When the School of Onomancy wizard subclass UA dropped I was blown away. It was so exciting to finally get a wizard subclass that felt tied to different traditions and ideas of magical philosophies and practice, and the beliefs around the power of names in magic. Reading through the subclass it felt like it had a story that was unique among the already well-represented wizard options, and the subclass feats appeared fun, balanced, and strongly tied to class identity and flavour so... what happened?
I saw that WOTC stated they had mixed feedback on it but I never really saw anything but praise (likely due to my echo chamber). I thankfully have an archived Onomancer so I can play the UA on dndbeyond, but I wanted to hear from others.
Have you played an Onomancer or did you like/dislike the concept in UA? I want to hear your thoughts.
I really liked it. Have not been able to play it but made me think of Kvothe from name of the wind. But alas it was apparently not meant to be. The great namers may return at some point, but not for now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I loved Onomancy, mostly because I'm an Earthsea fan. I really wish I could have played Ged. But the true name thing prevented them from being in any campaigns where true names are already powerful(Fiends, for example, can be controlled by knowledge of their true name according to at least one 5e book. Having a PC who can learn it with a class ability is probably one of the reasons it's dead).
I was just thinking about that subclass today and found this thread. I'm equally baffled. Wish I'd responded to the UA feedback, because I thought it was so thematically rich.
It really was one of the more interesting UAs, and for a class that generally had some strong but generic feeling subclasses. The potential flavor was very tasty.
I enjoyed the concept…it was a hop & a skip away from a Wizard who focuses on “words of power”, a notion I enjoy.
Perhaps the reasons for Onomancy being put on the shelf were due to most of the subclass features being dependent on that initial saving throw…if the enemy succeeded, then you could not use all those sweet effects, essentially neutralizing your subclass.
That, and I believe there was some apprehensiveness based around the Onomancer having “meta magic-like” abilities which sort of encroached upon the Sorcerer.
While I might agree with the former; I didn’t see much issue about the latter.
When the School of Onomancy wizard subclass UA dropped I was blown away. It was so exciting to finally get a wizard subclass that felt tied to different traditions and ideas of magical philosophies and practice, and the beliefs around the power of names in magic. Reading through the subclass it felt like it had a story that was unique among the already well-represented wizard options, and the subclass feats appeared fun, balanced, and strongly tied to class identity and flavour so... what happened?
I saw that WOTC stated they had mixed feedback on it but I never really saw anything but praise (likely due to my echo chamber). I thankfully have an archived Onomancer so I can play the UA on dndbeyond, but I wanted to hear from others.
Have you played an Onomancer or did you like/dislike the concept in UA? I want to hear your thoughts.
I really liked it. Have not been able to play it but made me think of Kvothe from name of the wind. But alas it was apparently not meant to be. The great namers may return at some point, but not for now.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I loved Onomancy, mostly because I'm an Earthsea fan. I really wish I could have played Ged. But the true name thing prevented them from being in any campaigns where true names are already powerful(Fiends, for example, can be controlled by knowledge of their true name according to at least one 5e book. Having a PC who can learn it with a class ability is probably one of the reasons it's dead).
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I was just thinking about that subclass today and found this thread. I'm equally baffled. Wish I'd responded to the UA feedback, because I thought it was so thematically rich.
It really was one of the more interesting UAs, and for a class that generally had some strong but generic feeling subclasses. The potential flavor was very tasty.
I liked it a lot too, though I never play-tested it. I would be curious to hear from folks who didn't like it.
I enjoyed the concept…it was a hop & a skip away from a Wizard who focuses on “words of power”, a notion I enjoy.
Perhaps the reasons for Onomancy being put on the shelf were due to most of the subclass features being dependent on that initial saving throw…if the enemy succeeded, then you could not use all those sweet effects, essentially neutralizing your subclass.
That, and I believe there was some apprehensiveness based around the Onomancer having “meta magic-like” abilities which sort of encroached upon the Sorcerer.
While I might agree with the former; I didn’t see much issue about the latter.