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

[tetrasodium]

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.

You realize that nobody is arguing against it by saying that the same logic wotc was using to make spell versatility per long rest to account for campaigns that level slowly should be applied to cantrip versatility and cantrip versatility should also be on long rest rather than on level to account for the fact that wizards can also play in those slow leveling campaigns.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

The former is relevant to discussions of how to fix problems at the table in question, the latter to discussions of problems with the design.




Edit: And a theoretical analysis of the wizard reveals it's still a solidly Tier 1 class that could do with a nuclear nerf or few.

 

[Ashrym]

You realize that nobody is arguing against it by saying that the same logic wotc was using to make spell versatility per long rest to account for campaigns that level slowly should be applied to cantrip versatility and cantrip versatility should also be on long rest rather than on level to account for the fact that wizards can also play in those slow leveling campaigns.

I'm not sure how that disputes what you quoted. No one is making that argument because the changes presented based on addressing concerns with areas of the game and those classes. Spell prep classes did not have a respec mechanic for cantrips so that one was added. Those classes were never intended to have a high level of versatility changing cantrips.

Spells known classes were intended to replace spells more often than the designers were seeing so they added spell versatility as an option to allow swapping more often since that was originally part of the design.

Those are based on design intent. Why would wizard get something just because another class gets something similar when that was never the intent for wizards in the first place?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How much does a set of plate looted from the big bad cost?.. oh wait, it doesn't & it was a ridiculous claim trying to suggest that every other class has expenses on par with the wizard's never ending gp black hole known as a spellbook & you knew it so you asked spell level rather than spells.

You don’t get spell inscription materials in your loot?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those are based on design intent. Why would wizard get something just because another class gets something similar when that was never the intent for wizards in the first place?

IDK, why did the 5e wizard get spontaneous casting? It was never the intent for wizards, who were wholly Vancian from day 1.

For that matter, all these known-spell casters getting to swap a spell on a long rest sure looks like them getting something just because the wizard has it.

 

[Ashrym]

IDK, why did the 5e wizard get spontaneous casting? It was never the intent for wizards, who were wholly Vancian from day 1.

For that matter, all these known-spell casters getting to swap a spell on a long rest sure looks like them getting something just because the wizard has it.

5e gave spontaneous casters slots separate from because it allows a broader selection of spells memorized instead of cure wounds 3 times or sleep 3 times. It also facilitates multiclassing.

I already listed the reason Crawford gave for versatile spell casting. You are free to watch the videos at Beyond for all the same information. Saying it was just to give something from wizards to sorcerers, bards, and warlocks instead of taking it at face value after he stated his reasons is the "liar liar pants on fire" response without evidence to say otherwise.

I am always up for a good conspiracy theory, however.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e gave spontaneous casters slots separate from because it allows a broader selection of spells memorized instead of cure wounds 3 times or sleep 3 times.

I mean, that's a reason, but it's not a very different reason from "just because." Yes, spontaneous casting means you don't prep the same spell more than once. Needing to do so was one of the very few things slightly holding back Tier 1 casters at their most wildly-OP in 3.5, so from a gamist standpoint it sounds like a bad reason, and obviously, like any change, it was bad from a traditionalist standpoint.

But, if the point is just to make playing casters easier and caster classes that much more versatile & powerful, then the recent addition of prepping-equivalence to known casters only fails to make sense in that it doesn't go far enough.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure how that disputes what you quoted. No one is making that argument because the changes presented based on addressing concerns with areas of the game and those classes. Spell prep classes did not have a respec mechanic for cantrips so that one was added. Those classes were never intended to have a high level of versatility changing cantrips.

Spells known classes were intended to replace spells more often than the designers were seeing so they added spell versatility as an option to allow swapping more often since that was originally part of the design.

Those are based on design intent. Why would wizard get something just because another class gets something similar when that was never the intent for wizards in the first place?

Spoiler

I wanted us to provide an official answer to the desire in many groups, which we ave observed over the last five years to be able to have a bit more flexibility with their character.. for when they make a choice.. not be trapped by that choice. Because we have provided in the player's handbook various ways to say if your a sorcerer when you level up swap out a spell.. In this we provide you the ability to swap out a spell at the end of the long rest. The reason for that is that we actually have no control as game designers over how long a level lasts... and in some groups, it has become clear as we've observed different patterns on play over the last five years. Having to wait till the next level to swap out a spell that you don't like in one group that might just be a session or two from now... Another group, if another group likes to just sorta stay the same level for a long time, that could be six to twelve months... which was not a part of our original design. So in a way, us providing this versatility is signaling to people the game can handle a sorcerer for instance swapping out one spell at the end of the short rest err sorry a long rest... Because also ultimately we want people to be happy with their characters, to me there is no sort of merit in the design to make people sorta eat their vegetables with their character, it's a game. Now some may ask why you don't just let people change everything all the time. Now the reason that the rules don't it's really two fold. One is a narrative reason, we want there to be at least some stable identity to a person's character... but also B we don't want this potential slowdown of reconsidering everything in your character all the time. Now there are a few characters like the wizard for instance where actually you have deep consideration daily of their spells & all of their spells is a core part of their identity... but with wizards we address that by it's a spellbook so the spellbook doesn't have every single spell in existence, it just sortof a curated list & then your choosing from that curated list

So either the logic applied to why sorcerer spell flexibility explicitly including cantrips & being on rest also applies to wizards or wizards don't play in those campaigns. Since Obviously it's ridiculous to suggest wizards don't play in those campaigns then there is only two routes for that logic to take... either do the thing nobody is suggesting & remove it from sorcerer entirely due to it being grounded in unsound logic or to also apply it to wizard cantrip versatility

-------

IDK, why did the 5e wizard get spontaneous casting? It was never the intent for wizards, who were wholly Vancian from day 1.

For that matter, all these known-spell casters getting to swap a spell on a long rest sure looks like them getting something just because the wizard has it.

I'm pretty sure it's been covered in more detail elsewhere, but in a nut shell a lot of it had to do with the fact that vancian casting was confusing, hard for newer players to understand with such a steep learning curve from the firehose of information that needed to be deeply understood by vancian casters that it pushed away newer & more casual players.
TL;DR it was done for accessabiity & to avoid overloading new players before they are hooked.

 

[Azzy]

The relatively minor expense of a spellbook is hardly going to keep wizards from having extensive spell books.

Especially when there are complaints that there's nothing to spend accumalated gp on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure it's been covered in more detail elsewhere, but in a nut shell a lot of it had to do with the fact that vancian casting was confusing, hard for newer players to understand with such a steep learning curve from the firehose of information that needed to be deeply understood by vancian casters that it pushed away newer & more casual players.
TL;DR it was done for accessabiity & to avoid overloading new players before they are hooked.

I can't credit that. I've seen neo-Vancian be so much more confusing to both new and returning players than traditional Vancian (which is off-putting to new players, more than confusing, IMX), or 3e-style spontaneous.

I mean, traditional Vancian:
You choose or are assigned spells known. You can find or trade for more.
You fill out a list of them, so many of each level.
You cross them off as you use them.

(Old school, at 1st level MU, you choose one spell and it's gone when you use it! Simple! then you throw darts or something)

3e Spontaneous
You choose known spells only at chargen & level up.
You have so many slots and use them to cast those spells, tallying them off until they're gone. (then you twang a crossbow or something)

5e neo-Vancian Wizard
You choose known spells at chargen. You also choose cantrips. You choose more spells each level. You can also find/acquire & scribe more spells (but not cantrips).
You choose a sub-set of those, without regard for level, that you prepare.
You have so many slots and use them to cast those spells, up-casting some of them is also an option, tallying them off until they're gone.
Except cantrips, which you can cast all you want, even after your slots are gone. And, if you have time, you may be able to cast certain spells as rituals without using slots.
Oh, and, as a wizard, you can cast spells directly from your book if they have the Ritual tag, without using a slot, if you have time.