D&D (2024) Wither the Wizard? (or: Bards don’t have ACNE)

[tetrasodium]

No more than the bard now having four subclass levels instead three. Actually, far less - its super easy to just say "level 1 feature is now level 3. level 6 stays the same." Etc.


EB is probably a class feature, sure.
Here's the thing with the pact forms. At least this is my guess based on Xanathar and Tasha invocations. Sword/book/chain/talisman are all things you make a pact with as well. Like, the Hexblade pact was made with a sapient weapon - now, all blade pacts are similar. Talismans are designed to work with Genie pact and give you, well, basically genie lamps, but could also be any other kind of Sealed Evil in a Can that you contact the spirit within. Book invocations in tasha had a whole "sign your name in my book of contracts" vibe going for it. And, naturally, chain is all about getting your spells through a familiar.

I'd like to see things keep going that way for the warlock pact types. It really helps give a bit more flavor to the style of pact you make. Very flavorful.

What does that have to do with shifting the patron or bulk of patron benefits back to level three to match other classes? Warlock as class needs to stand more as a class than a multiclass dip slingshot

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am pretty convinced that the wizard will still have a spellbook, and all spells in your character’s spellbook will be always prepared for you.

That's how I assumed Wizards worked in my first campaign and ran them for a year or two that way. I can say from experience, if this is what they're going to do, it's a huge buff. Not necessarily a good one, either.

 

[Mephista]

Personally I don’t think the bard’s spell list was all that thematically strong to begin with, but I also don’t know how different the version in this UA is, as I haven’t actually gone through to figure out what spells are available under the playtest rule. If it is significantly thematically weaker than the 2014 bard spell list, that would certainly be disappointing.

Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

What does that have to do with shifting the patron or bulk of patron benefits back to level three to match other classes? Warlock as class needs to stand more as a class than a multiclass dip slingshot

Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.

 

[tetrasodium]

Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.

Some features don't need to scale to be kinda borked at a mere 1 level investment. chain pact's imp familiar & hexblade's attack with cha on a pally for example. The 5e warlock in general is far too frontloaded with class features, even invocations like devils sight at 2 are just unchecked munchkinised charop allowing players an easy way to veto any changes to darkvision that try to make light & dark matter. If a level N character can dip 1 level for a nice feature then a second for s kinda broken one (or vice versa) there hasn't been much that was fixed aside from changing it from EB to something else

 

[Charlaquin]

Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

Oof… Yeah, that sucks…

 

[Parmandur]

Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.

To be fair, that sounds like a good job for a Subclass...or a Feat, even.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's how I assumed Wizards worked in my first campaign and ran them for a year or two that way. I can say from experience, if this is what they're going to do, it's a huge buff. Not necessarily a good one, either.

Well, “making it work the way people assume it does” seems to be the name of the game for 1D&D, so this seems to me like a vote of confidence that it will work this way, at least for a packet to test it out.

 

[Mephista]

To be fair, that sounds like a good job for a Subclass...or a Feat, even.

Feat, absolutely not. I should not have to have a lineage nor feat to fulfill the most basic tropes of a class. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to play a dwarven bard with crafting feat instead of a drow bard with Magic Initiate.

Subclass I will admit should work, and I have suggested such elsewhere... But the play test didn't have any. Ergo... Something is not right, and needs to be reported as such on the survey.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Conjugation: 29

I think maybe you got it mixed up with the succubus' spell list.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think maybe you got it mixed up with the succubus' spell list.

Those succubi, they truly are cunning linguists.