Levi, if before the UA Wizards were at a 10, and the others were at a 6, if this UA brings tose other classes up to a 10, that in no way means that Wizards automatically got worse.
Saying that Wizards are automatically worse because the other classes suddenly got better is as ridiculous as saying that a beautiful woman suddenly gets ugly if all the other women magically became more attractive. No dude, it doesn’t work that way.
Wizards were never a 10. At best an 8, especially compared to Druids and Clerics, who are 10's. On this scale, Sorcerers are a 6 or 7, and this new ability would bring them up to a 9, leaving the Wizards slightly behind, limited by their poorly designed spellbook mechanics.
I would say that bards are also 10, they have an even better spell list than the wizard (fearie fire, command, heat metal, bane and various types of healing) and magical secrets, which I think should have been a wizard feature.
Naw, magical secrets is a jack-of-all-trades style ability to pick things up from other classes. Bards aren't exactly hurting as a class either but secrets gets over-rated.
Wizards just aren't an 11 on a scale from 1 to 10 like they were in the past. They also get over-rated at times and also aren't hurting as a class.
5e -- where every major spell caster is both over-powered and under-powered at the same time depending on who is complaining. ;-)
non spellcasters a lot rests on whether feats are in the game. They have to build for it, but great weapon mastery, the ranged version just makes the damage output of fighter types obscene in comparison. The barbarian was hitting for 40 points of damage almost every round at level 5. Hand crossbow fighter was similarly obscene though the range was bigger as they missed more.
It seems a bit of a tangent given the main topic, but interesting enough to discuss. There are few feats that spell casters also like to take.
That depends on how much a person values the damage or allows for resting. No feats is pretty minor for a monk or rogue while bards, clerics, druids, warlocks, and wizards lose their typical method of maintaining concentration. I'll play my DC 15 caltrops on a rogue and cunning action vs a wizard who can use a DC 15 status effect OR mobility effect instead of both because of concentration AND a more limited resource. ;-)
The single target damage ability to shine is still there even if it's gone down, but it's the ability to take damage I value more in fighters and barbarians, however.
For example, a fighter who uses an action surge with a long sword and dueling fighting style doesn't struggle with surge damage on single target (subclasses add more damage but not going into that at this point). It's still more than scorching ray or the individual damage from a fireball. 20 AC all the time vs 15 AC all the time and the option to eat through spell slots to catch up that's a bit more relevant regardless of subclass. There's no comparison for cantrips outside of the warlock when compared to the sustained weapon damage even without feats.
Where those non-spellcasting classes struggle is with crowds. The strong combat damage feats have little impact on that.
I don't get the point of such comparrisons. The Fighter deals more single target damage and can take more hits, than a wizards. Yeah, cool i guess. But that's not the point of the game at all .
It's a cooperative game, where different classes take different roles in combat, social encounters, traveling, investigating etc.
Way more important for me are the synergies between classes. A Wizard casting haste on a fighter is way more efficient than each of this classes on their own. If a third caster casts Hold Person on tha main boss, a Fighter may take down the boss in a single Turn and transform a challenging battle into a piece of cake. And that's because the group played well as a team together and not of single class outshining other classes in damageoutput or battlefield control.
What you want to play in your next campaign for several hundred hours should be important for the class you choose. And that's not all about combatdamage. It's about the class and it's features as a whole. And never underrestimate the Roleplay-aspect even if You're in a group with a lot of battles. Some people don't enjoy a Fighter or Barbarian for several months to play, because they can feel quite narrow if the Character was built only around the combat aspect.
It seems a bit of a tangent given the main topic, but interesting enough to discuss. There are few feats that spell casters also like to take.
That depends on how much a person values the damage or allows for resting. No feats is pretty minor for a monk or rogue while bards, clerics, druids, warlocks, and wizards lose their typical method of maintaining concentration. I'll play my DC 15 caltrops on a rogue and cunning action vs a wizard who can use a DC 15 status effect OR mobility effect instead of both because of concentration AND a more limited resource. ;-)
The single target damage ability to shine is still there even if it's gone down, but it's the ability to take damage I value more in fighters and barbarians, however.
For example, a fighter who uses an action surge with a long sword and dueling fighting style doesn't struggle with surge damage on single target (subclasses add more damage but not going into that at this point). It's still more than scorching ray or the individual damage from a fireball. 20 AC all the time vs 15 AC all the time and the option to eat through spell slots to catch up that's a bit more relevant regardless of subclass. There's no comparison for cantrips outside of the warlock when compared to the sustained weapon damage even without feats.
Where those non-spellcasting classes struggle is with crowds. The strong combat damage feats have little impact on that.
I don't get the point of such comparrisons.
The Fighter deals more single target damage and can take more hits, than a wizards. Yeah, cool i guess. But that's not the point of the game at all .
It's a cooperative game, where different classes take different roles in combat, social encounters, traveling, investigating etc.
Way more important for me are the synergies between classes. A Wizard casting haste on a fighter is way more efficient than each of this classes on their own.
If a third caster casts Hold Person on tha main boss, a Fighter may take down the boss in a single Turn and transform a challenging battle into a piece of cake. And that's because the group played well as a team together and not of single class outshining other classes in damageoutput or battlefield control.
What you want to play in your next campaign for several hundred hours should be important for the class you choose. And that's not all about combatdamage. It's about the class and it's features as a whole. And never underrestimate the Roleplay-aspect even if You're in a group with a lot of battles. Some people don't enjoy a Fighter or Barbarian for several months to play, because they can feel quite narrow if the Character was built only around the combat aspect.
There was already no real mechanical reason to want to play wizards since lore bards are better in every possible way.