Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9104968" data-attributes="member: 87792">Except that the wizard doesn't do this. The wizard has plenty of flavour but it is almost all game world flavour. The Wizard requires mystic inks to inscribe spells into their spell book and requires weird material components (let's face it wizards are the only class to use the vestigial component system). What they don't have is personal flavour; the Storm Sorcerer may be a disasterpiece in terms of survivability and crippled in terms of spells known but has a lot of personal flavour that comes out in its actions and rules without forcing its flavour onto the wider game world.The complaint about the wizard having too little flavour doesn't mean that it's plain white rice that will go with anything. It's that it's budget airline food that tastes of cardboard.Then you are actively changing the D&D rules on spellbooks and learning spells.Meanwhile you can have different groups of sorcerers using different languages for their spells without breaking anything because there is no requirement for sorcerer spells to be cross-intelligible. And warlocks naturally go for different languages; you don't address an Archfey in the same language you do a Duke of Hell and goodness knows if how you communicate with a Great Old One is even a language. And bards and languages are a whole can of worms. The wizard is the single least suited class for this idea.Or you can do this with a sorcerer. Except this is easier for the sorcerer thanks to metamagic. You don't have to ask your DM for special treatment to make your sorcerer do this. Or you can do it with a warlock using Invocations. Or bards.Or you can do this with a sorcerer, warlock, or bard. Except that there isn't the requirement for really expensive spellbooks in either case so it's thematically better for this to be a non-wizard as it's less of a personal financial investment.More house rules? (Hint: Verbal is a game mechanical component). And why not do this with a sorcerer or warlock?More house rules. But if you want to make this more interesting as a plot do it with a warlock not a wizard.Again. This is nothing inherent to the wizard class.And this is just a strawman. The problem isn't the wizard doesn't come with fluff. It's that the fluff it comes with is bland, worthy of no more than a subclass. The wizard is not a generic caster you can do what you want with. The generic caster that you can then do what you want with is the sorcerer. (Unfortunately they have too few spells known)It's telling that literally all the suggestions you made other than the beards would work better with literally any of the other three primary arcane casters than they do the wizard.And this is missing two issues.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The wizard doesn't need to have spells prepared to cast them as rituals.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The druid and cleric have more going on than just spellcasting, and more calls on their spells (such as healing) while having generally weaker spells.</li> </ul>So what you are saying is that the DM should literally custom-tailor the sandbox to make up for the shortcomings of the most supported class by the game rules? Something which I'm not aware any published sandbox does. Hey, everyone, we can make wizards more interesting if we literally write the setting to make up for their shortcomings as the bland and boring class. And somehow it is a reasonable ask to put this onto the DM's shoulders.Seriously, this sounds like a great idea for a sandbox if you want to publish it. But that you are literally suggesting a custom setting to make the wizard non-boring only emphasises the problem with the class and loads onto the DM's shoulders making up for the shortcomings of the class.Once more this translates as "the wizard is a bland and tedious class so I literally rewrite the game to make up for the failure of the designers". House rules to fix a bad situation are evidence that the situation is bad.Again there is no real reason this helps wizards more than the other primary casters. All it really does is leaves fighters twiddling their thumbs even more often as there are even more non-combat situations they can't help with.Yay! Let's add more house rules to make up for the wizard being a bland and tedious class.You'll note that this is something that is not a significant problem for warlocks or sorcerers and bards don't complain about. The wizard is about as interesting as a single subclass of sorcerer or warlock and the bard has more than spellcasting going on.Your responses seem to indicate that you are in complete agreement with the suggestion that the wizard is the most bland and tedious of the primary arcane casters (although you miss the point that it is also the arcane caster that does the most to straightjacket worldbuilding). And you are therefore suggesting loading more onto the DM to make the wizard into a special snowflake that the world is literally created around. Despite their having already got the biggest chunk of the rulebook dedicated to them (as they get far the most spells). Frankly you do a better problem demonstrating the problems with the wizard class in this post than the entire thread this is a spinoff of did.</blockquote>

Verification