Domain Wizards in UA

[Liquidsabre]

It's silly. A core Wizard can learn any spell, a Domain Wizard can learn any spell. The real difference? A Domain Wizard can cast a few extra spells/day on their domain list. Domain Wizard is a Wizard+, the domain spells are a freebie. No one would select a normal wizard, it'd be either Domain Wizard or Specialist Wizard.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Maybe the designer felt that the core wizard was underpowered?

 

[Silveras]

uhm.. Beholder Bob, you're missing a few points.

The Domain Wizard gets...

• 10 extra spells that are added to his/her spellbook automatically when s/he reaches the level to cast them.
• Some of those spells are Cleric or Druid spells (and not Sorcerer/Wizard, normally), or even unique variants of other spells that do not otherwise exist.
• +1 spell slot per level per day, for the Domain spell of that level or lower
• +1 Caster Level effect with those 10 spells, whether prepared as a Domain spell or not.

The Domain Wizard is meant to be an upgraded replacement for the standard Wizard in campaigns where the standard Wizard is seen as a bit weak.

Pretty clearly, there is no good "mechanical" reason to play a "regular" Wizard if the Domain Wizard option is available. That doesn't stop a player from finding a role-playing reason.

I suspect one reason for its existence is the feeling that Clerics sometimes seem to be better spellcasters than Arcanists - owing to some Clerical domains incorporating Arcane spells. This option is a way of "reversing that trend" a bit.

 

[Li Shenron]

The Domain Wizard is meant to be an upgraded replacement for the standard Wizard in campaigns where the standard Wizard is seen as a bit weak.

Which is a real design mistake, because every other class variant in the UA works as an alternative and not as a replacement; the domain wizard is the only one.

I suspect one reason for its existence is the feeling that Clerics sometimes seem to be better spellcasters than Arcanists - owing to some Clerical domains incorporating Arcane spells. This option is a way of "reversing that trend" a bit.

I don't think they thought the wizard weak, otherwise they would have done this sort of change in the 3.5 PHB (well, they halved the cost of scribing spells into the spellbook).

If the designers' reasoning was "if you think the wizard is weak, here's a good variant", that would have been really an awful attitude. A designer must either support his design's validity or change it, not using a subterfuge... and what about who thinks that any other class is weak? There is at least someone for every class to think it is underpowered, see many threads about adjusted sorcerers and fighters.

 

[Silveras]

Which is a real design mistake, because every other class variant in the UA works as an alternative and not as a replacement; the domain wizard is the only one.

Please re-read the beginning of the class variants chapter, which I quoted earlier. Each DM may decide that the variants REPLACE or CO-EXIST with the standard class, as s/he feels is appropriate.

In my campaign, I have chosen to make the Domain Wizard effects available through the use of a feat ("Tradition Trained", which allows the character to use the Arcane Domain associated with his/her race/culture). That's my way of handling it.

I don't think they thought the wizard weak, otherwise they would have done this sort of change in the 3.5 PHB (well, they halved the cost of scribing spells into the spellbook).

If the designers' reasoning was "if you think the wizard is weak, here's a good variant", that would have been really an awful attitude. A designer must either support his design's validity or change it, not using a subterfuge... and what about who thinks that any other class is weak? There is at least someone for every class to think it is underpowered, see many threads about adjusted sorcerers and fighters.

I was making a conjecture based on the many complaints I have seen about Clerics "stealing the Wizards' thunder" and the statement that the Cleric class was deliberately designed to be a little too good, so as to make it more attractive to play. The variant is available to help a DM who *does* think the Wizard is a little too weak, just as the Battle Sorcerer is there for one who thinks the Sorcerer needs help.

In a core-rules campaign where material component usage is enforced, and encumbrance is tracked, and other "little" rules that many groups disregard, there may be no need for the Battle Sorcerer or the Domain Wizard to "make arcanists a little more balanced". However, I think it is fair to say that many campaigns consider some of those "little" rules more trouble than they are worth, and disregard them.

It is also important to consider that these variant classes do not have to be used alone. You can use the Domain Wizard, the Battle Sorcerer, and the Totem Barbarian together, or any other combination, as best suits your world.

The important thing Unearthed Arcana emphasizes, by virtue of the fact that some variants just can't be used together, is that

• just because it is in a book does not mean it has to be allowed
• the DM decides which variants will and will not be allowed

 

[Beholder Bob]

uhm.. Beholder Bob, you're missing a few points....
The Domain Wizard is meant to be an upgraded replacement for the standard Wizard in campaigns where the standard Wizard is seen as a bit weak..../QUOTE]

I meant that the domain wizard and specialist wizard are roughly equal in effect. Either version kicks the ass of a non-specialist wizard. Extra spells per day are awful good - particularly for a class for who spells are their entire focus. The domain wizard is far to good to compare to the standard wizard - but it has been my experience that the specialist wizard is always chosen over the standard wizard (i.e. he is also far to good to compare to the non-specialized wizard). Losing 2 schools of magic is not nearly as hindering as it is made out to be - come on, he thinks he's got it bad, ask the poor sorcerer about limited spell selection.

 

[Silveras]

uhm.. Beholder Bob, you're missing a few points....
The Domain Wizard is meant to be an upgraded replacement for the standard Wizard in campaigns where the standard Wizard is seen as a bit weak....

I meant that the domain wizard and specialist wizard are roughly equal in effect. Either version kicks the ass of a non-specialist wizard. Extra spells per day are awful good - particularly for a class for who spells are their entire focus. The domain wizard is far to good to compare to the standard wizard - but it has been my experience that the specialist wizard is always chosen over the standard wizard (i.e. he is also far to good to compare to the non-specialized wizard). Losing 2 schools of magic is not nearly as hindering as it is made out to be - come on, he thinks he's got it bad, ask the poor sorcerer about limited spell selection.

YMMV. For multi-classing, the versatility of the generalist often beats the added power of the specialist. For single-class Wizards, the specialist's added skill with one school is often worth the price, but not always.

I agree that the Sorcerer is in a tight spot with his/her limited spell selection. Much depends on the nature of the campaign, of course.

For some types of campaigns, the Sorcerer is "better" than the wizard. For others, it goes the other way. The same is true of the Specialist vs the non-Specialist.

The specialist's extra spell slot per level was a HUGE advantage in 2nd Edition, when arcane casters did not get bonus slots for high Intelligence. A very smart generalist can have as many slots of a given level as a Specialist, and that same quality of being very smart can also compensate for the +2 on Spellcraft (with fewer limits). To some, the trade off of 2 whole schools for 10 extra spells per day and a +2 on Spellcraft is not worth it. To others, it is a great deal.

 

[thorian]

What I've done IMC is let the player choose "Domain Casting" as a feat after which they get the benefits. It helps balance a little bit and some players have chosen this option while others didn't want to lose the feat.

 

[Li Shenron]

In my campaign, I have chosen to make the Domain Wizard effects available through the use of a feat ("Tradition Trained", which allows the character to use the Arcane Domain associated with his/her race/culture). That's my way of handling it.

Your is exactly an example that - as it is in UA - the Domain Wizard is simply unfair to the core Wizard. You yourself noticed it and put it back to be a fair alternative by adding a prerequisite feat (which is also quite a good idea IMHO, although I guess that every non-spec Wiz would take it).

UA may explicitly say "you this variant either as a side-alternative or as a replacement"; but if the variant cannot be fair as a side-alternative, that's the design mistake (at least in saying that it could be used together with the core class).

The important thing Unearthed Arcana emphasizes, by virtue of the fact that some variants just can't be used together, is that

• just because it is in a book does not mean it has to be allowed
• the DM decides which variants will and will not be allowed

We really didn't need UA to emphasize this, since it has been the same for every accessory book (and with core books as well since almost everyone has rule0 some spells or items). The real difference introduced with UA - as you also point out - is that some of the rules variants are incompatible with each other from the start. What annoys me is NOT that RULES variants may be incompatible, but for some reason it annoys me that one single CHARACTER variant is. Why? Perhaps because it affect only 1 character, while a rule variant affects everyone.

I am not saying that the core wizard is weak, and neither that the domain wizard is strong. I just don't understand why this special treatment for the wizard class. If the reason to put the DW in UA was to provide a more powerful variant, why not having also for the others?

 

[Silveras]

Your is exactly an example that - as it is in UA - the Domain Wizard is simply unfair to the core Wizard. You yourself noticed it and put it back to be a fair alternative by adding a prerequisite feat (which is also quite a good idea IMHO, although I guess that every non-spec Wiz would take it).

Actually, the Wizard in my new campaign declined the option; he's "just" a regular PH non-Specialist wizard.

My decision to use a Feat was based on the way it was implemented in the Forgotten Realms. Two of the Regional Feats there pretty much do the same thing. Since I did want to keep the regular PH non-Specialist as a viable option, I chose to do it the same way. If I had not wanted to go the Feat route, I would simply have made all non-Specialists Domain Wizards.

UA may explicitly say "you this variant either as a side-alternative or as a replacement"; but if the variant cannot be fair as a side-alternative, that's the design mistake (at least in saying that it could be used together with the core class).

Well, it is up to the DM to decide whether the variant can or cannot be used side-by-side with the core class in his/her campaign. If a DM wants to limit Domain Wizards, for example, to coming from one specific land, characters from other lands must be either PH specialists or "standard" non-specialists.

I use many of the Class variants in UA to help give different lands a different feel. The Whirling Frenzy rage variant is found among the celtic-flavored barbarians of my world. I use the Totem Barbarians in three different areas, but which Totems are available in each area are different.

We really didn't need UA to emphasize this, since it has been the same for every accessory book (and with core books as well since almost everyone has rule0 some spells or items). The real difference introduced with UA - as you also point out - is that some of the rules variants are incompatible with each other from the start. What annoys me is NOT that RULES variants may be incompatible, but for some reason it annoys me that one single CHARACTER variant is. Why? Perhaps because it affect only 1 character, while a rule variant affects everyone.

Sadly, even though all such supplements do indeed say "Ask the DM first", there are a large number of players who manage to somehow not see that until you point it out to them,

I am not saying that the core wizard is weak, and neither that the domain wizard is strong. I just don't understand why this special treatment for the wizard class. If the reason to put the DW in UA was to provide a more powerful variant, why not having also for the others?

Other variants, like letting Clerics spontaneously trade their prepared spells for a Domain spell instead of a Cure, also do not work well side-by-side with the standard class.

The Battle Sorcerer is another. The loss of 1 spell each level (both known and usable per day) to a minimum of 1 is arguably a small price to pay for d8 HD, Cleric BAB, Proficiency in 1 Martial Weapon, and the ability to wear Light armor without Arcane Spell Failure. Some would say it is clearly a "better" Sorcerer, and outmodes the standard PH Sorcerer.

My point is that the Domain Wizard is not the only variant that does not co-exist well with its standard version; it is just the most obvious one. However, a lot still depends on how the DM chooses to bring it into the campaign.