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?
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?
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.
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.
Why wouldn’t they be? It just allows spells to be divided into categories. Cleric and Druid spells that Wizards don’t have access to are also divided into schools. The fact that wizard subclasses were just school based was kind of lame because not all schools were created equally. On topic of this thread the Necromancy was one of the worst designed schools in 2014, but is popular in fiction, so some people would try to make it work anyway.
As a DM, this is disturbing. I don't want to create a villain from the old books with my players playing with the new abilities. I want to build the villain with the new abilities as well. It feels like they are stretching it out to sale more books instead of giving it to the players up front. It feels like they don't trust their future content so they are making it where people have to buy new books to gain what was readily available in the 2014 PHB.
yeap, will be required to purchase another BOOK and pay for online Beyond that they own for a fake digital copy in order to access the missing school subclasses. sad.
yeap, will be required to purchase another BOOK and pay for online Beyond that they own for a fake digital copy in order to access the missing school subclasses. sad.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from using the old subclasses.
I'm using the old subclass with some flavoring from the new subclasses and making my own. It will all work out in the end, it is just annoying to have to put the extra work in, because they didn't want to include it in the new PHB
the missing 4 schools are 2014 rules. so if u buy player handbook 2024 you would have to buy player handbook 2014. 2024 player handbook should had all 8 or more schools. they half azz the classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
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.
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.
but the school listings are STILL on the spells
And are pretty vestigial. Did anyone ever play transmuters in 5e?
Caleb Widowgast was a transmuter, no?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why wouldn’t they be? It just allows spells to be divided into categories. Cleric and Druid spells that Wizards don’t have access to are also divided into schools. The fact that wizard subclasses were just school based was kind of lame because not all schools were created equally. On topic of this thread the Necromancy was one of the worst designed schools in 2014, but is popular in fiction, so some people would try to make it work anyway.
As a DM, this is disturbing. I don't want to create a villain from the old books with my players playing with the new abilities. I want to build the villain with the new abilities as well. It feels like they are stretching it out to sale more books instead of giving it to the players up front. It feels like they don't trust their future content so they are making it where people have to buy new books to gain what was readily available in the 2014 PHB.
yeap, will be required to purchase another BOOK and pay for online Beyond that they own for a fake digital copy in order to access the missing school subclasses. sad.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from using the old subclasses.
I'm using the old subclass with some flavoring from the new subclasses and making my own. It will all work out in the end, it is just annoying to have to put the extra work in, because they didn't want to include it in the new PHB
at the moment if you play 2024 you CAN'T. the idea that we have to WAIT for additional books to allow it is BS.
You absolutely can. It's stated quite clearly in the 2024 rules that you can use the old subclasses that haven't been updated.
the missing 4 schools are 2014 rules. so if u buy player handbook 2024 you would have to buy player handbook 2014. 2024 player handbook should had all 8 or more schools. they half azz the classes.