How should the Wizard subclasses be revised?

[Kobold Avenger]

I think the Wizard is quite solid as a class on it's own, I see possible changes to spells, spellcasting and however they come up with the themes of the Mage classes as being the things that do change the base Wizard class overall in some ways. But subclasses I feel they might be getting some bigger changes, since it's suggested but not confirmed that each class is getting 4 subclasses, and the Wizard has 8 subclasses already. So what stays, or goes, or gets merged?

Abjuration - I feel the Abjurer in 5e was a fairly solid one, they are all about damage warding and countering magic. But it might not be everyone's favourite idea for a Wizard, and could be at risk of getting removed or merged. Maybe it'll get merged into the Bladesinger or become a fightery wizard-subclass.
Conjuration - The Conjurer is solidly about summoning things, but I think all of the Conjure spells are going to get a major overhaul, with statblocks like in Tasha's and not "go look up the Monster Manual". As a concept I feel that's one a lot of people can grasp, so it might stay.
Divination - Specializing in Divination is not really something most people would go for, and they worked hard to make this subclass appealing. Like giving them many free spell slots if they cast Divination and the ability to pre-set D20 rolls. But somehow I feel this subclass would be on it's way out.
Enchantment - I feel the Enchanter is certainly a concept many people can grasp, though this subclass potentially has the problem of encroaching on the Bard's territory. Being able to do charm related abilities without using spell slots is a strong appeal here.
Evocation - The Evoker is the most basic concept for a Wizard, it's the subclass for starters and the one in SRD. The idea of a Wizard that's all about fireballs and blasting things is a very basic one. So I'm sure this one stays.
Illusion - One of the first subclass as a concept in D&D before anything else. So many people do like this one for legacy reasons, and I think the ability to push and get more out of Illusions is a good one. But I could see this getting merged with an Enchantment subclass.
Necromancy - A lot of people like the concept of playing a Necromancer, even if it's one that scares some DMs when a player wants to play one. But this subclass has a problem where it's too dependent on casting Animate Dead and having lots of Undead minions, which doesn't play well with the action economy. They are certainly thinking of keeping the Necromancer around from it being mentioned in one of the interviews. So I could see a lot of changes happening to this subclass.
Transmutation - Mostly not on anyone's favourite concept for a Wizard, the Transmuter somehow ended up becoming an Alchemist before the Artificer had a subclass called the Alchemist. I do like the idea of having the philosopher stone bring a bunch of buffs of the Transmuters choice. But I feel this subclass could be on it's way out.

 

[Shiroiken]

Battlemage: focus on abjuration and evocation magic, priority on combat.

Beguiler: focus on enchantment and illusions, priority on control.

Necromancer: classic staple.

Conjurer: focus on conjuration and transmutation, with priority on buffs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

None of them based on spell schools at all. Spell schools go away once and for all.

Wizard gets Blaster, Shield mage, Summoner (is also necromancer), and Oracle.

Bards gets to eat enchantment and illusion spells.

Sorcerer gets transmutation.

Cleric gets divination

 

[DEFCON 1]

My assumption is that they will do for the Wizard and the spell schools the same thing they did for Druids of the Land-- one subclass that allows you to choose one of multiple options within it. Druids selected which type of land they came from... Wizards would select which school to specialize in. And since several of the school abilities overlapped anyway (discounts on getting school spells into your spellbook for example), it wouldn't surprise me to see certain level abilities be the same across the School Specialist subclass, and some levels each have a unique ability for each of the eight schools.

Could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they made only four school specialists and ignored the other four (and Bladesinger, Warmage, Scribe etc.)

 

[Laurefindel]

My assumption is that they will do for the Wizard and the spell schools the same thing they did for Druids of the Land-- one subclass that allows you to choose one of multiple options within it. Druids selected which type of land they came from... Wizards would select which school to specialize in. And since several of the school abilities overlapped anyway (discounts on getting school spells into your spellbook for example), it wouldn't surprise me to see certain level abilities be the same across the School Specialist subclass, and some levels each have a unique ability for each of the eight schools.

Could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they made only four school specialists and ignored the other four (and Bladesinger, Warmage, Scribe etc.)

That's my feeling too, one big and possibly bloated subclass for the "specialist mage" or whatever it'll be called. Still, it would open up much design space if they let go of the traditional schools, but I don't think that's where they're going.

 

[Minigiant]

I predict that the 4 PHB subclasses will be

Tradition of Bladesinging
Tradition of Rune Magic
Tradition of "School Specialists"
Tradition of War Magic

Bladesinging will return as the Wizard Gish and Efly option. Bladesong will be nerfed and not have Prof/LR uses.

Rune Crafting will be reprinted for Bigby's as the Dwarfy and Old Magic option.

"School Specialist" will be the replacement of Spell School subclasses. You wil choose a school and get discounts and speed increases on adding spells of that school and you will have a small selection of spells of that school always prepared

War Mages go Boom

 

[Horwath]

We need to get rid of all (full)spellcasting classes.

Have one spell list available to all.

One class.

spells know on level of sorcerer.

Make sub classes with bonus spells: 2 spells from cantrips to 5th level, per spell level.

Have bonus class features give flavor/mechanics to the mage/spellcaster.

then you can have your, battlemage, healer, summoner, greenseer, mindbender,


if you have all spells available to all, then you only need to balance out sub class features, as players will soon pick out most useful spells and you can count on that in balance equation.
And since it's based on spells known, spellcaster cant be swiss army knife and have new sets of spells after every rest.
Just replacing one spell every level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the Wizard is quite solid as a class on it's own, I see possible changes to spells, spellcasting and however they come up with the themes of the Mage classes as being the things that do change the base Wizard class overall in some ways. But subclasses I feel they might be getting some bigger changes, since it's suggested but not confirmed that each class is getting 4 subclasses, and the Wizard has 8 subclasses already. So what stays, or goes, or gets merged?

Abjuration - I feel the Abjurer in 5e was a fairly solid one, they are all about damage warding and countering magic. But it might not be everyone's favourite idea for a Wizard, and could be at risk of getting removed or merged. Maybe it'll get merged into the Bladesinger or become a fightery wizard-subclass.
Conjuration - The Conjurer is solidly about summoning things, but I think all of the Conjure spells are going to get a major overhaul, with statblocks like in Tasha's and not "go look up the Monster Manual". As a concept I feel that's one a lot of people can grasp, so it might stay.
Divination - Specializing in Divination is not really something most people would go for, and they worked hard to make this subclass appealing. Like giving them many free spell slots if they cast Divination and the ability to pre-set D20 rolls. But somehow I feel this subclass would be on it's way out.
Enchantment - I feel the Enchanter is certainly a concept many people can grasp, though this subclass potentially has the problem of encroaching on the Bard's territory. Being able to do charm related abilities without using spell slots is a strong appeal here.
Evocation - The Evoker is the most basic concept for a Wizard, it's the subclass for starters and the one in SRD. The idea of a Wizard that's all about fireballs and blasting things is a very basic one. So I'm sure this one stays.
Illusion - One of the first subclass as a concept in D&D before anything else. So many people do like this one for legacy reasons, and I think the ability to push and get more out of Illusions is a good one. But I could see this getting merged with an Enchantment subclass.
Necromancy - A lot of people like the concept of playing a Necromancer, even if it's one that scares some DMs when a player wants to play one. But this subclass has a problem where it's too dependent on casting Animate Dead and having lots of Undead minions, which doesn't play well with the action economy. They are certainly thinking of keeping the Necromancer around from it being mentioned in one of the interviews. So I could see a lot of changes happening to this subclass.
Transmutation - Mostly not on anyone's favourite concept for a Wizard, the Transmuter somehow ended up becoming an Alchemist before the Artificer had a subclass called the Alchemist. I do like the idea of having the philosopher stone bring a bunch of buffs of the Transmuters choice. But I feel this subclass could be on it's way out.

I say all the time that we need to break up the fighter but I think we need to break up wizard too.

Have beguiler class a necromancer class a sage class and a warmage class... have 1 list that overlaps all of them and 5ish spells per level that are only on 1 or maybe shared by two of those classes.

 

[bedir than]

Bladesinging will return as the Wizard Gish and Efly option. Bladesong will be nerfed and not have Prof/LR uses.

Bladesinger winding up like Dragonborn with three+ versions in the game at once would be funny.

 

[NaturalZero]

It would be great if they could toss the schools-as-subclass model and make more focused classes and subclasses based on a theme instead of everything going back to the same well. Make necromancer it's own thing with things that other subclasses don't get. Make abjurer it's own thing,. Make summoner a special thing. Generalist wizard has a place but the 5e wizard subclass model is the Bud Lite of class design. It's lukewarm, watered-down nothingness.

 

[bedir than]

I'd like Schools to go the way of the Fighting Style, a minor benefit that anyone could take. Yes a couple would need weaker benefits.

Then do a Bladesinger, War Mage, Summoner (pets of many types), Scribe/Archivist

 

[mellored]

Just curious.

How do people see the summoner and necromancer as different?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just curious.

How do people see the summoner and necromancer as different?

At the minimum, Necromancer doesn't HAVE to have a small swarm of undead to fight for them, unlike Summoners, for whom the small swarm is what makes them a Summoner.

Needless to say, I'm fine with minimizing the concept of having lots of minions to fight for you. Always been a pain in the rear to deal with if you ask me, LOL.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Just curious.

How do people see the summoner and necromancer as different?

There's a couple of different ways to do a summoner, but I see them as the type to see a variety of creatures to do their jobs and manipulating interplanar connections and stuff, though the Pathfinder Summoner with it's dedicated companion also weighs heavily in a type of summoner.

While it's common to throw in zombie and skeleton minions for a Necromancer, I also see a necromancer who prefers spectral or shadowy minions throwing around a lot of necrotic damage and taking to dead spirits as another potential Necromancer type. Though the later would touch on the Shadow Sorcerer or the Shadowcaster of 3.5e.

 

[bedir than]

Needless to say, I'm fine with minimizing the concept of having lots of minions to fight for you. Always been a pain in the rear to deal with if you ask me, LOL.

Make them Swarms, so the action economy isn't destroyed

 

[Emberashh]

To plug my own game for the umpteenth millionth time (tbf Im currently in the steady grind of writing it so its always on my mind anyway), I have Horde mechanics that form the core of my mass warfare mechanics.

Using them, you can take a statblock for a single goblin and scale it up as high as 10,000, if you want, and you can do it without even needing another statblock. All stats, abilities, etc are easily scaleable and all you need to do is run the math once and have it referenceable. (And I plan on making it so my blocks have the space apportioned to do this)

And the best part is, it still feels like you're actually fighting with entire armies, and indeed, player characters are being designed to where you can take on these Hordes as individuals, or while integrated into your own Horde, and again its all very very smooth.

This lets me do Necromancers that actually feel like proper Overlord style Dark Lords, and as it happens helps Martials (who are already awesome in my system to begin with) feel hella badass, given fighting a Horde by yourself translates your damage into you cutting down foes by the dozens.

This is why my strongest Barbarians can deal up to 6d12 3x in a row on one turn, with just plain low-level weapons. Because once you get there, you're either facing down these Hordes, or swinging into proper endgame monsters that threatent continents.

Interestingly, though, is that while my game will be much higher octane than 5e is, its magic is actually technically going to be more powerful and dramatically less so at the same time. Namely because while combat magic is great and reliable, any other kind of magic isn't.

Even as a 30th level master with maxed skills, you're not guaranteed to always be able to solve a problem, unless the solution is to destroy the problem. You still progress and become very adept at utilizing improvised magic (there are very few utility spells you can explicitly weave yourself; most effects you might want have to be improvised), theres always a chance of it backfiring on you. And to use those few explicit spells that you can weave takes time, effort, and learning achieve. Whereas blowing naughty word up is easy even for toddlers . (Which if your curious has a lot of deep lore that solidifies why magic is so inherently dangerous, and why the Mystics are a distinctly different kind of "magic" from the conventional)

 

[Gorck]

Just curious.

How do people see the summoner and necromancer as different?

For me, there is a big difference. The Summoner, by name, summons creatures; whether a single powerful entity (like a Demon or a Devil) or a swarm of small minions (like Imps or Quasits), that is the essence of the class.

The Necromancer can summon (or raise) undead creatures, but there is more to the class than that. In my opinion, anything with an "eerie, creepy" vibe to it (especially spells that deal necrotic damage) is in the Necromancer's wheelhouse. Just a quick filter of my Master Spell List excel file shows me many Necromancy spells that have nothing to do with summoning creatures. The list includes such notable spells as: Chill Touch, Toll the Dead, Inflict Wounds, Ray of Sickness, Ray of Enfeeblement, Bestow Curse, Vampiric Touch, Blight, and Finger of Death (whether or not these spells, functionally, are as good as they should be is another story).

Looking at the School of Necromancy subclass, 2 of the 5 subclass abilities have to do with summoning creatures: Undead Thralls and Command Undead. Incidentally, for someone like me who has no interest in clogging up the battlefield with unwieldy summoned/commanded creatures, the School of Necromancy subclass has zero appeal. If I were interested in making my idea of a Necromancer character (the aforementioned "eerie, creepy" vibe, dealing necrotic damage), I would choose another subclass (maybe the War Caster from Xanathar's, Blood Magic from Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn, or Generalist from Korranberg Chronicle: Adventurer's Almanac) and simply focus my spell list on Necrotic spells.

 

[NaturalZero]

Just curious.

How do people see the summoner and necromancer as different?

The big issue is that wizards are just a huge pile of mush because of the shared spell list. The necromancer, the conjurer, and the illusionist all show up to the table with Sleep. The abjurer, the evoker, and the oracle all show up with fireball. There's almost zero differentiation between spellcasters that should have different abilities and feel.

When 5e first came out I tried to play a necromancer. I wound up with the exact same spell list as the other wizard at the table and effectively the same abilities. Super lame. Things like the necromancer and summoner are just obvious examples of how things could be done differently from 5e because we've seen them handled differently in a million other video games, anime, etc. DnD just needs to step up and make things special instead of relying on the generic spell list as a class feature.

 

[Remathilis]

We need to get rid of all (full)spellcasting classes.

No.

 

[Remathilis]

What I would like to see is some classic mage archetypes represented. Witch. Summoner. Oracle/Diviner. Necromancer. War mage.