Talk:War Wizard (5e Class)

Hello, fellow wikian! I see that this class is still in progress, but there are some concerns I cannot help but make on it. I am fully aware that this is nitpicking at best, my apologies, but here we go:

• Hit Points. I am aware that the premise of this class is, well, a spellcaster-warrior hybrid class, but d10 Hit Dice might be a bit too much for a full-level spellcaster. Note that clerics and druids are the two tankiest full-level spellcaster available in SRD, and they have d8 Hit Dice.

• Proficiencies. Note that pretty much every class has one "good" saving throw proficiency (Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom) and one "bad" saving throw proficiency (Strength, Intelligence, Charisma). You will find that most of the time, you will be using your "good" saving throws all the time. Currently war wizard has two "bad" saving throws. I suggest using Constitution instead of Strength would be awesome, since it directly influences the concentration on spells.

• Feature Spread. Pretty much all levels have at least two class features, that's what I would call "crammed". Also, note that in classes with spellcasting feature, gaining access to higher-level spell slots counts as a class feature by itself.

• Spellcasting. Okay, I know this is very rushed, but what I'm concerned is that this class can be very overpowered if given exactly the same spell list as wizard. Wizard spell list is by far the best spell list a spellcaster can afford, and that plus superior combat ability makes war wizards absolutely stronger than the rest of the classes. This is what I fear for now.

Well, that's it for now. Again, I apologize for my rushed nitpicking, I do not intend for bashing, but I leave these comments in concern for balancing issues. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good morning WeirdoWhoever. Im contacting you about my War Wizard Class. I understand your concerns but im going to make a few points against your observations. Respectfully.

• The Arcane Warrior class also has d10 hit dice
• The Wizards rules are a part of book lore that is instrumental in defining the class, so being "crammed" doesnt matter to me.
• Also with the Arcane Warrior, It has the wizard spell list and features for combat.
• The book lore i was talking about also specifies wizard in the name. it called a War Wizard cause its based on the War Wizard from that particular book series.

Please consider these points and give me a reply when you can. Bannanameds (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sosme kind of admin?

Hello, Bannanameds, and thank you for leaving replies on my comments. I am not an admin, nor do I think myself as suitable for one. I am just another fellow wikian in this wiki with a bad habit of nitpicking stuffs. If ever my comments offended you, I must say I am terribly sorry for my rushed decisions.

Here are my replies on your comments:

• I think I found the Arcane Warrior class, but it has d6 Hit Dice, instead of d10. Besides, the class is argued to a bit too powerful.

• Acquiring a higher-level spell slots (and, by extent, gaining access to higher-level spells) is strong enough to be a class feature by itself, and current version of war wizard adds that with additional class feature. The features are in progress, but I am concerned if it might make an ovepowered class.

• Wizards have next to no combat compatibility yet their spellcasting features make them powerful enough to high-tier class for many roleplayers. Adding that and combat compatibility might cause a mayhem in gameplay.

• I am not familiar with the novel series you are referring to, but I do not intend to harm any attempts to recreate and simulate it. I am simply concerned with balancing issues, in a purely gameplay-wise senses.

And here are some extended explanations on replies:

• I didn't know that war wizard was based on a novel, my apologies for that. I am a big fan of novels and books myself, and if I ever get a chance to recreate my favorite parts in novels while roleplaying, it will be one of the most awesome moment I have. However, I am terribly concerned that simulating one's favorite book/videogame/whatever into a homebrew features often comes with a risk of being terribly overpowered and unbalanced to a great extent.

I have seen some cases in this very wiki that, in an attempt to faithfully simulate the character(s) from novel and/or videogame, resulted in a complete mess of overpowered features and poor writings. One of such case is sacrier, which I reworked on upon discovering it. Apparently it was a poor attempt to adapt an MMORPG class into D&D system, which was... not a pretty sight. You can find the terrible, terrible past version here.

Now, I am not saying that your war wizard is a terrible mess. I cannot judge that for now, since I see that war wizard is still in progress. I was concerned that in an attempt to create what was awesome in the original series, many makes a mistake or two that results in a terribly unbalanced and awkward shape. Again, I am terribly sorry for my nitpicking, but if there is one thing I attempt to advise on, it would be keeping a balance between balanced and well-written gameplay features and awesome, likeable concepts and characters.

• I think I found the Arcane Warrior class you mentioned. My impression was, this one is also a bit too strong for a full-level spellcaster. Personally, I agree with Jacobneslon920 when he said on the arcane warrior's Talk page, "nobody should play a wizard ever if this is a choice". Maybe I can leave some comments on that class as well. Oh, and as far as I found it, arcane warrior has d6 Hit Dice, instead of d10.

I started my actual D&D sessions only a year ago or so, but I have been studying D&D for few years, because this was the roleplaying game I was anticipated for. From what I found, a full-level spellcaster (such as cleric, sorcerer, and wizard) seldom has Hit Dice greater than d6, has a poor combat ability (minimum weapon proficiency, no armor proficiency, and forth). Heck, even the spellcasting feature is a big pile of restriction, what with three components, concentration, and most of all, spell slots.

The reason behind this great restriction to full-level spellcasters, especially wizards, is that spells are THAT strong enough to compensate all given restrictions. You can do anything and everything with a spell or two, period. Damage? fireball. Crowd control and debuffs? sleep, hideous laughter. Buffs? enlarge/reduce, enhance ability. Exploration? detect magic, locate object. Interpersonal chitchat? charm person, dominate person. You name it. This is especially the case of wizards, because they have the largest available spell list given, and they have the greatest flexibility in preparing and casting spells at the appropriate time and place.

Given the reasons above, I hope you may understand my concerns on giving a full-level spellcaster class with a decent combat ability and a wide variety and flexibility in spellcasting. This alone makes the class a powerful version of pre-existing wizard, and it will be very tricky to keep things balanced.

• Upon my comments on class spreads being "crammed", I would like to make it clear that I was not suggesting to drop out the Wizards Rules feature. You may find that, in the classes from SRD, a spellcaster class seldom gets a class feature on a level of which it gains access to higher-level spells. For example, you will find that 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th level for wizard has a blank "Features" column, because on that level, a wizard gains access to higher-level spells. This, again, because higher-level spells are strong enough that they are a class feature by themselves.

But then, you will find that 3rd level comes with a higher-level spells and a class feature. Yes, there is always an exception, but I have seen Marasmusine often says, "when you give a class feature with a higher-level spell slots, it is best to keep the class feature minor enough to keep balance." I do not know what contents make up the thirteen Wizards Rules, but you might want to come up with a brilliant execution to keep things balanced enough.

It was a long reply, but here are two key points in my replies:

• Wizards are already strong with spellcasting features and spell lists, so adding combat ability may cause unbalance in the gameplay. I personally suggest using half-level spellcasting features, although it might be different from the original concept.

• The class features are incomplete at the moment, so my comments on them were rushed and reckless. I am deeply sorry with this, although I am concerend that too many class features can threaten the gameplay issues and make balancing process difficult. I am not a veteran at this part, you may find some help from 5e Class Design Guide or other users, preferably admins - unlike myself.

I hope my replies would help improve and revise your works. Again, I am terribly sorry with my nitpickings, I send you my greatest apologies if my comments offended you.

Oh, and two more things: (a) I might not be able to make comments and replies on time, I happen to live in a time zone where it's just past midnight - gotta sleep; and (b) if you wouldn't mind, can you share the title and/or franchise of the book you are referring to? That sounds a nice book, I haven't read a decent fantasy novel myself for months. - --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading your replies and re going over the book lore all the combat stuff was from the character and not his magics. So im going to go and change the features up. Thanks for the input.Bannanameds (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

P.s. the books series is called The Sword Of Truth by Terry Goodkind. Its got 14 books starting with Wizards First Rule. Bannanameds (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having me - always glad to be of service. Again, my greatest apologies for nitpicking, in cases it offended you. Also, thanks for the book recommendation, I'll get my hands on those beauties.

Oh, and if you wouldn't mind, I'll copy the comments here to the class' Talk page, to let others see the inputs and outputs. If you do mind, I'll just leave them here only. What do you think? --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. If it helps our fellow D&D wikians than im fine with it. In fact, i think we should work together more often. Bannanameds (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just did that - again, thanks for having me! --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)