Nerfing a class that no one in the history of time said was overpowered would probably tick some people off?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E How would YOU nerf the wizard? +
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Nerfing a class that no one in the history of time said was overpowered would probably tick some people off?
Warpiglet-7
Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
The truth is once you have certain toys and abilities, players rarely accept nerfing. In my experience anyway…
The cat is out of the bag in most cases in the arms race. 5.5 is not going back to pre Tasha’s, etc.
But surely the reason wizard nerfs are discussed would not apply to rangers or fighters?
Again, my small sample size is the only folks that are ok with a “step back” in abilities or power were folks that played that way before (like me) in older editions and not even all of them.
None of this will ever happen. I assumed this was a “what if” or homebrew discusssion.
leozg
DM
Well, some of these I also applied in my homebrew. You would be surprised by the strength of the argument "if you don't like these changes maybe it's your turn to be the DM".
Horwath
Legend
not a problem in game, most of the time cantrip action is a waste of action unless warlock, but that is another topic
HP spread is already a problem with d6->d12 in encounter building and AoO effects. It does need to be enlarged.
Sure, might limit all to sorcerer level of spells known. It would help a lot.
Sure, but then remove all short rest mechanics from the game.
Yes.
If everything requires concentration then what is the point?
No being able to cast any spells while concentrating?
There is sure a better way.
Yes. But you can get that by reducing spells known/prepared.
100%
Yes.
just remove spellcasting then, it's easier.
so we turn 5min work day into 5min work week?
Useless suggestion.
I like this.
just add bonus feat instead if there is such a need for this.
yes
might work.
Just anecdotal...
The wizard I'm currently playing dropped to zero hit points twice in as many sessions, and has had to have his bacon saved from being swallowed whole each time. He's the only one in the party to have needed death saves.
I am not sure he needs nerfing.
The wizard I'm currently playing dropped to zero hit points twice in as many sessions, and has had to have his bacon saved from being swallowed whole each time. He's the only one in the party to have needed death saves.
I am not sure he needs nerfing.
leozg
DM
Did it.
Not everything, but for spellcasting (except cantrip). Then it is possible to interrupt a spell being cast.
You can still cast cantrips while concentrating.
The goal is to make spellcasting interruptable. Other suggestions, like increase casting time, need a lot of changes and/or more time control during combat.
Not my goal. The idea is to go back to a Wizard who has to think a little more when he will use his spellcasting ability.
Our group plays since older editions. Our view of the Wizard is the hero who stays in the back throuwing daggers, using a crossbow and sometimes, no more than 10 carefully chosen times a day, using a spell to bypass a situation. This change is not a big deal for us, the Wizard can still throws daggers but now in the form of cantrips.
It is more restritive than the week slot recovery suggestion int the DMG, but for sure not useless.
Remathilis
Legend
No I wouldn't. I started DMing for that exact reason.Well, some of these I also applied in my homebrew. You would be surprised by the strength of the argument "if you don't like these changes maybe it's your turn to be the DM".
Remathilis
Legend
It's funny. Every one of these are either restrictions from previous editions OR suggested house rules I've seen online. Someone at one point or another thought all these were a good idea, but perhaps not all together.
Remathilis
Legend
I came from Basic and 2e so I'm familiar with this style, and I feel I've grown out of the "infantry unit" style of play. That is, a character having a primary function that they only occasionally access and the remainder of the time they are ineffectual. A wizard casts magic only once in an encounter and the remainder of the time is a crappy archer. A cleric who is a healbot medic. A thief that only uses his skills sporadically. Etc. I don't think they need to dominate every fight with top power, but I much prefer magic and skills evened out so that a wizard can fling fire, not daggers or a cleric can heal without devoting every spell slot to it.
If D&D was more like a CRPG where you control a unit of characters which spread your resources, you can afford to allow individual characters to be far more limited in scope. But in a game where I play one PC at a time, I want the option to do my class role a little more than once a fight per week.
Ah, but did they think they were good ideas because the classes needed nerfing relative to each other? Or were they suggested because they were "realistic"? Or because they enhanced niche protection? Or because they made play "grittier"? Or to serve some other game design goal?
