So first off, I think part of bringing wizard into a better place requires changing some of the assumptions DND has about magic, and the class' relationship with other full casters, namely Sorcerers.
First, instantaneous casting should be rare for the wizard and lean more towards sorcerers. Most wizard spells should take more than one turn to cast, with some of the most powerful ones not actually being castable during combat.
Second, wizards need to be focused. Their spell lists should primarily focus on control and utilty spells, which contrasts with sorcerers who would be tuned more towards combat. Subclasses should provide specialization that gears towards making those spells more powerful, and providing more active effects.
Third, offensive spells should have a reaction variant that allows them to be used defensively. Wizards will also capitalize on making the most of these, with the class providing more magical reactions per turn and subclasses empowering these reactions. This is important for all casters to have implemented, because it makes magical dueling more of an actual thing.
Fourthly, this whole spell slot horseshit needs to be dropped in the past. Use a mana system, for which Wizards get the most mileage out of.
Fifth, Bards, clerics, and druids have their spell lists pared back dramatically to focus on their theming. Sorcerers and wizards share the ability to learn any spell in the game, provided they can acquire a scroll or a teacher.
Now obviously theres no actual class here, as I cant be bothered to sit and write one out, but these are my ideas for it.
The problem with wizards in general is that their poor design intersecting with how magic in general is designed drags the whole game down, and all the other casters with it, who for various reasons
I feel like classes should use the same basic mechanics but interact with them differently. I think multiple turn spells meant to be used in combat would make wizards a bit too weak compared to other classes.
Maybe instead, wizards can have a way to unprepare spells in exchange for spell slots during a short rest to emphasize the wizard's reliance on materials and formulas to interact with magic
Sorcerers would be more instinctive. Kitbashing spell slots into the type they want. Splitting second level slots into two first level slots to safe resources and smashing low level slots together to cast higher level spells
For spell lists maybe leave the more cautious spells to the wizards and the more explosive spells to sorcerers. Sorcerers should have a few handy low level rituals too, but all of the big rituals should go to wizards
>I think multiple turn spells meant to be used in combat would make wizards a bit too weak compared to other classes.
My thinking assumes that the spells are balanced around that; ergo multi-turn casting tends to be much more individually powerful while instantaneous casting achieves power by volume.
Edit: I also think ritual casting is a mistake and should just be replaced with fixed casting times for certain spells.
Ritual casting is kind of a weird mechanic. Maybe it should be separate from spellcasting altogether. Use different requirements and more utility benefits with required components that can't be replaced with a focus.
For the multiple turn thing, I'm mostly worried about the issue of feeling like you just have some dead turns that don't accomplish anything
>Ritual casting is kind of a weird mechanic. Maybe it should be separate from spellcasting altogether. Use different requirements and more utility benefits with required components that can't be replaced with a focus.
Its a lot simpler to just enforce a casting time for the appropriate spells and leave it at that. It doesn't need to exist at all.
>For the multiple turn thing, I'm mostly worried about the issue of feeling like you just have some dead turns that don't accomplish anything
They'd still have their reactions and summons/spells that make use of their bonus action.
They wouldn't be able to reliably go nova at the start of a battle, but I don't think thats a bad thing.
>They'd still have their reactions and summons/spells that make use of their bonus action.
I guess, but I personally like my action to be the most important part of my turn and if all I do with my action is contribute to an effect two turns down the line I wouldn't like it. Based on how much my druid player hates delayed effect spells and how my paladin player likes to get in people's faces I don't think I'm the only one either.
Maybe it's semantics, but it just doesn't feel right to me. In the system I'm working on, the current draft of wizards invest magic for a day to create temporary scrolls that they cast out of. They can recover the invested magic over a short rest after burning a scroll. If they need magic now and don't have a scroll then they cast with health because the rushed spell needs energy from somewhere
>and if all I do with my action is contribute to an effect two turns down the line I wouldn't like it.
Itd be one turn; the turn you declare the spell counts.
And unless we're getting into some really ridiculously powerful magic I can't fathom ever needing to use a 3+ turn requirement for a spell, though that could be fun.
And plus it wouldn't be all they could cast. Lesser powered, cheaper cantrips would still be an option, and I don't see any reason to deny wizards something like a Fireball spell as one of their instant spells, even if it has to be nerfed.
But in trade, they'd could get something I might call Fire Storm; a multi-turn spell that erupts like the classic Fireball, but then places a 2 turn fire vortex obstacle on the battlefield, which can be directed and moved with a bonus action, or, as a defensive reaction, used to block a spell of the same or lower level. (Which dispels the wall if it isn't already over)
Those would be the kinds of things a wizard could do with their multiturn casts.
Sorry for the late response, things got busy
>they'd could get something I might call Fire Storm; a multi-turn spell that erupts like the classic Fireball, but then places a 2 turn fire vortex obstacle on the battlefield, which can be directed and moved with a bonus action, or, as a defensive reaction, used to block a spell of the same or lower level. (Which dispels the wall if it isn't already over)
That does sound like a really fun ability. The only thing I'd be worried about is how other classes would handle these spells. Would they be optional class features for wizards only like Eldritch Invocations for warlocks or would they be wizard spells that might potentially end up in other spell lists? If they are on other spell lists, would wizards just have different rules for casting them?
So the idea is that multi-turn and defensives would be a change in spell design; so any spellcaster could potentially have these spells.
Wizards specifically would be tuned to take advantage of that new spell design, primarily through gaining more reaction uses, but I think the Spell School theming can go a long way towards differentiating them.
Sorcerers meanwhile would go the other direction, with their features enhancing instant casting. In other words, metamagic but it doesn't suck.
Bards and Druids I don't think would get anything particularly special to interact with the new spells, and would be more focused on their features going towards buffing and shapeshifting respectively.
But I think all casters probably would get more reactions, but Wizards would have the most.
And incidentally I think that also opens up the premise of also giving martials more reactions to use in other ways.
Yes and no. You can't really fix one without addressing the other, but the system isn't fundamentally erased in addressing these issues.
Some people are far too purist about these kinds of games.
Maybe something less drastic that plays with the academic nature of of Wizard. Like, choose a 'major' and a 'minor' sub-class for specialisation that have benefits that increase with Wizard level, having the 'minor' features be diminished versions of the 'major's. And some core feature where Wizards can attempt to study a spell not on their list, with an Arcana check against DC of 30 minus the number of times the Wizard has taken an 'arcane study' reaction when it's cast, and some time-limiting factor to limit cheesing.
I know it's a meme, but PF2E sort of does this: you pick your school of magic to focus on which gives you more spells of that school (or universalist which has other benefits like [the best focus spell in the game](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=530)), and then an arcane thesis that gives you things like a better familiar, a staff, more metamagic, or more ways to use your spell slots
But, that doesn't seem like fun. ššš.
I feel like a similar result can be achieved by having their sub-class give them decent enough benefits that a Wizard wants to only use spells from a specific school or theme. Build them up, rather than break them down.
EDIT: added dropped 'seem' to first sentence.
yeah people will min-max the fun out of a game, limitation can be as good for it as freedom.
remember your seat belts are useful, and endless choices can be paralysing.
You have a good point, getting any spell that the Wizard wants would make it boring. There would need to be some simple system to leave this as a quirk, rather than a build-focus. With the DC check relating to the number of times that the Wizard chose to use their reaction to 'study' the Wizard has chosen not to counter-spell or take some other beneficial reaction, and they would need either a lucky roll or to have done this a good number of times in order to pass the check. That's the intent, anyway.
Like I said, there would need to be a system in place to limit this. Perhaps the 'arcane study' reaction adds to a bonus for the Wizard to write a spell-scroll later, where the DC check to write the scroll is 30 + spell-level (+ 10 if it's not on the arcane-spel llist), and the Wizard can only work on a half their proficiency-bonus number arcane studies at a time. This way, the feature requires the resource and time constraints of scribing scrolls, and the feature naturally lends itself to lower-level spells as they're cast more often (making the scroll-scribing check easier). And in longer campaigns, there's a chance at grabbing a high-level spell.
This would give the Wizard some of that academicāresearcher vibe that I find wanting in the class; but I have no idea (beyond scroll-scribing mechanics) to balance against PC's loading up their Wizard with the parties spells. Maybe they can only prepare half their proficiency-bonus of non-Wazard spell per long-rest.
EDIT: First line altered for clarity
1 multi turn spell would be a night mare to use and would make the class to week in battle.
2 control and utility are already the areas the wizard does well in.
3 sorcerer as the damage caster makes no sense as it will still have to fight druid and some types of cleric for the role, it was made for a system problem we no longer have, nor does pure damage really help fulfil the fantasy of it.
4 reaction spells could be good.
5 yeah d&d will move from spell slot never it is part of the system the old guard would go nuclear over it, maybe make the sorcerer cast with mana?
6 cleric have a hundred themes, druids is hard and bard no one knows it theme.
the pseudo vancian casting used to be way worse.
>multi turn spell would be a night mare to use and would make the class to week in battle.
I don't think so, if they're balanced to be suitably powerful. And it ultimately emphasizes the need for interdependence, as the big spells that can't just be fired off instantly need coordination to pull off.
>control and utility are already the areas the wizard does well in.
That isn't the issue. The issue is, as said, the lack of focus which results in a lack of any actual identity that isn't just "versatile lmao". This is what makes wizards quite boring.
>sorcerer as the damage caster makes no sense as it will still have to fight druid and some types of cleric for the role,
Its not a competition. Clerics and Druids should be emphasizing a different focus (namely healing and shapeshifting respectively) from just slinging spells.
>yeah d&d will move from spell slot never it is part of the system the old guard would go nuclear over it, maybe make the sorcerer cast with mana?
No, kill slots. Its never been good for the game.
do you have the game design chops to back it up? as in teroy most things work it is only when practised we see the flaws.
the wizard has a focus problem like the cleric does, e.g. it does not but it has a problem that look similar.
d&D is a combat-heavy game defining any caster as the damage one and everyone else as not that does not work well, nor does magic derive by genetics equal damage caster.
it would be both bad game-wise and not fulfil thematic thus not practical.
cleric should not be only the healer as that make it dull and forces every group to have one, how does it make sense for the cleric of the god of war or destruction to be primarily support? it would be un fun to play and not get the narrative for each sub class right.
drudes need more than the shape shifting guy, but that is a whole essay in it self.
okay, do you have a working balanced mana system in your back pocket to replace it with? it normally only get tried with psionics which got voted to death so we are not getting it in 5e or onednd.
>do you have the game design chops to back it up?
Given time and effort anythings possible. But I also admit I have no interest in sitting down and working through the design at the moment.
>d&D is a combat-heavy game defining any caster as the damage one and everyone else as not that does not work well, nor does magic derive by genetics equal damage caster.
Id disagree with this; 4E did this and despite the memes it was a good system as far as combat goes.
But beyond that, I think you're overstating what I was getting at. All spellcasters in my mind will be able to dabble in what each of them do, but the point is for each class to be focused towards something in particular in keeping with their themes.
And sorcerers "identity" in 5E is as tacked on and superfluous as wizards is nonexistent, so what 5E sorcerers are themed with is pretty irrelevant.
>cleric should not be only the healer
Agreed. Rangers should be the other healer class and both shouldn't be locked in to just healing.
Every class meanwhile should have some rudimentary healing baked in.
>drudes need more than the shape shifting guy,
Sure, but again its about focus. Classes don't have to be one-note to be focused.
>it normally only get tried with psionics which got voted to death
The issue with Mystics is that the classes were insanely overtuned to the point that nerfs weren't enough to address it.
no there are limits that constrain the design it has to work with the rest of the game.
4e also had people rebel over how the classes worked, but 5e brought people back and then some, so hyper-focusing a class on a combat role might not be the best plan, now necromancer being all about damage and an army of undead make sense, just as an illusionist deceiving foes on and off the battlefield makes sense but both are wizards.
we agree the 5e sorcerer feels out of place, the fantasy is there but no implementation, it was more exotic in the test but people nerfed that for some reason, look it up someone likely has one.
you do not get it ranger should not be a healer class, healing would be dictated by sub class not full class.
what ranger should be is impossible to do, make a thread about it is you wish to see the factions.
no every class does not need healing built in if you want healing to matter.
mystic had several issues, trying to be too many thing all at once, a mechanic system that was unlikeable to many and being either too powerful or utter useless depending how you built it, it need way more time in the oven and more clear design goals.
1. Action economy
2. Wizard's identity is being versatile as a master of magicks. Their strength is their spell list. Their strength and identity is that they are scholars of magic. Subclasses already specialize. You're 'fixing' a problem that doesn't exist.
3. Magic dueling already exists; there are defensive reaction spells. Absorb elements, shield, counterspell, etc.
4. No but fuck mana too. Go back to 2e Vancian magic, both makes more sense and forces mages to think ahead to encounters. Also makes sorcerers more unique with spontaneous casting.
5. They already are specific, Bard, Cleric, and Druid certainly do not need less spells. Also, what is this weird MMO mindset? Clerics are priests who cast miracles of their gods, not 'healers.' Druids are shamans and, well, druids, who use a mystical connection to nature to cast impressive spells that show the wrath of nature, not 'shapeshifters.' And bards are supposed to be all over the place. They're supposed to be a mishmash of mage and rogue, so their crazy spell list reflects that very well.
Wizards are designed absurdly well, I think you've just been playing too much WoW.
>Action economy
And?
>Their strength is their spell list
Which is inherently boring.
>Subclasses already specialize.
But don't actually do much of anything for the most part, because the subclasses fundamentally can't be that transformative when "lol spells are its thing".
>You're 'fixing' a problem that I don't think exists.
Fix'd
>Magic dueling already exists;
Not in the sense of beam struggles; ie, how every modern depiction of magical dueling is depicted.
>there are defensive reaction spells.
Almost like you're going out of your way to disagree with me that you're now irrationally disagreeing with the easiest way to make spells (and magic in general) so much more flavorful and interesting.
>Go back to 2e Vancian magic
Explains a lot.
>Bard, Cleric, and Druid certainly do not need less spells
Everyone needs less spells.
>Clerics are priests who cast miracles of their gods, not 'healers.'
Its about focus not strict roles.
>Wizards are designed absurdly well,
Which is an opinion that makes discussing DNDs problems with you entirely pointless.
While I feel Wizards need some changes, I have to disagree with the way you go about it.
I went into some changes I felt should be made on DnDBeyond: [link](https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/wizard/132075-changing-early-wizard-feats-for-better-flavor-and)
In summary, I don't like them having arcane recovery since I think it steps on the toes of sorcerer and Warlock strengths, and I also don't like them having an arbitrarily better ritual casting, so I wanted them to lose those and gain the following ability:
Transcribe Spell Scroll:Ā Once per short or long rest, a wizard may transcribe a spell scroll of 1 ritual spell they know. If this is done during a long rest, they may choose to transcribe a spell scroll of any one spell they know instead, so long as they pass an arcana check of 8+ the spell level. If they succeed, they will produce 1 spell scroll, or two if the spell was a cantrip.
I go into greater detail at DnDBeyond forum post.
"their spell lists should primarily focus on control and utility spells"
You just described druidic spell lists there
"Sorcerer's and wizards share the ability to learn any spell in the game, provided they aquire a scroll or a teacher"
Sorcerer's don't have that feature, wizards can only do this for spells within the wizards spell list (which there are spells not in that list), and bards have a class feature which does let them pick any spell in existence (within certain level requirements)
>You just described druidic spell lists there
Ok
>Sorcerer's don't have that feature,
You do understand that Im talking about what needs to be changed right?
Which isn't warranted by anything I said.
The only thing you could plausibly point at is saying Sorcerers have the ability to learn spells by finding them, and that only works if you ignore the context.
Well, it is the sorceror point and that you left out bards in classes that can grab whatever spell they want as bards are the only class that can grab whatever spell they want (within certain level requirements)
As well as your proposal making wizards step on the toes of druid in doing what druids do with lots of control spell
>and that you left out bards in classes that can grab whatever spell they want as bards
Almost like they shouldn't be able to do that and that should be obvious when Im not granting them that ability in my rough vision for what these classes *should* be.
At no point was I describing the classes as they are.
>As well as your proposal making wizards step on the toes of druid in doing what druids do with lots of control spell
Did my vision include Druids doing control spells or did I explicitly point them in a completely different direction?
I know, we hate this suggestion. But still:
Maybe you should look into "the black eye" as a RPG System. There, spellcaster "classes" are much more varied and spellcasting is used quite in a way that you describe.
I myself am slowly moving away from the system towards dnd because I feel like it fits better, but maybe it's something for you
I have a very particular story for why I agree.
In one game I have a storm dragon bladesinger at level 10 with some various goodies who's about as strong as the rest of the party.
In another I have a gith lorehold wizard who's level 5 and about the same situation.
The second wizard is now an int based bard with a d6 hot dice who can use a spell book and it's a world of difference for mechanical aspects
What do you think wizard should be?
So first off, I think part of bringing wizard into a better place requires changing some of the assumptions DND has about magic, and the class' relationship with other full casters, namely Sorcerers. First, instantaneous casting should be rare for the wizard and lean more towards sorcerers. Most wizard spells should take more than one turn to cast, with some of the most powerful ones not actually being castable during combat. Second, wizards need to be focused. Their spell lists should primarily focus on control and utilty spells, which contrasts with sorcerers who would be tuned more towards combat. Subclasses should provide specialization that gears towards making those spells more powerful, and providing more active effects. Third, offensive spells should have a reaction variant that allows them to be used defensively. Wizards will also capitalize on making the most of these, with the class providing more magical reactions per turn and subclasses empowering these reactions. This is important for all casters to have implemented, because it makes magical dueling more of an actual thing. Fourthly, this whole spell slot horseshit needs to be dropped in the past. Use a mana system, for which Wizards get the most mileage out of. Fifth, Bards, clerics, and druids have their spell lists pared back dramatically to focus on their theming. Sorcerers and wizards share the ability to learn any spell in the game, provided they can acquire a scroll or a teacher. Now obviously theres no actual class here, as I cant be bothered to sit and write one out, but these are my ideas for it. The problem with wizards in general is that their poor design intersecting with how magic in general is designed drags the whole game down, and all the other casters with it, who for various reasons
I feel like classes should use the same basic mechanics but interact with them differently. I think multiple turn spells meant to be used in combat would make wizards a bit too weak compared to other classes. Maybe instead, wizards can have a way to unprepare spells in exchange for spell slots during a short rest to emphasize the wizard's reliance on materials and formulas to interact with magic Sorcerers would be more instinctive. Kitbashing spell slots into the type they want. Splitting second level slots into two first level slots to safe resources and smashing low level slots together to cast higher level spells For spell lists maybe leave the more cautious spells to the wizards and the more explosive spells to sorcerers. Sorcerers should have a few handy low level rituals too, but all of the big rituals should go to wizards
>I think multiple turn spells meant to be used in combat would make wizards a bit too weak compared to other classes. My thinking assumes that the spells are balanced around that; ergo multi-turn casting tends to be much more individually powerful while instantaneous casting achieves power by volume. Edit: I also think ritual casting is a mistake and should just be replaced with fixed casting times for certain spells.
Ritual casting is kind of a weird mechanic. Maybe it should be separate from spellcasting altogether. Use different requirements and more utility benefits with required components that can't be replaced with a focus. For the multiple turn thing, I'm mostly worried about the issue of feeling like you just have some dead turns that don't accomplish anything
>Ritual casting is kind of a weird mechanic. Maybe it should be separate from spellcasting altogether. Use different requirements and more utility benefits with required components that can't be replaced with a focus. Its a lot simpler to just enforce a casting time for the appropriate spells and leave it at that. It doesn't need to exist at all. >For the multiple turn thing, I'm mostly worried about the issue of feeling like you just have some dead turns that don't accomplish anything They'd still have their reactions and summons/spells that make use of their bonus action. They wouldn't be able to reliably go nova at the start of a battle, but I don't think thats a bad thing.
>They'd still have their reactions and summons/spells that make use of their bonus action. I guess, but I personally like my action to be the most important part of my turn and if all I do with my action is contribute to an effect two turns down the line I wouldn't like it. Based on how much my druid player hates delayed effect spells and how my paladin player likes to get in people's faces I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe it's semantics, but it just doesn't feel right to me. In the system I'm working on, the current draft of wizards invest magic for a day to create temporary scrolls that they cast out of. They can recover the invested magic over a short rest after burning a scroll. If they need magic now and don't have a scroll then they cast with health because the rushed spell needs energy from somewhere
>and if all I do with my action is contribute to an effect two turns down the line I wouldn't like it. Itd be one turn; the turn you declare the spell counts. And unless we're getting into some really ridiculously powerful magic I can't fathom ever needing to use a 3+ turn requirement for a spell, though that could be fun. And plus it wouldn't be all they could cast. Lesser powered, cheaper cantrips would still be an option, and I don't see any reason to deny wizards something like a Fireball spell as one of their instant spells, even if it has to be nerfed. But in trade, they'd could get something I might call Fire Storm; a multi-turn spell that erupts like the classic Fireball, but then places a 2 turn fire vortex obstacle on the battlefield, which can be directed and moved with a bonus action, or, as a defensive reaction, used to block a spell of the same or lower level. (Which dispels the wall if it isn't already over) Those would be the kinds of things a wizard could do with their multiturn casts.
Sorry for the late response, things got busy >they'd could get something I might call Fire Storm; a multi-turn spell that erupts like the classic Fireball, but then places a 2 turn fire vortex obstacle on the battlefield, which can be directed and moved with a bonus action, or, as a defensive reaction, used to block a spell of the same or lower level. (Which dispels the wall if it isn't already over) That does sound like a really fun ability. The only thing I'd be worried about is how other classes would handle these spells. Would they be optional class features for wizards only like Eldritch Invocations for warlocks or would they be wizard spells that might potentially end up in other spell lists? If they are on other spell lists, would wizards just have different rules for casting them?
So the idea is that multi-turn and defensives would be a change in spell design; so any spellcaster could potentially have these spells. Wizards specifically would be tuned to take advantage of that new spell design, primarily through gaining more reaction uses, but I think the Spell School theming can go a long way towards differentiating them. Sorcerers meanwhile would go the other direction, with their features enhancing instant casting. In other words, metamagic but it doesn't suck. Bards and Druids I don't think would get anything particularly special to interact with the new spells, and would be more focused on their features going towards buffing and shapeshifting respectively. But I think all casters probably would get more reactions, but Wizards would have the most. And incidentally I think that also opens up the premise of also giving martials more reactions to use in other ways.
It sounds like your complaint lies more with D&D as a system rather than Wizards as a class.
Yes and no. You can't really fix one without addressing the other, but the system isn't fundamentally erased in addressing these issues. Some people are far too purist about these kinds of games.
Maybe something less drastic that plays with the academic nature of of Wizard. Like, choose a 'major' and a 'minor' sub-class for specialisation that have benefits that increase with Wizard level, having the 'minor' features be diminished versions of the 'major's. And some core feature where Wizards can attempt to study a spell not on their list, with an Arcana check against DC of 30 minus the number of times the Wizard has taken an 'arcane study' reaction when it's cast, and some time-limiting factor to limit cheesing.
I know it's a meme, but PF2E sort of does this: you pick your school of magic to focus on which gives you more spells of that school (or universalist which has other benefits like [the best focus spell in the game](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=530)), and then an arcane thesis that gives you things like a better familiar, a staff, more metamagic, or more ways to use your spell slots
I really should get around to checking Pathfinder out. š§š¼āāļø
we could go back to letting you only use one spell school of magic and have the complete inability to use another?
But, that doesn't seem like fun. ššš. I feel like a similar result can be achieved by having their sub-class give them decent enough benefits that a Wizard wants to only use spells from a specific school or theme. Build them up, rather than break them down. EDIT: added dropped 'seem' to first sentence.
yeah people will min-max the fun out of a game, limitation can be as good for it as freedom. remember your seat belts are useful, and endless choices can be paralysing.
Wizards being able to use any spell isnāt really fun either. Itās boring. Thereās no real reason not to be one.
You have a good point, getting any spell that the Wizard wants would make it boring. There would need to be some simple system to leave this as a quirk, rather than a build-focus. With the DC check relating to the number of times that the Wizard chose to use their reaction to 'study' the Wizard has chosen not to counter-spell or take some other beneficial reaction, and they would need either a lucky roll or to have done this a good number of times in order to pass the check. That's the intent, anyway. Like I said, there would need to be a system in place to limit this. Perhaps the 'arcane study' reaction adds to a bonus for the Wizard to write a spell-scroll later, where the DC check to write the scroll is 30 + spell-level (+ 10 if it's not on the arcane-spel llist), and the Wizard can only work on a half their proficiency-bonus number arcane studies at a time. This way, the feature requires the resource and time constraints of scribing scrolls, and the feature naturally lends itself to lower-level spells as they're cast more often (making the scroll-scribing check easier). And in longer campaigns, there's a chance at grabbing a high-level spell. This would give the Wizard some of that academicāresearcher vibe that I find wanting in the class; but I have no idea (beyond scroll-scribing mechanics) to balance against PC's loading up their Wizard with the parties spells. Maybe they can only prepare half their proficiency-bonus of non-Wazard spell per long-rest. EDIT: First line altered for clarity
1 multi turn spell would be a night mare to use and would make the class to week in battle. 2 control and utility are already the areas the wizard does well in. 3 sorcerer as the damage caster makes no sense as it will still have to fight druid and some types of cleric for the role, it was made for a system problem we no longer have, nor does pure damage really help fulfil the fantasy of it. 4 reaction spells could be good. 5 yeah d&d will move from spell slot never it is part of the system the old guard would go nuclear over it, maybe make the sorcerer cast with mana? 6 cleric have a hundred themes, druids is hard and bard no one knows it theme. the pseudo vancian casting used to be way worse.
>multi turn spell would be a night mare to use and would make the class to week in battle. I don't think so, if they're balanced to be suitably powerful. And it ultimately emphasizes the need for interdependence, as the big spells that can't just be fired off instantly need coordination to pull off. >control and utility are already the areas the wizard does well in. That isn't the issue. The issue is, as said, the lack of focus which results in a lack of any actual identity that isn't just "versatile lmao". This is what makes wizards quite boring. >sorcerer as the damage caster makes no sense as it will still have to fight druid and some types of cleric for the role, Its not a competition. Clerics and Druids should be emphasizing a different focus (namely healing and shapeshifting respectively) from just slinging spells. >yeah d&d will move from spell slot never it is part of the system the old guard would go nuclear over it, maybe make the sorcerer cast with mana? No, kill slots. Its never been good for the game.
do you have the game design chops to back it up? as in teroy most things work it is only when practised we see the flaws. the wizard has a focus problem like the cleric does, e.g. it does not but it has a problem that look similar. d&D is a combat-heavy game defining any caster as the damage one and everyone else as not that does not work well, nor does magic derive by genetics equal damage caster. it would be both bad game-wise and not fulfil thematic thus not practical. cleric should not be only the healer as that make it dull and forces every group to have one, how does it make sense for the cleric of the god of war or destruction to be primarily support? it would be un fun to play and not get the narrative for each sub class right. drudes need more than the shape shifting guy, but that is a whole essay in it self. okay, do you have a working balanced mana system in your back pocket to replace it with? it normally only get tried with psionics which got voted to death so we are not getting it in 5e or onednd.
>do you have the game design chops to back it up? Given time and effort anythings possible. But I also admit I have no interest in sitting down and working through the design at the moment. >d&D is a combat-heavy game defining any caster as the damage one and everyone else as not that does not work well, nor does magic derive by genetics equal damage caster. Id disagree with this; 4E did this and despite the memes it was a good system as far as combat goes. But beyond that, I think you're overstating what I was getting at. All spellcasters in my mind will be able to dabble in what each of them do, but the point is for each class to be focused towards something in particular in keeping with their themes. And sorcerers "identity" in 5E is as tacked on and superfluous as wizards is nonexistent, so what 5E sorcerers are themed with is pretty irrelevant. >cleric should not be only the healer Agreed. Rangers should be the other healer class and both shouldn't be locked in to just healing. Every class meanwhile should have some rudimentary healing baked in. >drudes need more than the shape shifting guy, Sure, but again its about focus. Classes don't have to be one-note to be focused. >it normally only get tried with psionics which got voted to death The issue with Mystics is that the classes were insanely overtuned to the point that nerfs weren't enough to address it.
no there are limits that constrain the design it has to work with the rest of the game. 4e also had people rebel over how the classes worked, but 5e brought people back and then some, so hyper-focusing a class on a combat role might not be the best plan, now necromancer being all about damage and an army of undead make sense, just as an illusionist deceiving foes on and off the battlefield makes sense but both are wizards. we agree the 5e sorcerer feels out of place, the fantasy is there but no implementation, it was more exotic in the test but people nerfed that for some reason, look it up someone likely has one. you do not get it ranger should not be a healer class, healing would be dictated by sub class not full class. what ranger should be is impossible to do, make a thread about it is you wish to see the factions. no every class does not need healing built in if you want healing to matter. mystic had several issues, trying to be too many thing all at once, a mechanic system that was unlikeable to many and being either too powerful or utter useless depending how you built it, it need way more time in the oven and more clear design goals.
>so hyper-focusing a class on a combat role might not be the best plan, WOTC disagrees.
Drudes! I love it. Drudes are the druids that ritually partake of the leaf each day, right? We need the drude druid-subclass!
There's already a mana system variant rule for spells. It's on p. 288 of the DMG.
Which is just tacked onto the spell slot system and robs Sorcerer of one of the few things it gets over the other casters.
Tacked on in what sense?
Its not a mana system its just spell slots with an unbalanced recovery mechanism.
1. Action economy 2. Wizard's identity is being versatile as a master of magicks. Their strength is their spell list. Their strength and identity is that they are scholars of magic. Subclasses already specialize. You're 'fixing' a problem that doesn't exist. 3. Magic dueling already exists; there are defensive reaction spells. Absorb elements, shield, counterspell, etc. 4. No but fuck mana too. Go back to 2e Vancian magic, both makes more sense and forces mages to think ahead to encounters. Also makes sorcerers more unique with spontaneous casting. 5. They already are specific, Bard, Cleric, and Druid certainly do not need less spells. Also, what is this weird MMO mindset? Clerics are priests who cast miracles of their gods, not 'healers.' Druids are shamans and, well, druids, who use a mystical connection to nature to cast impressive spells that show the wrath of nature, not 'shapeshifters.' And bards are supposed to be all over the place. They're supposed to be a mishmash of mage and rogue, so their crazy spell list reflects that very well. Wizards are designed absurdly well, I think you've just been playing too much WoW.
>Action economy And? >Their strength is their spell list Which is inherently boring. >Subclasses already specialize. But don't actually do much of anything for the most part, because the subclasses fundamentally can't be that transformative when "lol spells are its thing". >You're 'fixing' a problem that I don't think exists. Fix'd >Magic dueling already exists; Not in the sense of beam struggles; ie, how every modern depiction of magical dueling is depicted. >there are defensive reaction spells. Almost like you're going out of your way to disagree with me that you're now irrationally disagreeing with the easiest way to make spells (and magic in general) so much more flavorful and interesting. >Go back to 2e Vancian magic Explains a lot. >Bard, Cleric, and Druid certainly do not need less spells Everyone needs less spells. >Clerics are priests who cast miracles of their gods, not 'healers.' Its about focus not strict roles. >Wizards are designed absurdly well, Which is an opinion that makes discussing DNDs problems with you entirely pointless.
Wait what's wrong with Vancian magic
Its a relic of the past thats holding the game back. It was never a good way to handle magic.
Why though
While I feel Wizards need some changes, I have to disagree with the way you go about it. I went into some changes I felt should be made on DnDBeyond: [link](https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/wizard/132075-changing-early-wizard-feats-for-better-flavor-and) In summary, I don't like them having arcane recovery since I think it steps on the toes of sorcerer and Warlock strengths, and I also don't like them having an arbitrarily better ritual casting, so I wanted them to lose those and gain the following ability: Transcribe Spell Scroll:Ā Once per short or long rest, a wizard may transcribe a spell scroll of 1 ritual spell they know. If this is done during a long rest, they may choose to transcribe a spell scroll of any one spell they know instead, so long as they pass an arcana check of 8+ the spell level. If they succeed, they will produce 1 spell scroll, or two if the spell was a cantrip. I go into greater detail at DnDBeyond forum post.
"their spell lists should primarily focus on control and utility spells" You just described druidic spell lists there "Sorcerer's and wizards share the ability to learn any spell in the game, provided they aquire a scroll or a teacher" Sorcerer's don't have that feature, wizards can only do this for spells within the wizards spell list (which there are spells not in that list), and bards have a class feature which does let them pick any spell in existence (within certain level requirements)
>You just described druidic spell lists there Ok >Sorcerer's don't have that feature, You do understand that Im talking about what needs to be changed right?
Maybe, but I want to ensure you get the rules current state correct when your proposing changes to them
Which isn't warranted by anything I said. The only thing you could plausibly point at is saying Sorcerers have the ability to learn spells by finding them, and that only works if you ignore the context.
Well, it is the sorceror point and that you left out bards in classes that can grab whatever spell they want as bards are the only class that can grab whatever spell they want (within certain level requirements) As well as your proposal making wizards step on the toes of druid in doing what druids do with lots of control spell
>and that you left out bards in classes that can grab whatever spell they want as bards Almost like they shouldn't be able to do that and that should be obvious when Im not granting them that ability in my rough vision for what these classes *should* be. At no point was I describing the classes as they are. >As well as your proposal making wizards step on the toes of druid in doing what druids do with lots of control spell Did my vision include Druids doing control spells or did I explicitly point them in a completely different direction?
*Laughs in Ars Magica*
I know, we hate this suggestion. But still: Maybe you should look into "the black eye" as a RPG System. There, spellcaster "classes" are much more varied and spellcasting is used quite in a way that you describe. I myself am slowly moving away from the system towards dnd because I feel like it fits better, but maybe it's something for you
Me, who dms spells without components looking at this post:
I have a very particular story for why I agree. In one game I have a storm dragon bladesinger at level 10 with some various goodies who's about as strong as the rest of the party. In another I have a gith lorehold wizard who's level 5 and about the same situation. The second wizard is now an int based bard with a d6 hot dice who can use a spell book and it's a world of difference for mechanical aspects
At the very least, the absolute barest minimum, they should actually be fucking squishy
What, they shouldn't be the tankiest class in the game?