Bolstering Wizards

André Soares · Nov 5, 2018

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.

Umbran · Nov 5, 2018

clearstream said:
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?

5ekyu · Nov 5, 2018

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.

DEFCON 1 · Nov 5, 2018

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.

TaranTheWanderer · Nov 5, 2018

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.

5ekyu · Nov 5, 2018

DEFCON 1 said:
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.

the Jester · Nov 5, 2018

clearstream said:
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.

clearstream said:
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.

5ekyu · Nov 5, 2018

the Jester said:
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.

mikebr99 · Nov 5, 2018

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

André Soares · Nov 5, 2018

mikebr99 said:
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.