D&D 5E Apprentice Wizard- Arcane Burst power

[EzekielRaiden]

The idea that PCs should (in theory) be able to learn the skills and abilities of NPCs doesn't make sense even if you played NPCs with full PC rules. A player character illusionist wizard can never learn the powers that other wizard subclasses grant, no matter how hard they try, barring house rules. Same thing with a battlemaster fighter observing the abilities of an NPC rune knight fighter. This mythical in-world consistency with regards to PC vs NPC abilities has never existed and will never exist even if you build every single NPC with the PC rules.


Would you allow an NPC caster to counterspell a PC druid's wildshape or a PC conjurer wizard's benign transposition or a PC cleric's various channel divinity powers? They're all magical abilities after all and very similar to spells even if they aren't spells. Or vice versa, if an NPC possessed any of these PC class abilities and a player wanted to counterspell it?

The "in theory" here includes the possibility that the PC had been built differently, e.g. choosing a different Wizard tradition, playing a different class, or even being a different race or physiology.

Don't get me wrong, I also think the logic is stretched thin, since this relies on the entirely un-diegetic "you choose how to build your character" stuff. But there is at least a response built in for it.

 

[Yaarel]

Enforced conformity and uniformity has just as many diegetic problems. And if we aren't enforcing uniformity...why should we expect every narratively "person who is green, and also a recruit" to always, 100% of the time, use the first creature statistics published under the name "Green Recruit"?

That is why, when a DM makes up new monsters, new NPCs, new magic items, new spells, new backgrounds, etcetera, ... it is Rules-As-Written for the DMs side of the screen.

 

[aco175]

Judging by the statblock, the "Variant Eldritch Blast" cantrip looks like the following. Here is a cantrip that any Wizard can learn to cast.

ARCANE BURST
Dunamancy cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Melee or 120 feet
Components: None
Raw arcane force ruptures across your target, distorting and wracking the body. Make a Melee or Ranged Spell Attack. On a Hit, the target incurs 1d10 Force Damage.
At Higher Levels. At level 5 the damage increases to 2d10, at level 11 to 3d10, and at level 17 to 4d10.

I still think this is one of the too good spells that everyone would have. It might be ok based on every warlock having EBlast, but should every caster have it? I would take it for every caster even it it did d6 instead of d10 and it would still be good.

I guess another question is if wizards should have d10 damage. To me it is a bit higher than I feel it should be compared to other classes. Fighters deal d8/d10 with a basic attack, clerics seem to deal d6/d8, and the other classes fit in along there. They do get to add the modifier for another +3ish. So now 1d8+3 averages to 8 and 1d10 without modifier is just 6. Maybe it is just a perception on my end.

 

[Meech17]

I still think this is one of the too good spells that everyone would have. It might be ok based on every warlock having EBlast, but should every caster have it? I would take it for every caster even it it did d6 instead of d10 and it would still be good.

I guess another question is if wizards should have d10 damage. To me it is a bit higher than I feel it should be compared to other classes. Fighters deal d8/d10 with a basic attack, clerics seem to deal d6/d8, and the other classes fit in along there. They do get to add the modifier for another +3ish. So now 1d8+3 averages to 8 and 1d10 without modifier is just 6. Maybe it is just a perception on my end.

I feel like the Wizards should have a very powerful attack. It's the tradeoff for being a squishy lil guy. I also think their HP should be back to a d4 but that's another issue.

The fighter does less damage per turn, but they are also not likely to get one-shot by a good roll with a goblin short bow.

 

[Yaarel]

I still think this is one of the too good spells that everyone would have. It might be ok based on every warlock having EBlast, but should every caster have it? I would take it for every caster even it it did d6 instead of d10 and it would still be good.

I guess another question is if wizards should have d10 damage. To me it is a bit higher than I feel it should be compared to other classes. Fighters deal d8/d10 with a basic attack, clerics seem to deal d6/d8, and the other classes fit in along there. They do get to add the modifier for another +3ish. So now 1d8+3 averages to 8 and 1d10 without modifier is just 6. Maybe it is just a perception on my end.

I agree, Arcane Burst and Eldritch Blast are too powerful for a slot 0 cantrip. I would make both of these spells 1d8 Force damage. But it is what it is.

They wont break the game, but when one spell is clearly more powerful than the other spells in the same slot, the unbalanced design removes real choice.

If it is was the Fire damage type, then an equivalent Fire Burst or Fire Blast would probably be fine with 1d10, since it is among the most resisted damage types.


That said, I like the flavor that Arcane Burst is what happens when a Wizard doesnt control and finetune a magical effect.


These heavy Force Spell Attacks could be class features.

 

[TwoSix]

Because enforced uniformity is (or at least seems) just as artificial and contrary to diegetic seriousness as the (allegedly) artificial situation you're complaining about. That is, why should it be the case that absolutely all "Apprentice Wizards" learn exactly the same stuff in exactly the same ways?

100% this. Classes, or at least consistent class structure such that every member of the class has identical abilities, should not exist within the fiction. NPCs should be unique, with abilities appropriate to their training and role within the fiction. A "template" structure for an NPC is only appropriate to save time, and should not be construed as having any diegetic value.

That being said, an NPC's abilities should flow out of their narrative. Having a fictional spellcaster who knows unique spells is fine, but doesn't match the fiction of the "Apprentice Wizard" who's just started training. Spells, particularly wizard spells, are strong diegetic elements because they can be identified, learned and traded via scrolls/spellbooks, etc. It makes little sense to give a diegetic wizard a "spell" that doesn't function as a "spell", breaking that diegetic linkage, for a trivial gain in gamist challenge.

I don't use the "Wizard" class to build wizards in my fiction, but NPC "Wizards" still use fire bolt, ray of frost, etc., because those spells are signifiers of the wizard trope I'm trying to communicate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is why, when a DM makes up new monsters, new NPCs, new magic items, new spells, new backgrounds, etcetera, ... it is Rules-As-Written for the DMs side of the screen.

Sure. But I will note that the diegetic side of things is still important--which is why, as an adventure progresses, the DM's freedom of action for re-writing creatures that already exist contracts. When all you know is that there's kobolds in these woods, that only tells you a little bit. When you're actually face to face with one, in combat, and its statistics have actually been employed as part of that combat, you really shouldn't futz with them unless you have a diegetic explanation for why that's a thing.

 

[Teemu]

The "in theory" here includes the possibility that the PC had been built differently, e.g. choosing a different Wizard tradition, playing a different class, or even being a different race or physiology.

Don't get me wrong, I also think the logic is stretched thin, since this relies on the entirely un-diegetic "you choose how to build your character" stuff. But there is at least a response built in for it.

Sure, but it's 100% impossible to create a character that could learn every skill or ability simply because of the way 5e restricts you to a single subclass within a particular class. Even that response is faulty because there will always be something that you cannot learn, even within your field of specialty (wizard magic for example).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, but it's 100% impossible to create a character that could learn every skill or ability simply because of the way 5e restricts you to a single subclass within a particular class. Even that response is faulty because there will always be something that you cannot learn, even within your field of specialty (wizard magic for example).

There are some combinations of abilities (often, many combinations!) which can't be learned concurrently, yes. That's not what the claim is saying though. The claim is saying that any individual ability should, in some way, at least conceivably be learnable in the abstract. An individual ability that cannot ever be learned under any circumstances is a violation of this principle. Concatenating even two abilities together does not strictly guarantee that you should be able to do that, but any singular ability, in isolation, should be accessible to the player via some means; and if the ability is from official content, then an official means must exist to reach it (even if that means is "well you should have been playing an actual literal dragon if you wanted that, even though actual literal dragons officially aren't an option for player charactesr"), even if doing so would exclude literally everything else. Some means of acquisition for each individual ability should exist, even if no means exists for any given collection with more than one element.

 

[NotAYakk]

Arcane Blast: 120' ranged spell or 5' reach melee, 1d6 force damage. At level 5, 11 and 17 this increases to 2d6, 3d6 and 4d6.

Feat Intense Cantrip Practice: You can add your intelligence modifier to the damage rolls of wizard cantrips.

Feat Force Specialist: You learn Mage Armor and Arcane Blast. You can cast Mage Armor as a ritual on yourself, and Arcane Blast deals d10s instead of d6s for you. As a bonus action you can expend a spell slot of 3rd or higher level; for every 3 slot levels for the next minute (or until you use this ability again) your Arcane Blast can target an additional foe.

I think that emulates all of the wizard monsters mentioned? Arcane Blast isn't a great cantrip, but is ok. Intense Cantrip Practice gives you a damage buff on cantrips. Force Specialist gives you some random utility, gives a baseline boost to Arcane Blast, and lets you burn spell slots to get extra attacks with it. (I restricted it from multi-attacking the same target, but I'd have done the same with the monsters honestly).

They look good enough to burn feats on, but I don't think they are top-tier options. 4d10+5 (27) damage to 4 targets for 1 minute is a poor use of a 9th level slot; and even using a 3rd level slot and an action to do up to 27 to 2 targets isn't a great option at high levels usually.