D&D (2024) Wizard (Playtest 7)

[Parmandur]

I thought we were getting 4 subclasses per class and we have 4 now?

In the PHB, yes, but at some point they will release Eliminsters Folio of Everything or something like that.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Crawford has already stated in one of the videos that the new Necromancer was finished and will be released so since it isn't in the phb it will be in the dmg. Honestly I would love it if we got the Shadow Sorcerer, the Necromancer, oathbreaker paladin, death Cleric, undead warlock and other of the very dark themed subclasses in the dmg, heck give me one for each class and I would be happy.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The problem with the Diviner isn't that it isn't powerful. It's that it's not thematic and differentiated. You're encouraged to prepare almost the exact same spells and use them in almost the exact same way as almost any other wizard. You just have a couple of minor bonuses to use and other subclasses get other bonuses.

I think that's problem for most Wizard's archetypes, except maybe for Evoker/Conjurer since many of the ''traditional'' spells are on their lists.

Illusions and divining spells should have 1) more spells in general 2) spells that arent just ''does the same as the previous spell level, but a little better.

Illusions and divining spells can have damage or control spells too.

• Phantom chasm = mass prone + unable to stand up in a 10 x 30 line.
• Baleful Revelation = fear + ongoing psychic damage
• Mind eye closed = mass blind, dispel Divination spells.
• Lure = lesser Sympathy/Antipathy effect
• Eyes of the All-Seeing = eye beam attack with a ''fearie fire'' effect.

etc

 

[James Gasik]

I think that's problem for most Wizard's archetypes, except maybe for Evoker/Conjurer since many of the ''traditional'' spells are on their lists.

Illusions and divining spells should have 1) more spells in general 2) spells that arent just ''does the same as the previous spell level, but a little better.

Illusions and divining spells can have damage or control spells too.

• Phantom chasm = mass prone + unable to stand up in a 10 x 30 line.
• Baleful Revelation = fear + ongoing psychic damage
• Mind eye closed = mass blind, dispel Divination spells.
• Lure = lesser Sympathy/Antipathy effect
• Eyes of the All-Seeing = eye beam attack with a ''fearie fire'' effect.

etc

This can just as easily speak to how weak the Schools are in the first place, however. If any School can accomplish similar feats to any other School, then why have them? Why not instead divide spells by what they accomplish, ie, Control, Damage, Detection, and so on?

 

[Remathilis]

Crawford has already stated in one of the videos that the new Necromancer was finished and will be released so since it isn't in the phb it will be in the dmg. Honestly I would love it if we got the Shadow Sorcerer, the Necromancer, oathbreaker paladin, death Cleric, undead warlock and other of the very dark themed subclasses in the dmg, heck give me one for each class and I would be happy.

No. Don't hide the dark options in the DMG so that DMs can soft ban them. I'd rather wait for an Everything book than see them in the DMG.

 

[Parmandur]

No. Don't hide the dark options in the DMG so that DMs can soft ban them. I'd rather wait for an Everything book than see them in the DMG.

Well, Crawford had said quite explicitly that we would see the Necromancer in the playtest...the only way that seems plausible now is if there are some Subclasses set up in the DMG as examples.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm expecting Crawford to be hedging his bets that one of the wizard subclasses bombs, like they typically do in UA material.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, Crawford had said quite explicitly that we would see the Necromancer in the playtest...the only way that seems plausible now is if there are some Subclasses set up in the DMG as examples.

It might have been the plan at the time to include necromancer but it got changed out for any number of reasons (saving a popular subclass for a supplement book, for example). I don't think we're getting more than the 48 in the PHB.

 

[Parmandur]

It might have been the plan at the time to include necromancer but it got changed out for any number of reasons (saving a popular subclass for a supplement book, for example). I don't think we're getting more than the 48 in the PHB.

Of course, only the 48 we know in the PHB. However, they will be doing playtests for the DMG, too, and Subclasses are not at all improbable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. Don't hide the dark options in the DMG so that DMs can soft ban them. I'd rather wait for an Everything book than see them in the DMG.

It's not often we agree. But here's one case where we do.