D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

[5ekyu]

Wait, first, a spell book looted from the big bad has the same zero cost and is MUCH more of a common thing than just finding a scroll of force cage. Second, I've played several fighters in this game and every time I had to buy the plate armor rather than find it.

It's not a ridiculous claim, and you just declaring it so without any support isn't persuasive. Your complaint about wizards scribing is literally the first I've seen of it's kind in the over 5 years 5e has been out - here, or at Reddit, or the WOTC boards before they shut down, or anywhere else. You thinking you're speaking the obvious smacks of you living in a bubble and having not considered for a moment the possibility you might be off on this topic. Take a moment and consider - is your experience maybe differing from others by a large degree? Or do you even have the experience with this topic in 5e at the table at all to be declaring other people's views ridiculous for dissenting from yours?

Well, not that I endorse the position but...

A found spellbook is useless until you scribe its dpells into yours. 5e foes not allow free use of captured spell books. Yah still gotta scribe.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, not that I endorse the position but...

A found spellbook is useless until you scribe its dpells into yours. 5e foes not allow free use of captured spell books. Yah still gotta scribe.

Sure but the cost to find all those spells was zero. He was including buying scrolls in part of his complaint. I mean, I think a 9th level spell is 450 gp. That's it. By those levels, 450 gp is a rounding error. If you're not paying for the scroll, then is he really arguing in 5e that 50gp * spell level is a huge cost? It's NOTHING. We're talking a base game which has no magic shops - what is he spending those gold pieces on that a couple hundred gold is some huge cost at mid levels?

 

[Tony Vargas]

By those levels, 450 gp is a rounding error. If you're not paying for the scroll, then is he really arguing in 5e that 50gp * spell level is a huge cost? It's NOTHING.

There's no standard wealth/level in 5e, like there was in 3e & 5e, and no de-facto correlation of treasure and level from XP-for-gp like in earlier versions. One of the cool things about 5e is that you can, in theory, find a horde of treasure at low level and be rich the rest of your careers, or struggle through a hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth existence into the highest levels.
So the Wizards' scribing extra spells, let alone buying them, along with other spells linked to specific gp costs, are factors that will float widely based on the campaign, and it wouldn't be entirely valid to factor them into comparisons of classes - in some campaigns, they'll be trivially available, in other they'd be out of reach, and everything in between, as there's no base or standard.

I'm still wondering what Wizards are supposedly lacking that should have been fixed by this UA...

d4 HD?
Know spell %?
AoOs for casting in melee?
Old-school Vancian "memorization?"
Hard restrictions on armor & weapons?
Needing more exp to reach 2nd level than everyone else?

It seems like a lotta things are missing from the 5e wizard!

Are you seriously comparing the need to eventually buy the best mundane gear for a build in the phb to finding scrolls & filled spellbooks then scribing them to a spellbook all the way to level 20?

Yes, because they're both things you might or might not get to do depending on how profligate your DM is with treasure.

The STR based fighter (or Paladin, or Cleric) with heavy armor proficiency only gains the full benefit of that with enough gp. The wizard is not alone in needing some gold to take fullest advantage of a class perk. But it's a bonus in campaigns that happen to be flush, not a necessary ability. The class should be fine without it. And, frankly, a wizard with "just" the 44 spells in his book he gets for 'free' is a lot better off, than a STR-based fighter or Paladin in a poverty-stricken campaign who can never afford armor better than Ring'mail' (down 3 AC from the max DEX PC in 'studded' leather).

 

[tetrasodium]

this thread has gotten quite ridiculous since last night with the nerf herders going back to attempting to argue in isolation without even considering how some of their isolated arguments quite literally damage each other. The cost of scribing wizard spells only came up in discussion because sorcerers are getting a zero cost version of the wizard's spellbook fully loaded with every spell on their class list with the minor restriction of only being able to swap one spell or cantrip per long rest while wizards are getting an ability to swap one cantrip per level & people said that the wizard cantrip versatility should also be on long rest.... after that, a couple people came out saying that the wizard can suck it, doesn't need anything, and the sorcerer version is too limited despite nobody saying it should be worse. Over time there was discussion about how if other classes are gaining the last thing that only a wizard can be proud of being able to do as a class, then it'sonly right that the wizard cantrip versatility also be on long rest. In an effort to argue against that, rediculous arguments about building a spellbook being a minor/trivial cost came about followed by claims that apparently some tables never find magic armor & magic weapons but are somehow swimming in spellbooks that get sold to buy everyone else magic armor & magic weapons with coin.... Oh and don't forget, wizards can just never scribe spells so it doesn't matter that spell versatility is 1 per long rest and the entire class spell list even though that list is significantly larger than the 44 spells that would accumulate in the wizard spellbook. for free

 

[Mistwell]

There's no standard wealth/level in 5e, like there was in 3e & 5e

Xanathar's Guide, Appendix A.

and no de-facto correlation of treasure and level from XP-for-gp like in earlier versions. One of the cool things about 5e is that you can, in theory, find a horde of treasure at low level and be rich the rest of your careers, or struggle through a hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth existence into the highest levels.
So the Wizards' scribing extra spells, let alone buying them, along with other spells linked to specific gp costs, are factors that will float widely based on the campaign, and it wouldn't be entirely valid to factor them into comparisons of classes - in some campaigns, they'll be trivially available, in other they'd be out of reach, and everything in between, as there's no base or standard.

So I'd love for you to justify not paying for plate armor but paying for spell scribing as a base assumption. This should be brilliant.

If you were to scribe two spells each spell level through 10th level, you'd spend the 1500gp it takes to buy plate armor.

And no matter what your assumptions I call BS on any claim that 50gp/spell level is not trivial at high levels. We can in fact make an assumption that high level PCs have some gold. We can argue how much, but I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the overwhelming majority of campaigns include sufficient gold pieces per character at high levels such that this kind of cost will not be a meaningful one at high levels.

And again, even if you are in some bizarre highly unusual game where the PCs don't have any gold at high levels - the wizard already is a dominating class WITHOUT ANY SPELL SCRIBING AT ALL. All the build guides in fact assume you just get your two spells per level (and as I explained earlier, there just are not that many very high level spells to begin with such that this would be an issue for anyone).

This entire scribing argument is specious. I don't think anyone has encountered it in practice, I think he's making a theoretical argument with no basis in reality at the table.

 

[Mistwell]

In an effort to argue against that, rediculous arguments about building a spellbook being a minor/trivial cost came about followed by claims that apparently some tables never find magic armor & magic weapons but are somehow swimming in spellbooks that get sold to buy everyone else magic armor & magic weapons with coin....

Talk about a ridiculous argument, NOBODY argued what you just claimed they argued.

You have been running from a question twice now, and this is the third time it's being asked. I am betting you will refuse to answer it again - even though your answer is incredibly telling as to whether or not this is a "ridiculous" argument.

HAVE YOU PLAYED A MID TO HIGH-LEVEL WIZARD IN AN ACTUAL IN-PERSON 5E GAME AND FOUND SCRIBING COSTS TO BE A REAL ISSUE AT YOUR TABLES OR IS THIS JUST YOU THEORIZING BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH PRIOR VERSIONS OF THE GAME?

I think it's a very fair question. Please answer it, and if it was an issue please give some details.

 

[tetrasodium]

Talk about a ridiculous argument, NOBODY argued what you just claimed they argued.

You have been running from a question twice now, and this is the third time it's being asked. I am betting you will refuse to answer it again - even though your answer is incredibly telling as to whether or not this is a "ridiculous" argument.

HAVE YOU PLAYED A MID TO HIGH-LEVEL WIZARD IN AN ACTUAL IN-PERSON 5E GAME AND FOUND SCRIBING COSTS TO BE A REAL ISSUE AT YOUR TABLES OR IS THIS JUST YOU THEORIZING BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH PRIOR VERSIONS OF THE GAME?

I think it's a very fair question. Please answer it, and if it was an issue please give some details.

I've avoided giving your sad & irrelevant attempt at character assassination even a breath of effort twice because that's all it is and will do so again but give it this much since being acknowledged is so apparently critically important to you that you are willing to act like you have been in this thread.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Xanathar's Guide, Appendix A.

Optional, by definition.

So I'd love for you to justify not paying for plate armor but paying for spell scribing as a base assumption.

I don't think that ball is in my court. I was pointing out that the wizard is not alone in having a feature that's better in a flush campaign than an impoverished one.

And no matter what your assumptions I call BS on any claim that 50gp/spell level is not trivial at high levels. We can in fact make an assumption that high level PCs have some gold.

Why? You don't need gp to level. You don't need magic items to stand up to appropriate CR threats. Those are the design assumptions, anyway.

So it makes no sense to compare class balance (and thus what classes 'need') in a hypothetical flush-with-gold environment, but, rather, with wealth-independent assumptions. And, while any heavy-armor-dependent build is in trouble if we assume destitution....

the wizard already is a dominating class WITHOUT ANY SPELL SCRIBING AT ALL. All the build guides in fact assume you just get your two spells per level.

...the wizard is still solidly Tier 1.

This entire scribing argument is specious. I don't think anyone has encountered it in practice, I think he's making a theoretical argument with no basis in reality at the table.

Theoretical arguments are fine, IMHO. This one just doesn't make the case he thinks it does. The wizard has been over the top since they handed the 3.x Sorcerer's spontaneous casting to him, wholesale, while still letting him prep completely different selections every day.

 

[Mistwell]

I've avoided giving your sad & irrelevant attempt at character assassination even a breath of effort twice because that's all it is and will do so again but give it this much since being acknowledged is so apparently critically important to you that you are willing to act like you have been in this thread.

Right. It was not character assassination - asking if something is a real problem at a table instead of a theoretical one is highly relevant to discussions of whether there is a problem in the game. Your overreaction claiming it is somehow character assassination to ask that is an obvious distraction from the fact you don't want to admit you have never even played the thing you're claiming is a problem.

Your refusal to answer is, I assure you, telling to people reading this. We have our answer now. We understand where you're coming from now.

 

[Ashrym]

Ashrym, magic armor has always resized, and it sounds to me you are referring to 1e Unearthed Arcana introducing Field and Full Plate armor in 1985, about 6 years after the release of the DMG, the repair rules applied to those armors. If there was armor repair guidelines in the 1e dmg, they were easily overlooked, if even present, and almost no one, certainly not Gary Gygax ever used All the rules in the DMG.

In 5e a 3rd level Defense trained fighter with a shield is going to blow the bounded math for AC for many monsters. Add in Shield mastery and more mayhem ensues.

But that is all a distraction.

Magic armor does, yes, but that looks like pushing the goal posts. 5e was built around ignoring the possibility of magic items at all, at least per WotC at the time. It's never assumed and until AL rules allowed specific magic purchases and XGtE covered that as well it was a DM only determination. It's still a DM only determination becaue XGtE isn't guaranteed to be used and AL games are not everyone's games, but those guidelines don't show a proliferation of magic even going with them.

We need to assume the DM allows for or places the armor before the player buys some. IME, it's usually the player who pays for it.

Your planar binding exploit you were applying to bards in your bard thread would equally apply to wizards if a DM allows for massive funds that way, completely nullifying the point you are trying to make even if wizards spent all these funds on scribing, which it generally in addition to the standard.

Wizards are not struggling as a class and spell versatility isn't going to change that. "I think it steps on wizards' toes too much" is probably the best argument against it but that's a perception opinion. Mechanically I'm not seeing the issue, even if a PC changes out the entire list during extended downtime.