Wizard Thematics are Bad [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

strangebloke

2022-05-26, 02:47 PM

sithlordnergal

2022-05-26, 02:56 PM

While you are right in the Wizards could use better theming to differentiate themselves from each other, unfortunately there just aren't enough spells of each school to realistically do that. It would be cool to do, but realistically you'd end up with super subpar subclasses due to their limited spell lists.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-26, 02:59 PM

Wizard thematics need a rework, just like 3e paladins did.

My proposed solution would be pushing a lot of best-in-class spells like fireball and lightning bolt to the specialized subclass lists, to reflect that this is an area of focus for the wizard in question. War Wizards and Evokers can learn Shatter and Rimes Binding Ice and fireball, but a master illusionist might not be familiar with those spells, or perhaps can learn them but not until higher than the normal level. Until then if they want to do blasting on the side they'll have to get by with Aganazzar's Scorcher and the like.

And yes, I'm not saying every good spell needs to leave the wizard list. Some things like counterspell are very on-brand for a wizard; others like mage armor are pretty essential to how the wizard functions as a class without feats or multiclassing.

I agree with this as an issue and as a (potential) solution. Although I'd still like to see a lot of the "generic utility" spells broken out and made more available even as not-spell options (a la 4e's Rituals, but actually implemented more reasonably and less cautiously).

I'd figure that the "core" list would be mostly the "arcane" spells (those dealing with force effects) and a few of the "basic functionality" ones. And I wouldn't try to stick straight to School of Magic lines for the core subclasses, because that just doesn't work well. Instead, each should have a theme and focus there.

While you are right in the Wizards could use better theming to differentiate themselves from each other, unfortunately there just aren't enough spells of each school to realistically do that. It would be cool to do, but realistically you'd end up with super subpar subclasses due to their limited spell lists.

That's why I say to stick to thematics, not schools of magic. Sure, there'll be a lot of overlap. But a significant amount of non-overlap. And that way you can have multiple subclasses with the same spell on it (as in the OP, where fireball is on the War Magic AND evocation subclass lists).

-----

That said, it'd still be best to take an axe to a couple-few spells in general. Force cage and wall of force, I'm looking at you in particular.

KorvinStarmast

2022-05-26, 03:01 PM

----

That said, it'd still be best to take an axe to a couple-few spells in general. Force cage and wall of force, I'm looking at you in particular. Monty Python voice
You're no fun anymore. :smalltongue:

Amechra

2022-05-26, 03:09 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-26, 03:13 PM

I still think Wizards (and Bards, for that matter) should be half-casters with a bunch of boosts to their breadth of options, since unlike the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock they don't necessarily have a supernatural "power" source. They don't have a god backing them or dragon blood in their veins, they're just incredibly good at mystical scholarship and ritual casting.

But whenever I suggest this, people react like I just kicked their puppy. :smalltongue:

The problem is that then you'd need "something else" (combat-wise) for them to do with the other half of the expected curve. And "good with weapons" (which is the other default option for the other half) doesn't fit the stock image of a wizard very well at all.

I'm fine with them being full casters. However, if I were going to go deeper, I'd invert the sorcerer and wizard as far as spell list breadth goes. Sorcerers should get to choose a few options from a huge list. Wizards should have wide access to a much more narrow list. And give meta-magic to the wizards, giving sorcerers something else instead. With wizards having to prepare metamagic'd versions separately. So if you want to cast quickened fireball and fireball, that takes two prep slots, not one. With maybe taking higher level slots to do so (as a throwback to earlier editions) instead of "points".

Bobthewizard

2022-05-26, 03:17 PM

I like wizards as they are. I don't see nearly the narrow spell choices in real life that I see proposed on these forums. I can take the wizard chasis and make whatever I want with it. I've made traditional evokers and conjurers, a manipulative divination wizard, witches, studious elf nerds, a cold-themed faerie, a gnome enchanter that played as slightly autistic.

I think any attempt to artificially narrow them would take away the players' ability to customize them as they want to. Wizard is the best blank slate. Sorcerers have lots of subclasses but once you pick a subclass there is less room for creativity. It's hard to differentiate two fire-dragon sorcerers from each other. I can make two wizards with no overlapping spells and still enjoy playing both of them.

Amnestic

2022-05-26, 03:44 PM

Artificers and Wizards are two sides of the same coin thematically - wizards use big brains to do more spells, artificers use big brains to infuse items. You could say that makes one of them redundant, thematically, I'm not sure I'd agree. Mechanically I think tying a wizard's power entirely to its spell list is problematic because spells are easy to print lots of and it's kind of annoying when spells which should be unique to a class are also "and wizards get them" spells.

In an era where "spell stacking" and copious preparation is looked down upon (compared to 3.5e) though, it couldn't hurt to take another look at how the wizard works.

I still think Wizards (and Bards, for that matter) should be half-casters with a bunch of boosts to their breadth of options, since unlike the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock they don't necessarily have a supernatural "power" source. They don't have a god backing them or dragon blood in their veins, they're just incredibly good at mystical scholarship and ritual casting.

But whenever I suggest this, people react like I just kicked their puppy. :smalltongue:

Obligatory half-caster Wizard (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/vy1A85Nk9bsz) drop...

(and my sorcerer one too (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq)))

Amechra

2022-05-26, 03:47 PM

The problem is that then you'd need "something else" (combat-wise) for them to do with the other half of the expected curve. And "good with weapons" (which is the other default option for the other half) doesn't fit the stock image of a wizard very well at all.

Or you could design the game so that it's Combat/Exploration/Social and not COMBAT/exploration/social, so there's less of a need to slavishly focus on what everyone does during the murderfest.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-26, 03:54 PM

Or you could design the game so that it's Combat/Exploration/Social and not COMBAT/exploration/social, so there's less of a need to slavishly focus on what everyone does during the murderfest.

Then everyone's unhappy. The only ways to really do that involve
1) turning combat into something that is fully abstracted away (aka "Roll Fight to win").
2) Someone standing around twiddling their thumbs 1/3 of the time.

And it still doesn't solve the problem--all that would do is lock out wizards and bards 1/3 of the game. Like people claim Barbarians are now. "I do nothing" doesn't really lend itself to good play whether it's 1/3 of the time or 1/2 of the time.

You can solve the imbalance issue by giving everyone capabilities in all three areas. If combat is rebalanced to be less of a factor, then scale everyone down. But everyone should have something effective and meaningful to do in all three areas.

I'll note that I run relatively combat-lite games. And everyone's involved. But if one player was at roughly 1/2 the effectiveness of the others (or worse) in any pillar, this wouldn't work well at all.

strangebloke

2022-05-26, 03:55 PM

I still think Wizards (and Bards, for that matter) should be half-casters with a bunch of boosts to their breadth of options, since unlike the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock they don't necessarily have a supernatural "power" source. They don't have a god backing them or dragon blood in their veins, they're just incredibly good at mystical scholarship and ritual casting.

But whenever I suggest this, people react like I just kicked their puppy. :smalltongue:
I wouldn't go that far.

I think that giving limited spell lists where the wizard's high level spells give him less power but more control would be good. Something like counterspell is a great example here.

If you think about how bards work, they often do lack a lot of raw power at various spell levels, and have to focus within a control niche. Which still ends up being good, but they can't do all the same things a druid can for example.

it's kind of annoying when spells which should be unique to a class are also "and wizards get them" spells.

In an era where "spell stacking" and copious preparation is looked down upon (compared to 3.5e) though, it couldn't hurt to take another look at how the wizard works.

I don't mind preparation. I actually have no real problem with teleport or even simulacrum.

But yeah, "do all the magic" isn't much of an identity.

My most hated spell is actually "find familiar." If you divorce yourself from DND for a moment and imagine a generic group of fantasy adventurers, you'd generally assume the guy with the tiny fey animal spirit friend would be the naturey guy or maybe the rogue. Instead barbarians, rangers, and druids have nothing of this kind; the wizard does.

BRC

2022-05-26, 04:06 PM

Were I redesigning Wizards from the ground up, I wouldn't specifically split it up by School.

The general system would be that each Wizard subclass has some number of "Favored Schools". Rather than Wizard Level+int Modifier spells prepared, you may prepare up to your Wizard Level in spells from your Favored Schools, and up to your Int Modifier of spells from Any School. This means that Wizards lean increasingly into their identities as they level up and the relative balance shifts.

So the Wizard Subclasses might be, like

Warcaster: Evocation, Abjuration

Beguiler: Illusion, Enchantment

Occultist: Necromancy, Divination

Conjurer: Conjuration, Transmutation

Generalist: No favored school, fewer total spells prepared.

Or something like that.

Then you can keep printing new subclasses with different combinations of schools, or have Hyperspecialists with exactly 1 favored school.

Also, the more limited prep options bring back some of the older "Carefully select your spells" feel, without specifically "How many times do you need to cast Fireball today?"

stoutstien

2022-05-26, 04:12 PM

I ditched wizards from my games about 2 years ago and past the initial shock most of the players have agreed it makes the game better. It also frees up a lot of those features for more flavorful options like oracle clerics using divination, necromancer sorcerers, and abjuration armorers.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-26, 04:22 PM

GreatWyrmGold

2022-05-26, 04:27 PM

But while these all have thematic issues, IMO they pale in comparison to the thematically most confused class in 5e: the wizard.
[...]
Scholars and academics would of all classes be the ones that you expect to specialize the most. After all, that's what academics do, right? You don't ever meet a guy who has a PHD in "science" do you?? But every wizard effectively does have a PHD in "magic." Wizards don't specialize. Its suboptimal for them to do so.
Three points to make about this.

First, there ae absolutely fictional characters with a PhD in Science. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmnidisciplinaryScientist) Classes represent fantasy archetypes, not realistic professions.
Second, it's weird that you're assessing thematic confusion based on optimal character builds and not what's actually written in the book.
Third, while it's good to evokers to know abjuration and conjuration spells, the fact that all evokers are wizards should make it clear that wizards are more specialized than other classes.

I still think Wizards (and Bards, for that matter) should be half-casters with a bunch of boosts to their breadth of options, since unlike the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock they don't necessarily have a supernatural "power" source. They don't have a god backing them or dragon blood in their veins, they're just incredibly good at mystical scholarship and ritual casting.

But whenever I suggest this, people react like I just kicked their puppy. :smalltongue:
Why should people who learn magic through hard work and study be weaker than those who get magic through heredity or divine sugar daddies? This feels like the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, only focused on magic, which no guy at the gym can actually do.

Then everyone's unhappy. The only ways to really do that involve
1) turning combat into something that is fully abstracted away (aka "Roll Fight to win").
2) Someone standing around twiddling their thumbs 1/3 of the time.
Says someone who has never read a TRPG that isn't focused on combat.

Now, I don't think it's realistic to turn D&D into the kind of balanced-activity combat-optional RPG it sometimes pretends to be. Too much of D&D's identity is bound up in dungeon crawling and associated tropes. But let's not pretend that the only options are D&D and obviously-terrible strawmen.

strangebloke

2022-05-26, 04:34 PM

Three points to make about this.

First, there ae absolutely fictional characters with a PhD in Science. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmnidisciplinaryScientist) Classes represent fantasy archetypes, not realistic professions.
Second, it's weird that you're assessing thematic confusion based on optimal character builds and not what's actually written in the book.
Third, while it's good to evokers to know abjuration and conjuration spells, the fact that all evokers are wizards should make it clear that wizards are more specialized than other classes.

The Omnidisciplinary Scientist exists in shows like Stargate where there's only one scientist in the cast. Sam Carter has to be omnidisciplinary because she's the only scientist, and if she can't go off about microbiology and physics, O'Neil sure isn't going to. In DND, everyone's a magic user, so the Wizard being the "magic guy" isn't an identifying trait, unless this is something like House where the whole point is that the Omnidisciplinary guy is just better than everyone. Which... yes, that's exactly what the wizard ends up being. Which isn't conducive to good times at the table because everyone's supposed to be a magic guy.
I don't think "this character has good thematics if you sacrifice the class's power for thematics" really holds water as a defense. Other classes always have good thematics outside of very specific bad builds.
I don't understand what you're saying, could you clarify?

Segev

2022-05-26, 04:38 PM

I am not so sure I am on board with any overhaul of any class based on "...like the 5e paladin got." Mechanically, it's a pretty solid class, but the Oaths are all over the place, thematically, and make it about as much "a Paladin" as a class that focuses on animal-themed martial arts is a "druid." ...okay, that's not entirely fair, but I don't think the Oath solution is the boon to paladin design that is being suggested, here.

If we only had the core 5e Wizard, I would argue for ways to more sharply focus on their specialty schools, but that falls apart when you introduce XGE and TCE Wizard subclasses, which don't focus on schools. You could steal a move from the Warlock and try to have two subclasses, sort-of, choosing both a subclass for "wizardry techniques" and a subclass for "wizard school." The latter could be as one-time and one-effect as the Pact Boon. Maybe cut the number of spells prepared down to just the Intelligence Modifier + Proficiency Modifier, and then let them cast ANY spells of their chosen school straight from their spellbook?

Chronic

2022-05-26, 04:46 PM

Psyren

2022-05-26, 05:10 PM

I understand where the OP is coming from but pretty much every "cure" I've seen feels far worse than the disease.

The Omnidisciplinary Scientist exists in shows like Stargate where there's only one scientist in the cast. Sam Carter has to be omnidisciplinary because she's the only scientist, and if she can't go off about microbiology and physics, O'Neil sure isn't going to. In DND, everyone's a magic user, so the Wizard being the "magic guy" isn't an identifying trait, unless this is something like House where the whole point is that the Omnidisciplinary guy is just better than everyone. Which... yes, that's exactly what the wizard ends up being. Which isn't conducive to good times at the table because everyone's supposed to be a magic guy.
I don't think "this character has good thematics if you sacrifice the class's power for thematics" really holds water as a defense. Other classes always have good thematics outside of very specific bad builds.
I don't understand what you're saying, could you clarify?

It's true there are multiple magic users (though to be fair in some parties the wizard IS the only spellcaster, at least for a while, see Dragonlance for instance) but for the longest time there was really only one Arcana specialist in 5e. Now we have Artificer but (a) they're not a full caster and (b) in many groups they're even more controversial than wizards are. To me, there are multiple magic users but wizard is the class best suited to be/know ABOUT magic, because there is no interface between them and the source of their power than their own ability to study.

You could steal a move from the Warlock and try to have two subclasses, sort-of, choosing both a subclass for "wizardry techniques" and a subclass for "wizard school." The latter could be as one-time and one-effect as the Pact Boon.

I like this idea, doubly so because it works for the Cleric too, which should have "clerical techniques" and "clerical domain(s)." This would allow for school specialization and drawbacks without forcing you to come up with something entirely new for the non-school subclasses.

BRC

2022-05-26, 05:21 PM

Part of the issue is that a Wizard's spell selection, almost definitionally, isn't part of their Character Build. The defining feature of the wizard as an arcane caster is being able to select new spells each day, so it's not an "Optimized Build" to take Fireball, since the cost is usually very low. You have to deliberately choose NOT to take fireball.

As much as I disliked the old "How many fireballs per day" Vancian casting system, It DID have a nice grabbing point thematically, with a wizard "Preparing" a spell carefully and then unleashing it later, rather than just calling up power and throwing it out.

I also don't love the idea of hyperspecializing wizards, not without heavily reworking the magic system such that each school has some spells for different functions. Spells like "Comprehend Languages" and "Feather Fall" I don't especially mind everybody getting.

I also don't think it's wrong for an Illusionist to be able to take Fireball or Fly.

Here is the theming I see: Magic is Magic, but there is a difference between being able to Cast a spell, and Understanding a Spell. Wizards are magical scholars, and like real scholars, while they can learn things outside their specialization, it's difficult.

Think of Magic like Cuisine, with Wizards being highly specialized Chefs. A master of Italian Cuisine could follow a recipe for a German dish, and produce some tasty Schnitzle, but they might not understand WHY it works. They wouldn't understand the way the ingredients and techinques combine to produce the dish the same way they would with, say, Chicken Parmesan.

So if our master Italian chef is told to make Chicken Parmesan, they can comfortably adjust the recipe, improvise around some missing ingredients, know exactly how long he can leave it unattended while he goes and makes a salad, know what wine pairs best with it, ect ect. If they're told to make Schnitzle, they're following a recipe, and their schnitzle

Wizards are like that. A Master of Illusion may have enough fundamental understanding of Magic to cast a Fireball, but they don't understand it well enough.

I think Wizards get the new style "Pick a list of spells to Know Today" but only for their schools (or, for non PHB wizards, provide a spell list) that they can cast freely, and give them tricks.

For spells out of their school, they use the old style. You don't Know Fireball today, you have Prepared A Single Casting Of Fireball At Third Level. You cannot upcast it, you need to lock in those spell slots ahead of time, and you cannot refresh it with Arcane Recovery or any other tricks. You can freely use that slot to cast an Illusion spell of third level or lower, but you've only got a limited number of these out-of-specialization Prepared Spells.

maybe as you level up you can start adding some low-level spells to your repetoir, and prepare them for a day (Like it works in 5e)

Amechra

2022-05-26, 06:35 PM

Why should people who learn magic through hard work and study be weaker than those who get magic through heredity or divine sugar daddies? This feels like the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, only focused on magic, which no guy at the gym can actually do.

Why shouldn't they be weaker, other than the fact that geeks tend to wildly overvalue "being smart"?

Rynjin

2022-05-26, 06:39 PM

After all, that's what academics do, right? You don't ever meet a guy who has a PHD in "science" do you?? But every wizard effectively does have a PHD in "magic."

This is an extremely common trope in fiction, so sounds like a huge nitpick. With that idea in mind, the theme again becomes very clear. They're scholars of mkagic. They really do "have a PhD in magic".

And yeah, this has knock-on effects for other classes. Sorcerers in PF were the blasting class, sort of a red mage to the wizard's blue.

I think you're confused on what Red Mage and Blue Mage are. Red Mages are gishes; in PF terms they're a Magus, mixed with a smidge of Bard. In 5e they'd teh the Blade school Bard or whatever it's called. Blue Mages learn spells by copying monsters.

A blaster Sorcerer is a lot like a BLACK mage...and Wizard has no real Final Fantasy equivalent. Closest thing is Sage but they get to learn healing magic, which is a big non-no for Wizards.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-26, 06:51 PM

This is an extremely common trope in fiction, so sounds like a huge nitpick. With that idea in mind, the theme again becomes very clear. They're scholars of mkagic. They really do "have a PhD in magic".

Real PhDs are specialized. Trust me. I've got a PhD in Physics...but in anything other than Computational Quantum Chemistry, and actually even just one tiny sub-fraction of that I'm, I'm no better than a beginning grad student.

There's a joke that BS students know very little about a whole lot. MS students know a bit more about a bit less. And PhDs know a lot about a very little. Except it's not really a joke at all.

I think you're confused on what Red Mage and Blue Mage are. Red Mages are gishes; in PF terms they're a Magus, mixed with a smidge of Bard. In 5e they'd teh the Blade school Bard or whatever it's called. Blue Mages learn spells by copying monsters.

A blaster Sorcerer is a lot like a BLACK mage...and Wizard has no real Final Fantasy equivalent. Closest thing is Sage but they get to learn healing magic, which is a big non-no for Wizards.

Not FF at all. MtG (color wheel).

And Wizard, really, was the original Black Mage. Literally--FF I was a complete knock-off of D&D with minor changes. Red mages weren't gishes at all, really. They were slightly better with weapons, sure, but mixed white and black magic, being able to heal AND "damage" (which included imposing statuses). And more modern ones have deviated strongly from that entirely, so it doesn't match at all. If we use FFXIV, for instance, everyone is a mage of some type. Samurai? Concentrate aether in their sheaths for their big attacks. Ninjas? Hand magic. Warriors? Draw in aether via their Inner Beast. Etc.

Rynjin

2022-05-26, 07:15 PM

Real PhDs are specialized.

Thankfully, wizards aren't real.

Not FF at all. MtG (color wheel).

You sure? What I know of MtG blue doesn't represent Wizard at all.

And Wizard, really, was the original Black Mage. Literally--FF I was a complete knock-off of D&D with minor changes. Red mages weren't gishes at all, really. They were slightly better with weapons, sure, but mixed white and black magic, being able to heal AND "damage" (which included imposing statuses). And more modern ones have deviated strongly from that entirely, so it doesn't match at all. If we use FFXIV, for instance, everyone is a mage of some type. Samurai? Concentrate aether in their sheaths for their big attacks. Ninjas? Hand magic. Warriors? Draw in aether via their Inner Beast. Etc.

The only modern one that really deviates is the FFXIV Red Mage, which is even gishier, but with less "traditional" white magic (you still get Wind and Holy damage, but as far as usually White Mage utility goes, VerCure and VerRaise is pretty much it).

There's a reason most d20 representations of Final Fantasy treat Red Mage as a gish, like FFd20 where Red Mage is a weaker version of Magus.

Seems weird to focus on how the classes were represented in FF 1-3 rather than how they've been represented since then. Because the game...and the game they were originally base don for that matter, have evolved.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-26, 07:30 PM

Why shouldn't they be weaker, other than the fact that geeks tend to wildly overvalue "being smart"?

There's no need either way, you can justify it however you want. But there's also no inherent need for the Wizard to be the 'academic mage' or 'geek mage', it works just as well with any spellcasting class. If you really need a spellbook then you can still have one, and can even make it useful if you take Ritual Caster.

Heck, you could restrict wizards entirely to rituals if you wanted. It would make them significantly more awkward to use in combat, but you could!

You could also make Wizards the most powerful class! But then you'd pretty muvh be changing nothing.

I'm very 'eh' about including wizards in the setting I'm currently designing, mainly because there's little I could do with them that I can't do with another class. It also allows me to expand rituals to cover the role of 'nonspecial magic', even if it means removing one of the Tomelock's special things in the current draft (which is like 0.1 at best, lots of room for things to change).

Fynzmirs

2022-05-26, 08:15 PM

You sure? What I know of MtG blue doesn't represent Wizard at all.

In MtG, blue is the color of knowledge and study. It focuses on gathering information, preparing for every eventuality and controlling the flow or battle.

You don't get more Wizard than that.

Rynjin

2022-05-26, 08:33 PM

In MtG, blue is the color of knowledge and study. It focuses on gathering information, preparing for every eventuality and controlling the flow or battle.

You don't get more Wizard than that.

Every Blue card I ever saw was like a whale or something lmao, I just assumed it was water like Red is fire (and goblins for some reason).

I never played much Magic. Too expensive, even after Arena came out.

Kane0

2022-05-26, 08:43 PM

Rynjin

2022-05-26, 08:57 PM

Anymage

2022-05-26, 08:58 PM

This is an extremely common trope in fiction, so sounds like a huge nitpick. With that idea in mind, the theme again becomes very clear. They're scholars of mkagic. They really do "have a PhD in magic".

Knowitalls who can cover every field of science are a popular trope, but they're best served by a high intelligence and lots of knowledge skills. Maybe the ability to go into a lab and whip something up, but that'd be best reflected by a more robust system for rituals and/or downtime. Characters who can pull off any magical/technological shtick during a stressful encounter tend to be either primary protagonists or plot devices. Neither of which is really a good model for a cooperative ensemble game.

So, quick question...assuming Wizard really does have "no thematics", is "generic", etc., why is that a bad thing?

Fighter and Wizard both exist as a solid baseline for characters. They may have little innate identity, but it's what makes them flexible out of the box without needing to worry about your dumb tablemates foisting off specific stereotypes any time you try to do something "out of the norm".

If you had a generic baseline that you added to with feats or other very nitpicky systems, I'd agree. Your core class might be Fighter, but you'd subspecialize into being an archer or a guardian or just someone with a big axe and that would work. The wizard could similarly subspecialize without necessarily needing to be good at all the magic.

If you had a much more narrative system where the wizard could explain how to magic anything they have a narrative tie to while the fighter could use the same crunch light system to explain how they got similar effects through superhuman athleticism or charisma, same idea. If it's rules light and results oriented, fluff how you get your results however you like.

When one guy's shtick is "my hitting things numbers go up" while the other guy's is "I get to dive through every new splatbook because there are often shiny new special abilities especially for me, and I get to cherry pick the best bits", the latter is going to be difficult to deal with. The D&D philosophy that spells are where all the cool effects go (understandably since spells are easy crunch to write, but it still builds up) combined with the idea that the wizard is the one who gets all the spells is going to create balance problems. Make a wider list so that everybody gets some sort of cool powers, and/or accept if academic mages just get "academic mage" powers with maybe expansions for specializations instead of getting the bulk of the list by default. Otherwise, the guy who gets all the spells will just make things increasingly unbalanced as more and more spells get published and he gets the lion's share.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-26, 09:06 PM

Rynjin

2022-05-26, 09:14 PM

Because broad thematics mean that
a) you eat into everyone else's design space
b) there are no natural balancing limits
c) bland bland bland bland bland
d) encourages people to think about mechanics first

Being honest, none of these read as problems to me. D is just how some people build characters, and it works fine. A could be argued more as "reduces bloat" because now you don't have to have a separate class for each specialty (see: 3.5's Beguiler being a suped up Enchantment Wizard). B applies to every class, and C as mentioned is a matter of a specific character, not the class. Bland as a class is an UPSIDE, because it means they can be whoever you want them to be.

D&D (and any class-based system) works best when the classes actually have coherence within themselves both mechanically and thematically. If you want customization, play a point-buy system. Don't try to awkwardly construct it in a class-based system.

This is more an issue with 5e being very anti-customization and not one of "customization doesn't work in a class based system". There are plenty of customizable class based systems. That is, most class-based systems.

The only class based systems I know of that don't allow customization are all video games. JRPGs at that, the most rigid and mechanically boring or all RPGs.

sithlordnergal

2022-05-26, 09:31 PM

I mean...are Wizards really eating into other classes design spaces though? Looking at the full casters we have:

- Artificer: Guy who builds/creates magical artifacts to gain magic
- Bard: Guy who uses song and dance to gain magic
- Cleric: Guy who worships a deity/ideal to gain magic
- Druid: Guy who strictly adheres to nature to gain magic
- Paladin: Guy who worships a deity/idea to gain magic, but punches harder
- Ranger: Guy who studies/lives in nature to gain magic
- Sorcerer: Guy born with magic
- Warlock: Guy who traded something for magic
- Wizard: Guy who studies magic to gain magic

Out of those casting classes, the only one even close to the Wizard's themes is the Artificer, and Artificers are pretty different from Wizards since they, you know, build things. Heck, if you're worried classes eating into design space, shouldn't you be more concerned about Paladins, which literally have the same magic source as a Cleric with the only difference being "Paladins hit better"?

Now, I will agree that Wizards probably need some of their spells moved over to other classes. There are plenty of Wizard spells that I look at and wonder "Why isn't this a Warlock or Sorcerer Spell instead"? But having a somewhat generic arcane spell caster is a good thing over having eight different classes that, together, end up doing what the one wizard does. I find the base Wizard class is very similar to the Warlock class, in that its very easy to tweak the Wizard into being whatever you like instead of having a ton of classes.

Heck, I find the fact that 5e only really has 13 or 14 official, printed classes to be one of its greatest strengths. I far prefer having fewer classes with decent subclasses over the 66 main classes of 3.5, and who knows how many prestige classes on top of that. By making the Wizard into a more generic class that can basically use any school of arcane magic, they made the Wizard modular. No need to make a Witch class like the 3.5 DMG suggests, you can just go School of Enchantment, and focus on the Enchantment spells.

Psyren

2022-05-26, 10:28 PM

I agree with Rynjin on this one but I've been limiting my comments here since the premise of the thread is folks who are dissatisfied with wizards. I know there's zero chance of WotC *not* publishing them so I'm good.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-05-26, 11:00 PM

This is splitting into a worrying number of threads now, but I agree. Gut the Wizard spell list, moving most of them to its subclasses the same way all other casters do at this point (except those that get their casting via subclass).

Then after that we can tinker with extra flavor and features to fill the gap left behind, like by leaning more into Rituals or whatever.

I didn't even need to, in the last 5 years i've only seen one Wizard at the table. My group has just collectively realized that the vast majority of their character concepts are better represented elsewhere.

We haven't had a lot of wizards either... 2 I believe. One was a transmuter and the current one is an evoker, but they largely have used mostly the same spells. Many of those spells are ones that other casters have used when they could. My light cleric and fire dragon sorc come to mind here. My bard is just getting to the level where he can cast 4th level spells and it's likely Polymorph will be the first one I cast... and this is in the same campaign as the Evoker who predominanly uses his 4th level slots for Polymorph.

I don't know if it's that spell lists need to be trimmed down as much as spell balance needs to be a lot narrower combined with a benefit from casting spells from a wizard's school. I think that would differenciate wizards from each other and from other classes.

I hadn't thought about this before, but as I write this I guess I largely agree with the OP.

Witty Username

2022-05-26, 11:18 PM

This reminds me of a conversation with a friend of mine, his take was that the fighter is frustrating, because it's design space amounts to, the best martial, making it either redundant or oppressive.

As for wizard changes
I liked the idea of prohibited schools from previous editions, picking a school or two you cannot learn made for alot of differentiation. Subclass spell lists could fit that, but I like prohibited lists better, a reoccurring issue I have with cleric concepts is the base cleric list being insufficient to convey the theme, I wouldn't want to inflict that design problem on another class. And what a character has deliberately avoided is more interesting.

I am not sure that is necessary though, wizards are not as all consuming as they are made out to be. Cleric and Wizard are IMO, the best class/subclass systems in the game, both classes can support multiple mindsets and playstyles simply by subclass and spell selection. They lose some precision in those themes, there is only so much one can do with a Nature cleric or an Enchanter wizard, but that ground leaves room for druid and bard to be strongly tied to much more specific concepts without leaving thematic gaps.

-
Wizard only looks like a problem because of the existence of sorcerers.
You will find warlock, bard, wizard, cleric and druids all play well together and have interesting niches. This isn't even a balance problem either as sorcerer has been the subject of several game breaking interactions and with the Tasha's and Xanathar's subclasses some perfectly reasonable and powerful options.
The issue is the lore of sorcerer is "wizard, but..." This means it's competing in the wizard's niche in thought, word, and deed.
Now, counter-argument here is that this issue disappear if the wizard is removed, as the sorcerer would fill the gap and fits a better balance point (allegedly, I would disagree in games that allow multiclassing, but eh, VMMV). That's fair, although I personally think that would leave little reason for the Int stat to still exist in the game. But it comes to personal preference.
Overall, sorcerer needs an identity either by dead man's boots or to find a calling to its exclusive lore.
And it is blasphemy that the only caster with the free time to learn other vocations, is the only one that doesn't have a martial subclass.
-
Overall, I see no major issues with the current system from a balance perspective. I wouldn't be against limitations based on specialization (but I tend to self impose those anyway, and at least my playgroup responds much more to theme over function). I would like to see other classes get cool things and feel like the sorcerer could use some extra pop.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 12:21 AM

So, quick question...assuming Wizard really does have "no thematics", is "generic", etc., why is that a bad thing?

Fighter and Wizard both exist as a solid baseline for characters. They may have little innate identity, but it's what makes them flexible out of the box without needing to worry about your dumb tablemates foisting off specific stereotypes any time you try to do something "out of the norm".

Nobody ever tells someone "that's not Fighter-like behavior" or "you really don't seem like a Wizard right now", but you do get a lot of morons who'll raise their eyebrows at you if you're a Barbarian who isn't constantly pissed off and dumber than a brick, or a Bard who *gasp* doesn't want to **** everything that moves and half the things that don't.

5e suffers from this issue already in a mechanical sense (why can't I make an archery-focused Barbarian?), what is the value in exacerbating the problem by "gutting" classes who don't meet some arbitrary standard of "good thematics"?

In the first place fighters are thematically unique in 5e by virtue of not being casters or otherwise supernatural. Only 2/13 classes in this game can be said to be truly 'mundane'. Fighter is one of these 2 classes. Comparatively not only are 9/13 classes "casters" like the wizard, but 5/13 (bard, artificer, wizard, warlock, sorcerer) are "arcane" spellcasters. Fighter is part of the least saturated conceptual space, Wizard is part of the most saturated space.

But yes, Fighters also are better thematically, because they are actually a blank canvas. You have to make real decisions prioritizing defense or offense, combat or utility. You have to pick a flavor. Every choice locks out other choices. You can be a rune knight and have runes, but this locks you out of Battlemaster and by extension most maneuvers. You can go with defense style for flexibility, but this prevents you from specializing in damage. You can build for HAM and STR, but this locks you out of DEX and CBE. etc. etc. The choices are interesting and expressive, and have significant aesthetic impacts. Fighters are limited, but you get to choose how they're limited. Other thematically good classes like the warlock or paladin work in this same way.

For contrast, a wizard who is a diviner gets 1 really busted ability and then... has spells. All the same spells any other wizard has. There's some opportunity cost here. It's impractical to actually have all the spells. But taking a spell over another doesn't lock it out, it only locks it out until you find a way to copy it or level up and get it that way. There's little room for expression here. So its a blank canvas painted in shades of gray; its tepid and tasteless. You can build to a theme if you want to, but nothing about the class actually pushes you that way. Rather the opposite in fact.

I hadn't thought about this before, but as I write this I guess I largely agree with the OP.
For me personally wizards are pretty normal in terms of popularity. 7 longrunning campaigns with something like 40 characters and there were about 3 characters with more than 2 levels of wizard. 2 diviners and an abjurer. That's a lot better than say artificers, which I've never seen, but a lot worse than fighters, of which I've seen six. But 2 out of these 3 wizard players dropped their character and switched to a completely different character partway because they weren't feeling it.

Anecdotes aren't evidence, but at least on Roll20 they're not super popular in spite of their strength.

Kylar0990

2022-05-27, 02:57 AM

Psyren

2022-05-27, 10:14 AM

Anecdotes aren't evidence, but at least on Roll20 they're not super popular in spite of their strength.

I'd argue it's because of their strength. Pretty much everyone knows that any wizard can contribute to a party, even their quote-unquote "worst" subclasses like Graviturgist or Transmuter are still among the most powerful spellcasters in the game (which of course makes them among the most powerful character builds in the game.) So rather than prove that over and over, people play something weaker that they can have fun optimizing up.

Also, in every edition wizard has been the most complex spellcaster and 5e is no exception, because being able to change your spell list every morning + never having access to all of it on any given build comes with bookkeeping that other casters don't have to deal with. The others either have a limited list that they don't have to worry about changing, or they know their entire list so they don't have to agonize over selection at level-up / comb treasure piles for books and scrolls. The others don't have to worry about protecting their spellbook either.

So I'd say wizard being less played in practice has other explanations besides people thinking they're too open-ended thematically.

Thunderous Mojo

2022-05-27, 10:50 AM

For contrast, a wizard who is a diviner gets 1 really busted ability and then... has spells. All the same spells any other wizard has. There's some opportunity cost here. It's impractical to actually have all the spells. But taking a spell over another doesn't lock it out, it only locks it out until you find a way to copy it or level up and get it that way. There's little room for expression here. So its a blank canvas painted in shades of gray; its tepid and tasteless. You can build to a theme if you want to, but nothing about the class actually pushes you that way. Rather the opposite in fact.

Spells are to Wizards, as Weapons are to Fighters.

A Battlemaster or Rune Knight Fighter can use whatever instrument of bloody death they wish to use. Spells are to Wizards, as weapons are to Fighters.

An Evoker Wizard no more receives the Portent Ability than a Rune Knight receives a Psi Energy Die.

Tasha’s introduced a Fighting Style that allows every Fighter to take a Maneuver. The Martial Initiate feat has been available since 5E’s release.

In theory, all of Strangebloke’s issues with the Wizard class are applicable to the Battlemaster Fighter. Aesthetic determinations are by nature idiosyncratic and somewhat capricious.

In essence, Strangebloke argument seems to be stating:

Wizards with the same spells, are the same, regardless of their subclass.

Which seems to discount Roleplaying.

Shaquille O’Neal and Kareem Abdul Jabar are both professional Basketball Centers, that are over 7 feet tall, that have won NBA Championship rings with the Los Angeles Lakers, and can shoot the Sky Hook.

In play, Kareem and Shaq must have been exactly the same, they had similar height statistics, class, and spells after all.🃏

KorvinStarmast

2022-05-27, 10:52 AM

I still think Wizards (and Bards, for that matter) should be half-casters Wizards no, bards yes, and I still owe Phoenix and a few others my attempt at a bard class built fro the ground up to be a half caster. Three sub classes Lore, Valor and either Glamor, Whispers or Creation. (I'll do the first two easy, but the third one I am gonna have to think about a bit more).

there's less of a need to slavishly focus on what everyone does during the murderfest. Monty Python voice: You're no fun anymore :smallcool:

I ditched wizards from my games about 2 years ago In the two games that I currently DM (13 players all told): two sorcerers, one lore bard, no wizards, one Cleric, one Druid.

Why should people who learn magic through hard work and study be weaker than those who get magic through heredity or divine sugar daddies? This feels like the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, only focused on magic, which no guy at the gym can actually do. *golf clap*

As much as I disliked the old "How many fireballs per day" Vancian casting system, It DID have a nice grabbing point thematically, with a wizard "Preparing" a spell carefully and then unleashing it later, rather than just calling up power and throwing it out. And you had to go out and find spells. you didn't just get them out of the air. Part of the original game's reason for a wizard to even go adventuring was to find and acquire spells in those old/eldritch ruins, etc, so that they can do better magic. And to find magic items. And you could die trying to get better.
I disagree with your chef analogy. A good chef is constantly adding to their recipe book. My own cooking, and that of my wife's, keeps expanding as we try and adapt new recipes, and variations thereof.

Why shouldn't they be weaker, other than the fact that geeks tend to wildly overvalue "being smart"? Careful, they used to stone people for proclaiming heresies inconvenient truths! :smalleek:

So, quick question...assuming Wizard really does have "no thematics", is "generic", etc., why is that a bad thing? It isn't. The original game class of Magic User was a solid design. Specialization is for ants. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2022-05-27, 11:08 AM

In my next game I will be playing wizard purely to spite the folks who find them boring or think nobody is playing them :smalltongue:

(Assuming I don't just end up multiclassing my Artificer into it - which with the new UA has become exceedingly likely.)

Thunderous Mojo

2022-05-27, 11:10 AM

It isn't. The original game class of Magic User was a solid design. Specialization is for ants. :smalltongue:

Which segues into the point that School Specialization was always optional, when Oppositional Schools, (also Known as Spell List Restriction), was a balancing factor.

The Generalist Wizard was still alive and well even in 2e AD&D days.

3e and 5e style multi-classing makes spell list restriction a bit of a toothless Tiger.

Also, what classes benefit most, from broadening their spell lists…be it through Ravnica or Strixhaven Backgrounds, Eberron Dragonmark races, or Feats like Fey-Touched?

I would argue that spellcasters with more natively tailored lists benefit more from making more options available to them.

This undercuts the premise of the thread, somewhat. The trend for D&D seems to be breaking down barriers between the disparate spell lists, overtime.

Snails

2022-05-27, 11:32 AM

For some reason, it is treated as a de facto holy bovine that we do not restrict wizard spell selection, and thus the thematics is destined to completely suck. If the most important feature of a class is not allowed to be thematically tuned, then the class is not allowed to have a theme that really matters, by design.

I say bollocks on that. IMNSHO, the 3.5 Psion offered a reasonable compromise. To summarize, there was a large, broad list of "spells" (powers) that were available to all Psions, so they could be competent generalists. But each Psion had an area of focus where they could choose from superior spells.

The other way to do that is to actually tune the spell slot. For example, Invisibility might be a 3rd level spell for an Evocationist. So you are not forbidden from certain spells, but you are naturally going to cast more of certain spells and fewer of certain others.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-05-27, 12:44 PM

Spells are to Wizards, as Weapons are to Fighters.

A Battlemaster or Rune Knight Fighter can use whatever instrument of bloody death they wish to use. Spells are to Wizards, as weapons are to Fighters.

An Evoker Wizard no more receives the Portent Ability than a Rune Knight receives a Psi Energy Die.

Tasha’s introduced a Fighting Style that allows every Fighter to take a Maneuver. The Martial Initiate feat has been available since 5E’s release.

In theory, all of Strangebloke’s issues with the Wizard class are applicable to the Battlemaster Fighter. Aesthetic determinations are by nature idiosyncratic and somewhat capricious.

In essence, Strangebloke argument seems to be stating:

Wizards with the same spells, are the same, regardless of their subclass.

Which seems to discount Roleplaying.

Shaquille O’Neal and Kareem Abdul Jabar are both professional Basketball Centers, that are over 7 feet tall, that have won NBA Championship rings with the Los Angeles Lakers, and can shoot the Sky Hook.

In play, Kareem and Shaq must have been exactly the same, they had similar height statistics, class, and spells after all.🃏

You're not wrong that roleplaying should make every character unique. But some people aren't good are roleplaying. Some people need the fluff (and mechanics) to help them out with roleplaying and have a tough time making a distinct character without them. By comparison pretty much anyone can pick up a Cleric Subclass and have an inspiration for how to play it. Wizard subclasses? Maybe a bit with some subclasses, but for the most part I'd say no.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 01:04 PM

In theory, all of Strangebloke’s issues with the Wizard class are applicable to the Battlemaster Fighter. Aesthetic determinations are by nature idiosyncratic and somewhat capricious.
I mean yeah I've talked about this problem with the battlemaster before. You pick from the same ever-shrinking pool of maneuvers. It's also really conceptually broad and non-specific, and I've said several times I'd prefer if maneuvers were a generic feature.

But that's one subclass. BMs are still sitting on top of the fighter chassis, which is one of the most flexible classes in the game in terms of how different fighters end up from each other. Wizard is that problem extended to an entire class.

In essence, Strangebloke argument seems to be stating:

Wizards with the same spells, are the same, regardless of their subclass.

Which seems to discount Roleplaying.

If you're going to put all the weight of expression and character customization on roleplaying, why even have a system? The system's job is to create an environment where you can build something that has unique personality, aesthetics, and mechanics. I've done free-form roleplay and its fun, but if the Wizard is both extremely complex and relies on players to carry all the flavor, that sort of indicates that the class itself is very weak in terms of flavor.

It isn't. The original game class of Magic User was a solid design. Specialization is for ants. :smalltongue:
In a game with few classes and only 1-2 classes with magic, "magic user" makes sense.

In a game where everyone's a magic user its meaningless.

For some reason, it is treated as a de facto holy bovine that we do not restrict wizard spell selection, and thus the thematics is destined to completely suck. If the most important feature of a class is not allowed to be thematically tuned, then the class is not allowed to have a theme that really matters, by design.

I say bollocks on that. IMNSHO, the 3.5 Psion offered a reasonable compromise. To summarize, there was a large, broad list of "spells" (powers) that were available to all Psions, so they could be competent generalists. But each Psion had an area of focus where they could choose from superior spells.

The other way to do that is to actually tune the spell slot. For example, Invisibility might be a 3rd level spell for an Evocationist. So you are not forbidden from certain spells, but you are naturally going to cast more of certain spells and fewer of certain others.
Yup. I'm not saying you need to completely lose access to fireball as a non-evoker, but maybe preparing one uses up two "spells perpared" slots.

You're not wrong that roleplaying should make every character unique. But some people aren't good are roleplaying. Some people need the fluff (and mechanics) to help them out with roleplaying and have a tough time making a distinct character without them. By comparison pretty much anyone can pick up a Cleric Subclass and have an inspiration for how to play it. Wizard subclasses? Maybe a bit with some subclasses, but for the most part I'd say no.
Yes this is my point exactly. I can show up to a table with a champion fighter and have the party head over heals in love with how cool and interesting they are... but if that happens, I've done all the work myself.

sandmote

2022-05-27, 01:07 PM

Spells are to Wizards, as Weapons are to Fighters.

A Battlemaster or Rune Knight Fighter can use whatever instrument of bloody death they wish to use. Spells are to Wizards, as weapons are to Fighters.

An Evoker Wizard no more receives the Portent Ability than a Rune Knight receives a Psi Energy Die. A fighter can use whichever instrument of bloody death they want, but most will grab a particular fighting style and/or a feat that specifically works with a particular subset of weapons. Once they've done that, the other instruments of bloody death are comparatively less effective. Similarly, specifically making choices to focus on survivability or flexibility with weapons requires making other choices, which sacrifice your death-dealing efficiency in combat. Grabbing Archery and Sharpshooter makes your optimal choices fundamentally different than if you grab Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon master and both result in a PC who operates differently than one who goes with Interception and Heavy Armor Master.

Fighters therefore likely already decided on duel wielding/polearm/heavy weapon/sword and board/focusing on ranged and typically need a reason to carry more than one type of backup equipment (and even then the backup is often either ranged or a melee finesse weapon to contrast what they're focusing on). A wizard's other choices on subclass and feats, however, only end up taking up about half the spells they can prepare. So the wizard needs a reason not to prepare all the usual suspects.

As a result, 5e fails to make Wizard spells analogous to fighter weapons.

Which segues into the point that School Specialization was always optional, when Oppositional Schools, (also Known as Spell List Restriction), was a balancing factor.

The Generalist Wizard was still alive and well even in 2e AD&D days. This makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have all 1st level wizards have to choose two spell schools they can't get wizard spells from, and then create a "College Dropout" archetype that gets access to those spell schools at 2nd level.

Anymage

2022-05-27, 01:47 PM

This makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have all 1st level wizards have to choose two spell schools they can't get wizard spells from, and then create a "College Dropout" archetype that gets access to those spell schools at 2nd level.

Back in 3.5 people already had a good idea which schools were safest to drop as a specialist. I don't think opposition schools will meaningfully support flavor. A few school specializations did - diviners getting refunded spell slots or abjurers effectively healing for casting in-school spells helped encourage that - but it's easier to make a subclass with general perks than to balance ones that incentivize casting in-school spells. Given that we're not going to be losing wizard anytime soon, I would appreciate if 5e tried to have subclass more actively encourage use of whatever thematic spells.

BRC

2022-05-27, 01:56 PM

I think it's less "Wizard Theme Bad" as it is that it's hard to build a wizard whose theme goes beyond "Wizard" without feeling like you're hamstringing yourself mechanically.

A fighter can be an expert marksman, a Rapier-Swinging Duelist, the classic sword-and-board knight, a greatsword master, and more, and there are ways to build your fighter such that you embody that theming. A Master Marksman fighter can't just pick up a greatsword and be as good as the Greatsword specialist. You feel like you're playing Your Fighter, not just "A Fighter Who Happens to be using this weapon right now".

A Wizard might want to have the theme of "Illusionist", but once you've picked up invisibility, Major Image, and Silent Image, you've gotten the bulk of your Illusion spells taken care of. What's more, with Illusionist specifically, since so many spells are concentration, once you've cast your Illusions, you can't really cast many more, and you'll inevitably fall back on the Fireball train. Plus there are some spells like Fly, Teleportation Circle, and the like that are such powerful utility that it's hard to justify NOT casting them, and their power is such that they'll kind of take over your character's role. You might be the "Illusion Guy", but once you can cast Teleportation Circle, you're the Teleportation Guy, regardless of anything else you can do. You kind of merge into "The Wizard" regardless of what you do, and if you're going to limit yourself to a smaller selection of spells, why not go Sorcerer?

Which isn't TERRIBLE. A lot of classes lack much in the way of thematic versatility with their mechanics.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-27, 02:48 PM

BRC

2022-05-27, 04:08 PM

I think it's also that Wizard subclasses kind of do the least out of the Big Four. Cleric, Fighters, and Rogues can all have their playstyles moulded pretty substantially by their subclasses, whereas many wizard subclasses just don't do that.

Some do, out of the core eight Necromancer and Illusionist have abilities that can potentially lead to quite substantial shifts, and War Magic seems to begin at the same core idea as Evocation and twists it to have a more defensive style. But most subclasses don't stop you from casting Fireball because few give you a reason not to.

I think starting the Wizard subclasses with eight schools instead of three to four playstyles was a mistake. Imagine if the Fighter subclasses had been 'Archer, Dual Wielder, Great Weapon Fighter, Shield Barer'. It would have been boring.

Imagine each class as split between being defined by it's Base Class vs it's Subclasses. I don't know for sure which class is most Defined by it's subclass (Druid or Cleric maybe? Monks seem to get a lot of identity from their subclasses), but if I had to say what class is the Least defined by it's subclass, it would be Wizard.

If you played a Subclassless Wizard, with no additional features from it's specialization, while you'd certainly be weaker than a standard wizard, I don't think it would be especially noticable. Subclass Features can be pretty cool (Like the Divination Wizard), but they don't really change the way you Wizard, they just make you slightly better at certain types of Wizarding.

(Compared to say, the Fighter. While Battlemaster is almost as theme-neutral as Champion, it does affect how you play).

I think the only way to fix the problem is to rebuild wizards from the ground up. You could give them so many tools that they'll play with those instead of casting Fireball, but Wizards are already a very potent class, and so building a new wizard that outcompetes the old one doesn't seem great.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 04:16 PM

Segev

2022-05-27, 04:16 PM

If you played a Subclassless Wizard, with no additional features from it's specialization, while you'd certainly be weaker than a standard wizard, I don't think it would be especially noticable. Subclass Features can be pretty cool (Like the Divination Wizard), but they don't really change the way you Wizard, they just make you slightly better at certain types of Wizarding.

You could say the same about any base class, really. Ignore the subclass, and you don't change the class!

Diviners are a huge callout on how you can play differently: they're a save-or-suck master and a friend to all who need just one or two 'saving graces' per day. And their ability to recover spell slots when using divination magic seriously ups the amount of divination they cast, trust me. I've seen it in action. They lean hard into being the wizard always ready to look into the future, or past the wall, or to otherwise use those spells.

Abjurer wizards have entire builds centered around maximizing that ward. Some of those builds are multiclass, but the fact that the school choice influences the multiclass so much belies the notion that it is transparent.

Illusionists are a favorite of mine, but I admit they actually don't really feel much different from other wizards before level 6. After level 6, though, Malleable Illusions makes some rather meh illusion spells into really neat tools. Illusory script goes from being a way to send a secret message to being a bluffing tool, the Doctor's slightly psychic paper. Magic mouth becomes a way to throw your voice and a reason to, perhaps, play a pre-multiverse Kenku so you can mimic all sorts of sounds from it. No spellcasting, no need to worry about placing a minor illusion, just leave the mouth somewhere and watch it make sounds. By level 11, the illusionist is really leaning into his own, hauling about one or two major images that are permanent and can be altered at will. And the things he can do with mirage arcane when he gets it at level 13.... hoo boy. No other wizard plays like this.

I'll grant that the transmuter is a bit meh, though I bet there are people on this forum who would argue with me and may even convince me otherwise, pointing out how it can play very differently from other wizards in some fashion.

Necromancers, like illusionsts, take a while to differentiate from other wizards, but by 6th level they're the best minionmancers, which is good. They could and should be better, in my opinion, but that's a whole nother thread.

In short: wizard subclass can RADICALLY change your play style if you pick the right one and the right spells to exploit its quirks.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 04:25 PM

You could say the same about any base class, really. Ignore the subclass, and you don't change the class!

Nah, sorry, I won't agree here.

If you think about a fiend and celestial warlock, they don't feel like the same class. They're both firey blasters, sure, but fiend gets fireball and an insane bosskiller move, while Celestial gets buckets of healing, and concentration damage spells like wall of fire and flaming sphere. And of course in flavor someone who made a deal with a fiend is a completely different character from someone who made a deal with a celestial.

Similarly an EK and a Rune Knight play radically differently and also have significantly different thematics.

You can build to the arcane ward being good, but by default its really not that impressive. Portent is amazing but its twice per day. War Magic is just "yeah I'm a bit faster and tougher." And, mechanical considerations aside, these subclasses are also lacking in flavor. A war wizard is a wizard who... wars. Yay.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-27, 04:30 PM

I would also point out that the subclasses for wizard that are actually impactful and flavorful are hilariously overpowered. Like Bladesinger is flavorful! It's also just casually a fantastic melee combatant with amazing AC while being a full-on wizard.

Huh, I guess Monte Cook is back on the 5e team.

I think it's just a thing that flavourful subclasses tend to be better anyway because there's a stronger core idea. Which I think is why Cleric Domains feel better to me than Wizard Traditions (plus the Grave Domain was pretty much made for the death priest character I've always wanted to play).

Segev

2022-05-27, 04:31 PM

Nah, sorry, I won't agree here.

If you think about a fiend and celestial warlock, they don't feel like the same class. They're both firey blasters, sure, but fiend gets fireball and an insane bosskiller move, while Celestial gets buckets of healing, and concentration damage spells like wall of fire and flaming sphere. And of course in flavor someone who made a deal with a fiend is a completely different character from someone who made a deal with a celestial.

Similarly an EK and a Rune Knight play radically differently and also have significantly different thematics.

You can build to the arcane ward being good, but by default its really not that impressive. Portent is amazing but its twice per day. War Magic is just "yeah I'm a bit faster and tougher." And, mechanical considerations aside, these subclasses are also lacking in flavor. A war wizard is a wizard who... wars. Yay.

Sure, and if I cherry pick my subclasses, I can point to how the Feylock and the Fiend play very similarly, sharing the boss killer and having otherwise features that are nice on the rare times they come up, but it all comes down to spell selection and invocation selection after that. Pact Boon makes more of a difference. Meanwhile, an Illusionist and an Abjurer play VERY differently. (And, when you have to assert that "baseline" the Abjurer isn't very impressive without building to it, you're conceding my point about how you can ignore your subclass features and find that the subclass doesn't matter with any class.)

You're right; a wizard who picks the generic and flavorless subclass will feel more "wizard" than "war wizard." That's a problem with that one subclass.

A diviner's portent is good 2x per day, true. But his level 6 feature shapes his behavior a LOT. Most wizards get their "playstyle-shaping" feature at level 6, come to think of it. At least the Diviner, the Illusionist, and the Necromancer do. The Abjurer gets his at level 2.

Drascin

2022-05-27, 05:03 PM

A problem with Wizard is that the D&D Wizard is actually really ****ing weird, but the gameline has been acting since decades ago like no, this isn't odd at all, this is actually the most basic and generic form of the magic user, that everything else magical should be mechanically derived from, which has been kind of a problem.

Like, the combination of the "hypergeneralist that can do anything magic from an Everything List" chassis and the weird mix of gnostic+hermetic+80s engineering nerd built into the class's basic identity makes it incredibly specific and basically not a character type that exists outside of D&D and D&D-derived media... but at the same time the game believes that this is the basic caster and so it basically has nothing to itself beyond "can cast pretty much anything in the book". The wizard is all spells and nothing else.

Which kinda results in the common problem that A Wizard is a Wizard. They all basically end up in a sort-of-the-same mold.

Because all the class really has is spells, but also the class is very strongly disassociated from its spell choices (due to the basic concept being born from "can do anything" and "magic engineer", and being strongly incentivized to learn everything they come across via scrolls and such), so it's not like the sorcerer or the bard, where people routinely pick less good spells because the spells a sorcerer develops can be used to represent who they are, and if you have a fire sorcerer you're probably not going to pick up Shadow Conjurations just on flavor alone. A wizard's spells are just their toolbelt, nothing more, they're not really a character defining choice the way a warlock's patrons and pacts or a paladin's oaths or a sorcerer's spells known are. They're just the things you got around to learning first but you can trade them in whenever, they're more like the different swords in the 3.5 fighter's golf bag to hit different immunities. And so wizards naturally end up sort of gravitating towards a lot of similarity, even played by very different people.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 05:33 PM

Sure, and if I cherry pick my subclasses, I can point to how the Feylock and the Fiend play very similarly, sharing the boss killer and having otherwise features that are nice on the rare times they come up, but it all comes down to spell selection and invocation selection after that. Pact Boon makes more of a difference. Meanwhile, an Illusionist and an Abjurer play VERY differently. (And, when you have to assert that "baseline" the Abjurer isn't very impressive without building to it, you're conceding my point about how you can ignore your subclass features and find that the subclass doesn't matter with any class.)

You're right; a wizard who picks the generic and flavorless subclass will feel more "wizard" than "war wizard." That's a problem with that one subclass.

A diviner's portent is good 2x per day, true. But his level 6 feature shapes his behavior a LOT. Most wizards get their "playstyle-shaping" feature at level 6, come to think of it. At least the Diviner, the Illusionist, and the Necromancer do. The Abjurer gets his at level 2.

Building to abjurer generally means using multiclassing or race selection to grab spells completely outside the wizard class as well as exploiting cheese to fill of the war quickly. It's an interesting build, but its a very specific build, and calling everything else "ignoring your subclass features" feels like a pretty lofty optimization standard. Am I ignoring my subclass features because I don't multiclass or play a Mark of Warding Dwarf / Deep Gnome? Come on.

For contrast, a moon druid is a weird kind of character regardless of what you do with it. Rune Knights are always going to be massively different from Echo Knights and Battlemasters. Even your cherry picked example of a fey vs. fiendlock doesn't really work here. Both subclasses unlock lots of new spells, including some very good ones, and while DD and HtH are similar, everything else is different. But besides this, Warlock also has more interesting options built into other parts of the class. Pacts, boons, and spell selection that has a long term impact.

An evoker or diviner might cast more evocation or divination spells respectively after level 6 or so, but at level 1 a feylock can cast sleep and most other warlocks simply can't

And lastly, I'll reiterate: wizard subclasses lack lore flavor. Abjurers are wizards with forcefields (but all wizards have forcefields), evokers are wizards with fireball (but fireball is really good for all wizards)

KorvinStarmast

2022-05-27, 06:04 PM

In a game with few classes and only 1-2 classes with magic, "magic user" makes sense. Thank you for agreeing with me, and yes, Sorcerer is the first on the chopping block. :smallbiggrin:

In a game where everyone's a magic user its meaningless. Hey, how about that, maybe magic is overdone in WoTC D&D?

Huh, I guess Monte Cook is back on the 5e team.
Inflation, man. Everyone needs a side hustle. :smalleek:

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 06:16 PM

Thank you for agreeing with me, and yes, Sorcerer is the first on the chopping block. :smallbiggrin:

Sorcerer has bad thematics, but I think a lot of this comes down to the wizard crowding everyone else out.

Sorcerers should be the blasters and arcane melee casters, wizards can stay squishy and stay on the back line.

IMO, anyway:smallbiggrin:

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-27, 07:01 PM

I would also point out that the subclasses for wizard that are actually impactful and flavorful are hilariously overpowered. Like Bladesinger is flavorful! It's also just casually a fantastic melee combatant with amazing AC while being a full-on wizard.

Right. When your primary base class feature (Spellcasting) takes up 90+% of the average class power budget including sub-classes, the room for anything but ribbons (and small ones) is severely reduced.

That's the core issue--because their power budget is all gone on "I have all the spells", they can't get very many interesting features anywhere else without pushing them firmly over into "too strong" (relative to everyone else). The only solution is to chop the power-budget contribution of Spellcasting.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-05-27, 07:36 PM

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 07:56 PM

As much as a lot of hate goes towards the sorc, and I do get the criticism that they don't get enough metamagics, the lack of metamagics does help distinguish (mechanically) one from the other. The individual metamagics are strong enough to make some otherwise mediocre spells into solid picks. I played a Fire Dragon Sorc, starting with Quicken and Empower, and could still easily play a couple of different Sorcerers that used very different spell lists that were supported by the combination of Subclass and metamagics picked.

IMO, give all sorcs bonus lists of spells known and the ritual caster feat and 90% of peoples' problems with the class disappear into nothingness.

Witty Username

2022-05-27, 08:23 PM

If you think about a fiend and celestial warlock, they don't feel like the same class.
Take it from someone that has had multiple warlocks in the same party, this is not true.

The overwhelming majority of warlocks fall into the pattern of hex+eldritch blast, most of the time. Further, the spells on the warlock side lists are dependent on the player taking them, so you will see alot of armor of agathys, hunger of Hadar, hypnotic pattern and hex before you see much at all of the subclass lists.

Meanwhile we have had multiple wizards in the same party and I think the only spell they have cast with overlap is mage armor, and I think shield.

Witty Username

2022-05-27, 08:40 PM

In the first place fighters are thematically unique in 5e by virtue of not being casters or otherwise supernatural. Only 2/13 classes in this game can be said to be truly 'mundane'. Fighter is one of these 2 classes. Comparatively not only are 9/13 classes "casters" like the wizard, but 5/13 (bard, artificer, wizard, warlock, sorcerer) are "arcane" spellcasters. Fighter is part of the least saturated conceptual space, Wizard is part of the most saturated space.

Isn't that a sign that wizard hasn't crowed out a bunch of design space for other classes and fighter has?

Thunderous Mojo

2022-05-27, 09:07 PM

A fighter can use whichever instrument of bloody death they want, but most will grab a particular fighting style and/or a feat that specifically works with a particular subset of weapons. Once they've done that, the other instruments of bloody death are comparatively less effective.

The same is true for Wizards and other spell casters…see the Elemental Adept feat. Now 5e lacks spell type specific feats in the vein of Great Weapon Mastery etc…but that is a particular design choice, not something mandated by the structure of 5e.

If you're going to put all the weight of expression and character customization on roleplaying, why even have a system? The system's job is to create an environment where you can build something that has unique personality, aesthetics, and mechanics. I've done free-form roleplay and its fun, but if the Wizard is both extremely complex and relies on players to carry all the flavor, that sort of indicates that the class itself is very weak in terms of flavor.

I disagree that the Wizard subclasses do not provide flavor. The Original AD&D Specialists seem vastly more flavorless than 5e Wizards, to me.

AD&D Specialists received more spells slots for certain spells, but nothing else. If all the Wizard class has is spells….restricting the spells each subclass can cast makes the subclasses very one dimensional.

It reduces flavor, it does not add to it.

If one wants Wizards to do more than cast spells, then one needs to give abilities that do not revolve around spells.

The Wizard class should automatically grant tool proficiency with a Calligraphy Kit, as well as Expertise in Arcana at some point.

sandmote

2022-05-27, 11:05 PM

The same is true for Wizards and other spell casters…see the Elemental Adept feat. Now 5e lacks spell type specific feats in the vein of Great Weapon Mastery etc…but that is a particular design choice, not something mandated by the structure of 5e. Fighters likely already decided on duel wielding/polearm/heavy weapon/sword and board/focusing on ranged and typically need a reason to carry more than one type of backup equipment (and even then the backup is often either ranged or a melee finesse weapon to contrast what they're focusing on). A wizard's other choices on subclass, however, only end up taking up about half the spells they can prepare. So the wizard needs a reason not to prepare all the usual suspects.

The same statement about subclasses carries over to carries over to the caster feats (including elemental adept); there's only so many acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder spells you can take before you've covered what you can get from them. Whereas the structure of PCs having two hands + the rules for drawing/stowing weapons mandates a fighter can attack using a maul and a bow only if they leave one on the ground whenever they're using the other.

strangebloke

2022-05-27, 11:59 PM

Take it from someone that has had multiple warlocks in the same party, this is not true.

The overwhelming majority of warlocks fall into the pattern of hex+eldritch blast, most of the time. Further, the spells on the warlock side lists are dependent on the player taking them, so you will see alot of armor of agathys, hunger of Hadar, hypnotic pattern and hex before you see much at all of the subclass lists.

Meanwhile we have had multiple wizards in the same party and I think the only spell they have cast with overlap is mage armor, and I think shield.
Why are your warlocks all casting hex? That spell is actively bad after like level 4 at the absolute latest. Also why aren't they picking the subclass spells? Revivify, Wall of Fire, Fireball, Sleep, Lightning Bolt... these are all very good spells.

And sure this is your play experience and its valid, but mine is the exact opposite. Most of the do have agonizing EB, but that's only one aspect of a larger kit. Warlocks get a full three lines of customization in addition to spells. Subclass, pact, boon. The hexbladelock fixated on EB and eldritch smite in my one game plays very different from the fey chainlock with MOMF in the other campaign, who is in turn nothing like the fathomless chainlock who took counterspell and uses summons heavily. And the celestial tomelock is another beast entirely.

...We're getting a bit lost in the mechanical weeds here. I'm not going to claim that wizards don't - in theory - have a lot of space for customization. But I also think that in practice their flavor is very very bland.

Isn't that a sign that wizard hasn't crowed out a bunch of design space for other classes and fighter has?
I don't think we can glean the intentions of Mike Mearls and JC in picking the classes they did. You see a lot of people asking after the psion (or its dead bastard child the mystic) or the 4e warlord, whereas a lot of people didn't and don't want the sorcerer, and the warlock was seen as a very surprising inclusion that people still question.

And yeah if we look back to the history of these classes... bards weren't full casters, warlocks weren't casters at all, and paladins and rangers only had a handful of spells, and artificers were sort of casters but were a completely different thing entirely.

Broadly speaking, the lack of interesting martial options is a complaint you hear repeated a lot in the larger internet, and that's been true for the entire life of the game. 5e made a lot of nonmagical abilities into magical abilities in the edition leapfrog and it wasn't a wholly popular decision. Most of the martial classes that do exist are very popular according to limited data we have.

I disagree that the Wizard subclasses do not provide flavor. The Original AD&D Specialists seem vastly more flavorless than 5e Wizards, to me.

AD&D Specialists received more spells slots for certain spells, but nothing else. If all the Wizard class has is spells….restricting the spells each subclass can cast makes the subclasses very one dimensional.

It reduces flavor, it does not add to it.

If one wants Wizards to do more than cast spells, then one needs to give abilities that do not revolve around spells.
One dimensional. Yes. Good. That's what I would like.

That's how every other class in the game works. You have to make choices and specialize, potentially giving up capacity in other areas. Heavy armor forces you to give up stealth to a degree, but you get better AC. Defense style is sort of weak and you have to give up damage, but you retain a degree of flexibility. DND is a team game and nobody should be able to excel in loads of areas at the same time.

And yes, I agree - more features that aren't spellcasting. But with the wizard already being one of if not the most powerful class in the game, giving them more features seems like a bad idea. I think the bladesinger is flavorful. I also think its overpowered. Giving an additional limitation to Wizards opens the door for more potential abilities in other areas.

Witty Username

2022-05-28, 12:58 AM

Wizard has that though, at every stage of play.
A wizard that chooses hypnotic pattern, doesn't get fireball for example. But wizard is the only one where play forces priorities, by way scribing spells.
This requires time, adventure hooks, social play, etc.
The other classes, either by fixed lists or just getting all their spells. Don't have choice as part of gameplay, only as part of character creation or level up.
And if you use the Pre-tasha's UA, sorcerers and bards get access to their entire lists as well.

A wizard could be motivated on a whole adventure path to get that shield spell scroll that they couldn't afford at first level.

If you must reduce the wizard, I would recommend the AD&D method, they don't get new spells each level, and must aquire them through play.

The counter argument here is that wizards can get a bunch of spells eventually, but that is on the DM at that point. And more importantly, eventually. Most of the game will be exciting play with risks, rewards, success, and heartache. As D&D should be. Also, I would point out Wizard is the only PC that the DM can attack their spell list directly, if it becomes an issue.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-28, 03:39 AM

Broadly speaking, the lack of interesting martial options is a complaint you hear repeated a lot in the larger internet, and that's been true for the entire life of the game. 5e made a lot of nonmagical abilities into magical abilities in the edition leapfrog and it wasn't a wholly popular decision. Most of the martial classes that do exist are very popular according to limited data we have.

The overabundance of casters is my biggest problem with 5e, but admittedly it does seem to accurately model modern fantasy where it feels like every protagonist has to have some kind of magic ability.

On the other hand both the Knight in Shining Armour and the Grizzled Mercenary seem to still be popular archetypes. I think the KiSA might actually be increasing in popularity again, and I love that the Fighter does have three decent fully mundane archetypes as well as the Champion.

Plus honestly, D&D makes casters too complex. They're fine at lower levels, but eventually they have you tracking many different resources*, with lots of spells, and occasionally over powers on top of that, and prepared casters have to deal with shuffling their spells known every day. It's better than early editions because you don't also need to decide how many fireballs you want today, but it still feels like a mess.

You know what I want? A class that does nothing but shapeshift. They get the power to take animal forms at level 1 and then build on that idea as they level.

* And most players struggle to track arrows and rations.

Kane0

2022-05-28, 04:38 AM

Fun numbers, Wizards have access to 198 spells of levels 1-5 from the PHB, Xanathar's and Tashas not counting extras from Wildemount, Fizban's, Strixhaven, etc.
If we currently have 11 wizard subclasses from the same books (not counting gravity/chronurgy for now) and we do some moving of two spells of each spell level 1-5 to those subclasses from the core wizard list that number goes from 198 to 88, plus the 10 you get based on subclass. Compare that to the bard's 93, the warlock's 68 and the sorcerer's 122.

Bobthewizard

2022-05-28, 07:28 AM

If people don't like the open-ended possibilities of wizards, they don't have to play them. And a lot of people don't. I see a lot more bards, sorcerers and warlocks than I do wizards. But I like wizards because they are open ended. I can be much more creative in making a wizard than I can any other class. I love that I can create a theme for my wizard and not be limited by their subclass.

All bards feel the same to me because they have so few good spells and the drop-off from those spells to their other choices is so large. All sorcerers of a given subclass feel the same to me. Once I know that you are making a gold draconic sorcerer I know what spells you are going to focus on. Warlocks at least have a second variable with their Pact and Patron, but once you know those, you know what you are getting.

Wizard is the best class for allowing me to make something unique. They get enough spells that I can take the important defensive ones and still have room for a few flavorful, signature spells. There are a few spells I almost always take - shield, absorb elements, tasha’s hideous laughter, misty step, counterspell, dispel magic, fly, dimension door, and lots of rituals. But I have made several thematic wizards by varying the rest of their spells.

Time/space manipulator
Silvery barbs, magnify gravity
Levitate, vortex warp, tasha’s mind whip
Haste, slow
Banishment
Bigby’s hand, telekinesis

Showboat
Burning hands
Rimes binding ice, web
Sleet storm, summon shadowspawn
Polymorph
Animate objects

Controller
Sleep
Web, suggestion
Hypnotic pattern
Otilukes sphere
Wall of force

Blaster
Thunderwave
Shatter
Fireball
Sickening Radiance
Dawn

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-28, 07:47 AM

If I wanted open ended possibilities I'd play HERO.

Corran

2022-05-28, 08:18 AM

Thematically wizards are arcane magic users who learn their magic through study, as oposed to having something grant it to them or have it as an innate ability. This is solid. And it defines the game universe since it makes magic something that can also be studied and understood.

Mechanically, they are the only arcane (full) caster that can change their spells drastically every day. This is a very different feel than having a fixed list of options. It can be an enjoyable challenge, an unwanted headache, and anything in between, but the point is that it plays differently to other arcane casters for this reason. So that's solid too.

Balance concerns aside, the base class is solid in terms of theme, and it's distinct enough from a mechanics perspective (prepared spells), so personally I see no issues here.

On to the subclasses. It's very difficult to make these feel distinct enough, because you have to squeeze them in a very limited place due to how the base class offers so damn much. But in the case of many of the wizard subclasses I think that the devs did an elegant job.

For example, it's very easy to make the evoker feel a good choice to someone who wants to blast away with AoE spells by just giving them something like sculpt spells.

The illusionist feels very different when malleable illusions and later on illusory reality kicks into the game.

The necromancer feels different thanks to the boost to animate dead and later on thanks to their tier 3 ablity.

The diviner is either amazing or blunt theme wise, depending on how you flavor the use of your portent dice. I think it relies a bit more than it should on the player to bring the theme to life.

I am not too sold on the enchanter, they are not tricksy enough outside of combat until the very high levels, and a lot of enchantment spells became a bit unappealing compared to how they were in previous editions.

Abjurer. Meh. Theme needs strengthening here.

Conjurer is fine since they get lots of incentive to rely on summon spells.

Transmuter could be amazing if they tied more in game stuff and a lot more fluff (that you dont have to make up yourself) to the transmutation stone, but oh well.

I hear the new bladesinger is good for what it is supposed to do, but I haven't checked it out.

Warmage lacks flavour imo.

Everything else I have not checked or thought much of.

Overall I think that most subclasses are good enough to make your wizard play and feel different to wizards of other school, especially given the tight space these subclasses have to be restricted to. I guess I wouldn't mind if the base class made more room for subclasses, but most of them do it for me in their current implementation so I'm talking over potential improvement and not a fix.

stoutstien

2022-05-28, 08:47 AM

Amnestic

2022-05-28, 09:05 AM

I've always had a fundamental issue with the idea of the adventurous wizard. Their lore and progression as a class supports the idea they would want to avoid the traditional adventure's life style until they are laterally at the stage of having named spells widely credited to them and having lunch dates with archfiends to discuss politics. Until they can safely reverse the risk of leaving a safe area I just can't see it worth while unless the rewards are there.

People say Warlocks are the power-hungry ones taking shortcuts, but when a wizard stays 1st level for years while studying magic in a tower vs. rocketing from 1st to 20th in a month and a half on the road, I think we all know which class is REALLY trying to take the fast route to magical omnipotence.

Warlocks=power hungry is wizardly propaganda meant to deflect from their own foibles.

stoutstien

2022-05-28, 09:10 AM

People say Warlocks are the power-hungry ones taking shortcuts, but when a wizard stays 1st level for years while studying magic in a tower vs. rocketing from 1st to 20th in a month and a half on the road, I think we all know which class is REALLY trying to take the fast route to magical omnipotence.

Warlocks=power hungry is wizardly propaganda meant to deflect from their own foibles.

Lol right. It's almost like the old *insert any dangerous profession* idiom but reversed.

In my head cannon wizardry is just a Ponzi scheme for knowledge.

Witty Username

2022-05-28, 11:26 AM

The issue with hide until OP, is that wizards gotta eat. And people are *******s to witches. If you are not making yourself useful, money for that alchemy runs out. So you got to go out, get yourself heard about and get in the pocket of some earl, or pick up farming (and people get nervous when a witch is living on the edge of town). So, what spells you got? Well damage, personal defense, some carry all, disabling spells, and a few tricks like identification, and translation.

In short, your applicable skills are alot of adventure stuff, your not a cleric that can sit in their desert home making food and water all day, or curing the sick and accident prone. So, you got to go out and earn that retirement gold.

Waazraath

2022-05-28, 02:46 PM

People often talk about the thematics of a class being bad. Rangers and Sorcerers usually get picked on here, though I've also seen barbarians and druids get mentioned as well.

But while these all have thematic issues, IMO they pale in comparison to the thematically most confused class in 5e: the wizard.

What is a wizard? Well lets ask the PHB:

A wizard is a magic guy. Yay. Now this is already a bad start. Everyone has magic in 5e. Less than a quarter of the game's design space is occupied by non-spellcasters, and of those that aren't spellcasters, a huge percentage are supernatural non-spellcasters like beast barbarians and ancestral barbarians. Having magic is literally less flavorful in 5e than not having magic.

The only claim to fame here is that wizards study magic, as opposed to an innate knowledge or a gifted knowledge. That's something. But this is a pretty narrow space, and the actual mechanics of the class undercut this. Scholars and academics would of all classes be the ones that you expect to specialize the most. After all, that's what academics do, right? You don't ever meet a guy who has a PHD in "science" do you?? But every wizard effectively does have a PHD in "magic." Wizards don't specialize. Its suboptimal for them to do so. An evoker usually will take fireball or lightning bolt, but an abjurer and an illusionist will as well. The evoker will be a little better with that particular spell, but its going to be good for all of them. They probably all have mage armor and shield and silvery barbs and find familiar and web and sleep and magic missile and counterspell as well, yeah?

Every Wizard is a supergeneralist who also get access to all the best-in-class spells for nearly every category, and taking only the good spells is usually going to be the best option. There's some variance of choice here because list of excellent spells is that long, but I've essentially never seen a truly focused/specialized wizard. Customization comes down to things like "skipping counterspell this time" or "getting light armor proficiency and skipping mage armor" or "taking lightning bolt instead of fireball."

Sure, not every wizard takes ALL the good spells, but there's little argument in favor of it.

And yeah, this has knock-on effects for other classes. Sorcerers in PF were the blasting class, sort of a red mage to the wizard's blue. But in DND, while sorcerers can be decent blasters, they have to give up on everything else to do that, while wizards are always going to be good blaster as well as whatever else they feel like. Bards are support and control casters, but again, wizards magically do most of the same things already and bards have to go back to their class features to have an impact.

Wizard thematics need a rework, just like 3e paladins did.

My proposed solution would be pushing a lot of best-in-class spells like fireball and lightning bolt to the specialized subclass lists, to reflect that this is an area of focus for the wizard in question. War Wizards and Evokers can learn Shatter and Rimes Binding Ice and fireball, but a master illusionist might not be familiar with those spells, or perhaps can learn them but not until higher than the normal level. Until then if they want to do blasting on the side they'll have to get by with Aganazzar's Scorcher and the like.

And yes, I'm not saying every good spell needs to leave the wizard list. Some things like counterspell are very on-brand for a wizard; others like mage armor are pretty essential to how the wizard functions as a class without feats or multiclassing.

Big fat +1 to this, spot on.

Were I redesigning Wizards from the ground up, I wouldn't specifically split it up by School.

The general system would be that each Wizard subclass has some number of "Favored Schools". Rather than Wizard Level+int Modifier spells prepared, you may prepare up to your Wizard Level in spells from your Favored Schools, and up to your Int Modifier of spells from Any School. This means that Wizards lean increasingly into their identities as they level up and the relative balance shifts.

So the Wizard Subclasses might be, like

Warcaster: Evocation, Abjuration

Beguiler: Illusion, Enchantment

Occultist: Necromancy, Divination

Conjurer: Conjuration, Transmutation

Generalist: No favored school, fewer total spells prepared.

Or something like that.

Then you can keep printing new subclasses with different combinations of schools, or have Hyperspecialists with exactly 1 favored school.

Also, the more limited prep options bring back some of the older "Carefully select your spells" feel, without specifically "How many times do you need to cast Fireball today?"

quoted for truth. Though we might take it one step further and scratch the schools entirely, and stick with the warcaster / beguiler / dread necro / generalist for historical reasons.

For some reason, it is treated as a de facto holy bovine that we do not restrict wizard spell selection, and thus the thematics is destined to completely suck. If the most important feature of a class is not allowed to be thematically tuned, then the class is not allowed to have a theme that really matters, by design.

I say bollocks on that. IMNSHO, the 3.5 Psion offered a reasonable compromise. To summarize, there was a large, broad list of "spells" (powers) that were available to all Psions, so they could be competent generalists. But each Psion had an area of focus where they could choose from superior spells.

The other way to do that is to actually tune the spell slot. For example, Invisibility might be a 3rd level spell for an Evocationist. So you are not forbidden from certain spells, but you are naturally going to cast more of certain spells and fewer of certain others.

Again, qft.

My own take: 5e's wizard is, in retrospect, a tragedy. My theory is that during 3.5, the desiginers already noticed the same problems we are talking about here: lacking class identity, every wizard just picking the best spells in stead of sticking to a coherent theme, the problem with the class getting stronger with every splat book (though arguably this is even a bigger problem for clerics and druids who automaticallhy known their entire spell list), the failure to represent archetypes from literature, games and movies due to there not being a mechanical incentive to do so. 3.X fixed that failure. They created the psionic system which was much more interesting and had focuessed psions (as mentioned in the quoted post above), and late 3.5 fixed it with thematic caster classes like the mentioned Beguiler, Warmage and Dread necro. They were superior to the wizard in every respect (except power, which was a good thing in 3.x). That the designers of 5e regressed in this respect to 3.0's design failure was just dumb, imo.

And yes, I've seen this reflected in my games: few wizards, and hardly memorabel ones.

sandmote

2022-05-29, 04:19 AM

Wizard is the best class for allowing me to make something unique. They get enough spells that I can take the important defensive ones and still have room for a few flavorful, signature spells. There are a few spells I almost always take - shield, absorb elements, tasha’s hideous laughter, misty step, counterspell, dispel magic, fly, dimension door, and lots of rituals. But I have made several thematic wizards by varying the rest of their spells. An 8th level wizard with 20 Intelligence can prepare up to 13 spells. You've listed 8 spells here already. Assuming you skip a few, your wizards differ mechanically by the (usually pretty lackluster) subclass features and maybe 7 spells by 8th level.

This is better than the sorcerer's 9 spells, so you can grab more things to fit your theme. But it also means you're likely able to grab everything that does fit your theme. And once you've done that you're grabbing things from the same list, pretty much no matter what wizard school or theme you're working with. So once I know you are making a wizard, a know a bunch of the spells you're grabbing before I know what spells you're going to focus on.

All sorcerers of a given subclass feel the same to me. Once I know that you are making a gold draconic sorcerer I know what spells you are going to focus on. This can easily work the same as your above description. An 8th level gold draconic sorcerer likely wants most of the options between burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, and wall of fire.

You can then still spec them out to specialize in other options:
Charismatic: Charm Person, Distort Value, Suggestion, Incite Greed
Aerial: Feather Fall, Jump, Kinetic Jaunt, Fly
Intimidating: Thunderwave, Alter Self, Enlarge/Reduce, Fear
Show off: Silent Image, Enhance Ability, Mirror Image, Ashardalon’s Stride

The main difference I see between the draconic sorcerer example and the wizard class is that the set of fire spells applies specifically to brass, gold, and red draconic bloodline sorcerers: draconic bloodline sorcerers with other ancestries are going to swap those fire spells for acid, cold, lightning, or poison spells to work with the elemental affinity feature. meanwhile, all those wizards are grabbing the same defensive spells you've listed, partially because there no pressure against it.

Thunderous Mojo

2022-05-29, 04:49 AM

So, this is what it seems to me, is being argued:

“The Sorcerer does not know enough spells,
let’s punish the Wizard for balance reasons”.

“My fellow players always prepare/chose the same spells”

Neither of these seem to be an issue related directly to the Wizard class.

If people in your game, elect to use the same continual Wizard spell load out, from session to session, and game to game, across multiple characters, then I think Encounter/Campaign Design is probably the best means to encourage people to be more adventurous regarding their spell selection.

Waazraath

2022-05-29, 06:34 AM

By the way, the problems described in this thread are part of the reason I created this thread some years back: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611092-Specialist-casters-%96-build-challenge

strangebloke

2022-05-29, 07:50 AM

Thematically wizards are arcane magic users who learn their magic through study, as oposed to having something grant it to them or have it as an innate ability. This is solid. And it defines the game universe since it makes magic something that can also be studied and understood.

Mechanically, they are the only arcane (full) caster that can change their spells drastically every day. This is a very different feel than having a fixed list of options. It can be an enjoyable challenge, an unwanted headache, and anything in between, but the point is that it plays differently to other arcane casters for this reason. So that's solid too.

Balance concerns aside, the base class is solid in terms of theme, and it's distinct enough from a mechanics perspective (prepared spells), so personally I see no issues here.

On to the subclasses. It's very difficult to make these feel distinct enough, because you have to squeeze them in a very limited place due to how the base class offers so damn much. But in the case of many of the wizard subclasses I think that the devs did an elegant job.
You say that there's no thematic problem, and then underline what the actual problem is.

Every wizard is a mega polymath at a baseline who is super good with all arcane magic, which leaves little room for specialization or interesting class features. In a world were the best spells - things like fireball, lightning bolt, hypnotic pattern, sleep, etc. - weren't accessible to every wizard subclass, it would be acceptable to give those wizards other powerful features.

And sure, ultimately the optimizers would have to find a way to get the spells they wanted bout outside of first level this is harder than most seem to assume.

I've always had a fundamental issue with the idea of the adventurous wizard. Their lore and progression as a class supports the idea they would want to avoid the traditional adventure's life style until they are laterally at the stage of having named spells widely credited to them and having lunch dates with archfiends to discuss politics. Until they can safely reverse the risk of leaving a safe area I just can't see it worth while unless the rewards are there.

The issue with hide until OP, is that wizards gotta eat. And people are *******s to witches. If you are not making yourself useful, money for that alchemy runs out. So you got to go out, get yourself heard about and get in the pocket of some earl, or pick up farming (and people get nervous when a witch is living on the edge of town). So, what spells you got? Well damage, personal defense, some carry all, disabling spells, and a few tricks like identification, and translation.

In short, your applicable skills are alot of adventure stuff, your not a cleric that can sit in their desert home making food and water all day, or curing the sick and accident prone. So, you got to go out and earn that retirement gold.
Both of these are setting dependent to a degree. Personally I've got no issue with adventuring wizards. Wizards, like fighters, can be anyone.

So, this is what it seems to me, is being argued:

“The Sorcerer does not know enough spells,
let’s punish the Wizard for balance reasons”.

“My fellow players always prepare/chose the same spells”

Its more like "the very thought of playing a wizard has my eyes rolling into the back of my head."

Corran

2022-05-29, 09:53 AM

You say that there's no thematic problem, and then underline what the actual problem is.

Every wizard is a mega polymath at a baseline who is super good with all arcane magic, which leaves little room for specialization or interesting class features. In a world were the best spells - things like fireball, lightning bolt, hypnotic pattern, sleep, etc. - weren't accessible to every wizard subclass, it would be acceptable to give those wizards other powerful features.

And sure, ultimately the optimizers would have to find a way to get the spells they wanted bout outside of first level this is harder than most seem to assume.
Ok, let me make a distinction here, regarding the post you quoted. If I were to say that the wizard is a mess of a class, the way I see it, it could mean two different things.
1) Either that the wizard does not justify a class spot because the theme it covers and /or the mechanics it employs are too niche or covered adequately by other classes. To which my first two paragraphs refer and basically I say that for me this is not the case. Obviously this is clearly a matter of preference since I would not be able to objectively say why someone who wants one magic class as the magic user is in the wrong to do so. Or if someone does snot find the distinction between known spells and prepared casting a defining one in terms of gameplay, again, this is pretty subjective too.
2) Or that even though the base class is fine as a concept, the internal structuring is poor and needs to be changed. And this is my third paragpragh in the part you quoted and everything thereafter in my post. To which you are basically replying.

So, after having tried to clarify that I am basically talking about these two things distinctly, let's talk about the second one. First of, I am not against the idea of making the subclasses a huge part of the wizard to the point that each subclass operates extremelly different to another. It all depends on the implementation. For example, I wouldn't be amazed to see variations of the same spell gained by every subclass, much like 4e did with many abilities. But once again, I am not against the idea, just a bit wary because it sounds very challenging to implement in an interesting way.

What 5e does with this, to me, it's not as bad as a lot of people in this post think. Preference? Well, yes, but let's examine it a bit. Take for example the evoker and fireball. How do you make the evoker distinct? Can you do it by giving them fireball only to them and not to anyone else? Well, yes. But how do the other subclasses make up for the lost of AoE spells like fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold and the like? Do we give them similar versions that just change the damage type? Probably not, as they then would only be superficially different. You need to invent a lot of new spells, and make sure they are distinct enough from one another. So you give the transmuter slow and a bunch of other spells that fit the school. You give to the enchanter a few different AoE charms like confusion. You give the illusionist a few more spells like hypnotic pattern. Etc etc. As long as what you come up with spells is distinct enough in terms of effect, and the subclasses dont end up feeling like a copy of each other with just a different label, it can work. Or maybe you dont try to replicate such things. Maybe some subclasses dont need enough AoE options, or one at all. And they make up for it by just giving them something else. I dont find such ideas bad, but everything depends on if you can actually find good mechanics for them.

5e does this in a very different way. Instead of restricting B, it boosts A. So, with the current implementation, the evoker is not different to the other subclasses because they are the only one who can cast the likes of fireball. But they are different because they are the only ones who can cast these spells and scuplt them. This is enough to influence spell selection, but even if it doesn't, it affects gameplay because it makes such spells more potent for you, enough to show during actual play IME. Is it enough to make a tier 2 evoker distinct? IMO yes. Is it enough to make a tier 4 evoker distinct? Yes, but less so, because the really op spells will still dominate play, but that's more of a problem with how powerful certain spells can be IMO.

Is every subclass defined enough by its few subclass features to feel its own thing? No. But some are. Some needs a bit more identity brought into them through adding some mechanics, or adding flavor of your own to them. In high level play the base class kind of takes over, because there are certain spells you are very likely to pick no matter what your subclass is. Just because these spells are just too powerful. Subclasses sometimes influence spell picks in the higher levels, but not as much as earlier on. Again, I could argue this is a balance problem to an extent.

Bottom line, personally, I am happy with enough subclasses of the wizard, but for some I would like to see changes. For example, when I play an illusionist, the character will certainly feel and play like an illusionist and it will show. Same with evoker, same with conjurer, with necromancer, with diviner (although after having stolen ideas and thought some of my own of how I would flavor certain things), with transmuter (assuming I am allowed bringing into it a lot of flavor of my own, though without changing any mechanical effects), and probably with bladesinger too (if what I am hearing is on point). Not so much for an enchanter (though combat wise they can play significantly differently), for an abjurer and for a war wizard (which IMO lacks a good enough supporting theme). And this will be like that, not because the game restricts me to picking up the thematic choices, but because the game encourages me enough to include them, or enough of them to support both the theme and the rp I've got in mind. And this can work for me, though if there's a way to improve upon it by creating a lot of new spells and restricting spell picks by subclass in a way that makes the subclass not too niche and the new spell not seem like a copy of other existing ones, well, I am on board with that too.

Segev

2022-05-29, 10:42 AM

Its more like "the very thought of playing a wizard has my eyes rolling into the back of my head."

Then don't play one? "I don't feel like playing this class is focused enough, so I do not want to play it," is not a good argument to cripple it so you find it more interesting. In fact, I wonder, given your complaints, if you have actually played one and found it to have the problems you assert in actual play. How do Clerics and Druids not have these problems magnified a hundredfold?

There are plenty of classes that do what you say you want wizard to do. You haven't said what the wizard is trying to do that you want to do but it fails at. So it comes off as trying to take something away from others rather than making something you feel is something you want to play.

If there is something wrong with wizard thematic that you want to fix, it should be examining what the thematic problems are preventing, not merely that you don't like the wizard.

Bobthewizard

2022-05-29, 11:07 AM

An 8th level wizard with 20 Intelligence can prepare up to 13 spells. You've listed 8 spells here already. Assuming you skip a few, your wizards differ mechanically by the (usually pretty lackluster) subclass features and maybe 7 spells by 8th level.

This is better than the sorcerer's 9 spells, so you can grab more things to fit your theme. But it also means you're likely able to grab everything that does fit your theme. And once you've done that you're grabbing things from the same list, pretty much no matter what wizard school or theme you're working with. So once I know you are making a wizard, a know a bunch of the spells you're grabbing before I know what spells you're going to focus on.

This can easily work the same as your above description. An 8th level gold draconic sorcerer likely wants most of the options between burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, and wall of fire.

You can then still spec them out to specialize in other options:
Charismatic: Charm Person, Distort Value, Suggestion, Incite Greed
Aerial: Feather Fall, Jump, Kinetic Jaunt, Fly
Intimidating: Thunderwave, Alter Self, Enlarge/Reduce, Fear
Show off: Silent Image, Enhance Ability, Mirror Image, Ashardalon’s Stride

The main difference I see between the draconic sorcerer example and the wizard class is that the set of fire spells applies specifically to brass, gold, and red draconic bloodline sorcerers: draconic bloodline sorcerers with other ancestries are going to swap those fire spells for acid, cold, lightning, or poison spells to work with the elemental affinity feature. meanwhile, all those wizards are grabbing the same defensive spells you've listed, partially because there no pressure against it.

Most of the common spells I listed for my wizards aren't ones I cast a lot. They are defensive spells or useful but circumstantial ones. I'm using most of my spell slots on the other 6-7 spells I've taken. So if you see me play a wizard, you're going to remember the other spells I cast.

For your sorcerer example, you don't factor in any defensive spells. I've never seen anyone skip those. Almost everyone is going to take defensive spells instead of your variable spec spells for a dragon sorcerer. So at level 8, a fire draconic sorcerer is going to have shield, absorb elements, burning hands, scorching ray, misty step, counterspell, fireball, dimension door and wall of fire. Maybe they'll drop burning hands for one other spell.

I'm not saying wizards are better than sorcerers. They both have their strengths. I've played sorcerers and enjoyed them. I just like that wizard gives me a little more freedom to make something unique. By making it something that I feel is more my own, I connect more with the character and find it easier to role play. Some people would rather their subclass dictate their mechanics more, and that's fine, they can play more sorcerers. But I'd hate for them to take away my creative freedom with wizard by making it more like a sorcerer.

Snowbluff

2022-05-29, 11:11 AM

Witty Username

2022-05-29, 12:28 PM

Every wizard is a mega polymath at a baseline who is super good with all arcane magic, which leaves little room for specialization or interesting class features. In a world were the best spells - things like fireball, lightning bolt, hypnotic pattern, sleep, etc. - weren't accessible to every wizard subclass, it would be acceptable to give those wizards other powerful features.

What keeps a sorcerer or warlock from picking the best spells on their list?

You mentioned subclass lists but that only works if those lists are good. Sometimes they have decent spells like fireball, other times not. Warlocks will default to hex at early levels, and tend to take the warlock specific spells next. Which leaves room for a few spells, like hypnotic pattern which are just good.
Nothing is stopping the sorcerer from taking all the spells you listed regardless of subclass.
But your complaint is not that character gets the best spells, it's that wizard can simply have all of them. This isn't the case either though. With wizards, specialization is conveyed by spell selection. I don't cast fireball, because I didn't take fireball, I took hypnotic pattern and slow, or I didn't take hypnotic pattern, I took major image. You only get 2 spells to your book, that roughly means 4 spells each level. And recall the wizard is the ritual bot for the party so those are your job too.

Anymage

2022-05-29, 01:41 PM

You only get 2 spells to your book, that roughly means 4 spells each level. And recall the wizard is the ritual bot for the party so those are your job too.

Wizards have a lot more flexibility if they find scrolls/spellbooks to widen their repertoire, as well as their ability to swap out spells giving them a lot more leeway to take advantage of spells that get cast over downtime. They also share the problem with other prepared casters that the DM doesn't necessarily know what their specific loadout will be tomorrow in order to tailor encounters so everybody can shine.

Clerics and druids were also problem children for this in 3.5, and only held back in 5e by WotC's restraint in giving them splat support. Wizards having an unknown number of spellbook spells at a given table does make it hard to gauge their power in a general sense.

strangebloke

2022-05-29, 01:44 PM

Ok, let me make a distinction here, regarding the post you quoted. If I were to say that the wizard is a mess of a class, the way I see it, it could mean two different things.
1) Either that the wizard does not justify a class spot because the theme it covers and /or the mechanics it employs are too niche or covered adequately by other classes. To which my first two paragraphs refer and basically I say that for me this is not the case. Obviously this is clearly a matter of preference since I would not be able to objectively say why someone who wants one magic class as the magic user is in the wrong to do so. Or if someone does snot find the distinction between known spells and prepared casting a defining one in terms of gameplay, again, this is pretty subjective too.
2) Or that even though the base class is fine as a concept, the internal structuring is poor and needs to be changed. And this is my third paragpragh in the part you quoted and everything thereafter in my post. To which you are basically replying.
...
if there's a way to improve upon it by creating a lot of new spells and restricting spell picks by subclass in a way that makes the subclass not too niche and the new spell not seem like a copy of other existing ones, well, I am on board with that too.

Good post. And yes, what you call (1) is not my intent. I do think there's a place for a magical researcher sort of character, I just don't think wizards represent this super well, or at least don't represent a wide variety of magical geeks. I like that they loot spell books, cast ritual magic from non-prepared spells, and are fixated on spells and spellcasting rather than armor/weapon proficiencies. But I also don't like how every wizard is a grab-bag with whatever they feel they need from whatever. When people talk about wizard builds, they use terms like "god wizard" or "batman wizard." The idea is that the wizard is supposed to be omnicompetent, prepared for everything, and by design that's sort of how they work.

I'm not exactly clear on what that looks like on the other side, I'm just bringing up my own point of frustration with the class as it currently stands.

Then don't play one? "I don't feel like playing this class is focused enough, so I do not want to play it," is not a good argument to cripple it so you find it more interesting. In fact, I wonder, given your complaints, if you have actually played one and found it to have the problems you assert in actual play.
I've played a wizard, played alongside wizards, and DMed for wizards. Both I and the players in question found the class unsatisfying. Obviously my experience isn't universal, but I only have my own experience to offer, just as you only have yours. This is a discussion forum lol, I'm starting a discussion and presenting my view because I want to see how others feel about this / potentially offer solutions to problems in my home games.

How do Clerics and Druids not have these problems magnified a hundredfold?

There are plenty of classes that do what you say you want wizard to do. You haven't said what the wizard is trying to do that you want to do but it fails at. So it sounds a lot like trying to take something away from others rather than making something you feel is something you want to play.
Druids and Clerics tend to have similar spell selections, yes, which is why its good that a huge amount of the power and flavor of those classes comes from subclasses. Their spell lists are pretty mediocre compared to the wizard list, and a large portion of their power comes from their class features. In a world where their spells were universally amazing best-in-class effects, the subclasses would have to be heavily reign in and the class collectively would lose a lot of flavor.

And I did say what the Wizard is, and why it fails. Nominally wizards are supposed to be magical academics/researchers, but their total lack of focus and their weak subclasses make them more into generic "magic-users" than anythingg else... and "magic user" isn't a robust niche in this edition.
What keeps a sorcerer or warlock from picking the best spells on their list?

You mentioned subclass lists but that only works if those lists are good. Sometimes they have decent spells like fireball, other times not. Warlocks will default to hex at early levels, and tend to take the warlock specific spells next. Which leaves room for a few spells, like hypnotic pattern which are just good.
Nothing is stopping the sorcerer from taking all the spells you listed regardless of subclass.
But your complaint is not that character gets the best spells, it's that wizard can simply have all of them. This isn't the case either though. With wizards, specialization is conveyed by spell selection. I don't cast fireball, because I didn't take fireball, I took hypnotic pattern and slow, or I didn't take hypnotic pattern, I took major image. You only get 2 spells to your book, that roughly means 4 spells each level. And recall the wizard is the ritual bot for the party so those are your job too.
Sorcerers have their own problems, but they are at least forced to specialize. Spells like mage armor and shield might be taken, but the opportunity cost is significant.

Warlocks are pretty strongly encouraged to pick a subclass with unique spells that they want to pick. They don't have to avoid that.

Sigreid

2022-05-29, 02:16 PM

Man, I don't understand all the wizard hate lately. Think of it this way, wizard is the Renaissance Man of magic. What made a person a renaissance man was that they were interested in EVERYTHING and did not specialize.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-29, 02:19 PM

Sigreid

2022-05-29, 02:26 PM

Then why is the generalist as good as, and in some cases better than, the specialists?

I don't think they are in the wizard's case, but in the real world, they often were the best of their time at most things.

But, I just like wizard being the guy who is trying to understand magic...all of it.

Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to a chance to fail to understand a spell similar to back in 1e.

strangebloke

2022-05-29, 03:15 PM

I don't think they are in the wizard's case, but in the real world, they often were the best of their time at most things.

But, I just like wizard being the guy who is trying to understand magic...all of it.

Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to a chance to fail to understand a spell similar to back in 1e.

I think the idea that one class should have no limitations is unworkable in a team game

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-29, 03:32 PM

I think the idea that one class should have no limitations is unworkable in a team game

Agreed. Limits are as important, imo, as capabilities. Limits provide direction and reasons to pick one over another.

Corran

2022-05-29, 03:56 PM

But I also don't like how every wizard is a grab-bag with whatever they feel they need from whatever. When people talk about wizard builds, they use terms like "god wizard" or "batman wizard." The idea is that the wizard is supposed to be omnicompetent, prepared for everything, and by design that's sort of how they work.

I'm not exactly clear on what that looks like on the other side, I'm just bringing up my own point of frustration with the class as it currently stands.
Well, you need a magic user like that. When it comes to casters, there are two basic approaches that both need to exist IMO because they offer a different gameplay experience. The one is the versatile caster who as you say tries to be prepared for everything (keyword tries). This rewards the player who wants to collect information about the threats laying ahead and who tries to plan for them, thus having an option for this encourages and gives meaning to playing the game this way. And the other is the caster with a smaller list of known spells that are no subject to change. This allows you to play a caster without going through the all of the aforementioned trouble, if the lack of versatility is made up for by something that does not present the kind of dilemmas that prepared casting does. It sort of replaces continuous planning ahead with planning once in a blue moon in advance while in between it's just reflexes. Completelly different experiences. I can enjoy both approaches and this is why I will look for both of them in the magic system of a game.

Then you choose the accompagnying flavour to each of them. There are no wrong choices here. You want the versatile casters to be the ones studying magic in their mom's basement and the known casters to be granted power from a deity? That's fine. You want the versatile casters to be born with magic and the known casters to study it at academies? That's cool too. Whatever you choose is fine, since it only informs the game world. It doesn't break it since at this point there's no existing lore, there's nothing to break, you just invented it by attaching a different flavor to the prepared and to the known caster.

So at a bare minimum, I would expect two classes. Or one class with two subclasses that differentiate mechanically in the way I described. Anything else on top of that is either bloat or a welcome addition, depending on how well the associated mechanics support its theme. For example, you want to divide magic into arcane and divine? Now you can have up to 4 (sub)classes if you do a good job at defining and differentiating divine and arcane spells. You want to split known or prepared casters into more subsets depending on variations as to how they have access to their magic? Once again, it's fine if you can present a strong theme and find the mechanics to represent it well and uniquely enough.

We might agree or disagree to the extent that any wizard subclass feels as it should, but if increasing the distinction of the wizard's subclasses hurts the level of versatility, that has to be taken into account too. Cause the most impotant thing IMO is satsfying the two playstyles that are distinct, while everything else comes after that. Is reducing the wizard's veratility bad for the game? I dont know. Maybe the cleric and the druid are enough to support the versatile caster playstyle. Can't say for sure, because I haven't managed to enjoy clerics in this edition over some silly reasoning that's bugging me though tremendously, and I dont have much experience with druids (though them both being divine casters instinctively tells me that there would be something to be missed). Either way, if the wizard is not a versatile caster anymore due to having to make the subclasses more pivotal to the the pc wizard's gameplay, the first thing to make sure of is that you've got other options that can fill the versatile caster role that dont leave anything to be missed.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-29, 04:38 PM

Segev

2022-05-29, 05:35 PM

None of the games I've played where characters had to buy spells with CP felt like they were missing anything because of not having a more versatile caster (also I really want to play DSA now). I get the feeling that this is more 'sacrex cow' than 'actually need'.

Maybe we should bring back the old AD&D 'maximum number of spells of a certain level you can have in your spellbook'.

AD&D and 3e both had that limit, but it was just per spellbook. Wizards got multiple spellbooks if they needed more pages.

Wizards tend to have fewer spells, in my experience, than those who often talk about how they have access to too many on their spell list seem to assume they do. Maybe those people play with DMs who just let them add any spell they want whenever they want, I dunno. 2 per class level is nice, but it's still VERY limiting compared to Clerics and Druids. Getting more through adventuring can be quite the incentive if the DM plays it right.

Rashagar

2022-05-29, 05:56 PM

I would actually prefer wizard a lot more than I currently do if it was a subclass of artificer haha!

Not claiming that it "should" be or anything. Just that "guy who gets his magic from books and scrolls" is, to me, a strong thematic concept for an artificer subclass, (off the cuff eg. getting the ritual casting of a full caster class and a limited amount of full-caster-equivalent single use scroll creation, potentially based on a single school of magic, on the artificer chassis) but it doesn't draw me in for a main class. I know WotC will never scrap the wizard class, but artificer is the kind of book learning magicman that'd appeal to me.

RazorChain

2022-05-29, 06:33 PM

Or you could design the game so that it's Combat/Exploration/Social and not COMBAT/exploration/social, so there's less of a need to slavishly focus on what everyone does during the murderfest.

This just depends on the group you're playing with. You don't need nuanced mechanics for a good RP sessions. If you look at most RPG's the combat chapter is a rather big chunk of the book even if the system doesn't focus on combat.

Last session I DMed we played for 5 hours without a single combat encounter and that wasn't by my choice but the players.

Sigreid

2022-05-29, 06:51 PM

I think the idea that one class should have no limitations is unworkable in a team game

They do have limitations. They cannot prepare all the spells they know. They cannot prepare cleric or druid or warlock spells. Without multiclass they cannot wear quality armor or weapons. They're dependent on DM to get access to most spells while Druids and Clerics can just pick anything on their list. Just as examples.

Kane0

2022-05-29, 08:34 PM

Gut the Wizard spell list, moving most of them to its subclasses the same way all other casters do at this point (except those that get their casting via subclass).

Then after that we can tinker with extra flavor and features to fill the gap left behind, like by leaning more into Rituals or whatever.

Fun numbers, Wizards have access to 198 spells of levels 1-5 from the PHB, Xanathar's and Tashas not counting extras from Wildemount, Fizban's, Strixhaven, etc.
If we currently have 11 wizard subclasses from the same books (not counting gravity/chronurgy for now) and we do some moving of two spells of each spell level 1-5 to those subclasses from the core wizard list that number goes from 198 to 88, plus the 10 you get based on subclass. Compare that to the bard's 93, the warlock's 68 and the sorcerer's 122.

Follow-up on my own thoughts, just starting with one per level 1-5 for each subclass to keep this on the lesser end of change to start with but it could be easily expanded to all spell levels 1-9 or two of each spell level 1-5. Any spells here that would normally be on the standard wizard list are removed.

Abjurer: Absorb Elements, Arcane Lock, Glyph of Warding, Private Sanctum, Planar Binding
Bladesinger: Zephyr Strike, Shadow Blade, Elemental Weapon, Freedom of Movement, Steel Wind Strike
Conjurer: Find Familiar, Misty Step, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Teleportation Circle
Diviner: Identify, Detect Thoughts, Tongues, Arcane Eye, Telepathic Bond
Enchanter: Hideous Laughter, Suggestion, Catnap, Charm Monster, Modify Memory
Evoker: Thunderwave, Scorcher, Tiny Hut, Ice Storm, Bigby's Hand
Illusionist: Disguise Self, Phantasmal Force, Hypnotic Pattern, Greater Invisibility, Seeming
Necromancer: False Life, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Blight, Danse Macabre
Scribe: Ceremony, Skywrite, Tiny Servant, Secret Chest, Legend Lore
Transmuter: Expeditious Retreat, Levitate, Gaseous Form, Fabricate, Animate Objects
Warmage: Chromatic Orb, Warding Wind, Thunder Step, Storm Sphere, Synaptic Static

This removes some 50 odd spells from the remaining wizard list (some like ceremony and zephyr strike not being there to begin with), retaining most if not all of the classics and best spells so the difference at this stage is minimal.
Still, this ought to free up some space in the wizard to put in a ribbon or two, like casting rituals faster or swapping a single memorized spell from their spellbook during a short rest. If you went harder and started cutting the iconic/optimal spells into subclasses you could of course fit class features beyond ribbons but at this point i'm aiming for what others would likely abide by rather than the most that I could get away with.

strangebloke

2022-05-29, 09:20 PM

Follow-up on my own thoughts, just starting with one per level 1-5 for each subclass to keep this on the lesser end of change to start with but it could be easily expanded to all spell levels 1-9 or two of each spell level 1-5. Any spells here that would normally be on the standard wizard list are removed.

Abjurer: Absorb Elements, Arcane Lock, Glyph of Warding, Private Sanctum, Planar Binding
Bladesinger: Zephyr Strike, Shadow Blade, Elemental Weapon, Freedom of Movement, Steel Wind Strike
Conjurer: Find Familiar, Misty Step, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Teleportation Circle
Diviner: Identify, Detect Thoughts, Tongues, Arcane Eye, Telepathic Bond
Enchanter: Hideous Laughter, Suggestion, Catnap, Charm Monster, Modify Memory
Evoker: Thunderwave, Scorcher, Tiny Hut, Ice Storm, Bigby's Hand
Illusionist: Disguise Self, Phantasmal Force, Hypnotic Pattern, Greater Invisibility, Seeming
Necromancer: False Life, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Blight, Danse Macabre
Scribe: Ceremony, Skywrite, Tiny Servant, Secret Chest, Legend Lore
Transmuter: Expeditious Retreat, Levitate, Gaseous Form, Fabricate, Animate Objects
Warmage: Chromatic Orb, Warding Wind, Thunder Step, Storm Sphere, Synaptic Static

This removes some 50 odd spells from the remaining wizard list (some like ceremony and zephyr strike not being there to begin with), retaining most if not all of the classics and best spells so the difference at this stage is minimal.
Still, this ought to free up some space in the wizard to put in a ribbon or two, like casting rituals faster or swapping a single memorized spell from their spellbook during a short rest. If you went harder and started cutting the iconic/optimal spells into subclasses you could of course fit class features beyond ribbons but at this point i'm aiming for what others would likely abide by rather than the most that I could get away with.
Pretty interesting start!

Can't agree with everything but that's inevitable with something like this. Cutting find familiar is probably the harshest on here, but one I absolutely support. I've mentioned fireball and lightning bolt a few times, because I think sorcerers being great blasters would give them some mechanical identity... but I can see the counter arguments as well. Similar arguments apply to higher level spells like simulacrum but... in any case we'd have to think this over more.

The next question would be what further abilities you can give the class as a replacement for losing these effects. PERSONALLY I don't think Bladesinger needs any help; its fine as is. Similarly I'd say war wizard doesn't need any help at level 2, but everyone else could get some significant boosts.

Rynjin

2022-05-29, 09:51 PM

Still, this ought to free up some space in the wizard to put in a ribbon or two, like casting rituals faster or swapping a single memorized spell from their spellbook during a short rest. If you went harder and started cutting the iconic/optimal spells into subclasses you could of course fit class features beyond ribbons but at this point i'm aiming for what others would likely abide by rather than the most that I could get away with.

The issue is, in my experience, players who play Wizards play them because they LIKE that their spells are their class features. There are, as others have helpfully pointed out, a dozen-ish other spellcasters out there who are defined mostly by their class features.

Having one that isn't makes it unique among its peers.

And I say this as someone who typically PREFERS class features over spells. It's why I like Pathfinder's 6-caster classes so much.

This hypothetical solution to get more players to play Wizard is probably doomed to fail, and largely a net loss since it removes the main appeal of Wizards from people who already like to play them.

strangebloke

2022-05-29, 09:58 PM

The issue is, in my experience, players who play Wizards play them because they LIKE that their spells are their class features. There are, as others have helpfully pointed out, a dozen-ish other spellcasters out there who are defined mostly by their class features.

Having one that isn't makes it unique among its peers.

And I say this as someone who typically PREFERS class features over spells. It's why I like Pathfinder's 6-caster classes so much.

This hypothetical solution to get more players to play Wizard is probably doomed to fail, and largely a net loss since it removes the main appeal of Wizards from people who already like to play them.

if nobody is playing wizards at Kane0's table as it is, this would seem to be a small loss.

Kane0

2022-05-29, 10:22 PM

Rynjin

2022-05-29, 10:30 PM

if nobody is playing wizards at Kane0's table as it is, this would seem to be a small loss.

That's fair. Just pointing out that it's negative for those who like Wizards and not necessarily (enough of) a positive for those that don't.

Sigreid

2022-05-29, 11:17 PM

if nobody is playing wizards at Kane0's table as it is, this would seem to be a small loss.

It's not actually a sign that there's an issue that some people and some tables don't tend to go with wizards. That's just a sign that there are options for everyone to enjoy. Which is different that saying options that everyone enjoys. It's impossible to create one option that everyone will enjoy.

sandmote

2022-05-30, 12:27 AM

What keeps a sorcerer or warlock from picking the best spells on their list? Easier for sorcerers than warlocks, but there's nothing keeping any class from picking the best spells on their list. Main difference I see is that the "best spells on their list" can change heavily depending on the sorcerer or warlock build you're going for.

Most of the common spells I listed for my wizards aren't ones I cast a lot. They are defensive spells or useful but circumstantial ones. I'm using most of my spell slots on the other 6-7 spells I've taken. So if you see me play a wizard, you're going to remember the other spells I cast. When I see someone play a sorcerer, I usually remember the spells fitting their theme too.

For your sorcerer example, you don't factor in any defensive spells. I've never seen anyone skip those. Almost everyone is going to take defensive spells instead of your variable spec spells for a dragon sorcerer. For your wizard example, you don't factor in any utility or emergency backup combat spells. I've never seen a wizard skip those. So I figured in the sorcerer example a PC could equally drop about one spell from each set, thereby giving them room for shield, absorb elements, and a teleportation spell by 8th level. I haven't seen anyone take misty step and dimension door at the same time either, although I guess a movement focused wizard would like the idea.

By making it something that I feel is more my own, I connect more with the character and find it easier to role play. Some people would rather their subclass dictate their mechanics more, and that's fine, they can play more sorcerers. But I'd hate for them to take away my creative freedom with wizard by making it more like a sorcerer. I feel that this is undercut by your earlier examples of what you consider "themes," for a wizard character. Your first example is a hybrid between the two wizard schools from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. Two of the other four were "a controller" and "a blaster." Your "showboat" example was at least more specific than just grabbing a subclass and the spells that most obviously fit it. Note I consider wizards are just as capable of being more specific than what their subclass buffs as sorcerers are. For an example:
Defensive Water Wizard
Ice Knife, Grease, Fog Cloud
Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rime’s Binding Ice
Sleet Storm, Tidal Wave, Wall of Water, Waterbreathing
Control Water, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere

I'm writing this out because I'm not entirely sure why this rubs me the wrong way, but I do think there's a disconnect in how each of us is deciding a theme. But it does seem odd that a class so milquetoast that "a blaster" counts as a whole theme grants you creative freedom while a class that lets you choose a specific sort of blaster and buffs matching spells is taking away your creative freedom.

Ortho

2022-05-30, 01:18 AM

The issue is, in my experience, players who play Wizards play them because they LIKE that their spells are their class features. There are, as others have helpfully pointed out, a dozen-ish other spellcasters out there who are defined mostly by their class features.

Having one that isn't makes it unique among its peers.

To add on to this, having that spell flexibility combined with so few sclass abilities gives players the ability to build to archetypes that 5e doesn't explicitly support. And that's a very good thing. The only other class with that degree of thematic flexibility is the fighter.

Kane0

2022-05-30, 01:56 AM

You know what would be cool though, wizard class features that put more emphasis on otherwise underutilized mechanics like spell research, downtime and so on.

Witty Username

2022-05-30, 02:55 AM

The next question would be what further abilities you can give the class as a replacement for losing these effects. PERSONALLY I don't think Bladesinger needs any help; its fine as is. Similarly I'd say war wizard doesn't need any help at level 2, but everyone else could get some significant boosts.
My first thought is that enchanter needs a significant buff as they lose a bunch of the defensive spells to allow hypnotic gaze to function effectively. I would increase its range to 60ft to compensate.

I would also say that hypnotic pattern is a bit nessasary to the function of arcane casters in optimization circles, and it may be better if illusionist gets major image on their list instead.

Necromancer may need a replacement feature for grim harvest as they will have less damage spells to activate it with.

Anonymouswizard

2022-05-30, 05:51 AM

This just depends on the group you're playing with. You don't need nuanced mechanics for a good RP sessions. If you look at most RPG's the combat chapter is a rather big chunk of the book even if the system doesn't focus on combat.

Last session I DMed we played for 5 hours without a single combat encounter and that wasn't by my choice but the players.

If I'm running a social focused campaign I'll use Chuubo's Marvelous Wish Granting Engine, Nobilis, Chronicles of Darkness, or Unknown Armies, all of which include more complicated rules for social interaction then 'uh, just roll a Persuasion check to put them in a better mood'. Wildly varying social rules of course, with wildly varying page counts, but they're there.

D&D meanwhile seems to have gutted its social an exploration rules around 4e and never looked back. Not that it ever had social rules beyond 'reaction checks and Diplomacy' anyway.

Segev

2022-05-30, 07:10 AM

Necromancer may need a replacement feature for grim harvest as they will have less damage spells to activate it with.

Grim harvest is a terrible feature from a flavor standpoint, anyway. It encourages you to play like a blaster and rewards you with durability, neither of which feel particularly "necromantic." It is almost as bad as the Runic Empowerment feature in the latest UA in that respect. (It does better at higher levels of the subclass, but grim harvest remains thematically lame.)

Eurus

2022-05-30, 07:19 AM

Grim harvest is a terrible feature from a flavor standpoint, anyway. It encourages you to play like a blaster and rewards you with durability, neither of which feel particularly "necromantic." It is almost as bad as the Runic Empowerment feature in the latest UA in that respect. (It does better at higher levels of the subclass, but grim harvest remains thematically lame.)

I think playing like a tanky blaster is part of some necromancer aesthetics -- specifically, the ones where you drain the life from your foes while cackling like Darth Sidious, mocking their feeble attempts to hurt one who commands death itself. :smallamused:

Basically, I agree with the comment that the spell schools aren't actually great for pinning down specific aesthetics, and trying to make only one type of necromancer is probably going to result in someone being left out.

stoutstien

2022-05-30, 07:22 AM

Grim harvest is a terrible feature from a flavor standpoint, anyway. It encourages you to play like a blaster and rewards you with durability, neither of which feel particularly "necromantic." It is almost as bad as the Runic Empowerment feature in the latest UA in that respect. (It does better at higher levels of the subclass, but grim harvest remains thematically lame.)

I think the leeching life is ok branding for necromancy just not for wizards. It just needs adjusting in the spell department to make Necro spells worth taking, shave off it working with other schools, and maybe allow it to work with any Necro damage rather than just spells ...now I want to make a death/rebirth druid circle.

Segev

2022-05-30, 07:47 AM

Leeching life force works for wizard Necromancers but not as a generic buff to any old evocation. In short, Vampiric Touch is (was, in 3e, though now I cannot remember if it made it into 5e) a spell that did this.

Maybe if Grim Harvest were a directly damaging feature of its own... I will think on this. Maybe give them Chill Touch for free (and any cantrip if they already have chill touch) and some special boost to it that gives them temp hp.

stoutstien

2022-05-30, 07:58 AM

Kane0

2022-05-30, 10:09 AM

Aye. It would help if vampiric touch and enervation were either kicked down a spell level or readjusted.

*Checks notes*

Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd-Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage and deals only half damage with weapon attacks until the spell ends.
At the end of each of the target’s turns it can make a Constitution saving throw against the spell. On a success, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 2nd.

Vampiric Touch
3rd Level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. For the duration of the spell, your unarmed strikes deal an additional 3d6 Necrotic damage on a hit and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Blight
4th level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: None
Duration: Instantaneous

One creature of your choice that you can see within range must make a Constitution saving throw. The target takes 10d8 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Undead and constructs make the saving throw at advantage, plant creatures at disadvantage. lf you target a nonmagical plant that isn't a creature such as a tree or shrub, it simply withers and dies without a saving throw.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the damage increases by 2d8 for each slot level above 4th.

Enervation
5th Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 5d8 necrotic damage, and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. On each of your turns for the duration if you can see the target and are within range you can use your bonus action to repeat this damage to the target automatically.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the initial and recurring damage increases by 1d8 for each slot above 5th.

Psyren

2022-05-30, 10:37 AM

I wonder - what would a "Generalist wizard" look like that got no subclass features except bonus feats? (For that matter, could we do generalist versions of other classes that did the same?)

The issue is, in my experience, players who play Wizards play them because they LIKE that their spells are their class features. There are, as others have helpfully pointed out, a dozen-ish other spellcasters out there who are defined mostly by their class features.

Having one that isn't makes it unique among its peers.

And I say this as someone who typically PREFERS class features over spells. It's why I like Pathfinder's 6-caster classes so much.

This hypothetical solution to get more players to play Wizard is probably doomed to fail, and largely a net loss since it removes the main appeal of Wizards from people who already like to play them.

This, and it's worth pointing out that the "more spells" benefit to wizard is compounded by the fact that they can cast every ritual on their list without needing to prepare them. This frees up their preparations to be used almost exclusively on non-ritual spells, giving them a degree of flexibility and utility that truly makes them feel different in play than every other full caster, save perhaps a particularly resourceful tomelock. So for me, it's not just "they get nothing but spells" nor even "they have the best spell list in the game - even if every full caster had the exact same spell list, wizards would still feel unique at the table.

stoutstien

2022-05-30, 11:02 AM

*Checks notes*

Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd-Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage and deals only half damage with weapon attacks until the spell ends.
At the end of each of the target’s turns it can make a Constitution saving throw against the spell. On a success, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 2nd.

Vampiric Touch
3rd Level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. For the duration of the spell, your unarmed strikes deal an additional 3d6 Necrotic damage on a hit and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Blight
4th level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: None
Duration: Instantaneous

One creature of your choice that you can see within range must make a Constitution saving throw. The target takes 10d8 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Undead and constructs make the saving throw at advantage, plant creatures at disadvantage. lf you target a nonmagical plant that isn't a creature such as a tree or shrub, it simply withers and dies without a saving throw.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the damage increases by 2d8 for each slot level above 4th.

Enervation
5th Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 5d8 necrotic damage, and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. On each of your turns for the duration if you can see the target and are within range you can use your bonus action to repeat this damage to the target automatically.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the initial and recurring damage increases by 1d8 for each slot above 5th.

Nice. I went a different direction and made necro the school for situational boosted effects. So ray of sickness automatically hitting poisoned targets, ray of enfeeblement being repeatable with growing effects and saves only move it back one level until concentration is broken or they removed all levels (half damage on str weapon attacks>speed reduction of 10>disadvantage on str/dex saves>incapacitated), blight gives you blight(NPCs) when you target nonmagical plants, and so on.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-30, 11:03 AM

I wonder - what would a "Generalist wizard" look like that got no subclass features except bonus feats? (For that matter, could we do generalist versions of other classes that did the same?)

Bad. Subclass features are way more interesting than spells (or should be). Much more identity defining. And the issue with wizards is that they don't have an identity as it stands. Or, rather, that their identity and their mechanics are at odds.

1. "I'm really smart and know lots of things about magic" isn't a class. It's a background. Sage, to be specific.
2. If "I'm an academic with a PhD in magic" is the class identity, that means that you only have a single possible background and history--you were an academic in a mage tower. That goes against the entire rest of the game. Rogues are not Criminals by definition. Fighters aren't Soldiers. Barbarians are not Outlanders. Etc.
3. A wizard, by default doesn't actually know that much more about magic (or anything else particularly) than anyone else. They generally have higher INT, but Arcana proficiency is not a bonus proficiency. And they really don't have that many skill proficiencies and no tool proficiencies. So you can have a wizard who doesn't know crap about magic in particular. Contradicting the "I'm a super smart PhD in magic" idea. Not only that, you can be super smart, have a (literal) PhD in magic [high-int Sage rogue with Expertise in Arcana] who can't cast a single spell. Knowing about magic and doing magic are completely orthogonal.

At most, adventuring wizards are engineers. Technicians of magic. Learning spells by trial and error and rote practice. They're not sages expert in the nature of the universe. They're not researchers (by default). They're not academics. Which leaves them rather hollow. And their spell list leaves no room for actual interesting features to differentiate.

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

Imagine a world where there were no Wizards (as a class). Instead, you have (not even trying to get naming right for things in [brackets]):

* Warmages, focusing on the direct military applications of magic (so mostly evocation and abjuration, with a few others). Subclasses might be [Artillery] (closest to the current Evoker, all about blowing things up from a distance), [Front-line] (getting armor and weapon proficiency, the equivalent of a 1/3 martial focused on STR as a secondary), and [Skirmisher] (sort of bladesinger, light armor and nimble). You could give them higher hit dice.

* Summoners, focusing on having conjured creatures. Subclasses might be Necromancer, [Single big pet], and [swarm of pets].

* [Information specialists], focused on gaining and denying information. Divination, illusion, etc. Much more sneaky.

* [Generalists], taking the "master of rituals" seriously. Including being able to cast some things as rituals that aren't for most people. But only getting native spell access up to 5th level spells. Or something.

* Move all the beguiler/enchanter stuff where it belongs, to the Sorcerer. Being smart doesn't make you better at manipulating people.

* Etc.

Here, you can actually make interesting classes that have coherent thematics. And you can do things like give weapon proficiencies or armor proficiencies without making the whole class go tilt. And you can actually make some spells good--consider Tenser's Transformation. It sucks currently. In part because "I'm a wizard but can now fight as good as a Fighter" isn't a balanceable thing. But if it's only on the (quite more restricted) Warmage list, you can actually give it some teeth. And if they natively have proficiency in armor and weapons, it can now actually enhance things. Etc.

Amnestic

2022-05-30, 11:09 AM

I think the only conclusion is that Wizards should be an Artificer subclass.

Psyren

2022-05-30, 11:11 AM

I'm not talking about interest or identity though, just mechanical effectiveness. I think there are several wizard subclasses where I would trade out their subclass features for a feat if I could. for example, Illusionist gets a bonus cantrip, the ability to tweak an illusion in progress, and the ability to no-sell a single hit. You can replicate the first of these with a bonus feat, the second is situational at best, and the third isn't bad but I'd probably rather have Resilient (Con) or War Caster.

Now sure, Illusory Reality at 14th has the potential to be pretty impactful depending on your and your DM's creativity, but by then most campaigns are over anyway. If I had a bunch of extra feats to spend on stuff like Metamagic Adept or Telekinetic I think I could make something pretty interesting of my own.

I think the only conclusion is that Wizards should be an Artificer subclass.

It's kind of funny that it was the other way around (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Eberron_v1.pdf) initially

Amnestic

2022-05-30, 11:14 AM

It's kind of funny that it was the other way around (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Eberron_v1.pdf) initially

I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, admittedly.

And a little bit serious.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-30, 11:20 AM

I'm not talking about interest or identity though, just mechanical effectiveness. I think there are several wizard subclasses where I would trade out their subclass features for a feat if I could. for example, Illusionist gets a bonus cantrip, the ability to tweak an illusion in progress, and the ability to no-sell a single hit. You can replicate the first of these with a bonus feat, the second is situational at best, and the third isn't bad but I'd probably rather have Resilient (Con) or War Caster.

Now sure, Illusory Reality at 14th has the potential to be pretty impactful depending on your and your DM's creativity, but by then most campaigns are over anyway. If I had a bunch of extra feats to spend on stuff like Metamagic Adept or Telekinetic I think I could make something pretty interesting of my own.

Sounds to me like trying to do point-buy...badly. That sort of "build a bear" class design really doesn't mesh well with a class/level system. Because not all feats are worth 1 feat point, and the value is wildly different per build. So you lose all the mechanical "balance" capabilities of an actual point-buy system, while also being awkward with the class/level system.

Witty Username

2022-05-30, 11:53 AM

*Checks notes*

Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd-Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage and deals only half damage with weapon attacks until the spell ends.
At the end of each of the target’s turns it can make a Constitution saving throw against the spell. On a success, the spell ends.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot above 2nd.

Vampiric Touch
3rd Level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The touch of your shadow-wreathed hand can siphon life force from others to heal your wounds. For the duration of the spell, your unarmed strikes deal an additional 3d6 Necrotic damage on a hit and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Blight
4th level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: None
Duration: Instantaneous

One creature of your choice that you can see within range must make a Constitution saving throw. The target takes 10d8 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Undead and constructs make the saving throw at advantage, plant creatures at disadvantage. lf you target a nonmagical plant that isn't a creature such as a tree or shrub, it simply withers and dies without a saving throw.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the damage increases by 2d8 for each slot level above 4th.

Enervation
5th Level Necromancy
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

Make a ranged spell attack against one creature you can see within range. On a hit, the target takes 5d8 necrotic damage, and you regain Hit Points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. On each of your turns for the duration if you can see the target and are within range you can use your bonus action to repeat this damage to the target automatically.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the initial and recurring damage increases by 1d8 for each slot above 5th.

Interesting, I think that I wouldn't use the vampiric touch change, since keying of off unarmed strikes means it uses strength instead of intelligence for attack rolls. It reads like a nerf of the spell instead of a buff.

I like Ray of Enfeeblement not requiring Concentration.

I like the changes to blight, I would keep the max damage to plant creatures, since it doesn't change the power of the spell much but definitely has thematic value.

Sans blight, this highlights one of the issues with grim harvest, it values killing targets, most necromancy spells that deal damage are low damage with a debuff effect (which is why necromancers keep evocation spells on hand despite the weaker effect, it is much easier to activate). Maybe, that is the solution, make grim harvest trigger when damaging an enemy with a necromancy spell, that way a necromancer is getting a bunch of effetive healing.

Khosan

2022-05-30, 11:59 AM

Psyren

2022-05-30, 12:04 PM

Sounds to me like trying to do point-buy...badly. That sort of "build a bear" class design really doesn't mesh well with a class/level system. Because not all feats are worth 1 feat point, and the value is wildly different per build. So you lose all the mechanical "balance" capabilities of an actual point-buy system, while also being awkward with the class/level system.

I think feats, especially now (see the latest series of UAs) have the potential to build a strong identity for a given build purely on their own, particularly if you're getting 2-3 extra ones. Certainly I think a number of existing wizard subclass features are not particularly interesting compared to recent feats and feat chains.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-30, 12:11 PM

I think feats, especially now (see the latest series of UAs) have the potential to build a strong identity for a given build purely on their own, particularly if you're getting 2-3 extra ones. Certainly I think a number of existing wizard subclass features are not particularly interesting compared to recent feats and feat chains.

The reason that wizard subclass features are boring and weak is that there is no class power budget left for anything interesting--Spellcasting with that list sucks up the entire budget and then some. So if your idea is "ok, give them more interesting and powerful things out of a huge roster with no thematic coherence at all"...you're just making things worse. Both mechanically AND thematically.

The fundamental problem here is Spellcasting. There is no budget left for anything else of note. So the subclasses are doomed to being at best a few ribbons that don't really impact how you play very much. At worst, they're horrifically overpowered things that warp the game around them. And there's no thematic hooks for new ones other than "more power". Look at the Giant UA wizard. It's all over the place...because its base class is all over the place with no room for interesting variation.

Witty Username

2022-05-30, 12:17 PM

I think in the scheme of things, Sorcerer's are probably closer to what I feel like a Wizard should be able to do. Metamagic to modify spells as the situation requires, which feels very Wizardly, with (sometimes but not always) granted a selection of spells associated with their subclass's theme. The major difference, aside from using Cha instead of Int, is just the difference in spell preparation.

I think that is more an aspect of how generic metamagic feels, but I get the complaint. My guess is that metamagic is on sorcerers to modify spells on the fly to sell the idea that they aren't casting spells so much as using their innate magic that resembles spells. I think spell modification is intended to be at the research step, which is why wizard subclass features that modify spells are all the time, restricted by genre (usually school, sometimes damage spells).

One of the consequences of sorcerer lore being somewhat squiggly.

Psyren

2022-05-30, 12:20 PM

Bobthewizard

2022-05-30, 12:30 PM

For your wizard example, you don't factor in any utility or emergency backup combat spells. I've never seen a wizard skip those. So I figured in the sorcerer example a PC could equally drop about one spell from each set, thereby giving them room for shield, absorb elements, and a teleportation spell by 8th level. I haven't seen anyone take misty step and dimension door at the same time either, although I guess a movement focused wizard would like the idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I listed the emergency and utility spells I prepare - shield, absorb elements, misty step, fly, counterspell, dispel magic, dimension door. The other utility spells I take are downtime only spells or rituals, and I thought we were talking about prepared spells for adventuring.

Note I consider wizards are just as capable of being more specific than what their subclass buffs as sorcerers are. For an example:
Defensive Water Wizard
Ice Knife, Grease, Fog Cloud
Mirror Image, Misty Step, Rime’s Binding Ice
Sleet Storm, Tidal Wave, Wall of Water, Waterbreathing
Control Water, Ice Storm, Storm Sphere

I'm writing this out because I'm not entirely sure why this rubs me the wrong way, but I do think there's a disconnect in how each of us is deciding a theme. But it does seem odd that a class so milquetoast that "a blaster" counts as a whole theme grants you creative freedom while a class that lets you choose a specific sort of blaster and buffs matching spells is taking away your creative freedom.

I love the water wizard example you give here. I'd love to play something like that, maybe as a triton or sea elf. I think making something unique like this is easier to do with the wizard class than with a sorcerer or bard, and I'm afraid that shoehorning wizards into their subclasses would take away that option.

I agree that draconic sorcerers are more specific than just a blaster. I was just trying to say that you can make different types of wizards and they don't all have to take the same spells. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into one of the specific sorcerer subclasses, I think it's easier to do that with the existing wizard class. So if you want to play a blaster that focuses on one element, sorcerer is better for that, but if you want someone who does blasting in general, wizard might be better for that. I like that we have both options.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-30, 12:30 PM

I disagree that there's "no budget left." Divination, Abjuration, Evocation and War Wizard disprove that pretty handily, as they have interesting and iconic features well beyond their spells. WotC was overly cautious with subclasses like Enchanter and Conjurer but I'd say that kind of variation was inevitable when they felt the need to cram all 8 schools as unique subclasses into core.

That feats are now beginning to eclipse weaker subclass features just means that the game as a whole is evolving, and things they were worried about being subclass features in 2015 are not actually that big a deal. Some here will wring their hands and decry that as "power creep" but I view it as a refinement of the game's overall design principles. It's my hope that the weaker wizard subclass features get updated or excised in 3.5, and that should contribute to the increase in identity the class could use.

All of those basically have "When I cast spells, I get bigger numbers" (which is boring and basically ends up being the same) except Divination, which
a) has one strongly imbalanced feature and the rest utter forgettable ribbons
b) Has an influence at most 2x/LR.
c) is only held in check by the fact that divination as a school is weak and fairly useless.

And even those other ones really have one meaningful feature. That's the only meaningful feature for that entire class/subclass combination, because the base class doesn't have any either. So you have some class/subclass choices with 0 meaningful features and some with 1, somewhat meaningful feature. Other than Spellcasting, of course. Sure, that's an +Infinity% increase...but yeah.

And the recent subclasses across the board are a sign that WotC has decided that any kind of class balancing is utterly useless and we're just going to throw all sorts of crap (good or bad) at the wall because "MORE CONTENT".

Wizards are already, even without access to any additional spells, well above the normal power band of the rest of the game. And are one of the easiest places to hook in for utterly game-bending things. Because they have all the broken spells and no real limits.

Witty Username

2022-05-30, 12:51 PM

All of those basically have "When I cast spells, I get bigger numbers" (which is boring and basically ends up being the same) except Divination, which
a) has one strongly imbalanced feature and the rest utter forgettable ribbons
b) Has an influence at most 2x/LR.
c) is only held in check by the fact that divination as a school is weak and fairly useless.

All I can say is that you are incorrect.
Evoker has several damage dealing features, but its primary feature is sculpt spells, which is a better careful spell on every spell.
Abjurer has an HP pool that makes their effective HP comparable to a fighter. And Spell resistance at 14th level.
War Wizard has 1 feature that is a damage increase, the rest are intitative bonuses and reaction effects, notably arcane deflection which is an off-brand shield that works on saves.

Part of the reason I like wizards is they tend to not have the bigger numbers effects like sorcerers and martials tend to do.

I would personally add enchanter, illusionist and necromancer to the effective subclasses. Only necromancer fits the bigger numbers claim.

Psyren

2022-05-30, 01:04 PM

What Witty said, but also:

And the recent subclasses across the board are a sign that WotC has decided that any kind of class balancing is utterly useless and we're just going to throw all sorts of crap (good or bad) at the wall because "MORE CONTENT".

Wizards are already, even without access to any additional spells, well above the normal power band of the rest of the game. And are one of the easiest places to hook in for utterly game-bending things. Because they have all the broken spells and no real limits.

I really don't get where you're coming from on this. The only questionable subclasses post-core I've seen recently are Chronurgist, Peace and Twilight, all the rest fit in with the rest of the game just fine. Yes there are a few broken spells like simulacrum, but those are easily banned.

sandmote

2022-05-30, 06:26 PM

The fundamental problem here is Spellcasting. There is no budget left for anything else of note. This is based on the idea that wizards should get the same budget as everyone else, which is something I agree with but probably requires several pages of argument to get past on this particular forum.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I listed the emergency and utility spells I prepare - shield, absorb elements, misty step, fly, counterspell, dispel magic, dimension door. The other utility spells I take are downtime only spells or rituals, and I thought we were talking about prepared spells for adventuring. I consider fly both defensive and utility, but the others you've listed I consider specifically defensive. By utility I meant more in the vein of alter self/disguise self, invisibility, or tongues that are particularly effective outside the combat pillar. For emergency spells I usually see feather fall and having some damaging spell in case the rest of the party isn't available at the moment (usually meaning the PC prepares thunderwave, magic missile, or fireball even when they aren't a blaster).

I agree that draconic sorcerers are more specific than just a blaster. I was just trying to say that you can make different types of wizards and they don't all have to take the same spells. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into one of the specific sorcerer subclasses, I think it's easier to do that with the existing wizard class. So if you want to play a blaster that focuses on one element, sorcerer is better for that, but if you want someone who does blasting in general, wizard might be better for that. I like that we have both options. Places I think we agree:

Both options you described are good to have.
Characters of a particular class should not be shoehorned into their subclass.
The sorcerer class successfully offers one of the options you describe.

The disagreements seem to be as follows:

You consider sorcerer and bard subclasses to shoehorn in a character's theme a lot more than I do.
I consider the current volume of defensive, utility, emergency, ritual, and downtime spells to be bad for trying to theme a wizard.

I would also like to explicitly note that I would consider it a solution to my problems with the wizard class if (for a given game) there were enough spells added to the wizard spell list for there to be plenty of spells from the defensive, utility, ect. options that are simultaneously also thematic. I'm usually trying to reflavor shield and misty step to match the theme I'm trying to go with, so I figure the long term solution would be make only slightly off kilter versions of those common spells so I can tone down the current coping mechanism.

Kane0

2022-05-30, 06:53 PM

Interesting, I think that I wouldn't use the vampiric touch change, since keying of off unarmed strikes means it uses strength instead of intelligence for attack rolls. It reads like a nerf of the spell instead of a buff.

Sans blight, this highlights one of the issues with grim harvest, it values killing targets, most necromancy spells that deal damage are low damage with a debuff effect (which is why necromancers keep evocation spells on hand despite the weaker effect, it is much easier to activate). Maybe, that is the solution, make grim harvest trigger when damaging an enemy with a necromancy spell, that way a necromancer is getting a bunch of effective healing.

Good points both.

Veldrenor

2022-06-03, 11:08 AM

I completely agree with the og statement. That's why I have taken a drastic measure, I've get rid of the wizard class. Best thing I've ever done, I've made sorcerer Intel based caster, given them wizard proficiency and added bonus spell list for every subclass. Plus I have curated the spell list of every caster to refine their role, banned a few spells, created a few new ones. And I'm positive that balancing only the wizard class would have take far longer to do properly.

Do you have your curated spell list/new spells anywhere that others can look at them? I'm considering cutting the wizard as a PC class from the next game I run and am interested in seeing how people who have done so in their games redistributed the wizard's spells.

Dante

2022-06-05, 07:32 AM

Sans blight, this highlights one of the issues with grim harvest, it values killing targets, most necromancy spells that deal damage are low damage with a debuff effect (which is why necromancers keep evocation spells on hand despite the weaker effect, it is much easier to activate).

Aside:

Technically, by vanilla RAW, Necromancers get more healing benefit from spells like Evard's Black Tentacles (8 HP per creature killed) than from evocations like Fireball (6 HP if at least one creature is killed), since they only get HP once per turn, and Evard's Black Tentacles kills each enemy at the start of its own turn whereas Fireball kills them on the caster's turn.

Witty Username

2022-06-05, 11:49 AM

Aside:

Technically, by vanilla RAW, Necromancers get more healing benefit from spells like Evard's Black Tentacles (8 HP per creature killed) than from evocations like Fireball (6 HP if at least one creature is killed), since they only get HP once per turn, and Evard's Black Tentacles kills each enemy at the start of its own turn whereas Fireball kills them on the caster's turn.

It's complicated, Evard's is likely to get more healing over the cast, while fireball is likely to achieve the healing at all due to being a high damage aoe. And more importantly necromancy spells often fit into neither category. With spells like Ray of sickness that is more about the condition inflicted or vampiric touch which is often too low damage even from the context of securing kills.
The prime of the complaint is grim harvest doesn't work well with most necromancy spells.

Corran

2022-06-05, 12:04 PM

The prime of the complaint is grim harvest doesn't work well with most necromancy spells.
Maybe it works in a way of adding a necromantic element to your spells in general? Not particularly impressed with it either, and if the goal was to use it to encourage picking necromancy spells then we can safely say that it fails more than it succeeds. I'd say that it does add a little bit of flavour, but only a little bit.

Witty Username

2022-06-05, 12:45 PM

Maybe it works in a way of adding a necromantic element to your spells in general? Not particularly impressed with it either, and if the goal was to use it to encourage picking necromancy spells then we can safely say that it fails more than it succeeds. I'd say that it does add a little bit of flavour, but only a little bit.

I will give that, If the goal is to sell necromancy spells the feature doesn't work. If the goal is to spread the flavor, like a necromancer's normal spells have been altered in someway then grim harvest performs that goal.
My comments upthread is if the necromancer loses something like 40 spells off their list, then they will need grim harvest to change to accommodate them. As is it is OK, the selling point of necromancer is the sixth level feature and grim harvest is to give something to tide over until then.

Dante

2022-06-05, 12:46 PM

It's complicated, Evard's is likely to get more healing over the cast, while fireball is likely to achieve the healing at all due to being a high damage aoe. And more importantly necromancy spells often fit into neither category. With spells like Ray of sickness that is more about the condition inflicted or vampiric touch which is often too low damage even from the context of securing kills.
The prime of the complaint is grim harvest doesn't work well with most necromancy spells.

Maybe it works in a way of adding a necromantic element to your spells in general? Not particularly impressed with it either, and if the goal was to use it to encourage picking necromancy spells then we can safely say that it fails more than it succeeds. I'd say that it does add a little bit of flavour, but only a little bit.

It's more useful than it looks because unlike Fiendlock and Long Death Monk it doesn't require "hostile" creatures to work. For example, a Necromancer down to 18 out of 57 HP could (technically, by RAW) cast Flaming Sphere on a flock of 8 chickens that he bought for 16 cp--30x cheaper than a Healer's Kit--and regain 32 HP as each chicken dies on its own turn (32 + 18 = he now has 50 HP). If he Fireballed the chickens he'd regain only 6 HP.

It's not important to the Necromancer the way Command Undead and Undead Thralls are, but it's not bad. (Inured To Undeath is probably worse, unless you have access to niche spells like Create Magen from Rime of the Frostmaiden, in which case Inured to Undeath becomes highly thematic and fairly powerful.)

Hael

2022-06-05, 02:02 PM

It's not important to the Necromancer the way Command Undead and Undead Thralls are, but it's not bad. (Inured To Undeath is probably worse, unless you have access to niche spells like Create Magen from Rime of the Frostmaiden, in which case Inured to Undeath becomes highly thematic and fairly powerful.)

Inured to undeath is one of the stronger abilities in the game, as it RAW gives a huge amount of maxphp. Just magic jar/true polymorph/shapechange into a form with a lot of hitpoints.. Find a cleric to cast 8th lvl aid on you/temporarily attune to a necklace of constitution. At this point you will have a huge hitpoint statblock.

Nidgit

2022-06-05, 03:16 PM

Evoker has several damage dealing features, but its primary feature is sculpt spells, which is a better careful spell on every spell.
A bit off topic, but this isn't correct. Sculpt spells only affects evocation spells and it's amazing there. But Careful Spells can be applied to powerful non-evocation spells like Hypnotic Pattern or Synaptic Static to ensure that you're not hitting your allies with debilitating effects. They're pretty well balanced as far as specialist vs. generalist abilities go.

Corran

2022-06-05, 03:20 PM

It's more useful than it looks because unlike Fiendlock and Long Death Monk it doesn't require "hostile" creatures to work. For example, a Necromancer down to 18 out of 57 HP could (technically, by RAW) cast Flaming Sphere on a flock of 8 chickens that he bought for 16 cp--30x cheaper than a Healer's Kit--and regain 32 HP as each chicken dies on its own turn (32 + 18 = he now has 50 HP). If he Fireballed the chickens he'd regain only 6 HP.
Food was never so nutricious! Try to pull stuff like this in one of my games and within a month of game time the price of chickens will raise to 3 coppers if you are not moving around much. Or I'll get you robbers/pirates that plague the merchant roots or with a foxes overpopulation problem!

That's sure effective healing, but is the vibe of a necromancer "ritually" killing small animals appropriate? Wouldn't that be more of a, I dont know, a warlock's or a cleric's thing? Perhaps there is a better way to wrap my head around it, I haven't had much time playing or watching anyone play a necromancer. Horrid wilting being what it is now is sad, I can tell as much but that's about it.

It's not important to the Necromancer the way Command Undead and Undead Thralls are, but it's not bad. (Inured To Undeath is probably worse, unless you have access to niche spells like Create Magen from Rime of the Frostmaiden, in which case Inured to Undeath becomes highly thematic and fairly powerful.)
This... this is interesting. The spell is from the transmutation school, but the descrition and the overall effect has enough in it to justify a necromancy touch being effective. And there are other spells that seem to fit in or at least borrow from more than one school of magic, so no big deal.

Dante

2022-06-05, 05:12 PM

Food was never so nutricious! Try to pull stuff like this in one of my games and within a month of game time the price of chickens will raise to 3 coppers if you are not moving around much. Or I'll get you robbers/pirates that plague the merchant roots or with a foxes overpopulation problem!

That's sure effective healing, but is the vibe of a necromancer "ritually" killing small animals appropriate? Wouldn't that be more of a, I dont know, a warlock's or a cleric's thing?

Voodoo and sucking the life out of helpless animals to strengthen one's self seems totally on-brand for a Necromancer in my eyes.

The part that bothers me is that it makes trivialities like "on whose turn does the damage occur" matter, and for that reason alone I would prefer to limit it to once per round. Flaming Sphere (4 HP per chicken) and Vampiric Touch (9 HP per chicken) would still be useful between combats, and it wouldn't feel so gimmicky.

Then again, I'm also the kind of player who would totally spend the first 400 gp the party earns on buying (and training) sixteen mastiffs at first level, instead of waiting for Conjure Animals V. I'm also the kind of DM who would give those mastiffs a share of the XP to give player-me a reason NOT to hire those mastiffs; but would also build in enough difficulty that player-me would still probably take the mastiffs along for insurance in case the party runs into Hill Giants or a pack of Orogs...

In short, Combat As War is all about logistics and YMMV.

Segev

2022-06-05, 06:48 PM

Voodoo and sucking the life out of helpless animals to strengthen one's self seems totally on-brand for a Necromancer in my eyes.

The part that bothers me is that it makes trivialities like "on whose turn does the damage occur" matter, and for that reason alone I would prefer to limit it to once per round. Flaming Sphere (4 HP per chicken) and Vampiric Touch (9 HP per chicken) would still be useful between combats, and it wouldn't feel so gimmicky.

Then again, I'm also the kind of player who would totally spend the first 400 gp the party earns on buying (and training) sixteen mastiffs at first level, instead of waiting for Conjure Animals V. I'm also the kind of DM who would give those mastiffs a share of the XP to give player-me a reason NOT to hire those mastiffs; but would also build in enough difficulty that player-me would still probably take the mastiffs along for insurance in case the party runs into Hill Giants or a pack of Orogs...

In short, Combat As War is all about logistics and YMMV.

The big risk with the mastiffs isn't sharing XP with them. The big risk is that they have so few hp.

If they are getting XP, ask the DM to give them Sidekick class levels (probably Warrior).

Witty Username

2022-06-05, 07:39 PM

A bit off topic, but this isn't correct. Sculpt spells only affects evocation spells and it's amazing there. But Careful Spells can be applied to powerful non-evocation spells like Hypnotic Pattern or Synaptic Static to ensure that you're not hitting your allies with debilitating effects. They're pretty well balanced as far as specialist vs. generalist abilities go.

Forgive me, I was being overly dramatic. I am aware of the restriction, however I assume evoker wants to take evocation spells, and so sculpt spells will apply to most of the spells the evoker casts.
The better is due to the damage clause of sculpt spells which careful spell doesn't have, which I will admit is much more relevant with evocation spells.
My overall point is sculpt spells is a very good ability that sells the specialization of the evoker without being a straight improvement to damage.

Dante

2022-06-05, 08:00 PM

The big risk with the mastiffs isn't sharing XP with them. The big risk is that they have so few hp.

I would absolutely bet on sixteen mastiffs and four 1st level PCs vs. a hill giant, maybe even two hill giants. Spending mastiff HP instead of PC HP is half the point.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-05, 08:19 PM

I would absolutely bet on sixteen mastiffs and four 1st level PCs vs. a hill giant, maybe even two hill giants. Spending mastiff HP instead of PC HP is half the point.

Now do something at that same CR that has an aoe (or even more than one attack).

strangebloke

2022-06-05, 09:29 PM

Now do something at that same CR that has an aoe (or even more than one attack).

Don't want to come across too negatively PP but its pretty clear from your posts that you never run or play in anything that remotely resembles a CaW game. CaW relies heavily on things like scouting, lore checks, and ambushes, along with minionmancy, which starts with buying 16 mastiffs, but definitely doesn't end there. Grab inspiring leader, get some barding if you must (or more realistically trade up to hirelings) and then make judicious calls about whether this is a good time to call in the pack.

AoE enemies are a problem, as are logistics, but for CaW players circumventing such hurdles is the fun part, and combat being breezy easy as a result of all this prep work is the whole point. It's a style of play I used to be more against but I've come around on more recently... and it does work pretty well if everyone's on the same page.

If everyone isn't then its a huge problem that needs to be solved away from the table. Perhaps more on topic was the diviner I played with for a while who was really determined to try and get his undead minionmancy going while working for an archbishop who didn't much care for necromancy. He got frustrated that the church deliberately made it hard to use the corpses of their worshippers as undead (shocked, shocked we all were) and then elected to start, ah... making corpses for his purposes the old fashioned way.

It didn't go well for anyone involved.

Did that experience early in my career as a 5e DM color my views on wizards? Perhaps! But my point is this: the character wasn't a necromancy, wasn't specialized in animate dead, and it wasn't something flavorful for him, he just picked animate dead because he thought it was powerful and was frustrated that his "minions" button didn't immediately produce minions. A lot of wizard players will constantly bring up how the whole appeal is that they get to do anything regardless of the DM's input, that they get to say what their character does, while others have to ask...

...which as I've said a few times, feels kind of inherently unworkable to me.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-05, 09:34 PM

Don't want to come across too negatively PP but its pretty clear from your posts that you never run or play in anything that remotely resembles a CaW game. CaW relies heavily on things like scouting, lore checks, and ambushes, along with minionmancy, which starts with buying 16 mastiffs, but definitely doesn't end there. Grab inspiring leader, get some barding if you must (or more realistically trade up to hirelings) and then make judicious calls about whether this is a good time to call in the pack.

AoE enemies are a problem, as are logistics, but for CaW players circumventing such hurdles is the fun part, and combat being breezy easy as a result of all this prep work is the whole point. It's a style of play I used to be more against but I've come around on more recently... and it does work pretty well if everyone's on the same page.

If everyone isn't then its a huge problem that needs to be solved away from the table. Perhaps more on topic was the diviner I played with for a while who was really determined to try and get his undead minionmancy going while working for an archbishop who didn't much care for necromancy. He got frustrated that the church deliberately made it hard to use the corpses of their worshippers as undead (shocked, shocked we all were) and then elected to start, ah... making corpses for his purposes the old fashioned way.

It didn't go well for anyone involved.

Did that experience early in my career as a 5e DM color my views on wizards? Perhaps! But my point is this: the character wasn't a necromancy, wasn't specialized in animate dead, and it wasn't something flavorful for him, he just picked animate dead because he thought it was powerful and was frustrated that his "minions" button didn't immediately produce minions. A lot of wizard players will constantly bring up how the whole appeal is that they get to do anything regardless of the DM's input, that they get to say what their character does, while others have to ask...

...which as I've said a few times, feels kind of inherently unworkable to me.

That wasn't the point. The point was that the matchup was cherry picked to be the best-possible case for the "throw more bodies at it" proposition. One big creature that does enough damage to overkill any of the creatures involved, but only gets one melee attack. And is big enough that everything can cluster around it.

Witty Username

2022-06-05, 10:51 PM

I don't factor in the out of combat healing much for recommendations with stuff like grim harvest. Not all DMs are cool with it (I don't mind it), and also I don't rate out of combat healing options very highly. They aren't that hard to come by. Resting is one thing, but I would point out other fairly easy to come by ones like healing potions. Grim harvest is ok, and has a funny combo with vampiric touch, but that is more a third case for me.

Dante

2022-06-05, 10:57 PM

Now do something at that same CR that has an aoe (or even more than one attack).

Er, why? That's what Expeditious Retreat and horses are for--so you can run away.

Are you suggesting that you expect first level PCs to stand their ground against e.g. Flameskulls?

Edit: P.S. Hill Giants do have more than one attack, but I was responding specifically to the AoE comment.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-05, 11:10 PM

Er, why? That's what Expeditious Retreat and horses are for--so you can run away.

Are you suggesting that you expect first level PCs to stand their ground against e.g. Flameskulls?

Edit: P.S. Hill Giants do have more than one attack, but I was responding specifically to the AoE comment.

No? I'm absolutely not. I'm saying that having low HP dogs as your primary attack force is a lot better against huge, slow-moving things with (I stand corrected) only a few single target attacks. But will vanish against anything with AoEs. Which are pretty darn common.

One other note: at 1st level, the cost of a dozen Mastiffs is prohibitive. Especially if you want barding or anything else. You're looking at 300 gp for something explicitly disposable. If you can even find someone willing to sell you a dozen Mastiffs. And then a dozen more. All of which are conveniently trained to work for you and go to their deaths[1]. I'd say you'd get a really bad reputation and find it difficult to find more sellers (or the price might go way up). Same goes for hiring mercenaries and treating them as disposable cannon fodder--it (like most other "CaW" tricks) only works if you consider the world to be a flat stage that doesn't actually react to what you do and governed only by the hard rules (as if in a computer game). If you go and lead a dozen mercenaries to their deaths, you're going to have to pay a bunch more the next time around. And you're unlikely to find a dozen capable mercenaries just waiting to be hired in anything but the larger cities. You might find rabble, not proficient in anything, but they're more likely to turn tail and run at the first sight of danger, not just blindly march into combat.

[1] NPCs are not robotic. You try to send a bunch of generic Mastiffs up against a giant and they'll be rolling saving throws against fear. They're trained to go up against thieves and robbers. You might be able to convince one to do it...if it's strongly bonded to you. Which isn't as simple as just walking to the market and buying one.

Dante

2022-06-05, 11:42 PM

No? I'm absolutely not. I'm saying that having low HP dogs as your primary attack force is a lot better against huge, slow-moving things with (I stand corrected) only a few single target attacks. But will vanish against anything with AoEs. Which are pretty darn common.

One other note: at 1st level, the cost of a dozen Mastiffs is prohibitive. Especially if you want barding or anything else. You're looking at 300 gp for something explicitly disposable. If you can even find someone willing to sell you a dozen Mastiffs. And then a dozen more. All of which are conveniently trained to work for you and go to their deaths[1]. I'd say you'd get a really bad reputation and find it difficult to find more sellers (or the price might go way up). Same goes for hiring mercenaries and treating them as disposable cannon fodder--it (like most other "CaW" tricks) only works if you consider the world to be a flat stage that doesn't actually react to what you do and governed only by the hard rules (as if in a computer game). If you go and lead a dozen mercenaries to their deaths, you're going to have to pay a bunch more the next time around. And you're unlikely to find a dozen capable mercenaries just waiting to be hired in anything but the larger cities. You might find rabble, not proficient in anything, but they're more likely to turn tail and run at the first sight of danger, not just blindly march into combat.

[1] NPCs are not robotic. You try to send a bunch of generic Mastiffs up against a giant and they'll be rolling saving throws against fear. They're trained to go up against thieves and robbers. You might be able to convince one to do it...if it's strongly bonded to you. Which isn't as simple as just walking to the market and buying one.

If you know anything about Combat As War you know that you're just repeating the obvious here.

kazaryu

2022-06-05, 11:53 PM

My proposed solution would be pushing a lot of best-in-class spells like fireball and lightning bolt to the specialized subclass lists, to reflect that this is an area of focus for the wizard in question. War Wizards and Evokers can learn Shatter and Rimes Binding Ice and fireball, but a master illusionist might not be familiar with those spells, or perhaps can learn them but not until higher than the normal level. Until then if they want to do blasting on the side they'll have to get by with Aganazzar's Scorcher and the like.

the problem with this as a fix is that not every subclass would have a related 'best in class' spell. so while some wizards would get rewarded for specializing. others would just...lose out on options.

so, if you wantet do that, you'd need to add spells for all specialties.

but overall, i don't see the problem with thematics...

Scholars and academics would of all classes be the ones that you expect to specialize the most. no the **** they aren't. In a setting where the gods exist, have specific domains, and empower followers, i'd expect clerics or paladins to be the most specialized...since literally their schtick is getting power from a *specific* source, following a *specific* philosophy. then, in terms of PC classes, i'd expect pure martials to also be highly specialized, since its theoretically the only way they'd be able to keep up (although i AM glad that 5e took the much more reasonable approach of making martials super-human).

in this type of fantasy setting i'd really only expect wizards to be more specialized than like...druids. I think the mistake you're making is that you're comparing schools of magic to PHD level sciences, rather than to general field level sciences. a much better comparison than PHD's would be master's degrees. but even master's students take a lot of cross learning. Thats what the liberal arts are.

As far as the way they're represented in 5e: i don't really see a problem. rather than specializing their spell lists, they gave them non spell powers to reflect their specializations. which makes sense given the snippet you quoted

Wizards are supreme magic-users, defined and united as a class by the spells they cast.
so the spells are, and should be, generalized...since they're what unite the class. an abjurer doesn't need to be better at casting abjuration spells than an invoker, but they do know ways to use abjuration style magic that the evoker can't. All of the wizards get specific powers that reflect, thematically, their specializations. the spells they cast are just treated as general knowledge. which makes sense, since all of them know how to cast spells, it makes sense that it'd be easier for an evoker to figure out an abjurers notes on how to cast shield than it it would for them to decipher the method by which he creates an arcane ward.

idk..i just don't see the problem you do. i mean, if this was like 3.5 where individual schools *only* affected spell availability, that would be different. but with each subclass having its own, distinct, power set. i don't see the problem with the spells being generalized.

KorvinStarmast

2022-06-06, 08:33 AM

As far as the way they're represented in 5e: i don't really see a problem. rather than specializing their spell lists, they gave them non spell powers to reflect their specializations. Which they tried to do in the PHB, with apparently not enough granularity for some.

Segev

2022-06-06, 11:02 AM

Which they tried to do in the PHB, with apparently not enough granularity for some.
Yep. I think the idea was sound. Some of the implementations work very well; I am very happy with Malleable Illusions, for instance. Others are disappointing; Grim Harvest for instance.

BRC

2022-06-06, 11:36 AM

the problem with this as a fix is that not every subclass would have a related 'best in class' spell. so while some wizards would get rewarded for specializing. others would just...lose out on options.

so, if you wantet do that, you'd need to add spells for all specialties.

but overall, i don't see the problem with thematics...

I think the issue is that a Wizard's Thematics are fine for the theme of "Generalist Arcane Engineer whose studies of magic allow them to cast spells", which is a valid Wizard archetype for somebody to play, and D&D covers that archetype quite well.

The issue is that, mechanically, there isn't much room for more specialized wizard archetypes. If you want to play something like, say, the 3.5 Beguiler, a wizard who specializes in Illusions and Enchantments...you can certainly do that. But in practice what you're doing is playing a generalist wizard, and intentionally leaving a lot of your power behind. It's not just playing non-optimally, since casting "Fireball" Doesn't make you any worse at illusions, you don't really gain anything by giving up that power except for your character concept.

There's a similar, if lesser, effect with, say, Rogues. The dagger-wielding Rogue is a classic archetype, but in D&D 5e, there's very little reason for a rogue to use a dagger as their primary weapon. You can get more damage with a Shortsword or Rapier, a rogue who chooses to use a dagger because their character concept is a dagger-wielder is just leaving damage on the floor for an aesthetic choice.

The issue isn't that the Wizard as written doesn't make sense, it makes perfect sense. It's more that it leaves no room for other variations on the "Arcane Scholar" type character. Every wizard might as well be "The Wizard" as far as their abilities go.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-06, 11:49 AM

I think the issue is that a Wizard's Thematics are fine for the theme of "Generalist Arcane Engineer whose studies of magic allow them to cast spells", which is a valid Wizard archetype for somebody to play, and D&D covers that archetype quite well.

The issue is that, mechanically, there isn't much room for more specialized wizard archetypes. If you want to play something like, say, the 3.5 Beguiler, a wizard who specializes in Illusions and Enchantments...you can certainly do that. But in practice what you're doing is playing a generalist wizard, and intentionally leaving a lot of your power behind. It's not just playing non-optimally, since casting "Fireball" Doesn't make you any worse at illusions, you don't really gain anything by giving up that power except for your character concept.

There's a similar, if lesser, effect with, say, Rogues. The dagger-wielding Rogue is a classic archetype, but in D&D 5e, there's very little reason for a rogue to use a dagger as their primary weapon. You can get more damage with a Shortsword or Rapier, a rogue who chooses to use a dagger because their character concept is a dagger-wielder is just leaving damage on the floor for an aesthetic choice.

The issue isn't that the Wizard as written doesn't make sense, it makes perfect sense. It's more that it leaves no room for other variations on the "Arcane Scholar" type character. Every wizard might as well be "The Wizard" as far as their abilities go.

This. And I'd say that the Generalist Arcane Engineer Who Knows Spells doesn't leave a lot of room for other classes in the "knowledgeable spellcaster" space. Which was fine back when there weren't any other classes (aka the Magic User), but not so much anymore. It also basically hard-locks you into a single background--Sage. And in fact, that entire archetype (other than the "casting spells" part) is the Sage background. Any class whose thematic elements are entirely replaceable by a background is suspect IMO. And even worse--it raises the question as to why any Sage-background character can't cast spells like a wizard. You studied magic just as much (or more, since wizards aren't automatically proficient in Arcana) as a wizard, yet he can cast spells and you can't, despite the class saying that it's not a matter of talent or "something special", but something anyone who studies enough can do? :sideways-owl:

Basically, the class fiction as presented is incoherent.

Dante

2022-06-06, 11:54 AM

The issue isn't that the Wizard as written doesn't make sense, it makes perfect sense. It's more that it leaves no room for other variations on the "Arcane Scholar" type character. Every wizard might as well be "The Wizard" as far as their abilities go.

That's because the Magic User/Wizard doesn't grow out of a character concept--it grows out of the Vancian approach to magic, wherein ancient hidden knowledge = magical power. The wizard's archetype isn't actually "magical scholar", it's "inhabitant of a world where knowing the right magic words lets you do things." Some Vancian characters are content to know their one spell or word of power, others like Mazirian obsessively seek out and extort new knowledge.

Trying to cram wizards into the same game as sorcerers, warlocks, and bards is always going to be awkward. Some people will prefer to eliminate or change the wizard; others will say "Why do we need more types of spellcasters than wizards and priests in the game anyway?" and will toss out sorcerers and warlocks and bards, or adapt them into being types of wizards.

Hidden knowledge = power is a DM worldview, not just a PC character concept.

Sigreid

2022-06-06, 12:01 PM

That's because the Magic User/Wizard doesn't grow out of a character concept--it grows out of the Vancian approach to magic, wherein ancient hidden knowledge = magical power. The wizard's archetype isn't actually "magical scholar", it's "inhabitant of a world where knowing the right magic words lets you do things." Some Vancian characters are content to know their one spell or word of power, others like Mazirian obsessively seek out and extort new knowledge.

Trying to cram wizards into the same game as sorcerers, warlocks, and bards is always going to be awkward. Some people will prefer to eliminate or change the wizard; others will say "Why do we need more types of spellcasters than wizards and priests in the game anyway?" and will toss out sorcerers and warlocks and bards, or adapt them into being types of wizards.

Hidden knowledge = power is a DM worldview, not just a PC character concept.

You got this backwards mate. They crammed bards, warlocks and sorcerers into a game that already had wizards.

kazaryu

2022-06-06, 12:10 PM

I think the issue is that a Wizard's Thematics are fine for the theme of "Generalist Arcane Engineer whose studies of magic allow them to cast spells", which is a valid Wizard archetype for somebody to play, and D&D covers that archetype quite well.

The issue is that, mechanically, there isn't much room for more specialized wizard archetypes. If you want to play something like, say, the 3.5 Beguiler, a wizard who specializes in Illusions and Enchantments...you can certainly do that. But in practice what you're doing is playing a generalist wizard, and intentionally leaving a lot of your power behind. It's not just playing non-optimally, since casting "Fireball" Doesn't make you any worse at illusions, you don't really gain anything by giving up that power except for your character concept. i disagree, you do gain something by not preparing fireball...you gain an extra spell prapration slot to prepare an additional thematic spell. a lvl 5 wizard is going to tend to have 9 spell preparation slots. if they pick 'optimal' spells (fireball, shield, web, magic missile lets say.) then they have only 5 slots to prepare their 'beguiler' spells. whereas someone that sacrifices that power can prepare extra spells to fulfill the concept. you're better at being a beguiler by dint of having more spells focused on beguiling.. almost twice as many spells, actually. you're also, somewhat, ignoring the magic abilities that wizards get from their subclass. an enchanter, for example, gets a version of shield that doesn't cost spell slots. overall its quite a bit weaker defensively of course. but it has some utility that shield doesn't, so its impossible to say which is better overall (especially if you talk to your DM about combining it with some kind of a skill check to sew confusion amongst the enemies. making them think they have a traitor). That sounds extremely flavorful for a beguiler. then of course their indefinite charm they get at level 2.

maybe im missing something, i still don't see how this creates a thematic problem. it sounds more like the complaint is 'why are some options better than others?' because lets be honest, if there were enchantment/illusion spells that were considered to be on par with fireball/counterspell then this wouldn't be an issue. because you wouldn't be 'losing' any power by going for the thematic spell. you'd be trading damage potential for something else.

and thats a fair complaint...but its not a problem with thematics. its also, largely, an unavoidable problem. Asymmetrical balance, even when well balanced, will always create a Meta. because the META is going to be based on how games tend to be played. As a result, anytime you wanna play thematically, you're going to tend to go off-meta unless your theme support a meta playstyle.

Yep. I think the idea was sound. Some of the implementations work very well; I am very happy with Malleable Illusions, for instance. Others are disappointing; Grim Harvest for instance.
i don't see the problem with grim harvest...is it a thematical one? or is it too weak in your opinion?

strangebloke

2022-06-06, 12:15 PM

If you want to make a powerful spellcaster who can modify spells on the fly within their narrow band of specialty, play a sorcerer
If you want to play an arcane engineer who puts in a good days work on making magical contraptions, play an artificer
If you want to play someone seeking after power and forbidden knowledge, play a warlock.
If you want to play a hedge mage who knows a few tricks from here and there, play an Arcane Trickster or an Eldritch knight.
If you want to play a keeper of forgotten lore who wants to preserve knowledge, play a knowledge cleric, or an arcana cleric, or a lore bard.

The PHB wizard subclasses try to give the wizard flavor, they really do, but the base class has very little. All they really have is their ritual magic, which can be replicated with a single feat by any class. And subjectively, I don't think the PHB subclasses go far enough.

There's not much more to say than that. Evokers are vaguely encourage to pick/use a few more evocation spells, but "blasts a bit more than he casts invisibility" isn't, uhhhh very memorable? And evoker is one of the most flavorful ones! Necromancer's been mentioned, but what about transmuter? Bunch of ribbons and minor effects.

BRC

2022-06-06, 12:36 PM

maybe im missing something, i still don't see how this creates a thematic problem. it sounds more like the complaint is 'why are some options better than others?' because lets be honest, if there were enchantment/illusion spells that were considered to be on par with fireball/counterspell then this wouldn't be an issue. because you wouldn't be 'losing' any power by going for the thematic spell. you'd be trading damage potential for something else.

You've hit the nail on the head here.

Some spells Are just Better Than Others. You must make a deliberate choice to NOT use those spells in order to keep to your theme, and the subclasses don't give you enough reason to stick to your theme, rather than being a Generalist who is slightly better at certain spells. This is partially because D&D is a combat focused game, so Fireball, one of the best combat spells out there, will always stand out.

Sticking to a theme for spellcasting means being limited entierly by your own choices, rather than any mechanics. If you play, say, a Fighter because you want your character to be good at swords, the mechanics block you from casting Fireball. Nobody expects you to throw Fireballs if you're playing "Guy who is good at swords".

But if you play "Illusionist Wizard", you CAN take Fireball, and so there's considerable pressure to do so. You can take Fireball and Fly and still be Illusion Guy, and there's nothing you can point to you could get in return for not taking Fireball. There are not enough good illusion spells to justify filling up a fireball-less spell list, especially since you can scribe spells in game.

My personal thought (And this doesn't fix the problem in the slightest) is to construct setting-specific "Arcane Traditions", spell lists representing different ways Magic is taught within the setting. The Wizard of the Silver Tower have one list they can pick from, the Seamages of the Cutlass Shore have another, the Pyromancers of the Goblin Republics have a third, ect. There's some overlap between these traditions, and maybe some of them have signature or unique spells.

The idea would be that each of these Traditions serves as their own version of the "Wizard Spell List", which they can freely learn from on level up (Representing them being familiar enough with the techniques of their Tradition that they can work out how to cast that spell on their own), or scribe from other spellbooks of the same tradition.

Learning a spell from another tradition would Require scribing the spell in question, and would mean doing something to show that you are adapting another tradition's magic to your way of casting spells. The spell might be Clumsy (Say, using a lower save DC, or granting you disadvantage on concentration to maintain it), or it may be Inefficient, requiring a higher level spell slot than normal.

The idea being that a Wizard of the Silver Tower, who casts spells via magical runes, can easily figure out Glyph of Warding even if they're not formally shown the runes for it. They can build it from the Runes they already know.

However, adapting a Goblin Pyromancer's Fireball, taking a tradition that handles magic in a completely different way and trying to cast it through Silver Tower Rune-Magic is going to be difficult and awkward.

This wouldn't solve the overall problem, and would be limiting, but could at least get some in-setting thematic consistency for Wizards. Your theme would be limited by the Traditions created for that setting (You are a Wizard of the Silver Tower). But it's at least something.

kazaryu

2022-06-06, 12:39 PM

The PHB wizard subclasses try to give the wizard flavor, they really do, but the base class has very little. All they really have is their ritual magic, which can be replicated with a single feat by any class. And subjectively, I don't think the PHB subclasses go far enough. but why the focus on the wizard, without its subclass? you cannot play a full wizard without a subclass, so why separate the two? their spellbook/ritual casting features are more than enough to cement the 'learned magic through careful study'. the rest of your wizard's is based on spell selection and subclass, until you get to lvl 18. Thats more than enough to build a solid theme for your wizard.

There's not much more to say than that. Evokers are vaguely encourage to pick/use a few more evocation spells, but "blasts a bit more than he casts invisibility" isn't, uhhhh very memorable? And evoker is one of the most flavorful ones! Necromancer's been mentioned, but what about transmuter? Bunch of ribbons and minor effects. idk, this sounds super backwards to me.
speaking of the evoker: why do they need more encouragement to cast evocation spells? the abilities they get should enable the archetype, not force it. evokers get sculpt spell, which enables them to be much more free with their blasting spells than any other subclass.
as for the transmuter...i mean, minor alchemy is a weird ability. it has its uses to be sure, its just...hard to imagine what hte designers were thinking with it. like, obviously being able to turn iron bars into silver so they're super easy to bend is cool. or turning a stone wall into wood so it can be more easily destroyed. but yeah, not gonna come up often.

but the tansmuters stone? by themselves, any of those individual benefits would be a ribbon ability. but the fact that you can change the effect on the fly, as its needed, is really good. and on top of that you can give the benefit to a party member. ranger gonna cast PWT and scout ahead? give them con save proficiency, or bonus MS. about to go into a dragon fight? give one of your ally the corresponding damage resistance. etc. it not only leans really strongly in the buff side of being a transmuter, but also into the 'preparation' side of being a wizard. (i.e. wizards are at their best when they know whats coming).

then shapechanger: 1/SR slightly weakened polymorph? its basically as useful to you as wildshape is to any non-moon druid. definitely not great for combat, but exploration/travel. it can definitely come in useful.
and last master transmuter: sorry...the wizard can ressurect people now (its debateable whether you still need the diamon for the raise dead spell...but you might not even need that)? or fully heal them? how is that a ribbon?
like, i get that transmuter, overall, isn't the best subclass for combat. but its features aren't 'ribbons'.

kazaryu

2022-06-06, 12:58 PM

You've hit the nail on the head here.

Some spells Are just Better Than Others. You must make a deliberate choice to NOT use those spells in order to keep to your theme, and the subclasses don't give you enough reason to stick to your theme, rather than being a Generalist who is slightly better at certain spells. This is partially because D&D is a combat focused game, so Fireball, one of the best combat spells out there, will always stand out.

Sticking to a theme for spellcasting means being limited entierly by your own choices, rather than any mechanics. If you play, say, a Fighter because you want your character to be good at swords, the mechanics block you from casting Fireball. Nobody expects you to throw Fireballs if you're playing "Guy who is good at swords".

But if you play "Illusionist Wizard", you CAN take Fireball, and so there's considerable pressure to do so. You can take Fireball and Fly and still be Illusion Guy, and there's nothing you can point to you could get in return for not taking Fireball. There are not enough good illusion spells to justify filling up a fireball-less spell list, especially since you can scribe spells in game.

that sounds more like a problem with the players than the game. as i said, a META is entirely unavoidable in a game like DnD. Fireball is a good spell, in most games, because combat is a significant part of most games (not time-wise. but in terms of importance. even many social/exploration focused games are going to tend to have hugely important combats occasionally.). thats a META, but its created due to the specific context the rules are built in.

the reason i say that this sounds like a player problem, is that MOST games also don't require that you play META. most games aren't deadly enough that you need highly optimized characters. and when they ARE that deadly, its something that should be known up front, so players know they can't build their characters theme-first, they need to focus on mechanics first, to ensure they're optimized. As a result, no player should ever feel any pressure to play optimally without them seeing it coming. and if they do, its because either they have an unhealthy mindset, or their group needs to chill the **** out, and let them play their character.

in short: it doesn't matter if you're as powerful as the theoretical wizard that has fireball...you don't need to be. and if you DO need to be, then thats something you should have known about during character creation.

[spoiler=minor tangeant about viable vs optimal vs non-viable] just wanna split of here and say that im not saying that any character should be acceptable. obviously players should make PC's that are useful, or viable. and thats easy to do (in fact, it almost takes deliberate effort to not so). any single classed character that puts an 18 in their primary stat is going to be viable for most campaigns. obviously, if there is a theme to the campaign, you want to match the theme. But in general all the class/subclass combos are 'good enough' from a strict mechanical perspective. However, i would look askance at someone that wanted to, for example, play a fighter that dumped both dex/str in favor of mental stats. or a caster with an 8 in their primary casting stat. i mean..sure, technically these types of characters aren't actually liabilities, necessarily. but i'd definitely have the player make something more reasonable.

My point is that the fact that a META exists shouldn't really be surprising, and shouldn't be an excuse to badger people that don't want to play META. and people shouldn't feel the need to badger themselves into playing META. as long as they meet baseline viability, they should be fine.

Segev

2022-06-06, 01:14 PM

I mean, while they have a very nice number of spells to prepare, wizards (like all casters) have a finite number, and probably have a "typical loadout" that their player has ready to go unless they know they're preparing for osmething specific. If your enchanter wants to be Master of the Mindwhammy, his typical prepared list will likely include all the spells needed to play to that style. That he CAN, with prep and foreknowledge, instead ready himself to play totally differently doesn't mean that he doesn't live up to his character fantasy under most circumstances.

KorvinStarmast

2022-06-06, 01:24 PM

Some people will prefer to eliminate or change the wizard; others will say "Why do we need more types of spellcasters than wizards and priests in the game anyway?" and will toss out sorcerers and warlocks and bards, or adapt them into being types of wizards. I tend to lean towards the latter position.

BRC

2022-06-06, 01:24 PM

that sounds more like a problem with the players than the game. as i said, a META is entirely unavoidable in a game like DnD. Fireball is a good spell, in most games, because combat is a significant part of most games (not time-wise. but in terms of importance. even many social/exploration focused games are going to tend to have hugely important combats occasionally.). thats a META, but its created due to the specific context the rules are built in.

the reason i say that this sounds like a player problem, is that MOST games also don't require that you play META. most games aren't deadly enough that you need highly optimized characters. and when they ARE that deadly, its something that should be known up front, so players know they can't build their characters theme-first, they need to focus on mechanics first, to ensure they're optimized. As a result, no player should ever feel any pressure to play optimally without them seeing it coming. and if they do, its because either they have an unhealthy mindset, or their group needs to chill the **** out, and let them play their character.

in short: it doesn't matter if you're as powerful as the theoretical wizard that has fireball...you don't need to be. and if you DO need to be, then thats something you should have known about during character creation.

This is true, but I feel like the psychology is universal enough that it becomes something of a generalizable question, and the psychology of optimization is an odd one.

I'd say that, for players who are not interested in optimization for it's own sake, the primary drive for optimization is on behalf of their fellow players. They don't want to feel like they're not carrying their own weight, or like a situation that goes badly COULD have gone better if they had made a slightly different choice.

as a result, players are less pushed toward META optimized builds, so much as they are pushed towards whatever they see as Common Sense optimization. For example, a rogue using the higher damage Rapier or Shortsword instead of a lower-damage Dagger.

This also means that the pressure comes, not at character creation, but while playing the game and seeing how your unoptimal choices punish you and the party. The stress point is about how frequently you must reject the Optimal choice, and what tools you have to justify the choice you DID make.

There are three factors that really come into play that determine how much pressure somebody is under.

1) How many different choices would they need to make to reach the "Optimal" state.

2) How obvious are those choices

and
3) How much Mechanical Reinforcement does their current choice recieve.

A Rogue who wields a dagger is very pressured to pick up a Shortsword or Rapier, because just looking at the weapons list you can see that those weapons are better, and changing weapons is a non-permanent choice that changes very little about the character. Also, a rogue who uses a shortsword plays almost exactly like one with a Dagger, "Uses a Dagger" is unlikely to be a ceterpiece of a rogue's theme.

By comparison, consider a Fighter. Let's say that it's generally assumed that Polearm Master is a better feat than Two Weapon Fighting. However, a TWF fighter can't just easily switch to a Polearm Expert. Their fighting style and feat choices are permanent decisions, it's not just a question of putting down the two swords and picking up a Halberd.

What's more, the two feats/styles, are not as obviously layered as Daggers vs Shortswords. They're more asymmetric, even if we assume that Polearm Master is superior, it's not as simple as picking the one with the bigger number. TWF is mechanically reinforced, it's presented as a valid option, and playing a TWF fighter gets some benefits that a Polearm Master fighter simply does not have.

A fighter who plays TWF is under less pressure than the Dagger Rogue to change, even if the difference between the optimized rogue and the unoptimized one is pretty minimal (avg an extra 2 damage a round for the Rapier)

And this brings us to the Wizard.

Optimized spell selection
1) requires fairly few other changes. It's more akin to the Rogue grabbing a bigger blade. The Illusionist-specialist wizard will also be good at Fireballs.

2) Is fairly obvious. It's easy to see situations where Fireball would have been useful, and bemoan not having it.

And 3) Playing a fireball-less wizard has little mechanical reinforcement, especially if you're given the option to scribe Fireball from another wizard's spellbook. Yes. there is a mild opportunity cost, preparing and casting Fireball instead of another, thematic spell, but it's fairly minor as things go. There's nowhere that the game gives you a cool hat and a ribbon if you forbid yourself from casting Fireball. It's soley your devotion to character theme and aesthetic that prevents you from doing the Optimal Thing.

So, yes, it is technically a problem with the player. But it's a constant, continual decision to choose your theme over optimal play, with little in the way of mechanical reinforcement to reward you for your choice.

Dante

2022-06-06, 01:39 PM

You got this backwards mate. They crammed bards, warlocks and sorcerers into a game that already had wizards.

I know. Apologies if that was unclear.

strangebloke

2022-06-06, 01:47 PM

Can't make a longer post right now, but playing into a theme should be the optimal path. An evoker loading up on spells that go boom should be the right choice. There shouldn't ever be tension between playing to a theme and being effective. Being thematic and focused should be rewarded.

The opportunity cost for mage armor/shield/fireball/web/simulacrum is very low, and your character will simply be worse if you avoid these options. There will be situations where you drop to zero and the paladin grimaces and asks why you don't have mage armor or shield. There will be situations where the party is swarmed by kobolds and the barbarian goes "what kind of wizard doesn't have fireball?"

A sorcerer could just say "didn't have room for it, I focused on support magic and social manipulation" and everyone would accept that because for sorcerers building to a theme is *optimal*. A wizard can't say that.

People should be rewarded for making unique and memorable characters. If you want to give up mage armor and shield to be truly squishy, you should be rewarded for creating that gap in your kit somehow. There should be incentives to be a bit different from standard wizards beyond self expression.

KorvinStarmast

2022-06-06, 03:33 PM

Just noted your sig.

Make Martials Cool Again. They were cool in the Original game. :smallsmile: And they had a better chance to survive...:smalleek:

kazaryu

2022-06-06, 05:04 PM

This is true, but I feel like the psychology is universal enough that it becomes something of a generalizable question, and the psychology of optimization is an odd one. i don't know that that's true. certainly on forums, it appears to be true. but you also have to remember that forums tend to be frequented by, at most, a few dozen people. thats hardly a representative sample. with the massive influx of new players, influenced in some part by live streamed DnD shows, i'd wager that this mentality isn't as universal as it feels. optimization, in basically any community, is typically a small subset of the community as a whole. the exception to that being competitive communites (i.e. LoL, Call of Duty, etc.) where optimization is neccesary due to the PvP nature of the game. but, even if a toxic mentality exists on a general level..that doesn't make it acceptable, it should still be called out when present.

A Rogue who wields a dagger is very pressured to pick up a Shortsword or Rapier, because just looking at the weapons list you can see that those weapons are better, and changing weapons is a non-permanent choice that changes very little about the character. Also, a rogue who uses a shortsword plays almost exactly like one with a Dagger, "Uses a Dagger" is unlikely to be a centerpiece of a rogue's theme. while i understand, and intend to respond to the overall point you're trying to make. but there's a pedantic gremlin inside that demands i point out that the dagger does have a benefit over shortsword/rapier, in that it can be thrown for SA damage. again, obviously not the point, but ya know..

And this brings us to the Wizard.

Optimized spell selection
1) requires fairly few other changes. It's more akin to the Rogue grabbing a bigger blade. The Illusionist-specialist wizard will also be good at Fireballs.

2) Is fairly obvious. It's easy to see situations where Fireball would have been useful, and bemoan not having it.

And 3) Playing a fireball-less wizard has little mechanical reinforcement, especially if you're given the option to scribe Fireball from another wizard's spellbook. Yes. there is a mild opportunity cost, preparing and casting Fireball instead of another, thematic spell, but it's fairly minor as things go. There's nowhere that the game gives you a cool hat and a ribbon if you forbid yourself from casting Fireball. It's soley your devotion to character theme and aesthetic that prevents you from doing the Optimal Thing.

So, yes, it is technically a problem with the player. But it's a constant, continual decision to choose your theme over optimal play, with little in the way of mechanical reinforcement to reward you for your choice.
and this here is actually why, IMO, its so important that gaming groups as a whole squash this mentality. because, while it is obvious where x spell might have been useful. what is much less obvious is how your spell selection has affected the map so far. to give an example:

lets say when you were building your spell list you thought you figured out everything you wanted, had a few slots left over and then threw on a couple of off theme spells. including counterspell. but wait, shoot..you realize you forgot hypnotic pattern. so you drop counterspell to pick up hypnotic pattern (yes, im aware that hypnotic pattern would definitely be considered an optimal spell option. im using it because its the most clear example i can think of). boom, finalize spell list, my beguiler is ready.

later that day, enter a dungeon, get into a fight. You open the fight with hypnotic pattern, incapacitating most of the enemies. you feel good about yourself for a moment as the rest of your party swiftly cleaves through the enemies one by one taking basically no damage. move on, get into a another fight, this one has a mage. Mage drops a fireball dealing massive damage to the party. oh no!.

So here its really obvious that having counterspell would have been great, could have saved your entire party 14-28 damage. but what's less obvious is how much damage your party would have taken if not for the earlier hypnotic pattern. or how many resources they would have chosen to spend earlier in order to efficiently clean up the earlier fight, leaving them fewer for this fight. Point being that the fallacy of 'oh man, if only i'd picked x spell' essentially makes the same mistake that is made when you assume that 'hindsight is 20/20. its not. not in general. obviously in hyper specific instances you can look back and said 'well, i should have done x' but usually you're talking about 1 turn back. because you can't possibly account for how your choices affected the current state of the board/game/party. So while yes, its easy to see the obvious place where having one of those spells is...its actually incredibly deceptive, because you don't know what all would be different if you had made that choice.

and going even deeper: as a player its really easy to fall into the trap of 'oh man, if i had done X then we wouldn't have TPK'D/experienced the bad result. but combats are FULL of choices, made by everyone. sure, you *might* have been able to make up for everyone's 'mistakes' that led the party to that bad result...but its a team game. everyone made choices that led to that moment, so when a player feels like that, it should be the groups job to dissuade them from that. because its not actually their fault. it just appears that way because the most obvious solution is an option they didn't take.

Can't make a longer post right now, but playing into a theme should be the optimal path. An evoker loading up on spells that go boom should be the right choice. There shouldn't ever be tension between playing to a theme and being effective. Being thematic and focused should be rewarded.
.
yes, in an ideal world, that would be true. but we don't live in an ideal world. it is simply not possible to create a game like DnD where a META doesn't exist. and if a META exists, then pursuing a path that isn't META will always be suboptimal. your expectations cannot match reality.

aside from that, wizards are rewarded for playing to theme.
abjurers regen when they cast abjuration spells, the more they focus on casting abjuration, the tankier they are
evokers can basically freely cast blasting spells without having to worry about friendly fire. they're rewarded for preparing a variety of evocation spells to fit a variety of situations (i.e. sometimes you want fireball because people are clusters, sometimes you want lightning bolt so you can hit both the ******* right in front of you, and the boss 60 feet away).
diviners get better spell slot management the most the spend spells on divination
transmuters can adjust their transmuters stone more readily the more transmutation spells they prepare
necromancers heal more when they kill with necromancy spells.

you can say you don't like how strong these abilities are, and thats fair, but the thematics are all still there. the reward is there.

Sigreid

2022-06-06, 05:37 PM

Just noted your sig.
They were cool in the Original game. :smallsmile: And they had a better chance to survive...:smalleek:

I played monks in 1e...First few levels were almost as rough as mage. lol

strangebloke

2022-06-06, 07:04 PM

yes, in an ideal world, that would be true. but we don't live in an ideal world. it is simply not possible to create a game like DnD where a META doesn't exist. and if a META exists, then pursuing a path that isn't META will always be suboptimal. your expectations cannot match reality.

aside from that, wizards are rewarded for playing to theme.
abjurers regen when they cast abjuration spells, the more they focus on casting abjuration, the tankier they are
evokers can basically freely cast blasting spells without having to worry about friendly fire. they're rewarded for preparing a variety of evocation spells to fit a variety of situations (i.e. sometimes you want fireball because people are clusters, sometimes you want lightning bolt so you can hit both the ******* right in front of you, and the boss 60 feet away).
diviners get better spell slot management the most the spend spells on divination
transmuters can adjust their transmuters stone more readily the more transmutation spells they prepare
necromancers heal more when they kill with necromancy spells.

you can say you don't like how strong these abilities are, and thats fair, but the thematics are all still there. the reward is there.

These abilities rarely effect spell selection to a significant degree. An abjurer is going to cast shield/counterspell/AE in like 90% of the same circumstances any other caster would, and its unlikely an evoker's spell loadout has (for example) both shatter and binding ice. It's all just a game of pushing numbers around a little bit. I've have like five wizards at my table in the last three years, everyone except one had like five spells of overlap at level 5, and the one who didn't was pitifully weak because she had neither mage armor nor shield and relied on witch bolt for offense.

The wizard class is just like this. You take the good spells and you're a top tier character, or you avoid them and you're mediocre. Almost all the power of the class comes from spell selection, so you can't compromise that. There are fun niche builds where you minmax like crazy around one spell like armor of agathys or animate dead, but even these builds will still have a lot of the bread and butter spells prepared. You're not not going to take shield, are you?

kazaryu

2022-06-06, 09:09 PM

These abilities rarely effect spell selection to a significant degree. which doesn't change the fact that the thematics are there...as i said. the actual complaint being made is about the power of spells, not about the thematics of the class.

An abjurer is going to cast shield/counterspell/AE in like 90% of the same circumstances any other caster would, and its unlikely an evoker's spell loadout has (for example) both shatter and binding ice. It's all just a game of pushing numbers around a little bit. I've have like five wizards at my table in the last three years, everyone except one had like five spells of overlap at level 5, and the one who didn't was pitifully weak because she had neither mage armor nor shield and relied on witch bolt for offense. this is interesting...at your table. but it doesn't actually have anything to do with how the class is played/used/viewed as a whole.

The wizard class is just like this. You take the good spells and you're a top tier character, or you avoid them and you're mediocre. Almost all the power of the class comes from spell selection, so you can't compromise that. There are fun niche builds where you minmax like crazy around one spell like armor of agathys or animate dead, but even these builds will still have a lot of the bread and butter spells prepared. You're not not going to take shield, are you?

no, optimization is like this. this is the point i've been trying to make this whole time. a huge assumption being made is that most tables are running optimized builds. and are keeping track of objective individual contribution, rather than 'feel goods'. and i really just don't think thats the case. i don't think most people that play suboptimal, thematic builds, actually end up feeling subpar in any way. nor should they...because they aren't subpar. they're just sub-optimal.

Now, at a table where optimized play is the norm, or even expected, this might change. but thats what happens when you have a META. optimized play is always, always going to have WAY less variance than casual play, because there's no way to balance a game like DnD in a way where every single spell or feature has a consistent power level across all types of play. certain spells/features are going to lean more heavily toward a certain style of play. and spells/features that line up with what is assumed to be the 'default' style of play are always going to be valued higher. you assume that optimized play is the default style, and so you value spells that are highly efficient for combat. However, for tables where optimization isn't assumed, or needed, you don't NEED optimized builds in order to feel like you're contributing significantly.

Corran

2022-06-06, 09:33 PM

But if you play "Illusionist Wizard", you CAN take Fireball, and so there's considerable pressure to do so. You can take Fireball and Fly and still be Illusion Guy, and there's nothing you can point to you could get in return for not taking Fireball. There are not enough good illusion spells to justify filling up a fireball-less spell list, especially since you can scribe spells in game.
Agreed about the general point on spell balance, even though I get the impression you are over overblowing it a little (just the impression though, you could be absolutely right, but that's probably a big conversation on its own).

I dont necessarily agree that you need not cast fireballs, fly and the like for your illusionist to stand out as an illusionist. I mean, it's definitely a way, ie reducing maybe even drastically the number of non illusion spells that the illusionist can rely upon to achieve a desired flavor. But you can do the same by just having enough incentive to pick enough illusion spells which you can use in a way that are more pronounced for an illusionist (and the illusionist is one of the lucky subclasses that gets plenty of this).

I guess a lot comes down to how we define the desired flavor. Would it be thematic for an illusionist to be known for something like being able to hide an elephant inside a small cottage? Sure, that would be a wild trick, worthy of earning this illusionist some fame in the game world, or at the very least allow you to boast/"joke" about it. Would your character feel more of an illusionist because your trick is purely illusion magic either of your own invention (hence relative uniquness) or known but difficult to apply theory, than if it was some combination of illusion, and probably transmutation and a bit of evocation(?) magic (which could in turn be what explains why this is not a well known trick)? I'd day it'd be about the same for how the character feels.

The crossover isn't bad if you get enough tricks (for lack of a better word) to make you stand out as something different. If the latter is true, then the crossover even helps with that, in a "you may think it's the same, but let me show you how it's not" sort of way, which is not bad, as it makes magic be different in ways not anyone will get at first glance (makes it a tiny bit more mystical and esoteric, and when you stand out is a little more of a "surprise" than a boring default).

I played an illusionist once. At some point we had a quest to defeat a necromancer. I found that to be the perfect opportunity for my illusionist to take a poop at necromancy. The jist of it was that necromancy is the greatest practical joke in history, which some forgotten trickster deity must have pulled off. The trick is that it attracts great talents and wastes their potential, it attracts great minds and dulls their senses. Because although it's very difficult to study and master it, it makes you obsess, it makes you predictable and it makes you think in a very narrow minded way, as every problem is to be solved by employing more undead, or more powerful undead, or more and more powerful undead, all the while every other solution is automatically dismissed. Did I do this in order to make my wizard feel more of an illusionist by virtue of being less 0% necromancer? Well, that wasn't my intention but it's an interesting thought which gives your approach points I'd say. But think of it conversly too. All this s**t talk my character did, even though it misses all the good points of necromancy, doesn't it have some truth to it that is respresented in the game mechanics of the necromancer? Wouldn't a necromancer benefit from some pauses between adventuring in order to build up some troops? And doesn't this present a risk of lowering the pace of adventuring at a point when this would be a bad decision? If you come accross a "tempting" target for your tier 3 undead control feature, isn't it likely that you might end up wasting turns on trying to control it because who knows when you'll have such a chance again, and thus maybe end up hurting your side in battle? Or if hunting such creatures in the game world, isn't it possible for a rumor of such a creature to get to you and maybe draw your attention way from something else you could have been doing, or used to lure you to a trap, or something?

As to how an illusionist playes differently, well, the stuff you can do with spells like major image, hallucinatory terrain and mirage arcane along with malleable illusions and illusory reality are things no wizard can do, and they are pretty great. And these are not it, just what strikes me as the most entertaining. Here's a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?477658-Illusionist-Tricks&highlight=illusionist) with a lot more good ideas.

The point is, I can play an illusionist and I can play a necromancer, and they will be very very different to each other. Not just because rp. Well, actually, because rp. But it's not all me. The mechanics actually help me define the rp in a different way, because they encourage me to play and think differently with each character. Yes, I may have fireball and dimension door and shield and a bunch of other common spells, so it's not always different. But it's different enough (moreso than what's the case for subclasses of some other classes), and I think you miss this.

Witty Username

2022-06-06, 10:33 PM

You're not not going to take shield, are you?

The only reason to not take shield is it is not on your list. I have seen bards pick it as their magical secrets, I have seen Paladin dip in sorcerer just to get it on their list. I have seen 3 wizards at my table and they overlapped on only 2 spells, mage armor and shield.
The problem is shield.

I don't see why sorcerer is a better example than wizard here, sorcerer will gravitate towards shield, fireball and such with little reasoning to do otherwise. They get less spells but still enough to pick all the best spells on their list without much issue.

strangebloke

2022-06-06, 11:54 PM

which doesn't change the fact that the thematics are there...as i said. the actual complaint being made is about the power of spells, not about the thematics of the class.
If the mechanics backing up the thematics are weak, then the thematics are weak too. Lots of people want to play a knight, nobody is going to play a purple dragon knight to do it.

this is interesting...at your table. but it doesn't actually have anything to do with how the class is played/used/viewed as a whole.
None of us have survey data here, we're just sharing experiences. And at least in this thread I've found a lot of people who agree with me.

no, optimization is like this. this is the point i've been trying to make this whole time. a huge assumption being made is that most tables are running optimized builds. and are keeping track of objective individual contribution, rather than 'feel goods'. and i really just don't think thats the case. i don't think most people that play suboptimal, thematic builds, actually end up feeling subpar in any way. nor should they...because they aren't subpar. they're just sub-optimal.

Now, at a table where optimized play is the norm, or even expected, this might change. but thats what happens when you have a META. optimized play is always, always going to have WAY less variance than casual play, because there's no way to balance a game like DnD in a way where every single spell or feature has a consistent power level across all types of play. certain spells/features are going to lean more heavily toward a certain style of play. and spells/features that line up with what is assumed to be the 'default' style of play are always going to be valued higher. you assume that optimized play is the default style, and so you value spells that are highly efficient for combat. However, for tables where optimization isn't assumed, or needed, you don't NEED optimized builds in order to feel like you're contributing significantly.
This is a lot of words to essentially say "You can deliberately weaken your character for the sake of flavor."

Which, sure. Everyone can. But with the wizard if you do so you're generally just making your character weaker, there's little upside. The batman wizard can do 90% of everything every 'normal' wizard build can do.

The only reason to not take shield is it is not on your list. I have seen bards pick it as their magical secrets, I have seen Paladin dip in sorcerer just to get it on their list. I have seen 3 wizards at my table and they overlapped on only 2 spells, mage armor and shield.
The problem is shield.

I don't see why sorcerer is a better example than wizard here, sorcerer will gravitate towards shield, fireball and such with little reasoning to do otherwise. They get less spells but still enough to pick all the best spells on their list without much issue.
I mean sorcerer has serious problems as well, yes. Ironically its a very similar problem, where metamagic crowds the class and eats up most of the design space. But they are forced to give up some of those basic good spells. I don't think I've seen a sorcerer take counterspell, and I've seen sorcerers skip mage armor or shield. Even if its suboptimal its still useful in that it allows them to pursue value elsewhere, by supporting your metamagic features.

The problem isn't that wizards pick the good spells - everyone does that to an extent. The problem is that this is the only meaningful choice they have for personalization and flavor. This is largely because the wizard spell list is so good that for balance purposes they don't have room for more.

Warlocks always take eldritch blast but between invocations, subclass choice, and pact there's a lot of room for flavor and personalization.

Veldrenor

2022-06-07, 01:20 AM

The problem isn't that wizards pick the good spells - everyone does that to an extent. The problem is that this is the only meaningful choice they have for personalization and flavor. This is largely because the wizard spell list is so good that for balance purposes they don't have room for more.

Warlocks always take eldritch blast but between invocations, subclass choice, and pact there's a lot of room for flavor and personalization.

Additionally, wizards don't have to choose. With the exception of the Tasha's subclasses, sorcerers know so few spells that every choice has a major opportunity cost. If you're taking Fireball as a Storm Sorcerer you're not taking something more thematic. And since bloodlines are so flavorful there's a push to make thematic choices, and metamagic choices push the sorcerer to pick spells that synergize with their metamagic even if those choices aren't the all-around best. But wizards can know every spell on their list so long as they can find the scrolls. Any spell that shows up in adventure loot, or a store in town, or that can be negotiated out of an NPC is another tool in the Wizard's toolkit. So as long as you're in a game where scrolls drop among loot, two wizards with completely different themes will end up with very similar spellbooks unless the player deliberately chooses not to learn looted spells.

Witty Username

2022-06-07, 01:21 AM

The problem isn't that wizards pick the good spells - everyone does that to an extent. The problem is that this is the only meaningful choice they have for personalization and flavor. This is largely because the wizard spell list is so good that for balance purposes they don't have room for more.

I wouldn't say it is the only meaningful choice, but that's been argued upthread at this point.

There is a thing to note that good spells aren't as cut and dry for wizard (beyond shield), there tend to be multiple effective combinations at each level depending on the goals, with some synergy with subclass. This is about as true for sorcerers (high levels start to have issues).
3rd level is a case study here, I have heard
Hypnotic pattern, slow is a popular pick set although I have also seen fireball, animate dead, sleet storm, major image, counterspell, and a variety of other things.
I guess that is the thing, the spells having meaningful choices is a draw in my mind, not a downside.
This might also be mentality or perception, I don't pick similar spells from wizard to wizard because I don't tend to play similar playstyles of wizard.

BRC

2022-06-07, 10:03 AM

Corran

2022-06-07, 02:02 PM

Part of it might be a consequence of Concentration as a mechanic.

A lot of cool, thematic spells: Fly, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Invisibility and the like are all Concentration spells. Carrying around too many concentration spells is awkward. Once you've cast your Cool Spell, it's in your best interest to leave it up as long as possible for full value, meaning that you don't want to cast any other concentration spells.

So lets say your theme is a Support Caster, who imbues their allies with power, so you load up with spells like Alter Self, Magic Weapon, Haste and the like, so you can buff up your allies.

However, unless your concentration gets broken, you only get to cast one of those per encounter. Average encounter is 4 rounds or so, so you get one turn playing your theme, and 3 turns playing Blaster.

Even if Concentration wasn't a factor, ongoing spells lose potency the longer an encounter goes on. If you're on round 3 or 4, and don't expect the encounter to last much longer, spending spell slots buffing and debuffing isn't much value. Casting Magic Weapon to give the fighter a bit more oomph for a single round of attacks is hard to justify compared to something like Scorching Ray.

I wonder how many 'Thematic" spells for a given theme are concentration, or tactical speed ongoings that run into this problem.
Hmm. Point taken. On one hand I want to say yes to more (non concentration) spells, especially if they are used to help represent the various schools better (while in combat). On the other hand I fear that we may end up with clones. Necrotic fireball, illusory fireball (fluffed however wildly you can think of), conjurer's fireball (holy hand grenade?), etc. And I dont like that idea. I'd much rather have my wizard double down on spells from other schools and think of the subclass as a part of a whole, than play with abilities that will be primarily set apart by their fluff text. I dont discount your idea, just pointing out that (at least for me) it would heavily depend on the execution. Otherwise (ie if we are not going for clones), it will probably end up turning the wizard into a specialist, where for example you end up with subclasses that are good blasters, ok blasters and poor blasters. Good buffers, ok buffers and poor buffers. Etc etc. While this would make the subclasses more important, it would take away from the wizard's mechanical identity (ie versatility) as a class (not to be mistaken with taking away power, which you can do without making a class less unique compared to other existing options). Personally I dont think that's worth it (unless you turn another class into a versatile arcane caster of course). Again, that's not to say that there are no problems or at least things I dont like with some of the wizard's subclasses, or that any of them have reached a perfect state where nothing can or should be improved. I am just pointing out that to me, there are worse things you can do that having a few generic subclasses. It's a tricky situation.

ps: Enchanters do get their hypnotic gaze and that other thing (AFB), but they are a risky proposition.

A potential solution, albeit one that requires heavy homebrew, might be to tinker with Cantrips a bit. As you build out subclasses for each theme, give them signature cantrips, perhaps even with some extra effect if they're concentrating on a spell of the appropriate type.

So you're Illusionist can throw out a big Illusion spell, and then still have something Combat-ready but Illusiony he can do on subsequent rounds. Were I a DM facing this problem, I'd probably try my hand at homebrewing a custom cantrip to fit my Wizard's chosen theme so they can use it as a standby.
Maybe. Again, I'll repeat my fear for ditching cantrips as they are for an evocation cantrip, conjuration cantrip, etc, where they basically all deal damage and the rider is different, maybe having a couple non damagin ones either. Instead of making new cantrips, I would be more inclined to get more high level spells that interact better with the various subclasses' features. Or to nerf the must-have ones.

Edit 2: I also wonder if "Downcasting" certain spells might be a thing. Cast Haste at 2nd level, remove concentration, but lock it into a 1 round duration.
Too many variables for what it tries to accomplish (I'd imagine we would end up with lots of awful spells and only a few good ones), so probably best to be handled differently at each individual table by spell research. You are probably doing that anyway for thematic reasons more than powergaming, in which case the best person to know what you want is you.

Dante

2022-06-07, 02:54 PM

There is a thing to note that good spells aren't as cut and dry for wizard (beyond shield), there tend to be multiple effective combinations at each level depending on the goals, with some synergy with subclass. This is about as true for sorcerers (high levels start to have issues).
3rd level is a case study here, I have heard
Hypnotic pattern, slow is a popular pick set although I have also seen fireball, animate dead, sleet storm, major image, counterspell, and a variety of other things.

If I look through all the 3rd level wizard spells in the PHB + Xanathar's and eliminate all the spells that aren't top-shelf/must-haves, I'm left with 13 spells: Animate Dead, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fear, Fireball, Fly, Hypnotic Pattern, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Magic Circle, Major Image, Phantom Steed, Slow, Tiny Servant. Since you only get four of them known much less prepared, that means even if I stick to only picking the "best" spells, my wizards are going to wind up very different from each other as they choose different subsets of the "best" spells.

Ditto for 4th level, etc. My must-have list for 4th level is 14 spells: Arcane Eye, Charm Monster, Confusion, Conjure Minor Elementals, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, Fabricate, Greater Invisibility, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Polymorph, Sickening Radiance, Summon Greater Demon, Wall of Fire

Unlike e.g. a druid, I have to miss out on 10 of those 14 best spells, and no matter which 10 it is it's going to cause my approximately equal grief. But at the same time, that's good design! A wizard who knows Major Image, Fireball, Counterspell, Tiny Servant, Arcane Eye, Dimension Door, Evard's Black Tentacles, and Fabricate is going to play very differently from a wizard who knows Fear, Slow, Phantom Steed, Fly, Summon Greater Demon, Greater Invisibility, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, and Wall of Fire. Yet they're both good wizards.

In practice, which subset of spells you wind up picking has a lot to do with which spells you reluctantly, painfully conclude are sort of redundant in the context of other party members. E.g. if there's a Cleric in the party you write off Magic Circle as redundant, if there's a Shepherd Druid you maybe write off all but one summoning spell, maybe even Fireball (because the Shepherd can Erupting Earth if needed), etc. Ditto Charm Monster--it's on the Druid list and druids can use it well with Pass Without Trace, especially if you prioritize Invisibility so you can cast it on the druid so they can sneak ahead and Charm monsters instead of the party fighting them. Maybe you wind up with stuff the others cannot do: Counterspell, Hypnotic Pattern, Major Image, Phantom Steed, Fabricate, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Sickening Radiance, Arcane Eye.

Any given wizard only ever knows a tiny fraction of the spells that "wizards" in general know collectively.

KorvinStarmast

2022-06-07, 02:59 PM

I played monks in 1e...First few levels were almost as rough as mage. lol Rarely saw monks in 1e, and that might have been the reason for it. Also, AC was so low early on it was hard not to get hit.

Witty Username

2022-06-07, 07:42 PM

For visibility, I had to edit in my last post an agreed, to an argued. As that is transformative to the sentence I figured it warrants more than a typo fix.

Psyren

2022-06-08, 01:09 PM

This is a lot of words to essentially say "You can deliberately weaken your character for the sake of flavor."

Which, sure. Everyone can. But with the wizard if you do so you're generally just making your character weaker, there's little upside. The batman wizard can do 90% of everything every 'normal' wizard build can do.

A weaker/less optimal wizard is still likely to be the most powerful class at a given table though.

Dante

2022-06-08, 01:23 PM

A weaker/less optimal wizard is still likely to be the most powerful class at a given table though.

Ehhhhhhh....

What does "most powerful class" mean in this context? Is it the same as "most powerful character"? Because any given wizard character is still only going to know a tiny fraction of all the spells that all wizards, collectively know. And any given cleric or especially druid is going to have access to three or four times as many spells as the wizard has in their spellbook.

I'm extremely skeptical of the notion that any given wizard character is "likely to be the most powerful [PC] at a given table", especially prior to level 13 or so when broken spells like Simulacrum come online. Especially if the wizard is single-classed.

Psyren

2022-06-08, 01:38 PM

What does "most powerful class" mean in this context?

Most problem-solving options at a given level across the three pillars of play. This could (and probably should) be its own thread though.

Willie the Duck

2022-06-09, 09:37 AM

Ehhhhhhh....

What does "most powerful class" mean in this context? Is it the same as "most powerful character"? Because any given wizard character is still only going to know a tiny fraction of all the spells that all wizards, collectively know. And any given cleric or especially druid is going to have access to three or four times as many spells as the wizard has in their spellbook.

I'm extremely skeptical of the notion that any given wizard character is "likely to be the most powerful [PC] at a given table", especially prior to level 13 or so when broken spells like Simulacrum come online. Especially if the wizard is single-classed.

Most problem-solving options at a given level across the three pillars of play. This could (and probably should) be its own thread though.

Fundamentally, I think it is going to have to be Psyren's definition*. A wizard's primary benefit** (especially compared to other long-rest casters) is going to be the breadth of situations they have options towards addressing.
*One can agree or disagree (and I think the spells a given wizard has and has available at the time is a significant constraint on the notion), but I think it is integral the premise that wizards are most powerful.
**outside of specific problematic spells like Simulacrum , Force Cage, and the like.

A wizard certainly can't do all things (certainly not be better at all things than the specialists in a given task, nor all things at all times), but their spell list usually has a solution towards any given problem (whether they know and have them prepared when the need arises is an issue, but they do have the option). Any given choice of Bard, Cleric, or Druid have a spell which addresses the problems that Fly(Levitate/Spidercimb), Knock(/Stone Shape), Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door address, but no one class can address all of them. Obviously a wizard has some issue with a few things a Cleric can fix, so it is not absolute, but I think that's the trend that advantages the wizard.

Segev

2022-06-09, 11:16 AM

Fundamentally, I think it is going to have to be Psyren's definition*. A wizard's primary benefit** (especially compared to other long-rest casters) is going to be the breadth of situations they have options towards addressing.
*One can agree or disagree (and I think the spells a given wizard has and has available at the time is a significant constraint on the notion), but I think it is integral the premise that wizards are most powerful.
**outside of specific problematic spells like Simulacrum , Force Cage, and the like.

A wizard certainly can't do all things (certainly not be better at all things than the specialists in a given task, nor all things at all times), but their spell list usually has a solution towards any given problem (whether they know and have them prepared when the need arises is an issue, but they do have the option). Any given choice of Bard, Cleric, or Druid have a spell which addresses the problems that Fly(Levitate/Spidercimb), Knock(/Stone Shape), Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door address, but no one class can address all of them. Obviously a wizard has some issue with a few things a Cleric can fix, so it is not absolute, but I think that's the trend that advantages the wizard.

I think the part I bolded covers why wizards are never as broken in practice as people assume they are in theory. "Whether they know" the spell is far less of a given than for clerics and druids, who are always one day away from preparing anything on their class list.

In practice, wizards don't have "the wizard spell list," not for the purposes we're discussing. Each wizard has a unique spell list that is far shorter than the class list of any other prepared caster. It's far longer than any "known spells" caster, and they can prepare more spells than any "known spells" caster knows at their level, but the enormous toolkit of "the wizard spell list" is still far smaller than it seems when you consider that no wizard has all of it.

Now, maybe the 2x wizard level spells you choose can always have the breadth of options required for the white room overpowered wizard to be a thing, but if that's not the case, then the only way the wizard gets there is with DM cooperation to give him all the spells necessary to create the "unique class spell list" for THAT WIZARD that will let him have The Perfect Spell tomorrow.

Dante

2022-06-09, 11:41 AM

Fundamentally, I think it is going to have to be Psyren's definition*. A wizard's primary benefit** (especially compared to other long-rest casters) is going to be the breadth of situations they have options towards addressing.
*One can agree or disagree (and I think the spells a given wizard has and has available at the time is a significant constraint on the notion), but I think it is integral the premise that wizards are most powerful.
**outside of specific problematic spells like Simulacrum , Force Cage, and the like.

A wizard certainly can't do all things (certainly not be better at all things than the specialists in a given task, nor all things at all times), but their spell list usually has a solution towards any given problem (whether they know and have them prepared when the need arises is an issue, but they do have the option). Any given choice of Bard, Cleric, or Druid have a spell which addresses the problems that Fly(Levitate/Spidercimb), Knock(/Stone Shape), Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door address, but no one class can address all of them. Obviously a wizard has some issue with a few things a Cleric can fix, so it is not absolute, but I think that's the trend that advantages the wizard.

As Segev says, this is not a good way to analyze wizards, because a PC isn't a "class". It does a wizard no good if he theoretically could have learned Fly, Knock, Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door if he actually chose different spells. No one class can address all of them, but no one wizard can either unless they have some additional source of spells, analagous to a Fighter or Barbarian relying on an additional source of magic items.

Psyren

2022-06-09, 11:58 AM

"In theory vs. in practice" cuts both ways though. Yes, the wizard who knows every spell on their list is theoretical while in practice they know fewer spells than that. But the other extreme, where in theory they could know a lot of great spells but in practice the DM is starving them to death and they only get the free spells from level-ups, generally doesn't happen either - and even if it did, you can still build a solid wizard with no additional scrolls or books from the DM at all.

Moreover, Wizard functionally has the most spells prepared and the most spell slots out of any caster save a Sorcerer who is cannibalizing all their sorcery points into slots or a Warlock who gets a ton of short rests per day. This is because Wizards are the only caster in the game who can cast rituals without having those spells prepared by default. Others can kind of get there (e.g. Tomelock) but Wizards get it right from the get-go, which means they never have to take up preparations or slots on things the party as a whole might need like Alarm or Identify or Find Familiar at low levels, and can focus their valuable preparations on non-rituals.

Segev

2022-06-09, 12:02 PM

Psyren

2022-06-09, 12:12 PM

All valid points, but it's not really a counterargument to what I was saying. I said that if the wizard has all of the spells he needs to solve every problem tomorrow, that's on the DM, not that the DM should starve the wizard down to 2 spells per level. The DM not only controls how many spells the wizard can access, but also WHICH spells (outside of the 2 per level). There's a lot of middle ground between "DMs give 0 spells" and "DMs let wizards have all the spells they want."

We're completely aligned on that middle ground - and my point is that middle ground is what allows wizards to be, if not the class with the most problem-solving at the table, likely to be pretty up there. Enough so that even if they want to sacrifice a bit of optimization for flavor, they'll still be pretty optimal.

Segev

2022-06-09, 01:18 PM

We're completely aligned on that middle ground - and my point is that middle ground is what allows wizards to be, if not the class with the most problem-solving at the table, likely to be pretty up there. Enough so that even if they want to sacrifice a bit of optimization for flavor, they'll still be pretty optimal.

Fair enough. I'm mostly pointing out that "pretty optimal" doesn't translate to the usual white room "every wizard PC that is not deliberately gimped can always solve every problem with the perfect spell." In practice, every wizard I have played has felt the pinch of, "I wish I knew that one spell that'd be great here, but I don't."

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-09, 02:23 PM

Fair enough. I'm mostly pointing out that "pretty optimal" doesn't translate to the usual white room "every wizard PC that is not deliberately gimped can always solve every problem with the perfect spell." In practice, every wizard I have played has felt the pinch of, "I wish I knew that one spell that'd be great here, but I don't."
For me, the question is relative: how frequently do wizards feel that pinch vs everyone else? I'd guess that they do so a whole lot less frequently. Or what others feel is "there's nothing I can do here unless I completely rebuilt my character" vs "I wish I'd been able to find that spell".

Dante

2022-06-09, 02:33 PM

For me, the question is relative: how frequently do wizards feel that pinch vs everyone else? I'd guess that they do so a whole lot less frequently. Or what others feel is "there's nothing I can do here unless I completely rebuilt my character" vs "I wish I'd been able to find that spell".

From experience I'd guess the opposite--Druids feel the pinch least. Wizards feel it constantly, as do sorcs and bards. Clerics are kind of middling.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-09, 03:19 PM

From experience I'd guess the opposite--Druids feel the pinch least. Wizards feel it constantly, as do sorcs and bards. Clerics are kind of middling.

But druids really don't have "the perfect spell" for a lot of occasions. In fact, they just don't have any option (perfect or imperfect) for many situations. So they feel the pinch less only because they're capable of less, in the grand scheme of things (disregarding individual builds). Same with clerics. Wizards feel it...because the breadth of options is tremendous.

Psyren

2022-06-09, 03:47 PM

From experience I'd guess the opposite--Druids feel the pinch least. Wizards feel it constantly, as do sorcs and bards. Clerics are kind of middling.

Druids and Clerics can swap out their preparations more easily, sure - but there are a number of problems they simply can't answer no matter what they prepare, so knowing their whole list isn't quite the rebuttal it appears to be at first. About the only utility they have a clear edge over the wizard on is healing.

Dork_Forge

2022-06-09, 03:52 PM

This thread has piqued my curiosity, what don't Druids have an answer for?

Dante

2022-06-09, 03:52 PM

But druids really don't have "the perfect spell" for a lot of occasions. In fact, they just don't have any option (perfect or imperfect) for many situations. So they feel the pinch less only because they're capable of less, in the grand scheme of things (disregarding individual builds). Same with clerics. Wizards feel it...because the breadth of options is tremendous.

Your experience is the opposite of mine. In a given situation, a well-played druid is likely to have a highly-relevant spell, whether the goal is killing a giant or six, sneaking into or out of a castle, or traveling across the continent and back. Given time to swap out spells they can also do things like enrich farmers' crops, find lost heirlooms, track runaway children or find creatures to recruit for warfare, construct fortifications, bring back the dead, and uplift plants and animals to human intelligence.

Prior to Wish coming online, a given wizard can do a only fraction of that. Even after gaining Wish the opportunity cost is so high that the Wizard still is unlikely to compete for breadth; e.g. while learning Locate Object and casting Wish (Locate Object) are theoretically possible, in practice the druid is likely to be the one who actually locates any given object (e.g. the duke's seal when the duke goes missing and is presumed kidnapped or dead).

What kind of situations are you running that makes druids have no useful options so often? I presume lots of time pressure so there's no time to swap spells? Or maybe the druids at your table are just overlooking their own options.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-09, 03:53 PM

Druids and Clerics can swap out their preparations more easily, sure - but there are a number of problems they simply can't answer no matter what they prepare, so knowing their whole list isn't quite the rebuttal it appears to be at first. About the only utility they have a clear edge over the wizard on is healing.

And many of their "solutions" to various problems (especially strategic mobility) are much weaker (especially for druids)--no teleport circle or teleport, only plane shift (shared) and transport via plants (which requires you to have visited the location before and requires a big tree).

Dante

2022-06-09, 04:04 PM

And many of their "solutions" to various problems (especially strategic mobility) are much weaker (especially for druids)--no teleport circle or teleport, only plane shift (shared) and transport via plants (which requires you to have visited the location before and requires a big tree).

I know you tend not to run Combat As War, but Transport Via Plants is actually awesome for logistics. Can transport far more creatures than Teleport or Plane Shift, and much easier to use than Teleportation Circle. Teleport has a "must have seen" limitation too if you want to have better than a 27% chance of actually getting there safely and don't have an object. Wind Walk and Scrying are pretty good between them at making sure the druid has seen a tree near his destination; in theory Scrying works for the wizard too, but did this Wizard actually spend one of his four 5th level picks on Scrying? Fairly unlikely IME, maybe one chance in five. The druid doesn't have this problem.

Psyren

2022-06-09, 04:11 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-09, 04:34 PM

I know you tend not to run Combat As War, but Transport Via Plants is actually awesome for logistics. Can transport far more creatures than Teleport or Plane Shift, and much easier to use than Teleportation Circle. Teleport has a "must have seen" limitation too if you want to have better than a 27% chance of actually getting there safely and don't have an object. Wind Walk and Scrying are pretty good between them at making sure the druid has seen a tree near his destination; in theory Scrying works for the wizard too, but did this Wizard actually spend one of his four 5th level picks on Scrying? Fairly unlikely IME, maybe one chance in five. The druid doesn't have this problem.

As Psyren said, you can see via Scrying. And if you're going more than a short distance, Wind Walk doesn't really help you much. And you need Large plants at both ends, which doesn't help in, well, anything other than going from a dense forest to another dense forest. Out on the plains? Nope. In a dungeon/underdark? Nope (unless you've got really big mushrooms). In a building? Nope. On an elemental plane? Nope (with a few exceptions). Etc. Teleport just works.

And I can't think of a wizard I've had that didn't pick up scrying when they could.

Another major area where druids just don't have answers is countering magic and extraplanars--they have dispel magic and detect magic. No identify, no counterspell, no banishment (for those pesky summoned critters or extraplanars), no magic circle or even protection from evil and good. No globe of invulnerability.

Basically no illusions, no way to manipulate attitudes (ie charm-types) except for beasts, no fly, no dimension door, no arcane gate (which admittedly is fairly niche, but valuable in its niche), no disintegrate (meaning they're hard countered by forcecage as druids don't have tactical teleports), no tiny hut, spider climb, or even rope trick.

So basically, druids are really good...in their one little niche. Wizards fill every niche in potential (other than healing, which druids are only ok at), and don't have to rebuild their character to change their niches--they just have to find a spellbook and spend some time.

The base "44 spells known" a wizard 20 has if they never see a scroll or spellbook? That's about 1/3 of the entire druid list (140 total spells, not counting cantrips on either side).

animorte

2022-06-09, 04:45 PM

I think the part I bolded covers why wizards are never as broken in practice as people assume they are in theory. "Whether they know" the spell is far less of a given than for clerics and druids, who are always one day away from preparing anything on their class list.
This exactly was/is my issue with any conversation about the Wizard in 3.5e.

As Negev says, this is not a good way to analyze wizards, because a PC isn't a "class". It does a wizard no good if he theoretically could have learned Fly, Knock, Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door if he actually chose different spells.
I pointed this out in a different thread recently. Just because you expect a Wizard to have certain spells or abilities does not mean they always will, and does not mean that they ever had the means to acquire them in the first place.

- I don’t necessarily think that Wizards or other classes step on each other’s toes too much (considering 5e subclasses and different party compositions and player preferences), but there are many overlapping spells.
- Sorcerers have always leaned more toward the blasting role.
- Bards have always been a bit more utility/control focused.
- Sorcerer AND Bard are both spells-known arcane full casters. Both are notably different.
- There are NO spells-known divine full caster classes.
- I point that out because the Cleric and Druid while having the same casting method, also serve different purposes. Both are notably different (similar to Bard and Sorcerer).
- Cleric and Druid each has their own counter-part in the Paladin and Ranger, both martial.
- There are no martial arcane caster classes (there are a few subclasses).

———————————————

And here’s the rambling thoughts (might have gotten carried away a bit):

The assumed reason the Wizard usually has more access to both blasting and utility is because of ritual casting and their intense study, which is rarely actually taken into account while optimizing or role playing.
- This is their theme, a theme that so very few incorporate into the class either because they don’t know how or because nobody wants to play school?
- Most other classes have a specific focus very clear within their spell lists and class features. They’re not so easily ignored.
- Wizard is your basic caster with tools to simulate most other casters just as Fighter is your basic martial with tools to simulate most other martial classes.

Dante

2022-06-09, 04:58 PM

*snip good points*
There are NO spells-known divine full caster classes.
*snip*

Technically this is true, but Divine Soul and to a certain extent Celestial Warlock subclasses are different enough from their base classes that they feel essentially like new classes. (And you could argue that Bards are "divine"--they've certainly got plenty of healing magic, which is the single biggest thing wizards stretching back to Gygaxian days are not allowed to have.)

animorte

2022-06-09, 05:36 PM

Technically this is true, but Divine Soul and to a certain extent Celestial Warlock subclasses are different enough from their base classes that they feel essentially like new classes. (And you could argue that Bards are "divine"--they've certainly got plenty of healing magic, which is the single biggest thing wizards stretching back to Gygaxian days are not allowed to have.)

Was 100% waiting for this response! :biggrin: But they're still just subclasses. (My personal favorite full caster in the game is Divine Soul Sorcerer and my favorite class overall is Warlock, second favorite subclass being Celestial.)

Dork_Forge

2022-06-09, 05:46 PM

The current conversation thread about Druids seems to be ignoring their subclasses, which provide a great deal of options and tools, whilst you can't Shrodinger's subclass the issue like with spells, it's also not a fair comparison of potential to ignore the influence of their subclass. Particularly, as their subclass carries more weight in their class than the Wizard's does in theirs.

Witty Username

2022-06-09, 10:08 PM

However, unless your concentration gets broken, you only get to cast one of those per encounter. Average encounter is 4 rounds or so, so you get one turn playing your theme, and 3 turns playing Blaster.

This is less of an issue at Tier 1, Tier 2 play. When you only have 2 3rd level spell slots, casting multiple spells a combat isn't a thing one wants to do anyway. Unless you qualify cantrips as blasting, but there are still spells like minor illusion. Also, dodging to reduce incoming damage can be worthwhile if the caster is concentrating on an important spell like hypnotic pattern or hold person.

Willie the Duck

2022-06-10, 10:19 AM

As Segev says, this is not a good way to analyze wizards, because a PC isn't a "class". It does a wizard no good if he theoretically could have learned Fly, Knock, Suggestion, Silent/Major Image, Water Breathing, and Dimension Door if he actually chose different spells. No one class can address all of them, but no one wizard can either unless they have some additional source of spells, analagous to a Fighter or Barbarian relying on an additional source of magic items.

I don't really think there is a good way to analyze game choices, especially when looking at something as nebulous as 'power.' Each class (and each analysis framing) are going to have strengths and weaknesses that both need to be acknowledged. I definitely believe that what actual players experience with their characters in real gaming situations is the important end-metric (and thus a wizard who could have theoretically had learned spell-in-question but did not is in the same position as the other-caster who doesn't have the ability to learn the spell). That said, particularly in a game where powers that address a certain option are gated behind advancing through a significant portion of the campaign duration*, the ability to pick up a solution to most problems as rapidly as next level (earlier if you can find and acquire the spell) is not nothing. Realize the DM loves putting plot keys in the rafters/stalactites/cliffside caves? If you are a wizard level 4+ you have a solution by next level. That is an advantage, just like the cleric or druid having any solution on their spell-list/spell-level-accessible by tomorrow.
*if your campaigns tend to go to 12th level, and you discover at level 7 that you really would rather have this suite of 4th level spells... barring rebuilds this is a significant issue. Compare to something like Champions where, if it becomes obvious that non-flying supers will be left out of much of the fun, you start spending build points (and work with the GM to explain how Firefist takes a cure from the Human Torch and learns to use his firepowers for flight) and can have a passible flying character in not-that-long.

Mind you, all of this is farting around in the weeds. The game isn't about an individual character having all answers, nor should there be a lot of single-solution situations. If the party really needs X and does not have X, they should be able to hire someone who can X, research and quest for magic item of X which was known to have been lost in the dungeon of Y (adventure hook!), or rely on their other party member who can X (and again, why are we seeing this single-solution-problem, Mr/Ms. hypothetical DM?).

Personally, my complaint with wizards isn't that they can do everything, it is simply the knee-jerk tendency of the devs to, when they come up with a new spell, to radically favor wizards in who they give access to said spell. There ought to be more bard, sorcerer, and warlock-specific spells that the wizard doesn't also get. That hits more on the fairness meter than total power one, though, so not really part of the main discussion (of the side discussion about power, as opposed to thematics).

This thread has piqued my curiosity, what don't Druids have an answer for?
Druid's come closest to having an answer for everything (certainly compared to clerics and bards, who have clearly favored niches). Oftentimes it is a case of they do have a solution for a general problem, but it might not be applicable. Tree Stride and needing trees at both ends has been mentioned. Faerie Fire is a solution to an invisible foe, but catching them in it in a non-dungeon-corridor environment is a problem. See invisibility just works. Enhance Ability is a solution to 'the key to the next section is up a slick wall' scenarios-- if and only if it is something the DM will allow an athletics check or the like to resolve*. Stone Shape gets around locked doors... sometimes. Given that they do have all these only-sometimes-less-optimal spells, plus things wizards don't have like condition-removal, exactly who gets a better shake in diversity of problems solved is definitely a matter of perspective (and individual play experience).
*and (since we are talking about non-white-room scenarios of how things happen at real tables) people would not complain about the Guy at the Gym issue regarding mundane solutions if DMs didn't make rulings like 'no way you can climb that wall, I don't care how good you rol--oh, Spiderclimb? go ahead.'

The current conversation thread about Druids seems to be ignoring their subclasses, which provide a great deal of options and tools, whilst you can't Shrodinger's subclass the issue like with spells, it's also not a fair comparison of potential to ignore the influence of their subclass. Particularly, as their subclass carries more weight in their class than the Wizard's does in theirs.
I confess I haven't gone all the way back in the thread. I thought that was part of the premise -- we were discussing their spell list only. Druids wildshape (and/or the alternate uses they have for their wildshape slots, depending on subclass), Sorcerers have metamagic, Bards have great skill abilities and Inspiration effects (and alt-uses for those). Overall class balance is very much more complex (bards and druids, as well as paladins, really do shine as some of the more well-designed classes in the edition, overall).

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-10, 10:28 AM

Personally, my complaint with wizards isn't that they can do everything, it is simply the knee-jerk tendency of the devs to, when they come up with a new spell, to radically favor wizards in who they give access to said spell. There ought to be more bard, sorcerer, and warlock-specific spells that the wizard doesn't also get. That hits more on the fairness meter than total power one, though, so not really part of the main discussion (of the side discussion about power, as opposed to thematics).

This. Fizban's was a prime offender--there's no thematic reason why those are wizard spells. And the whole dragon motif screams sorcerers. Yet there are...no sorcerer exclusives. Wizards get everything sorcerers get. Why? Because wizards have to have all the spells.

animorte

2022-06-10, 11:07 AM

This. Fizban's was a prime offender--there's no thematic reason why those are wizard spells. And the whole dragon motif screams sorcerers. Yet there are...no sorcerer exclusives. Wizards get everything sorcerers get. Why? Because wizards have to have all the spells.

I was somewhat making a point about that earlier. Bards and Sorcerers, the other full arcane casters have notable differences in the focus from their spell lists. I’ve never cared for Wizards, but if somebody wants to actually incorporate the design of the class into their character (a studious individual who actually earns their right to have access to all the arcane arts) I fully support that.

Witty Username

2022-06-10, 07:55 PM

I definitely agree warlocks, sorcerers, and bards should have more exclusive spells.
Warlocks and bards have a pretty strong themes so spell design shouldn't be too hard. I think sorcerer may have some difficulty with spells that don't conflict with one bloodline or another, but that is hardly insurmountable. Maybe spells that cost HP or exhaustion instead of having material components or spells that more directly mimic monster abilities.

Dork_Forge

2022-06-11, 02:37 AM

Druid's come closest to having an answer for everything (certainly compared to clerics and bards, who have clearly favored niches). Oftentimes it is a case of they do have a solution for a general problem, but it might not be applicable. Tree Stride and needing trees at both ends has been mentioned. Faerie Fire is a solution to an invisible foe, but catching them in it in a non-dungeon-corridor environment is a problem. See invisibility just works. Enhance Ability is a solution to 'the key to the next section is up a slick wall' scenarios-- if and only if it is something the DM will allow an athletics check or the like to resolve*. Stone Shape gets around locked doors... sometimes. Given that they do have all these only-sometimes-less-optimal spells, plus things wizards don't have like condition-removal, exactly who gets a better shake in diversity of problems solved is definitely a matter of perspective (and individual play experience).
*and (since we are talking about non-white-room scenarios of how things happen at real tables) people would not complain about the Guy at the Gym issue regarding mundane solutions if DMs didn't make rulings like 'no way you can climb that wall, I don't care how good you rol--oh, Spiderclimb? go ahead.'

Faerie Fire - The only reason to not know where an invisible enemy is if they are explicitly hiding, not just invisible, so catching most of them in FF isn't that difficult.

I actually had a climbing a sheer surface scenario in my last session on one of my ongoing games. It was a 500ft long, verticle shaft. The Druid was one of the few party members that didn't care, because they just wildshaped and flew up it.

I don't think every class should have answers for absolutely everything, but Druids as a whole are pretty well covered for a lot of stuff.

I confess I haven't gone all the way back in the thread. I thought that was part of the premise -- we were discussing their spell list only. Druids wildshape (and/or the alternate uses they have for their wildshape slots, depending on subclass), Sorcerers have metamagic, Bards have great skill abilities and Inspiration effects (and alt-uses for those). Overall class balance is very much more complex (bards and druids, as well as paladins, really do shine as some of the more well-designed classes in the edition, overall).

If that is the thread of discussion, it's incredibly flawed. Wizards are entirely dependent on their casting, it eats their design budget completely. Other classes rely on a mix of casting and class features, like Wild Shape and Channel Divnity.

Subclasses cover a lot of things that might otherwise be marked as failure from a spell point of view, and both Clerics and Druids are influenced by their subclasses far, far more than a Wizard is.

5eNeedsDarksun

2022-06-11, 12:16 PM

Faerie Fire - The only reason to not know where an invisible enemy is if they are explicitly hiding, not just invisible, so catching most of them in FF isn't that difficult.

I actually had a climbing a sheer surface scenario in my last session on one of my ongoing games. It was a 500ft long, verticle shaft. The Druid was one of the few party members that didn't care, because they just wildshaped and flew up it.

I don't think every class should have answers for absolutely everything, but Druids as a whole are pretty well covered for a lot of stuff.

If that is the thread of discussion, it's incredibly flawed. Wizards are entirely dependent on their casting, it eats their design budget completely. Other classes rely on a mix of casting and class features, like Wild Shape and Channel Divnity.

Subclasses cover a lot of things that might otherwise be marked as failure from a spell point of view, and both Clerics and Druids are influenced by their subclasses far, far more than a Wizard is.

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised Pass Without Trace didn't get mentioned in the Druids (+Rangers and not Wizards) column of the exploration pillar. For me that's the strongest spell of the pillar at low-mid game due to both duration and number of creatures impacted.
Yes Wizards have a lot of solutions, they're not the best at the social pillar either. Anyone with a solid Chr + expertise is going to effectively deal (resourceless) with the vast majority of social encounters. When more is needed a Sorc with Subtle or Bard who can layer spells and abilities on top of expertise is going to shine.
In terms of eating design budget I'd agree, and I'd probably be in favor of opposition schools or something along those lines to open up space and allow wizard subclasses to differentiate themselves more. I hadn't thought about it much before, but the more I do and reflect on characters our group has played (and hasn't played) I'm more in agreement with the OP. Wizards, to this point, mostly haven't inspired anyone in my group.

animorte

2022-06-11, 01:24 PM

In terms of eating design budget I'd agree, and I'd probably be in favor of opposition schools or something along those lines to open up space and allow wizard subclasses to differentiate themselves more. I hadn't thought about it much before, but the more I do and reflect on characters our group has played (and hasn't played) I'm more in agreement with the OP. Wizards, to this point, mostly haven't inspired anyone in my group.
This and this.
Most other class’ subclasses move in very distinct directions. I think there’s been a total of 3 Wizards I’ve ever played with, none of which were particularly impressed.

solidork

2022-06-11, 01:27 PM

I don't think that they deliberately made Wizard's class features weaker because of the strength of their spell list, and it's typical to not get anything of substance the level you get a new spell so you're not really being shortchanged in the number of abilities you get either.

BUT I will agree that they are designed in such a way that many of their features interact with or improve their spellcasting more than just about anyone else. Unlike many other classes, they don't get a secondary resource like Wildshape, Bardic Inspiration or Channel Divnity - they get Arcane Recovery, which is just more spells; good, to be sure, but perhaps not very exciting or interesting. If you think that's a bad thing and want to make it so Wizards aren't as single mindedly focused on casting spells as their one thing, instead of messing around with spell school restrictions, axe Arcane Recovery and give them some other resource on which to pin flavorful subclass abilities.

I will say though, it's actually pretty thematic that instead of a secondary resource they get more spells and that a lot of their abilities are centered around casting spells; as formulaic replicable magical effects, those are the bits of magic that it makes the most sense to learn through study, rather than some kind of ability to wield raw magical energy like a 'Channel Arcana' ability.

animorte

2022-06-11, 02:19 PM

-snip- as formulaic replicable magical effects, those are the bits of magic that it makes the most sense to learn through study, rather than some kind of ability to wield raw magical energy like a 'Channel Arcana' ability.
You’ve got several good points in the -snip- area, I’m pretty much on board with. This is the part that I’m concerned with. I rarely witness this study actually being accounted for. I think it’s neat and reasonable, but where is it?
Maybe it’s just me but I think it’s really cool to apply the way every class progresses as opposed to just, “oh I level up and suddenly know all of this new stuff!” Though I get that not everything logically makes sense to find a mentor for (or books/prayer/what have you).

Dante

2022-06-11, 02:29 PM

You’ve got several good points in the -snip- area, I’m pretty much on board with. This is the part that I’m concerned with. I rarely witness this study actually being accounted for. I think it’s neat and reasonable, but where is it?
Maybe it’s just me but I think it’s really cool to apply the way every class progresses as opposed to just, “oh I level up and suddenly know all of this new stuff!” Though I get that not everything logically makes sense to find a mentor for (or books/prayer/what have you).

I think the idea here is not so much that Arcane Recovery is learned through study but that it makes the thing which is learned through study more prevalent (casting spellbook spells, although the study is handwaved by just giving you two spells when you level up).

This dynamic would be more obvious if all spells were found (like magic items) or researched (during downtime) during play, instead of being automatically learned via handwave on leveling up.

solidork

2022-06-11, 03:06 PM

I think the idea here is not so much that Arcane Recovery is learned through study but that it makes the thing which is learned through study more prevalent (casting spellbook spells, although the study is handwaved by just giving you two spells when you level up).

Exactly. Though, you do need your spellbook to use Arcane Recovery.

The fact that they can write down their spells well enough that another Wizard can learn how to do them at least implies a level of understanding of their spells that you don't get anywhere else except for the Ritual Caster feat and Book of Ancient Shadows.

If learning spells through study is important to you, you CAN do that but the game does not hold your hand for it. If you know what spells you are going to take, you can roleplay out the process of discovering those spells through study and experimentation during lulls in action. Talk to your party about your theories on how lighting a candle with Prestidigitation and Fireball are the same thing on different scales, and how you're close to figuring it out. Buy the material components for spells you don't know yet and study or experiment with them. Pick some spells based on arcane phenomena that you encounter or have gotten a chance to study.

Just because they can come from nowhere doesn't mean they have to, if that bothers you. Obviously wanting something more substantial in the mechanics of the thing is a reasonable thing to desire, and I'll agree that Wizard does not execute on the whole "studying magic" fantasy as well as it could. I'm also not sure how much of their intent WAS focused on that, though, so its hard to say it's an objective failure in that regard. What I'd want, when it comes to this stuff, is automatic proficiency in Arcana - eventually upgrading to expertise.

Amechra

2022-06-11, 06:56 PM

solidork

2022-06-11, 07:32 PM

Honestly, one of the worst part of the Wizard's thematics is that the game puts no effort into making "you are a scholar of the magical arts" interesting. Instead of, say, having rules to research new spells, you just auto-add new spells to your spellbook when you level up.

I almost wonder if Wizards would be cooler if they didn't get spells from leveling up? Like, I dunno, you start the game with a spellbook with a dozen or so spells from 1st to 3rd level (maybe picked from a standardized set, based off of where your Wizard is from), and then adding new spells either requires finding them in play or spending some downtime on research.

The thing is, a ton of other things about the game would have to change for this to not be absolutely terrible. If this was a game where everyone had to take downtime and train to benefit from a level up then fine, but it's not. Lots of game don't have downtime. Lots of games take place in situations where it doesn't make sense to find spellbooks.

Learning spells automatically on level up isn't as flavorful as it could be if you don't put in the work to roleplay it yourself, but most alternatives would play so badly in most games that it's worth sacrificing a little thematic consistency.

animorte

2022-06-11, 08:29 PM

The thing is, a ton of other things about the game would have to change for this to not be absolutely terrible. If this was a game where everyone had to take downtime and train to benefit from a level up then fine, but it's not. Lots of game don't have downtime. Lots of games take place in situations where it doesn't make sense to find spellbooks.

Learning spells automatically on level up isn't as flavorful as it could be if you don't put in the work to roleplay it yourself, but most alternatives would play so badly in most games that it's worth sacrificing a little thematic consistency.

I respectfully disagree for the most part. It absolutely is a game that makes sense for everyone to be able to role play and take down time how they are acquiring new skills, spells, etc…

Where I am with you is that it doesn’t always need to require down time; it doesn’t always require mentoring, studying, what have you. A lot of groups may not find it particularly interesting to incorporate that into their gameplay. That’s perfectly fine.

To me it’s a lot like combat vs social game. Everybody likes varying degrees of each of those. It doesn’t mean they’re ever BAD. It’s only bad if nobody cares about it but somebody tries to force it anyway.

Dante

2022-06-11, 08:36 PM

The thing is, a ton of other things about the game would have to change for this to not be absolutely terrible. If this was a game where everyone had to take downtime and train to benefit from a level up then fine, but it's not. Lots of game don't have downtime. Lots of games take place in situations where it doesn't make sense to find spellbooks.

Learning spells automatically on level up isn't as flavorful as it could be if you don't put in the work to roleplay it yourself, but most alternatives would play so badly in most games that it's worth sacrificing a little thematic consistency.

It doesn't have to work the same way in all games. You could have a sidebar or DMG optional rule that says basically,

Optional rule: spell research.
PCs can research spells and magical item formulas during downtime. [Insert gold cost and Arcana DC here, while emphasizing DM discretion as a balancing factor and the possibility of customizing spell names and effects.] If it's a magical item formula, you now know it. If it's a spell, then if you're a wizard it goes into a spellbook of your choice, if you're a druid/cleric/paladin/artificer it gets added to your personal spell list, otherwise it displaces one of your spells known of your choice. If this rule variant is in use, wizards do not learn any spells automatically when they level up, since that is supposed to represent downtime spell research which this variant represents more explicitly.

Witty Username

2022-06-11, 09:26 PM

I almost wonder if Wizards would be cooler if they didn't get spells from leveling up? Like, I dunno, you start the game with a spellbook with a dozen or so spells from 1st to 3rd level (maybe picked from a standardized set, based off of where your Wizard is from), and then adding new spells either requires finding them in play or spending some downtime on research.

I am not against this idea, I feel like it needs a cooperative DM though. The first big thing would be spell selection, all classes as it is, pick the spells they get, with a change like this since it takes spell selection out of the hands of the player which being the primary draw of a spellcaster, can quickly turn unappealing. Rumor hunting and investigation of particular spells should be permitted and encouraged, or have enough downtime to allow ~ 1-2 spells of each Spell level. Essentially, its good for theme but needs to have enough player agency to not be detrimental. Pretty similar to martial equipment in all honesty.

PhantomSoul

2022-06-12, 06:57 PM

I am not against this idea, I feel like it needs a cooperative DM though. The first big thing would be spell selection, all classes as it is, pick the spells they get, with a change like this since it takes spell selection out of the hands of the player which being the primary draw of a spellcaster, can quickly turn unappealing. Rumor hunting and investigation of particular spells should be permitted and encouraged, or have enough downtime to allow ~ 1-2 spells of each Spell level. Essentially, its good for theme but needs to have enough player agency to not be detrimental. Pretty similar to martial equipment in all honesty.

A middle ground where you get one spell from your chosen school could be nice (but eek, no comparison to martial equipment is comforting to me given the weapon and armour tables/appeal xD)

strangebloke

2022-06-12, 07:09 PM

I'd agree 3rd level is a level with lots of good options, but I would also argue that a lot of these spells serve a similar roll. Hypnotic Pattern and Fear are different spells, but the effect is the same. Shatter and Rime's Binding Ice are another example here. Wizards will generally always have the same buttons, just with different names on the labels.

Ultimately my belief is that by limiting options somewhat (not as extreme as excluded schools) you could enforce a degree of flavor, and also weaken the class enough to the point that wizard subclasses could have more flavorful features than they do currently.

As one example of this, if you made mage armor exclusive to certain schools (abjurer, war wizard, bladesinger) you could justify printing abilities that enhance lackluster defensive spells. Perhaps the illusionist can cast mirror image as a bonus action. Maybe a transmuter abilities are far stronger and one of them is "set your AC to 17," and maybe you can have multiple transmutations active at once.

Witty Username

2022-06-12, 08:16 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-12, 08:50 PM

But this leaves most wizards in the lurch in terms of AC.

<grumpy cat>Good</grumpy cat>

Seriously, I wouldn't restrict mage armor to abjurers. But I'm seriously considering the following rule(s):

General rule: You can't cast spells while wearing armor.
Specific exceptions: Individual classes (and subclasses) that grant armor proficiencies gain features that say
---
Armored Caster (<class name>)
You can cast <class name> spells while wearing <armor types>.
---

So even if a wizard takes a level of tempest cleric, he can only cast his cleric spells in heavy armor--if he's wearing armor at all he can't cast any wizard spells.

Note that racial armor proficiency (if it still exists after I'm done with my overhaul) does not grant this feature for any class.

Witty Username

2022-06-12, 09:05 PM

Treantmonk proposed a houserule like that, "a caster cannot cannot cast a spell as 1st level or higher while wearing armor that that class does not grant proficiency in"
Or something like that. VMMY, but I wouldn't mind a rule like that as it keeps casters honest when multiclassing.

GeoffWatson

2022-06-12, 09:15 PM

Any given wizard only ever knows a tiny fraction of the spells that "wizards" in general know collectively.

Wizards are not limited to the spells they get on level up. They can copy spells from spellbooks and scrolls, and every Wizard I've seen in play has made every effort to copy as many spells as possible. Gotta catch them all!

Dante

2022-06-12, 10:10 PM

Wizards are not limited to the spells they get on level up. They can copy spells from spellbooks and scrolls, and every Wizard I've seen in play has made every effort to copy as many spells as possible. Gotta catch them all!

You're not wrong, but that's also like observing that Fighters make every effort to acquire magical weaponry and Barbarians try to acquire Boots of Flying. These are motivations for adventure, and that's great, but an online discussion that assumes Schrodinger's Wizard who has access to every spell is simultaneously a fairly common Internet thing and something that I've never seen be remotely true in play any more than Fighters all have +3 armor/shields/weapons, Amulets of Health, and Girdles of Storm Giant Strength. Theoretically possible yes, but should not be assumed.

strangebloke

2022-06-12, 10:29 PM

I think limiting spells could have that effect but there is a caviot there related to the above point. Making say shatter but not say Rime's binding Ice amounts to wizards that don't have access to shatter just taking Rime's binding Ice. In your mage armor example you mention bladesinger, which I would say shouldn't get mage armor in this hypothetical because they already get light armor proficiency. But more importantly taking mage armor from the bladesinger wouldn't actually change their spell list much.

So, if this is going to work it would have to involve stripping out enough of the spell list to lose these components, but then we run the risk of losing important stuff for play. To keep using mage armor for the example, restricting it to the abjurer would be a meaningful restriction for the base wizard. But this leaves most wizards in the lurch in terms of AC.
Well, I don't think its really a problem if some wizards are missing either shield or mage armor, especially if other defensive features are in play. And really "other defensive features" is kind of the goal here. If the transmuter doesn't have glowy mage armor, but instead has transmuted their skin to be as hard as stone, that's strong and also flavorful, even if the effect is the same.

And yeah, my take would be to make both shatter and Rime's be inaccessible to a lot of wizards, with most having say Scorcher as their best 2nd level damage AOE, some having Shatter or Rime's, but then Evoker having both.

Admittedly this gets very complicated, very fast, but I think it would be cool.

I would recommend that if this is the goal, I would recommend going after spells learned per level. As that would limit the range of options the wizard can have access to at one time.

I don't mind how many spells wizards have access to. They have a lot, but the problem as I see it is that everyone's going after the same list. Mage armor effectively is a class feature. After a certain level you've either made it irrelevant or you've taken it and cast it every day. There's no in between.

Treantmonk proposed a houserule like that, "a caster cannot cannot cast a spell as 1st level or higher while wearing armor that that class does not grant proficiency in"
Or something like that. VMMY, but I wouldn't mind a rule like that as it keeps casters honest when multiclassing.

IMO armor proficiency isn't worth dipping for, and doesn't matter much. The bigger problem is shield proficiency, which genuinely is a game changer for every caster.

GeoffWatson

2022-06-12, 10:46 PM

You're not wrong, but that's also like observing that Fighters make every effort to acquire magical weaponry and Barbarians try to acquire Boots of Flying. These are motivations for adventure, and that's great, but an online discussion that assumes Schrodinger's Wizard who has access to every spell is simultaneously a fairly common Internet thing and something that I've never seen be remotely true in play any more than Fighters all have +3 armor/shields/weapons, Amulets of Health, and Girdles of Storm Giant Strength. Theoretically possible yes, but should not be assumed.

Magic items (past uncommon) either cost a huge amount, or are impossible to choose.

Wizard spell scribing just requires a cooperative wizard. Pay them with letting them learn some of your spells. Much cheaper than getting many rare and very rare items.
Some settings even have Wizard Guilds/Academies with spell libraries offering most spells, readily available for copying.

Witty Username

2022-06-12, 10:57 PM

Well, I don't think its really a problem if some wizards are missing either shield or mage armor, especially if other defensive features are in play. And really "other defensive features" is kind of the goal here. If the transmuter doesn't have glowy mage armor, but instead has transmuted their skin to be as hard as stone, that's strong and also flavorful, even if the effect is the same.

Eh, I don't really see the distinction much but I am a fan of reskinning spells as needed so we can get that effect with mage armor. That being said at least for a transmuter maybe something that wasn't so much its own spell but boosts defenses when they cast a transmutation spell on themselves. I would need some examples but I am not against this idea inherently.

And to be clear, I don't think anyone needs shield, I am on the fence on whether it is bad for the game and should possibly be banned. Everyone having ok AC is a thing I care about, every spellcaster with shield having the best AC on demand is not a thing I value.

IMO armor proficiency isn't worth dipping for, and doesn't matter much. The bigger problem is shield proficiency, which genuinely is a game changer for every caster.

Fair enough, I think the houserule was at least intended to also apply to shields (I was planning on checking the specific wording when I had time). I recall the point was to curb those pesky cleric 1 dips for AC 20.

strangebloke

2022-06-12, 11:12 PM

Eh, I don't really see the distinction much but I am a fan of reskinning spells as needed so we can get that effect with mage armor. That being said at least for a transmuter maybe something that wasn't so much its own spell but boosts defenses when they cast a transmutation spell on themselves. I would need some examples but I am not against this idea inherently.
Well, the difference is opportunity cost. The transmuter is giving up one of their enhancements, movement speed or darkvision or something, to get AC, and its very possible they'll get caught without AC and will want to activate the stone round of 1 of combat regardless. It makes things work a bit differently than the standard "I cast mage armor before setting out."

And to be clear, I don't think anyone needs shield, I am on the fence on whether it is bad for the game and should possibly be banned. Everyone having ok AC is a thing I care about, every spellcaster with shield having the best AC on demand is not a thing I value.
agreed. I actually sort of like shield best on characters like EKs with warcaster, since its high investment and payoff.

Fair enough, I think the houserule was at least intended to also apply to shields (I was planning on checking the specific wording when I had time). I recall the point was to curb those pesky cleric 1 dips for AC 20.
Eh. It's only a half feat (moderately armored) for most characters anyway. I do see the problem, but I don't personally view it as a huge priority. Delaying access to higher level spells known is a big deal.

TrialsofHualnem

2022-06-13, 05:05 AM

I think that the subclasses are extremely flavorful in theme, but they just fall off when it comes to how they are built. I reckon they'll go another route for 6E.

Willie the Duck

2022-06-13, 07:54 AM

Magic items (past uncommon) either cost a huge amount, or are impossible to choose.

Wizard spell scribing just requires a cooperative wizard. Pay them with letting them learn some of your spells. Much cheaper than getting many rare and very rare items.
Some settings even have Wizard Guilds/Academies with spell libraries offering most spells, readily available for copying.

aside: I think there's a room you can find in Curse of Strahd where there are all the PHB wizards spells up to a certain level, there for the copying.

This is certainly an issue. Exactly how rare enemy spellbooks are, whether friendly wizards will let you copy their spells (and at what cost), and how readily one can acquire spell scrolls* is going to vary significantly from DM to DM. Not, mind you, that magic item frequency does not share this quality. However, there is at least a continuous gamer-cultural notion of too few is stingy** and too much 'Monty Haul.' Given how long ago it was that you found most of your spells in a dungeon, there are going to be a whole slew of DMs who have no experience with this situation. It certainly could be done, but some learning (and hopefully some solid guidance) would need to happen.
*second aside: scrolls (or the versions of scrolls one can purchase) could have been such that you cannot reverse engineer them back into spellbook entries.
**any statement that magic items are optional in 5e kind of being an understood deviation from norm

Segev

2022-06-13, 10:48 AM

Playing in a setting where the tech level is "ancient sumarian" or so, and the cultures do not have "wizard guilds" or the like, I can attest that a one level dip into cleric that grants shield proficiency has made my wizard a "dodge tank" in a lot of ways, but also that getting new spells is probably going to be very difficult, outside of the 2 per level, just due to there being so few wizards who are willing to share their spell knowledge, even in trade.

Snails

2022-06-13, 11:32 AM

And to be clear, I don't think anyone needs shield, I am on the fence on whether it is bad for the game and should possibly be banned. Everyone having ok AC is a thing I care about, every spellcaster with shield having the best AC on demand is not a thing I value.

Agreed. That the Wizard can suddenly boost their AC to something respectable like a flat 17 or 18 for one round is fine. But Shield is specifically written such that it stacks with anything and everything. Easy access to AC 20 for any Wizard or just a one-level dip for easy access to AC 25 is not something that benefits the game, even a little.

I would also not grant Wizard Absorb Elements, for similar reasons. There is nothing about Wizard concept that says to me "most difficult in the party to Fireball". (I like this spell for the Ranger and Druid, though.)

Dante

2022-06-13, 12:00 PM

Agreed. That the Wizard can suddenly boost their AC to something respectable like a flat 17 or 18 for one round is fine. But Shield is specifically written such that it stacks with anything and everything. Easy access to AC 20 for any Wizard or just a one-level dip for easy access to AC 25 is not something that benefits the game, even a little.

I tend to agree. 5E wizards are far, far too easy to make tanky. Give me 35-HP AC 10 20th level mages whose spells are disrupted by damage and can't move while spellcasting.

HPisBS

2022-06-13, 12:36 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-06-13, 01:36 PM

Since so much of the complaint seems to be that "Wizards get all the spellz!", how about leaning on the only other class feature Wizards actually get and tweaking Arcane Recovery? Make it only recover slots that were spent on the subclass's school?

While it can be said that any talk of forcing Wizards to actually specialize in a particular school of spells kinda breaks down once you start factoring in post-PHB subclasses, I think doing it this way would suffer from that far less than screwing with the spell list itself. Just becoming more incentivized to cast a subclass's spells like that wouldn't feel like as bad as becoming unable to cast general spells.

Meanwhile, the non-school specific subclasses could have their generalist Arcane Recovery, but maybe at half strength relative to the PHB ones.

(That'd also have the happy side-effect of letting Sorcerers cast their very limited number of spells known more often than Wizards if they devote all of their sorcery points to replenishing their slots. At least relative to post-PHB Wizards. It'd still be equal when an Evoker focuses on blasting.)

Personally, I think that doing anything (including subclasses) strictly around the schools of magic is a part of the problem and something to be avoided. Because the schools of magic are...well...not exactly flavorful themselves. And absolutely not balanced among themselves. You'd have to completely go through and reassign all the spells (and shift the definitions of the schools to have less overlap).

I'd prefer to make all the subclasses more like the War Magic and Bladesinger (although not necessarily in implementation)--specialized around concrete archetypes and tasks, not on fully-abstract, arbitrary slicings of the world of magic.