Just how strong IS the wizard compared to....the wizard???

[HolyDraconus]

Some clarification. In previous editions it was assumed that at some point the wizard gains through some way or another the entirety of their spell list. 3.x especially. Spells were stronger then too (for example, 10th level, epic slots). The increase in versatility was hugely apparent compared to the wizard that only gained a few additional spells throughout their career.

Fast forward several Cataclysms and we are in 5e. Is that gap still as big this time around? Personally, I think that it has been narrowed down considerably, to the point that I feel its negligible. It would be nice to have the entire spell list but, with concentration being a thing, not as needed. Am I wrong?

[noob]

Some clarification. In previous editions it was assumed that at some point the wizard gains through some way or another the entirety of their spell list. 3.x especially. Spells were stronger then too (for example, 10th level, epic slots). The increase in versatility was hugely apparent compared to the wizard that only gained a few additional spells throughout their career.

Fast forward several Cataclysms and we are in 5e. Is that gap still as big this time around? Personally, I think that it has been narrowed down considerably, to the point that I feel its negligible. It would be nice to have the entire spell list but, with concentration being a thing, not as needed. Am I wrong?

Having the entire list means you then have easy access to all the circumstantial spells that are super good in the niche they fill such as guards and wards for invading a dungeon on which you can gain a stealthy foothold for long enough to cast it or water breathing to encourage people to go die in water(even with water breathing I discourage you from going underwater).
Or yet teleportation circle for long term nation building.
Or that frost spell with crazy aoe to hit dense swarms of monsters.
Or that spell you can use to slowly kill an army while hiding underground while being incorporeal from another spell
Or simply decide that it is time to go to the moon and make a base on it.

[JackPhoenix]

You're wrong about the assumption wizards would have access to their whole spell list. While it was common assumption in white room TO discussions, WBL was a thing, and consumables like scrolls and scribing materials were part of it.

[Unoriginal]

If one is to believe the typical discussions on this forum, all PC wizards have access to all the spells and always have the right one prepared, along with the spell slots to cast it, allowing them to always overcome all challenges

[ProsecutorGodot]

If one is to believe the typical discussions on this forum, all PC wizards have access to all the spells and always have the right one prepared, along with the spell slots to cast it, allowing them to always overcome all challenges

Those poor Clerics and Druids just can't compete.

[noob]

Those poor Clerics and Druids just can't compete.

They compete efficiently with wizards in 3.5 at least (exactly as powerful).
I do not know shroedinger clerics and druids from 5e so I can not compare them to shroedinger 5e wizards.
At least moon base creation and guard and wards dungeon invasion and circle of teleportation kingdom building are all things you can probably prepare for or just cast as a ritual so they are less shroedinger wizard optimization than fighting stuff.
if you go as far as possible in optimization then sorcerer and wizards both use simulacrum chain to have all the sorcerer and wizards they want and so then they ought to have one wizard or sorcerer with the right spell.

[J-H]

Wizards still have a lot of versatility. The biggest difference I see is that a wizard can't load himself up with a dozen buff spells and become nigh-untouchable.... the wizard remains squishy. Non-proficient defenses also never scale, so the level 20 wizard is still very vulnerable to being shoved onto the ground and thus granting enemies advantage.

Fewer slots per day to start with, plus no added slots from INT, also limits the wizard more.

[OverLordOcelot]

Some clarification. In previous editions it was assumed that at some point the wizard gains through some way or another the entirety of their spell list. 3.x especially.

I don't know where people got this assumption, but it definitely wasn't true in my experience or in the core rulebooks. 1e and 2e made it clear that spell availability was up to the DM, and DMs were explicitly encouraged to decide what spells would be available at all, and whether they would need significant work or money to get. 3/3.5 treated magic as more of a magic shop, but even then 'get every single spell' was not something I generally saw in practice.

[Random Sanity]

Kinda depends what category you're looking at.

Overall, wizards have fewer ways to outright break the game/become near-invincible. A savvy player can still tie a campaign in a square knot if the DM isn't paying attention.

Concentration has killed buff spam.

Summoning shenanigans, aside from the Wish/Simulacrum loop, have been nerfed almost to the ground compared to 3.X, but are still effective if used properly.

Wish has kind of been nerfed and buffed simultaneously, if that makes sense.

Blasting is actually stronger now than 3.X, both from the spells themselves getting stronger in many cases and from a lot of the other options being toned down or removed.

Wizards are somewhat tankier baseline in 5E, but that's not a high bar to clear.

[MaxWilson]

Some clarification. In previous editions it was assumed that at some point the wizard gains through some way or another the entirety of their spell list. 3.x especially. Spells were stronger then too (for example, 10th level, epic slots). The increase in versatility was hugely apparent compared to the wizard that only gained a few additional spells throughout their career.

Fast forward several Cataclysms and we are in 5e. Is that gap still as big this time around? Personally, I think that it has been narrowed down considerably, to the point that I feel its negligible. It would be nice to have the entire spell list but, with concentration being a thing, not as needed. Am I wrong?

My experience with wizards is that there's always a ton of pressure on both your spells learned and your spells prepared. Having access to all spells would decrease pressure on the one and increase pressure on the other, but overall I'd call it a signficant boost. You'd no longer be limited to only 4 spells learned of each level over 1, and you could afford to learn e.g. Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern and Tiny Servant and Leomund's Tiny Hut and also Counterspell and Fly and and Major Image and Phantom Steed and Dispel Magic. Giving up four of those nine is always a tough dilemma. You still couldn't prepare them all at the same time, but for an underground hack-and-slash adventure against orcs and beholders you know you probably won't need Fly or Dispel Magic or Major Image or Phantom Steed or Hypnotic Pattern (Fireball covers the same niche more effectively against orcs), and Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual, and besides it's less painful to lose an option for 24 hours than forever.

5E wizards can always access certain of the best spells (e.g. Simulacrum and Wish) but not always the best spells for a given situation, so a lot of spell-picking strategy boils down to picking spells that are broadly applicable to many situations even if they aren't perfect for every situation. (In Internet discussions this sometimes results in allegations of Schrodinger's Wizard because the wizard "always has a spell that can do that", but it's really just the result of people thinking through their spell choices carefully in advance--if you're ready for anything in a game, you're definitely ready for an Internet discussion.)

So, the increase in versatility is still hugely apparent. I have only played AD&D and 5E, not 3E, so I don't know if 3E was even more this way. (In AD&D the gap was much, much bigger than it is in 5E, not least because you had to find or research essentially all of your spells in play, with no freebies on level-up except for specialist wizards who got one spell of their school IIRC.)

[noob]

If you have two wizards in your party you can share spellbooks and have twice the number of spells from level ups.
And it is not as if it would make your party too frail as you can get abjuration wizards which are suite tanky from what I heard.

[JoeJ]

I don't know where people got this assumption, but it definitely wasn't true in my experience or in the core rulebooks. 1e and 2e made it clear that spell availability was up to the DM, and DMs were explicitly encouraged to decide what spells would be available at all, and whether they would need significant work or money to get. 3/3.5 treated magic as more of a magic shop, but even then 'get every single spell' was not something I generally saw in practice.

In 2e and earlier, Intelligence determined both the maximum number of spell you could ever learn and your chance to understand any spell you came across. And you did not automatically add new spells to your book as you went up in level; you only got the ones you found during play and were able to understand.

[Man_Over_Game]

For a quick breakdown, for those that want the numbers:

Wizards inherently learn 6 + (2xlevel, post level 1), which translates to 44 spells


There are 207 Wizard spells in the SRD, 15 of which are Cantrips.

So there are 192 spells the Wizard can learn out of his 44. The Wizard naturally learns 23% of his spell list.

[noob]

For a quick breakdown, for those that want the numbers:

Wizards inherently learn 6 + (2xlevel, post level 1), which translates to 44 spells


There are 207 Wizard spells in the SRD, 15 of which are Cantrips.

So there are 192 spells the Wizard can learn out of his 44. The Wizard naturally learns 23% of his spell list.

so does a four wizard team gets nearly all the spells?
which four wizard team would work the best?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I do not know shroedinger clerics and druids from 5e so I can not compare them to shroedinger 5e wizards.
It was mostly a dig at White Room Wizard being expected to know all (or at least all of the correct) spells, where Clerics and Druids can prepare any selection of spells from their entire list and no one seems to expect a White Room Variant of them to exist because they're not "the always prepared Wizard".

[noob]

It was mostly a dig at White Room Wizard being expected to know all (or at least all of the correct) spells, where Clerics and Druids can prepare any selection of spells from their entire list and no one seems to expect a White Room Variant of them to exist because they're not "the always prepared Wizard".

Do not worry I am quite sure shroedinger cleric and druid exists in 3.5 so if you want to play one go play 3.5.
I you do not want to see that in 3.5 getting spontaneous casting out of an entire class list is possible then just keep playing 5e and stay sane.

[Man_Over_Game]

so does a four wizard team gets nearly all the spells?
which four wizard team would work the best?

Abjuration support/healer (uses Life Transference, False Life and Abjuration spells), Bladesinger Summoner/Tank, Divination Scout, Enchantment Controller.

See what you're up against with the Diviner, plan around hitting hard and fast, use the Enchanter to turn enemies into allies who can soak damage for you, and the Bladesinger and his army of Devils cause mayhem on a massive scale.

[noob]

Abjuration support/healer (uses Life Transference and Shield), Bladesinger Summoner/Tank, Divination Scout, Enchantment Controller.

See what you're up against with the Diviner, plan around hitting hard and fast, use the Enchanter to turn enemies into allies who can soak damage for you, and the Bladesinger and his army of Devils cause mayhem on a massive scale.
what works best between the four bards team and the four wizards team and the four druids team and the four cleric team(not against each other but against the world)

[MaxWilson]

what works best between the four bards team and the four wizards team and the four druids team and the four cleric team(not against each other but against the world)

Of those, I'd play either the four wizards team or the four druids team. Among other things, the four druids team has a ton of wildshape and can catnap in the ground via Meld Into Stone whenever they need to rest (as long as they are on stony ground). Could be a lot of fun, despite your weaknesses in ranged combat.

[HolyDraconus]

My experience with wizards is that there's always a ton of pressure on both your spells learned and your spells prepared. Having access to all spells would decrease pressure on the one and increase pressure on the other, but overall I'd call it a signficant boost. You'd no longer be limited to only 4 spells learned of each level over 1, and you could afford to learn e.g. Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern and Tiny Servant and Leomund's Tiny Hut and also Counterspell and Fly and and Major Image and Phantom Steed and Dispel Magic. Giving up four of those nine is always a tough dilemma. You still couldn't prepare them all at the same time, but for an underground hack-and-slash adventure against orcs and beholders you know you probably won't need Fly or Dispel Magic or Major Image or Phantom Steed or Hypnotic Pattern (Fireball covers the same niche more effectively against orcs), and Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual, and besides it's less painful to lose an option for 24 hours than forever.

5E wizards can always access certain of the best spells (e.g. Simulacrum and Wish) but not always the best spells for a given situation, so a lot of spell-picking strategy boils down to picking spells that are broadly applicable to many situations even if they aren't perfect for every situation. (In Internet discussions this sometimes results in allegations of Schrodinger's Wizard because the wizard "always has a spell that can do that", but it's really just the result of people thinking through their spell choices carefully in advance--if you're ready for anything in a game, you're definitely ready for an Internet discussion.)

So, the increase in versatility is still hugely apparent. I have only played AD&D and 5E, not 3E, so I don't know if 3E was even more this way. (In AD&D the gap was much, much bigger than it is in 5E, not least because you had to find or research essentially all of your spells in play, with no freebies on level-up except for specialist wizards who got one spell of their school IIRC.)

I cant agree only because every spell of every level isnt equal. There's a difference between niche use that comes up enough to warrant use, and spell that I wouldn't even use if given to me for free. When approaching the list with that in mind, plus with the limited slots AND the concentration mechanic AND the fact way more spells allow multiple saves to shrug off, it seems, to me, that the gap is no where near as wide. It's fairly close, in my opinion.

[MaxWilson]

I cant agree only because every spell of every level isnt equal. There's a difference between niche use that comes up enough to warrant use, and spell that I wouldn't even use if given to me for free. When approaching the list with that in mind, plus with the limited slots AND the concentration mechanic AND the fact way more spells allow multiple saves to shrug off, it seems, to me, that the gap is no where near as wide. It's fairly close, in my opinion.

Nowhere near as wide as what? As AD&D? I agree. 5E mages can already count on getting at least some good spells of every level. As 3E? I'll take your word for it--never played it.

But the gap is still significant. If you have a bunch of good downtime spells or social spells, you can't get all the best damage spells and divination spells and summoning spells and crowd control spells and defense spells and movement spells and warding spells. Spells known is a real, serious limitation.

[CTurbo]

4 Bards would be superior in nearly all situations considering they can access any spell in the entire game not to mention being Cha based which IMO is a small advantage by itself.

4 Clerics would probably be best at lower levels just due to the amount of toughness and damage potential they get while not really giving up anything.

4 Wizards would be pretty unstoppable at higher levels though. I would want an Abjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, and then the 4th could be almost anything but I'd go with Illusionist as I think those are the 4 best 5e Wizards, but you could make a case for a minionmancer to be a better 4th addition.

Ironically, for as much crap as the 5e Sorcerers get, a high level party of them would be amazing. Possibly second only to the Bards IMO considering they could wreak so much havoc with subtle spells.

[MeeposFire]

Essentially 1e, 2e, and 4e have fairly hard caps on how many spells you could have in your book (well technically if your int was high enough you could theoretically get all the spells in 1e and 2e but actually having that level of int was not something you generally would get since it was above what you could get by rolling further unless you had and 18 or better you could not write 9th level spells at all, if you do have high enough int somehow wher eyou could get all the spells see the point for basic D&D) not counting rituals in 4e. In basic D&D (and AD&D for that matter) finding spells was for the most part the only way you were getting any new spells so there was no way to ensure you were going to get the spells you even want so getting all of them was really a pipe dream (or you had a REALLY generous DM getting many of the spells you want eventually was fairly common but getting all of them just did not seem to happen though it would make for a fun quest I suppose).

3e and 5e are really the only two that you can somewhat achieve this. 5e gives you the best base for getting spells but in a smaller degree you cannot rely on being able to acquire more since treasure is done closer to AD&D than 3e. 3e has the most generous way of handing out treasure and that includes spells and so has the easiest time of doing this though on the other hand it probably has the most spells outside of AD&D (it could have more since putting a metric ton of spells in every splat book was a thing then whereas AD&D did not go quite that far with handing out spells) so actually getting all the spells could be quite time consuming (and honestly not needed there are a LOT of crap spells in 3e that nobody really needs to go look for outside of the most obscure situations especially since using creative use of summoning type spells you can increase your spell list by proxy using spellcasting summons).

[Aquillion]

The idea that spells-in-book is what balanced out 5e wizards vs. 3e ones is silly and the fixation on it is a symptom of people who have engaged in too many white-room forum arguments. (Obsessing over the "schrodinger's wizard" thing is similar.) People get into arguments with each other over minutiae and push back and forth until someone says "fine, I use [specific spell X], because that's one I can unambiguously point to as strictly superior to what you're proposing", then seize on that to win the argument. It's completely irrelevant and has no relation to either optimization or play.

If you actually look at optimization guides for builds intended to be played, though, they use the same ~30 spells, roughly; and this is true in both 3e and 5e. Very few guides actually need more than the guaranteed two spells per level to get the bulk of their power, and even completely barring a 3e wizard from ever scribing scrolls into their spellbook outside of their level-ups, while it would weaken them somewhat, would not be the drastic nerf some people here seem to be supposing.

Also, the changes to scrolls hurt everyone; and, in fact, that particular change hurt noncasters worse, because they rely more on magic items and now aren't certain to get them. Fortunately other changes balanced this out.

The really, really big change that weakened spellcasters in 5e was:

1. Making almost every buff or battlefield alteration concentration. This was massive and has more impact than everything else on this list combined by several orders of magnitude. If you removed concentration from every spell in 5e that wasn't a concentration spell in 3e, and made no other changes, 5e wizards would basically be just as strong as 3e wizards, if not stronger (on account of other aspects that were balanced to partially compensate for what they lost to the concentration change.) The ability to cheat 5e's concentration system, even just a little bit and in very narrow ways and in exchange for having no other high-level powers, is the main reason the Mystic is considered overpowered.

...I actually don't even want to list any other changes, since that would give the impression that there is anything remotely comparable to that, and there isn't. The concentration change is more important than everything else combined. There were some other aspects, but I want to emphasizes that these are all comparatively minor, to the point where I'd almost call them flavor tweaks when weighed against the massive impact of the concentration overhaul. That said, for completeness...

2. Many fewer high-level spell slots, fewer spell slots in general. Your casting stat no longer boosts your spell slots, which is a major factor here, too. It takes much longer for casters to reach the point where they can just burn spells freely, and they can never do so with their higher level ones. This looks like the biggest thing on paper, and, sure, it's the runner-up after concentration (although a far, far, distant runner-up.) But the reality is that wizards usually have enough spell slots at higher levels - the game couldn't have been designed any other way.

3. Almost everyone who wasn't a full-caster got buffed, comparatively, especially fighters. This is important, but they were buffed to about what we'd call 3e's tier 3, mostly (aside from Bards becoming full casters, of course.) Again, without the concentration change this wouldn't have altered a huge amount.

4. Some individual problem spells were tweaked. Aside from the concentration changes, I wouldn't place much stock in this one at all, because new problem spells were created - again, the main fix comes from the change to make concentration the default for just about anything with a duration, rather than the exception, since that keeps players from just stacking all the most broken effects on the battlefield.* Without that, people would just find the most powerful spells in 5e and throw them all down at once.

5. Metamagic was limited to Sorcerers and the rules for Quicken in particular weakened it. This is another thing that I think people tend to overestimate in terms of impact due to reading too many white-room discussions. Quickening spells was always really expensive unless you had metamagic reduction; it wasn't a practical source of imbalance in most games. It was more of something that optimizers going after specific challenges reached for to put their builds over the top. I mean, people totally exploited it, but it was icing on the cake compared to the concentration issue. Quickening everything so you can unload in one turn is fun for delivering immediate "wow, you lose" in forum challenges, but in actual play it's rarely necessary.

6. Bounded accuracy makes it harder (nearly impossible) to optimize your spell save DCs. Again, this isn't as bad as you'd think because 3e didn't make it quite so easy to break spell save DCs compared to some other things - it was already much closer to being "bounded" than, say, BAB-AC interactions - but the game still wasn't really balanced around people who boosted their casting stat to truly absurd levels. Still, it's a minor factor. Also, Legendary Saves, but I feel those are more about reducing variance rather than nerfing casters.


* The fact that they put Simulacrum in the 5e core, of all spells, makes my head hurt. Why? Why would they do that? It's not even like that spell serves some essential purpose beyond being broken. I can understand making eg. Bigby's Hand really powerful, since it's iconic and is at least held back by concentration, but nobody expected to get Simulacrum (and, notably, it's one of the few spells that can add persistent power to your party with no concentration requirement.) The interaction between Simulacrum and Wish in particular is worse than anything that was in the 3e core, since it unambiguously works in a clearly game-breaking manner without any really dedicated optimization or trickery or anything like that (most DMs will stop it once they see what it can do, but how did it slip in in the first place?)

[JoeJ]

* The fact that they put Simulacrum in the 5e core, of all spells, makes my head hurt. Why? Why would they do that? It's not even like that spell serves some essential purpose beyond being broken. I can understand making eg. Bigby's Hand really powerful, since it's iconic and is at least held back by concentration, but nobody expected to get Simulacrum (and, notably, it's one of the few spells that can add persistent power to your party with no concentration requirement.) The interaction between Simulacrum and Wish in particular is worse than anything that was in the 3e core, since it unambiguously works in a clearly game-breaking manner without any really dedicated optimization or trickery or anything like that (most DMs will stop it once they see what it can do, but how did it slip in in the first place?)

Simulacrum was probably included because it's extremely useful for the DM to have an established way of replacing NPCs that the party has been relying on with imposters who are loyal to the BBEG. If it were not included in the rules it would have had to be homebrewed.

[HolyDraconus]

That's why I said the gap between a wizard with full spell list access and one that doesn't isnt that big. The same spells will be picked, just a few more "well maybe, just incase" can be grabbed, which doesn't change the number of spell slots....or the concentration mechanic, which both keep it from being a huge problem.

* in response to Aquillion

[Sigreid]

How many spells you find depends on the DM and the players. At my table, for example, it is perfectly acceptable for the party wizard to identify target wizards who can and will be supported by the party in being murdered to remove them from the world and take their knowledge.

[noob]

3. Almost everyone who wasn't a full-caster got buffed, comparatively, especially fighters. This is important, but they were buffed to about what we'd call 3e's tier 3, mostly (aside from Bards becoming full casters, of course.) Again, without the concentration change this wouldn't have altered a huge amount.


It is 1294934959349694935495139439295394599 times false.
the tiers were not just about fighting power and as a through exercise it was concluded that someone with the ability "when I am in a fight I win automatically" would be at most tier 4.
Fighters did not get better out of fights unless you specifically do efforts to fill that gap so the 5e fighter went from tier 5 to 4 but it is still not tier 3.
Tier 3 involves Class powers(feats you can grab such as ritual caster does not counts in tier calculation) that can participate out of combat too such as the ability of swordsages to teleport at a short range and a whole bunch of other tricks like that or bards that gets spellcasting with a lot of useful spells and good skills and bardic music for some stuff like helping the skill checks of his allies or distracting someone or whatever.
If you do not have anything that helps out of battle other than a small amount of skills the maximum tier you can have is tier 4.
So fighters ends up being poor low tier people as usual but tier 4 instead of tier 5.
If fighter did get as good at skills as a rogue maybe it could be a candidate for tier 3 but the fighter is just bad out of combat unless using feats which are not part of the fighter class nor even mandatory in 5e.

[MaxWilson]

Essentially 1e, 2e, and 4e have fairly hard caps on how many spells you could have in your book (well technically if your int was high enough you could theoretically get all the spells in 1e and 2e but actually having that level of int was not something you generally would get since it was above what you could get by rolling further unless you had and 18 or better you could not write 9th level spells at all, if you do have high enough int somehow wher eyou could get all the spells see the point for basic D&D)

Well, sort of. In 2nd edition, you can roll a 17 or 18 Int and then eventually aging will boost your Int by +2. Maybe that's why iconic wizards not named after German cities are always old.


Simulacrum was probably included because it's extremely useful for the DM to have an established way of replacing NPCs that the party has been relying on with imposters who are loyal to the BBEG. If it were not included in the rules it would have had to be homebrewed.

If this were the intent, they should have stuck with the AD&D-style simulacrum, which has only the outward appearance of the correct NPC and (if you use Limited Wish) a pale shadow of its abilities. For example:

You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire Casting Time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take Actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature's hit point maximum and none of its special abilities or class levels and is formed without any Equipment. Otherwise, the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates.

There. Perfectly usable for body-snatching NPCs, but not brokenly powerful.

[Aquillion]

the tiers were not just about fighting power and as a through exercise it was concluded that someone with the ability "when I am in a fight I win automatically" would be at most tier 4.
Fighters did not get better out of fights unless you specifically do efforts to fill that gap so the 5e fighter went from tier 5 to 4 but it is still not tier 3.Remember that subclasses in 5e are a core aspect of the class, not a separate thing like 3e PRCs. The majority of Fighter subclasses add reasonable amounts of out-of-combat utility, whether it's Arcane Archer's trick shots, Banneret or Samurai's social buffs, Eldritch Knight's casting, Monster Hunter's perception and magic tricks, Scout's scouting skills, Sharpshooter's careful eyes, and so on.

Obviously these vary, but only a few fighter subclasses add no out-of-combat utility; even the ones that are more combat focused tend to add extreme amounts of versatility within combat (eg. Battle Master).

[JoeJ]

If this were the intent, they should have stuck with the AD&D-style simulacrum, which has only the outward appearance of the correct NPC and (if you use Limited Wish) a pale shadow of its abilities. For example:

You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire Casting Time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take Actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature's hit point maximum and none of its special abilities or class levels and is formed without any Equipment. Otherwise, the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates.

There. Perfectly usable for body-snatching NPCs, but not brokenly powerful.

There are many cases, though, where an imposter needs to be able to use the same abilities as the person they've replaced in order to be effective. If you think that Simulacrum is too powerful or just doesn't fit your character concept, nobody is forcing you to learn or cast that spell. That's not a reason to eliminate it from the game.

[MaxWilson]

Simulacrum was probably included because it's extremely useful for the DM to have an established way of replacing NPCs that the party has been relying on with imposters who are loyal to the BBEG. If it were not included in the rules it would have had to be homebrewed.


There are many cases, though, where an imposter needs to be able to use the same abilities as the person they've replaced in order to be effective.

Many cases, really? So many that it's worth including in the core rulebook? Color me skeptical. If you're just replacing a king or a friendly shopkeeper you don't need special abilities; if you're replacing Gandalf or Elminster you do, but how often do DMs make up adventure which involve Gandalf or Elminster turning out to actually be a Simulacrum?

It's not like the DM couldn't make up his own Simulacrum anyway if it were needed for plot purposes, just as Storm King's Thunder makes up its own multi-Simulacrum (like Simulacrum but can have more than one per caster). I don't buy that rationale.

[JoeJ]

Many cases, really? So many that it's worth including in the core rulebook? Color me skeptical.

Why would they not include it? What is improved by making every DM or other player who wants to use something like this homebrew their own spell? It's certainly easier for a DM who doesn't like Simulacrum to rule that it doesn't exist in their game than it is for a DM who does want it to invent and playtest something of their own.

Maybe a reduced page count argument could be made; I'll accept that not every spell that was in previous editions would fit in the book. But why choose this spell in particular as one to leave out?

[MaxWilson]

Simulacrum was probably included because it's extremely useful for the DM to have an established way of replacing NPCs that the party has been relying on with imposters who are loyal to the BBEG. If it were not included in the rules it would have had to be homebrewed.


Why would they not include it? What is improved by making every DM or other player who wants to use something like this homebrew their own spell?

I'm examining your reasoning, that it was probably included so that DMs wouldn't have to homebrew a spell for BBEGs. It doesn't hold up--the spell's capabilities are far more than would be required for that scenario--and now you're changing your argument to "why not? Players might want it."


It's certainly easier for a DM who doesn't like Simulacrum to rule that it doesn't exist in their game than it is for a DM who does want it to invent and playtest something of their own.

Why would a DM need to playtest a spell used only by their BBEG? Do they playtest "destroy the world" rituals?


Maybe a reduced page count argument could be made; I'll accept that not every spell that was in previous editions would fit in the book. But why choose this spell in particular as one to leave out?

"Why not?" is not the argument I was responding to, but I will remark that if you're going to include a spell for the sake of nostalgia from previous editions, there's no reason for you to increase its power/abusability, as 5E did relative to AD&D (and apparently 3E, according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm)), by making it create full-power duplicates instead of pale imitations. So that argument doesn't persuade me either.

[noob]

Remember that subclasses in 5e are a core aspect of the class, not a separate thing like 3e PRCs. The majority of Fighter subclasses add reasonable amounts of out-of-combat utility, whether it's Arcane Archer's trick shots, Banneret or Samurai's social buffs, Eldritch Knight's casting, Monster Hunter's perception and magic tricks, Scout's scouting skills, Sharpshooter's careful eyes, and so on.

Obviously these vary, but only a few fighter subclasses add no out-of-combat utility; even the ones that are more combat focused tend to add extreme amounts of versatility within combat (eg. Battle Master).

Oh I forgot that 5e subclasses were just a way to disguise there is 10 times more classes than the official number.
It stands out to reason that each sub class should be tiered.
Also versatility in battle is in no way participating out of battle as I said win all the battles automatically is tier 4 if you do not add out of battle utility and so surely "does not wins all the battles automatically but can do multiple things in the battle" is even less useful.
So I think champion fighter is tier 4 while the poorly disguised wizard fighter(was it called eldritch champion) is probably of a higher tier if it have spells that does stuff out of battle (maybe it have silent image or create food and water or whatever).


Why would a DM need to playtest a spell used only by their BBEG? Do they playtest "destroy the world" rituals?
why not.
It is totally logical for the adventurers after beating the bbeg to want to destroy the world once they see the existence of the world is generating twice as big bbegs each Monday and you can hardly justify the ritual being lost if the adventurers surgically assassinated the bbeg and then resurrects him when they want to do the ritual.

[JoeJ]

I'm examining your reasoning, that it was probably included so that DMs wouldn't have to homebrew a spell for BBEGs. It doesn't hold up--the spell's capabilities are far more than would be required for that scenario--and now you're changing your argument to "why not? Players might want it."

Not changing, but adding to. There are good reasons to have that spell in the game, including both DM convenience and players who like it. So far, you haven't mentioned a single good reason not to have it. (Although, it now occurs to me that if you want to discuss this in detail we should probably start a new thread.)

[MaxWilson]

Not changing, but adding to. There are good reasons to have that spell in the game, including both DM convenience and players who like it. So far, you haven't mentioned a single good reason not to have it. (Although, it now occurs to me that if you want to discuss this in detail we should probably start a new thread.)

Maybe because "shouldn't have it" isn't something I've said? In post #29 I proposed rewriting it, not omitting it.

[Aquillion]

There are many cases, though, where an imposter needs to be able to use the same abilities as the person they've replaced in order to be effective. If you think that Simulacrum is too powerful or just doesn't fit your character concept, nobody is forcing you to learn or cast that spell. That's not a reason to eliminate it from the game.I think that this could be accomplished without having to give them literally all the target's abilities (something that breaks game logic even if just NPCs are using it - ie "if the arch-lich is so powerful, why doesn't he just copy himself for key fights rather than wasting this impersonating people?")

For instance, give it a set of abilities along the lines of... the simulacrum has the Minor Illusion and Prestidigitation cantrips, and X times per day it can cast [list of various illusions]. It has advantage on any Charisma or Dexterity checks made to impersonate its target, duplicate their abilities, or explain away flaws in its impersonation, and may substitute the caster's casting ability modifier for the relevant ability when doing so.

This would give them a lot of tools to fake supernatural abilities, without allowing the world-destroying lich to create a duplicate of himself to use in combat.

I would also add a short whitelist of stuff it can copy - movement and special vision types, say. Perhaps also proficiencies. Those are the most glaring things that might be a giveaway, and they're pretty safe, still keeping it at the level of a well-chosen summon of other types. Beyond that it can throw out the occasional illusion if necessary.

But if the players are suspicious enough to say "hey, I haven't seen you cast a spell lately. Cast a spell in front of me", and it's something an illusion won't work for, then they deserve to see through it - it shouldn't be a flawless impersonation anyway.

[JoeJ]

I think that this could be accomplished without having to give them literally all the target's abilities (something that breaks game logic even if just NPCs are using it - ie "if the arch-lich is so powerful, why doesn't he just copy himself for key fights rather than wasting this impersonating people?")

Obviously because he can only have one. If there's no current need to impersonate somebody else, then of course the BBEG might have a simulacrum as an assassination decoy. Or use it to delay pursuit while the arch-lich escapes.


For instance, give it a set of abilities along the lines of... the simulacrum has the Minor Illusion and Prestidigitation cantrips, and X times per day it can cast [list of various illusions]. It has advantage on any Charisma or Dexterity checks made to impersonate its target, duplicate their abilities, or explain away flaws in its impersonation, and may substitute the caster's casting ability modifier for the relevant ability when doing so.

This would give them a lot of tools to fake supernatural abilities, without allowing the world-destroying lich to create a duplicate of himself to use in combat.

That adds more complexity and takes away the that-was-too-easy moment when the PCs realize they haven't been fighting the real BBEG.


I would also add a short whitelist of stuff it can copy - movement and special vision types, say. Perhaps also proficiencies. Those are the most glaring things that might be a giveaway, and they're pretty safe, still keeping it at the level of a well-chosen summon of other types. Beyond that it can throw out the occasional illusion if necessary.

But if the players are suspicious enough to say "hey, I haven't seen you cast a spell lately. Cast a spell in front of me", and it's something an illusion won't work for, then they deserve to see through it - it shouldn't be a flawless impersonation anyway.

It's not flawless. It can't heal damage or recover spell slots, and there are several spells that can reveal that something fishy is going on. And if it's supposed to assassinate and replace somebody (created with a Wish, so the target didn't have to be present), the simulacrum doesn't know anything the target learned after it was created.

[MaxWilson]

I think that this could be accomplished without having to give them literally all the target's abilities (something that breaks game logic even if just NPCs are using it - ie "if the arch-lich is so powerful, why doesn't he just copy himself for key fights rather than wasting this impersonating people?")

Technically he can't (barring True Polymorph shenanigans), since the spell only works on humanoids. Not that that really solves the narrative problem--it could be an evil human wizard instead, or an arch-lich could research a different spell.

[noob]

So the solution to not have your king replaced or mind controlled is to have a lich king?
All hail the lich king!

[MaxWilson]

So the solution to not have your king replaced or mind controlled is to have a lich king?
All hail the lich king!

Sorcerer lich king.

Doesn't stop anyone from replacing the king with an illusion though. E.g. a Simulacrum of an illusionist with Spell Mastery (Disguise Self and Alter Self). "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[JoeJ]

Sorcerer lich king.

Doesn't stop anyone from replacing the king with an illusion though. E.g. a Simulacrum of an illusionist with Spell Mastery (Disguise Self and Alter Self). "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Yes, I've heard from a number of completely unrelated, totally different people that the sorcerer king is the most powerful single-class character.

[noob]

Sorcerer lich king.

Doesn't stop anyone from replacing the king with an illusion though. E.g. a Simulacrum of an illusionist with Spell Mastery (Disguise Self and Alter Self). "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

is there is liches with an aura of dread that slowly drains life?
if such liches exists we would need the illusionist to be able to simulate that too.

[HolyDraconus]

Ummm....what?