DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Thanks! I didn't notice it. My mistake.The Artificer is played by 1% and includes the three most popular subclasses. It's on the bottom of the infographic that Neonchameleon provided.
Thanks! I didn't notice it. My mistake.The Artificer is played by 1% and includes the three most popular subclasses. It's on the bottom of the infographic that Neonchameleon provided.
Or that other classes have not enough going for them, especially when the warlock isn't mechanically OP
So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.Combination of multiple factors, personally I think Warlock has too much going for it.
So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.
I don't think that the Warlock needs a nerf so much as it does rearranging, such as its low level abilities (and how that interacts with multiclass) and the balancing of some of its pact boons and invocations. I've never seen anyone, for example, say that the single-class Warlock is OP. Usually people are complaining about the low-level dips for invocations or patron abilities like the Hexblade's +Cha to attack. But if you include the latter as part of the Bladelock or even push that to a level 5 feature, then it becomes less attractive for multiclassing. If Eldritch Blast becomes a Warlock feature rather than just a cantrip, then that also takes out some of the desire to dip.I dont disagree, and people would not be happy if Warlock was nerfed at all as well.
I've never argued that simple characters shouldn't exist.In some cases, certainly, but then you get some of the examples were people still just want a 'basic fighter' and dont care for the customization right?
Nope, just my games. Read my posts more carefully in the future please.You are suggesting changes to the game - you want changes that will affect the wider D&D community.
No, from (again) from my games.In short you literally want to remove them as classes from the game.
Again, you are making what I said about my own games and experience and claiming (without proof) that I am saying that is how it has to be for everyone.You want to remove what people like and play from the game and utterly shred the class variety of the most popular spellcasting class because your tiny group differs from the mainstream.
No, I have consistently and constantly a point which is based on your reading meaning into things I never said. If I said them pull a quote.So thank you for proving my point.
Again, I never suggested it for D&D as a whole...And maybe you should realise that you shouldn't suggest changes to D&D as a whole based on your atypical group.
Cool, do that in your games. And I'll do what I want in mine...If I were to have my way then I'd demote wizard to a subclass of sorcerer that uses intelligence for spellcasting - the sorcerers that gain their spells from the study of books.
LOL I never said my table did represent them! Please stop making implications based on things I never actually said or quote where I said it.It represents a lot more of it than your table.
I never said you didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the "wider D&D community" includes older, more experienced players as well. In fact, the "wider D&D community" includes players who don't even play 5E or use D&D Beyond.No one said it didn't. However it is just a small minority (as seen by the explosive growth of D&D in recent years).
Well, we can just disagree on this easily enough. You only need one caster class IMO, the rest can all easily be subclasses of it.Meanwhile the wizard is a long rest class with arcane spells that it prepares. It is utterly redundant in a game that also has sorcerers, clerics, full caster bards, and warlocks.
Or ditch the Sorcerer and Warlock. With Tasha's, metamagic and invocations can be taken as feats, so now you don't even need to dip in to those classes to get those things--which both classes are primarily based on, respectively.If we're taking classes out for being meh, take the redundant ones out first. Ditch the wizard. You might not personally like invocations - but people do and no other class has them. You might find the patrons very meh - but no other class has something that comes close. And the wizard subclasses ("I'm a book caster who's slightly better at a few spells") might be better than the pre-4e wizard subclasses (I can cast extra spells but they are exactly the same spells as any other wizard other than the ones I can't cast) but are still all boring.
(See bolded comments)But instead what you want downgraded from the status of a full class is simultaneously:
- The most popular spellcasting class according to the best data we have available (which is incomplete and unreliable so worthless. bad data has no use other than anecdotal at best, which is fine, but let's not pretend it is anything better...)
- The single class with the most interesting levelling experience (LOL, that is your opinion--which I am sure is shared by others, but hardly universal)
- The single class with the most mechanically varied characters (thanks to the Invocations and the Pact Boon) (invocations which anyone can have now and Pact Boons which really aren't anything special IMO)
- The class that works least like the other classes (the only short rest spellcasting class) (so Arcane Recovery and Natural Recovery--both short rest features which allow you to recover spells on a short rest... they are hardly unique, it is their "thing"--which is fine, but not unique really)
- Probably the spellcasting class with the greatest variety in their subclasses (oh, plah-eeze, I can't even dignify that with a response...)
Not only want to, but HAVE!!! Oh, the HORROR!!!And somehow you want to downgrade this into a subclass.
Slightly off topic, but I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I think Wizards should be nerfed, but I know I am in a minority on that.So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.
Me, neither. Their power-level is fine, it is their "ho-hum" nature that makes them less appealing to me. Although I will admit I really like the two new subclasses @Undrave has developed and I assisted on. Those have a more "cool factor" for me.I've never seen anyone, for example, say that the single-class Warlock is OP.
Agreed. I think it should be, in the same way Hunter's Mark should be a Ranger feature, not a spell.If Eldritch Blast becomes a Warlock feature rather than just a cantrip, then that also takes out some of the desire to dip.
I dont know that you are in the minority on this, at least on the forum.Slightly off topic, but I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I think Wizards should be nerfed, but I know I am in a minority on that.![]()
I don't know, people keep claiming nerfing the wizard would be akin to an all out revolt, so I figured I was...I dont know that you are in the minority on this, at least on the forum.
To be fair, IME, this is lots and lots (and lots) of people.The wizard is really only complicated if you have trouble remembering what your spells do.
Yeah, that is a big issue IMO, which is why I prefer our revised spell lists, it helps with that a lot.I would potentially do the same for the other arcane spell classes so that their niches were more distinct.
Nope, just my games. Read my posts more carefully in the future please.
You literally said in so many words "Frankly, I would rather just remove both Warlocks and Sorcerers from the game, but they work well as the subclasses of Clerics and Wizards, so that is a happy compromise.Again, you are making what I said about my own games and experience and claiming (without proof) that I am saying that is how it has to be for everyone.
And you're talking about things I didn't say. Experienced players who also play 5e are a part of the wider 5e communityI never said you didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the "wider D&D community" includes older, more experienced players as well. In fact, the "wider D&D community" includes players who don't even play 5E or use D&D Beyond.![]()
You need no classes in D&D and can go entirely classless. I don't know why you'd want to homogenise D&D and run everything through a blender destroying one of its main advantages over other games, in having a strong class system.Well, we can just disagree on this easily enough. You only need one caster class IMO, the rest can all easily be subclasses of it.
Except they aren't. The Warlock in particular is an entire package - based on spells, pacts, pact boons, and invocations. All working together.Or ditch the Sorcerer and Warlock. With Tasha's, metamagic and invocations can be taken as feats, so now you don't even need to dip in to those classes to get those things--which both classes are primarily based on, respectively.
In short wizards are the most basic spellcasters and the most generic spellcasters. And according to you they don't need subclasses because if they have subclasses then they simply aren't the best overall spellcasters, they are the best spellcasters in their area. Outside their school (and even inside in some cases) they aren't even the best with any given spell as the sorcerer can just add metamagic to the same spell.Wizards are the best over all spellcasters hands down. That is there "thing", they don't need anything more like Sorcerers and Warlocks.
I'm not disagreeing that over half the invocations could be removed and no one would miss a thing. One of the things I hope 5e does is gives them the boot. (In particular more than a quarter of spells in the PHB say "You can cast [a single spell] once using a warlock spell slot. You can't do so again until you finish a long rest." and are absolutely worthless and I don't know who thought anyone would give up an invocation to cast Mage Armour on themselves when warlocks are proficient in light armour). I'm honestly surprised I've never seen anyone cast Gaze of Two Minds.FWIW, I like the concept of invocations, just IME some are so good people end up taking the same ones over and over again; and not just in my games, but in other games I've watched people play! The rest are so lackluster people simply don't take them IME. YMMV, of course.
What was I supposed to do? Laugh?(See bolded comments)
When you say you something should be removed from the game that means for the wider community - the "the" is a definite article with the implications that it's only one. If you mean from your game then say that.So, if you want to actually quote me for saying anything that (in context) implied I believed my preferences should be universally applied to the "wider D&D community", please do so. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Cheers.
I'd here compare and contrast the wizard to the sorcerer. Thematically I'd say the sorcerer can and should be broader than the wizard to the point that it would not significantly harm either the sorcerer or the wizard to make the Wizard an Int-using sorcerer subclass.IMHO, it's less an issue of whether the wizard is too complicated or not. It's more an issue for me that the wizard is too thematically broad and all-encompassing when it comes to arcane magic. A lot of the older drawbacks for the magic-user/wizard have also been removed over time while the overall power level has remained the same. I would narrow it down in terms of the class fantasy and what sort of spells best represent that class fantasy.
I would potentially do the same for the other arcane spell classes so that their niches were more distinct.
The secret to good game design in D&D is to not tell the fans it's good game design.In other words, Warlock is popular because it’s an AEDU class in disguise.
I actually wonder how WotC would "smooth over" the warlock, given their current design philosophy of emphasizing simplicity and PC power. The easiest way is to reduce the power of Eldritch Blast, but I don't think that would go over well with the fanbase they're trying to court. Maybe make all their options just as strong?Speaking of which, I know a common critique is that the build-your-own-character approach is weakened by the strength of the eldritch blast spam build, and there’s some merit to that. It is pretty much the most optimal way to build a Warlock, in addition to being the most obvious. That said, I think the degree to which it outperforms other builds is not so extreme as to make this a big problem. Hopefully the 1D&D version will smooth this issue over a bit.
You literally said in so many words "Frankly, I would rather just remove both Warlocks and Sorcerers from the game, but they work well as the subclasses of Clerics and Wizards, so that is a happy compromise."
Or how about you don't read words into my posts that I actually didn't say? You can always ASK for clarification if it is unclear, you know.If you mean you'd rather remove them from your games rather from the game meaning D&D as a wider thing then say that. Make your posts more clearly.
Sure, I did.What was I supposed to do? Laugh?
I'd remove Agonizing Blast, and add in a "once per turn" scaling damage effect as part of the class progression.I actually wonder how WotC would "smooth over" the warlock, given their current design philosophy of emphasizing simplicity and PC power. The easiest way is to reduce the power of Eldritch Blast, but I don't think that would go over well with the fanbase they're trying to court. Maybe make all their options just as strong?