D&D 5E The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.

[M_Natas]

Not a bad approach, but we'd need to rework the schools for that because not all schools are created equal in terms of number and quality of spells.

Totally - and if you wanna go simple, you have two standard wizard subclasses- the specialist and the generalist. The level 3 feature for the generalist: gets proficiency for all schools of magic, maybe some of the features of the order of the scribe to mix spells.
And than we have the specialist, at level 3 he picks a proficiency and expertise in one school of magic (maybe two?) and suddenly we cover all the "Evocation / Necromancy / Divination ..." subclasses of the existing Wizard and put them into two.
Now we just have to adjust the spelllist to make them really feel like an evoker, necromancer, diviner and so on and give access to some lower level bonus spells that are guarded behind expertise and turn existing good subclass features into spells that are locked behind expertise.

Like ... level 1 spell - spell sculpture, Evocation spell, reaction (in order to learn this spell you need Evocation expertise) - "when you cast an AoE Evocation spell you can choose up to 2+ spelllevel creatures that don't get effected by that Evocation spell".

So all we need is a spell list balanced between the schools of magic and to sort them into general spells, that every wizard can learn, advanced spells that only proficient caster of that school can learn and master spells that only experts of that school can learn and suddenly you can then 8 subclasses of wizards into one.

 

[CreamCloud0]

In a game of Sword and Sorcery i want it to be an equally valid and influential choice to pick being Sword rather than Sorcery, lest it turn into Sorcery and Sword,

Ive said this before but i think there needs to be more paralleling of mundane and magical options "a lit lantern on 1 pint of oil illuminates for 1 hour X bright light and Y dim light like a light spell" "a light spell will illuminate the affected object for 1 hour X bright light and Y dim light like a lit lantern"
Similarly some of the more 'mundane action' spells ought to have a associated Skill DC to be able to replicate their effects nonmagically, possibly with extended casting times, "you may replicate the effects of jump on yourself with a DC 20 Athletics check" "one use of cure wounds can be achieved by a DC 15 Medicine check and 10 minutes" if you fail an attempted skill check you may not attempt the 'spell' again for 1 hour.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it?

The core fantasy of the D&D Wizard to me is "I'm a studious caster, looking for old lore and spells to increase my power and contribution to the group."

Yup. That's what I want out of a wizard. Wasn't a problem in the old days.

 

[TwoSix]

The idea of making wizards quest to get their spells usually just shifts them from being opportunity hogs to spotlight hogs as now the party has to divert from the plot so the wizard can wizard.

As someone with narrativist leanings, I find that to be only a good thing. More focus on player quests, less focus on embedded storylines.

And it's not like questing into magical places isn't a pretty normal activity for an adventuring party. The wizard doesn't need a specific quest to obtain new spells.

1) Find scrolls, scraps of rituals and magical reagents in adventuring site.
2) Research in downtime.
3) Spell profit!

 

[TwoSix]

Yup. That's what I want out of a wizard. Wasn't a problem in the old days.

My ideal for the wizard is to blend together the "studious schoolboy" trope with the artificer trope and also the 3.5 archivist, who searches for relics of divine magic to learn them just like a wizard does.

Start with 2-3 spells. No spells at level up. Less spells per day than casters "gifted" with power, like sorcerers and clerics. No spell list, wizards can learn any spell they find. Their main class power is learning any spell, and being able to turn those spells into scrolls, wands, and other magic items to boost their power.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One thing I've contemplated is that the wizard spell list should be divided into common and rare spells, and you could only choose common spells as your free spells and would need to find rare ones as scrolls.

Cool. One of the reasons this was less of an issue in the TSR editions was that magic-user didn't get free reign on the spell list when they got new spells. Bring back "chance to know spell" rolls and sprinkle some scrolls in the treasure hordes!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Mastermind Wizard searching scrolls for new spells sounds fun to play - but requires a lot more work by the GM in both worldbuilding and in play with loot drops to justify than literally any class currently in D&D 5e does. If we want to go back to random loot drops it's a great idea.

As for the Mastermind Wizard in general who has opted for breadth not focus, again that's appealing. But when their thing is breadth the subclasses don't really work. This is why I say that the Mastermind Wizard Who Gets Their Power From Books And Preparation should for both thematic and gameplay reasons be a subclass of the Spellcaster Who Gets Arcane Magic From Random Stuff - i.e. the Sorcerer. The Mastermind Wizard is a thematically focused arcane caster whose focus is on versatility at an opportunity cost.

As a simulationist, I'd prefer DM do a lot more worldbuilding anyway, and I like loot drops.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup. Isn't that always the way in these kinds of conversations? Like how the Wizard supposedly makes the Rogue superfluous because they can just cast Knock and remove one of the prime activities the Rogue can do?

But exactly how often are Wizard players actually voluntarily stepping on their fellow Rogue player's toes by always preparing Knock and always casting it, even when that perfectly serviceable Rogue is in the party to take care of the issue? Especially without them needing to alert the entire dungeon with the massive gong sound when the Knock spell gets cast?

Is the Wizard player really taking Knock and supplanting the Rogue in the group (rather than using that prepared spell for something more useful), or is it just that we think in the general sense the Wizard as a class CAN supplant the Rogue (even though in actuality they almost never do) and we get all persnickety about that? Are these issues actually happening at tables, or is it all just whiteroom theorizing (like so many complaints actually are) and we feel the need to "solve" these whiteroom issues that don't actually show up during gameplay for 99% of tables out there?

I honestly don't see a need for Knock to exist in the game at all. I'd be happy to take it out at my table, and my preferred version of D&D doesn't have it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a critique that is sometimes accurate. What broke the wizard sideways in 3.X wasn't the actual individual spells, but the loose leaf ring binder full of low level utility spells that generally cost less to upkeep than the fighter would spend replacing their sword and armour with better stuff. Good adventuring day analyses include following the recommended rest cycles and listing the entire loadout, and the notorious 3.5 Class Tier List was based on a multiple encounter obstacle course for level 13 characters (relationships between classes changing as you level).

In 3.5 the gong didn't exist - and a Scroll of Knock was 150 GP. You could get 15 of them for the cost of a +1 shortsword. How many locks do you really run into that need opening and can't be crowbarred?

In 5e Knock is less overwhelmingly better than picking the lock - but there's less niche protection for the skills. Just about everyone has a Dex of 14 or even 16 (it's too much of a god stat) and at least one or two of those characters are going to get a Thieves' Tools proficiency from their background even if they don't get Expertise. You don't need a rogue for the easy locks.

And this is the other side of the problem. There's now nothing that a rogue is needed to do; the Ranger's way better at stealth (Pass Without Trace desperately needs a nerf in OneD&D), others can open locks, and others can do damage. Meanwhile the Rogue is never going to learn to fly under their own power or clear out a room in a single fireball.

Go back to Thief, get rid of magical ways to override thief skills more easily (or make them harder), and then actually make thieves good at their skills.

 

[nevin]

I agree with most of your post but strongly disagree with the last point. As a fan of natural language, the DMG is still cringe.

DMG cringiness has nothing to do with natural language. Oddly enough, people who appreciate natural language tend to dislike endless random tables. Very few of appreciate sticking an index to a different book in the middle of a chapter.

Maybe it was rushed, maybe it was too focussed on DMs of previous generations, who knows?

The DMG just isn’t an interesting read in a linear fashion. Its poor index and dreadful organization also means that it isn’t terribly useful as a reference either.

I agree with most of your post but strongly disagree with the last point. As a fan of natural language, the DMG is still cringe.

DMG cringiness has nothing to do with natural language. Oddly enough, people who appreciate natural language tend to dislike endless random tables. Very few of appreciate sticking an index to a different book in the middle of a chapter.



come on. most DM's don't care. It's that simple. They pick up the rule book read it and run the game. quit conflating forum junkies with the majority. I find more are either exicited about the concept or not excited about the concept. The whole arguing over language thing is simply nitpicker's like us lurking in the forums.

You know my english teachers in college used to make statements like that about how all educated people got upset about language being butchered. The professors in my other classes, math, government, art etc for the most part didn't care. If they could read it and understand it it was good enough. Peer outside your bubble before you start making declarative statements about the whole.