Wizard players, how would you feel about this change?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: This is a hypothetical, more than anything designed to calibrate my own knowledge. It would require significant testing before seeing actual play.

Assumption: Scrolls are distributed based on DMG treasure tables; wizard NPCs may or may not have their spellbooks where you can find them as treasure. No particular DM involvement either way; no tailoring or anti-tailoring.

Short version:
Nerfs:
* Instead of having a max number of spells prepared, you'd have a limit on the number of spell levels prepared, effectively giving you level + INT mod preparation slots.
* School-specialized arcane traditions (ie the PHB ones) would gain a feature with two parts:
** Spells of your school only cost one "preparation slot", no matter the level (basically setting that back to status quo ante)
** Spells you learn at level up can only come from that school[1] (so your only free picks are your 6 first-level ones)
* Wish no longer has an associated school of magic.[2]

Buffs
* Wizards can use any spell scroll they find to cast the spell (normal limits on scribing still apply), although if it's not a wizard spell they have to roll the check no matter the level. At higher level (10-ish), gain a feature that says that when you fail to cast from a scroll, the scroll doesn't go away.
* Wizards can scribe (but only use as a ritual) any ritual spell.
* Wizards gain free proficiency in Intelligence (Arcana) checks, with double proficiency if the thing being interpreted/examined/etc is written down.

The idea is to enforce specialization and opportunity cost and reduce versatility, while also enforcing the only theme I can find, which is "master of written magic".

Want simulacrum? Either you're an illusionist (in which case you mostly have illusion spells and others are harder to prepare) or you spend 7 prep slots on it as well as having to find a very rare magic item (a scroll of it).

[1] you can still scribe as normal. Arcane Traditions that don't specialize in a school of magic can pick from any school, but all of their spells cost [spell level] preparation slots. That's the cost of being a generalist.
[2] which means that specialists can't learn it for free and everyone pays 9 prep slots for it.

[solidork]

I don't think I'd ever play a wizard if these rules were in effect, especially not a Bladesinger/War Wizard/etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think I'd ever play a wizard if these rules were in effect, especially not a Bladesinger/War Wizard/etc.

Is there a particular piece (ie one of the nerfs) and that would have to change to change your mind? Would saying that non school spells cost (level/2 +1, round down) prep slots work? Or is it the whole concept?

[Mitchellnotes]

I don't like it. You'd likely end up with far fewer spells than the "15 spells known casters" and bards in particular would just end up being better. At level 10, a bard's magical secrets would give essentially 10 of these spell slots. You basically just push people in that direction.

I'm also not quite sure of the intention here. Is it to force specialization? If so, i'd recommend that each of the "specialist" schools have at least one opposing school that can't be learned. 2nd edition had a structure like this. You would need to do something with the "non-specialist" classes, but it could be doable. If it is to make the phb subclasses feel more specialist, an alternative would be to replace the savant feature with adding an additional spell from that school on level up. The true limiter on wizards isn't spells in spellbook, but what one can prepare in s day.

[solidork]

Is there a particular piece (ie one of the nerfs) and that would have to change to change your mind? Would saying that non school spells cost (level/2 +1, round down) prep slots work? Or is it the whole concept?

All of the nerfs are pretty bad. For example, a generalist at level 20 couldn't even have one spell of every level prepared. Useful, to say nothing of actually desirable, spells are not evenly distributed by school or level.

For example, a Divination Wizard literally does not have enough spells available for them to learn 2 spells at level 6. There are several schools where you have to learn every spell available to you.

If you're not specializing in a school, you can't even get CLOSE to preparing one spell of every level. This is well below what Sorcerers get, and most people consider their limitations to be pretty severe.

Wizards do have an identity, and it is being the most flexible and varied spell caster.

[kingcheesepants]

If you really dislike wizards so much you could just tableban them. It would be a lot easier than trying to just nerf them into non existence.

[NCat]

Id say the problem with this is that it places the balance of class heavilly upon the DM to make it so. 5e is balanced around the idea that classes dont really need to find loot or magic items, this makes it so a wizard needs to find loot or magic items to have access to spells.

If you're a wizard in a campaign with a buncha scrolls for sale and everywhere, your a normal wizard. If you're in a campaign like mine, then youd have nothing, since we've found 1 wizard book in our entire campaign, which held mage armour and witch bolt





On another note, I like your preparing spell rule. Not to apply to a single class, but maybe as a varient rule to apply to classes. Make it so you can prepare twice as many spells as normal, but your spells have that rule of a 2nd level taking up 2 spell prepared slots and etc. Apply it to classes like the cleric, druid and maybe change the bard or other classes to this rule or something. It could be fun,
but as a single feature on just the wizard its a bit overkill

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think I'd ever play a wizard if these rules were in effect, especially not a Bladesinger/War Wizard/etc.

I think I would actually look towards the "worse" specialized subclasses as the issue. An Enchantment or Diviner Wizard has a pretty small selection of spells to pick from on level up. we'll use enchantment as the starting example.

Enchantment -
1st level - Charm Person, Hideous Laughter, Sleep.
2nd level - Crown of Madness, Gift of Gab (Acq), Hold Person, Jim's Glowing Coin (Acq), Suggestion, Tasha's Mind Whip (TCOE)

If a Wizard who plans to become a Enchanter chooses 2 of the 1st level enchantment spells at level 1, they actually can't learn 2 spells on level up because of the restriction on spells learned by level, as they now have the subclass restrictions. If you don't allow Acq Inc or Tasha's at your table, they also run out of 2nd level spells to learn at level 4. The level 1 Wizard who chose no enchantment spells with the goal to become an Enchanter is better off, which is pretty bad.

That's assuming they don't strive to scribe additional spells from their chosen school. An Enchanter who leans into their subclass, scribing just 3 additional enchantment spells and knowing any of them at level 1 could actually not learn a single spell at 8th level because their are only two 4th level enchantment spells. Fun fact, for any table that skips Acq Inc and/or Tasha's, they're guaranteed to not learn a spell at 8th level with only 1 additional Enchantment spell learned either at level 1 or scribing. They also don't learn any spells at 5th level.

Extra Fun fact - If your table plays with no splat books, including Xanathar's, there are no 3rd level enchantment spells.

So I don't think this limitation on levelling spells is good, I don't think there are enough spells for all schools of magic to reward this kind of specialization.

Enchantment isn't even the worst off, by the way, Divination Wizards are out of spells to learn at 6th level, guaranteed. Then again at 8th, then again at 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th,18th,19th and 20th. Through leveling, they only learn 18 of the 38 possible spells they could have learned. An Evocation Wizard has a little more than 4 times as many choices on level up and can still find and scribe every Divination spell they want.

[Zevox]

Yeah, not great. Those nerfs are pretty extreme, especially for non-specialist Wizards (and the one Wizard I've played so far was a Bladesinger, so he'd be really up the creek without a paddle), while the "buffs" seem minor in comparison, and certainly none of them do anything to make the class more fun in my eyes. If my DM tried to institute a house rule like that, and I couldn't convince him not to, all it would do is make me avoid the Wizard in favor of Sorcerer, Warlock, or Bard when I wanted to play an arcane caster.

[JackPhoenix]

Is there a particular piece (ie one of the nerfs) and that would have to change to change your mind? Would saying that non school spells cost (level/2 +1, round down) prep slots work? Or is it the whole concept?

Have you noticed that not-PHB wizard subclasses are unable to get new spells on level-up?

The whole concept is just terrible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm. Guess I need to recalibrate.

The goal is absolutely to remove the idea that wizards are the ones with all the spells. Because that's both a crappy theme (providing nothing interesting to the table at all) and an unbalanceable one--it basically boils down to "I can do everything you can do and more". I figured focusing on the idea of being the master of written magic would give something, but obviously not enough.

Every other class suffers opportunity cost; wizards suffer basically none. Combine this with the disconnected nature of spellcasting in D&D and you end up just cherry picking the best spells, regardless of anything like theme. By that measure, being a generalist wizard should put the hurt on you. You should trade raw power for being able to draw from a huge list.

But balancing based on school, I guess, is pointless--the schools don't actually provide any meaningful measure of balance. Back to the drawing board.


Have you noticed that not-PHB wizard subclasses are unable to get new spells on level-up?

The whole concept is just terrible.

No? It's specifically there that non-PHB sub-classes can pick from the entire list. See footnote #1.

[Sigreid]

I've never been a fan of specialist wizard plans. And the spell limits you have are pretty draconian. If you were to implement this, expect to see nothing but necromancers and evokers. Everyone else is kneecapped even worse.

Edit: I'm also not sure why you have such a hate on for the wizard. It's not like the druid or cleric have any less flexibility or power. And this would make them be the better by a wide margin.

[Rynjin]

It's been...20 years, just about, since people started trying to homebrew fixes for Wizards across various editions, and somehow every single time somebody does so it looks exactly the same, as if they've never thought to learn from their predecessor's mistakes. I've seen like...this exact same homebrew, with very minor variations, at least a dozen times.

You don't balance something by making it annoying to use. Starting from the assumption that "cumbersome and unfun" equals "balanced" already makes your idea a non-starter.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The goal is absolutely to remove the idea that wizards are the ones with all the spells. Because that's both a crappy theme (providing nothing interesting to the table at all) and an unbalanceable one--it basically boils down to "I can do everything you can do and more". I figured focusing on the idea of being the master of written magic would give something, but obviously not enough.
You'd have to reconsider your buffs in that case then, because with your proposed buffs a Wizard of 10th+ level can (given enough time) cast any spell they find in scroll form. All you've really done is added extra cumbersome and expensive steps.

I don't say this trying to be mean or hostile, but I think this idea isn't salvageable. It's very complicated, favors Evocation Wizards almost exclusively (they have by far the most options) and takes steps back from its own goals in its efforts to give Wizards something else to make up for the hamstringing of their native spellcasting ability.



Edit: I'm also not sure why you have such a hate on for the wizard. It's not like the druid or cleric have any less flexibility or power. And this would make them be the better by a wide margin.
Hadn't even thought about it at the start, but yea, I'd just play an Arcana Cleric if I ever wanted to be a Wizard.

[Sigreid]

It's been...20 years, just about, since people started trying to homebrew fixes for Wizards across various editions, and somehow every single time somebody does so it looks exactly the same, as if they've never thought to learn from their predecessor's mistakes. I've seen like...this exact same homebrew, with very minor variations, at least a dozen times.

You don't balance something by making it annoying to use. Starting from the assumption that "cumbersome and unfun" equals "balanced" already makes your idea a non-starter.

It was only ever an issue in 1e at high levels because people completely ignored how long it took to re-memorize spells. I mean seriously, a high level caster would have to spend days or even weeks to re-memorize his spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just as a calibration test to see if it's the implementation or the concept at fault:

1) what if instead of "you can't learn spells from outside your school at level up", you were instead only restricted to learning your highest level from your school (for spell levels 2+). So at 3rd level, you could learn any 1st level spell or a 2nd level of your school, and you could only learn a 9th of your school (except from a scroll)?
2) what if, instead of costing <spell level> or even <spell level/2 + 1>, it was 2 (flat, not scaling) for out-of-school spells above level 1)? That'd reduce (at max level) a generalist to slightly fewer prepared (but many more known) than a sorcerer (12 if they only prepared spells of level 2+)

-----------


It's been...20 years, just about, since people started trying to homebrew fixes for Wizards across various editions, and somehow every single time somebody does so it looks exactly the same, as if they've never thought to learn from their predecessor's mistakes. I've seen like...this exact same homebrew, with very minor variations, at least a dozen times.

You don't balance something by making it annoying to use. Starting from the assumption that "cumbersome and unfun" equals "balanced" already makes your idea a non-starter.

I don't see how this is annoying to use--the bookkeeping is minimal. It's less than spell points, for one, especially since most people don't switch all their spells every day. Effectively it's a per-sub-class spell list. Although the parameters would need lots of work, because the schools aren't anywhere near internally balanced.

But really, the other option is to just kneecap their spell list. As in--drop about half the spells, most of them completely (ie not learnable by anybody). Then you might have room to actually give them some class features.

Fundamentally, the wizard's design is, was, and always has been pure crap. "My only feature is my spell list" is horrible design and impossible to balance against--they gain tons of new class features with every published book, even without going up levels. And they're as strong as their strongest spell, which with D&D spell design is "able to do just about anything". Unless you do something about that, there's no balance possible.

[Rynjin]

I don't see how this is annoying to use--the bookkeeping is minimal. It's less than spell points, for one, especially since most people don't switch all their spells every day. Effectively it's a per-sub-class spell list. Although the parameters would need lots of work, because the schools aren't anywhere near internally balanced.

But really, the other option is to just kneecap their spell list. As in--drop about half the spells, most of them completely (ie not learnable by anybody). Then you might have room to actually give them some class features.

Fundamentally, the wizard's design is, was, and always has been pure crap. "My only feature is my spell list" is horrible design and impossible to balance against--they gain tons of new class features with every published book, even without going up levels. And they're as strong as their strongest spell, which with D&D spell design is "able to do just about anything". Unless you do something about that, there's no balance possible.

Nothing about your proposed "fix" does anything to address the actual problem you claim to be targeting. Their only feature is still their spell list (plus a ribbon ability you added) except their access is now more limited. By your own admission it's "horrible design", except now it's both horribly designed and less fun to use.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just as a calibration test to see if it's the implementation or the concept at fault:

1) what if instead of "you can't learn spells from outside your school at level up", you were instead only restricted to learning your highest level from your school (for spell levels 2+). So at 3rd level, you could learn any 1st level spell or a 2nd level of your school, and you could only learn a 9th of your school (except from a scroll)?

Diviners are still screwed, there are only 3 divination spells of 6th to 9th level. Two of them are 6th level and one is 9th. From 13th to 17th level they fall an entire spell level behind other full casters.

The concept of specialization by school of magic is at fault... That's why their ability to scribe spells inside their school for cheap is a ribbon attached to each of those specializations, it's "extra", and would be a horrible limitation to impose on them full stop.

[quindraco]

The idea is to enforce specialization and opportunity cost and reduce versatility, while also enforcing the only theme I can find, which is "master of written magic".

Why? Why is the goal to nerf versatility, rather than to reward specialization?

Here's an example way to reward specialization:

School Focus: When at least half (rounding up) of the spells a wizard has prepared all share the same school, the wizard has school focus in that school. Example focus: While you have Conjuration focus, you do not need to eat, drink, or breathe, and as an action, you can teleport a distance up to your movement speed in any direction; if you would teleport into a creature or object, the action is wasted and you do not teleport.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why? Why is the goal to nerf versatility, rather than to reward specialization?

Here's an example way to reward specialization:

School Focus: When at least half (rounding up) of the spells a wizard has prepared all share the same school, the wizard has school focus in that school. Example focus: While you have Conjuration focus, you do not need to eat, drink, or breathe, and as an action, you can teleport a distance up to your movement speed in any direction; if you would teleport into a creature or object, the action is wasted and you do not teleport.

Because they're already pushing the bounds of their power (especially via versitility) budget. So any additional rewards turn them from mostly unbalanced to entirely overbalanced. Their class budget is basically used up by their spell list, leaving no room for good things.

One of the points of nerfing versatility is that it frees up room for actual class features.


Diviners are still screwed, there are only 3 divination spells of 6th to 9th level. Two of them are 6th level and one is 9th. From 13th to 17th level they fall an entire spell level behind other full casters.

The concept of specialization by school of magic is at fault... That's why their ability to scribe spells inside their school for cheap is a ribbon attached to each of those specializations, it's "extra", and would be a horrible limitation to impose on them full stop.

Yeah. I'm coming round to the idea that the schools should become like alignment--vestigial. Find other ways to specialize them. Because the spell schools don't really provide much, even in the way of theme (so many spells are kinda...oddly placed).

An alternate idea I'm knocking around (that requires much more of a rewrite and is much more setting-bound) is to completely rewrite them, focusing their Arcane Traditions around actual in-universe schools of thought or styles of magic. Not schools of magic, but things like "wizards who train in <actual physical school in location A> specialize in XYZ spells, while those who picked it up on their own ("hedge wizards") are generalists but..." That would involve rewriting much of their spell list, probably as part of a more comprehensive overhaul of spellcasting[1], likely involving having a relatively narrow class list but expansive Arcane Tradition lists. But the warthog kneels, so such total overhauls are unlikely to happen.


---------

Note: I want to reiterate that this is entirely a thought/calibration experiment. Not an actual house-rule proposal. It's an attempt to figure out how much is the versatility worth to people.

[Rynjin]

Because they're already pushing the bounds of their power (especially via versitility) budget. So any additional rewards turn them from mostly unbalanced to entirely overbalanced. Their class budget is basically used up by their spell list, leaving no room for good things.

One of the points of nerfing versatility is that it frees up room for actual class features.

Did you maybe consider that for many people, this is a feature and not a bug? Personally, I've always been a bigger fan of Sorcerers than Wizard. You know...the class that trades versatility for class features. But I'm not everyone. Having both options is fine.

Unless I'm utterly mistaken about how 5e Sor/Wiz dynamics differ from my usual edition, this still holds true. I seem to remember Sorcerers getting a lot of nice goodies, where Wizards only get a school specialization of varying value.

[jas61292]

While I really like the intent here, I think it goes a bit too far and can cause some issues. I absolutely hate the fact that the "specialist" subclasses do nothing to make you specialize, and think that the generalist wizard concept as a whole is one of the most busted and poorly designed elements of 5e. But these specific changes go too far.

First off, using a number of slots equal to the spell level means that it becomes next to impossible to prepare higher level spells of other schools. And while I like that it is limited, I feel it ends up being a bit too restrictive. Making a diviner prepare 60% divination spells would be great. Making them prepare 90% divination spells because anything else is too costly is a bit much. I think you would need to reduce the cost of a spell to be equivalent to half the spell level, rounded up. At least for spells of 5th level and lower. That makes it so you can do plenty of mix and matching at lower levels, but higher level spells are still costly. Now, I honestly don't mind using the full level for higher level spells. Making it so your only super powerful abilities are in your specialization is not only thematic, but would greatly rein in the most broken and abusive combos. And wish using 9 slots is about the best thing you can do short of banning it completely (though really you should just ban it completely; its dumb). But for lower level spells, I don't think the cost can be too high, or else it ends up being too restrictive.

Secondly, limiting the spells you learn at level up to your school is a bit overly strict. Not only do different schools have vastly different numbers of spells at different levels, but also, gaining any other spells beyond what you get at level up is entirely on the DM. There is no guarantee you will ever get anything else, and as much as I want specialists, I would not want them that badly. That said, I would have no problem saying that at least one of the spells you take at every level must be from your specialization. Gives you flexibility, while still enforcing a theme.

Finally, I'm not sure how well this plays with the non school specialization subclasses. Making all schools cost more would be really punishing. Instead, I would be more likely to say that each other subclass should be given a few specific schools they are associated with. War Magic might be Abjuration, Evocation and Transmutation, for example. Then give them cheaper prep for all those schools, but require that both level up spells each level must come from their schools. This would make it so, baring the DM handing out a ton of scrolls and spell books, they would have more flexibility on what they prepare, but less flexibility on what they know in the first place.

I don't know how well any of these ideas would actually work. It would take a lot of testing to work out exactly the best way of doing it. But there is very little I would like more than to see specialist casters be a real thing, and to see the generalist wizard go extinct.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Did you maybe consider that for many people, this is a feature and not a bug? Personally, I've always been a bigger fan of Sorcerers than Wizard. You know...the class that trades versatility for class features. But I'm not everyone. Having both options is fine.

Unless I'm utterly mistaken about how 5e Sor/Wiz dynamics differ from my usual edition, this still holds true. I seem to remember Sorcerers getting a lot of nice goodies, where Wizards only get a school specialization of varying value.

Except that having wizards the way they are distorts the entire game and leads to 90% of the martial/caster disputes.

As a worldbuilder, I also strongly dislike "I have no theme, just power". The only written "class plot hook" for wizards? "I want more power." That's it. That's the only reason, according to the PHB, why a wizard would ever go on an adventure. And that's...useless as a DM and as a worldbuilder. And ends up making one-note characters. So that's offensive at the aesthetic level. Even fighters have more of an identity (especially via their sub-classes) than that. Rangers, who struggle for a reason to be, have orders of magnitude more character than that.

[Mitchellnotes]

But balancing based on school, I guess, is pointless--the schools don't actually provide any meaningful measure of balance. Back to the drawing board.

Part of the problem is you aren't starting with a large enough slice of pie. As others have said, there are some schools that just don't have enough spells to specialize in Just that school. Like i suggested, go the other way. Specializing in one means you can't use another. As a starting point:

-Abjuration is opposed by Alteration and Illusion
-Conjuration/Summoning is opposed by Greater Divination and Invocation/Evocation
-Greater Divination is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning
-Enchantment/Charm is opposed by Invocation/Evocation and Necromancy
-Invocation/Evocation is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning and Enchantment/Charm
-Illusion is opposed by Necromancy, Invocation/Evocation, and Abjuration
-Necromancy is opposed by Illusion and Enchantment/Charm
-Alteration is opposed by Abjuration and Necromancy

This would 100% need work (for one, greater divination isn't a thing, and the illusion opposed schools is a lot...), and some subclasses would need opposed schools created (warmage, being arguably an abjuration/evocation mix could have illusion opposed maybe?) What this would do is push people to spells they wouldn't typically use, but still gives lots of options. If you are a conjurer, and lack evocations direct damage, cloudkill starts to look quite a bit better. It limits some options, gives the subclass more functionality bc it then also defines more what that wizard may be doing, but still feels like there are a lot of viable options

Edit: or just go the 3.5 route and say that your specialization means that you can't use one or two schools of magic. Makes it a bit simpler, basically the same effect overall

[ProsecutorGodot]

An alternate idea I'm knocking around (that requires much more of a rewrite and is much more setting-bound) is to completely rewrite them, focusing their Arcane Traditions around actual in-universe schools of thought or styles of magic. Not schools of magic, but things like "wizards who train in <actual physical school in location A> specialize in XYZ spells, while those who picked it up on their own ("hedge wizards") are generalists but..." That would involve rewriting much of their spell list, probably as part of a more comprehensive overhaul of spellcasting[1], likely involving having a relatively narrow class list but expansive Arcane Tradition lists. But the warthog kneels, so such total overhauls are unlikely to happen.

In my perfect world Wizards would be a modular class that is unique even between similarly practicing Wizards. Complex rules for spell creation, encouragement to explore new spells rather than accept what exists as the best options. It's why I'm a fan of those generalist subclasses, War Wizard and Scribes specifically, take (admittedly very small) steps to encourage very different styles of play or creativity in spellcasting that other classes don't really incentivize.

I'm willing to accept and enjoy Wizards as they are right now though because an overhaul to the degree that I would prefer (and one to the degree that you seem to prefer) is a pretty big undertaking. All of the work I put into it could easily be shot down by my players not wanting to deal with the extra work or simply not enjoying Wizards as much as I do and never interacting with the rules to begin with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Part of the problem is you aren't starting with a large enough slice of pie. As others have said, there are some schools that just don't have enough spells to specialize in Just that school. Like i suggested, go the other way. Specializing in one means you can't use another. As a starting point:

-Abjuration is opposed by Alteration and Illusion
-Conjuration/Summoning is opposed by Greater Divination and Invocation/Evocation
-Greater Divination is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning
-Enchantment/Charm is opposed by Invocation/Evocation and Necromancy
-Invocation/Evocation is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning and Enchantment/Charm
-Illusion is opposed by Necromancy, Invocation/Evocation, and Abjuration
-Necromancy is opposed by Illusion and Enchantment/Charm
-Alteration is opposed by Abjuration and Necromancy

This would 100% need work (for one, greater divination isn't a thing, and the illusion opposed schools is a lot...), and some subclasses would need opposed schools created (warmage, being arguably an abjuration/evocation mix could have illusion opposed maybe?) What this would do is push people to spells they wouldn't typically use, but still gives lots of options. If you are a conjurer, and lack evocations direct damage, cloudkill starts to look quite a bit better. It limits some options, gives the subclass more functionality bc it then also defines more what that wizard may be doing, but still feels like there are a lot of viable options

I've thought about that idea, but never made it quite work.

One other idea is that you'd pick two schools (via subclass[1]) to specialize in, as well as one or two to "ban", resulting in 3 buckets--2 specialty, 4-5 normal, and 1-2 banned. Learning spells would then break down by tier:

T1 spells (levels 0 - 2) : any wizard can learn any of these. These are "beginner" spells, the equivalent of a High School education in wizardry.
T2 spells (levels 3 - 5) : you can learn any from your specialty or normal schools. You can use scrolls of these spells from your banned school. This is the equivalent of a college major--you've specialized somewhat, but you're still relatively flexible.
T3 spells (levels 6 - 8) : You can learn any from your specialty as normal, but your normal schools are delayed by one level (so you could learn a level 6 normal school spell at level 12, not level 11). Cannot learn or use scrolls of this from your banned schools. This is your starting-research-for-your-PhD level specialization--starting to bind, but still some flexibility.
T4 spells (level 9) : Only from your specialty schools. Can't use scrolls from anything else (not that you're likely to find any, being legendary items).

Accompany this with actual features at the sub-class level.

[1] which ideally would be much more on the mold of Bladesinger/War Wizard/Scribes than the PHB ones; focused around a specific theme, choosing schools that make sense in that context.

[Elbeyon]

If a dm stated their goal was to nerf wizards, I am not sure I would trust them to hand out scrolls or other wizard books.

[Zevox]

The goal is absolutely to remove the idea that wizards are the ones with all the spells. Because that's both a crappy theme (providing nothing interesting to the table at all) and an unbalanceable one--it basically boils down to "I can do everything you can do and more". I figured focusing on the idea of being the master of written magic would give something, but obviously not enough.
Yeah, setting aside disagreements about the goal (spell variety is a big part of what makes Wizards appealing as a class as far as I'm concerned, personally), "master of written magic" as a theme is a crappy one, IMO. It's what gave us the "Order of Scribes" subclass, after all, which is the least appealing of the Wizard subclasses to me, precisely for how dull and generic it is.


Combine this with the disconnected nature of spellcasting in D&D and you end up just cherry picking the best spells, regardless of anything like theme.
How is that different from any other spellcaster in the game? Even if you're playing something like a Dragon Sorcerer or Storm Sorcerer whose class abilities encourage picking spells of specific elements, you're free to just choose the best couple of spells of that element and still mostly just take generally good spells, if you'd like. Nothing ever forces you to pick your spells based on the theme.

Don't try to force players to choose their spells based on a theme, let them do so if they want to for the character concept they have.


Just as a calibration test to see if it's the implementation or the concept at fault:

1) what if instead of "you can't learn spells from outside your school at level up", you were instead only restricted to learning your highest level from your school (for spell levels 2+). So at 3rd level, you could learn any 1st level spell or a 2nd level of your school, and you could only learn a 9th of your school (except from a scroll)?
Makes that particular element less bad I suppose, but as long as it's still attached to the rest, doesn't change my overall reaction.


2) what if, instead of costing <spell level> or even <spell level/2 + 1>, it was 2 (flat, not scaling) for out-of-school spells above level 1)? That'd reduce (at max level) a generalist to slightly fewer prepared (but many more known) than a sorcerer (12 if they only prepared spells of level 2+)
Still no. You're still talking about a restriction so severe a non-specialist Wizard is suddenly preparing fewer spells than the Sorcerer, when the Sorcerer's low number of spells known tends to be what bothers people about them compared to other casters.

The number of spells prepared is also not just a Wizard thing, it's a mechanic they share with the other prepared full caster classes, Clerics and Druids, so you're seriously hamstringing them in comparison to those while you're at it.


Because they're already pushing the bounds of their power (especially via versitility) budget. So any additional rewards turn them from mostly unbalanced to entirely overbalanced. Their class budget is basically used up by their spell list, leaving no room for good things.

One of the points of nerfing versatility is that it frees up room for actual class features.

Did you maybe consider that for many people, this is a feature and not a bug?
Yeah, what Rynjin said. I'm personally happy with how the Wizard is designed this edition. Spell variety and the fantasy of being the highly-intelligent practitioner of magic is what I find appealing about - what makes it one of my favorite classes. It doesn't need a lot of class features for that, just spells, a good Int score, and proficiency in knowledge skills. The specialist subclasses and option to pick spells to whatever theme you choose exists to offer different flavors if you feel like it, but the appeal of the class, to me at least, has never been specializing in just one variety of magic to the exclusion of others*, but knowing as much of it as possible.

*That's something I actually disliked about its design in 3.5, personally, since the extra spell slots for specialization was such a huge incentive that it felt like a bad idea not to.

[jas61292]

If a dm stated their goal was to nerf wizards, I am not sure I would trust them to hand out scrolls or other wizard books.

The funny thing here to me is, as a DM, I would be far more inclined to give out scrolls and spell books if the wizard had first been nerfed. As is, once you get past low levels, it just feels bad and unfair to me giving out a lot of scrolls and spell books when there is a wizard in the party, since what would otherwise be a consumable or simply something to sell instead becomes a permanent power boost for the character that is often already the strongest. If the wizard was at a lower power level to start, I would have less reason to want to restrict their access to these things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The funny thing here to me is, as a DM, I would be far more inclined to give out scrolls and spell books if the wizard had first been nerfed. As is, once you get past low levels, it just feels bad and unfair to me giving out a lot of scrolls and spell books when there is a wizard in the party, since what would otherwise be a consumable or simply something to sell instead becomes a permanent power boost for the character that is often already the strongest. If the wizard was at a lower power level to start, I would have less reason to want to restrict their access to these things.

I very much agree with this. Without any scrolls or spell books, wizards already have more spells known than anyone else, out of a list that's roughly 2.5x the size of the nearest competitor and much more varied and powerful, as well as tying for "most spells cast per day" until high levels...at which time they blow everyone else out of the water because they get to cast spells for free.

There's basically no room for any more goodies. Which makes that whole thematic element null and void.

Edit: maybe if there was a strong "spells cannot do X" limit; as it stands, spells can do anything non-spells can do, but better, cheaper, and more reliably. While paying basically no cost. And wizards get 90% of the prime offenders (basically everything but resurrection spells, which are really a minor thing IMO). Is it an offender spell? It's on the wizard list, and several are only on the wizard list. That's a problem

[Elbeyon]

The funny thing here to me is, as a DM, I would be far more inclined to give out scrolls and spell books if the wizard had first been nerfed. As is, once you get past low levels, it just feels bad and unfair to me giving out a lot of scrolls and spell books when there is a wizard in the party, since what would otherwise be a consumable or simply something to sell instead becomes a permanent power boost for the character that is often already the strongest. If the wizard was at a lower power level to start, I would have less reason to want to restrict their access to these things.


I very much agree with this. Without any scrolls or spell books, wizards already have more spells known than anyone else, out of a list that's roughly 2.5x the size of the nearest competitor and much more varied and powerful, as well as tying for "most spells cast per day" until high levels...at which time they blow everyone else out of the water because they get to cast spells for free.

There's basically no room for any more goodies. Which makes that whole thematic element null and void.That's kind of my point. You want them weaker than were they are, so you would not give them enough scrolls and such to reach their current form. You'd give them less than their default starting position.

[Mitchellnotes]

I've thought about that idea, but never made it quite work.

One other idea is that you'd pick two schools (via subclass[1]) to specialize in, as well as one or two to "ban", resulting in 3 buckets--2 specialty, 4-5 normal, and 1-2 banned. Learning spells would then break down by tier:

T1 spells (levels 0 - 2) : any wizard can learn any of these. These are "beginner" spells, the equivalent of a High School education in wizardry.
T2 spells (levels 3 - 5) : you can learn any from your specialty or normal schools. You can use scrolls of these spells from your banned school. This is the equivalent of a college major--you've specialized somewhat, but you're still relatively flexible.
T3 spells (levels 6 - 8) : You can learn any from your specialty as normal, but your normal schools are delayed by one level (so you could learn a level 6 normal school spell at level 12, not level 11). Cannot learn or use scrolls of this from your banned schools. This is your starting-research-for-your-PhD level specialization--starting to bind, but still some flexibility.
T4 spells (level 9) : Only from your specialty schools. Can't use scrolls from anything else (not that you're likely to find any, being legendary items).

Accompany this with actual features at the sub-class level.

[1] which ideally would be much more on the mold of Bladesinger/War Wizard/Scribes than the PHB ones; focused around a specific theme, choosing schools that make sense in that context.

It seems like a lot of complexity to say "you can use any spell 0-2, can't use banned schools 3+, and can only use your school for 9th." I'd drop the 9th level thing though, bc if you simplified this, then it wouldn't matter if you used phb subclass or not. Otherwise you have to figure out the schools for non-phb books

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's kind of my point. You want them weaker than were they are, so you would not give them enough scrolls and such to reach their current form. You'd give them less than their default starting position.

I'm not so worried about their current power--it's within bounds, if barely (although I'm not fond of the high versatility, I can deal). So a current-version wizard? I'm going to wince a bit giving scrolls.

A wizard on a weaker base? I'd be willing to give enough to get close to the current levels, because losing the ability to cherry pick means they're still under control.


It seems like a lot of complexity to say "you can use any spell 0-2, can't use banned schools 3+, and can only use your school for 9th." I'd drop the 9th level thing though, bc if you simplified this, then it wouldn't matter if you used phb subclass or not. Otherwise you have to figure out the schools for non-phb books

Likely. I like the idea (from an in-universe perspective) of breaking things down along tier lines, although I debated whether to go with 3 tiers (0-2, 3-5, 6-9) or 4.

I'd want to (as part of the larger overhaul) rework most of the schools, because I'm not fond of the "schools of magic" approach to subclasses. As a setting matter, they make basically no sense and leave out huge chunks of things historical wizards could do; as a mechanical implementation they're just kinda random.

But then I have the freedom of working always in one consistent setting and not having to really worry about appealing to the general audience, so I can have more setting-specific schools and sub-classes and races and stuff.

[Rynjin]

Except that having wizards the way they are distorts the entire game and leads to 90% of the martial/caster disputes.

This is more a problem with 5e nuking everything from orbit equally. 5e magic isn't particularly strong, it's just better than everything else out there because unlike other classes you actually get to make meaningful choices on abilities every couple of levels.

Perhaps it would be better to focus your efforts on the other side of that equation. My 2 cp on that.


As a worldbuilder, I also strongly dislike "I have no theme, just power". The only written "class plot hook" for wizards? "I want more power." That's it. That's the only reason, according to the PHB, why a wizard would ever go on an adventure. And that's...useless as a DM and as a worldbuilder. And ends up making one-note characters. So that's offensive at the aesthetic level. Even fighters have more of an identity (especially via their sub-classes) than that. Rangers, who struggle for a reason to be, have orders of magnitude more character than that.

This...makes absolutely no sense to me. Almost none of the classes have built in "class plot hook" options. Maybe Cleric, with "a mission from god" hooks, but everyone else is just...a person. They're going to have completely different motivations and goals because they're all individuals.

"Why is your Wizard adventuring?":

...to gain more power.
...to uncover ancient secrets of past civilizations.
...to avenge the death of their lover, who was slain by orcs.
...because they're a mercenary/getting paid.
...to travel the world and find a nice place to settle down.
...because they're on the run from the law.
...because the life of a nobleman's son seemed boring and sterile to them.

Etc., etc.

This is a problem with lack of creativity, not class identity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is more a problem with 5e nuking everything from orbit equally. 5e magic isn't particularly strong, it's just better than everything else out there because unlike other classes you actually get to make meaningful choices on abilities every couple of levels.

Perhaps it would be better to focus your efforts on the other side of that equation. My 2 cp on that.


I'm fine with how everyone else is, including the sorcerers, warlocks, druids, and the rest of the full casters. Wizards stick out as both on the edge of too strong and without any kind of identity. Which makes fixing their identity issues (ie not having one other than "all the power") difficult--there's no room to maneuver.

And I, personally, would prefer fewer choices across the board, but more built-in thematics. For everyone. Most other classes get that via their sub-classes (if nothing else). Wizards? Never get it. They're a blank slate with "give me more power" written on it. They're typecast as the megalomaniac villain type out of the gate. They're not even knowledge experts!

And 5e didn't nuke everybody from orbit equally--if anything, wizards got the best of it. The general spell nerfs (lower spell slots, concentration, slightly weaker spells) hit everyone, but wizards suffer the least. And had many of their restrictions removed--everyone is now a "specialist", except without the banned schools, they can cast in armor as long as they pick up proficiency, bigger HD, all the benefits of 3e-style spontaneous casting while still keeping the massive spells prepared (relative) and enormous spell list, etc.



This...makes absolutely no sense to me. Almost none of the classes have built in "class plot hook" options. Maybe Cleric, with "a mission from god" hooks, but everyone else is just...a person. They're going to have completely different motivations and goals because they're all individuals.

"Why is your Wizard adventuring?":

...to gain more power.
...to uncover ancient secrets of past civilizations.
...to avenge the death of their lover, who was slain by orcs.
...because they're a mercenary/getting paid.
...to travel the world and find a nice place to settle down.
...because they're on the run from the law.
...because the life of a nobleman's son seemed boring and sterile to them.

Etc., etc.

This is a problem with lack of creativity, not class identity.

I'm talking about things listed in the PHB in their class entries. The entire class entry for wizards boils down to "want more spells." Which is a sign that the class itself is super sterile.

[Pex]

Except that having wizards the way they are distorts the entire game and leads to 90% of the martial/caster disputes.

As a worldbuilder, I also strongly dislike "I have no theme, just power". The only written "class plot hook" for wizards? "I want more power." That's it. That's the only reason, according to the PHB, why a wizard would ever go on an adventure. And that's...useless as a DM and as a worldbuilder. And ends up making one-note characters. So that's offensive at the aesthetic level. Even fighters have more of an identity (especially via their sub-classes) than that. Rangers, who struggle for a reason to be, have orders of magnitude more character than that.

Then buff the martials.

Spell versatility is the whole point of wizards. That's how they differ from the other arcane classes. That is the feature. Wizards are already limited. Aside from their two free spells each level, any other spell they get is completely up to the DM. Let the player have his fun of choosing the spells he wants to cast. It's his character, not the DM's. He has every right to play what he enjoys barring making the game unplayable*. If a particular spell is so hateful to a DM that it ruins the game forever, then don't have it exist in the game world. If the DM feels the need to ban a quarter of the Player's Handbook spells then I would suggest he play a different game system altogether, but that's getting off topic.

*The player does also have to play in theme of the campaign if it matters to that campaign. He cannot play a pirate ninja in a campaign about the holy order of philanthropists, nor vice versa.

[Rynjin]

Or it's a sign that whoever wrote the class entry for Wizard also lacks creativity.

Or you know it's a broad strokes description of the class and not meant to be taken very seriously. Like Barbarian's, which just talks about how ****ing angry they are all the time. Grr. Super interesting.

It's irrelevant.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then buff the martials.

Spell versatility is the whole point of wizards. That's how they differ from the other arcane classes. That is the feature. Wizards are already limited. Aside from their two free spells each level, any other spell they get is completely up to the DM. Let the player have his fun of choosing the spells he wants to cast. It's his character, not the DM's. He has every right to play what he enjoys barring making the game unplayable*. If a particular spell is so hateful to a DM that it ruins the game forever, then don't have it exist in the game world. If the DM feels the need to ban a quarter of the Player's Handbook spells then I would suggest he play a different game system altogether, but that's getting off topic.

*The player does also have to play in theme of the campaign if it matters to that campaign. He cannot play a pirate ninja in a campaign about the holy order of philanthropists, nor vice versa.

Martials aren't underpowered. If anything, casters, especially wizards, are overpowered. Constantly buffing without nerfing just causes power spirals and breaks everything.

Two free spells per level, plus 4 extra at first, is already as many as any other class gets. And other classes have whole chunks of them locked in stone via bonus spells, while wizards get free choice from a list 2.5x the size of the next largest, plus with all the broken spells on it. Basically the only things they don't have directly are healing spells. Anything else, they can do better/faster/cheaper than anyone else.

That's not an identity, that's an ego problem.

[Pex]

I've thought about that idea, but never made it quite work.

One other idea is that you'd pick two schools (via subclass[1]) to specialize in, as well as one or two to "ban", resulting in 3 buckets--2 specialty, 4-5 normal, and 1-2 banned. Learning spells would then break down by tier:

T1 spells (levels 0 - 2) : any wizard can learn any of these. These are "beginner" spells, the equivalent of a High School education in wizardry.
T2 spells (levels 3 - 5) : you can learn any from your specialty or normal schools. You can use scrolls of these spells from your banned school. This is the equivalent of a college major--you've specialized somewhat, but you're still relatively flexible.
T3 spells (levels 6 - 8) : You can learn any from your specialty as normal, but your normal schools are delayed by one level (so you could learn a level 6 normal school spell at level 12, not level 11). Cannot learn or use scrolls of this from your banned schools. This is your starting-research-for-your-PhD level specialization--starting to bind, but still some flexibility.
T4 spells (level 9) : Only from your specialty schools. Can't use scrolls from anything else (not that you're likely to find any, being legendary items).

Accompany this with actual features at the sub-class level.

[1] which ideally would be much more on the mold of Bladesinger/War Wizard/Scribes than the PHB ones; focused around a specific theme, choosing schools that make sense in that context.

Now that's better. I'm not opposed to the idea of specializing in one area of spells means not being able to cast spells of another area. Do it without forcing players to play how the DM wants them to play.

[Elbeyon]

I've thought about that idea, but never made it quite work.

One other idea is that you'd pick two schools (via subclass[1]) to specialize in, as well as one or two to "ban", resulting in 3 buckets--2 specialty, 4-5 normal, and 1-2 banned. Learning spells would then break down by tier:

T1 spells (levels 0 - 2) : any wizard can learn any of these. These are "beginner" spells, the equivalent of a High School education in wizardry.
T2 spells (levels 3 - 5) : you can learn any from your specialty or normal schools. You can use scrolls of these spells from your banned school. This is the equivalent of a college major--you've specialized somewhat, but you're still relatively flexible.
T3 spells (levels 6 - 8) : You can learn any from your specialty as normal, but your normal schools are delayed by one level (so you could learn a level 6 normal school spell at level 12, not level 11). Cannot learn or use scrolls of this from your banned schools. This is your starting-research-for-your-PhD level specialization--starting to bind, but still some flexibility.
T4 spells (level 9) : Only from your specialty schools. Can't use scrolls from anything else (not that you're likely to find any, being legendary items).

Accompany this with actual features at the sub-class level.

[1] which ideally would be much more on the mold of Bladesinger/War Wizard/Scribes than the PHB ones; focused around a specific theme, choosing schools that make sense in that context.I knew it. The dm never planned to hand out scrolls. I'd rarely trust a dm to give me my class features. If they remove the default, there can be no expectation that they'd be given the default. The dm would have to hard code the scrolls into the class in order for this to work.

[Ortho]

As stated, the first post is a very harsh nerf. One of your buffs you're giving doesn't apply unless the DM rolls well on a random table, the second applies to mostly 1st and 2nd level spells, and the third is conditional Expertise. And the math just doesn't work at all, as other posters have pointed out.

I just don't see how this would be fun to play.



One other idea is that you'd pick two schools (via subclass[1]) to specialize in, as well as one or two to "ban", resulting in 3 buckets--2 specialty, 4-5 normal, and 1-2 banned. Learning spells would then break down by tier:

T1 spells (levels 0 - 2) : any wizard can learn any of these. These are "beginner" spells, the equivalent of a High School education in wizardry.
T2 spells (levels 3 - 5) : you can learn any from your specialty or normal schools. You can use scrolls of these spells from your banned school. This is the equivalent of a college major--you've specialized somewhat, but you're still relatively flexible.
T3 spells (levels 6 - 8) : You can learn any from your specialty as normal, but your normal schools are delayed by one level (so you could learn a level 6 normal school spell at level 12, not level 11). Cannot learn or use scrolls of this from your banned schools. This is your starting-research-for-your-PhD level specialization--starting to bind, but still some flexibility.
T4 spells (level 9) : Only from your specialty schools. Can't use scrolls from anything else (not that you're likely to find any, being legendary items).

Accompany this with actual features at the sub-class level.

I like this option a lot better, though I will say that we're still running into the issue that high-level spells aren't distributed evenly between the schools. For instance, the only 9th-level illusion spell is Weird, which I think we can all agree is just a plain bad spell.

[Ashe]

Martials aren't underpowered.

Do you only play T1&2 games or are you just ignoring saving throw mechanics? Cause it's gotta be one of the two to come to this conclusion.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I think you can solve a lot of Wizard-related problems by just making a feat that makes you really good at using scrolls, and then dropping the Wizard class entirely. Let's call it "Scroll Magic", because I'm feeling boring.

Standard "Wizard"? Sorcerer with Scroll Magic, maybe with an Intelligence-focused Sorcerous Origin.
A 3.5-style Archivist? Cleric with Scroll Magic.
Bladesinger? Eldritch Knight with Scroll Magic.
You want spellbooks? They're bound-together scrolls. Some of them are magic items that naturally make the scrolls bound into them less fragile.

Then just let your players start with a few 1st-level scrolls (they're common magic items, after all).

[Xervous]

I’d look to 3.5 Psion/Erudite for how to tame your unruly wizards.

Cheeky option: spells outside your specialization (or subclass list, would take a fair bit of writing for these) count as level +1 for using and learning. Evokers are now the only wizards to have fireball at L5.

Holy book work Batman: cut spells off the main wizard list and distribute them via subclasses. Maybe give some feature that lets them snipe 1-3 non standard spells. Now evokers are the only fireballers, unless some random decides he really wants it as an illusionist.

[KorvinStarmast]

On another note, I like your preparing spell rule. I find it a core part of the problem in the proposed solution.
1. The spell preparation model for this edition isn't something to be tinkered with lightly. I think that the OP is trying to do too many things at once.

First Recommendation: don't tinker with spell preparation.

2. If wizards having too many choices and too many spells is an issue, remove Arcane Recovery. That gives extra spells per day. If you remove that, the choice to burn a spell becomes more important unless the 15 minute adventure day is your model.

3. Before you do something like specialization you have to re-organize all 8 schools of magic for balance. (good luck with that, spell list bloat is already a problem in this edition). Once you do that, then your idea on the opportunity cost of specialization begins to make sense.

4. If you want to focus on, or force the specialization issue, make the two spells at level up conform to this constraint - one in your school and one from any other. But that takes us back to point 3 - the schools are not balanced.

5. In Tier 4, the proposal gets even clunkier due to how unevenly higher level spells are spread among the schools.

Hmm. Guess I need to recalibrate. Yes.

The goal is absolutely to remove the idea that wizards are the ones with all the spells.
Here's a proposal: once they reach the old name level (11) they get 1, not 2, free spells per level up and anything that they have found/find. This fits the general class feature scheme somewhat, since all wizards get a new thematic feature at level 10.

For the moment, I think that you are better off banning wizards at the table if you find them to be such a mess. (Easy for me to say, I'm playing a bard! :smallbiggrin: ) Or, only allow war wizards. :smallconfused:

As to thematics:
(In your defense, since you are not TSR-era experienced, it's easy not to see the genre based value in this aspect of the class thematics)

Magic users and wizards were and are, thematically, those who add to the body of knowledge of the practice of magic. (In all Pre WoTC D&D, and to a certain extent in 3.x). They are the PhD's of D&D magic: see Rary's mnemonic enhancer, Bigby's Hand, Mord's sword, Leomunds' Tiny hut, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Otto's Dance, Tenser's Disc, and so on). Those wizards researched, prototyped, and put into production new spells. That's what wizards do.

What you are trying to do here is to reverse or destroy that core character concept. I suspect that this is part of why you are running into such difficulty. Wizards' identity is that they build magical knowledge and never stop doing so. They are the post-doc PhD mathematician who keeps publishing papers in math journals. (One of my college math profs was one such - teaching us was his side hustle).

The only class that is thematically like the wizard is the Tome Pact Warlock. (Full disclosure; I like the war wizard well enough, but find the Tasha's offering on wizards pointless, and a waste of design space).

Wizards are still limited by the "OK, which spell do I prepare today?" boundary regardless of how much is in the book. Part of how they get around that is "cast the ritual from the book" utility - which is also a genre built character concept which I think is very hard to overcome. But if you want to revise that, maybe limit how many rituals per day that a wizard can cast (limit by proficiency bonus, maybe?)

In 6e, maybe, we'll get five colors of magic and have all five colors balanced somewhat - it will take a lot of work but I think it will be worth it.

I’d look to 3.5 Psion/Erudite for how to tame your unruly wizards.

Cheeky option: spells outside your specialization (or subclass list, would take a fair bit of writing for these) count as level +1 for using and learning. Evokers are now the only wizards to have fireball at L5.

Holy book work Batman: cut spells off the main wizard list and distribute them via subclasses. Maybe give some feature that lets them snipe 1-3 non standard spells. Now evokers are the only fireballers, unless some random decides he really wants it as an illusionist. That's exactly what not to do. :smallyuk:
I'll put on grumpy grognard face: fireball and lightning bolt are pre-D&D, iconic spells. They come from Chainmail, and were at will abilities for the magic using units on the battlefield.
Leave them alone and get offa my lawn! :smallwink:
{1" is roughly 10 yards in scale ... roughly}
Missiles: A Wizard can throw either of two types of missile (select which before play begins). A fire ball, equal in hit area to the large catapult hit area, or a lightning bolt, 3/4" wide by 6" long, with an attack value equal to a heavy field gun, are the two missile types employed.
These missiles will destroy any men or creatures which are struck by them, with certain exceptions noted below.
Exceptions: Result of a Hit {2d6 was standard roll}
Hero-types Saved by a dice roll of 9 or better
Super Hero Saved by a dice roll of 6 or better
Wraith Saved by a dice roll of 7 or better
Balrog Saved by a dice roll of 6 or better
Giant Dice under 5, routs off board; dice under 9, back 1 move; dice 9 or better, no effect
Dragon Drives dragon back 1 move

Elemental:
Air Fire drives back 1 move
Earth Lightning drives back 1 move
Fire Lightning drives back 1 move
Water Fire drives back 1 move

Both types of missiles can be thrown up to 24", direct or indirect fire, with range being called before the hit pattern is placed. The center of the fire ball is placed down at the number of inches called. The head of the lightning bolt is placed at the number of inches called, so that its body extends 6" behind it in a straight line from the Wizard who threw it. Chainmail, 3d edition, p. 31

And fireball has a special place in D&D for all kinds of reasons, to include memetic ones. Our evoker last night did it again: at a loss for what to do, he cast fireball (using up his last lvl 4 slot in so doing) and wiped out ... two guards and a zombie. Yeah, we rolled our eyes also, but it was in context kind of funny when, as the battle wound down and he realized what he'd hit with it "gee, looks like I kind of wasted that slot guys ..."

[Mitchellnotes]

In 6e, maybe, we'll get five colors of magic and have all five colors balanced somewhat - it will take a lot of work but I think it will be worth it.

Please, no. Every time I see this I cringe a little bit. MTG is good and has a lot of lore. D&D is good and has a lot of lore. Trying to combine them is like trying to combine ice cream and sushi though. Also, the 5 colors of magic aren't even internally balanced or always make sense, so I don't think it would quite have the impact that might be hoped for.

[Zevox]

Please, no. Every time I see this I cringe a little bit. MTG is good and has a lot of lore. D&D is good and has a lot of lore. Trying to combine them is like trying to combine ice cream and sushi though. Also, the 5 colors of magic aren't even internally balanced or always make sense, so I don't think it would quite have the impact that might be hoped for.
Speaking as someone who has never played Magic, I agree. I have no desire to see Magic encroach upon D&D's core identity. Optional side books are fine and dandy, replacing core stuff from D&D with things from Magic is not. That sounds like a good way to get a similar reaction to what 4E did out of a lot of fans.

[PhantomSoul]

To be honest, I'd love for the number of spells per school to be approximately right to make schools actually a focus and have in-school benefits or banned out-of-school spells. I'd even be happy to bring back a Generalist Wizard, but they're paying for that versatility in some way. I really feel like the way WotC did Wizards is a disservice to the game in that respect, and the inevitability of them making more subclasses as alternatives to schools was more or less going to doom what was already a disappointing and insufficiently circumscribed field. (I would've loved for the schools to be basic or starting paths and at higher levels you get options like War Wizard that are like a prestige subclass that you could take after multiple/all schools, and would let them keep profiting off making subclasses while giving a consistent introduction through schools. Alas, neither that nor a generally more satisfying Wizard is the case.)


I knew it. The dm never planned to hand out scrolls. I'd rarely trust a dm to give me my class features. If they remove the default, there can be no expectation that they'd be given the default. The dm would have to hard code the scrolls into the class in order for this to work.

You've bolded them saying level 9 scrolls are unlikely to be found.
Which is just being reasonable unless it's a SUPER high magic world and spell scrolls are bouncing around like popcorn.


Please, no. Every time I see this I cringe a little bit. MTG is good and has a lot of lore. D&D is good and has a lot of lore. Trying to combine them is like trying to combine ice cream and sushi though. Also, the 5 colors of magic aren't even internally balanced or always make sense, so I don't think it would quite have the impact that might be hoped for.


100% agreed.

[Bobthewizard]

I don't think wizards need nerfed like this and I wouldn't play one with these rules. I'd just play a clockwork soul sorcerer if I wanted to be a wizard.

Clerics, druids, and paladins can access their entire spell list each night. Compared to them, wizards have limited access to spells with their spell books. Spell preparations are more important than spells in a spell book, and Tasha's sorcerers, all clerics, and land druids get more spells to prepare up through level 10 at least.

As far as forcing an identity on the wizard, I don't like that at all. I like to give my wizards a theme and fluff spells to fit that theme, but the school assignments of spells are wonky (Fear as an illusion spell?) and it works better to just use what fits your character. Your rule would limit my ability to make unique and interesting characters. Your rule also almost completely takes out the ritual casting ability of wizards. Which isn't powerful in combat but is versatile and fun.

If you think Wizards are too powerful, then nerf the specific spells that are too powerful. That's the problem with wizards - suggestions, hypnotic pattern, counterspell, polymorph, wall of force, force cage, simulacrum, and wish. Remove those 7-8 spells from the game and you've solved your balance problem without kneecapping a player's potentially creative build.

[Sigreid]

Two free spells per level, plus 4 extra at first, is already as many as any other class gets. And other classes have whole chunks of them locked in stone via bonus spells, while wizards get free choice from a list 2.5x the size of the next largest, plus with all the broken spells on it. Basically the only things they don't have directly are healing spells. Anything else, they can do better/faster/cheaper than anyone else.


This is straight up incorrect. Clerics and druids both get EVERY spell of a spell level they can cast from their list as a known spell they can prepare. Clerics and some druid subclasses also get bonus spells that are always prepared, with equivalent player choice numbers of picks in addition to some really powerful class and subclass features that don't use spell slots.

In my opinion, your basic premise is flawed. And even if I were to accept that the wizard's spellcasting is an issue, I couldn't do that without accepting that all of the spell preparation full casters suffer the same issue.

Oh, and wizards can't do everything. The spheres of power for clerics, druids and paladins are completely off the table for them.

Finally, some of what you seem to want to do I think could be achieved by removing spell focuses and spell component pouches from your game. Make the player carry their spell components and track their use just like an archer would their arrows. They can only have so much ammunition.

[MaxWilson]

Note: This is a hypothetical, more than anything designed to calibrate my own knowledge. It would require significant testing before seeing actual play.

Assumption: Scrolls are distributed based on DMG treasure tables; wizard NPCs may or may not have their spellbooks where you can find them as treasure. No particular DM involvement either way; no tailoring or anti-tailoring.

Short version:
Nerfs:
* Instead of having a max number of spells prepared, you'd have a limit on the number of spell levels prepared, effectively giving you level + INT mod preparation slots.
* School-specialized arcane traditions (ie the PHB ones) would gain a feature with two parts:
** Spells of your school only cost one "preparation slot", no matter the level (basically setting that back to status quo ante)
** Spells you learn at level up can only come from that school[1] (so your only free picks are your 6 first-level ones)
* Wish no longer has an associated school of magic.[2]

Buffs
* Wizards can use any spell scroll they find to cast the spell (normal limits on scribing still apply), although if it's not a wizard spell they have to roll the check no matter the level. At higher level (10-ish), gain a feature that says that when you fail to cast from a scroll, the scroll doesn't go away.
* Wizards can scribe (but only use as a ritual) any ritual spell.
* Wizards gain free proficiency in Intelligence (Arcana) checks, with double proficiency if the thing being interpreted/examined/etc is written down.

The idea is to enforce specialization and opportunity cost and reduce versatility, while also enforcing the only theme I can find, which is "master of written magic".

Want simulacrum? Either you're an illusionist (in which case you mostly have illusion spells and others are harder to prepare) or you spend 7 prep slots on it as well as having to find a very rare magic item (a scroll of it).

[1] you can still scribe as normal. Arcane Traditions that don't specialize in a school of magic can pick from any school, but all of their spells cost [spell level] preparation slots. That's the cost of being a generalist.
[2] which means that specialists can't learn it for free and everyone pays 9 prep slots for it.

I feel that this change would be okay if you eliminated all full casters except wizards from the game first, if the aim is to produce a radically different feel to spellcasting, but if you leave bards/druids/clerics/warlocks/sorcerers intact then it feels like a solution looking for a problem and I'm not sure what it's trying to accomplish.

[Rynjin]

Please, no. Every time I see this I cringe a little bit. MTG is good and has a lot of lore. D&D is good and has a lot of lore. Trying to combine them is like trying to combine ice cream and sushi though. Also, the 5 colors of magic aren't even internally balanced or always make sense, so I don't think it would quite have the impact that might be hoped for.

There's a weird subset of MtG players who not only think the color system is a good system for magic, but also for analyzing their real life personalities, as if it has some actual deeper meaning.

Much like horoscopes, I don't really get it.

[Sigreid]

I feel that this change would be okay if you eliminated all full casters except wizards from the game first, if the aim is to produce a radically different feel to spellcasting, but if you leave bards/druids/clerics/warlocks/sorcerers intact then it feels like a solution looking for a problem and I'm not sure what it's trying to accomplish.

Funnily enough, Bards are the class I have the most problem with in the game. They're schtick is literally "I'm handsome and charming and everyone likes me and can do anything and get to play with every other class's toys nearly as well as they can and sometimes better".

[Loptr]

This might be too small a change, given the severity of the underlying concerns that you have with the class (ones that I can at least understand, even if I don't quite agree with them), but would it be worth considering something more targeted towards constraining each individual wizard's ceiling of power rather than a change that upends what they currently are? The latter has its merits, but I think de facto will meet with negative feedback from most Wizard players; after all, the current wizard is the class that they like to play.

From what you've said:


You'd be cool giving out more stuff to wizards via scrolls and spellbook copying if they didn't have such a huge repertoire to start with, and such a huge upper limit
You'd like more distinctive wizards, as opposed to omni-disciplinarian lords of magic who can do anything within a pretty broad repertoire of themes and effects
You think that the huge number of spells wizards get, both initially and at subsequent levels, sets them apart from other casters with respect to their initial versatility and the degree to which that versatility escalates at later levels.


So it seems to me as though the following changes might help:


Setting a generous but absolute hard cap on how many spells an individual wizard can ever have across all their spellbooks, using the justification that a repertoire of prepared spells is the culmination of a life of arcane study and specialism, and no matter how much research a wizard does and no matter how many scrolls they find, they'll eventually reach a point where they can grow no more.
When choosing your level-up spells, if you choose a spell of fifth level or higher, that's the only spell you get for that level.
Targeted nerfs to specific Wizard-exclusive spells you consider too much (Simulacrum and Wish are the ones that come immediately to mind, and I'd agree on both, having nerfed them both in my own games), to help address the problem of specific must-have spells (though I personally would only target the most egregious here, as cherry picking strong spells is sort of endemic to any system that enables choosing spells like DnD, across every class, so going too hard on Wizard specifically will start to look a bit weird I think).
As partial compensation, give the poor guys Arcana Expertise.


With respect to the hard cap I'd probably make that something like INT mod + four times wizard level, personally, meaning that a level 20 wizard with the most generous DM in the world is still going to have about 85 spells at the end of the day to choose their prepared spell list from. This seems like a lot, but I believe that the Cleric spell list overall is about 110 spells, and the Druid list is a little larger, so in practice this is basically bridging the gap between the strongest endgame Clerics and the strongest endgame Wizards. The Wizard list might be a bit more cherry-picked, but I think that's a reasonable trade-off for the size reduction relative to Clerics and Druids, as well as the fact that the Wizard would still have to actually be acquiring all the spells they didn't get from levelling up, meaning in practice only about 32 to 44 (lower and upper limits based off the proposed change to limit level 5+ spell acquisition from levelling up) of those spells are actually chosen by the Wizard outright, rather than off the selection the DM provides to them.

Other people have made some of these suggestions already, but I think together they have a relatively strong impact whilst still feeling like a relatively light touch (heavens know that I've never given any player of mine enough spell scrolls to hit that 85 hypothetical cap anyway, so I doubt that will feel too awful in play outside of the most Monty Haul games), whilst the combination of the slower high level spell progression rate and the nerfing of the must-have spells should enable meaningful choices per level that differentiate wizards in the way you want more without actually really changing how they play too much. I do agree with others that you're underestimating the other prepared spellcasters; I actually think Clerics feel more unreasonable in play because their access to the complete spell list is just a prayer away, which sort of renders the hypothetical gap between their spells known array and that of the Wizard moot, but that's another story.

[KorvinStarmast]

Please, no. Every time I see this I cringe a little bit. MTG is good and has a lot of lore. D&D is good and has a lot of lore. Trying to combine them is like trying to combine ice cream and sushi though. Also, the 5 colors of magic aren't even internally balanced or always make sense, so I don't think it would quite have the impact that might be hoped for. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.
Hasbro/WoTC cross product harmonization and fusion will increase, not decrease, over time. That's my prediction. Yes, it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, but it's real. The planeshift series I disliked intensely. But I am also looking into the future and seeing no obstacle to this happening. So either embrace it and do it right, or, mess it up ... that's the future if 6e ever happens.

I have no desire to see Magic encroach upon D&D's core identity. That ship has already sailed.

There's a weird subset of MtG players who not only think the color system is a good system for magic, but also for analyzing their real life personalities, as if it has some actual deeper meaning.

Much like horoscopes, I don't really get it. Uh, I'll not comment as forum rules are a thing.

Funnily enough, Bards are the class I have the most problem with in the game. They're schtick is literally "I'm handsome and charming and everyone likes me and can do anything and get to play with every other class's toys nearly as well as they can and sometimes better". I have seen some proposals that they ought to be a half caster to wizard/rogue like ranger is a half caster to druid and paladin is a half caster to cleric ... but so far, full caster it is.

[Loptr]

I have seen some proposals that they ought to be a half caster to wizard/rogue like ranger is a half caster to druid and paladin is a half caster to cleric ... but so far, full caster it is.

Personally I quite like the idea of Bards getting something similar to the Warlock chassis. I think you could take a lot of their abilities, like Jack of All Trades, Expertise, Song of Rest and Magical Secrets and redistribute them across different 'Invocations', whilst simultaneously keeping them a highly magical class without the position they currently enjoy as uber-versatile true full casters. I think it also opens up more design space for adding in more in-combat music themed support features for those who miss them by having them as 'Invocations' that are thus mutually exclusive with having all the fun stuff current Bards inherently enjoy.

[Mitchellnotes]

Personally I quite like the idea of Bards getting something similar to the Warlock chassis. I think you could take a lot of their abilities, like Jack of All Trades, Expertise, Song of Rest and Magical Secrets and redistribute them across different 'Invocations', whilst simultaneously keeping them a highly magical class without the position they currently enjoy as uber-versatile true full casters. I think it also opens up more design space for adding in more in-combat music themed support features for those who miss them by having them as 'Invocations' that are thus mutually exclusive with having all the fun stuff current Bards inherently enjoy.

I always thought it a bit bizarre that wizards were the only int based casters (I know, i know, early on warlocks were also going to be int based), and that warlocks are the only spellcaster with that sort of progression. Bards make a lot of sense to have a similar sort of progression given all of the other features they have. Given that the warlock casting caps at level 5, it also doesn't seem like it would be too hard to spread out over 20 levels for half casters (I could see paladins with that sort of a caster system). Anway, bit of a tangent.

Back to the original post, I understand that the idea is that you want different wizards to feel unique, and I think you can do that in two ways. 1 is by limiting spells they can get somehow (which is where this thread started, and where my initial responses were). However, I think part of why wizards can feel a bit copy/paste at times is specifically because of how their spells work. The premise of this has been that "wizards have broad access, etc etc," but I would argue in a lot of ways that they don't. As others have pointed out, divine casters get their whole lists from the get-go, but there isn't the same concern. I think if you went the other direction, give wizards more spells, you'd see people preparing and using spells you wouldn't otherwise see.

For instance, with how gaining spells on level up goes, wizards can get basically 4 spells for each spell level before being able to access the next one (now, please hear, i know it can be very advantageous to grab lower level spells than you have access to, just throwing out a baseline). If I can pick 4 level 5 spells which include things such as wall of force, animate objects, synaptic static, hold monster, scrying, planar binding, etc etc etc, how likely is it that I'm going to use a slot to grab "Seeming"? Is seeming a bad spell? Not one bit! It lasts 8 hours, only an action to cast, no concentration with no target limit other than people within range. However, it has a really specific use, and if I'm limited in the spells I can get, this one may just not get it. A lot of adventuring isn't about "these things can't know it was specifically us." Would i pick up seeming if I had the chance. 100%, when it is useful, it is going to be absolutely the best spell available. But... it isn't going to be as universally useful as say wall of force or conjure elemental or something like that. Giving MORE options provides more space to prepare seeming. Does it make the wizard feel like they may always have the right tool? Sure, but I think in some ways that's the nebulous nature that skills are introduced. A rogue with a disguise kit at that same level should absolutely be able to disguise a party given some time, but there aren't the same hard and fast rules in place as there are with spells, which means that surfacing that idea could be challenged differently than saying "yep, i guess that is what that spell says..."

[PhantomSoul]

Personally I quite like the idea of Bards getting something similar to the Warlock chassis. I think you could take a lot of their abilities, like Jack of All Trades, Expertise, Song of Rest and Magical Secrets and redistribute them across different 'Invocations', whilst simultaneously keeping them a highly magical class without the position they currently enjoy as uber-versatile true full casters. I think it also opens up more design space for adding in more in-combat music themed support features for those who miss them by having them as 'Invocations' that are thus mutually exclusive with having all the fun stuff current Bards inherently enjoy.

That would help with the thematic and mechanical mess of "any art really oh buy you clearly MUST do songs" and "jack of all trades but oh hey let's make you the bestest too". I never played an edition with them as part-casters (and if they were in the D&D-based video games I played, I don't remember playing them), but it really does seem like a good way to go (making Magical Secrets less gag-worthy), and giving it a Warlockier design could help. I'd love it if the had nice themes tied to different tools (e.g. subclass[es] for painting, for instruments, ...)... but oh well.

[MaxWilson]

Funnily enough, Bards are the class I have the most problem with in the game. They're schtick is literally "I'm handsome and charming and everyone likes me and can do anything and get to play with every other class's toys nearly as well as they can and sometimes better".

I haven't had this problem in play (because opportunity cost is real) but I see where you might potentially be coming from. 5E bards certainly have way more spellcasting than 2nd edition bards do.

[Sorinth]

As with anything to do with using the schools of magic more fully the first step needs to creating more balance between the spells of different schools. At the very least you need to fully flesh out each school so that there are multiple spells for each school at each level.

[Slipjig]

For the "some schools have extremely short lists (or even zero spells at level X)" issue, one fix would be to let the player pick 1-2 additional schools that are exempted from the restrictions. The original proposal would effectively limit people to a single school and result in most wizards of a given school having nearly identical spell lists. Allowing players to mix and match between 2-3 schools would result in some interesting combinations while still cutting down on the "every wizard can do everything" issue.

[Zevox]

That ship has already sailed.
When, exactly? As far as I'm aware the only Magic-related things in D&D are confined to splatbooks like Theros, which are strictly optional, not in the PHB or other core books.

(And personally, having Mythic Odysseys of Theros myself, I wouldn't know it had it had anything to do with Magic if it weren't for the internet. It just feels like a heavily ancient greece themed new D&D setting. There's no mention of obviously Magic-related things like categorizing magic by color. )

[Satinavian]

The goal is absolutely to remove the idea that wizards are the ones with all the spells. Because that's both a crappy theme (providing nothing interesting to the table at all) and an unbalanceable one--it basically boils down to "I can do everything you can do and more". I figured focusing on the idea of being the master of written magic would give something, but obviously not enough.

I do share the desire for themed magic users. But i don't think D&D is a good framework to modify for that. You would need a complete overhaul of all the spells and casting classes and probably then the monsters and maybe then the other classes for balancing. It is a rabbit hole better avoided.

Now for the nerfs i won't comment. Don't understand much of D&D5s balancing due to limited interest in the system.

The buffs however ...

Class features based on use of rather expensive consumables are not that desirable. Even less so when you can't buy them everywhere and have to either rely on DM or luck. That is just not interesting. Furthermore, your wizards are not even better when using scrolls. They just can use some that otherwise belong to another class. In a mixed party that is even less usefull than normal.
The "scribing and using all rituals" is the only thing even worth mentioning beside the proficiency.

If you really want to make wizard appealling for scroll use, you either have to give them an extra way to provide scrolls (maybe an ability to not consume a scroll when used for a limited number per day or write a number of scrolls cost free or ability to make scrolls of spells they don't know) or to make scrolls used by them more powerfull (like automatically upcast)



Not that other people see scroll use as a particularly important wizard thing anyway. So making that a central feature to alleviate nerfs will not convince that many people. So far i have seen 3 reasons for playing mages : the magic using intellectual academic fantasy (which does not actually need scrolls that are magic items), the allure of versatility and the desire to build a specific concept that needs one or more particular spells which happen to be in the wizard spell list.

[Elbeyon]

You've bolded them saying level 9 scrolls are unlikely to be found.
Which is just being reasonable unless it's a SUPER high magic world and spell scrolls are bouncing around like popcorn.I bolded someone that said they would more freely give out scrolls since they are weakening a wizards spell choice significantly, then laughing at the idea of giving out high level scrolls. They would ask that a player trust them that they would increase scrolls, and they have no intention of doing that. Do you know how many 9th level spells a high level wizard can learn? It is eight. So, those legendary scrolls better start flowing near an average of twice a level.

[PhantomSoul]

I bolded someone that said they would more freely give out scrolls since they are weakening a wizards spell choice significantly, then laughing at the idea of giving out high level scrolls. They would ask that a player trust them that they would increase scrolls, and they have no intention of doing that. Do you know how many 9th level spells a high level wizard can learn? It is eight. So, those legendary scrolls better start flowing near an average of twice a level.

They laughed at the idea of having capstone-scrolls floating around, not any scrolls floating around, even in your own quote. That seems quite reasonable; those are reasonably entire quest objectives or exceptional artifacts (maybe rarer than artifacts given they're also consumed!).

[PhoenixPhyre]

They laughed at the idea of having capstone-scrolls floating around, not any scrolls floating around, even in your own quote. That seems quite reasonable; those are reasonably entire quest objectives or exceptional artifacts (maybe rarer than artifacts given they're also consumed!).

Specifically, I stated the assumption that loot distribution would follow the random treasure tables. Which have a very low probability of giving legendary items at all, let alone specific legendary items (a 9th level spell scroll is by definition legendary, albeit a minor legendary rather than a major legendary), let alone randomly determining that this legendary scroll (already a low-probability^2 event) is the specific spell wish. And also specified that there would be no DM finger on the scale--what comes out randomly is random.

To put numbers on it, Xanathar's says the "standard" (reflected in the tables) is that the average party gets 7 legendary items by level 20: 1 from levels 11-16 and 6 in T4. Only treasure table E has 9th level scrolls on it, at a 15% (71-85) chance per roll. So the chance of getting no scrolls of 9ths at all (out of 7 legendaries) is 32%. There's a 39.6% chance of getting 1 scroll, a 21% chance of getting 2, a 6% chance of getting 3, a 1.1% chance of getting 4, and a tiny chance of 5+. There are (in the non-setting/non-adventure books, which is what I own) 20 9th level spells, so there's a 5% chance that any given scroll will be wish.

Thus, the probability of getting wish at any point via scroll is
.396 * .05 = .0198
+2*.21*.05 = .0205
+3*.06*.05 = .009
+4*.011*.05 = 0.002
+ things that don't even make the .01% mark cumulatively
= 0.0513 = 5.13% that you'll ever see a wish scroll in a DMG treasure tables campaign.

That's with exactly zero DM fudging. I'd say "seeing one scroll one time in 20 campaigns" is "pretty darn rare", personally.

Although I should have clarified my original statement that the "not going to see it often" was particularly focused on any given spell, rather than on 9th-level scrolls generally, since the math says there's a decent chance of getting 1 or more (expected value is 1.05, roughly) 9th level scrolls of any spell.

[Elbeyon]

They laughed at the idea of having capstone-scrolls floating around, not any scrolls floating around, even in your own quote. That seems quite reasonable; those are reasonably entire quest objectives or exceptional artifacts (maybe rarer than artifacts given they're also consumed!).That is unreasonable with the knowledge they promised the wizard scrolls. Wizards can get up to 8 9th level spells for free. If this is not intended as a nerf, they should at least get that many legendary scrolls very easily. A fighter doesn't have to go on a quest to learn their class abilities. These scrolls are the base level. The wizard should also be getting their normal exceptional artifacts through questing.


Specifically, I stated the assumption that loot distribution would follow the random treasure tables. Which have a very low probability of giving legendary items at all, let alone specific legendary items (a 9th level spell scroll is by definition legendary, albeit a minor legendary rather than a major legendary), let alone randomly determining that this legendary scroll (already a low-probability^2 event) is the specific spell wish. And also specified that there would be no DM finger on the scale--what comes out randomly is random.

To put numbers on it, Xanathar's says the "standard" (reflected in the tables) is that the average party gets 7 legendary items by level 20: 1 from levels 11-16 and 6 in T4. Only treasure table E has 9th level scrolls on it, at a 15% (71-85) chance per roll. So the chance of getting no scrolls of 9ths at all (out of 7 legendaries) is 32%. There's a 39.6% chance of getting 1 scroll, a 21% chance of getting 2, a 6% chance of getting 3, a 1.1% chance of getting 4, and a tiny chance of 5+. There are (in the non-setting/non-adventure books, which is what I own) 20 9th level spells, so there's a 5% chance that any given scroll will be wish.

Thus, the probability of getting wish at any point via scroll is
.396 * .05 = .0198
+2*.21*.05 = .0205
+3*.06*.05 = .009
+4*.011*.05 = 0.002
+ things that don't even make the .01% mark cumulatively
= 0.0513 = 5.13% that you'll ever see a wish scroll in a DMG treasure tables campaign.

That's with exactly zero DM fudging. I'd say "seeing one scroll one time in 20 campaigns" is "pretty darn rare", personally.

Although I should have clarified my original statement that the "not going to see it often" was particularly focused on any given spell, rather than on 9th-level scrolls generally, since the math says there's a decent chance of getting 1 or more (expected value is 1.05, roughly) 9th level scrolls of any spell.You said you would give the wizard more scrolls and such. Do you have the intention of keeping that promise? Cause, normal loot is not how wizards end up with more than normal.

[PhantomSoul]

That is unreasonable with the knowledge they promised the wizard scrolls. Wizards can get up to 8 9th level spells for free. If this is not intended as a nerf, they should at least get that many legendary scrolls very easily. A fighter doesn't have to go on a quest to learn their class abilities. These scrolls are the base level. The wizard should also be getting their normal exceptional artifacts through questing.


(Wait, this wasn't meant as a nerf?)
The fighter capstone isn't a capstone with interchangeability; you do still get your capstone AND your subclass features AND spells on level-up (even if fewer) AND the potential for that to increase. The idea that they need to get scrolls to get them their whole spell list for every level (or especially for L9 spells?) just doesn't make sense to me. Granted, it already doesn't match assumptions for any of the games I'm in (both as a player, often of Wizards, and as a DM).

[Kuulvheysoon]

I haven't had this problem in play (because opportunity cost is real) but I see where you might potentially be coming from. 5E bards certainly have way more spellcasting than 2nd edition bards do.

They've got a lot more than (vanilla) bards had in 3rd edition too - they only had up to 6th level spellcasting, with a more limited list (as opposed to base 5E, where any bard can theoretically score any spell).

Mind you, this is ignoring the Sublime Chord, which most every higher level bard took if they could, which did expand them to 9th level spells.


When, exactly? As far as I'm aware the only Magic-related things in D&D are confined to splatbooks like Theros, which are strictly optional, not in the PHB or other core books.

(And personally, having Mythic Odysseys of Theros myself, I wouldn't know it had it had anything to do with Magic if it weren't for the internet. It just feels like a heavily ancient greece themed new D&D setting. There's no mention of obviously Magic-related things like categorizing magic by color. )

Looks askance at Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.


They laughed at the idea of having capstone-scrolls floating around, not any scrolls floating around, even in your own quote. That seems quite reasonable; those are reasonably entire quest objectives or exceptional artifacts (maybe rarer than artifacts given they're also consumed!).

I honestly make spell scrolls of 6th level and higher extremely rare. As in you literally cannot purchase them, and even as loot I might give one a couple total.

[Darth Credence]

If the goal is to reduce generalism and make specialization more important, how about this - you get the current bonuses for being a specific type of wizard only if either ~60%+ of your prepared spells are from that school, or you have prepared every spell of that school? No getting the portent rolls from being a divination wizard while exclusively casting evocation spells - you want portent, you have to actually be using divination powers so that your vision of the future comes in. This seems to be simple to implement, and not a huge nerf. Probably would only affect schools like divination - that's the only one I have seen where people take the school but few or no spells in the school.


The funny thing here to me is, as a DM, I would be far more inclined to give out scrolls and spell books if the wizard had first been nerfed. As is, once you get past low levels, it just feels bad and unfair to me giving out a lot of scrolls and spell books when there is a wizard in the party, since what would otherwise be a consumable or simply something to sell instead becomes a permanent power boost for the character that is often already the strongest. If the wizard was at a lower power level to start, I would have less reason to want to restrict their access to these things.

Honestly, I give out spell books like candy. The wizard in my campaign could end this whole thing with access to basically every spell in existence. (I do one thing differently, and that is they don't just suddenly know spells when they go up a level. They have to find a book with them, and I get them the spells they would pick at that level around the time they level up, but the idea of 'I went up a level so I suddenly know a new spell' just bugs me for wizards.) To date, this has had basically no effect on the campaign. They still almost exclusively use the spells that they would have used had they never found an additional spell book beyond what they normally get. From time to time they come up with a plan that uses a different one, and I like when they creatively use a spell they wouldn't normally use, so I'm happy with it.


When, exactly? As far as I'm aware the only Magic-related things in D&D are confined to splatbooks like Theros, which are strictly optional, not in the PHB or other core books.

(And personally, having Mythic Odysseys of Theros myself, I wouldn't know it had it had anything to do with Magic if it weren't for the internet. It just feels like a heavily ancient greece themed new D&D setting. There's no mention of obviously Magic-related things like categorizing magic by color. )

This is the first I've heard of that Theros was related to MtG, and I have a copy on DNDBeyond. I haven't read every bit of it, so maybe I would have known if I read it cover to cover.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I give out spell books like candy. The wizard in my campaign could end this whole thing with access to basically every spell in existence. (I do one thing differently, and that is they don't just suddenly know spells when they go up a level. They have to find a book with them, and I get them the spells they would pick at that level around the time they level up, but the idea of 'I went up a level so I suddenly know a new spell' just bugs me for wizards.) To date, this has had basically no effect on the campaign.

I would really, really like to take this route too, and for NPCs I do, but I haven't had the heart to apply it to PC wizards yet. Maybe in a campaign where I ban bards and sorcerers, or apply similar limitations to them. (Hmmm. What if Bards had to find a copy of a spell or observe it being cast before they could declare it a Magical Secret?)

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is unreasonable with the knowledge they promised the wizard scrolls. Wizards can get up to 8 9th level spells for free. If this is not intended as a nerf, they should at least get that many legendary scrolls very easily. A fighter doesn't have to go on a quest to learn their class abilities. These scrolls are the base level. The wizard should also be getting their normal exceptional artifacts through questing.

You said you would give the wizard more scrolls and such. Do you have the intention of keeping that promise? Cause, normal loot is not how wizards end up with more than normal.

I said that I would feel more comfortable giving more than normal if wizards were weaker. But the proposal itself was intended to be a flat nerf, with fixed loot (so as not to introduce any extra variables).

But that's all rather moot. This particular proposal is dead, like the PrC UA. Dead, not coming back (at least in any recognizable form). Which is ok--it was literally a thought experiment, designed to poke at certain parts, rather than a full-up proposal for actual play. I got what I needed from it (food for thought, basically).

I'm likely to have a wizard in my next campaign--he'll use all the regular rules and get whatever scrolls the loot tables roll. Because actually, I run pretty close to baseline on classes and general rules.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, I give out spell books like candy. The wizard in my campaign could end this whole thing with access to basically every spell in existence. (I do one thing differently, and that is they don't just suddenly know spells when they go up a level. They have to find a book with them, and I get them the spells they would pick at that level around the time they level up, but the idea of 'I went up a level so I suddenly know a new spell' just bugs me for wizards.) To date, this has had basically no effect on the campaign. They still almost exclusively use the spells that they would have used had they never found an additional spell book beyond what they normally get. From time to time they come up with a plan that uses a different one, and I like when they creatively use a spell they wouldn't normally use, so I'm happy with it.

The assumption is that during downtime, and during long/short rests they are doing a degree of spell research. So they don't suddenly know a new spell, they've been working on that spell for a couple hours every night for the past 2 weeks and finally got something that is working right.

[KorvinStarmast]

I honestly make spell scrolls of 6th level and higher extremely rare. As in you literally cannot purchase them, and even as loot I might give one a couple total. If we use DMG rules, 6th level spells are very expensive in time and money to craft during down time. They ought to be very rare and are very valuable.

Heck, they are expensive in Xanathar's as well.

[sithlordnergal]

I can see what you're attempting to do, trying to make people go all in with the specialization, but in this edition you just can't do it. The problem is that designers did not make enough spells for classes to specialize in their chosen school, nor did they bother with balancing the spell lists in any way, shape, or form. Even with your change to where spells outside of your chosen school only cost 2 prep points, your wizards will become wildly unbalanced. Either you're a Divination Wizard, where you can only prepare around 15 useful spells per day because most Divination spells are only useful in specific circumstances and a majority of them are rituals, or you're an Evocation Wizard, capable of preparing 25 Evocation spells that run the gambit of damaging spells like Fireball, to protective spells like Warding Wind, to control spells like all of the Wall spells or Arcane Hand.

With your change, why would I play anything BUT an Evocation Wizard? Evocation is probably the strongest school around because it not only has one of the highest number of spells in its School, but they are some of the best spells in the game. As I said above, Evocation holds everything from the best damaging spells, to some minor defenses, to excellent control spells. Meanwhile every other School is going to have to spend extra prep points in order to play catch up the the Evocation Wizard because they're going to need some form of reliable damage. Heck, on the topic of spell preparation, why would you ever play a Bladesinger, Order of Scribes, War Magic, ect. with these rules? They'll never get to learn 9th level spells on their own, and can only prepare 12 spells at max level.

And as you make this nerf to how many spells a Wizard can prepare, you've done 0 to actually change the Wizard chassis. You seemingly failed to realize that Spells = Class Features for a Wizard, and took away the number of spells they can prepare without replacing it with anything substantial. Now, wizards are able to find and learn scrolls, that it supposed to make up for the lack of spells and class features, but you said it yourself. High level spell scrolls are going to be rare and hard to find, with 9th level spells requiring a full on quest to find. You're basically removing the Wizard capstone, because having multiple 9th level spells IS the Wizard capstone. Its the reason why they can have a god awful class capstone like Signature Spells.

Finally, you made this nerf to Wizards, but you're doing nothing with Clerics and Druids. Are you just going to ban those two classes? Because otherwise, why bother playing a Wizard at all when I can have a Druid, who's spell list is easily on par with the Wizard and you gain better class features to boot? Druids are already an OP class, now they don't have to share the stage of top dog with the Wizard. Heck, why bother with a Wizard when I can play a Lore Bard and throw out all of your rules entirely? I'd get about the same number of spells per day as a Wizard thanks to Magical Secrets, and I can take any spell I want, including Wish, and I don't have to specialize into anything.

[Zevox]

Looks askance at Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.
:smallconfused: Uh, does that have something to do with Magic? I don't have it, since what little I've heard about it has given me no interest in it, but I was under the impression it was based on a podcast or something, not Magic?

Also, it is another optional splatbook, as I said, not something core to D&D.


This is the first I've heard of that Theros was related to MtG, and I have a copy on DNDBeyond. I haven't read every bit of it, so maybe I would have known if I read it cover to cover.
I don't think it's mentioned in the book anywhere - like I said, I have a copy too (physical in my case), and wouldn't know it had anything to do with Magic were it not for seeing other people talk about it on the internet. But yes, apparently Theros is a MtG world. A lot of the artwork in the book is actually straight from Magic cards, even, as I understand it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) I can see what you're attempting to do, trying to make people go all in with the specialization, but in this edition you just can't do it. The problem is that designers did not make enough spells for classes to specialize in their chosen school, nor did they bother with balancing the spell lists in any way, shape, or form. Even with your change to where spells outside of your chosen school only cost 2 prep points, your wizards will become wildly unbalanced. Either you're a Divination Wizard, where you can only prepare around 15 useful spells per day because most Divination spells are only useful in specific circumstances and a majority of them are rituals, or you're an Evocation Wizard, capable of preparing 25 Evocation spells that run the gambit of damaging spells like Fireball, to protective spells like Warding Wind, to control spells like all of the Wall spells or Arcane Hand.

2) With your change, why would I play anything BUT an Evocation Wizard? Evocation is probably the strongest school around because it not only has one of the highest number of spells in its School, but they are some of the best spells in the game. As I said above, Evocation holds everything from the best damaging spells, to some minor defenses, to excellent control spells. Meanwhile every other School is going to have to spend extra prep points in order to play catch up the the Evocation Wizard because they're going to need some form of reliable damage. Heck, on the topic of spell preparation, why would you ever play a Bladesinger, Order of Scribes, War Magic, ect. with these rules? They'll never get to learn 9th level spells on their own, and can only prepare 12 spells at max level.

3) And as you make this nerf to how many spells a Wizard can prepare, you've done 0 to actually change the Wizard chassis. You seemingly failed to realize that Spells = Class Features for a Wizard, and took away the number of spells they can prepare without replacing it with anything substantial. Now, wizards are able to find and learn scrolls, that it supposed to make up for the lack of spells and class features, but you said it yourself. High level spell scrolls are going to be rare and hard to find, with 9th level spells requiring a full on quest to find. You're basically removing the Wizard capstone, because having multiple 9th level spells IS the Wizard capstone. Its the reason why they can have a god awful class capstone like Signature Spells.

4) Finally, you made this nerf to Wizards, but you're doing nothing with Clerics and Druids. Are you just going to ban those two classes? Because otherwise, why bother playing a Wizard at all when I can have a Druid, who's spell list is easily on par with the Wizard and you gain better class features to boot? Druids are already an OP class, now they don't have to share the stage of top dog with the Wizard. Heck, why bother with a Wizard when I can play a Lore Bard and throw out all of your rules entirely? I'd get about the same number of spells per day as a Wizard thanks to Magical Secrets, and I can take any spell I want, including Wish, and I don't have to specialize into anything.

1) I agree. That is the fundamental problem with any school-based balance attempt and one of the (many) reasons why this thought experiment isn't suitable for production.

2) That's useful feedback, and the sort of thing I really wanted to tease out. And I basically agree.

3) I understand that that's the current design. But that's the whole point of the real end goal-- to kill the "spells = class features" identity. Because I hate that "design" for many reasons. And it's not even true--the wizard has a bunch of other class (and sub-class) features. Pity they're all so anemic (with a few exceptions); they kinda have to be because the spells eat the entire budget[1]. I'd much prefer a version of the wizard where they had clear class and sub-class features, supplimented by spells. Much closer to the druid/cleric/bard setup.

4) Targeted thought-experiments are targeted. Change one thing at a time, otherwise the signal gets muddled. And to repeat, this was never intended to be a production system. Merely an attempt to tease out what parts are the issue and what people react the most to.

[1] and grow out of control--it's the class that gains the most every time a new book is published. Look at Xanathars'--clerics got what, 5 spells? How many did wizards get?

[jas61292]

I can see what you're attempting to do, trying to make people go all in with the specialization, but in this edition you just can't do it. The problem is that designers did not make enough spells for classes to specialize in their chosen school, nor did they bother with balancing the spell lists in any way, shape, or form. Even with your change to where spells outside of your chosen school only cost 2 prep points, your wizards will become wildly unbalanced. Either you're a Divination Wizard, where you can only prepare around 15 useful spells per day because most Divination spells are only useful in specific circumstances and a majority of them are rituals, or you're an Evocation Wizard, capable of preparing 25 Evocation spells that run the gambit of damaging spells like Fireball, to protective spells like Warding Wind, to control spells like all of the Wall spells or Arcane Hand.

With your change, why would I play anything BUT an Evocation Wizard? Evocation is probably the strongest school around because it not only has one of the highest number of spells in its School, but they are some of the best spells in the game. As I said above, Evocation holds everything from the best damaging spells, to some minor defenses, to excellent control spells. Meanwhile every other School is going to have to spend extra prep points in order to play catch up the the Evocation Wizard because they're going to need some form of reliable damage. Heck, on the topic of spell preparation, why would you ever play a Bladesinger, Order of Scribes, War Magic, ect. with these rules? They'll never get to learn 9th level spells on their own, and can only prepare 12 spells at max level.


You made a lot of good points, but this one in particular is one I would like to address. Why would you ever play a Diviner when you only can prepare around 15 useful spells per day? How about because you get portent to make those spells more reliable than anyone else? How about because when you cast your divination spells, you get slots back so that you can cast more than anyone else? This is precisely what class features are for. And while I'm not going to say that with this particular system the subclasses would be balanced, how is that any different than present? As is why would you ever play a Transmuter, for instance? Transmutation has many great spells, but nothing the subclass gives you makes a big difference. If anything, if you want to specialize in Transmutaion you should play a Diviner for Portent if you are intending to use offensive stuff like polymorph on enemies, or disintegrate or Telekinesis, or maybe an Abjurer if you plan to lay buffs on yourself. Maybe a bladesiger or war wizard for some other useful features. But there is no reason to play a Transmuter itself.

Fact is, the biggest and best feature of the wizard is spells. If you want to force specialization (which I and some other do), then this kind of thing is probably the best way to do it. Sure, being an Evoker gets you more spells, but what if you don't want to do Evocation? Evocation is not going to get you more Transmutation spells. Divination is no longer going to be the best choice for focusing on schools other than Divination. You pick the school because the spells you can cast matter more than anything, and if if gets you more of the thing you want to do, that is what you go for, even if it gets you less overall.

Now that's not to say the the spell lists should not be more balanced by school. It certainly should be. But I don't think that's a major issue that would prevent something like this from working. Also, for what its worth, I do agree regarding the non school specialist wizards. I don't think the answer is to treat them as not having any school and making them absolutely limited in everything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You made a lot of good points, but this one in particular is one I would like to address. Why would you ever play a Diviner when you only can prepare around 15 useful spells per day? How about because you get portent to make those spells more reliable than anyone else? How about because when you cast your divination spells, you get slots back so that you can cast more than anyone else? This is precisely what class features are for.

Expert Divination loses a lot of its utility when you don't have a wide breadth of spells to actually expend slots for. Divination spells are fairly conditional in use, and in this hypothetical a Divination Wizard is almost exclusively going to be using divination spells because they aren't given significant opportunity to learn other types of spells.

To be more specific on my opinion of Expert Divination - It's a deceptively bad feature, you have to expend a higher level slot (which in then case of 4th, 5th and 6th include a majority of spells that take material components which cannot be substituted with a focus, some very costly*) to recover a lower level slot. You're trading what should be higher power for what is, in most cases, a worse spell slot to have. In the current rules, it's kind of okay, you can gain the niche benefits of a 4-6th level divination spell and recover a 1st-3rd level slot to cast another Shield/Fireball, which scales poorly.

You would, in many cases, see about as much benefit from upcasting the spell of a lower level up to the spell slot of the divination spell you would have cast instead.
*Telepathic Bond and Contact Other Plane are your only 5th level option that don't take a costly material component, however both are better cast as a ritual

Many Wizard subclasses features are better (even for those expected to specialize) when they have some general spells to match.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Overall I do like the idea of putting more meaning into spell scroll discovery, but with the 5e chassis it's difficult to key that sort of stuff to spell schools. Just thinking about it right now, maybe having wizards learn two random spells per level up would be interesting, where they can choose a spell level and then roll on a relevant table to sort of "discover" a spell. Of course I just enjoy this idea because I like having scrappy zeroes turn into powerful heroes, so I would have to make sure to buttress their spell list with spells that were useful but also that they might not have taken if they could just choose.


Id say the problem with this is that it places the balance of class heavilly upon the DM to make it so. 5e is balanced around the idea that classes dont really need to find loot or magic items, this makes it so a wizard needs to find loot or magic items to have access to spells.

Yes indeed, 5e is balanced around the idea that some classes don't necessarily need special loot/magic object. That is to say that 5e isn't very focused on balance at all, which we can see by how there are some classes that have access to widely broad systems of power which can trivialize many scenarios, and other classes that can attack a couple extra times per round.


I don't see how this is annoying to use--the bookkeeping is minimal. It's less than spell points, for one, especially since most people don't switch all their spells every day. Effectively it's a per-sub-class spell list. Although the parameters would need lots of work, because the schools aren't anywhere near internally balanced.

I would posit that book-keeping in general is what brings spellcasters anywhere near balanced. The general design principle of a "class resource" and it's relative ability to be used is what prevents (or rather, what ought to prevent) certain classes from overshadowing the others (you can see the probably hundreds of discussions of people trying to figure out how to fit 6-8 medium/hard encounters and 2 short rests in between every long rest to get an idea of how this translates in game).

I think it should be annoying to use, because great power comes with great responsibility and all that. Of course, it's difficult to implement something annoying or with sufficient cost that isn't simultaneously un-fun to the average 5e player, because most players don't like fiddly bits.


Then buff the martials.

Tome of Battle 5e WHEN???


Spell versatility is the whole point of wizards. That's how they differ from the other arcane classes. That is the feature. Wizards are already limited. Aside from their two free spells each level, any other spell they get is completely up to the DM. Let the player have his fun of choosing the spells he wants to cast.

Of course, I'd argue that leaning into the idea of discovering spells is more thematically interesting and appropriate than just picking and choosing some spells at arbitrary checkpoints within an adventuring career.


. . . This seems like a lot, but I believe that the Cleric spell list overall is about 110 spells, and the Druid list is a little larger, so in practice this is basically bridging the gap between the strongest endgame Clerics and the strongest endgame Wizards.

. . .

I actually think Clerics feel more unreasonable in play because their access to the complete spell list is just a prayer away, which sort of renders the hypothetical gap between their spells known array and that of the Wizard moot, but that's another story.

Cleric's spells are generally much less versatile and useful than the Wizard. While Cleric regains some versatility in being able to prepare a new set of spells each day, they're still never going to surpass the arcane casters in spell quality. The Wizard can gain things like Wish and True Polymorph and Time Stop. The Cleric can't even call forth any angelic hordes.

[Kuulvheysoon]

To play Devil's Advocate for a second here, WotC did balance martials and casters almost perfectly, and a large amount of people hated it.

It was called 4th Edition.

5th Edition isn't perfect, but it is moving in the right direction. Compare it to 3.5e, and Martials are lasting twice as long before being utterly outclassed.

[sithlordnergal]

You made a lot of good points, but this one in particular is one I would like to address. Why would you ever play a Diviner when you only can prepare around 15 useful spells per day? How about because you get portent to make those spells more reliable than anyone else? How about because when you cast your divination spells, you get slots back so that you can cast more than anyone else? This is precisely what class features are for. And while I'm not going to say that with this particular system the subclasses would be balanced, how is that any different than present? As is why would you ever play a Transmuter, for instance? Transmutation has many great spells, but nothing the subclass gives you makes a big difference. If anything, if you want to specialize in Transmutaion you should play a Diviner for Portent if you are intending to use offensive stuff like polymorph on enemies, or disintegrate or Telekinesis, or maybe an Abjurer if you plan to lay buffs on yourself. Maybe a bladesiger or war wizard for some other useful features. But there is no reason to play a Transmuter itself.


So, you're putting a lot of focus on Portent as to why you'd play a diviner...but I feel like you might be over-valuing Portent by a lot. Remember, you only get 2 uses per long rest, 3 at level 14. That means you only get to have 3 chances of making your spells more reliable, and that's ONLY if you roll extremely high or low. And while you can get your spell slots back via casting Divination spells, that's something that looks strong on paper but is a lot weaker in practice. In order to use it, you need to cast a Divination spell that is 2nd level or higher and you must spend a spell slot in order to get regain a lower level spell slot. Meaning you can't create new spell slots like you can with the Sorcerer, and you can't regain spells via rituals. And given most Divination spells, especially high level ones, are things that only come in handy in specific situations and have costly components, you're not going to use that ability nearly enough to make it worth the loss of prepared spells.

As it stands currently, the PHB Wizard subclasses are actually really well balanced with each other, with the exception of Transmutation. If you want to be an expert in illusions, the School of Illusion is actually going to be a lot more versatile with their illusions then a Divination Wizard. Same with the Schools or Enchantment or Necromancy. Their abilities make them better choices for those schools of magic than a Divination Wizard. Sure, Portent lets you have a chance at forcing a creature to fail their save, but Necromancers simply have stronger undead, and Enchanters can target two creatures with one single target spell. Evocation Wizards are better then Divination wizards at big damage, Conjuration Wizards get to ignore Concentration checks on their spells while also teleporting, and Abjuration wizards get to be the best Counterspellers in the game. Again, the only sublcass that is legitimately worse at their school of magic then the Divination wizard is Transmutation, which says to me you should just buff Transmutation instead of debuffing literally everything else in order to buff Transmutation.




Fact is, the biggest and best feature of the wizard is spells. If you want to force specialization (which I and some other do), then this kind of thing is probably the best way to do it. Sure, being an Evoker gets you more spells, but what if you don't want to do Evocation? Evocation is not going to get you more Transmutation spells. Divination is no longer going to be the best choice for focusing on schools other than Divination. You pick the school because the spells you can cast matter more than anything, and if if gets you more of the thing you want to do, that is what you go for, even if it gets you less overall.

It really isn't the best way to force specialization though. Heck, this doesn't even force specialization unless you're actively hamstringing yourself by choosing a school of magic that lacks spells. Due to how those changes were written, and later modified in a different post, preparing a spell from your school costs 1 prep point and preparing a spell from outside your school costs 2 points. How does that force specialization when I can be an Evocation Wizard, prepare 11 evocation spells, then prepare 7 spells from any school I want? Why would I be any other class when Evocation spells cost them 2 points to prepare? Why go for Transmutation School when I can still learn/prepare Fly, Haste, Telekinesis, Disintegrate, Polymorph, Time Stop, and Blink, or any combination of non-evocation spells, while also having 11 Evocation spells that I can prepare on top of all that?

Because keep in mind, evocation does a loooooot more than just damage. Evocation includes spells like Darkness, all the Wall spells, Resilient Sphere, Forcecage, Crown of Stars, Warding Wind, Sending, Telepathy, Gust of Wind, Continual Flame, Bigby's Hand, Contingency, and more. By choosing Evocation, you gain what is probably the most diverse spell list out of all the schools. It has buffs, debuffs, damage, control, and utility, and all of those spells cost 1 point to prepare. Sure, the other schools will cost 2 points, but that's true for all schools of magic with this change.

Instead of promoting specialization, this change promotes choosing a school of magic with the most variety of spells. That way you can prepare all of your School's important spells, have plenty of points left to prepare whatever your School is lacking, and have more spells then a Sorcerer would.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Its not because the subclass is suddenly good, its simply because I'm pretty sure Transmutation has the largest number of spells. And even then, Evocation is pretty close to Transmutation when it comes to number of spells and spell variety, so your choice comes down to which subclass has the better features, Transmutation or Evocation?

Using the most recent books Evocation beats Transmutation by just a handful of spells and through 5e's publication the two schools have traded places more than once.

The only school that has managed to close the gap is Conjuration with the addition of Tasha's summon spells, with each of the three schools having nearly 100 unique leveled spells. Every other school hovers somewhere between 30 to 50.

The point stands though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Using the most recent books Evocation beats Transmutation by just a handful of spells and through 5e's publication the two schools have traded places more than once.

The only school that has managed to close the gap is Conjuration with the addition of Tasha's summon spells, with each of the three schools having nearly 100 unique leveled spells. Every other school hovers somewhere between 30 to 50.

The point stands though.

Completely changing the basic model, an idea for more thematic sub-classes might be something along the lines of specializing in combinations of
* One of the Big Three schools (Conjuration/Evocation/Transmutation), setting your school's basic approach to things (summoning, energy work, or changing existing matter)
* One of the Other Five schools, setting what things you focus on.

So an Evocation/Necromancy school might be themed around draining the life from foes with blasts of necrotic energy, while a Conjuration/Necromancy school might be themed around a more classical minion-mancer necromancer, while a Transmutation/Necromancy school might specialize in changing things to resemble undead (like the old Pale Master PrC) or altering things to oppose the undead. Etc.

There'd certainly need to be shifts in individual spells, but that way you're not looking at a individual-level school-based balance attempt.

Not even thinking of changing spell access based on school, although you could do the "two specialized schools, 1 opposed school, spells-by-tier model proposed above". But that's orthogonal to this idea.

[Rynjin]

To play Devil's Advocate for a second here, WotC did balance martials and casters almost perfectly, and a large amount of people hated it.

It was called 4th Edition.

5th Edition isn't perfect, but it is moving in the right direction. Compare it to 3.5e, and Martials are lasting twice as long before being utterly outclassed.

I got tired of rehashing this argument 8 years ago so now I just link back to the last thing I said on the matter. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2psli?On-the-4th-Edition-sucks-dont-be-like-them#1)


Edit: LMAO, I forgot people were still referring to 5e as "D&D Next" when this thread was made.

[Pex]

I got tired of rehashing this argument 8 years ago so now I just link back to the last thing I said on the matter. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2psli?On-the-4th-Edition-sucks-dont-be-like-them#1)


Edit: LMAO, I forgot people were still referring to 5e as "D&D Next" when this thread was made.

I agree. I hate 4E, but it does have good ideas.

All classes are DAD, but you can choose to be SAD and not gimp yourself in the process.
Everyone can heal themselves when resting. Made it to 5E.
Saving throws use the better modifier of two ability scores.
You get to do Cool Stuff limited per combat but can do it again later in the day. Made it to 5E but was actually a late 3E idea.
Classes have tiers. You have your base abilities at low levels then at high levels get your choice of different branches of Cool Stuff that reinforce you are no longer just an advanced normal.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I got tired of rehashing this argument 8 years ago so now I just link back to the last thing I said on the matter. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2psli?On-the-4th-Edition-sucks-dont-be-like-them#1)


Edit: LMAO, I forgot people were still referring to 5e as "D&D Next" when this thread was made.

...Your post doesn't actually address anything that I said? You'll note that I didn't say that "4e sucks" or anything of the like. I said that they did balance spellcasting and martial characters, which 4E indisputably did. Did they come out look remarkably similar? Yes.

I said that people had a very negative opinion of it. That's not saying that it sucked. Personally, I feel like there's more than a few good things from 4E that I'm glad that 5E moved forwards with, like every character being able to heal themselves to a limited extent.

[Rynjin]

...Your post doesn't actually address anything that I said? You'll note that I didn't say that "4e sucks" or anything of the like. I said that they did balance spellcasting and martial characters, which 4E indisputably did. Did they come out look remarkably similar? Yes.

I said that people had a very negative opinion of it. That's not saying that it sucked. Personally, I feel like there's more than a few good things from 4E that I'm glad that 5E moved forwards with, like every character being able to heal themselves to a limited extent.

Sorry, let me post the follow-up post as well.



The thing is- in order to exactly balance the classes, they must be homogenized.

This is another thing I strongly disagree with, though I don't find it as poisonous as the things in the OP.

Balance =/= Sameness. It just means everybody has a niche they fill and a niche that is NEEDED without being so specialized into that niche that they're extremely useless everywhere else.

For example, from what I hear the old Thief class was basically THE skill guy, and he was a required class for the function of any group...but that's ALL he did. In a fight he'd be better off hiding in a corner and twiddling his thumbs than actually fighting.

Which IMO is poor design. You can make classes that fill different niches, or the same niche in different ways without making them homogenized or useless everywhere else.

Look at the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger. They all fill the same niche: Combat (mostly DPR, with Paladin being heavily defensive). I don't think anyone could accuse them of being the same, in any way at all. As well, they're all usable out of combat, Barbarian and Ranger having good skills (Ranger more so) and class abilities useful out of combat, and the Paladin being Cha focused which let him both be the face and boost his defenses simultaneously.

All of the classes should be balanced like that with each other. Each brings something new to the table, but can fill roughly the same role. And 90% of the classes DO do that, with a few just needing tweaks to bring them up or down (ignoring full casters in general since that's an issue with the whole system and not the classes).

The problem is people saying "No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same because 4E did that!" which is flat out wrong and completely illogical.

[KorvinStarmast]

For example, from what I hear the old Thief class was basically THE skill guy, and he was a required class for the function of any group...but that's ALL he did. In a fight he'd be better off hiding in a corner and twiddling his thumbs than actually fighting. But you'd be wrong about that. I played a lot of thieves in OD&D and AD&D. I didn't sit in the corner twiddling my thumbs in combat.
Nope. We didn't have the minmax disease in those days.
I also set up 'from behind' attacks when I could, but that was a situationally dependent thing; sometimes my backstab is what triggered a fight.

[Amnestic]

:smallconfused: Uh, does that have something to do with Magic? I don't have it, since what little I've heard about it has given me no interest in it, but I was under the impression it was based on a podcast or something, not Magic?

Also, it is another optional splatbook, as I said, not something core to D&D.

Ravnica is another MtG setting yeah. The podcast one you might be thinking of is (Explorer's Guide to) Wildemount, which is the Critical Role setting.

I don't think the Ravnica book ever really mentioned MtG in any major way (just a small print thing at the start from what I can see), I don't recall any cases of the 5 colours of magic in there either. If you didn't know it was an MtG setting, chances are you wouldn't notice by reading it.

[Rynjin]

But you'd be wrong about that. I played a lot of thieves in OD&D and AD&D. I didn't sit in the corner twiddling my thumbs in combat.
Nope. We didn't have the minmax disease in those days.
I also set up 'from behind' attacks when I could, but that was a situationally dependent thing; sometimes my backstab is what triggered a fight.

At the time, my only frame of reference for the Thief from 2e and earlier was Regis. I feel like the rest of the post still stands just fine in terms of the point.

[KorvinStarmast]

At the time, my only frame of reference for the Thief from 2e and earlier was Regis. I feel like the rest of the post still stands just fine in terms of the point. We are drifting off topic from the wizard thing, so NVM.

[Zevox]

Ravnica is another MtG setting yeah. The podcast one you might be thinking of is (Explorer's Guide to) Wildemount, which is the Critical Role setting.

I don't think the Ravnica book ever really mentioned MtG in any major way (just a small print thing at the start from what I can see), I don't recall any cases of the 5 colours of magic in there either. If you didn't know it was an MtG setting, chances are you wouldn't notice by reading it.
Ah, thank you, I was getting Ravnica and Wildemount (another book I passed on out of disinterest) confused then. Though I still hadn't heard that either was Magic-related, so that's news to me.

Though yeah, still sounds like they're handling the MtG books fine then, writing them to fit in with D&D while still keeping them confined to their own optional material. Seems like the way to go. I certainly don't see any reason why someone would believe that would lead to them making Magic's color-categorized magic system a core part of D&D whenever they do a new edition.

[Rukelnikov]

I haven't read page 3, so IDK if this was already said there. But this might serve you.

Lock them in one school as you said, but drop the spell lists. You are a Conjurer, you can pick ANY conjuration spell, and it costs you 1 preparation slot. You come across ANY transmutation spell? Fine you can write it, but it costs you spell level preparation slots.

Its still a massive nerf, but its simpler than what you suggested (and simple is good), gives them a "theme" which you seem to want, and has the appeal of allowing for newer stuff, like the Evoker also being the healer.

Diviners are still screwed since their list is extremely small, but this has been historically so, that's why they only had to pick one prohibited school instead of two as the others. So you might consider giving them something in return.

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, I think you can solve a lot of Wizard-related problems by just making a feat that makes you really good at using scrolls, and then dropping the Wizard class entirely. Let's call it "Scroll Magic", because I'm feeling boring.

Standard "Wizard"? Sorcerer with Scroll Magic, maybe with an Intelligence-focused Sorcerous Origin.
A 3.5-style Archivist? Cleric with Scroll Magic.
Bladesinger? Eldritch Knight with Scroll Magic.
You want spellbooks? They're bound-together scrolls. Some of them are magic items that naturally make the scrolls bound into them less fragile.

Then just let your players start with a few 1st-level scrolls (they're common magic items, after all).

I went in a similar, though fundamentally different way. I created a feat called "Wizardry" which turns any caster that wants to take the feat, into an Int Based pure Vancian caster. I then increased the total number of slots they get per level by 33%, since they have to actually memorize a specific spell into a specific slot...

I then got rid of the Wizard class.

[KorvinStarmast]

I then got rid of the Wizard class. How did your players like this?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How did your players like this?

If (IF, not when) I were to get rid of the wizard class, I'd probably instead break it into a bunch of more specialized chunks, kinda like the fixed-list casters of 3e.

But I really have no intent to do that--way too much work.

[KorvinStarmast]

If (IF, not when) I were to get rid of the wizard class, I'd probably instead break it into a bunch of more specialized chunks, kinda like the fixed-list casters of 3e.

But I really have no intent to do that--way too much work.
Or, only allow War Wizard. At least then the whole school thing is dispensed with, and the serious academic wizards are all NPCs in their wizardly towers or in their guilds while the brave and bold and foolhardy (those who would fit into an army-supporting wizard) are the only ones who go out adventuring. That makes more thematic sense to me than the academic-as-a-fish-out-of-water-running-amok-with-a-barbarian-and-a-rogue theme.1

For my money, the war wizard is uniquely positioned to be the standard adventuring wizard thanks to having already been involved with violence and conflict as a purpose for magic. (Though the evoker comes in a close second).

1 Though all kinds of whacky combinations are in the supporting fiction so it all fits if you look far enough for precedent in the genre, see Raistlin as a test case.

[Rukelnikov]

Or, only allow War Wizard. At least then the whole school thing is dispensed with, and the serious academic wizards are all NPCs in their wizardly towers or in their guilds while the brave and bold and foolhardy (those who would fit into an army-supporting wizard) are the only ones who go out adventuring. That makes more thematic sense to me than the academic-as-a-fish-out-of-water-running-amok-with-a-barbarian-and-a-rogue theme.1

For my money, the war wizard is uniquely positioned to be the standard adventuring wizard thanks to having already been involved with violence and conflict as a purpose for magic. (Though the evoker comes in a close second).

1 Though all kinds of whacky combinations are in the supporting fiction so it all fits if you look far enough for precedent in the genre, see Raistlin as a test case.

Not Bladesingers? Elves live for that kinda thing (especially moon elves).

[KorvinStarmast]

Not Bladesingers? Elves live for that kinda thing (especially moon elves). It does hearken back to the original "an elf is a Fighter/Magic User" default feel for elves in D&D, but since it is restricted to elves and half elves (SCAG) I dismissed it out of hand as a DM1.
IIRC, Tasha's opens it to all races so if it's open to all races I agree that it too becomes a well positioned gish/adventurer wizard that makes sense.

1 Just so you know, I have a real problem with gating things by race in D&D. (I didn't and don't mind level ceilings for certain races in TSR era D&D, but WoTC era flushed that and yes the game is just fine without that ceiling).
I also hate any race-based feats-I forbid them in any game that I DM. All feats are open to all races. (If you look at Xan's feats, I took Prodigy and the PHB Skilled feat and fused them). I then got rid of all race based Xan's feats. Personal pet peeve.

[Rukelnikov]

It does hearken back to the original "an elf is a Fighter/Magic User" default feel for elves in D&D, but since it is restricted to elves and half elves (SCAG) I dismissed it out of hand as a DM1.
IIRC, Tasha's opens it to all races so if it's open to all races I agree that it too becomes a well positioned gish/adventurer wizard that makes sense.

1 Just so you know, I have a real problem with gating things by race in D&D. (I didn't and don't mind level ceilings for certain races in TSR era D&D, but WoTC era flushed that and yes the game is just fine without that ceiling).
I also hate any race-based feats-I forbid them in any game that I DM. All feats are open to all races. (If you look at Xan's feats, I took Prodigy and the PHB Skilled feat and fused them). I then got rid of all race based Xan's feats. Personal pet peeve.

I understand the aversion to the race gating, I personally like it for lore reasons (which don't necessarily hold outside of Forgotten Realms), but there should be more options if that's gonna be the case, at least one for every PHB race. As it is now, I think making it available to all races was the right move. (Notice though, that not many complain about the Battlerager still being a dwarf only subclass, I think the problem most people had was not the racial gating, but that its a cool race gated class, they don't mind that an underpowered class is still race gated)

That aside, yeah, in my mind the archetypal Elf is not a Wizard, its a gish and lives to go on adventures, that's why I named it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I understand the aversion to the race gating, I personally like it for lore reasons (which don't necessarily hold outside of Forgotten Realms), but there should be more options if that's gonna be the case, at least one for every PHB race. As it is now, I think making it available to all races was the right move. (Notice though, that not many complain about the Battlerager still being a dwarf only subclass, I think the problem most people had was not the racial gating, but that its a cool race gated class, they don't mind that an underpowered class is still race gated)

That aside, yeah, in my mind the archetypal Elf is not a Wizard, its a gish and lives to go on adventures, that's why I named it.

My setting is so far from FR (or standard) that I allowed bladesingers and just stripped the racial requirements. I don't own SCAG, and don't allow content from books I don't own (for my own sanity), so battlerager is out. Not that anyone's ever asked. But if I did allow it, I'd drop the requirements there as well.

As far as racial feats...I can see them making sense for things that require physiological elements (such as a dragonborn's breath weapon). Other than that? Nah.

[Rukelnikov]

My setting is so far from FR (or standard) that I allowed bladesingers and just stripped the racial requirements. I don't own SCAG, and don't allow content from books I don't own (for my own sanity), so battlerager is out. Not that anyone's ever asked. But if I did allow it, I'd drop the requirements there as well.

As far as racial feats...I can see them making sense for things that require physiological elements (such as a dragonborn's breath weapon). Other than that? Nah.

Yeah, there's no reason outside of Forgotten Realms for why it shouldn't be allowed.

I personally like the Racial feats for the simple reason that I find that race is not very impactful after tier 2. Having racial feats can make it so by that point one can spend an ASI to "double down" on the race aspect of the character. But I perfectly understand the position of lets allow everything to everyone, I'm perfectly fine with it too, and have played under such rules many times.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, there's no reason outside of Forgotten Realms for why it shouldn't be allowed.

I personally like the Racial feats for the simple reason that I find that race is not very impactful after tier 2. Having racial feats can make it so by that point one can spend an ASI to "double down" on the race aspect of the character. But I perfectly understand the position of lets allow everything to everyone, I'm perfectly fine with it too, and have played under such rules many times.

I think that if I were to attempt to make races more impactful, I'd add in a "Racial Feat" as a separate thing that everyone gets at some particular character level. Because tying it to class level/ASIs starts hurting my brain--a Rogue 3/Bard 3/Wizard 3 (not that this is a good mix) would have zero opportunities to get better at their race, while a rogue 9 would have 2? Despite being the same race? :smallfrown:

[Rukelnikov]

I think that if I were to attempt to make races more impactful, I'd add in a "Racial Feat" as a separate thing that everyone gets at some particular character level. Because tying it to class level/ASIs starts hurting my brain--a Rogue 3/Bard 3/Wizard 3 (not that this is a good mix) would have zero opportunities to get better at their race, while a rogue 9 would have 2? Despite being the same race? :smallfrown:

Yeah, I agree. Its why I like races like Aasimar, Tiefling, Simic Hybrid, that get new powers as they level up.

PF2, while I don't like in general, does a lot of things I do like. Racial feats are one of those. You have a pool of aroud 10 feats for your race, some are level gated, you choose 1 at level 1, another at 5, then 9, 13, 17 (levels might be worng, I read the book only once when it came out). The idea in principle is fitting IMO.

[KorvinStarmast]

(Notice though, that not many complain about the Battlerager still being a dwarf only subclass It was hot garbage IMO. But that may be a matter of taste.

PF2, while I don't like in general, does a lot of things I do like. Racial feats are one of those. You have a pool of aroud 10 feats for your race, some are level gated, you choose 1 at level 1, another at 5, then 9, 13, 17 (levels might be worng, I read the book only once when it came out). The idea in principle is fitting IMO. Racial features, not racial feats, for all races (not just the precious few like Drow or Eladrin {OK, I"ll stop} that kick in or are selectable at tier change appeals to me if they are well balanced and themtic. 5e could do a lot worse than emulate general idea.

[Rukelnikov]

It was hot garbage IMO. But that may be a matter of taste.

It definitely is lol, but it proves the point, people didn't care that Bladesinger was a race gated class, they cared because it was a GOOD race gated class.


Racial features, not racial feats, for all races (not just the precious few like Drow or Eladrin {OK, I"ll stop} that kick in or are selectable at tier change appeals to me if they are well balanced and themtic. 5e could do a lot worse than emulate general idea.

PF2 treats everything as feats, there are class feats, skill feats, racial feats, general feats, and maybe some other kind of feats I don't remember. You get a different kind at every level, maybe even 2 at some levels.

[Zevox]

IIRC, Tasha's opens it to all races so if it's open to all races I agree that it too becomes a well positioned gish/adventurer wizard that makes sense.
Tasha's did indeed remove the racial restriction from the Bladesinger subclass.

[KorvinStarmast]

PF2 treats everything as feats, there are class feats, skill feats, racial feats, general feats, and maybe some other kind of feats I don't remember. You get a different kind at every level, maybe even 2 at some levels. Hmm, I think that 13th Age does something similar in terms of what words are applied to a thing.

[Theodoxus]

How did your players like this?

My primary arcane player loved it. He took dragonblooded sorcerer and with the expanded spells of wizardry really went to town. He was themed on a blue dragon, so lots of lightning. I allowed him to use the 3.X style of memorizing spells with metamagic in play, paying the sorcery point cost at the time of memorization. Only the whole, I was quite pleased with how it ended up and incorporated the change into my base game once the testing was completed.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Balance =/= Sameness. It just means everybody has a niche they fill and a niche that is NEEDED without being so specialized into that niche that they're extremely useless everywhere else.

Well, yes, I suppose classes can be balanced without being the same. This would be nice, and is possible in theory, but it would probably require far much more development time than anyone could have the possibility of finding. Homogeneity is the fast track to balance, because it normalizes the power and allows for clear, 1-1 comparisons between classes. Video games do this rather well (though they're advantaged somewhat since their gameplay loop mainly involves one specific thing, rather than D&D's "three pillars" meme).


The problem is people saying "No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same because 4E did that!" which is flat out wrong and completely illogical.

Unironically, it's not wrong (well, in the sense of 'class balance = SOILED IT'). It may be illogical, but the D&D community does not want balance. They want goofy, powerful wizards who become gods, bards who seduce everything while prancing about and singing, fighters who do nothing except hit stuff, et cetera. They want the tropes where a wizard can fly, throw fireballs, and put people to sleep, while at the same time regarding any options that give the fighter power beyond the mundane as "anime" (and therefore bad). It's just part of the system at this point.

The paradigm where some classes (the mundanes) receive extremely narrow mechanical tools to act upon the world, while giving other classes (mages) a huge swiss army knife where they can bend reality and effortlessly bypass obstacles is why we still don't really see "balance". And, somewhat contradictory to the system inexorably connected with this paradigm, it must be altered significantly before things are fair.

4e would not have been nearly as reviled if it was not called 4e. If it was released under any name other than D&D, it would have been touted as 'the D&D Killer' back in 2008 or whenever it launched.

But look at me, chatting.

[MaxWilson]

Unironically, it's not wrong (well, in the sense of 'class balance = SOILED IT'). It may be illogical, but the D&D community does not want balance. They want goofy, powerful wizards who become gods, bards who seduce everything while prancing about and singing, fighters who do nothing except hit stuff, et cetera. They want the tropes where a wizard can fly, throw fireballs, and put people to sleep, while at the same time regarding any options that give the fighter power beyond the mundane as "anime" (and therefore bad). It's just part of the system at this point.

I haven't seen or heard of any pushback against Eldritch Knights, Psi Knights, or Rune Knights. People are apparently totally cool with the idea of magical fighters. It's only when you start wanting explicitly non-magical Fighters who do incredible things that would require magic for anybody else, and can do them even in antimagic zones--it's then that arguments about "anime" start.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I haven't seen or heard of any pushback against Eldritch Knights, Psi Knights, or Rune Knights. People are apparently totally cool with the idea of magical fighters. It's only when you start wanting explicitly non-magical Fighters who do incredible things that would require magic for anybody else, and can do them even in antimagic zones--it's then that arguments about "anime" start.

Case in point: The Tome of Battle back in 3.5E was quite... we'll say divisive among the community when it was released.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I haven't seen or heard of any pushback against Eldritch Knights

They play by nerd rules. Or, that is to say, they have the kiddie pool version of the wizard's magic system, so they don't push against the grain that much when it comes to unique powers.


Psi Knights

Oh don't remind me of 5e psionics (https://youtu.be/mAUY1J8KizU). Which, as an aside, are probably one of the best examples in this edition of community push-back against unique systems of power that weren't overtly linked to spells.


Rune Knights

I'll concede that as true. Though I wonder how much of that is due to the bias towards western history/fantasy within D&D.


People are apparently totally cool with the idea of magical fighters. It's only when you start wanting explicitly non-magical Fighters who do incredible things that would require magic for anybody else, and can do them even in antimagic zones--it's then that arguments about "anime" start.

I guess my issue is more that fighters rarely progress (or many rarely want them to progress) beyond the mundane without needing a crutch that's ostensibly based on the wizard's skill-set (or the limitations thereof). I'm just wondering if it's a coincidence that the second something like an Echo Knight gets the ability to scale a 30 foot tall wall without needing a Fly spell, you also see discourse flaming it as "anime" or "just a JoJo rip-off". Wizards (and other magic users) seem like they're always a step ahead of martials/mundanes - in damage, in utility, in versatility, in flavor - because the mundanes always play by their rules.

[Pex]

It certainly is annoying when the designers want to give fighters Nice Things but people complain the Nice Things exist because "anime", so the designers take away the Nice Things and people complain here fighters don't have Nice Things, so ban wizards/spells/high level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It certainly is annoying when the designers want to give fighters Nice Things but people complain the Nice Things exist because "anime", so the designers take away the Nice Things and people complain here fighters don't have Nice Things, so ban wizards/spells/high level.

And it's certainly annoying when people here conflate Nice Things with all the over-the-top reality-warping powers that spell-casters have. Maybe there's a happy medium between Guy at the Gym and Reshapes Reality at a Whim? One that allows for coherent settings?

Essentially, there are disagreements on two independent fronts:
1) What is the proper upper power level for the system?
2) Can fighters do more than just attack with swords?

On #2, most people are ok (as judged by reactions to the Rune Knight) with non-spell "doing more than just attacking with swords". And personally, I'm willing to go further.

On #1, most people smuggle in the assumption that the appropriate power level is "whatever wizards (or the most powerful class/build) can do right now". That's not a system assumption, because it denies the possibility that some things are stronger than intended. "But wizards can..." is circular--it assumes the conclusion (that wizards' current power is the appropriate balance point).

Buffing fighters and nerfing "wizards" are independent possibilities. If wizards are too strong (based on the system's answer to #1), then nerf them. If fighters aren't "strong enough" or don't have the appropriate tools (in keeping with the system's answer to #2), buff them. But those are independent of each other--it's not an answer to "wizards are too strong" to say "well, then buff fighters". Because both sides can be out of proper alignment, and the proper comparison is not between classes, but between builds and the challenges assumed by the game itself. And the system does not assume the kinds of challenges you'd need a wizard's "full power" for (or even most of the optimized builds).

Can a fighter contribute as part of a classic 4-man-band when faced with pre-written 1st-party modules? Can they contribute when facing 1st-party monsters? Can they contribute to non-combat challenges similar to those set out in modules? Then they're strong enough[1].

Can a wizard (or any other character) trivialize those same challenges? Then they're too strong.

The way to balance things is to reduce the power of things that are too strong and increase the power of things that are too weak. As judged by objective, external standards. Not by intra-class relative standards, because that's a moving target. Decide what power you want to allow, and what kind of differences are ok. Then balance everyone to that range. There will always be a "strongest" and a "weakest". But as long as they're in the acceptable-difference range, that's fine.

[1] the exact composition of their strength can be debated--could they do more out of combat vs in combat? That's a fair point to debate. But comparing them with the strongest class and saying that differences mean they need buffs is just a recipe for a system and setting destroying power spiral.

[Sigreid]

You could just adopt the 1e system (possibly modified) where a wizard has a chance to learn a spell, minimum spells per level and maximum spells per level they can learn. Now, when a wizard wants to learn a spell they have to roll to determine if they can understand it. If they can't, they can never learn that spell unless they raise their intelligence. The minimum and maximum set a floor and ceiling for spells known of each spell level they can cast. This would do a few things:

1. Allow your players to choose the spells they want to try to learn without an artificial restriction
2. Allow your players wizards to have flexibility without having everything
3. Increase intelligence gains importance even more
4. Would provide a band of number of spells of each level that they can learn that you think is more reasonable without being as punishing

Heck, you could even have the chance to understand the spell be an Arcane check with advantage if it's the school related to your subclass.

[Rynjin]

Case in point: The Tome of Battle back in 3.5E was quite... we'll say divisive among the community when it was released.

On the flipside, Path of War is pretty much universally loved by Pathfinder players (the ones that don't have a complete moratorium on all 3pp content, anyway). Attitudes change.

[jas61292]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Essentially, there are disagreements on two independent fronts:
1) What is the proper upper power level for the system?
2) Can fighters do more than just attack with swords?

On #2, most people are ok (as judged by reactions to the Rune Knight) with non-spell "doing more than just attacking with swords". And personally, I'm willing to go further.

On #1, most people smuggle in the assumption that the appropriate power level is "whatever wizards (or the most powerful class/build) can do right now". That's not a system assumption, because it denies the possibility that some things are stronger than intended. "But wizards can..." is circular--it assumes the conclusion (that wizards' current power is the appropriate balance point).

100% agreement. And this is something I wish more people understood. While I do think people here are better at getting this than a lot of places on the internet, I just can't even put into words how tired I am of people responding to my critiques of certain elements of the game by basically saying that if its in the game, that somehow means it couldn't possibly be stronger than the intended balance point.

I'm certainly not going to say that what the appropriate balance point of the game is is not somewhat of an opinion, but for any given discussion about how a class should be adjusted, a particular balance point needs to be definitively decided upon, or else you just end up with different people coming in and saying how wrong you are for not ascribing to the intended balance point that they have in mind, which is, more often than not, the maximum power level currently achievable in the game (baring some exploits).

[Kuulvheysoon]

On the flipside, Path of War is pretty much universally loved by Pathfinder players (the ones that don't have a complete moratorium on all 3pp content, anyway). Attitudes change.

I find that Pathfinder players are more intense and grounded in the hobby than the typical 5E player, though, so I wouldn't count on that attitude continuing to change in the same direction. I'd love for it to, but I've got a low opinion of people in general.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see this addressed much, but for me, a fundamental flaw (and I suppose someone will say "feature") in the martial vs magic divide is that in a world that has 6-9th level spells - well, any magic, honestly - if you're not approaching something like Tippyverse, you're "doing it wrong". The gold standard in "that just wouldn't exist" are castles. In the real, mundane world, castles are great fortifications that can keep militias at bay for extended periods of time. In a magical world where something as simple as 'scry and dive' exists, porting through a wall can be done any number of ways, and sometimes by "non-casters". Fortifications would be fundamentally different if you're trying to keep magical critters and wizards out of your domain - especially if you yourself aren't magical.

Which brings up the second problem. Notably, every official published world is high magic. Why would anyone be a fighter or a barbarian? When Bob the hedge mage can do 10x the work that George the sellsword can while on sabbatical, George must needs feel foolish. Even if Jimmy, George's player, hates anything more complex than a Champion, George most likely regrets being ruled by a kludge.

It would be nice if professional world builders actually took a beat to really think how magic would fundamentally alter the basic everyday things we do in real life. Baker, when he was writing Eberron, basically said "hey, we have these items in real life, how would I port them over into a magic society" without then taking the next necessary step and say "if people can teleport goods and creatures, why would they build something as slow and fallible as zeppelins and trains?" I mean yeah, cool factor, and avoiding the potential 'The Fly' problem, but still it ends up stifling creativity.

I was a fairly rabid reader of fantasy back in the day - and one thing nearly every setting had in common, was that nothing was ever as high magic as the FR D&D setting (not even the FR novels match it). Most had more magic than Middle Earth, but there were still reasons to have fortifications, and prisons and mundane weapon wielding warrior types... Mages just didn't have the ability to teleport wherever they wished, or cause massive explosions that rival superhero shenanigans. And that's because the authors are trying to make the world relatable.

So there's two options. Make the worlds of D&D truly fantastic, such that the mundane would be viewed as a mental health issue "why are you using a chunk of metal to try to hurt me, when you know I can explode your brain with a thought/word/sound?" OR cut the magical power vastly, so that the mundane has a reason to live side by side with the powered. I suspect that's the reason Batman and Punisher remain so popular in the fiction that also brought us Superman and the Avengers.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I don't see this addressed much, but for me, a fundamental flaw (and I suppose someone will say "feature") in the martial vs magic divide is that in a world that has 6-9th level spells - well, any magic, honestly - if you're not approaching something like Tippyverse, you're "doing it wrong". The gold standard in "that just wouldn't exist" are castles. In the real, mundane world, castles are great fortifications that can keep militias at bay for extended periods of time. In a magical world where something as simple as 'scry and dive' exists, porting through a wall can be done any number of ways, and sometimes by "non-casters". Fortifications would be fundamentally different if you're trying to keep magical critters and wizards out of your domain - especially if you yourself aren't magical.

Which brings up the second problem. Notably, every official published world is high magic. Why would anyone be a fighter or a barbarian? When Bob the hedge mage can do 10x the work that George the sellsword can while on sabbatical, George must needs feel foolish. Even if Jimmy, George's player, hates anything more complex than a Champion, George most likely regrets being ruled by a kludge.

It would be nice if professional world builders actually took a beat to really think how magic would fundamentally alter the basic everyday things we do in real life. Baker, when he was writing Eberron, basically said "hey, we have these items in real life, how would I port them over into a magic society" without then taking the next necessary step and say "if people can teleport goods and creatures, why would they build something as slow and fallible as zeppelins and trains?" I mean yeah, cool factor, and avoiding the potential 'The Fly' problem, but still it ends up stifling creativity.

I was a fairly rabid reader of fantasy back in the day - and one thing nearly every setting had in common, was that nothing was ever as high magic as the FR D&D setting (not even the FR novels match it). Most had more magic than Middle Earth, but there were still reasons to have fortifications, and prisons and mundane weapon wielding warrior types... Mages just didn't have the ability to teleport wherever they wished, or cause massive explosions that rival superhero shenanigans. And that's because the authors are trying to make the world relatable.

So there's two options. Make the worlds of D&D truly fantastic, such that the mundane would be viewed as a mental health issue "why are you using a chunk of metal to try to hurt me, when you know I can explode your brain with a thought/word/sound?" OR cut the magical power vastly, so that the mundane has a reason to live side by side with the powered. I suspect that's the reason Batman and Punisher remain so popular in the fiction that also brought us Superman and the Avengers.

I'll point out that in Eberron's defense, the current Era does have teleportation, but it's extremely limited. It's part of the wide-magic appeal of the setting. Only a handful of (relevant) NPCs in the world can cast teleport; the rest of the ones who can are limited to teleporting between very specific spots via teleportation circle, and they charge through the nose for it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't see this addressed much, but for me, a fundamental flaw (and I suppose someone will say "feature") in the martial vs magic divide is that in a world that has 6-9th level spells - well, any magic, honestly - if you're not approaching something like Tippyverse, you're "doing it wrong". The gold standard in "that just wouldn't exist" are castles. In the real, mundane world, castles are great fortifications that can keep militias at bay for extended periods of time. In a magical world where something as simple as 'scry and dive' exists, porting through a wall can be done any number of ways, and sometimes by "non-casters". Fortifications would be fundamentally different if you're trying to keep magical critters and wizards out of your domain - especially if you yourself aren't magical.

Which brings up the second problem. Notably, every official published world is high magic. Why would anyone be a fighter or a barbarian? When Bob the hedge mage can do 10x the work that George the sellsword can while on sabbatical, George must needs feel foolish. Even if Jimmy, George's player, hates anything more complex than a Champion, George most likely regrets being ruled by a kludge.

It would be nice if professional world builders actually took a beat to really think how magic would fundamentally alter the basic everyday things we do in real life. Baker, when he was writing Eberron, basically said "hey, we have these items in real life, how would I port them over into a magic society" without then taking the next necessary step and say "if people can teleport goods and creatures, why would they build something as slow and fallible as zeppelins and trains?" I mean yeah, cool factor, and avoiding the potential 'The Fly' problem, but still it ends up stifling creativity.

I was a fairly rabid reader of fantasy back in the day - and one thing nearly every setting had in common, was that nothing was ever as high magic as the FR D&D setting (not even the FR novels match it). Most had more magic than Middle Earth, but there were still reasons to have fortifications, and prisons and mundane weapon wielding warrior types... Mages just didn't have the ability to teleport wherever they wished, or cause massive explosions that rival superhero shenanigans. And that's because the authors are trying to make the world relatable.

So there's two options. Make the worlds of D&D truly fantastic, such that the mundane would be viewed as a mental health issue "why are you using a chunk of metal to try to hurt me, when you know I can explode your brain with a thought/word/sound?" OR cut the magical power vastly, so that the mundane has a reason to live side by side with the powered. I suspect that's the reason Batman and Punisher remain so popular in the fiction that also brought us Superman and the Avengers.

That's one of the reasons that I tend to believe that the one most out of the expected bounds is the full-caster brigade (especially wizards, due to the sheer number of high-power, setting-warping spells). 3e was particularly bad--played at anything like forum standards, a coherent world fit for adventuring is just flat out impossible. All the reality-warping powers would be able to see an adventuring party becoming a threat before they got to the levels to threaten the PtB and just obliterate them. If not, there'd be nothing but chaos. Because unchecked reality warpers and stable settings just don't go together.

My own setting has NPCs plateauing somewhere around 10th level (equivalent)--higher-power people exist, but are super rare and rarely have the kind of spells that PCs can (in theory) get. Most of them (more powerful ones) got that way via unholy deals with demons, blood magic, or other unsavory practices, and so are less likely to, well, cooperate with anyone or anything. And are Kill on Sight for the civilized world. And there's no assumption that NPCs have access to all the tricks PCs might. For one thing, most of the priest-types are actually warlocks, whose casting (as NPCs) entirely depends on what the gods give them. They're basically praying for miracles, which the god may or may not grant, rather than casting spells. Clerics are special, being delegated some of that authority. And are super rare. And there's an active god of Magic with the explicit remit to prevent magic from going out of control (and breaking the world...again). In return, I ask players to not go overboard with their optimization[1]. And when PCs retire, that's where they stay. Effectively, you retired because you hit your own personal point of diminishing returns. So there might be one NPC in "settled lands" who can cast Resurrection. And that one can only do so in her temple, and only when her goddess permits. Which she doesn't do much, being the goddess of natural death as well as the goddess of healing and mercy.

[1] I'm not a challenge-focused DM at all. The world and exploring it (and being surprised by what the players, through their PCs, tell me about the world) is my main focus. So if you bring an optimized combat (or anything) monster, I'm going to sigh and ask you to put some of the tricks away for your own sake. Because you'll steamroll things, and I won't adapt the world to match. Which won't be much fun for you, me, or anybody else. In return, what you do in the world has a lasting impact on other groups.

[Sigreid]

Well, yes, I suppose classes can be balanced without being the same. This would be nice, and is possible in theory, but it would probably require far much more development time than anyone could have the possibility of finding. Homogeneity is the fast track to balance, because it normalizes the power and allows for clear, 1-1 comparisons between classes. Video games do this rather well (though they're advantaged somewhat since their gameplay loop mainly involves one specific thing, rather than D&D's "three pillars" meme).



Unironically, it's not wrong (well, in the sense of 'class balance = SOILED IT'). It may be illogical, but the D&D community does not want balance. They want goofy, powerful wizards who become gods, bards who seduce everything while prancing about and singing, fighters who do nothing except hit stuff, et cetera. They want the tropes where a wizard can fly, throw fireballs, and put people to sleep, while at the same time regarding any options that give the fighter power beyond the mundane as "anime" (and therefore bad). It's just part of the system at this point.

The paradigm where some classes (the mundanes) receive extremely narrow mechanical tools to act upon the world, while giving other classes (mages) a huge swiss army knife where they can bend reality and effortlessly bypass obstacles is why we still don't really see "balance". And, somewhat contradictory to the system inexorably connected with this paradigm, it must be altered significantly before things are fair.

4e would not have been nearly as reviled if it was not called 4e. If it was released under any name other than D&D, it would have been touted as 'the D&D Killer' back in 2008 or whenever it launched.

But look at me, chatting.

I actually would love for martial characters to perform not at an anime, but a MYTHIC HERO level. I frankly just want this achieved without it being spell casting by any other name. So, I'd love for fighters to be able to wrestle with giants and leap chasms, rogues that can run through a field without disturbing a single blade of grass or run faster than the wind, Woodsmen (rangers) that can not only survive anywhere like they're at a 5 star resort, but know and are known to the secret spirits of the wild. That sort of thing. All the characters should be straight up epic by level 20. A wizard may have his tricks, but the gods themselves should wonder if it's actually possible to kill the fighter.

[Kane0]

Short version:
Nerfs:
* Instead of having a max number of spells prepared, you'd have a limit on the number of spell levels prepared, effectively giving you level + INT mod preparation slots.
* School-specialized arcane traditions (ie the PHB ones) would gain a feature with two parts:
** Spells of your school only cost one "preparation slot", no matter the level (basically setting that back to status quo ante)
** Spells you learn at level up can only come from that school[1] (so your only free picks are your 6 first-level ones)
* Wish no longer has an associated school of magic.[2]

Buffs
* Wizards can use any spell scroll they find to cast the spell (normal limits on scribing still apply), although if it's not a wizard spell they have to roll the check no matter the level. At higher level (10-ish), gain a feature that says that when you fail to cast from a scroll, the scroll doesn't go away.
* Wizards can scribe (but only use as a ritual) any ritual spell.
* Wizards gain free proficiency in Intelligence (Arcana) checks, with double proficiency if the thing being interpreted/examined/etc is written down.


Interesting concept, prepping spells based on spell level. I think it could use some tweaking and simplification though, for exampls:

- You can prep spell levels equal to Wiz level + Int Bonus + Prof bonus
- Specialist wizards that get X savant also prepare spells of the corresponding school as if they were half their spell level (min 1)

Wizards would have a smaller pool of spells they can have prepped, are incentivised into prepping spells of their favored school and prepping more lower level spells than higher ones but are not penalized for not doing so (or being unable to).

Your other ideas about scrolls and rituals you may want to package into separate queries, as they appear unrelated.