Bolstering Wizards - Page 2
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11
    In creating something that interacts more with the wizard's spells you have to be carefull and avoid stepping in the Sorcerer's toes. Without metamagic and sorcery points the sorcerer is just an wizard with fewer options, so should you give the wizard more interactivity with spells you should be carefull to always make them less potent then the sorcerer options.
    XP Shiroiken gave XP for this post

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    33,133
    Quote Originally Posted by clearstream View Post
    Dual Focus
    At 5th level, you develop the mental rigour needed to maintain concentration on two spells at once...
    At 5th level, you get access to third level spells: Fireball, lightning bolt, and so on. Being able to blast away with 8d6 of damage is not enough payoff for you at that point?
    XP André Soares, the Jester gave XP for this post

  3. #13
    Personally the sub-class features for the wizard are to me some of the stronger ones and combined with the potentially larger numbers of spells - i have found in play wizards to be far better than lackluster. performance-wise they are right there and should be able to be key members of most any group.

    I also think if one is seeing them as less interesting or less involved, then the concentration is the wrong direction to go.

    Concentration is just a mechanical boost or fail - it provides nothing of flavor or interest. its a core restriction that applies everywhere but hey, its not flavor or interesting if it is changed.

    I would not make the change you suggested at all and even from a "but what if..." i cannot see it making the class more interesting.

    i do think some campaign styles might serve to work against the wizard at times - for instance their ability to do rituals can be highly underperforming in some setups and powerful in others - and that is something neither warlock nor sorcerer get by default.

    Similarly, whether or not spellbooks and scrolls are found or available greatly alters their ability to acquire numbers of spells.

    So, before i look ay class changes for a less-than-satisfying wizard experience, i would look at what specifics to the campaign are over-valuing other elements or under-valuing the wizard.

    One very key element may be "does the world serve up interesting wizard interactives and entanglements"?

    A warlock comes with the flavor/baggage/alliance = entanglements thru the pact and the patron.
    A sorcerer comes with the flavor of its sorcery origin and that potentially ties it with or at least opens doors for various types of interactions.

    But are you seeing in your campaign the same kinds of "opportunities" in play for your wiz? Are their wizardly guilds, wizardly orders, movements, disputes etc - something to help tie their "class abilities" to the world in a direct way?

    Shouldn't a wizard-diviner specialist have interactive opportunities that are as interesting as the warlock's fey lord patron? is there not an "Acolytes of All Tomorrows" order where on occasion they interact with and bring interesting aspects to that diviner choice? is there any of the wizard sub-classes that one cannot see a half-dozen interesting ties, interactives or opportunities to show in play those as being *key* elements?

    "Value" is mostly determined by "need" and "opportunity" so if one feels a "class" is lackluster not from a mechanical power standpoint, then maybe the answer is not more power in the mechanics but in providing more "value" being seen in play to the ones they have now.
    XP Quickleaf gave XP for this post

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burlington, MA
    Posts
    7,925
    While I don't think wizards are as "poor" as you do... I also don't necessarily have an issue with allowing for two concentration spells at once. When I have considered it for my games I basically have thought about allowing for two concentration spells where one is personal on the caster, while the other is put on other people. So a wizard could have Stoneskin cast upon themselves for example while throwing a Web out to grab other people. Or a ranger can keep Hunter's Mark up on themselves while dropping a Fog Cloud.

    I have not actually tried this in any of my games yet, but I've never dismissed the possibility out of hand just because WotC doesn't allow it as the default.
    XP TaranTheWanderer, Satyrn gave XP for this post

  5. #15
    I think Druids were hurt most by concentration spells, actually (from 3e to 5e). (not necessarily a bad thing)

    That said, you could make it a feat. A feat with a prerequisite so a variant human can't grab it at first level.

    Maybe you could make Warcaster a prerequisite. Or maybe you could make less useful feat a prerequisite. Depends how much of a cost you want a caster to pay for the privilege. For instance, Warcaster isn't much of a cost since many casters take that anyways. Linguist, on the other hand...

    In any case, it should be a feat that is thematically appropriate. Maybe make one up. But if you do it this way, they lose 2 ASI and they can't get it at 1st.

    Edit: I like the idea of limiting multiple concentration spells to what you are concentrating on:
    Target, Self (is there another type?) It allows for an personal defense and an offense or whatever. It also limits stacking buffs on people.
    Last edited by TaranTheWanderer; Monday, 5th November, 2018 at 05:36 PM.
    XP clearstream gave XP for this post

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFCON 1 View Post
    While I don't think wizards are as "poor" as you do... I also don't necessarily have an issue with allowing for two concentration spells at once. When I have considered it for my games I basically have thought about allowing for two concentration spells where one is personal on the caster, while the other is put on other people. So a wizard could have Stoneskin cast upon themselves for example while throwing a Web out to grab other people. Or a ranger can keep Hunter's Mark up on themselves while dropping a Fog Cloud.

    I have not actually tried this in any of my games yet, but I've never dismissed the possibility out of hand just because WotC doesn't allow it as the default.
    Has anyone here suggested not allowing it just because of WOTC defaults? that just seems like an odd thing to spotlight if not.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Shingletown, CA 96088
    Posts
    22,724
    Quote Originally Posted by clearstream View Post
    Is it right to say that Wizards have languished a little, compared with the lustre of other classes in 5th?
    No, I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by clearstream View Post
    Given their possibly distinctive utility role, I wondered about bolstering them with something like -

    Dual Focus
    At 5th level, you develop the mental rigour needed to maintain concentration on two spells at once, which can be two versions of the same spell. Anything that interrupts your concentration, interrupts each spell separately: you can lose concentration on one while maintaining it on the other.

    It sure sounds like this would break something: what?
    Concentration is one of the core balance mechanics in 5e. I don't think it's a good idea to allow such an easy workaround for it.

    What does doing so break? The balance of wizards vs. every other class. While I am okay with having a few in game options for breaking the normal concentration rule, they should be costly- a very rare or legendary magic item, an 8th level spell, etc. Otherwise, you are sometimes doubling the effectiveness of a wizard. Two active concentration effects at once is a very big deal in 5e.
    XP 5ekyu gave XP for this post

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by the Jester View Post
    No, I don't think so.



    Concentration is one of the core balance mechanics in 5e. I don't think it's a good idea to allow such an easy workaround for it.

    What does doing so break? The balance of wizards vs. every other class. While I am okay with having a few in game options for breaking the normal concentration rule, they should be costly- a very rare or legendary magic item, an 8th level spell, etc. Otherwise, you are sometimes doubling the effectiveness of a wizard. Two active concentration effects at once is a very big deal in 5e.
    i would also question whether or not it imbalances the sub-classes. Without a lot of review, my concern would be that doing this affects sub-classes which rely on concentration spells more much differently than ones where they are more often relying on instant or non-concentrations.

    Casually hitting core limitations is always tricky and not something to be done to fix a rather "amorphous" problem.

    I am seeing a pattern tho - both this thread and the warlock malaise one took a rather amorphous feeling of a problem of satisfaction and went straight at major changes to hard core mechanics and output as a "proposal" to fix the feel.

    So there is at least - consistency in approach.
    XP the Jester gave XP for this post

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The County, ON, Canada
    Posts
    2,658
    If I were to allow something along theses lines... if would have to be via a feat (with prereqs. of 10th caster and 20 INT)... The 2nd spell out would need to be casted 2 lvls higher then normal (but not gain any higher lvl benefits from that) and both would have double the DC to maintain concentration. YMMV

    And I don't know if I would allow that.

    Mike

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by mikebr99 View Post
    If I were to allow something along theses lines... if would have to be via a feat (with prereqs. of 10th caster and 20 INT)... The 2nd spell out would need to be casted 2 lvls higher then normal (but not gain any higher lvl benefits from that) and both would have double the DC to maintain concentration. YMMV

    And I don't know if I would allow that.

    Mike
    This seems waaay to 3.5 to me hahaha.
    XP Gadget gave XP for this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Consensus on Bolstering Blood
    By Rith the Wanderer in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Sunday, 29th June, 2008, 08:08 AM
  2. Bolstering Strike abuse - infinate temporary hitpoints??
    By mmarell in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Tuesday, 17th June, 2008, 10:40 AM
  3. Bolstering Undead
    By Li Shenron in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Wednesday, 8th October, 2003, 10:50 PM
  4. Bolstering the mage
    By Winternight in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, 4th August, 2003, 06:19 PM
  5. Bolstering Undead
    By daemonslye in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, 16th December, 2002, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •