Rethinking Mages

[paladinn]

There's been a lot of discussion here about wizards possibly being OP in 5e, sorcerers being nerfed, etc. I'd like to propose something to address this.

Last year, WotC released a UA about "sidekicks". https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf. The section about having a spellcaster as a "sidekick" was particularly interesting. Such a caster would choose a spellcasting class to emulate, and use the casting stat and spell list appropriate for said class. All caster-kicks of a given level have the same spell slots, spells known, cantrips known, etc.

The concept brings up some interesting possibilities. Granted, there are no options for cleric domains, channel divinity, wildshape, warlock invocations, magical secrets, arcane school abilities, sorcerous origin powers, etc. At the same time, a warlock-ish character gets a lot more spells. While it needs work, I personally think it might be a good place to start to ensure that no casters get/feel nerfed. And I think that a lot of the "special abilities" sh/could be reframed as spells anyway.

There is not a lot to differentiate wizards and sorcerers under this system. I don't think that's a horrible thing. But if someone wants such a distinction, then how about this: an Int-based caster can add his/her Int bonus to the number of spells known; a Cha-based caster can add his/her Cha bonus to the total number of spell-level slots available.

For "divine" casters, typically the "spells known" concept wouldn't come into play, as they have their whole spell list prepared. Not quite sure how to deal with that, but open to suggestions.

This also opens the door to having Cha-based casters using Cleric or Druid spell list, among many other possibilities.

Any thoughts? (Besides, "This guy has way too much free time")

[firelistener]

Personally, I don't think wizards are overpowered at all, but the most common complaint I see is that they have too many potential options available at any given time. Maybe I'm skipping over it in the pdf, but I don't see it doing anything to limit the number of spells prepped at a time, which seems like the simplest way to address complaints about caster versatility.

[paladinn]

Personally, I don't think wizards are overpowered at all, but the most common complaint I see is that they have too many potential options available at any given time. Maybe I'm skipping over it in the pdf, but I don't see it doing anything to limit the number of spells prepped at a time, which seems like the simplest way to address complaints about caster versatility.

In the spell-slot chart, there is a column for "spells known". As the article states, that number applies to All casters, including Int-based ones.

Unfortunately it also applies to Wis-based casters, which could conceivably nerf clerics and druids.

[paladinn]

Not too dissimilar from a point-based character creation system, which has many pros and cons vs. D&D’s system of having things bundled together in races and classes. My guess is that WOTC will stick with their system.

I personally think the sorcerer is great and find it amusing that many/most disagree.

This system, as-is, puts sorcs and wizards (and all other casters) on absolute parity when it comes to casting. I don't think there was anything in the article about divine casters having armor, etc.; nor did it deal with channel divinity, metamagic, wildshape or a lot of other stuff. Like I said, I can see much of that (except metamagic) replicated as spells.

I'm wondering how they would do "sidekick" paladins, rangers, etc. MC with the warrior class?

[Keravath]

I also don't think wizards are OP.

There are certainly problems and situations where wizards may be the best suited to deal with them. (AoE damage against hordes comes to mind). Wizards can also have a lot of tools in their spell book. However, in actual play, I have found that the prepared spell limit to be a significant constraint. Usually, my wizard doesn't know what they will run into during the next adventuring day, as a result, they prepare a range of spells that might be useful but depending on the situation that develops they may turn out to be useless or essential. If the wizard has the correct spell then they can be extremely useful and if they don't then their choices are as limited as any other character.

A wizard gets more spells to prepare and a wider selection from their spellbook compared to a sorcerer whereas a sorcerer chooses a specific set of spells and can apply meta magic to them. This tends to mean that sorcerers focus on spells that will particularly benefit from metamagic and fall back on cantrips when concentrating. Wizards choose a wider variety but also often fall back on cantrips when concentrating.

Anyway, I have played both wizards and sorcerers and have found both interesting and fun to play but not OP. (Though the wizard had an opportunity to shine with some well placed fireballs against a horde of low level opponents that would have been much more challenging without the fireball ... but that isn't unique to the wizard ... I have had similar experiences with a bard with hypnotic pattern, or a sorcerer with fireball too).