Limiting wizards

[BigONotation]

I've now played two wizards, one to 10th level (Evoker) and one to 15th (Illusionist) and once my PCs were 9th level, they just had so much versatility that it was unfair to the other PCs who could never approach the things I could do. Compared to a sorcerer I played with, there was no comparison in power even though we were both full arcane casters. So this is what I propose: Spells that a wizard gains when they level must come from their School until no spells at the levels they can cast of their School are available. They can still scribe spells from scrolls or other spellbooks as normal. I think this would make wizards more flavorful while giving them a slight restriction that limits their incredibly powerful versatility.

What do you think?

[MrStabby]

I don't think that is really needed. Upgrading your DM and your strategic level threats to match your level of play may help.

A wizard can do pretty much anything at that level but it all takes spell slots. Allowing multiple rests means that all of the costs of "doing everything" kind of don't mean much. Compare with a sorcerer - say draconic. The sorcerer gets fewer options but can do more with each of them. When a sorcerer is reduced to cantrips or using them to save resources they are still doing OKish damage. Likewise clerics have non-spell options, warlocks get more resources at higher levels... Wizards are good but not invincible.

By level 13 or so the world shouldn't be passive waiting to be discovered by the PCs, they should be using locate person, find object and whatever to hunt them down and ambush them in their sleep. This goes quite some way to evening things out with wizards (as they can do less than other classes without spending resources, or at best equal).

I am not saying wizards are not powerful. If they were any better I would agree a response was needed. As it is, I think they are just inside OK.

[gfishfunk]

I had thought of rewriting all the spell lists to be much narrower, and yet let the Wizards always select all spells from their school. All other spells would be available in written form - acquirable for a price or found in the spell books of enemies.

[JoeJ]

I like the idea of wizards getting only spells from their school when they gain levels, but for flavor reasons rather than balance. It makes the choice of school a bit more meaningful.

[RickAllison]

I like the idea of wizards getting only spells from their school when they gain levels, but for flavor reasons rather than balance. It makes the choice of school a bit more meaningful.

The problem with the idea is that subclasses which don't have an associated school (looking at you, Bladesinger) then would need to have their spells decided. So that would add some work.

Edit: And then think about "custom" schools, pyromancers and the like who study spells based on a theme, some core belief or concept, rather than a school. A cryomancer, for example, has founded his studies not on evocation which has very few spells that really fit the core idea of "cold". For such a course of study, Hold Person or Fog Cloud (neither of which are in the same school) are much more relevant.

[CursedRhubarb]

A lot of it would really depend on how you build your Wizard. Any Wizard can be built to be super versitile, but this tends to wind up with people having the same spells learned and memorized each day everytime they play a Wizard. This can get boring.
I don't think here needs to be a rule for it but I'd encourage people playing a Wizard to try and build them around their subclass choice. This makes it so a Wizard will feel more like they specialize in one type, while still being able to cast others, they just won't have as many from other schools.

I mean, can you really can someone an Evocation Wizard if they have 4 Evocation spells and 25 from other schools?

[Falcon X]

If you WERE to limit them, I like this line of thinking.

The problem is that there are too many spells of each spell school. What's more, more spells will come out with new sourcebooks, and, if you're like me, you might homebrew a few of your own.
I might say that you have to make the first two you research be of your spell school, but not the second two, or something like that.

[Sigreid]

To me this is just an attempt to kill why you play a wizard instead of a sorcerer. Aside from that, I don't see it any different than the druid and cleric ability to pick a wide range of spells every day, except they don't even have to learn them. They get them all to pick from by default.

[RickAllison]

My advice is to ask only one question of your wizards' spell picks: Why research them? I think that is the only relevant question. Obviously anything within their chosen school has instant justification (they are an expert in that school), but why wouldn't a divination wizard who has a background of having a family killed by vampires not take the elective EVOC 117: Thaumatological Light at his college (I am being mildly facetious on the college, but some settings might actually have them)? It works even better for events that happen at the table. The necromancer (which how is such a wizard supposed to fill his choices with just necromancy?) who finds himself unable to damage or affect any lycanthropes would be a fool not to research a Fireball or control spell to help with such a situation.

[Tanarii]

How many spells did you find to scribe as opposed to learning from leveling up? Average per level gained? That makes a huge difference in wizard versatility.

[Potato_Priest]

If you limited the spells they learned when they gained levels, necromancers and illusionists would have quite a hard time.

Keep in mind that wizards learn 2 spells when they gain a level. As a compromise, you could require that ONE of these spells come from their chosen school. It would result in more tightly themed wizards, but not to the point of "I'm an illusion wizard, so I absolutely cannot assist us in any way against this enemy with truesight, apart from throwing myself in front of its deadly blows."

You could also borrow on previous editions' idea of barred schools; wizards pick a couple schools of magic that they cannot learn to cast from.

[GorogIrongut]

You could also borrow on previous editions' idea of barred schools; wizards pick a couple schools of magic that they cannot learn to cast from.

I think this is the best idea that we've had so far in this thread. It would put a limit on the wizards while simultaneously giving them heaps of defining character.

[Lombra]

The wizard in our party is a blessing from the gods, he keeps us alive while we play with the enemies. I wouldn't like to see him not phantasmal-forcing troubles away just because he's a diviner.

[MadBear]

I've now played two wizards, one to 10th level (Evoker) and one to 15th (Illusionist) and once my PCs were 9th level, they just had so much versatility that it was unfair to the other PCs who could never approach the things I could do. Compared to a sorcerer I played with, there was no comparison in power even though we were both full arcane casters. So this is what I propose: Spells that a wizard gains when they level must come from their School until no spells at the levels they can cast of their School are available. They can still scribe spells from scrolls or other spellbooks as normal. I think this would make wizards more flavorful while giving them a slight restriction that limits their incredibly powerful versatility.

What do you think?

I'd be genuinely interested in specific scenario's where you were just so vastly superior. I ask because I've played multiple wizards of various sorts, and while I always found myself useful, I never came close to always outmatching what others do, to the point that I found myself thinking "poor peasants". Furthermore, I've found that while in theory you could have a spell to solve problems in just about every scenario, it was practically impossible to have every spell that would solve each problem at any given moment.

I ask because I'd like to know if it's that you really have some sort of spell list that makes your wizards OP, or if maybe it's a DM issue, or if there's something else going on.

[RickAllison]

I'd be genuinely interested in specific scenario's where you were just so vastly superior. I ask because I've played multiple wizards of various sorts, and while I always found myself useful, I never came close to always outmatching what others do, to the point that I found myself thinking "poor peasants". Furthermore, I've found that while in theory you could have a spell to solve problems in just about every scenario, it was practically impossible to have every spell that would solve each problem at any given moment.

I ask because I'd like to know if it's that you really have some sort of spell list that makes your wizards OP, or if maybe it's a DM issue, or if there's something else going on.

His only specific example was the Sorcerer which... Well Sorcerers don't operate on the same scale as a wizard. Sorcs are about having a few spells that they can use in a variety of unique ways. Wizards are about perenially being prepared. That's like a fighter begrudging the rogue's ability to deal massive damage with one attack while then doling out his massive amounts of attacks while heavily armored. Just because they both wield pointy weapons does not mean they should function the same.

[Dalebert]

The primary class-defining feature of wizards is versatility. If you're looking for a more strictly-themed caster, bard or sorcerer is the way to go where the price you pay in versatility will be returned with other features. It seems silly to say "Wizards are too versatile" when that's exactly the point of them--to be versatile. It's like saying "Rogues are too stealthy and stabby".

Versatile characters tend to be kinda good at almost everything but not to excel that much at anything. It's just a choice you make about what you want most.