wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
Well in a way a wizard should have unlimited number of spells to pick from as that is the whole fantasy behind wizard the researcher, the scientist, the one that "creates" spells. Druids, clerics and other divine casters take their spells from their deity without any effort other than devotion and prayer. Wizards "work" for theirs which makes it more interesting.
As for the miltiplicative power of wizarsds, they are supposed to be the most powerful of the caster classes. In truth the Cleric always was better in most editions because the clerics always had armor and healing. But the wizard's fantasy is about being a fragile researcher and scholar who carries a punch. Druids (that I personally love as a class) have been mangled in this edition compared to either 3rd or 2nd editions, it is true they have lost so much, from decent animal companions to wild shapes and from interesting spells that were exclusive to them to druidic circles that matter. I agree on that but the whole threads discussion is about the wizard. The problem I see and have mentioned it many many times is that you have in your archives as a company more than 5000 spells and you opt to use less than 500 of them it is plain idiocy. The attempt to keep them all in one line and "fair" is what mangles the possibilies of the game. It is no wonder people frequently choose to play older versions.
As for the newer players that do not know the lore comment.
a) the lore is there, we have internets now.
b) The schools of magic are on every single spell of the game so even if one doesn't know the lore, one can easily find out that there are 8 of them, and it is plain as a day that wizards draw from there to specialize.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Professional TTRPG Game Master. Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
Well in a way a wizard should have unlimited number of spells to pick from as that is the whole fantasy behind wizard the researcher, the scientist, the one that "creates" spells. Druids, clerics and other divine casters take their spells from their deity without any effort other than devotion and prayer. Wizards "work" for theirs which makes it more interesting.
As for the miltiplicative power of wizarsds, they are supposed to be the most powerful of the caster classes. In truth the Cleric always was better in most editions because the clerics always had armor and healing. But the wizard's fantasy is about being a fragile researcher and scholar who carries a punch. Druids (that I personally love as a class) have been mangled in this edition compared to either 3rd or 2nd editions, it is true they have lost so much, from decent animal companions to wild shapes and from interesting spells that were exclusive to them to druidic circles that matter. I agree on that but the whole threads discussion is about the wizard. The problem I see and have mentioned it many many times is that you have in your archives as a company more than 5000 spells and you opt to use less than 500 of them it is plain idiocy. The attempt to keep them all in one line and "fair" is what mangles the possibilies of the game. It is no wonder people frequently choose to play older versions.
As for the newer players that do not know the lore comment.
a) the lore is there, we have internets now.
b) The schools of magic are on every single spell of the game so even if one doesn't know the lore, one can easily find out that there are 8 of them, and it is plain as a day that wizards draw from there to specialize.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
It changes the tactical/strategic mix. An abjurationist isn't played optimally the same as an illusionist and that goes beyond mere roleplaying.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
It is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
It is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
A far bigger choice than sub class as well.
edit to add, that being said i would not have a issue if 6e for example went down to like 3 classes, rogue, fighter, mage, in the case of mage a level 1 mage would have basic generic casting abilities, cantrips basically. And as you level you make choices that shape you to be more a divine, nature, or arcane caster, more warlock like, more wizard like etc. And the same for fighter and rogue.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
It is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
That's true, but I really don't see it as a counterargument to the point that having some classes be harder to play is a feature which helps experienced players avoid getting bored.
After all, I can't really conceive of an alternate way to structure the game than classes without the game becoming much more complicated for beginners or the game becoming flat and dull. With classes, like I said, some classes can be designed to be easier to play than others.
You're moving the goalposts. I just refuted your point that subclasses add a significant amount of complexity, and you respond with the earlier claim that wizards are a more complex class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
You're moving the goalposts. I just refuted your point that subclasses add a significant amount of complexity, and you respond with the earlier claim that wizards are a more complex class.
My point is that wizards are a more complex class. It isn't trying to be beginner friendly I use that point to justify it having more subclasses.
However, I'll also assert that Wizard subclasses are more complex than the subclasses of other classes. The Wizard base class is already more complex with more choices than other classes. When you add a subclass, it isn't the same as adding a subclass to a fairly standard class with minimal choices (such as a fighter or rogue or cleric). You are adding a selective enhancement onto a highly variable base.
Expert Divination (School of Divination) incentivizes casting more divination spells. That directly influences how you build your spell list and approach both combat and exploration—shifting your gameplay toward information gathering, preemptive control, and high-efficiency spell use.
Malleable Illusion (School of Illusion) allows you to reshape an ongoing illusion spell, greatly expanding the tactical potential of a single cast. This doesn’t just offer a new tool—it encourages a constant awareness of how you can manipulate active illusions, especially in combat. That mindset often spills over into how you prepare spells and think about battlefield control, deception, and crowd manipulation.
Arcane Ward (School of Abjuration) creates a damage-absorbing shield based on your spellcasting. This not only encourages proactive defensive casting, but it also redefines your role and positioning in combat. With a fully powered ward, an abjurer can have effective HP that rivals or exceeds front-line classes like Barbarians, making touch spells more viable and sometimes allowing a wizard to take hits most wouldn't dare to risk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
Well in a way a wizard should have unlimited number of spells to pick from as that is the whole fantasy behind wizard the researcher, the scientist, the one that "creates" spells. Druids, clerics and other divine casters take their spells from their deity without any effort other than devotion and prayer. Wizards "work" for theirs which makes it more interesting.
As for the miltiplicative power of wizarsds, they are supposed to be the most powerful of the caster classes. In truth the Cleric always was better in most editions because the clerics always had armor and healing. But the wizard's fantasy is about being a fragile researcher and scholar who carries a punch. Druids (that I personally love as a class) have been mangled in this edition compared to either 3rd or 2nd editions, it is true they have lost so much, from decent animal companions to wild shapes and from interesting spells that were exclusive to them to druidic circles that matter. I agree on that but the whole threads discussion is about the wizard. The problem I see and have mentioned it many many times is that you have in your archives as a company more than 5000 spells and you opt to use less than 500 of them it is plain idiocy. The attempt to keep them all in one line and "fair" is what mangles the possibilies of the game. It is no wonder people frequently choose to play older versions.
As for the newer players that do not know the lore comment.
a) the lore is there, we have internets now.
b) The schools of magic are on every single spell of the game so even if one doesn't know the lore, one can easily find out that there are 8 of them, and it is plain as a day that wizards draw from there to specialize.
Professional TTRPG Game Master.
Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
but, they were all in the book. available to play.
so..?
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
It changes the tactical/strategic mix. An abjurationist isn't played optimally the same as an illusionist and that goes beyond mere roleplaying.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
It is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
A far bigger choice than sub class as well.
edit to add, that being said i would not have a issue if 6e for example went down to like 3 classes, rogue, fighter, mage, in the case of mage a level 1 mage would have basic generic casting abilities, cantrips basically. And as you level you make choices that shape you to be more a divine, nature, or arcane caster, more warlock like, more wizard like etc. And the same for fighter and rogue.
That's true, but I really don't see it as a counterargument to the point that having some classes be harder to play is a feature which helps experienced players avoid getting bored.
After all, I can't really conceive of an alternate way to structure the game than classes without the game becoming much more complicated for beginners or the game becoming flat and dull. With classes, like I said, some classes can be designed to be easier to play than others.
You're moving the goalposts. I just refuted your point that subclasses add a significant amount of complexity, and you respond with the earlier claim that wizards are a more complex class.
If you are being disingenuous and rude, consider this your only response.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
My point is that wizards are a more complex class. It isn't trying to be beginner friendly I use that point to justify it having more subclasses.
However, I'll also assert that Wizard subclasses are more complex than the subclasses of other classes. The Wizard base class is already more complex with more choices than other classes. When you add a subclass, it isn't the same as adding a subclass to a fairly standard class with minimal choices (such as a fighter or rogue or cleric). You are adding a selective enhancement onto a highly variable base.
Expert Divination (School of Divination) incentivizes casting more divination spells. That directly influences how you build your spell list and approach both combat and exploration—shifting your gameplay toward information gathering, preemptive control, and high-efficiency spell use.
Malleable Illusion (School of Illusion) allows you to reshape an ongoing illusion spell, greatly expanding the tactical potential of a single cast. This doesn’t just offer a new tool—it encourages a constant awareness of how you can manipulate active illusions, especially in combat. That mindset often spills over into how you prepare spells and think about battlefield control, deception, and crowd manipulation.
Arcane Ward (School of Abjuration) creates a damage-absorbing shield based on your spellcasting. This not only encourages proactive defensive casting, but it also redefines your role and positioning in combat. With a fully powered ward, an abjurer can have effective HP that rivals or exceeds front-line classes like Barbarians, making touch spells more viable and sometimes allowing a wizard to take hits most wouldn't dare to risk.