D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?
- Thread starter Todd Roybark
- Start date
Salthorae
Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
So I went back and looked at the 1e Bard... which you had to be 10th level to start into. Yes it has a Knowledge/Lore feature.
2e gains Local knowledge and a feature to know tidbits about legends of items and places.
3e bardic knowledge was basically the same but now it was a d20+Int+Bard levels.
I totally agree the Bards class ability is tied to the historic role of bards. In knowing Lore about people, places, and items of history and legend.
Not the same thing as what a Wizards bailiwick should be in knowledge of matters arcane.
I like your list/class associations for the 4 Int skills and classes. I might use that in some way in my games.
Rafael Martin
Adventurer
I can go online right now and find hundreds of new content items for 5e. What does it matter if it comes from WOTC or some third party distributor?
Yes there was some discussion about arcana & knowledge skills as a couple people tried to argue that one piece of the wizard in isolation... but actually no. The knowledge skills being dim & distributed is only one of the many reasons that the wizard class is lacking by virtue of having too many of the things it should shine on either missing from 5e or copied to other classes with their own goodies in
In this thread where we are talking about how too many of the areas wizards used to be & should be proud of having been removed from the game or given to other classes in forms that are effectively as good or better & why the sorlock versions on spel versatility being onRest rather than onLevel is evidence for why wizard should have cantrip versatility also be onRest.... The warlock/sorcerer who are gaining the wizard's ability to change spells during a long rest with the massive improvement of not needing to be limited by or sink money into a spellbook and dubious "limit" of only being able to change 1 spell/long rest are beneath concern when it comes to giving wizards the ability to swap a cantrip onRest instead of OnLevel. Even the posts about how other classes have been given too many of the core competencies of pride point at how the wizard is lacking because it never got any meaningful additions to added for it be proud of rather than calling for those other classes to be nerfed.
Because the only relevance to sorc/warlock is "the wizard one should be onRest too" rather than calling for it to be nerfed or changed to onLevel, the warlock/sorcerer concerns are absurd. Not only are those think of the scorlock comments out of place, they are not unlike the "nerf $class" & similar posts you see on MMO forums. If you wanted to start a thread about why the sorcerer/warlock spell versatility things are too limited to those classes or not good enough I'm sure there will be plenty of people to laugh at the idea, but d&d is no place for nerf requests & class warfare... so instead you come here & worry about the wizard being able to swap 1cantrip/rest at the same time sorcerer/warlock get the same for leveled spells would infringe on the fact that sorc/warlock get a total of six rather than five cantrips.
It's raining today & I could use good laugh, I look forward to your thread about why sorcerer/warlock spell versatility is not good enough & too limited.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Well the OP (@Tod Roybark) only brought the issue of wizards not getting enough love. So speaking on that should be fine too.
My points are:
a) Wizards don't need more love. They got too much of it during the edition creation.
b) Sorcerer & Warlock getting Spell Versatility doesn't take luster out of the wizard and don't step on its niche.
c) It's hard to give wizard anything without stepping on the Warlock and sorcerer
My list followed the bard-as-historian as a common trait. I thought you might like that list.
As for bardic lore, 1e had an odd dual class progression requirement but the original bard preceding it used a similar table as a stand alone class. That 1e bard was the only class with any lore skills. Magic-users needed to rely on spells.
The lore skill also granted legendary knowledge regardless of source, so it would cover religion and gods or outer plane locations in what it encompassed, and it included identifying magic item by the arcane sigils on them. It was more encompassing than just history.
2e bard got local history and additionally could identify magic items. 2e was more restrictive than 1e but still more than mages. There was an optional proficiency system and this was in addition to those options. Bards had the choice of any non-weapon proficiency available to mages in that edition as well.
3e bardic knowledge was more like 1e bardic lore in that it encompassed items or places that might normally be covered by other knowledge skills. It was additional to local history and local history gave a synergy bonus to it.
In all 3 cases there was flavor in reading arcane sigils on the magic items, which is definitely arcana.
It was 3e where we saw skill embraced and that's when wizards were given skills for arcane knowledge, but bards were given the same skills. Those 2 classes were the only 2 classes who were granted all knowledge skills but bards had bardic knowledge on top of all knowledge skills.
In those editions bards had the same knowledge as wizards / mages / magic users plus more. Always. It was the same option and the bard bonuses on top. There's nothing in those editions to indicate those classes have anything but a disadvantage compared to bards when it comes to knowledge in general or an advantage on the specific choices.
As for history, the earliest bards were considered seers, prophets, and magicians. They all had religious roles in addition to maintaining history. The fili splitting in orders had druids for priesthood but bards were still expected be capable of giving religious knowledge existing outside of the priest role. Oral tradition passed all knowledge down regardless of where it would be classified in D&D, which is where artificial separation occurs over oral tradition.
It's not like they separated different legends and said, "no the wrong kind of legend Cu. Send in Bae and we'll teach him that legend instead. Because class niche protection."
D&D combines a lot of different tropes under the bard umbrella. I think fili. The class covers more and the most common traits are history, legend (regardless which lore skill D&D would place it), and teaching or advising. Even the biwa hoshi curing plagues and cleansing spirits across Japan is teaching and maintaining knowledge through epics, and that's a flavor of bard clearly moving away from European influence.
My perception stems from the oral tradition common to bard equivalents in various cultures.
Kurotowa
Legend
All quite true. I see it as the difference between practical working skill in the field (Wizard levels) and knowledge about the history and theoretical underpinnings of the field (Arcana skill). The two pair well, but the real world is full of people who have one and not the other. Of course, I've had more than one DM ask for Arcana rolls for all sorts of misc "Do the magic thing" checks. So I can totally see where some people are coming from to consider Arcana a required skill for true mastery of the arcane arts.
If you are talking about in comparison to 3.x again then I think there's a very valid reason for that. Wizards needed to be toned down quite a bit. Not having all the capacities of a previous edition isn't the same thing as having an issue in this edition.
That's misapplying the comparison of the current wizard and previous wizard to the current wizard and current insert class here.
That's something we're all guilty of, of course. "Our favorite class should have this or be this because of how we perceive our favorite class". That's why I think these discussions are helpful. They open up the opportunity for other perceptions based on the views of others.
no, not only 3,5 comparison. Wizards only need a ritual spell in their spellbook to ritually cast it while every other class with ritual caster needs to prep it.... except warlocks can have a version that lets them add ritual spells from any class and there is no scribing cost. the roles that arcane casters used to lend themselves to (ie god/controller/blaster/etc) still exist in 5e, just the areas the individual classes excel are very different. The int skills should be a point of pride for what is currently the only printed int based class but compared to charisma(deception, intimidation, performance, persuasion) & wisdom (animal handling, insight, medicine, survival perception) based skills... int based(arcana, history, investigation, nature, religion) skills are barely a ribbon even if they weren't things that other classes do just as well if not better if those skills are going to be important to the campaign.... The area that wizards unquestionably excel without peer is the ability to sink more coin into their spellbook than the rest of the party spends combined & continue needing massive amounts of coin even as the other classes move beyond it.. that area is something that players absolutely see when they consider wizard & it lacks any kind of shiny points of unquestionable pride for the class to counter it.
abirdcall
(she/her)
The problem is that medicine is an unnecessary skill which as written has practically no use and if changed steps on Nature's toes.
Knowledge of anatomy is not wisdom for example.
Similar Threads
