Actual bloody subclasses instead of the anemic and unimpactful garbage the class is currently stuck with?
You just listed three of my four favorite wizard subclasses. So as long as Diviner, or something similar to it stays as well, then I'm fine with that change:) But what would not having schools of magic as subclasses do to help wizard be a cooler class? I honestly liked having so many subclasses to pick from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
One thing mentioned was experts take features from other types. Bardic inspiration is like a channel divinity, rangers get fighting styles, rogues get specialized abilities(stretch for comparison but maybe)
I can see bards with magic secrets stealing things, but paladins (priest) also get Fighting Styles and two thirds of warriors don't, so I'm not really seeing a feature taken from other types in Ranger or Rogue... I can kinda see how the psi knife rogue archetype steals a bit of warriorness, since that touches on being similar to the psi knight and monk ki usage...
So, I really do not understand why some people are panicking about the Artificer not being included,
I think its more that people are upset the Artificer is unlikely to be in 1D&D PHB, as its not a core class. Its hard not to feel disappointed that your favorite class is not good enough to be "core." Especially with the popularity rise of alchemists and adventurer-blacksmith types in modern fantasy.
Its also annoying to have to wait a year or three for your favorite class to come out. That's not a short amount of time.
Also, I do not think that every class will be limited to being in one single category of Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior.
Maybe not, but Fighters/Monks/Barbarians have things in common the Paladin does not - Paladin combat prowress is derived primarily from their spells and spell slots, they're healers, they have Channel Divinity - traits that clerics and druids share. Warriors rely on things like ki pools, rage pools, superiority dice pools, psi points, etc.
From a thematic standpoint, it makes sense for paladins to be considered a tanky warrior class. But mechanically, they have so little in common with them, and feat groups will want to interact with things based on said mechanics first and foremost. And, no, Fighting Style does not count. There's one warrior, one expert and one priest with it, so you can't say Fighting Styles are a Warrior thing. I know its counter intuitive based on names, but mechanically it seems to hold up.
And the magic item thing really feels like it enforces one-per-class division rather than multiple - there would be no need to have multiple roles on the magic item if every class that wanted to use it was already a Warrior.
I maintain that the Alchemist Artificer does not really adequately represent the Alchemist archetype from a fantasy point of view, since alchemy (both in works of fiction and even in real-world occultism) is far more than just brewing potions and making salves. It has this whole other spiritual angle to it that the Alchemist Artificer simply lacks. The Transmutation Wizard was an attempt at capturing that, but they didn't really put as much thought into its features as they should have, so it also kinda fell flat for me. But I hope one gets my point.
Fair. Though i disagree that modern fantasy alchemists must have internal alchemy - I look at alchemists in video games or fantasy stories like The Wandering Inn, and there's more of a mad scientist vibe than spiritual refining.
I personally want to see the alchemist and blacksmth archetypes folded into Rogue (similar / upgrades to poison rules) and Fighter (Rune Knight is a good start, but only a start), respectively. But most people I know are more interested in the artificer class than anything. So... YMMV
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
Different groups do not need "unifying traits". Experts just-so-happen to line up under Expertise since 5e is actually f@#$ing terrible at representing "really good at something", so Expertise is the ONLY way they ever do that. The other groupings are thematic, with classes that fulfill similar class fantasies or thematic needs grouped together. The Unifying Trait for 'Warriors' is that their primary job is Melee Bonk and give primacy to physical combat. The Unifying Trait for mages is magecraft, i.e. centering on the use of spells and giving primacy to magic. 'Priests', which seriously need a new group name, are unified by their connection to a force beyond themselves that empowers them.
I have always felt like subclasses for the eight school of magic, while not a worthless idea, were all pretty underwhelming and could be combined into a single wizard subclass like a "scholar of magic" or something like that.
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
I think people are getting too stuck up on this stuff, first off, I don't think each group is just getting 1 thing, I suspect it'll be a couple of features over the levels and I don't think they necessarily have to be already existing features either.
Fighting style I think is actually unlikely to be the Warrior feature, for a simple reason, fighting styles in 5E went to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and I don't think they are going to pull fighting styles away from Paladin or Ranger (tho we should get confirmation on Ranger shortly). I think what we will see is something to improve Warrior endurance in some way and some additional form of nova damage, but will have to see.
Channel Divinity could work for Priests, Clerics channeling the power of their deity, paladins channeling the power of their oath and druids channeling the power of nature. So I won't dismiss that one.
Favorite school of magic doesn't seem likely to me, schools of magic was always a wizard thing, sorcerers are natural/innate casters and warlocks get their power and knowledge from their patron in one method or another. What I think might be more likely is metamagic, it'd require a significant redesign for sorcerer but metamagic could be applicable to all three, however my guess is that we will see something new there instead of a fundamental sorcerer re-working.
EDIT: BIIIIIG UPDATE! Looks like new playtest is here!
Cawford has already said anyone can cast a spell as a ritual, so long as the spell has the ritual tag.
You just listed three of my four favorite wizard subclasses. So as long as Diviner, or something similar to it stays as well, then I'm fine with that change:) But what would not having schools of magic as subclasses do to help wizard be a cooler class? I honestly liked having so many subclasses to pick from.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I can see bards with magic secrets stealing things, but paladins (priest) also get Fighting Styles and two thirds of warriors don't, so I'm not really seeing a feature taken from other types in Ranger or Rogue... I can kinda see how the psi knife rogue archetype steals a bit of warriorness, since that touches on being similar to the psi knight and monk ki usage...
I think its more that people are upset the Artificer is unlikely to be in 1D&D PHB, as its not a core class. Its hard not to feel disappointed that your favorite class is not good enough to be "core." Especially with the popularity rise of alchemists and adventurer-blacksmith types in modern fantasy.
Its also annoying to have to wait a year or three for your favorite class to come out. That's not a short amount of time.
I maintain that the Alchemist Artificer does not really adequately represent the Alchemist archetype from a fantasy point of view, since alchemy (both in works of fiction and even in real-world occultism) is far more than just brewing potions and making salves. It has this whole other spiritual angle to it that the Alchemist Artificer simply lacks. The Transmutation Wizard was an attempt at capturing that, but they didn't really put as much thought into its features as they should have, so it also kinda fell flat for me. But I hope one gets my point.
Fair. Though i disagree that modern fantasy alchemists must have internal alchemy - I look at alchemists in video games or fantasy stories like The Wandering Inn, and there's more of a mad scientist vibe than spiritual refining.
I personally want to see the alchemist and blacksmth archetypes folded into Rogue (similar / upgrades to poison rules) and Fighter (Rune Knight is a good start, but only a start), respectively. But most people I know are more interested in the artificer class than anything. So... YMMV
The simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
Y'all are overthinking this.
Different groups do not need "unifying traits". Experts just-so-happen to line up under Expertise since 5e is actually f@#$ing terrible at representing "really good at something", so Expertise is the ONLY way they ever do that. The other groupings are thematic, with classes that fulfill similar class fantasies or thematic needs grouped together. The Unifying Trait for 'Warriors' is that their primary job is Melee Bonk and give primacy to physical combat. The Unifying Trait for mages is magecraft, i.e. centering on the use of spells and giving primacy to magic. 'Priests', which seriously need a new group name, are unified by their connection to a force beyond themselves that empowers them.
Thematic ties, not "a specific mechanic" ties.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have always felt like subclasses for the eight school of magic, while not a worthless idea, were all pretty underwhelming and could be combined into a single wizard subclass like a "scholar of magic" or something like that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think people are getting too stuck up on this stuff, first off, I don't think each group is just getting 1 thing, I suspect it'll be a couple of features over the levels and I don't think they necessarily have to be already existing features either.
Fighting style I think is actually unlikely to be the Warrior feature, for a simple reason, fighting styles in 5E went to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and I don't think they are going to pull fighting styles away from Paladin or Ranger (tho we should get confirmation on Ranger shortly). I think what we will see is something to improve Warrior endurance in some way and some additional form of nova damage, but will have to see.
Channel Divinity could work for Priests, Clerics channeling the power of their deity, paladins channeling the power of their oath and druids channeling the power of nature. So I won't dismiss that one.
Favorite school of magic doesn't seem likely to me, schools of magic was always a wizard thing, sorcerers are natural/innate casters and warlocks get their power and knowledge from their patron in one method or another. What I think might be more likely is metamagic, it'd require a significant redesign for sorcerer but metamagic could be applicable to all three, however my guess is that we will see something new there instead of a fundamental sorcerer re-working.
EDIT: BIIIIIG UPDATE! Looks like new playtest is here!