D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[doctorbadwolf]

If Rangers were suddenly better than monks with unarmed strikes, would monks lose something in that scenario? If Paladins suddenly were better wildshapers than Druids, would Druids lose something in that scenario? Of course "taking the key identifying factors of another class" is a meaningful thing which is not happening in a vacuum but which has implications for the class whose key identifying factors they've copied.

How would you feel if Wizards could now not only do metamagic, but in some key ways do it better than sorcerers could do it?

But that isn’t actually what is happening.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

After considering it, I might grant the spell versatility option to wild magic sorcerers, but not to others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

After considering it, I might grant the spell versatility option to wild magic sorcerers, but not to others.

But they don't get to choose the new spell, it is chosen randomly! WILD MAGIC!

 

[Undrave]

I don't believe it is even indented as that, for that the swapping when levelling had been perfectly sufficient.

It clearly wasn't, since that was specifically called out as the reason for this rule: some people don't level up fast enough in their game for it to be useful. Sometimes you can spend months to a year of real life time with a bad choice.

Everyone now has a great versatility. With just one feat, you get what the wizards have left: "ritual caster". So why make a wizard then? Because you have the feat right of the bat? A poor choice if you compare ritual caster with sorcery point.

A Wizard doesn't need to prepare his ritual to use them, so they can just keep them in their book and load up on other spells. A Cleric, or Druid, has to sacrifice known spells to rituals. Maybe the problem is that the Wizard is badly designed?

And again... those are OPTIONAL RULES. You can just stop using them if you feel there's a problem in your campaign.

 

[DND_Reborn]

After considering it, I might grant the spell versatility option to wild magic sorcerers, but not to others.

That would be great! Because, frankly, I have never seen anyone even remotely interested in playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer and it actually fits thematically in at least some way.

But they don't get to choose the new spell, it is chosen randomly! WILD MAGIC!

LOL I thought of that, as well, at first, but there is such a thing as too random. The subclass is weak as it is, toss them a bone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That would be great! Because, frankly, I have never seen anyone even remotely interested in playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer and it actually fits thematically in at least some way.

I think it is thematically the coolest sorcerer, the rules are just kinda meh.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe the problem is that the Wizard is badly designed?

I can agree with this as well. Wizards are the only class which do one thing--cast spells. They should do it more and better than any other spell caster but don't as written. There are lots of ways to make wizards more unique compared to other casters than by simply giving them the largest spell list (what good is it if it takes them thousands of gold and hundreds of hours to get them all?).

Ritual casting for wizards IS strong, but not enough IMO to make up for things like metamagic and eldritch invocations.

 

[Helldritch]

A Wizard doesn't need to prepare his ritual to use them, so they can just keep them in their book and load up on other spells. A Cleric, or Druid, has to sacrifice known spells to rituals. Maybe the problem is that the Wizard is badly designed?

And again... those are OPTIONAL RULES. You can just stop using them if you feel there's a problem in your campaign.

Of course a wizard does not need to prepare. A character with the feat ritual caster does not even have to be a caster. So no spell to prepare to cast the ritual. Again, with a feat, the wizard lose his last unique feature.

Yes these are optional rules. But I think not only of my self, but of other young DM that will not understand how unbalanced this optional rule is and that will wonder why no one is playing wizards at their table anymore. Then they'll try to fix the wizards with something even more unbalanced and the cycle will start anew or the young DM will just burn out as I have often seen in 3.xed where all new books had new classes, prestige classes and rules that were unbalanced and young DM got in deep sh*t way over their head and couldn't see any solutions. Not everyone is/has the experience and the will to say nope. Not for this table. Especially with friends.

 

[TwoSix]

I can agree with this as well. Wizards are the only class which do one thing--cast spells. They should do it more and better than any other spell caster but don't as written. There are lots of ways to make wizards more unique compared to other casters than by simply giving them the largest spell list (what good is it if it takes them thousands of gold and hundreds of hours to get them all?).

Ritual casting for wizards IS strong, but not enough IMO to make up for things like metamagic and eldritch invocations.

I'd agree with this. I played a ton of wizards in 2E and 3E, but the one wizard I played in 5e was kinda blah. "I cast spells" isn't much of a schtick when half the official classes are full (or pact) casters.

 

[Helldritch]

I can agree with this as well. Wizards are the only class which do one thing--cast spells. They should do it more and better than any other spell caster but don't as written. There are lots of ways to make wizards more unique compared to other casters than by simply giving them the largest spell list (what good is it if it takes them thousands of gold and hundreds of hours to get them all?).

Ritual casting for wizards IS strong, but not enough IMO to make up for things like metamagic and eldritch invocations.

HEY! I found a really balanced buff to the wizards to cope with the new features!!!!!!!!

Lets' double their spell slots and allow them their intel bonus on all damage dice. That should do the trick. /sarcasm off... (well kind of.)