Steel Wind Strike

[PhoenixPhyre]

Should be a ranger exclusive. Or a ranger class feature.

That is all.

[Amnestic]

I could see it being a Ranger exclusive that Bladesingers could also get specifically but yeah, it being a wizard spell blanket is kind of ridiculous.

[Rukelnikov]

My Bladesinger used it, its a cool spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could see it being a Ranger exclusive that Bladesingers could also get specifically but yeah, it being a wizard spell blanket is kind of ridiculous.


My Bladesinger used it, its a cool spell.

For my more heretical notion...bladesingers should be a subclass of ranger, swapping out the nature list for a limited arcane one. Or of a completely separate arcane-half-caster (something like PF's Magus).

[Rukelnikov]

For my more heretical notion...bladesingers should be a subclass of ranger, swapping out the nature list for a limited arcane one. Or of a completely separate arcane-half-caster (something like PF's Magus).

That's cool for a class, but that's not a Bladesinger

Oh, I didn't read the swap spell list part, if it was arcane I think it would be okayish, but if we are already swapping lists, then I think maybe Paladin would be more appropriate than Ranger, Bladesingers are basically Elven Champions, Paladins, seem closer to the Champion idea than Ranger for me.

[LudicSavant]

Should be a ranger exclusive. Or a ranger class feature.

That is all.

My opinion:

Making it a Ranger exclusive spell would merely be taking a spell that was decent for Wizards at level 9 and give it to them at level 16, and then pretending it's special just because nobody else has it (instead of it actually being good enough to be special at that level).

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's cool for a class, but that's not a Bladesinger

"Bladesinger" is exactly and only what we define it to be. And the concept of a full-casting gish is an abomination. And yes, that goes for the hexblade warlock as well. No full caster should be able to be better at melee than about 1/3 of a fighter, because no fighter can be better at casting than 1/3 of a full caster. Especially if that full-caster is the "I have all the broken spells, including everyone else's big special thing" wizard.

Edit: I see I misread what you were objecting to. Yeah, a bladesinger Ranger would have to be arcane in nature. I could see on the paladin chassis, but that already has a lot of power and baked in "divine" nature. While the ranger has much less. And elves and rangers are really thematically associated in a lot of heads.


My opinion:

Making it a Ranger exclusive spell would merely be taking a spell that was decent for Wizards at level 9 and give it to them at level 16, and then pretending it's special just because nobody else has it (instead of it actually being good enough to be special at that level).

The issue is that it's substantially too good for wizards at level 9. And completely athematic.

- teleporting movement over a large area (and thus avoiding OAs) where you can choose where you end up? Check.
- selective multi-targeting (so party-friendly aoe)? Check.
- Great damage type? Check.
- Uses a weapon thematically (which most wizards have no relationship to)? Check.
- Deals a substantial amount of damage (6d10/target is pretty darn good)
- Uses attack rolls (one per target) instead of saving throws (attack rolls are by far more reliable and can crit), using your spell attack mod (despite being weapon themed)? Check.

It checks all the boxes for "yeah, this has no places as a 5th level wizard spell". So if it's a wizard spell, it should be up a couple spell levels. Note that the the baseline rules for a multi-target 5th level spell is 8d6 damage. This is more, of a better type, party friendly, that can crit. If it's a ranger exclusive, it'd be a great capstone and could even be strengthened some. As a wizard spell, it's just too darn good.

[Rukelnikov]

"Bladesinger" is exactly and only what we define it to be.

With that mindset, Fighter is exactly and only what we define it to be, so it can be a full caster no weapon proficiency class. No, classess and subclassess are supposed to emulate archetypes.

And Bladesingers have been for the last 3 decades elven champions that marry swordplay with wizardly magic, and was able to attack and cast a spell in the same round, if the archetype does not lend itself to the game currently don't include it, that's ok.


And the concept of a full-casting gish is an abomination. And yes, that goes for the hexblade warlock as well. No full caster should be able to be better at melee than about 1/3 of a fighter, because no fighter can be better at casting than 1/3 of a full caster. Especially if that full-caster is the "I have all the broken spells, including everyone else's big special thing" wizard.

Is it very far from Ftr5/Wizard 15?

[LudicSavant]

And completely athematic.

The theme that it fits has been in D&D since at least the 80s.

Edit:

Note that the the baseline rules for a multi-target 5th level spell is 8d6 damage. This is more

No, actually, it's not more than the guidelines recommend.

The thing you are referring to as "baseline rules" appears to be the table on pg284 of the DMG, which merely offers super-rough guidelines for homebrewers to consider. It reads:

"The table assumes the spell deals half damage on a successful saving throw or a missed attack. If your spell doesn't deal damage on a successful save, you can increase the damage by 25 percent."

Steel Wind Strike does not deal damage on a missed attack.

8d6 = 28 average. With an additional 25%, that's 35 average.
6d10 = 33 average.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The issue is that it's substantially too good for wizards at level 9. And completely athematic.

Having entered the hobby in 5e, Gish was such a strong character archetype in peoples minds that even before I fully understood the ruleset of the system I had learned what thematics made up a Gish.

Much like the SCAGtrips, these spells exist to facilitate that theme because it's something people want. The thematic draw from this spell has been so overwhelming that I'd opted to go this many levels deep into Wizard so that my Blood Hunter could have this spell.

It's a very cool spell.

With regards to its power level, I think it's pretty good but I'd hardly say its substantially too good. In my opinion 5th level spells are pretty competitive for a Wizard (Animate Objects, Synaptic Static, Hold Monster) in many cases you might even be better off upcasting lower level spells with that slot than trying to fit SWS into the situation.

[Dork_Forge]

I agree that it's too much for a Wizard spell, there's no thematic tie to 99% of Wizards and the exceptional nonfriendly fire damage (and it is exceptional, the table in the DMG is janky AF and doesn't give you enough levers to pull in the decision process) and ability to position yourself as you wish is a stone too far.

I'd go as far as to say it violates multiple bullet points the Creating a Spell section gives you before the table, too.

Heck, compare it to other 5th level Wizard spells, which often do less damage, have the hazard of friendly fire, and don't always have rider effects, or at least purely beneficial ones.

You have to be facing a truly massive amount of enemies within the AOE area for other spells to really touch it at 5th.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I agree that it's too much for a Wizard spell, there's no thematic tie to 99% of Wizards and the exceptional nonfriendly fire damage (and it is exceptional, the table in the DMG is janky AF and doesn't give you enough levers to pull in the decision process) and ability to position yourself as you wish is a stone too far.

I'd go as far as to say it violates multiple bullet points the Creating a Spell section gives you before the table, too.

Heck, compare it to other 5th level Wizard spells, which often do less damage, have the hazard of friendly fire, and don't always have rider effects, or at least purely beneficial ones.

You have to be facing a truly massive amount of enemies within the AOE area for other spells to really touch it at 5th.

Upcast Fireball averages more damage in the same area, not accounting for the fact that you yourself don't need to be in the center of that area. It's safer, deals an amount of guaranteed damage and can continue to be upcast, though admittedly not very efficiently.

Animate Objects gives you potentially 10d4+40 damage, and on subsequent turns you can continue to command any remaining objects to attack again as a bonus action. The objects can also serve as distractions, they're fairly formidable and the spell can be upcast pretty well. It's also worth mentioning, once again, that they can move and attack in a range that doesn't require the Wizard to be in melee with them.

Why do I continue to bring up the melee aspect? Because if the Wizard has built themselves to be safe and reliable in melee, that would mean the spell is thematic. If the Wizard has not built with that in mind, there are significantly safer and either equally or more effective options for them. I mean if I was a typical Wizard I'd be pretty concerned if I managed to get surrounded by 5+ targets and my best option was to attempt to tag each one individually and then teleport into melee distance of them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Upcast Fireball averages more damage in the same area, not accounting for the fact that you yourself don't need to be in the center of that area. It's safer, deals an amount of guaranteed damage and can continue to be upcast, though admittedly not very efficiently.

Animate Objects gives you potentially 10d4+40 damage, and on subsequent turns you can continue to command any remaining objects to attack again as a bonus action. The objects can also serve as distractions, they're fairly formidable and the spell can be upcast pretty well. It's also worth mentioning, once again, that they can move and attack in a range that doesn't require the Wizard to be in melee with them.

Why do I continue to bring up the melee aspect? Because if the Wizard has built themselves to be safe and reliable in melee, that would mean the spell is thematic. If the Wizard has not built with that in mind, there are significantly safer and either equally or more effective options for them. I mean if I was a typical Wizard I'd be pretty concerned if I managed to get surrounded by 5+ targets and my best option was to attempt to tag each one individually and then teleport into melee distance of them.

But you don't have to be surrounded. They can be anywhere within range. And you can choose where you end up. For instance, you can use it to reposition from being nearly surrounded to being next to your ally, potentially killing that last target.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But you don't have to be surrounded. They can be anywhere within range. And you can choose where you end up. For instance, you can use it to reposition from being nearly surrounded to being next to your ally, potentially killing that last target.

No, you get to be within 5ft of one of the targets. You need to kill at least one target for a safe landing zone, otherwise you're forced to be within melee of someone. The only way you can choose to be next to an ally is if you choose them as a target.

Having that many targets within 30ft of you is effectively being surrounded, that's a very small combat area and it means you're within standard movement range of all of them.

[Chaos Jackal]

Don't forget synaptic static. With an Int save, half damage if passed and a nasty rider on top of it. Or the baseline 5th-level blast, cone of cold. 36 damage, half on a save. Steel wind strike is by no means too powerful from a damage aspect (less baseline damage than CoC and no damage on a miss is a big difference) and teleporting into someone's face can be a detriment as often if not more than it being helpful.

And don't give me the whole athematic business. Gishes are an old concept, bladesingers are an old concept (and no, they aren't "whatever we want them to be", they are elf arcane casters with blades), disappearing and slashing at all enemies around you might be more recent but still has quite a few years of existence on its back... If anything, the spell's distribution is too limited, not too wide. I'm still sad it's not available to warlocks; I'd have taken it on my Hexblade for the thematic value alone (hey, see? Theme pops up again!).

Steel wind strike is perfectly fine. Really, its flaw is that it uses the casting stat, making it actually worse for a typically MAD gish type. It being worse on rangers than wizards because of that (unless you're maxing Wis on your ranger for some reason) despite the former getting it 8 levels later is a legitimate complaint. But its power and theme/flavor? Come on.

[Rukelnikov]

Steel wind strike is perfectly fine. Really, its flaw is that it uses the casting stat, making it actually worse for a typically MAD gish type. It being worse on rangers than wizards because of that (unless you're maxing Wis on your ranger for some reason) despite the former getting it 8 levels later is a legitimate complaint. But its power and theme/flavor? Come on.

I agree, it should have been like the bladetrips where you make a weapon attack, and if you hit deal the spells damage instead of the attack damage.

[Witty Username]

Yeah, that is a thing, I think 5e is too safe with using the casting stat for things, back in the day needing dex or strength for attack rolls and things for spells made for more interesting stat lines and things.

Steel wind strike should probably behave more like shadow blade, where your weapon skill matters more than your casting capacity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, that is a thing, I think 5e is too safe with using the casting stat for things, back in the day needing dex or strength for attack rolls and things for spells made for more interesting stat lines and things.

Steel wind strike should probably behave more like shadow blade, where your weapon skill matters more than your casting capacity.

I could accept that. If it involved making a real weapon attack (using your weapon ability and proficiency) and dealt <some multiple of the damage dice of the weapon>, that'd remove a lot of the athematic elements. And make it more useful for a ranger, since rangers are more likely to push their weapon stat than their casting stat while making it less useful for wizards (who are less associated with weapons and generally have worse proficiencies and lower ability scores in physical stuff).



And don't give me the whole athematic business. Gishes are an old concept, bladesingers are an old concept (and no, they aren't "whatever we want them to be", they are elf arcane casters with blades), disappearing and slashing at all enemies around you might be more recent but still has quite a few years of existence on its back... If anything, the spell's distribution is too limited, not too wide. I'm still sad it's not available to warlocks; I'd have taken it on my Hexblade for the thematic value alone (hey, see? Theme pops up again!).


Gishes are an old concept. One that we already have captured in 5e. And not with the wizard class. Heck, a dex EK is a more thematic bladesinger than any wizard. And an arcane-list ranger (or similar class) who already had some weapon proficiency, native extra attack, and some (class feature-based) way of casting and attacking together would make a much more thematic bladesinger. As it stands, the current bladesinger is "I'm a full wizard...who is also half a fighter."

Many concepts are better done on other chasses now that we have those other chasses. They were stapled on to the wizard originally...because that was the only thing there was with arcane casting. Those decisions of the past don't need to be repeated. And the wizard needs its own identity, not some dumping ground for everyone else's concepts because "hey, they're the traditional arcane caster so they get to do everything everyone else could possibly do".

[Schwann145]

If getting a 2nd attack makes you, essentially, 100% a "fighter," then the problem isn't that a Bladesinger can be a "full wizard and full fighter," but rather than the identity of a "full fighter" is so pathetically low bar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If getting a 2nd attack makes you, essentially, 100% a "fighter," then the problem isn't that a Bladesinger can be a "full wizard and full fighter," but rather than the identity of a "full fighter" is so pathetically low bar.

That's not what does it. And it's not that bladesingers are 100% a fighter...but they're way more than the 1/3 that fighters can get of wizards. I'd say that without casting any non-cantrips, a bladesinger is roughly 50-70% of a baseline fighter (non-EK). That'd be like if being an EK gave you half casting. And bladesingers are still just about as good wizards as any other wizard--they give up basically zero (because most wizard sub-class features are fairly weak, with usually one (or zero) good features per subclass).

Unlike 2e, where the prototypical elven gish was a fighter/wizard dual class, meaning that they grew a crap-ton slower than either of the classes individually. And couldn't use armor and cast spells. That provides significant opportunity cost that 5e bladesingers (and hexblades) just don't have to pay. They get all the benefits...with none of the drawbacks. And features as good as or better than the ones they're mimicking to boot.

[Witty Username]

Is it very far from Ftr5/Wizard 15?

I do not believe that is relevant to PhoenixPhyre's complains, as they are outspoken against the 5e multiclassing rules in both thematic and mechanical soundness.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do not believe that is relevant to PhoenixPhyre's complains, as they are outspoken against the 5e multiclassing rules in both thematic and mechanical soundness.

Correct. But even Fighter 5/Wizard 15 gives up a lot of wizard potential for that power. A bladesinger gives up...basically nothing. And in return is as tanky or more than most non-dedicated-tank fighters, has much of the melee potential, and is a full wizard, with the "all the broken spells" list that that status entails.

Edit: But I'll note that in this case, I'm more concerned about SWS itself...which is available to all wizards everywhere. Even those who have no pretensions of being a gish. And they're just as effective with it as your gishiest gish.

[Gignere]

Correct. But even Fighter 5/Wizard 15 gives up a lot of wizard potential for that power. A bladesinger gives up...basically nothing. And in return is as tanky or more than most non-dedicated-tank fighters, has much of the melee potential, and is a full wizard, with the "all the broken spells" list that that status entails.

Edit: But I'll note that in this case, I'm more concerned about SWS itself...which is available to all wizards everywhere. Even those who have no pretensions of being a gish. And they're just as effective with it as your gishiest gish.

Bladesinger only comes close to as tanky as a fighter when Bladesong is up. I’m playing one right now without Bladesong let’s just say that d6 hit dice doesn’t really work for tanking. In fights without Bladesong, I just devolve into using a crossbow.

Until t3 - t4 you really can’t have Bladesong up every fight unless your DM does the whole 1 fight per day style.

[Gignere]

Edit: But I'll note that in this case, I'm more concerned about SWS itself...which is available to all wizards everywhere. Even those who have no pretensions of being a gish. And they're just as effective with it as your gishiest gish.

I’ve played three wizards and only now playing a Bladesinger am I planning to learn this spell. There were just so many other better spells for my diviner and evoker to pick from that i didn’t pick up SWS. Also it didn’t really fit the RP for those two wizards. Diviner was more of a God wizard so I prioritized battle field control and save or sucks, on my evoker I basically had the benefit of SWS on any evocation spell so it was not even considered.

[Witty Username]

I think as a bladesinger I would be fine with SWS going off of dex, for other wizards it doesn't matter much to me either way.
-
I think making it a Ranger exclusive spell would be a good idea if we were buffing the spell (wizards don't need better spells) that is still going to have the Bard problem, which the more it comes up the more I think magical secrets may be a problem for the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

that is still going to have the Bard problem, which the more it comes up the more I think magical secrets may be a problem for the game.

I mostly agree. But mainly there are lots better spells to poach. I'd be fine with saying magical secrets can only poach from full caster lists. Let half casters have their exclusives. Except with D&Done, all that goes away because not letting wizards have all the good things is anathema obviously.

[animorte]

I mostly agree. But mainly there are lots better spells to poach. I'd be fine with saying magical secrets can only poach from full caster lists. Let half casters have their exclusives. Except with D&Done, all that goes away because not letting wizards have all the good things is anathema obviously.
Yes, the poaching exclusives from half-casters has always been just a little on the silly side.

This is exactly the reason I dislike Wizards, and provably always will. Bonus negativity: the more “everything” Elves get, the further down my list they go as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, the poaching exclusives from half-casters has always been just a little on the silly side.

This is exactly the reason I dislike Wizards, and provably always will. Bonus negativity: the more “everything” Elves get, the further down my list they go as well.

Yup. Total agreement there.

[Dork_Forge]

Upcast Fireball averages more damage in the same area, not accounting for the fact that you yourself don't need to be in the center of that area. It's safer, deals an amount of guaranteed damage and can continue to be upcast, though admittedly not very efficiently.

Animate Objects gives you potentially 10d4+40 damage, and on subsequent turns you can continue to command any remaining objects to attack again as a bonus action. The objects can also serve as distractions, they're fairly formidable and the spell can be upcast pretty well. It's also worth mentioning, once again, that they can move and attack in a range that doesn't require the Wizard to be in melee with them.

Why do I continue to bring up the melee aspect? Because if the Wizard has built themselves to be safe and reliable in melee, that would mean the spell is thematic. If the Wizard has not built with that in mind, there are significantly safer and either equally or more effective options for them. I mean if I was a typical Wizard I'd be pretty concerned if I managed to get surrounded by 5+ targets and my best option was to attempt to tag each one individually and then teleport into melee distance of them.

Fireball:

- Fire damage, generally one of the worst damage types

- Dex save against a spell, bad and gets worse as the levels increase (Magic Resistance, Legendary Resistance)

- Huge area that does friendly fire

Animate Objects:

- The attacks of the objects isn't magical, nor is their attack modifier stellar.

The Wizard being in melee:

- Shield

- Abjurer's Ward

- Heaven forbid a Wizard have Mobile, or be under the effects of Expeditious Retreat, or Far Step etc. Point being there are multiple avenues to not stay there

- Hit points, Wizards are frail, but generally won't crumple in a single turn

- Temp HP, y'know from the million ways to get it.

You don't need to build to be a melee Wizard at all to be able to effectively use Steel Wind Strike, nor are those other spells really comparable.


Don't forget synaptic static. With an Int save, half damage if passed and a nasty rider on top of it.

A powerful spell, but a big area of friendly fire. Probably equal to SWS given its potent rider.


Or the baseline 5th-level blast, cone of cold. 36 damage, half on a save. Steel wind strike is by no means too powerful from a damage aspect (less baseline damage than CoC and no damage on a miss is a big difference) and teleporting into someone's face can be a detriment as often if not more than it being helpful.

- A worse damage type, significantly so.

- Friendly fire.

- All it does is damage

All of the above should also consider that attack rolls are just better than saves. They're more easily buffed, they can crit for significantly higher damage, there are fewer monster defenses specific to them.


And don't give me the whole athematic business. Gishes are an old concept, bladesingers are an old concept (and no, they aren't "whatever we want them to be", they are elf arcane casters with blades), disappearing and slashing at all enemies around you might be more recent but still has quite a few years of existence on its back... If anything, the spell's distribution is too limited, not too wide. I'm still sad it's not available to warlocks; I'd have taken it on my Hexblade for the thematic value alone (hey, see? Theme pops up again!).

A large part of the issue is that any old Wizard can suddenly whip out a dagger and do this, regardless 'gishes.' Gishing is a niche under Wizards, the vast majority of themes have nothing to do with it.


Steel wind strike is perfectly fine. Really, its flaw is that it uses the casting stat, making it actually worse for a typically MAD gish type. It being worse on rangers than wizards because of that (unless you're maxing Wis on your ranger for some reason) despite the former getting it 8 levels later is a legitimate complaint. But its power and theme/flavor? Come on.

If it used a physical stat it would be significantly better, but it isn't that. It's a badass melee attack that uses a casting stat and costs just a single spell, on a class that knows a massive amount of them.

[Witty Username]

Fireball and Cone of Cold are both effected by sculpt spells, so friendly fire isn't really an issue with them.

[Dork_Forge]

Fireball and Cone of Cold are both effected by sculpt spells, so friendly fire isn't really an issue with them.

If that was a core Wizard class feature that would be relevant, but Evocation is one subclass out of what, 12 now?

[Witty Username]

If that was a core Wizard class feature that would be relevant, but Evocation is one subclass out of what, 12 now?

No more irrelevant then bringing up arcane ward, as a way not be squishy in melee to cover the downsides of steel wind strike.

And there are also spells and effects that reduce the consequences of friendly fire like damage resistance effects, initiative boosting like alert and what have you.

Also, save for half vs attack roll for no damage on a miss is relevant, as well as monster AC more reliably goes up while saves tend to be all over the place, with a general sense that Con is always somewhat favorable to the monster.

[Dork_Forge]

No more irrelevant then bringing up arcane ward, as a way not be squishy in melee to cover the downsides of steel wind strike.

It was a single thing I listed, you replied as if all Wizards would have Sculpt Spells or like only Evocation Wizards would ever take those spells. Apples to oranges.


And there are also spells and effects that reduce the consequences of friendly fire like damage resistance effects, initiative boosting like alert and what have you.

Your party being resistant to the friendly fire is still friendly fire. The closest to accepting that as an argument I could get is the Evasion feature, which does bubcus for Cone of Cold and Synaptic Static.

Initiative does not inherently help either, you can end up going before the enemies are really well positioned to AoE or the enemies could already be amongst the party when you go to AoE them. The bigger the AoE, the harder to avoid the problem.


Also, save for half vs attack roll for no damage on a miss is relevant, as well as monster AC more reliably goes up while saves tend to be all over the place, with a general sense that Con is always somewhat favorable to the monster.

Magic Resistance is a feature that becomes increasingly common, the same with Legendary Resistances. This completely ignores immunities and resistances, or just having good saves.

Monster AC goes up, but not in a way that really stops you reliably hitting. Even with no boost a Wizard casting SWS should be hitting with a +9. With how easy it is to hit more reliably, be it simply getting advantage or actual boosts, it's not really comparable.

Save for half is good at doing some damage, but straight attack rolls will be more reliable, easier to influence, and again, have the option of critting for massive spike damage.

[Witty Username]

Your party being resistant to the friendly fire is still friendly fire. The closest to accepting that as an argument I could get is the Evasion feature, which does bubcus for Cone of Cold and Synaptic Static.


Doesn't that argument also apply to getting thrown into melee by steel wind strike? Even if you a less squishy wizard ot have means of escape it still puts you in a poor position.

-
Generally speaking, initiative aids all AoE placement as the further into combat the more intermixed the combat will be, most combats the first round the two sides are separate (party walks into room, both side become aware of each other, or some form of that), the only time this doesn't apply are ambush permutations.

Stealth mechanics are another way to mitigate friendly fire, if you happen to have invisibility and the criminal background, by way of ambush tactics.


Either way, I am not against the idea of making SWS a more martial spell or taking it off the wizard list. I am just not convinced the spell is a particularly good wizard spell (I would be interested with a bladesinger or abjurer, not really any others).

[Kane0]

I want it on my bladelock

[Schwann145]

I'd say that without casting any non-cantrips, a bladesinger is roughly 50-70% of a baseline fighter (non-EK).
I don't really see how you can justify that. You're kinda just ignoring everything that a Fighter gets, aren't you?
BS gets no Medium/Heavy/Shield proficiency. No 3rd or 4th attack, and it's 2nd attack is delayed. No Second Wind. No Action Surge. No Fighting Style. No Indomitable...
If Light Armor prof. and 1 out of 3 extra attacks is "50-70% of a baseline fighter..."

Or: You agree with me that what passes for "Fighter" around here is just pathetically low bar. But you denied that. So I'm lost. :smallconfused:


Unlike 2e, where the prototypical elven gish was a fighter/wizard dual class, meaning that they grew a crap-ton slower than either of the classes individually. And couldn't use armor and cast spells. That provides significant opportunity cost that 5e bladesingers (and hexblades) just don't have to pay. They get all the benefits...with none of the drawbacks. And features as good as or better than the ones they're mimicking to boot.
Well, I mean... they definitely could use armor and cast spells... but that's because they were Elves and elves always get to be "special." :smallyuk:
Otherwise... agreed. 5e is too afraid of drawbacks.

[Hael]

I consider it an ok spell, but its far from busted. There are *plenty* of far more problematic 5th lvl spells.

Animate objects (with silver coins or somesuch) is far more busted while its still relevant (before magic resistances enter too strongly), and synaptic static is pretty much what I would pick if I was blasting (which is an already suboptimal style of playing as a wizard).

It's really a great gish spell, but gishes are already a mediocre way of playing a caster in the first place, so its sorta a low bar to begin with.

[KorvinStarmast]

Should be a ranger exclusive. Or a ranger class feature. I feel similarly about it, but I think that there's a valid case for a blade singer to be able to use it. And an Ancients Oath paladin. :smallwink: And on a Bard from the College of Valor or Swords.

The theme that it fits has been in D&D since at least the 80s.
"The table assumes the spell deals half damage on a successful saving throw or a missed attack. If your spell doesn't deal damage on a successful save, you can increase the damage by 25 percent."

Steel Wind Strike does not deal damage on a missed attack.

8d6 = 28 average. With an additional 25%, that's 35 average.
6d10 = 33 average.
Five times. (corrected for misses) while 8d6 gets cut in half on a save. However, to make the comparison, I'd suggest using an Upcast fireball (at level 5, so 10d6)) as compared to steel wind strike so that it's level 5 spell versus level 5 spell.
I think that makes a better comparison.
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.


I agree, it should have been like the bladetrips where you make a weapon attack, and if you hit deal the spells damage instead of the attack damage. That's a neat idea.

I'll note that in this case, I'm more concerned about SWS itself...which is available to all wizards everywhere. Even those who have no pretensions of being a gish. And they're just as effective with it as your gishiest gish. Yes, I've noticed that as our wizard uses it. I was very tempted to take it on my Lore Bard at 10 but didn't in the previous campaign. Why? We had two serious melee damage characters and I was more interested in support/battle field shaping. FWIW: I generally do not agree with your complaints about wall of force.

Fireball and Cone of Cold are both effected by sculpt spells, so friendly fire isn't really an issue with them. Only true for evoker wizard or a sorcerer using careful spell metamagic.

I want it on my bladelock Concur. It ought to be an invocation usable at level 9, pre requisite Pact of the Blade. Once per long rest, or, once per long rest using a spell slot. Or just a straight up 'you can pick this spell' for warlocks, but my little brain has a hard time with a tome lock using SWS thematically ... but in general, I like your idea.

[Skrum]

The real problem is wizards get this at level 9, and rangers don't get it till level 17 or something. Yay for level 5 spells and half-casters.

I know this is two pages in at this point and most of what needs to be said has been said, but this should absolutely be a ranger class feature. This is the kind of stuff martials should be getting, ~10+. But instead it's a t4 thing, and wizards of course get it 8 levels earlier. It doesn't even get better with age either....the level 9 wizards does literally the same thing the level 17 ranger does. Except of course the party is facing level 17 threats, and not level 9 threats. 5e did a lot to close the martial/caster gap, but this sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Gishes are an old concept. One that we already have captured in 5e. And not with the wizard class.

While this is your opinion, please do not presume that others share the opinion.

The very first PC Wizard made in 5e, at my table was a Mountain Dwarf Wizard, with the Soldier Background and high Strength. The player didn’t tell anyone what class they had selected, so based off how the character was played, the other players were shocked to discover the Dwarf Wizard was indeed a Wizard.

Steel Wind Strike, is an entirely thematic spell for that character.

I like that in 5e, one selects one’s chassis, (class), but that selection isn’t quite so restrictive in terms of roleplaying, compared to prior editions of D&D.

I also wish to point out that AD&D Multi-classing, often was not that onerous of a burden, in terms of leveling.

A Thief/Magic User, for example, would often only be a level beyond a single class Magic User.

Racial Class Level Limits in AD&D, made a huge impact. In Original AD&D an Elf Fighter/Magic User with less then 17 Strength was limited to 5th level as a Fighter.

Assuming one used a character generation method, that did not mandate that stats be placed in the order rolled, a player could easily make a Elven Wizard, that just dabbled as a Fighter.

[Chaos Jackal]

because most wizard sub-class features are fairly weak, with usually one (or zero) good features per subclass).

This is so wrong it's not even funny. Majority of wizard subclasses have a couple features that range between very good and damn excellent. In wizard subclasses you will also find the most powerful features in the game, things like Chronal Shift, Arcane Abeyance and Convergent Futures, Portent and Illusory Reality. The Bladesinger in question has Bladesong, which is flat-out one of the strongest defensive features in the game and Extra Attack on steroids, with its remaining two features being at least decent, certainly a lot stronger than many a subclass feature on numerous other classes. There's maybe two wizard subclasses, three at most, where you can argue the abilities overall are weak, and even then it is debatable.

As far as the potential of subclass features go, wizards have one of the best records in the game. Just because full spellcasting is so powerful it often eclipses that doesn't mean the features are bad, it just means the baseline is already so far ahead anything else feels like win more. A ton of subclasses would kill for more than a few wizard subclass features, in some cases even if they don't have spellcasting of their own at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is so wrong it's not even funny. Majority of wizard subclasses have a couple features that range between very good and damn excellent. In wizard subclasses you will also find the most powerful features in the game, things like Chronal Shift, Arcane Abeyance and Convergent Futures, Portent and Illusory Reality. The Bladesinger in question has Bladesong, which is flat-out one of the strongest defensive features in the game and Extra Attack on steroids, with its remaining two features being at least decent, certainly a lot stronger than many a subclass feature on numerous other classes. There's maybe two wizard subclasses, three at most, where you can argue the abilities overall are weak, and even then it is debatable.

As far as the potential of subclass features go, wizards have one of the best records in the game. Just because full spellcasting is so powerful it often eclipses that doesn't mean the features are bad, it just means the baseline is already so far ahead anything else feels like win more. A ton of subclasses would kill for more than a few wizard subclass features, in some cases even if they don't have spellcasting of their own at all.

Let's list the ones from the main-line books (ignoring the wildemount ones because a worse case of bad writing and bad balancing I have rarely seen):

Abjuration: Arcane Ward is pretty good. Yes. But the rest are more or less forgettable.
Conjuration: Mostly small things, unless you're a hard-core minionmancer. In which case being a shepherd druid is probably better still.
Divination: Portent is great (but not what it's cracked up to be). The rest are ribbons.
Enchantment: Hah, no.
Evocation: Sculpt is pretty good, but not great. Unless you're planning to spend all your time blasting.
Illusion: Illusory reality is decent...but mostly if your DM lets you get away with shenanigans already with illusions. SO very DM dependent (like all things illusion). The rest are meh to ok.
Necromancy: Ok, this one has a few decent ones. But no rock stars.
Transmutation: Meh.
War Magic: yeah, not so great.
Bladesinging: This one has a really good one (bladesong) and a decent one (Extra Attack). The rest are basically "I need this to survive". But Bladesinging is one of the most notable ones for how it actually changes the way you play. The rest are minor benefits you can use for anything.
Scribes: Has potential for shenanigans, plus the usual crappy wording of everything Tasha's and later. But nothing that stands out as super strong unless you're going for shenanigans.

So yes, most of them have one good feature. But that's it. And all those features are beyond bland--any wizard can do anything any other wizard can, modulo small bonuses. Wizard subclasses don't have any real thematics (barring bladesinging and necromancy)--they're just basically generic benefits to the generic things you were going to do anyway. All wizards blast sometimes. So all wizards benefit from evocation. All wizards cast save spells. So Portent helps everyone equally.

This is one of my major complaints about wizards--because 99.99999999999% of their power is their spell list (which contains all the broken spells, everyone else's Big Thing, and a lot of things no one else can do), everything else they have is bland beyond belief. Or overpowered. There's no budget left for anything interesting.

Personally, I think full casters should be the ones who have
* strong interesting class features fueled by spell slots
* spells as a more minor facet of their character
instead of making half-casters (ie rangers and paladins mostly) spend their very limited spell slots on half their class features. Because full casters need some competition for their spell slots. Let half-casters and below have other resource pools; half casters should get to actually cast spells instead of burning all their slots for their system-expected numbers (hunter's mark in the new model and smites).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Fireball:

- Fire damage, generally one of the worst damage types

- Dex save against a spell, bad and gets worse as the levels increase (Magic Resistance, Legendary Resistance)

- Huge area that does friendly fire
I never understand in discussion when we hyper focus on the positives of one aspect and summarily dismiss the positives of another while further highlighting potential negatives.

I'll go point by point, keep in mind that this isn't me saying any of these points are completely invalid, just that they're not as detrimental as you make them out to be.
-"Worst damage type" is dependant on your targets. Aiming for a generally more effective type like radiant is good but if they're not resistant or immune to either it makes no difference.

-It's still save for half. No matter how good their save gets, they're almost always taking at least half damage. If you're burning legendary resistance with fireball of consider that a win as well, especially if we focus on how "bad" it is like you're trying to frame it.

-a huge area centered up to 120ft away.

Let that sink in for a moment, you're trying to frame fireball as bad. The spell that is intentionally overturned. You really believe SWS is that strong that it's competitive with Fireball, truly?


Animate Objects:

- The attacks of the objects isn't magical, nor is their attack modifier stellar.
Funny you should say that, the Wizard is only a single point better at a +9 at the level they gain 5th level spells, and that assumes they've maxed their intelligence.


The Wizard being in melee:

- Shield

- Abjurer's Ward

- Heaven forbid a Wizard have Mobile, or be under the effects of Expeditious Retreat, or Far Step etc. Point being there are multiple avenues to not stay there

- Hit points, Wizards are frail, but generally won't crumple in a single turn

- Temp HP, y'know from the million ways to get it.

You don't need to build to be a melee Wizard at all to be able to effectively use Steel Wind Strike, nor are those other spells really comparable.
-Also works against SWS, not so much against Fireball.

-If we're discounting sculptor to highlight a blasting spells weakness, why is this a valid rebuttal?

-Assuming maximum potential targets for SWS means up to 5 turns taken to attack the wizard. You might think it's unfair to assume that all the people in the area will turn to strike at the wizard but it's worth considering especially if SWS does appear to be as dangerous and powerful as you say.

-Hey, Far Step is also a 5th level spell. Let's add that to the list of other good 5th level spells under your endorsement.

-Generally not a lot of ways to get high amounts of it during combat. Twilight Cleric dies, but that's a pretty significant outlier. Most reliable sources apply before combat.



As far as the potential of subclass features go, wizards have one of the best records in the game. Just because full spellcasting is so powerful it often eclipses that doesn't mean the features are bad, it just means the baseline is already so far ahead anything else feels like win more. A ton of subclasses would kill for more than a few wizard subclass features, in some cases even if they don't have spellcasting of their own at all.

And it makes sense that they do since most (or let's be honest, all) of their base class features are just incremental bonuses too their spellcasting ability. A subclass is what gives a wizard any opportunity to be unique and most subclasses do end up having a varied toolset because of that.

[MrStabby]

Yes, the poaching exclusives from half-casters has always been just a little on the silly side.

This is exactly the reason I dislike Wizards, and provably always will. Bonus negativity: the more “everything” Elves get, the further down my list they go as well.

I think that poaching any spells as a class mechanic is silly. Some degree of overlap between classes is inevitable, whether it be broadly in function or specifically in spells. Adding in a class feature that is specifically designed to blur boundaries and make characters less unique not only sucks, but is such an easy thing to avoid.

And I am with you on wizards. I think classes should be designed as much on what the can't do as what they can and wizards are way too broad.

On the steel wind strike question - I don't have too much of an issue with the spell itself. It's decent enough, but in a way that isn't really game breaking. It's distributed damage and not quite enough to totally obviate other encounters. On the other hand it's very cool, but some things like this are cooler if nobody else can do it and it is something unique to your character.

If I were designing 5th from scratch I might have put a lot more emphasis on backgrounds like the ravnica backgrounds and have them all give spells. Obviously strip down the spells available to the core classes as they would be expected to pick up replacements from backgrounds. Then characters with martial backgrounds like soldiers would have access to it from their background.

[KorvinStarmast]

Let's list the ones from the main-line books (ignoring the wildemount ones because a worse case of bad writing and bad balancing I have rarely seen) Aye.

Abjuration: Arcane Ward is pretty good. Yes. But the rest are more or less forgettable. The level 10 feature makes Abjuration the best Counterspeller in the game by a hair over a Bard. Full proficiency over half proficiency. Not bad at all. And that makes them the best in the war of the wizards mini game if the party is confronted by spell casters, as happens in many campaigns.

Conjuration: Mostly small things, unless you're a hard-core minionmancer. In which case being a shepherd druid is probably better still. It sure is.
Divination: Portent is great (but not what it's cracked up to be). The rest are ribbons. Hmm, recovering spell slots is kinda nice. Level 10 has mechanical impact: See invisible? See ethereal? Handy and flexible. I'd not pooh pooh these.

Enchantment: Hah, no. In a game world that is humanocentric, these are better, but I agree with this. Sufficient 'can't charm' and 'advantage versus charm' stuff in various monster books that this wizard school, and spell school, has substantial short comings. Good thing they can choose other spells. Maybe Enchanter and Illusionist ought to be merged into one school. :smallyuk: Call them the Mind Messer or something like that.

Evocation: Sculpt is pretty good, but not great. Unless you're planning to spend all your time blasting. This is the evoker, right? Light field artillery. :smallsmile: Potent cantrip is an oddball given how few cantrips call for a save. Overchannel, which I have rarely seen due to not that much high level play, makes Blaster more Blasty. Which is why you choose evoker in the first place, right? :smallsmile:
I'll stop there.

Personally, I think full casters should be the ones who have
[QUOTE]* strong interesting class features fueled by spell slots
Like warlock invocations? Not sure what you are driving at here. Example?

* spells as a more minor facet of their character
But they are spell casters ... that's the major thrust of their character class.

instead of making half-casters (ie rangers and paladins mostly) spend their very limited spell slots on half their class features. Because full casters need some competition for their spell slots. Let half-casters and below have other resource pools; half casters should get to actually cast spells instead of burning all their slots for their system-expected numbers (hunter's mark in the new model and smites). Hmm, OK, that needs a rebuild of the spell casting system from the bottom up. I hope you provide this feedback to the play test stuff, but TBH I am not sure the dev team is even close to looking at this.

I also think that we are getting a bit of an apples and oranges mix here.

[LudicSavant]

Five times. (corrected for misses) while 8d6 gets cut in half on a save. The guideline in question already accounts for it targeting multiple creatures.

[Amnestic]

Potent cantrip is an oddball given how few cantrips call for a save.

Of the damaging wizard cantrips, 11 require saves and 7 have attack rolls.

Saves: Acid Splash, Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Infestation, Lightning Lure, Mind Sliver, Poison Spray, Sapping Sting, Sword Burst, Thunderclap, Toll the Dead
Attacks: Booming Blade, Chill Touch, Control Flames, Fire Bolt, Green-Flame Blade, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp

[Thunderous Mojo]

Steel Wind Strike is more evocative and thematically appropriate, (in my opinion), on the Wizard list, than on the 5e Ranger list.

Eldritch Knights can use a scroll of Steel Wind Strike, with the spell on the Wizard list. Remove Steel Wind Strike from the Wizard list, and Eldritch Knights lose access to the spell.

The idea of a heavily armored Knight that uses teleportation magic to get around is a very 5e motif.

Most 5e Rangers I have seen in play, tend to be generalists, able to pick up bow or rapier and be effective with either, as the situation demands.

A Paladin with the Blessed Warrior Fighting Style, would make for an excellent AD&D Githyanki Gish. Magical Weapon strikes through Paladin spells and Smites, coupled with Toll the Dead, to give the character the veneer of Forbidden Magic.

If Hank the Ranger, from the old D&D Cartoon wouldn’t use the spell, then how can one call it Ranger themed.🃏

[Amechra]

Eldritch Knights can use a scroll of Steel Wind Strike, with the spell on the Wizard list. Remove Steel Wind Strike from the Wizard list, and Eldritch Knights lose access to the spell.

"It should be on the Wizard list so that a completely different class can potentially use scrolls of it" is... certainly an argument?

...

Personally, I think Steel Wind Strike should be a 3rd level Ranger-exclusive spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of the damaging wizard cantrips, 11 require saves and 7 have attack rolls.

Saves: Acid Splash, Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Infestation, Lightning Lure, Mind Sliver, Poison Spray, Sapping Sting, Sword Burst, Thunderclap, Toll the Dead

Attacks: Booming Blade, Chill Touch, Control Flames, Fire Bolt, Green-Flame Blade, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp How many of those are in the PHB? Acid Splash, Poison Spray.
The feature was built before SCAG, Xanathar's, EE supplement, and Tasha's were put out.
5-2 no save to save.
Kind of underwhelming as a basic feature in the core game.
That they retconned it as supplements came out is irrelevant to my point, given that I was responding to a different post.

If Hank the Ranger, from the old D&D Cartoon wouldn’t use the spell, then how can one call it Ranger themed. Zephyr Strike is a sorry substitute, but it's not a bad spell now and again.

Personally, I think Steel Wind Strike should be a 3rd level Ranger-exclusive spell. Works for me, albeit with an adjusted damage number.

[Amechra]

Zephyr Strike is a sorry substitute, but it's not a bad spell now and again.
Works for me, albeit with an adjusted damage number.

You'd probably have to adjust it a bit, yeah. I could see it just being "you get to make X melee weapon attacks against different targets within 60ft, and then you teleport next to one of your targets".

[MrStabby]

You'd probably have to adjust it a bit, yeah. I could see it just being "you get to make X melee weapon attacks against different targets within 60ft, and then you teleport next to one of your targets".

Maybe not much... I mean it's damage, which ranger is good at already, so the actual uptick in damage from using what is (for a ranger) a high level resource is not totally silly. Compared to the uplift in damage over the at-will ability for a wizard.

[Amnestic]

How many of those are in the PHB? Acid Splash, Poison Spray.
The feature was built before SCAG, Xanathar's, EE supplement, and Tasha's were put out.
5-2 no save to save.
Kind of underwhelming as a basic feature in the core game.
That they retconned it as supplements came out is irrelevant to my point, given that I was responding to a different post.


"Retconned"? lmao.

It's not even remotely irrelevant because it's not 2014 anymore and the post you were responding (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650832-Steel-Wind-Strike/page2&p=25617211#post25617211) to specifically said "mainline books" which, you know, includes Xanathar's and Tasha's, and one of the points you responded to even mentioned the Shepher druid from Xanathar's vs. Conjuration Wizard.

So yeah, it's totally reasonable to look at Potent Cantrip under the lens of how people actually play the game instead of acting like PHB is the only book in existence, in a thread about a spell from Xanathar's. And under that lens it's not oddball at all. It's pretty reasonable.

[OvisCaedo]

More than just "save" based cantrips at all, what always felt off about the feature was the extremely limited overlap with the actual Evocation school, particularly because of the level 10 feature being a damage bump to only evocation spells. Which, to date, looks like there are a grand total of.... three. Frostbite, Lightning Lure, and Thunderclap?

It's certainly better now regardless of the lack of evocation compatibility, but it's also fair to say it *was* a pretty badly designed feature. And... kind of still feels ill-conceived even if it works with more things now.

[Dork_Forge]

Doesn't that argument also apply to getting thrown into melee by steel wind strike? Even if you a less squishy wizard ot have means of escape it still puts you in a poor position.

Not necessarily at all, depending on what the battlefield looks like it can actually put you closer to your party members, the healer etc. and given that it's a non-trivially amount of damage, with a reasonable chance of critting, there's nothing saying you have to be next to anyone at all. The way I read the spell doesn't seem to say you can't finish the teleport next to a target you killed.
-

Generally speaking, initiative aids all AoE placement as the further into combat the more intermixed the combat will be, most combats the first round the two sides are separate (party walks into room, both side become aware of each other, or some form of that), the only time this doesn't apply are ambush permutations.

Or the enemy isn't in a good AOE formation, and since the PCs give them a reason to converge together, going before them isn't necessarily best. Of course you can still AOE anyway, but at the cost of fewer targets. If the enemy always starts in AoE formation then the DM is just setting the party up for a series of easy wins, provided they have any AoE to begin with.


Stealth mechanics are another way to mitigate friendly fire, if you happen to have invisibility and the criminal background, by way of ambush tactics.

Yeah I'm not going to seriously consider this as a valid, repeatably tactic. Not only does that combo not necessarily even make for good Stealth, but it assumes that a player ambush is even possible, which won't (and shouldn't) be the case the majority of the time.


Either way, I am not against the idea of making SWS a more martial spell or taking it off the wizard list. I am just not convinced the spell is a particularly good wizard spell (I would be interested with a bladesinger or abjurer, not really any others).

Fair enough, although I'd be curious why only those two Wizards, it looks like defense is a common thread, so I would have thought a War Wizard might have contended at least.


I never understand in discussion when we hyper focus on the positives of one aspect and summarily dismiss the positives of another while further highlighting potential negatives.

I'll never understand why my points or the context of my post is misconstrued, but here we are.


I'll go point by point, keep in mind that this isn't me saying any of these points are completely invalid, just that they're not as detrimental as you make them out to be.

And keep in mind the conversation is upcast Fireball vs Steel Wind Strike, not 'Fireball is bad.'


-"Worst damage type" is dependant on your targets. Aiming for a generally more effective type like radiant is good but if they're not resistant or immune to either it makes no difference.

...Yes that is an obvious point, the problem is just how many creatures are resistant or outright immune to fire. If this was randomly common, it may not be as big a deal, but resistance/immunity to fire is a shared trait amongst all fiends. Then there are the fire dragons, incorporeal undead, then the actual random sampling. It's not only a huge number of creatures, it's entire groups of creatures. And given that encounters, if not entire campaigns, tend to have recurring themes, this can be very problematic.


-It's still save for half. No matter how good their save gets, they're almost always taking at least half damage. If you're burning legendary resistance with fireball of consider that a win as well, especially if we focus on how "bad" it is like you're trying to frame it.

Spending your 5th level spell slot to burn Legendary Resistances (which is the context of the conversation, not Fireball in general, but upcasting it) is not a good trade when that's your highest slot, if it ever becomes a good trade. And save for half is something, though given how common it is as a resistance, I wouldn't make such a strong case for that half damage.


-a huge area centered up to 120ft away.

Yes, this is impressive and part of it's overtuning, I would be more impressed if combat commonly started with the PCs being really far away from combat with a clear line of sight. That's a minority of combats in my experience as both a player and a DM, both homebrew and WotC adventures.


Let that sink in for a moment, you're trying to frame fireball as bad. The spell that is intentionally overturned. You really believe SWS is that strong that it's competitive with Fireball, truly?


No, again, I'm saying that it isn't as good as SWS when you upcast it with a 5th level slot. I never said that it was a bad 3rd level spell, it is an overturned 3rd level, but we aren't talking about 3rd level.

And yeah, I do, for the reasons stated. But since you're clearly against it at the end of this post I'll include a list of nonsense that applies to SWS.


Funny you should say that, the Wizard is only a single point better at a +9 at the level they gain 5th level spells, and that assumes they've maxed their intelligence.

Assuming a spellcaster maxes their casting stat, especially when it also factors into their number of spell prepared, should not be a controversial opinion.

But since you chose to bring it up, yes a Wizard that maxes their Int does have a 5% better chance of hitting, and you know what? Unlike Animate Objects that to hit naturally scales, is easy to improve upon, and wasn't achieved by making trade offs like Animate Objects requires.

What follows is your reply to my example list, you tackle these things point for point which is missing the forest for the trees. The point is that I can write a list to begin with, which was also not all encompassing, nor was it intended to be. However, since you took the time to dismiss them one by one, I may as well address it.


-Also works against SWS, not so much against Fireball.

Ah yes Shield, the spell famous for being common on mook statblocks. Seriously, what is your point here? That you might fight a group of mages that all have Shield prepared?


-If we're discounting sculptor to highlight a blasting spells weakness, why is this a valid rebuttal?

I wrote it as part of a list, not as a sole reply, which is what Sculpt Spells was presented as. Again, forest for trees.


-Assuming maximum potential targets for SWS means up to 5 turns taken to attack the wizard. You might think it's unfair to assume that all the people in the area will turn to strike at the wizard but it's worth considering especially if SWS does appear to be as dangerous and powerful as you say.

It's a valid concern, and you know what the Wizard can do? Move. They might provoke a single OA, vs taking attacks from a group or a multiattack. They can then Shield the OA if they need to or wish to, or just take the damage because it's a single attack.


-Hey, Far Step is also a 5th level spell. Let's add that to the list of other good 5th level spells under your endorsement.

...Did you think my position was SWS was the only good 5th-level Wizard spell? It isn't my position, and the spells don't compete in function at all so... what's your point? The only thing I can think of is that they'd have one 5th level slot at 9th level, a problem for a whole single level before that changes.


-Generally not a lot of ways to get high amounts of it during combat. Twilight Cleric dies, but that's a pretty significant outlier. Most reliable sources apply before combat.

Why have you relegated this to in-combat temp hp? Is the default assumption that they've already taken damage before they get to cast it or something?

Yes Twilight Cleric is an outlier, but the Artillerist does a good job at it, the Alchemist is pretty decent, the Glamour Bard does an appreciable job too. However, the in-combat part was a restriction you applied, not me. Out of combat you can more easily expect access to it, like Inspiring Leader, a Celestial Warlock (10th level, but that's just one later than SWS becomes available), False Life etc. I wouldn't have thought 'source of temp HP in a party of level 9+' would have been a particularly controversial one either.


Now that's done with let's consider the landscape SWS is in, should one want to be good at it. This is an 'off the top of my head' list that makes SWS even more potent, whilst still being something desirable in and of itself:

- Spell Sniper increases the range to 60 ft.
- Metamagic Adept can do the same, along with other shenanigans like casting it as a bonus action so you can disengage after the teleport.
- Be a Goblin, bonus action disengage after the teleport.
- Be a Firbolg and walk away Invisibly against many/most enemies.
- Be a Halfling and reroll those 1s.
- Be a Multiverse Bugbear and sometimes add 2d6 to each target.
- Be one of three different kinds of elves that get a non-spell bonus action teleport.
- Be a harengon and jump away as a bonus action.
- Be a Goliath or Hadozee to reduce the damage if the OA hits you.
- Telekinetic, bonus action push the target you ended up next to, away from you.
- Have a minion shove or grapple+move the target away from you, applicable to any Wizard, most thematically suitable to Necromancers.
- Decent Portent rolls.
- Lucky

I purposefully left some things off of that list, like how a War Wizard can throw a little extra damage onto it, or how being a Goblin also gives you some bonus damage, because they're not super-relevant to SWS specifically, but they exist and I still want to throw that out there.

Given that one of the main sticking points for people seems to be where you end up teleporting, I hope that this list has highlighted how much of a nonissue that can be. And whilst you could attack this list point for point, again, the point is that I can even write such a long list off the cuff and that everything on said list is something that generally benefits you.

[sithlordnergal]

I mean, I think its perfectly fine as a Wizard spell. Its damage is basically on par with save or suck spells in exchange for being an attack roll. Maybe change its damage type to the same as the weapon you use, though it'll still be magical damage since its a spell. At most, if people really feel it shouldn't be on a wizard's spell list then make it a Bladesinger, Ranger, and Warlock exclusive. Maaaybe toss it onto a Paladin subclass.

That said, whatever you do, don't make it a weapon attack. We already know what happens to spells that are weapon attacks. Sword Bards would go crazy with this, since they could use a Flourish with it.




Personally, I think full casters should be the ones who have
* strong interesting class features fueled by spell slots
* spells as a more minor facet of their character
instead of making half-casters (ie rangers and paladins mostly) spend their very limited spell slots on half their class features. Because full casters need some competition for their spell slots. Let half-casters and below have other resource pools; half casters should get to actually cast spells instead of burning all their slots for their system-expected numbers (hunter's mark in the new model and smites).

Also, I will admit, that's an interesting proposal Phoenix. The full-casters shouldn't actually have spells as their major feature. Instead half-casters should be the spell casters. I'm...gonna have to heavily disagree. Usually the reason a player chooses to be a full-caster is because they want to cast a bunch of spells. Its why they don't have competition for their spells slots more of the time, its because they're designed for players that just want to sling out some fun, interesting, or powerful spells.

I personally feel the dynamic between half-casters and full-casters should remain as it currently stands. With half-casters having a ton of bonus abilities on top of some minor spell casting, and full-casters getting a majority of their power from their spell lists. As for 1/3rd casters...they shouldn't exist. 1/3rd casters should be turned into half-casters, with their subclasses having a higher emphasis on using their spell slots. Or buff the martial part of the 1/3rd casters. I.E. the Eldritch Knight can make a full attack, then cast a cantrip or leveled spell as a Bonus Action.

[PhantomSoul]

That said, whatever you do, don't make it a weapon attack. We already know what happens to spells that are weapon attacks. Sword Bards would go crazy with this, since they could use a Flourish with it.


It only affects (interacts with) the (XGtE) Swords Bard if it's an Attack Action, not if it's a Weapon Attack.

[Kane0]

Its on the good side, but not in super strong territory by my reckoning. Not worth worrying about when there are other low hanging fruit to pick at in terms of spells

[sithlordnergal]

It only affects (interacts with) the (XGtE) Swords Bard if it's an Attack Action, not if it's a Weapon Attack.

Ohh, I just noticed that, making it a weapon attack is fine then =D

[KorvinStarmast]

Not necessarily at all, depending on what the battlefield looks like it can actually put you closer to your party members, the healer etc. and given that it's a non-trivially amount of damage, with a reasonable chance of critting, there's nothing saying you have to be next to anyone at all. The way I read the spell doesn't seem to say you can't finish the teleport next to a target you killed. Yep. Seen it happened twice.

And keep in mind the conversation is upcast Fireball vs Steel Wind Strike, not 'Fireball is bad.' Agree.

And yeah, I do, for the reasons stated. But since you're clearly against it at the end of this post I'll include a list of nonsense that applies to SWS.

Assuming a spellcaster maxes their casting stat, especially when it also factors into their number of spell prepared, should not be a controversial opinion. Part of why I always do that.
(As to animate objects; against enemies who are not resistant, it's a shredding machine; against those resistant? Not as much)

Ah yes Shield, the spell famous for being common on mook statblocks. Seriously, what is your point here? That you might fight a group of mages that all have Shield prepared? IIRC, the bog standard Mage has shield, but as a DM (since I have built no wizards for myself) the first time the party encountered one I didn't remember to use it. (that's an own goal, for those keeping score at home). I have since improved my technique as a DM.

Now that's done with let's consider the landscape SWS is in, should one want to be good at it. This is an 'off the top of my head' list that makes SWS even more potent, whilst still being something desirable in and of itself:

- Spell Sniper increases the range to 60 ft.
- Metamagic Adept can do the same, along with other shenanigans like casting it as a bonus action so you can disengage after the teleport.
- Be a Goblin, bonus action disengage after the teleport.
- Be a Firbolg and walk away Invisibly against many/most enemies.
- Be a Halfling and reroll those 1s.
- Be a Multiverse Bugbear and sometimes add 2d6 to each target.
- Be one of three different kinds of elves that get a non-spell bonus action teleport.
- Be a harengon and jump away as a bonus action.
- Be a Goliath or Hadozee to reduce the damage if the OA hits you.
- Telekinetic, bonus action push the target you ended up next to, away from you.
- Have a minion shove or grapple + move the target away from you, applicable to any Wizard, most thematically suitable to Necromancers.
- Decent Portent rolls.
- Lucky
Be a lore bard, who took SWS at level 10, and use cutting words to mitigate the OA against you such that it misses (unless it crits). :smallsmile:

[Nidgit]

This doesn't really seem like an issue to me given that you land near melee range after casting the spell, so typically only more martially-inclined characters will be using it. If a DM wants to make it slightly more exclusive, I'd suggest requiring the melee weapon used as the necessary material component to be one the caster is proficient in. That leaves a few loopholes open for elves or dwarves but it should generally prevent others taking SWS without at least a little investment.

[Chronos]

CR 11 monsters (since that's what I have numbers handy for) have, on average, 17 AC and +3 to Dex saves. That means that a level 11 wizard with maxed Int has a base 65% chance of hitting with a spell attack, and a 65% chance of an enemy failing a Dex save against their spell. Accounting for both miss chance and the possibility of crits, an attack-roll spell (no damage on a miss, double on a crit) will deal, on average, 70% damage. A dex-save spell (save for half) will deal, on average, 82.5% damage. So baseline, save-for-half is in fact better than an attack roll.

On the other hand, there are a lot of ways to buff attack rolls, but very few ways to debuff saves. If we can give the wizard advantage on his attacks somehow, now the attack-roll spell is dealing, on average, 97.25% damage (benefitting both from the lower chance to miss, and the higher chance to crit). A save spell would benefit nearly as much from an effect that gives an enemy disadvantage on a save, but there are (fortunately) very few such effects available.

Alternately, if we give the wizard the effects of a Bless spell (with no advantage), that brings the hit chance up to 77.5%, and the average damage to the same 82.5% as the save spell.

[Dork_Forge]

(As to animate objects; against enemies who are not resistant, it's a shredding machine; against those resistant? Not as much)

Oh 100% agree, but I'd also argue that it's best in that roll focus fire style, whereas SWS is practically an AOE


IIRC, the bog standard Mage has shield, but as a DM (since I have built no wizards for myself) the first time the party encountered one I didn't remember to use it. (that's an own goal, for those keeping score at home). I have since improved my technique as a DM.

Oh I know that some blocks have it, but I can't conceive of an encounter where up to 5 enemies have it, and that encounter happening more than once outside f an incredibly niche scenario.


Be a lore bard, who took SWS at level 10, and use cutting words to mitigate the OA against you such that it misses (unless it crits). :smallsmile:

Excellent addition!


CR 11 monsters (since that's what I have numbers handy for) have, on average, 17 AC and +3 to Dex saves. That means that a level 11 wizard with maxed Int has a base 65% chance of hitting with a spell attack, and a 65% chance of an enemy failing a Dex save against their spell. Accounting for both miss chance and the possibility of crits, an attack-roll spell (no damage on a miss, double on a crit) will deal, on average, 70% damage. A dex-save spell (save for half) will deal, on average, 82.5% damage. So baseline, save-for-half is in fact better than an attack roll.

I mean, I appreciate the math, but why are you looking at CR 11 creatures for what is basically a 5th level AOE? A single CR 11 enemy is 'Hard' at 9th level, 2 goes to really deadly, and anything beyond that is... a bit much. CR isn't the best way to balance encounters, but a group of any CR 11 creatures is not likely going to come up anytime soon after SWS comes online. imo something in the CR 2-5/6 range would be a better example.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, I appreciate the math, but why are you looking at CR 11 creatures for what is basically a 5th level AOE? A single CR 11 enemy is 'Hard' at 9th level, 2 goes to really deadly, and anything beyond that is... a bit much. CR isn't the best way to balance encounters, but a group of any CR 11 creatures is not likely going to come up anytime soon after SWS comes online. imo something in the CR 2-5/6 range would be a better example.

Is it? We stopped running anything below supposed "deadly" as its just a waste of time with minimal resource expenditure, deadly x3 or more is kind of the norm for our 1 or 2 encounter days. (Not that either of the 5e usual DMs of my group actually uses that table when making the encounters)

[Gignere]

Oh 100% agree, but I'd also argue that it's best in that roll focus fire style, whereas SWS is practically an AOE



Oh I know that some blocks have it, but I can't conceive of an encounter where up to 5 enemies have it, and that encounter happening more than once outside f an incredibly niche scenario.



Excellent addition!



I mean, I appreciate the math, but why are you looking at CR 11 creatures for what is basically a 5th level AOE? A single CR 11 enemy is 'Hard' at 9th level, 2 goes to really deadly, and anything beyond that is... a bit much. CR isn't the best way to balance encounters, but a group of any CR 11 creatures is not likely going to come up anytime soon after SWS comes online. imo something in the CR 2-5/6 range would be a better example.

Otoh at level 9 encountering a bunch of low CRs I would not be blowing a level 5 slot. A level 3 fireball maybe even upcast to 4 sure, but my one and only level 5 will be reserved for the hardest fights.

[Dork_Forge]

Is it? We stopped running anything below supposed "deadly" as its just a waste of time with minimal resource expenditure, deadly x3 or more is kind of the norm for our 1 or 2 encounter days. (Not that either of the 5e usual DMs of my group actually uses that table when making the encounters)

I mean, increasing difficulty as you reduce number of encounters is how you're meant to do it. When you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day they have to be really intense to matter against all of that long rest resource pool.


Otoh at level 9 encountering a bunch of low CRs I would not be blowing a level 5 slot. A level 3 fireball maybe even upcast to 4 sure, but my one and only level 5 will be reserved for the hardest fights.

It feels like you took what I said to be a bunch of goblins or similar at 9th level. I meant several 'medium' targets rather than one or two 'hard' ones.

And the encounter which has multiple enemies can easily be the hardest encounter of the day, action economy and bodies on the board matter massively in 5E.

[PhantomSoul]

I mean, increasing difficulty as you reduce number of encounters is how you're meant to do it. When you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day they have to be really intense to matter against all of that long rest resource pool.


And that stacks onto massively increased power of PCs -- plus the DMG expectations even being pretty wussy back in the day overall if you have experienced&intelligent and/or strategic players and/or optimised characters and/or a moderately balanced party.

[KorvinStarmast]

And that stacks onto massively increased power of PCs -- plus the DMG expectations even being pretty wussy back in the day overall if you have experienced & intelligent and/or strategic players and/or optimised characters and/or a moderately balanced party.

The game wasn't built with system mastery assumed. That's a good thing, low barrier to entry.

[Witty Username]

For Dork Forge, war wizard in my mind is less a defensive warrior or blaster archetype, and more controller or strategist, you want some damage spells on hand for the Arcane surges, but arcane deflection and tactical wit are more helpful and more thematic for battle control spells.
Thinks like hypnotic pattern, sleet storm, wall of force and black tentacles.
I do have a personal disinterest in damage spells, for the most part though, 90% of the time a wizard has something better to do than damage.

Note Abjurer would sometimes fit into this as well for me, but Arcane Ward lends itself to more aggression. It would depend on the specific character.
--

Since the conversation has drifted into general gish thoughts, I would point out that EK is a bad girl for its intended archetype. EK is a mage knight as "heavy gun" archetype, fight things and when the situation is out of hand, fire the main cannon and clean house. The problem is 3rd-4th level blast spells just come on too late for that concept to be tenable. Giving more access to schools outside of evocation and abjuration would allow for a greater range of mage knight styles. I would personally prefer the duskblade solution, significantly more valuable spells than suggested by a half-caster either by having access to more powerful spells or having features that boost what spells they have.

[Dork_Forge]

For Dork Forge, war wizard in my mind is less a defensive warrior or blaster archetype, and more controller or Strategist, you want some damage spells on hand for the Arcane surges, but arcane deflection and tactical wit are more helpful and more thematic for battle control spells.
Thinks like hypnotic pattern, sleet storm, wall of force and black Tentacles

I... don't disagree, but you're talking about something entirely different, damage vs control, instant vs ongoing concentration. They don't conflict, the only reason for it to be an 'either, or' scenario is if you artificially make it one based on how you want to equip your personal War Wizard.

You just said that you want some damage spells on hand, and SWS fits that. That doesn't mean you don't have any of the others, the Wizard chassis gets enough spells to make it easy enough. The theme of the War Wizard supports having damaging spells, as does it's design, it's not at odds with SWS as a spell choice at all, you can even say it's appealing since you can 'smite' one of the targets with a surge.

[Witty Username]

I... don't disagree, but you're talking about something entirely different, damage vs control, instant vs ongoing concentration. They don't conflict, the only reason for it to be an 'either, or' scenario is if you artificially make it one based on how you want to equip your personal War Wizard.

You just said that you want some damage spells on hand, and SWS fits that. That doesn't mean you don't have any of the others, the Wizard chassis gets enough spells to make it easy enough. The theme of the War Wizard supports having damaging spells, as does it's design, it's not at odds with SWS as a spell choice at all, you can even say it's appealing since you can 'smite' one of the targets with a surge.

I already took fireball though, and my 5th level slot can be something like Bigby's hand that can both deal damage and disable targets as the situation allows.

6d10 damage is also what an average of 33, don't most CR 7-9 enemies start to have 100-200 HP by that point?
<Insert argument about spell damage scaling badly here>

[Dork_Forge]

I already took fireball though, and my 5th level slot can be something like Bigby's hand that can both deal damage and disable targets as the situation allows.

You can have multiple damage spells, the Wizard learns enough to permit it, and starting just one level later you have two 5th level slots, and even at 9th level you get a 5th level slot back once per day on a short rest.

Even at 10th level, throwing the big threat in the hand and then helping cut through the rest is appealing.


6d10 damage is also what an average of 33, don't most CR 7-9 enemies start to have 100-200 HP by that point?
<Insert argument about spell damage scaling badly here>


...I'm not sure why this is coming up again, but sure let's address it:

1) Steel Wind Strike is basically an AOE. It can target up to 5 creatures.

2) If you are fighting an encounter with enough enemies that you're going to want to use SWS, you won't be fighting a bunch of CR 7-9 enemies. That would be exceedingly difficult an encounter for an actual adventuring day for many, many levels unless your party is huge and bloated with boons and powerful items.

3) AOEs don't need to kill anything. Hit points are hit points and softening up most, if not the all, of your enemies is a perfectly valid use of a spell slot and still ends the encounter faster.

Bonus round!

- Fireball is great. You're fighting a bunch of creatures resistant or immune to fire and you're not a Scribes Wizard, solution? Just because you have Fireball doesn't mean you shouldn't have other damage AOEs, especially ones that are actually level-appropriate.

- Sometimes damage is just the answer, control effects are great if you're not under any kind of pressure, but if you are (reinforcements, environmental hazards, short duration boons, stopping a McGuffin ritual etc. etc.) spending a turn controlling the field isn't necessarily the best solution. The point of a Wizard is meant to be versatility, and with four spells gained per new spell level there's little reason to not grab it.

- You've cast your awesome concentration-based control spell, fantastic! Now what? Sit around throwing cantrips? Lower-level spells? You can do that, ending the encounter faster has its benefits, however, and it's not like you're particularly busy after that control spell.

- Crazy thought, the control spell is Slow, which is pretty devastating at any level. Not only does this make landing SWS hits easier, it also prevents the creature you end next to OA'ing you.

- There can be another caster in the party that also has control spells, that might even be able to control better than you, or at least both doing the same role could be redundant if not actively hostile to each other.


Let me be clear here, I'm not saying you need to have SWS. My point is that it's extremely potent and the only valid argument I've seen against that notion is 'it's not my Wizard's theme,' which is the Wizard's entire problem. It can grab whatever random spells because it isn't beholden to any theme other than 'I can't heal others by default.'

[Chronos]

I was looking at CR 11 creatures because I only had that data at my fingertips for a few CRs, and CR 11 seemed more relevant for a level 5 spell than CR 5, the other closest CR. I could look up the data for other CRs, but didn't want to put in that much work.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying you need to have SWS. My point is that it's extremely potent and the only valid argument I've seen against that notion is 'it's not my Wizard's theme,' which is the Wizard's entire problem. It can grab whatever random spells because it isn't beholden to any theme other than 'I can't heal others by default.'

Almost every Cleric, AoE, allows for a cleric to avoid Friendly Fire.

I just do not find having an AoE on the Wizard List, that can be used in ‘Danger Close’ situations, without harming their allies, is something that is beyond the pale of reason.

The judgement that “Wizards have too many spells on their spell list”, that you D.F. and P.P. share is an aesthetic judgement, and not one that can be proven with facts.

Persuasion, would seem to be the best tactic to get this point across.

[Dork_Forge]

Almost every Cleric, AoE, allows for a cleric to avoid Friendly Fire.

Why are you making this comparison at all? The Cleric list is woefully stocked with AoE to begin with, and their spell list isn't almost everything under the sun. But since you mentioned it I took a look at what they do get, I haven't slept so I may have missed something, but here:

No FF

- Spirit Guardians
- Guardian of Faith, kinda
- Divine Word, control not damage orientated


FF

-Flame Strike
-Insect Plague
-Glyph of Warding
-Blade Barrier
-Fire Storm
-Antimagic Field, control orientated
-Earthquake

Symbol doesn't really fit anywhere since the trigger can excuse FF but they can still get caught in it. I didn't count cantrips because it didn't seem relevant and they pretty much suck.

So, unless I've missed a significant number of spells, not only is the Cleric list woefully understocked, but your assertion is just flat out incorrect. Again, supertired so not married to any of this, just not seeing what you're talking about at all.


I just do not find having an AoE on the Wizard List, that can be used in ‘Danger Close’ situations, without harming their allies, is something that is beyond the pale of reason.

You seem to have looked at the list of complaints against SWS on Wizards/strengths of SWS and chosen ones that stuck out to you to challenge in isolation. My position has never been that Wizards shouldn't have any spells that don't generate friendly fire, lord knows they have enough control spells that avoid it, but again that was never the point.

The point was that no friendly fire is part of what makes SWS good. It's a piece of the pie, not the whole pan of the argument.


The judgement that “Wizards have too many spells on their spell list”, that you D.F. and P.P. share is an aesthetic judgement, and not one that can be proven with facts.

Err, how is it an aesthetic judgement? I'm probably just not understanding how you're using the word, but it makes not sense to me in this context. It's a subjective judgement, but judgements tend to be subjective by nature. It is a fact that the Wizard list is massive, I'm banking that it's also a fact that their list is significantly larger than other full casters.

That they have far too many spells on their list is also kind of tangential to the point of they shouldn't get SWS (in mine and clearly PP's opinion). SWS has it's own argument that I've posted many times in this thread that I assume you've already read, so I'm not going to hammer it out again.

On the Wizard list in general:

- They tend to get the most spells whenever spells come out.
- They don't really adhere to any theme, because Wizards don't have a strong core theme.
- This is partly an assumption but I feel comfortable making it: The Wizard list is substantially larger than any other spellcaster's list for no reason. This is based partly on feel, partly on them having 352 spells on their list doing a quick and dirty count on Beyond. The Cleric appears to have 119.

I kinda feel like when one class is such a blatant outlier, the onus is on justifying it being the outlier, not the reverse. The only arguments I can see are 'Wizards have no class features, they need the spells!' and 'lol WotC Wizard favouritism.'


Persuasion, would seem to be the best tactic to get this point across.

I'd be curious what could be said to sway your opinion if nothing up to this sentence has.

[Thunderous Mojo]

See also Word of Radiance for ‘Danger Close’ applications.
The issue is, the cleric spell list, despite having fewer spells overall when compared to the Wizard list, has a much greater percentage of spells that allow a cleric to avoid Friendly Fire.

A cleric can go from First to Twentieth level and never cast an AoE that harms their comrades, and be quite effective.

The Wizard spell list, has very few AoE options that avoid Friendly Fire.
I do not consider it good design to have the Wizard class have no options that allow Danger Close AoE’s, without being an Evoker.

That of course, is an aesthetic judgement..it expresses a matter of taste.

The opinion that the Wizard spell list is problematic due to the list’s scope, is just as much a matter of taste, as someone not liking Rothko’s abstract color field paintings, for example.

One cannot prove that Rothko paintings are Jank. One can offer an opinion, with supports, but ultimately the position itself is unverifiable.

People will agree or disagree with the position based off their own particular tastes.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Wizard spell list, has very few AoE options that avoid Friendly Fire. I do not consider it good design to have the Wizard class have no options that allow Danger Close AoE’s, without being an Evoker. I consider a good design choice. Magic is both dangerous and powerful at the same time. :smallsmile:

[Dork_Forge]

See also Word of Radiance for ‘Danger Close’ applications.

You're hanging your hat on Word of Radiance? It's nice that it doesn't do friendly fire, but given that it's a 5 feet aura-style AoE it's highly questionable how likely FF was to begin with. It is also... a 5ft range, meaning that if you're using it to hit multiple targets, you're not in a good way. And given that the cantrip sucks so hard generally (d6, no mod, Con save), it's hard to really see your point other than yes, it does not do AoE FF. It's also a single cantrip and generally bad.

You've completely ignored that your previous claim seems to fall flat, so I'll assume my rough comparison was correct.


The issue is, the cleric spell list, despite having fewer spells overall when compared to the Wizard list, has a much greater percentage of spells that allow a cleric to avoid Friendly Fire.

If you class friendly fire as any AoE that can affect a party member undesirably, then I'd love to see the actual maths breakdown of that.You're also skimming over that the Cleric list is not just 'fewer spells overall,' it appears to be a third the size.


A cleric can go from First to Twentieth level and never cast an AoE that harms their comrades, and be quite effective.

The Wizard spell list, has very few AoE options that avoid Friendly Fire.
I do not consider it good design to have the Wizard class have no options that allow Danger Close AoE’s, without being an Evoker.

Err, based on the previous list it seems you're basing that on 'a Cleric can settle for Word of Radiance, Spirit Guardians and kinda maybe a couple others. Whilst completely ignoring their most powerful AoEs, that also tend to be iconic.' That certainly is a matter of taste, because to me it looks more like 'the Cleric can get by having no mid-high level AoE.'

I'll have to point out that the Wizard doesn't need to settle for none, since we're talking about SWS you can easily lump Scorching Ray and Magic Missile in the same boat. The fact that a PHB subclass has a core ability around ignoring FF reinforces that it shouldn't be more prevalent, it would dilute their reason to exist.


That of course, is an aesthetic judgement..it expresses a matter of taste.

So you just meant an opinion, okay.


The opinion that the Wizard spell list is problematic due to the list’s scope, is just as much a matter of taste, as someone not liking Rothko’s abstract color field paintings, for example.

One cannot prove that Rothko paintings are Jank. One can offer an opinion, with supports, but ultimately the position itself is unverifiable.

People will agree or disagree with the position based off their own particular tastes.

Whilst it's hard to assert something in this scope unequivocally as fact, it's also so far removed from a visual preference that comparison seems utterly meaningless. You have, however, doubled down that your opinion won't be changed, so good talk I suppose.

[Psyren]

SWS, rather than a baseline wizard spell, could have been granted to the Bladesinger (and Swords Bard/Hexblade) via their subclass imo. But maybe Xanathar's was still in the mode of being cautious around subclass-specific individual spells, idk.

[Gignere]

SWS, rather than a baseline wizard spell, could have been granted to the Bladesinger (and Swords Bard/Hexblade) via their subclass imo. But maybe Xanathar's was still in the mode of being cautious around subclass-specific individual spells, idk.

SWS is fine as a wizard spell, it’s good, however wizards have so much equal or better options at spell level 5, that finally on my 3rd wizard character I’m finally planning to pick up SWS on my Bladesinger. Basically I have no issues it being a wizard spell because most wizards, outside of a Bladesinger, is likely not going to prioritize it. I mean you’re competing with the likes of wall of force, animate objects, bigby’s, telekinesis, dawn, planar binding, etc.. So unless I was playing a gishy type or if the DM was generous enough to drop a spell book with it, I’m likely not even picking as a spell learned on level up.

[Witty Username]

3) AOEs don't need to kill anything. Hit points are hit points and softening up most, if not the all, of your enemies is a perfectly valid use of a spell slot and still ends the encounter faster.

...

- Sometimes damage is just the answer, control effects are great if you're not under any kind of pressure, but if you are (reinforcements, environmental hazards, short duration boons, stopping a McGuffin ritual etc. etc.) spending a turn controlling the field isn't necessarily the best solution. The point of a Wizard is meant to be versatility, and with four spells gained per new spell level there's little reason to not grab it.


By the same token, damage this round is not always the useful option, Control, battlefield terrain effects, and buffs are designed to give the martials more time to kill the opposition, or divide the opposition into more manageable encounters. softening is only useful when the fight is already leaning in the favor of the party.

AOEs don't need to kill anything, but they do need to advance the fight, most damage effects the wizard gets don't do this well, which is why secondary riders are so coveted. Thunderwave as a blast spell for example has a short shelf life, and is not really useful past 3rd level, but the knocking prone and push are useful past that.

What does this mean for SWS? Well, if being near enemies is an advantage rather than a risk, it works as a gap closer, and past that is straight damage. Whether or not this is useful in a given fight is if the party has this this in a couple rounds, but it is worth a 5th level slot for this to not drag out, this is a pretty small number of encounters for me (the barely deadly but still deadly). Usually, in other setups, the fight isn't worth 5th level spell slots or the spell needs to have higher immediate impact (even if I am concentrating on a spell, if I need my 5th level slots for my concentration effects, I can't be spamming my 5th level slots, as they need to last the full adventuring day).

As for War Wizard, My damage spell picks by 9th level would probably be magic missile and fireball, and a couple cantrips (firebolt/ray of frost and Toll the Dead) oh and Evard's Black Tentacles even if it is more of a control spell. I may consider Synaptic Stactic but that is probably a 10th level pick, since 9th is going to be wall of force heavy.



- Fireball is great. You're fighting a bunch of creatures resistant or immune to fire and you're not a Scribes Wizard, solution? Just because you have Fireball doesn't mean you shouldn't have other damage AOEs, especially ones that are actually level-appropriate.


If damage is your primary goal, yes, if damage is your secondary goal, maybe, it depends on your specialty. And is that an excuse to take a spell that puts you in melee at the risk of a bunch of crackback damage, not necessarily. If I was playing an evoker or bladesinger sure(as a evoker I would take cone of cold instead but who's counting).

This is setting aside that a wizard can be perfectly effective without taking any damage spells, in fact will be more effective for it most of the time, with party composition as a primary consideration. Simply killing is a warrior's job.

[Ignimortis]

Hot take: SWS should not exist as a spell. It should be a subclass feature available as a choice for EK/Echo Knight (and, potentially, Battlemaster if you continue in that design direction) style Fighters, Monks in general, and at least Hunter/Horizon Walker Rangers, somewhere around level 11, possibly with lower damage but at-will, or same/similar damage, but PB times per long rest.

Things like these should not ever be spells. It is a flashy and powerful series of melee attacks, the antithesis of a spell in thematics and function. But it is also a case of common D&D design foible of "hey, I have a cool idea, let's make a spell for it".

The very notion of "martials should not get reliable and powerful AoE" reeks of wargame design and balancing mixed with caster favouritism, especially when casters DO get ways to get reliable and powerful single-target attacks even without using spell slots in several ways.

[MrStabby]

Hot take: SWS should not exist as a spell. It should be a subclass feature available as a choice for EK/Echo Knight (and, potentially, Battlemaster if you continue in that design direction) style Fighters, Monks in general, and at least Hunter/Horizon Walker Rangers, somewhere around level 11, possibly with lower damage but at-will, or same/similar damage, but PB times per long rest.

Things like these should not ever be spells. It is a flashy and powerful series of melee attacks, the antithesis of a spell in thematics and function. But it is also a case of common D&D design foible of "hey, I have a cool idea, let's make a spell for it".

The very notion of "martials should not get reliable and powerful AoE" reeks of wargame design and balancing mixed with caster favouritism, especially when casters DO get ways to get reliable and powerful single-target attacks even without using spell slots in several ways.

I think its the kind of thing that could make a good alternative class feature. So sure martials maybe shouldn't get great AoE effects by default, but as an option for which they give something up, it seems decent. Things like the Hunter's volley are solid - specific moves that mean that this thing falls into their repertoire.

[stoutstien]

I think its the kind of thing that could make a good alternative class feature. So sure martials maybe shouldn't get great AoE effects by default, but as an option for which they give something up, it seems decent. Things like the Hunter's volley are solid - specific moves that mean that this thing falls into their repertoire.

Wby shouldn't martials get AoE options? Not like spells are limited in the single target category in any fashion.

[MrStabby]

Wby shouldn't martials get AoE options? Not like spells are limited in the single target category in any fashion.

Well casters don't get these without giving up other options - if you learn fireball you are not learning a different spell. A martial selecting an AoE attack rather than another option they could have chosen is no different.

[stoutstien]

Well casters don't get these without giving up other options - if you learn fireball you are not learning a different spell. A martial selecting an AoE attack rather than another option they could have chosen is no different.

Spell selection limits quicky become a non issue for most classes. The division between the good/niche/bad is large enough to give plenty of space for AoE and single target options. The worst part is the spells tend to have better effects than just damage and upcasting means they are given the option to apply it to multiple targets within a single powerful selection (banishment). It's really not hard to have your bases covered damage wise in 5e if you have a decent class/subclass spell list.

The only class that seriously has to choose spells in this nature is the sorcerer which is why I consider it the best designed of the full casters. It has real opportunity costs.

[animorte]

The only class that seriously has to choose spells in this nature is the sorcerer which is why I consider it the best designed of the full casters. It has real opportunity costs.
Thank you for saying this. I have always appreciated Sorcerer for actually having some form of limits to what they can do. Like you said, opportunity costs. There should always be some trade-off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hot take: SWS should not exist as a spell. It should be a subclass feature available as a choice for EK/Echo Knight (and, potentially, Battlemaster if you continue in that design direction) style Fighters, Monks in general, and at least Hunter/Horizon Walker Rangers, somewhere around level 11, possibly with lower damage but at-will, or same/similar damage, but PB times per long rest.

Things like these should not ever be spells. It is a flashy and powerful series of melee attacks, the antithesis of a spell in thematics and function. But it is also a case of common D&D design foible of "hey, I have a cool idea, let's make a spell for it".

The very notion of "martials should not get reliable and powerful AoE" reeks of wargame design and balancing mixed with caster favouritism, especially when casters DO get ways to get reliable and powerful single-target attacks even without using spell slots in several ways.

I agree with this 100%. They've gone down the really really really lazy route of have idea --> make spell. Because it's easiest to write spells (being self-contained, atomic units that are nicely optional and modular).

I don't mind casters being better (in general/principle) at AoE than martials. But if we're going to make hard divisions on this line (which I don't support), then casters need to loose all their effective single target spells.


Spell selection limits quicky become a non issue for most classes. The division between the good/niche/bad is large enough to give plenty of space for AoE and single target options. The worst part is the spells tend to have better effects than just damage and upcasting means they are given the option to apply it to multiple targets within a single powerful selection (banishment). It's really not hard to have your bases covered damage wise in 5e if you have a decent class/subclass spell list.

The only class that seriously has to choose spells in this nature is the sorcerer which is why I consider it the best designed of the full casters. It has real opportunity costs.

I also agree with this. One common thing I see on the forums is people arguing
a) spell preparation/learning is a major constraint
b) casters are better because <insert reference to situational spell people don't usually take but the casters obviously would have ready for that one moment>.

Both can't be true.

And yes, if all casters were more like sorcerers, the martial/caster divide would be a whole lot less salient.

Heck, you could get a large chunk of the of the way there just by dropping the wizard class and the wizard spell list from the game. Any wizard-unique spell is no longer castable by PCs. The few subclasses that actually have thematic merit (bladesingers and...well....maybe evocation wizards?) are moved to other classes and reworked to fit there. There. Most of the issue gone. But that's unlikely to be acceptable to Wizards of the Coast.

[Amnestic]

Any wizard-unique spell is no longer castable by PCs.

Just curious - is there a list of wizard uniques knocking around?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just curious - is there a list of wizard uniques knocking around?

I've done partial analysis along those lines before, but not a full one. It's actually really obnoxious to do, since you can't filter on "only on list x", so you have to go through all wizard spells individually.

[PhantomSoul]

Just curious - is there a list of wizard uniques knocking around?

Based on what's currently on Donjon, these are the wizard spells that are not on any other class list (might be in subclasses), with Tasha's expansions/buffs NOT included IIRC:

Find Familiar, Grease, Tenser's Floating Disk, Arcane Lock, Melf's Acid Arrow, Nystul's Magic Aura, Rope Trick, Phantom Steed, Tiny Servant, Wall of Sand, Arcane Eye, Evard's Black Tentacles, Fabricate, Fire Shield, Leomund's Secret Chest, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Phantasmal Killer, Summon Construct, Bigby's Hand, Passwall, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Wall of Force, Contingency, Create Homunculus, Drawmij's Instant Summons, Investiture of Stone, Magic Jar, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Tenser's Transformation, Wall of Ice, Sequester, Simulacrum, Clone, Illusory Dragon, Maze, Mighty Fortress, Telepathy, Invulnerability, Prismatic Wall, Weird.




bard <- c("Blade Ward", "Dancing Lights", "Friends", "Light", "Mage Hand", "Mending", "Message", "Minor Illusion", "Prestidigitation", "Thunderclap", "True Strike", "Vicious Mockery", "Animal Friendship", "Bane", "Charm Person", "Comprehend Languages", "Cure Wounds", "Detect Magic", "Disguise Self", "Dissonant Whispers", "Earth Tremor", "Faerie Fire", "Feather Fall", "Healing Word", "Heroism", "Identify", "Illusory Script", "Longstrider", "Silent Image", "Sleep", "Speak with Animals", "Tasha's Hideous Laughter", "Thunderwave", "Unseen Servant", "Animal Messenger", "Blindness/Deafness", "Calm Emotions", "Cloud of Daggers", "Crown of Madness", "Detect Thoughts", "Enhance Ability", "Enthrall", "Heat Metal", "Hold Person", "Invisibility", "Knock", "Lesser Restoration", "Locate Animals or Plants", "Locate Object", "Magic Mouth", "Phantasmal Force", "Pyrotechnics", "See Invisibility", "Shatter", "Silence", "Skywrite", "Suggestion", "Warding Wind", "Zone of Truth", "Bestow Curse", "Catnap", "Clairvoyance", "Dispel Magic", "Enemies Abound", "Fear", "Feign Death", "Glyph of Warding", "Hypnotic Pattern", "Intellect Fortress", "Leomund's Tiny Hut", "Major Image", "Nondetection", "Plant Growth", "Sending", "Speak with Dead", "Speak with Plants", "Stinking Cloud", "Tongues", "Charm Monster", "Compulsion", "Confusion", "Dimension Door", "Freedom of Movement", "Greater Invisibility", "Hallucinatory Terrain", "Locate Creature", "Polymorph", "Animate Objects", "Awaken", "Dominate Person", "Dream", "Geas", "Greater Restoration", "Hold Monster", "Legend Lore", "Mass Cure Wounds", "Mislead", "Modify Memory", "Planar Binding", "Raise Dead", "Scrying", "Seeming", "Skill Empowerment", "Synaptic Static", "Teleportation Circle", "Eyebite", "Find the Path", "Guards and Wards", "Mass Suggestion", "Otto's Irresistible Dance", "Programmed Illusion", "True Seeing", "Dream of the Blue Veil", "Etherealness", "Forcecage", "Mirage Arcane", "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion", "Mordenkainen's Sword", "Project Image", "Regenerate", "Resurrection", "Symbol", "Teleport", "Dominate Monster", "Feeblemind", "Glibness", "Mind Blank", "Power Word Stun", "Foresight", "Mass Polymorph", "Power Word Heal", "Power Word Kill", "Psychic Scream", "True Polymorph")
cleric <- c("Guidance", "Light", "Mending", "Resistance", "Sacred Flame", "Spare the Dying", "Thaumaturgy", "Toll the Dead", "Word of Radiance", "Bane", "Bless", "Ceremony", "Command", "Create or Destroy Water", "Cure Wounds", "Detect Evil and Good", "Detect Magic", "Detect Poison and Disease", "Guiding Bolt", "Healing Word", "Inflict Wounds", "Protection from Evil and Good", "Purify Food and Drink", "Sanctuary", "Shield of Faith", "Aid", "Augury", "Blindness/Deafness", "Calm Emotions", "Continual Flame", "Enhance Ability", "Find Traps", "Gentle Repose", "Hold Person", "Lesser Restoration", "Locate Object", "Prayer of Healing", "Protection from Poison", "Silence", "Spiritual Weapon", "Warding Bond", "Zone of Truth", "Animate Dead", "Beacon of Hope", "Bestow Curse", "Clairvoyance", "Create Food and Water", "Daylight", "Dispel Magic", "Feign Death", "Glyph of Warding", "Life Transference", "Magic Circle", "Mass Healing Word", "Meld into Stone", "Protection from Energy", "Remove Curse", "Revivify", "Sending", "Speak with Dead", "Spirit Guardians", "Spirit Shroud", "Tongues", "Water Walk", "Banishment", "Control Water", "Death Ward", "Divination", "Freedom of Movement", "Guardian of Faith", "Locate Creature", "Stone Shape", "Commune", "Contagion", "Dawn", "Dispel Evil and Good", "Flame Strike", "Geas", "Greater Restoration", "Hallow", "Holy Weapon", "Insect Plague", "Legend Lore", "Mass Cure Wounds", "Planar Binding", "Raise Dead", "Scrying", "Summon Celestial", "Blade Barrier", "Create Undead", "Find the Path", "Forbiddance", "Harm", "Heal", "Heroes' Feast", "Planar Ally", "True Seeing", "Word of Recall", "Conjure Celestial", "Divine Word", "Etherealness", "Fire Storm", "Plane Shift", "Regenerate", "Resurrection", "Symbol", "Temple of the Gods", "Antimagic Field", "Control Weather", "Earthquake", "Holy Aura", "Astral Projection", "Gate", "Mass Heal", "True Resurrection")
druid <- c("Control Flames", "Create Bonfire", "Druidcraft", "Frostbite", "Guidance", "Gust", "Infestation", "Magic Stone", "Mending", "Mold Earth", "Poison Spray", "Primal Savagery", "Produce Flame", "Resistance", "Shape Water", "Shillelagh", "Thorn Whip", "Thunderclap", "Absorb Elements", "Animal Friendship", "Beast Bond", "Charm Person", "Create or Destroy Water", "Cure Wounds", "Detect Magic", "Detect Poison and Disease", "Earth Tremor", "Entangle", "Faerie Fire", "Fog Cloud", "Goodberry", "Healing Word", "Ice Knife", "Jump", "Longstrider", "Purify Food and Drink", "Snare", "Speak with Animals", "Thunderwave", "Animal Messenger", "Barkskin", "Beast Sense", "Darkvision", "Dust Devil", "Earthbind", "Enhance Ability", "Find Traps", "Flame Blade", "Flaming Sphere", "Gust of Wind", "Healing Spirit", "Heat Metal", "Hold Person", "Lesser Restoration", "Locate Animals or Plants", "Locate Object", "Moonbeam", "Pass without Trace", "Protection from Poison", "Skywrite", "Spike Growth", "Summon Beast", "Warding Wind", "Call Lightning", "Conjure Animals", "Daylight", "Dispel Magic", "Erupting Earth", "Feign Death", "Flame Arrows", "Meld into Stone", "Plant Growth", "Protection from Energy", "Sleet Storm", "Speak with Plants", "Summon Fey", "Tidal Wave", "Wall of Water", "Water Breathing", "Water Walk", "Wind Wall", "Blight", "Charm Monster", "Confusion", "Conjure Minor Elementals", "Conjure Woodland Beings", "Control Water", "Dominate Beast", "Elemental Bane", "Freedom of Movement", "Giant Insect", "Grasping Vine", "Guardian of Nature", "Hallucinatory Terrain", "Ice Storm", "Locate Creature", "Polymorph", "Stone Shape", "Stoneskin", "Summon Elemental", "Wall of Fire", "Watery Sphere", "Antilife Shell", "Awaken", "Commune with Nature", "Conjure Elemental", "Contagion", "Control Winds", "Geas", "Greater Restoration", "Insect Plague", "Maelstrom", "Mass Cure Wounds", "Planar Binding", "Reincarnate", "Scrying", "Transmute Rock", "Tree Stride", "Wall of Stone", "Wrath of Nature", "Bones of the Earth", "Conjure Fey", "Druid Grove", "Find the Path", "Heal", "Heroes' Feast", "Investiture of Flame", "Investiture of Ice", "Investiture of Stone", "Investiture of Wind", "Move Earth", "Primordial Ward", "Sunbeam", "Transport via Plants", "Wall of Thorns", "Wind Walk", "Fire Storm", "Mirage Arcane", "Plane Shift", "Regenerate", "Reverse Gravity", "Whirlwind", "Animal Shapes", "Antipathy/Sympathy", "Control Weather", "Earthquake", "Feeblemind", "Sunburst", "Tsunami", "Foresight", "Shapechange", "Storm of Vengeance", "True Resurrection")
paladin <- c("Bless", "Ceremony", "Command", "Compelled Duel", "Cure Wounds", "Detect Evil and Good", "Detect Magic", "Detect Poison and Disease", "Divine Favor", "Heroism", "Protection from Evil and Good", "Purify Food and Drink", "Searing Smite", "Shield of Faith", "Thunderous Smite", "Wrathful Smite", "Aid", "Branding Smite", "Find Steed", "Lesser Restoration", "Locate Object", "Magic Weapon", "Protection from Poison", "Zone of Truth", "Aura of Vitality", "Blinding Smite", "Create Food and Water", "Crusader's Mantle", "Daylight", "Dispel Magic", "Elemental Weapon", "Magic Circle", "Remove Curse", "Revivify", "Spirit Shroud", "Aura of Life", "Aura of Purity", "Banishment", "Death Ward", "Find Greater Steed", "Locate Creature", "Staggering Smite", "Banishing Smite", "Circle of Power", "Destructive Wave", "Dispel Evil and Good", "Geas", "Holy Weapon", "Raise Dead", "Summon Celestial")
ranger <- c("Absorb Elements", "Alarm", "Animal Friendship", "Beast Bond", "Cure Wounds", "Detect Magic", "Detect Poison and Disease", "Ensnaring Strike", "Fog Cloud", "Goodberry", "Hail of Thorns", "Hunter's Mark", "Jump", "Longstrider", "Snare", "Speak with Animals", "Zephyr Strike", "Animal Messenger", "Barkskin", "Beast Sense", "Cordon of Arrows", "Darkvision", "Find Traps", "Healing Spirit", "Lesser Restoration", "Locate Animals or Plants", "Locate Object", "Pass without Trace", "Protection from Poison", "Silence", "Spike Growth", "Summon Beast", "Conjure Animals", "Conjure Barrage", "Daylight", "Flame Arrows", "Lightning Arrow", "Nondetection", "Plant Growth", "Protection from Energy", "Speak with Plants", "Summon Fey", "Water Breathing", "Water Walk", "Wind Wall", "Conjure Woodland Beings", "Freedom of Movement", "Grasping Vine", "Guardian of Nature", "Locate Creature", "Stoneskin", "Summon Elemental", "Commune with Nature", "Conjure Volley", "Steel Wind Strike", "Swift Quiver", "Tree Stride", "Wrath of Nature")
sorcerer <- c("Acid Splash", "Blade Ward", "Booming Blade", "Chill Touch", "Control Flames", "Create Bonfire", "Dancing Lights", "Fire Bolt", "Friends", "Frostbite", "Green-Flame Blade", "Gust", "Infestation", "Light", "Lightning Lure", "Mage Hand", "Mending", "Message", "Mind Sliver", "Minor Illusion", "Mold Earth", "Poison Spray", "Prestidigitation", "Ray of Frost", "Shape Water", "Shocking Grasp", "Sword Burst", "Thunderclap", "True Strike", "Absorb Elements", "Burning Hands", "Catapult", "Chaos Bolt", "Charm Person", "Chromatic Orb", "Color Spray", "Comprehend Languages", "Detect Magic", "Disguise Self", "Earth Tremor", "Expeditious Retreat", "False Life", "Feather Fall", "Fog Cloud", "Ice Knife", "Jump", "Mage Armor", "Magic Missile", "Ray of Sickness", "Shield", "Silent Image", "Sleep", "Tasha's Caustic Brew", "Thunderwave", "Witch Bolt", "Aganazzar's Scorcher", "Alter Self", "Blindness/Deafness", "Blur", "Cloud of Daggers", "Crown of Madness", "Darkness", "Darkvision", "Detect Thoughts", "Dragon's Breath", "Dust Devil", "Earthbind", "Enhance Ability", "Enlarge/Reduce", "Gust of Wind", "Hold Person", "Invisibility", "Knock", "Levitate", "Maximilian's Earthen Grasp", "Mind Spike", "Mirror Image", "Misty Step", "Phantasmal Force", "Pyrotechnics", "Scorching Ray", "See Invisibility", "Shadow Blade", "Shatter", "Snilloc's Snowball Swarm", "Spider Climb", "Suggestion", "Tasha's Mind Whip", "Warding Wind", "Web", "Blink", "Catnap", "Clairvoyance", "Counterspell", "Daylight", "Dispel Magic", "Enemies Abound", "Erupting Earth", "Fear", "Fireball", "Flame Arrows", "Fly", "Gaseous Form", "Haste", "Hypnotic Pattern", "Intellect Fortress", "Lightning Bolt", "Major Image", "Melf's Minute Meteors", "Protection from Energy", "Sleet Storm", "Slow", "Stinking Cloud", "Thunder Step", "Tidal Wave", "Tongues", "Wall of Water", "Water Breathing", "Water Walk", "Banishment", "Blight", "Charm Monster", "Confusion", "Dimension Door", "Dominate Beast", "Greater Invisibility", "Ice Storm", "Polymorph", "Sickening Radiance", "Stoneskin", "Storm Sphere", "Vitriolic Sphere", "Wall of Fire", "Watery Sphere", "Animate Objects", "Cloudkill", "Cone of Cold", "Control Winds", "Creation", "Dominate Person", "Enervation", "Far Step", "Hold Monster", "Immolation", "Insect Plague", "Seeming", "Skill Empowerment", "Synaptic Static", "Telekinesis", "Teleportation Circle", "Wall of Light", "Wall of Stone", "Arcane Gate", "Chain Lightning", "Circle of Death", "Disintegrate", "Eyebite", "Globe of Invulnerability", "Investiture of Flame", "Investiture of Ice", "Investiture of Stone", "Investiture of Wind", "Mass Suggestion", "Mental Prison", "Move Earth", "Scatter", "Sunbeam", "Tasha's Otherworldly Guise", "True Seeing", "Crown of Stars", "Delayed Blast Fireball", "Dream of the Blue Veil", "Etherealness", "Finger of Death", "Fire Storm", "Plane Shift", "Power Word Pain", "Prismatic Spray", "Reverse Gravity", "Teleport", "Whirlwind", "Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting", "Dominate Monster", "Earthquake", "Incendiary Cloud", "Power Word Stun", "Sunburst", "Blade of Disaster", "Gate", "Mass Polymorph", "Meteor Swarm", "Power Word Kill", "Psychic Scream", "Time Stop", "Wish")
warlock <- c("Blade Ward", "Booming Blade", "Chill Touch", "Create Bonfire", "Eldritch Blast", "Friends", "Frostbite", "Green-Flame Blade", "Infestation", "Lightning Lure", "Mage Hand", "Magic Stone", "Mind Sliver", "Minor Illusion", "Poison Spray", "Prestidigitation", "Sword Burst", "Thunderclap", "Toll the Dead", "True Strike", "Armor of Agathys", "Arms of Hadar", "Cause Fear", "Charm Person", "Comprehend Languages", "Expeditious Retreat", "Hellish Rebuke", "Hex", "Illusory Script", "Protection from Evil and Good", "Unseen Servant", "Witch Bolt", "Cloud of Daggers", "Crown of Madness", "Darkness", "Earthbind", "Enthrall", "Hold Person", "Invisibility", "Mind Spike", "Mirror Image", "Misty Step", "Ray of Enfeeblement", "Shadow Blade", "Shatter", "Spider Climb", "Suggestion", "Counterspell", "Dispel Magic", "Enemies Abound", "Fear", "Fly", "Gaseous Form", "Hunger of Hadar", "Hypnotic Pattern", "Intellect Fortress", "Magic Circle", "Major Image", "Remove Curse", "Spirit Shroud", "Summon Fey", "Summon Lesser Demons", "Summon Shadowspawn", "Summon Undead", "Thunder Step", "Tongues", "Vampiric Touch", "Banishment", "Blight", "Charm Monster", "Dimension Door", "Elemental Bane", "Hallucinatory Terrain", "Shadow of Moil", "Sickening Radiance", "Summon Aberration", "Summon Greater Demon", "Contact Other Plane", "Danse Macabre", "Dream", "Enervation", "Far Step", "Hold Monster", "Infernal Calling", "Negative Energy Flood", "Scrying", "Synaptic Static", "Wall of Light", "Arcane Gate", "Circle of Death", "Conjure Fey", "Create Undead", "Eyebite", "Flesh to Stone", "Investiture of Flame", "Investiture of Ice", "Investiture of Stone", "Investiture of Wind", "Mass Suggestion", "Mental Prison", "Scatter", "Soul Cage", "Summon Fiend", "Tasha's Otherworldly Guise", "True Seeing", "Crown of Stars", "Dream of the Blue Veil", "Etherealness", "Finger of Death", "Forcecage", "Plane Shift", "Power Word Pain", "Demiplane", "Dominate Monster", "Feeblemind", "Glibness", "Maddening Darkness", "Power Word Stun", "Astral Projection", "Blade of Disaster", "Foresight", "Imprisonment", "Power Word Kill", "Psychic Scream", "True Polymorph")
wizard <- c("Acid Splash", "Blade Ward", "Booming Blade", "Chill Touch", "Control Flames", "Create Bonfire", "Dancing Lights", "Fire Bolt", "Friends", "Frostbite", "Green-Flame Blade", "Gust", "Infestation", "Light", "Lightning Lure", "Mage Hand", "Mending", "Message", "Mind Sliver", "Minor Illusion", "Mold Earth", "Poison Spray", "Prestidigitation", "Ray of Frost", "Shape Water", "Shocking Grasp", "Sword Burst", "Thunderclap", "Toll the Dead", "True Strike", "Absorb Elements", "Alarm", "Burning Hands", "Catapult", "Cause Fear", "Charm Person", "Chromatic Orb", "Color Spray", "Comprehend Languages", "Detect Magic", "Disguise Self", "Earth Tremor", "Expeditious Retreat", "False Life", "Feather Fall", "Find Familiar", "Fog Cloud", "Grease", "Ice Knife", "Identify", "Illusory Script", "Jump", "Longstrider", "Mage Armor", "Magic Missile", "Protection from Evil and Good", "Ray of Sickness", "Shield", "Silent Image", "Sleep", "Snare", "Tasha's Caustic Brew", "Tasha's Hideous Laughter", "Tenser's Floating Disk", "Thunderwave", "Unseen Servant", "Witch Bolt", "Aganazzar's Scorcher", "Alter Self", "Arcane Lock", "Blindness/Deafness", "Blur", "Cloud of Daggers", "Continual Flame", "Crown of Madness", "Darkness", "Darkvision", "Detect Thoughts", "Dragon's Breath", "Dust Devil", "Earthbind", "Enlarge/Reduce", "Flaming Sphere", "Gentle Repose", "Gust of Wind", "Hold Person", "Invisibility", "Knock", "Levitate", "Locate Object", "Magic Mouth", "Magic Weapon", "Maximilian's Earthen Grasp", "Melf's Acid Arrow", "Mind Spike", "Mirror Image", "Misty Step", "Nystul's Magic Aura", "Phantasmal Force", "Pyrotechnics", "Ray of Enfeeblement", "Rope Trick", "Scorching Ray", "See Invisibility", "Shadow Blade", "Shatter", "Skywrite", "Snilloc's Snowball Swarm", "Spider Climb", "Suggestion", "Tasha's Mind Whip", "Warding Wind", "Web", "Animate Dead", "Bestow Curse", "Blink", "Catnap", "Clairvoyance", "Counterspell", "Dispel Magic", "Enemies Abound", "Erupting Earth", "Fear", "Feign Death", "Fireball", "Flame Arrows", "Fly", "Gaseous Form", "Glyph of Warding", "Haste", "Hypnotic Pattern", "Intellect Fortress", "Leomund's Tiny Hut", "Life Transference", "Lightning Bolt", "Magic Circle", "Major Image", "Melf's Minute Meteors", "Nondetection", "Phantom Steed", "Protection from Energy", "Remove Curse", "Sending", "Sleet Storm", "Slow", "Spirit Shroud", "Stinking Cloud", "Summon Fey", "Summon Lesser Demons", "Summon Shadowspawn", "Summon Undead", "Thunder Step", "Tidal Wave", "Tiny Servant", "Tongues", "Vampiric Touch", "Wall of Sand", "Wall of Water", "Water Breathing", "Arcane Eye", "Banishment", "Blight", "Charm Monster", "Confusion", "Conjure Minor Elementals", "Control Water", "Dimension Door", "Elemental Bane", "Evard's Black Tentacles", "Fabricate", "Fire Shield", "Greater Invisibility", "Hallucinatory Terrain", "Ice Storm", "Leomund's Secret Chest", "Locate Creature", "Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound", "Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum", "Otiluke's Resilient Sphere", "Phantasmal Killer", "Polymorph", "Sickening Radiance", "Stone Shape", "Stoneskin", "Storm Sphere", "Summon Aberration", "Summon Construct", "Summon Elemental", "Summon Greater Demon", "Vitriolic Sphere", "Wall of Fire", "Watery Sphere", "Animate Objects", "Bigby's Hand", "Cloudkill", "Cone of Cold", "Conjure Elemental", "Contact Other Plane", "Control Winds", "Creation", "Danse Macabre", "Dawn", "Dominate Person", "Dream", "Enervation", "Far Step", "Geas", "Hold Monster", "Immolation", "Infernal Calling", "Legend Lore", "Mislead", "Modify Memory", "Negative Energy Flood", "Passwall", "Planar Binding", "Rary's Telepathic Bond", "Scrying", "Seeming", "Skill Empowerment", "Steel Wind Strike", "Synaptic Static", "Telekinesis", "Teleportation Circle", "Transmute Rock", "Wall of Force", "Wall of Light", "Wall of Stone", "Arcane Gate", "Chain Lightning", "Circle of Death", "Contingency", "Create Homunculus", "Create Undead", "Disintegrate", "Drawmij's Instant Summons", "Eyebite", "Flesh to Stone", "Globe of Invulnerability", "Guards and Wards", "Investiture of Flame", "Investiture of Ice", "I
+ nvestiture of Stone", "Investiture of Wind", "Magic Jar", "Mass Suggestion", "Mental Prison", "Move Earth", "Otiluke's Freezing Sphere", "Otto's Irresistible Dance", "Programmed Illusion", "Scatter", "Soul Cage", "Summon Fiend", "Sunbeam", "Tasha's Otherworldly Guise", "Tenser's Transformation", "True Seeing", "Wall of Ice", "Crown of Stars", "Delayed Blast Fireball", "Dream of the Blue Veil", "Etherealness", "Finger of Death", "Forcecage", "Mirage Arcane", "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion", "Mordenkainen's Sword", "Plane Shift", "Power Word Pain", "Prismatic Spray", "Project Image", "Reverse Gravity", "Sequester", "Simulacrum", "Symbol", "Teleport", "Whirlwind", "Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting", "Antimagic Field", "Antipathy/Sympathy", "Clone", "Control Weather", "Demiplane", "Dominate Monster", "Feeblemind", "Illusory Dragon", "Incendiary Cloud", "Maddening Darkness", "Maze", "Mighty Fortress", "Mind Blank", "Power Word Stun", "Sunburst", "Telepathy", "Astral Projection", "Blade of Disaster", "Foresight", "Gate", "Imprisonment", "Invulnerability", "Mass Polymorph", "Meteor Swarm", "Power Word Kill", "Prismatic Wall", "Psychic Scream", "Shapechange", "Time Stop", "True Polymorph", "Weird", "Wish")

setdiff(wizard, c(bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock))

[Amnestic]

I went and did it manually. The below list doesn't factor in subclass spells or invocations or anything like that.

Spells removed with Wizard gone, along with their book source.

Cantrips:
Encode Thoughts (Ravnica), Sapping Sting (Wildemount)

1st: Find Familiar (PHB), Frost Fingers (Rime of the Frostmaiden), Gift of Alacrity (Wildemount), Jim's Magic Missile (Acquisitions Inc), Magnify Gravity (Wildemount), Tesner's Floating Disk (PHB)

2nd: Fortune's Favour (Wildemount), Immovable Object (Wildemount), Jim's Glowing Coin (AcqInc), Melf's Acid Arrow (PHB), Magic Aura (PHB), Wristpocket (Wildemount)

3rd: Galder's Tower (Kwalish), Phantom Steed (PHB), Pulse Wave (Wildemount), Wall of Sand (Xanathar's)

4th: Black Tentacles (PHB), Gravity Sinkhole (Wildemount)

5th: Passwall (PHB), Temporal Shunt (Wildemount), Wall of Force (PHB)

6th: Contingency (PHB), Create Homunculus (Xan's), Instant Summons (PHB), Gravity Fissure (Wildemount), Magic Jar (PHB), Tenser's Transformation (Xan's), Wall of Ice (PHB)

7th: Create Magen (RotFM), Sequester (PHB), Simulacrum (PHB), Tether Essence (Wildemount)

8th: Clone (PHB), Dark Star (Wildemount), Illusory Dragon (Xan's), Maze (PHB), Mighty Fortress (Xan's), Reality Break (Wildemount), Telepathy (PHB)

9th: Invulnerability (Xan's), Ravenous Void (Wildemount), Time Ravage (Wildemount),


Most of the Wizard exclusives are from Wildemount, though the ones I would miss the most if Phantom Steed. Losing Find Familiar as a spell is pretty interesting - shoves it firmly in the domain of chainpact warlocks and druids if you use that tasha's feature

But on top of that I did a list of spells that become exclusive once you remove wizard. Again, doesn't factor in subclasses/invocaitons/etc, this is just raw class spell lists. I've bolded the ones I think are notable but there's doubtless others in there that are of note.


1st: Burning Hands (Sorc), Cause Fear (Warlock), Chromatic Orb (Sorc), Mage Armor (Sorc), Magic Missile (Sorc), Ray of Sickness (Sorc), Shield (Sorc), Tasha's Hideous Laughter (Bard)

2nd: Aganazzar's Scorcher (Sorc), Arcane Lock (Artificer), Dragon's Breath (Sorc), Flock of Familiars (Warlock), Gift of Gab (Bard), Earthen Grasp (Sorc), Ray of Enfeeblement (Warlock), Rime's Binding Ice (Sorc), Rope Trick (Artificer), Scorching Ray (Sorc), Snowball Storm (Sorc), Tasha's Mind Whip (Sorc),

3rd: Animate Dead (Cleric), Fireball (Sorc), Tiny Hut (Bard), Life Transference (Cleric), Lightning Bolt (Sorc), Minute Meteors (Sorc), Summon Lesser Demons (Warlock), Summon Shadowspawn (Warlock), Summon Undead (Warlock), Tidal Wave (Druid), Tiny Servant (Artificer),

4th: Arcane Eye (Artificer), Conjure Minor Elementals (Druid), Fabricate (Artificer), Speedy Courier (Warlock), Secret Chest (Artificer), Faithful Hound (Artificer), Private Sanctum (Artificer), Resilient Sphere (Artificer), Phantasmal Killer (Bard), Storm Sphere (Sorc), Summon Aberration (Warlock), Summon Construct (Artificer), Summon Greater Demon (Warlock), Vitriolic Sphere (Sorc)

5th: Cloudkill (Sorc), Conjure Elemental (Druid), Contact Other Plane (Warlock), Danse Macabre (Warlock), Dawn (Cleric), Immolation (Sorc), Infernal Calling (Warlock), Modify Memory (Bard), Negative Energy Flood (Warlock), Telepathic Bond (Bard), STEEL WIND STRIKE BABYYYYYYYY (Ranger), Telekinesis (Sorc),

6th: Chain Lightning (Sorc), Disintegrate (Sorc), Fizban's Platinum Shield (Sorc), Glove of Invulnerability (Sorc), Guards and Wards (Bard), Freezing Sphere (Sorc), Otto's Irresistible Dance (Bard), Programmed Illusion (Bard), Soul Cage (Warlock), Summon Fiend (Warlock),

7th: Delayed Blast Fireball (Sorc), Magnificent Mansion (Bard), Mordekainen's Sword (Bard), Project Image (Bard), Whirlwind (Druid)

8th: Horrid Wilting (Sorc), Anti-Magic Field (Cleric), Maddening Darkness (Warlock), Mind Blank (Bard)

9th: Imprisonment (Warlock), Meteor Swarm (Sorc), Prismatic Wall (Bard), Time Stop (Sorc), Weird (Warlock), Wish (Sorc)

Artificer actually gets some unique spells! And sorcerer really goes heavy on the blasting with their now-uniques.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Losing simulacrum makes the game 100% better just by itself.

Edit: And magic jar as well.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Based on what's currently on Donjon, these are the wizard spells that are not on any other class list (might be in subclasses), with Tasha's expansions/buffs included IIRC:

Find Familiar, Grease, Tenser's Floating Disk, Arcane Lock, Melf's Acid Arrow, Nystul's Magic Aura, Rope Trick, Phantom Steed, Tiny Servant, Wall of Sand, Arcane Eye, Evard's Black Tentacles, Fabricate, Fire Shield, Leomund's Secret Chest, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Phantasmal Killer, Summon Construct, Bigby's Hand, Passwall, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Wall of Force, Contingency, Create Homunculus, Drawmij's Instant Summons, Investiture of Stone, Magic Jar, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Tenser's Transformation, Wall of Ice, Sequester, Simulacrum, Clone, Illusory Dragon, Maze, Mighty Fortress, Telepathy, Invulnerability, Prismatic Wall, Weird.

Investiture of Stone is not Wizard Exclusive, it belongs to Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock as well.

You also missed Artificer in your exceptions. Grease, Arcane Lock, Rope Trick, Tiny Servant, Arcane Eye, Fabricate and Summon Construct are on the Artificer base spell list.

And finally, for the sake of clarity, your list also doesn't seem to include the Additional Spell lists from Tasha's. They are optional of course, I still think it's worth listing. Starting Alphabetically:
Bard - Phantasmal Killer, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Prismatic Wall
Cleric - NONE
Druid - Fire Shield
Paladin - NONE
Ranger - NONE
Sorcerer - Grease, Fire Shield, Bigby's Hand, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere
Warlock - Weird

And just for fun, the spells that Wizard "acquired skillfully" in Tasha's from other classes that they previously did not have access to: Augury, Enhance Ability, Speak With Dead, Divination


I went and did it manually. The below list doesn't factor in subclass spells or invocations or anything like that.
A more comprehensive list than mine, nice.

Minor nitpick though is that the Wildemount Spells don't technically belong to any spell class list, they're exclusive to the two Wizard Subclasses in the book or anyone else under the DM's discretion.

[Amnestic]

Losing simulacrum makes the game 100% better just by itself.

Edit: And magic jar as well.

Contingency going helps get rid of the 'power storing' aspect via downtime too. It's definitely not as bad as some previous editions though.




Minor nitpick though is that the Wildemount Spells don't technically belong to any spell class list, they're exclusive to the two Wizard Subclasses in the book or anyone else under the DM's discretion.

Yeah, I take that point. I am one of those who just treats them as 'wizard' spells rather than subclass specific, but not everyone does, that's true. Still, since they're limited to those subclasses only they're still 'removed' so worth including. I did consider marking them with a little C/D/G but was too much effort.

[PhantomSoul]

Investiture of Stone is not Wizard Exclusive, it belongs to Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock as well.

You also missed Artificer in your exceptions. Grease, Arcane Lock, Rope Trick, Tiny Servant, Arcane Eye, Fabricate and Summon Construct are on the Artificer base spell list.

And finally, for the sake of clarity, your list also doesn't seem to include the Additional Spell lists from Tasha's. They are optional of course, I still think it's worth listing. Starting Alphabetically:
Bard - Phantasmal Killer, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Prismatic Wall
Cleric - NONE
Druid - Fire Shield
Paladin - NONE
Ranger - NONE
Sorcerer - Grease, Fire Shield, Bigby's Hand, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere
Warlock - Weird

And just for fun, the spells that Wizard "acquired skillfully" in Tasha's from other classes that they previously did not have access to: Augury, Enhance Ability, Speak With Dead, Divination

Yeah, Artificer isn't on Donjon (only PHB base classes) -- not missed, just not available in the source :) Interesting that they have that specific Investiture as exclusive for class lists.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The more I think about it, the thing that irks me the most about wizards is that they make everyone else less unique and special. Specifically, their spell list includes a substantial fraction of spells that would otherwise be unique to one class. They get everyone else's "special thing" plus a bunch of their own that no one else gets. When you have a class whose "special thing" is "I get all your special things plus some you don't get"...that's a symptom of bad design.

Personally, I'd prefer if almost all "high level" spells (relative to the highest levels for a given class) were unique to each class. Sure, no problems sharing the lower-tier stuff. But by the time you're in T3 or so, your capabilities should scream "I'm a <X>".

So I'd say that full casters should be fully (or majority) unique by 6th level spells and half-casters by 4th level spells. I'm fine with 1/3 casters mostly piggy-backing on other lists and not really having uniques--their unique abilities can come substantially from class features.

And yes, that means revamping how bards steal spells, especially from half-casters. I'd say "you can't pick half-caster spell lists for magical secrets" would just about do it.

[Ignimortis]

I agree with this 100%. They've gone down the really really really lazy route of have idea --> make spell. Because it's easiest to write spells (being self-contained, atomic units that are nicely optional and modular).

I don't mind casters being better (in general/principle) at AoE than martials. But if we're going to make hard divisions on this line (which I don't support), then casters need to loose all their effective single target spells.
And also ways to gain good single-target damage in general. The very basic Hex+Eldritch Blast Warlock is already doing better against many targets than non-SS ranged martials. Hexblade and Bladesinger do very decent melee damage as well. Like I said in some earlier thread, if subclass feature poaching was the same for martials as it is for several casters, you'd have EKs as half-casters with a "when you take the Attack action, one of those attacks can be replaced with casting a spell" feature somewhere around level 7.

But personally, I would rather drop that, drop Bladesinger entirely (and make it a Magus-type half-caster class instead), do something about Hexblade (despite all its' strength, it also doesn't actually want to be in melee all that much, since their features work just as well with EB), and uplift martials quite a bit.



The only class that seriously has to choose spells in this nature is the sorcerer which is why I consider it the best designed of the full casters. It has real opportunity costs.
QFT. Sorcerer is the hardest full caster to play well, aside from the general trick of "I Twin Haste on martials and try to stay out of trouble after that".


Well casters don't get these without giving up other options - if you learn fireball you are not learning a different spell. A martial selecting an AoE attack rather than another option they could have chosen is no different.
Except Wizard can learn that different spell through a scroll, or, if they want, they're spending another of their 40 slots they gain over 20 levels. Again, Wizard gains 40 spells known just by levelling. That excludes any and all scroll learning. Sorcerer, by comparison, learns 15 and cannot learn extras by finding one of the generally most plentiful loot types.

For comparison, the weight of learning a spell for a Wizard is about... 1/4th of a BM learning a maneuver (40 vs 9). Or 1/10th of a Totem Barb picking their totem feature (40 vs 4). In short, picking the wrong spell isn't that harsh on your general capabilities after level 3 or 4.


The more I think about it, the thing that irks me the most about wizards is that they make everyone else less unique and special. Specifically, their spell list includes a substantial fraction of spells that would otherwise be unique to one class. They get everyone else's "special thing" plus a bunch of their own that no one else gets. When you have a class whose "special thing" is "I get all your special things plus some you don't get"...that's a symptom of bad design.

Personally, I'd prefer if almost all "high level" spells (relative to the highest levels for a given class) were unique to each class. Sure, no problems sharing the lower-tier stuff. But by the time you're in T3 or so, your capabilities should scream "I'm a <X>".

So I'd say that full casters should be fully (or majority) unique by 6th level spells and half-casters by 4th level spells. I'm fine with 1/3 casters mostly piggy-backing on other lists and not really having uniques--their unique abilities can come substantially from class features.

And yes, that means revamping how bards steal spells, especially from half-casters. I'd say "you can't pick half-caster spell lists for magical secrets" would just about do it.
It's very simple. Like, even simpler than what you describe.

Broad spell access is bad. Having classes side by side that are "build your perfect spellcaster bound only by this very broad theme" and "build your perfect warrior by choosing one of those six classes that hyperfocus on very specific aspects that multiple characters easily combine in one person" is also bad. Either classes are tools, and then every class needs to be Wizard-like to the exception of being able to steal other people's stuff, or classes are archetypes, and then every class needs to be Monk-like.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And also ways to gain good single-target damage in general. The very basic Hex+Eldritch Blast Warlock is already doing better against many targets than non-SS ranged martials. Hexblade and Bladesinger do very decent melee damage as well. Like I said in some earlier thread, if subclass feature poaching was the same for martials as it is for several casters, you'd have EKs as half-casters with a "when you take the Attack action, one of those attacks can be replaced with casting a spell" feature somewhere around level 7.

But personally, I would rather drop that, drop Bladesinger entirely (and make it a Magus-type half-caster class instead), do something about Hexblade (despite all its' strength, it also doesn't actually want to be in melee all that much, since their features work just as well with EB), and uplift martials quite a bit.


We agree on that. Especially the bold. I'd like to do that with a lot of wizard stuff--break it into 3-5 classes, each with a real theme.



Except Wizard can learn that different spell through a scroll, or, if they want, they're spending another of their 40 slots they gain over 20 levels. Again, Wizard gains 40 spells known just by levelling. That excludes any and all scroll learning. Sorcerer, by comparison, learns 15 and cannot learn extras by finding one of the generally most plentiful loot types.

For comparison, the weight of learning a spell for a Wizard is about... 1/4th of a BM learning a maneuver (40 vs 9). Or 1/10th of a Totem Barb picking their totem feature (40 vs 4). In short, picking the wrong spell isn't that harsh on your general capabilities after level 3 or 4.


It's worse than that--they actually get 44 spell picks (they get 6 at first level) for free. But other than that pedantry, I agree.



It's very simple. Like, even simpler than what you describe.

Broad spell access is bad. Having classes side by side that are "build your perfect spellcaster bound only by this very broad theme" and "build your perfect warrior by choosing one of those six classes that hyperfocus on very specific aspects that multiple characters easily combine in one person" is also bad. Either classes are tools, and then every class needs to be Wizard-like to the exception of being able to steal other people's stuff, or classes are archetypes, and then every class needs to be Monk-like.

I agree. Personally, I'd go more like the latter of those options (classes as archetypes with narrow foci).

My list of "this is horribly designed" goes (in rank order)
1) Wizards, by a lightyear. Zero (or even negative) thematic coherence, 99% of the average class's power budget tied up in one feature (Spellcasting, and specifically the spell list), with subclasses that are one or both of bland and overpowered (those that have real features shove the class well into problematic territory while mostly being bland, those that don't are just bland).
2a) Fighters. They have more identity than wizards, but only a bit. Their subclasses also have substantially more identity. But the need to be generic means there's just not much you can do.
2b) Rangers. They have too many, conflicting identities, leading to neither being fish nor fowl. They're mediocre at several things, while being good at none of them (either mechanically or thematically) and most of what they can do, others can do better while doing things the ranger can't.
3) Rogues. They have an identity, but too much of that identity is locked up in something everyone else gets access to as well, sometimes better (ie Ability Checks).
4) Bards. They're just too much too much. Not as egregious as wizards, but they are too much Jack of all Trades, Master of Several. Plus being full casters who can cherry-pick the best spells from other lists, including getting them faster than the half-casters can.
5..N) All the rest. They have pros and cons, but it's all in the mud at that point.

[MrStabby]

Except Wizard can learn that different spell through a scroll, or, if they want, they're spending another of their 40 slots they gain over 20 levels. Again, Wizard gains 40 spells known just by levelling. That excludes any and all scroll learning. Sorcerer, by comparison, learns 15 and cannot learn extras by finding one of the generally most plentiful loot types.

For comparison, the weight of learning a spell for a Wizard is about... 1/4th of a BM learning a maneuver (40 vs 9). Or 1/10th of a Totem Barb picking their totem feature (40 vs 4). In short, picking the wrong spell isn't that harsh on your general capabilities after level 3 or 4.


Caster!=Wizard

Learned spell != Prepared spell != Spell added to spell book

Given that people seem to be a bit hung up on spells and there is confusion between learning spells and adding them to spell books, maybe a better example would have been a warlock invocation. Or, if you want something to asume the same overall significance, rather than just being an illustration of the type of effect, a warlock pact type.

Basically, I feel that martials lack the customisation options that casters have. You basically have weapon of choice... after that there may be some fighting style (to the extent that isn't dictated by weapon choice), maybe some feat support (again, probably linked to weapon choice). It gets like feeling that there is less scope for difference between two great weapon fighter barbarians than there is between similarly equipped clerics or sorcerers. Putting more abilities into the "chose one of the above" type categories to support meaningful choice in character development (rather than getting all of them automatically) would appeal to me (and I honestly thought it wouldn't be that controvesial). Steel wind strike as an example of that kind of ability, where you chose to have one of a set of big splashy abilities seemed a good option.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Caster!=Wizard

Learned spell != Prepared spell != Spell added to spell book

Given that people seem to be a bit hung up on spells and there is confusion between learning spells and adding them to spell books, maybe a better example would have been a warlock invocation. Or, if you want something to asume the same overall significance, rather than just being an illustration of the type of effect, a warlock pact type.

Basically, I feel that martials lack the customisation options that casters have. You basically have weapon of choice... after that there may be some fighting style (to the extent that isn't dictated by weapon choice), maybe some feat support (again, probably linked to weapon choice). It gets like feeling that there is less scope for difference between two great weapon fighter barbarians than there is between similarly equipped clerics or sorcerers. Putting more abilities into the "chose one of the above" type categories to support meaningful choice in character development (rather than getting all of them automatically) would appeal to me (and I honestly thought it wouldn't be that controvesial). Steel wind strike as an example of that kind of ability, where you chose to have one of a set of big splashy abilities seemed a good option.

Personally, I think that casters have too much "customization", specifically the set of choices at each choice-point is too wide AND the choices come too frequently (and aren't "sticky" enough). Which means that everything ends up being slotted in and out based on primarily mechanical power considerations and none of it reinforces a theme. You can also go back and pick up things you left behind later.

I'd be fine with martials getting things like the Hunter Ranger does--a selection of "pick one of these 3 things" choices from very narrow, thematically coherent sets. More of that and less of the Battlemaster "pick your favorite 3 from this static list, then pick more as you level". Because that latter has diminishing utility, since you picked your favorites up front.

But I'd prefer even more if those choices and those of casters were made much more "up front" and tied in with subclass choice. I dislike "Build A Bear" classes (and yes, spell selection is a big factor in that, along with the idea of shoving important things into feats and having feats be more of "class features"), because it ends up replicating a non-class/point-buy system...just badly. Getting neither the fine-grained expressive power of the "pay points for skills" systems OR the thematic coherence and smooth build paths of a good class-based system.

[Ignimortis]

Caster!=Wizard
Clerics and Druids gain all their spells automatically. They're even better off in that regard. Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks mostly differ by breadth of access and number of spells known.



Learned spell != Prepared spell != Spell added to spell book
Learned spell and spell added to spell book are basically equivalent unless you are in the habit of commonly losing your spellbook somehow. Prepared spell is, due to how 5e is structured, quite close to "learned spell" in practice, since with 5e pseudo-Vancian casting you can access any prepared spell any number of times as long as you have some slot that can support it. This is, functionally, equivalent to having a Sorcerer-type spells known list (but larger), and switching them every long rest by using your larger list (class list or spellbook for Cleric/Druid and Wizard respectively).



Basically, I feel that martials lack the customisation options that casters have. You basically have weapon of choice... after that there may be some fighting style (to the extent that isn't dictated by weapon choice), maybe some feat support (again, probably linked to weapon choice). It gets like feeling that there is less scope for difference between two great weapon fighter barbarians than there is between similarly equipped clerics or sorcerers. Putting more abilities into the "chose one of the above" type categories to support meaningful choice in character development (rather than getting all of them automatically) would appeal to me (and I honestly thought it wouldn't be that controversial). Steel wind strike as an example of that kind of ability, where you chose to have one of a set of big splashy abilities seemed a good option.
Sure, but if it's assigned a value like "a subclass feature you only get one of every 4 to 5 levels" like Hunter Ranger choices or Totem Path choices, that's still rather weaksauce. Now, if those were more like BM maneuvers in value (maybe with 10-12 learned over 20 levels?), that could work... But you'd have to properly gate them, so you can make proper level 7, level 11 and level 15 features instead of them always being level 3 features.


We agree on that. Especially the bold. I'd like to do that with a lot of wizard stuff--break it into 3-5 classes, each with a real theme.
Battlemage/Warmage, Enchanter/Beguiler, Summoner/Conjurer, Diviner/Oracle, Transmuter/Shifter? I'd go for those lines, at least.



I agree. Personally, I'd go more like the latter of those options (classes as archetypes with narrow foci).
Personally, I'd go for the opposite, but considering how much impact subclasses would end up having, it could be seen as a somewhat overcomplicated system (base class determines your general chassis and resource type (spell slots, maneuvers, melds, resourceless, etc.), while subclasses would be more like current classes (i.e. Paladin is a Fighter who gains access to Radiant maneuvers, Ranger is a Rogue with survival/tracking oriented features, etc). But it could easily be reverted to a single-tier system with a couple dozen classes instead of a two-tier system with maybe 6 classes with circa 4 subclasses each.



My list of "this is horribly designed" goes (in rank order)
1) Wizards, by a lightyear. Zero (or even negative) thematic coherence, 99% of the average class's power budget tied up in one feature (Spellcasting, and specifically the spell list), with subclasses that are one or both of bland and overpowered (those that have real features shove the class well into problematic territory while mostly being bland, those that don't are just bland).
2a) Fighters. They have more identity than wizards, but only a bit. Their subclasses also have substantially more identity. But the need to be generic means there's just not much you can do.
2b) Rangers. They have too many, conflicting identities, leading to neither being fish nor fowl. They're mediocre at several things, while being good at none of them (either mechanically or thematically) and most of what they can do, others can do better while doing things the ranger can't.
3) Rogues. They have an identity, but too much of that identity is locked up in something everyone else gets access to as well, sometimes better (ie Ability Checks).
4) Bards. They're just too much too much. Not as egregious as wizards, but they are too much Jack of all Trades, Master of Several. Plus being full casters who can cherry-pick the best spells from other lists, including getting them faster than the half-casters can.
5..N) All the rest. They have pros and cons, but it's all in the mud at that point.
Agreed on all points. It's amusing to me that Wizards and Fighters have the same basic problems, but end up on opposite ends of the design spectrum due to particular later design choices ("I've thought of a cool thing, let's make it a spell" being the general idea for casters and "I've thought of a cool thing, let's build a class around that" being the general idea for martials).

[MrStabby]

Personally, I think that casters have too much "customization", specifically the set of choices at each choice-point is too wide AND the choices come too frequently (and aren't "sticky" enough). Which means that everything ends up being slotted in and out based on primarily mechanical power considerations and none of it reinforces a theme. You can also go back and pick up things you left behind later.

I'd be fine with martials getting things like the Hunter Ranger does--a selection of "pick one of these 3 things" choices from very narrow, thematically coherent sets. More of that and less of the Battlemaster "pick your favorite 3 from this static list, then pick more as you level". Because that latter has diminishing utility, since you picked your favorites up front.

But I'd prefer even more if those choices and those of casters were made much more "up front" and tied in with subclass choice. I dislike "Build A Bear" classes (and yes, spell selection is a big factor in that, along with the idea of shoving important things into feats and having feats be more of "class features"), because it ends up replicating a non-class/point-buy system...just badly. Getting neither the fine-grained expressive power of the "pay points for skills" systems OR the thematic coherence and smooth build paths of a good class-based system.

Oh yes, I think we are in agreement on this. In saying that martials should have more ability to customise and specialise I was not trying to suggest that the lack of specialisation in casters was a good thing. I think both should be capable of greater specialisation.

[PallyBass]

I don't mind having it on wizard spell list mostly because I have not seen any wizard use it yet. Usually grabbing the wall of force/stone or Animate Objects, or cone of cold. I guess it's for Bladesinger, because that's the only subcless that might want it. Conversely I have never seen a Ranger get high enough level to use the spell yet. Actually I didn't know that it even was a ranger spell until this thread. Thinking about Bard though, and I like their magical secrets ability to get the spell for a martial minded bard.

[Witty Username]

Except Wizard can learn that different spell through a scroll, or, if they want, they're spending another of their 40 slots they gain over 20 levels. Again, Wizard gains 40 spells known just by levelling. That excludes any and all scroll learning. Sorcerer, by comparison, learns 15 and cannot learn extras by finding one of the generally most plentiful loot types.

Wizard is the middle ground on this not the top end.
Cleric, Druid and Paladin all have more spells known than wizards,
By 20th level
Paladin - 46
Cleric - 90
Druid - 92
Wizards can counter this some with spell scrolls but that is dm dependent, and with the exception of Paladin going to take a massive number to approach the divine casters.
And this doesn't take into account the power creep in the casters, as because divine casters know their entire list each book allowed increases the power of every character in these classes, not just the ones that elected to take the options in favor of something else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wizard is the middle ground on this not the top end.
Cleric, Druid and Paladin all have more spells known than wizards,
By 20th level
Paladin - 46
Cleric - 90
Druid - 92
Wizards can counter this some with spell scrolls but that is dm dependent, and with the exception of Paladin going to take a massive number to approach the divine casters.
And this doesn't take into account the power creep in the casters, as because divine casters know their entire list each book allowed increases the power of every character in these classes, not just the ones that elected to take the options in favor of something else.

Except that, in practice, full-list casters just don't get many new spells per book while arcane casters (especially wizards!) get tons.

Xanathar's: 95 total
Bard: 12
Cleric: 7
Druid: 40
Paladin: 3
Ranger: 9
Sorcerer: 55
Warlock: 36
Wizard: 77!

Wizards get nearly 2x as many new spells as the best full-list caster, and 11x as many as clerics.

Tasha's: 21 total (new spells only, not including alternate class features)
Artificer: 8
Bard: 2
Cleric: 2
Druid: 3
Paladin: 2
Ranger: 2
Sorcerer: 11
Warlock: 15
Wizard: 19. For reference, there are exactly 2 new spells in Tasha's that wizards don't get--summon beast and summon celestial.

Fizban's: 7 total
Artificer: 1
Bard: 2
Cleric: 0
Druid: 2
Paladin: 0
Ranger: 1
Sorcerer: 7 (100%)
Warlock: 0
Wizard: 7 (100%)

[Rukelnikov]

Except that, in practice, full-list casters just don't get many new spells per book while arcane casters (especially wizards!) get tons.

Xanathar's: 95 total
Bard: 12
Cleric: 7
Druid: 40
Paladin: 3
Ranger: 9
Sorcerer: 55
Warlock: 36
Wizard: 77!

Wizards get nearly 2x as many new spells as the best full-list caster, and 11x as many as clerics.

Tasha's: 21 total (new spells only, not including alternate class features)
Artificer: 8
Bard: 2
Cleric: 2
Druid: 3
Paladin: 2
Ranger: 2
Sorcerer: 11
Warlock: 15
Wizard: 19. For reference, there are exactly 2 new spells in Tasha's that wizards don't get--summon beast and summon celestial.

Fizban's: 7 total
Artificer: 1
Bard: 2
Cleric: 0
Druid: 2
Paladin: 0
Ranger: 1
Sorcerer: 7 (100%)
Warlock: 0
Wizard: 7 (100%)

Yes, Wizard is the most caster of the casters, just as the Fighter is the only one to get Extra Attack (3) and do 4 attacks, while most other warrior types do 2, its because they are the most warriory of the warriors.

The wizard having more spells than the rest is working as intended, I do think that there are several problem spells, but that's an implementation problem, not a design one.

The critique that Wizards lack identity is feature not bug, as with the fighter who is not tied to any theme besides being a tough weapon user.

[Witty Username]

Except that, in practice, full-list casters just don't get many new spells per book while arcane casters (especially wizards!) get tons.

That doesn't effect the spells known of the wizard though. Note that druid got to add the equivalent of the entire wizard spells known list off of Xanathar's. And they were already in the lead position.

The quality of spell lists is separate from this point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That doesn't effect the spells known of the wizard though. Note that druid got to add the equivalent of the entire wizard spells known list off of Xanathar's. And they were already in the lead position.

The quality of spell lists is separate from this point.

I was addressing the power creep issue. Spells known is not, in any normal campaign, a binding constraint. In part because so many spells are either super niche or (more often) worse copies of another spell

Wizards get the broadest choice of the best spells. If there's a really strong spell, it's most likely a wizard spell. And if it isn't, wish.

All of those capabilities that are bandied about as the benchmark for martials to match casters? They're only all possible in the same character for wizards. Planeshift is not on the cleric list. Teleport isn't on the druid list. Or the cleric list. Fly isn't either. Or on the bard list (and bards only get teleport, not planeshift). Clone? Simulacrum? Find familiar? Yeah, wizard exclusives (at least in the phb). Etc.

And most of the so called druid advantage is if you're a land druid, and then you're locked into a few spells.

Also, wizards don't need to prep their rituals, giving them tons more effective spell preps, enough to balance out the difference with the bonus spells. And spell prep space is the actual constraint here.

[Witty Username]

Also, wizards don't need to prep their rituals, giving them tons more effective spell preps, enough to balance out the difference with the bonus spells. And spell prep space is the actual constraint here.

Kinda, rituals eat into their spells known, so if they want to have the broad range of options in other areas that requires sacrifice.

Also, for clerics and druids, crafting spell scrolls and the ritual caster feat can reduce the cost on spell preparation to non-existance. Not to mention that they can change out rituals on a long rest to be constantly tailored to the adventure in question. Wizard can't prep different rituals, they are committed to their picks. These use optional rules and Xanathar's downtime stuff though, so not all games.

Generally preparations, don't favor a particular prepared caster, as they use the same primary rules, generally a little over 2 per spell level (cleric does get an extra 10 with domain pick, but as mentioned, it is sort of balanced out with needing to prep casting rituals).
This fits into a bit of equilibrium:
-wizard, premiere ritual caster
-cleric, larger preparation list and most stealing from other classes
-druid, best spell list (personal opinion based on empirical evidence, Druid has the most spells either Wotc nerfed or table banned)
-paladin, half-caster that can perform as a dedicated martial

[DracoKnight]

I don't mind having it on wizard spell list mostly because I have not seen any wizard use it yet. Usually grabbing the wall of force/stone or Animate Objects, or cone of cold. I guess it's for Bladesinger, because that's the only subcless that might want it. Conversely I have never seen a Ranger get high enough level to use the spell yet. Actually I didn't know that it even was a ranger spell until this thread. Thinking about Bard though, and I like their magical secrets ability to get the spell for a martial minded bard.

I loved having it on my Fighter/Necromancer! It was a killer spell, and in the endgame became one of my go-tos. I'm currently working on building another wizard (War Wizard) around the spell as well.

It absolutely belongs on the Wizard list.