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

[Tony Vargas]

That contradicts standard staples like raise dead. A person cannot have raise dead and low money (again, not necessarily bad). The typical expectation is raise dead will be cast at some point, but the money deterrent makes it someone not common.

So maybe Raise Dead shouldn't be considered a staple? Maybe 'hard' and 'deadly' take on more intuitive meanings in that case?

I think a money starved campaign changes some of the dynamics significantly.
Either way, it's not important because scribing scrolls is a bonus, not a requirement to function well.

Agreed. Both of which strike me as potential positives, more than anything in need of a fix.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, @Tony Vargas , if you think a 5e cleric is overpowered, then we have VERY different definitions of overpowered. This isn't 3e. Clerics are nowhere near overpowered.

 

[Tony Vargas]

if you think a 5e cleric is overpowered, then we have VERY different definitions of overpowered. This isn't 3e. Clerics are nowhere near overpowered.

Sure, you can look at a Tier 1 class in 3e or 5e and say "hey, there's no one thing they do with that much MOAR Power than the Tier 2 class that also does it well." A Cleric abusing Spirit Guardians for instance, is no more OP than any … other...er... it's not actually on anyone else's list, is it? nevermind, bad example...

...but the point is, if you can swap out all your spells on a daily basis, on top of dynamically choosing which of them to cast on a case-by-case basis, you're a LOT more versatile than Either a caster who picks those spells at chargen & level up, OR a 3.5 Tier 1 caster who prepped into slots, old-school-Vancian style.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, that takes us, immediately, to the "wizards are too good" conclusion.

Well I guess that takes this

Spoiler

[/QUOTE]
]I wanted us to provide an official answer to the desire in many groups, which we ave observed over the last five years to be able to have a bit more flexibility with their character.. for when they make a choice.. not be trapped by that choice. Because we have provided in the player's handbook various ways to say if your a sorcerer when you level up swap out a spell.. In this we provide you the ability to swap out a spell at the end of the long rest. The reason for that is that we actually have no control as game designers over how long a level lasts... and in some groups, it has become clear as we've observed different patterns on play over the last five years. Having to wait till the next level to swap out a spell that you don't like in one group that might just be a session or two from now... Another group, if another group likes to just sorta stay the same level for a long time, that could be six to twelve months... which was not a part of our original design. So in a way, us providing this versatility is signaling to people the game can handle a sorcerer for instance swapping out one spell at the end of the short rest err sorry a long rest... Because also ultimately we want people to be happy with their characters, to me there is no sort of merit in the design to make people sorta eat their vegetables with their character, it's a game. Now some may ask why you don't just let people change everything all the time. Now the reason that the rules don't it's really two fold. One is a narrative reason, we want there to be at least some stable identity to a person's character... but also B we don't want this potential slowdown of reconsidering everything in your character all the time. Now there are a few characters like the wizard for instance where actually you have deep consideration daily of their spells & all of their spells is a core part of their identity... but with wizards we address that by it's a spellbook so the spellbook doesn't have every single spell in existence, it just sortof a curated list & then your choosing from that curated list

and throws all of Cawford's logic out the window sorcerers and warlocks don't need any of the UA stuff because scorlock multiclass is too good based on the multiclass statistics earlier.... getting results like that is what happens when you make ridiculous unfounded nerf requests based on arguing class features in isolation

 

[Tony Vargas]

and throws all of Cawford's logic out the window sorcerers and warlocks don't need any of the UA stuff because scorlock multiclass is too good based on the multiclass statistics earlier....

Meh. Multi-Classing is optional. Just don't opt-in, and never worry 'bout 'em.

"Now there are a few characters like the wizard for instance where actually you have deep consideration daily of their spells & all of their spells is a core part of their identity... but with wizards we address that by it's a spellbook so the spellbook doesn't have every single spell in existence, it just sort of a curated list & then your choosing from that curated list"

AFAICT, that's about spell choice as character identity, and he's essentially admitting that Clerics and Druids (and Paladins & rangers, I guess) have spell-based identity only as a class, and that the 'curated list' of the wizard's spellbook gives the wizard some individual identity, that shouldn't morph too quickly by allowing the wizard to change it up, willy-nilly.

OK.

So they have some nominal identity because they choose two or three times the spells know of a less-privileged caster like a bard or sorcerer. Still doesn't make 'em any less class-Tier-1 nor any less deserving of the jumbo sledge-o-matic nerf hammer.

I mean, think how much more individual identity they'll have with more restrictions to curate!

 

[Garthanos]

So maybe Raise Dead shouldn't be considered a staple? Maybe 'hard' and 'deadly' take on more intuitive meanings in that case?

There are more than a couple of us who think if its a staple make it a staple of a quest to the grey realm or some other world adventure that happens in paragon tier ... not a patch for overly swingy low level play.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, you can look at a Tier 1 class in 3e or 5e and say "hey, there's no one thing they do with that much MOAR Power than the Tier 2 class that also does it well." A Cleric abusing Spirit Guardians for instance, is no more OP than any … other...er... it's not actually on anyone else's list, is it? nevermind, bad example...

...but the point is, if you can swap out all your spells on a daily basis, on top of dynamically choosing which of them to cast on a case-by-case basis, you're a LOT more versatile than Either a caster who picks those spells at chargen & level up, OR a 3.5 Tier 1 caster who prepped into slots, old-school-Vancian style.

Except that you are ignoring the fact that the spell lists have radically changed. Clerics have almost no blasty spells anymore. Plus nearly all the buffing spells are either gone or walled behind concentration. It's not like clerics can out fighter fighters anymore. Even with Spirit Guardians, you aren't exactly rocking the world with damage. It's nice, but, what, 3d8 per target? Not exactly breaking the bank here.

Not that clerics are poor, but, they aren't broken at all in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

Meh. Multi-Classing is optional. Just don't opt-in, and never worry 'bout 'em.

The idea had so much potential though and its behind having the initial training tier levels I mean it's solid in concept and feels story natural but dang the implementation... ie trap city no thank you. Back to needing game foo to avoid making useless characters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except that you are ignoring the fact that the spell lists have radically changed.

Monsters aren't using all the PCs toys, nor sporting SR anymore, either.

Clerics have almost no blasty spells anymore. Plus nearly all the buffing spells are either gone or walled behind concentration. It's not like clerics can out fighter fighters anymore.

It's not like they ever could quite out-fighter the fighter (they didn't have the feats for it) when people claimed they could, nor that being able to fake-tank was ever an important part of what made them Tier 1. Strict superiority can be proof of brokenness but it's hardly a minimum requirement.
Concentration is oft-cited, but, really, is just 5e keeping buffing BA-compatible. A concentration spell can often swing a combat the way a whole raft of complicated 3.x pre-casting would have been needed to. Ultimately it means you need fewer spells to make the same high-impact sort of contributions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The idea had so much potential though and its behind having the initial training tier levels I mean it's solid in concept and feels story natural but dang the implementation... ie trap city no thank you. Back to needing game foo to avoid making useless characters.

3e-style MCing was one of those great ideas that was ultimately too good for the rest of the system. Still is.