Pondering the 5.5 Wizard

[Kane0]

After seeing the statement that the 2024 Wizard will have closer to 4 than 8 subclasses, and seeing that all classes will appear to start subclass at level 3, and seeing the Order feature in the Cleric UA, and seeing the UA bard healing spells feature, i've been pondering on how the wizard will look.

I'm feeling like making a prediction, so heres what I think we will see: theres a good chance that school specialization will be separated from subclass at least partially, into a feature at level 1 or 2 that will likely replace Arcane Recovery.

School specialization: select one spell school. You get one additional 1st spell slot that can only be used to cast a spell of that school. At level X this upgrades to a Y level spell slot (or another additional slot)

Variations of this I would expect to see would be learning bonus spells of that school instead of a spell slot, a single spell slot of max spell level up to 5th, spell slot refunding ala the current Diviner ability, plus the current X savant ribbon thrown in as a bonus.

Otherwise the only other generic Wizard feature i expect to see would be something that establishes them as the best ritual casters, like ritual casting faster, or some knowledge/Int check freebies.

Happy to hear others' expectations for when we eventually see the Mage UA!

[Millstone85]

I could see that happen.

Alternatively, the four subclasses might something like:

Specialist
Generalist
Divine Mage
Primal Mage

With the specialist gaining features like the ones you wrote.

[KorvinStarmast]

... good chance that school specialization will be separated from subclass at least partially, into a feature at level 1 or 2 that will likely replace Arcane Recovery.

School specialization: select one spell school. You get one additional 1st spell slot that can only be used to cast a spell of that school. At level X this upgrades to a Y level spell slot (or another additional slot)

Variations of this I would expect to see would be learning bonus spells of that school instead of a spell slot, a single spell slot of max spell level up to 5th, spell slot refunding ala the current Diviner ability, plus the current X savant ribbon thrown in as a bonus.

Otherwise the only other generic Wizard feature i expect to see would be something that establishes them as the best ritual casters, like ritual casting faster, or some knowledge/Int check freebies.
I like that. They are already the king of ritual casting via their spell books.



Specialist
Generalist
Divine Mage
Primal Mage

I don't think so. From what I read in the last two UAs, wizard remains an Arcane caster, so making a wizard a divine or primal caster upsets the class scheme they have in place.

[Raven777]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?


Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.

[KorvinStarmast]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?


Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "Wizards are OP" debate. The team would need to completely redo the schools and spells in them to balance that out, or you end up with combos that nobody plays due to them being trap options.

[Arkhios]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?


Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.

That'd be a strange direction to go, when D&D has actual history in wizards specializing with one school and being forbidden to cast from two schools in return. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if that would return, as long as wizards will still also have some other class features apart from their spells.

[Captain Cap]

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.
It could be argued that "versatility is what makes Wizards" period.

[Snails]

The team would need to completely redo the schools and spells in them to balance that out, or you end up with combos that nobody plays due to them being trap options.

This. The schools are too imbalanced for such a simple approachs to work. The 5e PHB specialists sort of took this into account by giving some schools better special abilities.

My strongly held opinion is that approach used for 3.5 Psions was the right one. In a nutshell, each "specialist" had a list of "spells" that were exclusively available. Thus the specialist could gain a boost in their area of expertise, while balance between specialties is easier to attain.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a bit of an allergy in the community regarding allowing, say, Illusionists to actually be better at illusions than other wizards. It is very difficult to square that circle.

[GooeyChewie]

I like the idea of having school specialization as a separate choice from subclass. I have always found the post-PHB wizard subclasses more inspiring than the PHB "School of X" subclasses. Making this split would allow Wizards to publish more interesting subclasses while still allowing Wizard players to lean into a specific school of magic, and being able to mix-and-match could allow for a lot of creative options from players.

EDIT: If they can create a similar choice for Sorcerers, it might help tie together the 'caster' suite of classes. Warlocks have Pact Boon; Wizards have School Specializations; Sorcerers have ???.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have always found the post-PHB wizard subclasses more inspiring than the PHB "School of X" subclasses. Then go to Wizard (Generalist), Bladesinger, and War Wizard. Get rid of Artificer entirely, and add in something like Transmutation Specialist to fill that void. Four sub classes, sorted.

[Millstone85]

I don't think so. From what I read in the last two UAs, wizard remains an Arcane caster, so making a wizard a divine or primal caster upsets the class scheme they have in place.The class would still be arcane. The subclass would be divine or primal. Kinda like with the arcane subclasses for martial classes.

[Gignere]

Then go to Wizard (Generalist), Bladesinger, and War Wizard. Get rid of Artificer entirely, and add in something like Transmutation Specialist to fill that void. Four sub classes, sorted.

Yep Scribes, Bladesinger, War Wizard and one more to round it out to 4.

[Mastikator]

TBH I kinda hope to see something like


Specialist
Generalist
Bladesinger
Warmagic


I do hope that specialist gets one of the current school's feature and they just choose one at each subclass feature level.
Generalist might get something broadly useful, like the ability to re-prepare once per day or something.
Bladewinger and warmagic are fantastic as-is and do not really need changing. Getting bladesinging at level 3 instead of 2 is no big deal to me TBH.

[Psyren]

My going theory is still that they're going to pick 4 schools to be core and the other four to be in the first Everything splat. But I wouldn't mind too much if they decoupled schools from subclasses entirely.

[Rafaelfras]

I would like sub class + school specialist too.
You take blade singer you get blade song, 2 attacks +cantrip and song of victory in it's appropriate levels. Get evoker and get sculpt spells +int to damage and overchanel. It would spicy things way up, give a ton of combinations, open themes for sub classes and make other classes get something cooler from what they a getting to balance everything.
I do think subclasses+ specialisation should be the way forward for everybody.
Warlock already does that with blade chain and tome. New cleric does that (badly). It would enrich and give something to look for every other level.

[Atranen]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?


Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.

I like the much more targeted schools approach; wizards should be barred from some, and get unique benefits to others. I agree they'd need to mess with the spell list to make this work, but I think it's reasonable.

I also like splitting school specialization and subclass.

[Oramac]

My going theory is still that they're going to pick 4 schools to be core and the other four to be in the first Everything splat.

As much as I hate this idea, I think you're right.


But I wouldn't mind too much if they decoupled schools from subclasses entirely.

And I would much prefer to see this.

[Kane0]

EDIT: If they can create a similar choice for Sorcerers, it might help tie together the 'caster' suite of classes. Warlocks have Pact Boon; Wizards have School Specializations; Sorcerers have ???.

Perhaps something to differentiate the way the Sorcerer learned how to use their magic. So subclass determines source, and 'method' provides some smaller factor like a minor, passive metamagic.

[Saelethil]

Perhaps something to differentiate the way the Sorcerer learned how to use their magic. So subclass determines source, and 'method' provides some smaller factor like a minor, passive metamagic.

I think it’d work pretty well to give Sorcerers something pretty similar (mechanically speaking) to the last UAs Clerical Orders to show what they’ve been doing instead of studying magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I expect no substantive changes. Wizards will still be "all the spells" and "basically nothing but spells". Their subclasses will still either be anemic or significantly over-powered, since when the base is "all the spells" and the spells are so strong, there's no other options available.

[KorvinStarmast]

The class would still be arcane. The subclass would be divine or primal. Kinda like with the arcane subclasses for martial classes. Primal and Divine are now separate classifications, not magical schools, I don't think it's a good idea to have the arcane casters stepping all over the divine or primal casters. Neither mechanically nor thematically.

But I wouldn't mind too much if they decoupled schools from subclasses entirely. Which would be great, or potentially great, as that would complete the circle at the 50 year mark of going back to the Magic User, where it began. :smallsmile: But I have to share a bit of Phoenix's cynicism as regards making a meal of it.

[Millstone85]

Primal and Divine are now separate classifications, not magical schoolsWere they ever magical schools? Anyway, I was thinking of something in the line of the Arcana cleric from SCAG or the Theurgy wizard from this old UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/MJ320UAWizardVF2017.pdf).


I don't think it's a good idea to have the arcane casters stepping all over the divine or primal casters. Neither mechanically nor thematically.Okay, that's fair.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Were they ever magical schools? Anyway, I was thinking of something in the line of the Arcana cleric from SCAG or the Theurgy wizard from this old UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/MJ320UAWizardVF2017.pdf).


Both of those ideas were horrible. The Theurgy wizard more so because it was better at casting cleric spells than clerics are.

Wizards need more scope restrictions, not fewer.

[Kane0]

Unfortunately as mentioned, the schools arent balanced and in all likelihood will remain that way so that avenue is a dead end.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unfortunately as mentioned, the schools arent balanced and in all likelihood will remain that way so that avenue is a dead end.

Yet they're leaning into school based access even harder in OneD&D, without fundamentally refactoring (as of yet at least) those schools.

[paladinn]

Thinking out loud.. If you specialize, you don't extra slots, but spells-always-prepared kind of like now. All spells from your specialty are automatically upcast (at the cost of a "normal" slot). You pick one school as opposition, and that is always Down-cast. You can't cast any spells from that school until you hit L2 at least.

Pondering..

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyway, I was thinking of something in the line of the Arcana cleric from SCAG or the Theurgy wizard. Liked the former, disliked (strongly) the latter.

If you specialize, you don't extra slots, but spells-always-prepared kind of like now.
Like various cleric or land druid domain spells.

All spells from your specialty are automatically upcast (at the cost of a "normal" slot).
That might be a balance problem.

You pick one school as opposition, and that is always Down-cast. You can't cast any spells from that school until you hit L2 at least.That might be a better idea if they rebalance the schools a bit.

[Kane0]

Thinking out loud.. If you specialize, you don't extra slots, but spells-always-prepared kind of like now. All spells from your specialty are automatically upcast (at the cost of a "normal" slot). You pick one school as opposition, and that is always Down-cast. You can't cast any spells from that school until you hit L2 at least.

Pondering..

Following current dev trends, there would be the upcast but not the downcast. Penalties (that arent opportunity costs) just dont seem to be in the present lexicon

Edit: bonus spells prepared would make a lot of sense given the spell slots = spells prepared setup being presented. Both the cleric and Bard have class/subclass features giving extra spells prepared, so the wizard likely will too.

[Rafaelfras]

Spells always prepared is the easiest way to reinforce specialization. 1 spell per level would be a huge into the feel of a specialist. It does this for clerics, newer sorcerers subclasses etc, land druids.

[Kane0]

Spells always prepared is the easiest way to reinforce specialization. 1 spell per level would be a huge into the feel of a specialist. It does this for clerics, newer sorcerers subclasses etc, land druids.

Just worth nothing that the options are far from equal. For example by my count (missing some sources):

Looking at just the current Wizard spell list up to 5th level:
- Abjuration only has one 2nd level and one 5th level spell
- Divination and Enchantment each only have two 3rd level and two 4th level spells to choose from
- Necromancy only has one 4th level spell

Compare with evocation, conjuration and transmutation that each have at least 5 options of each spell level.

[animorte]

As much as I hate this idea, I think you're right.

And I would much prefer to see this.
Even though I've already stated these things. I want to second (3rd/4th?) them.

I would be more inclined to play a Wizard.

[Sorinth]

If they are planning on a generic Specialist type class then an Expert Divination type feature could be interesting as it would encourage picking and casting spells of your specialty which will help keep the different specialists feeling different. Probably would need to limit it by some amount per rest.

If they do break away from subclass == school, I would probably expect them to create combinations, so a Trickster subclass would have Illusion and Enchantment focus maybe even Divination. A Battlemage subclass would be a mix of current Abjuration/Evocation/War subclass features. Potentially even re-using the existing features but you choose one from the small list.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just worth nothing that the options are far from equal. For example by my count (missing some sources):

Looking at just the current Wizard spell list up to 5th level:
- Abjuration only has one 2nd level and one 5th level spell
- Divination and Enchantment each only have two 3rd level and two 4th level spells to choose from
- Necromancy only has one 4th level spell

Compare with evocation, conjuration and transmutation that each have at least 5 options of each spell level.
If I may support the "options are far from equal" (only had time to do PHB) I made a table for each school and the Primal/Divine/Arcane thing here.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25598009&postcount=19

I should probably fold in the Xanathar's and Tasha's spells as well. Maybe Fizban's.

No, will not fold in Strixhaven spells, as I find that book to be part of what's currently wrong with D&D 5e.

Honestly, making the schools the basis of the subclass can be dispensed with. Magic User/Wizard is a generalist. The sub class needs to focus on other things (like Bladesinger (SCAG version), War Wizard, etc).
"You're a Wizard, Harry"

[Atranen]

If they do break away from subclass == school, I would probably expect them to create combinations, so a Trickster subclass would have Illusion and Enchantment focus maybe even Divination. A Battlemage subclass would be a mix of current Abjuration/Evocation/War subclass features. Potentially even re-using the existing features but you choose one from the small list.

Eliminating Divination's portent ability would be the best consequence of subclass == school.

The 'battlemage' concept is pretty similar to how the War Wizard is framed now. I...don't think they did a great job with that subclasses fluff. But they could have a better take on it.

My biggest problem with the OneD&D casters remains the spell preparations being tied to spell slots. It gives you so few options that I imagine casters will start to feel same-y. There's not room beyond the spells you know you'll need. I hope they change that for everyone, especially wizards.

[Sorinth]

Eliminating Divination's portent ability would be the best consequence of subclass == school.

The 'battlemage' concept is pretty similar to how the War Wizard is framed now. I...don't think they did a great job with that subclasses fluff. But they could have a better take on it.

My biggest problem with the OneD&D casters remains the spell preparations being tied to spell slots. It gives you so few options that I imagine casters will start to feel same-y. There's not room beyond the spells you know you'll need. I hope they change that for everyone, especially wizards.

Yeah Battlemage is basically War Wizard theme but now that you don't have Abjurer/Evoker already claiming a lot of the design space so it could potentially be done a bit better.

I don't mind a more limited spell selection, especially since it's easy to work around via subclass specific spells known lists. But really any ability that really ties into casting from specific type of spells will create a lot of diferentiation. The key is the abilities have to be strong enough that casting spells on theme is better then off theme spells even in a vacum the on theme spell isn't as good. Also keep in mind in Ritual casting will still provide a lot of flexibility/variety, so wizards will still have a lot of I have a spell for this. It's also possible that they do something like allow changing your prepared list during a Short Rest.

[Witty Username]

That'd be a strange direction to go, when D&D has actual history in wizards specializing with one school and being forbidden to cast from two schools in return. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if that would return, as long as wizards will still also have some other class features apart from their spells.

I wouldn't be against a return of prior edition versions of specializations. I am apprehensive on reducing the versatility of wizard more than that, as versatility is part of the class fantasy of wizard.
Too much in specialized and powerful and we step on the sorcerers toes more (and the wizard is already standing on their entire foot).

Unless we are planning on cutting sorcerer, in which case, I am neutral.

[Arkhios]

Unless we are planning on cutting sorcerer, in which case, I am neutral.

I'm of the opinion that sorcerer needs a more unique niche amongst the Mages, to better stand out.

[MoiMagnus]

Just worth nothing that the options are far from equal. For example by my count (missing some sources):

Looking at just the current Wizard spell list up to 5th level:
- Abjuration only has one 2nd level and one 5th level spell
- Divination and Enchantment each only have two 3rd level and two 4th level spells to choose from
- Necromancy only has one 4th level spell

Compare with evocation, conjuration and transmutation that each have at least 5 options of each spell level.

Though if you pair options together, you can mostly balance it out (you might need to move around a few spells, but that's something they seems to be willing to do).

For example, the following split still give you some reasonable choice at most level (you might need to add or move one or two spells here):
Evocation & Abjuration => "war" wizard
Conjuration & Necromancy => "summon" wizard
Transmutation & Divination => "support" wizard
Illusion & Enchantment => "control" wizard

[Rukelnikov]

Tbh I'd find it strange if from the expected 4 subclasses Bladesinger and War Wizard were there in incarnations similar to their 5e ones, both are combat oriented subs, and I get the impression Bladesinger is more popular in general.

If they stick to schools, my guess would be Evocation, Conjuration, Necromancy and Illusion. However, I couldn't really see this being a thing in the proper PHB, picking 4 schools and leaving 4 out seems completely inelegant.

I could see something like:

"Generalist" - Some powers similar to scribe that deal with magic in general, adding spells cheaper/faster, improved rituals, maybe even Arcane Recovery moves from a Class Feature to this sub.

"Specialist" - Extra spell slots/preparation for chosen school or maybe arcane recovery limited to the school, 2 of the 4 levels probably granting something based on specific school, those would likely see some of the current specialist features, like Sculpt Spells or Portent.

Bladesinger - Bladesinger seems to be liked by a good amount of the community, I'd expect there to be a gish option in the subclasses, and unless EK is moved from Ftr to Wiz (which wouldn't be unheard off, Bladesinger went from full BAB to Wiz sub), I don't think there's a better poster boy for Gish.

Something New

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm of the opinion that sorcerer needs a more unique niche amongst the Mages, to better stand out.
Get rid of the sorcerer and the problem is solved. :smallyuk:

[Kane0]

Though if you pair options together, you can mostly balance it out (you might need to move around a few spells, but that's something they seems to be willing to do).

For example, the following split still give you some reasonable choice at most level (you might need to add or move one or two spells here):
Evocation & Abjuration => "war" wizard
Conjuration & Necromancy => "summon" wizard
Transmutation & Divination => "support" wizard
Illusion & Enchantment => "control" wizard

Yes this sort of thing would be my preference on the subclass side. Warmage, Beguiler, Summoner, Seer, Shaper, etc. They would have an obvious venn overlap with certain schools but are not directly tied to them. That way you could still fit in things like bladesinger, theurge, sage, etc and they wouldnt feel so out of place beside the others.

[Arkhios]

Get rid of the sorcerer and the problem is solved. :smallyuk:

Pfft. Sorcerous Origin/Bloodline is a good concept. The execution is lacking, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Pfft. Sorcerous Origin/Bloodline is a good concept. The execution is lacking, though.
Only takes a minor tweak to fix.
add one domain/origin spell per spell level that is thematically tied to the origin
add another meta magic at level 7.

It's already a decent class.

[Kane0]

If theres one word I could use to describe the 5e Sorcerer it would be 'overshadowed'

I'd prefer not to give it more spells but thats mostly because i think casters get too many to cherrypick already. More limited spell selection leaves more room for interesting class features.

[Sorinth]

If theres one word I could use to describe the 5e Sorcerer it would be 'overshadowed'

I'd prefer not to give it more spells but thats mostly because i think casters get too many to cherrypick already. More limited spell selection leaves more room for interesting class features.

I always thought it would be cool if Sorcerer's gained benefits for upcasting spells. Upcasting normally doesn't scale well enough to compete with higher levels spells but if they had abilities that "fixed" that and made upcasting generally better then a just casting a similar higher level spell for sorcerers then the limited spell selection wouldn't matter as much and there would be more flexibility to grab the more niche spells since you can mostly just grab a couple of blasty spells that upcast well enough to cover all your blaster requirements.

[Kane0]

For each spell slot higher you use you get a 1 SP discount on your metamagic?

[Gignere]

If theres one word I could use to describe the 5e Sorcerer it would be 'overshadowed'

I'd prefer not to give it more spells but thats mostly because i think casters get too many to cherrypick already. More limited spell selection leaves more room for interesting class features.

I agree less spells but more meta-magic. Make the meta-magic cheaper too but keep the extra spell slots creation the same price.

[Aquillion]

If theres one word I could use to describe the 5e Sorcerer it would be 'overshadowed'

I'd prefer not to give it more spells but thats mostly because i think casters get too many to cherrypick already. More limited spell selection leaves more room for interesting class features.
Sorcerers should never have been a separate class in the first place and 3.5e made a fundamental error when it implemented it as its own class rather than as a variant wizard.

It's not too hard to make multiple primarily-spellcasting classes that share the Cleric or Druid or Bard spell lists, since those spell lists are intended to be weaker and not the defining feature of their class - there are other features, too, so you can just change those features.

But wizards are defined by their spell list. Sure, they can have a few other class features, but never enough to really define the class - doing that would require changes that would ruin what makes them feel like wizards.

5e's original solution of making Sorcerers a gish class was the correct approach if you want to retain them as a separate class at all - give them something, anything, that is not spellcasting as a core defining feature, so their spellcasting unambiguously does not need to be as strong as a wizard's and can be clearly limited, balanced, and signposted to players as "not as good as a wizard's spellcasting, because you also have [your dragon form] or whatever." Something that makes them play completely differently.

As long as the way Sorcerers are intended to play, though, is essentially identical to wizards - and this is how they've been built in 3e and 5e - they will always be either:

1. Disappointing pale shadows of wizards,

2. Boring clones of wizards who should have just been a variant, or,

3. "Better" wizards, with wizards being a disappointing pale shadow of them instead.

There isn't enough room for two classes with the exact same spell list and the exact same play style. They need some fundamental difference. "Natural casters" (something that was previously part of wizards anyway!) isn't a meaningful distinction because it plays the same way.

"Spontaneous caster" or "fixed spell list" isn't enough to build a class around, pushes them towards being a pale shadow of wizards, and is the sort of thing better suited to a variant class.

"Metamagic expert" doesn't work because, given that they have the wizard spell list, that just means you need to make metamagic suck. Also, making metamagic exclusive to them takes away one of the ways spellcasters can customize their characters from everyone else, and it doesn't even do it to any useful end because the fact that you've given it to a boring wizard copy-paste means that it needs to suck because you can't actually have someone who is better than wizards at using the wizard spell list.

They're not going to remove the class, of course, because they've learned that people are attached to their past characters and want to be able to remake them in a new edition. But they should never have made Sorcerers their own class in the first place, should have dumped them as a class in 5e, and ought to dump them as a class in 5.5e. They're a mistake.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or dump wizards. Sorcerers have thematic content, at least. And the game would be much healthier if the median spell casters were a sorcerer or cleric instead of a wizard.

It's wizards who are taking up too much space, not sorcerers.

[Witty Username]

Sorcerers have thematic content, at least.

Eh, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Kane0]

I'd've been fine with ditching slots in return for fully embracing sorcerery points, and an even more restricted (by bloodline even) spell list or progression in return for more sorcerous powers and/or more extensive metamagic.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes this sort of thing would be my preference on the subclass side. Warmage, Beguiler, Summoner, Seer, Shaper, etc. They would have an obvious venn overlap with certain schools but are not directly tied to them. That way you could still fit in things like bladesinger, theurge, sage, etc and they wouldnt feel so out of place beside the others.

Any given division of "magic" that encompasses a vast majority of its effects will necesarily overlap with the spell schools, but that not a bad thing, there are multiple examples of them in Faerun:

The Nether Scrolls are separated in 6 chapters
The Netherese grouped spells in 3 fields determined by their outcome
Elves catalogued their rituals by how many participants they required, which would also often correlate to the severity of the sacrifice the participants would likely have to do.
The non-slot magic epic spells makes 20-30 spell speeds the "ingredients" of magic.

[Arkhios]

Here's a wild take: Make sorcerer use Constitution for spells.

[JellyPooga]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?


Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.

I'd support this idea, but personally while I agree with Illusion/Enchantment and Divination/Necromancy, I would see Conjuration/Evocation paired and Abjuration/Alteration...just on thematic grounds they seem better matched to me.

[Millstone85]

What if they restricted Wizards to only ever being able to cast spells from two schools?

Evocation/Abjuration
Enchantment/Illusion
Conjuration/Alteration
Divination/Necromancy

That would be quite the power move to address the age old "versatility is what makes Wizards OP" debate.
I'd support this idea, but personally while I agree with Illusion/Enchantment and Divination/Necromancy, I would see Conjuration/Evocation paired and Abjuration/Alteration...just on thematic grounds they seem better matched to me.Thematically, I would like Conjuration/Abjuration and Illusion/Divination, because I feel a wizard would learn to defend against their colleagues or clean after their own mess.

Then Transmutation/Necromancy would contrast being an agent of change and restorer of the past. Plus what necromancer wouldn't be interested in a philosopher's transmuter's stone?

However, that would leave Evocation/Enchantment and I fear that a master of the elements and the mind would feel a little bit munchkin.

[Rafaelfras]

Or dump wizards. Sorcerers have thematic content, at least. And the game would be much healthier if the median spell casters were a sorcerer or cleric instead of a wizard.

It's wizards who are taking up too much space, not sorcerers.

Never. It's the same as to say dump the fighter or the rogue.
A wizard and the themes that he encompass ( learned magic, spell books, finding new spells, old wisdom, erudition etc) it's something that will never go away and it's an idea that only find an echo here.
Fighter, cleric rogue and wizard are the corner stones from what everything else comes from on D&D. Sorcerers is 3.0 addition that came out when it was decided that borne magic and learned magic are separate things.

[JellyPooga]

I'd also be on board with ditching the Sorcerer or making it a Wizard subclass with multiple bloodlines acting much as the Land Druid chooses a terrain type.

[Captain Cap]

I'd honestly agree with ditching the sorcerer completely: you can cover the concept of innate magic with races and feats, an entire class is kind of redundant.

[Hurrashane]

Here's a wild take: Make sorcerer use Constitution for spells.

Wilder take: Make Sorcerers not use spells. Have them use magical attacks (like some monsters do). They don't cast spells they just do magic. Give them something like invocations that give them magical effects that mirror spells, but aren't.

[Millstone85]

Fighter, cleric rogue and wizard are the corner stones from what everything else comes from on D&D. Sorcerers is 3.0 addition that came out when it was decided that borne magic and learned magic are separate things.
5e's original solution of making Sorcerers a gish class was the correct approach if you want to retain them as a separate class at allI think it would be great if the class design followed a table of gishes.

Either the one we kind of but not quite have now:



Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade
Artificer


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Warlock
Bard



Or a simpler one:



Cleric
Druid
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Bard



Or the smallest:



Cleric
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Hexblade


Rogue
Ranger
Bard

[animorte]

I think it would be great if the class design followed a table of gishes.

Either the one we kind of but not quite have now:



Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade
Artificer


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Warlock
Bard



Or a simpler one:



Cleric
Druid
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Bard



Or the smallest:



Cleric
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Hexblade


Rogue
Ranger
Bard


I love this so much. I've drawn up a table in similar fashion to this probably 30 different times.

[Atranen]

I think it would be great if the class design followed a table of gishes.

Either the one we kind of but not quite have now:



Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade
Artificer


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Warlock
Bard



Or a simpler one:



Cleric
Druid
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Hexblade


Rogue
Monk
Ranger
Bard



Or the smallest:



Cleric
Wizard


Fighter
Paladin
Hexblade


Rogue
Ranger
Bard



A very excellent chart--the implication to me seems that sorcerers and their variants should just get unique spells, the way druid does to differentiate them from clerics.

[Rafaelfras]

A very excellent chart--the implication to me seems that sorcerers and their variants should just get unique spells, the way druid does to differentiate them from clerics.

Exactly. If they had a unique spell list that would do, if anything else. It did for druids when the only other thing they had for them was wild shape

[Arkhios]

Wilder take: Make Sorcerers not use spells. Have them use magical attacks (like some monsters do). They don't cast spells they just do magic. Give them something like invocations that give them magical effects that mirror spells, but aren't.

Now there's an idea! Gotta take this to the drawing board!

(Could even combine these two ideas: use Constitution to do their magic-that-is-not-spells)


Maybe something like this:
Build "spells" from "building block" options of different types and functions, using sorcery points as their primary resource rather than secondary. Obviously a larger pool of sorcery points is necessary, unless the pool is restored on a short rest, like ki.
Gradually learn new and/or more powerful optins.

[Sorinth]

For each spell slot higher you use you get a 1 SP discount on your metamagic?

That would certainly be interesting, especially if at a higher level you can break the one metamagic per spell limit rule so you could get a "free" meta-magic and then pay for a second one and really make it a strong spell. I was also thinking something like doubling the upcast bonus (Possibly as a metamagic option), so if you cast a 1st level spell with a 3rd level slot you treat the spell as if it were cast with a 5th level slot, that way the spell might actually be competative with the 3rd level slot being used. Other options would be to increase the spell DC by 1 per level of upcast or even breaking the normal concentration rules when upcasting certain spells (Probably the ones linked to the subclass) by at least 3 levels. If these abilities are all metamagic based and we go with your suggestion as a base it could be interesting, possibly even splitting the metamagic options into lesser and greater tables so you get access to most lesser ones but only a few greater ones to ensure the less strong ones still see some use.

And in terms of small things sorcerers shouldn't suck at Arcana skills. They might not be able to read/decipher runes, but if they should be able to instinctually have a feel for magic stuff and garner some info. So being able to use Cha instead of Int for Arcana checks, and maybe being able to freely cast Detect Magic/Identify some amount of times per day.

[Saelethil]

Another couple of wild thoughts, what if sorcerers got short rests spell points that could be used on metamagic to show that they have magic continually coursing through them. Constitution makes sense as a casting stat for them but I understand how that could complicate things so I think wisdom would also make some level of sense as them being in tune with the magic flowing through and around them. Make their spell list a little more distinct (maybe shrink the base list and expand it via bloodline) I might even give them light armor or simple weapons to show what they’ve been doing instead of studying magic.

[Witty Username]

Delete sorcerer and rename warlock is an idea I have had, in all honesty warlock does a pretty stellar job of carrying the theme of an innately magical being, even if it wasn't the intention of their mechanics.

[jas61292]

Or dump wizards. Sorcerers have thematic content, at least. And the game would be much healthier if the median spell casters were a sorcerer or cleric instead of a wizard.

It's wizards who are taking up too much space, not sorcerers.

Strong agreement with this, both mechanically and thematically. Mechanically, unless they massively change how good spells are, a class who's identity is basically just "have all the spells" is never going to be healthy.

But I think the thematic argument is even stronger. Wizards represent one idea. "A person who has arcane magic because they learned it through study." The Sorcerer on the other hand, is basically "A person who has arcane magic for literally any other reason." If one class is to be contracted and folded into another, Wizard is the one that should go. It would be easy enough to make the wizard spell book style a subclass.

Now, you may want to rename the resulting class to Mage or Magic User or whatever, just to help people not get as upset about it. But really, while the concept of the wizard is an important one to have, I really do not see it as one that is worthy of its own class, and not simply as a more specific version of a more generic mage class.

[Kane0]

Thats far beyond the scope of the 2024 rendition, but fun to theorycraft regardless.

[Witty Username]

A sorcerer is someone who has the ability to use magic, for no reason. Folding in subclasses that have a character motivation associated for why they have magic is completely unworkable.

[Captain Cap]

A sorcerer is someone who has the ability to use magic, for no reason. Folding in subclasses that have a character motivation associated for why they have magic is completely unworkable.
Yeah.

"No need for me to submit my will to higher powers, for my ancestry give me the privilege to wield grand arcane powers!"
"Hold my lute."

[Rafaelfras]

A sorcerer is someone who has the ability to use magic, for no reason. Folding in subclasses that have a character motivation associated for why they have magic is completely unworkable.

Exactly.
It also ignore all the historical and cultural aspects of what we understand as magic and how someone can arrive at that power. Exoteric knowledge, forbidden, hidden. The wise men that through knowledge arrived in greater Truths and got access to a greater power.
The very word Aracna means secret or hidden.
Wizards are the quintessential arcane spellcasters. You can dispatch everything else

[paladinn]

As of 5e, there really isn't a good reason (IMO) to have a separate sorcerer class. Spontaneous casting vs. prepared was the main rationale in 3e. Now that Everyone casts spontaneously, that reason is no more.

I've pondered having a sorcerer class that uses spell points instead of slots. Have all the spell points and whatever metamagic resource ("sorcery points") be in one pot. No more conversion of sorc points to slots/points. A point is a point. Then give sorcerers a bonus to points equal to his/her Cha bonus. That flexibility would make up for the lack of spell flexibility compared to the wizard. Another possibility is to merge the sorcerer with the warlock for access to e-blast and some invocations. We don't need 2 Cha-based full casters.

[Captain Cap]

I've pondered having a sorcerer class that uses spell points instead of slots. Have all the spell points and whatever metamagic resource ("sorcery points") be in one pot. No more conversion of sorc points to slots/points. A point is a point. Then give sorcerers a bonus to points equal to his/her Cha bonus. That flexibility would make up for the lack of spell flexibility compared to the wizard.
At that point I'd rather have a psion with power points (the Aberrant Mind would be a decent starting point).


We don't need 2 Cha-based full casters.
Agree. There's too much of a Charisma bloat in the current state.

[KorvinStarmast]

We don't need 2 Cha-based full casters. We have two (sorcerer and Bard) and a pact magic caster (warlock) who is slightly different.

[paladinn]

We have two (sorcerer and Bard) and a pact magic caster (warlock) who is slightly different.

I wouldn't have the bard as a full caster. Half maybe. And greatly pare-down to spell list.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't have the bard as a full caster. Half maybe. And greatly pare-down to spell list. Yeah, the INT based caster, or half caster with good social/charm skills is more of the original template from way back when. But in this edition, and in D&Done, they have gone all in on a Bard as Full Caster. :smallfrown:

[Sorinth]

I think the charisma bloat is less about the number of casters and more that all 3 are "arcane" casters. If for example Sorcerer was Wisdom based and Druid was Charisma based you'd have the same number but I doubt you'd see the same complaints.

[Sorinth]

Yeah, the INT based caster, or half caster with good social/charm skills is more of the original template from way back when. But in this edition, and in D&Done, they have gone all in on a Bard as Full Caster. :smallfrown:

If you make them Int based casters then they would probably dump Charisma just like many wizards do now which thematically would be an issue. It's the same reason Paladins are charisma casters, the legacy representation is high charisma so you need to make it central to their abilities. The original templates got away with it my having minimum stat requirements in order to even choose the class.

That said I'd have no problem with them being a half-caster so long as they got some other cool abilities out of it.

[Kane0]

Shift Warlock to their choice of Int or Cha. You could do the same for Paladin with Wis or Cha, and likely a few other classes too.

Edit: and I have floated the idea of reducing the level spread to 12 instead of 20, cuts down on the higher level disparity between martials and casters plus opens up 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 and 3/4 casting progression much more easily.

[jas61292]

A sorcerer is someone who has the ability to use magic, for no reason. Folding in subclasses that have a character motivation associated for why they have magic is completely unworkable.

I don't think that's a fair way of describing Sorcerer, especially as presented through the various subclasses of this edition. Most provide various explanations for why you have magic, and while some of them are "you were just born that way," many involve something that happened actively in your life, and could absolutely be something done intentionally.

The real point though is that Sorcerer, as it is, is a mage class whose subclasses represent how you got your powers. There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't have a class like that with a subclass representing one who got their power through learning and study. Yeah, you may want to rename things or do a bit of re-fluffing of the base class. But it makes a lot of sense to do a class like that.


Exactly.
It also ignore all the historical and cultural aspects of what we understand as magic and how someone can arrive at that power. Exoteric knowledge, forbidden, hidden. The wise men that through knowledge arrived in greater Truths and got access to a greater power.
The very word Aracna means secret or hidden.
Wizards are the quintessential arcane spellcasters. You can dispatch everything else

The issue I have with this is that so much of what you describe here is built into the lore of, not wizard, but warlock. Yeah, they have that whole patron aspect too, but seekers of dark, forgotten or forbidden lore is baked right into that class, moreso than I feel it is with wizard. Heck, their high level spellcasting is literally called Mystic Arcanum.

Now, all this is not to say we shouldn't have something like a wizard. Not at all. Wizards are quintessential fantasy. But I just don't see the core wizard fantasy as being more deserving of a whole class than the other ones we have here. If anything, they are all too specific for that.

Not, of course, that they are going to eliminate any of the classes. But I just feel wizard needs a better identity, because right now the core class feels like it takes up too much of the lore burden, when that should be better carried by subclasses.

[paladinn]

Just pondering.. How about making wizards intrinsically MAD? They need high INT And CHA. INT governs the number of spells prepared. CHA determines the spell points/slots per day.

Instant nerf.. but a reasonable one

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think that's a fair way of describing Sorcerer, especially as presented through the various subclasses of this edition. Most provide various explanations for why you have magic, and while some of them are "you were just born that way," many involve something that happened actively in your life, and could absolutely be something done intentionally.

The real point though is that Sorcerer, as it is, is a mage class whose subclasses represent how you got your powers. There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't have a class like that with a subclass representing one who got their power through learning and study. Yeah, you may want to rename things or do a bit of re-fluffing of the base class. But it makes a lot of sense to do a class like that.



The issue I have with this is that so much of what you describe here is built into the lore of, not wizard, but warlock. Yeah, they have that whole patron aspect too, but seekers of dark, forgotten or forbidden lore is baked right into that class, moreso than I feel it is with wizard. Heck, their high level spellcasting is literally called Mystic Arcanum.

Now, all this is not to say we shouldn't have something like a wizard. Not at all. Wizards are quintessential fantasy. But I just don't see the core wizard fantasy as being more deserving of a whole class than the other ones we have here. If anything, they are all too specific for that.

Not, of course, that they are going to eliminate any of the classes. But I just feel wizard needs a better identity, because right now the core class feels like it takes up too much of the lore burden, when that should be better carried by subclasses.

I agree with both of these points.

[Kane0]

Just pondering.. How about making wizards intrinsically MAD? They need high INT And CHA. INT governs the number of spells prepared. CHA determines the spell points/slots per day.

Instant nerf.. but a reasonable one

Could do a split like that for all casters
Spell Attack/DC based off Charisma
Spells known/prepared based off Int
Spell slots/points based off Wisdom

Then you also have concentration based off Con and initiative based off Dex. Different casters can emphasise different aspects of casting even with the same spell list.

[Blackdrop]

Could do a split like that for all casters
Spell Attack/DC based off Charisma
Spells known/prepared based off Int
Spell slots/points based off Wisdom

Then you also have concentration based off Con and initiative based off Dex. Different casters can emphasise different aspects of casting even with the same spell list.

I'd actually do:

Dex for Spell Attacks (You still have to hit the target with directed spells like firebolt, though I'm also in favor of Dex being used for all attacks rolls and Str being using for all physical attacks, bows included.)
Con for Spell Slot/Points (Magic is usually depicted as physically draining, so basing the number of spells you can cast off of how tough you are makes sense IMO)
Int for Spells Known/Prepared for Arcane Casters
Wis for Spells Known/Prepared for Divine Casters
Cha for Spell DCs

[animorte]

Could do a split like that for all casters
Spell Attack/DC based off Charisma
Spells known/prepared based off Int
Spell slots/points based off Wisdom

Then you also have concentration based off Con and initiative based off Dex. Different casters can emphasise different aspects of casting even with the same spell list.
I actually fully support this.

But which addresses spell save DC?

[Leon]

Until they fix the shoddy mess that is D&D magic the wizard will be the same as it always is ~ a class wholly dependent on flinging spells without cost at a problem till it goes away

[Atranen]

Could do a split like that for all casters
Spell Attack/DC based off Charisma
Spells known/prepared based off Int
Spell slots/points based off Wisdom

Then you also have concentration based off Con and initiative based off Dex. Different casters can emphasise different aspects of casting even with the same spell list.

I'm a big fan of this (although perhaps with different emphases for different casters). Casters as it is are pretty SAD, and this would flesh out that system more. It would also complicate things, which goes against their design goals...

I'm a fan of the bard being a full caster, because I think it helps them feel realized as a class in a way previous iterations don't. That said, I also feel the CHA bloat. I think switching Warlock back to INT, as it was originally, would help address this. Or giving bards a more limited spell list.

[OvisCaedo]

A lot of class lore and definitions feel... poorly defined or contradictory. Warlock lore makes mention of "forbidden knowledge" but in truth they seem to have their power primarily derive from how handsome and likeable they are so that they can get a higher being to give them magic. (yes, yes, charisma is also 'force of personality' when it arbitrarily needs to be to retroactively justify making it do anything).

Sorcerers, in my own uncharitable view, are similarly a class that's just... being born special, and your specialness is again directly correlated to being charismatic. I don't know the design process that went into the original sorceror class, but it's always struck me as just being... "well we have intelligence and wisdom casters, charisma is a mental stat too, so I guess there should be a charisma caster?" And then didn't have any real ideas for it so they just made it a knock-off wizard.

Ultimately I find the concept of a caster class who arrives at their abilities through sheer hard work and study to be fundamentally more compelling of a fantasy than being born magical or begging a higher being for power. Other people have no obligation to agree to that, of course! But I'm also not trying to use my own tastes to insist that sorcerers should be removed. Mechanically, do Wizards probably need adjustment and possibly some constraints? They might! Is there anything thematically wrong with the class? I certainly don't think so. Despite how broad seeming wizard's theme is, none of the more "distinct" casters really cover it without needing to rewrite them heavily too.

Bards I suppose also are claimed to know things, but then for some reason it's again all charisma based because wacky musician and has no correlation to knowledge or intelligence.

[animorte]

Bards I suppose also are claimed to know things, but then for some reason it's again all charisma based because wacky musician and has no correlation to knowledge or intelligence.
While you have a valid point, as far as I'm concerned, their skill prowess functions well enough as general knowledge.

[Witty Username]

Just pondering.. How about making wizards intrinsically MAD? They need high INT And CHA. INT governs the number of spells prepared. CHA determines the spell points/slots per day.

Instant nerf.. but a reasonable one

My AD&D recalling self, is actually into that, my memory is hazzy as to the specifics but in the days of yore, wizards had ability prerequisites to specialize, essentially needing to pick a secondary stat to qualify.
The 5e and on implementation would probably subclass features that key of off wisdom or charisma. I can see a version of that working nicely.

[Rafaelfras]

A lot of class lore and definitions feel... poorly defined or contradictory. Warlock lore makes mention of "forbidden knowledge" but in truth they seem to have their power primarily derive from how handsome and likeable they are so that they can get a higher being to give them magic. (yes, yes, charisma is also 'force of personality' when it arbitrarily needs to be to retroactively justify making it do anything).

Sorcerers, in my own uncharitable view, are similarly a class that's just... being born special, and your specialness is again directly correlated to being charismatic. I don't know the design process that went into the original sorceror class, but it's always struck me as just being... "well we have intelligence and wisdom casters, charisma is a mental stat too, so I guess there should be a charisma caster?" And then didn't have any real ideas for it so they just made it a knock-off wizard.

Ultimately I find the concept of a caster class who arrives at their abilities through sheer hard work and study to be fundamentally more compelling of a fantasy than being born magical or begging a higher being for power. Other people have no obligation to agree to that, of course! But I'm also not trying to use my own tastes to insist that sorcerers should be removed. Mechanically, do Wizards probably need adjustment and possibly some constraints? They might! Is there anything thematically wrong with the class? I certainly don't think so. Despite how broad seeming wizard's theme is, none of the more "distinct" casters really cover it without needing to rewrite them heavily too.


I agree with these points as well.
The first time I read the warlock section in the PHB my first reaction was "how the hell they are not Int based?"

I too find the wizard themes way way more appealing than any other caster in the game.

[Kane0]

The first time I read the warlock section in the PHB my first reaction was "how the hell they are not Int based?"

They used to be, in the playtests before the PHB went to print.

[Rafaelfras]

They used to be, in the playtests before the PHB went to print.

I heard that. I almost made that a house rule. But the warlock player wanted to mc into sorcerer, so yeah I am haunted to this very day by that decision

[animorte]

The first time I read the warlock section in the PHB my first reaction was "how the hell they are not Int based?"
Funny, that. I figure an Intelligent creature wouldn't make a deal with a much more powerful being and their ulterior motives.

Of course, the original Puss in Boots provides that if you're smart enough, power level doesn't really matter. Unless you take into account his massive Charisma for deception and persuasion. Hmm...

[paladinn]

So if Int is.. well.. intelligence, and Cha is "force of will", what exactly is Wis supposed to be? Wis is what factored into "Will saves" in 3e.

For mages, I'm liking the idea of Int being the basis for spells prepared and Cha being the "force" behind them. I think it's a good rationale for merging the wizard and sorcerer classes. To use arcane magic, it's not enough just to be smart; you have to have the "spark" (Cha).

Hmm.. there could be a feat or two for characters with high Cha but no real mage training. They could let a character do something basic like fire an Eldritch Blast or a defensive shield ala War Magic.

"You're a wizard, Harry" - Hagrid to Harry P, before any training at all

[animorte]

"You're a wizard, Harry" - Hagrid to Harry P, before any training at all
You know, I've been waiting for the opportunity to mention that Voldy in HP#2 specifically mentions, "when I became the greatest sorcerer in the world!"

To which HP responds, "A.D. is the greatest sorcerer in the world!"

As far as they're concerned, the terms seem to be interchangeable. In this specific instance, Wizards need little to no experience to be considered as such. Meanwhile debatably two of the most powerful of all time are referred to as Sorcerers instead. Quite the opposite of our D&D standards with the former being defined as insurmountable.

[Witty Username]

As far as they're concerned, the terms seem to be interchangeable. In this specific instance, Wizards need little to no experience to be considered as such. Meanwhile debatably two of the most powerful of all time are referred to as Sorcerers instead. Quite the opposite of our D&D standards with the former being defined as insurmountable.

It is especially frustrating as sorcerer and wizard were almost interchangeable terminology in AD&D (sorcerer was added as a class kit of wizard at some point, but I am not sure when). High Sorcerery in Dragonlance being to denote a particular scholarship of wizards being the most prominent.

[Witty Username]

The real point though is that Sorcerer, as it is, is a mage class whose subclasses represent how you got your powers. There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't have a class like that with a subclass representing one who got their power through learning and study. Yeah, you may want to rename things or do a bit of re-fluffing of the base class. But it makes a lot of sense to do a class like that.


Charisma as casting stat is a fairly significant roadblock for flavoring as knowledge and understanding.

A roadblock that wizard does not have with traditions representing power through bloodline or life events, as they don't normally have a link with social aptitude or lack of understanding. Sorcerer is pretty trivial to represent as a subclass of wizard, no reflavoring required.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Charisma as casting stat is a fairly significant roadblock for flavoring as knowledge and understanding.

A roadblock that wizard does not have with traditions representing power through bloodline or life events, as they don't normally have a link with social aptitude or lack of understanding. Sorcerer is pretty trivial to represent as a subclass of wizard, no reflavoring required.

Except for the whole "I learned my spells by the sweat of my brow" thing that is all that wizards have. Sorcerers, who gained their power intrinsically and can't go out and learn new spells...don't have that. At all.

The central difference (operationally) between a wizard and a sorcerer is that a wizard starts from 0 and has to build his repertoire. A sorcerer comes into existence with his entire repertoire in-built[1], only needing the strength of self[2] to bring those spells out. Wizards don't have any knowledge until they learn it, gaining the power to perform it at the same time; sorcerers have the knowledge but lack the power.

Sorcerers are closer to Goku (from Dragonball), for whom thinking got in the way at the later stages of progression.

Furthermore, starting the subclass at 2 means that a level one "sorcerer"...doesn't have any sorcerer powers yet. So shouldn't have any power. But he's just as good as any other level 1 wizard. Wat?

You could do a perfectly good wizard-as-a-sorcerer subclass:
* level 1, "your spellcasting ability is Intelligence" and you have a spellbook. You can scribe spells into it and prepare (X) extra per day from that list (in addition to your known spells). Ritual caster.
* Etc.

The reverse is very not true IMO.

[1] switching spells is entirely game-side, to prevent the "stuck with bad decisions forever" problem
[2] charisma isn't just "prettiness"--it's strength/sense/knowledge of self. That's why banishment is resisted with a Cha save, among other things. Charisma is the skill that says "I am me." By contrast, Int says "that (points) is <thing>" and wisdom says "that (sensation) is other".

[Witty Username]

Wizard subclass: Sorcerer, metamagic and font of magic, done.

Back in 3.5 sorcerer didn't have a functional means of determining bloodline until 5th levelish, it was assumed that a bloodline could make itself known over time. Bloodline choices could be later than 1st level for similar reasons.

[animorte]

Furthermore, starting the subclass at 2 means that a level one "sorcerer"...doesn't have any sorcerer powers yet. So shouldn't have any power. But he's just as good as any other level 1 wizard. Wat?
You have other good points, but that aside, I still strongly decline this sentiment. First, Sorcerers aren't as good at level one (see: ritual). Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a Sorcerer having some basic magical inclination irrelevant to subclass. Through a little bit of experience (apparently one whole session's worth), they unlock their true potential.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wizard subclass: Sorcerer, metamagic and font of magic, done.

Back in 3.5 sorcerer didn't have a functional means of determining bloodline until 5th levelish, it was assumed that a bloodline could make itself known over time. Bloodline choices could be later than 1st level for similar reasons.

So now "I got my power from dragons" and "I'm the distant relative of a demigod" are identical. And most mostly just ribbons, because wizard subclasses only get one real feature each. They're anemic by design. Sorcerer bloodlines actually have potential to show different sides. There isn't enough power budget in wizard subclasses for even 1 really interesting one, let alone one with meta magic stapled on, as that's most of a class "big thing" all by itself.

@animorte that was in the world where sorcerer is just a wizard subclass. So at level 1, you're just a nerd who hits the books for magic power, like everyone else. Despite the ostensible source of your power not existing yet.

----------
There's a fundamental difference between innate and studied magic power. Should sorcerers and wizards be more different? Yes. I like the idea of making sorcerers mostly non casters with a bunch of "raw magic" abilities. Or collapsing the warlock and wizard, with the wizard being the "pactless" warlock, gaining bigger lists and flexibility.

Or make sorcerers the gish class, since they don't have to train magic as much, they can learn martial stuff. But then multiclassing raises its ugly head...

[Witty Username]

Except for the whole "I learned my spells by the sweat of my brow" thing that is all that wizards have. Sorcerers, who gained their power intrinsically and can't go out and learn new spells...don't have that. At all.


Effort to master does not exclude talent. The only reason the divide exists is the addition of the sorcerer in 3.5 as the talent caster in opposition to the effort caster with wizard.
A talented caster with a potent bloodline would still have to practice and learn about themselves and their abilities.
Take say Raslin Majere (Dragonlance, book, The Brothers Majere), who was well enough naturally attuned to the Moons of Kyrnn to belch fire as a child when the moons were in alignment, but it took years of learning to master his first spells.

[Witty Username]

Or make sorcerers the gish class, since they don't have to train magic as much, they can learn martial stuff.

That is a thing I have found really jarring about sorcerers, they have the class concept of being the least invested in magic, and have the least ability to branch out. Wizard, Cleric, Bard and Warlock all have better gish options (or rather existent gish options).

I personally assume it is because the subclass is bloodline, so it defines the source, and cant be used narratively to socket the other stuff.

[Psyren]

I really want a draconic sorcerer gish subclass, similar to the Dragon Disciple PrC. It doesn't even have to be the ordinary Draconic Bloodline for those who want that one to stay the way it is. But give me claws, scales, breath, wings, the works!

[Kane0]

Through a little bit of experience (apparently one whole session's worth), they unlock their true potential.

Oh man don't remind me. Tonight will be my fourth session at Artificer 1.


I really want a draconic sorcerer gish subclass, similar to the Dragon Disciple PrC. It doesn't even have to be the ordinary Draconic Bloodline for those who want that one to stay the way it is. But give me claws, scales, breath, wings, the works!

Sign me up.

[Rafaelfras]

Funny, that. I figure an Intelligent creature wouldn't make a deal with a much more powerful being and their ulterior motives.

Of course, the original Puss in Boots provides that if you're smart enough, power level doesn't really matter. Unless you take into account his massive Charisma for deception and persuasion. Hmm...

The lure of power can cloud judgments.
Specially if you believe that you can outsmart said powerful being

[KorvinStarmast]

If you make them Int based casters then they would probably dump Charisma just like many wizards do now which thematically would be an issue. Not really. All you need is proficiency in a couple of social skills, and expertise in one or two, and that +1 or +2 from Cha gets overwhelmed by PB x2. You can do that with persuasion, performance, deception or all three with a lore bard. And if a Min-Maxer dumgs Cha on a bard, that isn't the problem with the class. That's the problem of optimization au outrance as an approach. Heck, if you have a PHB 1/2 elf, the lowest your CHA can be is 10.
I did this with Athletics on a 12 STR bard using Skill Expert. She had Expertise in Athletics. At level 5, she was +7 to grapple, or get out of a grapple. At level 9, she was +9. With a 12 STR.

That said I'd have no problem with them being a half-caster so long as they got some other cool abilities out of it. It's one of my many home brew projects that never got off the ground.
Bard as Half Caster INT caster and a skill suite that leaned into social skills.

Some day.

[paladinn]

It is especially frustrating as sorcerer and wizard were almost interchangeable terminology in AD&D (sorcerer was added as a class kit of wizard at some point, but I am not sure when). High Sorcerery in Dragonlance being to denote a particular scholarship of wizards being the most prominent.

And of course, in 1e a "sorcerer" was just a 9th level magic-user (i.e. wizard).

Just stirring the pot:)

[KorvinStarmast]

Just pondering.. How about making wizards intrinsically MAD? They need high INT And CHA. INT governs the number of spells prepared. CHA determines the spell points/slots per day.
Interesting approach. Would need a play test.

And of course, in 1e a "sorcerer" was just a 9th level magic-user (i.e. wizard).

Just stirring the pot:)And to stir it further, you weren't a wizard until you were 11th level. :smallwink:

[Rukelnikov]

I could see the Sorcerer replacing the Wizard, if the Sorcerer became a Int based caster that has a spellbook, everything else could change.

[animorte]

The lure of power can cloud judgments.
Specially if you believe that you can outsmart said powerful being
Which is where will-power (aka Wisdom) is much more valuable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is where will-power (aka Wisdom) is much more valuable.

Unpopular opinion--

Wisdom is not will-power. Charisma is closer to being will-power. Or rather, the role is split between them.

Wisdom is perception of other. Especially in its saving-throw forms--it's about perceiving that the influence of the fear/spell/etc is not, as it seems, your own will. And thus rejecting it as imposed on you from the outside.

Charisma is surety of self. Self-confidence, self-will, force of personality, stubbornness/unyielding nature. In saving throw form, it's knowing your self and your sense of your place in the universe (preventing being displaced or changed against your will).

Of course the lines are muddy, but "wisdom" fits "perceptiveness" better than it does what is classically called "wisdom" (ie good judgement, will power, etc).

And this model also explains why paladins and sorcerers are CHA casters--they bring magic into being by effectively placing their wills in opposition to the universe. By out-stubborning the universe. It's all about wrestling (psychologically) with the magic, not about understanding the core details (intelligence) or channeling/aligning with the will of someone else (wisdom)

[Rafaelfras]

Which is where will-power (aka Wisdom) is much more valuable.

INDEED!
There is a very strong argument for int from the class text from the PHB

There is a very strong argument for wisdom if you look at the nature of his power, that comes from an otherworldly being who bestow power on you, but it's because a bargain, a pact, not worship and devotion like the gods. It's more personal but the similarities are there.

There is NOT a good argument for charisma that represents borne power, inherited power.
Either int or Wis would be ok for me

[OvisCaedo]

I don't think wisdom OR charisma are particularly good matches for willpower, honestly. (and no, int isn't either). It's very easy to imagine characters who are fearless, resolute, and also very dense about their surroundings and easily fooled. It's also very easy to imagine characters who are charming, skilled speakers, manipulative, and utterly spineless. Strength of will and bravery and such are character values that are very often divorced from being particularly good at *any* other mental task.

...But there's not really room for another stat, and perhaps not generally much call for it, so I guess we're just stuck with pretending other stats are totally about willpower except for when they aren't.

[Arkhios]

Honestly, one of the things 4e got right was that it paired two ability scores for each of the saves: Fortitude, Reflex(es), and Will(power)

Strength and Constitution = Fortitude
Dexterity and Intelligence = Reflexes
Wisdom and Charisma = Willpower

Because, let's be honest here, there's no one ability score that can perfectly represent any of those three (frankly fundamental) saving throw categories/concepts.

Especially Willpower; good arguments can be - and have been - made for both Wisdom and Charisma. And still people remain unconvinced about the other.

[Kane0]

I don't think wisdom OR charisma are particularly good matches for willpower, honestly. (and no, int isn't either). It's very easy to imagine characters who are fearless, resolute, and also very dense about their surroundings and easily fooled. It's also very easy to imagine characters who are charming, skilled speakers, manipulative, and utterly spineless. Strength of will and bravery and such are character values that are very often divorced from being particularly good at *any* other mental task.

...But there's not really room for another stat, and perhaps not generally much call for it, so I guess we're just stuck with pretending other stats are totally about willpower except for when they aren't.

You can make room, such as by combining Strength and Constitution into 'Might'. Leaves you room for a 'Discipline' or 'Chutzpah'.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, one of the things 4e got right was that it paired two ability scores for each of the saves: Fortitude, Reflex(es), and Will(power)

Strength and Constitution = Fortitude
Dexterity and Intelligence = Reflexes
Wisdom and Charisma = Willpower

Because, let's be honest here, there's no one ability score that can perfectly represent any of those three (frankly fundamental) saving throw categories/concepts.

Especially Willpower; good arguments can be - and have been - made for both Wisdom and Charisma. And still people remain unconvinced about the other.

But even that runs into issues, for example if Wisdom is Perception then it should be related to Reflex.

From a mechanics POV I prefer having 6 saves instead of 3. Though I do wish spells/abilities didn't default to Wisdom saving throws for most effects and instead had a more even split.

[Millstone85]

I see a Charisma save as a Charisma check toward yourself.

For example, when confronted with a scary situation...

Deception: "Nuh-uh, I got this, totally, yup!"
Intimidation: "An elf would go underground, where a dwarf dare not? Oh, I'd never hear the end of it!"
Performance: "Just imagine your audience naked."
Persuasion: "Go on, me, you can do it!"


And this model also explains why paladins and sorcerers are CHA casters--they bring magic into being by effectively placing their wills in opposition to the universe.The question then is what makes the former divine casters. Simply that their will is expressed as faith?


It's very easy to imagine characters who are fearless, resolute, and also very dense about their surroundings and easily fooled. It's also very easy to imagine characters who are charming, skilled speakers, manipulative, and utterly spineless.It is also easy to imagine characters who can make beautiful heartfelt speeches but not bone-chilling threats, or who are perceptive with animals but not with people. This is a general issue with having six values influence many more different things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The question then is what makes the former divine casters. Simply that their will is expressed as faith?


Several different possible explanations (note these are serial, not all intended at once)--

1. The arcane/divine is a relic of an ancient era, not something fundamental. Likely this doesn't work.
2. Oaths have power, as metaphysical things. A paladin, by the sheer fact of their sacrifice and will, draws power from that platonic ideal of an Oath.
3. Oaths don't have power directly, but people believe in Oaths (like they believe in gods). From that greater, diffuse (not concentrated in a particular deity), a paladin channels power by the force of their own will, their own stubbornness. Effectively they demand power at the gates of the Universe and are just that darn sure of their purpose that the universe has no choice but to grant them power.
4. Paladins draw power from the spark of divinity within each individual. Effectively, they're their own gods.

My preference is kinda 3, although 2 also works well for me. All of 2-4 also explain why they lose power when they grossly violate their Oath, even if they didn't swear to a deity (so no deity has the reins of their power). They've rejected within themselves the power. They don't fall because someone cuts them off (like a cleric could in principle be cut off)--they cut themselves off. So the only true, lasting fall is self-inflicted. And a paladin who has transgressed needs atonement mostly from themselves. Mostly to help themselves realize that they're walking the path of their Oath again and thus can be sure in its power.

I also like the concept of a paladin telling the universe "This blade is on fire because I need to smite the evil ones [branding smite]", the universe looking back and saying "uh, wat? That's a normal sword." "No, THIS SWORD IS ON FIRE". "Uhhh, ok, yeah, look man. I'll let it be on fire if you stop looking at me that way."

[Witty Username]

I don't think wisdom OR charisma are particularly good matches for willpower, honestly. (and no, int isn't either). It's very easy to imagine characters who are fearless, resolute, and also very dense about their surroundings and easily fooled. It's also very easy to imagine characters who are charming, skilled speakers, manipulative, and utterly spineless. Strength of will and bravery and such are character values that are very often divorced from being particularly good at *any* other mental task.

...But there's not really room for another stat, and perhaps not generally much call for it, so I guess we're just stuck with pretending other stats are totally about willpower except for when they aren't.

There is an argument to have that saves should be decoupled from ability scores. Prior to 3rd saves were an entirely separate system governed mostly by class.
It would make some stuff like barbarian to be more reasonable to use a system like that, with a complexity cost.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, one of the things 4e got right was that it paired two ability scores for each of the saves: Fortitude, Reflex(es), and Will(power)

Strength and Constitution = Fortitude
Dexterity and Intelligence = Reflexes
Wisdom and Charisma = Willpower
3.x did that as well. (And so does 13th Age).

There is an argument to have that saves should be decoupled from ability scores. Prior to 3rd saves were an entirely separate system governed mostly by class. It would make some stuff like barbarian to be more reasonable to use a system like that, with a complexity cost.
It worked fine, but you needed a table to reference. It took me a long while to get used to the 5e system where each ability had associated saves. I admit that I still don't like it, but I've learned to live with it.

[Arkhios]

3.x did that as well. (And so does 13th Age).


Not quite. in 3.x Fortitude, Reflex, and Will were modified by single ability score, each (con, dex, and wis, respectively).

What I meant is that in 4e they were modified by a pair of fundamentally similar abilities.

[Melil12]

4e gave you the choice of stats for your defenses.

3.5 each class assigned a number to a save and increased it ever couple of levels.

I don’t see any big shake ups happening with wizards. In one dnd … the biggest thing would be when they sit down and rebalance some of these spells.

Our group dumped the shield spell and let me tell you it has a positive effect on the game.
Counter spell should be a feature not a spell to remove/regulate the counter spell wars. Give it to sorcerers and wizards for kicks.
Overall spells should be reviewed and rethought out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In one dnd … the biggest thing would be when they sit down and rebalance some of these spells.

Our group dumped the shield spell and let me tell you it has a positive effect on the game.
Counter spell should be a feature not a spell to remove/regulate the counter spell wars. Give it to sorcerers and wizards for kicks.
Overall spells should be reviewed and rethought out.

If. Not when. I have no faith that they'll actually do the thorough scrubbing the (global) spell list needs. Because all the incentives are to spam more and more broken spells.

But I agree. Shield needs a rework or outright removal. And instead of giving counterspell to wizards, give it only to sorcerers. But then let it also affect non-spell background-magic abilities. Like being able to counterspell a dragon's breath weapon.

[Melil12]

If. Not when. I have no faith that they'll actually do the thorough scrubbing the (global) spell list needs. Because all the incentives are to spam more and more broken spells.

But I agree. Shield needs a rework or outright removal. And instead of giving counterspell to wizards, give it only to sorcerers. But then let it also affect non-spell background-magic abilities. Like being able to counterspell a dragon's breath weapon.

I was thinking it would be the Arcane Groups thing … spells and counter spells. Although I did think along the same lines as you. I think their plan when they discussed it did say they were going to rework spells. And mind you I don’t think every spell needs to be scrapped and redone.

Clerics came out and I was already disappointed they didn’t address their list. If the only real options clerics have is Spirit Guardians + dodge … then there is something wrong.

Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlocks have less of this issue. They have a more diverse spell list and lots of options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was thinking it would be the Arcane Groups thing … spells and counter spells. Although I did think along the same lines as you. I think their plan when they discussed it did say they were going to rework spells. And mind you I don’t think every spell needs to be scrapped and redone.

Clerics came out and I was already disappointed they didn’t address their list. If the only real options clerics have is Spirit Guardians + dodge … then there is something wrong.

Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlocks have less of this issue. They have a more diverse spell list and lots of options.

I think the whole "group" concept is messed up from the getgo, dramatically reducing differences between classes. Which I think is a bad thing, especially in the arcane-group case, where there's already not enough distinction.

The issue wizards have is that they have an enormous list. This list has
* large numbers of redundant spells (those spells whose functions are done better in every way by a different spell)
* large numbers of useless spells (cf true strike) or those that are so situational as to never be taken
* large numbers of utterly :wtf-owl: spells. These aren't necessarily broken from a balance perspective, but it's just not clear what they're supposed to do
* large numbers of spells that are significantly out of their power band.

Basically, they need to go through and start by sorting the list into a couple groups--
* Why the heck would anyone take this?
* Why the heck would anyone not take this?
* What the heck does this even do?
* The rest of them.

The first two categories should just go away and maybe be worked into other spells or features. The third should be rewritten if it's actually useful. The rest are ok. My my reckoning, this would reduce the wizard list by about a factor of 2. Without any substantial change, except to close off some of the most-abused spells that are significantly out-of-band with the rest of the system. Strong is ok. But "you'd be a moron not to pick this" is not ok.

[Atranen]

If. Not when. I have no faith that they'll actually do the thorough scrubbing the (global) spell list needs. Because all the incentives are to spam more and more broken spells.

But I agree. Shield needs a rework or outright removal. And instead of giving counterspell to wizards, give it only to sorcerers. But then let it also affect non-spell background-magic abilities. Like being able to counterspell a dragon's breath weapon.

Making counterspell unique to sorcerers would do a lot to give them an identity, and be very relevant at the table. It would also let them reign in counterspelling; maybe it costs the slot and some SP to do.

Unfortunately I like the fluff of wizards counterspelling better. Maybe I could get over it.

[Melil12]

Making counterspell unique to sorcerers would do a lot to give them an identity, and be very relevant at the table. It would also let them reign in counterspelling; maybe it costs the slot and some SP to do.

Unfortunately I like the fluff of wizards counterspelling better. Maybe I could get over it.

<3 sorcerers

I would take a sorcerer over a wizard personally. Sorcerers subclasses should each have a spell list associated with it. And signature spells that wizards shouldn’t get should go there.

Wizards should have a school and like EKs where X amount of spells learned each level should be from said school. Sure they can learn other spells but make them go out and find them.

[Aquillion]

Or dump wizards. Sorcerers have thematic content, at least.No, they really do not.

In fact, Sorcerers don't fit into the game at all. The foundation of D&D is the race/class (now background / class) divide - you have one set of choices defining what you are, inherently (your background, the circumstances of your birth, your upbringing, etc) and a second set of choices defining what you do (your training, deals you've struck, things you've done that you advance at.)

"I have a magical bloodline" is a race / background choice, not a class choice. It ought to be represented by feats and other background choices that modify your class, rather than by its own class - if you want to play a Tiefling who uses their magical heritage to power spellcasting, that's a Wizard concept (or a Warlock concept, depending.)

Even beyond that - even if you wanted to have a class whose theme was "I draw on the power of my bloodline as represented in my background" - giving them Wizard casting makes no sense for that. Sorcerers are one of the most thematically incoherent classes in the game because their mechanics are all spells that were designed to be performed as workings or rituals they learned from a book, not as invocations of their bloodline.

A hypothetical class who draws on your bloodline and which therefore changes depending on your background choices would be cool, but Sorcerers are a bizarre copy-paste job. They make Wizards look more "generic" only because their very existence tries to declare that the Wizard spell list (formerly the iconic thematic definition of wizards, and one of the most thematic parts of the game in early editions) is somehow generic enough that creating a fireball with bat guano is also something that can represent someone drawing power from their dragon heritage.

It obviously cannot! It doesn't fit them at all. If they're going to exist at all, Sorcerers shouldn't use wizard mechanics and shouldn't cast from the Wizard spell list.

(And it is still, fundamentally, the wizard spell list - the entire way its components are structured represents a learned, scholarly approach to magic and has no real connection to the idea that you're drawing on the powers of your bloodline.)

Like, if I were going to rate the classes based on how their thematics and mechanics align, or on how well they fit, thematically, into the game, I would probably put Sorcerers dead last. They're a thematic mess, crudely made by kludging together pieces from another class.

[Sorinth]

No, they really do not.

In fact, Sorcerers don't fit into the game at all. The foundation of D&D is the race/class (now background / class) divide - you have one set of choices defining what you are, inherently (your background, the circumstances of your birth, your upbringing, etc) and a second set of choices defining what you do (your training, deals you've struck, things you've done that you advance at.)

"I have a magical bloodline" is a race / background choice, not a class choice. It ought to be represented by feats and other background choices that modify your class, rather than by its own class - if you want to play a Tiefling who uses their magical heritage to power spellcasting, that's a Wizard concept (or a Warlock concept, depending.)

Even beyond that - even if you wanted to have a class whose theme was "I draw on the power of my bloodline as represented in my background" - giving them Wizard casting makes no sense for that. Sorcerers are one of the most thematically incoherent classes in the game because their mechanics are all spells that were designed to be performed as workings or rituals they learned from a book, not as invocations of their bloodline.

A hypothetical class who draws on your bloodline and which therefore changes depending on your background choices would be cool, but Sorcerers are a bizarre copy-paste job. They make Wizards look more "generic" only because their very existence tries to declare that the Wizard spell list (formerly the iconic thematic definition of wizards, and one of the most thematic parts of the game in early editions) is somehow generic enough that creating a fireball with bat guano is also something that can represent someone drawing power from their dragon heritage.

It obviously cannot! It doesn't fit them at all. If they're going to exist at all, Sorcerers shouldn't use wizard mechanics and shouldn't cast from the Wizard spell list.

(And it is still, fundamentally, the wizard spell list - the entire way its components are structured represents a learned, scholarly approach to magic and has no real connection to the idea that you're drawing on the powers of your bloodline.)

Like, if I were going to rate the classes based on how their thematics and mechanics align, or on how well they fit, thematically, into the game, I would probably put Sorcerers dead last. They're a thematic mess, crudely made by kludging together pieces from another class.

But who says that a level 1 Sorcerer isn't someone that hasn't already dedicated a bunch of time exploring and working on their magical gifts? Because I know if I was making a NPC teenager sorcerer whose magic has just started to show up I wouldn't be giving them much more then 1 or 2 cantrips. So you can probably assume many of the features/spellcasting is a result of them working to master their gifts and not that they were born with the ability to cast level 1 spells.

[Atranen]

<3 sorcerers

I would take a sorcerer over a wizard personally. Sorcerers subclasses should each have a spell list associated with it. And signature spells that wizards shouldn’t get should go there.

Wizards should have a school and like EKs where X amount of spells learned each level should be from said school. Sure they can learn other spells but make them go out and find them.

Yeah, my preferred solution is to give the sorcerers more unique spells, rather than metamagic. There's just certain types of magic that can't be accessed via study, and they have it.


Even beyond that - even if you wanted to have a class whose theme was "I draw on the power of my bloodline as represented in my background" - giving them Wizard casting makes no sense for that. Sorcerers are one of the most thematically incoherent classes in the game because their mechanics are all spells that were designed to be performed as workings or rituals they learned from a book, not as invocations of their bloodline.

A hypothetical class who draws on your bloodline and which therefore changes depending on your background choices would be cool, but Sorcerers are a bizarre copy-paste job. They make Wizards look more "generic" only because their very existence tries to declare that the Wizard spell list (formerly the iconic thematic definition of wizards, and one of the most thematic parts of the game in early editions) is somehow generic enough that creating a fireball with bat guano is also something that can represent someone drawing power from their dragon heritage.

It obviously cannot! It doesn't fit them at all. If they're going to exist at all, Sorcerers shouldn't use wizard mechanics and shouldn't cast from the Wizard spell list.

Mostly agree with this post; I think sorcerers are fine thematically for a class, but I agree they would be much stronger thematically with a different and unique spell list. My vision for the sorcerer would be 'x number of generic spells' where x is very small (things like magic missile, shield, etc.). Then 'y number of spells unique to the bloodline', with y>x, something like the cleric domain but with 4+ spells per spell level. These could be always prepared or chosen. Then the draconic sorcerer (and different draconic types) would feel different, as they should, from the storm sorcerer or the wild magic sorcerer or the divine soul sorcerer.

There was a discussion (in this thread? elsewhere?) about transmute spell being thematic for sorcerers; this is an opportunity to bake that in. E.g. a black dragon sorcerer gets 'burning hands, scorching ray, and fireball', but the damage type is acid.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Harsh perhaps, but accurate.

Change the sorcerer's thematics to be more what they do rather than what they are, and change the mechanics so it isn't just an attempt at mimicking the wizard.

Like say for example a half-casting (or more) gishy bloodmage using spell points as well as metamagic and other features and magic effects that aren't strictly spells (or only Arcane/Wizard spells).
Just spitballing.

[paladinn]

Harsh perhaps, but accurate.

Change the sorcerer's thematics to be more what they do rather than what they are, and change the mechanics so it isn't just an attempt at mimicking the wizard.

Like say for example a half-casting (or more) gishy bloodmage using spell points as well as metamagic and other features and magic effects that aren't strictly spells (or only Arcane/Wizard spells).
Just spitballing.

Or leave as a full-caster and allow selection of any spell from any list, as long as it can be justified by the sorcerer's "origin."

[Kane0]

Or leave as a full-caster and allow selection of any spell from any list, as long as it can be justified by the sorcerer's "origin."

That would only partially address the problem, the Sorcerer might well end up poorly apeing the Cleric or Druid instead. Just picking or copying spells only won't be enough for the Sorcerer to stand on its own merits, metamagic in its current form isn't quite handling the job on its own.

Edit: Also the balancing and analysis-paralysis would be a minor nightmare, being able to pick almost any spell is a can of worms I wouldn't trust the devs to get right (no slight against them, it's just that difficult under the D&D setup)

[Gignere]

That would only partially address the problem, the Sorcerer might well end up poorly apeing the Cleric or Druid instead. Just picking or copying spells only won't be enough for the Sorcerer to stand on its own merits, metamagic in its current form isn't quite handling the job on its own.

Edit: Also the balancing and analysis-paralysis would be a minor nightmare, being able to pick almost any spell is a can of worms I wouldn't trust the devs to get right (no slight against them, it's just that difficult under the D&D setup)

Yeah preference would be even less spells known and comes from a restricted list mostly prescribed by bloodline. Maybe every x level they can freely pick from wizard spell list.

However, in exchange they should have more metamagic and cheaper spell points cost to metamagic. Sorcerers shouldn’t require a material component to their spells at all. If it is a spell with costly components maybe sorcerers can natively ignore PB x 100 gps of component costs. Anything that requires more than that sorcerers just doesn’t get.

However they should have lots of metamagics, that can change the look and feel, like changing area, dimensions, duration, damage type. Maybe even can change instant spells into a damage over time effect. Upcasting should be more spectacular for sorcerers, maybe they get additional riders depending on bloodline when they upcast their limited spells known. Just spitballing here but this would feel very different from the wizard.

[Atranen]

Yeah preference would be even less spells known and comes from a restricted list mostly prescribed by bloodline. Maybe every x level they can freely pick from wizard spell list.

However, in exchange they should have more metamagic and cheaper spell points cost to metamagic. Sorcerers shouldn’t require a material component to their spells at all. If it is a spell with costly components maybe sorcerers can natively ignore PB x 100 gps of component costs. Anything that requires more than that sorcerers just doesn’t get.

However they should have lots of metamagics, that can change the look and feel, like changing area, dimensions, duration, damage type. Maybe even can change instant spells into a damage over time effect. Upcasting should be more spectacular for sorcerers, maybe they get additional riders depending on bloodline when they upcast their limited spells known. Just spitballing here but this would feel very different from the wizard.

I like all of these ideas. The 'magical secrets' idea feels a bit like stepping on Lore Bard, but I think it's appropriate for the sorcerer.

The main challenge seems to be doing this all in a way that doesn't seem overcomplicated, at a time when they are explicitly trying to simplify things, especially spellcasting. I think they just need to stare in the face that that's a bad decision for thematic classes, and change course.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Trying to distinguish classes whose primary feature is spellcasting alone is going to step on other classes toes. And having any class with that as their sole major feature means that they'll step on lots of other toes (occupying way too much space). The solution is to make all classes have spellcasting only as one segment of their identity and most of the thematics come from actual class features. But doing that requires completely reworking spellcasting and pulling large chunks of concepts completely out of it...so yeah. I expect it will still stay a janky mess (thematically and mechanically) for the foreseeable future.

[Witty Username]

If. Not when. I have no faith that they'll actually do the thorough scrubbing the (global) spell list needs. Because all the incentives are to spam more and more broken spells.

But I agree. Shield needs a rework or outright removal. And instead of giving counterspell to wizards, give it only to sorcerers. But then let it also affect non-spell background-magic abilities. Like being able to counterspell a dragon's breath weapon.

I would go the opposite, mostly as unraveling a spell emphasizes understand how to do so. So, wizard exclusive.

I would give the sorcerer a spell version of the 3.5 counterspell, deal damage to a target as a reaction, with a concentration check, failure means they lose the effect as they cast.

Wizard comprehends and disrupts. Sorcerer explodes in a direction and chaos ensues.

Its for similar reasons I would flip some of the class mechanics, with wizard getting metamagic (twisting spell effects to fit more specific purposes) and sorcerer getting set bonuses with spells and effects in a specific category (themed around bloodline, rather than school as it is for wizard).
Then again, I prefered metamagic as feat selection from 3.5, since the concept of spell mastery is, or rather should be, applicable to all spellcasting classes. But if it is used as a class divide, wizard is the only class with mastery as a lore theme.

Edit: And first things first, cut the need for material components from the sorcerer, it activily dectracts from their theme. The idea that a dragon needs bat guano to breathe fire is only slightly more dumb than a sorcerer needing it for a fire spell.

[Arkhios]

Harsh perhaps, but accurate.

Change the sorcerer's thematics to be more what they do rather than what they are, and change the mechanics so it isn't just an attempt at mimicking the wizard.

Like say for example a half-casting (or more) gishy bloodmage using spell points as well as metamagic and other features and magic effects that aren't strictly spells (or only Arcane/Wizard spells).
Just spitballing.


Or leave as a full-caster and allow selection of any spell from any list, as long as it can be justified by the sorcerer's "origin."

To be fair, with the introduction of class neutral spell lists (arcane, divine, primal), I have a feeling this may very well be the direction they're aiming for, considering they have already dabbled into this direction with subclasses which grant spells outside the "norm" (primarily with the celestial, but in a sense, I'd say both aberrant mind and clockwork soul apply as well, due to absence of actual "psionic" and "clockwork" spell lists in a similar manner to OneD&D method.)

So, what I'm saying, I wouldn't be surprised if the future iteration of Sorcerer at least explores the idea to combine different origins with different spell lists.

Also, this is slightly wishful thinking from my part, and I've said it before somewhere; I wouldn't be surprised at all if Paladins would get a similar treatment (e.g. Devotion being clearly Divine, Ancients Primal, and Vengeance Arcane).

[Witty Username]

Change the sorcerer's thematics to be more what they do rather than what they are, and change the mechanics so it isn't just an attempt at mimicking the wizard.

This would get gish type options in more easily, but this runs into the frustration for me is that do, is the dividing line between wizard subclasses.
I feel like a move in this direction would end up with more of the same overshadowed or encrouching problems and similar lack of identity issues. But it would be very dependent on what features were gotten by sorcerer.

Edit: On the note of some of this, gishes, open list selection, more goal rather than nature defining destinctions, unique features representing magical effects that aren't spells. Are we describing Bard?
Not saying bard is the solution, so much as it seems to be something to draw ideas from.

[Rafaelfras]

I would go the opposite, mostly as unraveling a spell emphasizes understand how to do so. So, wizard exclusive.

I would give the sorcerer a spell version of the 3.5 counterspell, deal damage to a target as a reaction, with a concentration check, failure means they lose the effect as they cast.

Wizard comprehends and disrupts. Sorcerer explodes in a direction and chaos ensues.

Its for similar reasons I would flip some of the class mechanics, with wizard getting metamagic (twisting spell effects to fit more specific purposes) and sorcerer getting set bonuses with spells and effects in a specific category (themed around bloodline, rather than school as it is for wizard).
Then again, I prefered metamagic as feat selection from 3.5, since the concept of spell mastery is, or rather should be, applicable to all spellcasting classes. But if it is used as a class divide, wizard is the only class with mastery as a lore theme.

Edit: And first things first, cut the need for material components from the sorcerer, it activily dectracts from their theme. The idea that a dragon needs bat guano to breathe fire is only slightly more dumb than a sorcerer needing it for a fire spell.

I am on the same page here.
Metamagic should be back as feats because gave casters a very good tool for caster customization. It gave casters some feats to look after and 5th has in my opinion to few of them.
And I also agree that as it was in 3rd e wizards should get more of it and if it is a class feature it should go to them.
Pathfinder did this and the generalist wizard get the ability to up his own caster level x times a day and get a stronger spell when needed and the ability to apply a metamagic on the fly starting with reach and extend then getting empower max and quick as he level up. I found that a very good upgrade from the 3rd edition wizard and led to a very enjoyable class experience.
I also think that exclusive spells would fix most sorcerers problems. I don't see any problem with shared spells between the 2. The concept of a borne spellcaster learning to do something similar by watching a wizard do it or from a spell scroll or book "I think I can do that..." Is not detrimental to the class and helps neither the wizard or the sorcerer felling necessary to any given party.
But the sorcerer MUST have his own spells. Any thematic problem can be solved by it. Any ability that is felling lacking can be granted by a spell. I'm also a firm believer that all subclasses must gain spells know (even exclusive ones if it is the case) once the class itself give you what it need to function properly you are free to choose any spell you feel like it without any risk of "wrong pick".
I also agree with your other point of needing spell components. Arcane focus can stay I guess you need that wand to cast your spells. I don't like that trope, (my wizard didn't even had a staff until I found a staff of defense by lvl 12) so if sorcerers players would be happier without both components and foci, let then have it.

[paladinn]

Since we're still pondering..

Troll Lord Games, who developed Castles & Crusades, also developed a pulp/"modern" version called Amazing Adventures. In the original "Siege" version, there is one real casting class called the Arcanist. The spell list you use is based on your casting stat (Int/Wis/Cha), not class. There is a lot of overlap of course, but a lot of potential too.

That could make a good basis for a Sorcerer, methinks.

[KorvinStarmast]

But I agree. Shield needs a rework or outright removal.
OK, make it +3 not +5.

And instead of giving counterspell to wizards, give it only to sorcerers. Not a good idea.
The 'war of the wizards' theme of spell and counterspell need not be sacrificed to your (reasonably well founded) disappointment in the design of the wizard class. And no, I don't want counterspell to work versus dragon breath. :smallconfused:

No, they really do not.

In fact, Sorcerers don't fit into the game at all. The foundation of D&D is the race/class (now background / class) divide - you have one set of choices defining what you are, inherently (your background, the circumstances of your birth, your upbringing, etc) and a second set of choices defining what you do (your training, deals you've struck, things you've done that you advance at.)

"I have a magical bloodline" is a race / background choice, not a class choice.
{snip}
Like, if I were going to rate the classes based on how their thematics and mechanics align, or on how well they fit, thematically, into the game, I would probably put Sorcerers dead last. They're a thematic mess, crudely made by kludging together pieces from another class. I agree. The 3e design team may send you mean tweets, so be careful. :smallbiggrin: And I'd be happy to see the sorcerer gone, or redesigned from the ground up.

Change the sorcerer's thematics to be more what they do rather than what they are, and change the mechanics so it isn't just an attempt at mimicking the wizard. Yes.
Which opens the next can of worms, Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian. Do we really need three classes to cover that?
*ducks*

[paladinn]

Which opens the next can of worms, Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian. Do we really need three classes to cover that?
*ducks*

Fighter yes, of course. Ranger should be a fighter archetype. I've seen several such writeups (including my own). Ranger works better on a fighter chassis.

Barbarian is a background/culture thing. "Berserker" should be the name for the warriors. And yes, they should be a fighter sub as well. IMHO.

[Kane0]

I think theres still plenty of conceptual and design space available for them all to exist as separate classes (like the sorcerer), it just hasnt been done yet. People used to say the same thing about the Paladin and to a lesser extent the Bard and Warlock but when the 5e versions came out those opinions largely changed as they really came into their own.

Edit: Though personally i’d change the fighters name, like what happened from thief to rogue (though scoundrel or Knave are both good names too IMO). Maybe Knight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think theres still plenty of conceptual and design space available for them all to exist as separate classes (like the sorcerer), it just hasnt been done yet. People used to say the same thing about the Paladin and to a lesser extent the Bard and Warlock but when the 5e versions came out those opinions largely changed as they really came into their own.

I agree. There are some tweaks that could be done, but collapsing them just makes mushy classes.

My preference is for more, narrower classes. Each class should have very high thematic coherence with its subclasses and features, with clear progression. And making per-setting/per-game classes and subclasses should be easier and more accepted.

[Rafaelfras]

So, by now we got rid of sorcerers, warlocks (bards?), barbarians and rangers.
What's next? Paladins anyone?
Kidding but it really boils down to how distinct they are. Because yeah if you go far enough you will end up with fighter rogue cleric and wizard. Any half caster goes to fighter or rogue (damage or skills as focus ) and any full caster goes to cleric or wizard (divine or arcane).

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, by now we got rid of sorcerers, warlocks (bards?), barbarians and rangers.
What's next? Paladins anyone?
Kidding but it really boils down to how distinct they are. Because yeah if you go far enough you will end up with fighter rogue cleric and wizard. Any half caster goes to fighter or rogue (damage or skills as focus ) and any full caster goes to cleric or wizard (divine or arcane).

All of which drastically decreases the distinctions you can have between those classes. Because now you can't have intra-subclass distinctions (no fiend warlock vs goo warlock, etc) and you only have 4-5 features to do the entire class, with generally low power budgets (no, the fighter power budget wouldn't stretch to a half-caster, and wizards have basically no power budget left even for their existing, anemic subclasses).

[Rafaelfras]

All of which drastically decreases the distinctions you can have between those classes. Because now you can't have intra-subclass distinctions (no fiend warlock vs goo warlock, etc) and you only have 4-5 features to do the entire class, with generally low power budgets (no, the fighter power budget wouldn't stretch to a half-caster, and wizards have basically no power budget left even for their existing, anemic subclasses).

These limitations are self imposed.
If the game hypothetically goes to a radical direction like that to the point that we end with 4 core classes (and I am not advocating for that. I like most of what we have and think the right push is to make then more distinct) those 4 classes would have something at every level, their subclass something at every other level, you could even get a second subclass down the road or after level 20.
We aren't limited to 4 subclass features in a scenario like that nor should we limit ourself a to it

[PhoenixPhyre]

These limitations are self imposed.
If the game hypothetically goes to a radical direction like that to the point that we end with 4 core classes (and I am not advocating for that. I like most of what we have and think the right push is to make then more distinct) those 4 classes would have something at every level, their subclass something at every other level, you could even get a second subclass down the road or after level 20.
We aren't limited to 4 subclass features in a scenario like that nor should we limit ourself a to it

At that point...why not have different classes? If the "subclass" is providing the majority of the thematic structure and actual abilities, that's not sub any more. Effectively you'd end up with extremely anemic base classes. Which is pointless. Or you end up with tiny tiny features.

I think that it's best if individual base classes have 1-2 Big Things that are unique to them and define their theme and mechanical structure, with "mandatory" upgrades giving you the raw numbers the system expects. And then a few subclasses that build off and modulate that/those Big Thing(s). Which militates for a lot more, "conceptually smaller" base classes with 2-3 subclasses instead of a few, really broad but anemic base classes with a bunch of radically different, mutually-incoherent subclasses-that-are-really-classes.

[Hurrashane]

From this discussion and the various ones about species I really feel that some folk would just be happier playing 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e.

Make classes more mad, specilized schools, get rid of subclasses in favor of more classes, bring back ASIs in species, etc. 3.x has all that and more!

[Rafaelfras]

At that point...why not have different classes? If the "subclass" is providing the majority of the thematic structure and actual abilities, that's not sub any more. Effectively you'd end up with extremely anemic base classes. Which is pointless. Or you end up with tiny tiny features.

I think that it's best if individual base classes have 1-2 Big Things that are unique to them and define their theme and mechanical structure, with "mandatory" upgrades giving you the raw numbers the system expects. And then a few subclasses that build off and modulate that/those Big Thing(s). Which militates for a lot more, "conceptually smaller" base classes with 2-3 subclasses instead of a few, really broad but anemic base classes with a bunch of radically different, mutually-incoherent subclasses-that-are-really-classes.

It's a fair point. Another problem you can get is if you have a robust class AND subclass. And end up with a bloated thing that has too much on its plate.
But think like this. You chose wizard as your class.
You get the base class at lvl 1 with everything it currently has (ritual caster arcane recovery and spellbook) . At level 2 you chose your subclass say warlock, you get to chose a patron at that level that comes with a spell list always prepared spells that you can cast 1/short rest for free (using spell slots after) appropriate to the pact you made. At level 3 you get to chose school specialization ( for this exercise let's keep up to 3 evoker abjurer or illusionist) getting sculpt spells malleable illusion or arcane ward.
Level 4 ASI
Level 5 pact boon : chain, blade or book)
level 6 metamagic you can now use extend spell or reach spell once / sr at level 9 you get empower spell at 14 maximize at 17 quicken (calibrate how many uses per sr and how many points each one use)
Level 7 get a invocation
Level 8 ASI
Level 10 school specialist feature
Level 11 warlock feature
Level 12 ASI
Level 13 another invocation
Level 15 limited wish exactly like the spell on 3rd edition once a day
Level 16 final warlock feature.
Level 18 final school specialist
Level 19 one with magic: your mastery is almost unparalleled you can apply any and all metamagics without cost for the next minute.
Level 20 wish: do whatever

So this is what I have in mind when I think of it. Clearly you can balance all as you see fit but as you can see the power is well divided.
Every wizard will get metamagic and wish and you can use the subclass list to guide the theme (even opening to themes within the subclass)
Again in my opinion you can still have the warlock be its own thing and leave the wizard as this and get a subclass in place of the pacts boon invocations and warlock feature.
But we I hope that you get the general idea of what I am talking about

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a fair point. Another problem you can get is if you have a robust class AND subclass. And end up with a bloated thing that has too much on its plate.
But think like this. You chose wizard as your class.
You get the base class at lvl 1 with everything it currently has (ritual caster arcane recovery and spellbook) . At level 2 you chose your subclass say warlock, you get to chose a patron at that level that comes with a spell list always prepared spells that you can cast 1/short rest for free (using spell slots after) appropriate to the pact you made. At level 3 you get to chose school specialization ( for this exercise let's keep up to 3 evoker abjurer or illusionist) getting sculpt spells malleable illusion or arcane ward.
Level 4 ASI
Level 5 pact boon : chain, blade or book)
level 6 metamagic you can now use extend spell or reach spell once / sr at level 9 you get empower spell at 14 maximize at 17 quicken (calibrate how many uses per sr and how many points each one use)
Level 7 get a invocation
Level 8 ASI
Level 10 school specialist feature
Level 11 warlock feature
Level 12 ASI
Level 13 another invocation
Level 15 limited wish exactly like the spell on 3rd edition once a day
Level 16 final warlock feature.
Level 18 final school specialist
Level 19 one with magic: your mastery is almost unparalleled you can apply any and all metamagics without cost for the next minute.
Level 20 wish: do whatever

So this is what I have in mind when I think of it. Clearly you can balance all as you see fit but as you can see the power is well divided.
Every wizard will get metamagic and wish and you can use the subclass list to guide the theme (even opening to themes within the subclass)
Again in my opinion you can still have the warlock be its own thing and leave the wizard as this and get a subclass in place of the pacts boon invocations and warlock feature.
But we I hope that you get the general idea of what I am talking about

And now you've got three classes worth of power budget in a single class, none of which were very low-power already. In fact, the wizard already sits well above the power budget of everyone else, and now you're heaping epic amounts of raw power on top of them. Power that's synergistic with itself in nasty ways.

Effectively, classes already use up their power budgets as it is. So you either need to discard substantial (ie not ribbon) features as you merge them, which discards large chunks of the differentiation, or you need to bloat everyone's power budget and rewrite the entire game.

[Rafaelfras]

And now you've got three classes worth of power budget in a single class, none of which were very low-power already. In fact, the wizard already sits well above the power budget of everyone else, and now you're heaping epic amounts of raw power on top of them. Power that's synergistic with itself in nasty ways.

Effectively, classes already use up their power budgets as it is. So you either need to discard substantial (ie not ribbon) features as you merge them, which discards large chunks of the differentiation, or you need to bloat everyone's power budget and rewrite the entire game.

Thank you I tried my best haha

Yeah as we are pondering 5.5 and beyond we can really go to some far limits of class design
Yes if you are merging classes and ending with just 4 yes, the other 3 would have to be buffed up and be on par with the wizard .
Personally I think it's too much.
Let the warlock, the bard and the sorcerer be their own thing. Give each a good chunk of exclusive spells.
For the wizard of we are going away with the sub classes specialist I would keep the school specialization feature at level 3 similar to what they tried with cleric orders with additional features at idk 6 and 10 for example. And subclass as others have suggested like scribe, war, bladesinger and chronourgy at 2, 5 , 7, 9 with wizard stuff like spell mastery to fill what it's left.
And if they follow through the ideia that at 18 you got everything, and at 20 you get an epic boon then these epic boons must be worth of their name.
The class now has lots of things to look for besides it's subclass and everything can be balanced within itself and other classes and in my opinion would be a good upgrade from 5.0.
With other classes following that model we would have for example warlocks getting their pact at level 2 pact boon at level 3 and following this same structure.
Clerics get their domain at level 2 their order at level 3 (can't be armor skill or a Sr channel divinity though, that sucks)
Fighters get subclass at 2 weapon specialization at 3.
And so on. You can apply that structure to all classes making everything more distinct while following a general structure to everyone

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thank you I tried my best haha

Yeah as we are pondering 5.5 and beyond we can really go to some far limits of class design
Yes if you are merging classes and ending with just 4 yes, the other 3 would have to be buffed up and be on par with the wizard .
Personally I think it's too much.
Let the warlock, the bard and the sorcerer be their own thing. Give each a good chunk of exclusive spells.
For the wizard of we are going away with the sub classes specialist I would keep the school specialization feature at level 3 similar to what they tried with cleric orders with additional features at idk 6 and 10 for example. And subclass as others have suggested like scribe, war, bladesinger and chronourgy at 2, 5 , 7, 9 with wizard stuff like spell mastery to fill what it's left.
And if they follow through the ideia that at 18 you got everything, and at 20 you get an epic boon then these epic boons must be worth of their name.
The class now has lots of things to look for besides it's subclass and everything can be balanced within itself and other classes and in my opinion would be a good upgrade from 5.0.
With other classes following that model we would have for example warlocks getting their pact at level 2 pact boon at level 3 and following this same structure.
Clerics get their domain at level 2 their order at level 3 (can't be armor skill or a Sr channel divinity though, that sucks)
Fighters get subclass at 2 weapon specialization at 3.
And so on. You can apply that structure to all classes making everything more distinct while following a general structure to everyone

If I were completely rebuilding things and trying to go for only a few core classes, I'd go like this.

Your base class starts out fairly mundane, giving you "one or two big things", without many big flashy powers.
At level 5-ish, you choose an archetype (from a short list). This gives you an additional big thing and building off of the big thing you got at base level. These start to get significant magic powers.
At level 11-ish, your archetype specializes further (possibly with a choice). This is literally just an upgrade--specialization but bigger. Generally going more fantastic as you go--knight into champion, gaining holy powers.
At level 17-ish, you get a capstone.
At level 20, you get an epic boon/epic advancement (free choice, not class-bound).

So you might go "warrior -> knight -> champion" for what is now a "paladin". Or "warrior -> archer -> arcane archer". Or an "adventurer[1] -> rogue -> ninja". Or "priest -> cleric -> hierophant".

But that requires a total rebuild. And might suit a game where max level is 10 better (so each "tier" is only 3 levels or so).

[1] jack of all trades.

[Witty Username]

From this discussion and the various ones about species I really feel that some folk would just be happier playing 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e.

Make classes more mad, specilized schools, get rid of subclasses in favor of more classes, bring back ASIs in species, etc. 3.x has all that and more!

The, and more, is the problem. 3.5 was fun, but also alot. Most of us are here in 5e land because we switched from Pathfinder or 3.5 (or both) and are mostly happy with the results, (ability checks, skills, proficiency bonus, martials getting class features, all good stuff).
Some stuff to better balance the ability scores, keep casters in power level sane (which 3.5 doesn't help with at all), and improving the class distinctions are all are pretty reasonable in the 5e framework.


I think theres still plenty of conceptual and design space available for them all to exist as separate classes (like the sorcerer), it just hasnt been done yet. People used to say the same thing about the Paladin and to a lesser extent the Bard and Warlock but when the 5e versions came out those opinions largely changed as they really came into their own.


This,
There is definitely room for the sorcerer to exist in the game, frustration with the current implementation notwithstanding.

[Kane0]

From this discussion and the various ones about species I really feel that some folk would just be happier playing 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e.

Make classes more mad, specilized schools, get rid of subclasses in favor of more classes, bring back ASIs in species, etc. 3.x has all that and more!

Well I really like subclasses, but also prefer the 5e framework over that of 3.5/PF. There is a lot I do want to see come back from 3.5 (like Fort-Reflex-Will for example) but there's also plenty i'm happy to leave on the cutting room floor. And of course that will vary from person to person much like soylent cola

[Rukelnikov]

The, and more, is the problem. 3.5 was fun, but also alot. Most of us are here in 5e land because we switched from Pathfinder or 3.5 (or both) and are mostly happy with the results, (ability checks, skills, proficiency bonus, martials getting class features, all good stuff).
Some stuff to better balance the ability scores, keep casters in power level sane (which 3.5 doesn't help with at all), and improving the class distinctions are all are pretty reasonable in the 5e framework.


Well I really like subclasses, but also prefer the 5e framework over that of 3.5/PF. There is a lot I do want to see come back from 3.5 (like Fort-Reflex-Will for example) but there's also plenty i'm happy to leave on the cutting room floor. And of course that will vary from person to person much like soylent cola

I feel the same way (if I'm understanding this correctly)

3.x's issue in the long run was that it had too many things, 5e feels like a simplified streamlined 3.x, however that doesn't mean there are some thiings that wouldn't be better to bring back. For instance I think making more things provoke would be a good way of improving the capabilities of melee combatants. Tripping is pretty easy in 5e, so maybe standing should remain without provoking, but having casting spells provoke would probably be nice.

[Arkhios]

Yeah, I see no point in cutting existing classes at this point of development, especially because OneD&D is supposed to be backwards compatible with 5th edition, after all.

If you don't like it, fine. But seriously, is it absolutely necessary to suggest such changes to this particular game when it's (IMHO) crystal clear these won't happen.

[Bane's Wolf]

For the wizard of we are going away with the sub classes specialist I would keep the school specialization feature at level 3 similar to what they tried with cleric orders with additional features at idk 6 and 10 for example. And subclass as others have suggested like scribe, war, bladesinger and chronourgy at 2, 5 , 7, 9 with wizard stuff like spell mastery to fill what it's left.

I really like the idea of every wizard choosing a specialist school, but i don't think it should be their subclass.
In my (limited) experience, wizards tend to identify themselves as Warmage, Fire-Mage, Sword-Mage (Bladesinger), Scholarly Mage, etc. , rather than their specialist school (except for Necromancers, :smallamused:)

My big wishlist item would be to see each base wizard choose a specialist school at level 2, giving them a minor bonus to spells of that school.
Then at level 3 they choose their subclass arcetype - Battle Mage, Bladesinger, Scribe, Whatever...

Maybe at later levels the base wizard can access better Specialist school abilities, similar to their current School Subclasses, or perhaps choose a second school to specialize in.


I love the idea of an Illusionist Warmage, or an Abjuration Bladesinger. More room to make creative choices and strange synergies :smalltongue:
I would love to see two Bladesingers in my game who play differently because of their specializations.

I realize this is a long shot, but the heart wants what it wants :smallredface:

[Kane0]

For instance I think making more things provoke would be a good way of improving the capabilities of melee combatants. Tripping is pretty easy in 5e, so maybe standing should remain without provoking, but having casting spells provoke would probably be nice.

There are a few things making that difficult (namely melee spells like Shocking Grasp and X-ing Smite), and I wouldnt want to punish drinking a potion, but maybe dancing around a creatures reach without something like mobile should still provoke.

[Rafaelfras]

I really like the idea of every wizard choosing a specialist school, but i don't think it should be their subclass.
In my (limited) experience, wizards tend to identify themselves as Warmage, Fire-Mage, Sword-Mage (Bladesinger), Scholarly Mage, etc. , rather than their specialist school (except for Necromancers, :smallamused:)

My big wishlist item would be to see each base wizard choose a specialist school at level 2, giving them a minor bonus to spells of that school.
Then at level 3 they choose their subclass arcetype - Battle Mage, Bladesinger, Scribe, Whatever...

Maybe at later levels the base wizard can access better Specialist school abilities, similar to their current School Subclasses, or perhaps choose a second school to specialize in.


I love the idea of an Illusionist Warmage, or an Abjuration Bladesinger. More room to make creative choices and strange synergies :smalltongue:
I would love to see two Bladesingers in my game who play differently because of their specializations.

I realize this is a long shot, but the heart wants what it wants :smallredface:

Yeah I think its cool. When 5.0 came out and wizard had his 8 subclasses, one for each school I thought it was perfect, but then I realized omg but to where they are going to expand? There are the 8 schools of magic that encompass everything, where do you go from there? Bladesing was a tradition and something different enough but most of the other subclasses are mixes of the schools.
I play an evoker for the last 8 years and I am quite happy with the subclass, I would like to have access to sculpt spells empowered evocation and overchanel on any wizard I play because I really like to throw fireballs and do damage (besides everything a wizard brings to the table). So decoupling specialization from subclass is the way to go in my vision because you can call traditions whatever you like without feeling weird. And as much as I like 5.0 I think that the class would be more exciting having more stuff along the way.
Will it become more powerful ? Sure but I dont think this is a bad thing, we could definitely put a little more power to everyone overall and would definitely fell like an upgrade, it would help the base class give more things and open up cool combinations and its something that can be used to every class, be it pact boon weapon specialization, clerical order. You can use all of then to calibrate power to a class that you think is lacking giving stronger features.
But I think this is a lot of work and WOTC is lazy so in the end it will be just food for thought

[Atranen]

I really like the idea of every wizard choosing a specialist school, but i don't think it should be their subclass.
In my (limited) experience, wizards tend to identify themselves as Warmage, Fire-Mage, Sword-Mage (Bladesinger), Scholarly Mage, etc. , rather than their specialist school (except for Necromancers, :smallamused:)

My big wishlist item would be to see each base wizard choose a specialist school at level 2, giving them a minor bonus to spells of that school.
Then at level 3 they choose their subclass arcetype - Battle Mage, Bladesinger, Scribe, Whatever...

Maybe at later levels the base wizard can access better Specialist school abilities, similar to their current School Subclasses, or perhaps choose a second school to specialize in.


I love the idea of an Illusionist Warmage, or an Abjuration Bladesinger. More room to make creative choices and strange synergies :smalltongue:
I would love to see two Bladesingers in my game who play differently because of their specializations.

I realize this is a long shot, but the heart wants what it wants :smallredface:

This seems like the way to go, and meshes well with their cleric design of having holy order at 2 and subclass at 3. I didn't like it for the Cleric, but it's a good choice for wizard.

[paladinn]

There is a lot I do want to see come back from 3.5 (like Fort-Reflex-Will for example)

May I ask why?

[KorvinStarmast]

Though personally i’d change the fighters name, like what happened from thief to rogue (though scoundrel or Knave are both good names too IMO). Maybe Knight. Second Edition AD&D used Warrior. It worked.

[Kane0]

May I ask why?

I liked parts of 4th handled NADs (Not AC Defenses). The attacker always rolls, and those defenses were each covered by two stats instead of one. In 5e Int and Cha saves are quite rare, but in 3rd and 4th there was a fairly good balance in the frequency of the three saves.
Mix that with the proficiency/boubded accuracy concepts and i think it could be quite elegant

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The team would need to completely redo the schools and spells in them to balance that out, or you end up with combos that nobody plays due to them being trap options.




Enchantment / Illusion can be one school, a lot of fantasy mix them already.

Divination and Abjuration can fit together, they are both very utility based.

1/2 of conjuration is about blowing stuff up with elemental magic, Evocation has the same end effect.

Evocation has had healing spells, conjuration has had healing spells, and necromancy has had healing spells... Slap conjuration and necromancy under evocation.

You can slap a few Abjuration spells under Transmutation easily enough.


===

Have the 4 schools be Abjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, and Transmutation.

You get to pick two schools to cast from.

[OvisCaedo]

Evocation is already one of the generally best and most varied schools, so adding most of Conjuration and Necromancy to it is... probably not the way to go for trying to balance schools against each other.

Divination and Abjuration are both often utility based but thematically and effect-wise, I don't think they fit together very well.

[Witty Username]

The gronard brain is going from neutral to 1st gear, but I don't like conjuration and necromancy on the same school/subclass.
Back in 3.5 specialist wizards were described in detail in some of the supplements and mentioned the biases of specialists towards the other schools.
One of the mentioned biases was Conjurers, Necromancers, and Enchanters tend to not learn the other's schools, as the don't see the value of them, seeing them as poor imitations of the true using minions school.

[Rafaelfras]

Also healing should stay conjuration or necromancy. Evocation I think it comes out of nowhere.
Its conjuration if you are bringing energy from the plane of positive energy or it is necromancy if you are making the body to heal.
Also to join schools necromancy and divination should be together because divination has a very large part in comuning and getting answers from spirits and supernatural entities. Its a power expected from a necromancer before the trend of only dealing with undead and being edgy. Illusion and enchantment can also go together becaus it is magic that affect the mind. You can then join evocation and conjuration for a agressive mage that can create elemental forces or bring then from other planes of existance and transmutation and abjuration as the defensive mage. But those 4 schools have a lot of juice to stand on ther own so Idk.

[Captain Cap]

Its conjuration if you are bringing energy from the plane of positive energy or it is necromancy if you are making the body to heal.
Wouldn't Transmutation fit the second perspective better? You're basically restoring the body to its undamaged form.

[Kane0]

Healing should stay in Necromancy, the school that understands and manipulates the forces of life and death. Moving them to another school under the guise of summoning or creating healing energy was just silly IMO.

[Rafaelfras]

Wouldn't Transmutation fit the second perspective better? You're basically restoring the body to its undamaged form.

That´s why in 3.0 you recovered your hit points when you polymorphed and in 5th you have separate hp. But transmutation changes things necromancy is life force manipulation, not just closing woulds.


Healing should stay in Necromancy, the school that understands and manipulates the forces of life and death. Moving them to another school under the guise of summoning or creating healing energy was just silly IMO.

I agree. Conjuration is passable when you bring lore from the plane but necromancy is universal even in settings where the positive energy plane dont exist

[PhoenixPhyre]

The gronard brain is going from neutral to 1st gear, but I don't like conjuration and necromancy on the same school/subclass.
Back in 3.5 specialist wizards were described in detail in some of the supplements and mentioned the biases of specialists towards the other schools.
One of the mentioned biases was Conjurers, Necromancers, and Enchanters tend to not learn the other's schools, as the don't see the value of them, seeing them as poor imitations of the true using minions school.


Also healing should stay conjuration or necromancy. Evocation I think it comes out of nowhere.
Its conjuration if you are bringing energy from the plane of positive energy or it is necromancy if you are making the body to heal.
Also to join schools necromancy and divination should be together because divination has a very large part in comuning and getting answers from spirits and supernatural entities. Its a power expected from a necromancer before the trend of only dealing with undead and being edgy. Illusion and enchantment can also go together becaus it is magic that affect the mind. You can then join evocation and conjuration for a agressive mage that can create elemental forces or bring then from other planes of existance and transmutation and abjuration as the defensive mage. But those 4 schools have a lot of juice to stand on ther own so Idk.


Wouldn't Transmutation fit the second perspective better? You're basically restoring the body to its undamaged form.


Healing should stay in Necromancy, the school that understands and manipulates the forces of life and death. Moving them to another school under the guise of summoning or creating healing energy was just silly IMO.

All of this shows why the schools of magic as they are are fairly useless. They're a mishmash of how (means of producing effects), what (what kind of effects they produce), and why. They overlap badly and incoherently, there's no clean reason for most spells to be in the school that they're in.

Take, for instance, wall of stone. School? Evocation.

The schools need to be completely rethought if any weight (thematic or mechanical) is to be hung from them. Maybe take a page from the White Wolf Mage games' "Spheres". But in any case, any attempt to balance classes using the existing schools of magic directly is doomed to make more of a mess than things already are.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have the 4 schools be Abjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, and Transmutation. I can go with that.

You get to pick two schools to cast from. Nope. I'd suggest you pick two, and the other two are limited by your proficiency bonus, or something similar. Again, they would need to do a lot to balance the four schools with each other. That work they seem unwilling to do.

[Rafaelfras]

All of this shows why the schools of magic as they are are fairly useless. They're a mishmash of how (means of producing effects), what (what kind of effects they produce), and why. They overlap badly and incoherently, there's no clean reason for most spells to be in the school that they're in.

Take, for instance, wall of stone. School? Evocation.

The schools need to be completely rethought if any weight (thematic or mechanical) is to be hung from them. Maybe take a page from the White Wolf Mage games' "Spheres". But in any case, any attempt to balance classes using the existing schools of magic directly is doomed to make more of a mess than things already are.

Take the spells back to their 3rd edition classification would be a huge improvment. At least wall of stone would be back as transmutation if nothing else

[Kane0]

All of this shows why the schools of magic as they are are fairly useless. They're a mishmash of how (means of producing effects), what (what kind of effects they produce), and why. They overlap badly and incoherently, there's no clean reason for most spells to be in the school that they're in.


Oh yeah absolutely. Mixing of method with result leads to some terrible lack of consistency.

[Sorinth]

I really like the idea of every wizard choosing a specialist school, but i don't think it should be their subclass.
In my (limited) experience, wizards tend to identify themselves as Warmage, Fire-Mage, Sword-Mage (Bladesinger), Scholarly Mage, etc. , rather than their specialist school (except for Necromancers, :smallamused:)

My big wishlist item would be to see each base wizard choose a specialist school at level 2, giving them a minor bonus to spells of that school.
Then at level 3 they choose their subclass arcetype - Battle Mage, Bladesinger, Scribe, Whatever...

Maybe at later levels the base wizard can access better Specialist school abilities, similar to their current School Subclasses, or perhaps choose a second school to specialize in.


I love the idea of an Illusionist Warmage, or an Abjuration Bladesinger. More room to make creative choices and strange synergies :smalltongue:
I would love to see two Bladesingers in my game who play differently because of their specializations.

I realize this is a long shot, but the heart wants what it wants :smallredface:

I do think there's merit behind that type of design, the problem with Wizard is as always their spell list. So much power is derived from their spellcasting that there's not really room to have features that are powerful enough for it to build around. So you have to reduce the power level of spell list but you can't really do that via restricting schools because of how unbalanced the schools are, and if you touch the spell slots it will be hated and likely difficult to do properly. They could also reduce the number of free spells you learn when you level from 2 per level to either 1 or even 0.5 per level but still have the add via finding scrolls other spell books. So a small nerf alongside the small nerf already in terms of prepared spells but I'm not sure it's enough to give out features for both school specialization and subclass abilities.

So it's more likely to end up in a situation where the school you specialize in only has a small generic effect. So maybe linking Arcane Recovery to casting spells from your specialty by doing something like "Once per long rest after you cast a spell from your specialty you can regain a spell slot of a lower level." So probably not enough to make your Illusionist Warmage play much different from the Evoker Warmage but it at least nudges you in the direction.

In the end they kinda need to balance the schools. Once they do that then they have a solid foundation to actually do something cool/interesting.

[Kane0]

In the end they kinda need to balance the schools. Once they do that then they have a solid foundation to actually do something cool/interesting.

Indeed, but chances are it's not going to happen, at least not this time around. You could however do the expanded-spells-from-subclass thing, but supercharge it in the case of wizards. For example instead of two of spell levels 1-5, wizard subclasses add four of spell levels 1-5 and two of spell levels 6-9 (added to your spell list like a warlock, not as free preparations like... everyone else). BUT that would necessitate cutting down on the generic Arcane spell list reasonably hard.

[Witty Username]

I do think there's merit behind that type of design, the problem with Wizard is as always their spell list. So much power is derived from their spellcasting that there's not really room to have features that are powerful enough for it to build around. So you have to reduce the power level of spell list but you can't really do that via restricting schools because of how unbalanced the schools are, and if you touch the spell slots it will be hated and likely difficult to do properly. They could also reduce the number of free spells you learn when you level from 2 per level to either 1 or even 0.5 per level but still have the add via finding scrolls other spell books. So a small nerf alongside the small nerf already in terms of prepared spells but I'm not sure it's enough to give out features for both school specialization and subclass abilities.

So it's more likely to end up in a situation where the school you specialize in only has a small generic effect. So maybe linking Arcane Recovery to casting spells from your specialty by doing something like "Once per long rest after you cast a spell from your specialty you can regain a spell slot of a lower level." So probably not enough to make your Illusionist Warmage play much different from the Evoker Warmage but it at least nudges you in the direction.

In the end they kinda need to balance the schools. Once they do that then they have a solid foundation to actually do something cool/interesting.

This is mostly an illusionary problem, the wizard spell list isn't significantly stronger than any other classes, and those classes tend to have interesting features for whatever reason, without balance issues. And wizards have their own potent subclass features.
Take for example that illusionist vs evoker, between malleable illusions and sculpt spells they are going to use spells in vastly different ways, even if their focus is combat.

The issue is that it is frequent compared-contrasted with Sorcerer, which, while not the weakest caster, is the hardest to build correctly and the most likely to be recommended to new players.

And then there is martials, which don't have a power problem with casters so much as 11th level is the end of their meaningful career. All casters look more powerful because they have interesting things to look foward to, for most 17th level, for cleric and wizard all the way to 20th. Even if they get outscaled in damage by an 11th level fighter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is mostly an illusionary problem, the wizard spell list isn't significantly stronger than any other classes, and those classes tend to have interesting features for whatever reason, without balance issues. And wizards have their own potent subclass features.
Take for example that illusionist vs evoker, between malleable illusions and sculpt spells they are going to use spells in vastly different ways, even if their focus is combat.


Wait...what?

It's 3x the size of the next largest list. It has every single one of the easily-abused or questionably-balanced spells on it. There is really only one niche where it doesn't have the singular best spell for that niche or at least a very strong competitor--healing. It generally goes "hey <other class>--I have a spell that lets me do your Cool Thing...better than you can." And wizards double down by getting very free choice and the singular ability to add spells outside of level up, plus the most flexible preparation system. Plus wish, which is literally "cast any spell of 8th level or lower, faster, with no components". And that's only it's least powerful use.

No, the wizard list is orders of magnitude more powerful than other lists. Often more powerful than multiple other lists combined. And with every published book, the wizard generally gets the most spells, sometimes more than multiple classes combined! Including spells that have no thematic purpose on the wizard list (being heavily warlock, bard, or sorcerer coded).

There's a reason why every "loophole hunting", "game breaking" (scare quotes intentional), "schrodinger's X" build is based around wizards. Other classes can generally specialize to do one thing (such as massive damage). But a wizard can, by virtue of his spell list alone, do 90% of the job of anyone else except in a few specific areas. And even in those areas...a 1 level dip into cleric fixes the whole issue.

[Kane0]

But a wizard can, by virtue of his spell list alone, do 90% of the job of anyone else except in a few specific areas. And even in those areas...a 1 level dip into cleric fixes the whole issue.

Maybe not 1 just level, you'd also want Restoration and Revivify at least. Try the UA Theurge instead :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe not 1 just level, you'd also want Restoration and Revivify at least. Try the UA Theurge instead :smallwink:

With 1 level you can use scrolls or items. But I'd say 1 level gets you to 90%.

But yes, then they go and do things like the theurge. At least it never got published. Some things are too far even for WotC and their love affair with wizards

[Witty Username]

It's 3x the size of the next largest list.
So, would you have the same complaint with the divine soul sorcerer?

But puting that aside, many spells on the wizard list are either: bad, going to be invalidated by build choices, or simply unavailable (a wizard that finds 1 scroll a level will have 64 spells by 20th level due to what they can get in the spell book, compared to say the druid's 150 available spells).


They do get all the broken spells though, like healing spirit, plant growth, conjure animals, conjure woodland beings, pass without trace...
Those aren't on the wizard list, they are druid exclusives you say, barring ranger and some bard stuff.
Its fair to not like Simulacrum, but it is hardly a sign of a systemic problem with specifically wizard.

And as for specialization, that is highly variable, if you mean the class has one specialization and no others, I think Barbarian qualifies?
If you mean has to pick one of several options, sorcerer due to spells known limitations, and fighter tend to run into issues if it tries to multi-task?
All the others (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger Rogue, Warlock and Wizard) have multiple roles that they can play simultaneously even when specialized to varying degrees?
These are questions because I am not sure what you mean by one specialization in this context, and which classes would qualify?
--
I can buy bard coded, but I am disinclined to believe a spell can be warlock or sorcerer coded. As discussed earlier a sorcerer is defined alot by bloodline, so most spells are strange on the sorcerer list, due to fiting with one bloodline but conflicting with another, similar with warlock and patron stuff. Most of the time when that stuff is pointed out it seems like everyone assumes all sorcerers are draconic sorcerers and warlocks fiendish patron.

This is part of that oppinion that sorcerer's have no theme discused earlier, they are several themes mashed together with the sorcerer, but they have no thematic overlap. It makes the whole class feel disjointed, like why can a red dragon sorcerer cast spells like water breathing, sleep, or silent image? It made tenative sense when dragons were innate spellcasters, so sorcerer was considered an extension of that, but since 5e dropped that bit about dragons, it feels weird. At least to me.

Warlocks have this problem less given fiends and fey are pretty flexible, and the easy power vibe is carried well by the unique spellcasting system, which gives the class some unity. But there are still weird bits here and there.

[Kane0]

It makes the whole class feel disjointed, like why can a red dragon sorcerer cast spells like water breathing, sleep, or silent image? It made tenative sense when dragons were innate spellcasters, so sorcerer was considered an extension of that, but since 5e dropped that bit about dragons, it feels weird. At least to me.


Its sort of still there, if you use the optional spellcasting dragons

[Bane's Wolf]

Enchantment / Illusion can be one school, a lot of fantasy mix them already.

Divination and Abjuration can fit together, they are both very utility based.

1/2 of conjuration is about blowing stuff up with elemental magic, Evocation has the same end effect.

Evocation has had healing spells, conjuration has had healing spells, and necromancy has had healing spells... Slap conjuration and necromancy under evocation.

You can slap a few Abjuration spells under Transmutation easily enough.


===

Have the 4 schools be Abjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, and Transmutation.

You get to pick two schools to cast from.

This could be an elegant solution. I've also been seeing the discussions on Magic Spheres which could also work, if they spend enough time balancing out the schools (or Spheres)

Unfortunately, the DnD Schools of Magic is one of our "sacred cows". It's been in the game so long that grognards like me have become attached to them and feel very uncomfortable about losing them. (similar to the six ability scores, but i'm getting over my attachment slowly... :smallwink:)


The problem is that the Schools are likely not going anywhere. Past editions let you specialize in one school, but that lost you access to another school (usually illusion or divination, because the schools are not balanced)
The truth is that the schools are mostly arbitrary as a gameplay mechanic. They could remove them from the game and just call them spells and the game would play almost exactly the same. But i would miss it...

The 8 Schools also add to the academic feel of the wizard. Its part of the wizard's identity as a "magic scientist/scholar". And i would hate to lose that flavour.
The wizard is the only one who cares about the different schools.
Technically, every sorcerer and cleric's spells also fall into schools, but they don't give a damn. And they ignore the wizard trying to explain to them how the revivify spell they just cast is technically of the necromancy school.

I figure that if we are that if we going to keep the schools (and i am open to dumping them, in spite of my biases. maybe...), let the school specialization have a smaller effect, or a series of ribbon abilities, to add to the flavour, while the wizard subclass becomes the real meat of a character's playstyle.

[Kane0]

The 8 Schools also add to the academic feel of the wizard. Its part of the wizard's identity as a "magic scientist/scholar". And i would hate to lose that flavour.
The wizard is the only one who cares about the different schools.


True, if only Wizards really care about spell schools perhaps dont bother labelling them all in the first place (in each description). Move the classifications to the wizard feature that deals with spell schools.

[Bane's Wolf]

True, if only Wizards really care about spell schools perhaps dont bother labelling them all in the first place (in each description). Move the classifications to the wizard feature that deals with spell schools.

Honestly, Yeah :smallsmile:

Let the wizards sort their spells into schools.
And let the druids sort their spells into circles (plant, animal, fire, water, earth, air)
And the clerics sort into light magic, dark magic, grey magic (or similar holy and unholy classifications)

I think it would add a lot of cool flavour. I just might do this myself. I've been worldbuilding for a new campaign :smallbiggrin:

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

In all honesty, I like the spell schools, and I like putting things into nice ordered boxes.
I like when everything has a classification that can then be used to apply to the world.

I also really like the new Arcane, Divine and Primal "types" of magic. - helps fit things into boxes

example:
Bards are arcane casters who use only Illusion and Enchantment schools.
Eldritch Knights are arcane casters who use Evocation and Abjuration.
Rangers use Primal magic from (insert School, Sphere, or whatever here)

It kinda bugs me when a bard or warlock (arcane casters) get special spells just for being their class (viscous mockery, eldritch blast), without some kind of explanation
(Bard is just special?)(eldritch blast is not a spell. It is an ability of the warlock's patron, given to the warlock).
I realise that the distinction is arbitrary. Eldritch Blast is effectively a warlock ability, same with viscous mockery.

I can recognize that just because i like a thing, doesn't make the thing Important.
Technically, we haven't had "arcane" or "divine" spells for all of 5th edition, only Class spell lists.
I could live with class spell lists, like we've had till now.
I could live with dumping the spell schools altogether.

Mostly i'm just enjoying the idea of two bladesingers having a fight over who's school is better ("your Evocation is strong, but you will never get past my Abjuration defense" :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:)

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed, but chances are it's not going to happen, at least not this time around. You could however do the expanded-spells-from-subclass thing, but supercharge it in the case of wizards. For example instead of two of spell levels 1-5, wizard subclasses add four of spell levels 1-5 and two of spell levels 6-9 (added to your spell list like a warlock, not as free preparations like... everyone else). BUT that would necessitate cutting down on the generic Arcane spell list reasonably hard. Or go back to basics and see how many spells need to be converted to ritual spells. (all summoning spells, for example ..) And wish.

But a wizard can, by virtue of his spell list alone, do 90% of the job of anyone else except in a few specific areas. And even in those areas...a 1 level dip into cleric fixes the whole issue. Gee, where have we seen this before. And you let it happen. :smallbiggrin: (Steel Wind Strike needs to come off of the wizard's list and be only available to Rangers...that's one way to approach it.

So, would you have the same complaint with the divine soul sorcerer? No, because they can't access the whole list by finding scrolls and putting them in the book to where they can prepare them every time. They have to make choices and assess opportunity costs. [/quote] Warlocks have this problem less given fiends and fey are pretty flexible, and the easy power vibe is carried well by the unique spellcasting system, which gives the class some unity. [/QUOTE] Yes. The only problem with Warlock is hexblade.

The truth is that the schools are mostly arbitrary as a gameplay mechanic. Yes. And that has to do with the bloat and the decision not to balance them.

...scientist/scholar". And i would hate to lose that flavour. That flavor is at odds with what a D&D wizard / Magic User for us grognards, actually is. A D&D adventuring wizard is not a scientist nor a scholar. The adventuring wizard is out in the field. The only time they can do scientist / scholar is during down time.

Technically, every sorcerer and cleric's spells also fall into schools, but they don't give a damn. See also bards.


while the wizard subclass becomes the real meat of a character's playstyle. Best two examples I can come up with are War Wizard and Bladesinger.

[Bane's Wolf]

Or go back to basics and see how many spells need to be converted to ritual spells. (all summoning spells, for example ..) And wish.

Absolutely agreed. We need more rituals, and a bunch of current spells work as rituals.
Back in 3rd ed, my GM had a house rule allowing wizards to cast any spell out of his/her spellbook, without using a spell slot, but with a casting time of 1 hour.
It seemed to work just fine...


Yes. And that has to do with the bloat and the decision not to balance them.

In their defense, its difficult to balance the "I bend the elements to my will!" school with the "Smoke and mirrors" school :smalltongue:


That flavor is at odds with what a D&D wizard / Magic User for us grognards, actually is. A D&D adventuring wizard is not a scientist nor a scholar. The adventuring wizard is out in the field. The only time they can do scientist / scholar is during down time.

That is a good point...
I'm perhaps thinking of wizards a bit more like an Indiana Jones type. A scholarly adventurer.
Then again, Indy was a terrible archaeologist...


See also bards.

100% agreed. Music School is no-where to be found in the wizard curriculum.:smalltongue:


Best two examples I can come up with are War Wizard and Bladesinger.

Same...
I actually had to look up to check the official subclasses. Along with Warmage and Bladesinger, we have "Order of Scribes" wizard.
Strangely, i was convinced there were a ton of them, but once you remove the magic school classes, wizards are perhaps a bit lacking in cool subclasses... :smallconfused:

[Amechra]

Then again, Indy was a terrible archaeologist...

I work with some people who are archaeologists by training, and bringing up Professor Jones is a great way to agitate them.

...

If you want to understand why the Wizard (and spell schools) are the mess that they are today, we have to indulge in a history lesson.

If you look at the core classes for 2e, they implicitly told you that there were two types of magic in the D&D world — you had learned, scholarly magic (Int-based, needed a spellbook, used by Bards (Cugel-style) and Magic-Users) and priestly magic granted by higher powers (Clerics, Druids, and Paladins, and Rangers). Sure, supplements added new kinds of magic, but that magic was almost always setting-specific. More importantly, though, both kinds of magic had completely different ontologies — scholarly magic was organized into the eight schools, while priestly magic was organized by the spheres of influence of the deities that could grant it. If a Priest spell didn't have a Magic-User equivalent, it didn't have a spell school because it fell outside of the wizardly system.

When we hit 3e, however, we ended up with 5-7 different kinds of spellcasters, depending on how much you want to lump stuff together. Since it wouldn't make sense design-wise to write up that many lists separately, we instead got one big, centralized list that everything pulled from... and the designers decided that every spell should have a spell school, even if the Wizard couldn't learn that spell. This seemingly minor decision had a ton of ramifications — the big one being that Wizards were suddenly "more correct" about how spellcasting worked than anyone else. Heck, most of the spells that people argue about only have schools because of this decision!

Spell schools went from "this is how this one type of spellcaster organizes their spells, with other magic being foreign to them" to "this is the One True Way of organizing spells — anyone who organizes them differently is just plain wrong, and we have the mechanics to prove it". At the same time, the Wizard's whole "I am the master of magic~" schtick has had a ton of scope creep, thanks to them having to be "better at magic" than the Sorcerer (and later the Bard and the Warlock), rather than just the half-caster-y 2e Bard.

---

Radical idea (which will get me pilloried by the forums, no doubt): replace the Wizard with a (non-magical!) Expert class called the Scholar... and then make Wizard magic something that anyone can do, with Scholars being the best at it (in the same way that the Fighter is theoretically "the best" at fighting).

A very rough spitball of how this could work:


Spellbooks are scroll holders that let you bundle... let's say three scrolls together.
1/day, you can cast a spell off of a scroll in a spellbook without destroying the scroll. If you're attuned to the spellbook, you can cast each of the spells once before the book has to recharge.
Scholars get class features that make them great at mundane scholar-y stuff (how appropriate), but also get features that let them make better use of scrolls/spellbooks, kinda like how Artificers gradually get more attunement slots.
For obvious reasons, Scholars would get a spellbook filled with a few Common scrolls as part of their starting gear.


Sorcerers are Artificer-style half-casters... but you double the level of all of their spell slots. A 6th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level spell slots and 2 4th level spell slots. A 17th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level slots, 3 4th level slots, 3 6th level slots, 3 8th level slots, and 1 10th level slot. The features they get at 3rd/7th/11th/15th are based around being able to apply a hilarious amount of brute force when faced with problems. Finesse? That's for other people.

As for how this would work with multiclassing... that's a very good question.

[Arkhios]

Sorcerers are Artificer-style half-casters... but you double the level of all of their spell slots. A 6th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level spell slots and 2 4th level spell slots. A 17th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level slots, 3 4th level slots, 3 6th level slots, 3 8th level slots, and 1 10th level slot. The features they get at 3rd/7th/11th/15th are based around being able to apply a hilarious amount of brute force when faced with problems. Finesse? That's for other people.

As for how this would work with multiclassing... that's a very good question.

I would change the wording to: "Each spell slot, up to 5th level, that you expend to cast a spell from the Sorcerer spell list counts twice as high level (up to 10th level)."

[Bane's Wolf]

If you want to understand why the Wizard (and spell schools) are the mess that they are today, we have to indulge in a history lesson.

If you look at the core classes for 2e, they implicitly told you that there were two types of magic in the D&D world — you had learned, scholarly magic (Int-based, needed a spellbook, used by Bards (Cugel-style) and Magic-Users) and priestly magic granted by higher powers (Clerics, Druids, and Paladins, and Rangers). Sure, supplements added new kinds of magic, but that magic was almost always setting-specific. More importantly, though, both kinds of magic had completely different ontologies — scholarly magic was organized into the eight schools, while priestly magic was organized by the spheres of influence of the deities that could grant it. If a Priest spell didn't have a Magic-User equivalent, it didn't have a spell school because it fell outside of the wizardly system.

Wow - i have only the vaguest of memories of 2e, and this is bringing some of it back. The spheres were pretty cool. :smallbiggrin:



When we hit 3e, however, we ended up with 5-7 different kinds of spellcasters, depending on how much you want to lump stuff together. Since it wouldn't make sense design-wise to write up that many lists separately, we instead got one big, centralized list that everything pulled from... and the designers decided that every spell should have a spell school, even if the Wizard couldn't learn that spell. This seemingly minor decision had a ton of ramifications — the big one being that Wizards were suddenly "more correct" about how spellcasting worked than anyone else. Heck, most of the spells that people argue about only have schools because of this decision!

Spell schools went from "this is how this one type of spellcaster organizes their spells, with other magic being foreign to them" to "this is the One True Way of organizing spells — anyone who organizes them differently is just plain wrong, and we have the mechanics to prove it". At the same time, the Wizard's whole "I am the master of magic~" schtick has had a ton of scope creep, thanks to them having to be "better at magic" than the Sorcerer (and later the Bard and the Warlock), rather than just the half-caster-y 2e Bard.

Yeah... This makes a lot of sense.
And now its a legacy Sacred Cow of DnD... which i kinda like... :smallredface:

I agree that it's a mess, but its a very flavourful mess.
The 8 dumb spell schools that make no sense but we've become attached to, to the point of going to war for it :smalltongue:

---


Radical idea (which will get me pilloried by the forums, no doubt): replace the Wizard with a (non-magical!) Expert class called the Scholar... and then make Wizard magic something that anyone can do, with Scholars being the best at it (in the same way that the Fighter is theoretically "the best" at fighting).

A very rough spitball of how this could work:


Spellbooks are scroll holders that let you bundle... let's say three scrolls together.
1/day, you can cast a spell off of a scroll in a spellbook without destroying the scroll. If you're attuned to the spellbook, you can cast each of the spells once before the book has to recharge.
Scholars get class features that make them great at mundane scholar-y stuff (how appropriate), but also get features that let them make better use of scrolls/spellbooks, kinda like how Artificers gradually get more attunement slots.
For obvious reasons, Scholars would get a spellbook filled with a few Common scrolls as part of their starting gear.


Sorcerers are Artificer-style half-casters... but you double the level of all of their spell slots. A 6th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level spell slots and 2 4th level spell slots. A 17th level Sorcerer would have 4 2nd level slots, 3 4th level slots, 3 6th level slots, 3 8th level slots, and 1 10th level slot. The features they get at 3rd/7th/11th/15th are based around being able to apply a hilarious amount of brute force when faced with problems. Finesse? That's for other people.


Perhaps too Radical an idea for OneDnD, because its way too different from current mechanics, but it does beautifully sum up the "feel" the casters:

- Very scholarly wizard with his book, and his expertise in Spellcraft.
- Sorcerer which is raw, barely contained Power.

I would love to see something like this in dnd :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Wow - i have only the vaguest of memories of 2e, and this is bringing some of it back. The spheres were pretty cool. :smallbiggrin: The schools were originally added by EGG for AD&D 1e, but I won't say that a great deal of thought went into it. It was just one more thing that was a good idea (or seemed so at the time) along with spelling out the components (based on sympathetic magic theory ~ like empowers like).

The 8 dumb spell schools that make no sense but we've become attached to, to the point of going to war for it :smalltongue:
I'd like to see them revised and scrubbed.


- Very scholarly wizard with his book, and his expertise in Spellcraft.
- Sorcerer which is raw, barely contained Power. You've got the Original D&D Magic User in point 1, and something like the Wild Magic Sorcerer in point 2.

[Bane's Wolf]

I'd like to see them revised and scrubbed.

I can't blame you. They are rather arbitrary :smallwink:

I would understand if they dumped them for a more sensible system, especially in a new interesting setting.

But the dumb schools just feel like DnD to me at this point.
Wizards without their schools just wouldn't feel right, in a standard (if there is such a thing...) DnD setting. :smalltongue:



The schools were originally added by EGG for AD&D 1e, but I won't say that a great deal of thought went into it.

I think that is possibly one of the great problems/joys with DnD. It is a horrible mish-mash of every conceivable fantasy setting and trope, monsters from every possible mythology and setting.
And none of it was planned in a cohesive way...
Some settings are better at it than others, but it is a beautiful mess that just "feels" like DnD.

I think i have some difficulty looking at my own sacred cows objectively. Some thing i just like because i like them :smallredface:

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that is possibly one of the great problems/joys with DnD. It is a horrible mish-mash of every conceivable fantasy setting and trope, monsters from every possible mythology and setting. And some SF got thrown in. The SF&F nerd/geek community that eventually came up with D&D in their various play in the 60's and 70's were Sci Fi and Fantasy fans. That fusion has been in the game a long time. (A great example of this was D Arneson's adventure in the Blackmoor Supplement; Temple of the Frog. One of these days, I am going to run this in 5e...)

To be fair, I think that Moldvay Basic and B/X and BECMMI were very well cleaned up. Nicely done, and not quite the mess that certain other versions were.
[quote] I think i have some difficulty looking at my own sacred cows objectively. Some thing i just like because i like them :smallredface: Perhaps in the same way that I like kender roasting on an open fire ... :smallbiggrin:

[Rafaelfras]

If you want to understand why the Wizard (and spell schools) are the mess that they are today, we have to indulge in a history lesson.

If you look at the core classes for 2e, they implicitly told you that there were two types of magic in the D&D world — you had learned, scholarly magic (Int-based, needed a spellbook, used by Bards (Cugel-style) and Magic-Users) and priestly magic granted by higher powers (Clerics, Druids, and Paladins, and Rangers). Sure, supplements added new kinds of magic, but that magic was almost always setting-specific. More importantly, though, both kinds of magic had completely different ontologies — scholarly magic was organized into the eight schools, while priestly magic was organized by the spheres of influence of the deities that could grant it. If a Priest spell didn't have a Magic-User equivalent, it didn't have a spell school because it fell outside of the wizardly system.

When we hit 3e, however, we ended up with 5-7 different kinds of spellcasters, depending on how much you want to lump stuff together. Since it wouldn't make sense design-wise to write up that many lists separately, we instead got one big, centralized list that everything pulled from... and the designers decided that every spell should have a spell school, even if the Wizard couldn't learn that spell. This seemingly minor decision had a ton of ramifications — the big one being that Wizards were suddenly "more correct" about how spellcasting worked than anyone else. Heck, most of the spells that people argue about only have schools because of this decision!

Spell schools went from "this is how this one type of spellcaster organizes their spells, with other magic being foreign to them" to "this is the One True Way of organizing spells — anyone who organizes them differently is just plain wrong, and we have the mechanics to prove it". At the same time, the Wizard's whole "I am the master of magic~" schtick has had a ton of scope creep, thanks to them having to be "better at magic" than the Sorcerer (and later the Bard and the Warlock), rather than just the half-caster-y 2e Bard.



Remember that 3rd edition also had feats and class features that afected spell schools. So clerics and druids could take then. You had spell focus and greater spell focus that raised DC from a specifc school you had prestige classes that gave bonus to specific schools. So not only schools became the standart for every spellcaster but it also became part of the system reiforced in a lot of areas of the game and important to every spellcasting class who wished to raise the effectvness of the spells it casted more often or as pre-requisite to prestige classes.


I can't blame you. They are rather arbitrary :smallwink:

I would understand if they dumped them for a more sensible system, especially in a new interesting setting.

But the dumb schools just feel like DnD to me at this point.
Wizards without their schools just wouldn't feel right, in a standard (if there is such a thing...) DnD setting. :smalltongue:




I think that is possibly one of the great problems/joys with DnD. It is a horrible mish-mash of every conceivable fantasy setting and trope, monsters from every possible mythology and setting.
And none of it was planned in a cohesive way...
Some settings are better at it than others, but it is a beautiful mess that just "feels" like DnD.

I think i have some difficulty looking at my own sacred cows objectively. Some thing i just like because i like them :smallredface:

I like the schools and dont think they are that arbitrary. I think there are a lot of spells arbitrarily tossed in then, but their themes are not arbitrary. And in 3rd edition we had spells that didnt fit in any of then as universal like wish, so they realy though about these themes back then.





Perhaps too Radical an idea for OneDnD, because its way too different from current mechanics, but it does beautifully sum up the "feel" the casters:

- Very scholarly wizard with his book, and his expertise in Spellcraft.
- Sorcerer which is raw, barely contained Power.

I would love to see something like this in dnd :smallbiggrin:

I like this distinction too. But spell books stay in the bag. I dont want to have to cast spells with an enormous book in my hand all the time. Wizards worth their staff dont do that we have high int and good memory for a reason

[Amechra]

Remember that 3rd edition also had feats and class features that afected spell schools. So clerics and druids could take then. You had spell focus and greater spell focus that raised DC from a specifc school you had prestige classes that gave bonus to specific schools. So not only schools became the standart for every spellcaster but it also became part of the system reiforced in a lot of areas of the game and important to every spellcasting class who wished to raise the effectvness of the spells it casted more often or as pre-requisite to prestige classes.

That's... I mention that in my post? That's what I meant by Wizards being correct about how Magic worked, with there being mechanics to back up that assertion.

The thing is that the schools make sense as categories for Wizard Magic, but they don't entirely make sense for non-wizard-y magic. Look at how no-one can precisely agree on where to sort healing magic — you can make valid cases for it being Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, or Transmutation, depending on what the spell "does" in the fiction. This didn't really matter before 3e because, hey, the Wizards can assign it anywhere they want because it's really just part of the Healing/Life/whatever-it-was-called Sphere, and those nerds can argue over how to categorize a literal divine miracle until the cows come home.


I like this distinction too. But spell books stay in the bag. I dont want to have to cast spells with an enormous book in my hand all the time. Wizards worth their staff dont do that we have high int and good memory for a reason

Nope! The book stays out. It's literally the set of notes that you wrote to help you remember stuff. Smart people use all of the tools at their disposal, after all.

More seriously, that's the kind of attitude that works fine if all you're casting is quick evocation spells or whatever, but it really doesn't if you're doing something like, say, conjuring up a Fiend, where the consequences for not dotting your t's and crossing your i's can be catastrophic.

(Personally, this argument also reminds me of the wildly self-indulgent (and incredibly tiresome) Isekai trope where the main character ends up in a new fantasy world (or the past) and revolutionizes the place because they're Very Smart — so smart, in fact, that they understand all of the jokes in Rick and Morty. This kind of argument only works if you fetishize intelligence more than, say, Wisdom or Strength or whatever).

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's... I mention that in my post? That's what I meant by Wizards being correct about how Magic worked, with there being mechanics to back up that assertion.

The thing is that the schools make sense as categories for Wizard Magic, but they don't entirely make sense for non-wizard-y magic. Look at how no-one can precisely agree on where to sort healing magic — you can make valid cases for it being Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, or Transmutation, depending on what the spell "does" in the fiction. This didn't really matter before 3e because, hey, the Wizards can assign it anywhere they want because it's really just part of the Healing/Life/whatever-it-was-called Sphere, and those nerds can argue over how to categorize a literal divine miracle until the cows come home.


Nope! The book stays out. It's literally the set of notes that you wrote to help you remember stuff. Smart people use all of the tools at their disposal, after all.

More seriously, that's the kind of attitude that works fine if all you're casting is quick evocation spells or whatever, but it really doesn't if you're doing something like, say, conjuring up a Fiend, where the consequences for not dotting your t's and crossing your i's can be catastrophic.

(Personally, this argument also reminds me of the wildly self-indulgent (and incredibly tiresome) Isekai trope where the main character ends up in a new fantasy world (or the past) and revolutionizes the place because they're Very Smart — so smart, in fact, that they understand all of the jokes in Rick and Morty. This kind of argument only works if you fetishize intelligence more than, say, Wisdom or Strength or whatever).

Very strong agreement with all of this. Especially that parenthetical at the end. "I'm soooo smart, so I can do whatever I want, because SMART!". Seriously, being smart is not a superpower. I understand the desire for nerds to get back at the jocks that abused them in high school and those people who rejected and mocked them, but really, doing it this way is kinda sad.

[stoutstien]

Very strong agreement with all of this. Especially that parenthetical at the end. "I'm soooo smart, so I can do whatever I want, because SMART!". Seriously, being smart is not a superpower. I understand the desire for nerds to get back at the jocks that abused them in high school and those people who rejected and mocked them, but really, doing it this way is kinda sad.

Even worse

while intelligence does effect spell attack/save DCs and spells prepared count it has little to do with wizards, and to a larger extent magic, beyond that. It's an arbitrary layer on top of an arbitrary layer.

It's wholely a mechanical function with no (in game) world logic. Leaned/self acquired vs given/borrowed magic is a cluster if you give it more than a passing glance.

[OvisCaedo]

(Personally, this argument also reminds me of the wildly self-indulgent (and incredibly tiresome) Isekai trope where the main character ends up in a new fantasy world (or the past) and revolutionizes the place because they're Very Smart — so smart, in fact, that they understand all of the jokes in Rick and Morty. This kind of argument only works if you fetishize intelligence more than, say, Wisdom or Strength or whatever).

It's funny, that tends to be exactly how I feel about charisma characters and their proponents!

[Kane0]

Taking suggestions on alternative spell schools!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Taking suggestions on alternative spell schools!

I don't like the idea of spell schools itself. Spells don't have schools. Wizards create schools of thought/practice to study/learn spells. And as such, they should be more like schools/styles of wizardry. You might be a wizard of the Flowing Winds school, which teaches magic through the medium of dance-like motion, leading to defensive benefits (better at dodging!) but being hindered by restraints. Or a devotee of the Iron Mind school, which practices total control over self, which removes some of the constraints (ie components) at the cost of a limited repertoire that can be learned that way. Etc.

The spells themselves are black boxes, universal API structures. Any categorization is entirely for the sake of mortals, not inherent in the system.

[Rafaelfras]

That's... I mention that in my post? That's what I meant by Wizards being correct about how Magic worked, with there being mechanics to back up that assertion.

The thing is that the schools make sense as categories for Wizard Magic, but they don't entirely make sense for non-wizard-y magic. Look at how no-one can precisely agree on where to sort healing magic — you can make valid cases for it being Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, or Transmutation, depending on what the spell "does" in the fiction. This didn't really matter before 3e because, hey, the Wizards can assign it anywhere they want because it's really just part of the Healing/Life/whatever-it-was-called Sphere, and those nerds can argue over how to categorize a literal divine miracle until the cows come home.

Cool we are on the same page here I just brough up more things that validate your argument. I also agree toltaly that we souldnt categorize litral miracles. Its a trend to try to make everything folllowing the same set of rules but I really do think that make Arcane magic and Divine magic difference greater would be good for the game the spheres of influence is a good way to do that.




Nope! The book stays out. It's literally the set of notes that you wrote to help you remember stuff. Smart people use all of the tools at their disposal, after all.



Yes so you remember the words of a fireball and dont have to be carrying a giant book while an orc try to cut off your head during a combat.



More seriously, that's the kind of attitude that works fine if all you're casting is quick evocation spells or whatever, but it really doesn't if you're doing something like, say, conjuring up a Fiend, where the consequences for not dotting your t's and crossing your i's can be catastrophic.

(Personally, this argument also reminds me of the wildly self-indulgent (and incredibly tiresome) Isekai trope where the main character ends up in a new fantasy world (or the past) and revolutionizes the place because they're Very Smart — so smart, in fact, that they understand all of the jokes in Rick and Morty. This kind of argument only works if you fetishize intelligence more than, say, Wisdom or Strength or whatever).


With that I toltaly agree I dont fetichize Int, I dont want to be so very smart, I want to be able to remember some quick spells and be able to defend myself with my magic and dont be a burden to the party during a heated crownded and caotic situation where I will not be able to hold a giant book and read while things try to kill me, poke my book cut my arm etc...

Now during a ritual? Yes the book should be required to be there, so you can see the long chant that you cant misspronouce, the precise diagrams that you must drawn and where to place the material components on. On that situation, yes you need your book.
We can and should have both because that is a good representation of a wizard.

We can have this
https://nntheblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/image_2022-05-20_014046285.png

And this
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5f38928c6a88e13e25e3fd64/1598217493760-WTQHP5AQFIVDIGJENKXJ/image-asset.jpeg?format=1500w


Very strong agreement with all of this. Especially that parenthetical at the end. "I'm soooo smart, so I can do whatever I want, because SMART!". Seriously, being smart is not a superpower. I understand the desire for nerds to get back at the jocks that abused them in high school and those people who rejected and mocked them, but really, doing it this way is kinda sad.

Wizard is a class like any other. Its main atribute wich is inteligence should give them the power to operate as stregth or dexterity does for a fighter. Nothing more nothing less. Inteligence let a wizard cast his spells, his class abilities and thats it


Even worse

while intelligence does effect spell attack/save DCs and spells prepared count it has little to do with wizards, and to a larger extent magic, beyond that. It's an arbitrary layer on top of an arbitrary layer.

It's wholely a mechanical function with no (in game) world logic. Leaned/self acquired vs given/borrowed magic is a cluster if you give it more than a passing glance.

How so? The mechanical representation of it is what it has to do with wizards and magic. You study magic through your life. Your understanding of magic and how deep you can go with that knowldge will grant you deeper secrets more power and a beter grasp of its manipulation (+ spell attack + spell DC ) and as Int in game mesure memory more Int gives more spells prepared.
Its not arbitrary, at all. The power comes from study, understanding, memorization all that Int as a stat encompass.

Back in 3rd you had to have an Int = 10+spell level to even understand and being able to cast a spell of that level

[stoutstien]

How so? The mechanical representation of it is what it has to do with wizards and magic. You study magic through your life. Your understanding of magic and how deep you can go with that knowldge will grant you deeper secrets more power and a beter grasp of its manipulation (+ spell attack + spell DC ) and as Int in game mesure memory more Int gives more spells prepared.
Its not arbitrary, at all. The power comes from study, understanding, memorization all that Int as a stat encompass.

Back in 3rd you had to have an Int = 10+spell level to even understand and being able to cast a spell of that level

It's ALL mechanical but it has no representation because it stops skin deep because magic also stops there. Being a high level wizard or having a high intelligence does nothing you can actually choose. The class and spell rules are all explicit prepackaged features.

[Rafaelfras]

It's ALL mechanical but it has no representation because it stops skin deep because magic also stops there. Being a high level wizard or having a high intelligence does nothing you can actually choose. The class and spell rules are all explicit prepackaged features.

I don't think I agree with this, but I also don't think I got what you mean.
How would you fix this? How magic and intelligence would represent what you want? What need to change ?

[stoutstien]

I don't think I agree with this, but I also don't think I got what you mean.
How would you fix this? How magic and intelligence would represent what you want? What need to change ?

Make it consistent first off. What makes Divine smite different from smite<spell>? What makes a dragon magical but it's breath weapon not? What makes the wizard's magic different from a sorcerer or warlock besides the governing abilities?

[Rafaelfras]

Make it consistent first off. What makes Divine smite different from smite<spell>?

One is a proper spell, a specific effect called upon using components (V, S) the other is conversion of their energy, their mana (spell slots) into damaging energy conducted through their weapon. And paladins are very uncreative people.



What makes a dragon magical but it's breath weapon not?
The extraordinary, supernatural and similar to spell where useful and should have stayed.
I had this exact same argument in my last session fighting against our BBEG dragon, when a player wanted to use antimagic shell, so yeah I agree.



What makes the wizard's magic different from a sorcerer or warlock besides the governing abilities?

Nothing, it's the same magic, its arcane magic. The way they got to it is different but they must operate by the same principles.
Wizard learn how to do it studying the methods formulas and spells over the years. Sorcerers are born with the ability to do it, they have an natural ability to do magic and the spells they learn is how they control it to get the desired effect. Warlocks get the knowledge through a bargain. A pact that grant then the ability and knowledge to cast arcane magic.
Wizard was first introduced as the magic user on 1st Ed, so until sorcerers came around all arcane magic was governed by Intelligence. It's themes lore and fantasy where very well established. Any inconsistency latter was because the lack of care given to the sorcerer and later the warlock. That's why through this thread me and others have argued that the wizard is not the one that need to be fixed thematically or worse removed if removing a class was something that would happen ( it will not. All the PHB classe will be in OD&D).

[Willie the Duck]

Very strong agreement with all of this. Especially that parenthetical at the end. "I'm soooo smart, so I can do whatever I want, because SMART!". Seriously, being smart is not a superpower. I understand the desire for nerds to get back at the jocks that abused them in high school and those people who rejected and mocked them, but really, doing it this way is kinda sad.

It's funny, that tends to be exactly how I feel about charisma characters and their proponents!

It's much the same. They are both power fantasies. There are power fantasies where you get to play as things you aren't in real life (possibly being highly charismatic and/or influential, but many other things* as well). There are also power fantasies where what you actually are in life is powerful, influential, and rewarded (such as -- you are intelligent and that just straightforwardly helps achieve your goals).
*Ex:I like rangers as they let me play someone woodsy and outdoorsy and I like skill-monkeys because I want to play someone widely and wildly competent.

It just so happens that a lot of TRPG players are intellect focused. If the people I game with and the employees I have who I know game are any indication, a lot of them also fit into a type (self included, although the TBI kinda re-adjusted my perspective significantly). They grew up hearing how gifted they were and what 'bright young _____' they were and aren't they proud. Maybe dealt with jock abuse in high school, although I always found that overblown (I mean, high schoolers are just plain terrible to each other across the board. I didn't realize this until my generation started having high schoolers, but wow), as I've always found that the people who are the worst to teenage nerds are other teenage nerds jockeying for position in the sub-group. Either way, defined themselves by this and fretted over their SAT scores or patted themselves on the back for their AP scores (or however things lined up in terms of ego boosts and insecurity triggers) and then went on to the next phase or two of their lives and... it kinda stops. In college you find out that your advanced intro compsci course has 10 other freshmen just like you (and half just did better on the midterm). You graduate get into the working world and no one judges you by age or grade anymore and someone else has more experience and regardless success in most jobs is not determined by intellect alone (or even majorly) and there certainly aren't a lot of awards or scores anymore (certainly not ones anyone outside your career understand). I can't count how many people I know who either 1) have gone to extraordinary lengths to recapture that feeling or 2) never quite forgiven the universe. All in all, a power fantasy in a power fantasy game where a high 'Int' score is a direct avenue to character success is probably not the worst thing in the world.


Wizard is a class like any other. Its main atribute wich is inteligence should give them the power to operate as stregth or dexterity does for a fighter. Nothing more nothing less. Inteligence let a wizard cast his spells, his class abilities and thats it
I think that's why I like how oD&D (pre-supplement I) did it -- Strength just makes you a little bit better at being a fighter (by making you advance quicker in your levelling as a fighter -- the actual primary measure of fighter power). Same with Int and wizards: it just makes advancing as a wizard (the actual form of wizardly power) a little easier. That would mean that you realistically could play a little-bit-dull wizard or a not-strong fighter (I'm thinking Taran from the Chronicles of Prydain).

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that's why I like how oD&D (pre-supplement I) did it -- Strength just makes you a little bit better at being a fighter (by making you advance quicker in your levelling as a fighter -- the actual primary measure of fighter power). Same with Int and wizards: it just makes advancing as a wizard (the actual form of wizardly power) a little easier. That would mean that you realistically could play a little-bit-dull wizard or a not-strong fighter (I'm thinking Taran from the Chronicles of Prydain).Or my wisdom 9 Cleric. Didn't impact his spells, Clerics advance a bit faster in level than fighters, and it didn't impact my ability to turn undead.
In D&D 5e, a 9 wisdom means that I have a -1 to my turn undead ability...Makes their save easier. (They only need an 9 to not be turned at levels 1-3).

[stoutstien]

One is a proper spell, a specific effect called upon using components (V, S) the other is conversion of their energy, their mana (spell slots) into damaging energy conducted through their weapon. And paladins are very uncreative people.


The extraordinary, supernatural and similar to spell where useful and should have stayed.
I had this exact same argument in my last session fighting against our BBEG dragon, when a player wanted to use antimagic shell, so yeah I agree.



Nothing, it's the same magic, its arcane magic. The way they got to it is different but they must operate by the same principles.
Wizard learn how to do it studying the methods formulas and spells over the years. Sorcerers are born with the ability to do it, they have an natural ability to do magic and the spells they learn is how they control it to get the desired effect. Warlocks get the knowledge through a bargain. A pact that grant then the ability and knowledge to cast arcane magic.
Wizard was first introduced as the magic user on 1st Ed, so until sorcerers came around all arcane magic was governed by Intelligence. It's themes lore and fantasy where very well established. Any inconsistency latter was because the lack of care given to the sorcerer and later the warlock. That's why through this thread me and others have argued that the wizard is not the one that need to be fixed thematically or worse removed if removing a class was something that would happen ( it will not. All the PHB classe will be in OD&D).

You are talking past the questions by using mechanics to defend the existence of the mechanics.

If a paladin gets all their magical and/or supernatural abilities via transactional sources what differs what is magical<not spell> from magical<spell from>.

Why does the paladin have spells but also abilities that let them cast spells as not spells? Why does a spellcasting class have spells but also a bunch of very spell-like abilities that aren’t, in fact, spells from an in game perspective?

They are so focused on making rules for magic they didn't stop and asked what it even is.

Back when DND was basically spells=magic this was easy to gloss over but the more they muddle the division between what is and isn't magic the harder it is to keep the top spinning.

This is why so many (myself included) say removing the wizard is probably the easiest way to address this. Not because the wizard doesn't fit what DND was but because it doesn't mesh with what it has become.

[Rafaelfras]

You are talking past the questions by using mechanics to defend the existence of the mechanics.

If a paladin gets all their magical and/or supernatural abilities via transactional sources what differs what is magical<not spell> from magical<spell from>.

Why does the paladin have spells but also abilities that let them cast spells as not spells? Why does a spellcasting class have spells but also a bunch of very spell-like abilities that aren’t, in fact, spells from an in game perspective?

They are so focused on making rules for magic they didn't stop and asked what it even is.

Back when DND was basically spells=magic this was easy to gloss over but the more they muddle the division between what is and isn't magic the harder it is to keep the top spinning.

This is why so many (myself included) say removing the wizard is probably the easiest way to address this. Not because the wizard doesn't fit what DND was but because it doesn't mesh with what it has become.

Its because the explanation is mechanic. What else would it be? One is red the other is blues? When you have abilities that work diferent the explanation has to be mechanic, how it work.


what differs what is magical<not spell> from magical<spell from>.
The way he chooses to spend that energy. He can cast a spell that take a certain amount of energy and generate a specific effect, or spend this same energy freely withot any refinament, doing damage and thats it, thats the diference and I dont know any other way to look at it.

Also I dont agree that they didnt asked what magic even is.
It was asked and answered through many many campaing settings that not only say what magic is but have a long and rich lore about it be with the Weave that is a interstice between the raw magical energy of the universe and the material plane, the energies emanated by the moons on Kryn that wizards learn to tap and use or the very life force that defilers use to fuel a spell in dark sun, the flux between the positive energy plane (life generating) and the negative energy plane (life ending) in Greyhalk. If you dont like those lore bits or think they arent good enough thats another problem but it is there.

And I also hard disagree that a wizard dosent mesh with what D&D has become. On the contrary I think that the wizard is very well meshed in the game his flavor is well rounded and his role very well defined, with a very well stablished fantasy through game and literature. Removing him would avail nothing, the sorcerer would still be a mess the warlock still would be weird and the bard still would not make sense and now you dont have the true, one and fisrt Magic User for people like me who have played every wizard since 2nd ed and play one for over 8 years now with no problems what so ever.

[MoiMagnus]

Taking suggestions on alternative spell schools!

The current school system we use in a "not really D&D anymore" homebrew world is:

Pyromancy, which is actually much broader than fire-related, but more generally contain everything related to energy. It contains:

Fire & Light & "Positive" illusions (so not invisibility)
Telekinesis & Flight & Anything related to gravity
Mage armour and other force fields

Animancy, which contains anything related to the living:

Healing
Paralysis and other physical curses
Poisons (including poisonous clouds)
Polymorphisme
Life perception & Astral projection and other weird things related to the soul

Lithomancy, which contains anything related non-living materials:

Anything which shape the earth, create objects, transmutation, etc
Anything related to controlling liquids and gaz
Petrifaction, earthquakes, etc
Golems, constructs, etc

Nihimancy, which contains anything related to destroying energy:

Frost
Anti-magic
"Negative" illusions (invisibility, silence, etc)
Anything that make something "disappear", including teleportation effects (yes, it's a little shoehorned in it)



On top of that, there are divine miracles and telepathic actions which work in fundamentally different ways from regular spells in our homebrew, so I'm not sure if we can simply shoehorn them in those 4 schools or if we would need to create additional schools.

And even within arcane magic there are two additional "pseudo-schools" that correspond to forbidden spells:

Necromancy which is basically the section of Animancy that is under a taboo enforced by mortals. We sometimes include resurrections in it.
Exomancy which is the name for everything which is under a taboo enforced by the gods. In particular demon-related magic and far-realm related magic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why does the paladin have spells but also abilities that let them cast spells as not spells? Why not? The entire sub class structure is built around abilities accruing as level advances whether or not the character is a spell caster.


Why does a spellcasting class have spells but also a bunch of very spell-like abilities that aren’t, in fact, spells from an in game perspective? Such as the bard's Countercharm?

This is why so many (myself included) say removing the wizard is probably the easiest way to address this. Not because the wizard doesn't fit what DND was but because it doesn't mesh with what it has become. Not a bad approach, but I'd remove the sorcerer and restore the wizard into a different place which rationalizes the "why am I adventuring" to "I need to find magic and spells and sources because I can't do this all by my self. This eldritch knowledge needs to be found, and it may be dangerous to use" ... but sadly that ship has sailed.

I don't think that genie can be put back into the bottle.

[Rafaelfras]

Not a bad approach, but I'd remove the sorcerer and restore the wizard into a different place which rationalizes the "why am I adventuring" to "I need to find magic and spells and sources because I can't do this all by my self. This eldritch knowledge needs to be found, and it may be dangerous to use" ... but sadly that ship has sailed.

I don't think that genie can be put back into the bottle.

I think this will be way more dependent on the Setting and the rarity of magic in it, but even on magic heay setting it is a good motivation, I know that it would be diferent if this was written in the class description, but in a setting with very low magic I cant see this not being part of the character motivation.

Heck my own wizard left his cloistered schollar life in a very secure magic school to find power to be able to defend himself against his persuers and dont be caged and afraid all the time

[Amechra]

And even within arcane magic there are two additional "pseudo-schools" that correspond to forbidden spells:

Necromancy which is basically the section of Animancy that is under a taboo enforced by mortals. We sometimes include resurrections in it.
Exomancy which is the name for everything which is under a taboo enforced by the gods. In particular demon-related magic and far-realm related magic.


I feel like D&D needs more forbidden spells, honestly. And I feel like they should go way harder on why certain kinds of magic are forbidden other than "it's icky :(".

Like, I recently read a fascinating pair of blog posts (https://majesticflywhisk.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-congolese-classification-of-magic-i.html) about how the Songye people (who live in the current DRC) traditionally classify magic within their worldview, and a few things really stood out to me:


Their highest level of classification can be summed up as active/malevolent/selfish vs. reactive/benevolent/prosocial, with some kinds of magic that we'd probably sort together (because they do roughly the same thing) falling into different categories based on intent and custom¹.
That first category (active/malevolent/selfish) requires murdering one or more relatives to be able to do. Period. Full stop. If a dude can call down lightning, it's because they killed a family member in order to learn how.


Being able to answer the question "why is necromancy forbidden?" with "necromancers can only animate the corpses of people that they personally killed, either directly or indirectly" or something similar is way more visceral than "something something metaphysics", and it makes it abundantly clear why people won't be happy to see the necromancer that you've decided to play against type.

¹ This is part of the reason why the weird lopsidedness of D&D's schools (where some are based off intent and others aren't) doesn't really bother that. I'm also a librarian with an academic interest in how people categorize collections, and the Wizard schools honestly aren't that weird in that context — it's kinda like how the Soviet classification system had "Marxism/Leninism" as one of its top-level categories and combined both fiction and non-fiction (this was honestly just them being really blunt and open about the inherent ideological bias that shows up in any categorization system — at least they weren't like Melville Dewey (curse his name!) whose "objective" Dewey Decimal System is anything but).

[Kane0]

Given the opportunity, how could magic be sorted? By source, means, result? I'm interested to see some weird and wacky categorization.

[MoiMagnus]

I feel like D&D needs more forbidden spells, honestly. And I feel like they should go way harder on why certain kinds of magic are forbidden other than "it's icky :(".

Being able to answer the question "why is necromancy forbidden?" with "necromancers can only animate the corpses of people that they personally killed, either directly or indirectly" or something similar is way more visceral than "something something metaphysics", and it makes it abundantly clear why people won't be happy to see the necromancer that you've decided to play against type.


In that universe, necromancy is not "necessarily evil" as there are plenty of undead that have non-evil alignments.

However, the methods to create an undead are often evil, and the methods available for an undead to sustain its existence often require evil acts. But it's not impossible to build a situation in which you are a non-evil undead and manage to sustain yourself in non-evil ways.

Additionally, while there is no consensus at this subject (contrary to fighting demons), many gods fundamentally hate undead and will instruct their follower to hunt and destroy them. Though their direct influence on the world is limited, so it's not impossible to find a status-quo where a few undead are tolerated.

And lastly, and that's probably the most important point, immortality is taboo in this universe. After millennia and millennia of "immortal emperors" and countless rebellions, mortal societies have determined that being directly ruled by entities with significantly longer lifespan always ends badly for the mortals, and as such severely punish any attempt to reach immortality in fear of bringing back an era of immortal rulers. Resurrections are tolerated in some cultures, but even them are sometimes banned and considered as a threat to society. Similarly, any research made on the subject of necromancy tend to be pre-emptively destroyed. And immortal beings such as undead who have negotiated a place within mortal society are required to negotiate a "age of death" at which they need to accept their destruction (or get away far away enough to escape execution).

[Blackdrop]

Taking suggestions on alternative spell schools!

To be honest, I think it'd be beneficial if they just condensed the schools together. For example:


With the exception of the Shadow {X} spells in 3e, the distinction between Enchantment and Illusion has always felt very arbitrary to me (Enchantment makes you think things, Illusion makes you think you see things). Condensing Enchantment (excepting sleep, the hold {X}, and power word {X} spells, they world probably fit well into Transmutation) and Illusion together and picking one of those two school names to use (I prefer Illusion) just makes sense to me.
Cordoning off what would logically be Conjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation spells into Necromancy because they're *wiggles fingers* spoooooooky is also very arbitrary and silly to me. Axe it and condense.
Abjuration is the last one that feels very wishy-washy to me and I go back and forth on it being its own school. Some of the spells like alarm, dispel magic, counterspell don't really fit well into the themes of the other schools, but then we have things like banishment or imprisonment which are just Conjuration spells thrown into reverse. At the moment, if forced to make a choice, I think there are enough Abjuration spells that fit into other schools that I'd say "Screw it" and condense Abjuration with the other schools and just make homes for the things that don't fit well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given the opportunity, how could magic be sorted? By source, means, result? I'm interested to see some weird and wacky categorization.

Does it need to be? Sorted, that is? I think a major liability of D&D magic is that it's so finely-chopped and, for lack of a better word, "granular". Magic gets put in these tight little boxes known as spells (mostly, although magic items also count). Each one independent of each other, a world unto itself. And then those boxes get arranged on shelves. And none of that really matters, and it all feeds the myth that magic == spells and that magic is something tightly understood and "mechanical". Which kills most of the interest for me. It's just another, stupider form of technology (stupider because it lacks all the underlying structure that real-world science has).

If you want to be able to categorize things meaningfully, you have to go back to the roots and decide, once and for all, what magic is. What it's capable of. What it's not capable of. You need a Grand Unifying Theory (or at least a bunch of smaller partial theories) of magic.

But this is never going to happen. So instead, here is a categorization I've been batting around, based roughly in the plane invoked:

Elements (elemental planes): "raw" elemental blasts, terrain manipulation, short-duration elemental summons, resistance to elements
Forces (liminal planes, astral/ethereal): "raw" forces and wards, flight, levitation.
Life (positive energy/feywild): Healing, plants, animals.
Death (negative energy/shadowfell): Necromancy, spirits, resurrection, counter magic
Time (material + astral): speeding up, slowing down, future sight, some defenses
Space (material + etherial/astral): teleportation, far sight

Note that the upper/lower planes aren't invoked this way, at least not directly. Instead, entities of those planes can be called upon to intervene. Their intervention may draw on planes (ie spells) or not.

[Kane0]

If you want to be able to categorize things meaningfully, you have to go back to the roots and decide, once and for all, what magic is. What it's capable of. What it's not capable of.

Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at. If we can sit down and figure out a limit of what magic can and cannot do, then it would be way more interesting to me. But that discussion is often very interlinked with how and why magic works in whatever way does, generating those limitations.

But D&D has historically leaned on softer rather than harder approaches to magic, so as far as the broader game is concerned we're barking up the wrong tree.

[KorvinStarmast]

But D&D has historically leaned on softer rather than harder approaches to magic, so as far as the broader game is concerned we're barking up the wrong tree. For some reason, your post evoked the mental image of my dog lifting a leg to pee on that tree. Not sure why. :smallconfused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at. If we can sit down and figure out a limit of what magic can and cannot do, then it would be way more interesting to me. But that discussion is often very interlinked with how and why magic works in whatever way does, generating those limitations.

But D&D has historically leaned on softer rather than harder approaches to magic, so as far as the broader game is concerned we're barking up the wrong tree.

Yeah. That way lies...worldbuilding. And heaven forfend they do any of that. Might get in the way of being everything to everyone.

Fundamentally magic (spells, particularly) are very boring to me because they're just a cheap "I can do anything as long as someone writes me a spell to do so" trick. They're a deus ex machina. No real rhyme, reason, or constraints other than "things they haven't written down yet".

So I see a class like the wizard who is all about the spells as just being a boring "can do anything" class by design. The only reason they can't do literally anything is that no one's written those spells yet. Once they're written, there's no real binding or constraining principle that says wizards can't use them. A class that is everything is, in the same sense, nothing.

[stoutstien]

Given the opportunity, how could magic be sorted? By source, means, result? I'm interested to see some weird and wacky categorization.

I think source should be the only real sorting that the players/PCs should be able to interact with and even that should be mostly guess work. The means should be weird, unorthodox, and inefficient. If there were rules it wouldn't be magic

My favorite systems uses stuff like paradoxical events/situations like needing hordes of weird objects. Dragons aren't born they are made by greed.

*My current game takes this up a notch and has highlander rules in play for some sources. You want to learn a certain spell? You have to erase it from somewhere else first as multiple copies in existence weakens it*

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at. If we can sit down and figure out a limit of what magic can and cannot do, then it would be way more interesting to me. But that discussion is often very interlinked with how and why magic works in whatever way does, generating those limitations.

But D&D has historically leaned on softer rather than harder approaches to magic, so as far as the broader game is concerned we're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think that works, mainly cause "magic" is a pretty common driving force in a lot of stories, and the game is run by people.

So when you say "magic can't X", that's just the seed for the next campaign where the evil lich has managed to do X and nobody knows how.

[Amechra]

@MoiMagnus - "Necromancy is forbidden because we don't want immortal kings" is a solid reason. I like it.

---

It'd honestly be a bit odd if magic it wasn't sorted, if only because humans tend to like sorting things. The issue is when the game sorts stuff into objective categories, because that's kinda boring.

What I want to see is a shorter spell list (we do not need 100+ different spells, please and thank you), but give me, like, four different ways that you could categorize it, each with a handful of spells that are labeled "I dunno, let's shove them under Miscellaneous?". Give me a history of Vancian magic where there used to be 6 schools (Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Evocation, Mentalism, Transmutation), but there was a breakthrough that re-contextualized the formerly distinct practice of Necromancy as an ideosyncratic Vancian practice (with a lot of the spells still being sorted as "Necromancy" for historic reasons), and then Mentalism had a political split into Enchantment/Illusionism, with the nascent Illusionist movement claiming a ton of spells that were formerly under other schools (Color Spray was an Evocation, Invisibility was an Abjuration spell that shielded you from notice, Phantom Steed used to be Conjuration...)

Meanwhile, something like Control Weather and Cure Wounds fit unevenly within the Vancian system, but they fit super neatly in the Druidic subject-based organization system (Animal, Mineral, Plant, Weather, Other), but that system has it's own issue, like how Druids contend that Conjure Elemental is actually three different spells — a Mineral spell that calls up Earth Elementals, a Weather spell that calls up Air or Water elementals, and an Other spell that calls up Fire Elementals — and how humanoids can switch between being Animal and Other depending on the exact specifics of what we're doing to them.

[Rukelnikov]

@MoiMagnus - "Necromancy is forbidden because we don't want immortal kings" is a solid reason. I like it.

---

It'd honestly be a bit odd if magic it wasn't sorted, if only because humans tend to like sorting things. The issue is when the game sorts stuff into objective categories, because that's kinda boring.

What I want to see is a shorter spell list (we do not need 100+ different spells, please and thank you), but give me, like, four different ways that you could categorize it, each with a handful of spells that are labeled "I dunno, let's shove them under Miscellaneous?". Give me a history of Vancian magic where there used to be 6 schools (Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Evocation, Mentalism, Transmutation), but there was a breakthrough that re-contextualized the formerly distinct practice of Necromancy as an ideosyncratic Vancian practice (with a lot of the spells still being sorted as "Necromancy" for historic reasons), and then Mentalism had a political split into Enchantment/Illusionism, with the nascent Illusionist movement claiming a ton of spells that were formerly under other schools (Color Spray was an Evocation, Invisibility was an Abjuration spell that shielded you from notice, Phantom Steed used to be Conjuration...)

Meanwhile, something like Control Weather and Cure Wounds fit unevenly within the Vancian system, but they fit super neatly in the Druidic subject-based organization system (Animal, Mineral, Plant, Weather, Other), but that system has it's own issue, like how Druids contend that Conjure Elemental is actually three different spells — a Mineral spell that calls up Earth Elementals, a Weather spell that calls up Air or Water elementals, and an Other spell that calls up Fire Elementals — and how humanoids can switch between being Animal and Other depending on the exact specifics of what we're doing to them.

This is... exactly what we have? At least in the realms? Elves categorized in a way, then Netherese categorized in another and then came the schools...

[Kane0]

Good point, if we are getting three core spell lists have them each categorize their spells in their own manner. Arcane spells might have schools based on methodology or area of specialty, Divine spells are based far more closely to spheres of influence and Primal based on elements or the divide between flora/fauna/weather.

[Amechra]

This is... exactly what we have? At least in the realms? Elves categorized in a way, then Netherese categorized in another and then came the schools...

The distinction that I'd draw is that D&D currently says that the schools are "correct" on a mechanical level (every spell is assigned to exactly one school, with no spells outside of this tidy little system). As far as I know, there isn't a spell list written up based on the Netherese classification system (it'd honestly be kinda interesting to see a list of spells split into four categories — the three Netherese categories + "wasn't discovered/invented yet" — with some of the spells on the list being labelled as [LOST]).

What I'm looking for would be if the Netherese system and the schools were both current and valid ways for your character to approach magic. But for the game to do that, it'd have to be built with that in mind from the ground up.

[Witty Username]

Good point, if we are getting three core spell lists have them each categorize their spells in their own manner. Arcane spells might have schools based on methodology or area of specialty, Divine spells are based far more closely to spheres of influence and Primal based on elements or the divide between flora/fauna/weather.

AD&D did that didn't it? Well, it didn't have a primal list but it did have separate classifications for Mage and Priest spells, even spells on the same list if I recall correctly.
There is an overall theme of standardizing spells and spellcasting for simplicities sake, maybe it needs to be unpacked some.

[Kane0]

There is an overall theme of standardizing spells and spellcasting for simplicities sake, maybe it needs to be unpacked some.

In which case I would say ditch spell schools entirely. Have the wizardly specialists trigger their features in other ways (for example, Evokers 'when you cast a spell that deals damage' or enchanters 'when you cast a spell that forces a wisdom saving throw', etc)

[Amechra]

AD&D did that didn't it? Well, it didn't have a primal list but it did have separate classifications for Mage and Priest spells, even spells on the same list if I recall correctly.
There is an overall theme of standardizing spells and spellcasting for simplicities sake, maybe it needs to be unpacked some.

It was actually more heinous then that. If a spell was on both lists, it'd be written up in full in one of the lists, and the other list would have an entry that would have the spell boilerplate with a description to the effect of "this works exactly like the Magic-User spell named [BLANK]",

[Rukelnikov]

What I'm looking for would be if the Netherese system and the schools were both current and valid ways for your character to approach magic.

Oh, ok, you want them coexisting, I think it'd be cool if your categorization depended on the way you approached magic, Wizards would use slots and schools, Sorcerers sp and heritages, Warlocks pacts and sources, Clerics interventions and spheres/domains, etc... I'd prefer that approach (its similar to how WoD works), but I don't know to what extent that's doable in the PHB, it would be at least 50 to 100 pages longer, and even more scaled towards casters.


But for the game to do that, it'd have to be built with that in mind from the ground up.

Yeah, it needs to be baked in the design in order to be viable. Even if they released a splat for 5e of Antique Arcanes, and give new classifications for every spell, and allowed you to use one or the other depending on your build, it wouldn't have mechanical support elsewhere (in terms of subs, feats, etc.).


AD&D did that didn't it? Well, it didn't have a primal list but it did have separate classifications for Mage and Priest spells, even spells on the same list if I recall correctly.
There is an overall theme of standardizing spells and spellcasting for simplicities sake, maybe it needs to be unpacked some.

Clerics had spheres, but IIRC spells weren't divided into spheres, each sphere had some spells, but a given spell could be part of multiple spheres.

[Bane's Wolf]

The current school system we use in a "not really D&D anymore" homebrew world is:

Pyromancy, which is actually much broader than fire-related, but more generally contain everything related to energy. It contains:

Fire & Light & "Positive" illusions (so not invisibility)
Telekinesis & Flight & Anything related to gravity
Mage armour and other force fields

Animancy, which contains anything related to the living:

Healing
Paralysis and other physical curses
Poisons (including poisonous clouds)
Polymorphisme
Life perception & Astral projection and other weird things related to the soul

Lithomancy, which contains anything related non-living materials:

Anything which shape the earth, create objects, transmutation, etc
Anything related to controlling liquids and gaz
Petrifaction, earthquakes, etc
Golems, constructs, etc

Nihimancy, which contains anything related to destroying energy:

Frost
Anti-magic
"Negative" illusions (invisibility, silence, etc)
Anything that make something "disappear", including teleportation effects (yes, it's a little shoehorned in it)



On top of that, there are divine miracles and telepathic actions which work in fundamentally different ways from regular spells in our homebrew, so I'm not sure if we can simply shoehorn them in those 4 schools or if we would need to create additional schools.

And even within arcane magic there are two additional "pseudo-schools" that correspond to forbidden spells:

Necromancy which is basically the section of Animancy that is under a taboo enforced by mortals. We sometimes include resurrections in it.
Exomancy which is the name for everything which is under a taboo enforced by the gods. In particular demon-related magic and far-realm related magic.


This Is Awesome :biggrin:

I would love if every published setting could give us a breakdown like this of its "magic rules"
Sadly, it would mess with the way a lot of classes work if each setting had different Magic Mythology. DnD is basically stuck having a generic system that needs to plug into all (or at least most) published settings.

Homebrew for the Win, though :smallbiggrin:


Taking suggestions on alternative spell schools!

Given the opportunity, how could magic be sorted? By source, means, result? I'm interested to see some weird and wacky categorization.

Maybe not exactly what you asked for, but the categories for my homebrew world:

The World is divided into 3 domains- Celestial, Spiritual, Material (soul, spirit, body)

A "person" consists of a body, a soul, and an animating spirit to bind them together. When a person dies, the Soul leaves (hopefully) to the Celestial Realm, leaving behind the body to decay, and the spirit to be slowly re-absorbed into the spirit world (becoming tree or rock spirits)
So the world is full of elemental spirits, but not necessarily full of "Souls"


*Celestial Magic comes from the Gods and their influence on the world. (channeling "Soul energy")
Clerics can channel the power of celestial beings through their own soul to manifest various effects. These Celestial beings have their own motives and temperaments, so the cleric should be careful who's power they choose to channel.


*Spirit Magic is the manipulation of spirits and spiritual essence. (getting elemental spirits to do your bidding)
Druids connect with spirits and "Spiritual planes" (feywild, elemental planes, Shadowfell?).
These spirits then grant them the effects they wish to manifest.
Your relationship with the spirits and their world is important, and circles of druids have different agreements with different spirits.


*Material Magic is the manipulation of the physical world in strange ways to bend and break physical laws.
Wizards find ways to study the "weave" of the world, and find ways to essentially Hack the base code of the universe. They learn to exploit weak points of reality and manipulate and re-code it to create the effects they want, sometimes using and manipulating spirits, sometimes Dangerously manipulating Souls...
Wizards warn each other away from "dangerous" fields of study (necromancy and Lichdom) because it steps on the toes of potentially vengeful celestial beings.



It is no accident that my 3 magic types fall almost perfectly into OneDND's Divine, Primal and Arcane categories... I'm not looking to re-invent the wheel :smallwink:
I'm just trying to use the system we have in a way that makes enough "Logical" sense to me, and fits into the themes of my campaign world.

Not very weird or wacky :smalltongue:, but its simple enough to quickly explain to a new player, and hopefully deep enough to bring up interesting conversations once players take an interest.

(and glancing at it now, it creates some "logical" problems for me. Does Warlock use Celestial, Spirit or Material? depends on the source, i guess...? :smalleek: Does her Patron teach her how to Hack the weave?)

[Amechra]

it would be at least 50 to 100 pages longer, and even more scaled towards casters.

Not necessarily... a big part of why the spells chapter is so long is that spells aren't templated in a very efficient way — compare:



Armor of Agathys
1st level Abjuration
a
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a cup of water)
Duration: 1 hour


to:



Armor of Agathys [1st+]
a
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a cup of water)
Duration: 1 hour


There are 362 spells in the PHB, and ~60 lines per column of text (I counted). Making that one small adjustment (assuming we're already on board with throwing away the "this is an Abjuration spell" tag) shortens the spellcasting chapter by roughly 3 pages.

If you're willing to more heavily refactor spells, I'm pretty sure that you could cut the length of the spellcasting chapter by something like 15 pages without losing any meaningful information. Judging by how I was able to get Armor of Agathys down from 16 lines to 8 without sacrificing anything other than the Abjuration tag, you could probably cut as many as 30 pages without people noticing if you were willing to also some spells that don't fit in the standard pace of adventures (pro tip: move stuff like Antipathy/Sympathy or Hallow to the DMG as part of some theoretical "here are some rituals" section).

Then you'd have plenty of space to talk about what makes each kind of magic special.

EDIT:


Sadly, it would mess with the way a lot of classes work if each setting had different Magic Mythology. DnD is basically stuck having a generic system that needs to plug into all (or at least most) published settings.

This is actually more of a 5e problem than a D&D problem — 5e is unusual in that the official setting write-ups are all very unwilling to constrain or modify existing player options. Something like Dark Sun (which had a distinct list of races, gave everyone psychic powers, and changed how a bunch of classes worked) simply isn't something that either of the 5e design teams have been willing to do.

If 5e was more like previous editions, Strixhaven would've just gone "you can ONLY play a Bard/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard in this, the campaign about playing someone going to Magical College".

[Rafaelfras]

This is actually more of a 5e problem than a D&D problem — 5e is unusual in that the official setting write-ups are all very unwilling to constrain or modify existing player options. Something like Dark Sun (which had a distinct list of races, gave everyone psychic powers, and changed how a bunch of classes worked) simply isn't something that either of the 5e design teams have been willing to do.

If 5e was more like previous editions, Strixhaven would've just gone "you can ONLY play a Bard/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard in this, the campaign about playing someone going to Magical College".

This is exactly what I had in mind at the beginning of 5e.
I thought the wizard class would have to be very different in each setting.
For dragon lance 3 subclasses for the white red and black robes, something for renegades. In dark sun you would have defiler and preserver as subclass options, nothing else.
Now dragon lance is out and the moon subclass went to sorcerers, so wizards didn't even got that.

[Aquillion]

If 5e was more like previous editions, Strixhaven would've just gone "you can ONLY play a Bard/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard in this, the campaign about playing someone going to Magical College".
I mean, Strixhaven did give the players intentionally-overpowered backgrounds that made them fit into the setting (and which clearly encouraged casters; the game outright says you should play one, it just doesn't forbid it, with the backgrounds ensuring that even the barbarian will have a little magic if someone insists on playing one.)

I think that something like the Strixhaven backgrounds would work all right for Dark Sun, at least as far as representing psionics go. Pretty easy to have backgrounds for different psionic gifts, or to say "every Dark Sun character gets a free Psionic Gift feat from this list of Dark Sun Psionic Gift feats."

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like D&D needs more forbidden spells, honestly. And I feel like they should go way harder on why certain kinds of magic are forbidden other than "it's icky {snip great example}
Being able to answer the question "why is necromancy forbidden?" with "necromancers can only animate the corpses of people that they personally killed, either directly or indirectly" or something similar is way more visceral than "something something metaphysics", and it makes it abundantly clear why people won't be happy to see the necromancer that you've decided to play against type. This! Plus Eleventy. :smallsmile:

Given the opportunity, how could magic be sorted? By source, means, result? I'm interested to see some weird and wacky categorization. I like the Defiler/Preserver split, hooray for Dark Sun, in that a lot of magic needs to exact a cost. I also think that the source (Arcane/Divine/Primal) is a good start but I'd rather see something a little like a planar basis: elemental, positive, negative. That gives you six sources (not schools) which include the traditional elements as well as the necrotic (Death/Dark) and radiant (life/Light) baselines. The last source ought to be, I think, Primordial Chaos, and that source should be very dangerous to handle.

It's just another, stupider form of technology (stupider because it lacks all the underlying structure that real-world science has). That's a WotC era problem more than a TSR era problem, but TSR wasn't immune to that either.

decide, once and for all, what magic is. What it's capable of. What it's not capable of. You need a Grand Unifying Theory (or at least a bunch of smaller partial theories) of magic. They don't hire the right kind of people to do that at WotC.

Elements (elemental planes): "raw" elemental blasts, terrain manipulation, short-duration elemental summons, resistance to elements
Forces (liminal planes, astral/ethereal): "raw" forces and wards, flight, levitation.
Life (positive energy/feywild): Healing, plants, animals.
Death (negative energy/shadowfell): Necromancy, spirits, resurrection, counter magic
Time (material + astral): speeding up, slowing down, future sight, some defenses
Space (material + etherial/astral): teleportation, far sight Similar to my idea up there; small wonder I found your world to be very close to many of my preferences ... but, as a matter of taste, I don't find time travel to be all that compelling (yeah, I know, Campaign 2 had that all over the place ...)

Note that the upper/lower planes aren't invoked this way, at least not directly. Instead, entities of those planes can be called upon to intervene. Their intervention may draw on planes (ie spells) or not. Summoning spells need to be more dangerous to the caster, in my opinion. In general.
So I see a class like the wizard who is all about the spells as just being a boring "can do anything" class by design. The only reason they can't do literally anything is that no one's written those spells yet. Once they're written, there's no real binding or constraining principle that says wizards can't use them. A class that is everything is, in the same sense, nothing. And the price for failed research is non existent, which is what I think that magic is missing. (DMG potion miscibility is a step in the right direction)

@MoiMagnus - "Necromancy is forbidden because we don't want immortal kings" is a solid reason. I like it. Yes.

What I want to see is a shorter spell list (we do not need 100+ different spells, please and thank you), but give me, like, four different ways that you could categorize it, each with a handful of spells that are labeled "I dunno, let's shove them under Miscellaneous?".

Vancian magic was arcane magic, at its root, and you had to go out and find it.
Clerical magic was different.

This is actually more of a 5e problem than a D&D problem — 5e is unusual in that the official setting write-ups are all very unwilling to constrain or modify existing player options. Something like Dark Sun (which had a distinct list of races, gave everyone psychic powers, and changed how a bunch of classes worked) simply isn't something that either of the 5e design teams have been willing to do. :smallmad:

[Witty Username]

This is exactly what I had in mind at the beginning of 5e.
I thought the wizard class would have to be very different in each setting.
For dragon lance 3 subclasses for the white red and black robes, something for renegades. In dark sun you would have defiler and preserver as subclass options, nothing else.
Now dragon lance is out and the moon subclass went to sorcerers, so wizards didn't even got that.

Especially weird as in Dragonlance lore up to this point moon magic was specifically a thing sorcerer couldn't use for their magic.
--
Adding restraints at this point is fraught with nonsense. The editions have been adding a bunch of magic systems on top of eachother and and the only rules are class fantasy. And it doesn't help that half the system is outright rejection of logic, how can we expect a magic system to have rules, when understanding how it works is actively detrimental to its use for all but 2.6 classes?

[Kane0]

I'm really dreading the 5e Planescape book...

[paladinn]

I'm really dreading the 5e Planescape book...

I'm dreading most everything I'm learning about 1D&D.

Thank goodness for C&C

[Arkhios]

"And Lo, a new generation of Grognards has been born!"

[Kane0]

"And Lo, a new generation of Grognards has been born!"

I have seen myself live play long enough to become the villain grognard

[Rukelnikov]

I'm really dreading the 5e Planescape book...

Is there some change to the lore in particular you dread, like turning Sigil into a convenient hub? Or is it just in general?

[Kane0]

Is there some change to the lore in particular you dread, like turning Sigil into a convenient hub? Or is it just in general?

Just the general trend of how all the other setting books have been varying disappointments in this edition. At this stage im not expecting much more than a vignette.

Edit: Planescape is already a kitchen sink and Sigil is already a hub, I'm just not expecting anything more than a greatest-hits summary rather than delving into or expanding on anything prior. More a primer or introduction than guide.

[Witty Username]

Just the general trend of how all the other setting books have been varying disappointments in this edition. At this stage im not expecting much more than a vignette.

Yeah, there is a general sense of soullessness, I feel like even FR hasn't gotten much and its the core setting. Most of the good was Theros(mtg, so it doesn't count) and Eberron still felt like it covered the critical bits, and I actually liked the rebranding of the Delkyr (1 generic statblock changed to a set of specific characters), it made them feel like they had more gravitas.

[Rukelnikov]

Just the general trend of how all the other setting books have been varying disappointments in this edition. At this stage im not expecting much more than a vignette.

Edit: Planescape is already a kitchen sink and Sigil is already a hub, I'm just not expecting anything more than a greatest-hits summary rather than delving into or expanding on anything prior. More a primer or introduction than guide.

It is, but it shouldn't be a convenient one, more of a we have no other way of reaching X than by finding a way to get into sigil, and then finding someone who knows where a portal to X can be found, and then the key and the activation. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is skipped and it becomes more "user friendly".

[Rafaelfras]

Just the general trend of how all the other setting books have been varying disappointments in this edition. At this stage im not expecting much more than a vignette.



I think you are right to dread it.
Wizards of the coast have been very lazy in everything regarded to 5e for some time now. And on settings it shows. Books like Forgotten Realms campaign setting guide on 3rd edition where the norm. What 5e book comes even closer to that? There is nothing