Wizards Are Still Boring

They literally have nothing going for them except spells. Compared to the Cleric or Druid they have an insane amount of dead levels.

Furthermore, there is no Bard, Sorcerer or Warlock in the system. I'd argue that a Charisma caster is every bit as relevant as something
like a Monk or a Paladin but they haven't been in the playtest packets for months and there is nothing like a Bard available. Why not?

Wizards not getting bonus spells hurts them more than a Cleric or a Druid because spells is all they have.

This system is also more similar to 3.5 than 4E but Wizards lose out on their familiars and their bonus Metamagic feats.

Wizards have no shield or armor proficiencies and a non-existent Attack Bonus progression. They have the worst hit dice in
the game. Yet a Druid has the same amount of spell slots at level 20 as a Wizard. How in the world is that fair?
A wizard is basically railroaded into being a Scholastic Wizard.

Furthermore, why does Arcane Recovery stop at 5th level and capped at 3rd level spells? Wild Shape isn't capped. Cleric
domain spells aren't capped. Ranger Enemy bonuses aren't capped at 5th level. Rage bonus damage progresses until level 20.

Why don't Wizards get to cast more spells? A level 3 Wizard casts the same amount of Level 1 spells as he does at level 20!
They only get 1 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spell slot. At level 11 they cast the same amount of 6th level spells as they do 
at level 20? So many dead levels!









 
Both clerics and wizards should get some minor class abilities based on domain and specialty as they level.  Easier to balance than more spells and adds more fun.
The lack of abilities is an easy fix and should be taken care of in the next packet. What I take issue with is the cost to gain new spells. All other caters know every spell on their spell list, Wizards know 3 in their spellbook, gain 1 per level, and beyond that have to spend 50gp per spell level and find the spell first. If their spellbook is lost they lose their investment and have to pay to start a new book with just the spells they have prepared. This is what should upset people. I'm okay with a moentary cost of writing spells down but it is way to high. 10gp/level should be the most it costs and they should gain more than 1 per level without being forced to being a Scholarly Wizard. I could somewhat understand if Wizards could add anyspell to their spellbook to justify the cost but this needlessly heavy-handed bashing on the wizard is why I refuse to play one in my game. I do not want to be forced to spend all of my PC's wealth to try to keep my wizard's versatility on par with the party's Druid and/or Cleric.
Hey folks,

Since this isn't a player's playtest session report I'll be moving it to Playtest Packet Discussion.

Thanks!

Monica
I agree with some of this, but I think that spells should basically be enough for wizards (and, honestly, clerics and druids too).

Nonetheless, I don't think wizards really have any "dead levels" per se, since as they level up a wizard always gets to add a new spell to the spellbook. That's one meaningful decision at every level of advancement.
I agree with some of this, but I think that spells should basically be enough for wizards (and, honestly, clerics and druids too).

Nonetheless, I don't think wizards really have any "dead levels" per se, since as they level up a wizard always gets to add a new spell to the spellbook. That's one meaningful decision at every level of advancement.


+1

Each spell is it's own class feature and should be treated as such. However I wouldn't be opposed to wizards getting some other nonspell things in addition to spells. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
+1

Each spell is it's own class feature and should be treated as such. However I wouldn't be opposed to wizards getting some other nonspell things in addition to spells. 



I wouldn't mind so much as long as the other things don't duplicate spells. For example, an abjurer tradition might get the ability to cast one abjuration spell per encounter (er... between short rests) as a swift spell or as a reaction, or to cast abjuration spells in their book as rituals. What I don't like are many of the third edition and pathfinder abilities that duplicate spells. Abjurers already get elemental protection and such, why duplicate their spells with spell-like abilities?

So far I think the wizard abilities are reasonable, though I think the druid and cleric's stuff overshadows the wizard's at this point. 
+1

Each spell is it's own class feature and should be treated as such. However I wouldn't be opposed to wizards getting some other nonspell things in addition to spells. 



I wouldn't mind so much as long as the other things don't duplicate spells. For example, an abjurer tradition might get the ability to cast one abjuration spell per encounter (er... between short rests) as a swift spell or as a reaction, or to cast abjuration spells in their book as rituals. What I don't like are many of the third edition and pathfinder abilities that duplicate spells. Abjurers already get elemental protection and such, why duplicate their spells with spell-like abilities?

So far I think the wizard abilities are reasonable, though I think the druid and cleric's stuff overshadows the wizard's at this point. 



Wizards are good when the DM leaves lots of spellbooks and scrolls lying around that they can add to their spellbook. the 50gp does seem very high compared to the other classes, but If you compare a 7th-level wizard versus a 7th-level anything else, the wizard can probably beat them IF the wizard gets to cast first.

1. Wall of fire in circle around attacker, flames pointing inward
2. lightning bolt on attacker
3. fireball
4. dimension door if they get close 

etc etc.  
I don't mind the basic wizard class being plain, as long as the traditions have plenty of cool and interesting features. The problem is, the traditions are very lackluster right now.
I'd hate to see spellcasters be so vanilla.  I know
the temptation may be that the old trope that magic
users get too powerful as they level up, but that
shouldn't force players to suffer at lower levels either.
Fewer spells per day and more class features would be my preference.  Better yet, keep the scholarly tradition exactly as it is, but reduce the base number of spells per day for the class and add them back into scholarly as a class feature.  Then add more specific class features to the other traditions to bring them up to the level of ability of the scholar.  That keeps your scholar flexible but simple, and gives you complex specialists.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
All I real in the OP's post is "buff wiz pl0x".

In the game is started recently I was gonna play a Moon druid... But I switched to a wizard. Because I saw endless opportunity for fun in cantrips. And Wizard cantrips just seem more fun than Druid or cleric cantrips.

There are so many things to do with cantrips I had to make a list. And those things have endless variations. I can distract a guard--by poking at his eyes, by rustling leaves, by tossing a stone, by glowing eyes in the darkness, by a rattlesnake sound, by a cry for help, by a dancing light moving away, by the sounds of running, by the sounds or a mugging, by an annoying yapyapyap of a dog...

That's just distraction. I can play with traps, I can hide in illusions, I can scout, I can spring ambushes, I can run away, I can improve or degrade a social situation, I can earn betting money, I can make water taste like fine wine...

At-will cantrips are so amazing and so endlessly fun, why do wizards need to be buffed?

If you had approached the post by saying that the subclasses are imbalanced...that I might agree with. I chose scholarly out of habit, but upon reflection I can't imagine playing any other subclass. They just don't offer the same.

But wizards are boring? I say thee nay.

My favorite class is mage but I have to admit that the class is unattractive and is not fun. Would you like a mage class with revolutionary new concepts. I see the old magician 3rd ed less powerful and with other classes of spellcasters much fun, mainly as a cleric and druid.
Like the magician as the description "the master of arcane magic" And not only a spellcasting class "arcane" That divine spellcasters are much better than him. Ai wonder, how he has to master?


Please guys, let's ask the magician is better crafted and designed by the developers of D & D 5th ed.

...Furthermore, there is no Bard, Sorcerer or Warlock in the system. I'd argue that a Charisma caster is every bit as relevant as something
like a Monk or a Paladin but they haven't been in the playtest packets for months and there is nothing like a Bard available. Why not?
...
 



Not sure if someone else has addressed this yet, but I bet the reason Bard has not been introduced yet is because this is a playtest and it would make it more difficult to accurately analyze other classes and make sure that they're balanced as desired if you throw Bard's in the mix. I bet they'll release Bard after they feel that the rest of the classes are as balanced as they want them to be and more akin to where they feel each class will end up.
All I real in the OP's post is "buff wiz pl0x". In the game is started recently I was gonna play a Moon druid... But I switched to a wizard. Because I saw endless opportunity for fun in cantrips. And Wizard cantrips just seem more fun than Druid or cleric cantrips. There are so many things to do with cantrips I had to make a list. And those things have endless variations. I can distract a guard--by poking at his eyes, by rustling leaves, by tossing a stone, by glowing eyes in the darkness, by a rattlesnake sound, by a cry for help, by a dancing light moving away, by the sounds of running, by the sounds or a mugging, by an annoying yapyapyap of a dog... That's just distraction. I can play with traps, I can hide in illusions, I can scout, I can spring ambushes, I can run away, I can improve or degrade a social situation, I can earn betting money, I can make water taste like fine wine... At-will cantrips are so amazing and so endlessly fun, why do wizards need to be buffed? If you had approached the post by saying that the subclasses are imbalanced...that I might agree with. I chose scholarly out of habit, but upon reflection I can't imagine playing any other subclass. They just don't offer the same. But wizards are boring? I say thee nay.



Im sorry, but if you cant be as imaginative and creative with druidcraft and the cleric minor miracle spell as with prestidigitation you are the one with the problem...
YOU hear buff, I hear diversification and interesting non spell abilities, and I'm sure what I hear is closer to the ops intentions.
 
I hear you OP, I'm playing a wizard in the playtest right now, but to be honest it is way overshadowed by the cleric and druid.

I don't think necessarily it is "boring" but the subclasses are not fleshed out well, and the spells aren't fleshed out that well.  If my wiz dies I'm not rolling a new one I'll be a forest gnome rogue with arcane dabbler, or a high elf rogue.  The wiz is ok right now, but most of what makes it fun ARE cantrips, and I can get those without having the crappy implementation of the spellbook, contribute just as much to party utility, and do more damage as one of the above.
To read about my playtest sessions click here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29995793/?sdb=1&pg=last#533677003


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

All I real in the OP's post is "buff wiz pl0x".



Shouldn't the weakest full caster right now with the least amount of options and mechanical diversity
that has to pay out the nose for its spells when everybody else gets them for free use a buff?

Lots of people say that the low level damage spells don't scale well and cantrips are always better.
That spell slots are too scarce and too many monsters are just flat out immune to magic because the math
doesn't work after level 10 and monsters are rolling with +0 against DC 19 stuff.

Wizard is a core class. Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric. You have to NAIL the Wizard. 
The Fighter, Rogue and Cleric are all much better thought out, mechanically diverse and interesting
with plenty of options and basically no dead levels. How did these playtests get the Cleric so right, the Fighter
so right, the Rogue so right and then mail in the Wizard for 20 months?

 
All I real in the OP's post is "buff wiz pl0x".



Shouldn't the weakest full caster right now with the least amount of options and mechanical diversity
that has to pay out the nose for its spells when everybody else gets them for free use a buff?

Lots of people say that the low level damage spells don't scale well and cantrips are always better.
That spell slots are too scarce and too many monsters are just flat out immune to magic because the math
doesn't work after level 10 and monsters are rolling with +0 against DC 19 stuff.

Wizard is a core class. Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric. You have to NAIL the Wizard. 
The Fighter, Rogue and Cleric are all much better thought out, mechanically diverse and interesting
with plenty of options and basically no dead levels. How did these playtests get the Cleric so right, the Fighter
so right, the Rogue so right and then mail in the Wizard for 20 months?

 


I disagree that they've nailed the Fighter and Rogue, because they've changed so much between packets (and are changing yet again according to the podcasts). That said, the Cleric, IMO, is done. It is interesting and fairly balanced in terms of options (exact math needs work).

The reason that Wizards are stuck in limbo, is the vast difference in opinion people have on the wizard. There are people who hate the wizard and want it to suck in Next because of their dominance in 3E. There are also people who want to see the Wizard dominance of 3E return. There are even a few people who would like to see the wizard class removed from the game (or at least folded into the Cleric class). Most people don't have such extreme views, but still have differing opinions of the amount of power the wizard should have.

Part of the problem is that too many people equate available spells to class strength. I've heard quite a few people say the wizard is fine because they have strong spells. This is true, but when the Sorcerer and Warlock are made, they may have access to many, if not most, of those spells.

For the most part, the wizard compares well to the Cleric. I think the Traditions need tweaked and Arcane recovery extended to all Spell Levels (and given on the Even Wizard Level), then the Wizard is about where it should be (assuming the Druid is knocked down to normal). Also, an Attack modifier (even the terrible one the Druid gets) would be nice for those rare moments you need a weapon attack.
I agree with some of this, but I think that spells should basically be enough for wizards (and, honestly, clerics and druids too).

Nonetheless, I don't think wizards really have any "dead levels" per se, since as they level up a wizard always gets to add a new spell to the spellbook. That's one meaningful decision at every level of advancement.


+1

Each spell is it's own class feature and should be treated as such. However I wouldn't be opposed to wizards getting some other nonspell things in addition to spells. 



I agree with that, and someone said (after that post) that low-level wizards are too weak, agree with that too. And what about new feats? In the "Complete Mage" there are some pretty cool feats, I particulary like "Reserve Feats". It could be a class feature  - if modified, of course. Beyond that is too much, I think that the wizard is already powerful, his hit dice have already been improved from d4 to d6, and he has very powerful *at will* cantrips - 1d8 of frost damage at will is already powerful, don't you think? And BTW, I like to play with arcane spell casters, that is not the point of view of someone who hates spell casters.
Lets address the OP while breaking the original post into smaller sections.  Easier to address them that way.
They literally have nothing going for them except spells. Compared to the Cleric or Druid they have an insane amount of dead levels. 

Simply because this is a playtest, there doesn't seem to be much time between the packets becoming available for the playtesters, so this may get addressed in the next packet.

Furthermore, there is no Bard, Sorcerer or Warlock in the system. I'd argue that a Charisma caster is every bit as relevant as something
like a Monk or a Paladin but they haven't been in the playtest packets for months and there is nothing like a Bard available. Why not?

I can see Sorcerer and Warlock becomming one class with archetype.  The Bard can currently be done using a Cleric with the Minstrel Background, using the musical instrument as the holy symbol, you can also make a Bard in a similar way using the Wizard with the Minstrel background.  In the Wizards case the Musical instrument is the implement instead of a wand or staff or orb, whatever it is.  Tack on one of the feats that adds proficiency of a type of weapon and there's the Bard.


Wizards not getting bonus spells hurts them more than a Cleric or a Druid because spells is all they have.

This system is also more similar to 3.5 than 4E but Wizards lose out on their familiars and their bonus Metamagic feats.

This is a playtest, and they haven't fleshed out a lot of the details yet, the Arcane Recovery will likely see more levels in a future incarnation.  There is the Find Familiar feat if you want to have a wizard with a familiar.

Wizards have no shield or armor proficiencies and a non-existent Attack Bonus progression. They have the worst hit dice in
the game. Yet a Druid has the same amount of spell slots at level 20 as a Wizard. How in the world is that fair?
A wizard is basically railroaded into being a Scholastic Wizard.

Again, I will mention there are feats that will help to add a proviciency in certain weapons.

Furthermore, why does Arcane Recovery stop at 5th level and capped at 3rd level spells? Wild Shape isn't capped. Cleric
domain spells aren't capped. Ranger Enemy bonuses aren't capped at 5th level. Rage bonus damage progresses until level 20.

As I somewhat addressed above, Arcane Recovery will likely see more levels in future incarnations during the playtest.


Why don't Wizards get to cast more spells? A level 3 Wizard casts the same amount of Level 1 spells as he does at level 20!
They only get 1 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spell slot. At level 11 they cast the same amount of 6th level spells as they do 
at level 20? So many dead levels!
 


Arcane recovery is effectively the bonus spells you are looking for.  I imagine that it will get placed on at more levels as the playtest progresses.

I am Blue/White

I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.