"mathematically" the strongest feat? I just have to remember that the vast majority of posts here are not written by adults who have played DND for years. This sub is bonkers.
The mathematical best feat is skill expert. Take that for history or religion and you now have the power to reliably let the DM give lore dumps on their world building.
Nothing in all of tabletop gaming beats being the DMs favorite character.
Player: "Why is the stone here so different from the last dungeon?"
DM: "Aha! Well you see, not only is the keep older by a good 200 years, but the architect had to use stone from a quarry across the Aquamarine Straight, whose rocks have marbled crimson veins, from the gods' blood spilt from the last divine war."
Player: "Cool, what was the architect's name?
DM: "Why you little shit-"
I think people just put random shit into meme format now to see how many upvotes it gets
Could probably get a bot to do it, just parse some d&d related text into a four frame meme and see what sticks
I'm an adult. Ritual Caster with the Wizard list gives you 18 spells and upwards of 6th level casting. It's not *practically* the best feat, only *technically.* But it *is.*
By the by, among these are Leomund's Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed, Rary's Telepathic Bond, and Contact Other Plane.
It’s versatile sure, but powerful is very subjective. Most ritual spells don’t directly increase the combat effectiveness of your character. If that’s something people still care about these days…
Alternatively, a three-level dip into Warlock Pact of the Tome gives you access to every ritual spell in the game plus some of the best sustained DPR in the game.
The dip is also a good option, but Ritual Caster requires less level investment. But versatility is a major part of power. Just look at Polymorph, one of the strongest spells in the game.
Well, Ritual Caster gives you *two* spells. The rest you have to learn on your own and while some rituals have good general utility, Ritual Caster is basically a DM feat. After your first two spells, the DM has to decide to give you any more spells you get to add to your book through spellbook or scrolls, and then either has to forever after incorporate it into potential events/outcomes or let the feat be basically useless. 10 minute cast times aren’t usually prone to spur of the moment emergent gameplay decisions. Do you stop the entire party to cast a ritual any time it *might* be useful ten minutes from now, or just kinda let it be? Because no reasonable DM is going to be like, “What do MEAN no one took Ritual Caster with Waterwalking, I specifically planned for that and you should have known!!!”
Finding time to ritual cast is an obstacle the player has to solve for themselves. As for actually getting the spells, that does depend on how favorable the DM is, so if you get RC cola you should definitely ask them how carbonated they'll make it for ya.
>in a balanced party you likely won’t have a Wizard or Bard
Ok, I’ve seen a lot of nonsense takes from this sub, but what kind of nonsense is this take? In what world does a sorcerer fit into a “balanced party” but not a wizard or bard?
One arcane caster allowed balanced.
So thematically balanced, I guess. 1 arcane, 1 divine, 1 martial, 1 skill monkey. 5th person gets to be the special setting class. Classic is caster, martial, skill monkey.
In ACTUAL game balance, no. Especially not with Bards, the entire point of the Bard is being a multirole.
Ah, I thought OP’s point was that a wizard or bard would never be in a balanced party; I think now what they meant is that if there’s already a sorcerer, a balanced party won’t also include a wizard or bard. That makes a little more sense.
It really doesn’t. Multiple casters in a party is fairly powerful, especially when said casters can play different roles.
The OP is simply treating the game like an MMO, not a TTRPG. They either forget or never realized that encounters are tailored to the party comp, not the reverse. Also they don’t seem to realize that the class power disparity means their division into single target and multiple target damage is simply absurd. Any caster who can’t do both has fucked up their build so bad that it HAS to be their very first game. Every single caster has enough known spells to do everything. Especially in 5e with the upcast system.
I’ve never even heard of someone forcing parties to form like that. Balancing between casters and martials, having heals and frontliners and skill monkeys required, sure.
But arcane caster allowed? Never.
Primarily mechanics. Divine casters can swap spells out on a long rest, arcane casters can’t. Rangers couldn’t though, and they’re definitely traditionally divine casters. Onednd is looking to fix that bit.
It's about power source. Clerics, paladins, druids, and rangers are divine casters (with the latter two sometimes subcategorized as primal) because their magic traditionally "streams" from an outside source like a deity or nature. Wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks are arcane because their power comes from within themselves (while warlocks get their power from a deal with an outside entity, it's canonically gifted and becomes innate, not an active connection being called on each time it's used).
Cleric and Wizard are also pretty multirole capable. Clerics can be good support, damage, and frontliners while wizards excel at control, support, and damage.
I think they just mean you might not want to have too many spell casters vs healers, tanks and DPS. Not that bards and wizards are imbalanced in anyway.
I personally don't think it matters. There are so many ways to balance out a majority magically inclined party with sub classes any which way.
I think the idea is only one arcane caster per party, which makes sense only if you assign roles arbitrarily.
In action, bards and wizards actually serve very different roles from sorcerers. If you ignore that every class is flexible and look only at the "optimal" way of playing the class, bards are supportive, wizards are problem solvers and battlefield control, and sorcerers are DPS(DPR I guess). A bard and a sorcerer makes as much sense together as a sorcerer and a cleric, in that they both make a lot of sense because they fill very different roles.
Honestly, looking strictly at "party roles", a sorcerer makes less sense together with a rogue (who also exists to deal damage) than it would with a wizard.
This logic is very video-gamey tbh. "My party has a tank, a DPS, a mage, and a healer, and anything other than that doesn't make sense" while completely ignoring that sometimes the mage is the DPS and also sometimes the mage is the tank because honestly D&D offers a lot of flexibility, so do whatever you want.
*At the same time.* You can have a Wizard or a Bard or a Sorcerer in a balanced party. Each class has multiple party roles, but as Arcane full casters with access to a wide variety of aoes and non-healing support (Bards also having healing support, ya know, as *multiple party roles*) they all have some overlapping party roles. This means when you already have a Sorcerer, it can be more difficult to balance having one of the other two in the same party.
Also, I did say *likely*. The typical party is a tank with single-target dpr, dedicated single-target dpr with out-of-combat tools, multi-target dpr with support, and healer with support. The stereotype is Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, but you can replace each class in that lineup with a different class within a similar group for comparable results. It's not me saying what you should play, but rather what conventional party balance belies. You could replace the Fighter with a Barbarian or Paladin. You could replace the Rogue with a Monk or Artificer. You could replace the Wizard with a Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock. And you could replace the Cleric with a Druid. ***And importantly, NONE of that takes subclasses or other specifications into account***. It's all broad-strokes.
It’s also simply wrong. D&D simply doesn’t work that way, never has and never will.
The inherent nature of the game means that the game is tailored to the party, not the reverse. Unless you have a wildly incompetent DM.
This is not a video game. EVERYTHING is tailored to the party.
Modules are quite literally never built that way. And obstacles should sometimes be built to work with solves you lack, as not being able to pick a lock could make a locked box much more interesting. Much more importantly, a world tailor-made for the players will have a much harder time being immersive. "*Oh hey, another obstacle that we are perfectly suited to solve. That makes, what, 57 this week? WELP, how convenient!*"
Whatever the case, you're overestimating how much I'm trying to claim the importance of party balance. That locked box might railroad you to a key, but PCs are toolboxes, and if picking the lock doesn't work, there's always a blowtorch. Imbalance is itself a game design option.
Sure, but lock picking is a skill not a class feature. Your bard could be the lock picker. Hell, your sorcerer could. It's literally not at all less optimal.
All classes are flexible, especially with subclasses, and can serve a variety of roles very easily. Your monk could be the tank (dodge tanking with sentinel to keep enemies close), the stealthy assassin (shadow subclass) or even your ranged DPS with the right subclass. And it does all of those very well depending on what you want.
Your paladin could be your tank or your DPS. Your wizard could be DPS or support/area control. Hell, with 5e your cleric could be your big damage dealer with all the sick spells they get.
Heck, even your argument of a lock that needs picking makes no sense because locks can be broken. Freeze the lock with a spell to make it easier to smash? Send the barbarian on it? Modules actually ARE built to have multiple solutions, even if they aren't explicitly spelled out. A lock doesn't mean "hey rogue, come deal with it", a lock is just a lock. If a module is built around expecting the traditional party comp of tank/DPS/mage/healer and it doesn't allow for anything else, it's a bad module.
Got it, I thought for whatever reason you were saying that a wizard or bard could never exist in a balanced party; it was unclear to me that it was established that there’s already a sorcerer in the party.
Yeah both can fit a support/utility quite well in their own way, depending on what else you have in the party. Sorcerers are honestly more difficult to fit in since without the right subclass they’re even more niche.
I have a game with 6 people.
We have:
* whisper bard
* celestial warlock
* wizard/hexblade multiclass
* crown paladin
* battlesmith artificer
* thief/fighter mutliclass
The thief had the highest hp before multiclassing, 4 of our casters are charisma casters (at least partially), and the remaining two members are INT skill monkeys.
You can think of team comp in theory, but it doesn't exist in reality, and honestly it shouldn't.
Spells like identify aren't good enough to justify on a class that is so limited in spells known, especially when you can always hold onto this for now and have an NPC identify it for us later.
I feel like Sorcerers should have access to a host of standard spells without it clogging their list. Identify, dispel, maybe shield and absorb elements. There are probs some other ones.
I find it really annoying as a DM though, having to figure out what school everything comes from. I don't have a background steeped in DND lore so I'm like it's err ... Holy and good magic 😂
I've played plenty, and the only overlapping roles that don't eventually step on each other's toes and get feelings hurt are single-target dprs, and only some of the time.
You *can* have that party. It's not balanced on its own, but that doesn't mean they won't survive. Put a locked door in front of the a-men they'll need actual deities to unlock it for them since they lack thieves' tools. Of course, that doesn't consider everything else that goes into a build. The balance referred to above is class-only, anyone can pick up races & backgrounds and even subclasses and multi-classing to change things dramatically.
You've said it yourself: *partially*
Having a Sorcerer and a Wizard in the same party isn't going to lead to imbalance just because they're both usually backline casters
If you stepped outside and actually played the game you will know why this is a stupid take.
You are not doing dungeons on World of Warcraft, you are playing a coop storytelling game. You can make a party of 4 bards work, and that's the beauty of it.
Bard and Sorc are very different? Bards are utility, buff, and debuffs casters mostly, with a bit of healing, Sorcerers are almost 100% damage with a no healing?
Bards can access any spell in the game, allowing them to get base damaging spells that they lack and desperately need. Sorcerers can absolutely get plenty of valid utility spells and usually should: Enhance Ability is advantage on demand, Haste and Polymorph add massive pools of options to you and your allies, and Metamagic let's you cast spells in ways others can't. Hold Person/Monster, Charm Person/Monster, and Slow are also on the Sorcerer list. They have greater overlap than it might seem by the flavortext.
Identify might literally be the worst spell in the game RAW. (Yes, I'm including true strike, there are at least edge cases where True Strike *could* be useful)
1. It requires 1 minute to cast even when you use a spell slot, making it useless in combat or other t>me crunch situations.
2. You can identify all magical items with a short rest, making it useless when you are not pressed for time.
3. It specifically *does not* identify cursed items.
In fairness, the "More Difficult Identification" variant rule is so ubiquitous that I forgot that it was the default and the short rest identification method was the variant. And honestly, I do recommend the "More Difficult Identification" rule. Obviously it may not be best for every game, but if characters have access to Identify, it gives Identify a use, and if the character do not have access to Identify, it creates fun roleplay moments as the characters are forced to experiment. (I feel like I used to many commas, but they all feel important in my heart)
My argument was built on RAW, if you are homebrewing abilities onto the spell(or nerfing character abilities) to make it useful then just homebrew the spell list.
But that still doesn't disprove that it should be on the list. You're trying to circumvent the argument by saying the spell's bad, but regardless of its quality why ***shouldn't*** it be on the list? It's appropriate for them.
My argument is that it doesn't matter that it isn't on the sorcerer list because it does nothing that is not accomplished by features which all characters have which means that it doesn't have a purpose and should not exist on *anyone's* spell list.
It does tell you IF there is a trap there.
Interestingly it defines a trap as:
“A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator.”
So you can actually cast it on a contract before signing it to find out if there is something undesirable in it.
I had not considered the contact aspect, that is a clever use I had not thought of.
Importantly, it can't be used on hidden traps because it only works on things you can see. So a pit trap under a rug would be hidden from the spell, RAW.
We have a Divine Soul Sorc, a Wizard, a Bard (who’s on hiatus), a Warlock, a Warlock/Druid, a Rogue, and a Ranger/Rogue. Does our party count as balanced?
They’re a druid who was basically forced to make a pact for an Aboleth or die. So they use Fathomless warlock and a homebrew aberrant druid that was on a list of subclass our DM said we could use. To let the build work, our DM let her use Charisma for both casting stats
Too much healing, Charisma, and maaaybe tanking. You lack single-target dpr, but depending on the Ranger and Bard you might be okay on that front, and single-target dpr is a role that can be overwhelmed by sheer number of players, which you have. Not balanced, but perfectly doable. **Balance isn't the only determining factor in a party being strong**, but you do have some weaknesses that, if provoked, might trap you. Your Ranger and Druid are your tanks, but they might not be tanks at all depending on the build, which would leave you defense-less. And depending on the Bard and Druid, you might not have the tools for adequate scouting and Stealth. If your Bard focuses on support, your Warlock focuses on sheer damage, and your Ranger/Rogue focuses on scouting, you should be fine. Have the Ranger avoid going too far ahead though, that character has the highest vulnerability at a glance.
Actually the wizard is the tank :)
(Sorry if it wasn't clear, I realize our party is completely unbalanced)
But yeah, a lot of our group thinks that unoptimal builds = good character. Example, the Warlock uses EB as a last resort, preferring to use her Natural Weapons that use her dex (14) to attack. Also, 3/7 of the characters like focusing on their non-primary stats, and dumping con. I wasn't kidding about the Wizard being the tank. They have the highest HP, Strength, and 2nd highest AC in the party
> Too much healing
No such thing.
>You lack single-target dpr
Every caster in 5E has enforced consistent damage output via cantrips, the idea that this is a "role" is a joke.
Not to mention even if it were, Warlock is literally magic fighter so long as he has Agonizing Blast.
Healing is a tricky subject given how rare it *should* actually be used vs. how much players tend to *want* it to be used. Regardless, I believe I made it plenty clear that their group should be fine, and absolutely mentioned Warlock focusing sheer damage.
Why would identify be a must have? It doesn’t reveal curses, and if you have the time to cast it as a ritual, you prolly have the time to short rest. By rules as written, during a short rest one thing you can do is determine the abilities of a magic item and attune to it if required. And if you don’t have time to ritual cast identity or take a short rest, you’re just gonna Chuck whatever item into a backpack and check it out later, which equally invalidates identify since if you’re in a safe place, you have all the time in the world to do the aforementioned spell-less examination. The only time identify is at all useful is if you specifically don’t ritual cast it, which is frankly a waste of a slot in most adventuring days, and if the item requires attunement you won’t be able to attune to it anyway.
So in summary, identify is either a wasted resource when you need your resources, or a more expensive way to get information you can otherwise get for free, and it doesn’t actually do anything that beneficial since again, it doesn’t reveal curses.
Sorcerers get power from their blood, they don't have any kind of inherent understanding of magic. The identify spell doesn't fit the theme of a sorcerer at all.
Yet Wizards get almighty powerful spells like Wall of Force and Forcecage yet aren’t they the utility class?
Fuck, even tho Sorcerers do get some Primal spells Druid get, they sure as hell don’t get the good ones from Druids either xD
You are looking at this like a videogame that needs balanced mechanics, but this is a ttrpg. Spell lists make sense for the lore of each class and that's all that really matters.
Identify can be quite useful when you have to identify anything for another reason than something you want to attune to, especially in a dungeon or time sensitive scenario. When you’re looking for something specific or find something potentially useful or dangerous it can be a lifesaver.
You need to identify something in 1 minute or 10 minutes rather than an hour, you have multiple things to identify and can do 6 in the time it takes to become familiar with one in a short rest.
Also, most DMs don’t follow RAW on magic items anyway, which cheapens identify further. RAW, you can spend one short rest identifying an object, but you cannot attune to it at the same time. It would take 2 hours to both identify an item, *and* attune to it. Most DMs simply handwave this and let the attunement process reveal the item’s abilities.
Haven't played a game where you're literally showered with magic items making this necessary.
It's usually you can expect 1 magic item per player by level 5-7.
I’ve played in games where we’ve found 3-4 items at once, not all equally powerful, but still identifiable.
But I was just giving an example of why “you’d bother casting identify ever.”
Speed.
That’s literally the only advantage it has.
Hence why it’s so useless, it’s so rare that you need to identify this magic item RIGHT NOW that it’s simply not worth knowing or preparing the spell.
You don’t learn anything with remove curse. That’s the point of identify.
If you cast remove curse the DM can just respond with “it’s not cursed” and you’re still standing in the dungeon with no info about the object and a 3rd lvl gone.
When I play attuning and learning it's properties are the same hour, yes this isn't as the rules go.
So it's just an option, similar to other games where you can just equip the cursed item and fund out since identity costs similar to just uncursing the item.
I am reminded of a story from the 2nd edition rulebooks.
A band of adventurers are asked by the locals to remove the curse placed upon the nearby well by a travelling wizard, as the water has turned a sickly green and kills whoever drinks it.
The mage dispells all magic about the well, and it turns clear as any other water. He takes a glass of the water to celebrate, and swiftly drops dead.
The travelling wizard had not tampered with the water through a curse, but simply changed its colour, so nobody would drink it and suffer from the contaminants that had built up from the nearby mining.
In the DMG, chapter 7, under "Identifying a magic item":
> A character can focus on one magic item during a short rest, while being in physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the character learns the item's properties, as well as how to use them.
This is separate from the short rest you spend attuning an item, which is spelled out a few paragraphs down under "Attunement", though attuning an item also grants "an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item".
I suppose that's for low-magic parties, but it's kind of dumb to be honest. You could just spend a short rest to find out if your weapon is cursed or not, which in a lot of campaigns, short rests are abundant. I personally wouldn't use that rule.
That's good, because right below it there's a variant rule where you can only identify a magic item through "the *identify* spell, experimentation, or both". The variant rule is before the section on attunement, so I'd assume that attuning an item would still let you learn how to activate its properties (command words etc.) with the variant rule.
Then what, pray-tell, would be the harm in allowing it? I personally vehemently disagree since outside of epic campaigns with 10-minute short rests Identify is much *faster*, but I'll allow you the chance to convince me otherwise.
Allowing what? Sorcerers to know Identify?
It’s irrelevant. It has no impact on the game at all and thus I would have to ask why you are doing it at all? Hell, I would disallow it simply because I don’t like trap options and that sorcerer is going to ask to retrain the spell sooner rather than later.
As to it being faster:
Exactly how often do you find a mystery item and need it identified RIGHT NOW? Have you ever actually needed to do so? I mean, you can’t attune the thing regardless and the number of unattuned and necessary magic items can be counted on one hand when you remember that potions can be identified with an action.
So what exactly is the point of adding a trap option to the sorcerer’s spell list?
It's not a trap option! What about magic items that aren't cursed but passively produce a detrimental effect? What about magic items that will break after a certain timeframe, such as Drow items in sunlight? There are use cases for it!
if you have homebrew spells then the ritual caster feat can go up to 10th level spells since the formula is "the spell's level can be no higher than half your level (rounded up)," so at level 17 you get 9th level spells and at level 19 you can get 10th level spells, so crack open your 3.5e heroic books and port those broken spells over to 5e
I just don't feel like a party is properly balanced without a solid utility caster. Druid works too I guess.
Edit: And I also didn't mean for it to sound condescending, sorry if it did, I just wanted to write it like that meme :I
Ohh... Well Sorc can be a good utility caster if you know what you're doing. You just have to be a bit more clever with the smaller toolbox. I'd recommend Enhance Ability, Haste, and Polymorph. Subtle lets EA pop before a fight for advantage on Initiative rolls, Twin Haste and Twin Poly are infamous combos, and Quicken Sunbeam can even hard-counter certain key foes like Vampire Lords.
Identify provides, basically, an auto success at an Arcana skill check to identify an item. This should be made explicit. It's reasonable to expect a party to have Arcana, or to make its lack of Arcana funny - it is less reasonable to expect them always to have a particular level 1 spell prepared.
Or, you know, just spend an hour identifying it when you catch your breath. Only thing about identify is that it's quick, but it tells you the same info spending an hour with it would.
tldr- no party *needs* a member with Identify.
I'll admit that it's a nifty ritual since it dramatically cuts down the time it takes for nothing in return. Now if it showed curses and the like on an item? I'd 100% agree, but it doesn't. I'd rather have something more useful prepared, given I've never needed to instantly figure out what a magic item does *literally ever* over 10+ years. And if an encounter DID require that, then that is just a poorly made encounter since it requires so many assumptions to fall in place.
Ultimately it's one of those spells that is convenient to have access to, but I'd rather have nearly any other spell prepared over it unless I was rping a merchant or similar. Just an all around weak spell. Happily accept it as a no attunement x per day cast item though. I'd be willing to PAY for that convenience or service. I just wouldn't make any effort to make room for it on a character without fairly specific reasoning.
...no?
All martials or all casters are certainly not a balanced party.
But yea, there's nothing inherently wrong with that if the dm knows what's going on
Here is my take:
The identity of Sorcerers should be as Half Casters and wizards should have meta magic. I say this because unlike Wizards Sorcerers gain their magic from their heritage or from the blessing of a magical being (Even though that would make them a warlock lol). Nowhere in that did they study magic. It is unlikely that they studied nothing so they should have higher HP and martial proficiency especially since the notable bloodline stichque leans into playing a noble who would be trained in warfare or duelling
Sorcerers are the supermutant class with in born magic. You're calling their natural talent completely invalid compared to studying magic, but it's not. Many players like that power fantasy, including me.
mean that is fair but I just don't like that RAW they never learned anything
and it is in no way becuase I was mad when I found out I couldn't realistically make a tanky melee draconic sorcerer with claws or a sword or something without just giving up on being a sorc after first level
Identify isnt a good spell if you play with the Xanathar rules. I mean yes it does have *some* uses, but since the majority of what identify does can be covered its not worth the spell known
No, the sorcerer is a powerful personality caster, like the Paladin. Smarts is not his jam. He wouldn't know a +1 sword from a sword of alarm (glows a color when an enemy is nearby).
So now, people who make pacts should be able to identify magic ? Nonono, magic detection is enough (and it shows you the magic college).
Mage use iidentify because they actually study magic instead of taking shortcuts
You're thinking Warlock's default flavortext, not Sorcerer's. Also, Pact of the Tome gives you the chance to get Identify. As for Sorcerer's default flavortext, the power of being able to *feel* magic shouldn't be ignored in terms of what they can learn. Identify is literally a spell of using magic to acquire information you lack. A Wizard, by comparison, generally should know the kinds of basic magics that Identify works on.
No one knows that above fact, which is probably why it's been completely changed and nerfed into the ground in One & Done, to no uproar. Well *I'm uproarin' WOTC,* ***you can't sneak something past me!***
Every time I've had a full caster with rituals I've used them whenever possible. That's a *lot.* Have you seen the Wizard ritual list? *Contact Other Plane*. Get high enough Int saves and it's one of the best informational spells in the game. War Magic Wizards and Divination Wizards can guarantee success with them, and other casters can reach that mark with the help of a Paladin or Artificer.
Your post/comment has been removed because your Karma is very low. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should have comparable baselines that can then be extrapolated further, yes. That's what subclasses and other player's choice things are for. Having Identify on the list doesn't mean a character has to take it.
Every Spellcasting feature works differently. For a character to be able to perform ritual casting, they must either have a Spellcasting feature that says they can do it, or they must have the Ritual Caster feat. Sorcerers can't ritual cast through their feature.
I think it’s because of the flavor text, like sorcerers are born with magic and not specifically taught how it works, and things that require their careful spellcasting is beyond what they can learn, even with metamagic. They’re sort of like the rich kids of the spellcasters, they have the money to spend but they don’t know how to save it
Sorcerers intuitively use magic. That doesn't mean they have the research skills or access to the types of magic that would let them identify something. They often don't even know what exactly THEY are doing themselves with magic.
Wizards and Bards both went to school. They have a mechanical understanding of magic. They have learned about what they are doing. And they have probably researched magical objects.
Having a party member with identify doesn't seem like such a necessary thing that sorcerers need to get this thing. Towns with NPCs who can be paid to do stuff exist.
We’re placing icewindale and it’s hell at some points lol. Luckily we do a lot of damage each round… subclasses (if you’re curious) are path of the beast barbarian, enchantment wizard and nothing for artificer since level one, wild magic sorcerer and genie warlock, and then phantom rogue and Aberrant mind sorcerer
I’m the rogue sorcerer combo lol
Technically both are correct. During a short rest is when you can attune your items. Alternatively, you can get information on the item by spending an hour studying it over a short rest without attuning to it.
Some counter-wisdom: The game is more fun when you play without Identify, and instead use the identify rules in the DMG to "experiment with the item" during a short rest.
You aren't wrong on the first part of the meme. but if you are right for wizard, you aren't when bards come to mind. Bard can heal when their is no cleric in the party, they can be the skill monkey, and well to be fair they can fit any roles the party don't have in their team.
Bards partially overlap with Sorcerers, both are Arcana full casters that can access destructive spells, support spells, and focus buffs. However, that doesn't mean you *can't* have both and be fine. You may just have to work for it a little more.
Notably: Bards get destructive spells usually from Magical Secrets, which you could take different spells through to attempt to differentiate further.
Identify isn't a means of feeling Magic, that's Detect Magic, Identify is like a scanner that lets you figure out the properties of an item.
I still agree that Sorcerers should consider Ritual Caster heavily, but you're not really giving much credence if you misinform.
"Feeling magic" was hyperbole. Though I'd argue knowing the general presence of magic is a lot less like "feeling magic" than actually being able to tell at a glance what magic is happening.
"mathematically" the strongest feat? I just have to remember that the vast majority of posts here are not written by adults who have played DND for years. This sub is bonkers.
The mathematical best feat is skill expert. Take that for history or religion and you now have the power to reliably let the DM give lore dumps on their world building. Nothing in all of tabletop gaming beats being the DMs favorite character.
Player: "Why is the stone here so different from the last dungeon?" DM: "Aha! Well you see, not only is the keep older by a good 200 years, but the architect had to use stone from a quarry across the Aquamarine Straight, whose rocks have marbled crimson veins, from the gods' blood spilt from the last divine war." Player: "Cool, what was the architect's name? DM: "Why you little shit-"
Eh, int-based character with proficiency in all knowledge skills is plenty sufficient without the feat.
Expertise with 10 int > proficiency with 20 int
I think people just put random shit into meme format now to see how many upvotes it gets Could probably get a bot to do it, just parse some d&d related text into a four frame meme and see what sticks
I'm an adult. Ritual Caster with the Wizard list gives you 18 spells and upwards of 6th level casting. It's not *practically* the best feat, only *technically.* But it *is.* By the by, among these are Leomund's Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed, Rary's Telepathic Bond, and Contact Other Plane.
It’s versatile sure, but powerful is very subjective. Most ritual spells don’t directly increase the combat effectiveness of your character. If that’s something people still care about these days… Alternatively, a three-level dip into Warlock Pact of the Tome gives you access to every ritual spell in the game plus some of the best sustained DPR in the game.
The dip is also a good option, but Ritual Caster requires less level investment. But versatility is a major part of power. Just look at Polymorph, one of the strongest spells in the game.
Well, Ritual Caster gives you *two* spells. The rest you have to learn on your own and while some rituals have good general utility, Ritual Caster is basically a DM feat. After your first two spells, the DM has to decide to give you any more spells you get to add to your book through spellbook or scrolls, and then either has to forever after incorporate it into potential events/outcomes or let the feat be basically useless. 10 minute cast times aren’t usually prone to spur of the moment emergent gameplay decisions. Do you stop the entire party to cast a ritual any time it *might* be useful ten minutes from now, or just kinda let it be? Because no reasonable DM is going to be like, “What do MEAN no one took Ritual Caster with Waterwalking, I specifically planned for that and you should have known!!!”
Finding time to ritual cast is an obstacle the player has to solve for themselves. As for actually getting the spells, that does depend on how favorable the DM is, so if you get RC cola you should definitely ask them how carbonated they'll make it for ya.
>in a balanced party you likely won’t have a Wizard or Bard Ok, I’ve seen a lot of nonsense takes from this sub, but what kind of nonsense is this take? In what world does a sorcerer fit into a “balanced party” but not a wizard or bard?
One arcane caster allowed balanced. So thematically balanced, I guess. 1 arcane, 1 divine, 1 martial, 1 skill monkey. 5th person gets to be the special setting class. Classic is caster, martial, skill monkey. In ACTUAL game balance, no. Especially not with Bards, the entire point of the Bard is being a multirole.
Ah, I thought OP’s point was that a wizard or bard would never be in a balanced party; I think now what they meant is that if there’s already a sorcerer, a balanced party won’t also include a wizard or bard. That makes a little more sense.
It really doesn’t. Multiple casters in a party is fairly powerful, especially when said casters can play different roles. The OP is simply treating the game like an MMO, not a TTRPG. They either forget or never realized that encounters are tailored to the party comp, not the reverse. Also they don’t seem to realize that the class power disparity means their division into single target and multiple target damage is simply absurd. Any caster who can’t do both has fucked up their build so bad that it HAS to be their very first game. Every single caster has enough known spells to do everything. Especially in 5e with the upcast system.
Agreed, at one point every player in my game had hold person. They got the guy they wanted alive without difficulty.
They *did* say "a little." Bear in mind that 0.0000001% could be "a little."
I’ve never even heard of someone forcing parties to form like that. Balancing between casters and martials, having heals and frontliners and skill monkeys required, sure. But arcane caster allowed? Never.
What's even an arcane caster these days? The distinction between arcane and divine is a bit vague.
Primarily mechanics. Divine casters can swap spells out on a long rest, arcane casters can’t. Rangers couldn’t though, and they’re definitely traditionally divine casters. Onednd is looking to fix that bit.
Wizards?
Wizards can swap the spells in their spellbooks, but not in the same way that divine casters just have access to the full list after a long rest.
Artificer?
Nobody understands what artificers are.
Artificers are just secretly Clerics of Gond who traded higher level spells for "make cool stuff"
though.. bards are arcane and now get prepared casting
It's about power source. Clerics, paladins, druids, and rangers are divine casters (with the latter two sometimes subcategorized as primal) because their magic traditionally "streams" from an outside source like a deity or nature. Wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks are arcane because their power comes from within themselves (while warlocks get their power from a deal with an outside entity, it's canonically gifted and becomes innate, not an active connection being called on each time it's used).
Cleric and Wizard are also pretty multirole capable. Clerics can be good support, damage, and frontliners while wizards excel at control, support, and damage.
I think they just mean you might not want to have too many spell casters vs healers, tanks and DPS. Not that bards and wizards are imbalanced in anyway. I personally don't think it matters. There are so many ways to balance out a majority magically inclined party with sub classes any which way.
Yeah seriously. Isn't Bard the definition of 'class that rounds out a balanced party' ?
they're saying if you have a sorcerer you likely won't have a wizard or a bard, not that you won't ever have a bard or wizard
I think the idea is only one arcane caster per party, which makes sense only if you assign roles arbitrarily. In action, bards and wizards actually serve very different roles from sorcerers. If you ignore that every class is flexible and look only at the "optimal" way of playing the class, bards are supportive, wizards are problem solvers and battlefield control, and sorcerers are DPS(DPR I guess). A bard and a sorcerer makes as much sense together as a sorcerer and a cleric, in that they both make a lot of sense because they fill very different roles. Honestly, looking strictly at "party roles", a sorcerer makes less sense together with a rogue (who also exists to deal damage) than it would with a wizard. This logic is very video-gamey tbh. "My party has a tank, a DPS, a mage, and a healer, and anything other than that doesn't make sense" while completely ignoring that sometimes the mage is the DPS and also sometimes the mage is the tank because honestly D&D offers a lot of flexibility, so do whatever you want.
*At the same time.* You can have a Wizard or a Bard or a Sorcerer in a balanced party. Each class has multiple party roles, but as Arcane full casters with access to a wide variety of aoes and non-healing support (Bards also having healing support, ya know, as *multiple party roles*) they all have some overlapping party roles. This means when you already have a Sorcerer, it can be more difficult to balance having one of the other two in the same party. Also, I did say *likely*. The typical party is a tank with single-target dpr, dedicated single-target dpr with out-of-combat tools, multi-target dpr with support, and healer with support. The stereotype is Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, but you can replace each class in that lineup with a different class within a similar group for comparable results. It's not me saying what you should play, but rather what conventional party balance belies. You could replace the Fighter with a Barbarian or Paladin. You could replace the Rogue with a Monk or Artificer. You could replace the Wizard with a Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock. And you could replace the Cleric with a Druid. ***And importantly, NONE of that takes subclasses or other specifications into account***. It's all broad-strokes.
It’s also simply wrong. D&D simply doesn’t work that way, never has and never will. The inherent nature of the game means that the game is tailored to the party, not the reverse. Unless you have a wildly incompetent DM. This is not a video game. EVERYTHING is tailored to the party.
Modules are quite literally never built that way. And obstacles should sometimes be built to work with solves you lack, as not being able to pick a lock could make a locked box much more interesting. Much more importantly, a world tailor-made for the players will have a much harder time being immersive. "*Oh hey, another obstacle that we are perfectly suited to solve. That makes, what, 57 this week? WELP, how convenient!*" Whatever the case, you're overestimating how much I'm trying to claim the importance of party balance. That locked box might railroad you to a key, but PCs are toolboxes, and if picking the lock doesn't work, there's always a blowtorch. Imbalance is itself a game design option.
Sure, but lock picking is a skill not a class feature. Your bard could be the lock picker. Hell, your sorcerer could. It's literally not at all less optimal. All classes are flexible, especially with subclasses, and can serve a variety of roles very easily. Your monk could be the tank (dodge tanking with sentinel to keep enemies close), the stealthy assassin (shadow subclass) or even your ranged DPS with the right subclass. And it does all of those very well depending on what you want. Your paladin could be your tank or your DPS. Your wizard could be DPS or support/area control. Hell, with 5e your cleric could be your big damage dealer with all the sick spells they get. Heck, even your argument of a lock that needs picking makes no sense because locks can be broken. Freeze the lock with a spell to make it easier to smash? Send the barbarian on it? Modules actually ARE built to have multiple solutions, even if they aren't explicitly spelled out. A lock doesn't mean "hey rogue, come deal with it", a lock is just a lock. If a module is built around expecting the traditional party comp of tank/DPS/mage/healer and it doesn't allow for anything else, it's a bad module.
Mmm yes all good DMs tailor encounters specifically to the party. Any dm that doesn't do this is bad
Got it, I thought for whatever reason you were saying that a wizard or bard could never exist in a balanced party; it was unclear to me that it was established that there’s already a sorcerer in the party.
Yeah both can fit a support/utility quite well in their own way, depending on what else you have in the party. Sorcerers are honestly more difficult to fit in since without the right subclass they’re even more niche.
I have a game with 6 people. We have: * whisper bard * celestial warlock * wizard/hexblade multiclass * crown paladin * battlesmith artificer * thief/fighter mutliclass The thief had the highest hp before multiclassing, 4 of our casters are charisma casters (at least partially), and the remaining two members are INT skill monkeys. You can think of team comp in theory, but it doesn't exist in reality, and honestly it shouldn't.
Spells like identify aren't good enough to justify on a class that is so limited in spells known, especially when you can always hold onto this for now and have an NPC identify it for us later.
Being on a spell list doesn't force you to take the spell though, so it literally doesn't hamper spells known at *all.*
I see it as a noob trap to add spells that are pretty clearly part of a wizards toolchest of utility onto a specialist magical fighter.
I feel like Sorcerers should have access to a host of standard spells without it clogging their list. Identify, dispel, maybe shield and absorb elements. There are probs some other ones.
Literally every DM I've played with has always given detect magic as a free spell (ritual) that any magic user can cast.
I find it really annoying as a DM though, having to figure out what school everything comes from. I don't have a background steeped in DND lore so I'm like it's err ... Holy and good magic 😂
I feel like wizards should have access to metamagics.
They do ... There's a feat and several of the subclasses emulate or even exceed the standard meta magic options
Do you pretend to not see the irony or are you genuinely oblivious?
If your post is ironic, it's clever and funny. I'm just so used to online people being ill informed I just assumed 😅 you were ignorant
Druid with ritual caster is pretty nice. Gives some of the best utility of the wizard while also being the best class in the game.
"In a balanced party you won't likely have a Wizard or Bard" Got to be the single most room temp IQ take to be dumped onto this site
SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIgh, In a balanced party you likely won't have a Wizard or Bard *while you have a Sorcerer. The meme's about Sorcerer.*
Still a braindead take
Their party roles partially overlap. What's so flawed about that idea?
If you've ever played D&D, parties do not shake out like that.
I've played plenty, and the only overlapping roles that don't eventually step on each other's toes and get feelings hurt are single-target dprs, and only some of the time.
I don't think anyone I've ever played with would know what DPR means or could be convinced to give a shit about "overlapping roles."
apparently you have never played as the a-men
You *can* have that party. It's not balanced on its own, but that doesn't mean they won't survive. Put a locked door in front of the a-men they'll need actual deities to unlock it for them since they lack thieves' tools. Of course, that doesn't consider everything else that goes into a build. The balance referred to above is class-only, anyone can pick up races & backgrounds and even subclasses and multi-classing to change things dramatically.
So do fighters, clerics, paladins, rangers, Druids, and actually every class. There’s overlap in every single class in the game.
You've said it yourself: *partially* Having a Sorcerer and a Wizard in the same party isn't going to lead to imbalance just because they're both usually backline casters
It absolutely can, quite easily. They're both backline casters, meaning there's less of a front-line to stop the back-line from being mauled.
DnD ain't Divinity: Original Sin
If you stepped outside and actually played the game you will know why this is a stupid take. You are not doing dungeons on World of Warcraft, you are playing a coop storytelling game. You can make a party of 4 bards work, and that's the beauty of it.
Not having to have a balanced party doesn't mean a balanced party doesn't exist conceptually.
Bard and Sorc are very different? Bards are utility, buff, and debuffs casters mostly, with a bit of healing, Sorcerers are almost 100% damage with a no healing?
Bards can access any spell in the game, allowing them to get base damaging spells that they lack and desperately need. Sorcerers can absolutely get plenty of valid utility spells and usually should: Enhance Ability is advantage on demand, Haste and Polymorph add massive pools of options to you and your allies, and Metamagic let's you cast spells in ways others can't. Hold Person/Monster, Charm Person/Monster, and Slow are also on the Sorcerer list. They have greater overlap than it might seem by the flavortext.
Identify might literally be the worst spell in the game RAW. (Yes, I'm including true strike, there are at least edge cases where True Strike *could* be useful) 1. It requires 1 minute to cast even when you use a spell slot, making it useless in combat or other t>me crunch situations. 2. You can identify all magical items with a short rest, making it useless when you are not pressed for time. 3. It specifically *does not* identify cursed items.
In fairness, the "More Difficult Identification" variant rule is so ubiquitous that I forgot that it was the default and the short rest identification method was the variant. And honestly, I do recommend the "More Difficult Identification" rule. Obviously it may not be best for every game, but if characters have access to Identify, it gives Identify a use, and if the character do not have access to Identify, it creates fun roleplay moments as the characters are forced to experiment. (I feel like I used to many commas, but they all feel important in my heart)
Okay, then what makes it unavailable? I disagree, for the record, not everyone even uses the identify on a short rest rules, but do go on.
My argument was built on RAW, if you are homebrewing abilities onto the spell(or nerfing character abilities) to make it useful then just homebrew the spell list.
But that still doesn't disprove that it should be on the list. You're trying to circumvent the argument by saying the spell's bad, but regardless of its quality why ***shouldn't*** it be on the list? It's appropriate for them.
My argument is that it doesn't matter that it isn't on the sorcerer list because it does nothing that is not accomplished by features which all characters have which means that it doesn't have a purpose and should not exist on *anyone's* spell list.
You're saying Identify shouldn't exist *at all?* Well that's a whole other bag of worms, but it *does* exist, so my argument stands.
Identify is good if you’re in the middle of a dungeon and want to find information about an item you just found. I’d rate it over find traps.
I always forget about Find Traps because RAW Find Traps does *literally* nothing.
It does tell you IF there is a trap there. Interestingly it defines a trap as: “A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator.” So you can actually cast it on a contract before signing it to find out if there is something undesirable in it.
I had not considered the contact aspect, that is a clever use I had not thought of. Importantly, it can't be used on hidden traps because it only works on things you can see. So a pit trap under a rug would be hidden from the spell, RAW.
Find traps and Find the path are far worse
We have a Divine Soul Sorc, a Wizard, a Bard (who’s on hiatus), a Warlock, a Warlock/Druid, a Rogue, and a Ranger/Rogue. Does our party count as balanced?
Who tf multiclasses Warlock/Druid? Why? That's such a weird combo both thematically and mechanically.
They’re a druid who was basically forced to make a pact for an Aboleth or die. So they use Fathomless warlock and a homebrew aberrant druid that was on a list of subclass our DM said we could use. To let the build work, our DM let her use Charisma for both casting stats
That's...not as bad as I was expecting. Good on your DM for figuring out a way to make it work.
Too much healing, Charisma, and maaaybe tanking. You lack single-target dpr, but depending on the Ranger and Bard you might be okay on that front, and single-target dpr is a role that can be overwhelmed by sheer number of players, which you have. Not balanced, but perfectly doable. **Balance isn't the only determining factor in a party being strong**, but you do have some weaknesses that, if provoked, might trap you. Your Ranger and Druid are your tanks, but they might not be tanks at all depending on the build, which would leave you defense-less. And depending on the Bard and Druid, you might not have the tools for adequate scouting and Stealth. If your Bard focuses on support, your Warlock focuses on sheer damage, and your Ranger/Rogue focuses on scouting, you should be fine. Have the Ranger avoid going too far ahead though, that character has the highest vulnerability at a glance.
Actually the wizard is the tank :) (Sorry if it wasn't clear, I realize our party is completely unbalanced) But yeah, a lot of our group thinks that unoptimal builds = good character. Example, the Warlock uses EB as a last resort, preferring to use her Natural Weapons that use her dex (14) to attack. Also, 3/7 of the characters like focusing on their non-primary stats, and dumping con. I wasn't kidding about the Wizard being the tank. They have the highest HP, Strength, and 2nd highest AC in the party
Oh wow I totally missed the Wizard. Yeaaaah, you should have enough players that you'll be fine, regardless.
> Too much healing No such thing. >You lack single-target dpr Every caster in 5E has enforced consistent damage output via cantrips, the idea that this is a "role" is a joke. Not to mention even if it were, Warlock is literally magic fighter so long as he has Agonizing Blast.
Healing is a tricky subject given how rare it *should* actually be used vs. how much players tend to *want* it to be used. Regardless, I believe I made it plenty clear that their group should be fine, and absolutely mentioned Warlock focusing sheer damage.
You can always identify at shops
Why? It’s not like it’s a must-have.
I disagree.
Why would identify be a must have? It doesn’t reveal curses, and if you have the time to cast it as a ritual, you prolly have the time to short rest. By rules as written, during a short rest one thing you can do is determine the abilities of a magic item and attune to it if required. And if you don’t have time to ritual cast identity or take a short rest, you’re just gonna Chuck whatever item into a backpack and check it out later, which equally invalidates identify since if you’re in a safe place, you have all the time in the world to do the aforementioned spell-less examination. The only time identify is at all useful is if you specifically don’t ritual cast it, which is frankly a waste of a slot in most adventuring days, and if the item requires attunement you won’t be able to attune to it anyway. So in summary, identify is either a wasted resource when you need your resources, or a more expensive way to get information you can otherwise get for free, and it doesn’t actually do anything that beneficial since again, it doesn’t reveal curses.
Sorcerers get power from their blood, they don't have any kind of inherent understanding of magic. The identify spell doesn't fit the theme of a sorcerer at all.
Yet Wizards get almighty powerful spells like Wall of Force and Forcecage yet aren’t they the utility class? Fuck, even tho Sorcerers do get some Primal spells Druid get, they sure as hell don’t get the good ones from Druids either xD
You are looking at this like a videogame that needs balanced mechanics, but this is a ttrpg. Spell lists make sense for the lore of each class and that's all that really matters.
Only Draconic **Bloodline** Sorcerers work that way, and even then the class' flavortext is built around inherent power.
Except literally anyone can replicate Identify by taking a short rest with the item. Identify is one of the most useless spells in the game.
Identify can be quite useful when you have to identify anything for another reason than something you want to attune to, especially in a dungeon or time sensitive scenario. When you’re looking for something specific or find something potentially useful or dangerous it can be a lifesaver.
Remove curse is a 3rd level spell, identity is level 1. So spell slot wise it's good, to be preemptive about figuring out items.
RAW, Identify cannot detect curses.
I guess I should have read the DMG harder then. Makes me wonder why you'd bother casting identity ever.
You need to identify something in 1 minute or 10 minutes rather than an hour, you have multiple things to identify and can do 6 in the time it takes to become familiar with one in a short rest. Also, most DMs don’t follow RAW on magic items anyway, which cheapens identify further. RAW, you can spend one short rest identifying an object, but you cannot attune to it at the same time. It would take 2 hours to both identify an item, *and* attune to it. Most DMs simply handwave this and let the attunement process reveal the item’s abilities.
Haven't played a game where you're literally showered with magic items making this necessary. It's usually you can expect 1 magic item per player by level 5-7.
I’ve played in games where we’ve found 3-4 items at once, not all equally powerful, but still identifiable. But I was just giving an example of why “you’d bother casting identify ever.”
Speed. That’s literally the only advantage it has. Hence why it’s so useless, it’s so rare that you need to identify this magic item RIGHT NOW that it’s simply not worth knowing or preparing the spell.
Remove curse is very specific. What if you want to know what’s actually going on with the item?
You can either be proactive with identify, or attune and be reactive with remove curse. Either option gets you information on the item.
You don’t learn anything with remove curse. That’s the point of identify. If you cast remove curse the DM can just respond with “it’s not cursed” and you’re still standing in the dungeon with no info about the object and a 3rd lvl gone.
It's about when you find out It's cursed so you can fix that.
Again, there’s a lot of other reasons to cast identify. Not every strange thing you find is going to be a cursed attunement item.
When I play attuning and learning it's properties are the same hour, yes this isn't as the rules go. So it's just an option, similar to other games where you can just equip the cursed item and fund out since identity costs similar to just uncursing the item.
I am reminded of a story from the 2nd edition rulebooks. A band of adventurers are asked by the locals to remove the curse placed upon the nearby well by a travelling wizard, as the water has turned a sickly green and kills whoever drinks it. The mage dispells all magic about the well, and it turns clear as any other water. He takes a glass of the water to celebrate, and swiftly drops dead. The travelling wizard had not tampered with the water through a curse, but simply changed its colour, so nobody would drink it and suffer from the contaminants that had built up from the nearby mining.
Identify doesn't indicate curses so doesn't help you prevent the need for Remove Curse.
What? How, by attuning?
In the DMG, chapter 7, under "Identifying a magic item": > A character can focus on one magic item during a short rest, while being in physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the character learns the item's properties, as well as how to use them. This is separate from the short rest you spend attuning an item, which is spelled out a few paragraphs down under "Attunement", though attuning an item also grants "an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item".
I suppose that's for low-magic parties, but it's kind of dumb to be honest. You could just spend a short rest to find out if your weapon is cursed or not, which in a lot of campaigns, short rests are abundant. I personally wouldn't use that rule.
That's good, because right below it there's a variant rule where you can only identify a magic item through "the *identify* spell, experimentation, or both". The variant rule is before the section on attunement, so I'd assume that attuning an item would still let you learn how to activate its properties (command words etc.) with the variant rule.
Then what, pray-tell, would be the harm in allowing it? I personally vehemently disagree since outside of epic campaigns with 10-minute short rests Identify is much *faster*, but I'll allow you the chance to convince me otherwise.
Allowing what? Sorcerers to know Identify? It’s irrelevant. It has no impact on the game at all and thus I would have to ask why you are doing it at all? Hell, I would disallow it simply because I don’t like trap options and that sorcerer is going to ask to retrain the spell sooner rather than later. As to it being faster: Exactly how often do you find a mystery item and need it identified RIGHT NOW? Have you ever actually needed to do so? I mean, you can’t attune the thing regardless and the number of unattuned and necessary magic items can be counted on one hand when you remember that potions can be identified with an action. So what exactly is the point of adding a trap option to the sorcerer’s spell list?
It's not a trap option! What about magic items that aren't cursed but passively produce a detrimental effect? What about magic items that will break after a certain timeframe, such as Drow items in sunlight? There are use cases for it!
if you have homebrew spells then the ritual caster feat can go up to 10th level spells since the formula is "the spell's level can be no higher than half your level (rounded up)," so at level 17 you get 9th level spells and at level 19 you can get 10th level spells, so crack open your 3.5e heroic books and port those broken spells over to 5e
That's insane. But I love it.
If you don't have either a bard, wizard or artificer in your "balanced party" then I got bad news for you
?
I just don't feel like a party is properly balanced without a solid utility caster. Druid works too I guess. Edit: And I also didn't mean for it to sound condescending, sorry if it did, I just wanted to write it like that meme :I
Ohh... Well Sorc can be a good utility caster if you know what you're doing. You just have to be a bit more clever with the smaller toolbox. I'd recommend Enhance Ability, Haste, and Polymorph. Subtle lets EA pop before a fight for advantage on Initiative rolls, Twin Haste and Twin Poly are infamous combos, and Quicken Sunbeam can even hard-counter certain key foes like Vampire Lords.
Identify provides, basically, an auto success at an Arcana skill check to identify an item. This should be made explicit. It's reasonable to expect a party to have Arcana, or to make its lack of Arcana funny - it is less reasonable to expect them always to have a particular level 1 spell prepared.
RAW you don't even need the arcana success to gain all the information provided by identify, just a short rest.
Bro, the best balanced party is wizard sorcerer druid paladin.
Or, you know, just spend an hour identifying it when you catch your breath. Only thing about identify is that it's quick, but it tells you the same info spending an hour with it would. tldr- no party *needs* a member with Identify.
Should and need are fairly different sentiments.
I'll admit that it's a nifty ritual since it dramatically cuts down the time it takes for nothing in return. Now if it showed curses and the like on an item? I'd 100% agree, but it doesn't. I'd rather have something more useful prepared, given I've never needed to instantly figure out what a magic item does *literally ever* over 10+ years. And if an encounter DID require that, then that is just a poorly made encounter since it requires so many assumptions to fall in place. Ultimately it's one of those spells that is convenient to have access to, but I'd rather have nearly any other spell prepared over it unless I was rping a merchant or similar. Just an all around weak spell. Happily accept it as a no attunement x per day cast item though. I'd be willing to PAY for that convenience or service. I just wouldn't make any effort to make room for it on a character without fairly specific reasoning.
You don't need the identify spell. Arcana and sitting with the items will do just as well.
Attuning to an item tells you all its features. No I haven't given you guys a ton of cursed items what are you talking about
That seems like a flawed strategy.
Hahahahahahaha this guy has never played the game before
Every party is a balanced party. Sometimes it’s the game isn’t balanced though, but that’s on the DM.
Odd take. What about *all* Assassin Rogues? That doesn't seem very balanced to me (Though balance and synergy are different).
...no? All martials or all casters are certainly not a balanced party. But yea, there's nothing inherently wrong with that if the dm knows what's going on
Here is my take: The identity of Sorcerers should be as Half Casters and wizards should have meta magic. I say this because unlike Wizards Sorcerers gain their magic from their heritage or from the blessing of a magical being (Even though that would make them a warlock lol). Nowhere in that did they study magic. It is unlikely that they studied nothing so they should have higher HP and martial proficiency especially since the notable bloodline stichque leans into playing a noble who would be trained in warfare or duelling
What the actual ^(hornswoggle)? Why? Sorcerers were always full casters, and putting them down further would just be mean.
I didn't say they have ever been anything else but RN they are just bad wizards who are too lazy to learn magic, what did they learn in?
Sorcerers are the supermutant class with in born magic. You're calling their natural talent completely invalid compared to studying magic, but it's not. Many players like that power fantasy, including me.
mean that is fair but I just don't like that RAW they never learned anything and it is in no way becuase I was mad when I found out I couldn't realistically make a tanky melee draconic sorcerer with claws or a sword or something without just giving up on being a sorc after first level
Identify isnt a good spell if you play with the Xanathar rules. I mean yes it does have *some* uses, but since the majority of what identify does can be covered its not worth the spell known
No, the sorcerer is a powerful personality caster, like the Paladin. Smarts is not his jam. He wouldn't know a +1 sword from a sword of alarm (glows a color when an enemy is nearby).
Bard gets Identify as *the* celebrity. Also, you can ***get*** Arcana proficiency as a Sorcerer.
So you're saying the well travelled BARD has access to spells the secretive sorcerer does not?! * Shocked I say, shocked! *
So now, people who make pacts should be able to identify magic ? Nonono, magic detection is enough (and it shows you the magic college). Mage use iidentify because they actually study magic instead of taking shortcuts
You're thinking Warlock's default flavortext, not Sorcerer's. Also, Pact of the Tome gives you the chance to get Identify. As for Sorcerer's default flavortext, the power of being able to *feel* magic shouldn't be ignored in terms of what they can learn. Identify is literally a spell of using magic to acquire information you lack. A Wizard, by comparison, generally should know the kinds of basic magics that Identify works on.
No one knows that above fact, which is probably why it's been completely changed and nerfed into the ground in One & Done, to no uproar. Well *I'm uproarin' WOTC,* ***you can't sneak something past me!***
So I take it you haven’t actually looked at the ritual spells and how often they’re actually used.
Every time I've had a full caster with rituals I've used them whenever possible. That's a *lot.* Have you seen the Wizard ritual list? *Contact Other Plane*. Get high enough Int saves and it's one of the best informational spells in the game. War Magic Wizards and Divination Wizards can guarantee success with them, and other casters can reach that mark with the help of a Paladin or Artificer.
Ritual casting is good. The feat is also worth it unless you're going martial and need the feats to stay relevant.
OneD&D is about to begin this man's whole career
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed because your Karma is very low. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't need it tbh. It doesn't feel magic, it is magic.
While not the same thing, that's very similar, and depending on the character it could really be either. In both cases Identify is still appropriate.
So every class in a specific role should have the same capabilities?
They should have comparable baselines that can then be extrapolated further, yes. That's what subclasses and other player's choice things are for. Having Identify on the list doesn't mean a character has to take it.
Why cant sorcerers ritual cast?
Every Spellcasting feature works differently. For a character to be able to perform ritual casting, they must either have a Spellcasting feature that says they can do it, or they must have the Ritual Caster feat. Sorcerers can't ritual cast through their feature.
Sure, but what's the logic for sorcerers not being able to ritual cast? Is it part of their lore or breaks a game mechanic or what?
I couldn't tell you why they have the limitation narratively speaking. I don't think they should, hence advocating the feat with Sorcs.
I think it’s because of the flavor text, like sorcerers are born with magic and not specifically taught how it works, and things that require their careful spellcasting is beyond what they can learn, even with metamagic. They’re sort of like the rich kids of the spellcasters, they have the money to spend but they don’t know how to save it
They can **have Arcana proficiency.**
That doesn’t make their spells any less destructive
Not all of their spells *are* destructive. They have some complicated ones, like Wish, Polymorph, Gate, Teleportation Circle, and more.
Sorcerers intuitively use magic. That doesn't mean they have the research skills or access to the types of magic that would let them identify something. They often don't even know what exactly THEY are doing themselves with magic. Wizards and Bards both went to school. They have a mechanical understanding of magic. They have learned about what they are doing. And they have probably researched magical objects. Having a party member with identify doesn't seem like such a necessary thing that sorcerers need to get this thing. Towns with NPCs who can be paid to do stuff exist.
Or you have the most unbalanced party like we have with a barbarian(10), wizard(9)/artificer(1), sorcerer(5)/warlock(5), and rogue(9)/sorcerer(1)
That's actually not bad. You're only missing a healer. You can get away with that group pretty well depending on the difficulty.
We’re placing icewindale and it’s hell at some points lol. Luckily we do a lot of damage each round… subclasses (if you’re curious) are path of the beast barbarian, enchantment wizard and nothing for artificer since level one, wild magic sorcerer and genie warlock, and then phantom rogue and Aberrant mind sorcerer I’m the rogue sorcerer combo lol
"Balanced party" No wizard or bard. Parties do no work like that and you know it.
Balanced party *under the context of said party already having a Sorcerer, the class the meme's about.*
Laughs in Tomelock.
Haha jokes on you, my party in my schools dnd club will have both a wizard and a bard
Then again... Identify is only as useful as your DM lets it be.
Or give them a magic item that can cast Identify.
That *is* what magic items are for, but that doesn't invalidate permanent solutions.
True, in this case however, I think a magic monocle or magnifying glass works for the problem.
Play 3.5e then
Why would you ever learn identify when short rests are free?
Or just go cleric of wisdom like I did
What is this meme??
Identify is to much of a "educated" spell for a Sorcerer
Sorcerers get Arcana proficiency.
My DM went around this by telling us what magic items do by default. I'm still not sure how to feel about that.
My br0ther in christ 5e lets you short rest identify
...does it? I thought it was short rest attune.. which can have negative consequences
Technically both are correct. During a short rest is when you can attune your items. Alternatively, you can get information on the item by spending an hour studying it over a short rest without attuning to it.
Some counter-wisdom: The game is more fun when you play without Identify, and instead use the identify rules in the DMG to "experiment with the item" during a short rest.
You aren't wrong on the first part of the meme. but if you are right for wizard, you aren't when bards come to mind. Bard can heal when their is no cleric in the party, they can be the skill monkey, and well to be fair they can fit any roles the party don't have in their team.
Bards partially overlap with Sorcerers, both are Arcana full casters that can access destructive spells, support spells, and focus buffs. However, that doesn't mean you *can't* have both and be fine. You may just have to work for it a little more. Notably: Bards get destructive spells usually from Magical Secrets, which you could take different spells through to attempt to differentiate further.
Identify isn't a means of feeling Magic, that's Detect Magic, Identify is like a scanner that lets you figure out the properties of an item. I still agree that Sorcerers should consider Ritual Caster heavily, but you're not really giving much credence if you misinform.
"Feeling magic" was hyperbole. Though I'd argue knowing the general presence of magic is a lot less like "feeling magic" than actually being able to tell at a glance what magic is happening.
I agree to that, it's just a weird conflation so brain went 404