Why do wizards get bonus feats?

[Sylthia]

From a balance perspective, why do wizards get bonus feats? How much would they be nerfed if they were taken away?

[Boci]

From a balance perspective, WotC probably overestimated spontenous casting and underestimated prepared casting (as well as casting as a whole). Removing then would be a minor nerf, and I'm not sure it worth it, as it isn't enough to address the balance issues in any significant manner, but might be enough to annoy the wizard players.

[Eslin]

Pretty much. Feels annoying, takes away some choice, doesn't actually address the balance issues.

On the other hand, you should feel free to give the sorcerer actual class features if you're annoyed about the disparity.

[Telonius]

No idea why they get the bonus feats to begin with. (Other than Scribe Scroll; magical writings are supposed to be the wizard's thing).

In practice, removing the feats probably wouldn't nerf Wizards all that much. At least in my experience, it's fairly rare for a wizard to stick to a single class without getting into a Prestige Class as soon as possible. Spells, feats, and familiar advancement (and two free spells in your spellbook per level, if your DM is a real stickler) are the only things that Wizard levels get you. Most worthwhile PrCs have full casting, and you typically PrC at level 6 and above; so it's three bonus feats and a slightly better familiar versus whatever a PrC can give you. Almost every wizard is going to choose the PrC. At most, a typical wizard would lose one metamagic or item creation feat (the one they get at 5th) by removing the bonus feats.

[Agincourt]

Yes, along the lines of what Telonius said, you would be encouraging players to select prestige classes. There would be no downside for a full-casting PrC. Such a change might end up making wizards more powerful by giving players an extra nudge to PrC.

[Joe the Rat]

Concept-wise, it's supposed to be about their studious mastery of magic, and the ability to fine-tune thier spells (metamagic) or enchant objects (item crafting).

Play-wise... yeah.

[DeltaEmil]

There's no incentive for wizards to have only wizard levels anyway. Prestige classes that grant levels in an existing spellcasting class are always chosen if they're available in the campaign setting. Removing the bonus metamagic feats doesn't encourage them to gain prestige classes, it just slows them down from reaching those prestige classes, if at all.

[Agincourt]

There's no incentive for wizards to have only wizard levels anyway. Prestige classes that grant levels in an existing spellcasting class are always chosen if they're available in the campaign setting. Removing the bonus metamagic feats doesn't encourage them to gain prestige classes, it just slows them down from reaching those prestige classes, if at all.

Every group is different. I won't speak for your group if you don't speak for mine. Bonus feats can be an incentive in my group, especially if the DM bans some of the most powerful Prestige Classes.

[DeltaEmil]

Every group is different. I won't speak for your group if you don't speak for mine. Bonus feats can be an incentive in my group, especially if the DM bans some of the most powerful Prestige Classes.Is your group banning every prestige class that grants advanced spellcasting? That's actually a good thing for balance.

[Agincourt]

No, just a few choice Prestige Classes. Losing the wizard bonus feats is something the players talk about before choosing a Prestige Class and sometimes we choose to stick with wizard, depending on our concept.

[Boci]

Every group is different. I won't speak for your group if you don't speak for mine. Bonus feats can be an incentive in my group, especially if the DM bans some of the most powerful Prestige Classes.

In all fairness the OP framed their question with the subject of balance, which is a bit more universal than group preference.

[Dragonmuncher]

As an aside, I don't think removing the feats will really do anything, other than making a wizard player sad. When people complain about wizards being overpowered, they're not bemoaning those few bonus feats.

[Agincourt]

In all fairness the OP framed their question with the subject of balance, which is a bit more universal than group preference.

Yes, my post was addressing balance. For a player on the fence, you are encouraging them to prestige classes even though they might not prefer that option. This rule could have the opposite effect of what the OP wants. If a player would prefer to be straight wizard, but the next best alternative is, say, a Fatespinner, they might as well take it (for four levels, at least) with no downside. You could be pushing players into taking more powerful options by making alternatives less appealing.

I'm not saying it is an inevitable. It depends on which Prestige Classes a group is allowed to play, but it is something he should be considering.

[Scow2]

The problem isn't wizards getting bonus feats. The problem is the sorcerer not getting more bonus feats, when they should be potent users of Metamagic, and scions of draconic heritage.

[Talothorn]

I think taking away a wizards bonus feats would be bad for balance because typically that first bonus feat at 5th level The Wizard takes craft magic arms and armor, which lets you make magic weapons and armor for the party's other characters. you take away that bonus feat those other characters are not going to get the same magic items, leaving them further behind the wizard in terms of power. also those item creation feats tend to sap some XP from The Wizard anyway.

I prefer to increase the efficiency of melee feats.