Don Durito
Hero
Deleted as the post I was responding to was edited to be not quite so pointless.
Last edited:
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?
- Thread starter tetrasodium
- Start date
BacchusNL
Explorer
I mean, if you can provide no proof of why it is a false dichotomoy then this will be as far as your discussions will go. Good for you?Is too.
Don Durito
Hero
If you check back you'll note I edited my response even before I saw the reply as I could already see this line of discussion would end up being utterly tedious.
I just find the idea of a baseline for the hobby that is not fundamentally about creating your own stuff utterly dreary.
clearstream
(He, Him)
Since Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations it has been hard to argue for definitions of games that go further than - this is what we normally count as the given game.
In terms of advancing a fruitful discussion, one could reject an appeal to norms in favour of some other principle, such as to more creative or balanced play. In that vein, I feel that regardless of if hardcovers do or don't offer spell books to find, the Order of Scribes subclass is flavourful. It also appears to me fairly balanced: neither over-strong nor heavily over-shadowed.
A question to pursue is then whether the proficiency bonus casts per day with Manifest Mind is too limiting? I suspect it will be the ratio of uses to combat rounds (between rests) that matters most. The wizard can likely use it once per encounter, but only once per few to several combat rounds. I suspect that the exploitable aspects of MM are more front-loaded anyhow: they matter more as the combat starts, than in later turns. So I expect that the constraint will not feel too limiting to players.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I'd urge you to reflect more on the constitutive nature of game rules, and what they bring to your game. You mentioned before a false dichotomy, but here you appear to be relying on one.
Last edited:
BacchusNL
Explorer
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?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
That will be homebrew then.
BacchusNL
Explorer
Homebrew is, by definition, a variation on the baseline. Not the baseline itself.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Yup, it's exactly right: "While manifested, the spectral mind can hear and see, and it has darkvision with a range of 60 feet. The mind can telepathically share with you what it sees and hears (no action required)". "Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses."
Which is why the original artificer version was so broken - that version had unlimited attacks and was virtually indestructible. So you could send it out to clear the dungeon whilst everyone sits in a nice safe secure room. The limited use of spells and vulnerability to Dispel Magic makes it not-broken, but it's still very strong. Send it out on it's own as an assassin, or send into to the middle of a horde of enemies and let off those short range AoEs that are so difficult for a squishy wizard to use effectively.
clearstream
(He, Him)
It looks fairly clunky to move (it can't dash with you), and can only be manifested once between long rests without expending a spell slot.
It feels perhaps a notch below Diviner and Bladesinger. I've seen both in play and their features are strong. Especially now that BS can be any race, with all that implies.
OTOH being able to cast a few times a day from a spot up to 300' from you - and out of your normal LOS - could be excellent! +darkvision...
Don Durito
Hero
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
Explorer
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
Hero
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
Hero
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.
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
Legend
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.
Last edited:
Quirkyhndl
First Post
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
41st lv DM
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
41st lv DM
Attachments
Similar Threads
