Wizards & finding new spells

[Tanarii]

So I've been running treasure BtB ... on average about 1 hoard per adventuring day. It's not quite that precise, firstly because the book isn't that precise, although it works out to that on the average. But also because I have very mixed level groups of PCs + henchmen, although I do split sessions by tier (some level 1-4 and some 6-10).

But several of my Wizard players (and 2 ritual casters) have started complaining they're not finding enough spells. I've shifted to tailoring the any spell scroll found to be first dibs on a wizard spell (or ritual) of the appropriate level found if one of them is in the party. Ie I retroactively change the spell on the scroll when it's found, from whatever it was before, to something usable. Even so spell scrolls are fairly rare finds on the magic item tables.

So DMs, I'm wondering how much you feed your wizards spells? Do you make sure they find a certain amount per spell level, or let the dice fall as they may? Even one per spell level per wizard is pretty unlikely if you randomly determine magic times. Less so if you randomly determine class each scroll is for.

I'm vaguely considering implementing a house rule to allow wizards & ritual casters to share spells, provided they reimburse each other. I'm not sure what a fair GP amount would be ... I don't just want them trading spells willy nilly, as that's out of character for wizards in general in my world, and for adventurers that may never see that same wizard again. If I go with the minimum magic item value, that's 50gp for a level one spell, and something over 100gp for a level 2-3 spell. Does that sound fair or too cheap? I'm worried at that low, they'll fairly rapidly be able to trade spells in the 5-10 games. The average character has hundreds of spare GP after downtime expenses of 10gp/day from each hoard, since most players with characters in that level bracket don't skip more than a few sessions (10 days downtime per session) before bring the character back for another adventure.

(Note: writing that out, I'm also wondering if I'm letting there be enough downtime between each session.)

[Sigreid]

The way it's been handled with my wizard is when the party takes out another wizard, I get to claim his spell book and spend the time trying to decipher his spells. The first couple of spell books there was a littler over lap and I picked up a good number of new spells. As I get my hands on more spell books and have the time to study them (and pay the cost to copy the spells) I find that there are fewer and fewer spells where there is no over lap with what I already have. So, for the first spell book, I think I got 6-8 new spells. For the most recent spell book, I think there was 1 spell I didn't already know. If they are killing wizards, they should be getting spell books. Some of the information in those spell books will be things they don't already know. Unless all wizards in your world use the same spells.

I've not copied from a scroll in 5e as the one scroll I had that I wanted the spell we got in a situation where I needed to cast the spell right now!

[StoicLeaf]

Depends on the world you run.
I run a highish magic faerun, so anything up to 5th level can be purchased in the major cities for large sums of gold.

After that:

- allow players to set research goals so that when they ding it makes sense for them to gain a new spell they wanted anyway.
- include scrolls in loot.
- make your players aware that enemy casters will also likely have spell books.

I suppose it's like anything else really, you either buy it or make it yourself. Or steal it.

[Tanarii]

So, for the first spell book, I think I got 6-8 new spells. For the most recent spell book, I think there was 1 spell I didn't already know. If they are killing wizards, they should be getting spell books. Oh wow. Okay, that's an insanely generous class-buff by my standards. I mean, only one party has taken on a full on enemy wizard in their 'lair' so far, but there were no wizards in the party that attempted it, so that was a non-issue in that case, otherwise I'm not sure how I would have handled it. Most enemy casters aren't wizards.

Maybe I should point out to the wizard players complaining that if they really want spells, they should arrange a group of PCs to get together and plan some raids on other (NPC) wizards for their books. After all, that's what I tell players trying to get any other specific things, like magical versions of specific kinds of weapons or armor. Get a group, figure out where to get what you want, try to get it.

Of course, this would only add opportunity for them to get killed by fiendish magical traps. Or to piss off the wrong people, and end up getting hunted down and dead. So that's a solution I'm happy with. :smallamused:

[Larpus]

One thing my DMs have done is to allow Wizards to go to [knowledge/magic deity]'s temples/libraries and pick up a few spells and going to those same places as well as magic academies and trade spells with wizards there.

Other than that, one DM once gave me a free new spell, namely Dimensional Anchor, because we managed to secure a keep being used by a cult that was summoning aberrations to our world (we didn't know that quite yet) and I told the DM I was going to study it extensively to understand exactly what they were doing and all that, from couple decent rolls and being able to piece together the info, the DM rewarded me with Dimensional Anchor which my character learned from studying the runes.

Another thing that I've seen being allowed with good success, if the player rolls 18+ on the dice to identify a spell, he/she's allowed to spend some in-game time and money (I think it was twice the scroll price?) to learn the spell if he/she wants to.

[Sigreid]

Oh wow. Okay, that's an insanely generous class-buff by my standards. I mean, only one party has taken on a full on enemy wizard in their 'lair' so far, but there were no wizards in the party that attempted it, so that was a non-issue in that case, otherwise I'm not sure how I would have handled it. Most enemy casters aren't wizards.

Maybe I should point out to the wizard players complaining that if they really want spells, they should arrange a group of PCs to get together and plan some raids on other (NPC) wizards for their books. After all, that's what I tell players trying to get any other specific things, like magical versions of specific kinds of weapons or armor. Get a group, figure out where to get what you want, try to get it.

Of course, this would only add opportunity for them to get killed by fiendish magical traps. Or to piss off the wrong people, and end up getting hunted down and dead. So that's a solution I'm happy with. :smallamused:

So, three things. First, even a wizard outside his lair is likely to have a spell book on him. Maybe not his full library, but enough to let him adapt if needed. Second, you're in charge of what is in the spell book, so this doesn't give anything you're unwilling to deal with. Third, since instead of gambling on them I pick the spells I want most, the reality is most of the time the new spells have no real impact on what I prepare.

[Mith]

If you give downtime to players that is significant (a few weeks or months), that time can also be used for spell research as well as planning on killing other wizards for their secrets.

[Coffee_Dragon]

A Good (as in not Evil) wizard might consider negotiating with NPCs over spell exchanges instead of planning to slay them for profits.

[Sigreid]

A Good (as in not Evil) wizard might consider negotiating with NPCs over spell exchanges instead of planning to slay them for profits.

Or alternately could use their down time to identify wizards that are not only evil, but dangerous to the world at large. It's an easier sell to the party paladin to go after the necromancer enslaving that town over there than to hit Grendal the Good because "I hear she's got some good spells in her books".

[MrStabby]

For me I let my players raid wizards spell books. I think this is a perk of being a wizard.

The wizards will not have all spells or even random spells but will have the spells that the character will use. Of course that means a combat mage will be picking the best combat spells they can - which tends to overlap strongly with the party spells (as they follow a similar selection procedure).

Where there are many hostile wizards to defeat they will probably have all learned their spells from each other so there won't be a lot of difference between their spell books.

I think there have been about 4 spells learned from hostile mages spell books so far this campaign. The bigger issue is higher level wizards where PCs can learn their spells when the level up and can therefore pick alternative spells.

[Sigreid]

I think there have been about 4 spells learned from hostile mages spell books so far this campaign. The bigger issue is higher level wizards where PCs can learn their spells when the level up and can therefore pick alternative spells.

This does happen. The party took out a higher level wizard who was a necromancer and I got animate dead and a couple of other 3rd level spells. That being said, my wizard is not a necromancer and while he did copy all the spells to his spell book (at significant expense) I don't think he's prepared that wizard's spells even once. I want all the spells. That doesn't really mean I'm going to use all of them. I just can't picture a wizard saying "Well, I don't care for this magical knowledge. I guess I'll burn the book."

[Kryx]

Maybe I should point out to the wizard players complaining that if they really want spells, they should arrange a group of PCs to get together and plan some raids on other (NPC) wizards for their books. After all, that's what I tell players trying to get any other specific things, like magical versions of specific kinds of weapons or armor. Get a group, figure out where to get what you want, try to get it.
This is definitely how I'd handle it.

Wizards get 44 spells by default so freely giving 8 on top of that is crazy talk imo. Druids get 25+8, Clerics 25+10, Paladins around 23-25, bards and warlocks around 20, and sorcerers 15.

Wizard already has a ton of versatility. Freely giving more makes them even more versatile.

[Sigreid]

This is definitely how I'd handle it.

Wizards get 44 spells by default so freely giving 8 on top of that is crazy talk imo. Druids get 25+8, Clerics 25+10, Paladins around 23-25, bards and warlocks around 20, and sorcerers 15.

Wizard already has a ton of versatility. Freely giving more makes them even more versatile.

Not to quash your overall point but druids and clerics get access to their entire spell lists as they level up, with the freedom to prepare whatever they wish. No extra effort or DM assistance required.

[MrStabby]

This is definitely how I'd handle it.

Wizards get 44 spells by default so freely giving 8 on top of that is crazy talk imo. Druids get 25+8, Clerics 25+10, Paladins around 23-25, bards and warlocks around 20, and sorcerers 15.

Wizard already has a ton of versatility. Freely giving more makes them even more versatile.

Wizards get the ability to appropriate other spells. Taking away class abilities rarely improved people's experience of the game. I would advise against it.

[Tanarii]

If you give downtime to players that is significant (a few weeks or months), that time can also be used for spell research as well as planning on killing other wizards for their secrets.PCs can do that, but dropping out of adventuring for that long means effectively retiring. The campaign time (and gaming sessions) don't stop for any character or player.

So far I've usually been using fixed downtime between sessions for the same tier. There are some exceptions, mostly multi-session adventures, or intentionally simultaneous action by multiple parties that aren't just pick-up adventuring (ie they formed for specific goals).

In the longer run I'll have to work around characters needing extended downtime for things like stronghold building and magic research. But for now since they're not yet high level tier, and I haven't yet introduced formula for magic items, campaign time is still pretty snappy.


This is definitely how I'd handle it.

Wizards get 44 spells by default so freely giving 8 on top of that is crazy talk imo. Druids get 25+8, Clerics 25+10, Paladins around 23-25, bards and warlocks around 20, and sorcerers 15.

Wizard already has a ton of versatility. Freely giving more makes them even more versatile.
That's mostly my outlook on it. But when more than one player complains to me about something, I like to try and think of a solution.

Of course, the solution of 'well do something about it in game then" might backfire a bit if an entire party of mid-tier Wizards TPKs out of the campaign at once. Although it just occurred to me they'd be taking the first steps to forming a player wizard guild of sorts.

Excuse me I gotta go write some stuff down. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

So I've been running treasure BtB ... on average about 1 hoard per adventuring day. It's not quite that precise, firstly because the book isn't that precise, although it works out to that on the average. But also because I have very mixed level groups of PCs + henchmen, although I do split sessions by tier (some level 1-4 and some 6-10).

But several of my Wizard players (and 2 ritual casters) have started complaining they're not finding enough spells. I've shifted to tailoring the any spell scroll found to be first dibs on a wizard spell (or ritual) of the appropriate level found if one of them is in the party. Ie I retroactively change the spell on the scroll when it's found, from whatever it was before, to something usable. Even so spell scrolls are fairly rare finds on the magic item tables.

So DMs, I'm wondering how much you feed your wizards spells? Do you make sure they find a certain amount per spell level, or let the dice fall as they may? Even one per spell level per wizard is pretty unlikely if you randomly determine magic times. Less so if you randomly determine class each scroll is for.

I'm vaguely considering implementing a house rule to allow wizards & ritual casters to share spells, provided they reimburse each other. I'm not sure what a fair GP amount would be ... I don't just want them trading spells willy nilly, as that's out of character for wizards in general in my world, and for adventurers that may never see that same wizard again. If I go with the minimum magic item value, that's 50gp for a level one spell, and something over 100gp for a level 2-3 spell. Does that sound fair or too cheap? I'm worried at that low, they'll fairly rapidly be able to trade spells in the 5-10 games. The average character has hundreds of spare GP after downtime expenses of 10gp/day from each hoard, since most players with characters in that level bracket don't skip more than a few sessions (10 days downtime per session) before bring the character back for another adventure.

(Note: writing that out, I'm also wondering if I'm letting there be enough downtime between each session.)

Two non-loot table methods:

1) The spellbooks of opposing casters
2) Deliberate research and tracking down spells in the tomes of libraries; for this the Sage background is most useful.

Most any Mage or Archmage is going to have a spellbook wherever they go (Those foolish enough to leave something that valuable lying around in your average D&D setting is just asking to have it stolen)

I also might put scrolls on enemies who could use the scrolls. Players who are fast enough at the kill or clever enough to struggle for it (disarm attempt) might be able to acquire the spell before it can be used against them.

[rooneg]

I'm vaguely considering implementing a house rule to allow wizards & ritual casters to share spells, provided they reimburse each other. I'm not sure what a fair GP amount would be ... I don't just want them trading spells willy nilly, as that's out of character for wizards in general in my world, and for adventurers that may never see that same wizard again.

FWIW, I'd find this to be pretty strange to enforce among your PCs. These people are expected to trust each other with their lives, but aren't going to swap spells (and thus make their allies potentially stronger and thus more able to protect them in dangerous situations)? Now outside the party I can see it being a rare thing, but saying that PCs need to work against their own interests in that way seems problematic to me.

Even if you're going to make PCs pay each other for the right to copy spells, I'm not sure how that matters. They can just collude to get different spells on level-up, then immediately trade them to each other, so they come out even. For stuff they find in scrolls they can just alternate who gets each one and come out approximately even. Plus, any reasonable cost would be a rounding error to them eventually.

[Tanarii]

Rooneg are you possibly under the mistaken assumption that this is a single group of PCs? My campaign has multiple different parties, and the party membership can and does change from session to session. Certainly individual money isn't some kind of 'party wealth' ... it's actually meaningful if it transfers from one character to another. Nor will it necessarily benefit one wizard in future adventures to give away his secrets.

Although I have explicitly made a house ruling against intentional intra-party conflicts like campaigns used to, so there's not the old school thing of making potential future enemies more powerful. So I'm somewhere in the middle ground of those types of campaigns and the 'one party, everything gets shared'.

Which actually makes the sharing spells house-rule a really silly thought on my part anyway. It'd require the assumption that the wizards in a session spent the downtime after the adventure in each other's company.

Edit: your point of colluding to trade spells is very well made btw. That hadnt occurred to me.

[Mith]

PCs can do that, but dropping out of adventuring for that long means effectively retiring. The campaign time (and gaming sessions) don't stop for any character or player.

So far I've usually been using fixed downtime between sessions for the same tier. There are some exceptions, mostly multi-session adventures, or intentionally simultaneous action by multiple parties that aren't just pick-up adventuring (ie they formed for specific goals).

In the longer run I'll have to work around characters needing extended downtime for things like stronghold building and magic research. But for now since they're not yet high level tier, and I haven't yet introduced formula for magic items, campaign time is still pretty snappy.


Fair enough. My idea really only works if the party has the time to actually invest.

[Tanarii]

I've already started mocking out two different possibilities in case the players bite when I dangle the "it's on you to do something about it" hook in front of them. That's definitely the route I want to go. It fits the sandy-boxy nature of the campaign best, and I'm already seeing some possibilities for adding new lore to the campaign. And the more I can encourage players to think in terms of putting together special task force parties for their own goals, the better. :smallbiggrin:

That's for your feedback folks!

[Kryx]

Ah, in my sleepy state I mixed my statistics with spells known and spells prepared. Let me write a better comparison:


Bards know 22 spells. They have a spell list of 125 by my count.
Clerics have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 145 by my count. They can prepare 25+10 spells
Druids have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 161 by my count. They can prepare 25+8 spells (+8 for land druid).
Paladins have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 68 by my count. They can prepare 13-15+10 spells
Rangers know 11 spells. They have a spell list of 49 by my count. (this is a joke - should mirror paladin imo)
Sorcerers know 15 spells. They have a spell list of 164 by my count.
Warlocks know 19 spells + invocations. They have a spell list of 113 by my count.
Wizards know 44 spells by default and can learn more per DM discretion. They have a spell list of 256 spells by my count. They can prepare 25+2 spells.

Wizards have the largest spells list by far, 92 higher than the next class. They have double to tripple the spell selection (known) of other arcane classes. This versatility is a feature of their class and I do not mean to diminish that feature. However they have incredibly strong class features as well (Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spells).
Wizards have always been the most powerful class since I've played D&D. Other arcane classes especially have always struggled to compete. 5e is no different. While I'm not suggesting you remove any features I'd recommend you carefully add on more versatility to an incredibly strong class chassis.

==================================================


That's mostly my outlook on it. But when more than one player complains to me about something, I like to try and think of a solution.
"DM, I want to find a Vorpal Sword plz"

I understand what you're saying, but some complaints are meant to be diminished. If you set the expectation early then there is no problem.
The options imo:

Increase the number of spells known by other Arcane classes
Limit the rat race to somewhere around <10 spells learned over a career
Start the rat race much earlier (start with less spells, but allow them to "catch them all")

Personally I'd lean toward #1 with a bit of #2. In Pathfinder Wizards learned 3+int+38 spells (~48) so that number seems fine. They could prepare 36 slots (so 36 spells). Sorcerers knew 34 spells - over double what they do now. Bards as 6th level casters knew 34 spells - significantly more than they do now. Witch was somewhat similar to a Warlock, but was prepared. It could prepare 36 spells.


Rant over: After writing this I've actually figured out the solution in my head: Spells known type classes really didn't blossom as much in 5e as they did in 3.X ass their niche has been taken over by the prepared casters as well. I think increasing the spells known for spells known type of classes would be a good solution. I'd have to work on a full solution so they have slightly more effective spells prepared than prepared classes. Possibly aimed toward ~28 spells known with some variance per class. Or maybe no variance to simplify things. Hmm.. this is a decent idea.

[Sigreid]

Ah, in my sleepy state I mixed my statistics with spells known and spells prepared. Let me write a better comparison:


Bards know 22 spells. They have a spell list of 125 by my count.
Clerics have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 145 by my count. They can prepare 25+10 spells
Druids have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 161 by my count. They can prepare 25+8 spells (+8 for land druid).
Paladins have access to all their spells. They have a spell list of 68 by my count. They can prepare 13-15+10 spells
Rangers know 11 spells. They have a spell list of 49 by my count. (this is a joke - should mirror paladin imo)
Sorcerers know 15 spells. They have a spell list of 164 by my count.
Warlocks know 19 spells + invocations. They have a spell list of 113 by my count.
Wizards know 44 spells by default and can learn more per DM discretion. They have a spell list of 256 spells by my count. They can prepare 25+2 spells.

Wizards have the largest spells list by far, 92 higher than the next class. They have double to tripple the spell selection (known) of other arcane classes. This versatility is a feature of their class and I do not mean to diminish that feature. However they have incredibly strong class features as well (Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Signature Spells).
Wizards have always been the most powerful class since I've played D&D. Other arcane classes especially have always struggled to compete. 5e is no different. While I'm not suggesting you remove any features I'd recommend you carefully add on more versatility to an incredibly strong class chassis.

==================================================


"DM, I want to find a Vorpal Sword plz"

I understand what you're saying, but some complaints are meant to be diminished. If you set the expectation early then there is no problem.
The options imo:

Increase the number of spells known by other Arcane classes
Limit the rat race to somewhere around <10 spells learned over a career
Start the rat race much earlier (start with less spells, but allow them to "catch them all")

Personally I'd lean toward #1 with a bit of #2. In Pathfinder Wizards learned 3+int+38 spells (~48) so that number seems fine. They could prepare 36 slots (so 36 spells). Sorcerers knew 34 spells - over double what they do now. Bards as 6th level casters knew 34 spells - significantly more than they do now. Witch was somewhat similar to a Warlock, but was prepared. It could prepare 36 spells.


Rant over: After writing this I've actually figured out the solution in my head: Spells known type classes really didn't blossom as much in 5e as they did in 3.X ass their niche has been taken over by the prepared casters as well. I think increasing the spells known for spells known type of classes would be a good solution. I'd have to work on a full solution so they have slightly more effective spells prepared than prepared classes. Possibly aimed toward ~28 spells known with some variance per class. Or maybe no variance to simplify things. Hmm.. this is a decent idea.

I get what you're saying, but I would counter that people will generally have their favorite spells and these will be the ones they select at level up rather than leaving them to chance. From my knot hole collecting spells, even different versions of the same spell (I seriously doubt every wizard in the multi-verse that knows fireball casts it exactly the same) is just a wizardly thing to do. Kind of like collecting cars he will likely never drive is a Jay Leno thing to do. On top of that, it's a little absurd that the party will fight wizards and never find an in tact book. There are going to be common spells that most wizards they are likely to come into contact with are going to know (shield, mage armor for example). There will be rare spells known to only a few powerful wizards (or not so powerful spells known to a few weirdos that like to use their magic differently). If the party manages to corner a wizard significantly more powerful than their own and capture his spell book, that's going to be a valuable treasure trove for the party spell casters as they will have not selected the higher level spells yet.

Acknowledging that they should be able to capture the occasional spell book will increase their potential options, but the reality is the players are going to select the spells they believe are most generally useful and only swap out their spell list when they have reason to believe they need to. Not only is that human nature, but it's better if the tricks you have on hand are ones you know well. As an example, my wizard captured animate dead from a necromancer's spell book and added it to his own. I've never prepared it and the only reason I think I would is if I knew that tomorrow's objective was to hold off an invading army, and I had a large supply of corpses no one would mind me turning into temporary shock troops on hand.

I really do think some people over think the value of spells being in the spell book.

[Kryx]

I get what you're saying, but I would counter that people will generally have their favorite spells and these will be the ones they select at level up rather than leaving them to chance. From my knot hole collecting spells, even different versions of the same spell (I seriously doubt every wizard in the multi-verse that knows fireball casts it exactly the same) is just a wizardly thing to do. Kind of like collecting cars he will likely never drive is a Jay Leno thing to do.
I acknowledge this and if you read my bit at the end I think solving the Spells Known casters is a better solution. The comparison between the Wizard as an arcane caster and the Arcane Spells Known casters was the problem. Solving that would solve the whole issue with Wizards collecting them all imo.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

So, in the games that I run, (and all the games I play a wizard in) wizard's have access to all of there spells as soon as they gain the ability to cast them. I have never seen this become overpowered or make the wizard too versatile (which is kinda their main thing, so taking it away is an ignorant thing to do), it just allows them to be the wizard they want to be.

At early levels you (or your enemies) could already have a niche build of all fire or lightning spells, or go for the CC spells, or any combination they choose. All wizards are different, and therefore more interesting to play and encounter, because you don't know what kinda heat their packing.

Also, just having the potential to cast every spell in the game does by no means say that they have the ability to at any moment they choose. (we don't talk about wish...) They will have an array that they enjoy and customize. If something needs to be done that the wizard can't do right now because he didn't prepare the right spell, I hope he has plenty of time to pop a squat and reset, otherwise the group's outta luck.

My opinion on the existence of these spells in the world is that they have existed for a long time and to say that a handful of copies is all that there is makes no sense. In addition, people also made these spells at some point, which means any wizard worth his bat guano and sulphur should be able to create them as well.

But, I grew up on video games and they are still my primary source of entertainment, so I (and my friends) expect to have my resources available to me at all times as soon as I should be able to use them. That is also the reason why in my games I use the "short rest equals long rest rules" and only have a couple, life threatening, encounters per adventuring day. To me, it's no fun to have all these awesome abilities I can barely squeeze out once per long rest.

Other side affects of viewing D&D from this perspective:
-Bypassing random encounters
-Skipping through large amounts of travel (some may call it... fast-travel)
-Leveling up faster and to higher levels
-Having a much more laissez-faire attitude towards tasks (yes you bust down the door in one punch and no check, I mean you're getting through the door, why drag this out)
-And finally, possibly the most taboo thing in D&D, revealing how wounded enemies are in the form of hit point ranges.