Mostly satisfied. The only thing the class needs to really shine is (a lot) more ritual spells. The ability to cast ritual spells out of the spell book without preparing them seems like it should be a major feature of the academic magician class, but it ends up being a minor sideline because the game is so oddly careful about what it labels as being a ritual. Playtests had more rituals, and the game needs to add a bunch more to flesh out that niche. This would go a long way toward having wizards feel like a more different sort of caster than a sorcerer, druid, or whatever.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E [poll] Wizard Satisfaction Survey
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
Rhenny
Adventurer
I'm very satisfied. Wizard has always been one of my favorite classes to play. So far, I've played an evoker and a bladesinger (only up through 6th level for them), and I've enjoyed both. I agree with others about some spells needing a tweak here or there, or more rituals, but overall very solid class especially for the player who likes to plan, plot and think.
Very satisfied.
Wizard has always been my favourite class as well, from the days of AD&D where you were armed with one spell per day and a d4 for hitpoints, and that was it.
The 5e Wizard is a heck of a lot of fun to play - you're not the main damage dealer per se, but you have an answer for everything if prepared and you're the force multiplier of the group.
Wizard has always been my favourite class as well, from the days of AD&D where you were armed with one spell per day and a d4 for hitpoints, and that was it.
The 5e Wizard is a heck of a lot of fun to play - you're not the main damage dealer per se, but you have an answer for everything if prepared and you're the force multiplier of the group.
Yaarel
Hurra for syttende mai!
Strangely, the spells include two categories.
• Actions that can alternatively be cast as 10-minute rituals (a short rest).
• Extended casting times (1 minute, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours), that cannot be cast as a ritual.
(One spell can even be either a 10-minute casting costing a slot or a 10-minute ritual without costing a slot.)
The idea seems to be, rituals tend to be for noncombat, but occasionally (highly situationally) might be useful in combat thus allow casting as an action.
Oppositely, spells with long casting times, so cannot be cast during combat, yet are a potent in combat (such as spells that summon combat allies), require the cost of a spell slot, and lack the option of a ritual.
Spells seem inconsistent in quality, with some obviously better and some obviously less good. But the usefulness for combat seems to be the main concern behind whether a ritual is allowed.
Yaarel
Hurra for syttende mai!
I feel the Wizard (along with its bookish flavor) should be able to write cantrips into their spellbook just like a spell of any other level.
A simple fix:
• The Wizard can choose to cast any cantrip that is in their spellbook either using a spell level 1 spell slot, or as a 10 minute ritual.
• If using spell points, a spell level 1 spell costs 2 points to cast, but a spell level 0 cantrip costs 1 point to cast.
• Casting a high level cantrip effect requires the corresponding high level spell level slot.
• Certain cantrips, like 1-minute Mend, might as well exist as a 10-minute ritual only, without option of using a spell slot.
Those cantrips that a Wizard can cast at-will, are special cantrips that become an innate aspect of the self-identity of the Wizard. They are a separate feature from normal cantrips that can be written in the spellbook. The at-will cantrips feature is moreorless identical with the at-will spells that the Wizard gains via Spell Mastery at level 18.
A simple fix:
• The Wizard can choose to cast any cantrip that is in their spellbook either using a spell level 1 spell slot, or as a 10 minute ritual.
• If using spell points, a spell level 1 spell costs 2 points to cast, but a spell level 0 cantrip costs 1 point to cast.
• Casting a high level cantrip effect requires the corresponding high level spell level slot.
• Certain cantrips, like 1-minute Mend, might as well exist as a 10-minute ritual only, without option of using a spell slot.
Those cantrips that a Wizard can cast at-will, are special cantrips that become an innate aspect of the self-identity of the Wizard. They are a separate feature from normal cantrips that can be written in the spellbook. The at-will cantrips feature is moreorless identical with the at-will spells that the Wizard gains via Spell Mastery at level 18.
Mercule
Adventurer
Mostly satisfied. I'm mixed on my thoughts around the way the subclasses are done, though.
Given the history of the game, it would be odd to not have those specialist wizards with their own builds. That's an important cow, and one I don't mind. The shear number of sub-classes would seem to discourage additional options, though. Both because it sets a tone for what a wizard subclass should be and because I suspect most folks have a soft cap on the number of subclasses for any class before it hits either a space limit in print or a cognitive limit for moving parts. I'd like to see 5E versions of the 3.5 Warmage, Beguiler, etc. These seem like they should be Wizard subclasses, potentially offered as a setting alternate to the current list. Thing like the bladesinger in SCAG, I think they might eventually show up.
More specifically, I think the specialist abilities could maybe be balanced a bit better. I've only seen the Evoker in play, but I found the "donut hole" ability combined with the Spell Sniper feat to be incredibly annoying. And, maybe that's the better word. I'm not sure it's broken so much as just obnoxious. None of the other abilities read as nasty, though.
Given the history of the game, it would be odd to not have those specialist wizards with their own builds. That's an important cow, and one I don't mind. The shear number of sub-classes would seem to discourage additional options, though. Both because it sets a tone for what a wizard subclass should be and because I suspect most folks have a soft cap on the number of subclasses for any class before it hits either a space limit in print or a cognitive limit for moving parts. I'd like to see 5E versions of the 3.5 Warmage, Beguiler, etc. These seem like they should be Wizard subclasses, potentially offered as a setting alternate to the current list. Thing like the bladesinger in SCAG, I think they might eventually show up.
More specifically, I think the specialist abilities could maybe be balanced a bit better. I've only seen the Evoker in play, but I found the "donut hole" ability combined with the Spell Sniper feat to be incredibly annoying. And, maybe that's the better word. I'm not sure it's broken so much as just obnoxious. None of the other abilities read as nasty, though.
Similar Threads
