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?

[Guest User]

Of all the things to be criticizing TreantMonk for, this is not one of the better and more persuasive arguments.

LOL...due to time constraints, I skimmed your response before.
Let's be honest...this is the whole crux of your posting, the fact that I stated that Treantmonk's universal assumptions, should not be treated as universal.

History has amply demonstrated, you lose your , when TM critiques are invoked.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread. Discount and ignore that which does not meet your experiences, and double down on what does.

Some games are brutal, some are not. One doesnt really need a cold weather coat in Los Angeles, one absolutely needs one in Chicago.

You are in Los Angeles saying the need to consider cold weather gear is too niche and extreme to be relevant. My response, again, is that it depends upon where you live.

 

[Mistwell]

LOL...due to time constraints, I skimmed your response before.
Let's be honest...this is the whole crux of your posting, the fact that I stated that Treantmonk's universal assumptions, should not be treated as universal.

It's really not. Your assumptions, based on your prior reply, are on highly opitional rules from the DMG's houserule options section. Which is a nonsense reply when discussing a new published subclass which of course is not assuming massive changes to the resting rules.

At the point where you explained that's what you mean, I dismissed you because this isn't legit criticism. It was a personal attack later though, for some bizarre reason. Not sure why you took this topic so personal you felt the need for that? We're just talking about D&D rules man. No reason to go there.

 

[Mistwell]

Why does it matter what's in the hardcovers so much?

Because he raised that as his proof the class was not working well? I didn't raise those books, he did. So I, and others, responded to it.

 

[BacchusNL]

LOL...due to time constraints, I skimmed your response before.
Let's be honest...this is the whole crux of your posting, the fact that I stated that Treantmonk's universal assumptions, should not be treated as universal.

History has amply demonstrated, you lose your , when TM critiques are invoked.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread. Discount and ignore that which does not meet your experiences, and double down on what does.

Some games are brutal, some are not. One doesnt really need a cold weather coat in Los Angeles, one absolutely needs one in Chicago.

You are in Los Angeles saying the need to consider cold weather gear is too niche and extreme to be relevant. My response, again, is that it depends upon where you live.

Argueing that TM's assumptions are wrong because they are "universal" is akin to saying that a chef's food sucks because he or she didn't cook it like your mum. You can not discuss official D&D content in a video and take every random house-rule into account, you use the universaly accepted baseline as published by WotC.

 

[Don Durito]

Because he raised that as his proof the class was not working well? I didn't raise those books, he did. So I, and others, responded to it.

And by doing so seem to be conceding that it matters.

That's generally how it works.

 

[Mistwell]

And by doing so seem to be conceding that it matters.

That's generally how it works.

I am conceding it matters to him. So far, I think he's the only one that has said he has issues with this subclass?

 

[Don Durito]

If it doesn't matter at all, then arguing about whether he is right or wrong about the details would seem a fairly pointless waste of everyone's time wouldn't it.

 

[Umbran]

History has amply demonstrated, you lose your , when TM critiques are invoked.

Mod Note:

Dude, don't make it personal. Address the post, not the poster. It isn't about them, or their habits, it is about the logic on the page at the moment.

 

[Mistwell]

If it doesn't matter at all, then arguing about whether he is right or wrong about the details would seem a fairly pointless waste of everyone's time wouldn't it.

It matters to him, and he is who I am trying to persuade? If you feel the thread is wasting your time, I am sorry about that. Did you want to discuss some other aspect of the topic?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

People have been clamoring for a "generalist" wizard since 5E's release 6 years ago (because apparently "generalist" wizards are unable to avoid hitting their party members in combat, which is why the Evocation school wasn't "generalist" enough for them.)

So now we have the Order of Scribes to fill the "generalist" wizard motif. It only took 6 years, but hopefully those that wanted it got what they were hoping for.

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.)

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Probably not, but to be honest that's probably because designing a generalist wizard is pretty difficult.

 

[Mistwell]

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.)

I like the subclass a lot, but I don't think of it as a generalist wizard. It's a specialist, just not a spell type specialist. IMO a generalist should get bonus spells known each level, ways to boost their spell DC, expertise in arcana skill, and ways to swap spells prepared during a short rest.

 

[Mistwell]

Probably not, but to be honest that's probably because designing a generalist wizard is pretty difficult.

It is? I think it's easy.

2nd Level: You gain proficiency in History and Arcana, and Expertise in one of these two skills.
2nd Level: You learn one additional spell known for each Wizard level you gain automatically, including this one. You can copy spells into your spell book at half the cost, and half the time.
6th Level: You can change your spells prepared during a short rest.
10th Level: You gain a +1 bonus to spell DCs and spell attack rolls
14th Level: You have advantage on all concentration checks, and no concentration roll can be lower than 10, before modifiers are applied. Once per Long Rest you can regain spell slots equal to your proficiency bonus.

 

[Guest User]

@Umbran ...when Mistwell states this:

Of all the things to be criticizing TreantMonk for, this is not one of the better and more persuasive arguments.

Then, I believe that he himself has opened the door to discuss how stridently he defends TM's viewpoint. I've been clear: in a resource tight game, that is intended to be very challenging to players, I believe the subclass has easily exploitable liabilities.

In games where that is not the case, I have stated the subclass is fine.

In response, Mist said this:

Dude, have you played a mid to high level wizard? WHY would you be out of low level spell slots? What adventure are you on where that is happening? I really want to know. Because this is not an issue for Wizard players. There are lots of issues Wizard players run into, and "running out of lowest level spell slots at mid and high levels" just is not a common problem.

@Umbran, is that response not personal, and not addressing the points I made? I would prefer to handle this via PM. However, the public red text, means I am doing this comment in public, as a balance.

Many parties to this thread are "making it personal". I will leave it there, and will not be making it personal, in the future.

 

[Umbran]

@Umbran ...when Mistwell states this:

Then, I believe that he himself has opened the door to discuss how stridently he defends TM's viewpoint

Mod Note:

What you believe about this is not the issue. A moderator has asked folks to not make it personal, whatever door you feel may have been opened. If you have a problem with that request, you can take it to PM with any of the moderating staff, rather than argue about it here in-thread. We don't want it getting in the way of the discussion that should continue, regardless. That's in The Terms and Rules, so please follow them. Thanks.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

It is? I think it's easy.

2nd Level: You gain proficiency in History and Arcana, and Expertise in one of these two skills.
2nd Level: You learn one additional spell known for each Wizard level you gain automatically, including this one. You can copy spells into your spell book at half the cost, and half the time.
6th Level: You can change your spells prepared during a short rest.
10th Level: You gain a +1 bonus to spell DCs and spell attack rolls
14th Level: You have advantage on all concentration checks, and no concentration roll can be lower than 10, before modifiers are applied. Once per Long Rest you can regain spell slots equal to your proficiency bonus.

Yah, this is kinda the problem in my mind. It's just better at casting spells. That's not really a subclass, it's just Wizard+.

 

[clearstream]

This is not accurate in my experience. We're playing through Yawning Portal, and in a different campaign Mad Mage, and in both there is... 3) plenty of gold with which to buy supplies to have on hand to do scribing, if only you had the time.

Fulfilling 3) seems speculative to me. Say I'm excited that I can scribe 31 levels of spells in 62 minutes. I'm carrying 1,550 GP of special materials with me into the dungeon? No doubt (as others have opined) this will turn out to be campaign specific. In my campaign the GP is probably more of a gate than the copying time. (And that said, the subclass capstone is late enough that the cost in gold (550 GP on average?) invested in throw-away spells is less of an issue.)

On the other hand, I agree with his call that Manifest Mind is strong. Extra range is almost always incredible. It also seems like you don't need LOS to the spot you manifest it in, and then gain LOS from that spot (does that sound right?!)

[EDITED] On reflection, Order of Scribes in second spot could be correct. While many of the abilities seem campaign-conditional, the reach afforded by Manifest Mind should be exploitable in play. And it comes online soon enough to matter. That would put the subclass in my view alongside Diviner and Bladesinger.

 

[clearstream]

Why does it matter what's in the hardcovers so much?

Ok. It seems like probably the majority of groups are using them - but are we assuming they're also doing nothing to tailor the events in the adventure to their particular PC group?

That's a truly depressing thought.

Possibly the thought is that were we to make our argument entirely table-specific, we could really claim what we like. Maybe at some tables Champion is the best fighter sub-class, and Beast Master Ranger is amazing?

Debates like this are helped if we can define some normal expectations. I can procure the hardcovers. They're used at many tables. They're at any given time reasonably bounded (we know their extent). In fact, I would say that it is the normative consequences of published rules that is one of their key components of value.

 

[Don Durito]

Possibly the thought is that were we to make our argument entirely table-specific, we could really claim what we like. Maybe at some tables Champion is the best fighter sub-class, and Beast Master Ranger is amazing?

Debates like this are helped if we can define some normal expectations. I can procure the hardcovers. They're used at many tables. They're at any given time reasonably bounded (we know their extent). In fact, I would say that it is the normative consequences of published rules that is one of their key components of value.

Are they? I don't use the hardcovers so they have zero bearing on me.

 

[BacchusNL]

No. That's a false dichotomoy.

It's not. Official hardcovers are the baseline, established by WotC. The rest is homebrew. There is no 3rd option.