gamble with your spell selection" part, and this very thread shows the effects this has on the perception of people to this day.



Yes, and the wizard, more than most classes and builds (other than weapon-specific martial builds, I suppose), are very DM-dependent.

Another reason why most "broken Wizard builds" are only whiteroom talks that'd require DM buying it.

Though to their credits, many optimisers will stick to the spells a wizard can learn through gaining levels.

[Zonugal]

The annoying thing about 5e is that *magic* isn't magical enough. In your example, the heavy lifting is being done by a specific character trait, which only ever behaves one way, not by a spell.

It feels like when you say you want magic to feel "magical" you're actually requesting it feel "powerful."

And hey, I can enjoy an uber-archmage!

But I'd rather enjoy a balanced game more.

A high level wizard can:

-- Become immune to all damage (and force all attackers to have disadvantage on their attacks).

-- Open up holes in reality where they may jump to other planes or pull someone into their own.

-- Reshape their bodies into the form of the generals of Hell or into ancient dragons.

-- Freeze time.

-- Create an entire castle in one minute.

-- Create a clone of yourself, thus defying death.

-- Create new planes of reality.

-- Reshape reality.

And you want more!?!?

[Waazraath]

Indeed, well put.

The 3. X wizard created an expectation of "ready for everything" that is not actually present in the class, but because of how the system handled the spell-earning scroll-making and item-crafting, not to mention the expected-gold thing, the wizard could be made to lose the "gamble with your spell selection" part, and this very thread shows the effects this has on the perception of people to this day.


This is correct, but it was much more than that. 3.x also had much more open ended spells. The 'polymorph' line gave an incredible amount of options with only 1 single spell; it could give access to diffferent movenment modes (fly, swim, earthglide), different means of perception (darkvision, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense), make the caster strong enough for melee, or give a lot of defensive options. All depending on which spell used exactly, but even the lowest, lvl 2 'alter self', gave a huge amount of options for only one spell. Same goes for the Summon Monster line: each spell gave a big list, each new splatbook with monsters expended that list (also the options of the polymorph line, btw). To make things worse: lots of creatures could cast spells after summoned, so a wizard with a stratigicly memorized 'summon monster' could summon a celestial to cast some healing, cure poison, remove disease, whatever, stuff that wizards don't have on their own spell list.

Further, the Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and 'gold per level' attitude/system not only made sure that the wizard had a number of back up scrolls with many spells not memorized, it also made sure that he had all relevant spells in his spellbook - you could buy the scrolls everwhere and copy them, after all, and a DM needed a pretty good reason back then to say a certain spell wasn't available in a big city (RAW being what it was then - much more imporant than it should have been imo, but it was).

And finally, though this is partly a 'charop thing' and not something that I regularly encountered in real games, divinations were more powerful / abusable, and using those a lot the day before the adventure, the wizard could choose the right spells when prepared.

[urandom]

And to a greater or lesser degree, he's right. The 3e wizard did evolve this conceptual meme where it had an answer to every situation (facilitated, inasmuch as reality matched the reputation, by having ubiquitous cheap-and-easily-made scrolls to supplement what they had memorized). And 5e certainly isn't the class that has the most different spell options to choose from when running into a new situation (here you two are in agreement).



The 3. X wizard created an expectation of "ready for everything" that is not actually present in the class, but because of how the system handled the spell-earning scroll-making and item-crafting, not to mention the expected-gold thing, the wizard could be made to lose the "gamble with your spell selection" part, and this very thread shows the effects this has on the perception of people to this day.


Well scribe scroll is part of the class. However we seem to agree that the much restricted magic items/spells in 5e limits wizard versatility much more than it limits eg cleric versatility.



Regardless, the primary overarching value that a wizard has, in excess to the other full casters, is the (potential for) the greatest number of spells to choose from at the point of spell memorization. Yes, at lvl 10 a wizard will have 14-15 spells prepared, a cleric will have 24-25 prepared, but the wizard will have a (potential) much greater pool of options to choose to memorize from. So if a wizard has advanced warning, they have the greatest number of solutions to bring to bear at a given situation. That's what wizards are good for.

It's not even at the point of memorization in 5e, but at the point of transcribing, as we've discussed. So the advance warning doesn't help unless its so in advance that you can hunt down and copy over spells for the situation.


There is a difference between "the class that has a spell prepared for each circumstances" and "the class that can prepare spells".

Wizards are versatiles in the sense they can select among a list of spells with various effects, and if they have the right spell at the right time, they're great.

What people tend to assume when they see that is "the wizard will have the right spell for each situation, so they're very versatile". Which is not what the class is about. It's not "the wizard will have the spell", it's "the wizard may have the spell".

In other words, it's a gamble. But somehow the perception shifted from "gambling that your spell selection will fit the dangers encountered this day" to "wizards are always prepared gods". It's a reason why people often accuse blaster wizards to not live up to the class's full potential, talking about how many versatile options they're missing out on... while forgetting that in the grand gamble that is selecting your spell, that you'll have to fight is generally a safe bet, unlike the other options.

If you'd rather have it be different or if you prefer other kinds of wizardry, I'm not telling you it's badwrongfun, because it isn't, it's just a matter of tastes. But I'm disputing your characterization of the current wizard.

We seem to generally agree on what preparation means, and the importance of the tradeoffs / gamble of preparing the right spells.

I will say that in 3.x the wizard did have a much better chance of covering the specialized/ utility options than the other spell casters. In 3.x they could dole out individual spell slots, so they could toss in 5-10 random special utility spells (so they had just the right spell at the right time), thus the the more versatile wizard spell list actually improved their own versatility much more than in 5e. I don't think the current wizard can really do the preparation gamble like you are advocating unless they have a very generous DM. Even then the restricted spells prepared means they can't prepare minor utility or specialized spells unless they are very confident exactly that thing is going to be needed.

In 3.x you could try to gamble and counter your enemy (and maybe fail and be useless), you could prepare a wide swath of spells (sacrificing a lot of power in order to be batman) or you could specialize and be very powerful at one thing (eg blast, ray spam). So in that way you were versatile at several levels, since you could choose your versatility/power tradeoff. You also had other versatility increasing options (that may fall outside your campaigns optimization zone) like crafting spell scrolls, uncanny forethought, spontaneous divination, shadow spells, etc. So no, I really don't think that the versatility of wizards is just a meme in 3.x. It's not that they should be prepared gods, but they can be prepared batman, as the meme goes. 5e wizards don't live up to this. Instead they largely take and prepare the same few spells. These are excellent spells, but its not the same.

[Ignimortis]

I am of the opinion that spellcasters in 5e were nerfed:

Too severely
Not enough

How's that possible at the same time, you ask? Well... 5e mostly nerfed the actual spellcasting. Durations, concentration, spell slots, spell clauses and restrictive descriptions - all of these result in spellcasters being way less powerful than in 3.5.

However, what 5e didn't nerf for most casters was spell access. Wizards still have a list consisting of about 80% spells in the game, and they can now specialize without losing anything at all. Clerics still get a very expansive list that almost isn't changed by your actual god. Sorcerers got hit with the nerf bat harder - they can't pick many situational spells, which is a shame. Etc, etc.

Personally, I think things should be in reverse. Casters should be way more narrowly specialized, but able to use their abilities more often and more effectively than 5e Wizard or Cleric. You're an Evocation Wizard? Great, you get Evocation, Abjuration and one more school of your choice at best (maybe not even that). Conjuration? Here, you get Necromancy and maybe Transmutation or something. Clerics get maybe 5-6 spells per spell level, because their list should be composed depending on their god. A forge god doesn't give you healing powers, and neither does the thunder god. Likewise, the sun god is good at healing, but only has spells that do damage to undead, and if you're not facing undead, well, tough to be you, that's why you get weapon proficiencies and medium armor.

However, you probably have x1.5 or even x2 spell slots per spell level, and your features might be way more useful. Bards go 1/2 caster with an Enchantment focused list, Sorcerers can actually pick very varied spells but can't really pick them all due to their very limited repertoire, Warlocks get better casting or even at-will casting with a nerfed list (getting at-will Fireball might be a bit too good before level 11), and Druids, well, you either cast well (9ths and a nature-focused cleric list with additional picks) or Wildshape (1/2 casting, more restrictive druid-only stuff list).

[Dark Schneider]

I think the Wizard is the most versatile one, but requires the player to know how to handle it.

Get info, prepare yourself, select what you think are the best spells for the situation you will face. And don't forget that is the only class that can use Ritual casting for spells not prepared, so you get many free slots in another way than the Cleric.

What I dislike more as mentioned is the concentration stuff, Resilient (CON) should not be a must for casters, as it seems to be, but an option to improve CON savings against danger instead.

And I am pretty sure this decision has a name: Eldritch Knight. As it is the combat caster, it must have the best concentration check, so CON saving was used. But IMO it had been better to simply give some advantage to that class at some level as class ability instead compromising all the other casters.

Because everything seems to be oriented for the casters to lose concentration:
- CON saving. No caster have it.
- DC 10 or damage/2. We have that even zombies use DC 5 + damage to be killed. Using 10 makes too easy to lose concentration by any hit.

So you are the powerful caster, that cast anti-magic field that is a level 8 spell as protection. The goblin hits you with his short bow, damage 3, well do a CON saving DC 10, you are a pure caster so you have CON +0 and no proficiency...good.
Because, I think all we don't have the image of the Archmage like a hefty body guy. But seems a requirement to hold your spells. And that really is not liking me anything, does not fit at all.

IMHO, the Concentration check should have been:
- Proficiency bonus + spellcasting modifier.
- EK: can use CON instead spellcasting. Just like the monk can use DEX instead STR.

[Ignimortis]

Because everything seems to be oriented for the casters to lose concentration:
- CON saving. No caster have it.
- DC 10 + damage. We have that even zombies use DC 5 + damage to be killed. Using 10 makes too easy to lose concentration by any hit.

So you are the powerful caster, that cast anti-magic field that is a level 8 spell as protection. The goblin hits you with his short bow, damage 3, well do a CON saving DC 13, you are a pure caster so you have CON +0 and no proficiency...good.
Because, I think all we don't have the image of the Archmage like a hefty body guy. But seems a requirement to hold your spells. And that really is not liking me anything, does not fit at all.

While not untrue in general, there are a few errors here: you roll either DC 10 or half of the damage dealt to you, whichever is higher. So before that damage hit equals 22 or more, you're always rolling against DC 10. And most casters I've seen tried to have at least 12 CON, better yet, 14-16 CON at level 1, so that might not be an autowin, but it's like 60-65% chance to hold concentration upon being hit with a weak hit. Around 75% if you're a Sorcerer (who get CON+CHA saves) or took Resilient (CON) as your VHuman feat.

[Dark Schneider]

While not untrue in general, there are a few errors here: you roll either DC 10 or half of the damage dealt to you, whichever is higher. So before that damage hit equals 22 or more, you're always rolling against DC 10. And most casters I've seen tried to have at least 12 CON, better yet, 14-16 CON at level 1, so that might not be an autowin, but it's like 60-65% chance to hold concentration upon being hit with a weak hit. Around 75% if you're a Sorcerer (who get CON+CHA saves) or took Resilient (CON) as your VHuman feat.
Thanks for remember I fixed it.

In any case what I mean is that CON should not be a must for casters, but an option to get more HP (and other uses) but not something spells oriented like it is.

[JackPhoenix]

Concentration was based on constitution even back in 3e, where it was a skill. It has nothing to do with EKs

Resilient (Con) isn't a "must" for casters. It's nice, but not absolute necessity.

Casters will want good Con anyway, because their HP suck otherwise.

And of course, the best way to avoid making Con saves is avoiding getting hit: melee clerics have heavy armor proficiency for a reason, druids can turn into animals to evade the enemy, and wizards have Shield and other defensive spells and no reason to be on the frontline in the first place. And sorcerers who have neither of those options are proficient in Con saves.

[Dark Schneider]

Well the truth is that you can't even do a "normal body" long range caster. I say normal, because a CON of +0 or +1 I think is appropriate for someone that is the whole day reading books.

Eventually you will get hurt, by many ways, saving throws, spells that does half damage even on success, low damages that will compromise your concentration anyway. Also you can't do shield, shield, shield each round, you will spend all your lvl 1 slots in a few rounds, while foe only uses 1 arrow.

At the end, you will be hit by anything even at long range, and with a typical CON of +0 or +1 for a long range caster, it is probable to lose concentration of your lvl 8 spell...

The way concentration works collides directly with any archetype one could have. You think about a powerful Archmage, a guy with amazing knowledge about magic, that can cast powerful spells, and with a weak body, as he pass the time mostly studing, is a life dedicated to learnig, not training the body.
But, with that total weakness, incredibly he is not able to hold concentration on spells even against a mosquito bite.

That "caster will want CON for HP" is merely an excuse for all this. You can work perfectly with low CON, using a caster with some escaping and covering spells, you eventually will get hit, but not for requiring CON as a must to get HP, but if you are going to lose you spell concentration...that changes everything. And it forces CON to be a must stat for casters with no need, as there is no skill for Concentration or something not so extreme like requiring a feat.

[Damon_Tor]

Concentration, nearest to meditation, is not something about resisting damage. That are HP that is completely different.

I disagree. Concentration is about pain tolerance, and pain tolerance is also one part of the abstraction that is "hitpoints".

[JackPhoenix]

Well the truth is that you can't even do a "normal body" long range caster. I say normal, because a CON of +0 or +1 I think is appropriate for someone that is the whole day reading books.

And if you are reading books whole day, you aren't adventuring wizard and need not worry about concentration.


At the end, you will be hit by anything even at long range, and with a typical CON of +0 or +1 for a long range caster, it is probable to lose concentration of your lvl 8 spell...

Con 0 isn't "typical long range caster". It's "what the hell are you even doing here, fighting monsters and who knows what else"?


The way concentration works collides directly with any archetype one could have. You think about a powerful Archmage, a guy with amazing knowledge about magic, that can cast powerful spells, and with a weak body, as he pass the time mostly studing, is a life dedicated to learnig, not training the body.
But, with that total weakness, incredibly he is not able to hold concentration on spells even against a mosquito bite.

Again, if he's mostly studying, he shouldn't be in battle and making Con saves in the first place. And if he is, well, it makes perfect sense his "weak body" can't take a hit. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you get hit in the face. The "total weakness" should give you a clue.

[Unoriginal]

The way concentration works collides directly with any archetype one could have. You think about a powerful Archmage, a guy with amazing knowledge about magic, that can cast powerful spells, and with a weak body, as he pass the time mostly studing, is a life dedicated to learnig, not training the body.
But, with that total weakness, incredibly he is not able to hold concentration on spells even against a mosquito bite.

It doesn't collide with the archetype at all. "Squishy wizard gets their day wrecked if they get hit" is part of the concept since the start of D&D.

That it applies in more ways than just "lose HPs" isn't a problem.

[Dark Schneider]

I disagree. Concentration is about pain tolerance, and pain tolerance is also one part of the abstraction that is "hitpoints".
You prepare action to cast with your reaction, do a Concentration check...ups, CON based. What is doing CON here?


And if you are reading books whole day, you aren't adventuring wizard and need not worry about concentration.

Con 0 isn't "typical long range caster". It's "what the hell are you even doing here, fighting monsters and who knows what else"?

Again, if he's mostly studying, he shouldn't be in battle and making Con saves in the first place. And if he is, well, it makes perfect sense his "weak body" can't take a hit. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you get hit in the face. The "total weakness" should give you a clue.
Why not? You can be able to have low CON and adventuring perfectly. Get your defense and others required so your base HP are enough. You are the wizard, not the tough guy that cast spells.
So all the previous is about "CON isn't a must", and now CON is a must. Because yes, CON is a must for casters, but not because for what should be the real purpose of CON, it is spell related. And CON, spell related...not fit.


It doesn't collide with the archetype at all. "Squishy wizard gets their day wrecked if they get hit" is part of the concept since the start of D&D.

That it applies in more ways than just "lose HPs" isn't a problem.
Sure, saving throws, stamina, for anything CON should be related, that are many. When also want to be used as a primary for spells, well not.

[JNAProductions]

Do you at least understand why it's there mechanically? You might not like it thematically, but surely you can understand that there's a good balance reason for it, right?

[JackPhoenix]

You prepare action to cast with your reaction, do a Concentration check...ups, CON based. What is doing CON here?

Why not? You can be able to have low CON and adventuring perfectly. Get your defense and others required so your base HP are enough. You are the wizard, not the tough guy that cast spells.
So all the previous is about "CON isn't a must", and now CON is a must. Because yes, CON is a must for casters, but not because for what should be the real purpose of CON, it is spell related. And CON, spell related...not fit.

Sure, saving throws, stamina, for anything CON should be related, that are many. When also want to be used as a primary for spells, well not.

It's not primary for spells, and never should be, for a good reason. But, if you want to play a weakling, you must accept you're a weakling, and weakling can't take a hit and keep going. You can play weak wizard perfectly well, but you'll have to accept that if you get hit, your magic will sometimes fail. It's still way better than what it used to be when you had to declare your spellcasting at the start of the round, and if you took any damage, whoops, you've lost your spell automatically, no saves or anything.

Constitution isn't "a must". Just as you have to accept frail wizard is going to fall to damage more easily, you must also accept his concentration can be interrupted more easily. You can live with that or do something about it.

[MaxWilson]

That "caster will want CON for HP" is merely an excuse for all this. You can work perfectly with low CON, using a caster with some escaping and covering spells, you eventually will get hit, but not for requiring CON as a must to get HP, but if you are going to lose you spell concentration...that changes everything. And it forces CON to be a must stat for casters with no need, as there is no skill for Concentration or something not so extreme like requiring a feat.

Be serious. Unless you're getting hit A LOT, e.g. because you're the party tank, the difference between Con 10 and Con 14 is minimal for con saves. It alters the outcome once in every ten hits.

Con affects how you play, but it isn't strictly mandatory for anybody including spellcasters. You can play a Con 4 Raistlin and still have great and memorable adventures, despite your frailty.


You prepare action to cast with your reaction, do a Concentration check...ups, CON based. What is doing CON here?

I don't mean to belabor the obvious here but it looks like there may be some possible rules confusion, to wit:

What is CON doing here? It's doing nothing unless you take a hit. Readying a spell does not force a concentration save in and of itself.

[Unoriginal]

You prepare action to cast with your reaction, do a Concentration check...ups, CON based. What is doing CON here?

You don't do a CON check if you are preparing to cast a spell as a Reaction. You do a CON check if someone punches you in the face while you're trying to prepare to cast a spell as a Reaction.



Sure, saving throws, stamina, for anything CON should be related, that are many. When also want to be used as a primary for spells, well not.

It's not a primary for spells. You can go through an entire campaign as a spellcaster without making any CON(Concentration) check.

[JackPhoenix]

Con affects how you play, but it isn't strictly mandatory for anybody including spellcasters. You can play a Con 4 Raistlin and still have great and memorable adventures, despite your frailty.

That's possible, but not very likely. You'd have 3 hp at level 1. A kobold with a rusty dagger will one-shot you through massive damage on 25% of hits, and drops you every time.

Even better, if you're rolling for HP, you'll have 50% chance of getting nothing or even losing max HP every time you level up.

[Unoriginal]

Even better, if you're rolling for HP, you'll have 50% chance of getting nothing or even losing max HP every time you level up.

They changed that in the last errata. Now it's "minimum 1 HP".

[JNAProductions]

That's possible, but not very likely. You'd have 3 hp at level 1. A kobold with a rusty dagger will one-shot you through massive damage on 25% of hits, and drops you every time.

Even better, if you're rolling for HP, you'll have 50% chance of getting nothing or even losing max HP every time you level up.

And you get 1 HP at every level up anyway, using the average rounded up, so at level 20, you'll rock...

22 HP.

[MaxWilson]

That's possible, but not very likely. You'd have 3 hp at level 1. A kobold with a rusty dagger will one-shot you through massive damage on 25% of hits, and drops you every time.

Even better, if you're rolling for HP, you'll have 50% chance of getting nothing or even losing max HP every time you level up.

Don't let kobolds hit you with rusty daggers then. It's really not much different from any other wizard.

The first Con 4 Sorcerer I saw in 5E eventually died to a friendly Fireball at level 5ish, but she had a good run before that. She wasn't doomed by her low Con.

[Dark Schneider]

Be serious. Unless you're getting hit A LOT, e.g. because you're the party tank, the difference between Con 10 and Con 14 is minimal for con saves. It alters the outcome once in every ten hits.

Con affects how you play, but it isn't strictly mandatory for anybody including spellcasters. You can play a Con 4 Raistlin and still have great and memorable adventures, despite your frailty.

Yes and that is the other part. Why CON saving throw? It should be something like when computing your spell DC saves and others for the class. So it is even worse, you need Resilient (CON) feat. If you read my previous messages you will notice.
Really all this about CON is about full CON, that is all concerning CON, including saving throws, for something spell specific like Concentration, that is holding your spells active.

About stats, you can get and I see it very fine CON 10 to spend only 2 ability points for a +0, with no negative influence on HP, but without positive or even worse proficiency, you barely will be able to hold your spells. And are so many.
Even I'd see fine CON 8 (-1) for a weak body caster (not rare) getting a fixed 3 HP/lvl, but beign useless because can't hold all the support spells he casts, as most are Concentration duration.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes and that is the other part. Why CON saving throw? It should be something like when computing your spell DC saves and others for the class. So it is even worse, you need Resilient (CON) feat. If you read my previous messages you will notice.
Really all this about CON is about full CON, that is all concerning CON, including saving throws, for something spell specific like Concentration, that is holding your spells active.

Something that is clearly based on how resilient your character is to hits, which is domain of... you've guessed it... constitution!

And you're the only one who claims you "need" the feat or high constitution. You can avoid getting hit, you can avoid using concentration spells, or you can learn to accept you'll lose a spell sometimes. It's not any different from accepting that your frail wizard will go down if an ogre hit him.

[Dark Schneider]

Something that is clearly based on how resilient your character is to hits, which is domain of... you've guessed it... constitution!

And you're the only one who claims you "need" the feat or high constitution. You can avoid getting hit, you can avoid using concentration spells, or you can learn to accept you'll lose a spell sometimes. It's not any different from accepting that your frail wizard will go down if an ogre hit him.
Avoid using concentration spells? In this edition? Have you played with a caster?, surely not.
Say bye to most defense and support spells, and not few attack ones.

As summary, most non-instantaneous spells are Concentration based.

And it is totally different, it is not same assuming you are weak than unable to hold your spells when hit eventually by a hit even if it is a very weak hit.

[ross]

True. But the concept is right.

Sure, just need to get through stoneskin, sanctuary, protection from normal/magical weapons, find him through invisibility, non-detection, on a demiplane, and make sure you're hitting the right one and not one of his thousands of simulacra or shadow conjurations and hope none of his solars or adamantine golems spot you before you get within ten thousand miles.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, just need to get through stoneskin, sanctuary, protection from normal/magical weapons, find him through invisibility, non-detection, on a demiplane, and make sure you're hitting the right one and not one of his thousands of simulacra or shadow conjurations and hope none of his solars or adamantine golems spot you before you get within ten thousand miles.

Make sure you're in the right forum--5e wizards can't stack most of those buffs. And some just don't exist in 5e.

[Pex]

Regardless of Concentration I'm a firm devotee that all PCs regardless of class should have a CO of at least 14. The hit points matter. Low hit points mean you drop more often, losing your character's actions and spending that much more resources on healing. It doesn't matter you stay in the back or whatever buffs you have. You will get hit. You will take damage from range attacks and AoEs. Not as often as the melee guys because that's why you're in the back, but it will happen. We lose some players' actions even before going down. They're so worried they will at low hit points they retreat to hide and heal. For one round you drink a healing potion, fine. I've seen players do nothing for two or more rounds but healing and moving away from the combat. Their CO could have been 14+ anyway, true. It's a player thing not a CO thing, but it's exacerbated when the character also has a low CO.

[MaxWilson]

Regardless of Concentration I'm a firm devotee that all PCs regardless of class should have a CO of at least 14. The hit points matter. Low hit points mean you drop more often, losing your character's actions and spending that much more resources on healing. It doesn't matter you stay in the back or whatever buffs you have. You will get hit. You will take damage from range attacks and AoEs. Not as often as the melee guys because that's why you're in the back, but it will happen. We lose some players' actions even before going down. They're so worried they will at low hit points they retreat to hide and heal. For one round you drink a healing potion, fine. I've seen players do nothing for two or more rounds but healing and moving away from the combat. Their CO could have been 14+ anyway, true. It's a player thing not a CO thing, but it's exacerbated when the character also has a low CO.

It depends on whether you're viewing character generation as part of gameplay or part of the premise. If you're trying to play smart and maximize your chances of survival, sure, might as well invest in Con when you make your character. If instead you're trying to take an existing character and maximize your chances of survival, choosing ability scores is irrelevant: Bilbo Baggins is already Bilbo even if he doesn't have remotely ideal ability scores or adventuring skills. He's not going to commit suicide just because he's a fat little hobbit with Con 9.

Sometimes you go to war with the army you have and not the army you wish you had. Sometimes that's even more fun than the other way. Constraints can be fun.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the flip side, who says that wizards are "supposed to be" frail or weak?

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the flip side, who says that wizards are "supposed to be" frail or weak?

I remember reading one book where wizards cast from hit points, almost literally. A "fully charged" wizard would be huge and beefy, and as he'd cast spells he'd shrink as the magic consumed his bulk.

I think the "frail" wizard thing really stems from Raistlin. Shows the power one depiction can have.

[Max_Killjoy]

I remember reading one book where wizards cast from hit points, almost literally. A "fully charged" wizard would be huge and beefy, and as he'd cast spells he'd shrink as the magic consumed his bulk.

I think the "frail" wizard thing really stems from Raistlin. Shows the power one depiction can have.

Yeah, other wizards in fantasy seem to have run the gamut... even within the Conan works, the wizards and such ranged from physical paragons to frail academics and cultists.

[Ignimortis]

On the flip side, who says that wizards are "supposed to be" frail or weak?

Mostly Raistlin and maybe the general perception that wizards are people who don't spend much time on physical activity and instead pursue magic knowledge 18 hours per day. Also, some games presume that you have a finite number of "points" to build your character, and magic-types are usually reliant on non-physical stats to be effective, i.e. in Shadowrun, you can make do with a Body 3 mage, but a Willpower 3 Mage is really bad, as is a Hermetic with low Logic or Shaman with low Charisma, and anyone who has low Agility probably will not be very good at sneaking which most lower-level runs involve often for the whole team.

[Knaight]

Yeah, other wizards in fantasy seem to have run the gamut... even within the Conan works, the wizards and such ranged from physical paragons to frail academics and cultists.

D&D is very much its own little subgenre at this point, and the rest of that can flagrantly ignore concepts like "class balance" which is where the weaker wizards fundamentally came from. That said, even before that there was the association of wizards with the elderly, and the typical 70 year old is a little less wound resistant than the typical 20 year old.

[Malifice]

A very fair ruling IMO, and not very hard to justify along with banning any of the other (thankfully few) "exploits" in 5e.

It doesn't even have to be a hard ban. One can just say "Cramming multiple Glyphs into one area strains the Weave. Your auto-successful Intelligence(Arcana) check tells you that attempting to do so is about as good an idea as casting an out-of-scope Wish [or a nastier version of the Wild Magic table] and will likely have the same results. Do you wish to proceed?"

--------------------

Of course, the OP was pining for stronger wizards, so they might let it fly, and might even be happy to know the option exists for that combo if they didn't know it before. The 5e toolbox works for more than one campaign, after all. :smallbiggrin:

Player: I cast multiple glyphs of warding...
DM: You die. Also, you're paying for the pizza. Doors that way if you have any issues with that.

[Ignimortis]

Player: I cast multiple glyphs of warding...
DM: You die. Also, you're paying for the pizza. Doors that way if you have any issues with that.

I understand that this is hyperbole, but I wouldn't want to play with that DM. No, even if he would ask "are you sure" beforehand. That's just bad DMing, and I say that as a DM myself.

[Dark Schneider]

Regardless of Concentration I'm a firm devotee that all PCs regardless of class should have a CO of at least 14. The hit points matter. Low hit points mean you drop more often, losing your character's actions and spending that much more resources on healing. It doesn't matter you stay in the back or whatever buffs you have. You will get hit. You will take damage from range attacks and AoEs. Not as often as the melee guys because that's why you're in the back, but it will happen. We lose some players' actions even before going down. They're so worried they will at low hit points they retreat to hide and heal. For one round you drink a healing potion, fine. I've seen players do nothing for two or more rounds but healing and moving away from the combat. Their CO could have been 14+ anyway, true. It's a player thing not a CO thing, but it's exacerbated when the character also has a low CO.
Well with a simple Blink you will get half damage by statistics. Others like Absorb Element also halves the elemental damage. If you also try to stay at range, I think a caster, if you prepare for it, can have low HP. Get False Life and use it when you see you can't get ranged enough.

So, if you are a caster that usually use spells with ranges 30-, then yes you need a good ammount of HP. But there are other spells with ranges 60+ that allows you to stay at long range. If you see that some foe gets and go dashing against you, Expeditious Retreat is an excellent option, when you cast it you can Dash, and then use your bonus action to Dash and cast your spells with your action, keeping the distance.

On dungeons (close spaces), as mentioned False Life, Mage Armor and Shield will be your options, but if you receive many attacks you will be obviously without spells soon (cast False Life as lvl 2+ so you keep your lvl 1 spells for defense).

[Willie the Duck]

Regardless of Concentration I'm a firm devotee that all PCs regardless of class should have a CO of at least 14. The hit points matter. Low hit points mean you drop more often, losing your character's actions and spending that much more resources on healing. It doesn't matter you stay in the back or whatever buffs you have. You will get hit. You will take damage from range attacks and AoEs. Not as often as the melee guys because that's why you're in the back, but it will happen. We lose some players' actions even before going down. They're so worried they will at low hit points they retreat to hide and heal. For one round you drink a healing potion, fine. I've seen players do nothing for two or more rounds but healing and moving away from the combat. Their CO could have been 14+ anyway, true. It's a player thing not a CO thing, but it's exacerbated when the character also has a low CO.


Sometimes you go to war with the army you have and not the army you wish you had. Sometimes that's even more fun than the other way. Constraints can be fun.


Well with a simple Blink you will get half damage by statistics. Others like Absorb Element also halves the elemental damage. If you also try to stay at range, I think a caster, if you prepare for it, can have low HP. Get False Life and use it when you see you can't get ranged enough.

I don't really think we're disagreeing here. As Pex implies, squishiness is a notable feature of the wizard, one that one must work around (and for which the wizard is given great power, as balance-compensation). As Max notes, working around that constraint is a challenge that can be part of the fun. And DS notes some ways to do so. That said, a low-con wizard is doubling down on the high-risk/high-reward selection. It is saying, 'I'm confident that I will be bringing my A-game 100% of the time.' One surprise AOE or accidentally getting front-lined can eviscerate a low-con Wizard before they can react (in a way that a high-con Wizard might get more reaction time, and a mountain dwarf abjurer or the like might positively laugh over). Unlike real-life situations where working without any safety margins is generally a bad idea, the consequences are generally low enough (well, it being a game, the consequences are effectively zero. However, presumably your wizard isn't so superficial that your fellow players won't miss them if they go down) that choosing that challenge is not unreasonable.

[cesius]

In 3.5 there was much more expectation of a certain amount of gold (it was actually written into the rules), and a certain amount of magic item/spell accessibility. That's not true in 5e. It downright encourages highly limited gold/magic items. Certainly this is still dm/campaign dependent. Maybe you will have all the spells in your book that you could want.


So if a wizard has advanced warning, they have the greatest number of solutions to bring to bear at a given situation. That's what wizards are good for.
*SNIP*
Yes, and the wizard, more than most classes and builds (other than weapon-specific martial builds, I suppose), are very DM-dependent.
*SNIP*
Yes, exactly. So everyone is pretty much on the same page then.


Well scribe scroll is part of the class. However we seem to agree that the much restricted magic items/spells in 5e limits wizard versatility much more than it limits eg cleric versatility.

It's not even at the point of memorization in 5e, but at the point of transcribing, as we've discussed. So the advance warning doesn't help unless its so in advance that you can hunt down and copy over spells for the situation.
I think this all stems from a poor job describing assumptions for the "standard setting" in the PHB and DMG. They ascribe to time when getting those scrolls was the reason a wizard went adventuring, looting archmage tombs and the like, or when 3/4 of an adventure was finding the magic item or scroll that would let the adventurers tackle the BBEG or cataclysm of the month. Where magic items available in major cities? Yes, but they tended to be "minor magics": healing potions, an otherwise normal blade that won't lose its edge, glamours on clothing (cloth-of-gold jacket with the appearance of reflecting flames dancing). 3.5e, with its lists of prices for everything caused a paradigm shift: If it has a price, it can be bought. Wealth by level could be simply side-stepped by an entrepreneurial wizard PC with an accommodating (or at least RAW following) DM. I don't know if this beating a deceased farm animal, but it's just more of the "5e is 3.x with 2e sensibilities."




We seem to generally agree on what preparation means, and the importance of the tradeoffs / gamble of preparing the right spells.

I will say that in 3.x the wizard did have a much better chance of covering the specialized/ utility options than the other spell casters. In 3.x they could dole out individual spell slots, so they could toss in 5-10 random special utility spells (so they had just the right spell at the right time), thus the the more versatile wizard spell list actually improved their own versatility much more than in 5e. I don't think the current wizard can really do the preparation gamble like you are advocating unless they have a very generous DM. Even then the restricted spells prepared means they can't prepare minor utility or specialized spells unless they are very confident exactly that thing is going to be needed.

In 3.x you could try to gamble and counter your enemy (and maybe fail and be useless), you could prepare a wide swath of spells (sacrificing a lot of power in order to be batman) or you could specialize and be very powerful at one thing (eg blast, ray spam). So in that way you were versatile at several levels, since you could choose your versatility/power tradeoff. You also had other versatility increasing options (that may fall outside your campaigns optimization zone) like crafting spell scrolls, uncanny forethought, spontaneous divination, shadow spells, etc. So no, I really don't think that the versatility of wizards is just a meme in 3.x. It's not that they should be prepared gods, but they can be prepared batman, as the meme goes. 5e wizards don't live up to this. Instead they largely take and prepare the same few spells. These are excellent spells, but its not the same.
I hadn't thought if it like that previously, but you're right that wizards not preparing spells to specific spell slots does limit their options. Is it possible to have the older style as some sort of house rule for people that liked it?

[Willie the Duck]

I hadn't thought if it like that previously, but you're right that wizards not preparing spells to specific spell slots does limit their options. Is it possible to have the older style as some sort of house rule for people that liked it?

Simply say, 'You have to decide at beginning of day what each slot is memorized as, but since you do, you are not restricted to the Level+IntMod number of total spells to use?' I don't know how it could be not-possible. I feel that, at the level 4-12 sweet spot where both 3e and 5e allow for powerful-but-not-dominating wizards, urandom's concern that the Level+IntMod constraint would keep you from having a particularly wide array of utility spells might be more a theoretical limitation than a practical one. '5-10 random special utility spells' is a plausible amount at maybe level 10, where a (likely) 20-Int wizard would have 15 spells to memorize. Assuming one non-utility spell per level (if at the upper end of 5-10) is a bit constraining. Assuming two per level (the lower end) is exceedingly doable. It brings the total in line with making difficult decisions with sparse resources, which is what the wizard has always vaguely been about. It's more at the situational hard edges (wanting 10 utility spells memorized at level 7, doing so with a 15-Int caster, etc.) where the difference between 3e and 5e becomes a more sharp contrast.

[Dark Schneider]

About "scribe scroll is part of the class", excuse me maybe I am wrong but a formula is not required for that? I also think scrolls should be available to make directly, as you pay a good price in money and time for only 1-time casting item and with restrictions to use (not like potions).

[PhoenixPhyre]

About "scribe scroll is part of the class", excuse me maybe I am wrong but a formula is not required for that? I also think scrolls should be available to make directly, as you pay a good price in money and time for only 1-time casting item and with restrictions to use (not like potions).

Spell scrolls, unlike most magic items, do not need a formula. Then again, any one who can cast spells can make them, not just wizards. So not a class feature, but a general capability.

[Dark Schneider]

Spell scrolls, unlike most magic items, do not need a formula. Then again, any one who can cast spells can make them, not just wizards. So not a class feature, but a general capability.
I am reading DMG and it mentions the formula at begining of the process, and only mention spell scrolls or potions to say they cost half because they are spent, and that the process only consumes the M component once.

[Unoriginal]

I am reading DMG and it mentions the formula at begining of the process, and only mention spell scrolls or potions to say they cost half because they are spent, and that the process only consumes the M component once.

The Xanathar's has better rules for it.

[Dark Schneider]

The Xanathar's has better rules for it.
Waiting for translation. But if the table I have seen is correct, the prices should be fixed, usually halved, because it does not follows the guidelines of half price for items that are spent. The cost should be half of the item rarity (i.e. 2500 for rare) for max spell level allowed for that rarity, and half again for each lesser level.
Then for time, simply divide the cost by 25. And requiring Arcana proficiency to make them without formula, but I think I'll also allow to make them with formula for characters without Arcana.

Probably I will use that mix, DMG one with some of the Xanathar additions.

[Trustypeaches]

I think if I was going to make one change to magic in 5e, it would be giving all concentration effects a “discharge” effect for when concentration is lost.


When X spell ends, either from duration or loss of concentration, you can use your reaction to do Y.

This could serve as a way to boost some of the weaker spells; and it also provides a bonus for when you transition between concentration effects mid-combat.

The “discharge” effect might even be the main appeal of a spell.

[Unoriginal]

I think if I was going to make one change to magic in 5e, it would be giving all concentration effects a “discharge” effect for when concentration is lost.



This could serve as a way to boost some of the weaker spells; and it also provides a bonus for when you transition between concentration effects mid-combat.

The “discharge” effect might even be the main appeal of a spell.

Spells don't need a power boost, though, especially not concentration spells.

Now if you *want* to give them a power boost, fair, but what are the other classes getting?

[Rafaelfras]

If you want to play realy powerfull wizards i would sugest looking into the forgotten realms suplement "Arcane Age" it bring the rules for spellcasters from the epire of Netheril and is very easy to port to 5e
The rules reflect how magic was in the time of the first goddess of magic and why spellcasters were so strong at that time
It will give you the rules and epic spells (including but not limites to Karsus Avatar, Volcano and how to make floating cities ) for you to make a realy overpower spellcaster

[Kane0]

Some spells really do suck though, concentration or no. Tensers Transformation anyone?

If you’re looking for multi-conc, try something like ‘you can concentrate on multiple spells of a combined spell level equal to your proficiency bonus or lower. You roll once to maintain concentration, and if you lose concentration all spells are ended’
So you can double up on lower level spells but its all one bundle, you lose conc on one you lose conc on them all.

[JumboWheat01]

It's "Wizards of the Coast" not "Sorcerers of the Plains." Wizards must have all the power!

[Dark Schneider]

I also vote for multiple concentration capacity. It would be good and I think is not so overpowered or out of balance to apply a self-defense and a support to your allies, so at least 2, but better if controlled by character level.

Also, some spells are simply broken, like Stoneskin: it have a cost of 100gp, and is Concentration based. So you cast on yourself, get a hit, damage halved OK, but you have to check Concentration, failed, bye bye spell and 100gp in a single round. It should be no cost for casting (remove that 100gp M component) or no Concentration, but not both.

[Ignimortis]

It's "Wizards of the Coast" not "Sorcerers of the Plains." Wizards must have all the power!

You may joke, but take a gander at Lore Wizard UA and then compare it to the whole Sorcerer class...

[Ignimortis]

Subtle Metamagic alone is better than Lore Wizard.

Also, Lore Wizard isn't official stuff.

Lore Wizard is UA, so it's quasi-official. It just never got released in a book, but it was an idea that WotC was kicking around seriously enough to release it as UA without asking themselves "isn't this a bit too much?".

Subtle Spell is only useful to function in situation where spellcasting has to be unseen, OR to work around a Silence spell. It's good, but not as good as getting a Magic Missile to do 1d4+2d10+1 damage to multiple targets, or making every single save spell into an INT save or a CHA save or any weakest save ever. Or a Wish-like 1/day at level 14.

Wait, you're that Sorcerer King guy. No hope of rational discussion here, then.

[Sigreid]

I also vote for multiple concentration capacity. It would be good and I think is not so overpowered or out of balance to apply a self-defense and a support to your allies, so at least 2, but better if controlled by character level.

Also, some spells are simply broken, like Stoneskin: it have a cost of 100gp, and is Concentration based. So you cast on yourself, get a hit, damage halved OK, but you have to check Concentration, failed, bye bye spell and 100gp in a single round. It should be no cost for casting (remove that 100gp M component) or no Concentration, but not both.

IMO it would not be unreasonable to have attunable magic items that would be able to take a concentration slot for the caster. So, for example, an amulet that requires attunement that the wizard can spend their bonus action to transfer the maintenance of a concentration spell to. Maybe even give it charges so, say it can host a spell 3 times per day.

[Kane0]

Hand of glory?

[Dark Schneider]

IMO it would not be unreasonable to have attunable magic items that would be able to take a concentration slot for the caster. So, for example, an amulet that requires attunement that the wizard can spend their bonus action to transfer the maintenance of a concentration spell to. Maybe even give it charges so, say it can host a spell 3 times per day.
I don't like much depending on items, a character should be enough by its own, but that about using the bonus action to hold a 2nd Concentration is not bad.

[Sigreid]

I don't like much depending on items, a character should be enough by its own, but that about using the bonus action to hold a 2nd Concentration is not bad.

A caster can clearly hold their own without any magic items. Magic items for casters are for the same thing as for other classes, to allow you to go beyond your mortal limits.

[Trustypeaches]

Spells don't need a power boost, though, especially not concentration spells.

Now if you *want* to give them a power boost, fair, but what are the other classes getting?Obviously there would be rebalancing of spell power around this change, were it implemented.

The question was less "do spells need a boost" and more "what might be a more interesting base design for magic to be built off of".

[Kane0]

The question was less "do spells need a boost" and more "what might be a more interesting base design for magic to be built off of".

In before AEDU :smallwink:

[Dark Schneider]

A caster can clearly hold their own without any magic items. Magic items for casters are for the same thing as for other classes, to allow you to go beyond your mortal limits.
I know. I mean about that limit of Concentration, to allow by your own means to concentrate in 2 spells, your own and the supporting allies one.
If allowing that sound too much, maybe some kind of concentration focus item with a cost, so you can't do it at start but after some adventuring purchase the item. But not a magical item, characters should be able to do their own capabilities by normal items. And concentrating up to 2 spells is what I mean that should be own capabilities.

The other solution would be removing the Concentration requirement to many spells, looking for them how to combine so you can concentrate on one and cast another support one. But that looks more complicated.

[Kadesh]

Epic level Boon (20th level +30K XP): Choose a Concentration Spell of level 1-3 that you can cast. That spell no longer requires concentration when cast by yourself.

[Dark Schneider]

Wow, epic level is an excesive requirement IMO. Precisely the topic is about that we moved from one side (unlimited stack) the the opposite one (everything concentrate and can only use one).

I also feel like some spells does not do their work, like many defense spells. I.e. you have to cross a corridor with flames, you use Protection from Energy to take half damage, well after each hit, you get half, but check Concentration and if failed you are without defense now. Stoneskin (and it costs 100gp to cast :smallmad: ), and many others, that automatically seems you can't cast on yourself to get their full utility. So almost all defense spells are now only for allies? No much sense IMO, I think in future editions something better to avoid abuse (stacking buffs) should be found. Maybe setting spell categories and one target can't get more than X (that can be 1) at the same time, and that's all, simply that.

[Hyperversum]

This is a legit opinion, and one I simply don't support because I don't miss them, as they never left my hearth : I don't play D&D 5e. Sorry not sorry, but I do prefer the 5e for many things, but I also quite dislike it for other things (apart from magic, how magic items are handled).

In fact me and the rest of my group made a kind of "patch" to merge D&D 3.5/Pathfinder materials, fix what didn't work at all in 3.5 and kept playing there. I prefer the freedom of that system, and that freedom is also in the magic system and how strong they are.

The balancement problem is a relevant one... if the game was PvP and not a CO-OP thing where you as a DM can limit the spellcasters and ask the players to try to work as a group.
D&D 5e moved casters from needing control from the players to have the players searching for exploits to have them do something better than cast a Fireball for 8d6 damage because they can't waste their precious 8th spell on a challenge before the final boss who will get a free save because of rules.
And I prefer waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more to have wizards being truly powerful at higher levels, because that's the image of them I have in my fantasy-style. High level mundanes are cool people, but once you start to be a master of high magic, a dude charging at you with an axe shouldn't be too much of a problem to deal with if he has not support.

[Unoriginal]

This is a legit opinion, and one I simply don't support because I don't miss them, as they never left my hearth : I don't play D&D 5e. Sorry not sorry, but I do prefer the 5e for many things, but I also quite dislike it for other things (apart from magic, how magic items are handled).

In fact me and the rest of my group made a kind of "patch" to merge D&D 3.5/Pathfinder materials, fix what didn't work at all in 3.5 and kept playing there. I prefer the freedom of that system, and that freedom is also in the magic system and how strong they are.

{Scrubbed}



D&D 5e moved casters from needing control from the players to have the players searching for exploits to have them do something better than cast a Fireball for 8d6 damage because they can't waste their precious 8th spell on a challenge before the final boss who will get a free save because of rules.

That's ridiculous. No, 5e doesn't encourage searching for exploits, and trying to pretend that 5e is more exploit-dependent than 3.X/Pathfinder... I can't even.

{Scrubbed}

[Kadesh]

I'm more intrigued as to how you can have a non-legitimate opinion.

[Unoriginal]

I'm more intrigued as to how you can have a non-legitimate opinion.

When the opinion is based on elements that are incorrect?

For example: not liking 5e because you don't like how combat works is legit, but if your opinion is "I don't like 5e because you have to stop for 8 hours after each combat", it's not legitimate, because it's not true you have to do that.

[Kadesh]

But an opinion is by definition irrelevant of the facts. An opinion is only "non-legit" if it's not an actual opinion, making a "non legit opinion" a logical paradox.

[Unoriginal]

But an opinion is by definition irrelevant of the facts. An opinion is only "non-legit" if it's not an actual opinion, making a "non legit opinion" a logical paradox.

What. On what do you want to have opinions on if not facts? "This squid tastes good" is an opinion, but if you're saying that while eating deer stew (without any squid) people will probably correct you.

But fair enough, you have a point. Problem is many people say that something is an opinion when they're actually making a claim that something is factual. Ex: "I prefer 3.X's damage output compared to the monsters' health per CR" is an opinion. "5e's damage output is insufficient compared to the monster's health per CR" is a claim that this is a fact.