D&D 5E does it seem lke tcoe Order of scribes wizard is largely solutions in search of a problem dressed up as an archetype?

[Don Durito]

Dreary you say? Ohh my, we can't have that. However it helps to have an established baseline so the rest of us can have a fruitful discussion. So if you don't mind we'll just stick to the one we've been using for 5+ years now?

Well it can't be that. Unless 5 years ago you were looking into the future and making use of the hardcovers that had yet to be published.

If the published adventures are your baseline then it's one that's constantly shifting.

Unless you think WotC have some unpublished set of rules they are using for the distribution of treasure in their adventure paths.

You also end up in this weird place where the whole thing is completely and utterly meaningless to anyone who doesn't use the adventure paths.

You simple can't go digging into the adventure paths to find some kind of virtual equivalent to the wealth by level of previous editions. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[BacchusNL]

Well it can't be that. Unless 5 years ago you were looking into the future and making use of the hardcovers that had yet to be published.

If the published adventures are your baseline then it's one that's constantly shifting.

Unless you think WotC have some unpublished set of rules they are using for the distribution of treasure in their adventure paths.

You also end up in this weird place where the whole thing is completely and utterly meaningless to anyone who doesn't use the adventure paths.

You simple can't go digging into the adventure paths to find some kind of virtual equivalent to the wealth by level of previous editions. It doesn't make any sense.

What are you on about? Do you really think that absurd leap from logic is a good argument? Or is it really that hard to comprehend that the baseline might change from time to time (as it just did with TCoE)?

 

[Don Durito]

What are you on about? Do you really think that absurd leap from logic is a good argument? Or is it really that hard to comprehend that the baseline might change from time to time (as it just did with TCoE)?

Are you asking me if I understand something that was explicitly said in the very post you just quoted?

In any case, you're obviously going out of your way to be unpleasant so I'm done interacting with you.

 

[tetrasodium]

Are you asking me if I understand something that was explicitly said in the very post you just quoted?

In any case, you're obviously going out of your way to be unpleasant so I'm done interacting with you.

No he's right. Either your words inadvertently badly misrepresented the meaning of what you were hoping to convey or you are suggesting that the past hardcovers can't be used as examples of baseline campaigns for purposes of discussion today because they didn't exist 5+ years ago or wotc might have secret guidelines they aren't sharing that we should be using instead. Such guidelines would be great for baseline purposes and have the added benefit of giving a player or gm something to compare the current game against... but we don't have those secret guidelines you allude to. Your post was such a twisted bit of illogic that I assumed I was misreading something I'd need to let stew a bit on the brain to make it click but from your more recent post it does't sound like there's some meaning that needs to click.

 

[Don Durito]

Obviously you can't be using the same baseline now that you were using five years ago because any such baseline then was based only on the adventure paths that were published at the time.

So it's a baseline that is obviously shifting which makes it a not very firm foundation, and it is different now then five years ago, and could swiftly change - so it's not a very good baseline.

It's questionable anyway unless they're designed around a common framework. Even assuming I'm playing an adventure path, what does it matter to me if spellbooks are rare in most of them if the one I'm playing in is one of the exceptions? Unless they're actually designined with assumptions in common the commonality is one that we form by looking at them in the aggregate (which means they don't necessarily apply to any indiviudally). I also think the idea that there is a common accurate understanding of what's common across the adventure paths is highly questionable. That would require 1) reading all of them - not just a subset which would distort your impression - and 2) reading them closely for specific features.

And of course, there are still vast numbers of tables that don't use the adventure paths at all, or alter them greatly as they go. You simply can't use the adventure paths as a common framework in the face of all those tables - not unless you're going to preface every use with "so long as you play with WOTC hardcover adventures and play them mostly as they're written", which at least indicates what subset of the D&D community these assumptions have any relevance to.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't have the book yet, but unfortunately it doesn't sound like it's going to satisfy my desire for a generalist wizard at all. It's so over the top with its new super- magic sentient spellbook, and features that invalidate standard wizard functioning assumptions that I don't even think I can easily salvage it to make use of the few features it has that would work.

(The reason using Evoker as generalist isn't terribly satisfying is that it is the specialist of the evocation school, and not specializing in a school is exactly what a generalist is about.)

That's my main issue with it. I think it had some great abilities for a generalist but I can't stand the sentient spellbook, not what I want from a more generalist wizard.

 

[Quirkyhndl]

The level 14 feature, One with the word, is a step further in the 5 minutes workday.
A long rest won’t be enough! 1d6 days, but even the gritty realistic wont be satisfied!

I think there's something everyone is missing here. One with the Word is not a revive ability as the original post seems to confuse it with. It prevents all damage, meaning that for one turn you are invincible. You could face-tank a dragon, jump off a mountain, walk through lava (though I guess your equipment would get burned). Regardless, there are plenty of situations in which this could be a great ability.

Yes, there are other ways to get around those things, but this gives the wizard something they can inherently use as a reaction. It might have a steep cost, but I think having those costs can force players to make more tactical discisions instead of just spamming their best stuff over and over.

 

[ccs]

I would like Crawford to provide an official ruling on the ink cost.

Why? Is he running your game?

 

[tetrasodium]

Why? Is he running your game?

I bet that anyone from wotc would probably do, he's just the one who normally does. If wotc says it's intended then there's some justification for it being RAI that fell victim to natural language. If wotc says it's not intended then the only change is that hope can be directed elsewhere

 

[ccs]

I bet that anyone from wotc would probably do, he's just the one who normally does. If wotc says it's intended then there's some justification for it being RAI that fell victim to natural language. If wotc says it's not intended then the only change is that hope can be directed elsewhere