Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?

gyor

Hero
The lack of Arcana Expertise IS a bit weird for the Wizard. Seems like that would be his forte... aside from that the Wizard is fine.

The Wizard has EIGHT subclass in the PHB when I could EASILY convert all 8 'school specialist' into a single subclass with a school-based choice, but they went the extra way to create all 8 different ones. WOTC doesn't hate the Wizard.
Agreed, this is the only one I'll agree with, but that is paired with Cleric and Paladin not getting Religion Expertise and Druid and Ranger not getting Nature Expertise. It feels weird and wrong that Rogues and Bards end up knowing more then Wizards about Arcana, Clerics about Religion, and Druids about Nature. By later levels a single Rogue can have expertise in all three, knowing more then the party Wizard about magic, more the party Cleric about Religion, and the more about nature then the party Druid. That is messed up. Not that Bards and Rogues can be sages, but that Wizards/Clerics/Druids can't compete in their own respective fields.
 

Don Durito

Explorer
It's expertise that's messed up. And it's messed up because its a band-aid solution to the whole skill system being messed up.

Bit difficult to really do anything about it now.

In any case it's not really likely to be a problem - knowledge skills are a poor use of expertise.

There mostly for uncovering plot info and, well...the DM has to get that to you somehow.
 

gyor

Hero
Sure Bards are loremasters thematically.

Wizards are masters of the Arcane arts... but they're not even close to the best at the Arcane skill. It's nonsensical.
@Leatherhead − good point

The most popular choice of subclass for a Wizard character is:
• Spellsinger 14%
• War Magic 14%
• Evocation 13%
• [probably Divination circa 12% because Portent for combat]

This suggests that the golden majority of Wizard players are frustrated with the Wizard class, and seeking options elsewhere.

The main dissatisfaction with the Wizard class for Wizard players, appears to be, the lack of combat survivability and the lack of damage dealing.
That is a reflection of how good the Bladesinger and Warmage are (plus Warmage is the closest thing Wizards get to the beloved generalist Wizard), not a reflection of the PHB subclasses, most of which are very, very good at what they do, all of them do a single school of magic better then anyone.
 

gyor

Hero
Wizard, Cleric, and Druid should expertise in Arcana, Religion, and nature respectively, because its literally what they do and functionally a required education for their profession. A Wizard that doesn't understand the laws of magic, a Cleric that knows nothing about the Gods, and a Druid unfamiliar with nature is just makes no sense.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
People were even hating on the idea of giving the Wizard the meager QoL improvements they got in this last UA.
Yep, that's me. Enhance ability was about one of the few spells sorcerers had that wizards couldn't use...

In short, the UA completes the cycle of giving scorlock the "meat & potatoes" of the wizard class & wizards never really got a new bone to support their table as the legs were slowly given to scorlock.
You need to understand how the sorcerer was completely-absolutely-crippled coming into the edition. What you call the wizard being robbed, I call it the sorcerer finally getting a chance of maybe catching up.

Just a bit. :D
Not enough though
Hate is a strong term, but 5 years into 5e, and I can say that from my perspective there has been very little new or original content.

It seems to be a mantra on this board “That Wizards do not need it”

but why?

Because of the Find Familiar, Counterspell, and Contingency spells?
If we play PHB only, there's nothing a first level sorcerer can do that a wizard cannot do ON TOP of doing many more additional things.

You could say that the wizard spell prep allows you to replace the entire list during a long rest but warlock/sorerer only one spell as an example of being "better" but that ignores the fact that it's unusual to replace more than 1-2 spells & not needing to invest the national GDP levels of gold sunk into building a spellbook far outweigh the minor limitation of maybe needing to take two long rests.
And you ignore the fact that a sorcerer is extremely spell starved. It has so few spells available at any time that Divine Soul and Magic Initiate are top picks because each represents a measly extra spell known. Oh, and the chances of picking wrong are very very high too. Who cares if the sorcerer can rewrite her full repertory in a week? the wizard still brings more than double the spells known at any time and that's before getting into rituals and casting for longer in a given day!

In short, the limitation of 1/long rest is effectively meaningless making the original version practically the same value. It's like the difference from having a winning lottery ticket for seventy five million dollars but you need to visit the north pole to claim it & having someone else being given a winning lottery ticket for balance reasons but that ticket is only seventy four point 8 million dollarsbut they can only spend a quarter million per day
I'd argue the wizard doesn't need to change that many spells at a time because he has a lot of them to begin with, if the wizard was forced to prepare spells in the same amounts that sorcerers know, he would have to change five to six every day...

Yes wizard probably has a lot of utility /buff/debuff spells not available to sorcerer, but concentration requirements dramatically hamstring the value. If that were the only change it wouldn't be a big deal, but when combined with so many of the wizard's other core pillars of pride being washed away or duplicated the loss is tangible.
Cry me a river, the sorcerer lost basically everything during the edition change, and is only barely coming together after receiving a couple of good subclasses and some cantrips - the wizard spell list and number of subclasses still dwarf the sorcerer- . Things used to be so bad that many people just plain wanted the class gone altogether -and some still do-! The wizard allegedly losing a minuscule part of his niche is nothing in comparison.

Please explain this reference?
Look for the youtube video "Angle summoner and BMX Bandit"
Or below in this post...
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
Yep, that's me. Enhance ability was about one of the few spells sorcerers had that wizards couldn't use...


You need to understand how the sorcerer was completely-absolutely-crippled coming into the edition. What you call the wizard being robbed, I call it the sorcerer finally getting a chance of maybe catching up.


Not enough though

If we play PHB only, there's nothing a first level sorcerer can do that a wizard cannot do ON TOP of doing many more additional things.


And you ignore the fact that a sorcerer is extremely spell starved. It has so few spells available at any time that Divine Soul and Magic Initiate are top picks because each represents a measly extra spell known. Oh, and the chances of picking wrong are very very high too. Who cares if the sorcerer can rewrite her full repertory in a week? the wizard still brings more than double the spells known at any time and that's before getting into rituals and casting for longer in a given day!


I'd argue the wizard doesn't need to change that many spells at a time because he has a lot of them to begin with, if the wizard was forced to prepare spells in the same amounts that sorcerers know, he would have to change five to six every day...


Cry me a river, the sorcerer lost basically everything during the edition change, and is only barely coming together after receiving a couple of good subclasses and some cantrips - the wizard spell list and number of subclasses still dwarf the sorcerer- . Things used to be so bad that many people just plain wanted the class gone altogether -and some still do-! The wizard allegedly losing a minuscule part of his niche is nothing in comparison.


Look for the youtube video "Angle summoner and BMX Bandit"
Or below in this post...
from reading your multi reply to myself and others I see a few problems with it. First off, nobody is saying that the sorcerer boons from 3.5>5e were broken or that they should be reversed. Many of the problems being discussed do not show up in tier 1 (level 1-4 play) to any significant degree, it doesn't really matter what a first level sorcerer or anything else can do either. The sorcerer being "spell starved" & frequently taking either MC or feats to improve on that because nobody is talking about nerfing the sorcerer spell versatility UA & are instead talking about the rest rather than onLevel for scorlock versions is evidence for why the wizard Cantrip Versatility should also be on long rest. Your defense of the sorcerer is both bizarre & misplaced to the point that I'm just going to suggest you get some sleep rather than dragging this off topic by going any further.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
Agreed, this is the only one I'll agree with, but that is paired with Cleric and Paladin not getting Religion Expertise and Druid and Ranger not getting Nature Expertise. It feels weird and wrong that Rogues and Bards end up knowing more then Wizards about Arcana, Clerics about Religion, and Druids about Nature. By later levels a single Rogue can have expertise in all three, knowing more then the party Wizard about magic, more the party Cleric about Religion, and the more about nature then the party Druid. That is messed up. Not that Bards and Rogues can be sages, but that Wizards/Clerics/Druids can't compete in their own respective fields.
This really is an unfounded concern. First, Bards are supposed to be knowledgeable in the lore fields, so it's fitting for them. Secondly, Rogues don't get Arcana, Religion, or Nature as class skills—they'd have to pick one or two of those up from their Background. Thirdly, why would a Rogue put expertise in one of those skills (outside an Arcane Trickster with Arcana) when there are better, nor class-relevant skills to put Expertise on?
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
the sorcerer lost basically everything during the edition change, and is only barely coming together after receiving a couple of good subclasses and some cantrips - the wizard spell list and number of subclasses still dwarf the sorcerer- .
I didn't want to name names, that's a bit impolite. But anyway:

You see, this is exactly what I was saying.

The Sorcerer is more popular than the Wizard or the Rogue. Displacing two of the core 4, but somehow that counts as "barely coming together" because the Wizard has more subclasses (despite those subclasses being not that desirable).

It's a long and hard road to overcome the prior edition biases. Which makes it hard to even just talk about doing anything with the Wizard.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
Agreed, this is the only one I'll agree with, but that is paired with Cleric and Paladin not getting Religion Expertise and Druid and Ranger not getting Nature Expertise. It feels weird and wrong that Rogues and Bards end up knowing more then Wizards about Arcana, Clerics about Religion, and Druids about Nature. By later levels a single Rogue can have expertise in all three, knowing more then the party Wizard about magic, more the party Cleric about Religion, and the more about nature then the party Druid. That is messed up. Not that Bards and Rogues can be sages, but that Wizards/Clerics/Druids can't compete in their own respective fields.
One of the classic bard tropes is the lore master, stemming from the classic version. There is nothing messed up about that. It's not even default and needs to be done by choice but it's definitely a thing. ;)

The rogue is a special case because they don't have proficiency so they don't have expertise so they cannot possibly compete. There's an exception that rule by specific build but that's taking a skill outside of the class to focus on, not the rogue class.

gyor said:
Wizard, Cleric, and Druid should expertise in Arcana, Religion, and nature respectively, because its literally what they do and functionally a required education for their profession. A Wizard that doesn't understand the laws of magic, a Cleric that knows nothing about the Gods, and a Druid unfamiliar with nature is just makes no sense.
Expertise is exceptional training beyond what is needed. Proficiency represents what might be needed to be knowledgable in a given field.

This is what arcana gives:

"Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes."

That's not the fundamental laws of magic. It's plain old knowledge. Expertise is a greater ability to remember in this case, likely through mnemonic memorization techniques or such or just exceptional study beyond learning the information. Higher DC's is just rarer information and still has nothing to do with the ability to cast spells.

"A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."

Wizards don't need to know that necromancy was practised in the a certain valley in Thay or the reproduction of Slaadi to cast spells, but that's what expertise in arcana is going to give.

Druids don't need to recall that the sparkled land anemone can be found in cave on Mount Blunt in order to draw power from nature and cast spells. Clerics don't need to know the cult of Bombassa practices ritual sacrifice of camels in order to pray or cast spells. That's what proficiency and expertise gives.

You've created a false equivalency between lore and ability to match your perception of what the classes should be. Lore and spell casting are not the same thing.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
Bards are supposed to be knowledgeable in the lore
I would say that's actually a construct of 3rd edition the more I think about it, though I never played 1e or D&D

2e Bards only got Local History and had a 5% chance per level to know some tidbit about a area or a legendary item.

2e Bard said:
A bard, by his nature, tends to learn many different skills. He is a jack-of-all-trades but master of none
That doesn't scream loremaster to me. Wizards are supposed to be the true sages and seekers of lore and knowledge. Bards are seekers of tales, stories, and histories.

Sometimes those two intersect, but the Wizard is supposed to be the scholarly type who knows all the things. Their learning is deep, Bard's is wide and might have tid bits here and there about stuff.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
This really is an unfounded concern. First, Bards are supposed to be knowledgeable in the lore fields, so it's fitting for them. Secondly, Rogues don't get Arcana, Religion, or Nature as class skills—they'd have to pick one or two of those up from their Background. Thirdly, why would a Rogue put expertise in one of those skills (outside an Arcane Trickster with Arcana) when there are better, nor class-relevant skills to put Expertise on?
I think that the discussion about rogues being able to match & exceed wizards in knowledge skills is getting lost in the weeds so to say. You are very unlikely to see a rogue or bard giving expertise to all the knowledge skills your right, but one of them that is deeply important to the campaign (ie religion in an undead heavy ravenloft game) is not unheard of & probably more than adequate. Being the guy who knew stuff was only a very small part of what 3.5 wizards did great & not a very important part at that for reasons someone pointed out earlier, much of it was often plot related & the gm needed to find some way of getting it to the party for the game to progress.

If we were back in the days of 3.5 talking about this when wizards had so many other great pillars of practically unmatched awesomeness still propping them up as a class you'd be making a very reasonable point... but we are talking about 5e and all of those pillars of awesome are pretty well duplicated by others who still have their own pillars of awesome while wizards are still being told "well you have spontaneous casting now... just like every other 5e caster". Nobody is saying that it's bad those other classes have improved, just that it's bad wizard is pale & lacking in luster. You'l probably see more wizard multiclassing now that artificer is also an int based class, but wizards wisely did something they never did with sorcerer or warlock & did the sanity checking needed to make sure they didn't put in front loaded multipliciative abilities like scor/locka/din combinations so that won't really do much for that lack of luster. Doing thing like changing cantrip versatility to onRest & adding the ritual tag to a bunch of spells will however help with it to some degree.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
Like I said back in post 41, it's not any one thing. It's the fact that all of the tools that the wizard lass used to be able to put on a pedestal have effectively been given to the classes they used to compete with in those areas or those other classes were given a version that is almost as good. You can't argue any one of those pillars in a vacuum. It doesn't matter that it's a good thing other classes are competent with knowledge skills now; what matters is that wizards aren't really any better in that area where they used to excel in addition to so many other areas with the same treatment.

I didn't respond to your but wizards got spontaneous casting point because you were trying to argue things in a vacuum. Giving everyone spontaneous casting was both good and bad but there are a lot of pieces that you need to add up to a whole rather than just looking at that.
  • Sorcerers now are the only ones with metamagic, it used to be options for wizard bonus feats. That's huge.
  • Almost all the other wizard bonus feats (many of them right down to the name) are warlock invocations
  • Sorcerer and warlock are both front loaded charisma based classes with abilities that stack in a multiplicative way that no sane 3.5 gm would do anything but laugh if a player brought it to them as some homebrew
  • The fact that spells are upcast rather than scaling with caster level benefits the shorter spell list that sorcerers have
  • The fact that damage types are generally irrelevant minimizes the value of having a larger spell list because now you can cast a particular spell using any slot you have where before in 3.5 you needed a 5th level spell like cone of cold or cloudkill to use a 5th level spell.... now you don't need to worry that cloudkill was probably poor against an adult white dragon or that cone of cold was a cone with cold damage because you can cast chromatic orb, ray of sickness, burning hands, cloud of daggers, reduce, scorching ray, suggestion, or even fireball out of that 5th level slot. In the end that expanded spell list is of dubious value.
  • Yes wizard probably has a lot of utility /buff/debuff spells not available to sorcerer, but concentration requirements dramatically hamstring the value. If that were the only change it wouldn't be a big deal, but when combined with so many of the wizard's other core pillars of pride being washed away or duplicated the loss is tangible.
  • When you figure that the wizard needs to find the spell in some form then spend gold to scribe it before they can use their "better" spell swap to the fact that the sorcerer & warlock both have full access to their class's entire spell list with their spell versatility it's hard to argue that the shorter list is A shorter, B even a meaninful handicap to scorlock, or C that the larger wizard list is especially meaningful in practice
I don't disagree that wizards lost things too. They are almost a reversed with sorcerers from 3e because the main reason to play a sorcerer was for spell slots and spontaneous casting. The main reason for playing wizards was the bonus feats and item creation abuse. Now wizards generally have the spell slot advantage because of a short rest mechanic and more spells prepped is better spontaneous casting, but sorcerers took on metamagic.

Having less spells doesn't make any sense in a benefit for up casting in slots. The wizard would simply have more options to upcast. Usually it's better to just use an higher level spell in the higher level slot and avoid upcasting at all, and having more spells prepped meets that better too.

Yes, wizards do have a lot of buff / debuff / battlefield control options. That's what makes them good. Concentration isn't more of a restriction for wizards than any other spell caster but having more spells prepped does give more opportunities.

I actually prefer playing sorcerers for the metamagic. I know what the spells known crunch is like and what playing a spells prepped class feels like in comparison. It's not that wizards don't have their restrictions or that things changed in 5e compared to other editions. My point is that wizards are in a good place despite all that.

I would say that's actually a construct of 3rd edition the more I think about it, though I never played 1e or D&D

2e Bards only got Local History and had a 5% chance per level to know some tidbit about a area or a legendary item.
You would be mistaken in that regard. Bardic knowledge / lore was a class trait through all the earlier editions. It stems from the actual role of bards in real-world history. All bards were historians regardless of culture, and they were all expected to have an understanding of religion and custom. Real bards were the super scholars of their time.

The more modern trope uses learning songs and stories as the bard travelled to pick up lore. Accessing information was the one thing bards were actually better at than any other class in 3e if they embraced the trope.

Earlier I mentioned wizards took a bit away from bardic knowledge because INT took it as part of the changes. A person can still argue bardic knowledge exists in the form of jack-of-all-trades as it relates to those skills. Expertise, OTOH, specifically supports the traditional super scholar concept.

That doesn't scream loremaster to me. Wizards are supposed to be the true sages and seekers of lore and knowledge. Bards are seekers of tales, stories, and histories.

Sometimes those two intersect, but the Wizard is supposed to be the scholarly type who knows all the things. Their learning is deep, Bard's is wide and might have tid bits here and there about stuff.
That depends entirely personal opinion and which trope a person is following. Wizards are only supposed to be the true sages and seekers of lore because you think that's the way it should be. I disagree because I'm familiar with the roots of the bard class. Those roots are why bards always had lore abilities. The jack-of-all-trades also existed as secondary as the Renaissance learns a bit of everything class but knowledge was the true nature of the role in real history, game history, and mythologies.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Knowledge Cleric 1 / Wizard X makes for a fine knowledge Wizard. Arcana Cleric 1 / Wizard X makes for a more versatile cantrip caster as well.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
If it really bothers a person then forcing one of the skill proficiencies to match and free expertise probably isn't going to hurt anyone's game, lol. It's the expectation that everyone else has to do it too that might be to much. ;)

We have 4 "educated" casters:
  • bard (history)
  • cleric (religion)
  • druid (nature)
  • wizard (arcana)
I'll defend my position than the skills and spells are a false equivalency and unnecessary to match, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone who wants to line up the flavor in his or her game.
 

tetrasodium

Explorer
Knowledge Cleric 1 / Wizard X makes for a fine knowledge Wizard. Arcana Cleric 1 / Wizard X makes for a more versatile cantrip caster as well.
Part of why multiclassing works for cleric/druid/ranger(all wis casters) or sorc/warlock/pally (all cha casters) is that they use the same ability for caster stat. Cleric/wizard runs into the MAD for casting stat that keeps you from seeing many cleric/sorc or wiz/any caster MC builds.

there aren't many no save cantrips (mending/spare the dying/light/etc) & multiclassing just to get more of them is a ludicrous cost that would be a lot like multiclassing a sorc with bad dex/str/wis into monk for 1 level in order to get light armor proficiency... sure it would work, but why would you want to do it in that way or even at all?
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
Part of why multiclassing works for cleric/druid/ranger(all wis casters) or sorc/warlock/pally (all cha casters) is that they use the same ability for caster stat. Cleric/wizard runs into the MAD for casting stat that keeps you from seeing many cleric/sorc or wiz/any caster MC builds.

there aren't many no save cantrips (mending/spare the dying/light/etc) & multiclassing just to get more of them is a ludicrous cost that would be a lot like multiclassing a sorc with bad dex/str/wis into monk for 1 level in order to get light armor proficiency... sure it would work, but why would you want to do it in that way or even at all?
WIS is a useful stat MAD or not, clerics count fully towards spell level progression and gain subclass features at 1st level, it's an armor upgrade, and it's a lot of 1st-level spells known and prepped.

1 level of cleric is a decent splash.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
Please explain this reference?
Its a . . . Mitchell & Webb(?) sketch that was popular in D&D forums because of its relevance in highlighting some issues of the game.
Essentially its a skit involving two heroes: BMX Bandit who is a skilled but mundane 'realistic' hero, and Angel Summoner - who can summon hordes of celestial superbeings.
The main thrust of the sketch (and why is was regarded as relevant to D&D, particularly 3.5e) is that BMX Bandit is frustrated that any task he can do, Angel Summoner can do much better and easier. Even when Angel Summoner tries to stick to a 'support role', the difference in versatility and magnitude of their powers means that it is still all about Angel Summoner's contribution, rather than BMX Bandit's.
This leads to BMX Bandit insisting on trying to do something themselves and getting killed in the attempt where Angel Summoner could have easily won.
And next episode Angel Summoner will be paired with Gymkhana Girl, another 'realistic' hero(ine).

This sketch wasn't just used to illustrate class tier discrepancies in 3.5, but also the issues in having highly-optimised vs interesting-concept characters in the same party.

Agreed, this is the only one I'll agree with, but that is paired with Cleric and Paladin not getting Religion Expertise and Druid and Ranger not getting Nature Expertise. It feels weird and wrong that Rogues and Bards end up knowing more then Wizards about Arcana, Clerics about Religion, and Druids about Nature. By later levels a single Rogue can have expertise in all three, knowing more then the party Wizard about magic, more the party Cleric about Religion, and the more about nature then the party Druid. That is messed up. Not that Bards and Rogues can be sages, but that Wizards/Clerics/Druids can't compete in their own respective fields.
I don't really have an issue with it for a couple of reasons:
1) There is only a need to roll if the DM thinks that there is a chance a character does not know something. I would regard a question involving a facet of the cleric's own faith, or a spell the wizard has in their spellbook as something that they probably automatically know (or at least a reduced DC perhaps).
2) Most knowledge skills are much wider than what those classes would focus on. Arcana covers much more than just spells. Religion covers much more than just the cleric's own and related faiths. Nature covers more than what the Druid has personally experienced.
3) Skills are often no substitute for magic. The Bard Sage might remember more about the history of a magic item, - but the wizard can cast Identify. The Outlander Rogue may have studied more books regarding flora and fauna from distant lands, but the Ranger has class abilities that shortcut the need without needing a roll.
4) Practical vs Theoretical: The surgeon analogy is a good one. A Wizard is very much an engineer, with the training to use complex tools (spells), and enough theoretical knowledge to design new tools. The Rogue with Arcana expertise is just a theorist: while the wizard was training in how to make the precise gestures and intonations needed to actually cast a spell, the rogue was learning about planar history, or dragon biology.
A multidisciplinary professor in Biology probably knows more about mitochondrial DNA descent than a surgeon, but the surgeon actually has the training to perform a medical procedure.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Part of why multiclassing works for cleric/druid/ranger(all wis casters) or sorc/warlock/pally (all cha casters) is that they use the same ability for caster stat. Cleric/wizard runs into the MAD for casting stat that keeps you from seeing many cleric/sorc or wiz/any caster MC builds.

there aren't many no save cantrips (mending/spare the dying/light/etc) & multiclassing just to get more of them is a ludicrous cost that would be a lot like multiclassing a sorc with bad dex/str/wis into monk for 1 level in order to get light armor proficiency... sure it would work, but why would you want to do it in that way or even at all?
It doesn't run into MAD at all for a one level dip. In fact it can reduce MAD for that one level dip, by making DEX less of a requirement, with armor and shield proficiency reducing the need for a DEX above 14. And of course you're not losing spell slots by multiclassing two full casters - just some preps (but you gain some preps too - and can upcast into those higher level slots on odd numberd levels).

There are a LOT of no-save cantrips. Some of the best cantrips in the game are no-save: Dancing Lights, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Minor Illusion (probably top 3 cantrip in the game), Mold Earth, Prestidigitation, etc.. You are going to want some of those cantrips (no self respecting Wizard would only get attack cantrips, particularly not in a thread discussing out of combat skills like Arcana), and you save the attack cantrips for wizard levels.

You get armor and shield proficiency (so no need for Mage Armor as a locked slot, and you don't need a high Dex, and you can use more magic item the party finds in armor and shields), Guidance (another top 3 cantrip in the game) and Bless and Healing Word or Cure Light Wounds. And then with one build you get Magic Missile and Detect Magic, and the other Identify and Command. Of all those, only Command uses Wisdom. And you're of course getting TWO expertise out of one of those builds.

But really it's about armor and shield proficiency, along with Guidance, Bless, and Healing Word. These are things you will want for your entire wizarding career. It's a pretty well-known and well-respected single level dip. In fact it's the core of Treant Monk's GOD Wizard build. You should check it out. It might not be YOUR thing, but it's definitely a well respected and admired build by many people.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top