D&D (2024) Wizard (Playtest 7)

The problem with the Diviner isn't that it isn't powerful. It's that it's not thematic and differentiated. You're encouraged to prepare almost the exact same spells and use them in almost the exact same way as almost any other wizard. You just have a couple of minor bonuses to use and other subclasses get other bonuses.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Portent is as good as the two rolls. Rolling two 10s would be less useful.

The Lucky advantage/disadvantage only happens when needed, making it valuable. Moreover, at proficiency times per day, Lucky happens several times at higher levels.

All in all, the Wizard subclass remains surprisingly subpar.
I've played with both. In fact I've played with both on the very same character. A 10 is plenty useful. Portent only is used when useful as well, and most importantly you KNOW THE RESULT before you choose to use it (you roll them at the beginning of the day).
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
The concern is, the Wizard class lacks enough design space for a subclass.

The Treantmonk ranks are moot, since the Wizard subclasses are comparing to each other, and all of them may suffer from insufficient design space.

That a subclass even can compare to a single level-0 feat is concerning.
Only because YOU compared them. They're not comparable. Everyone who has responded to you has said Portent is much more powerful than Lucky. You declaring them similar doesn't make it so.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I've played with both. In fact I've played with both on the very same character. A 10 is plenty useful. Portent only is used when useful as well, and most importantly you KNOW THE RESULT before you choose to use it (you roll them at the beginning of the day).
Yeah, low or mediocre rolls are great to apply to opponents.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
The concern is, the Wizard class lacks enough design space for a subclass.

Unfortunately, this fight was lost to the voices arguing for absolute backward compatibility.

The designers gave us a clear route forward that (a) kept subclass choice to third level (b) opened up design space for classes in the progression at lower levels, and (c) provided a standard progression, which opened up space to cross-class subclass design.

They showed it to us, and it was rejected.
 

Unfortunately, this fight was lost to the voices arguing for absolute backward compatibility.

The designers gave us a clear route forward that (a) kept subclass choice to third level (b) opened up design space for classes in the progression at lower levels, and (c) provided a standard progression, which opened up space to cross-class subclass design.

They showed it to us, and it was rejected.
Absolute backwards compatibility did not win the subclass argument- if it had sorcerers would still get their subclass at one. And thank goodness bland homogenisation to three lists lost the spell list argument.
 


Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
The obvious use for Malleable Illusion is quick changes and saving spells. The Disguise Self spell will only change your appearance once. A wizard with Malleable Illusion can play silly games by changing their appearance every time they go round a corner without utterly burning through their spell slots. Of course a warlock can simply take an invocation to cast a new disguise on themselves at will - but both of them have a substantially increased range of options over an ordinary caster who can just disguise themselves once per spell slot.
I've been thinking about this for a few days now. This is an awesome use.
I think RAW you need a hand mirror to make it work, though, since malleable illusion requires that you are able to see the illusion you are changing.
 


Ashrym

Legend
Yeah. If they were really insistent on the wizard’s identity being “the class with the longest spell list” (🙄) they could have just made the arcane list smaller and given the wizard one or more class features that expand their spell list. Like, that’d be a great way to express school specialization - you can add any spell of the specialized school to your spellbook, even if they aren’t on the Arcane list. And then the wizard could have four real subclasses!
That would have been a good approach.
My understanding of the reason why is that too many young players are complaining that they still want their 5e the same. Never saw a game before Bards being a common class.
The more they are introduced to all classes, the more the "5e only" community complains. :rolleyes:
Bards are popular in my groups from 2e up. I play them a lot and other players who have played with me start playing them too. Because bards are fun.

I've been in groups with 3 or 4 bards.
I would have expected a Necromancer to make the cut, as that has strong fantasy & D&D traditions as well.
I think it'll be the DMG.
Mire likely the next supplement.
I thought we were getting 4 subclasses per class and we have 4 now?
Portent is as good as the two rolls. Rolling two 10s would be less useful.

The Lucky advantage/disadvantage only happens when needed, making it valuable. Moreover, at proficiency times per day, Lucky happens several times at higher levels.

All in all, the Wizard subclass remains surprisingly subpar.
Advantage/disadvantage carries the same risk in rolling two 10's. Being used more often isn't as useful as knowing the results.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top