Because they share the same fundamental idea, specializing in a specific school, and because this would tamp down the "Wizard has eight freaking PHB subclasses" thing.Then why are they one subclass?
There is little in common between them.
Precisely. I would present it more like this though.When I say One Subclass, I mean something like this:
Wizard: School Master
Boring Fluff Text
School Savant
When you select this subclass at level X, choose one school of magic for you to master. The gold and time you must spend to copy a spell into your spellbook from that school is halved.
School Masters
At Xnd Level, you gain a special form of magic based on what school you chose to master as part of School Savant
If you chose abjuration, you gain Arcane Ward, if you chose Conjuration, gain Minor Conjuration. If you chose Divination, you gain Portent. If you chose Enchantment, you gain Hypnotic Gaze. If you Chose Evocation, you gain sculpt spell. If you chose illusion, you gain Improved Minor Illusion. If you chose Necromancy, you gain Grim Harvest. If you chose Transmutation, you gain Minor Alchemy.
ect ect
School | Feature |
Abjuration | Arcane Ward |
Conjuration | Minor Conjuration |
Divination | Portent |
Enchantment | Hypnotic Gaze |
Evocation | Sculpt Spells |
Illusion | Improved Minor Illusion |
Necromancy | Grim Harvest |
Transmutation | Minor Alchemy |
then what should replace them?I'd much rather abandon spell schools than crush them all into one subclass.
i suggested this in the survivor companion thread a bit back but more relevant to this discussionthen what should replace them?
If subclasses got removed, I'd want a huge amount more classes instead.None. Remove subclasses entirely. They do nothing but decrease player imagination and add power/features. (There is some merit in an archetype design to help players define a direction for their PC, if they really need one.)
Wizards, more so than probably than any other class, can define itself by their spell selection, focusing on utility, combat, summoning, or whatever--including a "general" practitioner.
Now, if you want subclasses:
- Combat - focuses on combat spells, dealing massive damage or protecting others
- Lore - desires to uncover secrets and gain knowledge
- Specialist - studies one aspect (school?) of magic to the determent of others
- Summoner - uses conjured creatures in whatever role (servants, combatants, etc.)
- Utility - emphasis on making adventuring (general life) easier
I would stay away from "themes" (e.g. necromancer, firemage, etc.) and allow those to develop by spell choice and role-play. A "Necromancer" could be accomplished either via Combat, Lore, Summoner easily.
I understand why, but don't agree for the reasons stated in my first post. To avoid thread derailing, I'll leave it at that. If you want a discussing about it, feel free to message me.If subclasses got removed, I'd want a huge amount more classes instead.
I understand why, but don't agree for the reasons stated in my first post. To avoid thread derailing, I'll leave it at that. If you want a discussing about it, feel free to message me.
Yeah, it has sailed for certain, but for the same reason I was never a fan of kits in 2E, either. My groups play 5E, so I am basically stuck with it.I think, that ship has sailed in 5e and OneDnD and for good reason.
But there are a lot of DnD games that don't use subclasses... so you might be happy with one of thoses...
but then, there are class kits in 2e, archetypes in pathfinder, prestige classes in 3e and pathfinder, so actually this ship has sailed loooooong ago.
Honestly, I commonly just go with the defaults or popular options, but most of the time feel like they are just mechanical benefits which either I don't need or should be baked into classes.Edit: one thing I have to admit is, that one subclass should be the default and just enhance the bas class features without a twist. And as we can extrapolate from the classes we have seen already, and from what Crawford has said in the video, the designers do agree.
So chances are that if you just use the SRD, you will get exactly what you want.
I like the subclasses they have now except Chronogy and Graviturgy. Some of them should gets some boosts to be brought up to the level of the best.I have seen people complain about the concepts of the wizard's subclasses, what should the basic ideas be instead as I myself can't think of any?
I like these, though I would probably swap elementalist for Summoner - “All the minions!” Then add a Necromancer - “All the edge!” in the DMG.Scribe - "All the spells!"
War Caster - "All the explosions!"
Bladesinger - "Not all Elves!"
Elementalist - "Forces of Nature!"
I'd like to see summoner as its own class, like the pathfinder 2e summoner.I like these, though I would probably swap elementalist for Summoner - “All the minions!” Then add a Necromancer - “All the edge!” in the DMG.
yeah, mind mage and summoner see odd combos as they do not feel right, secondly how would you make scribe even feel interesting as it would just be hyper generic?Bladesinger: More martial wizard
Scribe: Pure caster
Mind Mage: Specializes in divination and enchantment
Nethermancer: Specializes in illusion and nercomancy
Summoner: Specializes in conjuration and transmutation
Warmage: Specializes in abjuration and evocation
In most games, summoners focus on summons (conjuration) and physically buffing them (transmutation). The 5e conjurer and necromancer do that.yeah, mind mage and summoner see odd combos as they do not feel right, secondly how would you make scribe even feel interesting as it would just be hyper generic?