D&D (2024) Final Guesses: packet 7 subclasses

[Horwath]

Crawford said in a video that the Necromancer was one of the 4 Wizard Subclasses.

Imho, for 'school' wizard, it should be one subclass and at 2nd(or 3rd),6th, 10th and 14th level just pick and chose school features.

Like current Totem barbarian.

Then just add:
War wizard,
Blade singer,
Runecrafter/artificer,

 

[Remathilis]

Imho, for 'school' wizard, it should be one subclass and at 2nd(or 3rd),6th, 10th and 14th level just pick and chose school features.

Like current Totem barbarian.

Then just add:
War wizard,
Blade singer,
Runecrafter/artificer,

Nope. Continuity is King. We're getting the four most popular school specialists and we'll like it!

Besides, nearly every new wizard subclass ever featured in UA has been shot down. We got bladesinger, war mage, and scribe, the latter wasn't even a wizard sub to start! Psionics, artifice, theurgy, invention, lore mastery, and rune caster all failed to Spark Joy. Why shouldn't they just pick 4 of the specialists since nothing else has worked?

 

[ChameleonX]

When Crawford was talking about the Warlock, he kept specifically saying "in a future playtest," whereas he said "in the next playtest" a few times. The fact that he went out of his way to use that wording makes me think the Warlock isn't going to be in #7.

 

[ChameleonX]

Nope. Continuity is King. We're getting the four most popular school specialists and we'll like it!

Besides, nearly every new wizard subclass ever featured in UA has been shot down. We got bladesinger, war mage, and scribe, the latter wasn't even a wizard sub to start! Psionics, artifice, theurgy, invention, lore mastery, and rune caster all failed to Spark Joy. Why shouldn't they just pick 4 of the specialists since nothing else has worked?

I think that's because they have to really struggle to find any concept that fits the D&D wizard other than "the D&D Wizard."

It's a long-standing issue that wizards in D&D are unlike any other fictional mage in pop culture, and as a result they don't really lean into any popular archetypes like all the other classes do.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think that's because they have to really struggle to find any concept that fits the D&D wizard other than "the D&D Wizard."

It's a long-standing issue that wizards in D&D are unlike any other fictional mage in pop culture, and as a result they don't really lean into any popular archetypes like all the other classes do.

Wizard Subclasses based on D&D Wizard Archetypes:

Fireball Wizard: this wizard can cast Fireball a lot.

No Need for Rest Wizard: this wizard breaks the economy of encounters.

Wait What Are Spell Slots?: this wizard doesn't understand the difference between Class Level and Spell Level and just casts whatever sounds cool.

Gandalf But He Also Throws Fireballs: a wizard that's Gandalf but he also casts Fireball a lot.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that's because they have to really struggle to find any concept that fits the D&D wizard other than "the D&D Wizard."

It's a long-standing issue that wizards in D&D are unlike any other fictional mage in pop culture, and as a result they don't really lean into any popular archetypes like all the other classes do.

The notion of spellbook-using wizards is very specific. I can't think of too many wizards in pop culture that use spellbooks outside of witches and some occultists. Maybe if wizard moved from spellbook to a variety of magical objects, the design space would open up more.

 

[Gorck]

When Crawford was talking about the Warlock, he kept specifically saying "in a future playtest," whereas he said "in the next playtest" a few times. The fact that he went out of his way to use that wording makes me think the Warlock isn't going to be in #7.

Maybe he was just varying his adjectives so as not to sound repetitive? I do that all the time in my speaking/writing. I not a big fan of using the same words over and over and will change things up with synonyms if a can.

For instance, in my first sentence I used the words "varying" and "repetitive," while in my third sentence I replaced them with the terms "change things up" and "over and over" respectively. I also just switched "words" with "terms" in my previous sentence.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wait What Are Spell Slots?: this wizard doesn't understand the difference between Class Level and Spell Level and just casts whatever sounds cool.

Oh you played with that guy too huh?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that's because they have to really struggle to find any concept that fits the D&D wizard other than "the D&D Wizard."

It's a long-standing issue that wizards in D&D are unlike any other fictional mage in pop culture, and as a result they don't really lean into any popular archetypes like all the other classes do.

It should be so easy! Harry Potter is RIGHT THERE. He's right there! And yes he casts spells more like a Sorcerer, but it's close enough, it's fine. Just lean hard on books, wands/staves, ritual magic and the whole "learned" and "school" elements of Wizards and like seriously 80-90% of D&D players will be into it. 4E, bizarrely, understood that casters benefit from having trappings like wands/staves/orbs etc. that they're cool and improve the class, flavour and style-wise, and nobody really dislikes them (or like a tiny percentage of grogs), but the bloody "apology edition" factor of 5E caused them to drop that deeply inoffensive or even positively regarded element and revert to an earlier approach to casting.

 

[bedir than]

The notion of spellbook-using wizards is very specific. I can't think of too many wizards in pop culture that use spellbooks outside of witches and some occultists. Maybe if wizard moved from spellbook to a variety of magical objects, the design space would open up more.

Additionally to the previous reply, The Magicians is very heavy on learning spells via study and books