D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

[DND_Reborn]

The only way I would give such a buff to wizards would be to redo the class casting. They no longer prepare spells, instead they are stuck with a maximum of 15 spells known. They can still keep their spellbook as a ritual book, but they start with int bonus rituals and need to spend gold to have more.

Wait, so you would have wizards have fewer known spells than bards??? Come on!

 

[Ashrym]

Wait, so you would have wizards have fewer known spells than bards??? Come on!

Or just cut down bard spells known, add arcane recovery, spell mastery, and one more subclass feature to match up.

Just use the sidekick spellcaster and remove bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. That solves everyone's "but but but this class" arguments.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or just cut down bard spells known, add arcane recovery, spell mastery, and one more subclass feature to match up.

Just use the sidekick spellcaster and remove bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. That solves everyone's "but but but this class" arguments.

Hey, I am all for getting rid of Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (especially Bards... they are evil ). That should stop a lot of it.

 

[Ashrym]

Hey, I am all for getting rid of Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (especially Bards... they are evil ). That should stop a lot of it.

The funny thing is that improves bard spell casting by adding arcane recovery and signature spells. All it costs is a few spells known. Bards have a lot of benefits but not a lot of potency. Multiplying the potency of the party is where they shine.

If you don't want to run a game with bards, sorcerers, and warlocks just don't include them. The basic game still runs on the classic 4 and there's nothing stopping a person from adding classes or subclasses from there.

I've played bards from 1e on up and 3.5 turned them into my favorite class after skills become more prominent. What I like doesn't have to be what you like. I would just build an approximation out of other classes instead if I joined a game without bards and wanted one.

 

[neogod22]

The only way I would give such a buff to wizards would be to redo the class casting. They no longer prepare spells, instead they are stuck with a maximum of 15 spells known. They can still keep their spellbook as a ritual book, but they start with int bonus rituals and need to spend gold to have more.

So you want to go back to 4e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The funny thing is that improves bard spell casting by adding arcane recovery and signature spells. All it costs is a few spells known. Bards have a lot of benefits but not a lot of potency. Multiplying the potency of the party is where they shine.

If you don't want to run a game with bards, sorcerers, and warlocks just don't include them. The basic game still runs on the classic 4 and there's nothing stopping a person from adding classes or subclasses from there.

I've played bards from 1e on up and 3.5 turned them into my favorite class after skills become more prominent. What I like doesn't have to be what you like. I would just build an approximation out of other classes instead if I joined a game without bards and wanted one.

Yeah, I would never give bards wizard features, thanks. All I usually hear on this forum is about how bards are great... so if they are lacking potency, maybe it is a personal problem?

I loved bards in 1E, but they were hard to really get to if you played more by the rules. 2E bards were ok, but I never cared for Bards once they added all the fluffy crap since then.

IMO bards should not be full casters, more like 3/4 casters or 2/3 even. They get mad skill abilities in 5E, can fight pretty well as much as many battler-types, and then lets through full spells along with other features on top of all that.

You love bards, that's cool. I don't and with their design in 5E, never will. As far as Sorcerers and Warlocks go, I think one combined class mixing their features in some manner would have been better. But hey, to each, their own, right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you want to go back to 4e.

Wizards still prepped in 4e, and nobody cast spontaneously...
...moonsong, understandably, would rather see more of the 3e sorcerer in the 5e sorcerer - and less of it in every other 5e caster.

 

[Ashrym]

Yeah, I would never give bards wizard features, thanks. All I usually hear on this forum is about how bards are great... so if they are lacking potency, maybe it is a personal problem?

I loved bards in 1E, but they were hard to really get to if you played more by the rules. 2E bards were ok, but I never cared for Bards once they added all the fluffy crap since then.

IMO bards should not be full casters, more like 3/4 casters or 2/3 even. They get mad skill abilities in 5E, can fight pretty well as much as many battler-types, and then lets through full spells along with other features on top of all that.

You love bards, that's cool. I don't and with their design in 5E, never will. As far as Sorcerers and Warlocks go, I think one combined class mixing their features in some manner would have been better. But hey, to each, their own, right?

Bards lack potency because none of their class features or subclass options support improving spell casting or combat beyond basic levels, lol. People on the internet claiming potency doesn't change the game mechanics. That's falling into classic fallacies.

I've explained my justification on bards as full casters many times (because that's what they mechanically were in past editions), and that would be going on a tangent here. We can argue that in another thread again if you want, lol.

I will say they get good skills in 5e but mad skills is an overstatement, "full spells" is a label without context, and they aren't remotely close to fighting like other combat types. Don't let the sparkly toys distract you from the actual mechanical differences.

Like I said, though, you don't need to include the class at all. If it's the fluffy crap then I agree because it's not my favorite flavor either (I do it sometimes) but I always give the fluff I want based on background and concept, and apply that to the mechanics.

My advice to you would be to simply omit classes from your campaigns you don't want.

 

[Ashrym]

So you want to go back to 4e.

I thought that was more of an "imagine this" so you might gain some perspective and empathize with the impact the limited spells known has.

Wizards still prepped in 4e, and nobody cast spontaneously...

Yeah, I don't think people remember this about the 4e wizard for some reason. It was the first 4e class I tried after I stopped pouting about not having bards in the PHB and gave the edition a chance.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My advice to you would be to simply omit classes from your campaigns you don't want.

Nah, no one plays them anyway. Besides, I can leave them in as NPCs and have them eaten by dragons or something LOL!