How much should a DM dictate spell availability?

[Wargamer]

Something I've noticed, both when playing D&D and when reading threads about other people's D&D games, is that Spellcasters assume automatically they have every possible spell available to them. If a Wizard wants to learn Fly, or Fireball or whathaveyou she doesn't ask the DM if there is anyone around to teach them, they're just there, in her Spellbook (or magically popping into her head if a spontaneous caster).

So... is this right? Could it be that the reason spellcasters are so much better at later levels be largely down to the fact that attaining a 9th level spell is meant to be as difficult as acquiring that +5 Vorpal Bastard Sword every Fighter and his grandma has dreamed off since level 3?

Better yet, do any of you impose rules and / or limits to acquiring spells?

[Ashtagon]

Probably. This is very much a yDMmv situation. I play that spells are generally as rare as magic items. The better wizard schools will have a dozen or two spells of 1st level as their total combined spell list, dropping to maybe 2-3 spells at 9th level, if they even have anyone who knows what those mysterious tomes in the secure section of the library contain. A hedge wizard may have as few as 1/4 that many.

Spontaneous casters who choose their spells need pre-approval for their entire list, all of which must either be from a very short list of "magic user essential utility spells" or match a common theme chosen when they take their 1st level in that class. To balance that slightly, I allow them to swap out a spell every level and every month of downtime, instead of the default every four levels.

The wizard's spell book only grows if, in campaign, he can justify returning to his school or tutor, who then gives him the two spells per level, subject to what the school actually owns.

[Sith_Happens]

If a Wizard wants to learn Fly, or Fireball or whathaveyou she doesn't ask the DM if there is anyone around to teach them, they're just there, in her Spellbook

That's only true for two spells per class level. For the most part you do in fact need to find an existing copy of the spell and spend the associated time and money to learn and scribe it.


(or magically popping into her head if a spontaneous caster).

This, on the other hand, is exactly how it works by RAW.

[ArcturusV]

Mostly it is because of the way things are written.

The rules, as written, do not presume you can "just buy" anything. So a fighter can't go into even the most well stocked store or vault in the largest, most advanced city in the world and just find a Holy Avenger longsword to take home. It's up to the DM if he wants to let you do that. Though most take a more classical approach and require you to actually quest for it. With sometimes the exception of minor items like Potions of Healing, Scrolls of low level spells, etc.

However, the rules as written say that spellcasters automatically get some access to spells on their list just for leveling up. This can be Every Spell Ever Printed for Divine Casters, or a more limited progression for Arcane Casters. Such as Wizards have a class feature that does say, they get 2 spells, for free, any spell they could cast, when they level up.

This means that there's no real justification written down for the DM to really crack down and go, "You know what... Planar Binding is a problem oftentimes in my game. No. You can't get it." or the like. Whatever the problem du jour the DM sees.

This... free reign for spellcasters, listed right in their spellcasting abilities (Or spellbook/spells per day), means that spellcasters, in my experience, often feel like you're unduly being an ass to them if you tell them that they CAN'T learn something.

Note that I don't recall this being a problem with older editions. Because in older editions the only way for a wizard to gain extra spells was by scribing a new spell into his book. Which required you to be give out spellbooks/scrolls as treasure, or have the player work with you to research new spells, both of which purely put the availability of any spells in your court as DM.

Of course players can still do that. But it's closing the barn doors after all the cows escaped. Anytime a wizard in particular levels up, s/he's just going to choose the most powerful spells on his/her list as the Auto Include. Sure you can be stubborn and say that they can't find scrolls/spellbooks of various other spells, or limit their time and ability to conduct research, etc. But if you're going to do that, they're just going to get the "Broken" ones with no say so on your part.

... course you can always break out the ultimate rule and make a DM declaration. But again, as I said up there, it makes the DM into the ass for overruling the book, trying to set you up to make you feel like a jerk or seem unreasonable.

[Balor01]

Yes. Very much so. I, myself usually ban all tier 1 and 2 classes, but if casters are allowed, then spells (and fancy equipment (a.k.a. breaking the game eq.)) are given at a very slow pace. By RAW Wizard can just "learn" or "develop" some spells each level. I just threw that out the window, it offers caster a highway straight to most broken spells and takes no effort.

Now, I have to say, my players really like this. Every spellbook they find on killed caster is a thing of great interest, same goes for special hard-to find items.

Unlimited caster, RAW are IMO just no fun. No sense of accomplishment.

[Malroth]

This is one reason i ask my characters to tell me in advance what they're characters are working towards for their next level up. If your 4th lv wizard wants Haste and suggestion for his first 2 3rd lv spells when he hits lv 5 you better let me know thats what your character has been researching in his downtime.

[icefractal]

A question for everyone who disallows the free level-up spells for Wizards. Do you change Clerics and Druids too? Because those classes just get their entire list, whenever they want, no hassle. IMO, unless you're changing that, it's poor form to make the Wizard's spell acquisition a PITA.

Also, from a flavor standpoint, I'd disagree on limiting Sorcerers spell selection - except for spells that were actually banned as a houserule, obviously. Spontaneously developing strange powers is the Sorcerer's entire thing.

[Mnemnosyne]

Mostly it is because of the way things are written.

The rules, as written, do not presume you can "just buy" anything. So a fighter can't go into even the most well stocked store or vault in the largest, most advanced city in the world and just find a Holy Avenger longsword to take home. It's up to the DM if he wants to let you do that. Though most take a more classical approach and require you to actually quest for it. With sometimes the exception of minor items like Potions of Healing, Scrolls of low level spells, etc.
Actually, you're incorrect about this part. Page 137 of the DMG, Table 5-2: Random Town Generation specifies the gp limit of any community based on its size. Under Community Wealth and Population, it then has this to say:

Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit (see Table 5-2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community's gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought) these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.
The rules therefore do in fact assume that you can walk into a shop and purchase anything that has a listed price under the community's GP limit. The limit here is that the highest community on the chart has a GP limit of 100,000, so any item which costs more than 100k is indeed in the realm of being special and not assumed to be able to be purchased at will (although there may be additional rules in the Epic Level Handbook to cover higher community gp limits).

As far as imposing limits to acquiring spells, it's not all that practical in my opinion. As noted, all classes acquire some spells automatically. If a DM starts throwing onerous and draconian rules as to how I can acquire spells at me, contradicting my listed class features, it's not really going to make me very happy. If the DM instead discusses specific spells that they have a problem with, I'm much more willing to voluntarily limit my spell selection, if they discuss the matter with me reasonably.

[Killer Angel]

Could it be that the reason spellcasters are so much better at later levels be largely down to the fact that attaining a 9th level spell is meant to be as difficult as acquiring that +5 Vorpal Bastard Sword every Fighter and his grandma has dreamed off since level 3?

Spellcasters are so much better, because spells (especially nine level spells) are better than vorpal swords.
And anyway, to have that sword, the fighter needs only the cash and a magic mart, both easily available at the time the casters learn their 9th lev spells, so that's not the problem at all.

[Xerxus]

A DM should:

1: Make spells difficult to acquire. Why would you play a sorcerer otherwise?

2: Limit which spells are available at all.

3: Clearly state how spells with diffuse conditions work (I'm looking at you, Gate).

4: Steal unprotected spellbooks.

EDIT: The DM should not change spells or otherwise change spellcasters imo.

[Ashtagon]

So, my summary of how casters get spells imc...

Sorcerers: Choose a concept theme. This can be as simple as "fire spells", or can be a paragraph or two outlining a character concept. DM veto applies to overly broad themes. All spells chosen must be justifiable in terms of the theme.

Wizards: You get your starting spells for free. The "two spells per level" can be collected from your school/college/master/mentor after you level up, provided you can return to them in campaign. The actual spells available when picking these two will be restricted to those that the school/whatever actually has in its possession and is willing to give. Additional spells are subject to the same general availability restrictions as magic items.

Clerics and druids: They have spells memorised (and currently in memory) lists as normal. In addition, they have a "spells known" list. This list contains all domain spells, plus a number of spells equal to their daily spells per day allowance, plus a number of spells equal to their Wisdom bonus for each spell level they can cast. Whenever they want to pray for spells, the chosen spells must be from the spells known list. The spells known list can be revised any time they spend a day of downtime in an appropriately-consecrated site or structure.

[Kesnit]

However, the rules as written say that spellcasters automatically get some access to spells on their list just for leveling up. This can be Every Spell Ever Printed for Divine Casters, or a more limited progression for Arcane Casters. Such as Wizards have a class feature that does say, they get 2 spells, for free, any spell they could cast, when they level up.

This means that there's no real justification written down for the DM to really crack down and go, "You know what... Planar Binding is a problem oftentimes in my game. No. You can't get it." or the like. Whatever the problem du jour the DM sees.

No, that isn't what the rules say.


At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.

It doesn't say the WIZ gets ANY spells of a level they can cast. It says they get 2 spells of ANY LEVEL they can cast. So if you can cast 4th level spells, but would rather have 2 more 3rd level, you can take the 3rd level.

There is nothing that says the DM can't say "Nope, Gate does not exist. You can't take that spell once you can cast 9th level."


This... free reign for spellcasters, listed right in their spellcasting abilities (Or spellbook/spells per day), means that spellcasters, in my experience, often feel like you're unduly being an ass to them if you tell them that they CAN'T learn something.

If they feel the DM is being a jerk because they can't take Gate, that is on the player, not the DM.

[Sith_Happens]

The limit here is that the highest community on the chart has a GP limit of 100,000, so any item which costs more than 100k is indeed in the realm of being special and not assumed to be able to be purchased at will (although there may be additional rules in the Epic Level Handbook to cover higher community gp limits).

IIRC, a "planar metropolis" (e.g.- Sigil, City of Brass) has a gp limit of 200k.

[hymer]

I always put the caveat on anything from feats to magic items (and that includes spells) that I have to ok it before it gets into the game. This isn't just a matter of restricting the players, it's mostly a way of keeping rules mistakes out, and making the player talk to me about what they're trying to do with their PCs.
It does happen on occasion that I nix something or nerf it before it gets in. But in general, I try to give the players what they want. My players aren't very focused on optimizing*, so breaking the game isn't usually a worry for me. Intra-party balance is more the worry, and avoiding powers that potentially negate story arcs is rarer. I had to nerf outdoor flight in an exploration campaign once, for example.

* I have a campaign right now with a fighter, a fighter/favoured soul, and a fighter/barbarian in the party. The daring outlaw and the swift hunter are liable to overshadow them, but we'll see. And then there's a psion, but it's been no problem so far.

[Story]

The rules, as written, do not presume you can "just buy" anything. So a fighter can't go into even the most well stocked store or vault in the largest, most advanced city in the world and just find a Holy Avenger longsword to take home. It's up to the DM if he wants to let you do that. Though most take a more classical approach and require you to actually quest for it. With sometimes the exception of minor items like Potions of Healing, Scrolls of low level spells, etc.


Actually, Magic Mart is the default assumption, as shown by the DMG and the MiC.

[Talionis]

What I attempt to do is give players what they want without breaking my game. I define breaking my game as making things too easy for them or too hard.

I have always thought that Wizards spellbooks were great plot points and not to be considered automatically full of whatever spells they see or want. The spells they get from leveling are from research. I usually give great latitude in the selection of those spells. I just limit spell availability and sometimes I like to keep them from getting a spell too early. Maybe I let the Wizard find Fly at level 7 or 8. But I also keep in mind that Wizards still need to get a variety of spells to be proper Wizards as flexibility is one of the hallmarks of that class. But Wizards can quest for spells, they might need for a plot point. Downtime might be spent trying to break into a spellbook in a mansion. At low levels this can be a fun two person mission with him and a rogue.

Generally, I don't have the same problem with Druids and Clerics as I do with Wizards. I think its just because of the people that gravitate to those classes. But even there I might restrict access to some spells. And for spells like Miracle, I'll hint and later bring back up that their deity/religion may ask them to payback by doing a quest.

Just use as much as you can as plot hooks. Try to give the players what they want, even if they power level is diluted. But at all costs keep things that are broken or that will break plot points of your campaign out of the game. Its much better to do that than to give the players something and then have to take it back later.

Every DM and/or game (sometimes I deliberately allow players more optimization or less optimization, but I'm getting more comfortable with higher levels of optimization) should have a power level that everyone is comfortable with. I think this is most often described as any right minded DM would throw a book at you. So use your best judgment and try to have fun.

[Wargamer]

Certainly given me some things to keep in mind. My current party includes a character who has managed to get himself within 3hp of death twice in the space of two adventures (first time he charged headlong down a corridor that "had some kind of mechanism in the wall", second time he chased an illusion into Aboleth infested waters) so I suspect he'll be rolling a wizard before long. :P

[Talionis]

Certainly given me some things to keep in mind. My current party includes a character who has managed to get himself within 3hp of death twice in the space of two adventures (first time he charged headlong down a corridor that "had some kind of mechanism in the wall", second time he chased an illusion into Aboleth infested waters) so I suspect he'll be rolling a wizard before long. :P

Actually, when Wizards start with higher level than level one is always a precarious time for DM's. How many spells should be in their spellbook? Which spells will you allow? Be really careful here.

I would suggest you allow him to pick the minimum level of spells that he gets per level and you pick the rest from say the Players Manual without any specific thought to any of his "extra" spells in his spellbook being particularly any good. This is an opportunity to give him a spell that might be helpful later on, but I don't feel pity for Wizards. I consider Wizards to be for fairly experienced players only. I like to make Wizards feel weak when they first come into a game and make them earn their status as Tier 1.

[Amphetryon]

One reason the default assumption on the boards that "all spells are available to a Wizard" (or Archivist, or [insert other Vancian caster]) is a lack of specific information to the contrary by a given OP. When a poster comes to a forum to ask - as an example - "what spell should I get, now that I have 4th level Wizard spells available," there's no information to indicate a particular spell/spell list is unavailable, so the suggestions will naturally include all possible options.

If a poster were to take such suggestions to a given DM and have that DM go "haha, no, [spell] doesn't exist IMC except under specific circumstances," then either a) the OP can default back to another suggestion from the forums or b) the OP can rephrase the query based on the DM's feedback.

Otherwise, responses from the forum would be automatically less helpful by assuming houserules not in evidence.

[CaladanMoonblad]

In our campaign world (multiple GMs use it in our group), any arcane spell (wizard) from levels 1-3 is generally available in any metropolitan area (usually scrolls). However, any spell higher (4-9) is something that must be negotiated after tracking down (in game) a spellcaster who has the spell (Gather Information DC 20+2 per spell level, so minimum 28). Alternatively, belonging to an organization called "The Adventurer's Guild" allows a +5 bonus on this check because the organization keeps good records of all its members. These are in game incentives for players to keep in good standing with a plot generator / easy story hook.

Magic is highly regulated in some parts of our campaign world. As such, generally any +2 or less magic item can be bought or special ordered, but anything higher requires a thorough background check (this is expedited immensely by being a member of The Adventurer's Guild). This sort of fluff in our game world allows for greater GM control of available spells. There are also built in "story hiatus" jumps such as 1 month, 3 months, or 6 months between major campaign story arcs to allow crafters and entrepreneurs in the group to maintain their side businesses.

(Example, our dwarf fighter / knight runs Stonewrought Ale Distribution as a specialty item in a human dominated society where dwarven and elven trade goods are rare and highly tariffed; our mystic theurge is a bishop in his church, and took the Leadership feat so his cohort could run things while he was adventuring; the eldritch knight owns and maintains an Armory Shop with magic weapons/wondrous items/scrolls as special order status)

[Artillery]

Something I've noticed, both when playing D&D and when reading threads about other people's D&D games, is that Spellcasters assume automatically they have every possible spell available to them. If a Wizard wants to learn Fly, or Fireball or whathaveyou she doesn't ask the DM if there is anyone around to teach them, they're just there, in her Spellbook (or magically popping into her head if a spontaneous caster).

So... is this right? Could it be that the reason spellcasters are so much better at later levels be largely down to the fact that attaining a 9th level spell is meant to be as difficult as acquiring that +5 Vorpal Bastard Sword every Fighter and his grandma has dreamed off since level 3?

Better yet, do any of you impose rules and / or limits to acquiring spells?

You still need to acquire spells. You only get to automagically gain 2 known spells to your spell book each level up, for wizards.

You need to scribe them from scrolls or other sources with normal cost the rest of the time. 1 pg per spell level it is, 100GP per page it takes in material cost. It takes 24 hours to write a spell into your spellbook regardless of its level, my group reads it as 24 hours before you can prepare it.

[Dimers]

Dictating spell availability is a great way for a DM to display more world-specific flavor, drive sidequests, and simultaneously start dialogues with players about the appropriate power level for the campaign. I'd be disappointed if my DMs didn't do it.

[Raimun]

Yes and no.

Yes, Wizards (and Archivists) do need to search for spells, apart from 2/level, which can be whatever they want. That means an investment of time and money. Either the spells come in spell books or scrolls and those don't grow in trees. Archivists have harder time, since Divine magic doesn't need written format as much as Arcane.
However, they don't need to spend time with a master or trainer. At some point, there won't even be any "trainers" and instead, they have to come up with the solutions themselves. I mean, did Iron Man or Einstein have someone to train them to come up with breakthroughs? Yet, spell research (even from the spell list) takes time and money too.

No, Divine casters know all spells that are part of their spell list. This is one of their main advantages. Unlike "schrödinger's wizard", they actually have 100% certain access to all the spells they need, unless the spells in their list oppose their Alignment. Every day offers new possibilities.

Kinda no, spontaneous casters can pick any spells from their list as spells known. Their known spells are limited but they can pick whatever they want.

This is of course RAW. GMs can alter spell availability but it's not recommended to alter it too much without a good heads up.

[Talionis]

One reason the default assumption on the boards that "all spells are available to a Wizard" (or Archivist, or [insert other Vancian caster]) is a lack of specific information to the contrary by a given OP. When a poster comes to a forum to ask - as an example - "what spell should I get, now that I have 4th level Wizard spells available," there's no information to indicate a particular spell/spell list is unavailable, so the suggestions will naturally include all possible options.

If a poster were to take such suggestions to a given DM and have that DM go "haha, no, [spell] doesn't exist IMC except under specific circumstances," then either a) the OP can default back to another suggestion from the forums or b) the OP can rephrase the query based on the DM's feedback.

Otherwise, responses from the forum would be automatically less helpful by assuming houserules not in evidence.

Can't agree more. Its also why you see a lot of questions on these boards as to specific things being reasonable. People use the boards as a quick way to double check whether they are being fair in their setting.

[Flickerdart]

If scrolls are in short supply, it's fairly trivial to build a wizard who gets four, or six, or eight free scribes per level.

If you want to make wizards weaker, restricting scrolls isn't going to help that. All you'd be doing is enticing wizard players to take all the best spells, because there's no room to grab something that looks interesting and experiment with it.

[Mnemnosyne]

This is of course RAW. GMs can alter spell availability but it's not recommended to alter it too much without a good heads up.
This is the thing I'm most concerned about. If at the beginning of a campaign a DM gives me a list of spells I can't take, that's fine, we can discuss it ahead of time, I know what to plan for not being able to take and so on. However, if a DM waits until I tell them what spells I'm learning this level, then says I can't learn those spells, I am going to be royally pissed, because they gave no reasonable warning that those spells were unavailable.

I can understand if I pick a spell the DM thinks is broken and doesn't want to have in the game, that he forgot to ban ahead of time. That's understandable, if it was an oversight. The DM can come to me and explain he forgot that spell, it should have been on the banned list, and then maybe give a little something to compensate, like a free extra spell of a lower level, because he made a mistake and forgot to include the spell on the banned list in the first place. That's what I would do as a DM myself in such a situation. But it's seriously annoying if a DM makes it standard to wait until I hand in my spell list for that level to go over it and tell me I can't take some of those.

Now, as to restricting availability of spells to copy from others' books and scrolls? Sure, that's perfectly reasonable. Despite the DMG rule I quoted above, I don't see an issue with a DM saying that certain spells just aren't available for sale, and I have to either pick them at levelup, or research them myself.

[avr]

I've yet to play in a game where it was a problem getting Fly or Fireball as per the OP. This is the sort of spell which can be found with a minimal investment of game time if there's any means of acquiring spells at all. Restricted spells can make it harder to pursue a theme but don't change the power level of the wizard a whole lot.

Unless you're restricting as much as Ashtagon does which seems to me to be an odd restriction on the players actions. You'd think that a more investigative wizard school, or one with an active member or two, could blow those limits wide open.

[Treblain]

If you try to limit a wizard's ability to get new spells without actually establishing a firm limit like sorcerers, it doesn't work.

Tell your wizard player that he can't just go to Magic Mart and buy whatever spell he wants. When he wants to learn Mage Armor or Magic Missile, he'll whine "What, there's no scrolls for sale of the most common, simple spells?" So you have to say, "Ok, sure, if you look around hard, you can find scrolls and spellbooks with some common baseline spells." Then he scribes the common spells and uses his 2 free spells per level to get the most powerful and versatile ones you wouldn't give him, and you haven't really restrained him at all. And if you hold firm and don't give him any regular access to new spells, the player will feel singled out and slighted, or else he'll go around hunting NPC wizards and stealing their spellbooks.

Without heavily modifying the rules as written and the assumptions of the game world, you really can't stop a wizard who's determined to get more spells.

[LTwerewolf]

I rule that specialists must learn spells of their specialty when leveling up. I also don't make acquiring new spells super amazingly easy. You have to find someone willing to teach you or part with a scroll you can copy (with a decipher script check).

[ArcturusV]

Basically Treblain hit my point exactly, and much more eloquently.

Also note on the comparison to "magic marts" and such, words like "may" and "might" are thrown around in the relevant rules text. Compare to things like the Wizard "spells for leveling up" which is "At each wizard level, s/he gains..." as a more written in stone style that makes players feel that is an automatic thing. There's no "might" or "may" or "could" or "within DM reasoning" or something involved there.

Which leads to either letting wizards just have the most broken spells they can find as their "Free" spells. Or limiting it and players feel cheated and as if they are being victimized unfairly.

[Amphetryon]

Basically Treblain hit my point exactly, and much more eloquently.

Also note on the comparison to "magic marts" and such, words like "may" and "might" are thrown around in the relevant rules text. Compare to things like the Wizard "spells for leveling up" which is "At each wizard level, s/he gains..." as a more written in stone style that makes players feel that is an automatic thing. There's no "might" or "may" or "could" or "within DM reasoning" or something involved there.

Which leads to either letting wizards just have the most broken spells they can find as their "Free" spells. Or limiting it and players feel cheated and as if they are being victimized unfairly.Or to the Player and DM reaching a reasonable accord on what spells are appropriate for a given campaign.

[ArcturusV]

Touche.

Though not something I've really seen. Mostly when the DM is automatically OK with everything the mage is doing it's because they are filling a certain concept knowing it's not really optimal but just because they think it's fun.

[NichG]

Really the thing to do here would be to make a very small list of 'Common' spells that basically players can buy/learn without asking, and then everything beyond that is spell research, luck checks, quests, etc. That way you can tell players what they can expect to have access to, and if that list is small then they're making a conscious choice to live with uncertainty if they still want to go the caster route and can't really whine about it (well they can whine, but you can just point to the list and say you said this is what it was going to be). Don't forget to make it clear that the free two spells always come from the 'Common' list as well. I'd say putting the same thing on Clerics/Druids is fair game too, as long as they can also do spell research and expand their lists through questing.

Once you've done that there's nothing stopping you from making other spells common after the fact in different cities/countries/etc. But it establishes a very limited baseline that everything you do after is 'giving more options' rather than 'taking away options', which is just going to feel better for the players.

'Core' isn't a good list here btw. It really has to be hand-picked by the DM.

[Karnith]

Or to the Player and DM reaching a reasonable accord on what spells are appropriate for a given campaign.
This is more or less what I do when I DM and have spellcasters in the party; I either ban or soft-ban ("Please don't use Polymorph for silly things") certain spells, but don't otherwise limit my players beyond the system's rules. I also try to get people to play either classes of similar tiers, and/or characters optimized to the same level.

Getting everyone on board with playing to a certain power level is waaay easier for me than trying to micromanage what my spellcasters are doing with their spells anyway.

[Sception]

Getting everyone on board with playing to a certain power level is waaay easier for me than trying to micromanage what my spellcasters are doing with their spells anyway.

This.

Coming up with a million fiddly little rules to try and constrain particular characters only causes resentment - and frequently fails to even achieve the desired goal anyway. Just talk with your players about the campaigns desired power level.

I mean, come on people. Can we not be adults, while playing our games of lets pretend?

[Amphetryon]

Here's part of what I see as the issue:

Let's say Pat makes Rory McSmashington, a Lion Totem Barbarian who favors a Heavy Poleaxe (from Complete Warrior) as his weapon. Pat's joined at the table by Robin, who makes Winona Wizzinton, an Enchantment Specialist Wizard.

In general, there is little uproar, either from Pat or from the general consensus of D&D fora, if appropriate weapon drops for Rory are few and far between. On the other hand and also in general, when Winona cannot consistently upgrade her spellbook with exactly the spells she wants, Robin is more likely to react as if the DM is out to get Winona, and the fora are more likely to decry the "nerfing" of Robin's Character.

[Andezzar]

That depends. If Rory cannot get a better heavy poleaxe through any means, be it looting or through the local magic mart/weapon enchanter, that would cause the same reaction.
The same goes for the situation that, while a magic mart/enchanter exists, the enchanter for some reason is unable to provide certain enchantments, even though they have similar prerequisites as others.

[Kesnit]

That depends. If Rory cannot get a better heavy poleaxe through any means, be it looting or through the local magic mart/weapon enchanter, that would cause the same reaction.

There is a difference between "any improvement" and "exactly what he wants."

Say Rory wants a +3 with enchantments X, Y, Z, and Q. The DM gives him a +3 with enchantments X and Z. Rory got an improved weapon, even through it was not exactly the weapon he asked for.

By the same argument, Winona asks for spells A, B, C, and D. She gets spells B and D. Is Winona nerfed because she did not get A and C?

[Andezzar]

Say Rory wants a +3 with enchantments X, Y, Z, and Q. The DM gives him a +3 with enchantments X and Z. Rory got an improved weapon, even through it was not exactly the weapon he asked for.

By the same argument, Winona asks for spells A, B, C, and D. She gets spells B and D. Is Winona nerfed because she did not get A and C?If Y and Q had similar prerequisites as X and Z that would be nerfing Rory just like not making certain spells available to Winona.

For example you can get keen weapons but not shocking weapons. Both special abilities cost +1 and are based on a 3rd level spell. They should be equally available.

However there is a slight difference in the perception of magic items and spells because not having a certain magic item does not interfere with class features. A class feature of the wizard is that he can scribe any spell into his spellbook. That is just like always using undead/constructs/plants against the sneak attacker or never giving the charger flat ground, before either of them has found ways to work around that.

[Amphetryon]

However there is a slight difference in the perception of magic items and spells because not having a certain magic item does not interfere with class features. A class feature of the wizard is that he can scribe any spell into his spellbook. That is just like always using undead/constructs/plants against the sneak attacker or never giving the charger flat ground, before either of them has found ways to work around that.
The ability to hit things well - which is often deeply entwined with the weapon choices and enchantments available - is Rory's primary Class feature; in many campaigns, the ability to hit things well may be the only Class feature that matters. It seems disingenuous to me to claim that denying weapons at a higher rate than one denies Winona her most sought-after spells is somehow not interfering with Rory's Class features, particularly in comparison to Winona.

[Andezzar]

I'm not saying that denying Rory the special abilities his player desires is less a nerf than denying Winona to scribe certain spells into her spellbook, I'm just saying that it is a less obvious denial of a class feature.

[Story]

I'd be pretty annoyed if I wasn't allowed to buy certain weapons or enchantments either.

[Deathra13]

My two cents on the whole thing, I play wizards when Im not dming. Honestly if you are having this many problems with wizards taking broken or overpowered spells you might want to simply try discussing with them the idea of picking things because they are interesting and the enjoyment of finding new uses for unique spells. Of course this wont always work but the whole ban on a function of a class feature is guaranteed to cause problems, everyone is sticking to tiers etc, but heres my perspective if that happens. The wizard or sorcerer are now restricted to the list the dm has created. The cleric and druid are continuing to gain their entire spell list because thats how their class feature works, the fighter who gains bonus feats although limited to the books restrictions thats the rules limiting them not an arbitrary choice. So lets remove tier consideration for a moment and look at it from a straight up rules perspective. If you make a list of only particular spells an arcane can have, especially if you remove things from the phb you are saying that they cant have their full abilities from core. If you allow the fighter his full bonus feat list, you are making the call that the fighter is a better choice because the dm isnt out to get them. Same with divine caster, or anything with a supply of choices for their class.

From a tier perspective though if you only do this to arcane caster many of them will simply shift to cleric, better hp, no armor problems, and even more spells. If you go with the suggestions from earlier about limiting all casters itd certainly balance things better in regards to optimizers, but those who dont go full optimize and just want it for something entertaining are going to feel unjustly punished for other peoples decisions possibly players theyve never even met. In the end its a game if someone pulling particular spells are a problem, pull the player aside discuss what they intend to do with the spell, if they intend to abuse them discuss the issues with it if you cant come to a compromise, make sure that they regret it if/when they abuse the choice.

[Xerxus]

You would need to limit the cleric and druid in similar ways as well.

As for making the fighter look better, I thought that was half the point of the entire issue.

[Werekat]

We have a general "no cheddar, though regular cheese allowed on occasion" rule. A few hard bans are in place (Celerity line, to be precise). All spells which include any form of "at the DM's discretion" are likely to be read in favor of an interesting story (read: more trouble). Spells from the basic books are acquirable at will; SC spells need a plot reason.

I usually self-ban Polymorph cheese.

We haven't had a problem with the wizard being unbalanced: any problems were easily solved by a reasonable discussion.

[Yahzi]

A question for everyone who disallows the free level-up spells for Wizards. Do you change Clerics and Druids too?
Clerics, yes, through in-game stuff. Druids have other (in-game) issues. Sorcerers aren't a problem; it's not the existence of a few powerful spells that make wizards problematic, it's that they can have all of them.

But then, I ban everything outside of Core to start.

As for magic items, you can have anything you can find someone to make. In a lower-level world that produces some surprising limitations (rings are incredibly rare, and a 1st level pearl of power doesn't even exist).

[ArcturusV]

But most of the horrendously broken stuff can be found in Core. Least the key parts of combos to be horrendously broken are often in Core, so that doesn't do anything.

One thing I have started doing, based on reading and it making a bit of sense, is stopped letting Wizards get free Level Up spells when they take PrCs that give +1 level of (Arcane or Existing) Spellcasting. I believe based off reading it (And a few examples of Racial Paragons that advance Wizards but not any other type of "arcane Caster") that is what was intended. The "Additional Spells" is for classes that have Spells Known tables. Bards, Sorcerers, etc.

[Story]

When you limit spell selection, all you're doing is forcing them to pick the most powerful and versatile spells. You won't see anyone using Regal Procession when they only get 2 spells, but they'll still be winning every encounter with Haste and Stinking Cloud.

[tiercel]

When you limit spell selection, all you're doing is forcing them to pick the most powerful and versatile spells. You won't see anyone using Regal Procession when they only get 2 spells, but they'll still be winning every encounter with Haste and Stinking Cloud.

While this is true to an extent, having the most Awesomely Versatile Spell Ever still isn't as versatile as having the most Awesomely Versatile Spell Ever and 50 other spells at the same level to pick from as needed as well.

I think that Cleric, Druid, etc "divine inheritance" problem (can, by default, choose any spell on class list in any allowed book for free) is a bigger problem because of this. At least the Wizard has to spend some time and money procuring spells and has a potentially-vulnerable spellbook; Mr. Cleric can wake up in the morning and ask his god for The-Spell-That-Exactly-Does-What-I-Need-Today without any investment of resources at all.

If nothing else, the wizard's player just has to look over the handful of spells on his character sheet when choosing memorizations for his character, whereas Mr. Druid cracks open PHB+Spell Compendium for a warmup, and then pokes around in his Leaning Tower of Pisa built from Complete Everything and Tome of Whoopie and Forgotten Eberron Dark Sun Spelljamming Frostburn Stormwracked Realms and whatever other books he can lay his Druidzilla paws on that DM allows.

[Andezzar]

While this is true to an extent, having the most Awesomely Versatile Spell Ever still isn't as versatile as having the most Awesomely Versatile Spell Ever and 50 other spells at the same level to pick from as needed as well.The question is do the 50 other spells make the wizard significantly more problematic than the wizard with only the most awesome/versatile/broken spells.

[dascarletm]

To anyone saying the DM cannot alter what spells a wizard can or cannot learn by RAW, may I direct you to the DMG pg.6 under ADJUCATING.:smallwink:

[Regal Kain]

I won't pretend I'm even close to the realm of optimization, and knowledge of the rules as most everyone else in this community, I've only been a DM for a couple of years, and that has bounced around alot of various P&P systems. When I started DMing D&D I HAD a Wizard who optimized himself, and had an entire folder of contingencies (Legit an entire folder...I groaned at that.) At the time I was pretty inexperienced, both as a palyer and as a DM, so I hurt most spell-casters pretty hard by way of the setting.

I generally find that if you sit down and talk to your players in detail of what you want/don't want to see in a campaign, mature players will be fine with that, I've learned a great deal over the past 3 years, both about DMing and balancing things in general. (I'm helping a friend design his own P&P system, there's alot of 8 hour grind sessions learning what is unbalanced.) I'd imagine I can find a better way to "DMBalance" casters now, the following wall of text in the spoiler was my first encounter with it.

Now? I'd probably do something along these lines- Clerics draw their power from Divine influence, be that a god, or some other form of power. The point being, they channel through energy through another avenue, who's to say that avenue isn't limited for fear of what can come from that type of power? While I don't imagine Deities care "that" much, they don't want someone who has unstoppable power from slaughtering all of their followers, they are intelligent. In this way I imagine you could limit Clerics list and choice of spells by way of saying what the cosmos does and does not allow. It's close to what I did in the spoiler.

Wizards have been covered pretty well, for Sorcerers, something you could do, is have them come in contact with a dragon, to re-kindle and boil their blood so to speak, that's how their magic power surges forward. This could make the Sorcerer require a "mentor" so to speak through a dragon.

The Setting
Though I did WARN my players first. (Ok guys, this is a low-magic setting, I'll explain more in a minute, but when you are going for character concept, do not plan on heavy magic, in weapons or spells.) The basic gist of it was two warring sides, (A story I've used in various P&P systems, and I wrote out some time ago.) Two souls that are constantly reborn, rise through the ranks of fame and legacy, and do battle until one is defeated, this starts the cycle again as both participants are usually killed. The ideaology of this was, that using any spell be it Divine, or Arcane, no matter the source. That was level 4 or over, drew the attention of higher beings, the use of anything level 7 and up, drew the direct attention of one of the two warring deities.

Using a 9th level spell, would almost always result in one of the deities paying you a direct and immediate visit to question why you feel the need to unleash such a torrent of magicial energy. Most of my players loved the idea (Some of whom who have been playing 3.5 for awhile know how broken spellcasters can be in the right hands, so they revelled in a campaign that was more or less, a think outside the box martial campaign.) My wizard player, did not enjoy this at all, I apologized and said that to be honest, I don't understand the rules well enough on spellcasting to come up with a "Balanced" way for your class to exsist. Sure enough, first hard fight they come across he burns through something like 3 7th level spells. The rest of the party is shouting at him no, don't stop! The "evil" god, sent a minion for them, that minion being a shadow dragon, it ended pretty poorly for the party. The wizard stopped playing under me because he said I was an unfair DM who didn't know what he was doing, to a large degree this was, and still is true. I thought I was fair in the sense of warning them and explaining the rules in detail ahead of time.

My apologies for the wall of text! I often lurk the forums, but rarely post, mostly becauseI don't have a firm grasp on things as many of you do, and in life I try not to speak without knowing what I'm talking about, though that is not always avoidable.

Edit: Just fixing spelling errors I saw. ^_^;

[Deathra13]

Regal Kain, I have to say I love that concept and honestly I think it makes for a brilliant campaign. I enjoy building and playing wizards for the mental effort they take, and testing the limits of unique uses for spells. I honestly think you did very well with your decision and warning the party first. As for your player claiming it was unfair, he knew what he was getting into and chose to do it anyways. Honestly in that situation Id probably if playinga caster go through multiclasses to get more spells per day at lower levels instead of trying to gain the higher magics.

Would you mind if I hijack your concept the next time I run a game? :smallbiggrin:

[Regal Kain]

By all means go for it, just be ready to fight off those types of players with a bat, a big one if possible. Goodluck in running. ^_^

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I'm very, very new to DMing, but all of this kind of confuses me.

Even attempting to balance spellcasters seems like a weird endeavor - it's not going to work, and, what's more, you don't need to balance the game for it to be fun.

Secondly... everything comes down to player attitude. If a player is really set on breaking the game, a few rule modifications aren't going to fix things - arguably they'd make them worse, as you set an "I'm competing with the DM" tone to things. If you have a good relationship with your players, you should be able to just ask them to tone it down a notch and let the other people get some time in the spotlight; if you have a bad relationship with your players, you should be treating the disease, not the symptom.

All in all, it seems like these sorts of harsher attitudes towards spellcasters don't do much, except make the game less fun for those players - half the fun of playing a spellcaster is digging around and finding the coolest spells as you're building your character; needing DM approval every step of the way sort of kills that.

I mean, I can see limiting magic entirely, from a "challenge is interesting" perspective, or a "You'll connect more with characters whose abilities are similar to your own" place, or even just an "Overcoming mundane challenges without magic is fun" idea, but... it seems like if those are what you're going for, 3.5 is the wrong system to begin with.

I dunno, maybe I've just been lucky in the players I've gotten.

[ArcturusV]

That and having 4 int as an excuse not to optimize my spellcaster, at all, and even make fairly foolish choices entirely in character and not having to manufacture a reason or Out of Character understanding, FreakyCheeseMan. :smallwink:

[Deathra13]

Well freakycheeseman, You are right if you have an ideal group but I am seeing one fallacy in your logic, you are assuming that you have the same relationship with all players, but suppose a, b, and c are fully on board with keeping it on an even keel, but player d wants to play a full bore ultimate caster who can obliterate everything and doesnt want to listen to you on the toning itndown thing. If he wont leave the group and you dont want to kick him for whatever reason you end up needing to find some way of putting things back on an even keel or the rest of your players become redundant to player D. Especially if allowed full access take a look at some of the spells you see most often mentioned as broken. Searching for interesting is fine. Searching for "what will make me so godlike that everyone else is unneccesary" not so much, and there are situations where you cant simply be done with this player.

[jywu98]

It really depends on the setting of your campaign. If the campaign is quite low-powered, and magic is scarce, limiting spell availability to the more common spells (AKA PHB spells) seems reasonable. However, if your campaign is high-powered, you should only put a limit on those spells which can absolutely break the game, or those which do no fit the setting.

[Story]

All in all, it seems like these sorts of harsher attitudes towards spellcasters don't do much, except make the game less fun for those players - half the fun of playing a spellcaster is digging around and finding the coolest spells as you're building your character; needing DM approval every step of the way sort of kills that.


Well you always need DM approval rule 0 and all, but I think that the DM shouldn't ban anything unless it's obviously broken. It helps if you self-ban the broken stuff too. You can have a lot of fun playing God Wizard without trying to chain gate.


It really depends on the setting of your campaign. If the campaign is quite low-powered, and magic is scarce, limiting spell availability to the more common spells (AKA PHB spells) seems reasonable. However, if your campaign is high-powered, you should only put a limit on those spells which can absolutely break the game, or those which do no fit the setting.

Uh...

[JellyPooga]

The Setting

I like this quite a lot. Not only the idea of powerful magic drawing attention of powerful beings, but that the majority of your players got on board with the idea and tried to persuade the spell-slinging Wizard not to unleash his magic so wantonly. It's a shame the Wizard player himself wasn't on board.

I wouldn't dare claim you were a bad GM for this. It rather speaks the opposite; you were up-front about the implications and followed through when the situation arose. If I was a player looking to draw that attention and you erred on the side of leniency, then I'd have been pretty gnarked off!

[jywu98]

Well you always need DM approval rule 0 and all, but I think that the DM shouldn't ban anything unless it's obviously broken. It helps if you self-ban the broken stuff too. You can have a lot of fun playing God Wizard without trying to chain gate.



Uh...

There are obviously exceptions...