Malleable illusion combined with the creation spell is the real star of an illusionist
it's hilariously bad considering you can't even make arrows that can do damage with it, but the 1st level spell shape water can
You cannot effectively use Malleable illusion with creation in that manner.
"Starting at 6th level, when you cast an illusion spell that has a duration of 1 minute or longer, you can use your action to change the nature of that illusion (using the spell's normal parameters for the illusion), provided that you can see the illusion."
Using the "spells normal parameters" is important. Malleable Illusion lets you get more than one use out of an illusion. It lets you say turn the ogre you made with major illusion into a tyrannosaur or something but it doesn't let you pick up and move the object of your creation because the normal parameters of creation do not let you pick it up and move it.
Things you could do is turn the subject of your creation from vegetable into mineral. So you could make a block of wood and then spend an action to turn the block of wood into lava. (or you could turn a gazebo you made via creation into lava, or a bridge you made etc) but you cannot make lava get up and move around because you cannot normally make your creation get up and move around.
Malleable illusion is still very good, because it lets you get multiple uses out of the image spells. And because it lets you do neat things with creation traps(creation is not normally able to be ended by an action of the player since its not concentration, but altering the nature of it does let you do this). And because there is a lot of utility in things like Magic Mouth, Illusory Script, Magic Aura*, and Mirage Arcane.
Similarly Illusory Reality is most valuable for letting you use low level spell slots to do real things. Like making walls and cages with a standard action. Minor Illusion becomes an instant full cover generator that blocks line of effect(if you're small)
Edit
* I think this is my favorite. Because you can cast this on anything you want and so any 30 days downtime gives you a number of items (or people) for which you can mess with the aura as an action forever.
When it tells me the "original parameters of the spell" I factor the spell's target in to it
For example, moving invisibility from one target to another one
Even if not, you can cast Creation to make a small rock, and have your party member throw it at an enemy and on your turn, turn it into a cube of lava
If you can alter a spell's duration, why can't you alter its target?
Edit: looking at it from a Jeremy Crawford lens, I doubt target or duration can be changed, but it's vague enough I feel confident as a DM giving it the nod. I also let them hurt things with Illusory Reality because just "haha I create prisons" gets boring real fast
The point I was raising about wizard homogeneity stems from the simple fact that unlike the sorcerer or warlock, they're capable of learning their entire spell list and as a result they're going to approach any given problem in more or less the same way when they reach the upper tiers of the game.
Which isn't a condemnation of them or their power, but rather contrasting them with the Fighter as a case of versatility in what it can be.
Also champion is quite unfairly maligned imho; it's lack of flashy magic or manuevers so often conceal the simple brilliance of have a class where it's powers are effectively always on; the fighting game equivelant would be a character who trades out having super/charge moves in favor of having powerful "normals".
Champion is mechanically weaker than battlemaster, to a huge degree if you factor in precision attack and great weapon master or sharpshooter
it's also.... boring... it's a great go to for first time players but, it gets nothing it can do
And it was literally written for first time players.
It's in the SRD as the example of the "basic" fighter subclass. And it gets used for a billion pre-cons for convention games. Its simplicity is literally the reason it exists, and that's totally fine.
Anyone posting in here likely has an aptitude well in excess of the purview of this subclass, but that doesn't mean it's bad or anything!
I for one enjoy it, because it frees up my brain power to concentrate on other more role-playing related stuff.
The point I was raising about wizard homogeneity stems from the simple fact that unlike the sorcerer or warlock, they're capable of learning their entire spell list and as a result they're going to approach any given problem in more or less the same way when they reach the upper tiers of the game.
Which isn't a condemnation of them or their power, but rather contrasting them with the Fighter as a case of versatility in what it can be.
Also champion is quite unfairly maligned imho; it's lack of flashy magic or manuevers so often conceal the simple brilliance of have a class where it's powers are effectively always on; the fighting game equivelant would be a character who trades out having super/charge moves in favor of having powerful "normals".
I don't understand this. Every wizard can do anything, which is less versatile than a fighter that spends its whole career specializing in one thing?
You say the wizard will approach every problem the same way at high levels because of how many options they have, but a fighter won't because they have fewer options? I must be misunderstanding.
The point I was raising about wizard homogeneity stems from the simple fact that unlike the sorcerer or warlock, they're capable of learning their entire spell list and as a result they're going to approach any given problem in more or less the same way when they reach the upper tiers of the game.
Which isn't a condemnation of them or their power, but rather contrasting them with the Fighter as a case of versatility in what it can be.
Also champion is quite unfairly maligned imho; it's lack of flashy magic or manuevers so often conceal the simple brilliance of have a class where it's powers are effectively always on; the fighting game equivelant would be a character who trades out having super/charge moves in favor of having powerful "normals".
I don't understand this. Every wizard can do anything, which is less versatile than a fighter that spends its whole career specializing in one thing?
You say the wizard will approach every problem the same way at high levels because of how many options they have, but a fighter won't because they have fewer options? I must be misunderstanding.
Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once.
...
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Between this comment and the one above, I'm not seeing how these are arguments show that a Fighter is in any way more versatile than a Wizard.
Versatility as defined in the original post by Gaddez was not about "what you can do" but "what you can be". He probably should have used a different word, because what he was talking about was the breadth and delineation of roles and not the in game effectiveness of "doing different things".
My take on fighters is that they are hands down the most versatile class in the entire game in terms of what they can be; you might think that it's wizard since you can have the entire spell list at your disposal allowing you to make reality your bitch, but you'd be wrong since pretty much every wizard is going to wind up in the same spot at level 20 with the only real variation being the tradition you pick at level 2 changing what side bonuses you have and that might change what spells you cast to make reality your bitch.
By comparison, fighters are absurdly variable in terms of what they can be; vikings, winged hussars, rajput, samurai, welsh long bowman, Centurion, aztec eagle warriors... all wildly different from each other and all are perfectly capable of being credibly re-created by a player with a bit of effort and imagination.
As to utility: the fighter has access to more advancements then any other class in the game at a whopping 7, which means that you can easily snag various feats to buff up your capabilities.
He isn't saying "the fighter is more versatile at solving problems in the dnd game" he is saying "the fighter is more versatile at building different types of characters".
I mean, that's only true if you don't consider spells themselves to be part of the build, which is a weird way of looking at it. Ignoring the practicality of it, I could have a Pyromancer one day and an Illusionist another; they would play very differently, arguably more differently than many Fighter builds. Just because you can have the same spells prepared as another Wizard doesn't mean you will.
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
I'd like to offer a counter opinion to Go you, minus dong:
We don't really have RL equivalents to mages and thus I find the historical comparison a little uncharitable.
Just looking at the armed forces, if you aren't on the field shooting peoplea gun monkey then you could be a communications officer, an engineer, a mechanic, Cyber-Ops etc.
And even though you might use the same tools your goals and day to day are different.
Mechnically, you used to have restrictions in the spells you could learn; evocation and abjuration were mutally exclusive, for example. We can also define different roles for casters:
blasters, nukers, CC specialists, support.
And although calculating the different setups is nice, the same cookie cutter logic applies to martials: GWM, PAM & SS are your go-tos and everything else is ketchup.
Well the short answer is that fighters have all that variation within a single subclass. EKs have all the fighter variation plus spell variation.. BMs have maneuver variation... champions have... shit; well no one will argue that champions suck. But their variation is still as high or higher than wizards solely on their feat differentiation.
And your defined differences... Aren’t. Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once. You will never be a focus damage like a ranged fighter if you’re two handed. You will never be as focused on control as a two hander if you’re TWF. You will never be as tanky as sword and board as a two handed etc. You will never be able to do as much spread damage as a two hander as TWF. Etc.
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Also a nuker is another name for a Blaster... they’re the same focus.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
Ooooh, quarterstaff
ok i meant a spear or something :P
Yeah you can't give me an opportunity like that to try to make quarterstaves the most broken weapon in the game. I'd legit make a Staff Mastery feat that's like "You can use a quarterstaff two-handed as a double weapon. When you wield a quarterstaff in this manner, each end has the finesse and light properties, and does 1d6 bludgeon damage. When you wield a quarterstaff, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
Like I have no idea how OP that is but I hope it's a lot because the quarterstaff deserves it.
unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
Ooooh, quarterstaff
ok i meant a spear or something :P
Yeah you can't give me an opportunity like that to try to make quarterstaves the most broken weapon in the game. I'd legit make a Staff Mastery feat that's like "You can use a quarterstaff two-handed as a double weapon. When you wield a quarterstaff in this manner, each end has the finesse and light properties, and does 1d6 bludgeon damage. When you wield a quarterstaff, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
Like I have no idea how OP that is but I hope it's a lot because the quarterstaff deserves it.
I wouldn't be aiming for "broken".
I think the fix is either simply making a finesse, 2h weapon but keep it in line with the others (i.e. max 1d8).
or allowing finesse on "normal" 2handers but applying a str requirement to them, like armor.
I mean, that's only true if you don't consider spells themselves to be part of the build, which is a weird way of looking at it. Ignoring the practicality of it, I could have a Pyromancer one day and an Illusionist another; they would play very differently, arguably more differently than many Fighter builds. Just because you can have the same spells prepared as another Wizard doesn't mean you will.
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
I'd like to offer a counter opinion to Go you, minus dong:
We don't really have RL equivalents to mages and thus I find the historical comparison a little uncharitable.
Just looking at the armed forces, if you aren't on the field shooting peoplea gun monkey then you could be a communications officer, an engineer, a mechanic, Cyber-Ops etc.
And even though you might use the same tools your goals and day to day are different.
Mechnically, you used to have restrictions in the spells you could learn; evocation and abjuration were mutally exclusive, for example. We can also define different roles for casters:
blasters, nukers, CC specialists, support.
And although calculating the different setups is nice, the same cookie cutter logic applies to martials: GWM, PAM & SS are your go-tos and everything else is ketchup.
Well the short answer is that fighters have all that variation within a single subclass. EKs have all the fighter variation plus spell variation.. BMs have maneuver variation... champions have... shit; well no one will argue that champions suck. But their variation is still as high or higher than wizards solely on their feat differentiation.
And your defined differences... Aren’t. Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once. You will never be a focus damage like a ranged fighter if you’re two handed. You will never be as focused on control as a two hander if you’re TWF. You will never be as tanky as sword and board as a two handed etc. You will never be able to do as much spread damage as a two hander as TWF. Etc.
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Also a nuker is another name for a Blaster... they’re the same focus.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
You can but you are unlikely to. Just as it’s not reasonable to say that wizards will all have the same spell list the level of overlap matters. And no swapping weapons isn’t a realistic thing unless action economy is not followed.
I mean, that's only true if you don't consider spells themselves to be part of the build, which is a weird way of looking at it. Ignoring the practicality of it, I could have a Pyromancer one day and an Illusionist another; they would play very differently, arguably more differently than many Fighter builds. Just because you can have the same spells prepared as another Wizard doesn't mean you will.
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
I'd like to offer a counter opinion to Go you, minus dong:
We don't really have RL equivalents to mages and thus I find the historical comparison a little uncharitable.
Just looking at the armed forces, if you aren't on the field shooting peoplea gun monkey then you could be a communications officer, an engineer, a mechanic, Cyber-Ops etc.
And even though you might use the same tools your goals and day to day are different.
Mechnically, you used to have restrictions in the spells you could learn; evocation and abjuration were mutally exclusive, for example. We can also define different roles for casters:
blasters, nukers, CC specialists, support.
And although calculating the different setups is nice, the same cookie cutter logic applies to martials: GWM, PAM & SS are your go-tos and everything else is ketchup.
Well the short answer is that fighters have all that variation within a single subclass. EKs have all the fighter variation plus spell variation.. BMs have maneuver variation... champions have... shit; well no one will argue that champions suck. But their variation is still as high or higher than wizards solely on their feat differentiation.
And your defined differences... Aren’t. Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once. You will never be a focus damage like a ranged fighter if you’re two handed. You will never be as focused on control as a two hander if you’re TWF. You will never be as tanky as sword and board as a two handed etc. You will never be able to do as much spread damage as a two hander as TWF. Etc.
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Also a nuker is another name for a Blaster... they’re the same focus.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
You can but you are unlikely to. Just as it’s not reasonable to say that wizards will all have the same spell list the level of overlap matters. And no swapping weapons isn’t a realistic thing unless action economy is not followed.
So regarding the weapon swapping:
I disagree. Depending on how the fight is going, you might need to switch weapons. If your DM isn't giving you encounters that force you to make tactical decisions then that's on him/her, not the system.
Regarding wizard spells:
I see what you mean but I still don't care for the distinction. It also feels super munchkiny what you're doing. Not every wizard is going to take "the best spells"; some will commit to their RP choices.
That's at least the second time you've more or less asserted as factually given something that is a choice that not all players/characters are going to make. Not everyone plays the way you do, and it's at best presumptuous to assume, for instance, that any given wizard is "unlikely to" have anything other than a relatively specific subset of all the spells they can choose from. Or that every single Fighter who starts with 16 Str will have 20 Str at level 6.
Maybe I want a feat first instead. Maybe I don't care about 20 Str, maybe 18 is fine. Maybe I wanna bring up my Dex or Con some. Maybe I want to boost my Int, Wis or Cha so I can pick up some spellcasting through multi-classing.
From the post that started this discussion, I'm still wondering how a "viking" and a "centurion" are going to play differently at the table. Like what is the player of a viking Fighter going to be doing that the player of a centurion Fighter isn't? And how are those differences so much more distinct than a player who chose to design a Pyromancer instead of a Summoner?
From the post that started this discussion, I'm still wondering how a "viking" and a "centurion" are going to play differently at the table. Like what is the player of a viking Fighter going to be doing that the player of a centurion Fighter isn't? And how are those differences so much more distinct than a player who chose to design a Pyromancer instead of a Summoner?
They're going to be built very differently; Like if I was going for a viking, I'm probably looking at a character who is going for a great axe and not neccesarily hard on tecnique so a champion build works well here with a second fighting style going down the pipe for either defense or archery (for throwing axes and javelins).
By comparison, the Centurion is more along the lines of a team playing defender, so the best option is a sword and board purple dragon thus upgrading all of the fighters default moves (second wind, action surge, indomitable) to give more tactical options to the party as a whole and behave in a similar manner to the warlord's of 4e.
By 20th, these two characters will be in very different positions and their play styles will not transfer between each other at all.
Thus the differences between the summoner and the pyromancer is kind of moot; the pyromancer is going to want to have minions to stand between him and his enemies while he nukes them and the summoner is going to have pets he supports by shooting their enemies.
I actually think they shouldn't have ditched opposed schools of magic, so wizards actually felt more different
Yea. I think you're school should have a much more prominent role in wizard development, and spell selection. One big problem though is there are some spell levels that don't contain certain wizard school spells!
I actually think they shouldn't have ditched opposed schools of magic, so wizards actually felt more different
Yea. I think you're school should have a much more prominent role in wizard development, and spell selection. One big problem though is there are some spell levels that don't contain certain wizard school spells!
Sure but I mean, if they hadn't ditched opposing schools I feel like that wouldn't be the case
override367 on
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I actually think they shouldn't have ditched opposed schools of magic, so wizards actually felt more different
Yea. I think you're school should have a much more prominent role in wizard development, and spell selection. One big problem though is there are some spell levels that don't contain certain wizard school spells!
Sure but I mean, if they hadn't ditched opposing schools I feel like that wouldn't be the case
To simplify: wizards and other casters often endup looking and feeling the same in the end because they can all access all the powers with little differentiation and there's some pretty clear top choices for certain spell levels. This comes to the fore in the cleric and druid class a bunch because they can select from all the spells all the time when they prep, which is why they have far more distinctive class features that are not spells. As well for a number of the "spells known" classes the spells you pick are often the same as other folks playing the class because they are the most effective spells to use on that class. As an example eldritch blast and hex on warlocks or hunters mark on rangers. Fighters feel different from one another because they have to focus specific aspects to pull effectiveness out of the system (a similar thing happens to rogues). Whereas casters are all often broadly effective in a way that makes them all feel kinda similar. Mostly though this is all a fairly thin veil over a role play vs roll play incongruity. Characters mostly feel different from one another because their players put in the effort to make them feel different. Why would a centurion feel different from a viking? Because the person playing them makes sure to keep that viking image in your head, they bring an axe instead of a spear and focus more on their individual damage and capability instead of motivating their compatriots. Why does the necromancer feel different from an evoker? Because the player decides to bring vamp touch instead of fireball.
I mean, that's only true if you don't consider spells themselves to be part of the build, which is a weird way of looking at it. Ignoring the practicality of it, I could have a Pyromancer one day and an Illusionist another; they would play very differently, arguably more differently than many Fighter builds. Just because you can have the same spells prepared as another Wizard doesn't mean you will.
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
I'd like to offer a counter opinion to Go you, minus dong:
We don't really have RL equivalents to mages and thus I find the historical comparison a little uncharitable.
Just looking at the armed forces, if you aren't on the field shooting peoplea gun monkey then you could be a communications officer, an engineer, a mechanic, Cyber-Ops etc.
And even though you might use the same tools your goals and day to day are different.
Mechnically, you used to have restrictions in the spells you could learn; evocation and abjuration were mutally exclusive, for example. We can also define different roles for casters:
blasters, nukers, CC specialists, support.
And although calculating the different setups is nice, the same cookie cutter logic applies to martials: GWM, PAM & SS are your go-tos and everything else is ketchup.
Well the short answer is that fighters have all that variation within a single subclass. EKs have all the fighter variation plus spell variation.. BMs have maneuver variation... champions have... shit; well no one will argue that champions suck. But their variation is still as high or higher than wizards solely on their feat differentiation.
And your defined differences... Aren’t. Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once. You will never be a focus damage like a ranged fighter if you’re two handed. You will never be as focused on control as a two hander if you’re TWF. You will never be as tanky as sword and board as a two handed etc. You will never be able to do as much spread damage as a two hander as TWF. Etc.
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Also a nuker is another name for a Blaster... they’re the same focus.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
You can but you are unlikely to. Just as it’s not reasonable to say that wizards will all have the same spell list the level of overlap matters. And no swapping weapons isn’t a realistic thing unless action economy is not followed.
So regarding the weapon swapping:
I disagree. Depending on how the fight is going, you might need to switch weapons. If your DM isn't giving you encounters that force you to make tactical decisions then that's on him/her, not the system.
Regarding wizard spells:
I see what you mean but I still don't care for the distinction. It also feels super munchkiny what you're doing. Not every wizard is going to take "the best spells"; some will commit to their RP choices.
Weapon swapping is a significant cost. You must sheath your weapon and draw the other. This takes at minimum 1 round because you only get one draw/sheath per turn for free. A full round of doing nothing is ages in a fight. It can take up to two rounds if you are wearing a shield (1 round donn/doff plus the 1 round for the weapons). You can drop your weapon instead but that carries other issues with it.
I am not suggesting that every wizard will take all the best spells only that there is more likely to be overlap because there are fewer spells at each level, wizards get more of them, and wizards can trivially scribe spells into their spellbook to increase the number of spells they have access to.
When it tells me the "original parameters of the spell" I factor the spell's target in to it
For example, moving invisibility from one target to another one
Even if not, you can cast Creation to make a small rock, and have your party member throw it at an enemy and on your turn, turn it into a cube of lava
If you can alter a spell's duration, why can't you alter its target?
Edit: looking at it from a Jeremy Crawford lens, I doubt target or duration can be changed, but it's vague enough I feel confident as a DM giving it the nod. I also let them hurt things with Illusory Reality because just "haha I create prisons" gets boring real fast
You cannot change the duration as the duration is not a parameter of the spell you can change the illusion itself within the parameters of the spell though.
You could likely swap target on an invisibility (so long as you’re touching the new target?) though you could not swap target on a major image or creation (as there is no target). The reason you could destroy a creation is because you could change the creation to be made of an unstable material or even air.
I don’t know if @Zonugal intended it finished it or it was just a brain exercise for a day, but they were making seem headway on making spell casting unique. They had a whole line up to high level on just fire magic and ice magic last I saw it.
I actually think they shouldn't have ditched opposed schools of magic, so wizards actually felt more different
I'm doing this at the moment - a Conjuration wizard so I've so far refused to take any Evocation and Divination magic and have mostly stuck to Conjuration spells in fact. It's tricky but fun - casting a lot of spells I wouldn't have otherwise gone near.
Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe
0
Options
Mostlyjoe13Evil, Evil, Jump for joy!Registered Userregular
Exploring Eberron, Keith Baker's expansion to Eberron is finally out. I'll be getting it...soonish.
There are 182 non-ritual non-cantrip spells in PHB and SCAG. Over the course of levels a wizard will learn 44 for free before figuring any spells you acquire along the way. So a wizard learns, for free, about 25% of all spells and will have about 13.7% prepared. A fighter who has 5 feats has ~10% of available feats before dealing with in class and weapon variation. Of which fighter variation is objectively wider than wizards. Fighters can also be spellcasters through EK and can also have battle master variation and...
edit: the point isn't that wizards cannot be made to be more unique than they are normally. Especially intentionally so. But that its not as likely by any consistent measure. If you say "there are some abilities that fighters will always take" there are also "some abilities that wizards will as well" and if you say "well you can avoid those spells" well you can avoid those feats and abilities. The Fighter variance on builds and feats is just higher.
I mean, that's only true if you don't consider spells themselves to be part of the build, which is a weird way of looking at it. Ignoring the practicality of it, I could have a Pyromancer one day and an Illusionist another; they would play very differently, arguably more differently than many Fighter builds. Just because you can have the same spells prepared as another Wizard doesn't mean you will.
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
I'd like to offer a counter opinion to Go you, minus dong:
We don't really have RL equivalents to mages and thus I find the historical comparison a little uncharitable.
Just looking at the armed forces, if you aren't on the field shooting peoplea gun monkey then you could be a communications officer, an engineer, a mechanic, Cyber-Ops etc.
And even though you might use the same tools your goals and day to day are different.
Mechnically, you used to have restrictions in the spells you could learn; evocation and abjuration were mutally exclusive, for example. We can also define different roles for casters:
blasters, nukers, CC specialists, support.
And although calculating the different setups is nice, the same cookie cutter logic applies to martials: GWM, PAM & SS are your go-tos and everything else is ketchup.
Well the short answer is that fighters have all that variation within a single subclass. EKs have all the fighter variation plus spell variation.. BMs have maneuver variation... champions have... shit; well no one will argue that champions suck. But their variation is still as high or higher than wizards solely on their feat differentiation.
And your defined differences... Aren’t. Saying your a Blaster does not prevent you from picking up CC spells. But wielding a particular type of weapon does prevent you from performing like a different kind of fighter. You cannot effectively be attuned to multiple weapons at once. You will never be a focus damage like a ranged fighter if you’re two handed. You will never be as focused on control as a two hander if you’re TWF. You will never be as tanky as sword and board as a two handed etc. You will never be able to do as much spread damage as a two hander as TWF. Etc.
But for a wizard you’re going to swap roles like that simply by casting a different spell. You’re not limited in what you do next round by what you used in the first.
Also a nuker is another name for a Blaster... they’re the same focus.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
You can but you are unlikely to. Just as it’s not reasonable to say that wizards will all have the same spell list the level of overlap matters. And no swapping weapons isn’t a realistic thing unless action economy is not followed.
So regarding the weapon swapping:
I disagree. Depending on how the fight is going, you might need to switch weapons. If your DM isn't giving you encounters that force you to make tactical decisions then that's on him/her, not the system.
Regarding wizard spells:
I see what you mean but I still don't care for the distinction. It also feels super munchkiny what you're doing. Not every wizard is going to take "the best spells"; some will commit to their RP choices.
Weapon swapping is a significant cost. You must sheath your weapon and draw the other. This takes at minimum 1 round because you only get one draw/sheath per turn for free. A full round of doing nothing is ages in a fight. It can take up to two rounds if you are wearing a shield (1 round donn/doff plus the 1 round for the weapons). You can drop your weapon instead but that carries other issues with it.
I am not suggesting that every wizard will take all the best spells only that there is more likely to be overlap because there are fewer spells at each level, wizards get more of them, and wizards can trivially scribe spells into their spellbook to increase the number of spells they have access to.
When it tells me the "original parameters of the spell" I factor the spell's target in to it
For example, moving invisibility from one target to another one
Even if not, you can cast Creation to make a small rock, and have your party member throw it at an enemy and on your turn, turn it into a cube of lava
If you can alter a spell's duration, why can't you alter its target?
Edit: looking at it from a Jeremy Crawford lens, I doubt target or duration can be changed, but it's vague enough I feel confident as a DM giving it the nod. I also let them hurt things with Illusory Reality because just "haha I create prisons" gets boring real fast
You cannot change the duration as the duration is not a parameter of the spell you can change the illusion itself within the parameters of the spell though.
You could likely swap target on an invisibility (so long as you’re touching the new target?) though you could not swap target on a major image or creation (as there is no target). The reason you could destroy a creation is because you could change the creation to be made of an unstable material or even air.
They do have targets, they target an area
It looks like that you can't change targets by RAI, but given how precise the wording is around the limitations of illusory reality, and how unclear it is around malleable illusion I'm going to go with what I read: "change the nature of the spell"
I include where the spell is targeted as the nature of the spell, if you don't interpret it that way, I get the logic, it is after all the way they intend it
I don't feel like I'm taking a crazy interpretation, and I only disallow it for Simulacrum because of balance reasons
It looks like that you can't change targets by RAI, but given how precise the wording is around the limitations of illusory reality, and how unclear it is around malleable illusion I'm going to go with what I read: "change the nature of the spell"
I include where the spell is targeted as the nature of the spell, if you don't interpret it that way, I get the logic, it is after all the way they intend it
I don't feel like I'm taking a crazy interpretation, and I only disallow it for Simulacrum because of balance reasons
Just two examples. They have a range. They do not have a target. Target is not mentioned anywhere in the spell. They make a thing X within range. You get to change the X. You made an illusion, which despite being an illusion, is an actual thing like an object, and you get to modify that illusion.
Edit: I am pretty sure this is RAI as well as being RAW. Though i would stress again the pain of 5e's natural language requirement in making this unclear.
It feels like this comparison is not being made in good faith.
We talk about fighters having a billion feat combinations and how that makes them so incredibly versatile when it comes to builds, but for some reason wizards also having feat choices doesn't matter.
We talk about how picking an axe instead of a sword makes a fighter feel completely different, but what spells you choose doesn't count because every wizard will end up having some of the same spells eventually.
And a champion fighter vs a battle master fighter are remarkably different in how they play from round to round, but wizard subclasses don't matter because the differences between those subclasses is too small to overcome the partial homogeneity of spell lists.
Then a fighter, even though there may be commonly optimal choices, can be built using different choices, further enhancing their incredible build versatility. However a wizard, which also has commonly optimal choices but can be built with different choices, is not nearly as versatile because they have so many choices that two different wizards might choose some of the same things.
It just feels like we're pointing at a fighter and saying, "Look at all the choices!" then pointing at the wizard who has many of the same choices and saying, "No not like that."
I don’t know if @Zonugal intended it finished it or it was just a brain exercise for a day, but they were making seem headway on making spell casting unique. They had a whole line up to high level on just fire magic and ice magic last I saw it.
How’s that going?
I put it on the shelf, for a rainy day!
Perhaps this week I will return to it.
This is an example of what it looked like (cause I hate the Vancian system and basically want all spells to function akin to cantrips):
Minor Fire Magic
Minor Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the minor elemental power of flames. Minor Fire Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Candle's Light: A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for ten minutes and harms neither you nor your equipment. The flame sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet. The technique ends if you dismiss it as an action, when its duration runs out, or if you cast it again.
-- Fire Fight: As an action, you summon a flame in your hand and hurl it at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this technique ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried. At higher levels, this technique’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), and 11th level (3d8).
-- Fist of Flame: As an action, you conjure flames across your hands for 1 minute. You can use the flames in conjunction with an unarmed strike, adding 1d4 fire damage to any successful unarmed strike. A flammable object hit by this technique ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried. At higher levels, this technique’s damage increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), and 11th level (3d4).
-- Ember Effects: As an action you choose a non-magical flame that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You affect it in one of the following ways:
---- You instantaneously expand the flame 5 feet in one direction, provided that wood or other fuel is present in the new location.
---- You instantaneously extinguish the flames within the cube.
---- You double or halve the area of bright light and dim light cast by the flame, change its color, or both. The change lasts for 1 minute.
---- You cause simple shapes — such as the vague form of a creature, an inanimate object, or a location — to appear within the flames and animate as you like. The shapes last for 1 minute.
Fire Magic
Mighty Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the mighty elemental power of flames. Fire Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Absorb Flames: As a reaction, which you take when you take fire damage, you capture some of the incoming energy, lessening its effect on you and storing it for your next melee attack. You have resistance to fire damage type until the start of your next turn. Also, the first time you hit with a melee attack on your next turn, the target takes an extra fire 1d6 damage, and the technique ends.
-- Fireball: As an action, a bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within 150 feet then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried. Once cast, you must wait ten minutes before using this technique again.
-- Flame’s Fury: As an action, you connect your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, conjuring thin sheets of flames that shoot forth from your outstretched fingertips. This technique can be used in two different ways: you either launch your flames at each creature in a 15-foot cone or in a 30 feet long and 5 feet wide line, in a direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 2d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
-- Pyrotechnics: As an action, you choose an area of nonmagical flame that you can see and that fits within a 5-foot cube within range. You can extinguish the fire in that area, and you affect it in one of the following ways:
---- The target explodes with a dazzling display of colors. Each creature within 10 feet of the target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or become blinded until the end of your next turn.
---- Thick black smoke spreads out from the target in a 20-foot radius, moving around corners. The area of the smoke is heavily obscured. The smoke persists for 1 minute or until a strong wind disperses it.
Major Fire Magic
Major Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the major elemental power of flames. Major Fire Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Fire Fly: As an action, you use your elemental energy to propel yourself airborne. You gain a flying speed of 60 feet, which lasts for as long as you spend an action to fuel it with your elemental power. Each subsequent turn you can use your action to maintain this effect, extending its duration until the end of your next turn. However, the effect ends if you stop maintaining it, attack (via an action, reaction or bonus action) or cast another spell, in which case the technique ceases and you begin to fall.
-- Investiture of Flames: As an action, you conjure flames across your body, shedding bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet for ten minutes. The flames don’t harm you. Until the spell ends, you gain the following benefits:
---- You are immune to fire damage and have resistance to cold damage.
---- Any creature that moves within 5 feet of you for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there takes 1d10 fire damage.
---- The flames provide you comfort against harsh, cold environments and resistance to cold damage. In addition, whenever a creature within 5 feet of you hits you with a melee attack, the cloak erupts with flame. The attacker takes 2d8 fire damage.
---- You can use your action to create a line of fire 15 feet long and 5 feet wide extending from you in any direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Once cast, you must wait one hour before using this technique again.
-- Scorched Earth: As an action, you conjure an intense spring of elemental energy before releasing it from your hands. In a direction you choose, An enlarged beam of divine fire fourth from your hands, scorching all in its path. Each creature in a 10-foot-wide, 40-foot-long cone must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Once cast, you must wait one hour before using this technique again.
-- Wall of Fire: As an action, you pour fire energy into the creation a wall of fire on a solid surface within 120 feet. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for as long as you spend an action to fuel it with your elemental power. Each subsequent turn you can use your action to maintain this effect, extending its duration until the end of your next turn. However, the effect ends if you stop maintaining it, attack (via an action, reaction or bonus action) or cast another spell, in which case the wall of fire is immediately destroyed. When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save. One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage. Once cast, you must wait ten minutes before using this technique again.
Minor Ice Magic
Minor Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the minor elemental power of ice. Minor Ice Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Arctic Armament: As an action, you conjure a basic melee weapon made of ice. On an attack roll of 1, the weapon shatters. While you can only conjure one basic melee weapon of ice per action, they have a duration of 1 minute before instantaneously melting away.
-- Icy Bulwark: As an action, you create a barrier of solidified ice, which can be formed in two ways. The first option is the barrier takes the form of a personal shield, providing a +1 bonus to your armor class. The second option is the barrier takes the form of a five-foot-wide by five-foot-high stationary half-wall, providing half-cover for one creature who is positioned behind it. Both options have 8 hit points, have a duration of 1 minute before instantaneously melting away, and shatter upon being struck with a critical attack.
-- Ray of Frost: As an action, a frigid beam of blue-white light streaks toward a creature within 30 ft.. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, it takes 1d8 cold damage, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. Any liquid stored in an object hit by this technique freezes for one minute. At higher levels, this technique’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), and 11th level (3d8).
-- Tundra Tools: As an action you choose a non-magical source of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You affect it in one of the following ways:
---- You freeze the water, provided that there are no creatures in it. The water unfreezes in 1 minute.
---- You cause the water to freeze into simple shapes, no larger than the contents of a 5-foot cube, at your direction. This change lasts for 1 minute.
---- Targeting a single 5-foot space of a floor’s surface (one covered in water), you create a slippery icy-sheen turning it into difficult terrain for 1 minute. When the patch of floor is frozen with such a technique, each creature standing in its area must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone. A creature that enters the area or ends its turn there must also succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall prone.
Ice Magic
Mighty Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the mighty elemental power of ice. Ice Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Absorb Ice: As a reaction, which you take when you take cold damage, you capture some of the incoming energy, lessening its effect on you and storing it for your next melee attack. You have resistance to cold damage type until the start of your next turn. Also, the first time you hit with a melee attack on your next turn, the target takes an extra cold 1d6 damage, and the technique ends.
-- Arctic Mobility: As an action, you are granted the ability to move across any liquid surface – such as water, acid, mud, snow, quicksand, or lava – as if it were harmless solid ground (creatures crossing molten lava can still take damage from the heat). In addition, you are immune from the effects of difficult terrain as a result of snow or ice. This technique lasts for one minute.
-- Ice Shard Bomb: As an action, you create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within 30 feet. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 piercing damage. Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of the point where the ice exploded must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage.
-- Snowball Swarm: As an action, you conjure a flurry of magic snowballs which you send hurling towards a point you choose within 90 feet. Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The snow covers the ground, impeding mobility within it. For one minute after using this technique, the radius targeted is considered difficulty terrain. Once cast, you must wait ten minutes before using this technique again.
Major Ice Magic
Major Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the major elemental power of ice. Major Ice Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Ice Storm: As an action, you summon a hail of rock-hard ice which pounds the ground in a 20-foot-radius, 40-foot-high cylinder centered on a point within 300 feet. Each creature in the cylinder must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 bludgeoning damage and 4d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Hailstones turn the storm’s area of effect into difficult terrain until the end of your next turn. Once cast, you must wait one minute before using this technique again.
-- Investiture of Ice: As an action, ice rimes your body as you conjure elemental power over your form, and you gain the following benefits:
---- You are immune to cold damage and have resistance to fire damage.
---- You can move across difficult terrain created by ice or snow without spending extra movement.
---- You gain the ability to see through the light & heavily obstructed vision brought about by non-magical and magical blizzards, snow storms, and other colder environmental effects.
---- The ground in a 10-foot radius around you is icy and is difficult terrain for creatures other than you. The radius moves with you.
---- You can use your action to create a 15-foot cone of freezing wind extending from your outstretched hand in a direction you choose. Each creature in the cone must make a Constitution saving throw. A creature takes 4d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature that fails its save against this effect has its speed halved until the start of your next turn.
Once cast, you must wait one hour before using this technique again.
-- Cone of Cold: As an action, you conjure an intense fury of elemental energy before releasing it from your hands. In a direction you choose, a cone of wicked cold energy springs fourth from your hands, freezing all in its path. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must make a Constitution saving throw. A creature takes 8d8 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature killed by this spell becomes a frozen statue until it thaws. Once cast, you must wait one hour before using this technique again.
-- Wall of Ice: As an action, you pour cold energy into the creation of a wall of ice on a solid surface within 120 feet. You can form a wall of ice into a hemispherical dome or a sphere with radius of up to 10 feet, or you can shape a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-square panels. Each panel must be contiguous with another panel. In any form, the wall is 1 foot thick and lasts for one minute. If the wall cuts through a creature’s space when it appears, the creature within its area is pushed to one side of the wall and must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 10d6 cold damage, or half as much damage on a successful save. The wall is an object that can be damaged and thus breached. It has AC 12 and 30 hit points per 10-foot section, and it is vulnerable to fire damage. Reducing a 10-foot section of wall to 0 hit points destroys it and leaves behind a sheet of frigid air into the space the wall occupied. A creature moving through the sheet of frigid air for the first time on a turn must make a Constitution saving throw. The creature takes 5d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Once cast, you must wait ten minutes before using this technique again.
Minor Earth Magic
Minor Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the minor elemental power of earth. Minor Earth Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Lesser Stoneskin: As an action you shield your skin with stone-plating. For the next turn you have resistance against kinetic damage dealt by weapon attacks, and each subsequent turn you can use your bonus action to maintain this effect, extending its duration until the end of your next turn.
-- Soil Shard: As an action, you rip a piece of earth from your environment and hurl it at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d6 kinetic damage. At higher levels, this technique’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), and 11th level (3d6).
-- Rocky Assault: As an action, you conjure a basic melee weapon made of earthy material. On an attack roll of 1, the weapon shatters. While you can only conjure one basic melee weapon of earth per action, they have a duration of 1 minute before instantaneously crumbling away.
-- Terran Tools: As an action you choose a portion of dirt or stone that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You manipulate it in one of the following ways:
---- If you target an area of loose earth, you can instantaneously excavate it, move it along the ground, and deposit it up to 5 feet away. This movement doesn’t have enough force to cause damage.
---- You cause shapes, colors, or both to appear on the dirt or stone, spelling out words, creating images, or shaping patterns. The changes last for 1 hour.
---- You cause harmless tremors in the ground for 1 minute.
---- If the dirt or stone you target is on the ground, you cause it to become difficult terrain. Alternatively, you can cause the ground to become normal terrain if it is already difficult terrain. This change lasts for 1 hour. If you cast this spell multiple times, you can have no more than two of its non-instantaneous effects active at a time, and you can dismiss such an effect as an action.
Earth Magic
Mighty Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the mighty elemental power of earth. Earth Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Earth Eruption: As an action, you strike the ground and send a surge of elemental energy to a point you can see on the ground within 120 feet. A fountain of churned earth and stone erupts in a 20-foot cube centered on that point. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d12 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Additionally, the ground in that area becomes difficult terrain until cleared away. Each 5-foot-square portion of the area requires at least 1 minute to clear by hand. Once cast, you must wait ten minutes before using this technique again.
-- StalagMight: As an action, you strike the ground and send a surge of elemental energy to a point you can see on the ground within 60 feet. A stalagmite of heavy earth bursts forth from that point. If a creature was in that space, they must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Additionally, the stalagmite summoned is a permanent object made of stone that can be damaged and thus destroyed. Each stalagmite has AC 10 and 15 hit points. Reducing a stalagmite to 0 hit points destroys it and clears the area from it entirely.
-- Stone Meld: As an action, you step into a stone object or surface large enough to fully contain your body, melding yourself and all the equipment you carry with the stone for one minute. Using your movement, you step into the stone at a point you can touch. Nothing of your presence remains visible or otherwise detectable by nonmagical senses. While merged with the stone, you can’t see what occurs outside it, and any Wisdom (Perception) checks you make to hear sounds outside it are made with disadvantage. You remain aware of the passage of time but can’t cast spells on yourself while merged in the stone. You can use your movement to leave the stone where you entered it, which ends the technique. You otherwise can’t move. Minor physical damage to the stone doesn’t harm you, but its partial destruction or a change in its shape (to the extent that you no longer fit within it) expels you and deals 6d6 bludgeoning damage to you. The stone’s complete destruction (or transmutation into a different substance) expels you and deals 50 bludgeoning damage to you. If expelled, you fall prone in an unoccupied space closest to where you first entered.
-- Stoneskin: As an action you conjure magically enhanced stone-plating over your skin. For the next turn you have resistance against kinetic damage dealt by weapon attacks, and any kinetic damage that you take from is reduced by 3. On each subsequent turn you can use your bonus action to maintain this effect, extending its duration until the end of your next turn.
Major Earth Magic
Major Elemental Power Casting Time: 1 Action Range: Personal or 30 feet Components: S Duration: Instantaneous or as specified in the spell’s technique
You command and control the major elemental power of earth. Major Earth Magic carries with it four techniques:
-- Move Earth: As an action, choose an area of terrain no larger than 40 feet on a side within 120 feet. You can reshape dirt, sand, or clay in the area in any manner you choose for the duration. You can raise or lower the area’s elevation, create or fill in a trench, erect or flatten a wall, or form a pillar. The extent of any such changes can’t exceed half the area’s largest dimension. So, if you affect a 40-foot square, you can create a pillar up to 20 feet high, raise or lower the square’s elevation by up to 20 feet, dig a trench up to 20 feet deep, and so on. It takes 10 minutes for these changes to complete. At the end of every 10 minutes you spend concentrating on this technique, you can choose a new area of terrain to affect. Because the terrain’s transformation occurs slowly, creatures in the area can’t usually be trapped or injured by the ground’s movement. This technique can’t manipulate natural stone or stone construction. Rocks and structures shift to accommodate the new terrain. If the way you shape the terrain would make a structure unstable, it might collapse. Similarly, this technique doesn’t directly affect plant growth. The moved earth carries any plants along with it.
-- Stone Shape: As an action, you touch a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape that suits your purpose. So, for example, you could shape a large rock into a weapon, idol, or coffer, or make a small passage through a wall, as long as the wall is less than 5 feet thick. You could also shape a stone door or its frame to seal the door shut. The object you create can have up to two hinges and a latch, but finer mechanical detail isn’t possible.
-- Transmute Rock: As an action, you choose an area of stone or mud that you can see that fits within a 40-foot cube and is within 120 feet, and choose one of the following effects.
---- Transmute Rock to Mud. Nonmagical rock of any sort in the area becomes an equal volume of thick, flowing mud that remains for the spell’s duration. The ground in the spell’s area becomes muddy enough that creatures can sink into it. Each foot that a creature moves through the mud costs 4 feet of movement, and any creature on the ground when you cast the spell must make a Strength saving throw. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the area for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. On a failed save, a creature sinks into the mud and is restrained, though it can use an action to end the restrained condition on itself by pulling itself free of the mud.
If you cast the technique on a ceiling, the mud falls. Any creature under the mud when it falls must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 4d8 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
---- Transmute Mud to Rock. Nonmagical mud or quicksand in the area no more than 10 feet deep transforms into soft stone for the technique’s duration. Any creature in the mud when it transforms must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a successful save, a creature is shunted safely to the surface in an unoccupied space. On a failed save, a creature becomes restrained by the rock. A restrained creature, or another creature within reach, can use an action to try to break the rock by succeeding on a DC 20 Strength check or by dealing damage to it. The rock has AC 15 and 25 hit points, and it is immune to poison and psychic damage.
-- Wall of Stone: As an action, you summon a nonmagical wall of solid stone into existence at a point you choose within 120 feet. The wall is 6 inches thick and is composed of ten 10-foot-by-10-foot panels. Each panel must be contiguous with at least on other panel. Alternatively, you can create 10-foot-by-20-foot panels that are only 3 inches thick. If the wall cuts through a creature’s space when it appears, the creature is pushed to one side of the wall (your choice). If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by the wall (or the wall and another solid surface), that creature can make a Dexterity saving throw. On a success, it can use its reaction to move up to its speed so that it is no longer enclosed by the wall. The wall can have any shape you desire, though it can’t occupy the same space as a creature or object. the wall doesn’t need to be vertical or resting on any firm foundation. It must, however, merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone. Thus you can use this spell to bridge a chasm or create a ramp. If you create a span greater than 20 feet in length, you must halve the size of each panel to create supports. You can crudely shape the wall to create crenelations, battlements, and so on. The wall is an object made of stone that can be damaged and thus breached. Each panel has AC 15 and 30 hit points per inch of thickness. Reducing a panel to 0 hit points destroys it and might cause connected panels to collapse at the DM’s discretion.
It feels like this comparison is not being made in good faith.
We talk about fighters having a billion feat combinations and how that makes them so incredibly versatile when it comes to builds, but for some reason wizards also having feat choices doesn't matter.
Because wizards get far fewer of them. A fighter will likely have 3 feats by the time the wizard has 1 and that one feat the wizard picks competes far more heavily for stat-ups due to the lower HP pool. (A fighter has effectively +4 constitution compared to a wizard based on HP/level progression)
We talk about how picking an axe instead of a sword makes a fighter feel completely different, but what spells you choose doesn't count because every wizard will end up having some of the same spells eventually.
Not an axe vs a sword. But one handed vs two handed vs shield vs twf vs ranged. A fighter may eventually get two fighting styles but the requirement to change weapons in the middle of a fight matters (as explained earlier) whereas the spell you cast last round largely doesn't prevent you from casting other spells the next. And you can say "ahh but what if you didn't prepare the spell" and this is true but there is still more variation between what a fighter cannot and cannot pick/do than there is between spell preparation. And these are permanent vs being able to be changed at the end of the day.
Two battlemaster fighters with different maneuvers can have wildly different battlefield roles just as two wizards with different spell selections might. Two battlemasters with different maneuvers and different weapon sets far more so. And this on top of feat variation.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
It feels like this comparison is not being made in good faith.
We talk about fighters having a billion feat combinations and how that makes them so incredibly versatile when it comes to builds, but for some reason wizards also having feat choices doesn't matter.
Because wizards get far fewer of them. A fighter will likely have 3 feats by the time the wizard has 1 and that one feat the wizard picks competes far more heavily for stat-ups due to the lower HP pool. (A fighter has effectively +4 constitution compared to a wizard based on HP/level progression)
We talk about how picking an axe instead of a sword makes a fighter feel completely different, but what spells you choose doesn't count because every wizard will end up having some of the same spells eventually.
Not an axe vs a sword. But one handed vs two handed vs shield vs twf vs ranged. A fighter may eventually get two fighting styles but the requirement to change weapons in the middle of a fight matters (as explained earlier) whereas the spell you cast last round largely doesn't prevent you from casting other spells the next. And you can say "ahh but what if you didn't prepare the spell" and this is true but there is still more variation between what a fighter cannot and cannot pick/do than there is between spell preparation. And these are permanent vs being able to be changed at the end of the day.
Two battlemaster fighters with different maneuvers can have wildly different battlefield roles just as two wizards with different spell selections might. Two battlemasters with different maneuvers and different weapon sets far more so. And this on top of feat variation.
Forgive me but I just keep seeing the same thing over and over again.
Unparalleled Versatility Level 20 Fighter
7 Feats or Ability Score Improvements
One fighting style
One subclass
Can have different roles in combat depending on your build choices
They're All the Same Level 20 Wizard
5 Feats or Ability Score Improvements
One subclass
Two Spell Mastery spells
Two Signature Spells
Can have different roles in combat depending on your build choices
A fighter will likely have 3 feats by the time the wizard has 1
What?
You see, fighters are always optimized variant humans while wizards always pick up a bunch of CON and DEX in addition to INT when they level up so they are harder to kill and don't bother with feats. Always.
Posts
You aren't considering walls, cages, domes, ect...
You can trap any foe in a version of Resilient Sphere.
Its also bonkers for out-of-combat utility.
You cannot effectively use Malleable illusion with creation in that manner.
"Starting at 6th level, when you cast an illusion spell that has a duration of 1 minute or longer, you can use your action to change the nature of that illusion (using the spell's normal parameters for the illusion), provided that you can see the illusion."
Using the "spells normal parameters" is important. Malleable Illusion lets you get more than one use out of an illusion. It lets you say turn the ogre you made with major illusion into a tyrannosaur or something but it doesn't let you pick up and move the object of your creation because the normal parameters of creation do not let you pick it up and move it.
Things you could do is turn the subject of your creation from vegetable into mineral. So you could make a block of wood and then spend an action to turn the block of wood into lava. (or you could turn a gazebo you made via creation into lava, or a bridge you made etc) but you cannot make lava get up and move around because you cannot normally make your creation get up and move around.
Malleable illusion is still very good, because it lets you get multiple uses out of the image spells. And because it lets you do neat things with creation traps(creation is not normally able to be ended by an action of the player since its not concentration, but altering the nature of it does let you do this). And because there is a lot of utility in things like Magic Mouth, Illusory Script, Magic Aura*, and Mirage Arcane.
Similarly Illusory Reality is most valuable for letting you use low level spell slots to do real things. Like making walls and cages with a standard action. Minor Illusion becomes an instant full cover generator that blocks line of effect(if you're small)
Edit
* I think this is my favorite. Because you can cast this on anything you want and so any 30 days downtime gives you a number of items (or people) for which you can mess with the aura as an action forever.
For example, moving invisibility from one target to another one
Even if not, you can cast Creation to make a small rock, and have your party member throw it at an enemy and on your turn, turn it into a cube of lava
If you can alter a spell's duration, why can't you alter its target?
Edit: looking at it from a Jeremy Crawford lens, I doubt target or duration can be changed, but it's vague enough I feel confident as a DM giving it the nod. I also let them hurt things with Illusory Reality because just "haha I create prisons" gets boring real fast
Which isn't a condemnation of them or their power, but rather contrasting them with the Fighter as a case of versatility in what it can be.
Also champion is quite unfairly maligned imho; it's lack of flashy magic or manuevers so often conceal the simple brilliance of have a class where it's powers are effectively always on; the fighting game equivelant would be a character who trades out having super/charge moves in favor of having powerful "normals".
it's also.... boring... it's a great go to for first time players but, it gets nothing it can do
And it was literally written for first time players.
It's in the SRD as the example of the "basic" fighter subclass. And it gets used for a billion pre-cons for convention games. Its simplicity is literally the reason it exists, and that's totally fine.
Anyone posting in here likely has an aptitude well in excess of the purview of this subclass, but that doesn't mean it's bad or anything!
I for one enjoy it, because it frees up my brain power to concentrate on other more role-playing related stuff.
I don't understand this. Every wizard can do anything, which is less versatile than a fighter that spends its whole career specializing in one thing?
You say the wizard will approach every problem the same way at high levels because of how many options they have, but a fighter won't because they have fewer options? I must be misunderstanding.
To add to this...
Between this comment and the one above, I'm not seeing how these are arguments show that a Fighter is in any way more versatile than a Wizard.
Like, not more versatile than.
This is the post:
He isn't saying "the fighter is more versatile at solving problems in the dnd game" he is saying "the fighter is more versatile at building different types of characters".
Though personally, I'm not very fond of this current design. I think it would be much more interesting to force prepared spell casters to specialise into a school, however that would mean WoTC would actually need to balance their spell schools and that'll never happen. No, I'm not bitter that 50% of Bard spells are worthless garbage, practically forcing them to spec into Lore if they want spell versatility, not at all.
Still not entirely on board.
You can specialise in multiple disciplines as a fighter. You get 2 fighting styles and more feats than other classes, you can definitely spread your competencies. And there's nothing stopping you from swapping weapons in combat. The only split you have is finesse versus normal weapons, so going GWM and SS is going to cost you something down the line unless you can persuade your DM to give you a finesse 2h.
And the base magical armors and weapons do not require attunement.
After reading the other comments that followed this one, however, I must admit I do not understand what the base argument is anymore.
Ooooh, quarterstaff
ok i meant a spear or something :P
Yeah you can't give me an opportunity like that to try to make quarterstaves the most broken weapon in the game. I'd legit make a Staff Mastery feat that's like "You can use a quarterstaff two-handed as a double weapon. When you wield a quarterstaff in this manner, each end has the finesse and light properties, and does 1d6 bludgeon damage. When you wield a quarterstaff, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."
Like I have no idea how OP that is but I hope it's a lot because the quarterstaff deserves it.
I wouldn't be aiming for "broken".
I think the fix is either simply making a finesse, 2h weapon but keep it in line with the others (i.e. max 1d8).
or allowing finesse on "normal" 2handers but applying a str requirement to them, like armor.
Uhhh but I directly addressed spells?
You can but you are unlikely to. Just as it’s not reasonable to say that wizards will all have the same spell list the level of overlap matters. And no swapping weapons isn’t a realistic thing unless action economy is not followed.
So regarding the weapon swapping:
I disagree. Depending on how the fight is going, you might need to switch weapons. If your DM isn't giving you encounters that force you to make tactical decisions then that's on him/her, not the system.
Regarding wizard spells:
I see what you mean but I still don't care for the distinction. It also feels super munchkiny what you're doing. Not every wizard is going to take "the best spells"; some will commit to their RP choices.
Maybe I want a feat first instead. Maybe I don't care about 20 Str, maybe 18 is fine. Maybe I wanna bring up my Dex or Con some. Maybe I want to boost my Int, Wis or Cha so I can pick up some spellcasting through multi-classing.
They're going to be built very differently; Like if I was going for a viking, I'm probably looking at a character who is going for a great axe and not neccesarily hard on tecnique so a champion build works well here with a second fighting style going down the pipe for either defense or archery (for throwing axes and javelins).
By comparison, the Centurion is more along the lines of a team playing defender, so the best option is a sword and board purple dragon thus upgrading all of the fighters default moves (second wind, action surge, indomitable) to give more tactical options to the party as a whole and behave in a similar manner to the warlord's of 4e.
By 20th, these two characters will be in very different positions and their play styles will not transfer between each other at all.
Thus the differences between the summoner and the pyromancer is kind of moot; the pyromancer is going to want to have minions to stand between him and his enemies while he nukes them and the summoner is going to have pets he supports by shooting their enemies.
Yea. I think you're school should have a much more prominent role in wizard development, and spell selection. One big problem though is there are some spell levels that don't contain certain wizard school spells!
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Sure but I mean, if they hadn't ditched opposing schools I feel like that wouldn't be the case
Sure, but it makes it harder to homebrew.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I am not suggesting that every wizard will take all the best spells only that there is more likely to be overlap because there are fewer spells at each level, wizards get more of them, and wizards can trivially scribe spells into their spellbook to increase the number of spells they have access to.
You cannot change the duration as the duration is not a parameter of the spell you can change the illusion itself within the parameters of the spell though.
You could likely swap target on an invisibility (so long as you’re touching the new target?) though you could not swap target on a major image or creation (as there is no target). The reason you could destroy a creation is because you could change the creation to be made of an unstable material or even air.
How’s that going?
I'm doing this at the moment - a Conjuration wizard so I've so far refused to take any Evocation and Divination magic and have mostly stuck to Conjuration spells in fact. It's tricky but fun - casting a lot of spells I wouldn't have otherwise gone near.
edit: the point isn't that wizards cannot be made to be more unique than they are normally. Especially intentionally so. But that its not as likely by any consistent measure. If you say "there are some abilities that fighters will always take" there are also "some abilities that wizards will as well" and if you say "well you can avoid those spells" well you can avoid those feats and abilities. The Fighter variance on builds and feats is just higher.
They do have targets, they target an area
It looks like that you can't change targets by RAI, but given how precise the wording is around the limitations of illusory reality, and how unclear it is around malleable illusion I'm going to go with what I read: "change the nature of the spell"
I include where the spell is targeted as the nature of the spell, if you don't interpret it that way, I get the logic, it is after all the way they intend it
I don't feel like I'm taking a crazy interpretation, and I only disallow it for Simulacrum because of balance reasons
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Creation#content
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Major Image#content
Just two examples. They have a range. They do not have a target. Target is not mentioned anywhere in the spell. They make a thing X within range. You get to change the X. You made an illusion, which despite being an illusion, is an actual thing like an object, and you get to modify that illusion.
Edit: I am pretty sure this is RAI as well as being RAW. Though i would stress again the pain of 5e's natural language requirement in making this unclear.
We talk about fighters having a billion feat combinations and how that makes them so incredibly versatile when it comes to builds, but for some reason wizards also having feat choices doesn't matter.
We talk about how picking an axe instead of a sword makes a fighter feel completely different, but what spells you choose doesn't count because every wizard will end up having some of the same spells eventually.
And a champion fighter vs a battle master fighter are remarkably different in how they play from round to round, but wizard subclasses don't matter because the differences between those subclasses is too small to overcome the partial homogeneity of spell lists.
Then a fighter, even though there may be commonly optimal choices, can be built using different choices, further enhancing their incredible build versatility. However a wizard, which also has commonly optimal choices but can be built with different choices, is not nearly as versatile because they have so many choices that two different wizards might choose some of the same things.
It just feels like we're pointing at a fighter and saying, "Look at all the choices!" then pointing at the wizard who has many of the same choices and saying, "No not like that."
I put it on the shelf, for a rainy day!
Perhaps this week I will return to it.
This is an example of what it looked like (cause I hate the Vancian system and basically want all spells to function akin to cantrips):
Because wizards get far fewer of them. A fighter will likely have 3 feats by the time the wizard has 1 and that one feat the wizard picks competes far more heavily for stat-ups due to the lower HP pool. (A fighter has effectively +4 constitution compared to a wizard based on HP/level progression)
Not an axe vs a sword. But one handed vs two handed vs shield vs twf vs ranged. A fighter may eventually get two fighting styles but the requirement to change weapons in the middle of a fight matters (as explained earlier) whereas the spell you cast last round largely doesn't prevent you from casting other spells the next. And you can say "ahh but what if you didn't prepare the spell" and this is true but there is still more variation between what a fighter cannot and cannot pick/do than there is between spell preparation. And these are permanent vs being able to be changed at the end of the day.
Two battlemaster fighters with different maneuvers can have wildly different battlefield roles just as two wizards with different spell selections might. Two battlemasters with different maneuvers and different weapon sets far more so. And this on top of feat variation.
What?
Fighters literally gain feats more quickly than wizards. Though I think it would be more fair to say Fighters will have three before a wizard has two.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The only one I've played was the Way of Tranquility Monk, and that was for an all Monk one-shot.
Forgive me but I just keep seeing the same thing over and over again.
Unparalleled Versatility Level 20 Fighter
They're All the Same Level 20 Wizard
You see, fighters are always optimized variant humans while wizards always pick up a bunch of CON and DEX in addition to INT when they level up so they are harder to kill and don't bother with feats. Always.