Hypothesis: moving spells from class list to subclass list would improve the game

[PhoenixPhyre]

NOTE: I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. But it seems plausible.

Idea: For all full casters except warlocks, (ie Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid) WotC should follow the path set by the warlock and give them a small core list, expanded by choices from a subclass-locked extra list. The goal is to make subclasses meaningful, so you don't get the "I'm a generic sorcerer, just like every other sorcerer" issue. This would also go a long way to removing the "caster/martial disparity" that people find.

For wizards (the one I'm most convinced about), I'd estimate that approximately half their list needs to either go away entirely or be moved to subclass feature access. Want to cast polymorph or true polymorph? Got to be a Transmuter. And if you choose that, you're loosing out on Simulacrum, which is now an Illusion-only spell. And all the conjure/summon spells, which are conjuration only. Etc.

Sorcerers might probably work better on the cleric model (ie bonus spells known, not expanded lists), but I'd rather just give them more spells known and use the expanded list thing.

Clerics especially, for thematic reasons, should have some domain-specific spells and/or lose some from the base list. Animate dead is an obvious example--why are gods of good and light and healing granting animate dead?

But in the end, the only one I'd be willing to use this model for as it stands is wizards. Because half their levels between 2 and 17 are "I get a new level of spells". And that's boring. And promotes every even-sort-of-optimized wizard looking the same and no one taking the majority of the spells.

[JNAProductions]

It's an idea, but it'd definitely require a lot of work.

The schools (for Wizards) are NOT equal. And I'd imagine that a lot of subclasses wouldn't have enough spells for other classes too.

I'm not against it, by any means-but it's more work than just saying "Transmuter Wizards can only learn 4th or higher Transmutation spells."

[elyktsorb]

sounds like something that could cause more issues than improvements. Unless you make sure each subclass gets the same amount of useful spells, and those useful spells all have a similar level of impact.

[PhantomSoul]

I do think often having a mix of class and subclass lists would work best (and as a bonus[1], it's technically correct[2] that bards can only steal spells from any class, but there's no mention of subclass or race). Then again, often a tag system might be ideal for simplicity; you have a list with the Fey tag and those spells are available to Fey-origin sorcerers, for example.

____
[1] YMMV
[2] the best kind

[MrStabby]

Well given I have been arguing for pretty much exactly this for years, I am hardly likely to disagree.

[MaxWilson]

NOTE: I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. But it seems plausible.

Idea: For all full casters except warlocks, (ie Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid) WotC should follow the path set by the warlock and give them a small core list, expanded by choices from a subclass-locked extra list.

I certainly do like AD&D priests more than 5E clerics, because a priest with access to the spheres of Numbers, War, and Mind is very different from a priest with access to Healing and Elements.

I don't love the idea of organizing access by subclass-specific lists, because that's too much redundancy, but if different subclasses granted access to one or more pre-defined lists, that would be an improvement over the current way of doing clerics.

For wizards, it's more traditional to exclude opposed schools than to exclude every school but your own - - so unless you add back in a non-specialized wizard with no opposed schools, I wouldn't change anything here except eliminating the 2 auto-picks you get on leveling up. They are already limited by having to acquire spells before adding them to their spellbook (adventure hook ahoy!). Adding mandatory school restrictions on top would be needlessly punitive. But do eliminate (or at least reduce) the auto-picks, and import spell research rules. Finding the long-lost Simulacrum spell created by the archwizard Phandaal should be as exciting as finding a Holy Avenger is for a Paladin.

Then just eliminate sorcerers (the other Wish casters) from the game and I think you're good.

[JonBeowulf]

I do think often having a mix of class and subclass lists would work best (and as a bonus[1], it's technically correct[2] that bards can only steal spells from any class, but there's no mention of subclass or race). Then again, often a tag system might be ideal for simplicity; you have a list with the Fey tag and those spells are available to Fey-origin sorcerers, for example.

____
[1] YMMV
[2] the best kind
I like this... it does sound like a fair amount of work but I'm gonna give it a shot. Thanks.
(I mean, it's not like I'm doing anything useful between work and gaming.)

[Tanarii]

Not all Wizard schools have even one PHB spell per spell levels, let alone two.

Removing 16 spells per level would cut it by more than half for higher level spells, e.g. level 5 Wizard spells there are 23, so it's be removing 70%.

Mainly though ... how do you introduce new spells? To the main list, or by expanding the additional spells lists? Personally I'd say it has to but the latter. But I'd also be in favor of cutting back in spell bloat and power creep.

[Pex]

It's not unheard of. 2E specialist wizards had two banned schools. Illusionists for example could never learn or cast Necromancy and Invocation spells. 3E Psionics did this if not as much as you might prefer. The 2E cleric sphere system was supposed to do this, but the PHB made it meaningless. The Priest's Handbook went full into it but became obsolete when 2E Tome of Magic published new Spheres. There is a major problem and minor problem.

Major
Perfect equivalence of power may be impossible among the subclasses, but they need to be close enough. There's a reason in 2E Divination specialists only had one banned school. 5E Diviners get Portent, which is a juicy ability, but how many players in this hypthetical would be willing to cast Clairvoyance in exchange for never casting Fireball or Hypnotic Pattern? You will need some Big Boom spells be available for everyone. Maybe Fireball is iconic enough you'll allow for every wizard and gate Wall of Fire as Evocation only. Even so you will need to have worthy exclusive spells unless you're willing to accept School Special Abilities not being equal. That is, Divination has powerful School Abilities because it has weak exclusive spells, but Transmutation has weak School Abilities because it has powerful exclusive spells. It's not enough just to declare only Transmuters may cast Polymorph.

Minor
Player perspective. Presuming the idea works in balance, how players perceive it matters. "Wizard" needs to be changed to "Mage". For good or ill "wizard" implies you can cast any spell via game history and media. Flavor text needs to stress your character is more the School Specialization than the generic class name. Helping in Worldbuild it needs be advised it's gameworld normal that no one can cast every spell and are not supposed to. Whether there is a rivalry between Schools is for the DM to decide. You'll need a plausible explanation as why exclusive spells are such. Why can't an Illusionist cast Polymorph more than just because the rules say so? Rather, help the DM create a reason. Offer different ideas the DM can use and otherwise inspire the DM to create his own.

[MaxWilson]

It's not unheard of. 2E specialist wizards had two banned schools. Illusionists for example could never learn or cast Necromancy and Invocation spells. 3E Psionics did this if not as much as you might prefer. The 2E cleric sphere system was supposed to do this, but the PHB made it meaningless. The Priest's Handbook went full into it but became obsolete when 2E Tome of Magic published new Spheres. There is a major problem and minor problem.

Legends and Lore and Monster Mythology priests include priests with access to Tome of Magic spheres. There's nothing wrong with priests like CPH priests that don't use those spheres, though. That is, I don't think CPH is obsolete. Tome of Magic spheres are deliberately esoteric.

[Unoriginal]

No offense, PhoenixPhyre, but it sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No offense, PhoenixPhyre, but it sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

None taken. And I don't completely disagree. It's certainly not a priority in any of my games. The only class I feel really needs a change is wizards. IMO, they're the absolute, hands-down worst designed class in 5e. No thematic consistency, the (PHB) subclasses are vacuous (each has one major feature), and most of the levels are dead other than getting new spell levels. So boring + nearly impossible to balance because they can do almost anything and have very little opportunity cost. A bard can be built to do lots of things, but once specialized isn't nearly as good at the other things. A sorcerer must specialize. A wizard? Nah, tomorrow they can be completely different. That's horrible design that only encourages no-theme min-max. Clerics slightly less so--I dislike that clerics of all domains play so similarly, relying on the same couple of spells.


Then again, often a tag system might be ideal for simplicity; you have a list with the Fey tag and those spells are available to Fey-origin sorcerers, for example.


That would be my ideal. One of the things about D&D I like least is the fixed class spell lists. I've made an initial stab at breaking them out into "tagged" lists, organized by theme. Available as a google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AU6QqpZOSi8nrnBytp21wQmg3Ref2zI6Zu_pecVrKwE/edit?usp=sharing), I've found it useful for NPCs. Never playtested it for PCs yet, because I tend to run pretty "vanilla" (mechanically) games.

[verbatim]

I think to make it work it would have to be WotC doing it (5.5e?) in order to ensure that everyone is on the same page (people are not going to want to join your game if you homebrew this) and also to add a bunch of spells to ensure that every subclass has at least one thematically sensible spell at every level. If those two things were to happen then yeah I think it would be better than the current system.

[Unoriginal]

None taken. And I don't completely disagree. It's certainly not a priority in any of my games. The only class I feel really needs a change is wizards. IMO, they're the absolute, hands-down worst designed class in 5e. No thematic consistency, the (PHB) subclasses are vacuous (each has one major feature), and most of the levels are dead other than getting new spell levels. So boring + nearly impossible to balance because they can do almost anything and have very little opportunity cost. A bard can be built to do lots of things, but once specialized isn't nearly as good at the other things. A sorcerer must specialize. A wizard? Nah, tomorrow they can be completely different. That's horrible design that only encourages no-theme min-max. Clerics slightly less so--I dislike that clerics of all domains play so similarly, relying on the same couple of spells.

Since this is your issue with it, wouldn't it be better to re-work the Wizard subclasses to be more about their specialties and less about getting the next spell level, rather than just modify the spell lists (which wouldn't help make the subclasses less vacuous)?

[KittenMagician]

i looked at you tag list (i also agree with the idea of tags). 28 tags is quite excessive since each tag only has a few spells at certain levels (voidwalker only has one 2nd-level spell) i would focus on condensing them to maybe 14 or less. maybe hydromancer, geomancer, aeromancer, and pyromancer can get condensed into Elementalist. i understand the different mentalities often associated with the different elements but with each tag list having so few spells at each level it might be necessary. i will take a closer look at the tags and maybe come up with some more suggestions as to how to condense them.

[verbatim]

An interesting alternative would be giving Wizard subclasses the ability to scribe spell scrolls of their school of magic that they can't normally learn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since this is your issue with it, wouldn't it be better to re-work the Wizard subclasses to be more about their specialties and less about getting the next spell level, rather than just modify the spell lists (which wouldn't help make the subclasses less vacuous)?

But to do anything interesting with the subclasses requires first taking an axe to the spell list. Because giving them anything more as it stands would push them from "arguably the most powerful (and blandest)" to "absolutely the most powerful and slightly less bland". Both have to be done. There's no room to give them anything thematic without chainsaw surgery on the spell list, because currently they get a major feature every other level--new spell levels of a massive list.


i looked at you tag list (i also agree with the idea of tags). 28 tags is quite excessive since each tag only has a few spells at certain levels (voidwalker only has one 2nd-level spell) i would focus on condensing them to maybe 14 or less. maybe hydromancer, geomancer, aeromancer, and pyromancer can get condensed into Elementalist. i understand the different mentalities often associated with the different elements but with each tag list having so few spells at each level it might be necessary. i will take a closer look at the tags and maybe come up with some more suggestions as to how to condense them.

The idea was that you'd generally have your personal spell list be the union of two of those themes. Generally one free choice (from a subset chosen by class) and one dictated by your subclass. But I agree, there needs to be condensing.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Back when I thought I might be decent at DMing, I worked up a separate spell list for each of the Norse gods' clerics. I took away many spells, added a few non-cleric spells, and threw in a few thematic homebrew spells for each deity (and narrowed each god down to 3-4 possible domains so as to increase thematics and decrease redundancy). It was a huge amount of work, and I never even reached the point where I seriously considered real balancing.

Of course, it never saw any actual play because I punted on DMing before that could happen. But I imagine that any players would have absolutely hated it, and either carped continuously about the inadequacy of certain god's lists and how I'd gutted some clerics, or had a field day with creating exploits that I'd never considered. And that's assuming that anyone would even buy into a Norse-god-only campaign.

So, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the concept. But I can assure you it'd take a ton of work (for a possibly dubious payoff).

[thoroughlyS]

I have had the same idea in the back of my head for a while. I'd be down to help sort spells.

[No brains]

Having played a wizard of the school of enchantment (I think I'll just say enchanter), there are things I do and don't like about this idea. Many enchantment spells aren't on the wizard list and are almost the 'signature spells' of some classes. Your idea could break this barrier down and let enchanters buff and cc with the other classes.

The problem is that this idea runs aground of some spells not always fitting their thematic school. It's utterly reasonable for an enchanter to know the spells Cause Fear and Fear, but for whatever reason, they are Necromancy and Illusion respectively. Hex is an enchantment spell, but Bestow Curse is necromancy. There are a bunch of spells that fit thematic lines better than they fit school lines and your proposal can keep a player firmly locked to one school even if it hurts their theme or function.

As it stands, I think I can stand it the way things are. While an enchanter wizard won't be the best enchanter, they're still an effective wizard. All the rituals you can eat, no preparation necessary.

I should be wary mentioning this, but there are influential examples divine forces of good and light giving rise to skeleton armies. The game MediEvil is one example, but others will require personal research.

[thoroughlyS]

This doesn't have to be divided solely along schools. The enchanter can get fear and bestow curse could reasonably stay on the class list. Same thing with blasting. All wizards might get lightning bolt, but only an evoker gets fireball. Then you look at the sorcerer and say that shadow sorcerers can get vampiric touch.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This doesn't have to be divided solely along schools. The enchanter can get fear and bestow curse could reasonably stay on the class list. Same thing with blasting. All wizards might get lightning bolt, but only an evoker gets fireball. Then you look at the sorcerer and say that shadow sorcerers can get vampiric touch.

I agree. I, personally, think that the schools of magic are a legacy element that doesn't serve much purpose at this point. Balance lists by theme of spell. My general rule of thumb is that anything that could be described as spell X, but improved should be subclass specific (ie teleport vs teleport circle, true polymorph vs polymorph vs alter self, major image vs minor image, most of the wall of X spells (including forcecage), etc. Being an awful person, I'd say that most spells that make you go "yeah, this is a sure pick for almost any wizard" should go on a sub-class list instead of the main list. I'd leave mage armor and a few of the basic spells on the main list, even with that criterion, but yeah.

[PhantomSoul]

Having played a wizard of the school of enchantment (I think I'll just say enchanter), there are things I do and don't like about this idea. Many enchantment spells aren't on the wizard list and are almost the 'signature spells' of some classes. Your idea could break this barrier down and let enchanters buff and cc with the other classes.

Wizards are definitely not the place I'd look for the expansion overall (that's why my mind jumped to Sorcerers, for whom a core list + a thematic expansion seems best). For Wizards, I'd potentially have it so that they can use (but not scribe) spell scrolls of their chosen school if changing anything, but really, I'd be quite happy to have Wizards toned down a bit (e.g. having something like the old opposing schools + maybe a generalist option), though I'm all for a different class structure for them overall (e.g. having them have an initial school-based subclass and then the option for a prestige subclass sometimes based on their school, e.g. having war wizard, bladesinger and scribe wizard not be entry-level subclasses but instead advanced specialisations, a bit more like the class is organised into tiered education/learning).

[Guy Lombard-O]

Wizards are definitely not the place I'd look for the expansion overall (that's why my mind jumped to Sorcerers, for whom a core list + a thematic expansion seems best).

Agreed. The idea works much better, both mechanically and thematically, with Sorcerers, Clerics and Warlocks.

[thoroughlyS]

The idea is to trim down the base class spell list, by moving some of the spells to subclass lists. I argue that this idea is best applied to wizard, as they are the class with the most bloated spell list. The reason wizards are seen as the best class is because all of all of the dynamite spells that every wizard instantly has access to. If you move these spells to the subclasses, the wizard overall becomes less powerful, which means you can add back in strength elsewhere. For example, moving polymorph from the wizard spell list to a hypothetical transmuter spell list makes it so that not every wizard has access to one of the most powerful buff spells in the game.

[HPisBS]

...
Then just eliminate sorcerers (the other Wish casters) from the game and I think you're good.

Hey!

I like Sorcerers. (They're way more interesting than Wizards.)

[thoroughlyS]

I have drafted some preliminary lists (5th-level, which takes us through Tier 2) to generate some discussion. The idea is mostly to move the absolute best spells onto separate lists, so that each subclass gets something nice to play with. If a spell appears in one of the subclass lists, it isn't on the wizard spell list anymore. Spells in red are not originally wizard spells.

1st shield
2nd barkskin
3rd counterspell
4th banishment
5th dispel evil and good
1st unseen servant
2nd misty step
3rd sleet storm
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th steel wind strike
1st gift of alacrity
2nd detect thoughts
3rd nondetection
4th divination
5th scrying
1st Tasha's hideous laughter
2nd Tasha's mind whip
3rd intellect fortress
4th compulsion
5th synaptic static
1st chromatic orb
2nd darkness
3rd fireball
4th wall of fire
5th wall of force
1st color spray
2nd mirror image
3rd hypnotic pattern
4th greater invisibility
5th mislead
1st inflict wounds
2nd darkness
3rd animate dead
4th shadow of moil
5th danse macabre
1st entangle
2nd enhance ability
3rd slow
4th polymorph
5th animate objects

1st shield
2nd aid
3rd slow
4th wall of fire
5th steel wind strike

[Mercurias]

It seems like an interesting idea if you want to really make each specialization more...Specialized. I’d suggest you give it a shot at your table and see if you like it! It could be a lot of fun, but I’d probably let it stay an optional/home ruling.

[jas61292]

Being an awful person, I'd say that most spells that make you go "yeah, this is a sure pick for almost any wizard" should go on a sub-class list instead of the main list. I'd leave mage armor and a few of the basic spells on the main list, even with that criterion, but yeah.

I agree with this sentiment one hundred percent. Honestly, I think its mostly because I'm tired of "diviners" mainly abusing transmutation spells, but I do fully agree that the wizard list as a whole is way too bloated, and the best options being available to everyone makes them feel bland and same-y.

Pretty much every spell that is a "must pick" could be subclass exclusive, and the game would be far better for it, imo.

[MustaKrakish]

I totally agree. If Evokers only had fireball, and transmuters only had polymorph it would have made each school feel more special, and having these powerful spells would be a benefit in itself for choosing to play them.
Each subclass should feel different. Right now everyone can blast, and they do it as well as the evoker. But if evokers had their own, better, blasting spells it would've made them unique.

I was also experimenting with the idea. I thought about making a general list for all wizards, and then each school adds on the general list with their own specialty list.

[Lucas Yew]

Now this sounds like how the 3.5E Psion's exclusive "school" powers worked. :smallcool:

[ATHATH]

Wouldn't you run into issues with this system once enough subclasses and spells get printed across enough source books?

[Bobthewizard]

I see what you are trying to do, but I don't find it to be a problem in my games. The current system gives flexibility to the player making the wizard. Limiting spells to certain subclasses would take away that flexibility.

On this site, everyone seems to try to optimize, but when I play with others, they often pick spells for theme rather than power. If you want to build a thematic wizard, you can in the current system. There is nothing stopping you.

For me, I often mix subclass and theme to make something unique. I've made a divination wizard that focused on enchantment, with his portent being using overpowering will to force enemies do things.

I just made an illusion wizard that focused primarily on divination spells, using the divination spells to see the truth then bending that for her enemies.

Your system would take away my freedom to make unique and interesting characters. Every evoker would be the same. Every diviner would be the same. I can make more interesting characters with the current system.

[Theodoxus]

I went a bit more complicated, and honestly, I'm only about half-way through. What I did was take a page from Fantasy AGE and turned each school into a skill. I also added 4 schools (Life, Matter, Mind and Spirit) and reorganized all the spells into the 12 schools, making them fairly balanced (numerically, not power-wise; that's a feat I pale at trying to undertake).

Each spell casting class gets access to 2-4 Arcane Skills, and some are forbidden (so, Life (with all the healing and curative spells), is forbidden to Sorcerers and Wizards).

The advantage to making them skills means I can more finely tune the spells that are available for a specific campaign (if needed); the players have better control over their build (like Bob notes, you could now play a Diviner Wizard but never pick the Divination skill - if you wanted, or not pick up Evocation or Matter if you wanted to play more control and less blast.)

Scrolls become more common, as you can cast spells you don't have the Skill for, from scrolls (as they're universal). You can also train in additional skills if you want to expand your repertoire without multilclassing.

Finally, skills allow me to have skill checks for casting, which allowed me to completely rework magic into a slotless system where players can nova if they feel like it, but will greatly increase their chance of going "Out of Mana" for an extended period - or they can play more cautiously, intermixing leveled spells and cantrips to keep OOM a less likely event, but able to cast all day.

[thoroughlyS]

Does anyone think my subclass lists are a decent start? Or does anyone think I'm making this choice too heavily in favor of one subclass?

[Selion]

NOTE: I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. But it seems plausible.

Idea: For all full casters except warlocks, (ie Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid) WotC should follow the path set by the warlock and give them a small core list, expanded by choices from a subclass-locked extra list. The goal is to make subclasses meaningful, so you don't get the "I'm a generic sorcerer, just like every other sorcerer" issue. This would also go a long way to removing the "caster/martial disparity" that people find.

For wizards (the one I'm most convinced about), I'd estimate that approximately half their list needs to either go away entirely or be moved to subclass feature access. Want to cast polymorph or true polymorph? Got to be a Transmuter. And if you choose that, you're loosing out on Simulacrum, which is now an Illusion-only spell. And all the conjure/summon spells, which are conjuration only. Etc.

Sorcerers might probably work better on the cleric model (ie bonus spells known, not expanded lists), but I'd rather just give them more spells known and use the expanded list thing.

Clerics especially, for thematic reasons, should have some domain-specific spells and/or lose some from the base list. Animate dead is an obvious example--why are gods of good and light and healing granting animate dead?

But in the end, the only one I'd be willing to use this model for as it stands is wizards. Because half their levels between 2 and 17 are "I get a new level of spells". And that's boring. And promotes every even-sort-of-optimized wizard looking the same and no one taking the majority of the spells.

The average wizard/sorcerer would look less generic, but I'm not sure that removing customization is the way to go.
You are already free to select only ice spells for your white draconic sorcerer, or to skip fireball with a necromancer, we cannot complain the game system if at our tables players are prone to favor efficiency over characterization and this constraints would hinder the creation of original characters, and every draconic sorcerer would be just a draconic sorcerer.

I think it would be better if subclasses would tone up a lot a specific playstyle, with powers which synergizes with your spellcasting.
For example, look at the school of Enchantment:
powers at 2nd level and 6th levels are just additional powers which would be useful to any kind of mage, a blaster with hypnotic gaze doesn't sound like a enchantment focused wizard.
Powers at 10th and 14th, conversely, are a buff to enchantment spells

Another (bad) example is divination, this school gives you generic and strong buffs and it's used to land save or die spells instead of improving your divination powers

[Selion]

NOTE: I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. But it seems plausible.

Idea: For all full casters except warlocks, (ie Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid) WotC should follow the path set by the warlock and give them a small core list, expanded by choices from a subclass-locked extra list. The goal is to make subclasses meaningful, so you don't get the "I'm a generic sorcerer, just like every other sorcerer" issue. This would also go a long way to removing the "caster/martial disparity" that people find.

For wizards (the one I'm most convinced about), I'd estimate that approximately half their list needs to either go away entirely or be moved to subclass feature access. Want to cast polymorph or true polymorph? Got to be a Transmuter. And if you choose that, you're loosing out on Simulacrum, which is now an Illusion-only spell. And all the conjure/summon spells, which are conjuration only. Etc.

Sorcerers might probably work better on the cleric model (ie bonus spells known, not expanded lists), but I'd rather just give them more spells known and use the expanded list thing.

Clerics especially, for thematic reasons, should have some domain-specific spells and/or lose some from the base list. Animate dead is an obvious example--why are gods of good and light and healing granting animate dead?

But in the end, the only one I'd be willing to use this model for as it stands is wizards. Because half their levels between 2 and 17 are "I get a new level of spells". And that's boring. And promotes every even-sort-of-optimized wizard looking the same and no one taking the majority of the spells.

The average wizard/sorcerer would look less generic, but I'm not sure that removing customization is the way to go.
You are already free to select only ice spells for your white draconic sorcerer, or to skip fireball with a necromancer, we cannot complain the game system if at our tables players are prone to favor efficiency over characterization and this constraints would hinder the creation of original characters, and every draconic sorcerer would be just a draconic sorcerer.

I think it would be better if subclasses would tone up a lot a specific playstyle, with powers which synergizes with your spellcasting.
For example, look at the school of Enchantment:
powers at 2nd level and 6th levels are just additional powers which would be useful to any kind of mage, a blaster with hypnotic gaze doesn't sound like a enchantment focused wizard.
Powers at 10th and 14th, conversely, are a buff to enchantment spells

Another (bad) example is divination, this school gives you generic and strong buffs and it's used to land save or die spells instead of improving your divination powers

[Fenice]

Does anyone think my subclass lists are a decent start? Or does anyone think I'm making this choice too heavily in favor of one subclass?


Does anyone think my subclass lists are a decent start? Or does anyone think I'm making this choice too heavily in favor of one subclass?

Hey, I'm loving this idea and your implementation, though I would change a few things.
The one thing I'm not crazy about is using non-wizard spells, I understand why you'd do it but if I were to do this I would just keep with the original idea and work with spells already in the wizard list.


1st shield
2nd barkskin warding wind (not abjuration, but the theme is defensive down to its name)
3rd counterspell
4th banishment
5th dispel evil and good planar binding (this can be seen as the improved version of magic circle)
1st unseen servant
2nd misty step
3rd sleet storm
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th steel wind strike Bigby's hand (your suggested spell feels more like a bladesinger spell)

I would probably consider putting the Tasha summoning spells on this list (since they are basically improved version of the summons from previously published material), but only if you want to break with the "one spell per level" principle.
1st gift of alacrity
2nd detect thoughts
3rd nondetection
4th divination
5th scrying
1st Tasha's hideous laughter
2nd Tasha's mind whip suggestion (I think this spell better fits. You can see it as an improved version of charm person and it fits the theme of enchanter better than "psionic attack")
3rd intellect fortress enemies abound (like above, I think this spell better fits the theme. Also a better spell, I feel like the enchanter should get some love considering it's already a bit underwhelming as a subclass)
4th compulsion charm monster (an improved version of charm person and a wizard spell)
5th synaptic static
1st chromatic orb
2nd darkness
3rd fireball
4th wall of fire
5th wall of force
1st color spray silent image (I think this spell better defines the illusionist and it could be seen as the improvement of minor illusion. Also color spray isn't *that* great of a spell, it feels weird to have it as a specialist spell.
2nd mirror image
3rd hypnotic pattern
4th greater invisibility
5th mislead
1st inflict wounds false life
2nd darkness enhance ability (not a necromancy spell either, but I think it fits better because necromancy is also about manipulating life energy so I could see a "doping" spell as fitting. While darkness has less to do with necromancy and more to do with the idea that necromancers are dark and evil)
3rd animate dead
4th shadow of moil sickening radiance (I know this is not a necromancy spells but it's much much cooler and it feels to me that it better fits the theme of necromancy)
5th danse macabre
1st entangle magnify gravity
2nd enhance ability
3rd slow fly (this is probably going to be controversial, but this is the improved version of levitate and spider climb. Also, if the idea is to lock the best wizard spells behind specialization, this is one of the best wizard spells)
4th polymorph
5th animate objects

1st shield
2nd aid enhance ability
3rd slow counterspell (the war wizard has a feature linked to counterspell, not much sense in them not having access to it)
4th wall of fire
5th steel wind strike Bigby's hand

1st gift of alacrity
2nd mirror image
3rd fly
4th greater invisibility
5th steel wind strike

1st unseen servant
2nd warding wind
3rd fireball
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th animate objects

Note: Since the Order of the Scribe doesn't have a really strong theme, I mainly went for spells that synergize with their class features (rituals, damaging spell that benefit from their ability to change damage type, self spells that benefit from Manifest Mind, etc.)

[CapnWildefyr]

I certainly do like AD&D priests more than 5E clerics, because a priest with access to the spheres of Numbers, War, and Mind is very different from a priest with access to Healing and Elements.

I don't love the idea of organizing access by subclass-specific lists, because that's too much redundancy, but if different subclasses granted access to one or more pre-defined lists, that would be an improvement over the current way of doing clerics.

For wizards, it's more traditional to exclude opposed schools than to exclude every school but your own - - so unless you add back in a non-specialized wizard with no opposed schools, I wouldn't change anything here except eliminating the 2 auto-picks you get on leveling up. They are already limited by having to acquire spells before adding them to their spellbook (adventure hook ahoy!). Adding mandatory school restrictions on top would be needlessly punitive. But do eliminate (or at least reduce) the auto-picks, and import spell research rules. Finding the long-lost Simulacrum spell created by the archwizard Phandaal should be as exciting as finding a Holy Avenger is for a Paladin.

Then just eliminate sorcerers (the other Wish casters) from the game and I think you're good.

Maybe we're both touched by "old school" philosophy but I like your approach best -- although I'm not sure there's a problem, or enough of a problem.

Still, revive the banned schools list. It's far easier than playing games with sublists.

For the generalist wizard, let them have access to all schools, and let them gain 2 spells per level, but no other abilities. For the specialists, give them 1 spell/level only. Or maybe for all, only get new spells when you can learn from a new level -- that would slow spell acquisition even more, if you want.

The only thing - don't eliminate sorcerers. I think you can make them a different-styled, complete SR caster instead, with a different flavor and a bunch of various other changes. Haven't play-tested it yet.

[ZRN]

I think this would be a good idea for 6e; one of the biggest problems with some 5e classes (especially the sorcerer) is that their spell list ends up too generic. But it would be a LOT of work (and lots of new spells created) to make it work for the existing subclasses in 5e - especially the million wizard schools.

As a more workable compromise, I'd suggest making those subclass-exclusive spell lists, and then say that everything else on the class list has to be cast at least one level higher. That way a non-illusionist wizard still has Invisibility if he wants it, but he has to use a level 3+ slot for it. Using those higher-level slots would still have the normal upcasting benefits - he could affect 2 targets using a third-level slot - but it would prevent you from using the best non-subclass spells efficiently and as soon as they're available for the specialist.

How to balance this would depend on how extensive those subclass lists are. Arguably you could make all wizard spells subclass spells for their respective schools and the newly nerfed wizard would still be reasonably balanced, but I can't imagine how you'd work with e.g. clerics and druids to make this remotely balanced. But honestly that's even MORE of a problem with the OP's proposal, so... ???

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this would be a good idea for 6e; one of the biggest problems with some 5e classes (especially the sorcerer) is that their spell list ends up too generic. But it would be a LOT of work (and lots of new spells created) to make it work for the existing subclasses in 5e - especially the million wizard schools.

As a more workable compromise, I'd suggest making those subclass-exclusive spell lists, and then say that everything else on the class list has to be cast at least one level higher. That way a non-illusionist wizard still has Invisibility if he wants it, but he has to use a level 3+ slot for it. Using those higher-level slots would still have the normal upcasting benefits - he could affect 2 targets using a third-level slot - but it would prevent you from using the best non-subclass spells efficiently and as soon as they're available for the specialist.

How to balance this would depend on how extensive those subclass lists are. Arguably you could make all wizard spells subclass spells for their respective schools and the newly nerfed wizard would still be reasonably balanced, but I can't imagine how you'd work with e.g. clerics and druids to make this remotely balanced. But honestly that's even MORE of a problem with the OP's proposal, so... ???

Taking this back to front:

* As for clerics and druids, I have little thematic problems with them (or at least a whole lot less of a problem). So no pressing need to touch them at all. It's just a shuffling of the wizard list and spell schools, and their abilities and lists don't care about the schools of the spells at all. I don't find clerics or druids unbalancing things on their own--on the stronger side in some circumstances yes, but overall not a big issue. Unlike wizards, who are the go-to for broken things.

* I'd prefer to move wizard subclasses away from the schools of magic entirely. Because those are pointless and useless legacy fluff with no clear meaning or thematics, as well as horribly unbalanced. Define a theme for each subclass, give them spells that match that theme. Yes, those themes are going to be narrower than the existing ones. Which is good, because the current ones are vacuous in the extreme. Yes, even War Magic and Bladesinger. Scribes is even worse than most of the PHB ones. And at the same time you could reduce the number of wizard subclasses down to something more manageable and with room for growth.

* I wouldn't mind some overlap between subclass-lists, especially at lower levels. I also had the thought of tiering things. Any wizard can learn 0-2nd level spells. Then you can only learn 3-5th level spells outside your specialty a spell level late (so a non-Explosive wizard gets fireball at level 7 at the earliest). And 6-9 are specialty-only. So a non summoner would never be able to learn Gate, and a non-jump across the world-er would never get teleport (picking a few spells at random).

* I agree that a real fix would require a new edition. But a person can dream, can't they?



For the generalist wizard, let them have access to all schools, and let them gain 2 spells per level, but no other abilities. For the specialists, give them 1 spell/level only. Or maybe for all, only get new spells when you can learn from a new level -- that would slow spell acquisition even more, if you want.


I strongly disagree. No generalists. Period. Because the spells are strong enough that that just makes the generalist the one to pick and is basically what we've got now--bland class defined by "all the spells". Throw that in the trash. It's a failed model that breaks things.

[PhantomSoul]

I think this would be a good idea for 6e; one of the biggest problems with some 5e classes (especially the sorcerer) is that their spell list ends up too generic. But it would be a LOT of work (and lots of new spells created) to make it work for the existing subclasses in 5e - especially the million wizard schools.

As a more workable compromise, I'd suggest making those subclass-exclusive spell lists, and then say that everything else on the class list has to be cast at least one level higher. That way a non-illusionist wizard still has Invisibility if he wants it, but he has to use a level 3+ slot for it. Using those higher-level slots would still have the normal upcasting benefits - he could affect 2 targets using a third-level slot - but it would prevent you from using the best non-subclass spells efficiently and as soon as they're available for the specialist.

How to balance this would depend on how extensive those subclass lists are. Arguably you could make all wizard spells subclass spells for their respective schools and the newly nerfed wizard would still be reasonably balanced, but I can't imagine how you'd work with e.g. clerics and druids to make this remotely balanced. But honestly that's even MORE of a problem with the OP's proposal, so... ???

Hm, instead of mandatory upcasting, maybe basically having wizards be half-casters except in their chosen school (half-caster progression is easy: max spell level proficiency bonus - 1, barring the level 1 vs. level 2 thing). Obviously spell schools need to be balanced better for that, though, and maybe 2/3rd caster is a better hypothetical rate. (And really, I'd be more tempted to make sorcerers progress more slowly in maximum spell level than wizards in an ideal version, but really I guess you pick the lore that best fits the mechanics or the mechanics that best fit the lore.)

[thoroughlyS]

It's awesome to see some feedback. I kind of cobbled these together just to get a good framework. I used Treantmonk's Guide to the God Wizard for a quick reference, but I was mostly trying to start the discussion.


1st shield
2nd barkskin warding wind
3rd counterspell
4th banishment
5th dispel evil and good planar binding
I like these alterations. Warding wind isn't all that great, but abjurers get shield, so I'm fine with it.

1st unseen servant
2nd misty step
3rd sleet storm
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th steel wind strike Bigby's hand
Great suggestion, I can't believe I didn't see the obvious answer.

1st Tasha's hideous laughter
2nd Tasha's mind whip suggestion
3rd intellect fortress enemies abound
4th compulsion charm monster
5th synaptic static
My concern is that suggestion feels like one of those spells that any caster should be able to do, but I can see the argument for it being enchanter only. Also, what if instead of enemies abound, it was fear, as mentioned earlier in the thread?

1st color spray silent image
2nd mirror image
3rd hypnotic pattern
4th greater invisibility
5th mislead
I'm not sure about this one. I know color spray kind of sucks, but I feel like silent image is the "basic" spell. If anything major image should be the gated one. I am of the opinion that there should be two spells on the list for 1st-5th level (to match the warlock) and one spell of 6th-level and higher. But we can expand the lists later.

1st inflict wounds false life
2nd darkness enhance ability
3rd animate dead
4th shadow of moil sickening radiance
5th danse macabre
I feel like necromancer needs a boost, so inflict wounds and shadow of moil would be really nice additions (although I can see the argument for sickening radiance). I admit the darkness pick was a little cliché, but I don't think enhance ability is the way to go.

1st entangle magnify gravity
2nd enhance ability
3rd slow fly
4th polymorph
5th animate objects
I think fly is the right call. I think magnify gravity should be unique to the graviturgist, which is why I opt for entangle.

1st shield
2nd aid enhance ability
3rd slow counterspell
4th wall of fire
5th steel wind strike Bigby's hand
Great catch on counterspell, I was not meaning to break their class feature. I'm not sold on enhance ability here either, but I do like Bigby's hand.

1st gift of alacrity
2nd mirror image
3rd fly
4th greater invisibility
5th steel wind strike
I'm not sold on fly for a bladesinger. What do you think about thunderstep?

1st unseen servant
2nd warding wind
3rd fireball
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th animate objects
Yeah, the problem with this is as you add subclasses, you either need to introduce new exclusive spells, or fall back on spells that are already exclusive to other subclasses... I don't really care enough about the scribes wizard to offer any feedback on them.

[ZRN]

I'd prefer to move wizard subclasses away from the schools of magic entirely. Because those are pointless and useless legacy fluff with no clear meaning or thematics, as well as horribly unbalanced. Define a theme for each subclass, give them spells that match that theme. Yes, those themes are going to be narrower than the existing ones. Which is good, because the current ones are vacuous in the extreme. Yes, even War Magic and Bladesinger. Scribes is even worse than most of the PHB ones. And at the same time you could reduce the number of wizard subclasses down to something more manageable and with room for growth.

You know, you could actually write a handful of wizard subclasses that worked this way without TOO much effort, and it might solve a lot of your issues! Take something like the 5 Magic: The Gathering colors and make each of them a subclass, and then have part of that subclass be a restriction on non-subclass spells. (Obviously the subclasses would suck compared to the published ones because they intentionally make you worse than the base class in some ways, but that's kind of the point, right?)



I wouldn't mind some overlap between subclass-lists, especially at lower levels. I also had the thought of tiering things. Any wizard can learn 0-2nd level spells. Then you can only learn 3-5th level spells outside your specialty a spell level late (so a non-Explosive wizard gets fireball at level 7 at the earliest). And 6-9 are specialty-only. So a non summoner would never be able to learn Gate, and a non-jump across the world-er would never get teleport (picking a few spells at random).


Since you don't get a subclass until level 2, definitely everyone gets all level 1 spells. I'd say level 2-5 spells have to be upcast 1 level. I worry that NO level 6+ spells outside of specialty would still be too restrictive, especially since some of those spells (like Teleport) are so important for the whole party.

We should try it, though! What would your ideal pack of subclasses be?

[PhantomSoul]

I feel like necromancer needs a boost, so inflict wounds and shadow of moil would be really nice additions (although I can see the argument for sickening radiance). I admit the darkness pick was a little cliché, but I don't think enhance ability is the way to go.


Inflict Wounds is also better when Grim Harvest is taken into account; it gives you a guaranteed damage-dealing necromancy spell of first-level or higher to get a better chance at using the feature.

[Silly Name]

Wouldn't you run into issues with this system once enough subclasses and spells get printed across enough source books?

Well, an answer could be that if spells are going to be the main class feature of spellcasters, then it's ok for new subclasses to grant exclusive features not available to other subclasses. Same way that a Battle Master Fighter doesn't get to play with the Rune Knight's toys.

The other option is to diminish bloat and just not make some spells/subclasses available. I'd also be ok with a new book not having any new spells and instead use that space for other stuff such as equipment, mundane options, variant rules and so on - 5e has a very large spell list available in any case.

[GeneralVryth]

The problem in part comes from the fact that spells themselves aren't well balanced. Beyond saying that I feel like I should go look for old posts of mine on the proper fixes to this. I certainly wouldn't want to play a version of D&D without the generalist mage. And I suspect I am not alone in that view so I can't imagine this ever being more than a dream.

Btw, Sorcerer's should be the hyper-specialized caster in terms of available spells known, while having lot's of flexibility in how to cast those spells, and other sub-class features with power fleshing out their "bloodline".

Wizards should have larger access to spells known, and spells they could potentially know in exchange for a more rigid casting structure, with less powerful subclass features (maybe mixed with some sub-classes that trade spells known/access for more powerful features).

[Willie the Duck]

I'd prefer to move wizard subclasses away from the schools of magic entirely. Because those are pointless and useless legacy fluff with no clear meaning or thematics, as well as horribly unbalanced. Define a theme for each subclass, give them spells that match that theme. Yes, those themes are going to be narrower than the existing ones. Which is good, because the current ones are vacuous in the extreme. Yes, even War Magic and Bladesinger. Scribes is even worse than most of the PHB ones. And at the same time you could reduce the number of wizard subclasses down to something more manageable and with room for growth.

I think the 8 schools made sense as a decent way of splitting out magic into broad conceptual effects (although given how often healing and teleportation magic jump schools, I'd say even within that framework it has some limitations. Likewise, it made sense that something like an illusionist might be a good sub-type of caster and I get why Illusionist became a subtype of magic user in AD&D. When 2e branched it out into a specialist for each school, but without checking to the inter-school balance or whether a specialist of each type of school even represented a discrete character concept, that's where I think some re-thinking was in order.

One thing that 3.5 tried, which I think was too little too late* but a rather inventive idea, was to make thematic types of sub-arcane-casters. Things like the Beguiler (a caster based on trickery, definitely focused on what would be considered illusion and enchantment magic, but not beholden to the illusionist or enchanter specialist model), a Dread Necromancer, or a Warmage (direct damage all the time). Those still hew fairly closely to the AD&D specialties, but I think if the model hadn't been abortive, we'd have seen more things like elementalists, curse-based casters, or a dedicated summoner (not conjurer, with all the other baggage that entails, like transportation stuff of conjuration:healing or similar).I think if one were to rebuild the primary arcane caster class, it'd be to split it out into such types of themes.
*They'd already made wizards, and specialists who used the AD&D style school specializations, and they were much more powerful than these classes (barring a heavy dose of cheeze somehow through creative prestige class choice or the like).



I certainly do like AD&D priests more than 5E clerics, because a priest with access to the spheres of Numbers, War, and Mind is very different from a priest with access to Healing and Elements.

I loved that conceptually, although again that's one of the things that, when they decided they were going to do it, I wish they'd kinda made some new spells to flesh out some of the spheres or the like. IIRC elemental, healing, and protection covered a huge swath of the spell list, while some of the more interesting conceptual spheres had very little support.


I agree. I, personally, think that the schools of magic are a legacy element that doesn't serve much purpose at this point. Balance lists by theme of spell. My general rule of thumb is that anything that could be described as spell X, but improved should be subclass specific (ie teleport vs teleport circle, true polymorph vs polymorph vs alter self, major image vs minor image, most of the wall of X spells (including forcecage), etc. Being an awful person, I'd say that most spells that make you go "yeah, this is a sure pick for almost any wizard" should go on a sub-class list instead of the main list. I'd leave mage armor and a few of the basic spells on the main list, even with that criterion, but yeah.
There are some spells that should just be re-written, regardless of who gets them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hm, instead of mandatory upcasting, maybe basically having wizards be half-casters except in their chosen school (half-caster progression is easy: max spell level proficiency bonus - 1, barring the level 1 vs. level 2 thing). Obviously spell schools need to be balanced better for that, though, and maybe 2/3rd caster is a better hypothetical rate. (And really, I'd be more tempted to make sorcerers progress more slowly in maximum spell level than wizards in an ideal version, but really I guess you pick the lore that best fits the mechanics or the mechanics that best fit the lore.)

I'd like them to be able to upcast low-level non-specialist spells, just not have access to the high-level non-specialist ones. And I don't see why sorcerers should be penalized at all. In fact, if anything I'd say wizards should be. Because it takes more effort for them to learn things (instead of coming from within). Sorcerers are natural savants at casting. Wizards have to struggle for things.


The problem in part comes from the fact that spells themselves aren't well balanced. Beyond saying that I feel like I should go look for old posts of mine on the proper fixes to this. I certainly wouldn't want to play a version of D&D without the generalist mage. And I suspect I am not alone in that view so I can't imagine this ever being more than a dream.

Btw, Sorcerer's should be the hyper-specialized caster in terms of available spells known, while having lot's of flexibility in how to cast those spells, and other sub-class features with power fleshing out their "bloodline".

Wizards should have larger access to spells known, and spells they could potentially know in exchange for a more rigid casting structure, with less powerful subclass features (maybe mixed with some sub-classes that trade spells known/access for more powerful features).

I strongly disagree about generalist mages. They're a full-on mistake. Because they're fundamentally unbalanceable and lack thematics. Spell list == class features is bad design.

And I strongly disagree that wizards should have more power in the spell list and less in the class/subclass features. That's exactly what we have now, and it's broken by design. And cannot be balanced or thematic.

If you have a class that intrinsically gains substantial power every time a new book with spells is released, you've got issues. And if the class is entirely designed around having the most powerful and varied spell selection, then the problem gets worse exponentially due to feedback.

Honestly, if I were designing it from scratch, I'd make sorcerer (thematically) the base and have the "casts from a book" be a subclass/ACF of that that gets the ability to trade out spells in exchange for losing metamagic.



There are some spells that should just be re-written, regardless of who gets them.

Fully agreed. IMO, polymorph should decide--is it a friendly buff or a hostile debuff. Thematically, I'd prefer leaving it as a hostile debuff (baleful polymorph). That's the sane, sensible, thematic ("turn you into a frog!") use; the "buff a friend" mode is the one that's difficult to balance and awkward.

Plus, changing the "X of force" type spells to being able to be broken physically would be nice. No more "forcecage == out of combat" thing.

[GeneralVryth]

I strongly disagree about generalist mages. They're a full-on mistake. Because they're fundamentally unbalanceable and lack thematics. Spell list == class features is bad design.

And I strongly disagree that wizards should have more power in the spell list and less in the class/subclass features. That's exactly what we have now, and it's broken by design. And cannot be balanced or thematic.

If you have a class that intrinsically gains substantial power every time a new book with spells is released, you've got issues. And if the class is entirely designed around having the most powerful and varied spell selection, then the problem gets worse exponentially due to feedback.

Honestly, if I were designing it from scratch, I'd make sorcerer (thematically) the base and have the "casts from a book" be a subclass/ACF of that that gets the ability to trade out spells in exchange for losing metamagic.


We just have different views on how we would approach this, which is actually fine since it's unlikely either of us will ever be in a position for them to matter on a scale that would effect the other. I do want to emphasize though that I think the core problem is that the spells themselves are not well balanced (some spells are just bad at what they are meant to do, and lots of spells scale badly). If the spells themself were better balanced you would have fewer "must take" spells and if spells scaled better when up cast you could afford to have a greater variation of spells or smaller known spell list.

Also, I didn't say Wizards should get more of their power from the breadth of spells known than their sub-class features, I said they should get more of their power from it than Sorcerer's do.

Wizards:
More spells known/access
stricter casting method (have to use slots etc...)
Some class abilities shared by sub-classes
Some broad sub-classes with no limitations on spells known with broader but weaker abilities (or narrow abilities not related to spell casting like the Bladesinger).
Some narrow sub-classes with restrictions on spells known, with abilities that focus on a theme of magic and notably enhance that theme.

Sorcerers:
Fewer spells known (perhaps locked to subclass with a couple of "general" picks)
Flexible casting method (spell points...)
No significant class abilities shared by sub-classes (sub-classes are very heavy, as close to being their own classes as you can get in the 5e system)
Sub-classes narrowly focused on the power of a bloodline, with powerful abilities (ex. a dragon bloodline with a focus on draconic flavored spells, various dragon based abilities, natural armor/weapons, elemental reinforcement, wings, blindsight, frightful presence, likely ending in either ability to transform into a dragon temporarily or permanently).
A couple of sub-classes focussed on a broader theme, like the lore bard for bards (would have access to a larger than normal spell list, maybe something like meta-magic powers for an "Arcane" Sorcerer)

The above can be balanced and thematic but it starts with balancing the spells because that is why we have so many of the problems we do. Sub-class abilities that encourage certain kinds of spells tend not to be enough to make them usable over the current high end spells. Better spell balance allows sub-class abilities to make certain themes more effective.

For example let's assume we had a basic sub-class ability that encouraged the use of thunder damage spells, by always upcasting them 1 level for free. Even using a 3rd level level slot (with a free upcast to 4th) Shatter is still going to do less damage than Fireball, and Shatter is actually a decent level 2 blast spell. That just shows both how strong Fireball is, and how inefficient upcasting is, which further reinforces some spells being better than others.

[Valmark]

I don't think it'd have the hoped outcome. Reducing freedom of choice and versatily by enforcing archetypes seems like a good way to make wizards more equal... Or make them not get played.

People that already picked thematic spells over optimal ones (assuming those don't get along) either won't care or will have less themes they can try (as an example a wizard that wants to use fire potentially not being able to have both, say, Fireball and Conjure Elemental [Fire]), while those that indeed pick optimal over thematics will... Well, the same thing. But with more unhappy people.

I feel like a better job would be (aside from tweaking a few specific spells that are either too weak or too strong) making sure each subclass is actually good at using its thematic spells. As an example the... Transmuter, I think? Is actively pushed away from learning Transmutation spells (through level up). Meanwhile an Evoker's features interact well with its school making them easily the best blaster (at least out of wizards)- that could be addressed.

Of course it all applies to other classes, although less.

Something else to note is that available spells are DM-gated for wizards (the only class with this restriction) when it comes to versatility- as such picking the best ones is encouraged. If there was a less DM-dependant way to gain them there'd be more variation.

EDIT: Not entirely true about the transmuter, now that I checked. Still, the benefits are so marginal that they aren't actually better at transmuting then anybody else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think it'd have the hoped outcome. Reducing freedom of choice and versatily by enforcing archetypes seems like a good way to make wizards more equal... Or make them not get played.


If the only reason people play wizards is because they're broken....isn't that a problem?

Every other class has to deal with reduced versatility and archetypes. Why not wizards? I'd say that wizards being this free-floating "I can do everything and do it as well as the specialists most of the time" class is a problem in and of itself. It's a thing that should never have been. It's a mistake.

Enforcing archetypes is the way out. It's the only way to not have this outlier who doesn't fit any of the rest of the designs and is basically just there to be broken and to break games. Under the proposal, there's no way to "pick the best spells"--those "best spells" are divvied out between the subclasses.

And you can't make features that try to make their spells better--you're already way over budget just by including the spell list. That spell list is like kudzu or morning glory. It takes up all of the build space and chokes out any thematic improvements you could make. It needs to be trimmed in order to have breathing room.

[GeneralVryth]

If the only reason people play wizards is because they're broken....isn't that a problem?

Every other class has to deal with reduced versatility and archetypes. Why not wizards? I'd say that wizards being this free-floating "I can do everything and do it as well as the specialists most of the time" class is a problem in and of itself. It's a thing that should never have been. It's a mistake.

Enforcing archetypes is the way out. It's the only way to not have this outlier who doesn't fit any of the rest of the designs and is basically just there to be broken and to break games. Under the proposal, there's no way to "pick the best spells"--those "best spells" are divvied out between the subclasses.

And you can't make features that try to make their spells better--you're already way over budget just by including the spell list. That spell list is like kudzu or morning glory. It takes up all of the build space and chokes out any thematic improvements you could make. It needs to be trimmed in order to have breathing room.

The problem doesn't just exist with Wizards though, they just happen to be the most extreme example. Every spellcasting class has issues with spells where some are distinctly better than others. How many Clerics do you see not preparing Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians? Didn't we have a thread about Sorcerers feeling samey because of a few spells known and certain spells seeming distinctly better than the rest in just the last week? Wizards come up because they have the broadest list and can have the most spells prepared of any class. But the problem is the balance of the spells themself. Just locking out certain Wizard sub-class from various "good" spells doesn't fix the problem for the other classes and just weakens the Wizard class so you can make room to put more power in the sub-classes. Which kind of works if you only care about Wizards, but doesn't address the real problem if you take a broader view at what is going on.

[Valmark]

If the only reason people play wizards is because they're broken....isn't that a problem?

Every other class has to deal with reduced versatility and archetypes. Why not wizards? I'd say that wizards being this free-floating "I can do everything and do it as well as the specialists most of the time" class is a problem in and of itself. It's a thing that should never have been. It's a mistake.

Enforcing archetypes is the way out. It's the only way to not have this outlier who doesn't fit any of the rest of the designs and is basically just there to be broken and to break games. Under the proposal, there's no way to "pick the best spells"--those "best spells" are divvied out between the subclasses.

And you can't make features that try to make their spells better--you're already way over budget just by including the spell list. That spell list is like kudzu or morning glory. It takes up all of the build space and chokes out any thematic improvements you could make. It needs to be trimmed in order to have breathing room.
Who said that's the only reason? I'm saying that limiting the kind of characters you can do seems like it'll do the opposite of what you want.

Do you mean reduced versatility with your homebrew? If so yeah, it's fair wizards get it too. But outside of it wizards are decidedly not the most versatile- of their big spell list without DM-intervention they can only have a very small slice to prepare spells from.

The problem doesn't just exist with Wizards though, they just happen to be the most extreme example. Every spellcasting class has issues with spells where some are distinctly better than others. How many Clerics do you see not preparing Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians? Didn't we have a thread about Sorcerers feeling samey because of a few spells known and certain spells seeming distinctly better than the rest in just the last week? Wizards come up because they have the broadest list and can have the most spells prepared of any class. But the problem is the balance of the spells themself. Just locking out certain Wizard sub-class from various "good" spells doesn't fix the problem for the other classes and just weakens the Wizard class so you can make room to put more power in the sub-classes. Which kind of works if you only care about Wizards, but doesn't address the real problem if you take a broader view at what is going on.

Just wanted to say that clerics have easily more spells prepared then wizards- and... Land druids too I think? I seem to recall them having bonus spells. Could be wrong though.

[Fenice]

My concern is that suggestion feels like one of those spells that any caster should be able to do, but I can see the argument for it being enchanter only. Also, what if instead of enemies abound, it was fear, as mentioned earlier in the thread?
Personally I feel the opposite way, "mind influence" feels one of the most specialized concepts to me. Throughout the editions there have been so many classes born out of this archetype (bard, beguiler, psion...) and it always felt frustrating to me that ultimately the guy who could cast fireball could do ther job just as well.

As for fear, personally I like enemies abound more not only thematically, but also because the latter actually benefits from the enchanter's Split Enchantment feature. Though I guess that you could argue that since the enchanter is already better than any other wizard at casting enemies abound, you might as well give them another spell as an exclusive one.


I'm not sure about this one. I know color spray kind of sucks, but I feel like silent image is the "basic" spell. If anything major image should be the gated one. I am of the opinion that there should be two spells on the list for 1st-5th level (to match the warlock) and one spell of 6th-level and higher. But we can expand the lists later.
I can see why you don't like it, it does somewhat break with the idea we were going for.
The thing is, IMHO the illusionist subclass is really underwhelming at low levels. It gets great later on, but at low levels the only thing illusionists have going for them is that they can cast a better minor illusion, I guess?
So I feel like with this variant illusionists should have access to very solid low level spells to keep the pace. Maybe we should look outside of illusion for that level, what about sleep?


I feel like necromancer needs a boost, so inflict wounds and shadow of moil would be really nice additions (although I can see the argument for sickening radiance). I admit the darkness pick was a little cliché, but I don't think enhance ability is the way to go.
I don't know, I'm really not crazy about using this variant as an excuse to give even more spells to wizards, so I'd rather avoid non-wizard spells, but I can see your argument for inflict wounds.
I guess you're right about darkness being the better choice, though I still believe sickening radiance is more thematically appropriate. Not only does sickening radiance inflict exhaustion, but shadow of moil is a go-ahead-and-hit-me spell, which feels wrong on character who supposedly wants to hide behind their undead minions.


I'm not sold on fly for a bladesinger. What do you think about thunderstep?
I chose fly because it was already an exclusive spell and fit the theme of 'mobility', but I do like your suggestion a lot, it does feel like a perfect bladesinger spell.


Thank you for your feedback, I'm really loving how things are turning out!

[thoroughlyS]

The problem doesn't just exist with Wizards though, they just happen to be the most extreme example. Every spellcasting class has issues with spells where some are distinctly better than others. How many Clerics do you see not preparing Spiritual Weapon or Spirit Guardians? Didn't we have a thread about Sorcerers feeling samey because of a few spells known and certain spells seeming distinctly better than the rest in just the last week? Wizards come up because they have the broadest list and can have the most spells prepared of any class. But the problem is the balance of the spells themself. Just locking out certain Wizard sub-class from various "good" spells doesn't fix the problem for the other classes and just weakens the Wizard class so you can make room to put more power in the sub-classes. Which kind of works if you only care about Wizards, but doesn't address the real problem if you take a broader view at what is going on.
PhoenixPhyre isn't the one focusing on wizards. I am. Their original suggestion also included adding a list of free spells know to sorcerers to fix their problems with being too same-y. Cleric seems to fall outside of this thread, because they already have the features we're discussing. But I personally would like to examine the domain lists, if this discussion stays alive long enough.




Personally I feel the opposite way, "mind influence" feels one of the most specialized concepts to me. Throughout the editions there have been so many classes born out of this archetype (bard, beguiler, psion...) and it always felt frustrating to me that ultimately the guy who could cast fireball could do ther job just as well.

As for fear, personally I like enemies abound more not only thematically, but also because the latter actually benefits from the enchanter's Split Enchantment feature. Though I guess that you could argue that since the enchanter is already better than any other wizard at casting enemies abound, you might as well give them another spell as an exclusive one.
You know, you raise a good point. I was shying away from suggestion because bards, sorcerers, and warlocks all had it. But you're right, it should be the thing that makes enchanters special.

I can see why you don't like it, it does somewhat break with the idea we were going for.
The thing is, IMHO the illusionist subclass is really underwhelming at low levels. It gets great later on, but at low levels the only thing illusionists have going for them is that they can cast a better minor illusion, I guess?
So I feel like with this variant illusionists should have access to very solid low level spells to keep the pace. Maybe we should look outside of illusion for that level, what about sleep?
See, sleep seems like a "basic" spell too.The real problem is that there are only four 1st-level illusion spells. I say buff color spray to be as good as sleep, and them make it exclusive.

I don't know, I'm really not crazy about using this variant as an excuse to give even more spells to wizards, so I'd rather avoid non-wizard spells, but I can see your argument for inflict wounds.
I guess you're right about darkness being the better choice, though I still believe sickening radiance is more thematically appropriate. Not only does sickening radiance inflict exhaustion, but shadow of moil is a go-ahead-and-hit-me spell, which feels wrong on character who supposedly wants to hide behind their undead minions.
Solid argument for sickening radiance. I'm convinced. Although I don't think adding the occasional spell is a problem when you consider all the spells they are effectively losing.

[KorvinStarmast]

No offense, PhoenixPhyre, but it sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I agree. I like the base system to have more flexibility, and if it needs to be toned down for the tastes of one table, that's tunable. Move the dial as many "clicks" as needed to retune it.

But schools? Yeah, happy to see a different model; we have previously discussed the potential for the five colors in MtG as a 'from the ground up' framework change that has potential.
And
It can also be hosed up by a bad implementation. (Willy mentioned the lack of "check for balance between schools" in 2e as a root cause of what you are seeing now, and I think he's on to something).


I don't think it'd have the hoped outcome. Reducing freedom of choice and versatility by enforcing archetypes can decrease options.

[GeneralVryth]

PhoenixPhyre isn't the one focusing on wizards. I am. Their original suggestion also included adding a list of free spells know to sorcerers to fix their problems with being too same-y. Cleric seems to fall outside of this thread, because they already have the features we're discussing. But I personally would like to examine the domain lists, if this discussion stays alive long enough.


The post I quoted seemed pretty targeted at Wizards and this isn't the first thread talking about this topic. Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding, are you advocating giving Wizard schools a domain list like Clerics? What's the trade off? I thought the trade-off was other Wizard sub-classes losing access to the spells in question which would be a massive nerf considering the spells in question (Bladesingers trying to melee without shield?). If I am wrong though I will look at what you're suggesting in a different light.

[thoroughlyS]

I am advocating for moving certain wizard spells off of the wizard spell list and onto new subclass expanded spell lists (which function like warlock patrons' expanded spell lists). In my eyes, this tones down the power of the wizard because they will no longer have access to the best toys in the box at every level. In addition to that, adding a list of free spells known to the different sorcerous origins (like the one the aberrant mind has) fixes the similar problem where sorcerers feel too same-y.

There are no trade-offs, because the wizard is already widely agreed to be among the best classes (in my opinion: mainly because it can have all the best spells) sorcerer is considered to be lacking (mainly because sorcerer gets so few spells known).

[Witty Username]

NOTE:
Clerics especially, for thematic reasons, should have some domain-specific spells and/or lose some from the base list. Animate dead is an obvious example--why are gods of good and light and healing granting animate dead?


I agree, what goddesses of darkness and cold would grant light and healing magic?:smallcool:
In seriousness, I think the cleric and paladin get really weird in their open ended themes and static mechanics. Yeah, you can be an evil paladin but your smites are still radiant damage.

I strongly disagree with wizard though, while I am not entirely against bringing back prohibited schools, I think wizard's gimick is broad options in comparison to other classes, and taking that away would leave them a bit hollowed out, kinda like if you took sorcerer points away from the sorcerer.

[GeneralVryth]

I am advocating for moving certain wizard spells off of the wizard spell list and onto new subclass expanded spell lists (which function like warlock patrons' expanded spell lists). In my eyes, this tones down the power of the wizard because they will no longer have access to the best toys in the box at every level. In addition to that, adding a list of free spells known to the different sorcerous origins (like the one the aberrant mind has) fixes the similar problem where sorcerers feel too same-y.

There are no trade-offs, because the wizard is already widely agreed to be among the best classes (in my opinion: mainly because it can have all the best spells) sorcerer is considered to be lacking (mainly because sorcerer gets so few spells known).

The thing is Wizards aren't that much more powerful. You are essentially arguing for nerfing Wizards into the ground. Who would want to play a Wizard with at most 2 of the following spells:
shield, counterspell, banishment, misty step, hypnotic pattern, greater invisibility, fly, polymorph, animate objects, fireball

And that isn't the full list of spells you have suggested moving to the sub-classes (and denying to all but a few Wizards). The end result will just be a bunch more same-y Sorcerers and Bards and no one wanting to play Wizards. Which just further highlights my point about the problem being the balance of the spells themselves and not an issue with the Wizard.

[ZRN]

The thing is Wizards aren't that much more powerful. You are essentially arguing for nerfing Wizards into the ground. Who would want to play a Wizard with at most 2 of the following spells:
shield, counterspell, banishment, misty step, hypnotic pattern, greater invisibility, fly, polymorph, animate objects, fireball

And that isn't the full list of spells you have suggested moving to the sub-classes (and denying to all but a few Wizards). The end result will just be a bunch more same-y Sorcerers and Bards and no one wanting to play Wizards. Which just further highlights my point about the problem being the balance of the spells themselves and not an issue with the Wizard.

How does "balancing" the spells do anything about the issue in question? Like, okay, you somehow make Detect Magic as "powerful" as Shield (whatever that means). How does that help with the issue people have that wizards are unspecialized and can do too many different things?

[thoroughlyS]

The thing is Wizards aren't that much more powerful. You are essentially arguing for nerfing Wizards into the ground. Who would want to play a Wizard with at most 2 of the following spells:
shield, counterspell, banishment, misty step, hypnotic pattern, greater invisibility, fly, polymorph, animate objects, fireball

And that isn't the full list of spells you have suggested moving to the sub-classes (and denying to all but a few Wizards). The end result will just be a bunch more same-y Sorcerers and Bards and no one wanting to play Wizards. Which just further highlights my point about the problem being the balance of the spells themselves and not an issue with the Wizard.
Hmm, maybe if it fits my character concept? Even now if I decide to make an evoker, enchanter, necromancer, etc., I have to decide if I want to go sorcerer instead, bard instead, cleric instead, etc. That choice should be based on the character I'm building, whether they can empower fireball or whether they have sculpt spell. If you really only pick wizard for the spell list, isn't that a bad thing?

Or do you happen to always want to play a caster that can use all the best spells?

[Valmark]

Hmm, maybe if it fits my character concept? Even now if I decide to make an evoker, enchanter, necromancer, etc., I have to decide if I want to go sorcerer instead, bard instead, cleric instead, etc. That choice should be based on the character I'm building, whether they can empower fireball or whether they have sculpt spell. If you really only pick wizard for the spell list, isn't that a bad thing?

Or do you happen to always want to play a caster that can use all the best spells?

But what's stopping you from doing it already? Limiting the spell list doesn't allow you to make more/better concepts, if anything the opposite. Since you're reducing the options a class has as a whole.

Not wanting to play a caster that can use all the best spells just means you won't pick them at level up. Unless your DM somehow forces you to scribe them into the book.

[elyktsorb]

Or do you happen to always want to play a caster that can use all the best spells?

*Looks at Lore Bard*

I mean from what I've seen of the spell choices Wizard subclasses will get (in this thread).. I honestly just wouldn't play wizard.

Because if you're going to strip wizards of a lot of spells you're going to have to convince me why I should play a wizard at all. When compared to Druid/Clerics and Bards that will still all have lots of spells.

I think yall are banking too much on 'spell selection' being the key reason for picking a wizard subclass, which in turn will just make it so that people either play wizard less, or they never play certain subclasses.

[thoroughlyS]

While I can't speak for everyone in this thread, for me: this is to stop other players from making builds and not characters. Collections of features and powers in the shape of a person that are just built to solve encounters. But again, that is for me.

[Valmark]

While I can't speak for everyone in this thread, for me: this is to stop other players from making builds and not characters. Collections of features and powers in the shape of a person that are just built to solve encounters. But again, that is for me.

I think the confusion (at least on my part) comes from the fact that it won't stop those kinds of players, they'll just play another build. Unless you keep nerfing until they stop having fun and find another place to play at.

Meanwhile the players who don't think that way will see their possible characters reduce more and more and will either not care (if they didn't play casters/wizards before, or at least not in a way that this will matter) or be just as unhappy because you've reduced the characters one can make.

[GeneralVryth]

How does "balancing" the spells do anything about the issue in question? Like, okay, you somehow make Detect Magic as "powerful" as Shield (whatever that means). How does that help with the issue people have that wizards are unspecialized and can do too many different things?

Balance doesn't always mean making everything equal to the strongest thing. Some things get nerfed as well (Shield would probably be one of those). But to answer your question directly, balancing the spells is just a necessary first step. Once you do that then you can start looking at things like reducing the Wizard's spells prepared knowing they will have to make tradeoffs, and having those tradeoffs actually mean sacrificing something and not just picking all the best spells they have access to (which is the problem stated with Wizards in this thread). Also, if you have better balanced spells (including better scaling up-casting), then smaller bonuses to incentivize the use of a kind of spell means more.

For example if you have a bonus to cold damage right now, you are never going to choose Snilloc's Snowball Swarm over Fireball, unless the bonus is massive (which would make something like Cone of Cold likely OP when you get it). However, if Snilloc's Snowball Swarm and Fireball are balanced so they do roughly the same damage for the slot used suddenly Snilloc's Snowball Swarm becomes a reasonable choice over Fireball, and if you have a bonus to cold spells you will want to choose Snilloc's Snowball Swarm over Fireball if you are an optimizer.

Finally, simply better balancing the spells already nerfs Wizards, the reason Wizards are powerful is because the have access to the largest segment of the powerful spells in the game and can prepare a large number of spells as well. If suddenly you make the spells better balanced then other caster classes that prepare similar numbers of spells become more competitive with Wizards (if not potentially surpassing them) because suddenly the spells they have access to are more competitive and those classes tend to be less defined by their access to a large number of useful spells.

And the above isn't even getting into the fact I am not opposed to certain Wizard sub-classes losing access to some groups of spells in exchange for better sub-class abilities (which makes sense for specialists), but I also do think there is a place for generalist sub-classes as well, as the Wizard is already meant to be the generalist when it comes to magic at the cost of not having as may other abilities.


Hmm, maybe if it fits my character concept? Even now if I decide to make an evoker, enchanter, necromancer, etc., I have to decide if I want to go sorcerer instead, bard instead, cleric instead, etc. That choice should be based on the character I'm building, whether they can empower fireball or whether they have sculpt spell. If you really only pick wizard for the spell list, isn't that a bad thing?

Or do you happen to always want to play a caster that can use all the best spells?

I almost always approach building characters starting with a concept and trying to piece together mechanics to make the concept fun and reasonably competitive. My problem with building casters to fit any concept that isn't a generalist is that usually the character has to make obviously bad choices in spell selection to fit with the theme. Going to the above, if I want to make a Silver Dragon Sorcerer that's all about the Cold, Fireball is still far and away the best use of a third level slot for damage even if I have a bonus to spell damage, because the spells aren't balanced.

As for picking Wizards for their spell lists, I have said before in this thread that Wizards should have broader spells known/prepared with lesser class/sub-class abilities relative to the Sorcerer, which has fewer spells known in exchange for more flexible spell casting and better sub-class abilities which are tailored to a certain bloodline. The choice should be is the character narrowly focused on one area of magic (if so it's either a Sorcerer if it is meant to uber-specialized with in-born power, or it should a specialized Wizard sub-class if it should have access to a broader range of abilities and is just better with certain ones), or is the character more a generalist magic user (in which case you should choose one of the few generalist Sorcerer sub-classes if you want that in-born power feel and complimentary special abilities, or you should choose a Wizard generalist sub-class if you want the broadest access to spells at the cost of some flexibility and supporting special abilities)?


I think the confusion (at least on my part) comes from the fact that it won't stop those kinds of players, they'll just play another build. Unless you keep nerfing until they stop having fun and find another place to play at.

Meanwhile the players who don't think that way will see their possible characters reduce more and more and will either not care (if they didn't play casters/wizards before, or at least not in a way that this will matter) or be just as unhappy because you've reduced the characters one can make.

I agree with this completely. Which is why I keep advocating for better spell balance, as that would be the central fix. Once that is done, Sorcerers need a large rework still, and Wizards would benefit from a small rework for the sub-classes meant to be specialized (Clerics would also likely benefit from a light rework because of their lack of higher level options, and none of this touches martials which need varying amounts of reworks, with the Fighter in the greatest need).

[Fenice]

Considering I was one of the people who was on board of the hype train, I feel like I should make clear why this suggestion got me involved.

I did not set out to try to "balance" classes or spells. I think trying to rebalance spells is a perfectly valid effort, but it's not really one I am interested in.

What got me involved in the discussion is that I am not a fan of generalist spellcasters. It's not so much an issue of balance, it's an issue that I don't find a class that is basically "can do anything through magic" very appealing as an archetype.

To make you understand where I am coming from, when I used to play D&D 3.5, I created a campaign where the only spellcaster classes were beguilers (rebranded as mages focused on enchantment and illusion magic), warmages (mages focused on direct damage), dread necromancers (mages focused on necromancy), and healers from Miniatures Handbook but with access to some domain spells to give them a slightly expanded spell list (the divine spellcasters).

The reason why I like this approach more is that I find it more interesting when each spellcaster brings something unique to the table.
With the official rules, if you have a group with two wizards, they can basically do the same things. They will probably try to prepare different spells to avoid redundancy, but that's just a strategic choice, it's not an inherent difference in their characters.
If you pair a specialist spellcaster and a wizard, the problem is even worse. The wizard will once again probably prepare spells that don't overlap with the specialist, but it's not a character trait, it's more like them going "Fine, I guess I will leave this task to you, since that's the only thing you can do".

This variant got me pumped up because it's somewhat similar to what I was discussing above, without even being as drastic. It's not like no one except the transmuter can fly or transform under these rules. But you can have a group with two wizards, and have the enchanter look in awe at the transmuter flying around and transforming into a monster, while the best enchanter can do is "only" levitate or change appeareance to something not quite as extreme through alter self.
And vice versa, the transmuter will be in awe that the enchanter is able to compel creatures completely to follow their command (without the need to sweettalk) and charm even monsters, while the best the transmuter can do is charm those with minds they can still somewhat understand (other humanoids).

It's not a matter of balance per se, it's just that I think that this makes everything more interesting both for the characters and for the DM in worldbuilding. (Like for example, I love to play in Dragonlance where each of the three Orders of wizards is associated with specific schools of magic. This could translate in each Order jealously keeping some spells an inner secret, and the Orders having to work together because each one of them has something that the others can't do quite as well.)

I can completely understand if this is not your cup of tea, but this is the sort of thing that I was interested in, not really rebalancing per se.

And I think you do raise some valid points. If wizards get limited in this way, what about bards? But rather than shut down this idea completely, I just think that this change for the wizard might imply some changes for other classes to conform to the same philosophy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Considering I was one of the people who was on board of the hype train, I feel like I should make clear why this suggestion got me involved.

I did not set out to try to "balance" classes or spells. I think trying to rebalance spells is a perfectly valid effort, but it's not really one I am interested in.

What got me involved in the discussion is that I am not a fan of generalist spellcasters. It's not so much an issue of balance, it's an issue that I don't find a class that is basically "can do anything through magic" very appealing as an archetype.

To make you understand where I am coming from, when I used to play D&D 3.5, I created a campaign where the only spellcaster classes were beguilers (rebranded as mages focused on enchantment and illusion magic), warmages (mages focused on direct damage), dread necromancers (mages focused on necromancy), and healers from Miniatures Handbook but with access to some domain spells to give them a slightly expanded spell list (the divine spellcasters).

The reason why I like this approach more is that I find it more interesting when each spellcaster brings something unique to the table.
With the official rules, if you have a group with two wizards, they can basically do the same things. They will probably try to prepare different spells to avoid redundancy, but that's just a strategic choice, it's not an inherent difference in their characters.
If you pair a specialist spellcaster and a wizard, the problem is even worse. The wizard will once again probably prepare spells that don't overlap with the specialist, but it's not a character trait, it's more like them going "Fine, I guess I will leave this task to you, since that's the only thing you can do".

This variant got me pumped up because it's somewhat similar to what I was discussing above, without even being as drastic. It's not like no one except the transmuter can fly or transform under these rules. But you can have a group with two wizards, and have the enchanter look in awe at the transmuter flying around and transforming into a monster, while the best enchanter can do is "only" levitate or change appeareance to something not quite as extreme through alter self.
And vice versa, the transmuter will be in awe that the enchanter is able to compel creatures completely to follow their command (without the need to sweettalk) and charm even monsters, while the best the transmuter can do is charm those with minds they can still somewhat understand (other humanoids).

It's not a matter of balance per se, it's just that I think that this makes everything more interesting both for the characters and for the DM in worldbuilding. (Like for example, I love to play in Dragonlance where each of the three Orders of wizards is associated with specific schools of magic. This could translate in same Order jealously keeping some spells an inner secret, and the Orders having to work together because each one of them has something that the others can't do quite as well.)

I can completely understand if this is not your cup of tea, but this is the sort of thing that I was interested in, not really rebalancing per se.

And I think you do raise some valid points. If wizards get limited in this way, what about bards? But rather than shut down this idea completely, I just think that after this change for the wizard might imply some changes for other classes to conform to the same philosophy.

I agree about generalists. "Do everything" is, IMO, bad design.

As far as bards, bards are flexible at build time. But once built, they're not incredibly flexible. They have a wide palette, but your choices lock you in hard. A lore bard choosing a certain list isn't going to be a very good melee combatant. And will likely suck at damage dealing. A valor bard, built a different way, may be a great physical combatant but isn't going to be (as good) at support.

A wizard, however, can just swap out 90% of his features every day. That kind of operational flexibility means there's no theme left.

[ZRN]

Balance doesn't always mean making everything equal to the strongest thing. Some things get nerfed as well (Shield would probably be one of those). But to answer your question directly, balancing the spells is just a necessary first step. Once you do that then you can start looking at things like reducing the Wizard's spells prepared knowing they will have to make tradeoffs, and having those tradeoffs actually mean sacrificing something and not just picking all the best spells they have access to (which is the problem stated with Wizards in this thread).

I still don't see how rebalancing helps here. The whole advantage of a generalist wizard that people don't like isn't that your spells are too good; it's that you get too broad an array of spells. Making sure that, e.g., fireball isn't any better than lightning bolt doesn't really fix anything.



Also, if you have better balanced spells (including better scaling up-casting), then smaller bonuses to incentivize the use of a kind of spell means more.

For example if you have a bonus to cold damage right now, you are never going to choose Snilloc's Snowball Swarm over Fireball, unless the bonus is massive (which would make something like Cone of Cold likely OP when you get it). However, if Snilloc's Snowball Swarm and Fireball are balanced so they do roughly the same damage for the slot used suddenly Snilloc's Snowball Swarm becomes a reasonable choice over Fireball, and if you have a bonus to cold spells you will want to choose Snilloc's Snowball Swarm over Fireball if you are an optimizer.

See, I don't think the big concern here is "wizards are picking fireball instead of Snilloc's Snowball Swarm." It's more, "wizards are always preparing a mix of aoe damage spells, buffs, etc. that make them extremely versatile."


Finally, simply better balancing the spells already nerfs Wizards, the reason Wizards are powerful is because the have access to the largest segment of the powerful spells in the game and can prepare a large number of spells as well. If suddenly you make the spells better balanced then other caster classes that prepare similar numbers of spells become more competitive with Wizards (if not potentially surpassing them) because suddenly the spells they have access to are more competitive and those classes tend to be less defined by their access to a large number of useful spells.

Honestly I don't really buy the argument that wizards are significantly more powerful than other full casters in a way that requires heavily rebalancing 80+ pages of spells to address.

[Sorinth]

But in the end, the only one I'd be willing to use this model for as it stands is wizards. Because half their levels between 2 and 17 are "I get a new level of spells". And that's boring. And promotes every even-sort-of-optimized wizard looking the same and no one taking the majority of the spells.

I had brought it up in another thread but I like the idea of limiting the highest level spells based on school. Essentially when learning new spells every school except the specialty school is treated as if the wizard was 2 levels below his actual level(Min level 1 so all 1st level spells are still available). So a 5th level Evoker would be able to learn Fireball as normal, but not Hypnotic Pattern, but once they hit 7th level they can then learn Hypnotic Pattern or any other 3rd level non-Evocation spell or any 4th level evocation spell. Eventually the wizard is still going to learn all the good/optimized spells but your big spells are always going to be based on the school you specialized in so it should give a better feel.

In order for it to work though the schools would need to be a bit more balanced and at least have several spells for every level which is not currently the case.

[Silly Name]

I still don't see how rebalancing helps here. The whole advantage of a generalist wizard that people don't like isn't that your spells are too good; it's that you get too broad an array of spells. Making sure that, e.g., fireball isn't any better than lightning bolt doesn't really fix anything.

Rebalancing spells, IMHO, is more about allowing certain thematic choices to be viable without feeling like you're sacrificing something. To deviate a bit, the Draconic Sorcerer may want to focus on spells relating to her heritage, so when she gets third level spells she can either take stuff that does Cold damage (because she choose to have a Silver Dragon ancestor) or she can pick the vastly superior Fireball.

(Aside: I had this exact situation in my current campaign, which I resolved by creating a homebrew spell that does cold damage, deals a little less damage than fireball but has a "slowed" rider on a failed saving throw. The Silver Draconic Sorcerer is very happy with it.)

Basically, spells that are a no-brainer to pick end up conflicting with wanting to specialise with a certain theme. The same goes for say, an Abjuration specialists who still picks some efficient spells of other schools because why not? It's a perfectly valid mechanical choice that however ends up diluting the idea of being a specialist. It's sort of a system-induced Oberoni fallacy where you either optimise or cripple yourself to maintain your character concept.

When it comes to specialisation based on magic schools, what you'd want to achieve is a mix of rebalancing spells and class features so that you're heavily incentivised to stick with your chosen school and not have Divination wizards pick the best Transmutation spells.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the Druid, who is still very strong, but has a strongly thematic spell list that immediately conveys the core concept of the class. I'd love it if every caster had such strong flavor in their spell list, and power related to other classes would be a secondary concern.

I'd probably want to rework what spells the Cleric gets, too, to have domain choices be more influential on what spells you can pick. A cleric of Pelor shouldn't be able to prepare Animate Dead or Darkness, for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rebalancing spells, IMHO, is more about allowing certain thematic choices to be viable without feeling like you're sacrificing something. To deviate a bit, the Draconic Sorcerer may want to focus on spells relating to her heritage, so when she gets third level spells she can either take stuff that does Cold damage (because she choose to have a Silver Dragon ancestor) or she can pick the vastly superior Fireball.

(Aside: I had this exact situation in my current campaign, which I resolved by creating a homebrew spell that does cold damage, deals a little less damage than fireball but has a "slowed" rider on a failed saving throw. The Silver Draconic Sorcerer is very happy with it.)

Basically, spells that are a no-brainer to pick end up conflicting with wanting to specialise with a certain theme. The same goes for say, an Abjuration specialists who still picks some efficient spells of other schools because why not? It's a perfectly valid mechanical choice that however ends up diluting the idea of being a specialist. It's sort of a system-induced Oberoni fallacy where you either optimise or cripple yourself to maintain your character concept.

When it comes to specialisation based on magic schools, what you'd want to achieve is a mix of rebalancing spells and class features so that you're heavily incentivised to stick with your chosen school and not have Divination wizards pick the best Transmutation spells.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the Druid, who is still very strong, but has a strongly thematic spell list that immediately conveys the core concept of the class. I'd love it if every caster had such strong flavor in their spell list, and power related to other classes would be a secondary concern.

I'd probably want to rework what spells the Cleric gets, too, to have domain choices be more influential on what spells you can pick. A cleric of Pelor shouldn't be able to prepare Animate Dead or Darkness, for example.

I can agree with most of that. As far as the "pure elementalists" (ie dragon sorcerers) go, much of that can be solved simply by a DM saying "ok, fireball for you is iceball. Does cold damage instead of fire." The balance implications of that are minimal, as damage type rarely matters outside of a few bad ones (ie poison and radiant).

I do agree that having more balance between spells would be nice. But I don't like doing it by schools (as they're rather bland to begin with). So less "balancing Divination with Necromancy" and more "balancing seers with necromancers" (where those are both broader and more narrow than the respective schools). And I agree that druid, thematically, is a great example of what most should look like.

[Kane0]

I am advocating for moving certain wizard spells off of the wizard spell list and onto new subclass expanded spell lists (which function like warlock patrons' expanded spell lists).

Personally I would only do the subclass spell for the school specialists and leave war magic, bladesinger and scribe without the exclusive spells in return for slightly more potent features.

Means you dont have to keep up with the subclass spell thing with each new wiz subclass that gets released and differentiates between generalist and specialist wizards.

[GeneralVryth]

@Fenice and @ PhoenixPhyre

I am not opposed to specialist spellcasters, I just wish you weren't arguing for destroying the de-facto generalist spellcaster to do it, because you don't like the concept of a generalist spellcaster. Personally, if you were discussing how to make Sorcerer sub-classes (Sorcerer being the logical specialist spellcaster framework, and a class with bad structure to begin with) better at being specialist casters I would help you do it. And then at your tables ban Wizards, if you can't stand generalists still. What I find odd about this generalist argument is the stated reason for not liking generalists is they can step on other players toes if they don't coordinate. If that is the problem where is the dislike for Bards? Not only can they literally access every spell in the game (something no other class can do), they also get expertise (which can step on Rogues), and if you choose the right sub-class can be decent melee or ranged fighters (I haven't tried but I am sure there are ranged Bards that can probably rival Fighters).


I still don't see how rebalancing helps here. The whole advantage of a generalist wizard that people don't like isn't that your spells are too good; it's that you get too broad an array of spells. Making sure that, e.g., fireball isn't any better than lightning bolt doesn't really fix anything.

See, I don't think the big concern here is "wizards are picking fireball instead of Snilloc's Snowball Swarm." It's more, "wizards are always preparing a mix of aoe damage spells, buffs, etc. that make them extremely versatile."

Honestly I don't really buy the argument that wizards are significantly more powerful than other full casters in a way that requires heavily rebalancing 80+ pages of spells to address.

First, I don't think Wizards are significantly more powerful than other classes, that is not why I would like to see spells be re-balanced. I think re-balancing the spells opens up room to do some more interesting things with casters in general, which can allow for most interesting classes and sub-classes which can then lead to both interesting specialist casters, and generalist casters without too much stepping on each others toes.

Second, pretty much every caster at the moment can prepare a mix of aoe damage spells, buffs, heals, etc... The reason people single out Wizards is they tend to have the best versions of those various spells (which comes back to spell balance).

Third, Fireball not being any better than Lightning Bolt does actually have positive benefits, it allows you to have a sub-class like the Storm Sorcerer that is focused on lightning and thunder spells be able to use such spells without sacrificing effectiveness to stick with theme. Balanced spells allow you to have specialists that improve their branch of spells so they are better than an average caster using an average spell in the same role. A cold themed sorcerer for example should be better at doing damage with cold spells than a generic caster is with a generic fire spell. Additionally, if spells have better supported up-casting then you have a nice generic way to specialize in a category of spells (a free up-casting of X levels), which can then be an effective way to indicate specialization, without being overpowered and leaving plenty of room for other creative ways to indicate specialization as well that are thematically appropriate.

In short balanced spells enable specialists because the specialist classes and sub-classes don't have to have additional power to make up for a sub-par set of spells that match the theme.

[MaxWilson]

The thing is Wizards aren't that much more powerful. You are essentially arguing for nerfing Wizards into the ground. Who would want to play a Wizard with at most 2 of the following spells:
shield, counterspell, banishment, misty step, hypnotic pattern, greater invisibility, fly, polymorph, animate objects, fireball

And that isn't the full list of spells you have suggested moving to the sub-classes (and denying to all but a few Wizards). The end result will just be a bunch more same-y Sorcerers and Bards and no one wanting to play Wizards. Which just further highlights my point about the problem being the balance of the spells themselves and not an issue with the Wizard.

I understand where people are coming from who want more differentiation between magic types, although on the one hand as far as (A)D&D is concerned I feel that "wizard" vs. "priest" is and should remain the fundamental distinction, with a side order of "psionic". 5E splits "priest" into Cleric, Druid, Ranger, and Paladin, while splitting off subsets of Wizard as Sorcerer and Warlock, and then Bard is a hybrid of Priest and Wizard with permission to steal from both.

On the other hand, I understand that some people might like something more like the Malazan Book of the Fallen, where generalist mages who can access all the warrens are rare, and most mages are limited to one or two warrens. As GeneralVyrth points out, I think if you do this, you have to do it to the whole system, everybody not just wizards.

If I can only "pick two of shield, counterspell, banishment, misty step, hypnotic pattern, greater invisibility, fly, polymorph, animate objects, fireball," no matter what class I play, that's actually kind of an interesting dilemma! If I pick Animate Objects I'm countered by the guy who takes Fireball, so maybe I want Animate Objects and Counterspell, but that gives me a very different playstyle from the guy who takes Polymorph and Misty Step.

On the gripping hand, nerfing wizards this way while leaving everyone else unchanged would just be a terrible idea based on a false premise: that wizards are uniquely lacking in subclass identity. If anything, clerics are worse, since unlike wizards all clerics have access to the whole cleric list, whereas wizards are differentiated by what spells they learn, which is influenced by the role they intend to play in the party, which correlates with their subclass. Wizard A is probably more different from Wizard B than Cleric A is from Cleric B.

[Yakk]

Subclasses are designed to be extended. If spells are subclass specific, every time you add a new spell you have to assign it to some set of subclasses. Then new subclasses have to in turn go off and add themselves to which spells they use.

If you add a wizard spell, every wizard can use it. If you add the bladesinger subclass and a bladesinger only spell, then existing wizards don't get jack. If you instead add the spell to bladesingers and other pre-existing subclasses, then the number of spells each subclass gives access to bloats over time, and it requires more than 1 book to know what spells a subclass gets.

On the other hand, if every spell is first on a class spell list, and second added to subclasses, then every spell is used by existing PCs.

[Theodoxus]

To expand on what I had mentioned earlier, I like the uniqueness of the base classes. I do think Wizard is a little bland in that respect, even with the subclass modifications, and I think the entire class should be rewritten from the ground up - but since this is basically a 6E potential concept anyway, a re-write would be the correct response.

But using my 12 schools as a foundation, each class would have specific spell (arcane) skills associated with it. Obtaining schools outside of those provided by the class would require either multiclassing or a feat tax. It would take a a bit to become a true generalist, but it would be doable if that was the desire. The idea would be to divorce the subclass from the spells known. So, Evocation would still grant Sculpt Spell, but it wouldn't (necessarily) be limited to Evocation spells. The Bard class might only start with Enchantment, Life, Illusion and Transmutation spell skills; and be perfectly functional with just those schools. But a specific subclass might add access to more skills, while another might simply improve one of the base skills.

To whit, the class brings the mechanics for generating spells (music/arts, rote learning, innate ability, patron pact, god or divine nature) as well as the boons provided by that style (inspiration, specialization, metamagic/sorcery, pact and patron, domain, or wildshape). Might even allow nearly any combination of skills (haven't really delved into the ramifications of this), so no two players will (necessarily) have the same schools on their characters. But even if a Bard had Evocation, Matter and Spirit to be a powerful blaster, and his friend played a Wizard with the same schools, but on a Divination subclass, they'll play fundamentally differently.

It creates a lot more options, not fewer. As I noted previously, it would take a bit of work to balance each school against each other, but given the proliferation of spells as it is, culling those considered too weak or reworking those considered too strong would be a good first step.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Subclasses are designed to be extended. If spells are subclass specific, every time you add a new spell you have to assign it to some set of subclasses. Then new subclasses have to in turn go off and add themselves to which spells they use.

If you add a wizard spell, every wizard can use it. If you add the bladesinger subclass and a bladesinger only spell, then existing wizards don't get jack. If you instead add the spell to bladesingers and other pre-existing subclasses, then the number of spells each subclass gives access to bloats over time, and it requires more than 1 book to know what spells a subclass gets.

On the other hand, if every spell is first on a class spell list, and second added to subclasses, then every spell is used by existing PCs.

And? This whole "new book gets published and now existing characters are stronger without having to do anything" thing is a mistake. Subclasses should be sealed when printed. Nobody should get new class features in a book that doesn't print their subclass or bill itself as giving ACFs. Period. Full stop. Otherwise you have what 4e had with haves (those with strong support in other books) and have-nots (those without such support).

Yes, this includes Battlemasters, druids (for wildshape, etc), summoners, etc. (edit) I would, grudgingly, allow adding new spells to the base class list, which would still exist even for wizards. You'd not get new specialty spells, but you could get new "universal" ones.

And no one would remove spells from other class lists. So fireball would be still around, just not available for wizards unless granted by a subclass (for instance).

Further edit re: generalists--
The issue is that you can't have balanced and interesting generalists that are defined by their spell lists (like the current wizard) unless they're way weaker than everyone else. And then they're no fun. Because versatility matters that much. Being able to cherry pick all the best spells means that you have no room for interesting class features and balance is much more difficult even at a character by character level (ie not a system level). It's how you got the 3e druid, who could be anywhere from a nullity to absurdly broken just by choosing different spells in a given day.

So I could see having some "pseudo-generalist" schools under the proposed model. They'd not get any specialist spells at all, but they'd get features that let them do other things. For instance, I'd say that the bladesinger should probably be "non-specialized". They get martial capability which makes up for (in the proposed model) removing most of the high-end spells. But now instead of being a wizard++, you're now trading off wizardly power for martial ability. Which is how it should be--the current one lets them keep doing everything just like a regular wizard as well as being a competent martial. Opportunity cost is the name of the game. And wizards have been playing with cheat codes that turn it off entirely up till now. And that's a problem.

[Valmark]

So I've seen it be repeated multiple times through the thread and was wondering: have I misinterpreted or are people saying that wizards are the worst in terms of new class features being just new spell levels?

Because that's something that all full casters (not warlocks) have, especially Wizards/Druids/Clerics- and of these the clerics are easily the worst, since past a certain point they have their Destroy Undead scale (and also the Divine Intervention scaling absymally) and that's it until very high levels.

Meanwhile the other classes get more subclass features through the leveling- at least if memory doesn't fail me. Wizards do for sure (I keep mentioning them because it looked like they are the most "despised" class, despite not being the one with the most problems out of the prepared casters).

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I've seen it be repeated multiple times through the thread and was wondering: have I misinterpreted or are people saying that wizards are the worst in terms of new class features being just new spell levels?

Because that's something that all full casters (not warlocks) have, especially Wizards/Druids/Clerics- and of these the clerics are easily the worst, since past a certain point they have their Destroy Undead scale (and also the Divine Intervention scaling absymally) and that's it until very high levels.

Meanwhile the other classes get more subclass features through the leveling- at least if memory doesn't fail me. Wizards do for sure (I keep mentioning them because it looked like they are the most "despised" class, despite not being the one with the most problems out of the prepared casters).

Sure, the other classes (druids and clerics) don't have as many features as they probably should. But what they have, that the wizards entirely lack, is thematics. A War Cleric is different from a Life Cleric in meaningful ways. Wizards, on the other hand, have at most one meaningful feature total, and those are generally pretty weak (with a few exceptions) and gained early. The rest isn't just dead levels, it's features that don't do anything useful even thematically. They're 99% their spell list and 1% ribbons. And the PHB even admits as much: from the class description "Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary." There's no theme other than "I can cast all the spells." Which is a crappy theme.

At the same time, they have access to most of the "good" spells (which share basically no themes other than "not healing"), have more spells prepared than a sorcerer has spells known, can change them out easily, and gain access to new spells relatively trivially between levels. So you've got no opportunity cost (whereas a cleric has lots of opportunity cost, is way more MAD, and generally each subclass is relatively limited, and has a way smaller list to pull from).

For reference, the full wizard list is currently 310 spells long. That's roughly 3x the length of the base cleric list, and even worse compared to the druid list. And the spells they get are much more powerful to boot. They have 1/2 as many cantrips and 1st level spells as clerics do spells on their entire list.

[GeneralVryth]

Further edit re: generalists--
The issue is that you can't have balanced and interesting generalists that are defined by their spell lists (like the current wizard) unless they're way weaker than everyone else. And then they're no fun. Because versatility matters that much. Being able to cherry pick all the best spells means that you have no room for interesting class features and balance is much more difficult even at a character by character level (ie not a system level).

How is that a problem with versatility instead of spell balance? I said it earlier in the thread, but Bards are more versatile than Wizards in an absolute sense, they literally can access EVERY spell in the game, they have built in expertise, a large skill list and more skills known, better weapon and armor lists, and sub-clsses that run the gamut between martials and controllers. And that is not even touching the theoretical defining feature of Bards, Bardic Inspiration. What is it about Wizards that makes them better?

I know what I believe the answer to my question is but I haven't heard a good answer from those that want to nuke the Wizard from orbit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How is that a problem with versatility instead of spell balance? I said it earlier in the thread, but Bards are more versatile than Wizards in an absolute sense, they literally can access EVERY spell in the game, they have built in expertise, a large skill list and more skills known, better weapon and armor lists, and sub-clsses that run the gamut between martials and controllers. And that is not even touching the theoretical defining feature of Bards, Bardic Inspiration. What is it about Wizards that makes them better?

I know what I believe the answer to my question is but I haven't heard a good answer from those that want to nuke the Wizard from orbit.

Because bards are only versatile at build time. You can build lots of different bards, but once could built, a given bard is relatively narrow in capability.

Wizards can almost completely remake their character's capability every long rest. And have more of the better spells to do it with. The only spells they're missing are healing ones.

[Valmark]

Sure, the other classes (druids and clerics) don't have as many features as they probably should. But what they have, that the wizards entirely lack, is thematics. A War Cleric is different from a Life Cleric in meaningful ways. Wizards, on the other hand, have at most one meaningful feature total, and those are generally pretty weak (with a few exceptions) and gained early. The rest isn't just dead levels, it's features that don't do anything useful even thematically. They're 99% their spell list and 1% ribbons. And the PHB even admits as much: from the class description "Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary." There's no theme other than "I can cast all the spells." Which is a crappy theme.

At the same time, they have access to most of the "good" spells (which share basically no themes other than "not healing"), have more spells prepared than a sorcerer has spells known, can change them out easily, and gain access to new spells relatively trivially between levels. So you've got no opportunity cost (whereas a cleric has lots of opportunity cost, is way more MAD, and generally each subclass is relatively limited, and has a way smaller list to pull from).

For reference, the full wizard list is currently 310 spells long. That's roughly 3x the length of the base cleric list, and even worse compared to the druid list. And the spells they get are much more powerful to boot. They have 1/2 as many cantrips and 1st level spells as clerics do spells on their entire list.

Have you actually looked at the subclasses? While strenght of the features is surely subjective you can't really tell me that (for example) Bladesong, Song of Defense, Malleable Illusions, Illusory Reality, Sculpt Spells and Overchannel are all just ribbons without a theme. And that's checking three subclasses, I could go on.

Define what you mean by opportunity cost? While they do have the bigger spell list (that's a fact) wizards have access to less spells compared to clerics and druids unless the DM feeds them spells to scribe into the book.
How are the clerics more MAD? Agreed on everything else, aside from the fact that a cleric doesn't have a smaller spell list in actual game (again, a wizard's spell list in practice is the selected spells in the book, not the whole list).

Also not sure why them having more spells then the known caster is worse then any other prepared full caster having more.

[Renbot]

This is actually how I have run spellcasting in almost every campaign since 3.5. But I'm extremely familiar with the game and comfortable with game (re)design

[GeneralVryth]

Because bards are only versatile at build time. You can build lots of different bards, but once could built, a given bard is relatively narrow in capability.

Wizards can almost completely remake their character's capability every long rest. And have more of the better spells to do it with. The only spells they're missing are healing ones.

That's a reasonable answer. I disagree, but I do see your point. Apologies if my previous comment came off a little heated. I still come back to spell balance though, if all Wizard spells were bad, or spells were better balanced this likely wouldn't be as big of a problem (if it was still a problem at all). I could certainly be convinced that Wizards should be a little more constrained in either the number or theme of spells added for free to the spellbook and more importantly making it harder to add spells to one's spellbook. This does raise the question of why is this not a problem for Clerics or Druids which have practical access to much larger spell lists on a daily basis. But the answer of course comes back to spell balance and having fewer "good" spells on their lists overall.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a reasonable answer. I disagree, but I do see your point. Apologies if my previous comment came off a little heated. I still come back to spell balance though, if all Wizard spells were bad, or spells were better balanced this likely wouldn't be as big of a problem (if it was still a problem at all). I could certainly be convinced that Wizards should be a little more constrained in either the number or theme of spells added for free to the spellbook and more importantly making it harder to add spells to one's spellbook. This does raise the question of why is this not a problem for Clerics or Druids which have practical access to much larger spell lists on a daily basis. But the answer of course comes back to spell balance and having fewer "good" spells on their lists overall.

And not just good spells. I'm not as concerned by power as by lack of thematic union. Cleric spells all share themes. Themes that the subclasses reinforce through bonus spells. Druids are even better at being thematic in spell lists. Wizards? Basically everything that isn't a healing spell. Not even a hint of a unifying theme, and the schools are too vague to accomplish this themselves.

But yes, better spell balance would be good. Although I think it's mainly a few outliers that skew things.

[Silly Name]

And not just good spells. I'm not as concerned by power as by lack of thematic union. Cleric spells all share themes. Themes that the subclasses reinforce through bonus spells. Druids are even better at being thematic in spell lists. Wizards? Basically everything that isn't a healing spell. Not even a hint of a unifying theme, and the schools are too vague to accomplish this themselves.

But yes, better spell balance would be good. Although I think it's mainly a few outliers that skew things.

To be fair to schools, I think there's some nuggets of good idea in there. But what exactly a certain school of magic is supposed to do is muddled by the fact the game tries to give every school a variety of effects.

So necromancy isn't just about manipulating the energies of death and decay and controlling undead, it's also about... being scary? Wait, isn't mental manipulation the realm of enchantment and illusion?

Why does abjuration get banish spells? Ok, sure, it's about "protect and restrain" and you can extend that to keeping monsters away, but I thought teleportation effects were in the conjuration school?

You could probably keep the classic schools of magic, but if you want more consistency about what each school does some spells would need to be moved around, and then you need to rebalance various spells because a certain school gets overloaded with spells while another gets starved. You'd also probably have to come up with a few new spells so that a certain school doesn't have just one or two spells of a certain level.

[GeneralVryth]

And not just good spells. I'm not as concerned by power as by lack of thematic union. Cleric spells all share themes. Themes that the subclasses reinforce through bonus spells. Druids are even better at being thematic in spell lists. Wizards? Basically everything that isn't a healing spell. Not even a hint of a unifying theme, and the schools are too vague to accomplish this themselves.

But yes, better spell balance would be good. Although I think it's mainly a few outliers that skew things.

You make a fair point about themes, the Fighter has the same problem. Both Fighter and Wizards are learned generalists, for Fighters it's combat, for Wizards it's magic. Sub-classes should give some themes, with some giving stronger themes than others (potentially by adding restrictions). But at the end of the day having generalist classes is okay as long as they are balanced with the specialist classes.

On a related note, I get the feeling people aren't quite understanding the scope of what I mean by re-balancing spells so here are a couple of examples (and I would be tempted to go further than this adding a choice of bonuses for the major up-casting bonuses):

Fireball
1st-level
Tags: Evocation, Fire, Destruction, Dexterity
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous
A glowing bead flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 2d6 for each slot level above 1st. When cast with a spell slot 3rd level or higher the range increases to 150 feet and the radius increases to 20 feet. When cast with a spell slot of 6th level or higher the Duration becomes "Concentration, up to 1 minute" and instead of detonating immediately the bead detonates when your concentration ends (which you can choose to do voluntarily). When cast with a 9th level spell slot the range increases to 1 mile, the radius becomes 40 feet, and the damage increases by an additional 6d6.

Dimension Door
2nd-level
Tags: Conjuration, Teleportation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Briefly surrounded by a ring of light, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 3rd level or higher you increase the range by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.
When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you may cast this spell as an action instead of a bonus action to multiply the range by 10, and teleport to a location you can see, you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle, 300 feet.” Additionally, when cast with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you can also bring one willing creature within 5 feet of you that is of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 7th or higher you can bring additional willing creature along, and the willing creatures you bring along can be within 20 feet of you. You can bring an additional creature for each slot level above 7th.

If you re-did all of the spells in the game with robust up-casting, and stringing together related spells in the up-casting chains (pretty much every spell from 1 to 4 has some kind of higher level version, and most higher level spells could be brought down a couple levels in controlled ways, Foresight for example could easily be a 6th or 7th level spell with a duration of "Concentration, 1 minute"), you could remove 1/3 to 1/2 of the spells in the game while simultaneously increasing the number of "good" spells. By giving spells tags you can have classes or sub-classes that are restricted to learning spells with given tags (I would probably have a tag for each school, 1 for each damage type, 1 for the kinds of saving throws, and 1 category of tags that is more descriptive like "Destruction, Teleportation, Restoration, Summoning etc..." and each spell should have 2 to 6 tags, with some spells potentially having tags for multiple schools Fear being one that could have both Necromancy and Enchantment).

Once you do that, because individual spells are more flexible you go through and re-balance the spell casters to have a max prepared/known spells of somewhere between 6 and 18 (or something along those lines). Wizards probably only get 1 free new spell to their spell book at every Wizard level (or every other Wizard level with sub-classes giving a few bonuses). Finally, every ability in the game like "Empowered Evocation" instead of giving a flat damage increase it gives you a free 1 level up-cast for the spell type in question. This helps with balancing spells by allowing fewer outside factors to adjust their operation (and removes non-sense like the Nuclear Wizard). I would probably also completely remove meta-magic from Sorcerers as part of their re-design instead making them feats with more controlled effects and limits.

With that done Wizards would be better balanced straight away. Most of the other caster classes would become stronger. Multi-classing with casters would become more reasonable (you would probably need to do something to control spells prepared when mutli-classed, but that shouldn't be too hard). You are going to have an easier time creating specialized caster classes in general (the tags are huge here). The only really major piece missing in my mind would be a major re-work of the Sorcerer. But if you still want to want to re-do the Wizard sub-classes to be more specialized you will have a much easier time of it, I would probably just do something simple and for each of the school based sub-classes have it choose 1 of 2 or 3 schools that it can't learn spells from, along side better abilities that buff its specialized school, that should get you the specialization you are looking for, while leaving the Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Scribe as more generalist Wizards.

Anyways, that would be my kind of 5.5 or 6.0 vision for spell-casting and casters. Martials are a different story.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For reference, here's my "first pass" at assigning one "school spell" for each of the prime 8 subclasses. No other subclass would have access to those spells. Based more on theme than on school or power.

Raw numbers, this would reduce the list available to any wizard by 63 spells, or roughly 20%.


Theme around protection and denial.
1 Absorb Elements
2 Knock -- weak spot, not very thematic
3 Magic Circle
4 Resilient Sphere
5 Planar Binding
6 Globe of Invulnerability
7 Symbol
8 Antimagic field
9 Imprisonment



Theme around being the one who moves things, especially between planes. Any fool can summon a demon or devil. They want to be summoned (if not bound). But those have costs. Only a true conjurer can bind an elemental to their will (avoiding those costs).
1 Unseen Servant
2 Rope Trick
3 Summon Lesser Elementals
4 Summon Elemental
5 Far Step
6 Create Homonculus
7 Teleport
8 Demiplane
9 Gate



Knowing. I moved Wish out of a sense of "you can see the underlying reality well enough to know where to poke" and also just power. For a lower-combat/more investigative campaign, this might actually be not so bad.
1 Detect Magic -- Wizards work by rote knowledge and study. They aren't the best at sensing the underlying patterns more directly, normally.
2 Detect Thoughts
3 Clairvoyance
4 Locate Creature
5 Contact Other Plane
6 Contingency
7 Dream of the Blue Veil
8 Astral Projection
9 Wish



Mind magic.
1 Sleep
2 Hold Person
3 Enemies Abound
4 Phantasmal Killer
5 Dominate Person
6 Irresistible Dance
7 Power Word: Pain
8 Dominate Monster
9 Time Stop -- not so much actually stopping time as convincing everyone else you're moving really really fast



Explosions. Lots and lots of explosions. Energy, not matter.
1 Chromatic Orb
2 Scorching Ray
3 Fireball
4 Wall of Fire
5 Wall of Force
6 Chain Lightning
7 Delayed Blast Fireball
8 Incendiary Cloud
9 Meteor Swarm



Not real things/hiding
1 Disguise Self
2 Mirror Image
3 major image
4 Greater Invisibility
5 Creation
6 Programmed Illusion
7 Simulacrum
8 Illusory Dragon
9 Weird -- this needs serious buffing



Life and Death. Only necromancers can create undead.
1 False Life
2 Gentle Repose
3 Animate Dead
4 Blight
5 Danse Macabre
6 Create Undead
7 Finger of Death
8 Clone
9 Power Word Kill



Changing physical characteristics, especially manipulation of gravity.
1 Feather Fall
2 Dragon's Breath
3 Fly
4 Polymorph
5 Telekinesis
6 Tenser's Transformation
7 Reverse Gravity
8 Control Weather
9 Mass Polymorph OR Shapechange OR True Polymorph -- all 3 removed, but only one added

[Fenice]

@PhoenixPhyre Tbh, I'm not too crazy about your lists, I found @thoroughlyS's guiding philosophy more appealing.
I can approve your focus on theme, but I think there are other considerations to be made as well if this exercise is going to have any meaning.
One is that every specialization should be enticing, so assuming spells are like they are in official sources, power should be a consideration.
The other thing is that, since you are at the same time removing spells from the wizard's list, you should see whether this really makes the specialist the best at his job.

The worst offender for me is your conjurer. Until you get at the very high levels with teleport and gate, your list does not support the idea that they are supposed to be the best at summoning or teleporting. Other wizards already have access to the best teleporting options, and locking summon elemental behind a specialization isn't very meaningful when all other wizards can still summon fiends, feys, undead...

Similarly, your enchanter is not the best at mind magic, considering the best mind control magic (suggestion and charm monster) remains accessible to all wizards. Instead, he's very good paralyzing people and giving them hallucinations?
I don't sense a very strong theme here. If I read your list in a vacuum, then I can see that all of your spells can fall under the vague concept "mind magic". But when I read your list in the context of the rest of the wizard spell list, my take away is "mind control is something all wizards are excellent at" (and in fact, the diviner is probably still going to be better at it than the enchanter).

[Tanarii]

These lists definitely need the top two spells for the theme (at least through a certain level), and not necessarily from the school listed either. Since not all schools have two per level, and reducing the spell list by 8 spells isn't doing much for say level 1 through level 3 spells. I'd say the goal is to cut each level's spell list by at least half! Also, XTGe and any other new source of spells should probably be subclass accessible only.

Honestly, you might be better off approaching it from the other direction, in a more "2e Priests" methodology. Start by figuring out which spells are fundamental to Wizardry. Then move them to a 'Universal' school. Then give each school full access to their own school, and maybe limited access (up to say level 3 spells) to maybe two other schools.

[thoroughlyS]

I was away from my desk yesterday, so I have a little to weigh in on.


What I find odd about this generalist argument is the stated reason for not liking generalists is they can step on other players toes if they don't coordinate. If that is the problem where is the dislike for Bards? Not only can they literally access every spell in the game (something no other class can do), they also get expertise (which can step on Rogues), and if you choose the right sub-class can be decent melee or ranged fighters (I haven't tried but I am sure there are ranged Bards that can probably rival Fighters).

This does raise the question of why is this not a problem for Clerics or Druids which have practical access to much larger spell lists on a daily basis. But the answer of course comes back to spell balance and having fewer "good" spells on their lists overall.

You make a fair point about themes, the Fighter has the same problem. Both Fighter and Wizards are learned generalists, for Fighters it's combat, for Wizards it's magic. Sub-classes should give some themes, with some giving stronger themes than others (potentially by adding restrictions). But at the end of the day having generalist classes is okay as long as they are balanced with the specialist classes.
Again, I need to point out that we are only focusing on the wizard right now. We have to start somewhere, and we chose the wizard because it started at generalist and never went anywhere. I really like your comparison to the fighter. The base fighter is pretty solid, with all of the necessary features to keep up as a martial, and then the subclasses give your character a unique playstyle (with the exception of the champion). Playing a battle master gives you a completely different set of toys than playing an echo knight, or a rune knight, or a psi warrior, or an eldritch knight (lots of knights...). Meanwhile the wizard subclasses give you very little to distinguish themselves (with the exception of the bladesinger). All of the toys the wizard gets come in the spell list. I want to start by moving the toys to the subclasses.




To make you understand where I am coming from, when I used to play D&D 3.5, I created a campaign where the only spellcaster classes were beguilers (rebranded as mages focused on enchantment and illusion magic), warmages (mages focused on direct damage), dread necromancers (mages focused on necromancy), and healers from Miniatures Handbook but with access to some domain spells to give them a slightly expanded spell list (the divine spellcasters).

The reason why I like this approach more is that I find it more interesting when each spellcaster brings something unique to the table.
With the official rules, if you have a group with two wizards, they can basically do the same things. They will probably try to prepare different spells to avoid redundancy, but that's just a strategic choice, it's not an inherent difference in their characters.
If you pair a specialist spellcaster and a wizard, the problem is even worse. The wizard will once again probably prepare spells that don't overlap with the specialist, but it's not a character trait, it's more like them going "Fine, I guess I will leave this task to you, since that's the only thing you can do".
As a former v3.5 player myself, I also would like it if the school specialists were more like the specialist base classes.




These lists definitely need the top two spells for the theme (at least through a certain level), and not necessarily from the school listed either. Since not all schools have two per level, and reducing the spell list by 8 spells isn't doing much for say level 1 through level 3 spells. I'd say the goal is to cut each level's spell list by at least half! Also, XTGe and any other new source of spells should probably be subclass accessible only.
I am thinking two spells of 1st-5th and one spell of 6th-9th.

[thoroughlyS]

Theme around protection and denial.
1 Absorb Elements
2 Knock -- weak spot, not very thematic
3 Magic Circle
4 Resilient Sphere
5 Planar Binding
6 Globe of Invulnerability
7 Symbol
8 Antimagic field
9 Imprisonment

If the theme is protection, then the 1st-level spell has to be shield. I know it hurts to make that exclusive, but it ties the most strongly to the concept of a barrier warrior (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BarrierWarrior) (links to TV Tropes). I really liked Fenice's suggestion for warding wind as an off-school pick. If the theme is denial, counterspell is also an obvious choice. All wizards can cast dispel magic, abjurers can do it reactively. I like Otiluke's resilient sphere as an extension of the barrier warrior gimmick, but if that's a trend then we also need to put forcecage here at 7th. Imprisonment seems fairly niche as a capstone, but I see the extension from resilient sphere...


Theme around being the one who moves things, especially between planes. Any fool can summon a demon or devil. They want to be summoned (if not bound). But those have costs. Only a true conjurer can bind an elemental to their will (avoiding those costs).
1 Unseen Servant
2 Rope Trick
3 Summon Lesser Elementals
4 Summon Elemental
5 Far Step
6 Create Homonculus
7 Teleport
8 Demiplane
9 Gate

2nd-level has got to be misty step. It is powerful, thematic, and way too prevalent on every wizard. The two summon spells feel really out of place on this list. What about blink and banishment as off-school spells? Both of them give the extraplanar travel vibe. Create homunculus is... niche. I don't really have a good replacement, but I think we should circle back to it.


Knowing. I moved Wish out of a sense of "you can see the underlying reality well enough to know where to poke" and also just power. For a lower-combat/more investigative campaign, this might actually be not so bad.
1 Detect Magic -- Wizards work by rote knowledge and study. They aren't the best at sensing the underlying patterns more directly, normally.
2 Detect Thoughts
3 Clairvoyance
4 Locate Creature
5 Contact Other Plane
6 Contingency
7 Dream of the Blue Veil
8 Astral Projection
9 Wish

I don't like gating detect magic. Literally every caster but the warlock has it on their spell list. I find it odd that you would gate clairvoyance but not arcane eye? My take is that the "basic" version of a spell should be available to all, but the "advanced" versions should be gated. Contingency is a very interesting off-school choice. Astral projection isn't an 8th-level spell. There are some slim pickings at this point, but what about telepathy? And I've got to argue for foresight to go on this list.


Mind magic.
1 Sleep
2 Hold Person
3 Enemies Abound
4 Phantasmal Killer
5 Dominate Person
6 Irresistible Dance
7 Power Word: Pain
8 Dominate Monster
9 Time Stop -- not so much actually stopping time as convincing everyone else you're moving really really fast

I prefer suggestion at 2nd-level, which makes it so that enchanters specifically are more like bards, not just all wizards. Phantasmal killer? I mean, sure it is a personalized illusion, that is drawn from a creature's thoughts, but it doesn't seem more like an enchanter thing than an illusionist thing. And time stop just makes no sense on this list. Even your reflavor feels off. I would just go with power word kill, if you're ok with power word pain. Really, I'd prefer psychic scream, but this feel like another case where you can't have the "basic" version" and not the "advanced" (even if "power word kill is pretty garbo).


Explosions. Lots and lots of explosions. Energy, not matter.
1 Chromatic Orb
2 Scorching Ray
3 Fireball
4 Wall of Fire
5 Wall of Force
6 Chain Lightning
7 Delayed Blast Fireball
8 Incendiary Cloud
9 Meteor Swarm

My only real note here is that I don't feel scorching ray is interesting enough to gate.


Not real things/hiding
1 Disguise Self
2 Mirror Image
3 major image
4 Greater Invisibility
5 Creation
6 Programmed Illusion
7 Simulacrum
8 Illusory Dragon
9 Weird -- this needs serious buffing

I'm still going to argue for color spray (with a buff to the spell itself). Disguise self is the baseline for illusion. Creation is a very weak spell that doesn't really fit the hiding theme. I'd go with mislead as an extension of mirror image.


Life and Death. Only necromancers can create undead.
1 False Life
2 Gentle Repose
3 Animate Dead
4 Blight
5 Danse Macabre
6 Create Undead
7 Finger of Death
8 Clone
9 Power Word Kill

I'm still going to advocate for inflict wounds as one of the few times where we actually expand the spell list. In much the same way that suggestion would make enchanters more like bards, this would make necromancers more like clerics. It also plays really well with grim harvest. Man, we really can't seem to pick a good 2nd-level necromancy spell, huh? I admit that darkness was uninspired.


Changing physical characteristics, especially manipulation of gravity.
1 Feather Fall
2 Dragon's Breath
3 Fly
4 Polymorph
5 Telekinesis
6 Tenser's Transformation
7 Reverse Gravity
8 Control Weather
9 Mass Polymorph OR Shapechange OR True Polymorph -- all 3 removed, but only one added

If graviturgist is its own subclass, I don't think the transmuter should focus on gravity. I'm not really getting a solid theme from this list. We may just have to rework this one again.

[GeneralVryth]

@PhoenixPhyre @Fenice @Tanarii @thoroughlyS

You win I will bow out of the thread so you can discuss your lists in peace.

I will leave you with this final point, no one who plays Wizards will want to play them once you are done nuking them from orbit, so you might as well ban the class and save yourselves the headache.

[Fenice]

I will leave you with this final point, no one who plays Wizards will want to play them once you are done nuking them from orbit, so you might as well ban the class and save yourselves the headache.
You made this point before, but I think multiple people (myself included) already answered to you that the intention is to start with the wizard and then look at the other spellcasters to see whether they need any change... One step at a time.

[Fenice]

So yeah, going back to the lists for a minute, after going through them again, this is my suggestion.
(I will focus on the PHB subclasses for a minute, even though I think other subclasses deserve their own lists too. If nothing else, some class features, like the aforementioned war wizard and counterspell, rely on certain spells.)

1st shield
2nd warding wind
3rd counterspell
4th banishment
5th planar binding
6th globe of invulnerability
7th sequester
8th antimagic field
9th invulnerability

1st unseen servant
2nd misty step
3rd phantom steed
4th Evard's black tentacles
5th Bigby's hand
6th scatter
7th teleport
8th maze
9th gate

1st guiding hand
2nd detect thoughts
3rd speak with dead
4th arcane eye
5th contact other plane
6th contingency
7th crown of stars
8th telepathy
9th foresight

I think the diviner is the list that requires the most explanations.
For 1st level, all of the existing divination spells feel too "basic" to me to belong is a specialized list. Gift of alacrity was suggested before, but if we are reserving magnify gravity for the graviturgist, then it only makes sense that gift of alacrity should be reserved for the chronomancer. So instead I took a spell from an old UA, which I think is pretty fitting.
Contigency and telepathy were nice suggestions which I embrace.
The most difficult level was 7th because there are no divination spells and none of them fits particularly well. So I had to be a bit creative and went for crown of stars because astrology!

1st Tasha's hideous laughter
2nd suggestion
3rd enemies abound
4th charm monster
5th dominate person
6th mass suggestion
7th power word: pain
8th dominate monster
9th psychic scream

1st chromatic orb
2nd darkness
3rd fireball
4th wall of fire
5th wall of force
6th disintegration
7th deleyed blast fireball
8th sunburst
9th meteor swarm

1st color spray
2nd mirror image
3rd hypnotic pattern
4th greater invisibility
5th mislead
6th programmed image
7th simulacrum
8th illusory dragon
9th weird

1st inflict wounds
2nd blindness/deafness
3rd animate dead
4th sickening radiance
5th danse macabre
6th create undead
7th tether essence
8th clone
9th astral projection

1st catapult
2nd dragon's breath
3rd fly
4th polymorph
5th animate objects
6th flash to stone
7th etherealness
8th feeblemind
9th true polymorph

Note: Control weather is the only 8th-level transmutation spell, but it doesn't really fit the rest of the list imho. I thought I'd go for feeblemind instead, the reasoning being if the transmuter can transform you into a toad, what about they being able to partially transform you so that you only have a toad's mind?

[GeneralVryth]

You made this point before, but I think multiple people (myself included) already answered to you that the intention is to start with the wizard and then look at the other spellcasters to see whether they need any change... One step at a time.

That is just not going to work the way you want it to. To have the desired effect with this kind of approach, you are literally going to need to address the spell list of every single caster in the game. And if you nerf the spell lists of every single caster (more than half the classes in the game), you are then going to have to go back over every one of those classes and adjust the class features and sub-class features to their new spell lists or you are just going to have a bunch of nerfed casters. You are also intentionally trying to destroy a play concept that some people like (generalist casters). There is no way that ends up easier than just directly addressing the balance of the spells, which won't have the negative consequences what you are proposing will.

Even if you do all of that, it still likely isn't going to actually address your problem (except maybe by people not wanting to play the final results). I mean based on your spell lists so far, you have just ensured that every Wizard that wants to damage with 3rd level+ spells with use Lightning Bolt instead of Fireball. Is that really the kind of net result you want?

[Fenice]

There is no way that ends up easier than just directly addressing the balance of the spells, which won't have the negative consequences what you are proposing will.

Even if you do all of that, it still likely isn't going to actually address your problem
I am still not convinced that you understand what the problem I am trying to address is...

It has absolutely nothing to do with the spell balance, wizards being more powerful than other spellcasters, etc.

The problem is wizard characters (not the class itself, the characters playing it) lack an identity. Because their identity is "they can learn basically every spell of the game other than cure/resurrection". There is no theme, no role, no niche.
Picking spells for a wizard is not character defining. You can choose to build your wizard who loves cold magic, but as soon as you have a fireball scroll in your hands, is there any reason not to copy it in your spellbook? Picking spells for wizards is not a character definining exercise, it's just "let's pick the spells I absolutely want and hope the DM makes me find other cool ones along the way".

And no, clerics and druids are not the same thing because their spell lists are miniscule and have clear themes, and they are very clearly defined by their subclass.
I can give you that bards will probably need some tweaks.
Sorcerers, still not sure about it, because they are already so limited by their few spells known, but I will consider it.

[Tanarii]

I will leave you with this final point, no one who plays Wizards will want to play them once you are done nuking them from orbit, so you might as well ban the class and save yourselves the headache.It works fine for other games. I don't see why it can't work for D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am still not convinced that you understand what the problem I am trying to address is...

It has absolutely nothing to do with the spell balance, wizards being more powerful than other spellcasters, etc.

The problem is wizard characters (not the class itself, the characters playing it) lack an identity. Because their identity is "they can learn basically every spell of the game other than cure/resurrection". There is no theme, no role, no niche.
Picking spells for a wizard is not character defining. You can choose to build your wizard who loves cold magic, but as soon as you have a fireball scroll in your hands, is there any reason not to copy it in your spellbook? Picking spells for wizards is not a character definining exercise, it's just "let's pick the spells I absolutely want and hope the DM makes me find other cool ones along the way".

And no, clerics and druids are not the same thing because their spell lists are miniscule and have clear themes, and they are very clearly defined by their subclass.
I can give you that bards will probably need some tweaks.
Sorcerers, still not sure about it, because they are already so limited by their few spells known, but I will consider it.

Right. I don't actually care all that much about power balance. Wizards are powerful, sure, but within the region of acceptable balance (IMO). However, making a wizard character whose reason to adventure isn't "I want more spells/look at my power" (which is the only PHB reason for adventuring wizards at all[1]) requires basically making it from scratch. And I've noticed that my players (over 14 groups so far, mostly different players), who focus much more on theme and character than power, rarely pick wizards. Because, it seems, that they're bland. And bland is worse than OP OR UP. The whole point of trimming the list is to have room to give them interesting class features that encourage them to do something other than "cast the most powerful spell I've got" and to want things other than "more spells". Limits guide players. Limits help players build interesting, in-universe-plausible characters. Limits are good.

[1] Here's the entire quote for the "why are you adventuring" section:

What drew you forth from your life of study? Did your first taste of magical knowledge leave you hungry for more? Have you received word of a secret repository of knowledge not yet plundered by any other wizard? Perhaps you’re simply eager to put your newfound magical skills to the test in the face of danger.

It defines wizards as power-hungry people who basically want to be powerful. And if there is a more bland existence with less reason to get involved in the world, I'm having issues finding one. Clerics, druids, warlocks, sorcerers--all of these have built-in reasons to want to adventure. As do most of the rest of the classes. Wizards? You've got "I want more power" and "I want to show I'm more powerful than you are." And those are horrible, party-and-narrative-unfriendly reasons to adventure IMO. At least if you're not doing a plot-less dungeon crawl. Where reason to adventure is rather secondary and you've just got glorified chess pieces.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the confusion (at least on my part) comes from the fact that it won't stop those kinds of players, they'll just play another build. Unless you keep nerfing until they stop having fun and find another place to play at.

Meanwhile the players who don't think that way will see their possible characters reduce more and more and will either not care (if they didn't play casters/wizards before, or at least not in a way that this will matter) or be just as unhappy because you've reduced the characters one can make. That's (to me) the greatest risk of this approach.
What got me involved in the discussion is that I am not a fan of generalist spellcasters. Mr Fenice, I have the leader of the Magic Users Union on the phone - they are carrying pitchforks and torches.

To make you understand where I am coming from, when I used to play D&D 3.5, This is what some of us refer to as "a root cause"



I had brought it up in another thread but I like the idea of limiting the highest level spells based on school. Above 3d level spells, have at it. Neck it down with the more powerful magics at 4th level and higher, but that requires rebalancing that rather large collection of spells.

@Fenice and @ PhoenixPhyre

I am not opposed to specialist spellcasters, I just wish you weren't arguing for destroying the de-facto generalist spellcaster to do it , because you don't like the concept of a generalist spellcaster. Given that is was the core of the Magic User/Wizard class from the get go, using magic wherever you find it and whatever you can find, it's this core issue that has me not liking the limitation even though (similar to Cleric) the idea of a better thematic implementation does appeal to me. The details are a bugger, though.

And? This whole "new book gets published and now existing characters are stronger without having to do anything" thing is a mistake. Subclasses should be sealed when printed. Nobody should get new class features in a book that doesn't print their subclass or bill itself as giving ACFs. Period. Full stop. Otherwise you have what 4e had with haves (those with strong support in other books) and have-nots (those without such support). Concur.

but, I am sorry, fireball is iconic. It's roots are in Chainmail. So too is lightning bolt. Don't mess with fireball. Leave it alone. It's for Every Wizard. As is Lightning Bolt


Further edit re: generalists--
The issue is that you can't have balanced and interesting generalists

Interesting comes from how you play it. That's my two cents.

But what they have, that the wizards entirely lack, is thematics. A War Cleric is different from a Life Cleric in meaningful ways.
Good point. All that needs doing is rebuilding the sub class features - less work - not overhauling the entire spell system - more work and harder to balance.

And yes, liposuction on the spell lists is needed.

Because bards are only versatile at build time. You can build lots of different bards, but once could built, a given bard is relatively narrow in capability.
Amen.

And not just good spells. I'm not as concerned by power as by lack of thematic union. Cleric spells all share themes. Themes that the subclasses reinforce through bonus spells. Druids are even better at being thematic in spell lists. Wizards? Basically everything that isn't a healing spell. Not even a hint of a unifying theme, and the schools are too vague to accomplish this themselves.
1974 called, and wants to remind you that every Wizard ever started as a Magic User. :smallbiggrin:

I will leave you with this final point, no one who plays Wizards will want to play them once you are done nuking them from orbit, so you might as well ban the class and save yourselves the headache. Possibly true, but this idea is kinda in the larval stage. A whole boat load of balancing of a spell list of 310 spells has to be done to make this work. Or have a hope of so doing.

[Valmark]

Right. I don't actually care all that much about power balance. Wizards are powerful, sure, but within the region of acceptable balance (IMO). However, making a wizard character whose reason to adventure isn't "I want more spells/look at my power" (which is the only PHB reason for adventuring wizards at all[1]) requires basically making it from scratch. And I've noticed that my players (over 14 groups so far, mostly different players), who focus much more on theme and character than power, rarely pick wizards. Because, it seems, that they're bland. And bland is worse than OP OR UP. The whole point of trimming the list is to have room to give them interesting class features that encourage them to do something other than "cast the most powerful spell I've got" and to want things other than "more spells". Limits guide players. Limits help players build interesting, in-universe-plausible characters. Limits are good.

[1] Here's the entire quote for the "why are you adventuring" section:


It defines wizards as power-hungry people who basically want to be powerful. And if there is a more bland existence with less reason to get involved in the world, I'm having issues finding one. Clerics, druids, warlocks, sorcerers--all of these have built-in reasons to want to adventure. As do most of the rest of the classes. Wizards? You've got "I want more power" and "I want to show I'm more powerful than you are." And those are horrible, party-and-narrative-unfriendly reasons to adventure IMO. At least if you're not doing a plot-less dungeon crawl. Where reason to adventure is rather secondary and you've just got glorified chess pieces.

To be fair, all of this is kinda on the player, not the class. Plenty of wizard subclasses (and honestly the base chassis too) encourage specific playstiles and tacticality- and if a player can't come up with a reason for adventuring beyond lust for knowledge it's not exactly the class' fault. Or at least not in terms of mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, all of this is kinda on the player, not the class. Plenty of wizard subclasses (and honestly the base chassis too) encourage specific playstiles and tacticality- and if a player can't come up with a reason for adventuring beyond lust for knowledge it's not exactly the class' fault. Or at least not in terms of mechanics.

The vast majority of other classes give built-in hooks, places to build on. Wizards? Not so much. And mechanics, really, are the least of my concerns directly. It's theme. Something that wizards lack other than "all the power!" which is a crappy theme.

And I've seen wizards who never used their subclass features and were just as effective as anyone else. So no, the subclasses (in general, bladesinger is an exception here) don't really provide much. They each have a major ability. Well, some more major than others. That's it. But those major abilities go just as well with most other playstyles--divination? Works for any style. Evocation encourages blasting, but all wizards to that. Abjuration only needs rituals to fuel its only substantial feature, which works just fine for all wizards. Etc.

[GeneralVryth]

Since people still seem to want me engaged...


I am still not convinced that you understand what the problem I am trying to address is...

It has absolutely nothing to do with the spell balance, wizards being more powerful than other spellcasters, etc.

The problem is wizard characters (not the class itself, the characters playing it) lack an identity. Because their identity is "they can learn basically every spell of the game other than cure/resurrection". There is no theme, no role, no niche.
Picking spells for a wizard is not character defining. You can choose to build your wizard who loves cold magic, but as soon as you have a fireball scroll in your hands, is there any reason not to copy it in your spellbook? Picking spells for wizards is not a character definining exercise, it's just "let's pick the spells I absolutely want and hope the DM makes me find other cool ones along the way".

And no, clerics and druids are not the same thing because their spell lists are miniscule and have clear themes, and they are very clearly defined by their subclass.
I can give you that bards will probably need some tweaks.
Sorcerers, still not sure about it, because they are already so limited by their few spells known, but I will consider it.

So quick question, if Wizards could only get the free spells they gain at level up, would this problem go away? If the Fireball spell is suddenly balanced to be no better than your cold damage spells what incentive do you have to add it to your spell book? If spells are balanced then the only answer is variation/options. If you are a specialist sub-class that has a benefit with cold spells and spells are balanced then your cold spells are still better than the Fireball you just added to your spell book so your incentive to use it is low (the main situations would come in when you know your cold spells aren't going to work, so you use it as a backup, which isn't much different than a Fighter bringing a bow in case he has to fight flyers and can't use his sword).


Right. I don't actually care all that much about power balance. Wizards are powerful, sure, but within the region of acceptable balance (IMO). However, making a wizard character whose reason to adventure isn't "I want more spells/look at my power" (which is the only PHB reason for adventuring wizards at all[1]) requires basically making it from scratch. And I've noticed that my players (over 14 groups so far, mostly different players), who focus much more on theme and character than power, rarely pick wizards. Because, it seems, that they're bland. And bland is worse than OP OR UP. The whole point of trimming the list is to have room to give them interesting class features that encourage them to do something other than "cast the most powerful spell I've got" and to want things other than "more spells". Limits guide players. Limits help players build interesting, in-universe-plausible characters. Limits are good.

[1] Here's the entire quote for the "why are you adventuring" section:


It defines wizards as power-hungry people who basically want to be powerful. And if there is a more bland existence with less reason to get involved in the world, I'm having issues finding one. Clerics, druids, warlocks, sorcerers--all of these have built-in reasons to want to adventure. As do most of the rest of the classes. Wizards? You've got "I want more power" and "I want to show I'm more powerful than you are." And those are horrible, party-and-narrative-unfriendly reasons to adventure IMO. At least if you're not doing a plot-less dungeon crawl. Where reason to adventure is rather secondary and you've just got glorified chess pieces.

This is all pretty much a problem with how your players are building characters. I can think of 3 Wizards I have designed for a world semi-recently and none of them fit the mold you are describing. As for subtracting power to add more interesting sub-class features, why not add the spell limits into the sub-class instead of completely rebuilding the Wizard class? Your solution is meant to destroy archetypes some people like, which is why I keep arguing against it.



Possibly true, but this idea is kinda in the larval stage. A whole boat load of balancing of a spell list of 310 spells has to be done to make this work. Or have a hope of so doing.

My approach to balancing spells would end with probably less than 200 spells. I gave a couple examples on the previous page, turning 4 spells into 2, while making them scale better and in more interesting ways. And that took less than 15 minutes to write up. It's not actually that hard because lots of spells can naturally be combined to build a logical progression of effects, and then you can re-use those progressions for other spells that may not have them.

[thoroughlyS]

Hey PhoenixPhyre, what are your thoughts on Fenice's proposed subclass lists?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hey PhoenixPhyre, what are your thoughts on Fenice's proposed subclass lists?

I'd be ok with it. It's certainly better than my attempt.

------

I'll note that there's a reason I titled the thread "Hypothesis". Because I'm less interested in actual detailed fixes than in the concept. And I'm not married to it, either. Currently my thoughts are:

1) The spell lists of wizards needs to be shrunk. Simply combining spells (as was suggested above) doesn't improve anything--in fact it makes things worse. Because now instead of having to pick between two specific spells (which imposes opportunity cost as you can only prepare/learn so many at a time), you get both in one package. That's the opposite of the necessary action. The point of shrinking the spell list is to remove capabilities completely. Because otherwise there's no room left to add anything actually interesting.

2) Spell lists, generally, are not my favorite things in the world. Because they exacerbate this problem across many cases. Wizards just happen to be the worst-off, since they don't have any other thematic material and their spell list is a total grab bag. I'd much prefer to do something like slicing and dicing based on tags/themes. But that would require a total overhaul, which is something I'm absolutely not willing to do.

3) I'm not entirely happy with shoving everything "fantastic" into the bag of spells. The game could stand to move away from spells being the dominant source of "fantastic" abilities. Give wizards non-spell things they can do, change a whole lot of the "utility" spells into incantations/rituals/whatever you want to call them. Things anyone can do, given the resources and knowledge. Maybe even let casters do them faster/better/cheaper.

3) None of this is pressing enough to actually change in any of my games. But then I don't play with optimizers. So there's that.

[Kane0]

Corollary thought, what about genericised spell lists like how PF2 handled it? That way classes can have additional spells added to say for example the arcane spell list as well as subclasses. Less space taken up in the book and more points of contact for devs to fiddle with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Corollary thought, what about genericised spell lists like how PF2 handled it? That way classes can have additional spells added to say for example the arcane spell list as well as subclasses. Less space taken up in the book and more points of contact for devs to fiddle with.

Personally, I'm of two minds.

1. If you still have classes dominantly defined by their spell list, then it's a problem. Because then all <primal> or <arcane> casters end up with heavy thematic overlap and you get the same "always pick the best spells" issue.

2. If, however, spell lists are only one small component of a class's fiction/archetype/feel, then it's nicer because it's simpler to use.

But as always, the devil's in the (implementation) details. Conceptually, something like Spheres of Power (ie some form of branching "spell tree") would be nice, but SoP is, from everything I've found, the epitome of 3e's super-fiddly, full of tiny meaningless talents and hidden traps design.

The overall spell system of D&D is not my favorite. Not so much the pseudo-vancian 5e spell slot system--that I'm actually ok with. It's the ravioli nature of spells. Each one is atomic, none of them depend on each other, and there's no "flow" between abilities. You could be a straight "Mr Freeze" and pick up fireball and be just as good with it as a burning red-dragonborn red-dragon-ancestry sorcerer. Or you could be a "finesse is wasted" brute-force blow-things-up caster and then take subtle manipulation spells without an issue. That's always bugged me. Never enough to do more than dream about alternates, however. As it'd be a massive overhaul.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, sticking to this plan...

This would require either a more generous DM, or the possibility to find/buy/create scrolls, but what if you're limited to only picking your school spells after a specific spell level... probably 2 or 3, but you can still copy any other schools spells into your spellbook.

So, if you wanted every wizard to have the iconic spells of Fireball and Lightning Bolt and Hypnotic Pattern and Fly... cap 'universality' at 3rd level. 4th and above, they'll need to track down scrolls or spellbooks that contain spells outside of their specialization.

As for the newer subclasses of Wizard, I could see allowing Scribes to be completely universal, it's their schtick. War might be limited to Abj, Evo and Trans (so they're a bit more open). I'm not completely certain about Bladesinger; their martial prowess tends to make me want to limit them to a single specialization, chosen at level 2, but I'm open to suggestions. I wouldn't grant War or BS more than 4 (especially if they're able to freely choose which schools they'll have full access to).

This solution seems a compromise between locking spells behind a specialization only, and still allowing generalists wizards who don't want to be Scribes, but they just need to work with the DM a bit more than normal.

[GeneralVryth]

Since apparently no one bothered to actually read my post describing in detail the parts you put together to make the spell re-balance work here you go:

On a related note, I get the feeling people aren't quite understanding the scope of what I mean by re-balancing spells so here are a couple of examples (and I would be tempted to go further than this adding a choice of bonuses for the major up-casting bonuses):

Fireball
1st-level
Tags: Evocation, Fire, Destruction, Dexterity
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous
A glowing bead flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 2d6 for each slot level above 1st. When cast with a spell slot 3rd level or higher the range increases to 150 feet and the radius increases to 20 feet. When cast with a spell slot of 6th level or higher the Duration becomes "Concentration, up to 1 minute" and instead of detonating immediately the bead detonates when your concentration ends (which you can choose to do voluntarily). When cast with a 9th level spell slot the range increases to 1 mile, the radius becomes 40 feet, and the damage increases by an additional 6d6.

Dimension Door
2nd-level
Tags: Conjuration, Teleportation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Briefly surrounded by a ring of light, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 3rd level or higher you increase the range by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.
When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you may cast this spell as an action instead of a bonus action to multiply the range by 10, and teleport to a location you can see, you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle, 300 feet.” Additionally, when cast with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you can also bring one willing creature within 5 feet of you that is of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 7th or higher you can bring additional willing creature along, and the willing creatures you bring along can be within 20 feet of you. You can bring an additional creature for each slot level above 7th.

If you re-did all of the spells in the game with robust up-casting, and stringing together related spells in the up-casting chains (pretty much every spell from 1 to 4 has some kind of higher level version, and most higher level spells could be brought down a couple levels in controlled ways, Foresight for example could easily be a 6th or 7th level spell with a duration of "Concentration, 1 minute"), you could remove 1/3 to 1/2 of the spells in the game while simultaneously increasing the number of "good" spells. By giving spells tags you can have classes or sub-classes that are restricted to learning spells with given tags (I would probably have a tag for each school, 1 for each damage type, 1 for the kinds of saving throws, and 1 category of tags that is more descriptive like "Destruction, Teleportation, Restoration, Summoning etc..." and each spell should have 2 to 6 tags, with some spells potentially having tags for multiple schools Fear being one that could have both Necromancy and Enchantment).

Once you do that, because individual spells are more flexible you go through and re-balance the spell casters to have a max prepared/known spells of somewhere between 6 and 18 (or something along those lines). Wizards probably only get 1 free new spell to their spell book at every Wizard level (or every other Wizard level with sub-classes giving a few bonuses). Finally, every ability in the game like "Empowered Evocation" instead of giving a flat damage increase it gives you a free 1 level up-cast for the spell type in question. This helps with balancing spells by allowing fewer outside factors to adjust their operation (and removes non-sense like the Nuclear Wizard). I would probably also completely remove meta-magic from Sorcerers as part of their re-design instead making them feats with more controlled effects and limits.

With that done Wizards would be better balanced straight away. Most of the other caster classes would become stronger. Multi-classing with casters would become more reasonable (you would probably need to do something to control spells prepared when mutli-classed, but that shouldn't be too hard). You are going to have an easier time creating specialized caster classes in general (the tags are huge here). The only really major piece missing in my mind would be a major re-work of the Sorcerer. But if you still want to want to re-do the Wizard sub-classes to be more specialized you will have a much easier time of it, I would probably just do something simple and for each of the school based sub-classes have it choose 1 of 2 or 3 schools that it can't learn spells from, along side better abilities that buff its specialized school, that should get you the specialization you are looking for, while leaving the Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Scribe as more generalist Wizards.

Anyways, that would be my kind of 5.5 or 6.0 vision for spell-casting and casters. Martials are a different story.



I'll note that there's a reason I titled the thread "Hypothesis". Because I'm less interested in actual detailed fixes than in the concept. And I'm not married to it, either. Currently my thoughts are:

1) The spell lists of wizards needs to be shrunk. Simply combining spells (as was suggested above) doesn't improve anything--in fact it makes things worse. Because now instead of having to pick between two specific spells (which imposes opportunity cost as you can only prepare/learn so many at a time), you get both in one package. That's the opposite of the necessary action. The point of shrinking the spell list is to remove capabilities completely. Because otherwise there's no room left to add anything actually interesting.

2) Spell lists, generally, are not my favorite things in the world. Because they exacerbate this problem across many cases. Wizards just happen to be the worst-off, since they don't have any other thematic material and their spell list is a total grab bag. I'd much prefer to do something like slicing and dicing based on tags/themes. But that would require a total overhaul, which is something I'm absolutely not willing to do.

3) I'm not entirely happy with shoving everything "fantastic" into the bag of spells. The game could stand to move away from spells being the dominant source of "fantastic" abilities. Give wizards non-spell things they can do, change a whole lot of the "utility" spells into incantations/rituals/whatever you want to call them. Things anyone can do, given the resources and knowledge. Maybe even let casters do them faster/better/cheaper.

3) None of this is pressing enough to actually change in any of my games. But then I don't play with optimizers. So there's that.

1. Shrinking the size of spell known/prepared lists is the first thing I point that you would need to do after the re-balance, roughly cutting them in half.

2. Spells gain tags, to specifically allow slicing and dicing based off of themes (something I completely agree would be beneficial for managing groups of spells without being overly tied to class lists). Not wanting to invest the time to do a large overhaul makes sense though, hence why I said dream structure for a 5.5 or 6.0.

3. There is two side to this coin, by using spells as a basic building block of fantastic abilities it allows for abilities to be re-used and shared instead of trying to re-phrase the same effect over and over again. Now that won't work everything but balance is key.



The overall spell system of D&D is not my favorite. Not so much the pseudo-vancian 5e spell slot system--that I'm actually ok with. It's the ravioli nature of spells. Each one is atomic, none of them depend on each other, and there's no "flow" between abilities. You could be a straight "Mr Freeze" and pick up fireball and be just as good with it as a burning red-dragonborn red-dragon-ancestry sorcerer. Or you could be a "finesse is wasted" brute-force blow-things-up caster and then take subtle manipulation spells without an issue. That's always bugged me. Never enough to do more than dream about alternates, however. As it'd be a massive overhaul.

The Mr. Freeze is only as good with Fireball as the Fire Breathing Red Dragon Sorcerer, if the Fire Breathing Red Dragon Sorcerer doesn't have any abilities that enhance the effect of fire spells. If that is really the case that seems like a problem with the sub-class Fire Breathing Red Dragon Sorcerer has chosen, or the feats they have taken. Spells are the base effects, specialization comes from getting class, sub-class, and feat abilities to improve your effectiveness with those base abilities.

[MaxWilson]

Since apparently no one bothered to actually read my post describing in detail the parts you put together to make the spell re-balance work here you go:

On a related note, I get the feeling people aren't quite understanding the scope of what I mean by re-balancing spells so here are a couple of examples (and I would be tempted to go further than this adding a choice of bonuses for the major up-casting bonuses):

Fireball
1st-level
Tags: Evocation, Fire, Destruction, Dexterity
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous
A glowing bead flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 2d6 for each slot level above 1st. When cast with a spell slot 3rd level or higher the range increases to 150 feet and the radius increases to 20 feet. When cast with a spell slot of 6th level or higher the Duration becomes "Concentration, up to 1 minute" and instead of detonating immediately the bead detonates when your concentration ends (which you can choose to do voluntarily). When cast with a 9th level spell slot the range increases to 1 mile, the radius becomes 40 feet, and the damage increases by an additional 6d6.

Dimension Door
2nd-level
Tags: Conjuration, Teleportation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Briefly surrounded by a ring of light, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you can see.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 3rd level or higher you increase the range by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.
When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you may cast this spell as an action instead of a bonus action to multiply the range by 10, and teleport to a location you can see, you can visualize, or one you can describe by stating distance and direction, such as “200 feet straight downward” or “upward to the northwest at a 45-degree angle, 300 feet.” Additionally, when cast with a spell slot of 4th level or higher you can also bring one willing creature within 5 feet of you that is of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 7th or higher you can bring additional willing creature along, and the willing creatures you bring along can be within 20 feet of you. You can bring an additional creature for each slot level above 7th.

If you re-did all of the spells in the game with robust up-casting, and stringing together related spells in the up-casting chains (pretty much every spell from 1 to 4 has some kind of higher level version, and most higher level spells could be brought down a couple levels in controlled ways, Foresight for example could easily be a 6th or 7th level spell with a duration of "Concentration, 1 minute"), you could remove 1/3 to 1/2 of the spells in the game while simultaneously increasing the number of "good" spells. By giving spells tags you can have classes or sub-classes that are restricted to learning spells with given tags (I would probably have a tag for each school, 1 for each damage type, 1 for the kinds of saving throws, and 1 category of tags that is more descriptive like "Destruction, Teleportation, Restoration, Summoning etc..." and each spell should have 2 to 6 tags, with some spells potentially having tags for multiple schools Fear being one that could have both Necromancy and Enchantment).

Once you do that, because individual spells are more flexible you go through and re-balance the spell casters to have a max prepared/known spells of somewhere between 6 and 18 (or something along those lines). Wizards probably only get 1 free new spell to their spell book at every Wizard level (or every other Wizard level with sub-classes giving a few bonuses). Finally, every ability in the game like "Empowered Evocation" instead of giving a flat damage increase it gives you a free 1 level up-cast for the spell type in question. This helps with balancing spells by allowing fewer outside factors to adjust their operation (and removes non-sense like the Nuclear Wizard). I would probably also completely remove meta-magic from Sorcerers as part of their re-design instead making them feats with more controlled effects and limits.

With that done Wizards would be better balanced straight away. Most of the other caster classes would become stronger. Multi-classing with casters would become more reasonable (you would probably need to do something to control spells prepared when mutli-classed, but that shouldn't be too hard). You are going to have an easier time creating specialized caster classes in general (the tags are huge here). The only really major piece missing in my mind would be a major re-work of the Sorcerer. But if you still want to want to re-do the Wizard sub-classes to be more specialized you will have a much easier time of it, I would probably just do something simple and for each of the school based sub-classes have it choose 1 of 2 or 3 schools that it can't learn spells from, along side better abilities that buff its specialized school, that should get you the specialization you are looking for, while leaving the Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Scribe as more generalist Wizards.

Anyways, that would be my kind of 5.5 or 6.0 vision for spell-casting and casters. Martials are a different story.



FWIW I read it the first time, and it seems clear that PhoenixPhyre did too because he referred to it in his last post, where he says "Simply combining spells (as was suggested above)" and that he wants to go in the opposite direction, removing capabilities. You can dispute his interpretation of the post (it seems clear that your desire is to consolidate and then also trim the consolidated list, therefore removing capabilities until it feels right) but it seems clear to me that he did read it.

[Witty Username]

Right. I don't actually care all that much about power balance. Wizards are powerful, sure, but within the region of acceptable balance (IMO). However, making a wizard character whose reason to adventure isn't "I want more spells/look at my power" (which is the only PHB reason for adventuring wizards at all[1]) requires basically making it from scratch. And I've noticed that my players (over 14 groups so far, mostly different players), who focus much more on theme and character than power, rarely pick wizards. Because, it seems, that they're bland. And bland is worse than OP OR UP. The whole point of trimming the list is to have room to give them interesting class features that encourage them to do something other than "cast the most powerful spell I've got" and to want things other than "more spells". Limits guide players. Limits help players build interesting, in-universe-plausible characters. Limits are good.


I seem to have the opposite response, I disproportionately play wizards because of how many hooks they have for adventure, I have made characters that their goal is spells for spells sake, but why you are deliberately learning spells has many possibilities and are informed by your subclass nicely.
Take say Sculpt spells for Evoker, not only does it fit thematically with the benefits of intense discipline and study, but it says you should blast the bad guys, spell placement is for suckers. Maybe take that soldier background and you are a trained battle mage, and your adventuring is partially about accomplishing tasks for a lord you are sworn to.
Meanwhile, diviner and portent pair nicely with spells that require saving throws, making for a wizard that favors spells with debilitating effects. Not to mention that the divination spells tend toward utility, my last diviner was a former shop attendant, that learned magic to facilitate buying and selling magic items, and all their spells for adventuring were not damaging because he was more trying to get stuff done and not die, not hurt things much.

Now something like the sorcerer, has sharp limits and more resources to track, and I have to figure out how my character is related to a dragon and I don't even have a reason that the character wants magic, want is not a factor they just have it. Now, if you want to play a character that doesn't want to be a spell caster but is stuck with it because they have to be one, then the sorcerer works well for specifically that. But it comes of more as baggage for concepts most of the time for me.

As I mentioned, I feel this is most egregious for clerics and paladins because of the set mechanics they have. Having smite damage type tied to oath or deity would be wonderful, A knightess of Shar the Night bringer does not have to do necrotic damage, or cold damage, or psychic damage, but they probably shouldn't do radiant.

[Waazraath]

Yes, yes, YESSSS!!!1!

Ahum, yes, good hypothesis, I like! I really think it's a shame, in several editions this was executed in a very good way. AD&D priest spheres have been mentions, but also late 3.5 tackled this in a very good way (Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer), as did the (also mentioned) 3.5 psionic. 3.5 psion were more subclasses avant garde, since psions get most of their power from their spells (or 'powers' calles at that point) and having really different list with different focus made it really different characters.

Instead of using those great examples, they played 'safe' and fell back on more established (but less interesting) generalist classes, which makes the necromancer prepare by and large the same spells as the enchanter, as the evoker. Meh.

A system like this does not have to exclude a generalist class that can do a bit of everything for the people who really want that, but if that exists, it should pay for this versatality by doing less damage than the warmage/evoker, summon less powerful creatures than the summoner, etc. Personally, I'd prefer casters (and non-casters) being able to tackle different obstacles in their own specific way, and not having a class that theoretically has an option for each kind of obstacle.

[Theodoxus]

Now something like the sorcerer, has sharp limits and more resources to track, and I have to figure out how my character is related to a dragon and I don't even have a reason that the character wants magic, want is not a factor they just have it. Now, if you want to play a character that doesn't want to be a spell caster but is stuck with it because they have to be one, then the sorcerer works well for specifically that. But it comes of more as baggage for concepts most of the time for me.


Interesting... in a different universe, I could see using a baseline like this as the primary chassis to build classes upon. You start with a full caster who has a d6 for HP. You start trading away your casting ability, limiting spheres/schools, bump your HP die by 1 (mimicking Bards, Clerics and Druids). Limit it even more, to a half-caster, so no spells above 5th and a slower progression, you get another +1 to your HP, mimicking Paladins and Rangers. Limit your spells completely, and you get a final +1 die to your HP, mimicking Barbarians.

Let's see... Rogues have no casting in base, so their Sneak Attack might cost 1 HD die, and then the subclass abilities (including 1/3 casting for AT) cost an additional die, bringing them back to d8.
Monk's are similar, trading 1 HD die for Martial Arts and the other for subclass abilities (including a caster 'lite' in the 4E monk).
Fighters really only unique bennie is extra extra extra attack, so that alone might justify an HD die, but honestly, I think it's their subclasses that really cost it.
Warlocks are very limited already in their casting, so that justifies the +1 HD die bump.

Really, it's just Sorcs that don't make a whole lot of sense. I suppose the bonus of SP and MM is balanced by their severe lack of spells.

Sorry for the threadjack.