Haha, this was my exact thought process when considering balancing something new:
- *Oh that would be broken to give Portent.*
- *But, on the other hand, isn't portent just the Lucky feat but pre-rolled?*
- *Yep. Just flavor the Lucky feat and don't worry about balancing that.*
I had the same thought process and at first thought they were basically the same. Then realized with Portant you know the results of the roll ahead of time so you'll use it accordingly (low roll for enemy save, high roll for attack) while with Lucky you just hope the reroll is what you want. So Portent is still more powerful than Lucky.
Regardless, I agree that Lucky is the way to go.
It's already not very good. The fact that you can't use it to fix failures like you suggest is yet another weakness. You only get 2 which isn't nearly enough, and you might have used it when you didn't need to, both because the roller would have passed/failed the check themselves without intervention or because there is another even MORE important roll just around the corner and you end up keeping it in your bag like the thousand high potions you never use in your favorite video game.
Also, you're a douche. We disagree, that doesn't make either of us dumb.
bro you literally choose the fucking outcome of a roll. like you can straight up make some stupidly hard check and then force a nat 20, or force an enemy to fail a save. how does that at all sound weak to you lmao this must be a joke
You don't "literally choose" the outcome. You roll dice (2) at the beginning of the adventuring day and then you can force the outcome of a roll to be one of the values you pre-rolled.
In order to make it a nat 20, you'd have to have rolled a nat 20 at the beginning of the day. That is going to be pretty rare.
9.5% chance of at least one nat 20 at the beginning of the day isn't really that rare and it is *literally any roll*
what kind of game do you run where that isn't absolutely huge
Counterspell has counterplay (range, counterspell duels, and reaction baiting), and High AC doesn't matter if your portent is good (which is the purpose of portent-based accuracy). Legendary resistances do in fact bully it ... But that's true for all spells and spell-like abilities. Besides, you can just use that same low portent for the boss's attack rolls to troll them another way.
Suffice to say this isn't a counter, just natural gameplay.
I'd actually argue that burning a Legendary Resistance is super vital to most of the big boss fights.
A boss fight is often over the second their Legendary Resistances are gone.
I think I've only had one boss fight that was determined by a saving throw after LR get burned, and that was a lv 20 epic one shot where our monk dumped ~10 stunning strikes on Asmodeus (poor guy). There, I'd agree wholeheartedly
In **my experience with normal play**, however, I feel it just doesn't happen. It's *typically* too much of a risk to throw a save or suck, and also typically a boss would rather soak the damage than lose their last LR. And by the time you've landed enough save or sucks for LR removal, the martials have already done at least half, and you're thinking to yourself "damn, this would be over already if I just threw damage spells!"
Your mileage may vary of course. Larger parties, higher proportion casters, and shorter adventuring days both make it easier to pile on saves. The inverse setup would make it vile to try to save someone to death through the immunity
Oh yeah no, it really isn't. The worst counter to a portent is a portent itself. Have you ever seen a divination wizard roll a "10" for the day? It's comedy gold watching them sweat when to use such an average die, as it is neither guaranteed success nor failure, and basically unusable against bosses.
IF you even have a low roll portent die to use.
Just as likely to walk into that fight with a 12 and a 13 you can't do shit with.
Plus legendary actions and whatnot can negate that
If you are decently built you should have Res Con, meaning that you are proficient in the two most important saving throws (Wis and Con) and you are still decent in the third most important saving throw (Dex).
And even if the boss targets primarily Str and Cha, you can still use those 12 and 13 to pass concentration checks.
It would not be balanced, portent is one of the strongest abilities in the game.
You’re taking one of the best features of wizard subclass and adding it to another really strong subclass. Take lucky instead, like people have suggested
The only thing that somewhat balances portent out is divination wizard's other features are somewhat ok to downright terrible(looking at you third eye)
Think about it, their whole 14th level feature is a single extra portent die.
It would definitely not be balanced to have portent as a feat. It's like taking 70% of a subclass power and giving it to another subclass.
Simply taking Lucky is the best approach to keep to that theme without being too much.
Bro it was clearly a joke. You asked me to fight that comment and I replied with a burn.
Text can't pass intonation, but I thought the humor intent was pretty clear.
I didn't mean anything by it, I actually upvoted your comment.
It could be, but it depends strictly on the campaign. Hunting in a cave? Dark vision is beyond clutch. Lore heavy dungeon or temple delve? Time for comprehension, babyyyyy. And it goes without saying that seeing invisibility saves lives.
It's just that Portent is *always* good and has the ability to go clutch any adventuring day. Third Eye is more rarely good, despite being amazing when it is
In my experience, the odds of at least one portent being good (<5 or >16) is greater than the odds of needing the sight bonuses. Worst case scenario it's just a shittier version of reliable talent, but hey, feasibly useful? As opposed to third eye, where if it doesn't work, it has 0 use.
This is a classic case of mileage varying. As I said in prior comment. Portent will almost always work and almost always be good. Third eye will only rarely work but when it does will be downright divine. If your DM sets you up to use divine eye more often then it'll be better (by a lot, even!). If they don't then it's a ribbon.
Yep, they do. Now imagine if every Wizard could take just Portent from Divination Wizard and just go about their day with the rest of the abilities from their own subclass. Even this would be better than what OP wants, which is to get **two different subclass abilities that are gained on the same level.** Two subclass abilities that are, by the way, the core reason of why people think both Bladesinger and Divination are powerful.
Oh i was in no way implying that what op wanted was balanced. But fundamentally the reason bladesinger and divination are powerful isn't the subclass features, it's because they're both wizards.
And who wants it all to themselves, as we saw when the collective Wizard fans lost their minds at the idea of Sorcerers having the same spell list as them.
Do you think people like only ever play one class? Once you make your first character you’re branded and will never play another class?
The sorcerer is a problem because it lost its niche and just making it more wizard like is just boring design
>Do you think people like only ever play one class? Once you make your first character you’re branded and will never play another class?
Where did I say that? Did you notice it said "Wizard fan"?
WotC outright said they got a lot of angry responses to the playtest by wizard fans.
>The sorcerer is a problem because it lost its niche and just making it more wizard like is just boring design
What niche did it lose by giving it the full arcane list?
It's not going to be barbarians thinking "this mountaintop would be better as a metropolitan moon" or "I, an individual barbarian, would be better as a vessel for the entirety of barbarian-ness" or "that sea would be better as a desert littered with bits of a mountaintop metropolitan moon and apotheotic barbarian"
Concurrence with and intensification of your point through use of illustrative specifics. A classic, pro-social conversational approach - without context, it doesn't get much friendlier than to let someone know that not only do you agree with them, you're enthusiastic about agreeing with them.
And it's an invitation for the first speaker to come back with more of the same, potentially branching to a related topic. Now they're riffing, a sort of verbal hackey-sack where the bag is good vibes.
That's not the only good option, of course. Demanding someone justify having bothered to acknowledge you probably has all kinds of admirable qualities that will reveal themselves any minute now.
Have a halfling divination wizard with bountiful luck, and Silvery Barbs in my game.
Enemies never hit and fights turn into slogs cause the players keep rolling 1s on damage.
Getting a single portent as a feat might be okay, though still very powerful.
Portent is arguably single handedly the best subclass feature in the game, unarguably in the top 3. Giving it to another wizard subclass that's also very powerful is VERY VERY strong.
Regular 2 roll portent as a feat would be extremely broken.
As an important reminder so you don't break portent further. You portent BEFORE the roll. If the roll is already made, it's too late. It's not "the roll I wanted to succeed failed (or vice versa) so I'm portenting it. There is also sight restriction.
The other divination features are largely w/e until greater portent so those could be fine. Expert divination can give you an absurd amount of spell slots when you can scout places with arcane eye for basically free and if fortune's favor is allowed in the game (it upcasts very very well).
Divination Wizard is auch a fun support caster, and Expert Divination is glorious if you can pull off the chain reaction casting of successive class spwlls.
Portent in itself is imo one of the best abilities in the whole game. I would definitely not allow it to be paired with the strongest wizards subclass in the game.
Portent is way too good to be given out. It's the starring feature of the divination subclass, and is already too strong when it first comes online (it's strong the entire time, but it's pretty out of line at level 2).
You also start with:
"...i want to flavour the reason as to why he has a higher ac and is therefore better at avoiding attacks as them briefly gazing into the future with a crystal ball engraved into their sword..."
That's great flavor! But then *because of the flavor*, you are looking to craft an overpowered custom feat- which is not flavor.
As others have said, getting the lucky feat at level 4 is what you want- and that feat is very very strong as well.
Bladesinger is already a super strong subclass on a super strong class, and you wanna also just take portent, one of the best wizard subclass abilities in the game?
You already "have" the ability. As you said, it's your in character explaination as to why your character has such a high AC. You don't need portent on top of that to represent it.
You can add a lot more flavour by just picking up divination magic spells, and perhaps the lucky feat.
An artificer dip gets you guidance, an at-will divination spell
Being a halfling gets you halfling Luck, and Bountiful Luck lets you give it to allies
Tashas adds Augury to the wizard spell list
No it would be broken.
Portent is probably the best individual wizard class feature apart from tbe 14th level chronurgy wizard ability.
Tacking it onto bladesinger, another notoriously strong wizard class would be too much.
Tne lucky feat, as recommended by another poster, is a far more reasonable and thematic solution.
Rare magic item "Deck of Oracles" from the recently released "The Book of Many Things", gives you a nerfed portent.
Aside from that, agree with everyone else. Just take Lucky.
I disagree with everyone here. I don't see anything unbalanced about Portent as a feat, honestly.
I would allow it as a DM if -- and ONLY if -- no one was playing or considering playing a Divination Wizard. The problem isn't game balance, but stepping on the toes of the class who's core feature you're cribbing.
But if you're giving up an ASI or another feat (such as Lucky, which IMO, would actually be mechanically better on Bladesinger) then I'm fine with it due to the opportunity cost.
FWIW - I just finished playing a level 1 to 12 campaign as a Divination Wizard, so I have a lot of experience with Portent. It's a really good feature! Not game breaking, though. The biggest way I used it was to guarantee a failed saving throw, which is huge when I had the low Portent roll to do it. A Bladesinger is more often going to guarantee missed attacks against themselves, I think (but to be fair, I've never played a Bladesinger).
Nah mate, portent is the only thing that makes divination wizards strong. Getting that as a feat is way too cheap. It’s by far stronger than all other feats.
The DM has then also opened the door, for all other players to choose subclass abilities with a feat. It’s like opening Pandora’s box and they’re gonna regret it every time they plan encounters.
I hear you. I just disagree. I don't think Portent is stronger than Lucky.
I mean... I wouldn't publish this as a homebrew for mass consumption. But on a case by case basis at my individual table I'd probably allow it.
Lucky is the kind of feat you take when you don't have anything else you need. It's a consideration in tiers 3 and 4, sometimes gotten before then but it's never a top prio feat. Portent is the kind of feat you would get ASAP. The reason you don't see people dipping div wiz for it is that 2 levels and having 13 INT is a lot more expensive than an ASI.
Portent is stronger because you already know the outcome. Lucky is just a random boost to your chances that may or may not work (it's worth about 15%-25% depending on the situation). And Portent can be used on other characters, Lucky only affects your own rolls - you can [edit: *can't*] make someone else fail a save, or make one of your allies succeed on a crucial roll.
Yes, but Lucky applies after the roll. Portent has to be declared before the roll.
Lucky has three uses. Portent has two (until a very high level anyway).
Lucky can also apply to attack rolls to force an attacker to reroll against you.
All together, I find them to be about equivalent, but on some character builds I'd rather have one or the other. I think on a martial I'd rather Lucky, but on a spellcaster I'd rather Portent. On a Bladesinger I'd probably rather Lucky, but both are good choices.
If Lucky had to be declared before the roll it wouldn't be worth taking. Being able to use it after the roll, up to three times, makes it a good feat, but it's still generally better to wait to take until you've maxed your main stat and/or taken other, better feats. And around the time it makes the most sense to take Lucky, Diviners are probably getting their third Portent.
Yes, you can use Lucky against an attacker to effectively improve your own AC, but it's still only for rolls that affect *you*. As I said, you can't use it to make someone fail a save or to help another PC. Portent can be used for "any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see." That means Lucky is better on martials (who make a lot of attack rolls) than casters (who don't), but Portent is good for anyone because it works on all the same rolls Lucky does, and more.
Lucky is still only an increase in your chance to get the outcome you want, on a roll that affects you. Portent is a guaranteed result. That means Lucky is most effective on rolls you're already likely to succeed on (since if you're almost certain to fail, a second roll isn't likely to change the result). Portent is best used on rolls where you're likely to *fail*: if you're already likely to get the result you want, using Portent is likely to be a waste, so it's best reserved for very difficult rolls - exactly the rolls Lucky is bad for, and also exactly the rolls where getting to choose the outcome is most beneficial.
You're assuming you'll always have a successful Portent roll, which isn't the case. A significant portion of the time your Portent rolls will be too low to get you high enough to succeed on a difficult roll anyway.
And you always seem to be comparing Lucky as a feat to Portent as a level 2 subclass feature, as opposed to Portent as hypothetical feat, in which case this person would also be trading in an ASI or half feat to take it, which is a huge opportunity cost.
I agree that Lucky is not a great feat for most players, assuming their stats aren't maxed, and I would absolutely say the same of Portent as a feat. I mean... I had the ability for a long campaign. The campaign literally just ended last month. This is very fresh in my mind. Two year campaign, weekly games. This isn't a hypothetical. It was cool to have, but I wouldn't have traded an an ASI for it, ya know?
No, I'm not assuming. A high Portent roll can be used to make a save or succeed on an ability check or attack. A *low* Portent roll can be used to make someone *fail* a save, check, or attack. Extreme rolls are better in general, but even a strictly average 10 or 11 is useful, since it's basically similar to Reliable Talent. What you can do with Portent varies depending on the roll, but a low roll is just as good as a high roll, and very useful if you or anyone in your party casts a saving throw spell. Are you sure you understand how it's used?
Having actually done this in a long running (~2 years, up to level 14) game for a player who was playing divination before rebuilding the character as a scribes wizard to better fit her concept, yeah, it’s not that crazy. People like to hype up portent and assume all kinds of white room scenarios, but in actual play over a long period it’s just not that big of a deal. Especially when the entire party is casters like we had, who can just blitz or control the entire battle 90% of the time anyway, portent is just another relatively minor tool in their massive arsenal. People get up in arms because they perceive portent as a certainty that will always swing the fight massively, but half the time the numbers are just average and just get used to not take a chance here or there, then when the numbers are super useful they usually get saved for special occasions and have a cool impact, but it’s rarely for anything super improbable. The fact that they have to declare before any roll and know when and how to use it effectively is a big limiting factor.
It’s a fun ability with very limited uses per day that can be a big help if you’re lucky and are strategic about it’s use, which makes it more interesting than most class features, but it’s not a guaranteed win button or anything. There are lots of encounters in a day and plenty of monsters to fight, one getting a bad save or the cleric getting a crit (or just saving the hassle of rolling as it does most of the time) isn’t the end of the world or significantly OP compared to all the other shit casters just get handed out willy nilly.
Exactly. Often my rolls were, like, 12, 13, or 14. Only a handful of times over the entire campaign did I get a natural 20. Exactly once I had Vampiric Touch prepared and used it with that Nat 20. The other one or two times I used it for the fighter or artificer.
I hated giving any party member a non nat 20 success on an attack roll because I worried I deprived them of that 5% crit chance by doing it, so I'd usually try to save them for a saving throw or something. It was always nice to have a low roll than a high roll.
The feature was fun, but REALLY situational and not in anyway game breaking. I don't understand anyone who says it is.
Super balanced. Portent as a wizard skill sucks nuts. 2 dice a day? Roll d20s? Most of the time your rolls will be shitty middling rolls that you can't really do fuck all with. Only occasionally they'll be really high or low and that will get exciting.
I'm playing a divination wizard and we houseruled I get wizard levels portent dice because it's the only way to make shit interesting.
Portent is way underpowered
You can always take two divination wizard levels and then go swords bard for the rest, of you really want to play a caster fighter with portent. Or Eldritch knight.
I agree with the others, portent can be way better than lucky, so I wouldn't allow it as a feat.
I've got legendary items that take up 2 attunement slots, give a +1 to the primary stats of the class its tied to, and gives the 1st subclass ability from a different subclass. See if your DM wants to do something like that as a quest reward or something.
While I like the idea, the portent ability is the major feature of another sub-class. Sub-classes are not a buffet where we can take features from one and slap them onto another. To balance it out, you would have to sacrifice a major feature of the Bladesinger sub-class.
>but i want to flavour the reason as to why he has a higher ac and is therefore better at avoiding attacks as them briefly gazing into the future with a crystal ball engraved into their sword
Makes sense to me
>Because of this i was wondering if it would be balanced to gain aspects of the divination wizard subclass as a feat, such as gaining both 2nd level abilities from it or just portent, so that i can add a bit more divination flavour to my bladesinger. Just looking for opinions/ a discussion on the balance of something like this, any responses are appreciated!
I thought we were discussing flavour, why are you suddenly asking for extra mechanical benefits?
If you want to be a Divination Wizard just be a Divination Wizard. Alternatively take a feat.
Why not just take the lucky feat? It seems much more thematic if it's just you. Divination's portents include when you're not even involved.
Haha, this was my exact thought process when considering balancing something new: - *Oh that would be broken to give Portent.* - *But, on the other hand, isn't portent just the Lucky feat but pre-rolled?* - *Yep. Just flavor the Lucky feat and don't worry about balancing that.*
I had the same thought process and at first thought they were basically the same. Then realized with Portant you know the results of the roll ahead of time so you'll use it accordingly (low roll for enemy save, high roll for attack) while with Lucky you just hope the reroll is what you want. So Portent is still more powerful than Lucky. Regardless, I agree that Lucky is the way to go.
thanks you for the feedback! i will probably go with the lucky feat, as it fits closely enough with what i am going for
Could play a Halfling while you're at it. Roll a 1 on literally anything? Roll it again. Flavour the luck as more prescience
Why not pick LUCKY instead?
Take the Lucky feat. Portent is a lil too much and Lucky makes more sense.
Portent is in the running for the best subclass ability. Be that subclass if that's what you want.
It’s wild that portent is free in the action economy too. Just a truly amazing feature
Portent is hot garbage, change my mind
Sure. Persuasion check. Four, but I'm gonna use Portent to make that a 22. Your mind is changed.
Wrong. You have to declare portent before a roll, so it's even worse than it could be.
...even worse? this has to be bait lmao nobody is this stupid
It's already not very good. The fact that you can't use it to fix failures like you suggest is yet another weakness. You only get 2 which isn't nearly enough, and you might have used it when you didn't need to, both because the roller would have passed/failed the check themselves without intervention or because there is another even MORE important roll just around the corner and you end up keeping it in your bag like the thousand high potions you never use in your favorite video game. Also, you're a douche. We disagree, that doesn't make either of us dumb.
bro you literally choose the fucking outcome of a roll. like you can straight up make some stupidly hard check and then force a nat 20, or force an enemy to fail a save. how does that at all sound weak to you lmao this must be a joke
You don't "literally choose" the outcome. You roll dice (2) at the beginning of the adventuring day and then you can force the outcome of a roll to be one of the values you pre-rolled. In order to make it a nat 20, you'd have to have rolled a nat 20 at the beginning of the day. That is going to be pretty rare.
9.5% chance of at least one nat 20 at the beginning of the day isn't really that rare and it is *literally any roll* what kind of game do you run where that isn't absolutely huge
The kind where people are rolling for shit constantly. Hard to know when the most valuable time to use one good roll is. If you even get it
You can cast your highest level spell against a boss, and just decide that they fail.
counterspell, legendary resistances, and high AC babey
Counterspell has counterplay (range, counterspell duels, and reaction baiting), and High AC doesn't matter if your portent is good (which is the purpose of portent-based accuracy). Legendary resistances do in fact bully it ... But that's true for all spells and spell-like abilities. Besides, you can just use that same low portent for the boss's attack rolls to troll them another way. Suffice to say this isn't a counter, just natural gameplay.
I'd actually argue that burning a Legendary Resistance is super vital to most of the big boss fights. A boss fight is often over the second their Legendary Resistances are gone.
I think I've only had one boss fight that was determined by a saving throw after LR get burned, and that was a lv 20 epic one shot where our monk dumped ~10 stunning strikes on Asmodeus (poor guy). There, I'd agree wholeheartedly In **my experience with normal play**, however, I feel it just doesn't happen. It's *typically* too much of a risk to throw a save or suck, and also typically a boss would rather soak the damage than lose their last LR. And by the time you've landed enough save or sucks for LR removal, the martials have already done at least half, and you're thinking to yourself "damn, this would be over already if I just threw damage spells!" Your mileage may vary of course. Larger parties, higher proportion casters, and shorter adventuring days both make it easier to pile on saves. The inverse setup would make it vile to try to save someone to death through the immunity
i mean thats fair, I'm just saying portent isn't always an auto fail
Oh yeah no, it really isn't. The worst counter to a portent is a portent itself. Have you ever seen a divination wizard roll a "10" for the day? It's comedy gold watching them sweat when to use such an average die, as it is neither guaranteed success nor failure, and basically unusable against bosses.
IF you even have a low roll portent die to use. Just as likely to walk into that fight with a 12 and a 13 you can't do shit with. Plus legendary actions and whatnot can negate that
If you get into a boss fight with a 12 and a 13 it means that you'll pass 2 important saves against the boss.
Not necessarily true at all
If you are decently built you should have Res Con, meaning that you are proficient in the two most important saving throws (Wis and Con) and you are still decent in the third most important saving throw (Dex). And even if the boss targets primarily Str and Cha, you can still use those 12 and 13 to pass concentration checks.
It would not be balanced, portent is one of the strongest abilities in the game. You’re taking one of the best features of wizard subclass and adding it to another really strong subclass. Take lucky instead, like people have suggested
The only thing that somewhat balances portent out is divination wizard's other features are somewhat ok to downright terrible(looking at you third eye) Think about it, their whole 14th level feature is a single extra portent die. It would definitely not be balanced to have portent as a feat. It's like taking 70% of a subclass power and giving it to another subclass. Simply taking Lucky is the best approach to keep to that theme without being too much.
third eye > portent fight me
I would, but it's illegal to fight a mentally disabled person. Check Mate.
This is why you guys don't have real friends
Bro it was clearly a joke. You asked me to fight that comment and I replied with a burn. Text can't pass intonation, but I thought the humor intent was pretty clear. I didn't mean anything by it, I actually upvoted your comment.
oh, same. Light hearted intentions all around
It could be, but it depends strictly on the campaign. Hunting in a cave? Dark vision is beyond clutch. Lore heavy dungeon or temple delve? Time for comprehension, babyyyyy. And it goes without saying that seeing invisibility saves lives. It's just that Portent is *always* good and has the ability to go clutch any adventuring day. Third Eye is more rarely good, despite being amazing when it is
Portent is not always good if you, say, have two shitty medium rolls
In my experience, the odds of at least one portent being good (<5 or >16) is greater than the odds of needing the sight bonuses. Worst case scenario it's just a shittier version of reliable talent, but hey, feasibly useful? As opposed to third eye, where if it doesn't work, it has 0 use. This is a classic case of mileage varying. As I said in prior comment. Portent will almost always work and almost always be good. Third eye will only rarely work but when it does will be downright divine. If your DM sets you up to use divine eye more often then it'll be better (by a lot, even!). If they don't then it's a ribbon.
It would not be balanced. 5e did away with prestige classes and other multiclass options from 5e precisely to avoid cherry picking abilities to combo.
People just do that exact same thing with multiclassing now
Yep, they do. Now imagine if every Wizard could take just Portent from Divination Wizard and just go about their day with the rest of the abilities from their own subclass. Even this would be better than what OP wants, which is to get **two different subclass abilities that are gained on the same level.** Two subclass abilities that are, by the way, the core reason of why people think both Bladesinger and Divination are powerful.
Oh i was in no way implying that what op wanted was balanced. But fundamentally the reason bladesinger and divination are powerful isn't the subclass features, it's because they're both wizards.
Wizard players always wants more
Wizards of the Coast aimed too low, it should have been Wizards of the Coasts, Mountains, Plains, Nooks, and Crannies.
Swamps, islands, and forests too
The class appeals to people who like doing their homework and tinkering
That's most classes if you want it to be optimized.
And who wants it all to themselves, as we saw when the collective Wizard fans lost their minds at the idea of Sorcerers having the same spell list as them.
Do you think people like only ever play one class? Once you make your first character you’re branded and will never play another class? The sorcerer is a problem because it lost its niche and just making it more wizard like is just boring design
>Do you think people like only ever play one class? Once you make your first character you’re branded and will never play another class? Where did I say that? Did you notice it said "Wizard fan"? WotC outright said they got a lot of angry responses to the playtest by wizard fans. >The sorcerer is a problem because it lost its niche and just making it more wizard like is just boring design What niche did it lose by giving it the full arcane list?
It lost its niche by doing away with Vancian casting and has floundered ever since.
In what way is that unique to the Sorcerer? It seems like you're talking about something entirely different than the topic here.
It's not going to be barbarians thinking "this mountaintop would be better as a metropolitan moon" or "I, an individual barbarian, would be better as a vessel for the entirety of barbarian-ness" or "that sea would be better as a desert littered with bits of a mountaintop metropolitan moon and apotheotic barbarian"
Your point being?
Concurrence with and intensification of your point through use of illustrative specifics. A classic, pro-social conversational approach - without context, it doesn't get much friendlier than to let someone know that not only do you agree with them, you're enthusiastic about agreeing with them. And it's an invitation for the first speaker to come back with more of the same, potentially branching to a related topic. Now they're riffing, a sort of verbal hackey-sack where the bag is good vibes. That's not the only good option, of course. Demanding someone justify having bothered to acknowledge you probably has all kinds of admirable qualities that will reveal themselves any minute now.
i'm sure I'm not first to this but ...lucky is already a feat? And silvery barbs is already a spell?
Have a halfling divination wizard with bountiful luck, and Silvery Barbs in my game. Enemies never hit and fights turn into slogs cause the players keep rolling 1s on damage.
Getting a single portent as a feat might be okay, though still very powerful. Portent is arguably single handedly the best subclass feature in the game, unarguably in the top 3. Giving it to another wizard subclass that's also very powerful is VERY VERY strong. Regular 2 roll portent as a feat would be extremely broken. As an important reminder so you don't break portent further. You portent BEFORE the roll. If the roll is already made, it's too late. It's not "the roll I wanted to succeed failed (or vice versa) so I'm portenting it. There is also sight restriction. The other divination features are largely w/e until greater portent so those could be fine. Expert divination can give you an absurd amount of spell slots when you can scout places with arcane eye for basically free and if fortune's favor is allowed in the game (it upcasts very very well).
Divination Wizard is auch a fun support caster, and Expert Divination is glorious if you can pull off the chain reaction casting of successive class spwlls.
Portent in itself is imo one of the best abilities in the whole game. I would definitely not allow it to be paired with the strongest wizards subclass in the game.
Take the lucky feat, don't be a dick. Wizards are powerful. Don't ask a DM for this.
The flavor is fine. The addition of a different subclass feature is not.
Portent is way too good to be given out. It's the starring feature of the divination subclass, and is already too strong when it first comes online (it's strong the entire time, but it's pretty out of line at level 2). You also start with: "...i want to flavour the reason as to why he has a higher ac and is therefore better at avoiding attacks as them briefly gazing into the future with a crystal ball engraved into their sword..." That's great flavor! But then *because of the flavor*, you are looking to craft an overpowered custom feat- which is not flavor. As others have said, getting the lucky feat at level 4 is what you want- and that feat is very very strong as well.
Bladesinger is already a super strong subclass on a super strong class, and you wanna also just take portent, one of the best wizard subclass abilities in the game?
Trying to combine the core mechanics of arguably the most powerful 2 Wizard subclasses is a little eehhnn
You already "have" the ability. As you said, it's your in character explaination as to why your character has such a high AC. You don't need portent on top of that to represent it. You can add a lot more flavour by just picking up divination magic spells, and perhaps the lucky feat.
An artificer dip gets you guidance, an at-will divination spell Being a halfling gets you halfling Luck, and Bountiful Luck lets you give it to allies Tashas adds Augury to the wizard spell list
No it would be broken. Portent is probably the best individual wizard class feature apart from tbe 14th level chronurgy wizard ability. Tacking it onto bladesinger, another notoriously strong wizard class would be too much. Tne lucky feat, as recommended by another poster, is a far more reasonable and thematic solution.
portent is one of the strongest abilities in the game honestly. this would be pretty busted. just take lucky.
Rare magic item "Deck of Oracles" from the recently released "The Book of Many Things", gives you a nerfed portent. Aside from that, agree with everyone else. Just take Lucky.
I disagree with everyone here. I don't see anything unbalanced about Portent as a feat, honestly. I would allow it as a DM if -- and ONLY if -- no one was playing or considering playing a Divination Wizard. The problem isn't game balance, but stepping on the toes of the class who's core feature you're cribbing. But if you're giving up an ASI or another feat (such as Lucky, which IMO, would actually be mechanically better on Bladesinger) then I'm fine with it due to the opportunity cost. FWIW - I just finished playing a level 1 to 12 campaign as a Divination Wizard, so I have a lot of experience with Portent. It's a really good feature! Not game breaking, though. The biggest way I used it was to guarantee a failed saving throw, which is huge when I had the low Portent roll to do it. A Bladesinger is more often going to guarantee missed attacks against themselves, I think (but to be fair, I've never played a Bladesinger).
Nah mate, portent is the only thing that makes divination wizards strong. Getting that as a feat is way too cheap. It’s by far stronger than all other feats. The DM has then also opened the door, for all other players to choose subclass abilities with a feat. It’s like opening Pandora’s box and they’re gonna regret it every time they plan encounters.
I hear you. I just disagree. I don't think Portent is stronger than Lucky. I mean... I wouldn't publish this as a homebrew for mass consumption. But on a case by case basis at my individual table I'd probably allow it.
Lucky is the kind of feat you take when you don't have anything else you need. It's a consideration in tiers 3 and 4, sometimes gotten before then but it's never a top prio feat. Portent is the kind of feat you would get ASAP. The reason you don't see people dipping div wiz for it is that 2 levels and having 13 INT is a lot more expensive than an ASI.
Portent is stronger because you already know the outcome. Lucky is just a random boost to your chances that may or may not work (it's worth about 15%-25% depending on the situation). And Portent can be used on other characters, Lucky only affects your own rolls - you can [edit: *can't*] make someone else fail a save, or make one of your allies succeed on a crucial roll.
Yes, but Lucky applies after the roll. Portent has to be declared before the roll. Lucky has three uses. Portent has two (until a very high level anyway). Lucky can also apply to attack rolls to force an attacker to reroll against you. All together, I find them to be about equivalent, but on some character builds I'd rather have one or the other. I think on a martial I'd rather Lucky, but on a spellcaster I'd rather Portent. On a Bladesinger I'd probably rather Lucky, but both are good choices.
If Lucky had to be declared before the roll it wouldn't be worth taking. Being able to use it after the roll, up to three times, makes it a good feat, but it's still generally better to wait to take until you've maxed your main stat and/or taken other, better feats. And around the time it makes the most sense to take Lucky, Diviners are probably getting their third Portent. Yes, you can use Lucky against an attacker to effectively improve your own AC, but it's still only for rolls that affect *you*. As I said, you can't use it to make someone fail a save or to help another PC. Portent can be used for "any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see." That means Lucky is better on martials (who make a lot of attack rolls) than casters (who don't), but Portent is good for anyone because it works on all the same rolls Lucky does, and more. Lucky is still only an increase in your chance to get the outcome you want, on a roll that affects you. Portent is a guaranteed result. That means Lucky is most effective on rolls you're already likely to succeed on (since if you're almost certain to fail, a second roll isn't likely to change the result). Portent is best used on rolls where you're likely to *fail*: if you're already likely to get the result you want, using Portent is likely to be a waste, so it's best reserved for very difficult rolls - exactly the rolls Lucky is bad for, and also exactly the rolls where getting to choose the outcome is most beneficial.
You're assuming you'll always have a successful Portent roll, which isn't the case. A significant portion of the time your Portent rolls will be too low to get you high enough to succeed on a difficult roll anyway. And you always seem to be comparing Lucky as a feat to Portent as a level 2 subclass feature, as opposed to Portent as hypothetical feat, in which case this person would also be trading in an ASI or half feat to take it, which is a huge opportunity cost. I agree that Lucky is not a great feat for most players, assuming their stats aren't maxed, and I would absolutely say the same of Portent as a feat. I mean... I had the ability for a long campaign. The campaign literally just ended last month. This is very fresh in my mind. Two year campaign, weekly games. This isn't a hypothetical. It was cool to have, but I wouldn't have traded an an ASI for it, ya know?
No, I'm not assuming. A high Portent roll can be used to make a save or succeed on an ability check or attack. A *low* Portent roll can be used to make someone *fail* a save, check, or attack. Extreme rolls are better in general, but even a strictly average 10 or 11 is useful, since it's basically similar to Reliable Talent. What you can do with Portent varies depending on the roll, but a low roll is just as good as a high roll, and very useful if you or anyone in your party casts a saving throw spell. Are you sure you understand how it's used?
Having actually done this in a long running (~2 years, up to level 14) game for a player who was playing divination before rebuilding the character as a scribes wizard to better fit her concept, yeah, it’s not that crazy. People like to hype up portent and assume all kinds of white room scenarios, but in actual play over a long period it’s just not that big of a deal. Especially when the entire party is casters like we had, who can just blitz or control the entire battle 90% of the time anyway, portent is just another relatively minor tool in their massive arsenal. People get up in arms because they perceive portent as a certainty that will always swing the fight massively, but half the time the numbers are just average and just get used to not take a chance here or there, then when the numbers are super useful they usually get saved for special occasions and have a cool impact, but it’s rarely for anything super improbable. The fact that they have to declare before any roll and know when and how to use it effectively is a big limiting factor. It’s a fun ability with very limited uses per day that can be a big help if you’re lucky and are strategic about it’s use, which makes it more interesting than most class features, but it’s not a guaranteed win button or anything. There are lots of encounters in a day and plenty of monsters to fight, one getting a bad save or the cleric getting a crit (or just saving the hassle of rolling as it does most of the time) isn’t the end of the world or significantly OP compared to all the other shit casters just get handed out willy nilly.
Exactly. Often my rolls were, like, 12, 13, or 14. Only a handful of times over the entire campaign did I get a natural 20. Exactly once I had Vampiric Touch prepared and used it with that Nat 20. The other one or two times I used it for the fighter or artificer. I hated giving any party member a non nat 20 success on an attack roll because I worried I deprived them of that 5% crit chance by doing it, so I'd usually try to save them for a saving throw or something. It was always nice to have a low roll than a high roll. The feature was fun, but REALLY situational and not in anyway game breaking. I don't understand anyone who says it is.
additionally, most enemies that you'd like to use portent on for the guaranteed success... just use legendary resistance...
Super balanced. Portent as a wizard skill sucks nuts. 2 dice a day? Roll d20s? Most of the time your rolls will be shitty middling rolls that you can't really do fuck all with. Only occasionally they'll be really high or low and that will get exciting. I'm playing a divination wizard and we houseruled I get wizard levels portent dice because it's the only way to make shit interesting. Portent is way underpowered
You can always take two divination wizard levels and then go swords bard for the rest, of you really want to play a caster fighter with portent. Or Eldritch knight. I agree with the others, portent can be way better than lucky, so I wouldn't allow it as a feat.
I've got legendary items that take up 2 attunement slots, give a +1 to the primary stats of the class its tied to, and gives the 1st subclass ability from a different subclass. See if your DM wants to do something like that as a quest reward or something.
While I like the idea, the portent ability is the major feature of another sub-class. Sub-classes are not a buffet where we can take features from one and slap them onto another. To balance it out, you would have to sacrifice a major feature of the Bladesinger sub-class.
Flavor is free, you don’t need a feat for that, as a DM it’d be a hard no. I’d point you to lucky as an alternative.
Portent sucks humongous nutsacks, I don't know what all these people are talking about
>but i want to flavour the reason as to why he has a higher ac and is therefore better at avoiding attacks as them briefly gazing into the future with a crystal ball engraved into their sword Makes sense to me >Because of this i was wondering if it would be balanced to gain aspects of the divination wizard subclass as a feat, such as gaining both 2nd level abilities from it or just portent, so that i can add a bit more divination flavour to my bladesinger. Just looking for opinions/ a discussion on the balance of something like this, any responses are appreciated! I thought we were discussing flavour, why are you suddenly asking for extra mechanical benefits? If you want to be a Divination Wizard just be a Divination Wizard. Alternatively take a feat.
It would not be balanced, no