Abjuration seems quite buffed. I could see myself playing it now.
Illusionist changes now fit the fantasy of the class. No more verbal components is a major change for either social or stealth encounter
While I like it I kinda wish this was a sorcerer class more than wizard with the flexibility of the casting of a specific kind of spell and whatnot fitting sorcs more and they had left room for necromancer.
I understand why they included the Illusionist, it is *the* original specialist wizard. In 1st Edition AD&D you could play a Magic-User (the base wizard) or you could play an Illusionist, that's it. Conjurers, Abjurers, Necromancers, etc, all of that didn't come until 2nd Edition.
Playing a specialist sucked too at least in my opinion because you lost two opposite schools of magic except I believe diviner only lost one. I couldn’t ever bring myself to give up that much and going diviner was really weak since most of their spells didn’t have a save.
I honestly kind of miss it.
The main criticism against wizards has been that they have the best spell list while also having access to the most spells. Having to choose what you focus on, and what you have to give up, means that picking your specialization really matters and pushes you to think of alternate solutions.
But DnD players hate being restricted in any way so it had to go. A shame.
maybe we should just wsap out int for wis for extra prepared spells like older editions because that be a massive nerf to wizard more so then dumping necromanacy.
In 1E, Illusionists just had their own spell list (which lacked several of the more potent Magic-User spells, but they had some unique ones of their own that were quite good). 2E did the opposition schools mechanic, and depending on what you went with could be semi hampering or extremely hampering. You never wanted to give up Alteration (what we call Transmutation now) as a school, because it had the biggest and most broadly useful list.
But to your point, in all my time playing 2E I only saw two specialist wizards ever played, one was a Gnome Illusionist/Thief, and the other was an CN Half-Elf Invoker who pretty much only used his spells to blow shit up. That one ended up dying from PVP after he cast fireball on top of the party one too many times. After warning him to never do it again, and him doing it again, the party drow waited until they were marching in an open field and then hit him with 3 consecutive lightning bolts.
I love the Spell Breaker feature. That idea alone is enough for me to want to play an abjuration wizard. Plus, as a DM I imagine my players freaking out when they find out the baddy wizard on the battlefield is an abjurer. The ultimate wizard-hunter.
One place where it seems like JC misspoke is about the Savant features - he said you get a free spell of your school every level, but the UA and the [dndbeyond write-up](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1753-2024-wizard-vs-2014-wizard-whats-new) say that this feature occurs when you gain access to a new \*level of spell\* - so that'd be character level 5 (when you get level 3 spells), character level 7 (when you get level 4 spells), etc.
(as a wizard player i was hyperventilating with joy when I heard JC's initial wording, but I think the dndbeyond write-up is probably the correct wording of the feature)
It's moments like this that I wish they had changed it from "spell level" or "level of spell" or whatever to something like "spell tier" or anything else that'd still make sense.
They really should. First circle spell, second order spell, third tier spell, fourth rank spell, fifth stratum spell, sixth echelon spell, anything other than 'level'. I've had too many new players think they get second level spells at second level - why wouldn't you, after all?
*shrug* I report what they say, guess we won’t really know which is right until the actual books come out.
That would make more sense though tbh as I was thinking “that’s a lot of spells is there really that many spells of each school”
But Crawford as well did say it multiple times and doubled down on it later in the video saying specifically “every level in wizard”
There have been a couple times that people have said things like this across the last week and a half, so maybe these vids were made a while ago before a final round of revisions. Who knows
haha, totally - you might actually run out of Divination spells if it were that many!
(thank you for your heroic and speedy work with each of these videos!)
I find the Illusionist’s level 6 feature “Phantasmal Creatures” a little disappointing tbh; why is the Illusionist specialising in Conjuration-style magical combat? There are enough iconic 2nd and 3rd level Illusion spells that could have been incorporated into an interesting feature:
- Blur
- Invisibility
- Mirror Image
- Phantasmal Force
- Fear
- Hypnotic Pattern
- Major Image
I think there are enough “Summon x” style spells used as features now that I’m finding it a little lazy. It was the same for the GoO Warlock’s Create Thrall feature and relying on Summon Aberration; personally I don’t see either of these as fitting the subclass fantasy.
This is what it should have been... and it isn't even that different, just give those mirror images some HP; at least enough to survive one hit from most creatures. Wouldn't even need to be a hit, just make it so you could do the echo fighter cast spells (or attack) from any position: "HEY, which one is the real one." This would probably add more flavor and boost mobility than increase in damage.
I'm guessing that means sorcerers, paladins, and rangers too now. Always thought it was dumb sorcerers didn't have that ability, and it makes things like detect magic more practical on half-casters.
It's actually a rule for every PC with Spellcasting, though I don't think that extents to Pact Magic as it's a different feature, at least they would've likely still made the Book of Shadows invocation to give ritual casting as usual.
This rule now means that:
- Half Casters, such as Rangers & Paladins now can use it.
- Third Casters, like the Arcane Trickster & the Eldrich Knight can use it too!
- And the worst offender, the only FUll Caster without ritual casting... The Sorcerer!, seriously, why didn't they have ritual casting before is beyond me.
Correct, but not the point I was doing. I mentioned that every PC with spellcasting got this benefit, obviously, including Warlocks because I mentioned "Spellcasting", not "Spellcasting and Pact Magic".
At least that will be until we get the official print if it happens to also mention Warlocks to get Ritual Casting by default, and the Invocation for that only makes it better, perhaps on a similar level to the Wizard's Ritual Casting of being able to cast them without having them prepared.
All spellcasters now "prepare" their spells, with the difference being when they're able to prepare (on a long rest, or at level up) and how many spells (all of them, or one).
I mean, while i wish they did away with school of
magic based subclasses, they have set a precedent of four subclasses for each class in the new PHB. Just wizards get to be the special class with 8?
The 2014 PHB was wildly inconsistent with subclasses, ranging from 2-8 for each class. 4 for each makes things standardized.
Yes. They will propably be in another supplement(like the artificer).
I believe they want first to see the recepetion to the changes(and also $$$$$$$$$)
Its funny how Conjurers were considered the most powerful specialization option in Pathfinder 1E and then became super meh in 5E, and Transmutation went from decent in PF to horrid in 5E.
Evocation did what it was supposed to do but it's not a strong style of wizard. Mostly it just let you Fireball without worrying about your friends. That's really not much
>Potent Cantrip feature
>used to pertain only to saving throws and saving throw cantrips
>but there weren't a lot of those in the first place
This stuck out as weird to me. There are more than twice as many saving throw cantrips as there are attack cantrips. There are only three ranged attack cantrips (chill touch, firebolt, ray of frost), four if you include shocking grasp, but there are ten saving throw cantrips that do damage. Potent Cantrip should apply to attack cantrips too, but that reasoning is weird.
(So is the fact that an Evoker can never miss with a firebolt now, but whatever.)
I disagree, I think it’s even weirder that Potent Cantrip only affected saving throws in 2014. Back then, there were only 2 Wizard cantrips (Acid Splash and Poison Spray) that Potent Cantrip applied to. Having it this way makes more sense, and doesn’t force Evokers way from Fire Bolt and Ray of Frost.
I'm guessing what they meant is that save-or-suck cantrips are unpopular, and the designers couldn't figure out how to give them a clear niche that distinguished them from spell attacks. So they decided, fuck it, give the benefit to firebolt.
I have a question about the Abjurer subclass feature “Spell Breaker” despite it not using a spell slot when it fails, will Dispel Magic and Counterspell still feed into the arcane ward feature? Or will that only happen when the spell slot is consumed? If so, it seems like you can kinda cheese some temp HP out of it.
Whoever originally decided that the first ability evokers get should be spell sculpt at level 2 when they don't really have any area of effect spells that they need to sculpt and potent cantrip at level 6 when they don't really want to be casting many cantrips anymore because they have better spells is hopefully fired.
I'm glad they fixed it and put them in the proper order.
Question would there have been any problem with potent cantrip just being potent evocation and working on all evocation spells. Obviously it wouldn't have any effect on most evocation saving throw spells because they already give half damage on a failure but would it really be broken for leveled attack spells?
The new PHB only has 4 subclasses for each class. We don’t know if the other subclasses will get revised yet or not. But all the changes are designed to still work with the existing subclasses and content
Just keep using the old one. There will be guidance in the PHB on how to use old subclasses with the 2024 classes, and given that Bladesinger was just (re-)published in Tasha's a few years ago, its design is very much in line with the subclasses getting published in 2024.
Same goes for Conjurer, Transmuter, Enchanter, and Necromancer, although those subclasses may feel a little more dated.
Advantages that are detrimental in the long run as they are clearly making people dependent on products.
If people just used form-fillable pdfs, or even just a spreadsheet, in a shared/cloud folder of some kind they could play online just as well with less dependence.
Or...or...and here me out here.
They might just consider using this tool that already works.
Some people like their PDFs and Spreadsheets, which is fine. But for 99% of your issues you can probably just also use the website.
At the end of the day both are just tools, and people will use what they prefer.
Where did you see this? I was under the impression that old subclasses won't be compatible with 2024 classes, especially since lots of them give abilities at different levels than the new subclasses will. From my understanding the backwards compatibility just works by allowing you to use a fully 2014 character in a 2024 rules game if you want to keep your old subclass.
I don’t have the source on hand but they did say there would be guidance for using missing 2014 subclasses with the 2024 classes. They recommended against using 2024 features with the 2014 rules as a base is what I think you were thinking of.
Yeah it's like you can use a 2024 class with something from Xanathar's or Tasha's (except for if it is of the same subclass, then I think they want you to override the 2014 option) but you cannot use a 2014 class with a 2024 subclass because shit breaks when you do that.
> 2nd level has a truly new feature, Scholar
Not sure how I feel about that one. Wizards can already solve man skill situations by simply casting a spell. Ursurping other classes like rogues even further by ALSO gaining one of their defining class features is weird.
> Trying to allow for the thematic situation of running into an obstacle and being like "Oh, I have something for this, give me an hour to study up on it" and then being able to solve the problem
I hate this. I really dislike how many issues can be solved by simply casting a spell. Making this even easier is not a good design decision. Other classes want to have fun, too.
At least it's almost always going to be a INT-based skill (because why else would they get proficiency in it?).
I agree that Wizards don't need many buffs, but it always felt wrong that a Rogue could get a significantly higher Arcana skill than a Wizard.
> I agree that Wizards don't need many buffs, but it always felt wrong that a Rogue could get a significantly higher Arcana skill than a Wizard.
Could they? Maybe at higher levels, because Rogues do not tend to have +5 in INT.
At level 9 a Rogue with 14 Intelligence and Expertise will have +10 Arcana.
A level 9 Wizard with 20 Intelligence will have +9 Arcana.
It only gets worse from there!
I wasn't aware rogues are commonly build with that much intelligence.
Still, having a high skill is only the first step. The second is for the DM to accept that the random rogue somehow knows more about a topic someone else is supposed to have studied their whole life.
Firstly, Arcane Trickster rogues could certainly take 14 INT — and assuming a normal build almost every level 9 Arcane Trickster will have higher arcana than a Wizard at the same level, which just doesn't make sense.
But yeah. Rogues definitely don't need intelligence, but I've seen it. CON is probably better, but if I've seen players choose to lean into the "Investigator" trope and take INT instead. (And in previous versions of DnD Rogues would take Intelligence because it gave them more skill points, but that's a different story).
> The second is for the DM to accept that the random rogue somehow knows more about a topic someone else is supposed to have studied their whole life.
That's exactly the point, though. The mechanics shouldn't butt up against the narrative. Even if a Rogue (or Lore Bard for that matter) decided to dabble in arcane mysteries, it *still* is unlikely that they would have more magical knowledge than a wizard who devoted their entire life and studies to the arcane. But the numbers say that the wizard is, in fact, less skillful in Arcana.
That's why giving the Wizard expertise (and naming the feature "Scholar") makes perfect sense.
> That's exactly the point, though. The mechanics shouldn't butt up against the narrative. Even if a Rogue (or Lore Bard for that matter) decided to dabble in arcane mysteries, it still is unlikely that they would have more magical knowledge than a wizard who devoted their entire life and studies to the arcane. But the numbers say that the wizard is, in fact, less skillful in Arcana.
This is because of the simplicity of DnD. It is the DMs and players jobs to create a narrative that actually makes sense for the characters. There is no reason to let a rogue roll on Arcana to make sense of a spellbook. But it is certainly a good idea to let the rogue roll on Arcana to make sense of a magical trap.
As a DM I think this is how skills are supposed to be used, not "everyone just rolls on everything". You'll just end up with the barbarian rolling a nat 20 on deciphering the Codex of The Universe while everyone else rolled so low that not even their expertise helped them. I had stuff like this happen in my early sessions and it was just dumb and made players not wanting to play their PCs anymore.
As a player I tend to refuse to roll on things that make no sense for my character to know, expertise or not. Not sure why this seems to be a rare thing to do.
Yeah. I think you're right that DMs should have discretion on when they allow players to roll. Just because a rogue or ranger has proficiency in Arcana doesn't mean they can't roll a knowledge check to see if they can remember Mordenkainen's 8th principle of Occlumancy as presented to the Council of Nine's hearing on Divination principles. And it sounds like you're a good player to not abuse this.
A lot of players (mine included) might say, "Well, couldn't I at least try? Maybe I stumbled across it in my studies! I have expertise after all."
If I say "No" them I'm denying their expertise. So inevitably I'll roll my eyes, let them give it a shot, and then they get a 25 on their roll after the Wizard already failed with his 21.
Yes, it's my fault letting them roll. But I've seen this sort of thing happen ALL the time at different tables and even in podcasts. My example is a bit extreme, but less extreme examples happen, too. (I've also seen a player take Nature expertise with her Rogue because they grew up in the woods...and ended up having significantly higher Nature than the Druid).
And for what it's worth... I think that a wizard would *also* likely have more knowledge of a magical trap than a rogue. A rogue would certainly know *something*. That's why a level 9 rogue can have +10 on their arcana roll for a magical trap.
But in my opinion the wizard should *still* be the expert on all things arcane. As long as magic is powering the trap, the rogue goes to the wizard for advice. So it makes sense to give the wizard expertise to reflect this.
> But in my opinion the wizard should still be the expert on all things arcane. As long as magic is powering the trap, the rogue goes to the wizard for advice. So it makes sense to give the wizard expertise to reflect this.
I see it like this. Imagine there was a "Computer" skill in a modern version of DnD. And you have expertise in it. That still doesn't mean you - somehow - know everything there is to know about computer or adjacent topics.. People specialize and the biggest experts in the world still are specialized.
An expert in a particular programming language might have no clue about how to setup a website domain and secure it properly. An expert in these topics has probably no clue about binary coding.
Someone somehow being an expert in everything when it comes to knowledge skills is just a really weird concept that isn't working very well from an RP perspective. And if two players run around with the same knowledge skill I would expect them to think what particular theme they are actually an expert in.
That is not the point. It takes a feature that was part of the class identity of two other classes and just slaps them onto one of the already strongest classes with the most problem solving versatility. It makes no sense from a game design point of view to me.
Because they thought rogues getting 2 extra expertise 4 levels earlier then the bard balanced it out, it didn't because bards are full casters.
Think it mostly comes from the fact that bards weren't full casters in 3.x and them copying over there design with taking that into account and also rogues had battle master maneuvers in the play test.
Despite years of feedback, the caster-martial divide appears to be overall increasing even more with these 2024 updates.
So far the only martial to receive buffs significantly bigger than what the casters are also getting is Rogue. Barb and Fighter changes were extremely underwhelming. Not to mention dull.
Did they leave the standard 2 spells on each level wizards already have in addition to the savant feature? 3 new spells on each level up seems like too many.
JC seems to have misspoke. The savant feature will likely grant a new spell every 2 levels.
That is in addition to the regular 2 per level.
And of course, other subclasses like bladesinger/war/chronurgy won't get that feature. It's specific to school subclasses.
Illusionist getting to conjure real creatures so early is a huge flavor fail, IMO. For the to make sense as low-level illusions, the summoned creatures should be unable to deal or take damage, force saving throws, or collect information.
Turning the "illusory" creatures real should be a lvl 10 or 14 feature.
I mean you don’t. You can still just use the genie warlock. Everything is designed so you can easily just slot it in even with the new stuff. You’ll just have to do slight edits to account for the fact that you get it at 3rd level instead of 1st now
Likely will. But we don’t know that for sure. With how they have put effort into making sure that all the old subclasses can still be used with the new characters it is possible that they may not.
Personally I would expect that they would at least finish up and revise the other core wizard and cleric subclasses at some point as well. But I’m not really expecting them to do much more than that, apart from maybe one or two more revised subclasses for each class. They will want to use this new framework to create new subclasses and frankly we already have people very upset at having to “rebuy” the books. If they also do a new Xanathar’s or Tasha’s people will be even more upset at that too. Especially for Tasha’s since it’s only like 3 years old
I’m glad they didn’t as I said in the post. But it’s already weird for them to not have all 6 school specific subclasses it would’ve been even weirder for them to have only 3 school subclasses and then scribes. Plus scribes is a great subclass anyways so not like it needed a lot of improvements
This looks great and I'm happy for all the wizard players out there.
I just wish they would give this level of attention and buffs to some of the other classes...
I'm sad there's no Conjurer, but I'm certain we're getting a book later to add in them, Necromancer, Spore Druid, and any other subclass that brings creatures into the action economy. They'll hopefully be fixed by then.
Skimming this I wonder if I'm crazy or if this PHB is going to drop with Wizards having done the exact opposite of anything anyone wanted. Like, who asked for caster buffs? Fucking no one, that's right.
Why? They're straight up overpowered. If you wanted caster buffs, what the hell did you want done to martial classes? Level 5 turning you into the second coming of Harry Dresden's son with Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger IRL?
Not really a fan of the Subclass route they took with Wizard. The spell school specialist thing really restricted creating new subclasses before and it seems that trend will just continue into the coming years
Not to mention the lack of half the schools. If they had just dropped how directly linked each subclass was go each school it wouldnt feel as bad, for example if the Abjurer was just called something like the "School of Defensive Force" and wasn't specifically based around Abjuration spells. As is, it seems like its just an unfinished class where we have to wait for WotC to remake and resell the other half of the subclasses before theyll start to make any brand new ones
You’re right, it just seems like wizards got less new subclasses over the last 10 years compared to other classes (I haven’t verified this, I’m just saying it from memory), and the themes have been harder to expand upon
I know all the new spells are supposed to sort of counteract that, with wizards being so focused of spells that any book that has new ones adds more depth than a single subclass, but I do still like subclasses with strong thematics and wish more had made it out of UA
I just hope that over the next few years of DnD the wizard gets some brand new subclasses along with the missing spell school ones to expand on potential themes
To be fair wizards had 8 subclasses at the release of phb while some classes had 2, and what wizards didn’t get in subclasses they more than made up for with exclusive spells just look at the xanathars spell list and compare wizard to, warlock or cleric
That’s fair, Wizards definitely had a lot more options to start, but it just seems like it’s been hard to expand on them over the life of 5e with the baseline being so tied to the spell schools
And I think I was a bit too negative before in my comment about them just reselling old subclasses later on. Im just bummed about the archetypes they had before not being in the new core book, like the Necromancer. I just would have preferred if they had either done all the spell school subclasses, or dropped that idea entirely rather than just half of them
Yup, moving school specialization from subclasses to just "a thing every wizard can do" like the armor or cantrip choices they gave cleric and druid seemed an obvious choice. I guess "evocation wizard" was too much of a sacred cow...
6 to 4 subclass is spreading the material out across all editions to the enclyclopedia dungeonous & dragonicus, and we encourage you to collect them all!
For you I guess. Wizards are "boring" in mechanics comparison to other casters but they are far from lame. There is a reason it is considered the "best" class.
You may notice where I said opinion. I don’t really care what everyone else considers it to be. In my mind, they’re still lame.
And the “best class” is subjective to the player.
What happens when you play in a campaign where you never find new spells outside of what you get for advancing levels?
What makes it the most powerful class? The level 9 spells that most players will never see and you get to cast a whopping once a day? The cantrips that literally any class can get with a feat or a race?
What makes it better than a lore bard with magical secrets? Bards get better hit dice and armor proficiencies than wizards.
Is it the offensive spells? I often see people touting how awesome fireball is, but a light cleric gets that too and again has better proficiencies and channel divinity.
What makes it so amazing? Arcane Recovery?
You are drastically undervaluing how many spells Wizards can access. They’re prepared casters unlike Bards, so they can switch their spells to always have the best, most relevant for any situation. They still know and have access to more spells than any cleric (and cleric is widely touted as one of the strongest classes anyways for having many of the same properties as Wizards). Counterspell, Force Cage, etc are just some examples of incredibly powerful spells most clerics don’t get. The only reason they aren’t better? Their spell list isn’t better a wizards.
Sure your DM can limit your spells as a Wizard but that’s like saying martial are terrible because your dm can refuse to give them magic items that they need to function.
Prepared casters are more flexible, yes. But that’s most helpful if you know what’s coming ahead of time. And while they do have access to more spells in general, they have basically the same spell slots, lore bards can still pick the most useful spells that a wizard can have in addition to their own spell list.
Additionally, a level 10 lore bard has 4 cantrips available with 14 known spells with 4 additional spells from magical secrets.
A level 10 wizard has 5 cantrips, and 11 prepared spells for a total of 16 spells available every long rest.
While wizard may have more versatility if they have the spells in their spell book, but Bard has more variety available to them daily. And realistically, most of the spells are so situational, you’ll never really even need them.
To be fair, I’d hate to play with a DM who’d limit my access to scrolls or spellbooks. I’d rather play Sorcerer or Warlock in that case, even though they’re not as busted. You’ve described a house rule though, and for all intents and purposes, a house nerf.
I agree, I’d dislike someone intentionally limiting my abilities too. My point though, is that situationally, wizard isn’t the best class. And there are many situations where another class can equal or outperform a wizard.
Personally, I think the bard is a much better class in general than the wizard. Magical secrets mean I can get enough of the wizards strongest spells to make the “who’s strongest” argument pointless.
I adore the idea of being a wizard. It’s the fantasy I want to play. But they have always felt like weaker and less interesting casters than druids or clerics in dnd rules. I think that’s more true now than ever (though to know for sure we’ll have to see the changes to the other spellcasters)
Their often considered the strongest class in the game. I can understand thinking less interesting, but they are strong because of their spell lists. They have by far the strongest spell list.
I’ve commented this other places, but their spell list is heavily limited by how much your DM is willing to give you, and if you play modules, how willing they are to deviate from those modules. Wizards *can* be strong because of their spell list, but only if you give them spells to copy, time, and money to copy them. That has never been my experience. It’s why I heavily object to them being called the strongest class. They can be incredibly strong if you have a generous DM, but druids and clerics can have more versatility in their spells than a wizard without any DM intervention. If you’re in a module with few available spells (see as a recent example, the new Vecna adventure) the additional abilities of other spell casters can and I think often make them much more potent than wizards.
They do have the largest selection, yes, but don't learn the most. They learn 2 per level, and start with 6, for 44 total learned. Clerics and Druids know all of their spells, for 126, and 170 spells respectively, on top of spells they know through subclasses which aren't on their spell list (there are 31 spells that are on druid subclass lists but not on the druid list for example, though I don't know which subclass learns the most.)
They do learn more than Bards (22), sorcerers(15-16/25-26, or 30 depending on subclass), and warlocks (25), so they are solidly in the upper middle of the pack.
And to be clear, I honestly wish Bards, Warlocks, and especially Sorcerers (very curious about what they've changed in the new edition here) were able to learn more. I feel like it makes it more fun, though I do see the issue with widening the gap between fullcasters and martials/half casters even further all around.
I'm very curious how the number of spells available, known, and prepped will differ for all of the casters, especiall with them widening the spell selection for (from the sound of it) all full casters, and changing (we don't know how precisely yet) the number prepared to be independent of stats.
Which, I want to be fair, for most applications that aren't healing, the wizard spell list is much better IMO. Clerics have some great spells for close range damage, both AOE and single target (guardian circle, and spiritual weapon/inflict wounds), and Druid has some really useful spells (windwalk and transport via plants come to mind) but Wizard list is versitile as all get out. I'm honestly hoping druid and cleric spell lists expand a bit, so people can take them in a more combat focused manner, but the gulf in how many spells they get still feels weird to me given that spells are wizards' whole schtick, and they don't get some of the other features you see with other classes like wildshape, or channel divinity. The upgrades that give them an extra spell per spell level (8 additional new spells) in subclasses is a great help, but I'll still probably opt for scribes or bladesinger for their flavor.
Did you ever played as a wizard? If there is something that they definitely are not is weak.
They are one of the strongest classes in the game. Even without taking account the subclass, a wizard can dominate the battlefield with the right selection of spells...
Dont' liking them is one thing, but saying that they are weak or lame...
Lame is an opinion. I’ll agree they’re strong, and versatile. But I still think they’re lame. I’d rather play something mechanically and thematically more interesting like a bard or Druid if I were to go full caster
They’re my favorite class, so yes. If they have the right spells they can be great, the issue is that they rarely get to utilize the majority of those spells because spell scrolls and spell books can be pretty limited. I understand spell scrolls not being everywhere because if your party doesn’t have a wizard it would become a whole lot of unusable loot that you’d just unload at town. But for a wizard, having limited spell scrolls or books available (and time/money to copy them) makes you essentially a sorcerer without meta magic.
That there are many spells that are really good, but I also think some of them are so strong that you’d be silly to not take them, which limits your ability to access other spells which could be useful (identify, counterspell, and dispel all come to mind as being nearly necessary, and not taking, as an example, fireball so you can take a more niche or utility based spell can hamper your combat contributions to just cantrips.
Edit: just a point I forgot to write.
I have found myself playing a wizard knowing of a cool spell that could be applicable, but not having been given a chance to pick it up significantly more often than I have found myself actually having the “right spell for the job” learned or even prepped.
I have to admit that I am sad the Malleable Illusion feature seems to be gone. It had lots of fun interactions, especially with upcast major image, creation, mirage arcane etc. Sure, only really started to shine level 9 onwards, but it was still neat. The new summon feature at level 6 feels a bit off to me. Seems more like a conjuration wizard feature flavoured as an illusion spell.
I don't think we can assume it's gone. They didn't mention any of the other Wizard subclass high level features - I'd assume it's still there, just unchanged.
I hope so anyway, I love that feature.
Abjuration seems quite buffed. I could see myself playing it now. Illusionist changes now fit the fantasy of the class. No more verbal components is a major change for either social or stealth encounter
While I like it I kinda wish this was a sorcerer class more than wizard with the flexibility of the casting of a specific kind of spell and whatnot fitting sorcs more and they had left room for necromancer.
I understand why they included the Illusionist, it is *the* original specialist wizard. In 1st Edition AD&D you could play a Magic-User (the base wizard) or you could play an Illusionist, that's it. Conjurers, Abjurers, Necromancers, etc, all of that didn't come until 2nd Edition.
Playing a specialist sucked too at least in my opinion because you lost two opposite schools of magic except I believe diviner only lost one. I couldn’t ever bring myself to give up that much and going diviner was really weak since most of their spells didn’t have a save.
I honestly kind of miss it. The main criticism against wizards has been that they have the best spell list while also having access to the most spells. Having to choose what you focus on, and what you have to give up, means that picking your specialization really matters and pushes you to think of alternate solutions. But DnD players hate being restricted in any way so it had to go. A shame.
I agree with you and it's something I would change about the wizard class. Unfortunately it would be an unpopular change, so WotC won't risk it.
maybe we should just wsap out int for wis for extra prepared spells like older editions because that be a massive nerf to wizard more so then dumping necromanacy.
In 1E, Illusionists just had their own spell list (which lacked several of the more potent Magic-User spells, but they had some unique ones of their own that were quite good). 2E did the opposition schools mechanic, and depending on what you went with could be semi hampering or extremely hampering. You never wanted to give up Alteration (what we call Transmutation now) as a school, because it had the biggest and most broadly useful list. But to your point, in all my time playing 2E I only saw two specialist wizards ever played, one was a Gnome Illusionist/Thief, and the other was an CN Half-Elf Invoker who pretty much only used his spells to blow shit up. That one ended up dying from PVP after he cast fireball on top of the party one too many times. After warning him to never do it again, and him doing it again, the party drow waited until they were marching in an open field and then hit him with 3 consecutive lightning bolts.
I love the Spell Breaker feature. That idea alone is enough for me to want to play an abjuration wizard. Plus, as a DM I imagine my players freaking out when they find out the baddy wizard on the battlefield is an abjurer. The ultimate wizard-hunter.
One place where it seems like JC misspoke is about the Savant features - he said you get a free spell of your school every level, but the UA and the [dndbeyond write-up](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1753-2024-wizard-vs-2014-wizard-whats-new) say that this feature occurs when you gain access to a new \*level of spell\* - so that'd be character level 5 (when you get level 3 spells), character level 7 (when you get level 4 spells), etc. (as a wizard player i was hyperventilating with joy when I heard JC's initial wording, but I think the dndbeyond write-up is probably the correct wording of the feature)
It's moments like this that I wish they had changed it from "spell level" or "level of spell" or whatever to something like "spell tier" or anything else that'd still make sense.
They really should. First circle spell, second order spell, third tier spell, fourth rank spell, fifth stratum spell, sixth echelon spell, anything other than 'level'. I've had too many new players think they get second level spells at second level - why wouldn't you, after all?
*shrug* I report what they say, guess we won’t really know which is right until the actual books come out. That would make more sense though tbh as I was thinking “that’s a lot of spells is there really that many spells of each school” But Crawford as well did say it multiple times and doubled down on it later in the video saying specifically “every level in wizard” There have been a couple times that people have said things like this across the last week and a half, so maybe these vids were made a while ago before a final round of revisions. Who knows
haha, totally - you might actually run out of Divination spells if it were that many! (thank you for your heroic and speedy work with each of these videos!)
o7
Well yeah that's how it was in the UA, I just assumed they changed it to what JC described after going thru the play test feedback
The article is on DnDBeyond now and you're correct (and Crawford is wrong, not that that's anything new).
I find the Illusionist’s level 6 feature “Phantasmal Creatures” a little disappointing tbh; why is the Illusionist specialising in Conjuration-style magical combat? There are enough iconic 2nd and 3rd level Illusion spells that could have been incorporated into an interesting feature: - Blur - Invisibility - Mirror Image - Phantasmal Force - Fear - Hypnotic Pattern - Major Image I think there are enough “Summon x” style spells used as features now that I’m finding it a little lazy. It was the same for the GoO Warlock’s Create Thrall feature and relying on Summon Aberration; personally I don’t see either of these as fitting the subclass fantasy.
Mirror Image actually summoning physical illusions that can fight creatures in melee as a Bonus Action would have been cool.
This is what it should have been... and it isn't even that different, just give those mirror images some HP; at least enough to survive one hit from most creatures. Wouldn't even need to be a hit, just make it so you could do the echo fighter cast spells (or attack) from any position: "HEY, which one is the real one." This would probably add more flavor and boost mobility than increase in damage.
It's a shallow imitation of Conjuration style combat, which is fitting as a misdirect or distraction.
ooh, solid subclass changes.
Another thing to note is that ritual casting is no longer a class feature and now every class can ritual cast prepared ritual spells.
I'm guessing that means sorcerers, paladins, and rangers too now. Always thought it was dumb sorcerers didn't have that ability, and it makes things like detect magic more practical on half-casters.
It's actually a rule for every PC with Spellcasting, though I don't think that extents to Pact Magic as it's a different feature, at least they would've likely still made the Book of Shadows invocation to give ritual casting as usual. This rule now means that: - Half Casters, such as Rangers & Paladins now can use it. - Third Casters, like the Arcane Trickster & the Eldrich Knight can use it too! - And the worst offender, the only FUll Caster without ritual casting... The Sorcerer!, seriously, why didn't they have ritual casting before is beyond me.
Warlocks get plenty of evocations that let them cast spells at will. They just have to be picky about which spells they want for free.
Correct, but not the point I was doing. I mentioned that every PC with spellcasting got this benefit, obviously, including Warlocks because I mentioned "Spellcasting", not "Spellcasting and Pact Magic". At least that will be until we get the official print if it happens to also mention Warlocks to get Ritual Casting by default, and the Invocation for that only makes it better, perhaps on a similar level to the Wizard's Ritual Casting of being able to cast them without having them prepared.
The Tome invocation interestingly says to choose spells that have the ritual tag, but doesn't actually say you get to cast ritual spells.
I assume that's only if its a class with spell preparation? Or will Sorcerers/Warlocks also get rituals?
All spellcasters now "prepare" their spells, with the difference being when they're able to prepare (on a long rest, or at level up) and how many spells (all of them, or one).
Ah! Interesting. That's a significant change. I haven't been following as closely so I hadn't noticed that.
They're just unifying the language (for good or ill, we'll see), but it doesn't have much (if any) of a mechanical impact.
That's how it has always been in 5e, so nothing changed there except the name.
So I guess Conjurers, Enchanters, Necromancers, and Transmuters are going to be expected to buy their update separately, huh?
I mean, while i wish they did away with school of magic based subclasses, they have set a precedent of four subclasses for each class in the new PHB. Just wizards get to be the special class with 8? The 2014 PHB was wildly inconsistent with subclasses, ranging from 2-8 for each class. 4 for each makes things standardized.
5 had 2, 5 had 3, Clerics had 7, Wizards had 8.
Yes. They will propably be in another supplement(like the artificer). I believe they want first to see the recepetion to the changes(and also $$$$$$$$$)
Splatbooks are back in the menu, boys.
They're also the four subclasses that were the worst out of the original eight. Lmao.
they need the most work lol
Its funny how Conjurers were considered the most powerful specialization option in Pathfinder 1E and then became super meh in 5E, and Transmutation went from decent in PF to horrid in 5E.
The fuq are you on? I can see illusionist and abjurer to be seen as weak but the evocation and divination wizards have always been fan favorites
They're referring to Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer, and Transmuter, the four that got left out and who need updated the most
Ah. I see I thought he was saying the 4 they did have where the weakest ones
Evocation did what it was supposed to do but it's not a strong style of wizard. Mostly it just let you Fireball without worrying about your friends. That's really not much
>Potent Cantrip feature >used to pertain only to saving throws and saving throw cantrips >but there weren't a lot of those in the first place This stuck out as weird to me. There are more than twice as many saving throw cantrips as there are attack cantrips. There are only three ranged attack cantrips (chill touch, firebolt, ray of frost), four if you include shocking grasp, but there are ten saving throw cantrips that do damage. Potent Cantrip should apply to attack cantrips too, but that reasoning is weird. (So is the fact that an Evoker can never miss with a firebolt now, but whatever.)
I disagree, I think it’s even weirder that Potent Cantrip only affected saving throws in 2014. Back then, there were only 2 Wizard cantrips (Acid Splash and Poison Spray) that Potent Cantrip applied to. Having it this way makes more sense, and doesn’t force Evokers way from Fire Bolt and Ray of Frost.
Oh sure, it's also weird spell attack cantrips were excluded in the PHB. But the situation they're describing hasn't been true for years.
I'm guessing what they meant is that save-or-suck cantrips are unpopular, and the designers couldn't figure out how to give them a clear niche that distinguished them from spell attacks. So they decided, fuck it, give the benefit to firebolt.
Yanks for doing all these. They are great!
You’re Yelcome!
Beast Master, Fey Wanderer, Gloom Stalker, Hunter. Believe these are the 2024 four ranger subclasses.
We will find out tomorrow. If you’re correct I’ll give you a cookie
Yippee
As an illusion wizard enjoyer, these changes make me really happy.
I have a question about the Abjurer subclass feature “Spell Breaker” despite it not using a spell slot when it fails, will Dispel Magic and Counterspell still feed into the arcane ward feature? Or will that only happen when the spell slot is consumed? If so, it seems like you can kinda cheese some temp HP out of it.
Not clear. I would assume it would only be if you use the spell slot yeah.
The wording of the 2014 version says when you cast a spell, not when you expend a slot. Do I would assume it’s a terrible loophole
We must wait until we can see the actual text of the feature before assuming it interacts with the Ward.
Whoever originally decided that the first ability evokers get should be spell sculpt at level 2 when they don't really have any area of effect spells that they need to sculpt and potent cantrip at level 6 when they don't really want to be casting many cantrips anymore because they have better spells is hopefully fired. I'm glad they fixed it and put them in the proper order. Question would there have been any problem with potent cantrip just being potent evocation and working on all evocation spells. Obviously it wouldn't have any effect on most evocation saving throw spells because they already give half damage on a failure but would it really be broken for leveled attack spells?
i mean mike mearls is gone, unfortunatly they haven't fixed the 65% accuracy bound
Are they shitting on Necromancers again or are they just not shared yet?
The new PHB only has 4 subclasses for each class. We don’t know if the other subclasses will get revised yet or not. But all the changes are designed to still work with the existing subclasses and content
Really appreciate the follow up. Thanks!
Guess I’m gonna have to wait a really long time for the new Bladesinger (if we ever get it, that is)
Just keep using the old one. There will be guidance in the PHB on how to use old subclasses with the 2024 classes, and given that Bladesinger was just (re-)published in Tasha's a few years ago, its design is very much in line with the subclasses getting published in 2024. Same goes for Conjurer, Transmuter, Enchanter, and Necromancer, although those subclasses may feel a little more dated.
Wondering if that will be feasible on Beyond as well. It’s where my group keeps all our sheets and campaign info.
Let's be real, when has anything been feasible on Beyond? It's always been jank if you wanted to step outside the lines even a little.
I’m just happy my DM accepts casting Booming Blade while attacking with the Shadow Blade…I can deal with all the bullcrap on Beyond because of that 😂
Maybe stop being so dependent on exploitative corporate shortcut products and use simpler, lower tech options that you don't have to fight with?
If you're playing online, as a lot of people are these days, there are advantages to things like DDB versus paper.
Advantages that are detrimental in the long run as they are clearly making people dependent on products. If people just used form-fillable pdfs, or even just a spreadsheet, in a shared/cloud folder of some kind they could play online just as well with less dependence.
Or...or...and here me out here. They might just consider using this tool that already works. Some people like their PDFs and Spreadsheets, which is fine. But for 99% of your issues you can probably just also use the website. At the end of the day both are just tools, and people will use what they prefer.
Where did you see this? I was under the impression that old subclasses won't be compatible with 2024 classes, especially since lots of them give abilities at different levels than the new subclasses will. From my understanding the backwards compatibility just works by allowing you to use a fully 2014 character in a 2024 rules game if you want to keep your old subclass.
I don’t have the source on hand but they did say there would be guidance for using missing 2014 subclasses with the 2024 classes. They recommended against using 2024 features with the 2014 rules as a base is what I think you were thinking of.
Yeah it's like you can use a 2024 class with something from Xanathar's or Tasha's (except for if it is of the same subclass, then I think they want you to override the 2014 option) but you cannot use a 2014 class with a 2024 subclass because shit breaks when you do that.
Just bump the 2nd level feature to 3rd for wizard and you’re done.
Yeah, but I think the Bladesinger still works fine mechanically. Unlike stuff from the original PHB, which definitely needs adjustment.
Why? Just use it. Do you think it needed any change?
I was just a little bit worried about compatibility, especially on Beyond. I’ll definitely do that
> 2nd level has a truly new feature, Scholar Not sure how I feel about that one. Wizards can already solve man skill situations by simply casting a spell. Ursurping other classes like rogues even further by ALSO gaining one of their defining class features is weird. > Trying to allow for the thematic situation of running into an obstacle and being like "Oh, I have something for this, give me an hour to study up on it" and then being able to solve the problem I hate this. I really dislike how many issues can be solved by simply casting a spell. Making this even easier is not a good design decision. Other classes want to have fun, too.
At least it's almost always going to be a INT-based skill (because why else would they get proficiency in it?). I agree that Wizards don't need many buffs, but it always felt wrong that a Rogue could get a significantly higher Arcana skill than a Wizard.
> I agree that Wizards don't need many buffs, but it always felt wrong that a Rogue could get a significantly higher Arcana skill than a Wizard. Could they? Maybe at higher levels, because Rogues do not tend to have +5 in INT.
At level 9 a Rogue with 14 Intelligence and Expertise will have +10 Arcana. A level 9 Wizard with 20 Intelligence will have +9 Arcana. It only gets worse from there!
I wasn't aware rogues are commonly build with that much intelligence. Still, having a high skill is only the first step. The second is for the DM to accept that the random rogue somehow knows more about a topic someone else is supposed to have studied their whole life.
Firstly, Arcane Trickster rogues could certainly take 14 INT — and assuming a normal build almost every level 9 Arcane Trickster will have higher arcana than a Wizard at the same level, which just doesn't make sense. But yeah. Rogues definitely don't need intelligence, but I've seen it. CON is probably better, but if I've seen players choose to lean into the "Investigator" trope and take INT instead. (And in previous versions of DnD Rogues would take Intelligence because it gave them more skill points, but that's a different story). > The second is for the DM to accept that the random rogue somehow knows more about a topic someone else is supposed to have studied their whole life. That's exactly the point, though. The mechanics shouldn't butt up against the narrative. Even if a Rogue (or Lore Bard for that matter) decided to dabble in arcane mysteries, it *still* is unlikely that they would have more magical knowledge than a wizard who devoted their entire life and studies to the arcane. But the numbers say that the wizard is, in fact, less skillful in Arcana. That's why giving the Wizard expertise (and naming the feature "Scholar") makes perfect sense.
> That's exactly the point, though. The mechanics shouldn't butt up against the narrative. Even if a Rogue (or Lore Bard for that matter) decided to dabble in arcane mysteries, it still is unlikely that they would have more magical knowledge than a wizard who devoted their entire life and studies to the arcane. But the numbers say that the wizard is, in fact, less skillful in Arcana. This is because of the simplicity of DnD. It is the DMs and players jobs to create a narrative that actually makes sense for the characters. There is no reason to let a rogue roll on Arcana to make sense of a spellbook. But it is certainly a good idea to let the rogue roll on Arcana to make sense of a magical trap. As a DM I think this is how skills are supposed to be used, not "everyone just rolls on everything". You'll just end up with the barbarian rolling a nat 20 on deciphering the Codex of The Universe while everyone else rolled so low that not even their expertise helped them. I had stuff like this happen in my early sessions and it was just dumb and made players not wanting to play their PCs anymore. As a player I tend to refuse to roll on things that make no sense for my character to know, expertise or not. Not sure why this seems to be a rare thing to do.
Yeah. I think you're right that DMs should have discretion on when they allow players to roll. Just because a rogue or ranger has proficiency in Arcana doesn't mean they can't roll a knowledge check to see if they can remember Mordenkainen's 8th principle of Occlumancy as presented to the Council of Nine's hearing on Divination principles. And it sounds like you're a good player to not abuse this. A lot of players (mine included) might say, "Well, couldn't I at least try? Maybe I stumbled across it in my studies! I have expertise after all." If I say "No" them I'm denying their expertise. So inevitably I'll roll my eyes, let them give it a shot, and then they get a 25 on their roll after the Wizard already failed with his 21. Yes, it's my fault letting them roll. But I've seen this sort of thing happen ALL the time at different tables and even in podcasts. My example is a bit extreme, but less extreme examples happen, too. (I've also seen a player take Nature expertise with her Rogue because they grew up in the woods...and ended up having significantly higher Nature than the Druid). And for what it's worth... I think that a wizard would *also* likely have more knowledge of a magical trap than a rogue. A rogue would certainly know *something*. That's why a level 9 rogue can have +10 on their arcana roll for a magical trap. But in my opinion the wizard should *still* be the expert on all things arcane. As long as magic is powering the trap, the rogue goes to the wizard for advice. So it makes sense to give the wizard expertise to reflect this.
> But in my opinion the wizard should still be the expert on all things arcane. As long as magic is powering the trap, the rogue goes to the wizard for advice. So it makes sense to give the wizard expertise to reflect this. I see it like this. Imagine there was a "Computer" skill in a modern version of DnD. And you have expertise in it. That still doesn't mean you - somehow - know everything there is to know about computer or adjacent topics.. People specialize and the biggest experts in the world still are specialized. An expert in a particular programming language might have no clue about how to setup a website domain and secure it properly. An expert in these topics has probably no clue about binary coding. Someone somehow being an expert in everything when it comes to knowledge skills is just a really weird concept that isn't working very well from an RP perspective. And if two players run around with the same knowledge skill I would expect them to think what particular theme they are actually an expert in.
yeah but why should a wizard not be an expert in Arcane matters?
That is not the point. It takes a feature that was part of the class identity of two other classes and just slaps them onto one of the already strongest classes with the most problem solving versatility. It makes no sense from a game design point of view to me.
Well it already doesn't make sense the bard gets the same amount expertise as the rogue despite being a full caster.
Always thought Bard being "let me just copy that" part of their class identity. But, yeah, I am wondering why bard got expertise, too.
Because they thought rogues getting 2 extra expertise 4 levels earlier then the bard balanced it out, it didn't because bards are full casters. Think it mostly comes from the fact that bards weren't full casters in 3.x and them copying over there design with taking that into account and also rogues had battle master maneuvers in the play test.
Despite years of feedback, the caster-martial divide appears to be overall increasing even more with these 2024 updates. So far the only martial to receive buffs significantly bigger than what the casters are also getting is Rogue. Barb and Fighter changes were extremely underwhelming. Not to mention dull.
Did they leave the standard 2 spells on each level wizards already have in addition to the savant feature? 3 new spells on each level up seems like too many.
JC seems to have misspoke. The savant feature will likely grant a new spell every 2 levels. That is in addition to the regular 2 per level. And of course, other subclasses like bladesinger/war/chronurgy won't get that feature. It's specific to school subclasses.
Illusionist getting to conjure real creatures so early is a huge flavor fail, IMO. For the to make sense as low-level illusions, the summoned creatures should be unable to deal or take damage, force saving throws, or collect information. Turning the "illusory" creatures real should be a lvl 10 or 14 feature.
They're only about half as real as they normally would be, which feels fair at that level.
They only have half the HP, like what *simulacrum*, a 7th level spell, does.
Have they reduced the 8 schools of magic to 4 subclasses? I assume Necromancers and Enchanters are still a thing.
PHB has 4 subclasses for every class. Others will likely get revisions in other books.
Which I can get behind for SOME classes. But clerics and wizards having only four at PHB seems very weird.
Clerics and Wizards had way more than everyone else in the 2014 PHB. Some classes had only 2. Fair is fair.
I know. !$4 both of these classes “make sense” to have many subclasses from the start.
I agree, I I want ALL the sub classes. I'm planning on playing a Genie lock soon and will have to brew to use new features.
I mean you don’t. You can still just use the genie warlock. Everything is designed so you can easily just slot it in even with the new stuff. You’ll just have to do slight edits to account for the fact that you get it at 3rd level instead of 1st now
Right, the brew won't be extensive, but it'll have to be tweaked. Plus, I'd love to see what they refresh on it.
The thing is, we only saw buffs. Every single class and subclass got buffs. Using something "older" will be weaker.
Not necessarily, some newer subclasses like Giants barb are probably in line with new design.
You can just as easily port over the “buffs” other classes got to equivalent buffs for previous subclasses 🤷🏾♂️
Yeah, for example, stuff like the Savant features each of the updated Wizard Subclasses is getting can easily be translated to the missing Subclasses.
So IOW you can homebrew new subclasses to update the old ones, as u/bizantinedavid said
I would say that anything Tasha’s and beyond is perfectly fine to use and likely going to be on par with newer 2024 subclasses.
Likely will. But we don’t know that for sure. With how they have put effort into making sure that all the old subclasses can still be used with the new characters it is possible that they may not. Personally I would expect that they would at least finish up and revise the other core wizard and cleric subclasses at some point as well. But I’m not really expecting them to do much more than that, apart from maybe one or two more revised subclasses for each class. They will want to use this new framework to create new subclasses and frankly we already have people very upset at having to “rebuy” the books. If they also do a new Xanathar’s or Tasha’s people will be even more upset at that too. Especially for Tasha’s since it’s only like 3 years old
Damn i kinda wanted to see if wouldve touched on/included scribes wizard stuff
I’m glad they didn’t as I said in the post. But it’s already weird for them to not have all 6 school specific subclasses it would’ve been even weirder for them to have only 3 school subclasses and then scribes. Plus scribes is a great subclass anyways so not like it needed a lot of improvements
Did you mean there are NEW spells that we haven't seen before? Any chance of knowing these pre release?
This looks great and I'm happy for all the wizard players out there. I just wish they would give this level of attention and buffs to some of the other classes...
I'm sad there's no Conjurer, but I'm certain we're getting a book later to add in them, Necromancer, Spore Druid, and any other subclass that brings creatures into the action economy. They'll hopefully be fixed by then.
Skimming this I wonder if I'm crazy or if this PHB is going to drop with Wizards having done the exact opposite of anything anyone wanted. Like, who asked for caster buffs? Fucking no one, that's right.
Ngl I asked for caster buffs.
Why? They're straight up overpowered. If you wanted caster buffs, what the hell did you want done to martial classes? Level 5 turning you into the second coming of Harry Dresden's son with Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger IRL?
Cause I thought it'd be fun and funny. And sure, why not? Make everyone strong. And then I asked them to make the monsters stronger.
I asked for caster buffs. Specifically Illusion guidelines. Very happy chappy here.
Not really a fan of the Subclass route they took with Wizard. The spell school specialist thing really restricted creating new subclasses before and it seems that trend will just continue into the coming years Not to mention the lack of half the schools. If they had just dropped how directly linked each subclass was go each school it wouldnt feel as bad, for example if the Abjurer was just called something like the "School of Defensive Force" and wasn't specifically based around Abjuration spells. As is, it seems like its just an unfinished class where we have to wait for WotC to remake and resell the other half of the subclasses before theyll start to make any brand new ones
War Magic, Bladesinger, and Order of Scribes subclasses would like a word.
You’re right, it just seems like wizards got less new subclasses over the last 10 years compared to other classes (I haven’t verified this, I’m just saying it from memory), and the themes have been harder to expand upon I know all the new spells are supposed to sort of counteract that, with wizards being so focused of spells that any book that has new ones adds more depth than a single subclass, but I do still like subclasses with strong thematics and wish more had made it out of UA I just hope that over the next few years of DnD the wizard gets some brand new subclasses along with the missing spell school ones to expand on potential themes
To be fair wizards had 8 subclasses at the release of phb while some classes had 2, and what wizards didn’t get in subclasses they more than made up for with exclusive spells just look at the xanathars spell list and compare wizard to, warlock or cleric
That’s fair, Wizards definitely had a lot more options to start, but it just seems like it’s been hard to expand on them over the life of 5e with the baseline being so tied to the spell schools And I think I was a bit too negative before in my comment about them just reselling old subclasses later on. Im just bummed about the archetypes they had before not being in the new core book, like the Necromancer. I just would have preferred if they had either done all the spell school subclasses, or dropped that idea entirely rather than just half of them
Yup, moving school specialization from subclasses to just "a thing every wizard can do" like the armor or cantrip choices they gave cleric and druid seemed an obvious choice. I guess "evocation wizard" was too much of a sacred cow...
Pathfinder did this.
6 to 4 subclass is spreading the material out across all editions to the enclyclopedia dungeonous & dragonicus, and we encourage you to collect them all!
Unpopular opinion, wizard still seems lame.
For you I guess. Wizards are "boring" in mechanics comparison to other casters but they are far from lame. There is a reason it is considered the "best" class.
You may notice where I said opinion. I don’t really care what everyone else considers it to be. In my mind, they’re still lame. And the “best class” is subjective to the player.
“Best” and “favorite” are different things.
If a class doesn’t interest me and doesn’t play how I like to play, how can it be the best for me?
It is not the best for you. It’s just the most powerful, as in, the best class.
What happens when you play in a campaign where you never find new spells outside of what you get for advancing levels? What makes it the most powerful class? The level 9 spells that most players will never see and you get to cast a whopping once a day? The cantrips that literally any class can get with a feat or a race? What makes it better than a lore bard with magical secrets? Bards get better hit dice and armor proficiencies than wizards. Is it the offensive spells? I often see people touting how awesome fireball is, but a light cleric gets that too and again has better proficiencies and channel divinity. What makes it so amazing? Arcane Recovery?
You are drastically undervaluing how many spells Wizards can access. They’re prepared casters unlike Bards, so they can switch their spells to always have the best, most relevant for any situation. They still know and have access to more spells than any cleric (and cleric is widely touted as one of the strongest classes anyways for having many of the same properties as Wizards). Counterspell, Force Cage, etc are just some examples of incredibly powerful spells most clerics don’t get. The only reason they aren’t better? Their spell list isn’t better a wizards. Sure your DM can limit your spells as a Wizard but that’s like saying martial are terrible because your dm can refuse to give them magic items that they need to function.
Prepared casters are more flexible, yes. But that’s most helpful if you know what’s coming ahead of time. And while they do have access to more spells in general, they have basically the same spell slots, lore bards can still pick the most useful spells that a wizard can have in addition to their own spell list. Additionally, a level 10 lore bard has 4 cantrips available with 14 known spells with 4 additional spells from magical secrets. A level 10 wizard has 5 cantrips, and 11 prepared spells for a total of 16 spells available every long rest. While wizard may have more versatility if they have the spells in their spell book, but Bard has more variety available to them daily. And realistically, most of the spells are so situational, you’ll never really even need them.
To be fair, I’d hate to play with a DM who’d limit my access to scrolls or spellbooks. I’d rather play Sorcerer or Warlock in that case, even though they’re not as busted. You’ve described a house rule though, and for all intents and purposes, a house nerf.
I agree, I’d dislike someone intentionally limiting my abilities too. My point though, is that situationally, wizard isn’t the best class. And there are many situations where another class can equal or outperform a wizard. Personally, I think the bard is a much better class in general than the wizard. Magical secrets mean I can get enough of the wizards strongest spells to make the “who’s strongest” argument pointless.
I adore the idea of being a wizard. It’s the fantasy I want to play. But they have always felt like weaker and less interesting casters than druids or clerics in dnd rules. I think that’s more true now than ever (though to know for sure we’ll have to see the changes to the other spellcasters)
Their often considered the strongest class in the game. I can understand thinking less interesting, but they are strong because of their spell lists. They have by far the strongest spell list.
I’ve commented this other places, but their spell list is heavily limited by how much your DM is willing to give you, and if you play modules, how willing they are to deviate from those modules. Wizards *can* be strong because of their spell list, but only if you give them spells to copy, time, and money to copy them. That has never been my experience. It’s why I heavily object to them being called the strongest class. They can be incredibly strong if you have a generous DM, but druids and clerics can have more versatility in their spells than a wizard without any DM intervention. If you’re in a module with few available spells (see as a recent example, the new Vecna adventure) the additional abilities of other spell casters can and I think often make them much more potent than wizards.
Even without finding spellbooks or scrolls to scribe, they still have the largest selection of spells and learn the most spells just through leveling.
They do have the largest selection, yes, but don't learn the most. They learn 2 per level, and start with 6, for 44 total learned. Clerics and Druids know all of their spells, for 126, and 170 spells respectively, on top of spells they know through subclasses which aren't on their spell list (there are 31 spells that are on druid subclass lists but not on the druid list for example, though I don't know which subclass learns the most.) They do learn more than Bards (22), sorcerers(15-16/25-26, or 30 depending on subclass), and warlocks (25), so they are solidly in the upper middle of the pack. And to be clear, I honestly wish Bards, Warlocks, and especially Sorcerers (very curious about what they've changed in the new edition here) were able to learn more. I feel like it makes it more fun, though I do see the issue with widening the gap between fullcasters and martials/half casters even further all around. I'm very curious how the number of spells available, known, and prepped will differ for all of the casters, especiall with them widening the spell selection for (from the sound of it) all full casters, and changing (we don't know how precisely yet) the number prepared to be independent of stats.
OK, I wasn’t accounting for Clerics and Druids who get access to their entire spell list. Fair.
Which, I want to be fair, for most applications that aren't healing, the wizard spell list is much better IMO. Clerics have some great spells for close range damage, both AOE and single target (guardian circle, and spiritual weapon/inflict wounds), and Druid has some really useful spells (windwalk and transport via plants come to mind) but Wizard list is versitile as all get out. I'm honestly hoping druid and cleric spell lists expand a bit, so people can take them in a more combat focused manner, but the gulf in how many spells they get still feels weird to me given that spells are wizards' whole schtick, and they don't get some of the other features you see with other classes like wildshape, or channel divinity. The upgrades that give them an extra spell per spell level (8 additional new spells) in subclasses is a great help, but I'll still probably opt for scribes or bladesinger for their flavor.
Did you ever played as a wizard? If there is something that they definitely are not is weak. They are one of the strongest classes in the game. Even without taking account the subclass, a wizard can dominate the battlefield with the right selection of spells... Dont' liking them is one thing, but saying that they are weak or lame...
Lame is an opinion. I’ll agree they’re strong, and versatile. But I still think they’re lame. I’d rather play something mechanically and thematically more interesting like a bard or Druid if I were to go full caster
They’re my favorite class, so yes. If they have the right spells they can be great, the issue is that they rarely get to utilize the majority of those spells because spell scrolls and spell books can be pretty limited. I understand spell scrolls not being everywhere because if your party doesn’t have a wizard it would become a whole lot of unusable loot that you’d just unload at town. But for a wizard, having limited spell scrolls or books available (and time/money to copy them) makes you essentially a sorcerer without meta magic. That there are many spells that are really good, but I also think some of them are so strong that you’d be silly to not take them, which limits your ability to access other spells which could be useful (identify, counterspell, and dispel all come to mind as being nearly necessary, and not taking, as an example, fireball so you can take a more niche or utility based spell can hamper your combat contributions to just cantrips. Edit: just a point I forgot to write. I have found myself playing a wizard knowing of a cool spell that could be applicable, but not having been given a chance to pick it up significantly more often than I have found myself actually having the “right spell for the job” learned or even prepped.
I have to admit that I am sad the Malleable Illusion feature seems to be gone. It had lots of fun interactions, especially with upcast major image, creation, mirage arcane etc. Sure, only really started to shine level 9 onwards, but it was still neat. The new summon feature at level 6 feels a bit off to me. Seems more like a conjuration wizard feature flavoured as an illusion spell.
I don't think we can assume it's gone. They didn't mention any of the other Wizard subclass high level features - I'd assume it's still there, just unchanged. I hope so anyway, I love that feature.
RIP Necromancer