How much better are the Tasha's sorcerers really?

[Rfkannen]

I have seen folks say that there is no reason to play the old sorcerers because they are so much weaker than the new ones in tashas because the new ones have extra spells known.

However, I feel like that isn't as big a deal as it looks at first. Tasha's also introduced the fey and shadow touched feats, which add spells known to the sorcerer and are super helpful.

I feel like those feats are basically auto-picks for sorcerers (especially since they let you increase your charisma!) and they really alleviate the pressure of needing a bunch of spells known, making the new sorcerers less of a big deal.



What do you think? Are the new feats enough or do the new sorcerers really add a lot to the class the other subclasses can't?

[Trustypeaches]

10 spells known is absolutely massive and a feat that grants you two spells does NOT offset the massive difference in power.

[MaxWilson]

10 spells known is absolutely massive and a feat that grants you two spells does NOT offset the massive difference in power.

Seconded. It's a night and day difference, although Divine Soul is still competitive as an alt-cleric.

[Hellpyre]

Seconded. It's a night and day difference, although Divine Soul is still competitive as an alt-cleric.

This would be my response. Divine Soul specifically expands potential spell access by a lot, which keeps it competitive, but something like a Shadow Magic Sorcerer is devalued because the most powerful aspect of Sorc is, unsuprisingly, its casting, and directly augmenting the power of that goes much further in your average campaign than the value of other subclass abilities (even if they are stronger than a list+ subclass's abilities on direct comparison).

[Anonymouswizard]

It's not that the ten spells are so good they can't be beaten by subclasses abilities, it's that the new subclasses get the additional ten spells plus abilities that rival those of other subclasses.

Not that there aren't niche situations where the other subclasses aren't better, and as has been said Divine Soul is still decent just from the massive increase in what you can pick. But ten extra spells mitigates the Sorcerer's biggest weakness and plays to their strengths, and it doesn't require any additional investment.

[Hael]

I’d also say they have surpassed Shadow Sorcerers and maybe even Divine Souls at this point. A lot of Tashas classes are mechanically quite mediocre, but these are definitely incredibly strong no matter how you cut it.

Somewhat annoyingly as well, since I happen to not like their flavor that much.

[Helldritch40]

It will only be a matter of time for the "old" sorcerer clasdes of previous books to receive their fair share of additional spells too. In the mean time, if you are so concern, add 1 spell per level to compensate. That should so the trick.

[Kireban]

Shadow is still really strong. His cheap improved darkness is not something to look down at, and all his other feats are good. Wild magic need to free himself from the dm control over his feats. That is his main problem.
Dont look down on the 2 bonus spells from the fey and shadow touched feats. Having 4 more known spells as a sorcerer is a really big deal.

The 2 new subclasses are great, I wont try to hide it. Aberrant mind is a great cheap subclass while the Clockwork is a great expensive subclass. But both of them payed for the bonus spells by not having a defining level 1 feat.

[Luccan]

It will only be a matter of time for the "old" sorcerer clasdes of previous books to receive their fair share of additional spells too. In the mean time, if you are so concern, add 1 spell per level to compensate. That should so the trick.

Given PHB Rangers never got their own bonus spells, I doubt it. In fact, the lack of them in Tasha's, a book giving alternate class features and potential fixes to common PHB complaints, seems to pretty much guarantee the old subclasses will never get any.

[AttilatheYeon]

I feel like it depends on what you want to do with the sorc. If all you want to do is pewpew, then draconic is prob still your go to. If you want to be a generalist caster then previous subclasses would be damn near unplayable and the new subclasses finnaly gives you a chance to play a sorc.

While most players are somewhere in the middle it helps to look at the extremes to get a feel for everyones feelings on the tashas sorc subclasses.

[Helldritch40]

Given PHB Rangers never got their own bonus spells, I doubt it. In fact, the lack of them in Tasha's, a book giving alternate class features and potential fixes to common PHB complaints, seems to pretty much guarantee the old subclasses will never get any.

Already gave them the same treatment. I did not need TCoE to correct the ranger. One more kniwn spell per level was enough. Along with no concentration on hunter mark if you are single class ranger. Worked wonder.

[Luccan]

Already gave them the same treatment. I did not need TCoE to correct the ranger. One more kniwn spell per level was enough. Along with no concentration on hunter mark if you are single class ranger. Worked wonder.

Sure, but I was responding to your statement that sorcerer bonus spells for the other subclasses are coming. Based on all available evidence, they're not.

[Valmark]

Quite a lot, they are. Not only do the new subclasses get 10 additional spells known, they also get the same amount of features other subclasses get- meaning it's simply a boost.

The feats don't really help- this because it's open to everybody. And imo there is no such thing as diminishing returns when it comes to spells known/prepared.

To top it off? You aren't even locked in the subclass list. You can switch the bonus spells to the spells from X school- which I heavily dislike. Both because it doesn't make much sense to me and because it's different from any other bonus spells feature.

[BlueHydra]

Shadow is still really strong. His cheap improved darkness is not something to look down at, and all his other feats are good. Wild magic need to free himself from the dm control over his feats. That is his main problem.
Dont look down on the 2 bonus spells from the fey and shadow touched feats. Having 4 more known spells as a sorcerer is a really big deal.

The 2 new subclasses are great, I wont try to hide it. Aberrant mind is a great cheap subclass while the Clockwork is a great expensive subclass. But both of them payed for the bonus spells by not having a defining level 1 feat.

But the new subclasses can take the bonus spell feats and still have more than the old subclasses. Also you are giving up a two point ability score bonus to take the feats. It still doesn't seem fair.

[BlueHydra]

I feel like it depends on what you want to do with the sorc. If all you want to do is pewpew, then draconic is prob still your go to. If you want to be a generalist caster then previous subclasses would be damn near unplayable and the new subclasses finnaly gives you a chance to play a sorc.

While most players are somewhere in the middle it helps to look at the extremes to get a feel for everyones feelings on the tashas sorc subclasses.

Well if you want to go pew pew pew with fire or maybe ice than dragon sorcerer might be the way to go. Other damage types don't have as many spell options.

[TheUser]

The new subclasses with bonus spell lists stand head and shoulders over the ones without by virtually DOUBLING spells known from levels 1-9.

That's a staggering boost in versatility that doesn't even come at any cost; they still get features congruent with other sorcerer subclasses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big difficulty with this whole discussion is that it only considers mechanical power and completely ignores thematics. Which, to me, is a skewed way of looking at things.

Basically, the new subclasses only work for narrow concepts. Classes and subclasses are supposed to be archetypal. Not bags of pre-chosen point-buy abilities. The priority goes, for me, World --> Concept --> Class --> Subclass. I don't care if Clockwork is more powerful than Draconic--if I want to play a sorcerer of an element with ties to dragons, a Clockwork sorcerer doesn't work for me.

And judging from my players (now at 12+ groups over the last few years with widely-varying backgrounds), they feel the same way. Mechanical effectiveness, as long as it's above a floor[1] is secondary at best.

Nothing from the PHB is invalidated, unless you're one of those people who selects classes based entirely on white-room mechanical power. In which case, have fun. But please, don't sign up for one of my games. Our styles just aren't compatible at all.

[1] which all the classes and subclasses are, as they stand. Yes, even the beastmaster ranger and 4E monk. Unless you anti-optimize, of course.

[Asisreo1]

We'll have to see during play, since thats where it matters.

Honestly, the bard might be in trouble when it comes to their effectiveness and dominance out-of-combat due to this change, but again, we'll see.

[Amdy_vill]

66% more spells would not be that powerful if sorcerers had 30 or 40 spells but with only 15 it's massive. there is also the fact that they cover spells you are likely to take because of your subclass. their are only 3 types of spells,

General spells: things like counterspells fireball and shield spells almost every player should have spells that in a better system would be automatically given to you because of how important they are to the game fundamental mechanics

Subclass spells: spells required by your subclass to get used out of abilities or the synergies with your abilities

Personal spell: spells you like or your dms game style encourages. everything you want to take outside of the other to categories

these extra spells cover most of the subclass spells removing the need to pick these spells and letting you become so much more flexible. this flexibility is the most powerful thing to give a caster. this is why clerics, paladins, and wizards are so powerful.

this one buff massively changes how sorcerers are played.

[Kireban]

But the new subclasses can take the bonus spell feats and still have more than the old subclasses. Also you are giving up a two point ability score bonus to take the feats. It still doesn't seem fair.

But you also need to compare the subclass feats. Aberrant mind is really strong, but only from level 6. Before that it has nothing but some bonus spells which is ok but not wow at all. Cant be compared to shadow/draconic/wild.
After level 6? Yep he is great.
Clockwork on the other hand got the a better spell list but his level 6 feat is >.> and the level 14 is fine in sertain cases.

The new subclasses pay for the spells with a slow start or situational feats.

[Luccan]

My big difficulty with this whole discussion is that it only considers mechanical power and completely ignores thematics. Which, to me, is a skewed way of looking at things.

Basically, the new subclasses only work for narrow concepts. Classes and subclasses are supposed to be archetypal. Not bags of pre-chosen point-buy abilities. The priority goes, for me, World --> Concept --> Class --> Subclass. I don't care if Clockwork is more powerful than Draconic--if I want to play a sorcerer of an element with ties to dragons, a Clockwork sorcerer doesn't work for me.

And judging from my players (now at 12+ groups over the last few years with widely-varying backgrounds), they feel the same way. Mechanical effectiveness, as long as it's above a floor[1] is secondary at best.

Nothing from the PHB is invalidated, unless you're one of those people who selects classes based entirely on white-room mechanical power. In which case, have fun. But please, don't sign up for one of my games. Our styles just aren't compatible at all.

[1] which all the classes and subclasses are, as they stand. Yes, even the beastmaster ranger and 4E monk. Unless you anti-optimize, of course.

I don't like this argument, because it implies mechanical imbalance and inconsistency (which I think is the far worse consequence here) is only a problem for people who power-game. If I'm looking to play a Sorcerer for character reasons and haven't decided on a subclass, the new subclasses are just better at contributing. If there is another Sorcerer in the party (not common but not unheard of), I'm flat out better than they are at everything outside their niche, because I have a wider range of abilities to fall back on when called for. Choosing the "worse" subclasses can cause friction and, frankly, given the fact that this tension didn't have to exist given the purpose of the book, even people who aren't munchkins have a legitimate grievance with the imbalance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't like this argument, because it implies mechanical imbalance and inconsistency (which I think is the far worse consequence here) is only a problem for people who power-game. If I'm looking to play a Sorcerer for character reasons and haven't decided on a subclass, the new subclasses are just better at contributing. If there is another Sorcerer in the party (not common but not unheard of), I'm flat out better than they are at everything outside their niche, because I have a wider range of abilities to fall back on when called for. Choosing the "worse" subclasses can cause friction and, frankly, given the fact that this tension didn't have to exist given the purpose of the book, even people who aren't munchkins have a legitimate grievance with the imbalance.

Honestly, I've never seen the supposed great benefits of versatility that everyone preaches about actually happen in play. Sure, you shouldn't pigeon hole yourself (like only taking fire combat spells and no non combat ones), but beyond that? Not really.

And as noted above, those new sorcerers lack features that others have (basically only gaining spells for the major part of the game). Is it balanced? Meh. Is it so far out of balance as to invalidate the old ones? No. Not unless you're riding the bleeding edge of optimization and that's all you care about.

[MaxWilson]

Basically, the new subclasses only work for narrow concepts. Classes and subclasses are supposed to be archetypal.

archetype
n. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype.

Unfortunately you're playing a game where classes are based on mechanics, not archetypes. There's no mythological archetype distinguishing e.g. sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. It's a distinction invented by mechanics: one casts from spellbooks with Int, one casts from Cha on a long rest schedule and gets metamagic, and one casts from Cha on a short rest schedule and gets at-will invocations. They're about as archetype-driven as Magic: the Gathering cards.

Can you take the fluff presented and roleplay it? Sure, why not. But let's not pretend "draconic magic flows in my veins and comes out as spells!" is a genuine fantasy archetype.

[PhoenixPhyre]

archetype
n. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype.

Unfortunately you're playing a game where classes are based on mechanics, not archetypes. There's no mythological archetype distinguishing e.g. sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. It's a distinction invented by mechanics: one casts from spellbooks with Int, one casts from Cha on a long rest schedule and gets metamagic, and one casts from Cha on a short rest schedule and gets at-will invocations. They're about as archetype-driven as Magic: the Gathering cards.

Can you take the fluff presented and roleplay it? Sure, why not. But let's not pretend "draconic magic flows in my veins and comes out as spells!" is a genuine fantasy archetype.

I not only disagree, I fundamentally disagree. I have yet to have a player choose a class for purely mechanical reasons. Casting from INT? CHA? doesn't matter. I have had players (the ultra-vast majority in fact) choose classes based on the archetypes and the class fiction. And that draconic sorcerer thing? Yeah, they've said basically that, almost word for word, except seriously. Unprompted. So yeah.

Maybe consider that this forum is populated dominantly by mechanics obsessed powergamers who don't represent the main population of the game very well?

Leaning into the class fiction (what you disparagingly call "fluff", even though that's not a thing) is what separates this from a board game. What makes D&D unique. The mechanics aren't anything special. But there's a lot of "fluff" there that matters to a lot of people. Not to munchkins, sure, but as I said. You're welcome to your play style. Just not at my tables please.

Edit: and yes, there are substantial archetypal differences between "I was born with this magic and had to learn to control it" and "I learned this magic from books, the hard way" and "I made a deal to gain powers I don't fully understand." Huge ones in fact. Rooted in lots and lots of fiction.

[Dark.Revenant]

I agree in principle that there is a mechanical advantage from the added versatility. I don't think that's a problem, and it doesn't overpower the class, nor does it invalidate the old subclasses.

The problem I have with the old subclasses is that most of them don't do a consistently good job of evoking the fantasy sold to us by the rulebook's class text. Yes, if what you want is a fire breathing dragon priest with fire metaphorically dripping from his/her veins, the existing mechanics are certainly powerful enough, and your options are evocative enough to live that fantasy vicariously through your character.

It gets ugly when what you're looking for isn't part of the narrow cross-section of "thematic" and "broadly useful". Spellcasting is basically the only feature Sorcerers get; if you can't consistently use your spells on adventures, you're essentially playing a deformed maniac with a stick. A Green Draconic Sorcerer, for instance, needs to make hard choices between "I want to mechanically contribute to the party" and "I want to pursue my character fantasy" in a way that an Aberrant Mind just doesn't have to. That's why I am disappointed that WotC neglected the opportunity to make a bigger change.

[MaxWilson]

I not only disagree, I fundamentally disagree. I have yet to have a player choose a class for purely mechanical reasons. Casting from INT? CHA? doesn't matter. I have had players (the ultra-vast majority in fact) choose classes based on the archetypes and the class fiction. And that draconic sorcerer thing? Yeah, they've said basically that, almost word for word, except seriously. Unprompted. So yeah.

So... where's the disagreement then? Are you saying that a player choosing a class because he's attracted to the fluff is enough to prove that the class is an archetype? (It's not. See definition quoted above.)


Edit: and yes, there are substantial archetypal differences between "I was born with this magic and had to learn to control it" and "I learned this magic from books, the hard way" and "I made a deal to gain powers I don't fully understand." Huge ones in fact. Rooted in lots and lots of fiction.

These are all manifestations of the same archetype, which popular culture generally refers to as "wizard," as in, "You're a wizard, Harry!" In fact Harry Potter manifests all three of these patterns: he's born with magic, gains powers from Voldemort (speaking with snakes, a limited immortality), and learns more magic from books. They're not distinct archetypes at all.

[TheUser]

*Stormwind Fallacy Intensifies*

As if being concerned with game balance and role play are mutually exclusive...

Has anyone stopped to consider that part of the role play is the power?

I really don't want to derail the thread, but as a far-fetched example, the unique interpretation of Inured to Undeath and how it allows for catastrophically high hitpoint necromancers evokes the type of imagery I associate with a master of death magic; unshakeable by mundane injuries. They literally resist death better than anyone else as they greedily retain a hold of whatever life force they secure. Thematically on point (barring those sickly necromancers in ghoulish editions that propped up having lower constitution as a means to boost power as they were "closer to death" No thanks).

And yet, the levels of hit points are so mind boggling out of whack with the rest of the game's balance that a typical role play snob would be hard pressed to not reflexively turn up their nose at the idea of a level 11 Necromancer showing up to the table with 300+ hitpoints and 20 minions. Uhh...isn't power hungry, megalomaniacal, unfurl-the-secrets-of-unlimited-power-and-immortality rather on brand at this point?

And while this is a somewhat more egregious example of unbalance between wizard subclasses, I would be hard pressed to think of another that comes close to just how out of sync the new sorcerer subclasses are compared to the old. The access to multiple spell lists with virtually double the spells known in tier 1 and 2 (y'know....the tiers that see actual play...) is either a late concession on WotC's part of design foibles of the original sorcerer or a desperate attempt to sell new books (or both?).

If you want your players who bother with the "power" part of their power-fantasy to even consider old sorcerer subclasses, you as a DM should give them a similiar list of bonus spells with a 2 school substitution from Warlock/Wizard/Sorcerer lists lest you choke off their venues for strong options that suit their role play and thematic desires. Why should a player who wants to play a draconic lineage sorcerer feel like their thematic preference feels handicapped compared to the sorcerer who opted for clockwork sorcery?

[Kireban]

Why should a player who wants to play a draconic lineage sorcerer feel like their thematic preference feels handicapped compared to the sorcerer who opted for clockwork sorcery?

If you ignore the bonus spells the clockwork gets, which subclass got the better feats clockwork or draconic?

[Luccan]

People keep saying feats. Are they shortening features or are there subclass feats I'm not aware of in Tasha's?

[Kireban]

People keep saying feats. Are they shortening features or are there subclass feats I'm not aware of in Tasha's?

Short for features

[Rusvul]

If you ignore the bonus spells the clockwork gets, which subclass got the better feats clockwork or draconic?

The features really are peanuts compared to the bonus spells. Not only is double the spells known dramatically more powerful from a purely mechanical perspective than having 13+dex AC and resistance to fire damage, in my opinion it's also more thematic (look at all my cool balance magic!) and feels better (I have so many options!), although I realize that's rather subjective.

That said, Clockwork Sorcery's features are pretty alright, especially the first level one that negates advantage or disadvantage.

[MaxWilson]

The features really are peanuts compared to the bonus spells. Not only is double the spells known dramatically more powerful from a purely mechanical perspective than having 13+dex AC and resistance to fire damage, in my opinion it's also more thematic (look at all my cool balance magic!) and feels better (I have so many options!), although I realize that's rather subjective.

That said, Clockwork Sorcery's features are pretty alright, especially the first level one that negates advantage or disadvantage.

Yeah, it goes well with their access to Abjuration magic for helping someone in the party summon and/or Planar Bind demons without running into Magic Resistance issues, and of course it also works if you happen to be casting an important spell like Dominate Monster or Feeblemind at someone with Magic Resistance (although you may run into Legendary Resistance issues still).

[AttilatheYeon]

The features really are peanuts compared to the bonus spells. Not only is double the spells known dramatically more powerful from a purely mechanical perspective than having 13+dex AC and resistance to fire damage, in my opinion it's also more thematic (look at all my cool balance magic!) and feels better (I have so many options!), although I realize that's rather subjective.

That said, Clockwork Sorcery's features are pretty alright, especially the first level one that negates advantage or disadvantage.

With aberrant mind losing it's AC bump, clockwork def comes out ahead.

[Kireban]

The features really are peanuts compared to the bonus spells. Not only is double the spells known dramatically more powerful from a purely mechanical perspective than having 13+dex AC and resistance to fire damage, in my opinion it's also more thematic (look at all my cool balance magic!) and feels better (I have so many options!), although I realize that's rather subjective.

That said, Clockwork Sorcery's features are pretty alright, especially the first level one that negates advantage or disadvantage.

Draconic level 1 gets a permanent mage armor, 1 hp per lvl and some dragon talking fluff. Clockwork gets removing dis/advantage × prof times (which is ~) and bonuse spells list.

Draconic level 6 gets to add his char to the damage of related spells for free. Clockwork gets a suboptimal way to spend sp.

Draconic level 14 gets perma fly. Clockwork enters some kind of avatar state which is cute but situational and cost sp after the first time.

Level 18 is no match, clockwork take it by far. Vut good luck getting there.

So, without the bonus spells, can you really compare between them? And this is only the draconic subclass, not the heavy guns like the Shadow.

[MaxWilson]

People keep saying feats. Are they shortening features or are there subclass feats I'm not aware of in Tasha's?

Arguably 5e's "feats" (like Sharpshooter) should have been named "features" in the first place. It would be less of a misnomer than feat, which means "achievement", not "capability".

Feat (n) "An act or accomplishment of great courage, skill, or imagination; an achievement."
Arranging the treaty was a diplomatic feat.

5E "feats" aren't feats.

[Kireban]

With aberrant mind losing it's AC bump, clockwork def comes out ahead.

Clockwork got the better bonuse spells list, but the aberrant is a beast after level 6. The loose of the aberrant's ac is due to wotc's considering the bonus list as the subclass's main lvl1 feature, which leaves place only for a fluff feature.
Anyways, the clockwork's features are a little clanky while the aberrant's are working great together.

[Valmark]

Draconic level 1 gets a permanent mage armor, 1 hp per lvl and some dragon talking fluff. Clockwork gets removing dis/advantage × prof times (which is ~) and bonuse spells list.

Draconic level 6 gets to add his char to the damage of related spells for free. Clockwork gets a suboptimal way to spend sp.

Draconic level 14 gets perma fly. Clockwork enters some kind of avatar state which is cute but situational and cost sp after the first time.

Level 18 is no match, clockwork take it by far. Vut good luck getting there.

So, without the bonus spells, can you really compare between them? And this is only the draconic subclass, not the heavy guns like the Shadow.

You should probably specify that a draconic sorcerer only adds cha to one damage roll of the spell. If I throw a fireball at 5 targets one will receive 8d6+cha damage, the others 'only' 8d6.

Quite worst then what it looks like. Forgot that it only applies to cases like Scorching Ray. Ignore.

I'd still personally take the ward over the damage in most cases, but it's not quite as better as I thought.

[Rara1212]

You should probably specify that a draconic sorcerer only adds cha to one damage roll of the spell. If I throw a fireball at 5 targets one will receive 8d6+cha damage, the others 'only' 8d6.

Quite worst then what it looks like. Personally I'd take the ward over the damage in most cases.

Pretty sure you only roll 8d6 once for fireball. But it still might be as you say, and only one receives +cha etra dmg. That I'm not 100% sure about

[Valmark]

Pretty sure you only roll 8d6 once for fireball. But it still might be as you say, and only one receives +cha etra dmg. That I'm not 100% sure about

Ops, I did get confused between multi-hitting spells and multi-targeting spells, nevermind, I'll edit my previous answer >.>

[AttilatheYeon]

Pretty sure you only roll 8d6 once for fireball. But it still might be as you say, and only one receives +cha etra dmg. That I'm not 100% sure about

DM discression. That being said, i've never played with a DM that ruled that way. It's always everyone takes damage at the same time so they take the same damage.

[Valmark]

DM discression. That being said, i've never played with a DM that ruled that way. It's always everyone takes damage at the same time so they take the same damage.

There's an actual rule about it (with Fireball as an example, funny enough xD).

Of course, wether to follow the rule or not it's on the DM, but that's true for everything.

[Klorox]

Are the new sorcerers competitive with the old wizards?

[WadeWay33]

So, without the bonus spells, can you really compare between them? And this is only the draconic subclass, not the heavy guns like the Shadow.

*wild magic cries in a corner*

[AttilatheYeon]

*wild magic cries in a corner*

Only because the rest of us are afraid they'll blow us up with a fireball.

[WadeWay33]

Only because the rest of us are afraid they'll blow us up with a fireball.

True, true. I do wish Wild Magic was less reliant on DM fiat, that way it would actually be played more often.

[Klorox]

True, true. I do wish Wild Magic was less reliant on DM fiat, that way it would actually be played more often.

Agreed. I only saw a wild magic sorcerer twice, two different DMs.

First one never had anything at all happen.

Second one, the player had to remind the DM about wild magic more than a rogue asking if he could have advantage.

[AttilatheYeon]

Agreed. I only saw a wild magic sorcerer twice, two different DMs.

First one never had anything at all happen.

Second one, the player had to remind the DM about wild magic more than a rogue asking if he could have advantage.

The one i remember kept running up to my wizard and casting his spells threatening to blow up in a fireball and take my toon with him. So i just kept counterspelling him 😄

[MaxWilson]

The one i remember kept running up to my wizard and casting his spells threatening to blow up in a fireball and take my toon with him. So i just kept counterspelling him 😄

Why not just Counterspell the Fireball, if one happens?

[Willie the Duck]

If you ignore the bonus spells the clockwork gets, which subclass got the better feats clockwork or draconic?


The features really are peanuts compared to the bonus spells.

This, I think, is a fundamental thing with the sorcerers (particularly the ones in PHB* and XGtE, the UA ones being a little more varied) -- the archetypal benefits, while nice to one degree or another, do not fundamentally change the way you play them. Thus, the spells (either options available like Divine Soul, or number like the Tasha's examples) almost have to drown that out. Take Draconic as an example -- AC 13+dex and +1 hp/level are nice, but they do not turn you into a gish (or even a stand-your-ground mage, like being a mountain dwarf abjurer might). Elemental Affinity is nice, but it doesn't turn you into a cantrip-spammer in a world with Warlocks. Even Draconic resilience doesn't fundamentally change your behavior, since (although cheaper) a single sorcery point isn't cheap until about when a 1st level spell slot (how other mages deal with elemental damage) is. Compare that to, say, bards or druids, where which archetype you pick can completely change around how you play your character (in the druid's case, so much so that the one that got bonus spells is generally considered one of the lessor types).
*Wild Magic being the exception, in that it changes your behavior to 'treat ever dice roll as a potential self-own' :smalltongue:

[Kireban]

*wild magic cries in a corner*

I played wild magic sorcerer alot of times and it is a really good class, but only if you talk with the DM before choosing it and he agrees to have the DM dependent parts to just always happen.

[MrCharlie]

This, I think, is a fundamental thing with the sorcerers (particularly the ones in PHB* and XGtE, the UA ones being a little more varied) -- the archetypal benefits, while nice to one degree or another, do not fundamentally change the way you play them. Thus, the spells (either options available like Divine Soul, or number like the Tasha's examples) almost have to drown that out. Take Draconic as an example -- AC 13+dex and +1 hp/level are nice, but they do not turn you into a gish (or even a stand-your-ground mage, like being a mountain dwarf abjurer might). Elemental Affinity is nice, but it doesn't turn you into a cantrip-spammer in a world with Warlocks. Even Draconic resilience doesn't fundamentally change your behavior, since (although cheaper) a single sorcery point isn't cheap until about when a 1st level spell slot (how other mages deal with elemental damage) is. Compare that to, say, bards or druids, where which archetype you pick can completely change around how you play your character (in the druid's case, so much so that the one that got bonus spells is generally considered one of the lessor types).
*Wild Magic being the exception, in that it changes your behavior to 'treat ever dice roll as a potential self-own' :smalltongue:
I think this hits the nail on the head-Sorcerer archetypes simply aren't, well, impactful enough to hold their own. You more or less customize by choosing the metamagic you know, with the archetypes generally just giving you a bit of oomph in that field if they synergize. The actual archetype, even for something like Shadow, just gives you a couple more tricks that eat sorcery points. Divine soul is the only one that changes the game, and that's because you can get clever with new metamagic combinations and turn game balance into a bad joke.

It's part of what makes comparisons between the sorcerer and other casters so inevitable-because 90% of what you do is defined by spellcasting, you don't have any other tricks of core class modifications to fall on. Wizards get the same comparison, but because their archetypes tend to add a lot in a highly specialized way, they get the better end of the deal-and the ones that don't (conjuration to a degree, transmutation to a greater one) just don't see much play. The archetypes of Clerics, Druids, Bards, etc. fundamentally change how you play that class, giving you proficiencies, spells, or class features which change your capabilities.

Sorcerer's just give you more of the same.

This is also, by the by, true of a lot of classes though-Paladin and Barbarian archetype options just tend to specialize your Barbarian or Paladin, they don't change the way you play one. This tends to work out when the class theme is tight to begin with and fully capable in its own way. It's part of why I think some classes should actually be archetypical modifications of each other, but that's another day's discussion.

[Corran]

Honestly, I've never seen the supposed great benefits of versatility that everyone preaches about actually happen in play. Sure, you shouldn't pigeon hole yourself (like only taking fire combat spells and no non combat ones), but beyond that? Not really.

And as noted above, those new sorcerers lack features that others have (basically only gaining spells for the major part of the game). Is it balanced? Meh. Is it so far out of balance as to invalidate the old ones? No. Not unless you're riding the bleeding edge of optimization and that's all you care about.
It's important to think that the theme that you like is well supported. Say I like the idea of a draconic themed sorcerer better than the idea of a hypothetical timelord sorcerer. If the game is giving the draconic themed sorcerer the ability to talk to dragons, while it's giving to the timelord sorcerer the ability to travel back in time, there is a problem. Because now I am thinking that the game is supporting very poorly my favorite theme, to the point that it may not even be worth playing. And you know what, I may end up giving the timelord sorcerer a try, after which it's very likely that my perspective will have changed, and I'll be like ''who cares about dragons, manipulating time is far more interesting!''.

Of course, the above is clearly an exaggeration, since it describes a vast difference in power. A few bonus spells may or may not be a big difference in power, but it's certainly affecting how well you can support your concept. So let's make it realistic, and say I want to play a draconic sorcerer because I like green dragons (which I actually do). So I am looking for spells that will help me showcase my character's (green) draconic ancestry. So stuff like dragon's breath, stinking cloud, fly and fear. Green dragons are also schemers, and I happen to like subtle spell too (which is convenient), so again I am probably looking at spells like disguise self, suggestion and detect thoughts. I've also played the game enough to know that some spells are always worth considering, if not worth taking, so I'm definitely looking at spells like shield, absorb elements, misty step and counterspell. Lastly, I am probably looking at a few spells that I generally like having on my characters, so let's say feather fall and invisibility made the cut after thinking a bit harder on this. Now, I purposely limited my choices up to level 3 spells. And I didn't even mention a second metamagic option (which might ask of me to think of more spells that would enable it), but let's say that my second metamagic option is careful, which plays nicely with fear (which is close to the top of my listed options, since it's the only thing I've got that can imitate a green dragon's frightful presence). So let's say we start at level 6, which is certainly more convenient than having to start at level 1. I've got 7 known spells at that point. And I've listed 13 spells already. Without even going hard on optimization (ok, maybe I could drop something like absorb elements and counterspell and go down to 11 spells competing for 7 slots). There are some really tough choices ahead of me, and while facing hard choices is not necessarily unpleasant, I think it is when I am struggling to even fit thematic picks along with the bare basic combat options and perhaps just one or two more spells that I generally like. A few extra spells would go a long way into helping enjoy green dragon sorcerers more, especially if I have already played one. Think how better it would be if I had bonus spells related to my theme already. That would allow me some room with which I could experiment, and make every green draconic sorcerer feel a little different to the previous one, instead of a copy paste. And when you see other themes of the same class get that option, you start thinking why the theme you enjoy the most has to be the one that is a headache to make and the one that gets boring faster the more times you use it. So you may start wondering, if it is time to get used to liking something else instead.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I've never seen the supposed great benefits of versatility that everyone preaches about actually happen in play. Sure, you shouldn't pigeon hole yourself (like only taking fire combat spells and no non combat ones), but beyond that? Not really.

Interesting. May be a playstyle difference. Perhaps the things that versatility lets you do are simply things you're not interested in doing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Interesting. May be a playstyle difference. Perhaps the things that versatility lets you do are simply things you're not interested in doing.

I'm a DM 99.9999% of the time. From my players (most of whom, I'll admit, are fairly new), I see very little difference between prepared and learned casters--those prepared lists rarely if ever change. At most it's "ok, we're going underwater this next session, so swap for water breathing". And as long as one person can do that...So they tend to have their 3-5 "pet spells".

They also tend to be pretty straightforward in their mechanical approaches. Roleplaying and in-character approaches...those are varied and variable. But they're generally doing the same things (casting the same spells, etc.) session after session. I've had people try to apply limited spells in ways that are beyond the text, but I've rarely, if ever, had people actually use the spells written for most of the niche cases.

Honestly, I've seen more out-of-the-box thinking from the non-casters in my campaigns. Casters tend to pick their three or four favorite spells and use those everywhere. Even places they're bad fits. Non-casters actually have to figure out what they can do beyond the buttons on their character sheet. Which is something I encourage.

And I'm not running pure-combat games or railroads either. My guess is that since I run variable-encounter days and give wider latitude for ability checks than spells (I'm pretty strict about sticking spells to their text, while I'm much less so about other abilities), they prefer to use ability checks rather than use slots on the niche spells. And since I strongly favor acting based on the world and trying things that play off each other instead of always looking for a one-spell "win button".

[MoiMagnus]

From my players (most of whom, I'll admit, are fairly new), I see very little difference between prepared and learned casters--those prepared lists rarely if ever change. At most it's "ok, we're going underwater this next session, so swap for water breathing". And as long as one person can do that...So they tend to have their 3-5 "pet spells".

Pretty much the same. I'm almost certain the cleric in the campaign I've DMed only switched spells at level up. Maybe few exceptions of "we have a week off, so I change my spells at long rest, cast this spell I exceptionally need, and then change back to my usual list at the next long rest" (and to be fair, they could probably have bought a scroll or paid a NPC instead, so that was more a way to spare money than some actual versatility).

The peoples I play with tend to see spells as "part of a build". They will take a spell because "that's the thing I want for my build", or "that's the kind of spells my character like".

[Klorox]

I'm a DM 99.9999% of the time. From my players (most of whom, I'll admit, are fairly new), I see very little difference between prepared and learned casters--those prepared lists rarely if ever change. At most it's "ok, we're going underwater this next session, so swap for water breathing". And as long as one person can do that...So they tend to have their 3-5 "pet spells".

If you're talking wizard vs. sorcerer, it's more the ritual spells that really make the wizard shine.

[Asisreo1]

If you're talking wizard vs. sorcerer, it's more the ritual spells that really make the wizard shine.
Ritual spells kinda suck. They either require material components that the DM has to provide, or there usefulness is generally too specific to be actually useful.

The reason wizards feel like its so good is because they have such an abundance of them that their narrow usage is somewhat offset. But even then, it comes at a great opportunity cost.

Having, say, 4 rituals at level 8 means you only have 4 actually powerful 1st-level spells available to you. Even worse, as a wizard, you can't swap out spells in your book, only add 2 more. If you want to double back on a key 1st-level spell, you'll have to trade one of your 2 2nd-level spells at level up. Meaning at level 3, you have 9 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell. 4 of these being rituals.

In contrast, sorcerers have access to more cantrips, which seem worse but are actually quite better. Minor illusion and Prestidigation comes to mind. You instantly have access to these roleplay-altering effects while also having two more spells (maybe firebolt and mage hand like the wizard). These spells are completely free and incredibly more versatile than even some of the higher-level rituals.

Even better, these effects are susceptible to metamagic. This means you can easily cast subtle Minor Illusion and the effect seems to just appear. A distant Message gives you 240ft of communication.

Cantrips, and their enhancements, are one of the biggest points of a sorcerer and allows them to stretch their usefulness quite far.

[MaxWilson]

I'm a DM 99.9999% of the time. From my players (most of whom, I'll admit, are fairly new), I see very little difference between prepared and learned casters--those prepared lists rarely if ever change. At most it's "ok, we're going underwater this next session, so swap for water breathing". And as long as one person can do that...So they tend to have their 3-5 "pet spells".

They also tend to be pretty straightforward in their mechanical approaches. Roleplaying and in-character approaches...those are varied and variable. But they're generally doing the same things (casting the same spells, etc.) session after session. I've had people try to apply limited spells in ways that are beyond the text, but I've rarely, if ever, had people actually use the spells written for most of the niche cases.

Well there you go. You don't see any benefit from versatility because your players don't take advantage of versatility. Do they make plans based on reconnaissance or just charge in and start reacting to things? Versatility is a tool for proactive planners (the kind of players who are attracted to hiring mercenaries and casting Glyph of Warding (Raise Dead) and Transport Via Plants). It requires a willingness to engage with the game world in your head, as well as through the DM.

It doesn't do much for newbies who are just reacting to whatever the DM puts in front of them, although even then it still has niche uses (e.g. swapping in Greater Restoration when someone gets petrified). In their defense though it also requires DM buyin to make the world predictable enough for planning to be useful--DMs who hate committing to ideas in advance (like the difficulty of climbing an average oak tree) are not likely to support this playstyle.

It's related to CAS vs. CAW but not quite the same thing.



Even better, these effects are susceptible to metamagic. This means you can easily cast subtle Minor Illusion and the effect seems to just appear.

Subtle Minor Illusion still has a material component (fleece) that you need to supply with a free hand while casting it. Someone might notice that.

[MrCharlie]

I'm a DM 99.9999% of the time. From my players (most of whom, I'll admit, are fairly new), I see very little difference between prepared and learned casters--those prepared lists rarely if ever change. At most it's "ok, we're going underwater this next session, so swap for water breathing". And as long as one person can do that...So they tend to have their 3-5 "pet spells".

They also tend to be pretty straightforward in their mechanical approaches. Roleplaying and in-character approaches...those are varied and variable. But they're generally doing the same things (casting the same spells, etc.) session after session. I've had people try to apply limited spells in ways that are beyond the text, but I've rarely, if ever, had people actually use the spells written for most of the niche cases.

Honestly, I've seen more out-of-the-box thinking from the non-casters in my campaigns. Casters tend to pick their three or four favorite spells and use those everywhere. Even places they're bad fits. Non-casters actually have to figure out what they can do beyond the buttons on their character sheet. Which is something I encourage.

And I'm not running pure-combat games or railroads either. My guess is that since I run variable-encounter days and give wider latitude for ability checks than spells (I'm pretty strict about sticking spells to their text, while I'm much less so about other abilities), they prefer to use ability checks rather than use slots on the niche spells. And since I strongly favor acting based on the world and trying things that play off each other instead of always looking for a one-spell "win button".
Well, that's partially an effect of certain spells just being better. Why cast lightning bolt when fireball is almost always a better template? Maybe you know you need lightning damage, but when spells known are so limited why bother? There is a lot of dead weight on lists that experienced players simply avoid.

But speaking as someone who plays a wizard quite often, I usually have a wiggle room of 4 to 5 spells which I can swap around on a semi-regular basis, and I tend to switch between thing such as illusions, the fabricate spell, divinations, teleports, etc. depending on my mood. Even then there are only a few worth using-major illusion, fabricate, arcane eye, scatter, dimension door...It's a short list of utility in practice. But as a sorcerer, I have at most one or two of these.

When I play a cleric or druid, it's even more varied. I've loaded up tidal wave and sprung it on a roc before to my DM's astonishment, and pretty much humiliated a CR five levels above above what we should have been able to punch at. There are a few spells you always load, like cure spells/healing word, simply so players don't die stupidly, but there are a lot of different choices and most have situations where they are better or worse. It's hard to actually predict when you need individual spells, outside of certain extremes, but that's what makes casters high risk high reward, in part.


Ritual spells kinda suck. They either require material components that the DM has to provide, or there usefulness is generally too specific to be actually useful.

The reason wizards feel like its so good is because they have such an abundance of them that their narrow usage is somewhat offset. But even then, it comes at a great opportunity cost.

Having, say, 4 rituals at level 8 means you only have 4 actually powerful 1st-level spells available to you. Even worse, as a wizard, you can't swap out spells in your book, only add 2 more. If you want to double back on a key 1st-level spell, you'll have to trade one of your 2 2nd-level spells at level up. Meaning at level 3, you have 9 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell. 4 of these being rituals.

In contrast, sorcerers have access to more cantrips, which seem worse but are actually quite better. Minor illusion and Prestidigation comes to mind. You instantly have access to these roleplay-altering effects while also having two more spells (maybe firebolt and mage hand like the wizard). These spells are completely free and incredibly more versatile than even some of the higher-level rituals.

Even better, these effects are susceptible to metamagic. This means you can easily cast subtle Minor Illusion and the effect seems to just appear. A distant Message gives you 240ft of communication.

Cantrips, and their enhancements, are one of the biggest points of a sorcerer and allows them to stretch their usefulness quite far.
I don't get this entire post in any capacity, sorry.

For one, ritual spells are often crazy good. Find familiar by itself is honestly worth it by itself. Identify is arguable necessary to handle some traps or magic items properly (If I find a magic deck of cards, I damn well better know if its a deck of many things or a deck of illusions before I start mucking with it, sometimes before I even attune to it). Water breathing is almost necessary in some campaigns. Comprehend languages and gentle repose can both solve serious roleplaying issues that are hard to deal with otherwise. Leomund's Tiny Hut simplifies sleeping tremendously.

Yes, there are some stinkers, like illusory script, magic mouth, skywrite, that are situational. But a half dozen other spells are incredibly useful, either game-changers in their niche or actually generally powerful.

Cantrips are great, yeah, but many aren't reliably good. Few are worth ever spending a sorcery point on. The range where message works with distant spell versus non-distant spell is limited, and if it doesn't work you've taken something you can use all the time and wasted a resource on it. Meanwhile I can send my raven familiar to peck my friends eyes out across the city, if I really need to.

And, at the end of the day, cantrips are relatively easy to get access to. Feats, races, multi-classing....The same is true of ritual spellcasting, except you need a moderate WIS or INT, and attributes are harder. End result is that I see more wizards with tons of cantrips than I see sorcerers with rituals, and I tend to see wizards use rituals much more effectively than sorcerers use their cantrips.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pretty much the same. I'm almost certain the cleric in the campaign I've DMed only switched spells at level up. Maybe few exceptions of "we have a week off, so I change my spells at long rest, cast this spell I exceptionally need, and then change back to my usual list at the next long rest" (and to be fair, they could probably have bought a scroll or paid a NPC instead, so that was more a way to spare money than some actual versatility).

The peoples I play with tend to see spells as "part of a build". They will take a spell because "that's the thing I want for my build", or "that's the kind of spells my character like".

Yeah. I see the whole versatility thing as being both a relic of prior editions (where you had a whole lot more spells and many spells were more open-ended) and as a white-room, schrodinger's wizard scenario. Where you know exactly what you're up against and have the whole library to pull from. Maybe if you have wizards who routinely find scrolls and spell books and have the time and money to scribe them between sessions. But even then, there are just a whole lot of niche spells. Ones where they could be useful...but you'll never prepare them under normal circumstances because they're so niche.


If you're talking wizard vs. sorcerer, it's more the ritual spells that really make the wizard shine.

Rituals are
* time-consuming
* low level
* and mostly pretty niche.

I've have lots of people cast detect magic as a ritual. The warlock invocation for at-will detect magic is one that's really common for people in my campaigns to take. Other than that? Yeah. Not really. Even find familiar, for all it's talked up, doesn't get used that much. And only very rarely used for anything but scouting and long-range messaging. Because my players get attached to their pets[1] and don't like to put them in harms' way, even if they could resummon it later. It's a consistent quirk I've noticed--most people I've played with are pretty squeamish about sending familiars, pets, or other party NPCs into combat. None of the forum-famililar "disposable trap-finders" or "infinite advantage sources" uses.

[1] And they have pets. Oooh boy do they have pets. That's a running theme. Every group has had at least one person whose basic reaction to meeting any new creature is "can I tame it?" I've got a (halfling) paladin currently riding a mastiff that wants to find a blink dog as a mount. And is trying to tame the uber-powerful archfey they just met. And wanted to tame the dire wolf. When they go underwater, I'm guessing he'll want to tame the various creatures there.

I had a party whose first reaction (almost universally) to meeting a froghemoth was "I want one as a mount. Can we tame it?". /digression

[Klorox]

Ritual spells kinda suck. They either require material components that the DM has to provide, or there usefulness is generally too specific to be actually useful.

The reason wizards feel like its so good is because they have such an abundance of them that their narrow usage is somewhat offset. But even then, it comes at a great opportunity cost.

Having, say, 4 rituals at level 8 means you only have 4 actually powerful 1st-level spells available to you. Even worse, as a wizard, you can't swap out spells in your book, only add 2 more. If you want to double back on a key 1st-level spell, you'll have to trade one of your 2 2nd-level spells at level up. Meaning at level 3, you have 9 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell. 4 of these being rituals.

In contrast, sorcerers have access to more cantrips, which seem worse but are actually quite better. Minor illusion and Prestidigation comes to mind. You instantly have access to these roleplay-altering effects while also having two more spells (maybe firebolt and mage hand like the wizard). These spells are completely free and incredibly more versatile than even some of the higher-level rituals.

Even better, these effects are susceptible to metamagic. This means you can easily cast subtle Minor Illusion and the effect seems to just appear. A distant Message gives you 240ft of communication.

Cantrips, and their enhancements, are one of the biggest points of a sorcerer and allows them to stretch their usefulness quite far.

I'm very confused by this. How can the ability to add an unlimited number of spells to your book be considered a detriment?

Rituals help, and they can help a lot.

[ZRN]

Yeah. I see the whole versatility thing as being both a relic of prior editions (where you had a whole lot more spells and many spells were more open-ended) and as a white-room, schrodinger's wizard scenario. Where you know exactly what you're up against and have the whole library to pull from. Maybe if you have wizards who routinely find scrolls and spell books and have the time and money to scribe them between sessions. But even then, there are just a whole lot of niche spells. Ones where they could be useful...but you'll never prepare them under normal circumstances because they're so niche.


Yeah, I suggested in another thread that the reason PHB sorcerers had so few spells known wasn't to limit their power per se, but simply because it gets taxing for some players to remember more than a dozen spell options at a time - which is why prepared casters have the Ability Mod + half level limit and known casters top out at about the same number.

I think it's fairly likely that a blaster sorcerer would, on average, be more effective with the draconic subclass (add his Int mod to damage and get some extra HP and AC) than with either of the two new subclasses, or even with a hypothetical nuker subclass that let him grab an extra two evocation spells per spell level.

[Valmark]

Yeah, I suggested in another thread that the reason PHB sorcerers had so few spells known wasn't to limit their power per se, but simply because it gets taxing for some players to remember more than a dozen spell options at a time - which is why prepared casters have the Ability Mod + half level limit and known casters top out at about the same number.

I think it's fairly likely that a blaster sorcerer would, on average, be more effective with the draconic subclass (add his Int mod to damage and get some extra HP and AC) than with either of the two new subclasses, or even with a hypothetical nuker subclass that let him grab an extra two evocation spells per spell level.

That's half-casters, not full- wizards, clerics and druids add their full level. It's with the new subclasses that sorcerers top out at the same number of spells.

[MrCharlie]

Rituals are
* time-consuming
* low level
* and mostly pretty niche.

I've have lots of people cast detect magic as a ritual. The warlock invocation for at-will detect magic is one that's really common for people in my campaigns to take. Other than that? Yeah. Not really. Even find familiar, for all it's talked up, doesn't get used that much. And only very rarely used for anything but scouting and long-range messaging. Because my players get attached to their pets[1] and don't like to put them in harms' way, even if they could resummon it later. It's a consistent quirk I've noticed--most people I've played with are pretty squeamish about sending familiars, pets, or other party NPCs into combat. None of the forum-famililar "disposable trap-finders" or "infinite advantage sources" uses.

[1] And they have pets. Oooh boy do they have pets. That's a running theme. Every group has had at least one person whose basic reaction to meeting any new creature is "can I tame it?" I've got a (halfling) paladin currently riding a mastiff that wants to find a blink dog as a mount. And is trying to tame the uber-powerful archfey they just met. And wanted to tame the dire wolf. When they go underwater, I'm guessing he'll want to tame the various creatures there.

I had a party whose first reaction (almost universally) to meeting a froghemoth was "I want one as a mount. Can we tame it?". /digression
I mean, the difference is you can't generally talk to your pets. How can you get past that? Speak with animals or find familiar, which are-ding ding!-both rituals. Also, your pets generally can't do terribly much in combat, while a familiar can be treated like ablative distraction armor if you need to-it's not a real animal. Yeah, people don't use the spells optimally, but I've seen sorcerers with detect magic as a spell known-people make mistakes with all classes.

And while sure, some rituals are very limited, some change the game in their limited realm or aren't. Find familiar is obvious, but you're discounting it for no great reason here. Detect magic is huge-and is a warlock is spending one of his extremely limited invocations on that, he's frankly making a mistake.

(Yeah, yeah, I know calling a spell choice a mistake is a bit elitist, but when you have so few invocations/spells known using them to replicate an effect another player can do is just...not worth the time, honestly).

And some rituals, in their niche, just immediately undercut entire plotlines. Jim-Bob is gonna rise as a vampire, but if we destroy his body we can't raise him? Gentle repose, let's just put this plotline on hold. This trap appears to flood the dungeon in water, drowning all intruders? Water breathing, pity the fool who made the trap. We need information? Divination, augury, contact other plane...Just for that, rituals are helluve powerful.

Maybe if the tasks the players accomplish are quick, timed, brutal, and simple, rituals are unusable and rarely come up. But more complicated problems and goals encourage spells like that.

[Asisreo1]

I'm very confused by this. How can the ability to add an unlimited number of spells to your book be considered a detriment?

Rituals help, and they can help a lot.
Its not an unlimited number of spells. It is 44 spells over the course of your entire career as a wizard. Any more spells are coincidental spells given by the DM. This is your effective class list as a prepared caster, which is much smaller than other prepared casters.

Even still, if they're a spell scroll that isn't on the wizard's list, no dice. So even randomly generated loot may not be so kind.

Rituals are helpful and can help alot. A ritual cannot. The more rituals you can take, the less likely you are not to have a particular one for your scenario. However, the more rituals you take, as I mentioned before, the less of other spells you'll have the benefit of having.

[MaxWilson]

Its not an unlimited number of spells. It is 44 spells over the course of your entire career as a wizard. Any more spells are coincidental spells given by the DM.

Or products of spell research (DM support needed to create rules for spell research, since 5E oddly lacks them), or trading with NPCs or other PCs. You're not completely at the mercy of coincidence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, the difference is you can't generally talk to your pets. How can you get past that? Speak with animals or find familiar, which are-ding ding!-both rituals. Also, your pets generally can't do terribly much in combat, while a familiar can be treated like ablative distraction armor if you need to-it's not a real animal. Yeah, people don't use the spells optimally, but I've seen sorcerers with detect magic as a spell known-people make mistakes with all classes.

And while sure, some rituals are very limited, some change the game in their limited realm or aren't. Find familiar is obvious, but you're discounting it for no great reason here. Detect magic is huge-and is a warlock is spending one of his extremely limited invocations on that, he's frankly making a mistake.

(Yeah, yeah, I know calling a spell choice a mistake is a bit elitist, but when you have so few invocations/spells known using them to replicate an effect another player can do is just...not worth the time, honestly).

And some rituals, in their niche, just immediately undercut entire plotlines. Jim-Bob is gonna rise as a vampire, but if we destroy his body we can't raise him? Gentle repose, let's just put this plotline on hold. This trap appears to flood the dungeon in water, drowning all intruders? Water breathing, pity the fool who made the trap. We need information? Divination, augury, contact other plane...Just for that, rituals are helluve powerful.

Maybe if the tasks the players accomplish are quick, timed, brutal, and simple, rituals are unusable and rarely come up. But more complicated problems and goals encourage spells like that.

Here's something that's going to shock you. I rarely have either clerics or wizards in my games. Warlocks are orders-of-magnitude more common, and commonly the only "pure" spellcaster of the group. And generally pulling the "utility toolbelt" job.

And those rituals destroying plot lines? That presumes that the plotlines are really really thin. Especially the information ones. They're really quite limited in what you get--usually a bunch of either cryptic answers or yes-or-no questions. And only come online at high levels (except augury). And only wizards (remember, very infrequent?) can do rituals out of not-prepared stuff...and they have to learn those in the first place. And while they have a significant number of auto-learned spells, they're not drowning in them.

So really, unless you're feeding the party lots of scrolls/spell-books or have an obvious use for the niche coming up with a level break in between (ie an aquatic campaign), the chances of a wizard knowing water breathing in the first place (or heck, gentle repose isn't that common either) is slim to none.

You can't think of it as if the wizard has all those always available. A standard wizard, by level 5 or so, has what...4 2nd level spells known? Is he really going to start stuffing his book with rituals that he might cast once in a campaign? And with the water breathing example, what kind of trap takes 10 minutes to do its job? Because that's the time cost if you ritual-cast it.

[Asisreo1]

I mean, the difference is you can't generally talk to your pets. How can you get past that? Speak with animals or find familiar, which are-ding ding!-both rituals. Also, your pets generally can't do terribly much in combat, while a familiar can be treated like ablative distraction armor if you need to-it's not a real animal. Yeah, people don't use the spells optimally, but I've seen sorcerers with detect magic as a spell known-people make mistakes with all classes.

And while sure, some rituals are very limited, some change the game in their limited realm or aren't. Find familiar is obvious, but you're discounting it for no great reason here. Detect magic is huge-and is a warlock is spending one of his extremely limited invocations on that, he's frankly making a mistake.

(Yeah, yeah, I know calling a spell choice a mistake is a bit elitist, but when you have so few invocations/spells known using them to replicate an effect another player can do is just...not worth the time, honestly).

And some rituals, in their niche, just immediately undercut entire plotlines. Jim-Bob is gonna rise as a vampire, but if we destroy his body we can't raise him? Gentle repose, let's just put this plotline on hold. This trap appears to flood the dungeon in water, drowning all intruders? Water breathing, pity the fool who made the trap. We need information? Divination, augury, contact other plane...Just for that, rituals are helluve powerful.

Maybe if the tasks the players accomplish are quick, timed, brutal, and simple, rituals are unusable and rarely come up. But more complicated problems and goals encourage spells like that.
Find Familiar is okay-ish. If anyone needed a 1-hp scout, that's fine but it isn't remarkable by any capacity and for a whole hour, ten minutes and 10gp a pop, its usefulness before roughly level 3 is bound by the stinginess of the DM and time restraints (if you had time to cast it, you had time to take a short rest). It will also still get detected by anything that can sense either fey, fiends, and celestials like a Paladin's divine sense or even first-level spells that can detect magical effects such as, oh look, Detect Magic. Let's talk about this.

Detect Magic uses concentration so if you had a pre-battle buff, you would be essentially forfeiting that for Detect Magic (though, actually, all rituals do this). Detect Magic is also very limited in terms of range. 30ft means you have to be pretty much on top of the magic you're detecting. Worst of all, it can't even detect an invisible spellcaster. Well, it can, but you're unable to actually locate said spellcaster if he's hiding since it can only outline visible targets.

[Kireban]

I think this hits the nail on the head-Sorcerer archetypes simply aren't, well, impactful enough to hold their own. You more or less customize by choosing the metamagic you know, with the archetypes generally just giving you a bit of oomph in that field if they synergize. The actual archetype, even for something like Shadow, just gives you a couple more tricks that eat sorcery points. Divine soul is the only one that changes the game, and that's because you can get clever with new metamagic combinations and turn game balance into a bad joke.

It's part of what makes comparisons between the sorcerer and other casters so inevitable-because 90% of what you do is defined by spellcasting, you don't have any other tricks of core class modifications to fall on. Wizards get the same comparison, but because their archetypes tend to add a lot in a highly specialized way, they get the better end of the deal-and the ones that don't (conjuration to a degree, transmutation to a greater one) just don't see much play. The archetypes of Clerics, Druids, Bards, etc. fundamentally change how you play that class, giving you proficiencies, spells, or class features which change your capabilities.

Sorcerer's just give you more of the same.

This is also, by the by, true of a lot of classes though-Paladin and Barbarian archetype options just tend to specialize your Barbarian or Paladin, they don't change the way you play one. This tends to work out when the class theme is tight to begin with and fully capable in its own way. It's part of why I think some classes should actually be archetypical modifications of each other, but that's another day's discussion.

I dont think that this is true at all. When I play wild magic I use hit cantrips with advantage and then leveled spell to triger surge. When i play Shadow i build myself around darkness. And hopefully when I play aberrant mind i am going to play around the lvl6 feature to cast the bonus spells using sp.

I dont play every sorcerer the same, and I think that you miss most of the fun by doing nothing but the general "turn all the slots to the maximum available and twinned it".

[Asisreo1]

Or products of spell research (DM support needed to create rules for spell research, since 5E oddly lacks them), or trading with NPCs or other PCs. You're not completely at the mercy of coincidence.
But you are completely at the mercy of the DM, which is my point.

Treasure is treasure and should be both given out and be useful. If a DM gives a wizard a spell book with, say, 7 new spells, this is quite a good find and will definitely be useful.

However, the DM should be giving somewhat equal rewards to the other players, balancing it out.

[Dark.Revenant]

prepared casters have the Ability Mod + half level limit and known casters top out at about the same number.

None of the prepared casters have that limit; the only ones that come close are the Artificer and Paladin, but they get 2 subclass spells per spell level. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are Ability Mod + full level; in addition, the Cleric and sometimes Druid *also* get two subclass spells per spell level.

For reference (ranked by maximum total count):

Tier 1
16 Cleric: 4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Wis), 4 Preset
16 Druid: 3-4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Wis), 0-4* Preset
15 Sorcerer: 5-6* Cantrips, 5-6 Known, 0-4* Preset
13 Warlock: 3-6 Cantrips, 5 Known, 0-2 Preset
12 Wizard: 4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Int)
10 Artificer: 2 Cantrips, 6 Prepared (18 Int), 2 Preset
10 Bard: 3 Cantrips, 7 Known
10 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 6 Prepared (18 Cha), 2 Preset
7 Arcane Trickster: 2+1 Cantrips, 4 Known
7 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 3 Known, 0-2* Preset
6 Eldritch Knight: 2 Cantrips, 4 Known

Tier 2
30 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
30 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
28 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 11-12 Known, 0-10* Preset
23 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 11 Known, 0-5 Preset
20 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Int)
20 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 14-16 Known
19 Artificer: 3 Cantrips, 10 Prepared (20 Int), 6 Preset
18 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 10 Prepared (20 Cha), 6 Preset
14 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 6 Known, 0-6* Preset
11 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 7 Known
10 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 7 Known

Tier 3
36 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
36 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
31 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 14-15 Known, 0-10* Preset
27 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 13 Known, 0-7 Preset
26 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Int)
25 Artificer: 4 Cantrips, 13 Prepared (20 Int), 8 Preset
25 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 19-21 Known
23 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 13 Prepared (20 Cha), 8 Preset
19 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 9 Known, 0-8* Preset
15 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 11 Known
14 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 11 Known

Tier 4
40 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 25 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
40 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 25 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
32 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 27 Prepared (20 Int)
32 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 15-16 Known, 0-10* Preset
30 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 15 Known, 0-8 Preset
29 Artificer: 4 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Int), 10 Preset
28 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 22-24 Known
27 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Cha), 10 Preset
23 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 11 Known, 0-10* Preset
17 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 13 Known
16 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 13 Known

*updated by Tasha's

[Rusvul]

Its not an unlimited number of spells. It is 44 spells over the course of your entire career as a wizard. Any more spells are coincidental spells given by the DM. This is your effective class list as a prepared caster, which is much smaller than other prepared casters.

I think this is more of a table variation thing than a universal axiom. The absolute floor is 44 spells in 20 levels; the ceiling is theoretically your entire list. If you play AL or have a strict DM, you're very likely to only get the floor of 44, but if your table allows players to work towards their own independent goals, if scrolls are commonly received as treasure or can be bought with gold, if your table uses the scroll-scribing downtime rules from XGTE (so that non-wizard allies can give you their spells), or even if your DM just likes throwing enemy wizards at you, you're likely to get a lot more than that. Wizard is (perhaps uniquely) a class whose power and versatility is decided in large part by what challenges and opportunities your table affords, and I think framing the 'floor' as the universal standard (and anything else as DM generosity) is a little bit unnuanced.

For what it's worth, in nearly every game I've played in, additional spells have been available should PC wizards seek them out. But, again, table variation.


Rituals are helpful and can help alot. A ritual cannot. The more rituals you can take, the less likely you are not to have a particular one for your scenario. However, the more rituals you take, as I mentioned before, the less of other spells you'll have the benefit of having.

Wizards always have more spells in their spellbook than they are capable of preparing--I would argue that, especially in light of the above, "spells known" is a much less scarce resource than you're presenting it as. Assuming there's a specific list of spells you want to have prepared most days, that leaves you with two main choices for your spare spellbook space: off-list spells to prepare when the situation demands, or rituals. While being able to pull protection from energy out of your back pocket when you enter a cold-damage-based dungeon is useful, being able to cast identify, detect magic, and Leomund's tiny hut are arguably much more powerful uses of that spare spellbook space than situational, useless-unless-prepared non-rituals.

Sure, if you take four first level rituals you're down to six useful-in-combat first level spells, but especially at higher levels, that's more than you need anyways--even if your table keeps you at or close to the 'floor' of 44 spells known.

[MaxWilson]

But you are completely at the mercy of the DM, which is my point.

Treasure is treasure and should be both given out and be useful. If a DM gives a wizard a spell book with, say, 7 new spells, this is quite a good find and will definitely be useful.

However, the DM should be giving somewhat equal rewards to the other players, balancing it out.

But... you're not. Even if the DM outlaws spell research and prevents you from ever meeting an NPC wizard, at minimum you can still potentially swap spells with other PCs. Maybe you meant "you're at the mercy of the other people sitting at the table with you?" But that's true for everything.

[Valmark]

None of the prepared casters have that limit; the only ones that come close are the Artificer and Paladin, but they get 2 subclass spells per spell level. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are Ability Mod + full level; in addition, the Cleric and sometimes Druid *also* get two subclass spells per spell level.

For reference (ranked by maximum total count):

Tier 1
16 Cleric: 4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Wis), 4 Preset
16 Druid: 3-4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Wis), 0-4* Preset
15 Sorcerer: 5-6* Cantrips, 5-6 Known, 0-4* Preset
13 Warlock: 3-6 Cantrips, 5 Known, 0-2 Preset
12 Wizard: 4 Cantrips, 8 Prepared (18 Int)
10 Artificer: 2 Cantrips, 6 Prepared (18 Int), 2 Preset
10 Bard: 3 Cantrips, 7 Known
10 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 6 Prepared (18 Cha), 2 Preset
7 Arcane Trickster: 2+1 Cantrips, 4 Known
7 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 3 Known, 0-2* Preset
6 Eldritch Knight: 2 Cantrips, 4 Known

Tier 2
30 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
30 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
28 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 11-12 Known, 0-10* Preset
23 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 11 Known, 0-5 Preset
20 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Int)
20 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 14-16 Known
19 Artificer: 3 Cantrips, 10 Prepared (20 Int), 6 Preset
18 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 10 Prepared (20 Cha), 6 Preset
14 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 6 Known, 0-6* Preset
11 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 7 Known
10 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 7 Known

Tier 3
36 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
36 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
31 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 14-15 Known, 0-10* Preset
27 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 13 Known, 0-7 Preset
26 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 21 Prepared (20 Int)
25 Artificer: 4 Cantrips, 13 Prepared (20 Int), 8 Preset
25 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 19-21 Known
23 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 13 Prepared (20 Cha), 8 Preset
19 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 9 Known, 0-8* Preset
15 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 11 Known
14 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 11 Known

Tier 4
40 Cleric: 5 Cantrips, 25 Prepared (20 Wis), 10 Preset
40 Druid: 4-5 Cantrips, 25 Prepared (20 Wis), 0-10* Preset
32 Wizard: 5 Cantrips, 27 Prepared (20 Int)
32 Sorcerer: 6-7* Cantrips, 15-16 Known, 0-10* Preset
30 Warlock: 4-7 Cantrips, 15 Known, 0-8 Preset
29 Artificer: 4 Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Int), 10 Preset
28 Bard: 4 Cantrips, 22-24 Known
27 Paladin: 0-2* Cantrips, 15 Prepared (20 Cha), 10 Preset
23 Ranger: 0-2* Cantrips, 11 Known, 0-10* Preset
17 Arcane Trickster: 3+1 Cantrips, 13 Known
16 Eldritch Knight: 3 Cantrips, 13 Known

*updated by Tasha's
There's an error on the warlocks- their bonus spells aren't added to spells known, only to spell list. At least I think those are what you are counting as pre-set.

[MoiMagnus]

But... you're not. Even if the DM outlaws spell research and prevents you from ever meeting an NPC wizard, at minimum you can still potentially swap spells with other PCs. Maybe you meant "you're at the mercy of the other people sitting at the table with you?" But that's true for everything.

Doesn't that only occurs if you have multiple wizards in the same team? That's quite unlikely. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules:


When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it. Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it.

While the first occurrence of "a wizard spell" could be ambiguous on whether you can learn a spell from another class that happen to also be in the wizard spell list, I think the bolded part clarify that you can only learn from other wizard's spellbook or personal notes.

[Rusvul]

Doesn't that only occurs if you have multiple wizards in the same team? That's quite unlikely. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules:

While the first occurrence of "a wizard spell" could be ambiguous on whether you can learn a spell from another class that happen to also be in the wizard spell list, I think the bolded part clarify that you can only learn from other wizard's spellbook or personal notes.

5e doesn't really distinguish between classes/power source when it comes to written spells; a scroll of fireball is a scroll of fireball regardless of whether it was written by a wizard, a sorcerer, or a light cleric. I think the intended (and, IMO, simplest and most reasonable) ruling is that a wizard may copy any spell they find in written form so long as it is on their spell list. Otherwise, we're introducing the idea that the aforementioned fireball scroll really does materially differ based upon who wrote it, which isn't a concept referenced anywhere else as far as I can tell. (Gone is 3.5's distinction between arcane scrolls, divine scrolls, and artificer's special neither-for-some-reason scrolls.)

The entry for spell scrolls in the DMG supports this--it reads "A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied...", not something like "A spell on a spell scroll scribed by a wizard can be copied..."

I think the section you bolded is intended as a reference to the common scenario of copying a spell from a spellbook (in which case it definitely would've been written by a wizard). I wouldn't read that section as rules text restricting the class feature, personally.

[MaxWilson]

There's an error on the warlocks- their bonus spells aren't added to spells known, only to spell list. At least I think those are what you are counting as pre-set.

I think those numbers are actually from invocations, based on the fact that it's 0-2 in Tier 1 and 0-8 in Tier 8.


While the first occurrence of "a wizard spell" could be ambiguous on whether you can learn a spell from another class that happen to also be in the wizard spell list, I think the bolded part clarify that you can only learn from other wizard's spellbook or personal notes.

Yes, of course.


Doesn't that only occurs if you have multiple wizards in the same team? That's quite unlikely.

Nevertheless, it's why you're at the mercy of the other people sitting at your table, not just the DM. Each of them makes their own choice about what character to play and then you all play out the consequences together. As for how unlikely it is, well, that depends on how the various players value wizardry. IME multiple wizards working together work out pretty well (e.g. a Life Cleric 1/Necromancer X and a Fighter 5+/Diviner 3+). You can never "afford" all of the PCs in a party that you wish you had, so in a four-man party you might very well wind up with zero wizards instead, but it's definitely under player control.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having a party member scribe a scroll and then copying it into your spellbook is going to get expensive, fast. Both in time and money. Plus it requires the party member to be proficient in arcana and spend the components (if any). And that's before counting the possibility of failure (copying from a spell scroll isn't a guaranteed success). Plus, the overlap between the whole-list casters and the wizard list isn't huge.

First level spells are fine: 1 day scribing time, 2 hours of copying time and either 50 or 75 gold (depending on if it's in your school or not).
Second don't cost that much more time (3 days, not 1), but the cost goes up an order of magnitude (250 gp for the scribing alone).
Third basically doubles both time and cost.
Fourth doubles time from third and multiplies the cost by 5.
And it only gets worse from there.

That's significant downtime and lots and lots of cash spent. Per spell. Not going to be stuffing your book very much at those prices.

[MaxWilson]

Having a party member scribe a scroll and then copying it into your spellbook is going to get expensive, fast.

Before this turns into a huge tangent, let me clarify again that I was talking about wizard-to-wizard sharing, not cleric-to-wizard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Before this turns into a huge tangent, let me clarify again that I was talking about wizard-to-wizard sharing, not cleric-to-wizard.

The chances of having 2 wizards in a party (at least for me) is...epsilon^2, where epsilon is the proverbial very small number. So it's something that's even more vanishingly unlikely to come up.

And while you might be able to get into a friendly NPC wizard's library and use his spellbook...that's a high-level quest reward. And everyone else would be getting something of equivalent value. We can price that by looking at the scribing costs for a scroll, doubled (because that would be the default selling price). Cheap for a single first level spell, hideously expensive for anything higher.

It's a long-standing fantasy trope that wizards are protective of their spells, that wizards don't share easily. Even their apprentices don't get a present of a full book of spells (otherwise most wizards would start that way instead of having 6 1st level spells and nothing more). So unless they're in the party, you're looking at a) DM fiat (just like any magic item) and b) not an easy task.

And beyond that, it's not like those NPC wizards necessarily have all the spells either.

So yeah. I think people dramatically overestimate the number of spells that a given wizard is going to have in his book. Especially the more niche ones.

------------
In all of this, I feel like I should make it clear that I'm not averse to giving the "old" subclasses more thematic spells. In fact, were I king of D&D land, I'd probably flip the script for sorcerers. Most of your spells would be set by your origin. You're a fire dragon sorcerer? You get every single fire spell, free. Then you get to pick a smallish-sized additional complement of spells from the wizard/some more general list. So basically you'd get all your "core theme" spells for free and then get 10-ish more of your choice from a wider list. But just adding one bonus spell/spell level would probably do the trick, honestly.

I don't like the "well, if you don't like this bonus spell you can trade it out for any spell from that school." In fact, I don't like tying anything mechanical (except wizard subclasses) to the schools of magic, both on thematic grounds (the schools are really only thematic for wizards IMO and need significant revamping to make any kind of in-universe sense) and on balance grounds (those schools are not equally-weighted in any sense).

[MaxWilson]

The chances of having 2 wizards in a party (at least for me) is...epsilon^2, where epsilon is the proverbial very small number. So it's something that's even more vanishingly unlikely to come up.

We already know that your table is atypical.


And while you might be able to get into a friendly NPC wizard's library and use his spellbook...that's a high-level quest reward.

Murdering an evil NPC wizard and taking his spellbook is also an alternative, as is bargaining with a neutral (or even hostile) NPC wizard for a mutually-advantageous trade. Obviously this requires finding an NPC wizard, but the point here is that it doesn't have to be a friendly wizard who just lets you copy spells for free--you have more agency than that, even without spell research.


So yeah. I think people dramatically overestimate the number of spells that a given wizard is going to have in his book. Especially the more niche ones.

I do agree with this part though--from what I've seen, Internet discussions do overestimate how easy spell acquisition is for a wizard. You're not at the DM's mercy but you can't just assume that you'll have everything either, and yet many people speak as if the gold price of copying spells is the major bottleneck for spell acquisition (it is to laugh). That's probably a playstyle thing too--their DMs just have magical public libraries or something where you can apparently browse spells freely.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I do agree with this part though--from what I've seen, Internet discussions do overestimate how easy spell acquisition is for a wizard. You're not at the DM's mercy but you can't just assume that you'll have everything either, and yet many people speak as if the gold price of copying spells is the major bottleneck for spell acquisition (it is to laugh). That's probably a playstyle thing too--their DMs just have magical public libraries or something where you can apparently browse spells freely.

As a wizard in an official module right now, I also agree with this. A wizard never has all the spells they'd like to have. And even if they get access to them (a big if), you'd be surprised how fast 50 gp/level adds up. And then there's the pricey reagents you may need for these newly acquired spells...

My wizards in every campaign are flat broke 90% of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We already know that your table is atypical.

Yes, but how atypical? Do most people's tables have multiple wizards at them?




Murdering an evil NPC wizard and taking his spellbook is also an alternative, as is bargaining with a neutral (or even hostile) NPC wizard for a mutually-advantageous trade. Obviously this requires finding an NPC wizard, but the point here is that it doesn't have to be a friendly wizard who just lets you copy spells for free--you have more agency than that, even without spell research.

I do agree with this part though--from what I've seen, Internet discussions do overestimate how easy spell acquisition is for a wizard. You're not at the DM's mercy but you can't just assume that you'll have everything either, and yet many people speak as if the gold price of copying spells is the major bottleneck for spell acquisition (it is to laugh). That's probably a playstyle thing too--their DMs just have magical public libraries or something where you can apparently browse spells freely.

All of those require the DM to put such things there and make them available. And as I said, giving a wizard a bunch of scrolls/spellbooks is just like giving them a powerful magic item. The rest of the party darn well be getting similar things. And it wont' happen very frequently, except at monte haul tables. And there's no guarantee (or even substantial likelyhood that they'll have the spells you want either. So yes, it is exactly at the mercy of a DM.

And the gold price isn't zero either, especially at early levels. It isn't until very high levels (ie 10+, which for most campaigns is endgame) when you're really swimming in gold.

[MrCharlie]

Here's something that's going to shock you. I rarely have either clerics or wizards in my games. Warlocks are orders-of-magnitude more common, and commonly the only "pure" spellcaster of the group. And generally pulling the "utility toolbelt" job.

And those rituals destroying plot lines? That presumes that the plotlines are really really thin. Especially the information ones. They're really quite limited in what you get--usually a bunch of either cryptic answers or yes-or-no questions. And only come online at high levels (except augury). And only wizards (remember, very infrequent?) can do rituals out of not-prepared stuff...and they have to learn those in the first place. And while they have a significant number of auto-learned spells, they're not drowning in them.

So really, unless you're feeding the party lots of scrolls/spell-books or have an obvious use for the niche coming up with a level break in between (ie an aquatic campaign), the chances of a wizard knowing water breathing in the first place (or heck, gentle repose isn't that common either) is slim to none.

You can't think of it as if the wizard has all those always available. A standard wizard, by level 5 or so, has what...4 2nd level spells known? Is he really going to start stuffing his book with rituals that he might cast once in a campaign? And with the water breathing example, what kind of trap takes 10 minutes to do its job? Because that's the time cost if you ritual-cast it.
If you don't have ritual casters, how do you know how much or little they contribute? I'm telling you that, in every campaign of mine with an experience wizard player, their rituals have come up quite often.

Every wizard I've ever played personally has water breathing, but I understand your point in general there that this specific spell might not be chosen...But it's irrelevant, because that applies to basically every spell. Except Mage Armor and Fireball, maybe, most everyone gets those. Every spell has as opportunity cost, but the main opportunity cost as a wizard isn't necessarily the spells in your books, it's the spells you can prepare. Most campaigns do eventually give the wizard some kind of spellbook or a small handful of scrolls, but even without that they still get more spells in the book then they can ever theoretically prepare-if 1/4 of those spells are the really useful rituals, then they are using the entire book.

In general, the only spell level I've ever run into issues where there are so many choices I struggle to fit a ritual in is level 3, because it's such a power spike and plateau compared to levels 2 and 4, and if you want something like animate dead or some other situational spell then that's competing with the ritual. In general there are a few clear winners for any given wizard build (or school), maybe 3, so the fourth spell is a ritual. For some levels, it's more like there are 2 or 1 winner, and I take all the rituals or even lower level rituals for want of something better.

And water breathing lasts 24 hours. You cast it every morning on the party. The trap is then negated if you ever encounter it-and more pertinently, I've negated TPKs when encountering the errant amphibious monster that way because we weren't continuously drowning. Point being, it's a way to more effectively use the entire spellbook, rather than half of it.

Also, you get eight level 1 spells as a wizard and start with six. That's literally more than a point-buy character can prepare, and you're very unlikely to use those spells past the first few levels besides the abjurations-why not load it with rituals that might come up later? Same with 2nd levels-I know 4, can cast at most 3, and those 4 would be 1/2 my total prepared spells at level 4. Why not know 3 spells that I cast normally, prepare those 3 and 5 level 1 spells, and have 3 level 1 rituals and a 2nd level ritual? The math only becomes better for rituals as you become a higher and higher level and those earlier spells become even more and more obsolete.

One thing I'll grant you, and where we are clearing talking past each other, is that you keep using levels 3-6 as your guide, while I'm using levels 7+ or 1-2 as my guide. Rituals are most impactful at low levels, when you has so few slots that being able to do something stronger than a cantrip is huge, and at high levels when a smaller proportion of your total spells are prepared (more likely to have additional spells from books or scrolls, and your INT bonus is a smaller part of the total pie).

I'll go on a limb as say that, generally, your first 2 spells of any level will rarely, if ever, be rituals-but the last one? Probably a good investment to pick up tiny hut or water breathing, given that you can't really prepare 4 spells of that level anyway and could only cast 3 of them even if you did.

And rituals are low level because a high level ritual would never be cast as anything other than a ritual, and couldn't be balanced around the option to cast it with a slot. I've occasionally cast detect magic using a slot to speed things up in traps, but I couldn't imagine throwing a sixth level spell slot on something I could ritually cast, let alone a higher level one, let alone actually having it prepared. Additionally, they'd be completely bonkers strong if they were worth casting as a ritual, unless they had some other associated cost, in which case you would have to justify knowing the spell again. But because the rituals that do exist are generally limited in scope but absolutely dominate that scope, they are well balanced.

The end result is that rituals work best as low level spells. Not quite an argument here, but relevant to the discussion.

(I agree that full plots being negated by rituals is rare, but I've done it; the point isn't that its likely, just that its possible. Further, they contribute in lesser ways as well, such as preserving allies corpses, even if you don't get to suddenly cut Gordians knot.

[MrCharlie]

Find Familiar is okay-ish. If anyone needed a 1-hp scout, that's fine but it isn't remarkable by any capacity and for a whole hour, ten minutes and 10gp a pop, its usefulness before roughly level 3 is bound by the stinginess of the DM and time restraints (if you had time to cast it, you had time to take a short rest). It will also still get detected by anything that can sense either fey, fiends, and celestials like a Paladin's divine sense or even first-level spells that can detect magical effects such as, oh look, Detect Magic. Let's talk about this.

Detect Magic uses concentration so if you had a pre-battle buff, you would be essentially forfeiting that for Detect Magic (though, actually, all rituals do this). Detect Magic is also very limited in terms of range. 30ft means you have to be pretty much on top of the magic you're detecting. Worst of all, it can't even detect an invisible spellcaster. Well, it can, but you're unable to actually locate said spellcaster if he's hiding since it can only outline visible targets.
If you're expecting rituals to contribute to combat, you're not asking the right question. Honestly, you're not even in the right conversation. Not all of DnD is combat.

What rituals can do in combat is enable the players to change the context the combat eventually takes place in-like by scouting. But their main use is in doing things out of combat that change the narrative of the game, often drastically, without costing a spell slot or reducing the effectiveness of the character in combat.

Also, pre-combat buffs that use concentration are actually very, very, very rare. Most of them last too short a time or aren't concentration-and if you are about the pop haste on the Paladin and charge in, you aren't going to shed tears because that detect magic you've been ritually casting is going away, but neither are you going to be negatively impacted because you were ritually casting it.

Also, find familiar persists. You cast it in the morning before the group rolls out for the day, assuming you actually got it killed the day before. It's not okay-ish. It's one of the strongest 1st level spells in the game, let alone rituals.

Look, put simply, you're not thinking about ritual spells right if you think that these points illustrate why you wouldn't use them. You'd never use them in those situations to begin with. In order for something like find familiar to be useless, you need to be incapable of finding situations where a telepathic bird which follows your every command is useful, or situations where you might drown. I agree that some rituals do fall into this-I never pick up illusory script-but so do most spells. I never pick up witch bolt either, or erupting earth.

[Asisreo1]

If you're expecting rituals to contribute to combat, you're not asking the right question. Honestly, you're not even in the right conversation. Not all of DnD is combat.

What rituals can do in combat is enable the players to change the context the combat eventually takes place in-like by scouting. But their main use is in doing things out of combat that change the narrative of the game, often drastically, without costing a spell slot or reducing the effectiveness of the character in combat.

Also, pre-combat buffs that use concentration are actually very, very, very rare. Most of them last too short a time or aren't concentration-and if you are about the pop haste on the Paladin and charge in, you aren't going to shed tears because that detect magic you've been ritually casting is going away, but neither are you going to be negatively impacted because you were ritually casting it.

Also, find familiar persists. You cast it in the morning before the group rolls out for the day, assuming you actually got it killed the day before. It's not okay-ish. It's one of the strongest 1st level spells in the game, let alone rituals.

Look, put simply, you're not thinking about ritual spells right if you think that these points illustrate why you wouldn't use them. You'd never use them in those situations to begin with. In order for something like find familiar to be useless, you need to be incapable of finding situations where a telepathic bird which follows your every command is useful, or situations where you might drown. I agree that some rituals do fall into this-I never pick up illusory script-but so do most spells. I never pick up witch bolt either, or erupting earth.
No one is claiming that Find Familiar, or any rituals spells, are useless.

What I'm claiming is that they are significantly weaker than regular 1st-level spells, and even most cantrips. Not only in terms of raw combat potential, but also the ability to change the dynamics of the game. Would you use a spell slot to cast Detect Magic or Find Familiar?

As good of a scout Find Familiar can be used for, the telepathic bond only works within a rather short vicinity. Past that, most benefits they give are undermined completely, including their sight.

If your familiar's form is something inadequate to the current situation, you must recast it, spending another hour and another 10gp.

What's more questionable, is where is the wizard constantly getting a bronze brazier from? Are dungeons, wilderness, and even regular towns and cities home to these random bronze brazier?

Heck, at level 1, it'll be quite a surprise if the wizard can even find a village that sells incense specifically unless they start in a rather robust town. All of which is DM-dependent.

[MaxWilson]

As a wizard in an official module right now, I also agree with this. A wizard never has all the spells they'd like to have. And even if they get access to them (a big if), you'd be surprised how fast 50 gp/level adds up. And then there's the pricey reagents you may need for these newly acquired spells...

My wizards in every campaign are flat broke 90% of the time.

Yeah, spells known is a huge constraint on wizardry. I think Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum (a.k.a. Morrolan's Teleport Block) is a really interesting spell but I don't know how I'd ever learn it without multiple wizards in the party, because there's probably at least ten other 4th level spells that I want even more.

[MrCharlie]

No one is claiming that Find Familiar, or any rituals spells, are useless.

What I'm claiming is that they are significantly weaker than regular 1st-level spells, and even most cantrips. Not only in terms of raw combat potential, but also the ability to change the dynamics of the game. Would you use a spell slot to cast Detect Magic or Find Familiar?

As good of a scout Find Familiar can be used for, the telepathic bond only works within a rather short vicinity. Past that, most benefits they give are undermined completely, including their sight.

If your familiar's form is something inadequate to the current situation, you must recast it, spending another hour and another 10gp.

What's more questionable, is where is the wizard constantly getting a bronze brazier from? Are dungeons, wilderness, and even regular towns and cities home to these random bronze brazier?

Heck, at level 1, it'll be quite a surprise if the wizard can even find a village that sells incense specifically unless they start in a rather robust town. All of which is DM-dependent.
You're really, really stretching if you think 1 DM in 10'000 will rule that you can't recast find familiar because you didn't list the brazier on your inventory, when you can literally say that this is part of a component pouch. If you're wondering how-it never says how big it has to be. You can find miniature braziers for camp cooking that fold up and fit in your pocket-a brazier is just a specific design of stove to burn things at.

In fact, any DM that does is probably a bad DM.

Anyway, a familiar can act independently even if you can't see through they eyes, and still follows your commands. Fly to the other side of camp and drop alchemists fire on that watch tower is a perfectly valid command for a raven familiar, as is for it to fly around the camp, return, and tell me what you see. It can act independently, and if it couldn't it would have much less use as a scout.

In general, there are like, three familiars that you should ever use-Owls, Ravens, and Spiders. Maybe a fish if you need to go underwater. 90% of the time an owl familiar can do what you need it to do. Changing form is barely a real constraint.

If find familiar used a spell slot, I'd still cast it every time I ended a day without one-the familiar persists until it dies. Even if you made it so that I had to spend a slot every day, objectively the familiars ability to grant advantage in combat makes it one of the better first level spells for combat too. I'd probably force more mileage out of it and do more metagamey **** (like have it use magic items, potions, or adventuring equipment), but it would be worth it.

(I have also used a spell slot to cast detect magic, but it was at level 1 and the stars aligned that knowing more about this trap, right now, was more important than spell slots. I had detect magic known because, at level 1, you get such a high proportion of spells prepared that you might as well prepare your rituals as well. Rituals are still great even then because you can cast them once your 3/day spell casts are used up, and can dominate low level play for that reason).

But find familiar is an exception, and I do agree that (other) rituals are worse than spells of their level most of the time. The key is that you don't get to prepare all your spells anyway, so the real math is that you can know 8 normal 1st level spells and use 3 of them, or know 3 normal first level spells and 5 rituals and use 8 of them. 8>3, so rituals are great.

It gets a little more nuanced because you can swap out spells, but because most levels have a few strong spells and a lot of trash to begin with, learning 3 spells you cycle between and 1 ritual ends up working out at virtually all spell levels as better than learning 4 spells. While some archetypes make certain spells better, you can usually get a wish list of 2 or 3 spells for each level and accept that this is your toolbelt. Even if you could prepare all 4 spells, you could never actually cast all 4 with those slots anyway without using arcane recovery (excepting level 1 spells). Again, you pick up what ritual you want last, but it's almost always best to pick up a ritual as your last pick from a given spell level.

(The argument against rituals because of spells known weighs towards learning more normal spells at spell level 3, where spells are incredibly strong and many of them upcast favorably).

The end result is that rituals are very, very important to playing wizard optimally. I'd rank them far above learning another cantrip or two; I'd trade those cantrips on sorcerer for access to a familiar and a bunch of random utility spells every time.

TL;DR Spells prepared is a greater constraint to spells known once you understand what spells are good, so having spells which don't need preparation is great.

[Osuniev]

In general, there are like, three familiars that you should ever use-Owls, Ravens, and Spiders. Maybe a fish if you need to go underwater. 90% of the time an owl familiar can do what you need it to do. Changing form is barely a real constraint.


My players love the Bat for the echolocation, basically a free "see invisibility".

I think my Pact of the Tome Warlock would rather have no spell-slots than lose his Find Familiar ritual. That's how good it is. (Of course we're playing in a urban campaign of investigation).

But yeah, Detect Magic has been AMAZING for my players. So have Identify and Leomund's TinyHut. Really, the rituals are awesome.

[MrCharlie]

My players love the Bat for the echolocation, basically a free "see invisibility".

I think my Pact of the Tome Warlock would rather have no spell-slots than lose his Find Familiar ritual. That's how good it is. (Of course we're playing in a urban campaign of investigation).

But yeah, Detect Magic has been AMAZING for my players. So have Identify and Leomund's TinyHut. Really, the rituals are awesome.
Not to derail the thread, but I am wondering at how many invocations you'd need to trade me for my warlock spell slots, and the answer is surprising me-because there probably is an answer, I use my cantrips so much more than invocations, or my weapons more as a hexblade. Hell, depending on level I may even take 1-1, I value the spell slots so low-there just aren't that many of them.

Also yeah, forgot the bat. But in most situations that bat, raven, or owl work, the other choices can kinduve work anyway, it just depends on which is best.

[Snowbluff]

If you play AL or have a strict DM, you're very likely to only get the floor of 44,

Having played a lot of AL and official material, this is the opposite of the case. Many of these mods and adventures include spellbooks as loot, allowing for an AL wizard to easily fill in common spells on their list even given the limited amount of gold.

[MrCharlie]

Having played a lot of AL and official material, this is the opposite of the case. Many of these mods and adventures include spellbooks as loot, allowing for an AL wizard to easily fill in common spells on their list even given the limited amount of gold.
In fact, I'm pretty sure every printed hardcover has at least one lootable spell book, often several, and every season has at least one module with one. I remember compiling a list of items a while back for that purpose. Some, of course, like dungeon of the mad mage, have absolute tons of them all over the place. You can probably fill out like, half the PHB spells using the spellbooks scattered about there. At least half the low level ones.

Anyway, this mostly means that you should generally pick more exotic level-up spells, and pick more rituals, because the PHB spells are all on the generic spellcaster lists. Some spells you need anyway to survive that long (Shield, mage armor, fireball), but you can avoid a lot of the other evocations and some other spells because so many NPCS have them in their books.

[Willie the Duck]

Having played a lot of AL and official material, this is the opposite of the case.

I feel like we could go round and round forever on defining what 'normal play' is like (AL or otherwise).

[MoiMagnus]

We already know that your table is atypical.

As for the typical table, the best source I've found, which are far from perfect, state that 8% of (single-class) character played are Wizard, down from 10% last year.
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-and-the-most-popular-class-is.html
https://411mania.com/games/fighters-and-life-clerics-are-dd-5es-most-popular-classes-humans-dominate-race/

That makes the Wizard a very average class in term of number of picks, as we should expect 8.3% if peoples where choosing their class randomly.

Assuming tables of 4 PCs, 2/3 of the tables don't have a Wizard. Wizard are not "common" (in particular, significantly less common than fighters), but certainly not "epsilon".

[Klorox]

Having played a lot of AL and official material, this is the opposite of the case. Many of these mods and adventures include spellbooks as loot, allowing for an AL wizard to easily fill in common spells on their list even given the limited amount of gold.

Yup. With a uniform amount of cash as a reward, the wizards need something to spend it on.

[Asisreo1]

Having played a lot of AL and official material, this is the opposite of the case. Many of these mods and adventures include spellbooks as loot, allowing for an AL wizard to easily fill in common spells on their list even given the limited amount of gold.
This is true. Most official play has spellbooks. Sometimes as an explicit reward. But they also give ways for the sorcerer to get magic items as well. Magic items that can enhance the versatility of them even further.

In fact, most magic items for spellcasters rarely ever give some actual and useful bonus to something. Wand of the war mage gives a bonus only to attack rolls which is, uh, not very helpful. Rod of the pactkeeper is much better since they improve save DCs, but its only available to warlocks.

A magic item like a Staff of Power gives really good benefits to saves, AC, and to-hit as well as some other unique properties. But as far as spellcasting itself, the only thing it does is give more spells to the spellcaster that wields it (as well as charges to expend for those spells).

[MrCharlie]

I feel like we could go round and round forever on defining what 'normal play' is like (AL or otherwise).
Which means that we're back to copying extra spells being an expected result, because it's a wizard class feature. If you can't say that we can safely ignore it, we have to take it into account as a benefit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup. With a uniform amount of cash as a reward, the wizards need something to spend it on.

How does this apply to anyone else (except for those that wear plate, which is a one-time expense)? Why do wizards get an ongoing power boost by right, while everyone else just stacks up the cash in an account?

IMO, cash and mechanical power should be completely decoupled from classes beyond one-time purchases of gear. Money is for personal goals or interactions with the world. You get more powerful by adventuring and earning rewards/finding treasures. No more WBL-expectations.

[MrCharlie]

How does this apply to anyone else (except for those that wear plate, which is a one-time expense)? Why do wizards get an ongoing power boost by right, while everyone else just stacks up the cash in an account?

IMO, cash and mechanical power should be completely decoupled from classes beyond one-time purchases of gear. Money is for personal goals or interactions with the world. You get more powerful by adventuring and earning rewards/finding treasures. No more WBL-expectations.
Consumable magic items. Potions of healing. Poison. Adventuring gear like ball bearing and throwable items. Silvering backup weapons. Wizards don't have a use for a lot of other items, but other classes can use them very well.

If a wizard is finding spellbooks then other characters should be finding alchemists, enchanters, and black market dealers to spend their money on. It should never be an expectation, but a good DM should be giving all the players goodies they can use rather than playing favorites, regardless of their class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Consumable magic items. Potions of healing. Poison. Adventuring gear like ball bearing and throwable items. Silvering backup weapons. Wizards don't have a use for a lot of other items, but other classes can use them very well.

If a wizard is finding spellbooks then other characters should be finding alchemists, enchanters, and black market dealers to spend their money on. It should never be an expectation, but a good DM should be giving all the players goodies they can use rather than playing favorites, regardless of their class.

I consider spellbooks and scrolls to be magic items. Which generally cannot be bought or acquired in anything other than an adventure. Potions of healing and other actually-purchasable consumables are useful for everyone. Same with other adventuring gear. And silvering weapons is such a minor expense beyond level 1 or 2 that it's rather negligible (and one-time anyway, which I certainly allow).

Basically, I don't want people using non-adventure time to mechanically improve beyond mundane objects (which are in-theory useable by everyone), because that way leads to chaos. And is basically a free boon to wizards, since no one else really has that option (except for followers, which is its own ball of mud I'd rather not deal with). Getting stronger is what you go on adventures for, not sit around and bargain with merchants.

And I certainly don't want people expecting the return of a magic mart, especially one where they can assume they'll have access to their favored items. And that's what a lot of online "optimization" discussions rely on--having access to XYZ items and getting to pick freely from the entire book, with the expectation that a DM who doesn't allow that is being stingy. That's one old-edition thing I want to die hard. 5e works on white-lists, not black lists. Depending on the DM for access to things isn't an imposition, it's how the game is designed to work.

[MaxWilson]

How does this apply to anyone else (except for those that wear plate, which is a one-time expense)? Why do wizards get an ongoing power boost by right, while everyone else just stacks up the cash in an account?

Look beyond your own playstyle for a minute. If they just let the cash stack up in an account at your table, that's because of your DMing style and their own playstyles. At other tables, they bribe guards and nobles, buy poisons, hire mercenaries, create magic items, cast expensive spells, and in some campaigns may bid on magic items (via Xanathar's rules or otherwise) or conduct spell research.

Even if a Fighter eschews hirelings he can still buy a bunch of poison for his ammunition in tough fights. Bilbron gives an excellent summary of DMG poisons here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClhjpaMfaxc&feature=youtu.be) although obviously cash-rich Fighters will have an additional attraction to Injury and Contact Poisons and fewer concerns about cost. Even if you do nothing but buy tons of Drow Poison to smear on arrows in your "special quiver" you'll still get a lot of mileage out of your cash.


IMO, cash and mechanical power should be completely decoupled from classes beyond one-time purchases of gear. Money is for personal goals or interactions with the world. You get more powerful by adventuring and earning rewards/finding treasures. No more WBL-expectations.

In a living game world, it's not possible to decouple those things. Power to influence the world is power, including but not limited to combat power.

[MrCharlie]

I consider spellbooks and scrolls to be magic items. Which generally cannot be bought or acquired in anything other than an adventure. Potions of healing and other actually-purchasable consumables are useful for everyone. Same with other adventuring gear. And silvering weapons is such a minor expense beyond level 1 or 2 that it's rather negligible (and one-time anyway, which I certainly allow).

Basically, I don't want people using non-adventure time to mechanically improve beyond mundane objects (which are in-theory useable by everyone), because that way leads to chaos. And is basically a free boon to wizards, since no one else really has that option (except for followers, which is its own ball of mud I'd rather not deal with). Getting stronger is what you go on adventures for, not sit around and bargain with merchants.

And I certainly don't want people expecting the return of a magic mart, especially one where they can assume they'll have access to their favored items. And that's what a lot of online "optimization" discussions rely on--having access to XYZ items and getting to pick freely from the entire book, with the expectation that a DM who doesn't allow that is being stingy. That's one old-edition thing I want to die hard. 5e works on white-lists, not black lists. Depending on the DM for access to things isn't an imposition, it's how the game is designed to work.
That's an incredible specific and odd way of playing. Buying items and using gold is fundamental to the game and there has been so many different ways added to do that, that I find it absurd to not allow ways to do that into the game. Even AL has consistently added gold uses that improve a character.

And while many of the PHB options are low power by design, my real point is that if you are giving bonuses to wizards in terms of spells known then you should be matching it with other characters-there are many, many ways to do that. Magic items is only one of it, but stuff like trainers for feats, fighting styles, etc. are all plausible expenses.

If you don't play that way, fine-but you are, in my experience, a minority of DMs, and this isn't really applicable to a discussion about sorcerers.

The key here is that most classes either have benefits from spending gold on things like spellbooks and scrolls, or armor weapons, consumables and training.

Sorcerer's neither tend to benefit from training (no weapons, not really a skill or training based class), poisons, most magic items, or most other benefits. There isn't really a big prep component to a sorcerer. That's where wizards have a difference-it takes a more clever DM to give the sorcerer something to use his money on.

That most players want to use their gold to get a mechanical benefit is indisputable. Not every one needs to or wants to, but most do. And most DMs have some way of giving them some benefit if they want to invest.

If they want to throw in on roleplaying sure, but most players do a combination of both roleplaying expenses and character investment. If you enforce only roleplaying or PHB expenditure then sure, you might not give wizards any spells to learn, or gold to spend on it, or you might only be giving character investment options to a wizard compared to other classes, but most of the time this isn't what players would choose for themselves, and most DMs don't choose to impose that worldbuilding wise.

[MaxWilson]

Basically, I don't want people using non-adventure time to mechanically improve beyond mundane objects (which are in-theory useable by everyone), because that way leads to chaos. And is basically a free boon to wizards, since no one else really has that option (except for followers, which is its own ball of mud I'd rather not deal with).

And any weapon user (poisons), and any spell caster (spell components especially gems), and anyone with HP (healing potions).

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's an incredible specific and odd way of playing. Buying items and using gold is fundamental to the game and there has been so many different ways added to do that, that I find it absurd to not allow ways to do that into the game. Even AL has consistently added gold uses that improve a character.

And while many of the PHB options are low power by design, my real point is that if you are giving bonuses to wizards in terms of spells known then you should be matching it with other characters-there are many, many ways to do that. Magic items is only one of it, but stuff like trainers for feats, fighting styles, etc. are all plausible expenses.

If you don't play that way, fine-but you are, in my experience, a minority of DMs, and this isn't really applicable to a discussion about sorcerers.

The key here is that most classes either have benefits from spending gold on things like spellbooks and scrolls, or armor weapons, consumables and training.

Sorcerer's neither tend to benefit from training (no weapons, not really a skill or training based class), poisons, most magic items, or most other benefits. There isn't really a big prep component to a sorcerer. That's where wizards have a difference-it takes a more clever DM to give the sorcerer something to use his money on.

That most players want to use their gold to get a mechanical benefit is indisputable. Not every one needs to or wants to, but most do. And most DMs have some way of giving them some benefit if they want to invest.

If they want to throw in on roleplaying sure, but most players do a combination of both roleplaying expenses and character investment. If you enforce only roleplaying or PHB expenditure then sure, you might not give wizards any spells to learn, or gold to spend on it, or you might only be giving character investment options to a wizard compared to other classes, but most of the time this isn't what players would choose for themselves, and most DMs don't choose to impose that worldbuilding wise.

But buying magic items has been removed as an expectation in this edition. You get what you get from adventuring or rewards for adventuring. You don't just go to a neighborhood market and pick out the ones you want. And I strongly prefer it that way.

And I'm not averse to giving wizards scrolls and spellbooks as part of adventures. But just declaring "I go find a friendly wizard and pay for his spellbook, now I have all the spells" doesn't work for me at all. You can't do that for other magic items, and spellbooks and scrolls are magic items in my book.

And as far as gaining other power--you do so as a result of adventuring (ie "on camera time"). You don't do so as part of downtime. Sure, you gain power and influence. But the acquisition of such things happens during the main game time, not when we're fast forwarding through things. Because otherwise one of two things is true:
* we have to actually play it out. In which case we're not in downtime anymore and I'd like to be able to, you know, actually develop something that fits and incorporates the whole party. Because it's a team game. Not a bunch of individual stories that happen to take place at the same time.
* you just declare what happens. Which is both rife with abuse and/or disappointment and requires significant up-front work from me to figure out what all the possibilities are and what makes sense in the world's context.

[paladinn]

I'll keep my Divine Soul sorc and the new Transmuted Spell metamagic. Swapping damage type is totally cool.

I wonder if "force" is an acceptable damage type with this.. hmmm

[P. G. Macer]

I'll keep my Divine Soul sorc and the new Transmuted Spell metamagic. Swapping damage type is totally cool.

I wonder if "force" is an acceptable damage type with this.. hmmm

Force is not. I don’t have Tasha’s yet, but from what I’ve been told spells for use in Transmuted Spell must both start and end with one of the following damage types: Acid, cold fire, lightning, poison, or thunder.

[paladinn]

Force is not. I don’t have Tasha’s yet, but from what I’ve been told spells for use in Transmuted Spell must both start and end with one of the following damage types: Acid, cold fire, lightning, poison, or thunder.

Ah drat.. oh well.. houserules.. lol

[TheUser]

With full access to Tasha's and some sample builds I can say that the bonus spells take both of these respective subclasses onto a whole 'nother level.

Clockwork in particular being able to negate magic resistance X times a day and having Abjuration and Transmutation bonus spells combined with the Bonus Metamagic feat means you can have a level 8 human variant build that has 20 Charisma, 10 sorc points and a spell/metamagic build that looks like this:

Metamagics: subtle, twinned, careful, transmute spell

1 - Mage Armor, Disguise Self (Absorb Elements, Shield)
2 - Suggestion, Misty Step (Enlarge/Reduce, Aid)
3 - Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern (Counterspell, Haste)
4 - Sickening Radiance, Greater Invisibility (Polymorph, Stone Shape)

And at level 9 it transforms into a powerhouse with Wall of Force and Synaptic Static.