Please explain this reference?
D&D 5E Why does Wizards of the Coast hate Wizards?
Please explain this reference?
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
Hero
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.
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.
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.
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 but not a munchkin
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 thoughJust a bit.
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
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
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.
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.
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.
Expertise is exceptional training beyond what is needed. Proficiency represents what might be needed to be knowledgable in a given field.gyor said:
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.
Similar Threads
