Pondering the 5.5 Wizard

[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/showsing...9&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.

[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.

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 all

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