D&D General Why Do You Think Wizards Are Boring?

[CreamCloud0]

i remembered this from a thread some time back

i suggested this in the survivor companion thread a bit back but more relevant to this discussion

The Specialist: further reduces capacity for learning/casting from banned spell schools than standard in exchange for bonuses to learning/casting from a specific school(s).
The Generalist: removes limitations for learning banned schools in exchange for mid-tier access across the board.
The Librarian: reduced number of spell slots in exchange for extra skill proficiencies and bonuses to knowledge checks.
The Researcher: low number of spells inherently known but reduced costs to transcribing new spells and creating spell scrolls.
The Pioneer: limited access to metamagics and/or cleric/druid magics.
The Battlemage: focus on combat magics, armour proficiencies and war casting.
The Supporter: limited combat magics learnt but large number and access to utility, ritual and support spells.

these are more the sorts of subclasses i think the wizard needs rather than the bulk of spell school subclasses, with the core wizard spell list starting out very trim, but individual subclasses granting access to branch out into specific areas

 

[Guest 7042500]

The best magic user player I ever saw was also an expert wargamer with excellent knowledge of how to use light foot troops. He did LOTS of stuff besides cast spells.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Probably already been said a million times already, but it's this. The problem is that a well-played Wizard-- a Wizard that plays to a Wizard's strengths-- doesn't overcome challenges, he bypasses them. A Wizard's primary class feature is his collection of specific "i win" buttons and a Wizard's primary tactics aren't decided during an "encounter", they're decided in camp when the Wizard decides which subset of his "i win" buttons he's going to carry with him that day.

I don't think you're wrong, but this has always been the wizard's role. A group of orcs? Sleep. Mineshaft with an interesting glimmer at the bottom? Levitate. Mass of archers? Protection from arrows. The thing is, you don't know exactly what issues you are going to come across and what tools you have (spells) are limited in number. The "I Win" button is there by design, but needs to be used judiciously so that you can explore farther and come closer to your goal with each delve.

Not everyone wants that kind of playstyle, however, where the wizard is more of a chess player than having a golf bag worth of tools.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

My design approach would be to design a number of wizard variants each with a very thematic focus. Illusion wizard, fire magic wizard, telekinesis wizard etc. etc. These core powers would be represented by a class ability that scales as you level up and which contains some degree of flexibility. For example a fire wizard shouldn't just have fireball so a fire wizard's main ability should consist of a few different fire related powers.

In addition to this, each wizard should have a small set of utility spells. These can be swapped out as needed, but the keyword is they have a small amount of these. In short: A hypothetical fire wizard would have

• A main ability that provides a few different ways to use fire both offensively and defensively. This scales with level. This includes an at-will power like a cantrip.
• A set of support spells whose number is small and which are not restricted to the theme of the wizard

 

[UmbraCarmen]

Ahead of 4th edition coming out I sent a response to the produces/creators of this begging them not to get rid of the standard D&D Vancian wizard as it always has been (since red box set and 1st ed) my favourite class. They ignored it and replaced it with a generic clone of the other classes. Disaster. Read the blog about magic missile and this potentially missing it's target in 4th ed. - this is a similar thing. There is a lot of love for the class as is but people who don't play wizards want to change it. Please leave it the f* alone.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ahead of 4th edition coming out I sent a response to the produces/creators of this begging them not to get rid of the standard D&D Vancian wizard as it always has been (since red box set and 1st ed) my favourite class. They ignored it and replaced it with a generic clone of the other classes. Disaster. Read the blog about magic missile and this potentially missing it's target in 4th ed. - this is a similar thing. There is a lot of love for the class as is but people who don't play wizards want to change it. Please leave it the f* alone.

Or people who want to play wizards and find that the pre-4e D&D wizard is an ultra-specific thing that doesn't actually match anything except D&D wizards. At my 4e table we had players who've been playing since the 1970s, and one of the players used to almost alternate between wizards and fighter types. It turned out what he wanted to play and the character who really clicked with him was an Elementalist Pyromancer - simple to play.

There's a reason there was cheering when it was announced Vancian Casting was being abolished - and why 5e uses the 3.5 Psionics system as its magic system and I've not seen anyone complain.

And for the record the 4e wizard was basically no more generic than the pre-4e wizard. All casters casted alike. And the part that made the oD&D wizard interesting to me (that it was treasure powered) had gone by 3.0 and arguably by 2e.

 

[UmbraCarmen]

Shame that people want to destroy something that people love pretty much as is. If you want something new then create something new like they did with sorcerer and warlock- both great classes. By all means add to the system but don’t take away what’s there that people love. This what happened with 4e including the magic missile thing. 4e had great ideas especially the casting spells as movement and bonus and reaction actions. The problem wasn’t what it added but was when it took away or destroyed those elements of D&D that people loved.

 

[UmbraCarmen]

Ps those people who cheered when vancian casting was taken out were absolutely proven wrong by the 4th ed debacle. This is established fact. Period.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ps those people who cheered when vancian casting was taken out were absolutely proven wrong by the 4th ed debacle. This is established fact. Period.

Given that Vancian casting hasn't returned in 5e and I have literally never heard anyone complain no they weren't. 5e magic uses the 3.5 psionics system. The core problem with 4e is that the entire project was given 24 months from initiation to release - and they went back to the drawing board 10 months in while not changing the release date. 14 months simply was nowhere near enough time and 4e was released undercooked (as well as the tools being derailed by a murder-suicide).

And I'm trying to think if I've ever met someone in the real world who liked the wizard "pretty much as is". Rather than takes the wizard class because they want to play a wizard and is disappointed by the implementation. Which is another reason I think the wizard would make a fine subclass; the spellbook mechanic is a niche interest that absolutely should not be cut and absolutely would support a subclass.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ps those people who cheered when vancian casting was taken out were absolutely proven wrong by the 4th ed debacle. This is established fact. Period.

You mean when the wizard fans went on a campaign of sabotage that ended up tanking the Good Edition so they could get their superiority back?