Giving Wizards All Wizard Spells Known

[Endarire]

Hypothetically, let's give Wizards all spells known as a standard class feature. (School specialization and opposition works as normal, meaning opposing Enchantment prevents you from casting Enchantment spells as a Wizard as normal.) Balance-wise, what changes beyond Wizards having more options and possibly more difficulty deciding what spells to prep? In the high optimization case, Wizards get better. In the typical case, Wizards get a small amount better.

Note that this proposed change only brings them in line with certain other casters like Clerics who already know all their spells, regardless of whether such classes technically have a "spells known" for certain purposes.

(To clarify, Wizards' spells per day are the same as RAW, as are their class features, and the rest of their class.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

The wizard list is a lot longer and more versatile than either the druid or cleric list.
That's a pretty big benefit just by itself, but it's also helped along by things like Spontaneous Divination and Uncanny Forethought - the full list access casters don't get to cast spontaneously from their entire list of spells known (not counting Rainbow Warsnake or Hathran/Acorn of Far Travel cheese).

They'll also have more money for gear because they don't need to spend WBL on copying spells anymore.

That and sorcerers will be even more outclassed than they already are.

[Troacctid]

I'm against it because I think the spellbook minigame is an important facet of the wizard's creative and mechanical identity. Collecting spells to copy down into an ever-expanding magical arsenal is part of what makes wizards fun and unique to play.

If you want to expand the number of spells wizards have access to, I would instead reduce the cost of copying spells and/or give more spells known on level-up.

[RatElemental]

One of the things keeping TO tippy-level crazy 20-layers-of-overpreparedness from happening at the table is that the wizard doesn't actually have all the options available to wizards. A wizard with all spells and enough information (which the full list will help with) can defeat pretty much anything except another better prepared wizard.

[Zombimode]

I have no idea what this change actually wants to achieve.

In my view it would result mostly in the following (not necessarily together):
- making Wizards more daunting and timeconsuming to play (by round about 1000000%). Clerics and Druids suffer from this already, but at least their spells are for a large part more specific, which makes choosing them for preperation easier.
- making individual wizards more same-y, which I absolutely abhore from both a gameplay and wordlbuilding perspective.
- making them more boring to play, since it removes the actually rather interssting question which spell to learn
- removes the point of at least some of the wizard spells as they are desinged under the assumption that they are NOT all known by every wizard
- removes "searching and hunting for more spells" as a character motivation
- creates a dissonance whenever any wizards researches a new spell: do all wizards, future, present AND past, suddenly gain knowledge of this spell? Or is this spell somehow treated differently then all other spells?

Wheras the positive effects of the change are:


Yeah, thats about it.

So, againg, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

[noob]

If you want all the spells that matters grab the collegiate wizard feat and with 4 spells per level you will have an hard time not getting all the truly cool spells.

[Aotrs Commander]

- creates a dissonance whenever any wizards researches a new spell: do all wizards, future, present AND past, suddenly gain knowledge of this spell? Or is this spell somehow treated differently then all other spells?

To be fair, that's already a problem that exists with new cleric/druid/ranger etc spells, so you'd handle it in the same way. Even if you are gue god just tells his clerics, "hey, dude, Cleric #2489 just had a great idea for a new prayer," that ought not to let clerics of other (or at least not aliied) gods learn it too.



Otherwise, I would tend to agree, fixed list casting for wizards seems like a bad idea, the only saving being from an administrative level (not having to have spellbooks be a thing and thus not havng to write one down, nor if the DM to have to make one up for every NPC wizard); I can see some gain in that.

But even if you DO remove spellbooks per se, I think you still need to limit the spells.



On my campaign world where I made every caster spontaneous (and went to mana points (at a rate of 1-to-1 for 1st to 3rd slots and 2-to-1 for 4th and higher)) and removed spellbooks as a physical object, I still put in limitations. Wizard still only learned a finite number of spells and clerics and the like swiped the 3.5 Erudite's idea of a limited (but fairly high) number of unique spells per day, so even if they have potential access to the entire cleric spell list spontaneously, they don't not all at once.

Said campaign world is run on day quests, infequently and the highest level party is only 8, so the opportunities to break that system are more limited; and no, I would not expect it to survive a even likely a half-serious attempt by the forums break it (but I'm also entirely not adverse to re-writing the rules is something like that happened anyway!) Point is, that system still has some limitations and it's already stretched beyond what I suspect a lot, maybe even most, of you would consider breaking point for 3.x/PF1.

[Zombimode]

To be fair, that's already a problem that exists with new cleric/druid/ranger etc spells, so you'd handle it in the same way. Even if you are gue god just tells his clerics, "hey, dude, Cleric #2489 just had a great idea for a new prayer," that ought not to let clerics of other (or at least not aliied) gods learn it too.

Sure, that is true. But "this already is a problem at some place" is not a very good argument for "lets make it even more widespread" :smallamused:
For me personally I dealt with that by having researchable divine spells simply not being a thing. In my view it doesn't fit the theme anyway so that is a very small price to pay.
Contrast with wizards and other scholary arcane casters where researching new spells absolutely does fit the themen, reinforced by all the spells named after their inventors.

Not that I ever had any player even thinking about researching a new spell anyway :smallsigh:

[AvatarVecna]

As far as balance goes, it's gonna vary from game to game honestly. Wizards have a better overall list than basically every other caster in the game, and have ways of accessing stuff outside it, but even getting access to absolutely everything they can theoretically use is only difficult from a certain point of view. Paying the borrowing/scribing costs for the ~1800 unique wizard spell in the game will probably run you ~1.2 million gp; paying the costs for scribing the ~4000 unique spells in the whole game will cost you maybe ~2.7 million gp? That's assuming you're paying for them in the normal fashion, though. If you're a Geometer abusing Boccob's Blessed Books who's using enchantment magic or spellbook theft to bypass almost all the costs would pay just 25k/50k (and a good deal of in-game time pulling off shenanigans) to get every wizard spell (or every spell period) in the game scribed into his spellbook. Or you could just Wish on a genie for a full Blessed Book - even without geometer shenanigans, that's 32.5k worth of spells and book you got there, and you "paid" for it with diplomacy checks and/or promising to make wishes on the genie's behalf so he doesn't screw you on the wishes. Or you could take Leadership and have your followers generate money while your cohort is a Collegiate Wizard/Greyhawk Method/Elven Generalist/Aerenal Arcanist just like you and you're effectively getting 20 spells per class levels scribed in your book for better than free (Blessed Book skips scribing costs, cohort and you will share spellbooks freely, and the followers are generating money so you're actually in the black). Or maybe you're an epic wizard in one of those circle-jerk games and the concept of limited resources only exists to the degree to which you allow it to exist; you could pull off any of the methods mentioned above, or you could just pay for it at an interdimensional magic mart using scads of cash, or you could bully nonoptimal 9th-lvl-capable wizard into handing over their spellbooks that have spells you didn't bother scribing for free because they were trash but you've gotta complete your collection.

From "costs multi-millions" to "costs under a million" to "costs 50k at most" to "free" to "better than free" to "meaningless expenditure of resources in my backstory". How much does this change actually change? Depends on which of those games you're playing in. I'd advise against it though - picking spells for your particular wizard to have mastered is part of what sets you apart from other wizards, the non-gp investments of increasing your spellbook's versatility is not-insignificant in some games, and gaining access to esoteric powerful spells you can't figure out yourself can be the impetus of a full-blown campaign if your DM's skilled enough. Wizard's are already like...fifth-best class in the game if played straight out of chargen with no in-universe work, and can surpass the four ahead of them by putting in efforts like those described above (others can bypass them back, but expanding wizard access can be super-easy and makes a huge difference in how the wizard ranks)...but the sentence is getting long.

Wizard's are already always hovering in the top 5 classes in the game; is making them the best by default really the fix that's needed here?

[Quertus]

What would change, balance-wise? Not much.

Under the default "WBL, magic item Walmart" assumptions, Wizards will already have "every spell that they want". What this would change is, a) they will also have every spell that they do not want; b) they will have more gold to spend on other items (commensurate with how many spells they wanted in the first place). This means that you can build your modules with even more certainty that the party Wizard will have access to the spell(s) that your module absolutely requires them have (putting one more nail in the coffin of creativity, and helping forge the rails of linear adventures and "one path" thinking).

At a more advanced level, Wizard PCs may be more common (depending on what other changes you've made), spell research will be more interesting (oooh, Quertus just researched a new spell, "Quertus' Bubbly Caffeinated Beverages" - he must have explored a new ruins/world… wait, now he developed "Quertus' Cylindrical Suction-based Beverage-Sipping Apparatus Conjuration"? He must be located on a fast-time plane), and naming your spells will more directly impact your fame.

From yet another PoV, it would either remove or greatly alter the "arcane seeker of lost knowledge" archetype - were that not already dead, I would be opposed. However, it will also remove the "destroy the spell book" minigame (the amount of effect this has on balance will vary by table, from "none" to "the biggest impact of this change") - and, in that regard, I would welcome the change.

[Kaiwen]

One of the things keeping TO tippy-level crazy 20-layers-of-overpreparedness from happening at the table is that the wizard doesn't actually have all the options available to wizards. A wizard with all spells and enough information (which the full list will help with) can defeat pretty much anything except another better prepared wizard.

I think the central thing keeping Tippy things from happening at any given table is the wizard either 1. not knowing about them or 2. for whatever reason, not wanting to become an interdimensional warlord/business mogul. Mostly that second one.

[Celestia]

In actual, practical gameplay, I don't think the difference would be that noticeable. Yes, the wizard list is huge, but not all those spells are good or useful. It's not difficult to get all the spells that actually matter, and the rest are either pointless or only usable in edge cases. Really, the biggest change I see is that without having to buy scrolls, ghd wizard will have more money for other magic items. That could be an issue, but, luckily, the amount of money players have is the easiest thing for a DM to control.

[Zaq]

What problem is this intended to solve, and why is this proposed change the best way to solve that problem?

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't understand why you would want to do this. The way Wizards learn and prepare spells is better for the game than the way Clerics do. There's not any meaningful imbalance either. What you should be doing is looking for a way to restrict Cleric's spells known without being overly harsh.

[Thurbane]

Somebody think of the trees!

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/5b/f1/f0/5bf1f052072cb3dcb17e798f87a852a2.jpg

[Gnaeus]

I think OP has it backwards. Balance wise, the higher op, the better the chance that the wizard already has every spell he needs. This mostly helps the lowest op wizard who knows 4 spells per level + that one Spellbook they found that one time.

Which would improve the game if he is a newb in a game full of veterans. If he’s next to a TWF fighter and healbot cleric this does nothing good.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think low-op Wizards are mostly the ones who are not able to consistently select good spells. I'm skeptical that if you give the guy who thinks Fireball and Magic Missile are the best spells in the game every spell, he will suddenly start preparing Stinking Cloud and Silent Image instead. After all, he had the opportunity to learn those spells, and he didn't do that. Whereas at the high end, the difference between "I have ten spells that cover most situations well" and "I have every spell in the game, and if you let me I can find the perfect one" is impactful not just on power, but logistically. No one wants Greg to page through every single spell to find the one that will solve the problem using every single divination told him he would have.

[Quertus]

I think low-op Wizards are mostly the ones who are not able to consistently select good spells. I'm skeptical that if you give the guy who thinks Fireball and Magic Missile are the best spells in the game every spell, he will suddenly start preparing Stinking Cloud and Silent Image instead. After all, he had the opportunity to learn those spells, and he didn't do that. Whereas at the high end, the difference between "I have ten spells that cover most situations well" and "I have every spell in the game, and if you let me I can find the perfect one" is impactful not just on power, but logistically. No one wants Greg to page through every single spell to find the one that will solve the problem using every single divination told him he would have.

Mostly agree (depending on how much the low-op and high-op Wizard spent on spells - which I am not convinced is guaranteed to go one way or the other) up until that last sentence. Is the alternative that the problem is unsolvable, and possibly that the campaign is over? In that case, yeah, I probably *do* want Greg to be able to solve the problem.

[HeraldOfExius]

Mostly agree (depending on how much the low-op and high-op Wizard spent on spells - which I am not convinced is guaranteed to go one way or the other) up until that last sentence. Is the alternative that the problem is unsolvable, and possibly that the campaign is over? In that case, yeah, I probably *do* want Greg to be able to solve the problem.

If Greg has to page through every wizard spell to find the one exact spell that can save the campaign, then I would question how the campaign got to the point where it can only be saved by the wizard casting one spell without actually knowing which spell it is until he sees it. A situation that can only be resolved by casting one exact and obscure spell is either so contrived that it's not likely to occur or caused by DM fiat.

What is most likely happening in this case is that Greg has multiple options that would work, but is wasting time finding the "best" one. Whatever benefit he gains from finding the one spell that gives him exactly what he wants isn't usually worth the cost of sitting at the table searching through the entire list in case he finds something "better."

[Gnaeus]

I don’t think “he will never be able to pick spells!” Is a valid argument. I’ve seen low opp clerics and druids, who know every spell, and they pick spells just fine. Generally from the PHB, but still.

I think rather, unless the wizard is a troll or an idiot, even if he thinks fireball and magic missile are the best spells, when someone says “if only we could fly over this river” or “I wish we could teleport back to town“ he’s likely to stumble onto the clue train.

And it lets him be guided without controlling his character development. “Hey Ralph Rogue would probably love to be invisible all battle” is an easier sell than “No! Don’t take Ice Storm! Take greater invisibility!” An inexperienced but willing player will experiment with spells, given the chance.

[Quertus]

I don’t think “he will never be able to pick spells!” Is a valid argument. I’ve seen low opp clerics and druids, who know every spell, and they pick spells just fine. Generally from the PHB, but still.

I think rather, unless the wizard is a troll or an idiot, even if he thinks fireball and magic missile are the best spells, when someone says “if only we could fly over this river” or “I wish we could teleport back to town“ he’s likely to stumble onto the clue train.

And it lets him be guided without controlling his character development. “Hey Ralph Rogue would probably love to be invisible all battle” is an easier sell than “No! Don’t take Ice Storm! Take greater invisibility!” An inexperienced but willing player will experiment with spells, given the chance.

Sigh. Why does the world have to be so complicated?

Yes and no, on both counts.

The first is just, "it depends on the player". There are players for which it would be a serious concern. No number of players for which it isn't a concern can invalidate that. However, afaict, that line of thought is irrelevant to questions about game balance, so I agree with you that is a non-point, just for different reasons.

Your second point is harder to explain my quibble. Basically, you are assuming a slope, where every step along the way is an improvement. What you fail to take into account is the concept of hills: it is possible that "Mr. Fireball" is at a local maximum, and every step that they take from their position is therefore downhill. Encouraging them to step off of their hill will likely simple reinforce their suboptimal behavior.

So, yes, it can work the way that you anticipate. However, it can also have the opposite effect. (And that's not even taking into account the possibility that the guy just loves fireballs, and doesn't care if they're suboptimal… or concern over the opportunity cost (measured in fireballs) in letting someone (or even the whole party) fly / turn invisible / whatever)

[NigelWalmsley]

If all you want to do is give Wizards the option to pick up some spells that their friends think are useful, you can just increase the number of spells they get for free. In my experience, people are pretty willing to listen to their friends' recommendations if they have the resources.


If Greg has to page through every wizard spell to find the one exact spell that can save the campaign, then I would question how the campaign got to the point where it can only be saved by the wizard casting one spell without actually knowing which spell it is until he sees it.

Yes. Pouring through a shelf full of splatbooks to figure out what you're doing is enormously disruptive, and should be avoided at all costs. You can certainly conceive of a challenge that would require that, but I would argue that presenting such challenges is a failure of DMing.

[Quertus]

If Greg has to page through every wizard spell to find the one exact spell that can save the campaign, then I would question how the campaign got to the point where it can only be saved by the wizard casting one spell without actually knowing which spell it is until he sees it. A situation that can only be resolved by casting one exact and obscure spell is either so contrived that it's not likely to occur or caused by DM fiat.

What is most likely happening in this case is that Greg has multiple options that would work, but is wasting time finding the "best" one. Whatever benefit he gains from finding the one spell that gives him exactly what he wants isn't usually worth the cost of sitting at the table searching through the entire list in case he finds something "better."


Yes. Pouring through a shelf full of splatbooks to figure out what you're doing is enormously disruptive, and should be avoided at all costs. You can certainly conceive of a challenge that would require that, but I would argue that presenting such challenges is a failure of DMing.

Let's say that you (for whatever reason) find yourself unexpectedly having to deal with underwater challenges. Water Breathing sure would be nice. I guess we need to go back to town so the Wizard can learn a new spell before we can advance through the dungeon.

Oh, underwater we picked up cursed objects? I guess we probably should go back to town, so the Wizard can buy a new spell, before we continue through the dungeon.

Wait, the next section of the dungeon is guarded by creatures that we really can't fight, and we already botched our diplomacy, but the Wizard doesn't have Invisibility to let us sneak past? I guess we need to go back to town so the Wizard can learn a new spell before we can advance through the dungeon.

Oh, we need to take this NPC alive, but the Wizard only has lethal combat options? I guess we probably should go back to town, so the Wizard can buy a new spell, before we continue through the dungeon.

Now, sure, it could be argued that "water / water breathing", "cursed objects / remove curse" pairings represent bad game design, and Wizards should have much more general tools, like "adapt" and "fix" rather than these very specific, "solution asking for a problem to solve" niche spells.

And, sure, it could be argued that all spells should be allowed to have an "attack to subdue" mode, just like weapons do (my group still laughs about the time I used mounted combat, and charged, with a lance… for subdual damage).

But I don't see how it reflects negatively on the GM for cool world-building with cursed underwater objects and things (like good Dragons or Angels) that are… suboptimal… if handled as combat encounters.

[noob]

Let's say that you (for whatever reason) find yourself unexpectedly having to deal with underwater challenges. Water Breathing sure would be nice. I guess we need to go back to town so the Wizard can learn a new spell before we can advance through the dungeon.

Oh, underwater we picked up cursed objects? I guess we probably should go back to town, so the Wizard can buy a new spell, before we continue through the dungeon.

Wait, the next section of the dungeon is guarded by creatures that we really can't fight, and we already botched our diplomacy, but the Wizard doesn't have Invisibility to let us sneak past? I guess we need to go back to town so the Wizard can learn a new spell before we can advance through the dungeon.

Oh, we need to take this NPC alive, but the Wizard only has lethal combat options? I guess we probably should go back to town, so the Wizard can buy a new spell, before we continue through the dungeon.

Now, sure, it could be argued that "water / water breathing", "cursed objects / remove curse" pairings represent bad game design, and Wizards should have much more general tools, like "adapt" and "fix" rather than these very specific, "solution asking for a problem to solve" niche spells.

And, sure, it could be argued that all spells should be allowed to have an "attack to subdue" mode, just like weapons do (my group still laughs about the time I used mounted combat, and charged, with a lance… for subdual damage).

But I don't see how it reflects negatively on the GM for cool world-building with cursed underwater objects and things (like good Dragons or Angels) that are… suboptimal… if handled as combat encounters.

Or maybe water should be less deadly?
Or you can use some of the worldbuilding tools such as those magical areas of water where people can breath.
Or for removing a curse you could kidnap a npc spellcaster in the dungeon?

[Elkad]

If you want all the spells that matters grab the collegiate wizard feat and with 4 spells per level you will have an hard time not getting all the truly cool spells.

Not even close. 8 spells per spell level?
Any wizard I play is going to have 20 or more per level (at least levels 1-5) if he can manage it.
Because if you can't pull out a Skull Watch or Air Breathing at need, you aren't a wizard.

Yes, a lot of the spells I want are also on the Cleric list. Don't care, he'll probably convert them into heals for the BSF or something. Which means I need my own.


Incidentally, in my latest campaign, houserule says Divine casters don't get all their spells automatically either. They have a prayer book, just like a spellbook.

[Unavenger]

It makes the wizard a little stronger and significantly less annoying to use. Notably, sha'ir can already basically do this; they just pick a list of spells to retrieve faster rather than having limited spells known in the conventional sense. Even a spell the sha'ir doesn't know takes, at most, 15 minutes, the same as a spell the wizard doesn't know but just didn't prep this morning. Sha'ir are, for the most part, lauded as being unambiguously stronger than wizards, but not by much.

I think it's a reasonable change for a newbie, and not a bad change for a more experienced player who's not trying to break anything, either.


And, sure, it could be argued that all spells should be allowed to have an "attack to subdue" mode, just like weapons do (my group still laughs about the time I used mounted combat, and charged, with a lance… for subdual damage).

Now I'm imagining someone flipping a lance 180, catching it near the pointy end, and ramming someone in the face with the handle.

[NigelWalmsley]

Let's say that you (for whatever reason) find yourself unexpectedly having to deal with underwater challenges. Water Breathing sure would be nice. I guess we need to go back to town so the Wizard can learn a new spell before we can advance through the dungeon.

You have to go back to town for the Wizard to prepare new spells in any case. There's not that much difference between "buy scroll of Water Breathing, prepare Water Breathing" and "prepare Water Breathing" in practice.


It makes the wizard a little stronger and significantly less annoying to use.

It makes the Wizard dramatically more annoying to use. Increasing the number of options the player has to look through by an order of magnitude or more is not a simplification by any reasonable standard.

[Unavenger]

You have to go back to town for the Wizard to prepare new spells in any case.

I'm sure you can protect a wizard for 15 minutes while they prep a spell.


It makes the Wizard dramatically more annoying to use. Increasing the number of options the player has to look through by an order of magnitude or more is not a simplification by any reasonable standard.

Right, because a wizard is clearly going to have to look through every D&D book ever to find that one spell that allows you to fly, or that one spell that lets you breathe water, or that strange obscure spell for opening doors. Come off it.

[Batcathat]

Right, because a wizard is clearly going to have to look through every D&D book ever to find that one spell that allows you to fly, or that one spell that lets you breathe water, or that strange obscure spell for opening doors. Come off it.

Maybe not for those particular problems but I could certainly see some players being overwhelmed by choices and either driving themselves and everyone else crazy trying to figure out the exact right spells for the moment or just saying "F*ck it" and always sticking with pretty much the same spells no matter the situation.

[Unavenger]

Maybe not for those particular problems but I could certainly see some players being overwhelmed by choices and either driving themselves and everyone else crazy trying to figure out the exact right spells for the moment or just saying "F*ck it" and always sticking with pretty much the same spells no matter the situation.

I mean, yeah, you occasionally see clerics and druids do that. But you don't see them trying to maintain separate spells known and spells prepped lists, and having to muck about with scribing when they want a new spell. The change would take it from "Class I would love to play, if only it weren't so goddamn annoying" to "Class I would actually play" which I regard as a win. *Shrug*.

[RatElemental]

I'm sure you can protect a wizard for 15 minutes while they prep a spell.

The wizard needs to spend 8 hours resting in order to unallocate their slots if they didn't leave any open, and it takes an hour to prepare a spell on the fly even if they did leave any open.

[Unavenger]

The wizard needs to spend 8 hours resting in order to unallocate their slots if they didn't leave any open, and it takes an hour to prepare a spell on the fly even if they did leave any open.

"After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state."

It doesn't take an hour to prep a spell. It takes an hour to prep every spell.

[Crake]

I mean, a wizard with access to restoration and planar binding and a lot of time can always bind a succubus, have her drain him of 2 levels, restore them to get 2 levels of chameleon, and then just use his floating bonus feat to learn every spell 1 spell level lower than his max, then repeat to get his wizard levels back, then repeat it again every two levels when he gets access to another spell level?

Either that or do the chameleon feat leap frog and get access to dual 9ths at level 12 along with access to literally all arcane and divine spells casted spontaneously via versatile spellcaster, but thats neither here nor there

[NigelWalmsley]

The number of times I've seen anyone actually use the partial preparation trick is pretty close to zero. And if this did actually get people to use it more, that's another strike against it, because you're eliminating one of the few advantages classes like the Sorcerer or the Dread Necromancer have over the Wizard -- short-term versatility. All this change does is homogenize casters around the worst of the mechanics any of the major spellcasting classes has. Implementing it makes the game worse in obvious ways.


Right, because a wizard is clearly going to have to look through every D&D book ever to find that one spell that allows you to fly, or that one spell that lets you breathe water, or that strange obscure spell for opening doors. Come off it.

What this change does is give the Wizard access to all the spells. If you're going to argue they won't actually use all the spells, you are arguing this change is pointless. If all the Wizard needs is Fly, Water Breathing, and Knock, they can already get those fairly trivially anyway.

[Unavenger]

What this change does is give the Wizard access to all the spells. If you're going to argue they won't actually use all the spells, you are arguing this change is pointless. If all the Wizard needs is Fly, Water Breathing, and Knock, they can already get those fairly trivially anyway.

I mean, I think there's a gulf between "Using the standard number of spells known a wizard gets" and "Using every spell in every book", is all. The wizard can just write down in shorthand as many spells as they're actually going to use, the same way that a cleric or druid already does and this is fine. It just takes away the thing of being like a cleric or druid, but just significantly more annoying to use.

[NigelWalmsley]

That's exactly how the Wizard works now. Except that there's a check on how many spells you can have (good, makes the class easier to use), and there's a way to get new abilities as loot (good, it gives the class a reason to care about loot). Your proposal is that we should make the Wizard worse. We should not, in fact, do that.

[Quertus]

Or maybe water should be less deadly?
Or you can use some of the worldbuilding tools such as those magical areas of water where people can breath.
Or for removing a curse you could kidnap a npc spellcaster in the dungeon?

I mean, I won't deny that that sounds like some fun water. Now I want to build a "dry fish exhibit" - ie, air that has that same property, to allow aquatic beings to live on dry land.

Still, most air doesn't have that property, just as most water isn't breathable by (most) parties. Off hand, I can't remember a single published module with "breathable water" - but I can remember plenty with the other kind.

It strains credulity when the adventure sure happens to have all the solutions that the party needs. Needing solutions to overcome these challenges is no small part of what makes the scenario realistic (versimilitudinal?) and challenging.

Yes, kidnapping an NPC caster is a very good creative solution to the problem at hand. When the party isn't that creative, or the curse is too great that they don't want to risk confronting such a caster while cursed, the party likely heads back to town.


That's exactly how the Wizard works now. Except that there's a check on how many spells you can have (good, makes the class easier to use), and there's a way to get new abilities as loot (good, it gives the class a reason to care about loot). Your proposal is that we should make the Wizard worse. We should not, in fact, do that.

Having a finite spellbook from a much larger set of choices makes the class easier for some, harder for others.

Now that we have automatic spell acquisition and magic item Walmart, I no longer care about spells found in loot.

[NigelWalmsley]

Having a finite spellbook from a much larger set of choices makes the class easier for some, harder for others.

Any mechanic would make the class easier for some and harder for others. If there are people who would benefit from not having the intermediate step of a spellbook, classes exist for them -- the Cleric, the Warmage, and the Incarnate are all examples to various degrees. Having every class use the same resource management mechanic lessens the game.

[Quertus]

Any mechanic would make the class easier for some and harder for others. If there are people who would benefit from not having the intermediate step of a spellbook, classes exist for them -- the Cleric, the Warmage, and the Incarnate are all examples to various degrees. Having every class use the same resource management mechanic lessens the game.

Any mechanic? I wouldn't go that far. But at least we're in agreement about this mechanic, then.

Your other premise, however, is quite intriguing. Obviously I am in some agreement, given that my biggest complaint about 4e was how samey the characters felt. However, I am also in some disagreement, since I don't think that 3e would be improved by having some classes use BAB, while others use THAC0.

Does this particular proposed change remove desirable variability between classes? Hmmm… I'm biased, as I believe that 3e already removed the good parts of being a Wizard (0 spells known, complete reliance on outside sources for spells, chance to fail to learn a spell even if it's discovered, high value in spell research). Having already lost all that, I'm not seeing what's left in the Wizard's "unique identity" that's worth preserving in this regard.

So, by all means, explain what this adds to the game, that isn't already covered by some other build (psion, STP Erudite sorcerer + rune staves, etc).

[NigelWalmsley]

So, by all means, explain what this adds to the game, that isn't already covered by some other build (psion, STP Erudite sorcerer + rune staves, etc).

Well, it predates all those things. Shouldn't they be the ones that have to be justified?

[rel]

Balance wise it doesn't change much and probably makes playing a wizard easier for a new player.
House rule away.

[Aotrs Commander]

Just out of idle interest... I just had a quick look at my spell lists (which are majority 3.5 (and the majority of that) at the moment), which are in Excel and so easy for a ball-park head count. Cleric spells approx 900, druid spells approx 700... Wizards spells approx 1650. At those sample sizes, I would expect the trends to be pretty much reliable for ball-park figures (I can't imagined that 3.5 source books I don't have or my homebrew spells and the stuff currently being imported from PF would skew the results vastly). So it is then, worth noting that giving wizards access to ALL wizard spells could liekly give them more spells to pick from on a daily basis than the cleric and druid lists combined.

[Powerdork]

I'd like to ask a question about the basic premise, because it matters for some few technical interactions.

Are you A) altering the mechanics of the spellbook such that a wizard's personal spellbook allows them to prepare any spell, B) giving wizards the equivalent of Spell Mastery for every spell of a level they can cast, or C) doing something else?

Are you allowing similar access to all sorcerer/wizard spells as well? (Remember that "wizard spells" are things like Mordenkainen's lucubration.)

[Asmotherion]

One of the things keeping TO tippy-level crazy 20-layers-of-overpreparedness from happening at the table is that the wizard doesn't actually have all the options available to wizards. A wizard with all spells and enough information (which the full list will help with) can defeat pretty much anything except another better prepared wizard.

Eh, scrolls are pretty affordable to buy either way. A Wizard that uses about 1/2 his WBL to purchase scrolls can be safelly assumed to have at least around 50-100 extra spells in their spellbook in excess from spells from leveling up, with a proximate average of 12 spells per spell level, more than enough for extream versatility. Unless the DM chooses to activelly impade T1 casters some way, aquiring spells functions more as an RP element rather than as a limitation.


I'd like to ask a question about the basic premise, because it matters for some few technical interactions.

Are you A) altering the mechanics of the spellbook such that a wizard's personal spellbook allows them to prepare any spell, B) giving wizards the equivalent of Spell Mastery for every spell of a level they can cast, or C) doing something else?

Are you allowing similar access to all sorcerer/wizard spells as well? (Remember that "wizard spells" are things like Mordenkainen's lucubration.)

The way I read it, OP's suggestion is more along the lines of "any Wizard's Spellbook contains the entire Sorcerer/Wizard spell-list; Resolve everything else as normal for the Wizard Class".

[Ramza00]

Is no one going to mention Tome of Ancient Lore? There are two versions, one in Complete Divine, and the most recent in the Magic Item Compendium. Regardless of which version you use, it effectively allows you to learn every arcane spell out there
1) given enough time plus material to add to your spellbook
2) the tome itself
3) 9 HD and
4) taking a feat to use this divine relic, you can take this feat at 9 HD or you can take it earlier if that makes sense for your build.

Now acquiring the divine relic may be hard for you to do, but with two more feats Craft Wondrous Item, and Sanctify Relic you can make your own.

[Thunder999]

Wizards can already achieve this, the main limitation being the time it takes (though that can largely be 'solved' with plane shift, either to just get more hours in each material plane day, or the old "time stop on a timeless plane lasts forever" trick). It's actually not too expensive provided you use blessed books and have a better way to access the spells than buying scrolls (paying 50gp per spell level to another wizard or using Boccob's relic being two simple options).

This would mostly affect lower-op games, where the wizard player may not realise he should be doing this.
It helps the guy who thinks fireball and magic missile are great out by letting him easily swap spells when he inevitably notices that they just aren't working (probably around the time the beatsticks in the party start tripling his damage output and bragging about how awesome they are in the nearest tavern).

[Endarire]

@Metool
Wizards' spells known list doesn't change. How does giving them Spell Mastery for every spell change anything?

[Ramza00]

@Metool
Wizards' spells known list doesn't change. How does giving them Spell Mastery for every spell change anything?

Mixing Pathfinder and 3.5 here but an 8th level Psychic Mage Wizard can easily have 26 INT and thus have 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 spells per day. With Uncanny Forethought he will have 8 Spells per day that he cast spontaneously as a full round action. He knows all the spells he has time to scribe due to Psychic Reformation. His spells known are all the Wizard Spells minus Enchantment and Necromancy, but he also knows all non discipline Psionic / Wilder powers thus he can easily compensate for the things he is lacking via the psionic equivalents and magic items.

This is a Tier 0 build.