D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XIV: Wizard)

Everyone that keeps saying 'we have the artificer for that' seem to think the artificer is a class WotC cares about and supports.

Tonguez said:

The Stone is the ONLY good thing about the Transmuter, but the rest is crap.

Click to expand...

Well, most of the subclass features are not that great (for most subclasses), but that is true for much of 5E.

Since most games don't get past 10th level (if they even get there), I am not greatly concerned with the 10th and 14th level features...

It is unfortunate, because I think with minor tweaks they could be much better. Take Shapechanger (Transmutation 10th) for example. You only get it once, limited to just yourself, and CR 1 or lower beasts. But, instead of a 1 hour duration, make the duration until you lose concentration or use an action/bonus action to revert to your original form. Not a bit adjustment, but certainly makes it more interesting and useful IMO.

doctorbadwolf said:

Right. Exactly what a generalist should do, focus on part of the class that defines all wizards.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but there are other things that defines "all wizards", such as Arcane Recovery, Ritual Casting, and Spellcasting in general (although that is for any caster...). Focusing on their weakness isn't a good design IMO. (Unless it helps mitigate or remove that weakness... maybe.)

doctorbadwolf said:

Oh I don’t care at all about whether it’s good or bad or whatever, I’m talking about how well it typifies The Wizard.

I mean make the spellbook impossible to damage for Scribes, and the only potential negative of the subclass goes away, and it’s just a subclass that takes base class themes and mechanics, and makes them the focus.

Click to expand...

That would be better maybe, but I would prefer (for my own view of what makes wizards--well, wizards) would be to focus on the things I mentioned above: Arcane Recovery, Ritual Casting, and Spellcasting. My own take on wizards is they are the best (and rightfully should be!) at spellcasting. It is pretty much "what they do".

Clerics have Channel Divinity, Druids get Wild Shape, Bards have Inspiration, Sorcerers have Metamagic, and Warlock have Invocations. What do Wizards have? Better ritual casting is nice, certainly, but it comes at the expense of dependency on the spellbook. Now, that is also a great strength for them (in some ways) because it allows Wizards more potential versatility in their spell choices, but even that is sort of meh when you consider Clerics and Druids have access to all their spells every day.

Now, Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks have a much narrower selection of spells via Known Spells, but they don't need anything for them (e.g. the spellbook) and have other features to make up for that deficiency. How many times have I seen players dip into Warlock for 2 levels for Armor of Shadows and Devil's Sight, for instance? (Answer: a LOT!)

Scribes has some decent points, but the inclusion of the Awakened Spellbook ( ) and phantom quill or whatever sort of makes them lame IMO.

Vaalingrade said:

Everyone that keeps saying 'we have the artificer for that' seem to think the artificer is a class WotC cares about and supports.

Click to expand...

It's made it into the "official books" before more worthy options, so obviously it is something WotC cares about and supports somewhat...

I think what I’d do for a generalist, though, is some combination fo the following:

• Expertise Arcana
• Ability to gain temporary spell level boosts by negating magic external to themselves. Some sort of mana spark or soemthing, that you can spend to upcast a spell, or regain a spell slot, at 1 spell slot level per spark unit.
• Implement Mastery - you get more from Spellcasting focuses than other casters. Can use a “tome” as a focus.
  • Tome - Change prepared spells when using arcane recovery
  • Wand - charges that can be used to up damage?
  • Staves - either ability to deliver ranged spell attacks as melee spell attacks, or increased range with ranged spells
  • Rod - dAmage buff if some kind
• learn more spells, perhaps via a “spell invention” feature.

doctorbadwolf said:

I think what I’d do for a generalist, though, is some combination fo the following:

• Expertise Arcana
• Ability to gain temporary spell level boosts by negating magic external to themselves. Some sort of mana spark or soemthing, that you can spend to upcast a spell, or regain a spell slot, at 1 spell slot level per spark unit.
• Implement Mastery - you get more from Spellcasting focuses than other casters. Can use a “tome” as a focus.
  • Tome - Change prepared spells when using arcane recovery
  • Wand - charges that can be used to up damage?
  • Staves - either ability to deliver ranged spell attacks as melee spell attacks, or increased range with ranged spells
  • Rod - dAmage buff if some kind
• learn more spells, perhaps via a “spell invention” feature.

Click to expand...

All nice suggestions!

Here's something I worked on a little while ago, but I know it is really too OP, although I like some of the flavor and might work on it with ideas people have mentioned:

Undrave said:

Here we are in the last class based survivor thread of this whole shebang! We finish with The Wizard.

Aaah... the Wizard... both the Best Class and the absolute WORST Class in DnD. It was introduced with a whopping EIGHT subclass in the PHB, adding to this the sheer volume of space taken by the spell section, it really felt like it was the Favorite Child of the PHB. I don't know why they insisted on this boring and bland Magic School based subclass system. Especially when collapsing them into a single 'School Specialist' subclass would have done the job, allowing them to include maybe the Bladesinger right off the bat as a 'Wizard with a dash of Fight' into the mix and then something that's a little more interesting on top.

I got my share of grievance with Mr. Wizkid here, but I still think the Diviner's ability is pretty neat.

The fact the Wizard started with 8 subclasses with dubious theming is probably the reason why it left SO many failed UAs in its wake! The new subclass had to work harder than any other to earn their places.

Click to expand...

Arcanist | Level Up This Wizard subclass from A5e takes the 8 schools of magic and puts them into one subclass. I hope it does the job you were looking for in a wizard.

This A5e Wizard subclass covers the Generalist wizard: Mage | Level Up

DND_Reborn said:

Well, most of the subclass features are not that great (for most subclasses), but that is true for much of 5E.

Since most games don't get past 10th level (if they even get there), I am not greatly concerned with the 10th and 14th level features...

It is unfortunate, because I think with minor tweaks they could be much better. Take Shapechanger (Transmutation 10th) for example. You only get it once, limited to just yourself, and CR 1 or lower beasts. But, instead of a 1 hour duration, make the duration until you lose concentration or use an action/bonus action to revert to your original form. Not a bit adjustment, but certainly makes it more interesting and useful IMO.


Agreed, but there are other things that defines "all wizards", such as Arcane Recovery, Ritual Casting, and Spellcasting in general (although that is for any caster...). Focusing on their weakness isn't a good design IMO. (Unless it helps mitigate or remove that weakness... maybe.)


That would be better maybe, but I would prefer (for my own view of what makes wizards--well, wizards) would be to focus on the things I mentioned above: Arcane Recovery, Ritual Casting, and Spellcasting. My own take on wizards is they are the best (and rightfully should be!) at spellcasting. It is pretty much "what they do".

Clerics have Channel Divinity, Druids get Wild Shape, Bards have Inspiration, Sorcerers have Metamagic, and Warlock have Invocations. What do Wizards have? Better ritual casting is nice, certainly, but it comes at the expense of dependency on the spellbook. Now, that is also a great strength for them (in some ways) because it allows Wizards more potential versatility in their spell choices, but even that is sort of meh when you consider Clerics and Druids have access to all their spells every day.

Now, Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks have a much narrower selection of spells via Known Spells, but they don't need anything for them (e.g. the spellbook) and have other features to make up for that deficiency. How many times have I seen players dip into Warlock for 2 levels for Armor of Shadows and Devil's Sight, for instance? (Answer: a LOT!)

Scribes has some decent points, but the inclusion of the Awakened Spellbook ( ) and phantom quill or whatever sort of makes them lame IMO.

Click to expand...

Yeah I mean if you see the book and quill as eyeroll inducing we aren’t gonna have much common ground on this. I mean, I don’t think awakened spellbook is the best way to go there, and was better when it was part of an artificer subclass, but it still fits the wizard just fine. Just have the book shift into an origami doll of an animal when it moves around and does stuff if you dislike the idea of a floating spellbook that’s alive.

I will say, the spellbook is pretty much what sets the wizard apart, IMO. Arcane Recovery isn’t anything special, and is a recent addition. The Soellbook has always defined the Wizard.

doctorbadwolf said:

Yeah I mean if you see the book and quill as eyeroll inducing we aren’t gonna have much common ground on this.

Click to expand...

Probably not, but I do like your suggestions in your other post.

DND_Reborn said:

All nice suggestions!

Here's something I worked on a little while ago, but I know it is really too OP, although I like some of the flavor and might work on it with ideas people have mentioned:

View attachment 267404

Click to expand...

To me, those are very good, but they don’t really make me go “Wizard!”

Partly because focusing on Spellcasting directly like that means that all the features are almost entirely described in mechanical terms, with little thematics, and also because it doesn’t, again IMO, focus in on what the wizard does in particular, other than referencing Arcane Recovery, which IMO isn’t a defining feature.

DND_Reborn said:

Probably not, but I do like your suggestions in your other post.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

Common ground or not, we can challenge eachother respectfully and both benefit from the exchange.