Question about the Domain Wizards in Unearthed Arcana

[Sunglar]

I have a question for which I’ve been unable to find the answer (ok I might have not looked hard enough, but with the little time I have… Getting off track here!). The Domain Wizard variant on page 57 of the Unearthed Arcana book seems like a pretty interesting idea.

I realize that it spells out the difference between a Domain Wizard and a Specialist, but what about regular Wizards. Is there any advantage to being a regular run of the mill vanilla wizard (no offense meant to either the ice cream or the class) that a Domain Wizard. Are the regular Wizard in the PHB meant to coexist with the Domain Wizard or is this a replacement?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your opinions…

Sunglar

 

[Silveras]

There is a thread on exactly this topic in the D&D rules forum.

Basically, it is up to the DM how s/he wishes to use the two. The DM can make the Domain Wizard a replacement for the "standard" non-specialist Wizard, or can offer them both side-by-side. It is a DM's call on what works best in his/her campaign.

Making only some of the Domains available makes the "standard" Wizard a more viable choice when they are used together. Making the Domain Wizard's abilities cost a feat is also a possible choice when using them together. Since the Domain Wizard offers only bonuses, it is generally a "no-brainer" choice if all of the Domains are available.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

I looked for the same thing myself. I can't find any advantage anymore for playing a standard PHB Wizard.

Being a college student, I like to think of this in terms of collegiate degrees: An Evoker goes to wizard's college for a degree in evocation, but she always blows off her icky necromancy studies and only finishes because she is buddy-buddy with a professor. A domain wizard goes to the same school for a degree in magical arts, with an emphasis in evocation because he really loved the magic missle seminar he took in his freshman year.
A PHB wizard just went to a crappy school.

 

[Felon]

I looked for the same thing myself. I can't find any advantage anymore for playing a standard PHB Wizard.

Well, there isn't intended to be one. Everyone keeps looking for the "downside" to playing a domain wizard. It's the same downside that a cleric has for picking two domains, i.e. none.

So try asking yourselves this: what advantage is there to being a 1st-level cleric and not picking any domains? What advantage is there to being a 1st-level fighter and giving the bonus feat a pass?

 

[Silveras]

Well, there isn't intended to be one. Everyone keeps looking for the "downside" to playing a domain wizard. It's the same downside that a cleric has for picking two domains, i.e. none.

So try asking yourselves this: what advantage is there to being a 1st-level cleric and not picking any domains? What advantage is there to being a 1st-level fighter and giving the bonus feat a pass?

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are being too hard on people who are asking the question.

The examples you cite are in the core rules, theoretically balanced against the domain-less wizard. A supplement that adds to the power of that wizard class, without any compensating loss, should rightly cause people to at least question the balancing.

 

[Sunglar]

Thank you all for the input, I’ll go over to the Rules Forum and look at that thread. I am putting together version 2.0 of my current campaign and I’m deciding which variants form UA to use. I may use the Domain Wizards for powerful nation where Wizards rule, vs. the less powerful regular wizards in other parts of the campaign. How does that sound?

There are many in game reasons the PC might not want to play Wizards form this culture (I run a pretty role playing intensive game so there will be deterrents in the role playing aspect) but I am considering the charging a feat option for the Domain Wizards. I’ll mull it over and let you know.

Sunglar

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the idea of making them cost a feat.

Yes, with the domain wizard, the 'non-domain wizard' is definately weaker in comparison.

Personally, I prefer the specialist variants in that same book......mmmmmm, they're great.

 

[Tessarael]

I like the idea of making them cost a feat.

No! Domain Wizards are balanced vs. specialists. We all agree they are better than a general Wizard. Specialists are better than general Wizards. Still, overall, Clerics are better than specialist Wizards, and I haven't heard anyone grumbling that Domain Wizards are better than specialists. So let it be, Domain Wizards are a nice way of fixing the fact that general Wizards are a little weak.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Felon]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are being too hard on people who are asking the question. The examples you cite are in the core rules, theoretically balanced against the domain-less wizard. A supplement that adds to the power of that wizard class, without any compensating loss, should rightly cause people to at least question the balancing.

I wasn't trying to be hard on anyone specifically, but here's the thing: a wizard takes it on the chin with BAB, AC, and hit points. Just seems odd IMO that folks are conditioned to think that it should "cost" something to get access to the same class feature clerical spellcasters receive gratas (along with the superior BAB, AC, and hit points).

Moreover, it seems odd to make the domain cost a feat not so much because domains are overpowered, bur rather to keep the option of being a generalist open Again, it's like attaching a cost to clerical domains just so that folks who want to play domainless clerics aren't left out. It's a move to preserve the weakest way to play the class. YMMV.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No! Domain Wizards are balanced vs. specialists. We all agree they are better than a general Wizard. Specialists are better than general Wizards. Still, overall, Clerics are better than specialist Wizards, and I haven't heard anyone grumbling that Domain Wizards are better than specialists. So let it be, Domain Wizards are a nice way of fixing the fact that general Wizards are a little weak.

Just my thoughts ...

See, I disagree -- I don't think specialist wizards are better, or that Clerics are better, or that Domain Wizards are the equal of specialists.

It's a matter of assuming the baseline is fine (I've got no evidence to suggest otherwise -- not everybody is beating down the doors IMC to play clerics or evokers, so there's probably no problem), and then asking "what do domain wizards give up?" The answer is "nothing." They get extra power, for free.

I don't think that wizards are weaker. If you do, that's fine, but there is certainly about equal evidence both for and against that case.