Base Wizard gives you best version of ritual casting. Memorize spell which got overnerfed from the UA. Then nothing until end game were it gives you free castings of low level spells. All of these things are pretty good. I feel like most other classes have more memorable base features, but the spellbook is really the all that a dnd wizard needs to be a dnd wizard.
I just find the so Feature lacking and boring. Other Full Spell casters got a lot of small features to make them interesting.
Yeah, I agree. Wizards don't really get many interesting features. Except maybe ritual casting from the spell book. Instead they get a massive spell list, a lot of spells known, a lot of exclusive spells. But yeah, I also don't find it interesting. I just don't think they need a boost without getting a nerf too.
Specialist Wizards get all kinds of cool stuff. Portent, Illusory Reslity, Abjurer Ward, many of the most powerful features in the game come from school features.
All of those are subclass features, which is exactly my point. If all you can think of when giving examples of cool stuff is subclass features, that means the core class is lacking in that department. And that's how they're designed, nothing wrong with that.
Short rest recovery of spells is pretty huge actually. It is pretty on par with one short rest for the warlock at most levels. The warlock at 10 gets 2 5th level slots but the wizard get 5 levels of slots so can customize it a bit more. And at most tables one short rest is what you are looking at anyways. And memorize spell is pretty big as well as its easy to have a standard daily prep, but then 2 hours into the day realize you are going to need something niche.
Compared to other arcane casters their big boost isn't their spell list imo, that is something sure. But its that they can change it every day. Druids/clerics can but their list is far far worse. I think they went too far in that regard but that is the balance they shot for weaker list with freedom to choose from it all. Sorcerers/warlocks their limit being known spells was always a bigger limit than the lists themselves. That is why even in 3e when sorcerers and wizards had the same exact spell list wizard were still considered better despite the better casting style of sorcerers as they could change it up at any time. Their class abilities were more on par maybe, but I not by much imo. But change daily/set was the big difference.
sorceres get metamagic which is decent but its not amazing even in 2024.
I don't know why you guys keep talking about the wizard's features being good. Nobody argued against that, at all. Both me and The_Traveling_Cleric were talking about features being interesting or boring. Getting spell slots back on a short rest isn't particularly interesting. It's pretty good, nobody argues that, just not very interesting. That's literally all we're saying, nobody talked about them being good.
As for 3rd edition, that was certainly not the big difference between sorcerers and wizards, at all. Wizards got higher spell slots one level earlier, which is huge. They also got a bunch of free metamagic feats, which is also huge. Even in 5e, the spellbook is not that big of a deal. It's nice, but it's not what makes wizards so good. It's their spell list. That's it. Especially the exclusive spells. Unless your Dm is super generous with information about what you're going to deal with during an adventuring day, being able to change your prepared list isn't that good. Memorize Spell is the same issue. If you find a locket, and when you pick it up a banshee comes out and attacks you, you can't just take that Protection from Evil and Good spell and prepare it.
Base Wizard gives you best version of ritual casting. Memorize spell which got overnerfed from the UA. Then nothing until end game were it gives you free castings of low level spells. All of these things are pretty good. I feel like most other classes have more memorable base features, but the spellbook is really the all that a dnd wizard needs to be a dnd wizard.
Yes, that's what we were saying. They're more memorable. Nobody said they were more powerful, I genuinely don't know why people keep talking about how good they are.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
Most base classes more memorable features are ones you actively use in combat. Rage, Action Surge, Sneak Attack, and Flury of Blows are good examples. So just being memorable isn’t a fair metric. The question is “What makes a wizard a wizard?” The answer is “casting spells.” So they gave the Wizard the ability to cast more varied spells than anyone else. More spells that anyone in 5e by far, but more equal in 5eR. It’s really up to the player to pick good ritual spells to have in the book and prepare a variety of non rituals. Memorize spell should have been closer to what was in the UA. The problem was the UA version was too good. They should have just limited it to once per short rest.
Most base classes more memorable features are ones you actively use in combat. Rage, Action Surge, Sneak Attack, and Flury of Blows are good examples. So just being memorable isn’t a fair metric. The question is “What makes a wizard a wizard?” The answer is “casting spells.” So they gave the Wizard the ability to cast more varied spells than anyone else. More spells that anyone in 5e by far, but more equal in 5eR. It’s really up to the player to pick good ritual spells to have in the book and prepare a variety of non rituals. Memorize spell should have been closer to what was in the UA. The problem was the UA version was too good. They should have just limited it to once per short rest.
Well, what makes a sorcerer a sorcerer? Casting spells as well. What makes a druid a druid? Casting spells. Remove spellcasting from any full caster and they just become a completely different class. It's not a wizard exclusive thing.
I'm not saying wizards aren't good, or fun to play, or anything like that. I actually like wizards a lot. But they basically have only one class feature, which is casting spells. The only thing that their class features do is add "more" to their main class feature. More rituals, more slots, more variety. But at the end of the day they're just casting the same spells, the same way as everyone else. When they cast Detect Magic it's the same way as everyone else casts Detect Magic. They just don't need to prepare it. Sure, that's nice and all, but it's still the same. I'm just saying that I wish they got something that wasn't just casting spells, like every other spellcasting class does.
I should have said arcane spells, but still let’s run with it. A sorcerer was an off shoot of the wizard and it had the best casting style in the game in 3e, this was given to everyone in 5e. The Sorcerer became the metamagic guy, but metamagic isn’t as robust as it was in 3e. In 5e the sorcerer is the almost a wizard who didn’t have to learn magic but since he didn’t learn it he had far less options, but could slightly alter its magic in some form. In 5eR it actually has about the same if not more options per day since the subclasses get auto prepared spells, but we aren’t supposed to talk about subclasses, since wizard subclasses make them unique as well. The wizard still has more overall options since any ritual in their book is a spell they could cast each day. The Druid was the original half attack magic half healing magic meant to sit between the cleric and wizard. In 3e that changed into having a decent mix of offense and healing magic, but more importantly being a pet class who could also Wildshape. In 5e Wildshape is major feature and they lost their ability to be the pet class.
Yes if you remove Spellcasting from any class they would be different, but not all fullcasters are defined by just Spellcasting. At one point since they gave everyone the sorcerers casting type they were going to make the sorcerer a half caster to differentiate it from the wizard. Playtesters didn’t like it so they made them the weaker wizard for most of 5e. Now 5eR Sorcerers are on par if not a little better. But my point is you can imagine another way to make a sorcerer. Honestly if I was in charge of design sorcerers wouldn’t cast spells. They would just shape magical energies. So they would have a chart like the one from the 2014 DMG that described how much damage a created spell should do by spell slot. They would just get to pick a few damage types and and expend spellslots to make magic happen. No spell list at all. Just a selection damage type, then pink bolt, blast, burst (size), or line, and spellslot level. This would have made them much different than wizards. Which would have made them simply blasters, and I’m sure many would have hated my idea, but it still matches the lore of a sorcerer. You can also redesign 5e Druid around being a half caster and give Wildshape or animal companions more of a focus. It would still feel like a Druid. If you tried make a wizard a half caster it wouldn’t feel like a wizard. If I tried to push my sorcerer idea as a dnd wizard people wouldn’t just dislike they would call me an stone me because wizards cast spells. You could turn every other fullcasters Spellcasting into a feature that wasn’t casting spells and it would be fine, but if I changed the Wizard so it wasn’t casting spells it wouldn’t work for dnd.
Also they do have something that is different than every other spellcaster. They have a spellbook. They can cast rituals that aren’t prepared. That is their thing. Really Sorcerers are in the same boat. Everything the base Sorcerer gets makes them cast spells.
Now I personally wish Memorize spell wasn’t nerfed into uselessness. It should have functioned like it did in the UA, but only be allowed to be selected once per short or long rest. That would give the Wizard essentially one more prepared spell they could pull out or change in 1 min, once per rest. Modify spell was bad because it was just metamagic, and create spell didn’t let you create a new spell really. If they had more time to playtest they may have come up with something cool an unique, but they were on a time crunch and there were a lot more important things to fix. Even now the Wizard is still good and has its own feel.
The history of each class in 3e or before is completely irrelevant here, so I don't know why that was brought up. We're also not talking about lore or how things have been in the past. The way things are in 5e is that all of those classes are full casters, and all of them learn spells, all at the same level, and with the same amount of spell slots (except for warlocks). All of them are defined by spellcasting. Spellcasting is by far the most important feature of each of those classes. If you remove it, they become a completely different class, period.
It's completely irrelevant to discuss what would happen if you worked at WotC and suggested something and they agreed and then the game was changed like that. We're talking about how the game is. And nobody ever talked about flavor or lore. Wizards have a lot of that, and they're very interesting. But in terms of game mechanics, which is the topic, they only cast spells. Like I said before, their class features let them do "more". Cast normal spells, cast them the normal way, just more often. Have more spells. Have more options. But it's still the same as everyone else. Metamagic is not the same case at all. You modify the spell, so the actual effect is different. You have a cold Fireball, or a Fireball that doesn't affect your allies. You will never see another class do that (talking about base classes, not subclasses or feats). If you see a wizard ritual casting Detect Magic, other classes could say "I can do that too". The fact that they didn't prepare the spell doesn't change the way spell works, or what it does. It's the same spell everyone else casts, with the exact same effect. Not to mention that sorcerers also get Innate Sorcery.
But see, I agree with your last point. I wish they had had more time to come up with something cool and unique. That's exactly what I've been saying. Wizards are good, wizards are fun, they have their own lore that defines them, but in terms of game mechanics, I really wish they had this cool and unique feature that wasn't just casting normal spells. I was really excited to see the stuff they playtested. Yes, some of it was broken, and some of it wasn't really going to work, but the idea was really cool, worked perfectly with the wizard lore, and it would have been really fun to have. That's exactly what I think wizards should have.
I brought up history because history is relevant. The broader question was “what makes a dnd class a dnd class.” The specific is “What makes a Wizard a Wizard.” If I can’t use history then the answer is nothing for all classes.
Also I wouldn’t say all full casters are defined by Spellcasting alone. If we are looking at just 5e to 5eR I prove my point right now. If the in the transition they cut Channel Divinity from Clerics, Wildshape from Druids, Bardic Inspiration from bards or Metamagics from Sorcerer they wouldn’t feel like themselves. Without those features they would be a completely different class also, period. If you removed the wizards spellbook it also would feel completely different period. Like I said you could replace the other classes Spellcasting feature with something else but that would simple complicate the game. You could give Clerics Prayers, Druids Rites, Bards Songs, and Sorcerers Channels. None of those things have to be spells and you would still feel like a dnd version of that class. They used spells because it is simple and clean and takes up less page count. What would you realistically replace a wizards Spellcasting with?
You’re being unfair with your perception of prepared rituals versus spellbook rituals. That is clearly casting in a different way. Just as much as metemagic is casting in a different way. The effect of a spell is damage, a condition, and or teleportation. Metamagic doesn’t modify that.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You could have the base class and the subclass both get cool stuff. Why would you want to? It’d just mean the different subclasses are more similar.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You haven’t answered my question. Why should I care if the base class is bland? I’m never going to play the base class without the subclass and, when taken together, there’s plenty of flavor.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
I brought up history because history is relevant. The broader question was “what makes a dnd class a dnd class.” The specific is “What makes a Wizard a Wizard.” If I can’t use history then the answer is nothing for all classes.
Also I wouldn’t say all full casters are defined by Spellcasting alone. If we are looking at just 5e to 5eR I prove my point right now. If the in the transition they cut Channel Divinity from Clerics, Wildshape from Druids, Bardic Inspiration from bards or Metamagics from Sorcerer they wouldn’t feel like themselves. Without those features they would be a completely different class also, period. If you removed the wizards spellbook it also would feel completely different period. Like I said you could replace the other classes Spellcasting feature with something else but that would simple complicate the game. You could give Clerics Prayers, Druids Rites, Bards Songs, and Sorcerers Channels. None of those things have to be spells and you would still feel like a dnd version of that class. They used spells because it is simple and clean and takes up less page count. What would you realistically replace a wizards Spellcasting with?
You’re being unfair with your perception of prepared rituals versus spellbook rituals. That is clearly casting in a different way. Just as much as metemagic is casting in a different way. The effect of a spell is damage, a condition, and or teleportation. Metamagic doesn’t modify that.
The question was never "what makes a dnd class a dnd class"? If you want to talk about that instead, you're free to open a new thread. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about how interesting the class features of wizards are. That's it. And in my opinion, not interesting at all. You can disagree, and I respect your opinion, but it doesn't go beyond that.
And by the way, I do agree with all the stuff you're saying about replacing class features with other stuff and still feeling like you're fulfilling the fantasy of those classes. That's just a completely different topic.
Spellbook rituals basically only means "You have more spells known". That's it. All rituals do exactly the same. Wizards just don't need to prepare them, which means they can prepare other stuff. But it wouldn't be different as saying "You always have these rituals prepared." It's exactly the same. So it's just "more spells", but the spells are exactly the same. Now, if you think a Cold Fireball that doesn't harm your allies is not a modified version of a regular Fireball because "both deal damage", then I genuinely don't know what to tell you.
You’re right it’s all opinion based. In my first or second post I made the statement all a dnd wizard needs to be a dnd wizard is the ability to cast spells. Also I stated judging features based on how interesting (memorable) they are isn’t fair. It’s far too subjective of a metric. I find the spellbook interesting because it allows me prepare fireball and cone of cold and know if I need detect magic or some other ritual I still have it. As a wizard I don’t need transmute spell to do different damage types, I can use different spells. Changing damage types doesn’t change the effect of the spell in my opinion. Like I said the effect of a spell is usually damage, a condition, and/or teleportation. Metamagics don’t alter that at all. Also if we get into subclasses the Scribes Wizard does that better. Evoker does Sculpt spell which was better than Careful spell until 5eR and now they are equal. Evoker also has Maximize Spell which is the better version of empowered spell. I find the base wizard interesting as is even though I don’t find their features memorable. I believe there is room for a memorable feature in the base class, but at this point we will have to wait 10 years for that. If anything is getting a hot fix like in TCOE I doubt it will be the Wizard. Oddly it might be Ranger again that needs it.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me.
Sadly using your own process that point is moot, because no Wizard exist within the mechanics of the game without a subclass at level 3.
I never said wizards don't get subclasses. That doesn't change the fact that I don't find the base class features interesting. I can like the subclass features and not the main class ones. If If I found the main class features interesting too, then I get even more interesting features overall. Why is that a moot point?
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You could have the base class and the subclass both get cool stuff. Why would you want to? It’d just mean the different subclasses are more similar.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You haven’t answered my question. Why should I care if the base class is bland? I’m never going to play the base class without the subclass and, when taken together, there’s plenty of flavor.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
You posted in the forums which suggests that you want a dialogue. So, why do you care that the base class is bland, especially in light of the fact that you are never going to play the base class without a subclass (or, in 2024e, at least not after 3rd level)?
Posting and wanting dialogue doesn't mean I want to convince you to feel the same way as I do about wizards. I just shared my opinion about the class features of wizards and then suddenly people jumped at my throat. I don't care if YOU think the features are interesting or not. I'm not here to indoctrinate anyone. This isn't a discussion about RAW, I just said my opinion. So yes, I'm fine with dialogue, but no, I don't care if you care.
As for your question, I replied it on this same post. Just because I'm getting (potentially) interesting features from my subclass doesn't mean I don't want the main features to be interesting too. The more the better.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
The fact that they aren't identical doesn't mean that they aren't equal.
Yes, sorcerers can do Careful Spell with more than evocation spells. Does a sorcerer get ?
Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your damaging cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip's damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast.
Overchannel
Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.
The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity
Does a sorcerer get the ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them? Let me tell you, as a guy who played a spontaneous caster for years, this ability is huge. I had to spend precious "spells known slots" on spells I'd rarely cast to be able to cast them as rituals. I'd also have to use those same precious "spells known slots" in order to learn spells I'd rarely cast (ie. Dream, Simulacrum, etc.)
Do they get the ability to free spell levels on a short rest?
What are you talking about? Why are we comparing this? You said two features were equal, but they're not, so I pointed it out. Did I say that sorcerers can do EVERYTHING that evoker wizards do? No. So...what's your point? That sorcerers and evocation wizards get different features? Ummm...yes? Let me help you. Sorcerers don't get Portent. Sorcerers don't get Bladesinging. Should we keep going?
It seems like you really love wizards and my comment about their main class features not being interesting somehow upset you, you took it personally, and then you jumped in to defend them. And now you came back (again) to talk about how good the wizard's features are, not how interesting. Is the spellbook good and useful? Very much so. Do I find it interesting? No, not one bit. They're completely different things, I don't know why you keep talking about how good they are.
Do sorcerers get the ability to free spell levels (I guess you mean spell slots) on a short rest? Yes, they do, but they can do it as a Bonus Action. No need for a Short Rest.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me.
Sadly using your own process that point is moot, because no Wizard exist within the mechanics of the game without a subclass at level 3.
I never said wizards don't get subclasses. That doesn't change the fact that I don't find the base class features interesting. I can like the subclass features and not the main class ones. If If I found the main class features interesting too, then I get even more interesting features overall. Why is that a moot point?
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You could have the base class and the subclass both get cool stuff. Why would you want to? It’d just mean the different subclasses are more similar.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You haven’t answered my question. Why should I care if the base class is bland? I’m never going to play the base class without the subclass and, when taken together, there’s plenty of flavor.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
You posted in the forums which suggests that you want a dialogue. So, why do you care that the base class is bland, especially in light of the fact that you are never going to play the base class without a subclass (or, in 2024e, at least not after 3rd level)?
Posting and wanting dialogue doesn't mean I want to convince you to feel the same way as I do about wizards. I just shared my opinion about the class features of wizards and then suddenly people jumped at my throat. I don't care if YOU think the features are interesting or not. I'm not here to indoctrinate anyone. This isn't a discussion about RAW, I just said my opinion. So yes, I'm fine with dialogue, but no, I don't care if you care.
As for your question, I replied it on this same post. Just because I'm getting (potentially) interesting features from my subclass doesn't mean I don't want the main features to be interesting too. The more the better.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
The fact that they aren't identical doesn't mean that they aren't equal.
Yes, sorcerers can do Careful Spell with more than evocation spells. Does a sorcerer get ?
Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your damaging cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip's damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast.
Overchannel
Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.
The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity
Does a sorcerer get the ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them? Let me tell you, as a guy who played a spontaneous caster for years, this ability is huge. I had to spend precious "spells known slots" on spells I'd rarely cast to be able to cast them as rituals. I'd also have to use those same precious "spells known slots" in order to learn spells I'd rarely cast (ie. Dream, Simulacrum, etc.)
Do they get the ability to free spell levels on a short rest?
What are you talking about? Why are we comparing this? You said two features were equal, but they're not, so I pointed it out. Did I say that sorcerers can do EVERYTHING that evoker wizards do? No. So...what's your point? That sorcerers and evocation wizards get different features? Ummm...yes? Let me help you. Sorcerers don't get Portent. Sorcerers don't get Bladesinging. Should we keep going?
It seems like you really love wizards and my comment about their main class features not being interesting somehow upset you, you took it personally, and then you jumped in to defend them. And now you came back (again) to talk about how good the wizard's features are, not how interesting. Is the spellbook good and useful? Very much so. Do I find it interesting? No, not one bit. They're completely different things, I don't know why you keep talking about how good they are.
Do sorcerers get the ability to free spell levels (I guess you mean spell slots) on a short rest? Yes, they do, but they can do it as a Bonus Action. No need for a Short Rest.
Two points
1.) Forget about trying to convince me, just help me understand your position. WHY is it so important to you that the base class have interesting features? You want a dialogue? Help me understand your position.
2.) I never said that any metamagic and wizard subclass feature were the same, did I?
1) Well, D&D is a game, we play games to have fun. I personally have more fun with features that I find interesting and memorable, rather than powerful, useful, good, etc. I like features that let me do things that I couldn't do otherwise. Features that let me do the same but more often usually aren't very appealing to me. Just getting "more" of something isn't really interesting to me. Getting more rituals isn't interesting because they were all already available. I just get more spells known, but those are the same spells. I'm not saying wizards aren't fun to play. They are, I've played them more than once. And yes, the subclasses I've played have been a lot of fun too. But just because one aspect of something is interesting, doesn't mean that the other aspect shouldn't. Wizards feel very vanilla to me. And I don't see the problem with wanting other aspects to be fun. Imagine if there was only one race, and that were human. Not even the 2024 human / variant human. The one that got +1 in all ability scores. People would probably feel like that's a bit too bland. Would you then say "Well, yeah, but nobody plays just a human without classes, backgrounds, etc. Those will make the character interesting and fun, so it doesn't matter if the race is bland." No, we want fun races too. I want everything to be interesting, why wouldn't I? I want interesting races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, etc. And when I see that every other class gets interesting features, I can't help but feel like WotC could have done more with the wizard.
2) That was for the other person, sorry. I reply to one of you, and the other one replies to that reply, so I get mixed up.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me.
Sadly using your own process that point is moot, because no Wizard exist within the mechanics of the game without a subclass at level 3.
I never said wizards don't get subclasses. That doesn't change the fact that I don't find the base class features interesting. I can like the subclass features and not the main class ones. If If I found the main class features interesting too, then I get even more interesting features overall. Why is that a moot point?
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You could have the base class and the subclass both get cool stuff. Why would you want to? It’d just mean the different subclasses are more similar.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You haven’t answered my question. Why should I care if the base class is bland? I’m never going to play the base class without the subclass and, when taken together, there’s plenty of flavor.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
You posted in the forums which suggests that you want a dialogue. So, why do you care that the base class is bland, especially in light of the fact that you are never going to play the base class without a subclass (or, in 2024e, at least not after 3rd level)?
Posting and wanting dialogue doesn't mean I want to convince you to feel the same way as I do about wizards. I just shared my opinion about the class features of wizards and then suddenly people jumped at my throat. I don't care if YOU think the features are interesting or not. I'm not here to indoctrinate anyone. This isn't a discussion about RAW, I just said my opinion. So yes, I'm fine with dialogue, but no, I don't care if you care.
As for your question, I replied it on this same post. Just because I'm getting (potentially) interesting features from my subclass doesn't mean I don't want the main features to be interesting too. The more the better.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
The fact that they aren't identical doesn't mean that they aren't equal.
Yes, sorcerers can do Careful Spell with more than evocation spells. Does a sorcerer get ?
Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your damaging cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip's damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast.
Overchannel
Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.
The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity
Does a sorcerer get the ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them? Let me tell you, as a guy who played a spontaneous caster for years, this ability is huge. I had to spend precious "spells known slots" on spells I'd rarely cast to be able to cast them as rituals. I'd also have to use those same precious "spells known slots" in order to learn spells I'd rarely cast (ie. Dream, Simulacrum, etc.)
Do they get the ability to free spell levels on a short rest?
What are you talking about? Why are we comparing this? You said two features were equal, but they're not, so I pointed it out. Did I say that sorcerers can do EVERYTHING that evoker wizards do? No. So...what's your point? That sorcerers and evocation wizards get different features? Ummm...yes? Let me help you. Sorcerers don't get Portent. Sorcerers don't get Bladesinging. Should we keep going?
It seems like you really love wizards and my comment about their main class features not being interesting somehow upset you, you took it personally, and then you jumped in to defend them. And now you came back (again) to talk about how good the wizard's features are, not how interesting. Is the spellbook good and useful? Very much so. Do I find it interesting? No, not one bit. They're completely different things, I don't know why you keep talking about how good they are.
Do sorcerers get the ability to free spell levels (I guess you mean spell slots) on a short rest? Yes, they do, but they can do it as a Bonus Action. No need for a Short Rest.
Two points
1.) Forget about trying to convince me, just help me understand your position. WHY is it so important to you that the base class have interesting features? You want a dialogue? Help me understand your position.
2.) I never said that any metamagic and wizard subclass feature were the same, did I?
1) Well, D&D is a game, we play games to have fun. I personally have more fun with features that I find interesting and memorable, rather than powerful, useful, good, etc. I like features that let me do things that I couldn't do otherwise. Features that let me do the same but more often usually aren't very appealing to me. Just getting "more" of something isn't really interesting to me. Getting more rituals isn't interesting because they were all already available. I just get more spells known, but those are the same spells. I'm not saying wizards aren't fun to play. They are, I've played them more than once. And yes, the subclasses I've played have been a lot of fun too. But just because one aspect of something is interesting, doesn't mean that the other aspect shouldn't. Wizards feel very vanilla to me. And I don't see the problem with wanting other aspects to be fun. Imagine if there was only one race, and that were human. Not even the 2024 human / variant human. The one that got +1 in all ability scores. People would probably feel like that's a bit too bland. Would you then say "Well, yeah, but nobody plays just a human without classes, backgrounds, etc. Those will make the character interesting and fun, so it doesn't matter if the race is bland." No, we want fun races too. I want everything to be interesting, why wouldn't I? I want interesting races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, etc. And when I see that every other class gets interesting features, I can't help but feel like WotC could have done more with the wizard.
2) That was for the other person, sorry. I reply to one of you, and the other one replies to that reply, so I get mixed up.
You didn’t answer the first question. You said you want a character with cool features. But why can’t all those cool features be in the subclass?
I am not asking you to convince me, but it is factual that the more the cool features are in the subclasses rather than the classes, the more different the subclasses can be. Can you explain why you want the subclasses to be more similar to one another than they currently are?
I did answer the question. If you didn't like the answer that's a different thing.
It's not factual at all. It doesn't even make sense. If right now I added a few cool features to the base wizard class, would the diviner, bladesinger, necromancer, etc. suddenly become more similar to each other? I genuinely don't understand where this is coming from, so I can't answer that. I don't want the subclasses to be more similar to what they are, but giving the main class cool features won't change that.
Unless you mean that there's some kind of "budget" of cool features, and you have to decide how to spread them. So the more you give to the main class, the less you can give to the subclass. Which would be absolutely wrong. You can give both a bunch of cool features. Cool features isn't the same as powerful features. You're not going to make the main class broken or overpowered if you give them fun things.
Would you say that the wizard subclasses are the most different ones from each other from any class in the game?
Talking about a Wizards base class beyond 2nd level as if they don’t have a subclass is moot, because they are going to get a subclass. We are discussing a false vacuum. Honestly if we are talking about just level 2 characters the wizard gets to use its features way more often. At low levels ritual casting from your spellbook is really important and powerful. Once we are 3rd level and above everyone has a subclass. I spoke of what subclasses can do because they exist. Not having to prepare ritual spells is far better than most metamagics because the wizard can have more options of spells. Transmute spell means the sorcerer can have a variety of damage types, but preparing multiple spells of different damage types does the same thing. Also it allows wizards to have spells that target different saves. Empowered spell is nice, but it’s a limited resource. The wizard can detect magic, then identify objects without that taking up two prepared spells as many times as necessary time permitting.
What I realized is that in one of your earlier responses you described what spellbook ritual casting does perfectly. It allows the wizard to cast more varied spells per day than anyone else. If you don’t find that interesting why do you care about the wizard? Just play a Sorcerer who can slightly alter the spells they cast. Play a Bard , Cleric or Druid that gets features that aren’t related to Spellcasting. Wait, you already answered this. You do find the wizard interesting you just want more. The UA modify spell was uninteresting to me because it was just metamagic locked on one spell. I’m all for more interesting things, but what I find interesting isn’t going to be interesting to everyone else. I find spells interesting, and having more of them is interesting to me. Clearly not for you.
Finally I’ll point out another realization. Our entire discussion is moot. Earlier you told me if I wanted to discuss “what makes a class a class” I should open another thread. Well if you want to continue to talk about what you find uninteresting about the wizard base class you should start another thread. We have taken over this thread which was meant to be about Necromancers.
My apologies to the Original poster. I hope my first post about using 2014 Necromancer subclass with the 2024 wizard core class reached you. It is allowed
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me.
Sadly using your own process that point is moot, because no Wizard exist within the mechanics of the game without a subclass at level 3.
I never said wizards don't get subclasses. That doesn't change the fact that I don't find the base class features interesting. I can like the subclass features and not the main class ones. If If I found the main class features interesting too, then I get even more interesting features overall. Why is that a moot point?
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You could have the base class and the subclass both get cool stuff. Why would you want to? It’d just mean the different subclasses are more similar.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
In my opinion, it is better for all the cool stuff to be in the subclass rather than the base class. It provides more room for each subclass to distinguish itself.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
You haven’t answered my question. Why should I care if the base class is bland? I’m never going to play the base class without the subclass and, when taken together, there’s plenty of flavor.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
You posted in the forums which suggests that you want a dialogue. So, why do you care that the base class is bland, especially in light of the fact that you are never going to play the base class without a subclass (or, in 2024e, at least not after 3rd level)?
Posting and wanting dialogue doesn't mean I want to convince you to feel the same way as I do about wizards. I just shared my opinion about the class features of wizards and then suddenly people jumped at my throat. I don't care if YOU think the features are interesting or not. I'm not here to indoctrinate anyone. This isn't a discussion about RAW, I just said my opinion. So yes, I'm fine with dialogue, but no, I don't care if you care.
As for your question, I replied it on this same post. Just because I'm getting (potentially) interesting features from my subclass doesn't mean I don't want the main features to be interesting too. The more the better.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
The fact that they aren't identical doesn't mean that they aren't equal.
Yes, sorcerers can do Careful Spell with more than evocation spells. Does a sorcerer get ?
Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your damaging cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip's damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.
Empowered Evocation
Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1) to one damage roll of any wizard evocation spell that you cast.
Overchannel
Starting at 14th level, you can increase the power of your simpler spells. When you cast a wizard spell of 1st through 5th level that deals damage, you can deal maximum damage with that spell.
The first time you do so, you suffer no adverse effect. If you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you take 2d12 necrotic damage for each level of the spell, immediately after you cast it. Each time you use this feature again before finishing a long rest, the necrotic damage per spell level increases by 1d12. This damage ignores resistance and immunity
Does a sorcerer get the ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them? Let me tell you, as a guy who played a spontaneous caster for years, this ability is huge. I had to spend precious "spells known slots" on spells I'd rarely cast to be able to cast them as rituals. I'd also have to use those same precious "spells known slots" in order to learn spells I'd rarely cast (ie. Dream, Simulacrum, etc.)
Do they get the ability to free spell levels on a short rest?
What are you talking about? Why are we comparing this? You said two features were equal, but they're not, so I pointed it out. Did I say that sorcerers can do EVERYTHING that evoker wizards do? No. So...what's your point? That sorcerers and evocation wizards get different features? Ummm...yes? Let me help you. Sorcerers don't get Portent. Sorcerers don't get Bladesinging. Should we keep going?
It seems like you really love wizards and my comment about their main class features not being interesting somehow upset you, you took it personally, and then you jumped in to defend them. And now you came back (again) to talk about how good the wizard's features are, not how interesting. Is the spellbook good and useful? Very much so. Do I find it interesting? No, not one bit. They're completely different things, I don't know why you keep talking about how good they are.
Do sorcerers get the ability to free spell levels (I guess you mean spell slots) on a short rest? Yes, they do, but they can do it as a Bonus Action. No need for a Short Rest.
Two points
1.) Forget about trying to convince me, just help me understand your position. WHY is it so important to you that the base class have interesting features? You want a dialogue? Help me understand your position.
2.) I never said that any metamagic and wizard subclass feature were the same, did I?
1) Well, D&D is a game, we play games to have fun. I personally have more fun with features that I find interesting and memorable, rather than powerful, useful, good, etc. I like features that let me do things that I couldn't do otherwise. Features that let me do the same but more often usually aren't very appealing to me. Just getting "more" of something isn't really interesting to me. Getting more rituals isn't interesting because they were all already available. I just get more spells known, but those are the same spells. I'm not saying wizards aren't fun to play. They are, I've played them more than once. And yes, the subclasses I've played have been a lot of fun too. But just because one aspect of something is interesting, doesn't mean that the other aspect shouldn't. Wizards feel very vanilla to me. And I don't see the problem with wanting other aspects to be fun. Imagine if there was only one race, and that were human. Not even the 2024 human / variant human. The one that got +1 in all ability scores. People would probably feel like that's a bit too bland. Would you then say "Well, yeah, but nobody plays just a human without classes, backgrounds, etc. Those will make the character interesting and fun, so it doesn't matter if the race is bland." No, we want fun races too. I want everything to be interesting, why wouldn't I? I want interesting races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, etc. And when I see that every other class gets interesting features, I can't help but feel like WotC could have done more with the wizard.
2) That was for the other person, sorry. I reply to one of you, and the other one replies to that reply, so I get mixed up.
You didn’t answer the first question. You said you want a character with cool features. But why can’t all those cool features be in the subclass?
I am not asking you to convince me, but it is factual that the more the cool features are in the subclasses rather than the classes, the more different the subclasses can be. Can you explain why you want the subclasses to be more similar to one another than they currently are?
I did answer the question. If you didn't like the answer that's a different thing.
It's not factual at all. It doesn't even make sense. If right now I added a few cool features to the base wizard class, would the diviner, bladesinger, necromancer, etc. suddenly become more similar to each other? I genuinely don't understand where this is coming from, so I can't answer that. I don't want the subclasses to be more similar to what they are, but giving the main class cool features won't change that.
Unless you mean that there's some kind of "budget" of cool features, and you have to decide how to spread them. So the more you give to the main class, the less you can give to the subclass. Which would be absolutely wrong. You can give both a bunch of cool features. Cool features isn't the same as powerful features. You're not going to make the main class broken or overpowered if you give them fun things.
Would you say that the wizard subclasses are the most different ones from each other from any class in the game?
If you added more abilities to the base class without taking anything from the subclass, then the thing would no longer be balanced with the other class/subclass combinations (such as Moon Druid, Dragon Sorcerer, etc.)
I assumed you wanted to maintain balance across the game. I understand now that that was a bad assumption on my part.
Thank you for clarifying.
"You're not going to make the main class broken or overpowered if you give them fun things."
Give some examples of things you consider fun that aren't going to move the needle one iota as regards how powerful the class is. I'm genuinely curious.
As Ain_Undos mentioned, you should probably create a different thread.
You claim I didn't want to maintain balance, and then immediately after you quote me saying I do. I don't think you're genuinely curious about the examples I could give, so I'm not gonna bother.
You think I should create a different thread? I didn't even start this discussion. I just shared my opinion on the base wizard features, and you both jumped at me. Also, you ask me for examples and then immediately after suggest a different thread? Then be my guest, I'm not gonna do that. I think we should just stop it here. Between Ain_Undos not reading my posts before replying to them, and you lying about wanting to understand my position, wanting examples, etc., this doesn't make sense anymore. Let's all just let it go. Start another thread if you want to talk to other people about this, I'm done here.
Base Wizard gives you best version of ritual casting. Memorize spell which got overnerfed from the UA. Then nothing until end game were it gives you free castings of low level spells. All of these things are pretty good. I feel like most other classes have more memorable base features, but the spellbook is really the all that a dnd wizard needs to be a dnd wizard.
I don't know why you guys keep talking about the wizard's features being good. Nobody argued against that, at all. Both me and The_Traveling_Cleric were talking about features being interesting or boring. Getting spell slots back on a short rest isn't particularly interesting. It's pretty good, nobody argues that, just not very interesting. That's literally all we're saying, nobody talked about them being good.
As for 3rd edition, that was certainly not the big difference between sorcerers and wizards, at all. Wizards got higher spell slots one level earlier, which is huge. They also got a bunch of free metamagic feats, which is also huge. Even in 5e, the spellbook is not that big of a deal. It's nice, but it's not what makes wizards so good. It's their spell list. That's it. Especially the exclusive spells. Unless your Dm is super generous with information about what you're going to deal with during an adventuring day, being able to change your prepared list isn't that good. Memorize Spell is the same issue. If you find a locket, and when you pick it up a banshee comes out and attacks you, you can't just take that Protection from Evil and Good spell and prepare it.
Yes, that's what we were saying. They're more memorable. Nobody said they were more powerful, I genuinely don't know why people keep talking about how good they are.
Probably because memorable is not universal. I think they are memorable as they reinforce they aesthetic of a scholarly spell caster.
You can have cool stuff in both the class and the subclass. You don't need a bland base class in order to have the subclasses distinguish themselves.
Most base classes more memorable features are ones you actively use in combat. Rage, Action Surge, Sneak Attack, and Flury of Blows are good examples. So just being memorable isn’t a fair metric. The question is “What makes a wizard a wizard?” The answer is “casting spells.” So they gave the Wizard the ability to cast more varied spells than anyone else. More spells that anyone in 5e by far, but more equal in 5eR. It’s really up to the player to pick good ritual spells to have in the book and prepare a variety of non rituals. Memorize spell should have been closer to what was in the UA. The problem was the UA version was too good. They should have just limited it to once per short rest.
Well, what makes a sorcerer a sorcerer? Casting spells as well. What makes a druid a druid? Casting spells. Remove spellcasting from any full caster and they just become a completely different class. It's not a wizard exclusive thing.
I'm not saying wizards aren't good, or fun to play, or anything like that. I actually like wizards a lot. But they basically have only one class feature, which is casting spells. The only thing that their class features do is add "more" to their main class feature. More rituals, more slots, more variety. But at the end of the day they're just casting the same spells, the same way as everyone else. When they cast Detect Magic it's the same way as everyone else casts Detect Magic. They just don't need to prepare it. Sure, that's nice and all, but it's still the same. I'm just saying that I wish they got something that wasn't just casting spells, like every other spellcasting class does.
I should have said arcane spells, but still let’s run with it. A sorcerer was an off shoot of the wizard and it had the best casting style in the game in 3e, this was given to everyone in 5e. The Sorcerer became the metamagic guy, but metamagic isn’t as robust as it was in 3e. In 5e the sorcerer is the almost a wizard who didn’t have to learn magic but since he didn’t learn it he had far less options, but could slightly alter its magic in some form. In 5eR it actually has about the same if not more options per day since the subclasses get auto prepared spells, but we aren’t supposed to talk about subclasses, since wizard subclasses make them unique as well. The wizard still has more overall options since any ritual in their book is a spell they could cast each day. The Druid was the original half attack magic half healing magic meant to sit between the cleric and wizard. In 3e that changed into having a decent mix of offense and healing magic, but more importantly being a pet class who could also Wildshape. In 5e Wildshape is major feature and they lost their ability to be the pet class.
Yes if you remove Spellcasting from any class they would be different, but not all fullcasters are defined by just Spellcasting. At one point since they gave everyone the sorcerers casting type they were going to make the sorcerer a half caster to differentiate it from the wizard. Playtesters didn’t like it so they made them the weaker wizard for most of 5e. Now 5eR Sorcerers are on par if not a little better. But my point is you can imagine another way to make a sorcerer. Honestly if I was in charge of design sorcerers wouldn’t cast spells. They would just shape magical energies. So they would have a chart like the one from the 2014 DMG that described how much damage a created spell should do by spell slot. They would just get to pick a few damage types and and expend spellslots to make magic happen. No spell list at all. Just a selection damage type, then pink bolt, blast, burst (size), or line, and spellslot level. This would have made them much different than wizards. Which would have made them simply blasters, and I’m sure many would have hated my idea, but it still matches the lore of a sorcerer. You can also redesign 5e Druid around being a half caster and give Wildshape or animal companions more of a focus. It would still feel like a Druid. If you tried make a wizard a half caster it wouldn’t feel like a wizard. If I tried to push my sorcerer idea as a dnd wizard people wouldn’t just dislike they would call me an stone me because wizards cast spells. You could turn every other fullcasters Spellcasting into a feature that wasn’t casting spells and it would be fine, but if I changed the Wizard so it wasn’t casting spells it wouldn’t work for dnd.
Also they do have something that is different than every other spellcaster. They have a spellbook. They can cast rituals that aren’t prepared. That is their thing. Really Sorcerers are in the same boat. Everything the base Sorcerer gets makes them cast spells.
Now I personally wish Memorize spell wasn’t nerfed into uselessness. It should have functioned like it did in the UA, but only be allowed to be selected once per short or long rest. That would give the Wizard essentially one more prepared spell they could pull out or change in 1 min, once per rest. Modify spell was bad because it was just metamagic, and create spell didn’t let you create a new spell really. If they had more time to playtest they may have come up with something cool an unique, but they were on a time crunch and there were a lot more important things to fix. Even now the Wizard is still good and has its own feel.
The history of each class in 3e or before is completely irrelevant here, so I don't know why that was brought up. We're also not talking about lore or how things have been in the past. The way things are in 5e is that all of those classes are full casters, and all of them learn spells, all at the same level, and with the same amount of spell slots (except for warlocks). All of them are defined by spellcasting. Spellcasting is by far the most important feature of each of those classes. If you remove it, they become a completely different class, period.
It's completely irrelevant to discuss what would happen if you worked at WotC and suggested something and they agreed and then the game was changed like that. We're talking about how the game is. And nobody ever talked about flavor or lore. Wizards have a lot of that, and they're very interesting. But in terms of game mechanics, which is the topic, they only cast spells. Like I said before, their class features let them do "more". Cast normal spells, cast them the normal way, just more often. Have more spells. Have more options. But it's still the same as everyone else. Metamagic is not the same case at all. You modify the spell, so the actual effect is different. You have a cold Fireball, or a Fireball that doesn't affect your allies. You will never see another class do that (talking about base classes, not subclasses or feats). If you see a wizard ritual casting Detect Magic, other classes could say "I can do that too". The fact that they didn't prepare the spell doesn't change the way spell works, or what it does. It's the same spell everyone else casts, with the exact same effect. Not to mention that sorcerers also get Innate Sorcery.
But see, I agree with your last point. I wish they had had more time to come up with something cool and unique. That's exactly what I've been saying. Wizards are good, wizards are fun, they have their own lore that defines them, but in terms of game mechanics, I really wish they had this cool and unique feature that wasn't just casting normal spells. I was really excited to see the stuff they playtested. Yes, some of it was broken, and some of it wasn't really going to work, but the idea was really cool, worked perfectly with the wizard lore, and it would have been really fun to have. That's exactly what I think wizards should have.
I brought up history because history is relevant. The broader question was “what makes a dnd class a dnd class.” The specific is “What makes a Wizard a Wizard.” If I can’t use history then the answer is nothing for all classes.
Also I wouldn’t say all full casters are defined by Spellcasting alone. If we are looking at just 5e to 5eR I prove my point right now. If the in the transition they cut Channel Divinity from Clerics, Wildshape from Druids, Bardic Inspiration from bards or Metamagics from Sorcerer they wouldn’t feel like themselves. Without those features they would be a completely different class also, period. If you removed the wizards spellbook it also would feel completely different period. Like I said you could replace the other classes Spellcasting feature with something else but that would simple complicate the game. You could give Clerics Prayers, Druids Rites, Bards Songs, and Sorcerers Channels. None of those things have to be spells and you would still feel like a dnd version of that class. They used spells because it is simple and clean and takes up less page count. What would you realistically replace a wizards Spellcasting with?
You’re being unfair with your perception of prepared rituals versus spellbook rituals. That is clearly casting in a different way. Just as much as metemagic is casting in a different way. The effect of a spell is damage, a condition, and or teleportation. Metamagic doesn’t modify that.
Why would I want the base class I'm playing to get cool stuff? I think the question answers itself.
I don't think you should care. I don't care if you care. I just said I wanted that from the wizard class. You can want whatever you want from it.
The question was never "what makes a dnd class a dnd class"? If you want to talk about that instead, you're free to open a new thread. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about how interesting the class features of wizards are. That's it. And in my opinion, not interesting at all. You can disagree, and I respect your opinion, but it doesn't go beyond that.
And by the way, I do agree with all the stuff you're saying about replacing class features with other stuff and still feeling like you're fulfilling the fantasy of those classes. That's just a completely different topic.
Spellbook rituals basically only means "You have more spells known". That's it. All rituals do exactly the same. Wizards just don't need to prepare them, which means they can prepare other stuff. But it wouldn't be different as saying "You always have these rituals prepared." It's exactly the same. So it's just "more spells", but the spells are exactly the same. Now, if you think a Cold Fireball that doesn't harm your allies is not a modified version of a regular Fireball because "both deal damage", then I genuinely don't know what to tell you.
You’re right it’s all opinion based. In my first or second post I made the statement all a dnd wizard needs to be a dnd wizard is the ability to cast spells. Also I stated judging features based on how interesting (memorable) they are isn’t fair. It’s far too subjective of a metric. I find the spellbook interesting because it allows me prepare fireball and cone of cold and know if I need detect magic or some other ritual I still have it. As a wizard I don’t need transmute spell to do different damage types, I can use different spells. Changing damage types doesn’t change the effect of the spell in my opinion. Like I said the effect of a spell is usually damage, a condition, and/or teleportation. Metamagics don’t alter that at all. Also if we get into subclasses the Scribes Wizard does that better. Evoker does Sculpt spell which was better than Careful spell until 5eR and now they are equal. Evoker also has Maximize Spell which is the better version of empowered spell.
I find the base wizard interesting as is even though I don’t find their features memorable. I believe there is room for a memorable feature in the base class, but at this point we will have to wait 10 years for that. If anything is getting a hot fix like in TCOE I doubt it will be the Wizard. Oddly it might be Ranger again that needs it.
The whole point of my comment was that the BASE class doesn't feel interesting to me. So this is completely irrelevant. As I said before, if you want to talk about subclasses, we can have a different discussion about it. But that's not what I was talking about, so it really doesn't matter.
But since you mention it, let's do it. Sculpt Spell is equal as Careful Spell, you say. Let's see. Sorcerer casts Hypnotic Pattern, incapacitating a group of enemies while keeping their allies safe. Then looks at the evoker wizard and says "Can you do that?" The wizard says "Of course I can! Not with Hypnotic Pattern, but I can do it with Fireball!" Sorcerer replies "Oh, I can do that with Fireball too." So no, they're not equal, Careful Spell is objectively better, because it can do the same as Sculpt Spell and also more things.
Overchannel is the better version of Empowered Spell? Let's find out. Sorcerer casts Burning Hands and uses Empowered Spell to increase the damage. "Can you do that?" Wizard replies "Well...no...but in only 12 levels I'll be able to do something even better!" Then the DM looks at the wizard player, then at their plans for the campaign, and says "Yeah, about that..."
You're also talking about a much bigger investment. Any sorcerer can get that by simply taking Careful Spell with one of their metamagic options. A wizard needs to commit to an entire subclass instead. You can't really say they're the same.
But something important happened. We're talking about the base class, which is why I'm talking about metamagic. And yet you bring up subclasses. Why? Because the wizard base class just doesn't give you enough in that regard. You look at the wizard base class and don't see anything even remotely similar to metamagic, so you start pulling from the subclasses. That's my whole point. I would like class features that I find interesting (I know it's subjective, but I'm allowed to have an opinion) without having to look at the subclasses. That's all.
Sadly using your own process that point is moot, because no Wizard exist within the mechanics of the game without a subclass at level 3.
I never said wizards don't get subclasses. That doesn't change the fact that I don't find the base class features interesting. I can like the subclass features and not the main class ones. If If I found the main class features interesting too, then I get even more interesting features overall. Why is that a moot point?
Posting and wanting dialogue doesn't mean I want to convince you to feel the same way as I do about wizards. I just shared my opinion about the class features of wizards and then suddenly people jumped at my throat. I don't care if YOU think the features are interesting or not. I'm not here to indoctrinate anyone. This isn't a discussion about RAW, I just said my opinion. So yes, I'm fine with dialogue, but no, I don't care if you care.
As for your question, I replied it on this same post. Just because I'm getting (potentially) interesting features from my subclass doesn't mean I don't want the main features to be interesting too. The more the better.
What are you talking about? Why are we comparing this? You said two features were equal, but they're not, so I pointed it out. Did I say that sorcerers can do EVERYTHING that evoker wizards do? No. So...what's your point? That sorcerers and evocation wizards get different features? Ummm...yes? Let me help you. Sorcerers don't get Portent. Sorcerers don't get Bladesinging. Should we keep going?
It seems like you really love wizards and my comment about their main class features not being interesting somehow upset you, you took it personally, and then you jumped in to defend them. And now you came back (again) to talk about how good the wizard's features are, not how interesting. Is the spellbook good and useful? Very much so. Do I find it interesting? No, not one bit. They're completely different things, I don't know why you keep talking about how good they are.
Do sorcerers get the ability to free spell levels (I guess you mean spell slots) on a short rest? Yes, they do, but they can do it as a Bonus Action. No need for a Short Rest.
1) Well, D&D is a game, we play games to have fun. I personally have more fun with features that I find interesting and memorable, rather than powerful, useful, good, etc. I like features that let me do things that I couldn't do otherwise. Features that let me do the same but more often usually aren't very appealing to me. Just getting "more" of something isn't really interesting to me. Getting more rituals isn't interesting because they were all already available. I just get more spells known, but those are the same spells.
I'm not saying wizards aren't fun to play. They are, I've played them more than once. And yes, the subclasses I've played have been a lot of fun too. But just because one aspect of something is interesting, doesn't mean that the other aspect shouldn't. Wizards feel very vanilla to me. And I don't see the problem with wanting other aspects to be fun. Imagine if there was only one race, and that were human. Not even the 2024 human / variant human. The one that got +1 in all ability scores. People would probably feel like that's a bit too bland. Would you then say "Well, yeah, but nobody plays just a human without classes, backgrounds, etc. Those will make the character interesting and fun, so it doesn't matter if the race is bland." No, we want fun races too. I want everything to be interesting, why wouldn't I? I want interesting races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, etc. And when I see that every other class gets interesting features, I can't help but feel like WotC could have done more with the wizard.
2) That was for the other person, sorry. I reply to one of you, and the other one replies to that reply, so I get mixed up.
I did answer the question. If you didn't like the answer that's a different thing.
It's not factual at all. It doesn't even make sense. If right now I added a few cool features to the base wizard class, would the diviner, bladesinger, necromancer, etc. suddenly become more similar to each other? I genuinely don't understand where this is coming from, so I can't answer that. I don't want the subclasses to be more similar to what they are, but giving the main class cool features won't change that.
Unless you mean that there's some kind of "budget" of cool features, and you have to decide how to spread them. So the more you give to the main class, the less you can give to the subclass. Which would be absolutely wrong. You can give both a bunch of cool features. Cool features isn't the same as powerful features. You're not going to make the main class broken or overpowered if you give them fun things.
Would you say that the wizard subclasses are the most different ones from each other from any class in the game?
Talking about a Wizards base class beyond 2nd level as if they don’t have a subclass is moot, because they are going to get a subclass. We are discussing a false vacuum. Honestly if we are talking about just level 2 characters the wizard gets to use its features way more often. At low levels ritual casting from your spellbook is really important and powerful. Once we are 3rd level and above everyone has a subclass. I spoke of what subclasses can do because they exist. Not having to prepare ritual spells is far better than most metamagics because the wizard can have more options of spells. Transmute spell means the sorcerer can have a variety of damage types, but preparing multiple spells of different damage types does the same thing. Also it allows wizards to have spells that target different saves. Empowered spell is nice, but it’s a limited resource. The wizard can detect magic, then identify objects without that taking up two prepared spells as many times as necessary time permitting.
What I realized is that in one of your earlier responses you described what spellbook ritual casting does perfectly. It allows the wizard to cast more varied spells per day than anyone else. If you don’t find that interesting why do you care about the wizard? Just play a Sorcerer who can slightly alter the spells they cast. Play a Bard , Cleric or Druid that gets features that aren’t related to Spellcasting. Wait, you already answered this. You do find the wizard interesting you just want more. The UA modify spell was uninteresting to me because it was just metamagic locked on one spell. I’m all for more interesting things, but what I find interesting isn’t going to be interesting to everyone else. I find spells interesting, and having more of them is interesting to me. Clearly not for you.
Finally I’ll point out another realization. Our entire discussion is moot. Earlier you told me if I wanted to discuss “what makes a class a class” I should open another thread. Well if you want to continue to talk about what you find uninteresting about the wizard base class you should start another thread. We have taken over this thread which was meant to be about Necromancers.
My apologies to the Original poster. I hope my first post about using 2014 Necromancer subclass with the 2024 wizard core class reached you. It is allowed
You claim I didn't want to maintain balance, and then immediately after you quote me saying I do. I don't think you're genuinely curious about the examples I could give, so I'm not gonna bother.
You think I should create a different thread? I didn't even start this discussion. I just shared my opinion on the base wizard features, and you both jumped at me. Also, you ask me for examples and then immediately after suggest a different thread? Then be my guest, I'm not gonna do that. I think we should just stop it here. Between Ain_Undos not reading my posts before replying to them, and you lying about wanting to understand my position, wanting examples, etc., this doesn't make sense anymore. Let's all just let it go. Start another thread if you want to talk to other people about this, I'm done here.
seems to me they want another $29.99 per extra subclass
Nah, they just decided every class should get 4 options and Wizard and Cleric shouldn’t be favored in the subclass department.