D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[EzekielRaiden]

Wizard partisans don't argue their class should be the best per se, instead ever since mid-2e-era they just incessantly low-grade argue for a little relaxation of a restriction here, a bit less risk to a spell there, a slight power-up to a spell somewhere else, more opportunities to cast per day, on and on and on......and before you know it, wizards are the best by default.

Why? Because all those now-removed restrictions and limitations are what once kept mages in balance.

We have documented evidence, from Mr. Heinsoo himself, that this was a pattern in the design. The designers of 4e kept trying to make Wizard just a little better than the other classes...except each of them would do it their own way. Meaning, Mr. Heinsoo had to repeatedly tamp things down a little bit, because he was constantly fighting his own design team so that Wizards wouldn't rule the roost. He came clean and said that he had erred on the side of caution, that is, favored slightly overcorrecting, and expected any problems to be minor and addressed afterward.

So...while you are correct that the biggest single problem certainly has been a steady removal of limitations, it's not only not alone as a major problem, it really is exacerbated by people both inside and outside trying to make Wizard the best class in the game.

(Aside: No, Zardnaar, I will not be discussing that specific topic with you. I know your stance. I completely disagree with it. There is no benefit to dragging that into this discussion too, because the last ten threads produced no benefit either.)

 

[Zardnaar]

As per usual people conjure up hypotheticals while not playing the game.

Wizard gets a lot of flak that should be directed at the other casters.

 

[aiouh]

As per usual people conjure up hypotheticals while not playing the game.

Wizard gets a lot of flak that should be directed at the other casters.

Wait you guys have been playing the game? I thought the game only existed to make up hypotheticals to own other nerds with

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As per usual people conjure up hypotheticals while not playing the game.

Wizard gets a lot of flak that should be directed at the other casters.

I do play the game. I play in two different 5e games now. Well, one is on a two week holiday break, but still.

Stones. Glass houses. You know the drill.

And, for those claiming that the Wizard fanboys don't partake in such discourse, here is the thread where they gleefully danced on the grave of "Spell Versatility", which they hated specifically because it could have made some Sorcerers slightly better at specific things than the most similar Wizard school. Because if there's a subclass of Wizard that does something, it needs to be the best at that thing.

I'm not joking when I say this is by far the most aggressive, demanding, and vocal slice of the D&D fan space, even as it shrinks further over time because it's like 95% 2e and 3e fans. Anything that they perceive as a threat must be defeated, destroyed, annihilated—and it is, as that very first post shows, allegedly sanity itself to listen to their demands, while being horrendous idiocy to do anything else.

They rule. They have ruled unopposed since they were part of the winning faction of the edition war. They get directly catered to, on the regular. That's part of why Bladesinger is as ridiculous as it is, for example. A Wizard dedicating less than half their total spell output in order to be objectively better at tanking and survival than a defense-focused Fighter...all while having the other half+ of their spell load out to deploy however they like.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So I assume then that you did not see the furious """discussion""" regarding Spell Versatility?

One thread at some point in the past? I guess I missed that one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thread at some point in the past? I guess I missed that one.

It was multiple threads. I merely linked the one above that specifically did the dancing on graves, celebrating how they had destroyed a threat to their precious Wizard.

Edit: Hell, you posted in that thread, incredulous that someone would have boycotted an entire book just because it was going to contain Spell Versatility...and then instantly flipping to "now I'll probably buy it" once that one rule was eliminated.

Yes, it is absolutely that petty.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In a game where xp are given individually for what a character does (as opposed to what ideas it comes up with that others then carry out), yes - this can be an issue.

IME (and I include myself-as-DM here) when looking over things later in order to assign xp the DM will remember (or have noted down) who actually did what but won't nearly as often note or remember who came up with the idea for what. Part of that is because there's no risk attached to thinking but there can often be risk attached to acting on those thoughts, and risk is what earns xp.

As an example Corinda - a clanky heavy Fighter - might be the one who realizes scouting around the back of the castle could be a good idea but if it's Jarrod - the party's Thief - that actually does the scouting (and thus takes any associated risks) then Jarrod gets the xp.

So the six of you who do this?

My guess is the designers are not going to modify all their designs just to make sure your players are adequately compensated for their characters work. Not when the six of you could just take a few moments to throw a couple shekels to the players who are coming up with the ideas and then handing them off to the PCs best suited to take action.

 

[aiouh]

In a game where xp are given individually for what a character does (as opposed to what ideas it comes up with that others then carry out), yes - this can be an issue.

IME (and I include myself-as-DM here) when looking over things later in order to assign xp the DM will remember (or have noted down) who actually did what but won't nearly as often note or remember who came up with the idea for what. Part of that is because there's no risk attached to thinking but there can often be risk attached to acting on those thoughts, and risk is what earns xp.

As an example Corinda - a clanky heavy Fighter - might be the one who realizes scouting around the back of the castle could be a good idea but if it's Jarrod - the party's Thief - that actually does the scouting (and thus takes any associated risks) then Jarrod gets the xp.

Wait, so you introduced a house-rule that directly goes against 5e14 and 2e24 rules and design and you're using that baseline to argue that something in the game is badly designed?

"The car is poorly designed because I installed square rims on my car and now it runs uneven."

 

[Horwath]

The slide started with 3e, not 3.5, with two huge developments

1 - spells lost their casting times and instead started and resolved within the same initiative (or "action"), thus becoming massively harder to interrupt
2 - combat casting was introduced as a feat; naturally every caster in the known world took it, and casting thus became even harder to interrupt.

that is one problem, but it is also a solution,
it's easier to balance things and plan if you know for 100% that the spell will take effect.

Hell, even if we get rid of saving throws, we could get even more balance(but not necessary a better game).

IE:
Hold person: effect lasts for 5 rounds, minus your Wisdom modifier, minimum of 1 round.

Entangle: effect lasts for 10 rounds, minus twice your STR mod, minimum of 1 round

Fireball: reduce damage by DEX mod per spell level of fireball, minimum of 3 damage per spell level.
(evasion: add +5 to your effective dex mod for avoiding spells/traps, damage can be reduce to zero)


or we can go back on 1-round casting spells, like some 3.5e spells(summons), but with addition that you do not waste a spell slot if you are unable to finish casting because of lost concentration saves.

or have ALL spells with saves(single target) that if target saves, you do not spend a spell slot, but spell has no lesser effect if the target saves. This can also go for single target attack spells. All or nothing on a miss/save.
kind of like Reliable powers of 4E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It was multiple threads. I merely linked the one above that specifically did the dancing on graves, celebrating how they had destroyed a threat to their precious Wizard.

Edit: Hell, you posted in that thread, incredulous that someone would have boycotted an entire book just because it was going to contain Spell Versatility...and then instantly flipping to "now I'll probably buy it" once that one rule was eliminated.

Yes, it is absolutely that petty.

Just went back and looked at the first couple pages of that thread, and saw really only a couple people actually seemingly all that excited about the loss of that one single ability due to "wizard fandom", as the other few people who commented on its removal just thought it was a bad rule in and of itself (and were glad it was removed for that reason, but not having to do with any need of keeping wizard "primary"). So I imagine that's why I didn't remember it... because three people losing their minds over a single ability thrown out during playtesting does not exactly make for some sort of big conspiracy involving WotC caving to the "wizard fan" whims. I mean... in that specific instance, it might very well have been that WotC canned the ability because it just wasn't good... not because they got browbeaten by the "wizard fan" mob demanding justice for their pet class.

And let's be real... there were more than enough of the rest of us in that thread telling those folks who were gleeful about it that they were being ridiculous. So WotC had no need to go running scared over the comments of a handful of people on a messageboard. If they ever felt like they had to go running... WotC would have done it back in 2015 and errata'd the Great Weapon Master feat in response... because there were a heck of a lot more people and threads caterwauling over that feat being "unbalanced" than there ever was of people mad that Spell Versatility got canned.