I think it would work well with a dedicated stat block with some level-scaled elements, maybe with a few different versions based on the type of the original creature. Like the way the new Beast Master Ranger’s animal buddy works.
they didnt cut anything, all previous subclasses that have not been rewritten are still viable. that's what backwards compatible means, subclasses like Necromancy for wizards ans Swashbuckler for rogue are still 100% fair game, until they are rewritten for 2024
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
For the record, all the online tools can be used with both 2014 and 2024 characters. Nothing is "2024 only". All the old subclasses that haven't been updated are still accessible for use with the 2024 classes.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
only if you buy the older 2014 PHB. which for new people would be another $29 for the digital. there was no reason for this. PHB 2024 could had been prefect, but it drop the ball big time. these forum posting shows that the players wanted all the subclasses in 2024 at the start. i don't want to get off subject but we only have so much money to spend. i believe the lack of subclasses (necromancer) in the 2024 greatly HURT D&D overall and lead to players leaving D&D to play other games. they should just made it a complete separate edition and support both 5 and 6 at the same time. everyone would been happy. long live Necromancers.
I took a shot at updating Necromancer for 2024. I don’t have anyone playing one right now, so none of this is tested nor will it get tested anytime soon.
Necromancy Savant
Choose two Wizard spells from the Necromancy school, each of which must be no higher than level 2, and add them to your spellbook for free.
In addition, whenever you gain access to a new level of spell slots in this class, you can add one Wizard spell from the Necromancy school to your spellbook for free. The chosen spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots
LOVE it
Undead Familiar
You add the Find Familiar Spell to your spellbook if you don’t already have it. If you already have it you add another wizard spell of a level you can cast to your spell book. When you cast the Find Familiar, you choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: Crawling Claw, Skeleton, or Zombie. No matter what form you choose you may choose to make your familiar creature type Undead. Additionally if your familiar is Undead it gains temporary HP equal to your wizard level. lf your Undead Familiar is within 100ft when you cast a Necromancy spell you may choose to have the spell originate from the familiar’s space as if it cast the spell.
Could we get a shadow as an option?
Undead Thralls
At 6th level, you add the summon undead spell to your spellbook if it is not there already. If it is already there you add another wizard spell you can cast. When you cast summon undead you can summon two undead spirits instead of one. You decide if they are the same type or different types found in the undead spirit stat block. Both spirits act right after your turn, and each are summoned with half their maximum hit points.
Additionally whenever you create or summon an undead creature using a necromancy spell, it has additional benefits:
The creature’s hit point maximum is increased by an amount equal to your wizard level.
If the creature is within 100ft of you it can be used as if it were your Undead Familiar for the purpose of seeing and hearing through its senses, and a casting necromancy spell originating from its space.
I do not care for losing the damage buff. I get mass minions is a combat drag but you are really nerfing damage output.
Inured to Undeath
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can’t be reduced. When you prepare an evocation spell or illusion spell you can decide to alter it to instead prepare a school of necromancy version of that spell. Any damage becomes necrotic for the spell, and all other effects of the spell are unchanged. You may choose to prepare both the normal version of the spell and the necromancy version, each would count against the number of spells you can prepare. You can not copy the altered necromancy version of a spell onto a scroll or into a spellbook.
I see the idea, would you be willing to go the step further make immunity treated as resistance as well?
Undead Mastery
Starting at 14th level, Necromancy spells you cast ignore resistance to necrotic damage. You also gain the ability to temporarily turn any corpse into an undead creature under your control. As a magic action you touch the remains of a creature that was not a construct and expend a spell slot. The creature rises as an undead version with 4 times the level of spell slot expended hit points. It uses its normal stat block, but it can't speak, use any spells, legendary actions, or legendary resistances and its hit point maximum is equal to 4 times the spell level used to animate it. If the creature is reduced to 0 hit points, one hour passes, or you use this ability again the magic wears off and this ability can’t be used on the same remains for 24 hours.
You wish to steal our awesome capstone? This is terrible compared to a chance of straight up stealing a powerful undead for an hour.
Other thoughts.
Time, life essense and disease should be a resource necromancer can use
Example something like reskined bag of beans that could give the necromancer a shot at permanent stat buffs. If I am not allowed a hoard why not allow augmentation of myself with dead monster parts.
I was thinking why the Necromancer hasn’t popped up in any UAs yet and I have a theory. What if WotC is planning a book for running “evil” campaigns and they’re waiting for that reintroduce not only Necro, but the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker. Pipe dream, maybe, but still fun to think about
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Professional TTRPG Game Master. Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
Well in a way a wizard should have unlimited number of spells to pick from as that is the whole fantasy behind wizard the researcher, the scientist, the one that "creates" spells. Druids, clerics and other divine casters take their spells from their deity without any effort other than devotion and prayer. Wizards "work" for theirs which makes it more interesting.
As for the miltiplicative power of wizarsds, they are supposed to be the most powerful of the caster classes. In truth the Cleric always was better in most editions because the clerics always had armor and healing. But the wizard's fantasy is about being a fragile researcher and scholar who carries a punch. Druids (that I personally love as a class) have been mangled in this edition compared to either 3rd or 2nd editions, it is true they have lost so much, from decent animal companions to wild shapes and from interesting spells that were exclusive to them to druidic circles that matter. I agree on that but the whole threads discussion is about the wizard. The problem I see and have mentioned it many many times is that you have in your archives as a company more than 5000 spells and you opt to use less than 500 of them it is plain idiocy. The attempt to keep them all in one line and "fair" is what mangles the possibilies of the game. It is no wonder people frequently choose to play older versions.
As for the newer players that do not know the lore comment.
a) the lore is there, we have internets now.
b) The schools of magic are on every single spell of the game so even if one doesn't know the lore, one can easily find out that there are 8 of them, and it is plain as a day that wizards draw from there to specialize.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Professional TTRPG Game Master. Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
A first time player could well get overwhelmed by the sheer number of options a class might have. While Wizards pretty much require a knowledge of the rules, offering some caster classes with few subclasses is more beginner-friendly.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
My point is that wizards are just a harder class for players and not really made for beginners. I'm not trying to judge or criticize that fact, only recognize and acknowledge it. That's why the wizard class has nine subclasses. It really isn't trying to be beginner friendly.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
9 subclasses - that's an overcount on my part based on playing with 9 schools of magic and each having its own subclasses, an error.
I think the game should have options for advanced players, not just for beginners. Some players enjoy the mental flex of playing more complex classes. I think that's totally fine. In fact, I think it is good game design.
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
Providing more options makes a class more complex.
It's only a one time choice, however.
It is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
A far bigger choice than sub class as well.
edit to add, that being said i would not have a issue if 6e for example went down to like 3 classes, rogue, fighter, mage, in the case of mage a level 1 mage would have basic generic casting abilities, cantrips basically. And as you level you make choices that shape you to be more a divine, nature, or arcane caster, more warlock like, more wizard like etc. And the same for fighter and rogue.
I think it would work well with a dedicated stat block with some level-scaled elements, maybe with a few different versions based on the type of the original creature. Like the way the new Beast Master Ranger’s animal buddy works.
pronouns: he/she/they
they didnt cut anything, all previous subclasses that have not been rewritten are still viable. that's what backwards compatible means, subclasses like Necromancy for wizards ans Swashbuckler for rogue are still 100% fair game, until they are rewritten for 2024
wizard "Features" for 2014 vs 2024 do not line up. Feats are different too. my understanding the online play and maps are 2024 only. the whole point is there was NO REASON to not have all 8 wizard subclasses in 2024 to begin with. all the School Spells are there.
the PHB for 2024 is written very nicely. it flows smoothly in the making of a character. but then the Subclasses issue.
For the record, all the online tools can be used with both 2014 and 2024 characters. Nothing is "2024 only". All the old subclasses that haven't been updated are still accessible for use with the 2024 classes.
pronouns: he/she/they
It felt pretty annoying to me that the wizard got to essentially choose between 8 different playstyles, while I, as a druid, was limited to frontline, or really bad spellcasting.
only if you buy the older 2014 PHB. which for new people would be another $29 for the digital. there was no reason for this. PHB 2024 could had been prefect, but it drop the ball big time. these forum posting shows that the players wanted all the subclasses in 2024 at the start. i don't want to get off subject but we only have so much money to spend. i believe the lack of subclasses (necromancer) in the 2024 greatly HURT D&D overall and lead to players leaving D&D to play other games. they should just made it a complete separate edition and support both 5 and 6 at the same time. everyone would been happy. long live Necromancers.
druids i believe was originally a subclass off of a cleric. but yeah, there should been some subclasses of schools for the various classes.
Other thoughts.
Time, life essense and disease should be a resource necromancer can use
Example something like reskined bag of beans that could give the necromancer a shot at permanent stat buffs. If I am not allowed a hoard why not allow augmentation of myself with dead monster parts.
I was thinking why the Necromancer hasn’t popped up in any UAs yet and I have a theory. What if WotC is planning a book for running “evil” campaigns and they’re waiting for that reintroduce not only Necro, but the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker. Pipe dream, maybe, but still fun to think about
Sorry to say and without any intention of sounding insulting. This kind of thinking is what leads hasbro into making this kind of decisions. You forget the fantasy behind it, the lore. Wizards had 8 schools in d&d that was how it was always the case, also I find it annoying the lack of Generalist wizard as an option, because why not, it is part of the lore. Druids on the other hand were always way way cooler than wizards in so many ways. Subclasses are just sauce for them. Always speaking on the lore and concept behind the class. Mechanics aside. The problem with 5e is exactly that, looking at everything like it is a video game, while we are talking about TTRPGs...
Professional TTRPG Game Master.
Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
That in no way disproves my point. A first time player will have no knowledge of previous editions or so called "lore" about druids and wizards. Also, I kind of feel like you have it backwards. Druid circles were a big choice, given that it was a binary one, whereas wizards just got relatively minor buffs related to the school they chose. Additionally, while we may share the opinion that druids are cooler than wizards, many don't, and IIRC druids have been the least popular class in the core rules. Finally, I fail to see how wanting more options for character building is based on a video game mindset, especially because I haven't played very many rpgs.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
Well in a way a wizard should have unlimited number of spells to pick from as that is the whole fantasy behind wizard the researcher, the scientist, the one that "creates" spells. Druids, clerics and other divine casters take their spells from their deity without any effort other than devotion and prayer. Wizards "work" for theirs which makes it more interesting.
As for the miltiplicative power of wizarsds, they are supposed to be the most powerful of the caster classes. In truth the Cleric always was better in most editions because the clerics always had armor and healing. But the wizard's fantasy is about being a fragile researcher and scholar who carries a punch. Druids (that I personally love as a class) have been mangled in this edition compared to either 3rd or 2nd editions, it is true they have lost so much, from decent animal companions to wild shapes and from interesting spells that were exclusive to them to druidic circles that matter. I agree on that but the whole threads discussion is about the wizard. The problem I see and have mentioned it many many times is that you have in your archives as a company more than 5000 spells and you opt to use less than 500 of them it is plain idiocy. The attempt to keep them all in one line and "fair" is what mangles the possibilies of the game. It is no wonder people frequently choose to play older versions.
As for the newer players that do not know the lore comment.
a) the lore is there, we have internets now.
b) The schools of magic are on every single spell of the game so even if one doesn't know the lore, one can easily find out that there are 8 of them, and it is plain as a day that wizards draw from there to specialize.
Professional TTRPG Game Master.
Forged in '79. Rolling the bones since 1992!
but, they were all in the book. available to play.
If only they thought of that and, I don't know, decreased the amount of subclasses wizards had.
Also, where do you get 9 subclasses from???
Let's just use the core rules for reference, as new players are unlikely to use other rules. I don't really want to count all of the spells, so I copy and pasted the spell list into a google doc and checked the word count. I got 3532 for druid, and 4622 for wizard. That's an increase of less than 33%.
Why can't druids be in melee? They will likely have an AC only one less than a cleric.
How does buffing existing spells offer more options?
(wrote this post a few days ago but forgot to post it, lol)
Adding more subclasses doesn't go a long way to making a class more complex. It just adds more options.
It's only a one time choice, however.
You know what else "is a one time choice which deeply affects the playstyle tactically for the rest of the character's levels"? Class. I don't hear anybody complaining that dnd is to complicated because you need to choose a class when you make your character.
A far bigger choice than sub class as well.
edit to add, that being said i would not have a issue if 6e for example went down to like 3 classes, rogue, fighter, mage, in the case of mage a level 1 mage would have basic generic casting abilities, cantrips basically. And as you level you make choices that shape you to be more a divine, nature, or arcane caster, more warlock like, more wizard like etc. And the same for fighter and rogue.