what if we reduce the prepared spells count?

[foobar1969]

I see a lot of posts that even though 5E is better balanced than 3E, the prepared-spell classes are still more flexible than (and therefore superior to) spells-known ones (except Bard, who has both the highest spells-known count and the widest spell list thanks to Magical Secrets).

Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are typically able to handle a wider range of situations than most other classes. Obvious thought: what if we reduce the number of spells that can be prepared at a time? For example, stat modifier + half level, which would mean:



Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


Prepared
3
4
4
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15



Would that swing the balance too far, and make prepared casters a bad choice?

Idea for counterbalance: prepared casters can swap spells out during a short rest. How many would make it fair? One? Two? Casting Stat Mod? Different Stat Mod?

[SharkForce]

I see a lot of posts that even though 5E is better balanced than 3E, the prepared-spell classes are still more flexible than (and therefore superior to) spells-known ones (except Bard, who has both the highest spells-known count and the widest spell list thanks to Magical Secrets).

Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are typically able to handle a wider range of situations than most other classes. Obvious thought: what if we reduce the number of spells that can be prepared at a time? For example, stat modifier + half level, which would mean:



Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


Prepared
3
4
4
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15



Would that swing the balance too far, and make prepared casters a bad choice?

Idea for counterbalance: prepared casters can swap spells out during a short rest. How many would make it fair? One? Two? Casting Stat Mod? Different Stat Mod?

so far as i'm aware, prepared casters rank very well in player satisfaction. from my perspective, you have something that works right now, and changing the stuff that works instead of the stuff that doesn't work doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

[Citan]

Well, I don't think it needs that much balance to be fair.

Wizards need DM fiat to learn many more spells but honestly, isn't that the goal of playing a Wizard? So the DM can easily keep the spell delivery good enough to keep the Wizard interested, but "bad enough" to avoid him taking too much importance.

Clerics have a very channeled kind of spell list, so about half of their prepared spells will always be "bland but efficient" buffs/healing spells. Most of their non-combat spells are niche in essence, and keep Cleric somewhat in the "diviner" role (much more than Wizard). So it's not like there would be strong competition either with other casters. Plus what happens with those spells is heavily dependent on DM fiat too.

Druids have the most versatile spelllist, but that could actually backfire too: if they want to be "reliable" for the party, they will have to resort to using the same spells most of the time. If they want to prepare different spells, they may make bad anticipation and end with spells that will be useless for the day. Particularly rituals. They do have great ritual spells for when the situation makes it relevant, such as Water Breathing or Water Walk, but it's hard to know in advance that it will be THAT useful (like, providing an unguarded access to a keep).
That is the advantage of Wizard (or any character with Ritual Caster feat mind you ;)), not having to prepare a ritual once it's in the book. As long as you manage to put it into. ^^

I could see Druids and Wizard tiptoeing a bit on each other in the 3th, 4th and 5th level spells area, but in that case, I'd argue that it's up to the Druid to change spells since it has no cost for him.
Same idea with Sorcerer and Wizard, with a nice DM Wizard should be the one to evolve, with a restrictive DM Sorcerer should be the one swapping spells to change optic (although his choice of Metamagic may make it a bit complex).

Beyond that? Put a Bard, a Cleric, a Wizard, a Warlock, I don't see how they would walk on each other's territory unless on purpose. And having a stable collection of spell known is not necessarily a bad thing in essence. It makes you more predictable for your friends (well, from a strategic point of view, to your BBEG too ^^).

[PeteNutButter]

The problem is purely sorcerer. Perhaps they should just have a once a day short rest to recover their sorcery points.

[Gignere]

The problem is purely sorcerer. Perhaps they should just have a once a day short rest to recover their sorcery points.

They really need more metamagic at least 1 at 7 and maybe get 2 at 10 instead of 1. Spell known by bloodline 5 kinda like domain spells.

[Coidzor]

I've always felt pretty stretched when it comes to the number of spells I could have prepared, so I'd just think the DM was being a jerk or paranoid if this was proposed to me out in the wild.

Whether swapping out spells at a short rest would be any kind of counterbalance depends upon the short rest paradigm at play.

If it's one where Warlocks are able to go ham basically every fight, then, maybe.

[foobar1969]

so far as i'm aware, prepared casters rank very well in player satisfaction. from my perspective, you have something that works right now, and changing the stuff that works instead of the stuff that doesn't work doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
Not a bad point, but ratings don't exist in a vacuum. If players are very satisfied, it's because these classes are perceived as better than the other options. If you fix the inter-class balance only by bumping others upward, won't that break the PC-vs-universe balance?


The problem is purely sorcerer. Perhaps they should just have a once a day short rest to recover their sorcery points.
Maybe so. And why do sorcerers get so few spells known?

But again this concerns the big picture. When all the full casters are balanced, what happens to the half casters and non-casters?

[PeteNutButter]

Not a bad point, but ratings don't exist in a vacuum. If players are very satisfied, it's because these classes are perceived as better than the other options. If you fix the inter-class balance only by bumping others upward, won't that break the PC-vs-universe balance?

IMO it's already broken. CR's past mid level aren't even remotely a challenge for an optimized party.

At any rate buffing the weaker classes just opens them up to be on level playing field. Since most tables have only 4-6 players bringing all the classes on a level field may or may not adjust the difficulty of the game. It only makes the sorcerer player better to buff the sorcerer. The monsters shouldn't be balanced around some PCs being weaker than others. The PC classes should be balanced FIRST, then the monsters off of that. Now if it does break the Player vs Universe either you went too far or that player's contributions were significantly lower than the rest of the party.


Maybe so. And why do sorcerers get so few spells known?

But again this concerns the big picture. When all the full casters are balanced, what happens to the half casters and non-casters?

Sorcerers get so few spells known due to the old paradigm of fewer spells but more of them, as a hold over from 3e. It's a fine distinction, but feels like they forget to give the sorcerer more spells in 5e. I'd suggest two things:

-Get rid of the spells known chart. A sorcerer knows as many spells as his sorcerer level + cha mod. This puts them on par with how many spells the wizard can prepare, because... obvious balance. At any given point the wizard and sorcerer have the same list of spells, but the wizard can swap his on a long rest.

-Once a day allow the sorcerer to recover his sorcery points on a short rest. This puts him ahead of the wizard on short rest spell recovery, thus restoring the paradigm of sorcerers having MORE firepower.

It's a bit of a balance by sameness, but at least it'd be balanced.

[foobar1969]

IMO it's already broken. CR's past mid level aren't even remotely a challenge for an optimized party.
If that's the case, then nerfing top-performing classes at high level would help to fix TWO problems at the same time, yes? If both class balance and monster balance are off, the obvious starting point is pulling the few most unbalanced pieces back towards the middle, not pushing dozens of other parts outward in other directions.

[DivisibleByZero]

If that's the case, then nerfing top-performing classes at high level would help to fix TWO problems at the same time, yes? If both class balance and monster balance are off, the obvious starting point is pulling the few most unbalanced pieces back towards the middle, not pushing dozens of other parts outward in other directions.

This.
People don't want to hear the truth, but the truth is that the correct answer to almost any balance issue, perceived or real, is not to buff but to nerf.

[PeteNutButter]

If that's the case, then nerfing top-performing classes at high level would help to fix TWO problems at the same time, yes? If both class balance and monster balance are off, the obvious starting point is pulling the few most unbalanced pieces back towards the middle, not pushing dozens of other parts outward in other directions.

Maybe, but it's easier to make a balanced change when buffing one class as opposed to nerfing all of the others. Nerfing a wizard's spells prepared doesn't seem like a change that would really cause much balance. It doesn't stop the fighter from murdering everything with GWM/SS. If wizards only got half level plus int mod spells prepared, you'd have 11 spells to prepare at 13th level. That's less than two per spell level. Count off the reaction spells that any wizard needs: shield, absorb elements, and counterspell, and your are left with 8 spells to cover 7 levels of spells. The result is the only spells people can afford to prepare are the staples.

In 3.Xe the wizard prepared each spell individually giving them the potential to have a vast repertoire of spells available at the cost of reduced blasting capability. Cutting down the spells prepared further would just make wizards more like sorcerers/just another blaster.

[Easy_Lee]

Buffing is better than nerfing. Can you think of a reason why these classes should have more prepared spells than the other full casters? If so, leave them alone. If not, give the others more prepared spells. None of your players will complain.

[DivisibleByZero]

Buffing is better than nerfing.

That is the general feeling. It is not, however, the truth.
When something is perceived as weaker in comparison to the most powerful option, the problem isn't that the former is weaker. The problem is that the latter is too powerful in comparison.
This is almost universally true.

The entire game, and its difficulty, is based on a certain level of balance. There are many upon many items that affect and are affected by this balance. When you increase the power of one thing perceived as too weak (in comparison to those perceived as being the best), it changes the entire equation and many other things need to be improved to compensate. When you reduce the power of something perceived as being the best, in most cases no other alteration need be made.

So like I said, people don't want to hear the truth, but the truth is that the correct answer to almost any balance issue, perceived or real, is not to buff but to nerf. When things get nerfed slightly, game balance almost never suffers. When things get buffed, game balance almost always suffers. This is very close to an universal truth about gaming, and it has extremely few exceptions.
Those few exceptions only come into play when the item which is perceived as weaker *truly is* weaker, and even then only when it is *considerably* weaker, and even then only when it is *considerably weaker* compared to the the means/average (rather than the top performer).

Buffing usually creates a slippery slope of power creep and/or reduces encounter difficulty. Nerfing almost never does the same.
It's Newton's Third Law applied to the gaming table.
If you buff what is usually incorrectly perceived as the weaker options, the reaction is that encounter difficulty suffers and needs to be adjusted to compensate. If you nerf the best performers, the reaction is that those perceived as being weaker shine more.
95% of the time, to keep balance, nerfing one thing is better than buffing a whole slew of other things.
I know that you (and many others) don't want to hear that, but that's the simple truth.

[SharkForce]

Not a bad point, but ratings don't exist in a vacuum. If players are very satisfied, it's because these classes are perceived as better than the other options. If you fix the inter-class balance only by bumping others upward, won't that break the PC-vs-universe balance?

several melee classes also rated quite well on satisfaction. i think monk and ranger were the next most unsatisfying, but fighters and barbarians are also satisfying to play for a lot of people. which matches my experience... *I* think casters are stronger at high levels, but from what i can tell, people are still enjoying their martials at high levels.

and no, satisfied does not have to mean those classes are more powerful. it can simply mean that the class advertises something, and does that thing well, which is probably the problem with rangers and monks... beastmaster rangers aren't bad in terms of power compared to other martials *if* you choose the right companion, but a lot of people really don't like the way it feels. monks i suspect a lot of people don't really understand how the class is supposed to play, they get an image in their head of, basically "fighter, except i punch people", when really it's more like a skirmisher that harasses vulnerable enemies so that your front line and back line can work together to take down the enemy front line while you keep the enemy back line busy.

edit: while i agree that often nerfing the top performers is necessary, in this case we're talking about nerfing several classes because one class is unsatisfying to play. i'm not convinced that a widespread nerf to several classes is the solution when one class appears to be the problem. that said, perhaps "buff" is not quite the right word for what needs to happen with the sorcerer; sorcerer isn't so much extremely weak as it is extremely frustrating for a lot of people. if you optimize it to its fullest extent, it works well... but if you don't have a very good understanding of what you're doing when you create your sorcerer, it's quite easy to make some decisions that are hard to fix that will make your sorcerer significantly less effective.

[PeteNutButter]

That is the general feeling. It is not, however, the truth.
When something is perceived as weaker in comparison to the most powerful option, the problem isn't that the former is weaker. The problem is that the latter is too powerful in comparison.
This is almost universally true.

The entire game, and its difficulty, is based on a certain level of balance. There are many upon many items that affect and are affected by this balance. When you increase the power of one thing perceived as too weak (in comparison to those perceived as being the best), it changes the entire equation and many other things need to be improved to compensate. When you reduce the power of something perceived as being the best, in most cases no other alteration need be made.

So like I said, people don't want to hear the truth, but the truth is that the correct answer to almost any balance issue, perceived or real, is not to buff but to nerf. When things get nerfed slightly, game balance almost never suffers. When things get buffed, game balance almost always suffers. This is very close to an universal truth about gaming, and it has extremely few exceptions.
Those few exceptions only come into play when the item which is perceived as weaker *truly is* weaker, and even then only when it is *considerably* weaker, and even then only when it is *considerably weaker* compared to the the means/average (rather than the top performer).

Buffing usually creates a slippery slope of power creep and/or reduces encounter difficulty. Nerfing almost never does the same.
It's Newton's Third Law applied to the gaming table.
If you buff what is usually incorrectly perceived as the weaker options, the reaction is that encounter difficulty suffers and needs to be adjusted to compensate. If you nerf the best performers, the reaction is that those perceived as being weaker shine more.
95% of the time, to keep balance, nerfing one thing is better than buffing a whole slew of other things.
I know that you (and many others) don't want to hear that, but that's the simple truth.

I agree with this point in concept. The reason I'm opposed to wizard nerf is it strikes at the class's core concept. The wizard is the party toolkit with a spell for every occasion. That's been his role and he fits it nicely. If we all hypothetically agreed that clerics were the most overpowered class would we take away their ability to heal? Certainly not, because it is core to the class's identity.

The wizard needs those spells prepared to stay true to his identity. The sorcerer is the one that isn't living up to what his perceived promise is.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with this point in concept. The reason I'm opposed to wizard nerf is it strikes at the class's core concept. The wizard is the party toolkit with a spell for every occasion. That's been his role and he fits it nicely. If we all hypothetically agreed that clerics were the most overpowered class would we take away their ability to heal? Certainly not, because it is core to the class's identity.

The wizard needs those spells prepared to stay true to his identity. The sorcerer is the one that isn't living up to what his perceived promise is.

I'd like to add two things to this:

Buffs to versatility without power increases (ie: +1's) have little chance of unbalancing the game
Buffs don't invalidate existing character concepts, but nerfs easily can.

When balancing an encounter, you have to assume that some caster out there will have any given spell, and make decisions accordingly. Even if every spellcaster is assumed to have every spell he can know prepared, I don't think that would or should affect the balancing of an encounter. And if it doesn't affect encounters, it shouldn't affect the game as a whole.

Thus, brining other casters' spells prepared up to the Wizard, Druid, or Bard level shouldn't break anything.

[PeteNutButter]

I'd like to add two things to this:

Buffs to versatility without power increases (ie: +1's) have little chance of unbalancing the game
Buffs don't invalidate existing character concepts, but nerfs easily can.

When balancing an encounter, you have to assume that some caster out there will have any given spell, and make decisions accordingly. Even if every spellcaster is assumed to have every spell he can know prepared, I don't think that would or should affect the balancing of an encounter. And if it doesn't affect encounters, it shouldn't affect the game as a whole.

Thus, brining other casters' spells prepared up to the Wizard, Druid, or Bard level shouldn't break anything.

Well put. +1

[Coidzor]

The problem with only ever nerfing and never considering buffing is that if Jerry is lazy, and you know that he's going to be, that means that given enough time, every option in the game will be as bad as the most garbage placeholder option that made it past the editor, if there even was one.

[T.G. Oskar]

Spell known by bloodline 5 kinda like domain spells.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

It's one of the reasons Bard is so good, and the first draft of Storm Sorcerer and Favored Soul were liked - these options gave more spells, with fluff tacked behind. Well...Bards perhaps not that much (you get to complement your spell list with several new spells, but you get near-unrestricted access to all spell lists, which is taking it too much), but the idea is sound. Some of the new Ranger archetypes also grant them free spells. That should be the paradigm for spontaneous spellcasters (though IMO the Paladin should have been spontaneous, and the Ranger prepared; the Ranger gets to ready the spells s/he needs for the trip, while the Paladin doesn't get that choice; it also ties with Charisma being the preferred choice for spontaneous spellcasters, compared to Wisdom).

Think of the Draconic Origin. The Draconic Origin is highly tied to elements, so elemental spells, as well as spells that reflect each kind of dragon, would make that sorcerous origin a bit more interesting. Storm Sorcerer with wind and lightning spells added to their list also do fine. Then, you keep working with new origins and thematic spells that add to the list. Sorcerers sacrifice some of their flexibility with spells, but do more with them than Wizards can, and those free spells allow them to choose the actually flexible spells on their list, rather than choose one that you'll regret later on.

Sure, it's not enough to properly boost the Sorcerer (though it works pretty well, for what it's worth), but it's something that neither buffs them to brokenness, nor nerfs them to uselessness. It's more of a vertical boost, though it can certainly turn horizontal (i.e. some of the free spells can actually boost the worth of a specific origin over another, but overall, it should expand the wealth of choices rather than boost the overall power of the class). Everything else, IMO, is just gravy. Though...recharging sorcery points is also a decent idea, I'd say - not to the extent of Bardic Inspiration or Ki, but a small amount like the Wizard's Arcane Recovery (either 1/day full recharge on short rest, or have Sorcerous Restoration deployed earlier and give them a better capstone. Think Sorcerous Restoration by 5th level, and an improved version like the Monk's Perfect Self by 20th level (though Perfect Self isn't exactly a glorious capstone). Sorta like the middle point between Monk (recover all Ki on short rest, recover 4 Ki on initiative when you have none) and Bard (recover all Bardic Inspiration on short rest, recover 1 use on initiative when you have none).