Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7711273" data-attributes="member: 1465">As far as I can tell there are no differences to the previous version except for a slight change in presentation of available domains, but it doesn't really change the fact that all domains are available for choice. It's merely represented here to prompt more feedback from gamers, and this time they specifically ask for playtest feedback (as opposed to general "do-you-like-the-concept" feedback). So please people give feedback on the Theurge this time only if you've played it or seen in play, otherwise don't complain later on if they balanced it wrong.I don't know about the Arcana domain, but it is totally different from a background. The whole Theurge is practically a variant to multiclass Cleric/Wizard. I am mostly fine with the option, but I don't think it provides a significant twist to any game. It's mostly there to satisfy players who want a Gandalf-style Wizard that can heal, but without using the multiclassing rules (which some DMs ban by default).This is the only thing that makes also me skeptic. Three levels earlier is a large benefit, and it doesn't feel right that a Wizard is better than the Cleric at this (maybe a Theurge of the God(dess) of Magic, but not the others).Part of the idea of the Theurge is that of combining a class (Wizard) with the subclasses (Domain) of another class (Cleric). It's an interesting idea, but unfortunately it doesn't work if the two classes get their subclasses benefits at very different levels. This is the consequence of not wanting to bother with trying to design a common subclass structure for all classes. But they should have thought about it when they were still designing the original PHB classes, now it's way too late.Personally I think it would be better and safer to drop the 14lv benefit, and replace it with something else.If it gets edited, it's fine.If it gets dropped, I would be very angry and disappointed, because IMHO it would prove that the whole UA feedback mechanism is not working as intended! It would mean not only that people are not giving feedback about the concepts, but instead they give feedback about balance; in 99% of the cases, without of course even trying to use the material in tests... who are you kidding? who is going to believe that everyone PLAYS or RUNS the stuff in UA from level 1 to 20 in one week?It would also mean that WotC designer listen to that kind of feedback, which is contrary to what they themselves set as its purpose.Because there were a lot of people in the last 2 years asking for a "generalist" wizard, and concept-wise this is exactly what the Lore Wizard is. So there is no reason now that gamers do not actually want it anymore as a concept.Clearly, the negative feedback about the Lore Wizard was all about the implementation. Ergo, if they drop it instead of editing it, it means they asked for concept feedback but they listened to and based decisions on balance feedback -> fail.I personally think that a combat-oriented Wizard subclass is the least needed character option in the game at this point, precisely because we already have Evoker, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, and even just plain Wizard or Sorcerer with proper selection of spells and some optimization (such as picking a race with armor proficiencies).Options are never bad, but this is the one with pretty much the smallest possible increment to the game.</blockquote>

Verification