Or you could not limit the ability and let players have fun flavorful abilities without falling for reactionary "balancing" without playtesting anything.
You should avoid making assumptions. Playing in three games this weekend using these subclasses. How much play testing have you done or are doing?
Also the sorcerer is getting damage type changes in the Variant Class features, but it is absolutely in flavor for the wizard too.
Yes, but the sorcerer doesn't get it for free! This Wizard does. 100% of the time when it casts any spell from their spellbook that has any associated damage type, they can just swap it out. It's broken!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yep. I'm not saying that you wouldn't have access to force damage.
But SERIOUSLY, come ON.
Wow, it would be so broken if this goblin took cold damage instead of fire.
No, it wouldn't. We're not arguing about goblins because of an obvious reason: THEY'RE NOT RESISTANT, VULNERABLE, OR IMMUNE TO ANY DAMAGE TYPE IN ANY WAY!
By restricting it to a limited number per day, it turns into a rarely used (if ever) ability that you are saving SPECIFICALLY to have a silver bullet against an enemy. As opposed to an interesting feature in flavor that makes your wizard feel unique and makes casting spells feel more flavorful and fun. The outcry that people are having as they try to balance something for the game designers in a reactionary way without considering the consequences for session by session is going to destroy this subclass.
Aren't most wizard abilities at this level "silver bullets"? Portent? Sculpt Spells? Grim Harvest? These all are situational. It still makes you feel unique, flavorful, and fun when you use this ability. It feels more special if you get to use it limited amounts of times. That's why Level 17 spellcasters only get one 9th level spell slot. It's more special when it's restricted, and more balanced.
This subclass will not be broken if this broken ability is fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Or you could not limit the ability and let players have fun flavorful abilities without falling for reactionary "balancing" without playtesting anything.
You don't need to playtest something in order to know whether or not an ability is broken, if you're a good DM or player. I am an experienced 5e DM, I know every rule you need to know, and I know how the game is balanced well enough to know this ability is broken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It should be just elemental damage. Don't put a limit, just do that. Or put on a limit and make it any damage. I think that works well.
No. It shouldn't be unlimited. It's still broken if it's unlimited. This clearly is stepping on the toes of the Sorcerer's damage swapping meta magic a ton, which is an ability that is extremely limited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I agree, but they are not going to rewrite everything to make that kind of change.
I don’t suggest that they rewrite anything other than what is in UA. I am not suggesting that they change the way racial features that are currently in print work.
Or you could not limit the ability and let players have fun flavorful abilities without falling for reactionary "balancing" without playtesting anything.
You should avoid making assumptions. Playing in three games this weekend using these subclasses. How much play testing have you done or are doing?
Changing damage types is a balanced ability. I agree that it should only be restricted to spells that do damage tho, for the damage type, absorb elements shouldn't just be "I take whatever I want whenever I want".
It isn't balanced. Changing damage types 100% of the time is broken.
Let me lead by saying that I do agree that this particular subclass is interesting, but seems overpowered in places and also doesn't hit the mark for me narratively. I think I can boil down the root cause of the issue.
Wizard subclasses outside of the major Schools of Magic have not been all that successful. This one strikes me as odd because it deviates from a design theme that at least I was mentally observing with Wizards. Because of that, the features seem to start to fall into the "power-gaming" realm and seem to shoe horn into the subclass. Now, switching damage types has a narrative explanation in here, but I feel like there are tons of other things that would have been better instead, they just wanted it in there so players would get excited to "cheat" the game by building a force ball Wizard.
Wizards need a clear design goal for the subclasses. As we hit Onomancy and now Scribes, it seems we have gotten away from what I think Wizards should be like. Wizards categorize the magic of the world, and specialize in certain aspects of these categories. To start, the PHB had the major schools of magic which was perfect. War Magic, while explicit, is and could have been more clearly designed as a mixture of Abjuration and Evocation. Bladesinging is an off shoot. If I were going to continue to design subclasses for the Wizard, I would stick with that theme. A mixture of Conjuration and Transmutation sounds like a Reality-Warping subclass. A mixture of Illusion and Enchantment sounds like a Psionic-esque class (which they tried but probably not with that design goal in mind). A mixture of Necromancy and Divination is something similar to a Medium. Maybe focus on the possible combinations a Wizard can find by combining different schools to make subclasses going forward?
For the Scribes, I'm sorry but they should have tried to clean up the Archivist. Seriously, we have the Artillerist (Weapons/Wands), Alchemist (Potions), Battlesmith (Constructs), and Armorer (Armor).... Isn't it obvious that an Artificer that makes runes, scrolls, sigils etc could be the Scribe? Its a natural fit, it just needed a better design goal.
I agree and disagree with both of you, Golaryn and Positron49.
Here's what I agree with:
Some of the wizard subclasses have been successful since the PHB. Chronurgists and Graviturgists are well-balanced (with some exceptions) and are popular. Bladesingers are fairly popular, even though there are some problems with them. War Wizards have very mixed feelings. There is controversy behind all of these subclasses. I would prefer it if we got a lot of school-mixing subclasses, but I am not upset if we get subclasses outside that model, as some subclasses seem hard to replicate. (I would like a Hypnotist, illusion-enchantment mix, Limbo mage, conjuration-transumation mix, and Spectral Wizards, necromancy-illusion mix, but I don't think we'll get those any time soon.)
They should've tried at least one more time with the Archivist without abandoning it.
A lot of the subclass should've been included in the Wizard class as a whole. The spellbook as an arcane focus, the spell scroll crafting, the spell altering to an extent.
I liked the theme of the scribes wizard, but it was executed the poorest of all of the subclasses in this UA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Maybe I should phrase it like this.... If you are designing a Wizard subclass for general release, try to stick to the model of school or school-mixing because those themes lead to really rich and interesting character models. If you are going to deviate from that design path, please have a great campaign setting that is going to influence your design (Dunamancy and Bladesinging) because you can use that to come up with great features. In general, deviating from that design path doesn't seem to lead to very good results (Onomancy, Scribe) because the features don't come naturally.
To the base Wizard thing, I think that this comes down to a lack of good crafting (magic or not) rules in 5e. I think many players would explore making scrolls, magic items, armor, weapons etc.. its just not all that clear (or worth it) unless the DM figures it out for them. Whether that should be a "feature" in the Wizard or not isn't something I've thought about though.
Maybe I should phrase it like this.... If you are designing a Wizard subclass for general release, try to stick to the model of school or school-mixing because those themes lead to really rich and interesting character models. If you are going to deviate from that design path, please have a great campaign setting that is going to influence your design (Dunamancy and Bladesinging) because you can use that to come up with great features. In general, deviating from that design path doesn't seem to lead to very good results (Onomancy, Scribe) because the features don't come naturally.
To the base Wizard thing, I think that this comes down to a lack of good crafting (magic or not) rules in 5e. I think many players would explore making scrolls, magic items, armor, weapons etc.. its just not all that clear (or worth it) unless the DM figures it out for them. Whether that should be a "feature" in the Wizard or not isn't something I've thought about though.
Wizards are magic scholars, and spells are what they produce from their efforts. If any class outside the Artificer should be capable of making spell scrolls and making them efficiently, it's the Wizard. The only exception, as far as Wizards go, should be scrolls of divine and nature spells, which is the domain of Clerics and Druids.
As for Onomancy, the main issue I had with that is true name magic is very niche in the game unless you're dealing with fiends and other outsider creatures where names really matter, and even then the subclass gates that with a saving throw that these creatures are notoriously proficient at. My guess is that the next time we see onomancy, it might be a part of a subclass that focuses on working with fiends and such.
Or you could not limit the ability and let players have fun flavorful abilities without falling for reactionary "balancing" without playtesting anything.
Are you implying that you cant already reflavor things as is? Why not have your evocation wizard already cast blue fireballs that are so cold they burn? This is something that can already exist from a “flavor” perspective and you dont need a rule to tell you how/when/how often you can reflavor., this is nothing new. A feature that tales your reflavoring up a whole other level into actually having unrestricted impact on gameplay is what people, like myself, do not like
You should avoid making assumptions. Playing in three games this weekend using these subclasses. How much play testing have you done or are doing?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yes, but the sorcerer doesn't get it for free! This Wizard does. 100% of the time when it casts any spell from their spellbook that has any associated damage type, they can just swap it out. It's broken!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It should be just elemental damage. Don't put a limit, just do that. Or put on a limit and make it any damage. I think that works well.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
No, it wouldn't. We're not arguing about goblins because of an obvious reason: THEY'RE NOT RESISTANT, VULNERABLE, OR IMMUNE TO ANY DAMAGE TYPE IN ANY WAY!
What makes it broken is that it's infinite, doesn't change action economy at all, is free, and can obliterate certain types of enemies frequently.
Aren't most wizard abilities at this level "silver bullets"? Portent? Sculpt Spells? Grim Harvest? These all are situational. It still makes you feel unique, flavorful, and fun when you use this ability. It feels more special if you get to use it limited amounts of times. That's why Level 17 spellcasters only get one 9th level spell slot. It's more special when it's restricted, and more balanced.
This subclass will not be broken if this broken ability is fixed.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So you're admitting this subclass already has too much, or you're saying that this ability is useless?
It's good flavor, and isn't any worse in flavor when it's limited.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You don't need to playtest something in order to know whether or not an ability is broken, if you're a good DM or player. I am an experienced 5e DM, I know every rule you need to know, and I know how the game is balanced well enough to know this ability is broken.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No. It shouldn't be unlimited. It's still broken if it's unlimited. This clearly is stepping on the toes of the Sorcerer's damage swapping meta magic a ton, which is an ability that is extremely limited.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like the idea of equal to proficiency bonus. It is different than the standard stat modifier limitations we normally see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree, I just feel it would be more appropriate for racial features than class features.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, imagine if Dragonborn's breath weapon was able to be used an amount of times equal to your proficiency bonus. That could be fairly good.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree, but they are not going to rewrite everything to make that kind of change.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don’t suggest that they rewrite anything other than what is in UA. I am not suggesting that they change the way racial features that are currently in print work.
Yes, it would!
How did those other playtests go?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know, I'm just saying it would be nice.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Let me lead by saying that I do agree that this particular subclass is interesting, but seems overpowered in places and also doesn't hit the mark for me narratively. I think I can boil down the root cause of the issue.
Wizard subclasses outside of the major Schools of Magic have not been all that successful. This one strikes me as odd because it deviates from a design theme that at least I was mentally observing with Wizards. Because of that, the features seem to start to fall into the "power-gaming" realm and seem to shoe horn into the subclass. Now, switching damage types has a narrative explanation in here, but I feel like there are tons of other things that would have been better instead, they just wanted it in there so players would get excited to "cheat" the game by building a force ball Wizard.
Wizards need a clear design goal for the subclasses. As we hit Onomancy and now Scribes, it seems we have gotten away from what I think Wizards should be like. Wizards categorize the magic of the world, and specialize in certain aspects of these categories. To start, the PHB had the major schools of magic which was perfect. War Magic, while explicit, is and could have been more clearly designed as a mixture of Abjuration and Evocation. Bladesinging is an off shoot. If I were going to continue to design subclasses for the Wizard, I would stick with that theme. A mixture of Conjuration and Transmutation sounds like a Reality-Warping subclass. A mixture of Illusion and Enchantment sounds like a Psionic-esque class (which they tried but probably not with that design goal in mind). A mixture of Necromancy and Divination is something similar to a Medium. Maybe focus on the possible combinations a Wizard can find by combining different schools to make subclasses going forward?
For the Scribes, I'm sorry but they should have tried to clean up the Archivist. Seriously, we have the Artillerist (Weapons/Wands), Alchemist (Potions), Battlesmith (Constructs), and Armorer (Armor).... Isn't it obvious that an Artificer that makes runes, scrolls, sigils etc could be the Scribe? Its a natural fit, it just needed a better design goal.
I disagree, almost every part of the Scribe subclass should have been core class features for the Wizard from the beginning.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree and disagree with both of you, Golaryn and Positron49.
Here's what I agree with:
I liked the theme of the scribes wizard, but it was executed the poorest of all of the subclasses in this UA.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Maybe I should phrase it like this.... If you are designing a Wizard subclass for general release, try to stick to the model of school or school-mixing because those themes lead to really rich and interesting character models. If you are going to deviate from that design path, please have a great campaign setting that is going to influence your design (Dunamancy and Bladesinging) because you can use that to come up with great features. In general, deviating from that design path doesn't seem to lead to very good results (Onomancy, Scribe) because the features don't come naturally.
To the base Wizard thing, I think that this comes down to a lack of good crafting (magic or not) rules in 5e. I think many players would explore making scrolls, magic items, armor, weapons etc.. its just not all that clear (or worth it) unless the DM figures it out for them. Whether that should be a "feature" in the Wizard or not isn't something I've thought about though.
Wizards are magic scholars, and spells are what they produce from their efforts. If any class outside the Artificer should be capable of making spell scrolls and making them efficiently, it's the Wizard. The only exception, as far as Wizards go, should be scrolls of divine and nature spells, which is the domain of Clerics and Druids.
As for Onomancy, the main issue I had with that is true name magic is very niche in the game unless you're dealing with fiends and other outsider creatures where names really matter, and even then the subclass gates that with a saving throw that these creatures are notoriously proficient at. My guess is that the next time we see onomancy, it might be a part of a subclass that focuses on working with fiends and such.
Are you implying that you cant already reflavor things as is? Why not have your evocation wizard already cast blue fireballs that are so cold they burn? This is something that can already exist from a “flavor” perspective and you dont need a rule to tell you how/when/how often you can reflavor., this is nothing new. A feature that tales your reflavoring up a whole other level into actually having unrestricted impact on gameplay is what people, like myself, do not like
A wizard subclass letting them use one of the sorcerer's metamagics for free?
God, who would ever
EVOCATION WIZARD?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
do such a thing?