Since most campaigns don't go past level 10 I just don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about spell versatility. And when you consider the main tropes that writers lean on to make adventure modules interesting. Namely limited resources and quest urgency; spell versatility really disappears from the equation. And don't get me wrong; it IS powerful in the right setting. But how often is a campaign set within a major city, with high gold rewards, and carefully paced plot points to allow for downtime to scribe spells? Basically......... How many people have Matthew Mercer as a DM?
I think more design weight was placed on spell versatility than was realistically warranted and there is a little more room for improvements at low levels than people realize.
I agree with you that it's a limitation of the class that a lot of people don't always consider properly.
But at the same time there are different styles of campaign, and DMs can (and should) always adjust to accommodate player character choices, or players can adjust to accommodate the intended campaign (if the DM tells you they're running a combat heavy campaign, then it's probably not the right time to pull out a pacifist garden druid who never wildshapes for ideological reasons and only knows plant growing spells). Campaigns should never be one thing or another, the key to D&D is that it's collaborative, so even if the DM picks the overall story they want to tell, you tailor the specifics together.
Not sure what point I'm trying to make, except that I think trying to argue a class or sub-class is weak or weaker goes down a hole to nowhere; the worst class/sub-class in D&D is the one that no-one wants to be, and to my knowledge there aren't any – there are some classes that people generally wish would be better (e.g- Beastmaster). But then the first priority of a good DM should be to make sure everyone has fun, and they've all the tools they need to do that.
If you're going to have a campaign in an isolated region where Wizard training doesn't make sense, a DM could for example allow the Wizard to retcon so many spells per level as already being in their Spellbook, but they simply haven't mastered them yet, so they can always have a core of spells about where they should be in a Waterdeep or other city-based campaign.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree with you that it's a limitation of the class that a lot of people don't always consider properly.
But at the same time there are different styles of campaign, and DMs can (and should) always adjust to accommodate player character choices, or players can adjust to accommodate the intended campaign (if the DM tells you they're running a combat heavy campaign, then it's probably not the right time to pull out a pacifist garden druid who never wildshapes for ideological reasons and only knows plant growing spells). Campaigns should never be one thing or another, the key to D&D is that it's collaborative, so even if the DM picks the overall story they want to tell, you tailor the specifics together.
Not sure what point I'm trying to make, except that I think trying to argue a class or sub-class is weak or weaker goes down a hole to nowhere; the worst class/sub-class in D&D is the one that no-one wants to be, and to my knowledge there aren't any – there are some classes that people generally wish would be better (e.g- Beastmaster). But then the first priority of a good DM should be to make sure everyone has fun, and they've all the tools they need to do that.
If you're going to have a campaign in an isolated region where Wizard training doesn't make sense, a DM could for example allow the Wizard to retcon so many spells per level as already being in their Spellbook, but they simply haven't mastered them yet, so they can always have a core of spells about where they should be in a Waterdeep or other city-based campaign.
I see this sort of argument come up a lot too. I get and completely understand the point, but I also think that it leans to much on the DM. I'm never really a fan of the "Just have the customers fix it" mindset. I'm not calling wizards weak by any stretch of the imagination, I play a lot of wizards and love the style and flavor of the class overall. I'm just saying moving the specialization to level 1, allowing an extra cantrip from that school, and adding a minor benifit at level 2 wouldn't radically overpower the class.
And as for players tailoring characters to the campaign. I agree completely that characters should consider the setting and make appropriate characters. But going off the example you used; even if that particular druid isn't a good fit. A different druid would be. In almost every case a player can change around subclass/backstory choices and still make a setting appropriate character of that class. Wizards are a bit of the odd man out in this regard. No matter which subclass I choose for the wizard, the spell versatility problem is still going to come up.
I see this sort of argument come up a lot too. I get and completely understand the point, but I also think that it leans to much on the DM. I'm never really a fan of the "Just have the customers fix it" mindset. I'm not calling wizards weak by any stretch of the imagination, I play a lot of wizards and love the style and flavor of the class overall. I'm just saying moving the specialization to level 1, allowing an extra cantrip from that school, and adding a minor benifit at level 2 wouldn't radically overpower the class.
And as for players tailoring characters to the campaign. I agree completely that characters should consider the setting and make appropriate characters. But going off the example you used; even if that particular druid isn't a good fit. A different druid would be. In almost every case a player can change around subclass/backstory choices and still make a setting appropriate character of that class. Wizards are a bit of the odd man out in this regard. No matter which subclass I choose for the wizard, the spell versatility problem is still going to come up.
Sure. To try and clarify though, my point is more that this versatility problem is also a feature; it's thematic and informed by what the class is supposed to represent. At low levels a Wizard is a student of magic, still learning and expanding their knowledge, so to advance properly you need to be able to do that.
So if you know that a campaign is going to be set somewhere that it will be hard to do that, then you either go a Wizard knowing it will present a challenge, or you need to work with your DM to establish why it makes sense for the Wizard to be there (why would a student Wizard wander somewhere remote with no school of magic to learn from?). Much like you'd need to establish why a Barbarian would be in a campaign based around political intrigue and fancy parties.
This is a bit off-topic anyway, as I think it's safe to conclude that all spellcasting classes are good; Wizards can be very versatile, but the way they achieve it can also be a potential drawback. But the real question is, would an extra cantrip unbalance the Wizard?
I think probably not, as ultimately you're still limited in how many cantrips you can actually use per turn, so it comes down to versatility, which is generally what Wizards are all about, so a small amount more probably doesn't make a huge difference. On the other hand, you could probably argue that most other spellcasting sub-classes could get a free cantrip too without really breaking game balance either.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My personal opinion is that wizards are already extremely strong and /any/ kind of boost should be very careful to not be too much.
What's so strong about wizards? they are one of the weakest full spellcaster class after sorcerers
In what way do you see wizards as weak? They have the highest level of versatility and utility of all the spell casters.
I find them to be one of the worst full casters in actual play. Its utility is nice but any full caster can provide that. Any role the wizards can fill another class can do far better.
As for out of combat again they fall behind. A bard has expertise, druid has wildshape, and even the sorcerer can use subtle spell to actually use spells in social situations.
Anything role a wizard can do, another class can to better. Because 5e is a team based game it rewards specialization, and classes that can do a lot of things mediocre fall behind (especially in larger parties).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with you that it's a limitation of the class that a lot of people don't always consider properly.
But at the same time there are different styles of campaign, and DMs can (and should) always adjust to accommodate player character choices, or players can adjust to accommodate the intended campaign (if the DM tells you they're running a combat heavy campaign, then it's probably not the right time to pull out a pacifist garden druid who never wildshapes for ideological reasons and only knows plant growing spells). Campaigns should never be one thing or another, the key to D&D is that it's collaborative, so even if the DM picks the overall story they want to tell, you tailor the specifics together.
Not sure what point I'm trying to make, except that I think trying to argue a class or sub-class is weak or weaker goes down a hole to nowhere; the worst class/sub-class in D&D is the one that no-one wants to be, and to my knowledge there aren't any – there are some classes that people generally wish would be better (e.g- Beastmaster). But then the first priority of a good DM should be to make sure everyone has fun, and they've all the tools they need to do that.
If you're going to have a campaign in an isolated region where Wizard training doesn't make sense, a DM could for example allow the Wizard to retcon so many spells per level as already being in their Spellbook, but they simply haven't mastered them yet, so they can always have a core of spells about where they should be in a Waterdeep or other city-based campaign.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I see this sort of argument come up a lot too. I get and completely understand the point, but I also think that it leans to much on the DM. I'm never really a fan of the "Just have the customers fix it" mindset. I'm not calling wizards weak by any stretch of the imagination, I play a lot of wizards and love the style and flavor of the class overall. I'm just saying moving the specialization to level 1, allowing an extra cantrip from that school, and adding a minor benifit at level 2 wouldn't radically overpower the class.
And as for players tailoring characters to the campaign. I agree completely that characters should consider the setting and make appropriate characters. But going off the example you used; even if that particular druid isn't a good fit. A different druid would be. In almost every case a player can change around subclass/backstory choices and still make a setting appropriate character of that class. Wizards are a bit of the odd man out in this regard. No matter which subclass I choose for the wizard, the spell versatility problem is still going to come up.
Sure. To try and clarify though, my point is more that this versatility problem is also a feature; it's thematic and informed by what the class is supposed to represent. At low levels a Wizard is a student of magic, still learning and expanding their knowledge, so to advance properly you need to be able to do that.
So if you know that a campaign is going to be set somewhere that it will be hard to do that, then you either go a Wizard knowing it will present a challenge, or you need to work with your DM to establish why it makes sense for the Wizard to be there (why would a student Wizard wander somewhere remote with no school of magic to learn from?). Much like you'd need to establish why a Barbarian would be in a campaign based around political intrigue and fancy parties.
This is a bit off-topic anyway, as I think it's safe to conclude that all spellcasting classes are good; Wizards can be very versatile, but the way they achieve it can also be a potential drawback. But the real question is, would an extra cantrip unbalance the Wizard?
I think probably not, as ultimately you're still limited in how many cantrips you can actually use per turn, so it comes down to versatility, which is generally what Wizards are all about, so a small amount more probably doesn't make a huge difference. On the other hand, you could probably argue that most other spellcasting sub-classes could get a free cantrip too without really breaking game balance either.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I find them to be one of the worst full casters in actual play. Its utility is nice but any full caster can provide that. Any role the wizards can fill another class can do far better.
As for out of combat again they fall behind. A bard has expertise, druid has wildshape, and even the sorcerer can use subtle spell to actually use spells in social situations.
Anything role a wizard can do, another class can to better. Because 5e is a team based game it rewards specialization, and classes that can do a lot of things mediocre fall behind (especially in larger parties).