D&D 5E How would YOU nerf the wizard? +

[Scars Unseen]

In this, I don't give a whit about marketing. This is about play experience at the table. "I think wizards are too powerful, so I'm going to make it suck for the player to play one," is vindictiveness, not good game design.

This reasoning strikes me as odd because, for the most part, the changes you're rejecting are just pulling the class closer to how it was before WotC's buffs, back when the class was still one of the most powerful and played classes in the game. It didn't suck to play back then; you just had to be more careful about how you spent your resources.

Now I will say that any nerfs to casters that make them more vulnerable (both in general and to spell interruption) should be accompanied by a buff to martials' (specifically fighters and paladins) ability to defend fellow party members with the right setup. That was one of the weak points of older editions: that the success of attempts to keep other party members from being attacked was largely determined by DM fiat. I would say that increasing the number of opportunity attacks and giving a Sentinel-like ability that also allows the character to use movement to intercept would be a decent start.

As for my own ideas, most of them have been mentioned already. Go back to Vancian casting, fewer slots, spells as treasure. Basically, scale things back. One thing I would add is that with the universal proficiency scaling (as opposed to the older attack bonus/THAC0 where different classes advanced at different rates), I wouldn't mind seeing a resurgence of save-or-die spells with the stipulations that it would require a successful attack roll using the casting stat first (so as to not unfairly punish high AC targets for having low resistance stats) and that martials would also get some of their own scaling in power to those of casters. If a wizard can kill you with a thought at high level, I have no problem with giving fighters a vorpal attack that does the same with a sword.

I don't know if that's a nerf in the strictest sense, but in terms of making wizards less powerful in respect to its fellow classes, I think it achieves the same thing.

 

[Tonguez]

One of the things I dislike about Silvery barbs - and it might be a fighter thing rather than wizard - is that in the end its just a codify “Distraction action”, its imposing disadvantage on a target and having yourself or any ally use that for advantage, why can’t a Fighter do that too? Use a reaction to cause a distraction?

 

[Lanefan]

Split combat magic and ritual magic. Give everyone, yes...everyone...access to rituals.

And people think the game has too many casters already...

 

[Lanefan]

I think the average spells are already viable. The ones that aren't viable are the trap spells and this would not make them viable.

For example, nerfing Shield undoubtedly makes the game more balanced, but it does not make Witchbolt a good spell and does not make it likely that anyone will choose Witchbolt for anything other than thematic reasons.

If you make shield less powerful it is conceivable someone could give it up and choose both Cause Fear and Tasha's Laughter when they would normally only choose one of those "good" spells, but those spells are getting a lot of play anyway and that is not likely where they will turn.

Shield is a defensive reaction...

This does inspire one possible and easily-implemented nerf: take out ALL spells that take less than a full action to cast, with two exceptions that are kept at reaction or interrupt speed:

Featherfall
Counterspell

Then, for those spells that just got nuked that are worth keeping as full-action spells, put them back in as such.

An even-further step: for Featherfall and Counterspell, if they are the first spell you have cast in a round, that's it for your round (it replaces your full-action spell); and if it's the second spell you have cast in a round you cannot cast any spell of any kind next round, and have to do something else instead.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ooof. OK. let's have a think:
Most of my objection to the wizard as compared to martial classes can be summed up in a couple of examples: Bladesinger and Steel Wind Strike.
Comparing the Bladesinger with the Eldritch Knight, the Bladesinger gets (a better!) version of the fighter's archetypal 5th level ability at level 6. The eldritch Knight gets the Wizard's archetypal 5th level ability at over twice that level.
Steel Wind Strike takes what should be a martial forte (combat movement and damage through attacks) and does it better than any martial can.
These examples are symptomatic but not exhaustive.
. . . and then we have the issue of sheer power and versatility.

Stuff I wouldn't change: Wizard hit points, Scaling cantrips, spell casting times. We want to reduce the supremacy of wizard power in many games, not make them unpleasant to play.

Stuff I would change: Remove Bladesinger subclass, and spells that directly outdo martial capabilities. Adjust many to give buffs to performing an action rather than auto-success.
Make Shield spell Concentration.

Wizards are now actual Vancian casters - They memorise spells by slot. Arcane Recovery changed to give neo-vancian slots that can be spent on any spell that the wizard has prepared, with subclass potentially giving further based on spell school. Wizards still retain their ability to Ritual cast out of their spellbook.

This gives the Wizard a unique concept and place of the methodical and prepared caster. Technically it makes them more powerful, but only in a theoretical situation where they have been able to correctly predict all the spells that they would use. Practically, it should probably reduce their power, since they are more likely to not be able to use all of their spell slots optimally.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the average spells are already viable. The ones that aren't viable are the trap spells and this would not make them viable.

For example, nerfing Shield undoubtedly makes the game more balanced, but it does not make Witchbolt a good spell and does not make it likely that anyone will choose Witchbolt for anything other than thematic reasons.

If you make shield less powerful it is conceivable someone could give it up and choose both Cause Fear and Tasha's Laughter when they would normally only choose one of those "good" spells, but those spells are getting a lot of play anyway and that is not likely where they will turn.

Shield is a defensive reaction and if you make shield less powerful, the other spells that would most likely compete for that spot would most likely be defensive reactions. I think a weaker Shield means more Wizards take Silvery Barbs, not more Wizards take Cause Fear and THL. Unlike Shield, SB is not OP and although this would make those casters less powerful and more balanced then if they had RAW Shield; SB is also one of the most immersion-breaking "unfun" at the table spells in the game.

SB is somewhere between OP and broken but 100% fun suck.
It's worse than pretty much any other spell because it's also low level

It was allowed once and basically disgusted everyone so it's more or less banned. New player would not be allowed to pick it.

Think it steps into broken realm when say 3 PCs have it.

Spells like Summon nature's ally is also horrible espicially with Shepard druids.

Spells like witchbolt need a redo silvery barbs can die in a fire.

Big offenders.


Spells that slow the game down drastically. Some summons and silvery barbs.

Various spells that are problems on their own. Mostly higher level eg force cage, simulacrum.

Wish us fine imho depending on class I would hardly use it. Not that it matters think I've seem it used once in 5E and it wasn't his a level 17 caster.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Make it so Wizards are not special. I would give spells to all martials, and all intelligent enemies.

Make every monster have spell slots equal to a caster of the level of their CR. That would give CR5s access to counterspell and dispel magic and would severely nerf the combat effectiveness of Wizards.

On the PC side giving martials spells would give them the non-combat toolbox available to Wizards.

this isn't fixing wizards in any way it's just making everyone else more broken and ruining the principle design of martials

 

[Bluenose]

Specialists. Both for Wizards and Clerics. Like the specialty clerics of 2e and some of the specilised "wizard-y" classes from 3e.

For wizards I'd go with a list of spells available to any spellcaster - divinations, ways to dispel or subdue or protect against raw magical effects, magic missile and a few other spells that use a magical force. And then you'd pick your specialisation, all arcane magic comes from outside the world from one (or a group) of elemental Planes and which range of spells you have access to depends on which plane (and at higher levels, maybe more than one plane) you've paid the price to have access to spells from that plane. Feywild mages use spells that are mostly illusions and charms; Shadowfell ones an often different range of illusions and some "necromantic" debuffs; a mage attuned to the elemental planes is the one who can throw fire or lightning around; and I'm sure people can think of plenty more to throw into books after the PHB. Their cantrips would come from whatever their first/primary plane was.

Clerics I would do differently. Give them a pool of spell points, a group of generally "allied" gods that they pray to (this would have to be done for each setting separately, but it wouldn't be hard to list spells which a generic god of a particular nature would have access to). And then each day you'd sacrifice spell points to whichever gods you chose and have that many levels of that gods spells available to you. So a cleric of the Olympians could sacrifice 10 to Zeus, 5 to Hermes, and 10 to Apollo and be able to do a certain amount of magic related to storms and leadership, less that related to travel and/or trickery, and some healing and light spells. Next day because they're going on a sea voyage they spend some on Poseidon instead of Zeus, get magic related to water. With buffs each day based on the god you spent most sp on giving you cantrips and channels.

Nothing that will happen of course.

 

[Bluenose]

In this, I don't give a whit about marketing. This is about play experience at the table. "I think wizards are too powerful, so I'm going to make it suck for the player to play one," is vindictiveness, not good game design.

But then you have to wonder if the other players are going to have to permanently accept playing the lackeys to the person playing the wizard, because otherwise the wizard players will be upset. "I could deal with this situation but I'm saving my spells for important tasks so the Rogue/Fighter/lackey can deal with it," that doesn't sound like good game design. It sounds like being the secondary player in someone else's story.

 

[ezo]

And people think the game has too many casters already...

LOL it DOES! For Pete's sake let's no allow everyone to do rituals. If you want your non-caster to have rituals, take the feat. That is what it is there for...