D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Undrave]

I can agree with this as well. Wizards are the only class which do one thing--cast spells. They should do it more and better than any other spell caster but don't as written. There are lots of ways to make wizards more unique compared to other casters than by simply giving them the largest spell list (what good is it if it takes them thousands of gold and hundreds of hours to get them all?).

Ritual casting for wizards IS strong, but not enough IMO to make up for things like metamagic and eldritch invocations.

I'd agree with this. I played a ton of wizards in 2E and 3E, but the one wizard I played in 5e was kinda blah. "I cast spells" isn't much of a schtick when half the official classes are full (or pact) casters.

The 5e Wizard is the 3e Fighter of Casters...

young DM that will not understand how unbalanced this optional rule is and that will wonder why no one is playing wizards at their table anymore.

Will they really notice or care that no one is playing Wizard? Is that actually a big deal? Like, get that from a player's perspective, feeling like your class choice sucks is bad (just ask Ranger and Monk players who get told to just 'deal with it' or 'role-play better' or 'they're fine' on this forum whenever they talk about buffing those two classes) but as a DM, do you REALLY care if no one plays X class? There could be a bajillion reason someone wouldn't want to play a Wizard and 'the sorcerer can trade one spell every day' is probably low on that list. Someone who think the Wizard is too much work tracking spell is probably not going to abuse Spell Versatility because it would mean reading more of the spells and not just picking whatever's cool at level up.

 

[Helldritch]

Will they really notice or care that no one is playing Wizard? Is that actually a big deal? Like, get that from a player's perspective, feeling like your class choice sucks is bad (just ask Ranger and Monk players who get told to just 'deal with it' or 'role-play better' or 'they're fine' on this forum whenever they talk about buffing those two classes) but as a DM, do you REALLY care if no one plays X class? There could be a bajillion reason someone wouldn't want to play a Wizard and 'the sorcerer can trade one spell every day' is probably low on that list. Someone who think the Wizard is too much work tracking spell is probably not going to abuse Spell Versatility because it would mean reading more of the spells and not just picking whatever's cool at level up.

The ones (6 that I have been aware of so far) in my area did for the Monk and the Ranger. They asked me my fixes and applied them. I don't think that young DM are totally unique. Do not take young DM for morons. They are quite intelligent and their very fast to catch when something does not work out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

HEY! I found a really balanced buff to the wizards to cope with the new features!!!!!!!!

Lets' double their spell slots and allow them their intel bonus on all damage dice. That should do the trick. /sarcasm off... (well kind of.)

FWIW here is a revised spell progression for wizards I made over a year ago. The top is current, the orange section shows the "improved progression". Not much changes until levels 7 and higher though...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wizards lost a lot. They lost their niche.
They lost because everyone gained something save the wizards.

1) I am not a player. I am a DM through and through.
2) This rule is totally unbalanced. Because some DM were not sympathetic enough to allow a player to change a spell once in a while because he made a mistake, we are now stuck with a rule that destroy the very reason why wizards were fun to play. Versatility.

Everyone now has a great versatility. With just one feat, you get what the wizards have left: "ritual caster". So why make a wizard then? Because you have the feat right of the bat? A poor choice if you compare ritual caster with sorcery point.

I guess that IF wizards were given wizard points for metamagic, the sorcerers would scream for INJUSTICE! Yet, since it is only the wizards that are on the losing side of the equation, everyone is perfectly fine. Sometimes, you have to see the whole picture and not just one part of it.

So many other modifications could have been made to the sorcerer to make him better and respect his niche without infringing on the wizard's niche. But WotC went for the easy way and screw the players that liked wizards.


Not that it should. It WILL. And players will find reasons for it.
That tool will not be used as intended. Already you unwittingly acknowledge the future abuse and say that it is not the intent of the rule and that it should not be used this way. BUT it is exactly the way it is written and that it will be used.

I still think WotC is overly concerned about a perception from previous editions that wizards were too powerful. That's why they receive so little in the way of new material in expansion books. The recent new stuff in Wildemount I attribute to Mercer, not WotC.

 

[Undrave]

The ones (6 that I have been aware of so far) in my area did for the Monk and the Ranger. They asked me my fixes and applied them. I don't think that young DM are totally unique. Do not take young DM for morons. They are quite intelligent and their very fast to catch when something does not work out.

Again, I ask, will they actually notice that no one is playing a Wizard and think there's something mechanically wrong with it, or just that people don't want to play Wizards?

Even without Versatility in play I don't feel like playing a Wizard because I don't like track spell slots and spell choices, and I find the base Wizard super boring. The only cool thing, IMO, is the Diviner's ability to pre-roll dice. I try to read the subclass features and my eyes glaze over.

 

[Undrave]

I still think WotC is overly concerned about a perception from previous editions that wizards were too powerful. That's why they receive so little in the way of new material in expansion books. The recent new stuff in Wildemount I attribute to Mercer, not WotC.

That and they overloaded the PHB with EIGHT (boring and repetitive) subclass for the Wizard... and they just don't come up with interesting concepts either so they rarely pass the 70% threshold.

 

[Helldritch]

Again, I ask, will they actually notice that no one is playing a Wizard and think there's something mechanically wrong with it, or just that people don't want to play Wizards?

Even without Versatility in play I don't feel like playing a Wizard because I don't like track spell slots and spell choices, and I find the base Wizard super boring. The only cool thing, IMO, is the Diviner's ability to pre-roll dice. I try to read the subclass features and my eyes glaze over.

Again, don't take them for morons. They noticed the monk and the ranger. They will notice the wizard. This is a certainty.

 

[ChaosOS]

I think what people are missing is that Wizards have a unique form of ritual casting that makes up their actual class features. Clerics have to prepare ritual spells to access them, which from my experience is a pretty meaningful cost. By contrast, my wizard has always been able to prepare a menagerie of utility spells while leaning on my spellbook choices for things I'm only going to ritual cast, like Tenser's Floating Disc or Leomund's Tiny Hut. Those new rituals every spell level make up Wizard's class features.

As for overall flexibility of the new variant rule, If you think once per LR is too often (a pacing question that's going to be group to group), consider making it either a day or even week of downtime to do. Holing up in the dungeon for a day? No switching. In town between missions? Swap away.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think what people are missing is that Wizards have a unique form of ritual casting that makes up their actual class features.

Well, myself and others have brought that up numerous times. It is nice, but hardly enough to make up for known-casters now having daily re-choosing of a known spell.

As for overall flexibility of the new variant rule, If you think once per LR is too often (a pacing question that's going to be group to group), consider making it either a day or even week of downtime to do. Holing up in the dungeon for a day? No switching. In town between missions? Swap away.

This I've agreed with completely. If the feature took longer, was only available during downtime (for the groups that, in fact, take longer to level up), etc. I think it would not have received nearly the same amount of push back from we select few.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Of course a wizard does not need to prepare. A character with the feat ritual caster does not even have to be a caster. So no spell to prepare to cast the ritual. Again, with a feat, the wizard lose his last unique feature.

Yes these are optional rules. But I think not only of my self, but of other young DM that will not understand how unbalanced this optional rule is and that will wonder why no one is playing wizards at their table anymore. Then they'll try to fix the wizards with something even more unbalanced and the cycle will start anew or the young DM will just burn out as I have often seen in 3.xed where all new books had new classes, prestige classes and rules that were unbalanced and young DM got in deep sh*t way over their head and couldn't see any solutions. Not everyone is/has the experience and the will to say nope. Not for this table. Especially with friends.

The Wizard doesn’t lose anything.