Wizards, spellbooks, and prepared spells

[Eko]

I think wizards should be able to cast any spell in their spellbook, so long as it is on their person. Why should that not be the case? Is it entirely overpowering?

From a flavor point of view, if I have my book on me, why should I not be able to turn to page X and cast spell Y? In combat I understand this might be difficult, but outside of combat?

If variety is the name of the wizard game, why can I not cast any spell from my book?

[Mith]

I assume that I am still limited by slots available? Because if not then you are even worst then the 3.x Wizard as you an infinite number of spells limited to the casting time of a spell and by the spells in your book.

Plus this goes against the style of play of the Wizard. The Wizard is based on planning ahead and resource management. If you want access to all spells you know all the time, play a Sorcerer, or ask your DM if you can make a Scrollbook that allows you to compactly carry aroud prepared spells.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif

[Lawful Good]

https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif

That was succinct.

Really, its to limit power. Wizards have all the tools, as long as they have preparation. This would boost them way too high as at higher levels they would have EVERY WIZARD SPELL available at a moments notice.

[Drackolus]

Ritual casting can do that a little bit.

[Lawful Good]

Ritual casting can do that a little bit.

Ehhhhhhh Ritual casting is a lot more limited.

Having the ENTIRE list open is different, especially when compared to the sorcerer or other casters with their 15.

[Spiderguy24]

Considering that a turn in game takes six seconds, I don't want to have my wizard spending that time looking through his book for a particular spell that he needs, especially if he is in combat with enemies trying to chop his head off. It's kind of hard to cast a spell with no head, unless you were a lich or something. >.>