What Should The Wizard Be?

[Amechra]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

[Sigreid]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

Wizards are powerful spell casters because they constantly study and analyze to learn the hidden rules to how reality works. They're powerful casters because they understand better than others the rules of the game they are playing. I would be miffed if they were half casters. Just like I was miffed at the idea of them having a set of limited abilities in 4e. In another game in another setting I defined my wizard equivalent character as a scientist that actually understood the quantum nature of reality on a practical and usable level. If he found a scroll with an ancient spell, he set about learning the physics behind it.

[MoiMagnus]

Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

Wizard (and Bard, and arguably Druid too) are the best spellcaster because they're the only classes that are "educated" in the academic sense. They inherit their power from their master/teacher/etc, and from the ancient books that only them are able to decipher. Their subclasses are arcane traditions and bardic colleges.

[Though I will admit this vision is weakened if XP comes mostly from adventuring, as Wizard is one of the class which should probably level faster by not adventuring at all and studying in the academy's library, but you don't want that gameplay-wise]

Wizard are also "specialist" casters, as they literally specialise in a school of magic. In 5e, they still get access to all the other schools of magic, but I'm not sure how much that's a good thing or not.

And when you say half-caster, it's half-caster half-what?
Currently, the only other thing you can half classes with is hald-martial, and Wizard and Bard are definitely the least martial classes IMO.

Half-skillmonkey is a possibility, but I think that would be a very bad idea gameplay wise for "skill-monkey" to be half the power of a class, as skill's power is very DM-dependent. IMO all classes should be roughly as useful as one another in tactical combat in D&D (though I'm fine with subclasses specialising in non-combat). You could reinforce the influence of skills in combat, but that's a lot of work.

[Amdy_vill]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

So I personaly think Wizards should be handled similar to their pre 3e versions, pre 3e wizards didn't need to use spell slots to cast, they could cast right out of their spellbooks, they also had the ability to learn any spell. they should probably have fewer spell slots and some other changes to make this fit more.

[MrStabby]

Wizards should be the specialist casters - they opted for an area of study and a specialism. This should come with both opportunities and penalties. End the omnimancer.

Wizards should be the class that can "personalize" spells. The learned them understood them and made them their own. It isn't borrowed power or some internal force more felt than truely understood.

Agree that wizards should be the best at ritual casting (although not uniquely so - I could se a case for specific subclasses of cleric, warlock and druid being as good - but the wizard gets it by default).

Wizards should be knowledgable, but like rituals this needn't be unique. Other classes with a similar theme should be able to match the wizard in appropriate areas (why should an artificer know any less about arcana than a wizard? Or a cleric know less about religion? and so on)

[JackPhoenix]

Wizard are also "specialist" casters, as they literally specialise in a school of magic. In 5e, they still get access to all the other schools of magic, but I'm not sure how much that's a good thing or not.

I like wizards, but I'd go with "no" for this question. Specialization is what makes them different from both other casters and each other. Now, the problem with that, design-wise, is that you'd have to make different schools roughly balanced in both number of options and their power.


And when you say half-caster, it's half-caster half-what?

Half-caster isn't "half-caster, half-something". It means you use half spellcasting progression of full spellcasters. You can do that, and still focus entirely on magic.

[Daracaex]

So I personaly think Wizards should be handled similar to their pre 3e versions, pre 3e wizards didn't need to use spell slots to cast, they could cast right out of their spellbooks, they also had the ability to learn any spell. they should probably have fewer spell slots and some other changes to make this fit more.

Wait, when was this? I've played the Baldur's Gate games and 2e wizards definitely needed to prepare spell slots and could not learn any spell.

[LudicSavant]

What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

I think this is kind of asking the wrong question.

Not every member of the same class should have the same party role. One Fighter might be a heavy controller tank, another might be a (relatively) fragile ranged damage dealer. Likewise, different Wizards can and should have different party roles.

5e doesn't have Trinity-style classes, and I think that's a good thing.

[Shadean207]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

You make some interesting points here, so I thought I might give it my two cents.

-- I really love the idea of a focus or semi-focus on Ritual Casting. It's an interesting thing that gets overlooked a bit, at least in the games I played in. Now, first thing that comes to mind is the Warlock's Tome pact features, so I have no immediate idea how to do a Ritual Wizard without it seeming like a Tomelock ripoff. Rituals might be interesting on higher spell levels, so Warlocks wouldn't be able to get those, but then again, I have a feeling that Clerics with their ceremonial feel or Druids with their tribal/ritualistic feel might even be better suited for that.

-- Counterspells as cantrips sounds enormously OP to me, aside from that I agree with the knowledge thing. In a manga I read, there is a thing called "Spell analysis", which allows the protagonist to cancel any spell he has seen sufficiently often, by counteracting the spell's magic or formulaic components. Something like that I can imagine to be very fun (and incentivize a DM to not have his enemy NPCs spam spells), but probably mechanically difficult...

-- Regarding Half-Casters, I think Wizards are perfectly valid as full casters, and it makes sense to me. They are not just "smart", they completely analyze the functions of magic itself. Which is, looking at the classes in general, a niche thing. Some operate on magic instinct, like a Bard, Sorcerer or AT Rogue, some have a connection to someone or something magic, like Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers or Warlocks. i don't quite remember how Artificers work, but I think Wizards and, by extension, Eldritch Knights, are the only ones to work by analyzing and actually learning how magic and spells work.


So, in conclusion, i think the Wizard is fine as-is, but of course there is always room for homebrew subclasses. Who knows, maybe give Wizards a subclass that has them spec into actual weapon combat (Bladesinger exists, though...). Interesting points though, and a good question!

[JackPhoenix]

Wait, when was this? I've played the Baldur's Gate games and 2e wizards definitely needed to prepare spell slots and could not learn any spell.

It was optional rule where you could use pages from your spellbook as single-use scrolls in an emergency. I'm not sure if it was from a magazine or a splatbook, but it was not a part of the basic rules.

Also, Baldur's Gate (and videogames in general) are not a good example how the rules work in an TTRPG.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This threat triggered a realization that after about 30 5e characters our group has only had 1 wizard. While I am planning one for our next campaign, it's going to be a multiclass Strength based Bladesinger, that doesn't really have too much resemblence to a traditional wizard. Why is this?
Our background is 2e, and the only real 'full' caster was a wizard. Druids, Clerics, and Bards would have been roughly 3/4 casters, and Wizards paid the price for this with their HP. Wizards were squishy and powerful. They were definitely unique in what they could do. With the number of current full casters and overlapping spell lists I agree with the intent of the post. Wizards, to our group anyway, have started to feel a bit generic and not too unique; magic is common, and there isn't really a price to be paid to be good at it. As an example a 5th level Light Cleric has access to the same fireball spell the Wizard does, and that's on top of armor, weapons, better hp, and channel divinity. Options like this are also very flavorful; whether more so than a Wizard is personal taste.

[Elves]

You shouldn't let theme and flavor drown out the class's essential mechanical role, which is exactly to be the generic arcane spellcaster. 5e has so few classes that there isn't room for it to become more specific anyway.

I would make wizards even more generic by rolling parts of sorcerer into wizard. Separating 'em was a 3e legacy feature. Having sorcerer, wizard and warlock is excessive when you only have ~15 classes total -- all you need is wizard as the complex arcane caster and warlock as the ezplay arcane caster. Sorcerer is an unnecessary medium between them.

[Sigreid]

You shouldn't let theme and flavor drown out the class's essential mechanical role, which is exactly to be the generic arcane spellcaster. 5e has so few classes that there isn't room for it to become more specific anyway.

I would make wizards even more generic by rolling parts of sorcerer into wizard. Separating 'em was a 3e legacy feature. Having sorcerer, wizard and warlock is excessive when you only have ~15 classes total -- all you need is wizard as the complex arcane caster and warlock as the ezplay arcane caster. Sorcerer is an unnecessary medium between them.

Sorcerer and Wizard initially separated in late 2e as a way to get around spell preparation limitations, basically.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wizards should be exactly what they are: Intelligent specialists in Arcane Magic.
They don't need to change.

Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster?
Wrong game, I think.

Wizard comes from Magic User.
What does a magic user do? Use magic.

[Sorinth]

I'm a fan of limiting the number of spell slots but increasing ritual casting usage. I'd even go as far as saying every wizard spell should be possible to cast as a ritual (Though I'd probably want some spells changed). The time needed for ritual spells would need to be based on spell level.

This would in theory make the wizard less strong in combat, but double down on their out of combat usefulness. And that I think is a good place for the wizard, let the fighter's be the undisputed top dog in combat. A wizard with a wide spell array can solve any problem given enough time, but more often then not the party won't have 30min to wait for the wizard to ritually cast the spell to bypass a problem.

[jas61292]

Wizard being a generalist caster that has a special book and is all about learning and expanding their spell list is great. Having that and then having a bunch of "specialist" subclasses that don't actually make you specialize, and sometimes even make you better at things outside your specialization is not.

In short. Wizard would make for a fantastic Sorcerer subclass.

Simply put, in terms of design space, the Wizard is currently "guy who gets arcane magic from study" while the Sorcerer is "guy who gets arcane magic from anything other than study." One of those is a wide open design space, filled with opportunity for subclasses, while the other is really not. While the mechanics quite likely would need to be adjusted a bit, having a single "normal" arcane caster class (sorry Warlock, but you are abnormal), with all its subclasses having to do with to origin of your magical powers would be fine. This is what sorcerer already does, and it makes their subclasses easily have more robust flavor than the wizard's. Simply adding another one to the list where their origin is "they got magic buy studying it" would be excellent.

Yeah, I know, people are used to wizards being their own thing, and they hate ever having anything taken away. But when you really look at it, the specificity of wizard is more akin to a subclass, in my opinion, and they would have been much better off if that is how they had been designed.

[Theodoxus]

So I personaly think Wizards should be handled similar to their pre 3e versions, pre 3e wizards didn't need to use spell slots to cast, they could cast right out of their spellbooks, they also had the ability to learn any spell. they should probably have fewer spell slots and some other changes to make this fit more.

I went the other direction, but I did force Wizards to use full Vancian casting. I boosted spell slots by 50% across the board, but since they have to memorize the actual spell into the actual spell slot to cast it, a few spells are invariably memorized for the day that don't end up being used (outside of 1 guy who went Evoker and filled up on blasting spells).

I think it best differentiates Sorcerers and Wizards, having a more rigid casting mechanic. I also agree with making Bards half casters, but giving them songs to compensate - basically Paladin-esque auras that work while they're singing or orating or playing an instrumental.

I'm a fan of lingering effects. Bring back Stances for martial classes too!

[GeneralVryth]

Wizards should not be half casters, their defining trait is being masters of the Arcane. I don't think anything says that better than full spell casting progression with the largest selection of the most useful spells.

Could I see a ritual focused sub-class? Absolutely.
Could I see the various school sub-classes being reworked to give slightly more focus on their school in exchange for choosing a school or two you can't use? Absolutely.

If your problem is the Sorcerer v. Wizard debate, the problem isn't the Wizard's niche it's that the Sorcerer's niche didn't have enough mechanical support. All of the Sorcerer bloodlines should give 5 to 8 additional known spells focused on their bloodline, and they should should all use spell points (or flexible casting should be free actions going both ways with spell slots giving sorcery points equal to the cost of the slot). If you wanted to go further, you would make their capstones stronger and more defining, and potentially weaken some of the meta-magic bonuses in exchange for giving them 1 or 2 more bloodline features.

If your problem is Wizard's feel to strong relative to Fighters/Barbarians/Monks/Rangers (and maybe Paladins though they are a cut above the rest), the problem again isn't the Wizard most of the non-magic classes don't get enough out of combat support at higher levels, and some are even a little light on the in combat support. Fighters specifically are hurt by too much of their combat power being tied up in their base class, not leaving enough for the sub-classes to use to differentiate themselves, while having almost 0 out of combat abilities.

On a side note I have always felt 5e is missing some kind sub-system focused on utility outside of combat. Something that gives either power in the form of minions/servants, or physical mastery (the more wuxia focused moves), or even more support for ritual magic. You could add magical items in their as well (martials should get slightly more magic items, with some focused on utility. Heck you could make the default number of magic items attunable 4, and have casters lose 1 attunement slot when they achieve 5th level spell slots, and lose another slot when they get 8th level magic. Their own personal power making it harder to control other magic).

And on a final note, if the problem with Wizards is players abusing overpowered shenanigans like Simulacrum, just ban the broken madness and be done with it.

[Kane0]

That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?


As INT casters that are flavored as heing educated and carrying around tomes of knowledge they should be pretty damned good at those associated skills.

Similarly, the spellbook and education should make them remarkably good with rituals.

Then comes the split: generalists vs specialists. I would tackle this in subclass form and they would notably change your casting. Generalist type subclasses gain a great breadth of spells (in terms of spell list) but suffer slowed slot progression (akin to becoming a half caster). Specialists keep full caster progression but apart from the very limited ‘universal’ mage spell list one gain one or two spell schools. Both paths put more emphasis on features, which amplifies flavor.

[MrStabby]

Wizards should not be half casters, their defining trait is being masters of the Arcane. I don't think anything says that better than full spell casting progression with the largest selection of the most useful spells.

Could I see a ritual focused sub-class? Absolutely.
Could I see the various school sub-classes being reworked to give slightly more focus on their school in exchange for choosing a school or two you can't use? Absolutely.

If your problem is the Sorcerer v. Wizard debate, the problem isn't the Wizard's niche it's that the Sorcerer's niche didn't have enough mechanical support. All of the Sorcerer bloodlines should give 5 to 8 additional known spells focused on their bloodline, and they should should all use spell points (or flexible casting should be free actions going both ways with spell slots giving sorcery points equal to the cost of the slot). If you wanted to go further, you would make their capstones stronger and more defining, and potentially weaken some of the meta-magic bonuses in exchange for giving them 1 or 2 more bloodline features.

If your problem is Wizard's feel to strong relative to Fighters/Barbarians/Monks/Rangers (and maybe Paladins though they are a cut above the rest), the problem again isn't the Wizard most of the non-magic classes don't get enough out of combat support at higher levels, and some are even a little light on the in combat support. Fighters specifically are hurt by too much of their combat power being tied up in their base class, not leaving enough for the sub-classes to use to differentiate themselves, while having almost 0 out of combat abilities.

On a side note I have always felt 5e is missing some kind sub-system focused on utility outside of combat. Something that gives either power in the form of minions/servants, or physical mastery (the more wuxia focused moves), or even more support for ritual magic. You could add magical items in their as well (martials should get slightly more magic items, with some focused on utility. Heck you could make the default number of magic items attunable 4, and have casters lose 1 attunement slot when they achieve 5th level spell slots, and lose another slot when they get 8th level magic. Their own personal power making it harder to control other magic).

And on a final note, if the problem with Wizards is players abusing overpowered shenanigans like Simulacrum, just ban the broken madness and be done with it.

I think that there is a bit of a problem with the wizard, and the wizard might be too powerful as it is but that isn't exactly the problem, though it is closely related. The problem is the wizard stepping on other classes toes. It is about the wizard being better at another class's purpose than that other class. If a wizard can fly then that undermines the rogue's ability to climb (and drop a rope down) to get the party sureptitiously into restricted areas. If the wizard can turn invisible it steps on the toes of those who hide well, if a famailliar or an arcane eye can scout better than a party member built to be a scout then it sucks to be a scout, if you are an investigator or a tracker looking to find someone then the locate person spell renders your specialism irrelevant. Wizards have great spells like fireball and counterspell, but honestly these are not the spells I think are problematic - its spells like polymorph that lets the wizard outshine the barbarian at strength tasks or alarm rituals that make the wizard the most effective watchkeeper in the party that are the problem.

I think for the wizard to add to the game, rather than detract from it, there needs to be a tighter forcus for a given wizard. I don't have an issue with wizards in general being able to do almost anything, but I do have a problem with a given specific wizard being able to do so much. Swapping out spells and great ritual casting really contribute to this, alongside massivly multipourpose spells like polymorph. Bringing back forbidden schools and true vancian casting coupled with more powerful in-school specialization would really help individual wizards carve out a clearer nche.

[Valmark]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).
I mean... Wizards already are three of those things, more or less. In general my view is exactly what they are now- studious that got their power through hard studying of the weave and magic and how to use it themselves instead of relying on natural born powers or on external sources.

I'm not sure what you mean by generalists- while it's true that bards are jacks (one of their feature is even called that) wizards are no more general then clerics or druids (Warlocks are more specialized because they don't have much versatility in the first place) beyond their larger spell list which they only have access to a bit of without DM's help.


I think that there is a bit of a problem with the wizard, and the wizard might be too powerful as it is but that isn't exactly the problem, though it is closely related. The problem is the wizard stepping on other classes toes. It is about the wizard being better at another class's purpose than that other class. If a wizard can fly then that undermines the rogue's ability to climb (and drop a rope down) to get the party sureptitiously into restricted areas. If the wizard can turn invisible it steps on the toes of those who hide well, if a famailliar or an arcane eye can scout better than a party member built to be a scout then it sucks to be a scout, if you are an investigator or a tracker looking to find someone then the locate person spell renders your specialism irrelevant. Wizards have great spells like fireball and counterspell, but honestly these are not the spells I think are problematic - its spells like polymorph that lets the wizard outshine the barbarian at strength tasks or alarm rituals that make the wizard the most effective watchkeeper in the party that are the problem.

I think for the wizard to add to the game, rather than detract from it, there needs to be a tighter forcus for a given wizard. I don't have an issue with wizards in general being able to do almost anything, but I do have a problem with a given specific wizard being able to do so much. Swapping out spells and great ritual casting really contribute to this, alongside massivly multipourpose spells like polymorph. Bringing back forbidden schools and true vancian casting coupled with more powerful in-school specialization would really help individual wizards carve out a clearer nche.

To be fair you're comparing a class spending resources to do something to other classes spending nothing to do the same thing. It would be bad if the wizards couldn't be better at it then the other doing it at-will (or any other character spending resources to do something others do at-will).

[MoiMagnus]

To be fair you're comparing a class spending resources to do something to other classes spending nothing to do the same thing. It would be bad if the wizards couldn't be better at it then the other doing it at-will (or any other character spending resources to do something others do at-will).

While it's mostly true, I'd note that using a skill is not exactly "spending nothing", as using a skill means that you have a probability of failure, which is a cost. In the case of climbing, you are (in average) loosing some hit point each time you try to do so in dangerous situation. At the contrary, flying has very low probability of failure (though with concentration, there is still some possibility of failure given hostile circumstances).

[MrStabby]

To be fair you're comparing a class spending resources to do something to other classes spending nothing to do the same thing. It would be bad if the wizards couldn't be better at it then the other doing it at-will (or any other character spending resources to do something others do at-will).

I don't think it would be bad at all if the wizards couldn't be better than the other classes at the other classes things no mater what resources they used.

So you are a thief and your special abilities to climb the walls of the tower to get your party inside havebeen obviated by the wizard reparing the fly spell in preparation - are you really going to feel better about it if the wizard casts one fewer fireball that day because of it? Or if the outcome of a qust hinges upon being able to talk the nobles round to send aid and your samurai's elegant courtier ability or your bard's expertise in persuasion would shine... but just not as well as mass suggestion will, will the use of a resource by the wizard make you feel better about the fact that the specific thing your class should be good at is being done by someone else?

Resource uses can be a limit. They limit the wizard to stepping into this role only when it is really dramatic or important, they can't do it all day long - just when the fate of the campaign hinges on the result. When no one cares and it is unimportant the other classes can play.

[Valmark]

While it's mostly true, I'd note that using a skill is not exactly "spending nothing", as using a skill means that you have a probability of failure, which is a cost. In the case of climbing, you are (in average) loosing some hit point each time you try to do so in dangerous situation. At the contrary, flying has very low probability of failure (though with concentration, there is still some possibility of failure given hostile circumstances).
Yes, which is built in the at-will vs costly comparison.

If I'm climbing it the normal way it'd be bad balance if I wasn't at more risk then my buddy using a resource to achieve the same thing.

Also keep in mind that, at least for this specific example, a wizard can do it starting level 5- the rogue (or anybody else, but the rogue can do it better) can do it by level 1. It very much shouldn't compare.

I don't think it would be bad at all if the wizards couldn't be better than the other classes at the other classes things no mater what resources they used.

So you are a thief and your special abilities to climb the walls of the tower to get your party inside havebeen obviated by the wizard reparing the fly spell in preparation - are you really going to feel better about it if the wizard casts one fewer fireball that day because of it? Or if the outcome of a qust hinges upon being able to talk the nobles round to send aid and your samurai's elegant courtier ability or your bard's expertise in persuasion would shine... but just not as well as mass suggestion will, will the use of a resource by the wizard make you feel better about the fact that the specific thing your class should be good at is being done by someone else?

Resource uses can be a limit. They limit the wizard to stepping into this role only when it is really dramatic or important, they can't do it all day long - just when the fate of the campaign hinges on the result. When no one cares and it is unimportant the other classes can play.

This is kind of a side of a coin. If a wizard couldn't be better at it then you, thief/samurai/whatever player, are going to see your friend consume their character's daily ability to do something to be worst at it then what you could do all day (and the other player is going to spend their restricted ability to do something to see it be worst then what others can do with more ease).

[noob]

You can not be the best ritual caster and be a partial caster simultaneously because being a partial caster will delay ritual access.
Unless you make really weird class features like "you can ritual cast spells of a higher level than the level of regular spells you can cast" but that seems weird to have even more exceptions to ritual casting.
Counterspell as a cantrip and other things like that are just pretending your full casting class is a partial casting one.(you access counterspell 2 levels earlier than a full casting class)
The wizard being a half caster will need to get class features or spells that synergise with martial aptitude like a paladin or an artificer(or like a rogue that gets to halve damage from varied sources and to deal extra added damage from nowhere for no reason).

[MrStabby]

This is kind of a side of a coin. If a wizard couldn't be better at it then you, thief/samurai/whatever player, are going to see your friend consume their character's daily ability to do something to be worst at it then what you could do all day (and the other player is going to spend their restricted ability to do something to see it be worst then what others can do with more ease).

Or you know... they could opt to do something else instead. It isn't like someone would be forcing the wizard to use their spells for that. Indeed if wizards were more narrowly focussed in their schools the thing in question would either:

a) be part of what their school does so would be their specialization, or

b) something that they can't do so wouldn't be spending resources to do poorly in the first place

[Valmark]

Or you know... they could opt to do something else instead. It isn't like someone would be forcing the wizard to use their spells for that. Indeed if wizards were more narrowly focussed in their schools the thing in question would either:

a) be part of what their school does so would be their specialization, or

b) something that they can't do so wouldn't be spending resources to do poorly in the first place

That's true already, though. It's not like somebody is forcing the wizard to cast those spells to be better at it, are they?

[MrStabby]

That's true already, though. It's not like somebody is forcing the wizard to cast those spells to be better at it, are they?

No, they just support it. I am suggesting that a version of the wizard that would be better for the game is one that is more specialised such that these things are either part of their specialism or not something they can do. I.e. answering the OP question "what should the wizard be".

I am trying to answer what I think the wizard should and should not be capable of in terms of game design rather than answering the question of "how should a wizard be played?"

[Dienekes]

Personally, I think Wizards as the masters of versatility of spells is the way to go. These are the people that have spent their whole lives focusing on the study of Spellcraft. If they get less of a benefit from that than others get by praying to some deity then people as smart as a Wizard is supposed to be would quickly realize that they should stop studying magic and start studying Bible verses.

How I would design Wizards:

1) Having a massive expansive spell list is fine, so long as the players can’t just pick every best spell. I’d implement prerequisites for the Wizard casting spells. Nothing too difficult, really. A simple formula that to cast a spell of level X you need to be able to cast a number of spells from the same school equal to X-1. So any Wizard can take a 1 credit course to pick up a cantrip or a 1st level spell. But even if you find a scroll of Disintegrate you can’t use it until you’ve mastered 5 weaker Transmutation spells. This will require smoothing out the spells per level of some schools. I think Illusion is the worst offender.

2) They get metamagic. But it’s only metamagic that increases versatility not direct power. Stuff like shaping a spell, casting it silently, energy substitution, delayed/triggered spells. Things that demonstrate they understand how magic works at a fundamental level, but are still limited by their power. Let Sorcerers focus on straight buffing their spells numbers in some way by making longer durations, wider areas, and of course throwing more damage dice around.

3) If I could figure out a way to do it in a reasonably balanced way, I’d implement some sort of spell experimentation. Where they can try to create new spells by altering old ones or mixing effects. These are the grad students of magic, they should be trying to write their dissertation and making advancements in the field of magic. But to say this sort of thing would be difficult to make work is an understatement. I certainly haven’t figured out a way to do it that wasn’t broken.


I’d back away from making Wizards the master of rituals. I kinda see giving that benefit to Clerics and moving them a step away from being a frontliner. The Paladin already does that. And I have it in my head that a Cleric using rituals to pray to their god or give a sermon is very thematic.

Sorcerers I’d differentiate more from Wizards by just saying they don’t need spell components and then removing spells that would break the game without the cost of the component pieces. They’d be more focused on making the stronger effects. And a part of me wants a scaling Wild Magic Table for each subclass that shows when their magic bursts from them. Make it -of course- less potentially TPKing for everyone but still weird and crazy.

[Anymage]

This is kind of a side of a coin. If a wizard couldn't be better at it then you, thief/samurai/whatever player, are going to see your friend consume their character's daily ability to do something to be worst at it then what you could do all day (and the other player is going to spend their restricted ability to do something to see it be worst then what others can do with more ease).

The wizard can swap his spell selection around to fit the problem at hand, while mundane characters find their skill selections a lot more locked in. Your rogue doesn't get to swap his skill and expertise picks of Stealth and Perception for Persuasion and Insight just because you expect to do some heavy politicking tomorrow.

On top of that, the daily resource question quickly becomes moot in actual play. Sure, in theory the rogue can keep sneaking all day long and the fighter can keep swinging all day long while the wizard might run out of gas. In practice whenever a spellcaster starts run low that's the party's cue to fall back and rest up for the day.

[MrStabby]

The wizard can swap his spell selection around to fit the problem at hand, while mundane characters find their skill selections a lot more locked in. Your rogue doesn't get to swap his skill and expertise picks of Stealth and Perception for Persuasion and Insight just because you expect to do some heavy politicking tomorrow.

On top of that, the daily resource question quickly becomes moot in actual play. Sure, in theory the rogue can keep sneaking all day long and the fighter can keep swinging all day long while the wizard might run out of gas. In practice whenever a spellcaster starts run low that's the party's cue to fall back and rest up for the day.

Ah but that is the fault of the DM then! Not the class design. That it is possible that there exists a type of game for which the wizard is more balanced PROVES this this isn't ever an issue at any table that couldn't just be fixed by a DM learning how to DM better.

[The_Jette]

I also agree with making Bards half casters, but giving them songs to compensate - basically Paladin-esque auras that work while they're singing or orating or playing an instrumental.

I'm a fan of lingering effects.

This is literally just the 3/3.5 Bard. They had half casting progression but got to buff the party using songs as their inspiration. Honestly, the worst thing that 5e did to the Bard was take away the buffing songs.

[MrStabby]

This is literally just the 3/3.5 Bard. They had half casting progression but got to buff the party using songs as their inspiration. Honestly, the worst thing that 5e did to the Bard was take away the buffing songs.

I think the 3rd edition bard is now the paladin. Multiple buffing auras, range of buffing spells, charisma focussed half caster with solid enough martial skills.

[Dienekes]

This is literally just the 3/3.5 Bard. They had half casting progression but got to buff the party using songs as their inspiration. Honestly, the worst thing that 5e did to the Bard was take away the buffing songs.

Yeah 5e Bard doesn’t really feel like much of a performer. Just a spellcaster that can give Inspiration dice.

[The_Jette]

I think the 3rd edition bard is now the paladin. Multiple buffing auras, range of buffing spells, charisma focussed half caster with solid enough martial skills.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The 5e Paladin really isn't that much different from the 3e Paladin. Plus, the Bard in 3e was a pretty weak class. They had terrible weapon choices, only a 3/4 BAB progression, and their spell selection was laughable. Honestly, the only justification for playing a Bard in 3e was in the party was large enough that all the roles were already filled and you could afford to have one person who pretty much didn't do anything but give the whole party a few rounds of a decent buff per combat.

^That's all just my opinion, though.

[clash]

I think the biggest problem with the wizard is they tried to make them the generalist and the specialist. Make the wizard the generalist and make the sorcerer the specialist. It makes sense to me if you have your power innately you are going to be really good at a few things and if you study arcane theory you will be generally good at everything but never as good at that one thing as the prodigy who can just do it naturally. So if I were to design the wizard:

1) largest spell list
2) full caster
3) focus on rituals even above 5th level
4) generalist subclasses exclusively
For this I am talking things like bladesinger, war wizard, ritualist(see point 3), maybe a subclass focused on identifying and counterspelling magic

For sorcerer the dragon bloodline would be your evokers. The fey bloodline would represent your beguilers, the shadow touched your necromancer etc.

[Dienekes]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The 5e Paladin really isn't that much different from the 3e Paladin. Plus, the Bard in 3e was a pretty weak class. They had terrible weapon choices, only a 3/4 BAB progression, and their spell selection was laughable. Honestly, the only justification for playing a Bard in 3e was in the party was large enough that all the roles were already filled and you could afford to have one person who pretty much didn't do anything but give the whole party a few rounds of a decent buff per combat.

^That's all just my opinion, though.

Eh. If you go dumpster diving through enough splatbooks you can make Bards comparatively powerful to any of the specialist casters. Which is in my opinion the sweet spot of power in the game.

But it required a fair few books and more than a little system mastery. Which I’m glad 5e cuts down on, a lot. But it was there.

[OldTrees1]

It is okay to have a generic mage class, but I see no reason for a Necromancer and a Diviner to share the same base class. A Necromancer class might have features about creating and managing a menagerie of undead and exercising their power of death to protect their own mortality. In contrast a Diviner might have features about a growing omnipresence which they use to get contacts as another source feeding into their growing omniscience. In some ways the Necromancer is closer to a Druid and the Diviner is closer to a Bard than they are to each other.

Although I would also argue that many mage classes would have better theming and mechanical texture if they had more class features and slower spell progression. You could have the archmage that gets to 9th levels spells, or the specialist that has 6th level spells but features that compensate. For example a Diviner might not be able to cast Foresight (1st 9th level diviner spell I could think of) but their omnipresence and omniscience features could have grown strong enough to compensate for their spellcasting ending at Legend Lore, Contact other Plane, and True Seeing.

[Nagog]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?


I have never seen that argument before, but the role and identity of the Wizard is heavily dependent on the subclass and spells they choose. I played a Theurgy Wizard that was built around summons, healing, and buffing my allies, I've seen plenty of Blaster Wizards using War Wizard, Evocation Wizard, and the like, I've even seen some Abjuration Wizards playing as front line tanks. Bladesinger is decent as a skirmisher (with sufficient feat investment), and many subclasses lend well to being Utility Casters. The base class doesn't seem to have a determined role because the base class was built to be malleable to whatever you wanted to do with it.




Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).

So are you implying with this last point that player races are inherently un-magical? Because that's really what it feels like. I like the flavor and concept of Wizardry because it shows that anybody can have great power if they work hard at it. All the other spellcasting classes are dependent on being born with it, or borrowing it from somewhere/someone else, or whatever the heck Bards to to make their music magical. Cutting down Wizards to half casters I feel kills a lot of that flavor and incentive for regular commoners to pursue magical power. It'd be like saying "Hey you can make $20k a year right out of high school, or you can go to college for 10 years for a PhD in whatever field you like, get ~$70k in debt, and once all that's done you can make $25k a year!". It simply wouldn't ever be worth the effort.

If there was a class I'd adjust in that way, I'd go with Sorcerer. Make them half casters, overhaul Metamagic, and give them Sorcerery Points refresh on a Short Rest, and boom there you go. They can do really cool and unique things with their magic, but their magic isn't just a really watered down copy/paste of Wizard anymore.

[MrStabby]

I think the biggest problem with the wizard is they tried to make them the generalist and the specialist. Make the wizard the generalist and make the sorcerer the specialist. It makes sense to me if you have your power innately you are going to be really good at a few things and if you study arcane theory you will be generally good at everything but never as good at that one thing as the prodigy who can just do it naturally. So if I were to design the wizard:

1) largest spell list
2) full caster
3) focus on rituals even above 5th level
4) generalist subclasses exclusively
For this I am talking things like bladesinger, war wizard, ritualist(see point 3), maybe a subclass focused on identifying and counterspelling magic

For sorcerer the dragon bloodline would be your evokers. The fey bloodline would represent your beguilers, the shadow touched your necromancer etc.

SO my experience differs. I thing of two friends. One is a mathematician - his specialism is a particular branch of combinatorics. His skill is the product of years of study. Now he is able to do the basics with differential equations, groups, measures, sheafs, harmonic analysis and whatever but his capabilities fall off very sharply outside of his field. Study only tells you about what you have studied. I would say this is like wizard

I also have a friend who is a keen athlete. He trains hard. Yes his specialism is long distance running but the more he excercises, the better he gets at short distance, hurdles, rowing and anything else he turns his hand to. His strength comes from within and comes from use rather than conscious study. Just by increasing general fitness he becomes better at everthing he does. I see this as more like the sorcerer.

[CheddarChampion]

I think the Wizard is too often used as a stand-in for "Mage," which itself isn't very flavorful or descriptive. Every other class that has magic powers gets a description for how they got their powers and/or how they use them. As Mages, Wizards get "I learned magic."

The solution to having little-to-no flavor is adding flavor.

#1 Purely expanding on what little flavor there is, a wizard needs to train their mind to understand how spellcasting works and needs to practice spellcasting to get better at it.

This suggests that a wizard needs to study, practice, and train in magic in the same way that a fighter would need to study, practice, and train in martial combat. Their powers are the result of work: maybe they look down on other spellcasters, maybe they envy them.

#2 The Wizard also needs at least one teacher as an initial source for their learning - you can't learn arcane scribbling just by looking at it. That teacher needs a teacher, their teacher also needs a teacher, and so on until you get to a point where a magic creature or different type of spellcaster instructed a mortal. Their knowledge needs to have a source.

A wizard should be taught to trace the lineage of masters and students so they understand the sources of their knowledge. They should also have a group of wizards who they can exchange knowledge with.

#3 Writings are the things a wizard could learn from: spell books and spell scrolls. A wizard might also learn from experimentation, but this would be dangerous and should be rare: you don't want to accidentally cast fireball or feeblemind on yourself!

Without a master, colleagues, writings, or experimentation, a Wizard's ability to learn spells and arcana would be stunted.

[Alaize-chan]

Alright regarding what is the wizard's role I'd say that they're pretty much the master of arcane magic, they can and will get every spell on their spellbooks with enough time and can customize it's repertoire each day to be capable of dealing with any problem.

As for why they're better than druid, warlock and cleric... "better" is rather ambiguous you know, those classes has amazing features that the wizard lack, but is true that when it comes to sheer spells the wizard is hands down the best.

Why? Well, as you said both cleric and warlock get their magic from their link with a deity/powerful entity, the same can be said about the druid and nature so.... Think about it in this way: those classes are like kids asking their respective patrons some candies and if they do their homework and such they get a reward but not the whole can of candies, the wizard in other hands isn't asking anyone, they just take as much candies as they want, they know how to get to the can and don't care about rules, well they do care but understand them and work their way around them.

The same can be said about bards too.

[Anymage]

Reading all this, I wonder if the wizard as we know him even should exist. By that I mean a preparation based spellcaster (who can swap around his spell list each day as circumstances demand) while also having a huge and powerful spell list. It made sense back in the day when wizards were your catch-all magic men, but when we have other options it's hard for them to compete with that sort of breadth and versatility.

If anything, I'd base more casters off the warlock. A small handful of at will effects that are worth the action to use. A few more options that can be applied a few times per encounter. You limit the nova potential (since otherwise there's always the temptation to nova hard and then call it a day after five minutes), and more importantly having a smaller and more fixed set of powers makes it easier for the DM to plan around what the PCs can and can't do. "Wizards" would then be what tomelocks are now, with their main focus being a mastery of ritual magic.

[Segev]

It would explode the number of classes and spellcasting classes, but if you wanted to make "more focused" wizards, you'd take what are now their subclasses and make them full classes. No more do you have "wizards." Instead, you have "necromancers" and "enchantresses" and "soothsayers" and "pyromancers." The subclasses would do things like decide if you focus on making everybody love you or on creating magic items or on curses, or on minions or on controlling life force, or on reading people's minds or futures or seeing far places.

I am not saying this would be good for 5e, but that's how you'd go about making a "more focused" wizard class.

Wizards don't lack flavor. They're scholar-mages. The modern-day-setting story equivalent is "the nerd" or "the scientist." Note how nerds and scientists in fiction tend to be omnidisiplinary and know how to make sci-fi gadgets or to solve problems with SCIENCE! that narratively fills the same role as spellcasting. In more adventure-oriented stories, the nerd-scientist-gizmo-guy actually is VERY Vancian: he prepares his gadgest before going out for the day, and they have limited uses/ammo. When he's out of the stone-wall-dissolving fluid-filled bottles, he can't make any more holes in stone walls that way, even if he still can drop speakers that will let him make it sound like his voice is coming from over there.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is literally just the 3/3.5 Bard. They had half casting progression but got to buff the party using songs as their inspiration. Honestly, the worst thing that 5e did to the Bard was take away the buffing songs. 13th Age kept them. Yay! :smallbiggrin:

It is okay to have a generic mage class, but I see no reason for a Necromancer and a Diviner to share the same base class. I think a Diviner ought to be a clerical or druidical sub class, and maybe a Warlock Pact Boon

Reading all this, I wonder if the wizard as we know him even should exist. The Wizard belongs. The other arcane casters? Not so much - they are a subset of Wizard, at root... the caster of Arcane Magic.
(I've seen some fair arguments for Bards as half casters that I generally agree with - mind you, I love my Lore Bard).

If we could get the Ranger to be rescrubbed into a Fighter Sub class that would probably be fine too. :smallyuk: But I am not going to bet the rent money on that one.

[MrStabby]

Reading all this, I wonder if the wizard as we know him even should exist. By that I mean a preparation based spellcaster (who can swap around his spell list each day as circumstances demand) while also having a huge and powerful spell list. It made sense back in the day when wizards were your catch-all magic men, but when we have other options it's hard for them to compete with that sort of breadth and versatility.



Probably not. But now I think people are too attached to the class. It is probably easier to bend it to make it work than to untangle every angry person that would get worked up over the omision of the Wizard.

[Dienekes]

Wizards don't lack flavor. They're scholar-mages. The modern-day-setting story equivalent is "the nerd" or "the scientist." Note how nerds and scientists in fiction tend to be omnidisiplinary and know how to make sci-fi gadgets or to solve problems with SCIENCE! that narratively fills the same role as spellcasting. In more adventure-oriented stories, the nerd-scientist-gizmo-guy actually is VERY Vancian: he prepares his gadgest before going out for the day, and they have limited uses/ammo. When he's out of the stone-wall-dissolving fluid-filled bottles, he can't make any more holes in stone walls that way, even if he still can drop speakers that will let him make it sound like his voice is coming from over there.

I agree. But I think the question remains how can we make the mechanics of the Wizard emphasize the scholarly nerd/scientist nature of the wizard more. Because as is, I think it’s pretty lacking. Or do you think the mechanics as is are enough?

[Sorinth]

Reading all this, I wonder if the wizard as we know him even should exist. By that I mean a preparation based spellcaster (who can swap around his spell list each day as circumstances demand) while also having a huge and powerful spell list. It made sense back in the day when wizards were your catch-all magic men, but when we have other options it's hard for them to compete with that sort of breadth and versatility.

If anything, I'd base more casters off the warlock. A small handful of at will effects that are worth the action to use. A few more options that can be applied a few times per encounter. You limit the nova potential (since otherwise there's always the temptation to nova hard and then call it a day after five minutes), and more importantly having a smaller and more fixed set of powers makes it easier for the DM to plan around what the PCs can and can't do. "Wizards" would then be what tomelocks are now, with their main focus being a mastery of ritual magic.

There's for sure still a place for the arcane spellcaster with a large spell list that has to prepare the spells they think they'll need. But yes most full casters should move towards the Warlock where they have a very limited number of spell slots and therefore have to be conservative with when they use their spells. This limited number of spell slots is then offset differently depending on the class to give the right feel to each class.

Warlocks have invocations and the spell casting ones that aren't at will would be improved so that they don't burn a slot.
Wizards get an expanded ritual casting making most if not all wizard spells ritual spells.
Sorcerors I'd have them be able to use Hit Dice to refresh sorcery points during a short rest. And maybe make them a CON caster instead of CHA.

Bards I'd actually prefer the base class to be a non-caster, but have some subclasses that are half/full casters and others that aren't. There would be an expanded Inspiration usage to rebalance things.

But I haven't come up with ideas for how to differentiate Druids/Clerics. I'd still want them to have limited number of spell slots, but not sure how to offset that with new/expanded features. Presumably Channel Divinity and Wildshape would be the main ways to differentiate things but haven't come up with any details yet.

[OldTrees1]

I agree. But I think the question remains how can we make the mechanics of the Wizard emphasize the scholarly nerd/scientist nature of the wizard more. Because as is, I think it’s pretty lacking. Or do you think the mechanics as is are enough?

More subclass features and and more significant subclass features. Scientists dive deep into their subject. This might require nerfing the spellcasting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree. But I think the question remains how can we make the mechanics of the Wizard emphasize the scholarly nerd/scientist nature of the wizard more. Why ask for so narrow of a scope? That seems to be heading in the wrong direction, to me.
More subclass features and and more significant subclass features. Scientists dive deep into their subject. This might require nerfing the spellcasting. Wizards are, as played, adventurers in D&D 5e. That means that they go out and try to apply their arcane knowledge, not sit around in the lab trying to verify by the experimental method ... except during downtime between adventures. That's 5e.

Narratively and in a variety of fiction we see wizards do a great deal of experimenting and such, but in D&D 5e the wizard is, explicitly, An Adventurer. So are all of the classes.

The wizard you are referring to is an NPC, not a PC.

In previous editions, and very much in the Original and in AD&D 1e, once reaching name level, Wizard, one's Magic User was able to create no end of magical items (with a chance for failure built into each attempt, and a steep cost) that would enter The Campaign.

D&D 5e isn't a campaign game in the same sense. It is structured differently than that, although I have been able to recreate (somewhat) the feel of a campaign in one of my groups.

As to the half caster point that was raised earlier, that question's been answered a while back: 5e's take on the Artificer class. Crafter and half caster. While I don't care for it, it seems to work and it's quite popular. That niche, the scientist/magician fusion, has been filled well enough.

[MrStabby]

Why ask for so narrow of a scope? That seems to be heading in the wrong direction, to me. Wizards are, as played, adventurers in D&D 5e. That means that they go out and try to apply their arcane knowledge, not sit around in the lab trying to verify by the experimental method ... except during downtime between adventures. That's 5e.

Narratively and in a variety of fiction we see wizards do a great deal of experimenting and such, but in D&D 5e the wizard is, explicitly, An Adventurer. So are all of the classes.

The wizard you are referring to is an NPC, not a PC.

Yeah, the adventurer-wizard is more an applied arcane-engineer than an arcane-scientist.

[Dienekes]

Why ask for so narrow of a scope? That seems to be heading in the wrong direction, to me. Wizards are, as played, adventurers in D&D 5e. That means that they go out and try to apply their arcane knowledge, not sit around in the lab trying to verify by the experimental method ... except during downtime between adventures. That's 5e.

Narratively and in a variety of fiction we see wizards do a great deal of experimenting and such, but in D&D 5e the wizard is, explicitly, An Adventurer. So are all of the classes.

The wizard you are referring to is an NPC, not a PC.

Because trying to implement mechanical distinctiveness is in my experience best accomplished through analyzing the desired flavor and trying to implement it. Otherwise you tend to get a pretty generic soup of mechanics where the difference between the Wizard, Sorcerer, and even Warlocks appear mostly random rather than trying to get them to fit their fluff. I still don't see why Warlock got the Short Rest mechanic. Does the Creeping Entities they sold their soul to for power get tired? Shouldn't that be a Sorcerer thing, since the energy to cast their spells is coming from within them?

And for the record nerds can be adventurers. I mean look up a lot of the good adventure movies there's often the scholarly type who may be a bit in over their head when it comes to the action hero-ing, but pull their weight in the adventure because of their study. From Henry Jones Sr. in Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade to Evelyn Carnahan in the Mummy and even the priest Vito Cornelius in Fifth Element.

I don't see the problem there. And it would allow us the class to feel more distinct. If it can be done anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, the adventurer-wizard is more an applied arcane-engineer than an arcane-scientist. I was going to say that, but I didn't, so I thank you for completing that thought for me. :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

Why ask for so narrow of a scope? That seems to be heading in the wrong direction, to me. Wizards are, as played, adventurers in D&D 5e. That means that they go out and try to apply their arcane knowledge, not sit around in the lab trying to verify by the experimental method ... except during downtime between adventures. That's 5e.

Narratively and in a variety of fiction we see wizards do a great deal of experimenting and such, but in D&D 5e the wizard is, explicitly, An Adventurer. So are all of the classes.

The wizard you are referring to is an NPC, not a PC.

Even Engineers dig deep into their field (please don't ask me to design a building). So I would expect an Arcane-Engineer in the field of Necromancy to have little in common with an Arcane-Engineer in the field of Divination. These are Adventurers, but if you are highlighting the specialization of field, then you might consider highlighting the field specific features. If you want to highlight the field specific features, then I suggest having more of them and make them more significant (rebalancing as you do so).

[KorvinStarmast]

Even Engineers dig deep into their field (please don't ask me to design a building). So I would expect an Arcane-Engineer in the field of Necromancy to have little in common with an Arcane-Engineer in the field of Divination. These are Adventurers, but if you are highlighting the specialization of field, then you might consider highlighting the field specific features. If you want to highlight the field specific features, then I suggest having more of them and make them more significant (rebalancing as you do so). Thanks for sharing your thoughts, you certainly being some good stuff to the table.

The OP asserts that something is broken and needs fixing, and I utterly disagree.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, you certainly being some good stuff to the table.

The OP asserts that something is broken and needs fixing, and I utterly disagree.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

The generic mage class is a useful tool. I would like classes that dive more into field specialization, but I would not want to lose the generic mage class.

[Waazraath]

But I haven't come up with ideas for how to differentiate Druids/Clerics. I'd still want them to have limited number of spell slots, but not sure how to offset that with new/expanded features. Presumably Channel Divinity and Wildshape would be the main ways to differentiate things but haven't come up with any details yet.

Here's my take on that from another thread which touches the same subject:

Moving forward from this line of thought: shouldn't any 5.5/6e just take more inspiration from Advanced D&D? How it was: you had 'clerics', and druid being a variant of cleric. All spells are divided up into over a dozen 'spheres', clerics have access to all of them, while druids only to animal, elemental, healing, plant and whether spells, and in addition they got other stuff that fits the flavor. In the subclass system, that would work perfect: you'd have a main cleric with a very limited number of 'spheres', and every subclass (including druid) would get additional ones that fits the theme of the domain, deity or whatever, including a number of flavourful non-spell abilities. That would make much clerics a much more divers (and flavorful) bunch.

Same could be done with wizards of course. Keep the 8 schools, have subclasses like mage (beguiler), mage (warmage), mage (necromancer), or wizard (light), wizard (grey) and wizard (black) from Dragonlance (I think), or hell, even use the 5 mana-sources from magic as a point of reference. Maybe even a generalist mage (wizard) who can know all spells but at the exclusion of most other features.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625908-What-Classes-Would-You-Trade-Out-in-5-5-6e/page7

(last part of my post also shows what the wizard should be imo)

[Sandeman]

Only Wizards and Artificers have Int as the primary ability. Int is rather useless for everyone else.
This means that the Wizard is usually the brains of the party.
Need to investigate and draw conclusions to solve a problem? The Wizard can handle it.
And they of course have a lot of spells that can support problem solving as well.

[Valmark]

The wizard can swap his spell selection around to fit the problem at hand, while mundane characters find their skill selections a lot more locked in. Your rogue doesn't get to swap his skill and expertise picks of Stealth and Perception for Persuasion and Insight just because you expect to do some heavy politicking tomorrow.

On top of that, the daily resource question quickly becomes moot in actual play. Sure, in theory the rogue can keep sneaking all day long and the fighter can keep swinging all day long while the wizard might run out of gas. In practice whenever a spellcaster starts run low that's the party's cue to fall back and rest up for the day.

Yes and no. They can do so after a long rest- in practice unless you know of the issue in advance or it's something that can be postponed you'll need to be already ready for it (this without considering that wizards don't get access to their whole list like other casters do unless DMs want to).

The second part is probably a matter of experiences- I've yet to see a game where the party stops and rests just because the casters are running on fumes unless they're already done for the day (in which case they'd stop regardless).

[heavyfuel]

The problem isn't the Wizard. The problem is spells.

Wizards would be completely unplayable as half-casters unless they got something else to make up for the other half. They are already extremelly starved for spell-slot in 5e, so if you find that Wizards have too many spells, it's your fault as DM for not making the adventure day last long enough. Cutting these few slots in half would be troublesome for a class that has no backup.

If you wish to nerf Wizard, do it right by nerfing problematic spells (and buffing useless spells like Flame Arrows and Witch Bolt so that not every wizard ends up with the exact same spell selection).

As a matter of fact, if you nerfed the right spells (starting with stuff that is "just" really good for their level like Shield and Absorb Elements, and going all the way to completely broken like Magic Jar and Simulacrum) you could easily give Wizards MORE spell slots and still end up with a net-nerf.


On top of that, the daily resource question quickly becomes moot in actual play. Sure, in theory the rogue can keep sneaking all day long and the fighter can keep swinging all day long while the wizard might run out of gas. In practice whenever a spellcaster starts run low that's the party's cue to fall back and rest up for the day.

Not only that, but since litereally every character in the games at least one Long Rest resource - HP - it usually means that by the time the Wizard is running out of gas, the Fighter and the Rogue probably aren't in tip-top shape either.


I think this is kind of asking the wrong question.

Not every member of the same class should have the same party role. One Fighter might be a heavy controller tank, another might be a (relatively) fragile ranged damage dealer. Likewise, different Wizards can and should have different party roles.

5e doesn't have Trinity-style classes, and I think that's a good thing.

Ugh... Couldn't agree more. If there's one thing I absolutely despise in D&D when people automatically associate class with role or personality. Every Rogue is stealthy, every Cleric is a healer, every Bard is horny, every Paladin is pious.

Screw that!

[KorvinStarmast]

Every Rogue is stealthy, every Cleric is a healer, every Bard is horny, every Paladin is pious. Horny Paladins are somewhat legendary at our tables ... :smallcool:

[heavyfuel]

Horny Paladins are somewhat legendary at our tables ... :smallcool:

As they damn well should be! :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

I agree. But I think the question remains how can we make the mechanics of the Wizard emphasize the scholarly nerd/scientist nature of the wizard more. Because as is, I think it’s pretty lacking. Or do you think the mechanics as is are enough?

I think it's as well-done as you're goign to get in the current metagame/paradigm. Like I said, "the nerd" in a modern/post-apocalyptic story of adventure looks an awful lot like the wizard does: he keeps notes on the things they face, researches and develops gizmos, and gears himself up with sci-fi or steampunk items for the adventure portion.

There's not a lot for "the nerd" to do that isn't handled by simply having the right skills, in terms of knowing/researching things. We'd need entire subsystems for pillars of the game that may not even properly be sought, let alone supported, to really get "I am the smart scholar and have mechanics that create a rich gaming experience from digging up obscure information."

[Nagog]

It is okay to have a generic mage class, but I see no reason for a Necromancer and a Diviner to share the same base class. A Necromancer class might have features about creating and managing a menagerie of undead and exercising their power of death to protect their own mortality. In contrast a Diviner might have features about a growing omnipresence which they use to get contacts as another source feeding into their growing omniscience. In some ways the Necromancer is closer to a Druid and the Diviner is closer to a Bard than they are to each other.


While I agree about the differences between these two (Imo Battle Smith Artificer is a better Necromancer than Necromancy Wizard, if you reflavor constructs as undead), I think that a class having two very opposing flavors in their subclasses is not only common, it's expected at this point. For example, Inquisitive and Arcane Trickster rogues. One is all around seeing through illusions, finding things, and RP, and the other is all about creating illusions, enchanting people, and generally tricking people, in and out of combat. Another great example that needs no explanation is the Life and Death domains for Cleric. Particularly in a class with as much free reign in character creation as the Wizard, having a wide berth of subclasses and playstyles is necessary.



Although I would also argue that many mage classes would have better theming and mechanical texture if they had more class features and slower spell progression. You could have the archmage that gets to 9th levels spells, or the specialist that has 6th level spells but features that compensate. For example a Diviner might not be able to cast Foresight (1st 9th level diviner spell I could think of) but their omnipresence and omniscience features could have grown strong enough to compensate for their spellcasting ending at Legend Lore, Contact other Plane, and True Seeing.

The problem with reliance on class features is that it opens the door to a lot more loopholes and game-breaking combinations. Having a tried and true system like Spellcasting that's both highly adjustable and expressive helps keep the system free of messes like that. Heck, even Pact Magic has a lot of huge loopholes when combined with other class abilities, stuff like the Coffeelock comes crawling out of the woodworks.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd be interested in AL play if they had a category for "the only arcane (full caster) class allowed is a Warlock; no Hexblades" - but they won't do that. :smallyuk:

[noob]

Horny Paladins are somewhat legendary at our tables ... :smallcool:

Legendary in what?
Do they all die as martyrs or something?

[KorvinStarmast]

Legendary in what?
Do they all die as martyrs or something?
The obvious answer to that snark is "no" - would you care to ask me a question with a little more effort put into it?
Or, were you going for a laugh?
(If the latter, no worries, a lot of posts (including a fair number of mine) fall into that category).

Back to "in-game" issues, I will suggest you take a longer look at the description of the Oath of the Ancients paladin in the PHB. Role playing wise, there's a whole lot of romance running around inside that oath. A lot of folks IME still play Charisma scores as a combination of good looks and sex appeal.

[OldTrees1]

While I agree about the differences between these two (Imo Battle Smith Artificer is a better Necromancer than Necromancy Wizard, if you reflavor constructs as undead), I think that a class having two very opposing flavors in their subclasses is not only common, it's expected at this point. For example, Inquisitive and Arcane Trickster rogues. One is all around seeing through illusions, finding things, and RP, and the other is all about creating illusions, enchanting people, and generally tricking people, in and out of combat. Another great example that needs no explanation is the Life and Death domains for Cleric. Particularly in a class with as much free reign in character creation as the Wizard, having a wide berth of subclasses and playstyles is necessary.

I wasn't talking about opposing flavors. I was talking about mechanics. Imagine a class with subclasses so mechanically distinct that a large number of the levels were devoted to subclass features. At what percent should we consider placing the subclasses onto different base classes (or have them become base classes). I kinda want to see specialist mages that have enough feature density related to their specialization to warrant moving them off of the generic mage class chassis.

I will have to look into Battle Smith Artificer. I fear it might not represent the qualitative aspects of the undead (say a Ghoul?).*
*Also 5E does not support nor handle the kind of minionmancy I want from a Necromancer, so I don't ask it to succeed on that. Although it would be nice to have a Necromancer play a 4X campaign while doing traditional adventuring with a Rogue who is running a global information network on the side and similar characters.

[Edea]

What Should The Wizard Be?

The Wizard should be balanced with the other classes in the game.

It's not.

Probably the closest D&D's ever been to said balance is 4e, and we all know how that went over.

[Theodoxus]

The Wizard should be balanced with the other classes in the game.

It's not.

Probably the closest D&D's ever been to said balance is 4e, and we all know how that went over.

To be fair, it wasn't "balance" that people were mad at. Now, can you create a game as fairly balanced as 4th Ed was, and still have every class have unique mechanics for abilities? I'm not a game designer, so I don't know - but I'm sure we could get a lot closer than 5E.

I will forever be sad that WotC mistook the actual issues people had with 4E and worked hard to bury them in the mechanics of 5E so it wasn't obvious, or chuck them completely so gamers wouldn't flame them with mean tweets.

I'm really grooving on the idea of making the Sorcerer the specialized class via bloodlines as was suggested up thread. They'd need some rework, especially if the mechanical abilities of the Wizard schools were ported over and subsumed. But I think Wizard loving folk would be sad if they were suddenly relegated with 3 or 4 subclasses; Bladesinger, War Magic, something something... where they get "cool things" to enhance their spells in a generic fashion (Heck, I could see 3.x style Metamagic come into play, using Proficiency Bonus/Long Rest or some such instead of Sorcery Points.

[Segev]

To be fair, it wasn't "balance" that people were mad at. Now, can you create a game as fairly balanced as 4th Ed was, and still have every class have unique mechanics for abilities? I'm not a game designer, so I don't know - but I'm sure we could get a lot closer than 5E.

I will forever be sad that WotC mistook the actual issues people had with 4E and worked hard to bury them in the mechanics of 5E so it wasn't obvious, or chuck them completely so gamers wouldn't flame them with mean tweets.

I'm really grooving on the idea of making the Sorcerer the specialized class via bloodlines as was suggested up thread. They'd need some rework, especially if the mechanical abilities of the Wizard schools were ported over and subsumed. But I think Wizard loving folk would be sad if they were suddenly relegated with 3 or 4 subclasses; Bladesinger, War Magic, something something... where they get "cool things" to enhance their spells in a generic fashion (Heck, I could see 3.x style Metamagic come into play, using Proficiency Bonus/Long Rest or some such instead of Sorcery Points.

Sorcerer and Wizard don't actually cross over thematically all that well because of the "natural talent" vs. "learned study" divide. Making all "specialist mages" into sorcerers means that nobody studies necromancy or illusion; the only people focused on those are those born with natural talents for those magics.

[jas61292]

Sorcerer and Wizard don't actually cross over thematically all that well because of the "natural talent" vs. "learned study" divide. Making all "specialist mages" into sorcerers means that nobody studies necromancy or illusion; the only people focused on those are those born with natural talents for those magics.

Personally, I think it is a mistake to separate classes by "natural" vs "learned" in the first place. Why should that have any effect on how you use your magic? Its entirely a flavor thing, and I personally think, for instance, having a dragon grandfather is no better a reason for being a dragon sorcerer than having a dragon be your tutor. If you want a separate design space for "academic" magic, then I think that is best suited as a subclass to a more general magic class, rather than an entire class in and of itself.

I do agree that it would not be a good idea to make all "natural" mages specialists and all "learned" mages generalists. But I think this is because such an idea gets the design backwards. There should not be "natural" and "learned" classes, but rather "specialist" and "generalist" classes, with "natural" and "learned" origins being subclasses of each.

[Witty Username]

I don't see generic as a problem, then again about half of the characters I make are wizards so I may be the wrong person to ask.
That and wizard is probably the most flexible casting class in the game in terms of party role and concept, virtually all of them have a school or tradition that will cooperate with it. The only requirements are patience for study and will to use, your a wizard. All the other classes have weird baggage that narrows character options.

[MrStabby]

I don't see generic as a problem, then again about half of the characters I make are wizards so I may be the wrong person to ask.
That and wizard is probably the most flexible casting class in the game in terms of party role and concept, virtually all of them have a school or tradition that will cooperate with it. The only requirements are patience for study and will to use, your a wizard. All the other classes have weird baggage that narrows character options.

I think "generic" is a problem, but only because spells are so powerful.

We currently have a system where if you want to be the best at some role, you just take the spell that does it best. If the core spells were less good and needed feat support or more class features to be as good as they are then a class having broad access to most of the best spells wouldnt be an issue.

As it is, a wizard can casually pick up something like hypnotic pattern, write it into their spell book pick it out and prepare it on a whim for a day and be just as good at it as a bard or sorcerer who use it as a more central of their character and who have a narrower more focussed engagement with exactly that type of spell.

I would be less unhappy with there being a generalist in the game if they were actually less good at casting a given spell than a specialist in that area.

One of the things I think 3rd edition did that I liked was that the same spell could be different levels for different classes which captured this very well. If fireball was a 4th level spell for a wizard but a 3rd level spell for a red dragon sorcerer or light cleric then I would be ok with it.

[Theodoxus]

Sorcerer and Wizard don't actually cross over thematically all that well because of the "natural talent" vs. "learned study" divide. Making all "specialist mages" into sorcerers means that nobody studies necromancy or illusion; the only people focused on those are those born with natural talents for those magics.


Personally, I think it is a mistake to separate classes by "natural" vs "learned" in the first place. Why should that have any effect on how you use your magic? Its entirely a flavor thing, and I personally think, for instance, having a dragon grandfather is no better a reason for being a dragon sorcerer than having a dragon be your tutor. If you want a separate design space for "academic" magic, then I think that is best suited as a subclass to a more general magic class, rather than an entire class in and of itself.

I do agree that it would not be a good idea to make all "natural" mages specialists and all "learned" mages generalists. But I think this is because such an idea gets the design backwards. There should not be "natural" and "learned" classes, but rather "specialist" and "generalist" classes, with "natural" and "learned" origins being subclasses of each.

I can see that.

Full disclosure, my current incarnation of house rules has "Wizardry" as a level 1 feat (I give feats every odd level, using Kane0's feat rework as a jumping off point, so they are vastly expanded). Wizard doesn't otherwise exist as a class, but any full caster (and Warlock) can take the feat, becoming a full Vancian caster, with expanded spell slots, but requiring the memorization of spells into those slots.

So I was subconsciously using my own ruleset when I was thinking of this. The feat basically does what Jas is suggesting - turning any 'natural' casting class into a 'learned' casting class. Some folks balk at the full Vancian take, but I find it underscores the rote nature of Wizardry well.

[MrStabby]

I can see that.

Full disclosure, my current incarnation of house rules has "Wizardry" as a level 1 feat (I give feats every odd level, using Kane0's feat rework as a jumping off point, so they are vastly expanded). Wizard doesn't otherwise exist as a class, but any full caster (and Warlock) can take the feat, becoming a full Vancian caster, with expanded spell slots, but requiring the memorization of spells into those slots.

So I was subconsciously using my own ruleset when I was thinking of this. The feat basically does what Jas is suggesting - turning any 'natural' casting class into a 'learned' casting class. Some folks balk at the full Vancian take, but I find it underscores the rote nature of Wizardry well.

For what its worth I have a game with full Vancian wizard rules as well but I let the wizard spontaniously cast spells from their school. It isn't quite perfect, but it gets the job does and captures the nature of the wizard prety well.

[MoiMagnus]

I agree. But I think the question remains how can we make the mechanics of the Wizard emphasize the scholarly nerd/scientist nature of the wizard more. Because as is, I think it’s pretty lacking. Or do you think the mechanics as is are enough?

Wizard
(1) Is the only core class exclusively focussed on Intelligence, meaning they frequently have more knowledgable about religion than the cleric, or more knowledgable about nature than the druid.
(2) Is the only class that have books as part of its class identity.
(3) Is the only class that can actively learn from other peoples of the same class (copying their spellbook).
(4) Has ton of high level spells exclusive to him, which are a bunch of weird oddities.
(5) Has access to "meta-spells" like counterspell or dispel magic.
(6) Has subclasses that offer unique upgrades to spells of the associated schools. Even better those subclasses are called "traditions", which implicitly assume that those effects are the results of generations of knowledge and improvement passed on.

I will agree that Arcane Recovery is kind of lame, and could be replaced by a much more thematic ability.
In-universe, the things which is missing to this class is spell creation, but that's horrible to balance as a class ability.

If you get rid of the Sorcerer class (which is IMO much more lacking than the Wizard class), you can give metamagic to the wizard instead of Arcane Recovery and probably few other features.

[Dienekes]

I wasn't talking about opposing flavors. I was talking about mechanics. Imagine a class with subclasses so mechanically distinct that a large number of the levels were devoted to subclass features. At what percent should we consider placing the subclasses onto different base classes (or have them become base classes). I kinda want to see specialist mages that have enough feature density related to their specialization to warrant moving them off of the generic mage class chassis.

I will have to look into Battle Smith Artificer. I fear it might not represent the qualitative aspects of the undead (say a Ghoul?).*
*Also 5E does not support nor handle the kind of minionmancy I want from a Necromancer, so I don't ask it to succeed on that. Although it would be nice to have a Necromancer play a 4X campaign while doing traditional adventuring with a Rogue who is running a global information network on the side and similar characters.

Personally I think the answer is: when the core keystone mechanic changes to the point they no longer function together.

What I mean by that is, many classes have a unique feature that determines how the classes mechanics are bound together. Barbarians have Rage. A feature that gives an encounter length boost to combat effectiveness. So any concept that does not rely on such a boost really does not have a place as a Barbarian subclass. While some subclasses that add such boosts to classes that otherwise don’t use them *Rune Knight* usually bring up the question “Why isn’t this a Barbarian?”

Which isn’t to say there can’t be any reason for it. But there should be some explanation and the question will likely continue to be asked.

Fighter on the other hand doesn’t really have one. Which makes it a -passable- blank slate to apply new mechanics to. All you really have to worry about is Extra Attack which doesn’t even come online until 11. Action Surge is a useful feature but hardly what the class is built around.

Which brings me to the Wizard and our Enchanter/Necromancer/Abjurer/etc.

It’s only feature is spellcasting. And it’s a hell of a feature. But that’s it. Arcane Recovery barely counts as a feature distinct from spellcasting.

So the question becomes, is the concept of a Necromancer or whatever capable of being completely and satisfactorily encompassed while being saddled to the Wizard’s spellcasting? Personally, I’d say yes. I haven’t seen any specific mechanic designed for Necromancy that can’t be fit with a Wizard’s spellcasting, and I’ve seen a couple that relied on trading Wizard spell slots for creating more minions than their Concentration would normally allow in various homebrews that looked like they would function quite well.

Then the second question gets dropped with: can it be done in a satisfactory way that would be balanced with the other classes? Personally, I’d say no. But part of that is because minion-mancy in general is very powerful this edition. And while spellcasting is less effective than it was in some earlier editions it is still very powerful. And it is hard to think of a way to get the player with an army as their action economy to be balanced with a anything a Rogue or Barbarian or Fighter could possibly do.

But if say we’re making a 6e and can start from scratch, I don’t see a reason why they couldn’t make Wizard Necromancers get an army of expendable weak minions at level 11 the balance point that the other classes have to get built around. But that is not 5e.

[OldTrees1]

Personally I think the answer is: when the core keystone mechanic changes to the point they no longer function together.

That is a interesting perspective and I am glad you elaborated on what you meant to cover certain ambiguities.

It kind of sounds like you are saying when the signature feature of a class/subclass combo is in the subclasses, then maybe they should be separated.

Of the generic classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) they each have a core feature (Spellcasting, Extra Attack x3-4, Expertise/Cunning Action/Reliable Talent/maybe Sneak Attack, Spellcasting). Although you can see they vary in the size of the core feature.

So why isn't Barbarian a subclass of Fighter? It could be, but you see the core of Barbarian as the range. So if it was a Fighter subclass then the core feature would be a subclass feature.

Is spellcasting a Necromancer's core feature? Depends (3E's Dread Necromancer for example pushed that boundary). Spellcasting is definitely a feature necromancers have.


So the question becomes, is the concept of a Necromancer or whatever capable of being completely and satisfactorily encompassed while being saddled to the Wizard’s spellcasting? Personally, I’d say yes. I haven’t seen any specific mechanic designed for Necromancy that can’t be fit with a Wizard’s spellcasting, and I’ve seen a couple that relied on trading Wizard spell slots for creating more minions than their Concentration would normally allow in various homebrews that looked like they would function quite well.

In 5E I would have said no. Given the lower feature density of 5E, Wizard spellcasting costs too many character building resources for the Necromancer concept. However you raise some good examples (like trading slots) to look into. At some point those traded slots might be easier to handle with reduced spellcasting and more features, but I need to look into it more.


Then the second question gets dropped with: can it be done in a satisfactory way that would be balanced with the other classes? Personally, I’d say no. But part of that is because minion-mancy in general is very powerful this edition. And while spellcasting is less effective than it was in some earlier editions it is still very powerful. And it is hard to think of a way to get the player with an army as their action economy to be balanced with a anything a Rogue or Barbarian or Fighter could possibly do.

But if say we’re making a 6e and can start from scratch, I don’t see a reason why they couldn’t make Wizard Necromancers get an army of expendable weak minions at level 11 the balance point that the other classes have to get built around. But that is not 5e.

Agreed. In general having heavy subclasses on a full spellcaster is very hard to balance. And large scale minionmancy in specific is not something 5E can support or handle. Strategic or Grand Strategy level minionmancy was something 3E even struggled with (partially due to a lack of rules and mechanics to handle PCs with regional+ influence).

Yeah, you make a convincing argument for why wizard could still support specialist subclasses.

[Segev]

(3) Is the only class that can actively learn from other peoples of the same class (copying their spellbook).

There's more to discuss in your post, so I apologize for focusing only on this, but I want to point out that this is actually not a positive thing for the Wizard. No other prepared-list caster needs the ability to learn spells from others of their class, because they all have full access to the entire list when choosing their spells for the day. Ability to learn from others is a patch on a WEAKNESS of the Wizard, who is otherwise both a limited-spells-known caster AND a caster who has to pick from their limited spells known to make their prepared list for the day. (This is still ahead of bards and sorcerers and the like, though, because they automatically have more spells in their spellbook than they can prepare, and more spells they can prepare than the non-prep classes know. But it is BEHIND other prepared-list casters, and brutally exploiting the ability to learn from other wizards will, at best, catch them up to other classes by eventually giving them full-list access.)

[MoiMagnus]

There's more to discuss in your post, so I apologize for focusing only on this, but I want to point out that this is actually not a positive thing for the Wizard. No other prepared-list caster needs the ability to learn spells from others of their class, because they all have full access to the entire list when choosing their spells for the day. Ability to learn from others is a patch on a WEAKNESS of the Wizard, who is otherwise both a limited-spells-known caster AND a caster who has to pick from their limited spells known to make their prepared list for the day. (This is still ahead of bards and sorcerers and the like, though, because they automatically have more spells in their spellbook than they can prepare, and more spells they can prepare than the non-prep classes know. But it is BEHIND other prepared-list casters, and brutally exploiting the ability to learn from other wizards will, at best, catch them up to other classes by eventually giving them full-list access.)

Indeed, that's a weakness for non-ritual spells, and makes Wizard the best ritual caster as a weird byproduct of this weakness.

[Segev]

Indeed, that's a weakness for non-ritual spells, and makes Wizard the best ritual caster as a weird byproduct of this weakness.

I actually think the weakness being mitigated by the "learn from other wizards" ability is a good design choice, both because wizards in 5e have a notably "best spell list" (even if there are purposes that other spell lists serve better, wizards are widely acknowledged to have the overall best for versatility and for just having some of The Best Spells), and because the notion of scholarly sharing (or jealous hoarding) of knowledge is exactly in line with the "class fantasy."

That it has a side benefit of making them the second-best ritual casters in the game (a very, very close second behind Warlocks with a very specific Pact and Invocation) is ALSO thematically appropriate, and feeds the class fantasy in two ways: wizards performing rituals and wizards using their spellbooks as references while actively casting spells.

So, while I point out that, mechanically, the "learn from other wizards" feature is really a mitigation on a weakness that they retain even with that mitigation, it is a good MECHANIC (and the weakness itself is a good mechanic for enabling the mitigation to be meaningful) for the purposes of designing a class that fits the class fantasy.

[Asmerv]

Reading through the thread, one point really stands out to me.

I agree most with Wizard as 'Arcane Engineer'. You studied the principles and you're now going out there applying them to solve some real world problems. I also wholeheartedly agree with subclasses resembling disciplines. All engineers know a common framework of mathematics and will have some base fluency in each other's fields, but will have much deeper expertise in their specialization. An aerospace engineer might know the basic equations that govern electricity but will not be able to design complex electronics like an electrical engineer can.

I think subclasses focusing on schools should reflect this, and grant abilities that consistently make you better at using the spells from your school. Some do this, like Necromancy or Evocation to a limited extent but others don't, or do it too late. Instead, every subclass ability should incentivize the selection and use of spells from that school such that players who pick the school as the subclass will naturally gravitate to spells from that school.

You can also be a generalist, but if you are and see an evoker cast a fireball or a conjurer summon a creature and compare it to yours, it should leave you in awe.

How to achieve this? I think messing with spell DCs is dangerous, but how about auto upcasting? If you cast a spell from your school, it's cast as if it's from a spellslot a level higher.. something like that. I realize I just buffed the Wizard so this is not a great solution on its own, but it's along the lines of what I'd like to see. Perhaps if we took away Arcane Recovery and made you learn 1 general and 1 school spell on level up...

[OldTrees1]

How to achieve this? I think messing with spell DCs is dangerous, but how about auto upcasting? If you cast a spell from your school, it's cast as if it's from a spellslot a level higher.. something like that. I realize I just buffed the Wizard so this is not a great solution on its own, but it's along the lines of what I'd like to see. Perhaps if we took away Arcane Recovery and made you learn 1 general and 1 school spell on level up...

I would not do something as, to be fair, dull as auto upcasting.

I suggest adding features that serve as 1 of 2 things:
1) Do magic beyond that available to the spell list. See Diviner's Portent. They can know an enemy will fail a save. This does not make them better at Divination spells, but does make them a better Diviner.
2) Upgrade types of magic. See Necromancer's upgrade to Animate Dead. Their version of the spell is better.

However you are realizing there is not much character building resources available to flesh out the subclass.

[MrStabby]

Reading through the thread, one point really stands out to me.

I agree most with Wizard as 'Arcane Engineer'. You studied the principles and you're now going out there applying them to solve some real world problems. I also wholeheartedly agree with subclasses resembling disciplines. All engineers know a common framework of mathematics and will have some base fluency in each other's fields, but will have much deeper expertise in their specialization. An aerospace engineer might know the basic equations that govern electricity but will not be able to design complex electronics like an electrical engineer can.

I think subclasses focusing on schools should reflect this, and grant abilities that consistently make you better at using the spells from your school. Some do this, like Necromancy or Evocation to a limited extent but others don't, or do it too late. Instead, every subclass ability should incentivize the selection and use of spells from that school such that players who pick the school as the subclass will naturally gravitate to spells from that school.

You can also be a generalist, but if you are and see an evoker cast a fireball or a conjurer summon a creature and compare it to yours, it should leave you in awe.

How to achieve this? I think messing with spell DCs is dangerous, but how about auto upcasting? If you cast a spell from your school, it's cast as if it's from a spellslot a level higher.. something like that. I realize I just buffed the Wizard so this is not a great solution on its own, but it's along the lines of what I'd like to see. Perhaps if we took away Arcane Recovery and made you learn 1 general and 1 school spell on level up...

I could see a potential solution (alongside a broader rework/extra content) to be to simply take the most powerful spells of each school off the class spell list and put them in a special school list (as the spells wouldnt be on any class list bards wouldnt be able to take them either). So fireball, counterspell, wall of force, animate dead etc. Would only be available to some wizards. Some schools might need to have a couple of icon/showcase spells added though.

Upcasting is a bit problematic as some school spells dont do anything different when upcast.

[Asmerv]

I would not do something as, to be fair, dull as auto upcasting.

I suggest adding features that serve as 1 of 2 things:
1) Do magic beyond that available to the spell list. See Diviner's Portent. They can know an enemy will fail a save. This does not make them better at Divination spells, but does make them a better Diviner.
2) Upgrade types of magic. See Necromancer's upgrade to Animate Dead. Their version of the spell is better.

However you are realizing there is not much character building resources available to flesh out the subclass.

Dull is subjective. I think it's easy, and I'd be excited for a bunch of my spells to gain an auto boost. It'd be much more difficult to write several new abilities for every subclass, but if it could be done I would definitely prefer this over upcasting, I agree.

I disagree with Portent though. It makes the Diviner better at a bunch of unrelated things, arguably better then other wizards at some of their specializations. It makes the Diviner a better Enchanter before level 10, and doesn't interact in any particular way with Divination spells.

Animate Dead is along the lines, yes, but it makes a select few spells good versus the school appealing in general, though the 2nd level ability also helps so overall Necromancy is good I think.

[Anymage]

Just spitballing here. But if I wanted to play up the "arcane engineer" angle while still avoiding the do-everything caster, I might say that after fifth level you could only prepare spells of your highest known level if you were a specialist of that school. Only evokers could prep fireball before seventh level, only abjurers could prep counterspell, etc. Making your most powerful effects more tightly themed and limiting the ability to have just the right tool for the job might help tone down some of the versatility problems that preparation casters can run into.

[MrStabby]

Dull is subjective. I think it's easy, and I'd be excited for a bunch of my spells to gain an auto boost. It'd be much more difficult to write several new abilities for every subclass, but if it could be done I would definitely prefer this over upcasting, I agree.

I disagree with Portent though. It makes the Diviner better at a bunch of unrelated things, arguably better then other wizards at some of their specializations. It makes the Diviner a better Enchanter before level 10, and doesn't interact in any particular way with Divination spells.

Animate Dead is along the lines, yes, but it makes a select few spells good versus the school appealing in general, though the 2nd level ability also helps so overall Necromancy is good I think.

Yeah, I think that the subclass abilities would need to be largely rewritten. Anything that means wizards dont have equal access to all of the best spells in the class at full power is obviously going to impact balance so there would be a need to add some power, and the subclass would be a great way to do it.

I have to say that some of the subclass abilities on the wizard I find a bit bland. Things like the divination ability to recover spells or conjuration to maintain concentration. From an in game perspective there is no difference to the actual spell it just looks the same with all the same effects and so on.

Others, like the necromancer HP recovery are kind of cool but also terrible - you dont want your low HP wizard to be having HP needing replaced, you dont want to be damaged and blow concentration saves, and wizard necromancy spells are in general pretty bad at killing stuff.

I think a rework would be good.

[Nagog]

I wasn't talking about opposing flavors. I was talking about mechanics. Imagine a class with subclasses so mechanically distinct that a large number of the levels were devoted to subclass features. At what percent should we consider placing the subclasses onto different base classes (or have them become base classes). I kinda want to see specialist mages that have enough feature density related to their specialization to warrant moving them off of the generic mage class chassis.


Are you saying the Wizard is that class? Because while yes, they do have a lot of subclass features in comparison to other classes, it's because they don't have any flavor enforcement whatsoever in the base class. The base class is extremely malleable because it's entirely dependent on spell choice if we disregard subclass. For a flavor as diverse as "spellcaster" I'd say that's peak class design.



I will have to look into Battle Smith Artificer. I fear it might not represent the qualitative aspects of the undead (say a Ghoul?).*
*Also 5E does not support nor handle the kind of minionmancy I want from a Necromancer, so I don't ask it to succeed on that. Although it would be nice to have a Necromancer play a 4X campaign while doing traditional adventuring with a Rogue who is running a global information network on the side and similar characters.

There isn't really any Undead features on the Steel Defender, but as far as minionmancy goes, having a Steel Defender and a Homunculus as permanent minions with functions far beyond the zombies any spell can give you is HUGE. From there, if you want to play a real Minionmancy Necromancer, you're far better off going Theurgy Wizard or Divine Soul Sorcerer. Spiritual Weapon is a great minion-esque spell, and it lacks Concentration, and Animate Objects is another great choice available to both those classes once you reach the requisite level. Animate Objects can be reflavored as Flying Skulls (Tiny/small objects), Zombies or other generic undead for Medium, Bone Nagas or Minotaur Skeletons as Large Objects, and Nightwalkers or Dracoliches as Huge objects. So while Necromantic Minionmancy is fairly dead in 5e, it's entirely possible to do anyway with a little bit of imagination and reflavoring.

Tbh though, some DMs will be stringent and say that you can only command the minions from one spell at a time with your Bonus Action, but I haven't seen too much of an issue with that kind of thing. If they do though, you could issue "Standing Orders" to keep doing something (such as attacking any hostile creatures) and use your Bonus Action specifically for commanding the Ghost that is your Spiritual Weapon.

[OldTrees1]

Are you saying the Wizard is that class? Because while yes, they do have a lot of subclass features in comparison to other classes, it's because they don't have any flavor enforcement whatsoever in the base class. The base class is extremely malleable because it's entirely dependent on spell choice if we disregard subclass. For a flavor as diverse as "spellcaster" I'd say that's peak class design.

I was saying that:
1) The current specialist subclasses do not sufficiently flesh out their themes.
2) If you give the specialist subclasses enough features to flesh out their themes, I was worried that maybe they shouldn't be subclasses for the same class anymore.

Dienekes had a good reply (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24946572&postcount=78) as to when they think subclasses should separate and why they did not think it would be needed in the case I was envisioning.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just spitballing here. But if I wanted to play up the "arcane engineer" angle while still avoiding the do-everything caster, I might say that after fifth level you could only prepare spells of your highest known level if you were a specialist of that school. Only evokers could prep fireball before seventh level, only abjurers could prep counterspell, etc. Making your most powerful effects more tightly themed and limiting the ability to have just the right tool for the job might help tone down some of the versatility problems that preparation casters can run into.

I more or less agree with this. I'd probably do 3 tiers: spell levels 0-2 can be learned by any wizard. Levels 3-5 can be learned by non specialists, but lagged. Levels 6-9 can only be learned by specialists. And then give the schools real features to compensate. And rebalance the schools, or do specialties differently, because the current set are wack.

Honestly, "my spell list is my class feature set" is bad design IMO. It's bland AND difficult to balance. And gives incentive for all wizards to basically be clones. Everyone picks the same spells.

[Theodoxus]

I more or less agree with this. I'd probably do 3 tiers: spell levels 0-2 can be learned by any wizard. Levels 3-5 can be learned by non specialists, but lagged. Levels 6-9 can only be learned by specialists. And then give the schools real features to compensate. And rebalance the schools, or do specialties differently, because the current set are wack.

Honestly, "my spell list is my class feature set" is bad design IMO. It's bland AND difficult to balance. And gives incentive for all wizards to basically be clones. Everyone picks the same spells.

WotC picked the middle ground - though I guess they just inherited it from TSR who created the middle ground and other companies went in different directions.

You could go the 4E route, where you have an extremely narrow choice of options, and it's a lot easier to pick the most powerful or useful (I suppose) for your current situation. Green Ronin went that route on steroids, originally offering 2 spells total for each "school", and then 1 more for each tier after that. They later expanded by doubling the number of spells, and allowing the player to pick 2 of 4... This exacerbates your clone point.

You could go the White Wolf route, where you have the ability to pick and choose aspects of a spell, provided you met some predetermined threshold of knowledge for that specific aspect. It allows for free-forming your spells, tailoring them to your exact (or close enough anyways) needs. Of course, there still ends being a LOT of "best builds" going that route too, cherry picking the features to get the most bang for your buck - but it does make for a fun community, albeit highly specialized. This provides the illusion of variety while still exacerbating your clone point.

Basically, as long as there are spells that are outside of a formulaic and highly structured format (be they rote spells like D&D or free form like WW), you will always have players cherry picking the best; the most universally good, I would say. So the only real way to stop that would be to create a formula that all spells follow when building them.

[MrStabby]

WotC picked the middle ground - though I guess they just inherited it from TSR who created the middle ground and other companies went in different directions.

You could go the 4E route, where you have an extremely narrow choice of options, and it's a lot easier to pick the most powerful or useful (I suppose) for your current situation. Green Ronin went that route on steroids, originally offering 2 spells total for each "school", and then 1 more for each tier after that. They later expanded by doubling the number of spells, and allowing the player to pick 2 of 4... This exacerbates your clone point.

You could go the White Wolf route, where you have the ability to pick and choose aspects of a spell, provided you met some predetermined threshold of knowledge for that specific aspect. It allows for free-forming your spells, tailoring them to your exact (or close enough anyways) needs. Of course, there still ends being a LOT of "best builds" going that route too, cherry picking the features to get the most bang for your buck - but it does make for a fun community, albeit highly specialized. This provides the illusion of variety while still exacerbating your clone point.

Basically, as long as there are spells that are outside of a formulaic and highly structured format (be they rote spells like D&D or free form like WW), you will always have players cherry picking the best; the most universally good, I would say. So the only real way to stop that would be to create a formula that all spells follow when building them.

Or... you can have spells do more different things.

Imagine spells can only do damage. It is a scalar quantity and on this one axis there can be only one single best spell of any level.

Now add an element of control as a different axis. For a given degree of control there will be a corresponding degree of damage. The relative value of control to damage will determine where on this efficient frontier the best spell for a particular circumstance is.

As you add more and more dimensions along which a spell can interact with the game, the higher the number of dimensions you are looking at the higher proportion of spells we would expect to see being optimal in some way.

Of course this has the downside that in order to make a diverse set of spells, enough of which are in some sense optimal, you have casters becoming supremely flexible.

[Witty Username]

I think "generic" is a problem, but only because spells are so powerful.

We currently have a system where if you want to be the best at some role, you just take the spell that does it best. If the core spells were less good and needed feat support or more class features to be as good as they are then a class having broad access to most of the best spells wouldnt be an issue.

As it is, a wizard can casually pick up something like hypnotic pattern, write it into their spell book pick it out and prepare it on a whim for a day and be just as good at it as a bard or sorcerer who use it as a more central of their character and who have a narrower more focussed engagement with exactly that type of spell.

I would be less unhappy with there being a generalist in the game if they were actually less good at casting a given spell than a specialist in that area.

One of the things I think 3rd edition did that I liked was that the same spell could be different levels for different classes which captured this very well. If fireball was a 4th level spell for a wizard but a 3rd level spell for a red dragon sorcerer or light cleric then I would be ok with it.
New Players already have problems with playing casters and you are suggesting things that make casters more complex to work. Not to mention that specialization (shadow sorcerer with careful spell for example) already exists, it is just not required for functionality.
Fighter is similarly generic good, if you want a martial character fighter can make it happen, other options can fill some of them better, but fighter allows for options to not be lost on the game.

[Anymage]

Fighter is similarly generic good, if you want a martial character fighter can make it happen, other options can fill some of them better, but fighter allows for options to not be lost on the game.

The fighter and rogue, as part of your basic four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) are indeed broad and generic in scope. Whether D&D is better served by broad template classes like those four or more focused and flavorful ones like the druid or paladin is a tangential issue, and D&D mostly keeps doing both because such mish-mashing has gone on for so long that it's become expected product identity.

However, the fighter and rogue have to sink long term build resources into their builds, which means that you're locked into certain choices for what you're good at. If the sorcerer were the baseline caster with more spells known to not be too punishingly tight, they'd be in the same boat. Wizards being able to be broad and open ended while also being able to switch around their effective class features is a big part of the problem. Clerics also fell into this in past editions, and the only thing keeping them out of it now is the deliberately very limited release of new spells with new functions to the cleric spell list.


I more or less agree with this. I'd probably do 3 tiers: spell levels 0-2 can be learned by any wizard. Levels 3-5 can be learned by non specialists, but lagged. Levels 6-9 can only be learned by specialists.

I'd focus more on the middle range and leave higher level spells more open access for the players who do like higher level gonzo stuff. My off the cuff idea would be to say that you can only prepare your highest level spells as school spells at level five, and your two highest levels at level thirteen. That and pulling a lot of the utility effects into rituals should leave the wizard being really beefy without being the one guy with a flexible bag full of solutions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The fighter and rogue, as part of your basic four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) are indeed broad and generic in scope. Whether D&D is better served by broad template classes like those four or more focused and flavorful ones like the druid or paladin is a tangential issue, and D&D mostly keeps doing both because such mish-mashing has gone on for so long that it's become expected product identity.

However, the fighter and rogue have to sink long term build resources into their builds, which means that you're locked into certain choices for what you're good at. If the sorcerer were the baseline caster with more spells known to not be too punishingly tight, they'd be in the same boat. Wizards being able to be broad and open ended while also being able to switch around their effective class features is a big part of the problem. Clerics also fell into this in past editions, and the only thing keeping them out of it now is the deliberately very limited release of new spells with new functions to the cleric spell list.

I'd focus more on the middle range and leave higher level spells more open access for the players who do like higher level gonzo stuff. My off the cuff idea would be to say that you can only prepare your highest level spells as school spells at level five, and your two highest levels at level thirteen. That and pulling a lot of the utility effects into rituals should leave the wizard being really beefy without being the one guy with a flexible bag full of solutions.

The bold is opportunity cost, something that most classes have, but wizards don't really have. Even with their default spell allotment, they've got a really wide scope.

As for focusing on the middle range, I actually want specialization to mean something. And it should mean more the higher you get.

My basic design would be:

Each subclass grants two Specialized Schools and two Opposed Schools.

Spells of level 0-2 are unrestricted.
Spells of level 3-6 are restricted: you can't learn them via level up from Opposed Schools and are delayed two levels (one spell level) for the four other schools.
Spells of level 7-9 can only be learned via level up from your Specialized Schools.

You'd still be able to learn them from scrolls, but can't guarantee that they're there.

And then grant real class features that key off your Specialized Schools.

Things like
Echanted Echo: When you cast an enchantment spell that forces a saving throw and targets only one creature, the spell slot is not expended if the target passes the saving throw.

Or
Widened Evocation: When you cast an evocation spell with an area of effect, the affected area is increased by <number>.

Or
SiphoningAbjuration: When you successfully counterspell or dispel magic a spell, you gain <number> of temporary hit points.
Quick Negation: Casting counterspell, shield or absorb elements no longer requires your reaction, but you can only cast each of them once between any two of your turns.

And allows doing things like making Bladesingers effectively half-casters--no Specialized (or Opposed) schools means that they'll never learn a spell above level 6 but will have slots of the appropriate levels to upcast with.

Of course any school-based restriction would require rebalancing which spells belong to which schools. Because they're both poorly allocated (some of the allocations make little sense) and not balanced at all.

[Theodoxus]

Or... you can have spells do more different things.

Imagine spells can only do damage. It is a scalar quantity and on this one axis there can be only one single best spell of any level.

Now add an element of control as a different axis. For a given degree of control there will be a corresponding degree of damage. The relative value of control to damage will determine where on this efficient frontier the best spell for a particular circumstance is.

As you add more and more dimensions along which a spell can interact with the game, the higher the number of dimensions you are looking at the higher proportion of spells we would expect to see being optimal in some way.

Of course this has the downside that in order to make a diverse set of spells, enough of which are in some sense optimal, you have casters becoming supremely flexible.

Aye, my original post was much longer, trying to create a facsimile of the very formulaic concept I proscribed. Damage is actually quite easy, provided a common set of rider effects and ranges are agreed upon for modifying the base damage. All that would remain is setting the base and how much each increase in spell level boosts said damage (linear or exponential). I was also going to propose stopping pure damage spells after level 5. 6 and above would basically be spells that do something, with the potential of damage being the rider (Disintegrate is a great example of this).

The reason I deleted that before posting was because the non-damaging, non-combat spells, become a lot more problematic - given their much greater scope, and since the idea was on the fly, I certainly hadn't done a deep dive into what those spells are... so with only half an example, I felt it better to cull it than half-ass it.


The fighter and rogue, as part of your basic four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) are indeed broad and generic in scope. Whether D&D is better served by broad template classes like those four or more focused and flavorful ones like the druid or paladin is a tangential issue, and D&D mostly keeps doing both because such mish-mashing has gone on for so long that it's become expected product identity.

However, the fighter and rogue have to sink long term build resources into their builds, which means that you're locked into certain choices for what you're good at. If the sorcerer were the baseline caster with more spells known to not be too punishingly tight, they'd be in the same boat. Wizards being able to be broad and open ended while also being able to switch around their effective class features is a big part of the problem. Clerics also fell into this in past editions, and the only thing keeping them out of it now is the deliberately very limited release of new spells with new functions to the cleric spell list.

It always comes back down to this, doesn't it. Wizards have a LOT of options on how to handle problems. They used to be limited by having to actually know (memorize) the spells they were going to use that day, and if you chose poorly (or the DM was an a-hole), you were out of luck. Clerics had fewer "I can solve this" spells and more "WE can solve this" spells, so it wasn't so bad - even in 5E, few Cleric builds are capable of going truly Lone Wolf without party support. But Fighters and Rogues never had a deep bag of tricks to pull from. Rogues have it a bit better than Fighters, in that regard, but compensate for it with less staying power (fewer HP, smaller damage die).

4E "solved" that issue by giving everyone a similar bag of tricks to pull from. But it made the Wizard feel like a Diablo character, while making the Fighter (IMO, of course) feel useful and having multiple ways to contribute.

If 5E had moved the Wizard back to where it currently is, but had kept the Fighter and Rogue and other "spell-less" classes with a 4E style bag of tricks, the power disparity would be much smaller. But WotC never seems to learn the lessons we try to tell them. They swing the pendulum completely in the opposite direction, instead of taking and keeping the good things their predecessors had done and fixed the actual problems people had with the system.

Shoot, if they'd done that, even if the Warlord hadn't been in the PHB, it would have been a synch to port it over and have it plug right in to the Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue spell-less feel.

I didn't participate in D&DNext, but from what I've read, it looks like the early implementation of the Fighter, with Superiority Dice was basically what I'm talking about - taking the 4E style fighter with their various powers and making a 5E Bounded Accuracy take on them. And then they didn't do that... and now we gripe about the exponential power of Wizards and the flat power increase of Fighters because "they're not magical."

[MaxWilson]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?



Since you're asking for opinions, I'll give one.

For a healthy D&D game, the Wizard should be:

The (only) no-priestly full spellcaster archetype.

Proactive. Rewards foresight.

Fragile/brittle, especially when unprepared, to counterbalance proactive power.

Dependent on other archetypes, especially at early levels. A party of all wizards should be bad in Tiers 1-2.

Helpless in antimagic zones.

In some way incapable of living a normal life--pays a price for power. E.g. infertility/sterility + prematurely aged + social outcast (distrust).

[Theodoxus]

The bold is opportunity cost, something that most classes have, but wizards don't really have. Even with their default spell allotment, they've got a really wide scope.

As for focusing on the middle range, I actually want specialization to mean something. And it should mean more the higher you get.

My basic design would be:

Each subclass grants two Specialized Schools and two Opposed Schools.

Spells of level 0-2 are unrestricted.
Spells of level 3-6 are restricted: you can't learn them via level up from Opposed Schools and are delayed two levels (one spell level) for the four other schools.
Spells of level 7-9 can only be learned via level up from your Specialized Schools.

You'd still be able to learn them from scrolls, but can't guarantee that they're there.

And then grant real class features that key off your Specialized Schools.

Things like
Echanted Echo: When you cast an enchantment spell that forces a saving throw and targets only one creature, the spell slot is not expended if the target passes the saving throw.

Or
Widened Evocation: When you cast an evocation spell with an area of effect, the affected area is increased by <number>.

Or
SiphoningAbjuration: When you successfully counterspell or dispel magic a spell, you gain <number> of temporary hit points.
Quick Negation: Casting counterspell, shield or absorb elements no longer requires your reaction, but you can only cast each of them once between any two of your turns.

And allows doing things like making Bladesingers effectively half-casters--no Specialized (or Opposed) schools means that they'll never learn a spell above level 6 but will have slots of the appropriate levels to upcast with.

Of course any school-based restriction would require rebalancing which spells belong to which schools. Because they're both poorly allocated (some of the allocations make little sense) and not balanced at all.


Since you're asking for opinions, I'll give one.

For a healthy D&D game, the Wizard should be:

The (only) no-priestly full spellcaster archetype.

Proactive. Rewards foresight.

Fragile/brittle, especially when unprepared, to counterbalance proactive power.

Dependent on other archetypes, especially at early levels. A party of all wizards should be bad in Tiers 1-2.

Helpless in antimagic zones.

In some way incapable of living a normal life--pays a price for power. E.g. infertility/sterility + prematurely aged + social outcast (distrust).

It's interesting to see completely opposite ideas offered up - and honestly, I'd be happy with either. I think Phoenix's "fixes" the Wizard a bit better - and I really like the idea of Bladesinger and War Mage both getting mechanically cut down to Half-casters while maintaining higher level slots to upcast. Bladesinger <might> need a tiny boost to compensate; perhaps going back to 2 Songs / short rest (or in a truly overpowered game, PB Songs / SR...

I think Max's idea really moves the Wizard almost to NPC land, but it would be a fun challenge to play that kind of Wizard; though it would definitely require a cooperative DM, not an antagonistic one... it would not go well at most AL tables I've played at, for instance. :smallwink:

[Witty Username]

The fighter and rogue, as part of your basic four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) are indeed broad and generic in scope. Whether D&D is better served by broad template classes like those four or more focused and flavorful ones like the druid or paladin is a tangential issue, and D&D mostly keeps doing both because such mish-mashing has gone on for so long that it's become expected product identity.

However, the fighter and rogue have to sink long term build resources into their builds, which means that you're locked into certain choices for what you're good at. If the sorcerer were the baseline caster with more spells known to not be too punishingly tight, they'd be in the same boat. Wizards being able to be broad and open ended while also being able to switch around their effective class features is a big part of the problem. Clerics also fell into this in past editions, and the only thing keeping them out of it now is the deliberately very limited release of new spells with new functions to the cleric spell list.



I'd focus more on the middle range and leave higher level spells more open access for the players who do like higher level gonzo stuff. My off the cuff idea would be to say that you can only prepare your highest level spells as school spells at level five, and your two highest levels at level thirteen. That and pulling a lot of the utility effects into rituals should leave the wizard being really beefy without being the one guy with a flexible bag full of solutions.

Is that a problem for the wizard or the fighter and rogue? Maybe fighters and rogues should be stronger without having to invest long term build resources or is a cost for their relative simplicity. Its not like martials are balanced with casters other than wizard so a power increase wouldn't break the bank.

Meanwhile, adding the same build decisions on top of spell selection and resource management, and we may just get more players saying "That is too complicated, I will just play the class that hits stuff with a sword."

And it is not like wizards don't specialize with feat selections or aren't outperformed by specific sorcerer builds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it is not like wizards don't specialize with feat selections or aren't outperformed by specific sorcerer builds.

Sure, if the sorcerers really optimize and are in their now narrower specialty. But feats aren't really much of an opportunity cost, as wizards are almost entirely SAD.

[Witty Username]

Sure, if the sorcerers really optimize and are in their now narrower specialty. But feats aren't really much of an opportunity cost, as wizards are almost entirely SAD.

Wizards need int, good dex and good con.
Fighters need dex or str and good con. At least this edition fighters are more SAD then wizards and get more ASI's on top of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wizards need int, good dex and good con.
Fighters need dex or str and good con. At least this edition fighters are more SAD then wizards and get more ASI's on top of it.

Unless they're directly in melee, +3 Dex/+2 con is fine. Which is what, one ASI? Plus one for 20 INT?

Plus, the feats they take aren't specialization. They're things like resilient: con. Things that make just about everything they do better. That's not an opportunity cost, that's just one choice of bonuses.

[Witty Username]

Unless they're directly in melee, +3 Dex/+2 con is fine. Which is what, one ASI? Plus one for 20 INT?

Plus, the feats they take aren't specialization. They're things like resilient: con. Things that make just about everything they do better. That's not an opportunity cost, that's just one choice of bonuses.

+ 3 con on a fighter is fine, melee or not, they will have that and 20 in their primary stat by level 6.

But which bonuses do you choose: warcaster for reaction cantrips, alert for going first when high impact spells are most relevant, tough so you won't go down as easy? Different play styles will want different bonuses after all.
A fighter won't be picking feats the are not going to use, they will pick a feat that is the style they want, and will effect just about anything they do. Unless you have seen fighters taking crossbow expert and then never touch a crossbow?

[MrStabby]

New Players already have problems with playing casters and you are suggesting things that make casters more complex to work. Not to mention that specialization (shadow sorcerer with careful spell for example) already exists, it is just not required for functionality.
Fighter is similarly generic good, if you want a martial character fighter can make it happen, other options can fill some of them better, but fighter allows for options to not be lost on the game.

We never had so much of a problem when we first picked up 5th edition. I guess that this could be mitigated by allowing more respecs at lower levels. Encourage learning by experimenting.



Since you're asking for opinions, I'll give one.

For a healthy D&D game, the Wizard should be:

The (only) no-priestly full spellcaster archetype.

Proactive. Rewards foresight.

Fragile/brittle, especially when unprepared, to counterbalance proactive power.

Dependent on other archetypes, especially at early levels. A party of all wizards should be bad in Tiers 1-2.

Helpless in antimagic zones.

In some way incapable of living a normal life--pays a price for power. E.g. infertility/sterility + prematurely aged + social outcast (distrust).

I have to say, I loath this idea. It just seems like a way to generate tension at a table with different players not really able to play the same type of game together at the same levels, with some players wanting to rush through certain levels and some to linger.

I think any "solution" should enable as many players as possible to enjoy the same game at the same time. Certainly I wouldnt want wizards to be able to proactively make choices that would remove the need for contributions from other players.

I also find great defensive weakness to be just as distorting as a great strength in a character. It is still something that bends a game to make it all about that character, even if just for a while.

I could see the wizard being the only non godly full level caster, but that would mean that concepts like bard and druid would need to become subclasses of wizard rather than their own class. If not, then you have a bit of a fluff problem as well with certain types of magic being told they are less powerful than others. For all all of the design challenges this throws up I actually think this could offer some improvements - let things like druids have a version that is more about spells and less tough, less armoured less... wildshapey.

[MoiMagnus]

I have to say, I loath this idea. It just seems like a way to generate tension at a table with different players not really able to play the same type of game together at the same levels, with some players wanting to rush through certain levels and some to linger.

I think any "solution" should enable as many players as possible to enjoy the same game at the same time. Certainly I wouldnt want wizards to be able to proactively make choices that would remove the need for contributions from other players.

I also find great defensive weakness to be just as distorting as a great strength in a character. It is still something that bends a game to make it all about that character, even if just for a while.

I agree with that. In particular on the fact glass canon (and other high risk - high reward characters) have the tendency to warp the gameplay of the whole team around them, which I don't really appreciate in TTRPGs (though they're reasonably fun in coop videogame RPGs, but I don't play videogames with the same mindset than TTRPGs).

[Though I'm probably biased with the fact that Intelligence spellcasters are one of my favourite theme in D&D, while proactive characters are the thing I hate playing the most. The thing I like about spellcasting is the ability to adapt and react on-the-fly, not the ability to plan / have information superiority / etc.]

[GeneralVryth]

The bold is opportunity cost, something that most classes have, but wizards don't really have. Even with their default spell allotment, they've got a really wide scope.

As for focusing on the middle range, I actually want specialization to mean something. And it should mean more the higher you get.

My basic design would be:

Each subclass grants two Specialized Schools and two Opposed Schools.

Spells of level 0-2 are unrestricted.
Spells of level 3-6 are restricted: you can't learn them via level up from Opposed Schools and are delayed two levels (one spell level) for the four other schools.
Spells of level 7-9 can only be learned via level up from your Specialized Schools.

You'd still be able to learn them from scrolls, but can't guarantee that they're there.

And then grant real class features that key off your Specialized Schools.

Things like
Echanted Echo: When you cast an enchantment spell that forces a saving throw and targets only one creature, the spell slot is not expended if the target passes the saving throw.

Or
Widened Evocation: When you cast an evocation spell with an area of effect, the affected area is increased by <number>.

Or
SiphoningAbjuration: When you successfully counterspell or dispel magic a spell, you gain <number> of temporary hit points.
Quick Negation: Casting counterspell, shield or absorb elements no longer requires your reaction, but you can only cast each of them once between any two of your turns.

And allows doing things like making Bladesingers effectively half-casters--no Specialized (or Opposed) schools means that they'll never learn a spell above level 6 but will have slots of the appropriate levels to upcast with.

Of course any school-based restriction would require rebalancing which spells belong to which schools. Because they're both poorly allocated (some of the allocations make little sense) and not balanced at all.

This is basically forcing all Wizards to be specialists or worse casters than than any of the other full casters. This would never fly, or at least I certainly wouldn't want to see it. Being a spellcaster with access to the widest variety of the most powerful magic is the core idea behind the Wizard, they are magic distilled into a class. That is why they have the fewest core class abilities of any of the classes.

I have said before and I will say it again, a lot of the problems with the Wizard class really aren't with the Wizard class. Overpowered spells are going to be overpowered for anyone that can use them and should be addressed directly (I am looking at Simulacrum as the height of that, but even in the not really overpowered category any caster that wants to do damage with 3rd level spells is picking Fireball if they have access to it. That's not a Wizard problem that's a spell balance problem). If it's the Wizard v. Sorcerer debate, Sorcerers aren't implemented well mechanically, and deserve an overhaul. If it's the caster versus martial debate (where the Wizard tends to be the representative caster), I agree the martials (especially the Fighter) could use a non-combat overhaul at higher levels (tier 3+), and maybe a few combat tweaks as well.

A class that is all about a deep dive on specific magical schools makes sense and would be interesting to see, but it shouldn't come at the expense of another class. Which is what the above would essentially do.

[MrStabby]

This is basically forcing all Wizards to be specialists or worse casters than than any of the other full casters. This would never fly, or at least I certainly wouldn't want to see it. Being a spellcaster with access to the widest variety of the most powerful magic is the core idea behind the Wizard, they are magic distilled into a class. That is why they have the fewest core class abilities of any of the classes.

I have said before and I will say it again, a lot of the problems with the Wizard class really aren't with the Wizard class. Overpowered spells are going to be overpowered for anyone that can use them and should be addressed directly (I am looking at Simulacrum as the height of that, but even in the not really overpowered category any caster that wants to do damage with 3rd level spells is picking Fireball if they have access to it. That's not a Wizard problem that's a spell balance problem). If it's the Wizard v. Sorcerer debate, Sorcerers aren't implemented well mechanically, and deserve an overhaul. If it's the caster versus martial debate (where the Wizard tends to be the representative caster), I agree the martials (especially the Fighter) could use a non-combat overhaul at higher levels (tier 3+), and maybe a few combat tweaks as well.

A class that is all about a deep dive on specific magical schools makes sense and would be interesting to see, but it shouldn't come at the expense of another class. Which is what the above would essentially do.

If this were to be the definition of wizard, I would say the wizard shouldn't exist.

I would consider it to be a pretty strong guiding principle that no generalist should have access to spells as strong as a specialist in that area.

If you are a priest of Kosuth and your theme is burning things then you have top tier burning spells, on par with other characters that have a fire theme (fiend warlock, red dragon sorcerers, even evocation wizards) and you should have better burning spells that everyone else who didnt select that theme.

I could support a generalist wizard (half heartedly in the sense that whilst it wouldnt thrill me I dont thing it would do great damage) but I think that a class should be forced to chose between the breadth of its spells and the quality of its spells, it shouldn't get access to both a huge range and the top quality. A class should surpass others in some things it does and be surpassed in others.

[MoiMagnus]

I would consider it to be a pretty strong guiding principle that no generalist should have access to spells as strong as a specialist in that area.

Rather than restricting spells, this can also be done by giving extra effects to spells of the adequate school, rather than forbidding those spells to generalists.
E.g Abjuration spells cast by an abjurer are strictly better than abjuration spells cast by a non abjurer, as they grant some ward HP on top of their usual effect.

Though I partially agree with PhoenixPhyre. IMO, class spell-lists should be significantly shorter (not just the wizard's one), and subclass spell-list should be much longer (and the wizard subclasses should have some) and should not stop at level 5.
This might mean that some spells end up in none of the class spell-list at all, and only accessible through subclasses, and I'm fine with that.

[MrStabby]

Rather than restricting spells, this can also be done by giving extra effects to spells of the adequate school, rather than forbidding those spells to generalists.


E.g Abjuration spells cast by an abjurer are strictly better than abjuration spells cast by a non abjurer, as they grant some ward HP on top of their usual effect.

Whilst this is an approach, I would say that this would also entail revisiting the spells on all other classes. I.e. making sure generic wizard isnt as good as a cleric at banishment or as good as a light cleric at fireball or as good as a devotion paladin at casting protection from evil and good and so on. Ensuring the spells for the more generic class will the bigger and more diverse spell list are measurable less powerful than those on the more specialist classes will entail a pretty broad and complex set of buffs to every other caster... then buffs to every martial character to bring them in to line with all the buffed casters. Better to handle this within the wizard class I feel.



QUOTE=MoiMagnus;24949173]
Though I partially agree with PhoenixPhyre. IMO, class spell-lists should be significantly shorter (not just the wizard's one), and subclass spell-list should be much longer (and the wizard subclasses should have some) and should not stop at level 5.
This might mean that some spells end up in none of the class spell-list at all, and only accessible through subclasses, and I'm fine with that.[/QUOTE]

Well this has also been my contention as well, so I guess we agree on this. Although I think that all the domain type list should have run to higher levels not just any hypothetical one for wizards.

[GeneralVryth]

If this were to be the definition of wizard, I would say the wizard shouldn't exist.


This just suggests a fundamental disagreement on philosophy which can't be resolved, but it sounds like it may be more matter of degrees.



I would consider it to be a pretty strong guiding principle that no generalist should have access to spells as strong as a specialist in that area.

If you are a priest of Kosuth and your theme is burning things then you have top tier burning spells, on par with other characters that have a fire theme (fiend warlock, red dragon sorcerers, even evocation wizards) and you should have better burning spells that everyone else who didnt select that theme.

I could support a generalist wizard (half heartedly in the sense that whilst it wouldnt thrill me I dont thing it would do great damage) but I think that a class should be forced to chose between the breadth of its spells and the quality of its spells, it shouldn't get access to both a huge range and the top quality. A class should surpass others in some things it does and be surpassed in others.

The key is the difference between access and quality. The generalist Wizard who's whole concept is access to a wide variety of effective spells, should well... have access to them. So the specialists should have ways of making them stronger. Which if you notice is actually how the Wizard class is built right now, or at least that was clearly the goal. The school of Evocation does this pretty well, by level 14 no one is any where close to your effectiveness with Evocation spells. All of your evocation spells do more damage than average, you can avoid hitting allies, and you can periodically maximize the spells for area damage no one really can match short of 9th level magic. Some of the schools aren't as good at this and an argument could be made it would be better to have a more accurate distinction earlier.


Rather than restricting spells, this can also be done by giving extra effects to spells of the adequate school, rather than forbidding those spells to generalists.
E.g Abjuration spells cast by an abjurer are strictly better than abjuration spells cast by a non abjurer, as they grant some ward HP on top of their usual effect.


This is basically the way to do it, which is what happened, the argument is it just it isn't good enough, which I can actually agree with. I liked the suggestion earlier in the thread that specialists in any given sub-section of magic (whether it's a school, element, theme like light etc...) should cast spells from that specialization as if they were one spell level higher, and all spells should have at least one way of scaling by spell level (some spells having more than one way to scale may make sense if there is two different important axis they could grow on). Also, it would good if up-casting a spell in general was worth slightly more bang for your buck than it is now (as a clean example, most damage spells should probably scale at double their current rate other spells are harder to quantify and some scale fine). Once you have that as the foundational power for a specialist in a given area that comes at an early level, then you can add other subclass abilities to fill out the theme at higher levels. Really if I could wave a wand and fix all of the spells in the game to work, the above is what I would do, and in the Wizards case I would replace all of the level 2 abilities for the various school sub-classes with the up-casting power. And then work on re-shuffling the former level 2 powers with the others to make something that goes well with the theme of specializing in those schools. Other classes would need to be handled differently, but now you have an easy way to show consistent magical specialization in something, just like martials have fighting styles to show martial specialization (though Martials have their own issues as well).

[SupahCabre]

Wizards, imo, are unnecessary. Sorcerers are perfectly balanced in comparison to other classes, maybe a bit underpowered but with a bit of tweeking you can have a full Sorcerer and just call it a Wizard. Wizards as they are now, are overpowered, full stop. I always compare it to Superman and Captain Marvel/Shazam. Superman is the strongest member of the Justice League, the team relies on their ace to defeat foes that normally they can't defeat on their own, or solve problems they normally have no hope of solving. If Superman was gone, the team would be in big trouble. Now Captain Marvel is like the Sorcerer. He's just a lame version of the original. Sure he's just as strong, he can wreck the same foes as Superman and dominate the League if he wanted to, but... he's not Superman. He's dumber and has less powers.

The problem is the design of wizards. As it has always been since 3.5e

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds like what you want isn't to fix wizards, it's to simply buff all of them.

Wizards need real class features. Their spell list eats up the entire budget. And makes it so their subclasses don't matter much at all. And the only way to fix that is to enforce limits. Cut their spell list by 50% or more and we can start talking about giving real features.

The "do anything" wizard is bad design because it steps on everyone else's toes. And has no thematic resonance except "lol I'm the best at everything." And that's crappy design.

[MrStabby]

This just suggests a fundamental disagreement on philosophy which can't be resolved, but it sounds like it may be more matter of degrees.



The key is the difference between access and quality. The generalist Wizard who's whole concept is access to a wide variety of effective spells, should well... have access to them. So the specialists should have ways of making them stronger. Which if you notice is actually how the Wizard class is built right now, or at least that was clearly the goal. The school of Evocation does this pretty well, by level 14 no one is any where close to your effectiveness with Evocation spells. All of your evocation spells do more damage than average, you can avoid hitting allies, and you can periodically maximize the spells for area damage no one really can match short of 9th level magic. Some of the schools aren't as good at this and an argument could be made it would be better to have a more accurate distinction earlier.



This is basically the way to do it, which is what happened, the argument is it just it isn't good enough, which I can actually agree with. I liked the suggestion earlier in the thread that specialists in any given sub-section of magic (whether it's a school, element, theme like light etc...) should cast spells from that specialization as if they were one spell level higher, and all spells should have at least one way of scaling by spell level (some spells having more than one way to scale may make sense if there is two different important axis they could grow on). Also, it would good if up-casting a spell in general was worth slightly more bang for your buck than it is now (as a clean example, most damage spells should probably scale at double their current rate other spells are harder to quantify and some scale fine). Once you have that as the foundational power for a specialist in a given area that comes at an early level, then you can add other subclass abilities to fill out the theme at higher levels. Really if I could wave a wand and fix all of the spells in the game to work, the above is what I would do, and in the Wizards case I would replace all of the level 2 abilities for the various school sub-classes with the up-casting power. And then work on re-shuffling the former level 2 powers with the others to make something that goes well with the theme of specializing in those schools. Other classes would need to be handled differently, but now you have an easy way to show consistent magical specialization in something, just like martials have fighting styles to show martial specialization (though Martials have their own issues as well).


I mean I agree with much of this, but it skips over the problems of the other classes. The wizard is still getting a broader range of spells but still an evocation wizard's banishment is no weaker than a cleric's, their protection from evil/good no worse than a paladin and so on. More better spells than any other caster and just as good as the narrow ones poses some thematic problems.

[Dienekes]

I mean I agree with much of this, but it skips over the problems of the other classes. The wizard is still getting a broader range of spells but still an evocation wizard's banishment is no weaker than a cleric's, their protection from evil/good no worse than a paladin and so on. More better spells than any other caster and just as good as the narrow ones poses some thematic problems.

I think that’s just going to be an issue as long as we make one class whose sole identity is “spells” but have spells be the key component of multiple classes.

Personally, I see the solution for this essentially being giving the different casters a different specific non-spell focused niche.

Sure Clerics may still cast spells, not as good as a Wizard. But they have the power to give sermons and ask for the direct intervention of their god in ways the Wizard can’t even begin to figure out how to do.

The Druid may be in general a bit weaker than the Wizard with the Plant Focus, but his ability to survive in nature, change shape, and have preternatural senses on how to survive are invaluable... if WotC ever gave some concrete rules for the exploration pillar anyway.

And Sorcerers... ok well honestly my whole expectation of the Sorcerer is they have more power than Wizards but much less control. So if we’re making Wizards the de facto best in the power output slider then I really don’t know what to do with Sorcerers. Off the top of my head, figure out a way to do the “simple mage” I’ve heard people want.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that’s just going to be an issue as long as we make one class whose sole identity is “spells” but have spells be the key component of multiple classes.


So why not take the direct route? Make the wizard not have the sole identity of "all the spells" or "I'm the best spellcaster"?

Clerics already have identity and thematics. Their subclasses represent different foci, and come with opportunity cost.

Druids already have identity and thematics. Their subclasses represent different foci and come with opportunity cost.

Warlocks already have identity and thematics. Their subclasses represent different foci and come with opportunity cost.

Sorcerers already have identity and thematics. Their subclasses represent different origins and come with opportunity cost.

Wizards...don't (except for maybe bladesingers). Since essentially all of their power is in the base class (and specifically the base class spell list), their subclasses are just minor perks on top. A wizard casting out of his specialty is just as good as a cleric casting the same spell in his specialty.

So the solution is to neuter the wizard's "I have all the spells" image and then you'd actually have the room to add in some real thematics and identity. Because they don't have any right now. The schools of magic are a legacy appendix (as in the human organ) that does little to solve any problems and instead adds in a few.

If there's a problem, go to the root. And the root is the wizard class itself.

Edit: and in fact, the "I have all the spells" image is directly counter to the implied class fiction (of an academic specialist). Because specialists...specialize. Look at modern scientists and engineers. I have a PhD in Computational Quantum Chemistry. If you ask me something about a related field (say protein folding), I can sort of give you a sort of answer. Ask me something about, say, solid state physics and I'll have to dredge up the remains of that one class I took many years ago. And won't be any better than a well-educated layman at it.

Same should go for "academic" magic users. You're specialized in summoning creatures from the Nine Hells? Great. You'll likely not know much, if anything, about creating warding barriers against swords. Or creating big bursts of elemental energy. Specialization should have meaning. There is no place for a "generalist" who is just as good as a specialist. That's eating your cake and having it too.

[Tanarii]

Should be extremely fragile glass cannons that can't effectively cast if caught in melee combat and who have extremely limited by very deadly resources, and have no effective way to attack when they run out.

Basically, the fantasy equivalent of artillery.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Should be extremely fragile glass cannons that can't effectively cast if caught in melee combat and who have extremely limited by very deadly resources, and have no effective way to attack when they run out.

Basically, the fantasy equivalent of artillery.

Yeah. So that now the party has a choice:

5 minute working day

Or

A party member who just stands around being the load 90% of the time.

Because that's so much fun for everyone. /S

More seriously, having a class that can either solve an encounter alone OR is completely ineffective, with little in between the two is horrible design. We've learned a lot from the last 30+years of game design, let's not retread past mistakes. That design is fine for a wargame, no so fine for a band of characters, each run by a separate person.

[MrStabby]

Should be extremely fragile glass cannons that can't effectively cast if caught in melee combat and who have extremely limited by very deadly resources, and have no effective way to attack when they run out.

Basically, the fantasy equivalent of artillery.

I will just reiterate what I said before



I also find great defensive weakness to be just as distorting as a great strength in a character. It is still something that bends a game to make it all about that character, even if just for a while.


We want players to play the game TOGETHER. We dont want someone to deny others the ability to contribute in some challenges by solving them on their own, nor do we want PCs unable to meaningfully contribute. We can allow some variation and let some players shine a bit more than others at certain times but we shouldn't normalize it.

Worst case if we give the wizard massive strengths and huge weaknesses then give them all the tools they need to circumvent those weaknesses. Like say being weak if caught in melee but then giving them misty step so it doesnt matter so much.

[Tanarii]

In that case, the strength of Wizards and spells probably needs to be stripped out, and rebuilt from the ground up. Because as 3e demonstrated, when you take away the disadvantage and don't balance out the strengths, you end up with very out of whack. And two editions since have struggled to find a way to balance them, although the 4e stripping out admittedly didn't go over very well. :smallamused:

Multiclassing in 5e can potentially create the same issue with arcane full casters, because the first few levels or martial are so dominant, followed by the arcane caster having none of the weaknesses. But at least they give up some power by being behind the curve.

5e has the same problem with ranged attacks. Used to be they were dominant in wide open and near useless in closed in environments. Now they're dominant in wide open and fairly powerful in closed in environments.

"We're all in this together" is a great philosophy when you're always playing in the environment the game supports, short range ground-based tactical combat with 3-5 PCs. In that case, it's okay for casters and ranged attackers not to get hosed. Probably even desirable.

[GeneralVryth]

That sounds like what you want isn't to fix wizards, it's to simply buff all of them.

Wizards need real class features. Their spell list eats up the entire budget. And makes it so their subclasses don't matter much at all. And the only way to fix that is to enforce limits. Cut their spell list by 50% or more and we can start talking about giving real features.

The "do anything" wizard is bad design because it steps on everyone else's toes. And has no thematic resonance except "lol I'm the best at everything." And that's crappy design.

Actually, I am not advocating making Wizards substantially stronger. What I have been pretty consistent on is bringing up other classes to the level of Wizards where appropriate while also weakening Wizards some by better balancing the spells themselves.

In essence I am saying on the magical side of the class house you start with the concept of a generalist caster that has access to most spells, of a balanced spell list (which includes every spell having some way of being scaled up in terms of effectiveness built in). This generalist concept is the Wizard, it has some sub-classes and sub-class abilities but their impact is moderate to generalist spell caster nature. Now that you have that concept you can start taking away access to sections of spells or limiting access to higher level spells in exchange for other abilities. You probably start by making a class that has access to one section of magic that was denied the generalist, healing and resurrection magic, add in access to better armor and weapons, as well as a section of buff spells, top of it off with sub classes that provide a specialist focus on a smaller subsection of spells that round out their theme and maybe few a abilities that play into it. Sprinkle in a little divine flavoring and you now have the Cleric. From here you can see how this process plays out with other existing classes:

Druid: Access to spell sub-sections that embody a natural theme, plus some basic shapeshifting. Sub-classes specialize on a more specific nature-based specialization in the related spells plus getting some related abilities, with a different sub-class or two specializing in the shapeshifting aspect and likely giving up additional spell specialization besides those related to shapeshifting.

Bard: The quintessential jack of all traits, has the theoretical potential to access more spells than the generalist Wizard, but is limited to choosing a smaller actual subset in exchange for other abilities that let theme provide non-spell buffs to their parties in other ways, some in song, some in breadth of skill, and some in a martial flair that would make many Wizards quake in their boots if they had to face them without their magic.

Sorcerers: The class that demonstrates the power of blood and the legacy of ones ancestors. Sorcerers should be very subclass heavy, they should have access to a small section of spells related to their ancestral theme which they specialize in, a number of non-spell abilities tied to their ancestral theme, and finally the ability to choose a few generalized magical tricks (kind of like the Bard) that can theoretically give a lot of breadth but in practice would be limited to small section of magic. They should also not be as bound to the rules of magic that other magic users are, as their power is more raw. As I have said before Sorcerer's are one of the worst classes currently in terms of mechanical support for what they should be. As an example of what I think this should look like, a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer:
They should have specialist power in ~10 spells chosen from a curated list (probably no more than 20 to 40 spells) for a Dragon theme in general, plus some options based on color.
They should be able to re-balance their spell slots to fit their needs with no inefficiency in the process.
They should have access to a handful spells chosen from a large list to round out their character (think Bard Magical secrets).
Finally, they should have a bevy of special abilities related to their heritage. This should start with some natural armor and natural weapons (giving them more of a bite than a Wizard without his magic), it should grow resistances based around type, likely a pseudo breath weapon, later a fear aura and wings. Finally, this should culminate in either permanently becoming some form of dragon (likely by giving them certain increased stats, and the ability to shapeshift to a form with a larger size and stronger natural weapons, armor, and wings), or at least the ability to temporarily turn into one.
You can imagine different variations of the above for other bloodlines. A recurring theme should be Sorcerers that crush most other full casters if neither side can use their spell casting due to their bevy of abilities. Their weakness relatively speaking should be their smaller spell lists basically the opposite from a Wizard in terms of a full caster.

Warlocks: ... (You hopefully are starting to get what I am going for with the above, Warlocks have an odd place they would probably end up similar Sorcerers in the focused end of the spectrum, I just don't want to do a write-up for them, their mechanics are weaker in terms of carrying out theme currently like the Sorcerer's though not as bad)

Once you have the full casters figured out (though some of them should probably trade access to 9th level magic for an equally powerful high level ability, permanently turning into a Dragon like thing in terms of mechanics for a Draconic Sorcerer being one possible example of this), now you start dealing with the half-casters (though I would probably make them 2/3rds casters, and the current 1/3rd caster sub-classes half-casters) who now need to be placed not just on the generalist to specialist spectrum but on also in a more notable place on the magical to martial spectrum (Bards and Clerics start hinting at this, but Paladins should take this further). Then you have the martials that need to be balanced with the above in mind, and their own kind of generalist to specialist spectrum options.

Finally, there is a couple holes in all of the above. There really is no class that channels the extremely focused academic. The Wizard in the above reality should probably only be the Bladesinger, War Wizard, and a few others. With maybe a subclass built around basic school specialization that has options (like a Draconic Sorcerer with the different Dragon types). There probably needs to be another class that doesn't have the Wizard's generalization that has more of its power in its sub-classes (like Sorcerers and Warlocks should be), where you can truly specialize in the different schools of magic with accompanying special abilities. Maybe this class should get the Wizard name, and my above Wizard should be called a Mage or something similar, but I recognize the hole. In the same vein there is a hole in terms of a Mage-like half caster, that would that would take on the mantle of arcane Paladin, with likely greater access to a variety of spells but fewer special abilities (though it could be argued the Bladesinger fills this role well enough, there is a reason I like the Bladesinger sub-class).

---

Extra Final note since other posts were made while I was writing the above, I also think extreme glass canons, and full-casters with an overly limited number of spell slots arebad for the game. The 5MWD is not a good thing.

[Dienekes]

Yeah. So that now the party has a choice:

5 minute working day

Or

A party member who just stands around being the load 90% of the time.

Because that's so much fun for everyone. /S

More seriously, having a class that can either solve an encounter alone OR is completely ineffective, with little in between the two is horrible design. We've learned a lot from the last 30+years of game design, let's not retread past mistakes. That design is fine for a wargame, no so fine for a band of characters, each run by a separate person.

Agreed here.

A bit of a tangent. But I’m curious of people’s thoughts. What if instead of making the balance point over the course of a day, we make the balance point over the course of an encounter.

Think of it this way. At the start of a fight, the martials for the most part are at 100% effectiveness. They can go from rest to violence at a moments notice. But what if the mage classes have to build up to it. Round 1 they are maybe half as effective as a martial. By about round 3 they’re maybe a bit ahead. By round 4 and 5 they can change the shape of a battlefield.

The issue is how to balance that out, when not in combat.

[MoiMagnus]

In that case, the strength of Wizards and spells probably needs to be stripped out, and rebuilt from the ground up.

Rebuilding from ground up probably won't happen (because of 4e commercial failure). But stripping out the strength is a trend I expect in future D&D editions.

Concentration (and other nerfs made to Haste) was a step made by 5e. Adding of legendary resistance to higher level enemies was also a step in that direction. Multiattack at level 5 was added to martial to reduce the relative power of 3rd level spells compared to martial.

I'd expect the relative power of spells to decrease even more if we see a 6e. And I'd expect WotC to continue moving away from glass canons as an available archetype in RPGs. [Not that fragile characters will no longer be a thing, but fragile will just mean "cannot reasonably run in the open to the frontline", not much more]

[Tanarii]

Rebuilding from ground up probably won't happen (because of 4e commercial failure). But stripping out the strength is a trend I expect in future D&D editions. Probably the best thing they could do is make the standard range for attack spells 25-30ft, with some "long range" at 50ft. If you have very long range ones, they should be carefully balanced. Ditto for ranged weapons, lower the short range of bows and crossbows to 40ft or so, with a longbow at 50ft.

[SupahCabre]

OK, we've had a few threads where people have complained about how the Wizard is a super-powerful generic class without much of a mechanical identity other than "it casts the spells". That made me wonder — what mechanical identity would you give to the Wizard to make it make sense? What should Wizards do? What should their party role be?

Personally, I'd aim for the following:


Wizards would be the best at ritual casting. They'd get the most rituals (like they do right now), abilities that speed up the rituals, etc.
Wizards would be your party's "magic specialist". We're talking counterspells as a cantrip here. You bring a Wizard along because they probably know something about whatever weird magic you run into.
Something something good at Knowledge skills? You're the group's scholar, so you should be an insufferable know-it-all polyglot.
... Did I mention that I want the Wizard to be a half-caster? I want the Wizard (along with the Bard) to be a half-caster.


That last point probably feels pretty weird, but I feel like it kinda makes sense. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks are empowered by more powerful beings, while Sorcerers have a source of power from their inhuman heritage. Wizards, on the other hand, are the best spellcasters because... they're smart? It doesn't make sense to me for the generalist classes (Bard and Wizard) to hit the same peaks of power as the specialist casters (everyone else).
So here's my take. I agree with one part. Wizards should be the "Ritual Caster master" class, but they are not half casters. That's ridiculous. They're not Tomelocks. I believe they should be combined with Sorcerer and Cleric. A bunch of different subclasses with restricted spell lists, and a few general spells that any wizard can learn (like Fireball and Counterspell). No more "god wizards".