Removing prepared spells?

[Ozzmal]

One thing I've considered doing in my games is removing the need to prepare spells. So, a wizard for instance, would be able to cast any spell that's in his spellbook (assuming he had the spell slots available). How badly could this inbalance the game? I assume it would make casters (especially wis-based) much more versatile, but is there anything game breaking about it?

I just hate that at most levels there are usually go-to spells, and a lot of the really niche spells never see daylight because of that.

[Sicarius Victis]

So what happens to a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin, who don't even have spells known? Do they just cast off of their entire list?

[Clone]

I think its a nice idea, but in practice would eliminate a large reason to be a wizard and completely deter people from selecting a sorcerer. Clerics and Druids at level 5 can cast any spell from a selection of 52 and 58 respectively, give or take.
When a cleric at level 5 with 16 WIS can pick from 8 spells a day vs your version who can pick from 52 spells, you can see the imbalance. Why play a bard, wizard, sorcerer, warlock or rangers and be limited when clerics, druids and paladins get their entire spell list as soon as they unlock that spell slot, and thats not even considering multiclassing!

Again I think it's a nice idea for wizards, but maybe have a spell selection of spells, such as their spellcasting mod, which they may choose from to prep spells they may not usually. Like maybe 5-10 spells which are not as often used such as speak with dead or meld into stone. That way the players get an extra two spells or three to prep which doesn't impact on their "must pick" spells while being able to use the fun spells you want to see more of in their games? Such as an expanded spell list that clerics get for their domains.

[bid]

Cleric gains loads of versatility, but they still won't get any blast spells.

If it's an issue, give the ritual caster feat to all non-Wis casters.

[TheManicMonocle]

You could make a magic item that gives extra spells, but those spells have to be the non damage kind, mayhaps?

[Corran]

One thing I've considered doing in my games is removing the need to prepare spells. So, a wizard for instance, would be able to cast any spell that's in his spellbook (assuming he had the spell slots available). How badly could this inbalance the game? I assume it would make casters (especially wis-based) much more versatile, but is there anything game breaking about it?

I just hate that at most levels there are usually go-to spells, and a lot of the really niche spells never see daylight because of that.
I am assuming you mean ''spells known'', and not prepared spells, right?
Because classes that can prepare and are not limited to known spells, do indeed have a huge amount of versatility. I mean, if I am playing a wizard, I will copy any spell I can find in my spellbook. Niche spells always manage to be used if you can change your prepared list every day. So I guess, I dont think the go-to spells for wizards/clercis/etc lessen the value of the more situational spells. And besides, making a decision about which spells you prepare is a challenge I always enjoyed.

ps: Something my group had done when playing 3e, was allowing the cleric of the group to leave empty slots on the prepare list, and fill them in during the day if needed, by taking the appropriate time to pray and prepare spells to fill those empty prepared slots.

[SharkForce]

none of the classes that would get a boost, need a boost.

it can very easily lead to major slowdown in your games as people go through their entire spell list every time their turn comes up. it's too many options to get used to easily, so it's a lot harder to get comfortable with your options. normally you only have this amount of time spent once per adventuring day, but now it can happen every single turn.

and yes, it will unbalance the classes that suddenly gain 10 to 20 times as many spells prepared. versatility is a form of power.

[Parra]

You could make a magic item that gives extra spells, but those spells have to be the non damage kind, mayhaps?

why would you limit the extra spells to non-damage spells? I mean its not like a caster is going to fill his entire prepared spell list with ONLY damaging spells. And if you did limit them then the 'bonus' spells are just all the non-damaging ones they would be taking anyway.

[Arkhios]

To prevent the wizards becoming obsolete in regards to a cleric for example, given the vast list of spells every cleric knows by default, you could add a spellbook requirement for all classes which prepare their spells, limiting the amount of known spells that way.

[Ozzmal]

To prevent the wizards becoming obsolete in regards to a cleric for example, given the vast list of spells every cleric knows by default, you could add a spellbook requirement for all classes which prepare their spells, limiting the amount of known spells that way.

I tend to help wizards along in regards to building up their spellbook, and frequently give them opportunities to add to it. That being said, that isn't a horrible idea. I don't want to make any radical changes to the game if it can be helped.

Perhaps I should rethink my approach.

My problem is that niche spells are nearly useless to most casters, because any situation in which they could help, the caster is highly unlikely to have the spell prepared. So whats the smallest change I could make to solve that problem? Perhaps adding the ritual tag a little more liberally would be a better change? I'm not sure, just chucking some ideas.

I also like the idea above of letting each caster prepare a number of "utility" spells per day, which would be any spell that would not normally be used in a combat situation. Though that could get very rules lawyery.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies, keep the ideas coming :D

[Ozzmal]

So what happens to a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin, who don't even have spells known? Do they just cast off of their entire list?

That was going to be the idea, but after thinking it through, I don't want my combats bogged down by players scrambling to find that "perfect" spell for the situation. I was mostly considering the use of spells outside of combat.

[Lucadibeppo]

I've never implemented this in a game but I've always had the idea that a wizard would be able to ritual cast any spell from the spell book. I mean the spells are all right there. Wouldn't help in combat so I don't think it would be game breaking.

Has anyone tried it out?

[DivisibleByZero]

You should be thinking of ways to make Sorcs and Rangers more versatile with their spells, not Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Paladins.
Bards don't factor, they're versatile enough as a class already.

[Khrysaes]

What about theurgic wizards? Could they then get the entire wizard and cleric lists?

[SharkForce]

I tend to help wizards along in regards to building up their spellbook, and frequently give them opportunities to add to it. That being said, that isn't a horrible idea. I don't want to make any radical changes to the game if it can be helped.

Perhaps I should rethink my approach.

My problem is that niche spells are nearly useless to most casters, because any situation in which they could help, the caster is highly unlikely to have the spell prepared. So whats the smallest change I could make to solve that problem? Perhaps adding the ritual tag a little more liberally would be a better change? I'm not sure, just chucking some ideas.

I also like the idea above of letting each caster prepare a number of "utility" spells per day, which would be any spell that would not normally be used in a combat situation. Though that could get very rules lawyery.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies, keep the ideas coming :D

could you give examples of spells that you consider useless for utility because you can't know in advance you'll need them?

i know of a few spells that are just straight-up worthless in general (find traps, for example), but for many spells it is entirely possible to get an idea you'll need them in advance so long as you actually try to find out...

[djreynolds]

You must make spells scrolls available to your wizards.

Merchants
treasure
enemy loot
hidden all over and everywhere

And players must haggle DMs for scrolls
Asking everyone if they have scrolls and look for and seek out wizards, and libraries and merchants

Honestly, be realistic. If there is a town with a good sized population then they have a wizard/casters of sorts, someone who has spell scrolls.

Maybe a rich collector who perhaps has no use of them, but for the sake of his collection

Perhaps a retired veteran has some he gained as loot, off the corpse of an enemy wizard, or sadly, even off the corpse of a friend

And any merchant is going to have spell scrolls for sale

[SharkForce]

spell scrolls are completely unnecessary. for a price that is very probably much lower than the cost of creating a scroll, in both time and money, a wizard can make a "spare spellbook" of a single spell, which they can sell access to (without risking their main spellbook) for other wizards to learn from. and that "spellbook" can be reused indefinitely.

scrolls are very expensive as a method of learning magic, and there's no particular benefit for using them in that capacity.

[djreynolds]

I love looking for spells and haggling merchants.

I do like the idea of wizards sharing spellbooks, it just never comes up that there are two in a party.

But for OOTA I had a pretty solid spell book

[Tanarii]

Definitely broken. The Clerics and Druids already have access to their entire spell list to choose from, and that makes them very powerful. You don't even need to assume Wizards will find a significant number of spell scrolls to learn from, they're plenty powerful just from the 2 free spells they learn to scribe every level. Every extra spell scroll found and scribed during campaign play is gratis.

If players aren't using certain spells, the best thing to do is examine why. Are they legitimately broken/trap spells? (True Strike, Witch Bolt after level 5). Or are you emphasizing certain things in your campaign? For example, if combat so important that they're focusing on a combat oriented spell list. Or maybe they focus on 'escape' and 'evasion' spells because they regularly face foes they can't hope to defeat in straight up combat. Or social deception spells (enchantments, illusions) because they'll be doing lots of intrigue.

If the latter, they're responding to what's in the campaign, then you have to decide if that's even a problem. Most of the time, if you're emphasizing certain things in the campaign, and players are responding by tailoring their characters certain ways, it's not a particular problem. If you have a combat oriented campaign, then PC's spell lists probably should reflect that.

[djreynolds]

I could be pulled or swayed if say an evocation wizard had access to all evocation spells, but IMO... it could be too much.

I mean theoretically, you get 2 free spells a level... (2-20) that is 38 spells plus the 6 you started with for 44.

A PC playing a wizard should be all about searching for arcane knowledge, and the side quests are great.

Players may have to earn money in town to afford a scroll, sell this or that, and that spellbook sort of belongs to the party. The whole party invests time and money and sweat and blood to fill those pages out. Include this in the game, with random spells, perhaps spells they want, and stuff you would like to see cast.

It makes for great in between sessions, adventure hooks, and fills downtime.

Can't afford the haste scroll, the rogue can try to steal it, the bard can sing for money, and the barbarian could pit-fight.

[Contrast]

I've never implemented this in a game but I've always had the idea that a wizard would be able to ritual cast any spell from the spell book. I mean the spells are all right there. Wouldn't help in combat so I don't think it would be game breaking.

Has anyone tried it out?

Not entirely sure what you mean here - if you're saying let them cast non-prepared spells as rituals, they already can.

If you mean let them cast spells without the ritual tag as rituals then you're wrong that it wouldn't help in combat. It would mean they'd basically never use a spell slot outside of combat, allowing 100% of spell slots to be saved for combat. This increases both their power in combat (more spellslots) and their power/utility out of combat (no disadvantage to constantly cast any and all vaguely useful spells so may as well do it all the time).

[SharkForce]

I love looking for spells and haggling merchants.

I do like the idea of wizards sharing spellbooks, it just never comes up that there are two in a party.

But for OOTA I had a pretty solid spell book

it doesn't have to be two wizards in a party to share spells. any wizard who wants to spell knowledge and decides to do that by selling scrolls is completely daft. if we go by the book prices, it costs 250 gold for a level 1 spell scroll. and it probably takes a week of their time at least, iirc. a wizard can make a copy of a level 1 spell in a spare spellbook for 60 gp and 1 hour of their time (and 50 gp of that is for a 100 page spellbook... if we presume a much smaller spellbook for a single spell, i could easily see getting the cost down to 10-20 gp or something like that for the book, making it 20 gp and 1 hour of invested time). and if we're talking about a scroll of remotely high level, you could be looking at *months* of crafting time, officially at least. and even if you homebrew unofficial scroll creation times and costs, it's quite unlikely that, say, a scroll of fireball will be anywhere near as fast and cheap to produce as the 80 gp, 3-hour time to create a spellbook with the spell in it (again, that's assuming full-size, you could probably cut costs somewhat with a smaller spellbook). and again, that's a one-time cost barring unusual circumstances.

[Zorku]

This seems like an indication of imbalance in the situations you present the party with. If they're always exploring dungeons then of course they never prepare spells that aren't useful for that. If they're planning a heist on a wizard tower and they actually cased the joint then the party wizard will pick up that shape water spell (well, that one's a cantrip, so if they don't know it then they prep cone of cold and something else to improvise,) that the owner of the place uses to unlock door x with an ice key, and they'll prep some of the read languages type stuff for that wall they know they need to recite unusual text to. Having a couple of adventures in a row take place in a city shakes up the spells they should prepare as well.

Your party wizard might still prepare the effective dungeon spell list when they don't know what other spells are useful in some other context, but that's a problem of only having explored dungeons for too long, so maybe just make it easy for them to watch some clear role model with an entirely different spell list.


Not entirely sure what you mean here - if you're saying let them cast non-prepared spells as rituals, they already can.

If you mean let them cast spells without the ritual tag as rituals then you're wrong that it wouldn't help in combat. It would mean they'd basically never use a spell slot outside of combat, allowing 100% of spell slots to be saved for combat. This increases both their power in combat (more spellslots) and their power/utility out of combat (no disadvantage to constantly cast any and all vaguely useful spells so may as well do it all the time).

Ritual spells take an extra 10 minutes to cast. You don't get to perform these in your typical combat.

[Contrast]

Ritual spells take an extra 10 minutes to cast. You don't get to perform these in your typical combat.

...I know, thought I made my point clear but I'll try and reiterate. The point I was making that normally when the wizard wants to cast invisibility it costs him a spell slot. If he can cast any spell he wants as a ritual and he has 10 minutes to spare (which he usually will out of combat) it won't. That means another hold person per day. Hence it is a buff both in terms of utility (less opportunity cost to casting spells out of combat) and combat (potentially more spell slots available for casting spells in combat).

Edit - And this is before he get into issues like being able to Foresight the entire party by taking an hours break at the start of the day :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

One thing I've considered doing in my games is removing the need to prepare spells. So, a wizard for instance, would be able to cast any spell that's in his spellbook (assuming he had the spell slots available). How badly could this inbalance the game? I assume it would make casters (especially wis-based) much more versatile, but is there anything game breaking about it?

I just hate that at most levels there are usually go-to spells, and a lot of the really niche spells never see daylight because of that.

Spell prep is an intentional balance limitation so, yes, that would almost certainly be imbalancing.

If you want someone to consider using some of the spells you consider niche, put situations into your game where having those spells prepared would be useful.

What spells, in particular, are you even thinking about? Glancing at the Wizard list for example, nothing jumps out as lacking utility.

[Zorku]

...I know, thought I made my point clear but I'll try and reiterate. The point I was making that normally when the wizard wants to cast invisibility it costs him a spell slot. If he can cast any spell he wants as a ritual and he has 10 minutes to spare (which he usually will out of combat) it won't. That means another hold person per day. Hence it is a buff both in terms of utility (less opportunity cost to casting spells out of combat) and combat (potentially more spell slots available for casting spells in combat).

Edit - And this is before he get into issues like being able to Foresight the entire party by taking an hours break at the start of the day :smallbiggrin:

Oh, so munchkin levels of "it says I can just do it with no real resource expenditure, so if I can swing my sword at a dude twice per round, I can spend an hour swinging a hammer at this rock a total of 1800 times without getting tired." Gotcha.