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

[DND_Reborn]

You could model it on the Warlock but just give them a few more spell slots to cover for the missing invocation features.

I could use the warlock spell progression but maybe increase the slots by 1 compared to the warlock. I don't know if that would be enough, but it seems like it would be okay for free upcasting.

I don't know I'll have to talk our group on Saturday and bounce some ideas around until then.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like the spirit of the idea, but as written it's just way too powerful & only gets worse the further it goes. I'm not really sure how it could be fixed to not be broken or stomping on the toes of sorcerer/warlock & even linking it to hit dice doesn't seem to help much.

I think limiting it to a chosen spell starting at 5th level (must be 1st) that gets free upcasting to 2nd.

Then at 11th level, you get to pick another (1st or 2nd) that gets free upcasting to 3rd.

Finally, at 17th, you pick a third spell (1st to 3rd level) that gets free upcasting to 4th.

When you level, you can swap out your upcasted chosen spell but it must be the same level. If you want to follow the UA, make it on a short rest.

This way, a Wizard (or even give the ability to other casters) can have three free upcasted spells, to a maximum of 4th level ability.

EDIT: an option to link it to HD, is you can spend your hit dice when casting a spell to upcast it by one level per HD spent, to a maximum spell level you can cast. You regain HD spent in this fashion after completing a long rest.

Ex. an 11th level caster could spend five HD to upcast a 1st level spell to 6th.

Of course, if you spend HD for other features, you have fewer for free upcasting.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Very much disagree with this. The scaling of spells led directly to the whole LFQW problems in earlier editions. Not only did your wizard get more powerful spells but most of the spells he cast got more powerful too.

On top of this: The one way that spells do scale automatically in 5e is spell DC. In 3.5, spell level determined DC (and there was a metamagic option, Heighten Spell, that allowed 5e-style upcasting of a spell specifically to raise the DC of that spell), but in 5e it scales automatically with proficiency bonus and caster stat.

So with DCs scaling in 5e automatically, having the actual effects (damage, etc.) of those spells also scaling automatically as they did before would've been waaaaaaay too much.

And I prefer DCs scaling automatically as opposed to the actual effects of those spells doing so because it makes spells from half-casters and third-casters actually worth a flip all the way through. That's why half-casting is good in 5e but was nigh-worthless in 3.5.

Personally, I think cantrips might actually level up too quickly. Not so much for wizards, but, for clerics and druids, it turns them both into pew pew casters too often.

I've long thought cantrips should scale only once, at Lv. 11.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've long thought cantrips should scale only once, at Lv. 11.

Other than eldritch blast breaking the rules of cantrips getting extra dice instead of extra attacks & acting like the extra attack from fighter but getting linked to character rather than class level... why? What about daily driver cantrips like firebolt/sacred flame/ray of frost/dissonant whispers/etc scaling do you see as a problem?

Sure all those dice might be great against low AC baddies, but weapon attacks add stat mod & scale with extra attacks that each add the statmod. Even if your comparing a fire dragon sorcerer with a +3 focus item casting firebolt & 20 to a nonfeated fighter with a +3 longsword @20your comparing 4d10+3+cha to [1d10+3+ability mod]*4 & the law of averages works in the fighter's favor on top of using modifiers repeatedly

 

[Salthorae]

I've long thought cantrips should scale only once, at Lv. 11.

Interesting.

I've always found that by the time my groups get to 11th, the only time cantrips get used in combat are if all their other spells are gone, the threat isn't big enough to waste a resource on which usually just gets handwaved anyway at that point, or to do something like Minor Illusion cover/concealment.

---

Also - I think we're all missing the point here.

WotC obviously has self-esteem issues. So the Wizards from the Coast hate on Wizards to gang up with everyone else on the poor wizards, to make them (WotC) feel better about themselves being OP wizards.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Other than eldritch blast breaking the rules of cantrips getting extra dice instead of extra attacks & acting like the extra attack from fighter but getting linked to character rather than class level... why? What about daily driver cantrips like firebolt/sacred flame/ray of frost/dissonant whispers/etc scaling do you see as a problem?

Sure all those dice might be great against low AC baddies, but weapon attacks add stat mod & scale with extra attacks that each add the statmod. Even if your comparing a fire dragon sorcerer with a +3 focus item casting firebolt & 20 to a nonfeated fighter with a +3 longsword @20your comparing 4d10+3+cha to [1d10+3+ability mod]*4 & the law of averages works in the fighter's favor on top of using modifiers repeatedly

OK, now do Lv. 17-19, when the cantrip has its last scaling but the Fighter is still on 3 attacks/round. Assuming 20s in relevant stat:
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3+5)*3 = 40.5
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 4d10+3+5 = 30

Or, hey, let's go back to Lv. 5, where the majority of games are taking place, but take away the magic weapon/focus and assume 16s in the relevant stat:
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3)*2 = 17
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 2d10+3 = 14

Is the Fighter ahead of the Sorcerer's cantrip? Yes. Is the Fighter ahead by enough to make up for the fact the Sorcerer is also a full caster? That's a harder case to make.

 

[tetrasodium]

Is the Fighter ahead of the Sorcerer's cantrip? Yes. Is the Fighter ahead by enough to make up for the fact the Sorcerer is also a full caster? That's a harder case to make.

Ithis whole tangent is kind of irrelevant to the thread, but don't try to compare the two in isolation. don't forget to ask if that is "enough" on top of the fact that a fighter is a heavu armor d10 class with extra feats various fighter & fighter archtype features By using a dragon sorcerer instead of a wizard or some other sorcerer I avoided stacking the deck by having the statmod on both.

It sounds like you think it should be more like this
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3)*2 = 17
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 1d10+3 = 9.5

That about the gist of your point?...

 

[Gladius Legis]

Ithis whole tangent is kind of irrelevant to the thread, but don't try to compare the two in isolation.

I'm not. You were.

It sounds like you think it should be more like this
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3)*2 = 17
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 1d10+3 = 9.5

That about the gist of your point?...

Considering, again, the Sorcerer is a full caster, yes, that does look a lot better.

 

[Ashrym]

I'm good with spells not scaling.

OK, now do Lv. 17-19, when the cantrip has its last scaling but the Fighter is still on 3 attacks/round. Assuming 20s in relevant stat:
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3+5)*3 = 40.5
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 4d10+3+5 = 30

Or, hey, let's go back to Lv. 5, where the majority of games are taking place, but take away the magic weapon/focus and assume 16s in the relevant stat:
Longsword Fighter: (1d10+3)*2 = 17
Fire Dragon Sorcerer: 2d10+3 = 14

Is the Fighter ahead of the Sorcerer's cantrip? Yes. Is the Fighter ahead by enough to make up for the fact the Sorcerer is also a full caster? That's a harder case to make.

At 5th level that dragon sorcerer is just 2d10 for 11 because elemental affinity gives the bonus at 6th level. At 6th level the fighter can include a 2nd ASI.

Why does your example add subclass features for the sorcerer and not the fighter? Or skip fighting style? Action surge? Feats? Why is the fighter using a long sword two handed instead of a one handed with a shield, or using a 2 handed weapon? Why no ASI for the fighter at 4th level?

I'm changing the comparison. 5th level.

Fighter (1d8+4+2)*2 = 21 or (2d6+4)*2 = 22
Sorcerer 2d10 = 11

 

[Gladius Legis]

At 5th level that dragon sorcerer is just 2d10 for 11 because elemental affinity gives the bonus at 6th level. At 6th level the fighter can include a 2nd ASI.

Why does your example add subclass features for the sorcerer and not the fighter? Or skip fighting style? Action surge? Feats? Why is the fighter using a long sword two handed instead of a one handed with a shield, or using a 2 handed weapon? Why no ASI for the fighter at 4th level?

I'm changing the comparison. 5th level.

Fighter (1d8+4+2)*2 = 21 or (2d6+4)*2 = 22
Sorcerer 2d10 = 11

OK, the Sorcerer becomes 15 at 6th level then. (Since you added an ASI at 4th level for the Fighter, I get to do the same for the Sorcerer.)

So ... 21 or 22 vs. 15? Still too close.