Spellcasting takes up a huge part of the design space of full casters

[Greywander]

Generally speaking, casters treat getting access to a new level of spells as a class feature, and so don't typically get any other class features on those levels (with the exception of 1st level). That's 9/20 levels that are essentially blocked off, except for 1st level (so more like 8.5/20). Then, 5/20 are occupied by ASIs, which also don't typically give other features. Subclasses usually give four, sometimes five levels worth of features, so that's another 4/20 levels that are dedicated to just the subclass.

So our running tally is 9/20 for spellcasting, 5/20 for ASIs, and 4/20 for subclass features. That leaves us with only 2 levels worth of base class features, 3 levels if we double up at 1st level (which is pretty common. I can tell you which levels these are, too. 1st or 2nd, 3rd or 18th, and 20th. There's some variance between different caster classes (bard, for example), but this bears out for most full casters (though it can depend on when subclass features are gained, too).

Clerics get Channel Divinity at 2nd level, Destroy Undead at 5th level (if you want to count that), and Divine Intervention at 10th level, with improvements to these features sprinkled throughout their remaining levels.

Druids get Druidic at 1st level (if that even counts as a feature), Wild Shape at 2nd level, Timeless Body and Beast Spells at 18th level, and Archdruid at 20th level.

Sorcerers get Font of Magic at 2nd level, Metamagic at 3rd level, and Sorcerous Restoration at 20th level.

Warlocks get Eldritch Invocations at 2nd level (arguably, this should be combined with Pact Magic to make it competitive with regular Spellcasting), their pact boon at 3rd level, and Eldritch Master at 20th level.

Wizards get Arcane Recovery at 1st level, Spell Mastery at 18th level, and Signature Spells at 20th level.

It just makes it difficult to design new caster classes because you have so little space to work with (subclasses seem to actually have more design space, not counting Spellcasting). I suppose you can rewrite features as spells and put those on their list, but that doesn't always make sense. Martials, and even half casters have a lot more space to add cool features. It makes me wonder if having 9 discrete levels of spells was really necessary, and if much would really change if it was reworked to only have 5 spell levels. I suppose that would be equivalent to simply giving new class features at the same levels you get access to 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th level spells.

But this really emphasizes how efficient you have to be with a full caster design. You're basically giving them one major feature early on that will define that class's playstyle, a capstone, and then either a second early feature or a semi-capstone. That's it. The subclass has to pull the rest of the weight. That, and the spellcasting (prepared vs. known, spell list, etc.). You could maybe cheat a little by doing two features for 1st/2nd/3rd level, plus a semi-capstone at 18 and a capstone at 20, for a total of 4 levels worth of features. Any more than that, and you're probably doubling up with a subclass feature. That's fine if you tone down the subclass features to balance out, but you're at risk of overtuning your class if you don't.

One of the things that I think is interesting about the warlock is how they seem to be designed according to the principles of a martial character, rather than a caster. Pact Magic/Mystic Arcanum are nominally weaker than regular Spellcasting, which opens up room to get more features. Instead, though, they seem to get Eldritch Invocations, allowing them to choose their own features. We could probably open up some design space by switching a caster to using pact magic, but that only seems valid if they aren't also getting invocations (which I am, in my specific case).

I think the takeaway from this is (a) build your homebrew caster class around a singular feature that they get at 1st or 2nd level, and (b) don't just homebrew the class, write up some spells, too, and put them on their list.

[KorvinStarmast]

It just makes it difficult to design new caster classes
What, we don't have enough already?
Or, are you looking at sub classes of existing classes here?

[Greywander]

I'm currently working on a witch class, and it seems like their two early features are going to be (a) at-will Bane, and (b) learning special Curses that they can apply on top of the normal spell's effects when they inflict a target with Bane, Hex, or Bestow Curse. So it seems like they're set up primarily as debuffers. I also have some stuff for their familiar, but I don't know how much more I can add without overtuning them. Was also considering things like a flying broom or something related to rituals. I suppose most other things I wanted to give them can be moved to invocations and spells, or turned into subclass features.

This is to say nothing of several other caster classes I have that are still WIP. Like the channeler, who casts spells at-will, but is limited in the number of spells they can have up at the same time (similar to concentration).

Are there already a lot of full caster classes? Yeah. Is there room for more that use vastly different mechanics? Also yeah. Could we use some more homebrew martial classes? Probably, but martials are kind of boring, and a lot of them would work fine as a subclass to an existing class instead of being a full class on their own. Coming up with a martial class concept that deserves to be its own full class is a bit more difficult than coming up with caster classes that deserve to be their own class, and I think part of that is the more limited design space on casters. When caster classes only have three or four base class features, it's pretty easy to replace those entirely and end up with a completely different class. Martials have a lot more work that needs to go into them to make a base class, and you might get halfway through and realize you've run out of features to give them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, this is a major bug, not a feature. Especially for wizards (for whom 99% of their power budget/design space is their spell list).

[KorvinStarmast]

Are there already a lot of full caster classes? Yeah. Is there room for more that use vastly different mechanics? Also yeah. I think that our disagreement is too profound for me to be helpful to you here. I am sure other that Playgrounders will do a better job than I.

Good luck! :smallsmile:

[stoutstien]

Yep. I've been shouting this from a soapbox for years lol. Not only does spells and spell casting eat up probably twice as much space as a need it became the go to move to make a class feel magical. It's so prevalent that it has no identity.

And now that the spell lists have become homogenized to the point of no return it strips thematic backing as well.

I think that's why I had such an affinity for the half caster classes when I homebrew myself. It only accounts for probably a quarter of the entire class's potential so it gives you a lot of room to play.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm a Paladin player myself, and the only reason I haven't played a Bard yet is because of this. The discovery of this forum's half-caster bards was a big deal for me.

This does making Spellcasters a very interesting design challenge. To make their casting fundamentally different (Wizard's spellbook, cleric/Druid's prepared spells etc). Paladin Smites and Trickery's 3-Point Fix also as to make those class' Spellcasting feel fundamentally different from other classes. It's an interesting question "how does my Spellcaster cast spells differently".

Also a 100% yes write new spell lists, and spells, for your Spellcasters. I am personally a huge fan of small spell lists and then including "bonus spells" in all the Subclasses.

Great post Grey, thank you for the read!

[Amnestic]

I agree, and as noted the spell list dilution really hinders class identity via spellcasting in the first place. Half casters have a lot more room for mechanical features - a full caster artificer would likely never see anything like Infusions, for instance, nor do I expect their subclasses to have as many bells and whistles. 6th-9th level spells eat up a lot of 'power budget' in a class.

[ZRN]

Bards get inspiration at 1, jack of all trades and song of rest at 2, expertise at 3, font of inspiration at 5, countercharm (ugh) at 6, expertise again at 10, and superior inspiration at 20. (That's leaving out magical secrets since that's just more spells.)

Compare with, I don't know, fighters, who get a fighting style and second wind at 1, action surge at 2, and then... nothing but extra attacks, Indomitable, and a couple extra ASIs. Not THAT much less design space for bards IMHO.

I agree that spellcasting takes up a lot of design space, but there's a spectrum there, and by carefully restricting the spell list you can make a class like the bard that has pretty nifty non-spell features alongside a fairly focused full-progression spell list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fighters get meaningful subclass features at most, if not all levels where they get features. Very few full casters get more than one meaningful subclass feature period. And wizards, being the poster child for this issue, get one meaningful feature total for most cases. No, arcane recovery isn't a meaningful feature unless the monk capstone is one.

[KorvinStarmast]

This thread has me thinking that on the next road trip I take, while my wife is sleeping and I am awake in the hotel room (she takes advantage of time off and oversleeps on purpose) I'll be able to build a three sub class class of bard half casters built on the Gloomstalker Ranger template.

Be a few weeks before I can do this, but the three sub classes are the skald, minstrel, and the celtic bard.
From the original Strat Review article that homebrewed the first bard class from way back ...



The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did.
The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as
well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes.
By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today
Skald (or similar term) will be closer to a valor bard
Celtic bard will be closer to a lore bard
Minstrel will be closer to Glamour Bard
1/2 caster progression.

[Greywander]

I think that our disagreement is too profound for me to be helpful to you here. I am sure other that Playgrounders will do a better job than I.
I'm curious why you think that is? I don't know that either of us has fully voiced our opinions on this subject yet, so it seems premature to conclude that we fundamentally disagree. I actually would agree that 5e leans too heavily on spellcasting; I don't particularly like that 2/3 classes are spellcasters, it seems like they could have come up with more interesting and unique systems to give to each class instead of falling back on spellcasting. However, I don't think this is a reason not to come up with new caster classes, especially if you're trying to do something different. More options is always good, and it's not like writing a new caster class decreases the number of martial classes. And if someone has enough material to write up a martial class, then by all means, go for it.

Ultimately, a lot of homebrew stems from wanting to realize a specific character concept and realizing that official material doesn't quite do it for you. Homebrewing is a difficult process, mostly on the balancing side of things (it's very easy to make something too strong, only rarely have I made something too weak), but it can be worth the effort to get something that you feel perfectly expresses the concept you had in mind. And after all, isn't what classes are supposed to be? The creators had a few specific character concepts in mind, and codified those into classes. When you play a class, you are, in a sense, playing a specific character concept that the devs had in mind. It makes perfect sense that if you had a concept not covered by an existing class, you'd create your own.

I do wish spellcasting was toned down. I understand the appeal of getting access to these major reality-altering powers, but they feel a bit too accessible. Changing this would require redesigning the game from the ground up, at least the spellcasting and/or class systems. I can see the appeal for rules mods like E6, but those feel like they restrict your progression too much. It's hard to come up with interesting builds with such a low level cap.


Yep. I've been shouting this from a soapbox for years lol. Not only does spells and spell casting eat up probably twice as much space as a need it became the go to move to make a class feel magical. It's so prevalent that it has no identity.

And now that the spell lists have become homogenized to the point of no return it strips thematic backing as well.
Yeah, it's nice that some spells are more accessible on different classes, but when a lot of a class's identity is tied up in specific spells, it does dilute that identity when more classes get that spell. subclass spell lists can make a subclass feel really unique in this regard, like being the only paladin that can cast Counterspell or something. Larger spell lists are also an issue for prepared casters, as they can prepare those spells at any time. It's less of an issue for known casters, since it doesn't really matter what spells are on their spell list, only which spells they know. Adding e.g. Transport via Plants to the warlock list is ultimately meaningless unless someone actually takes it as one of their spells known.


Bards get inspiration at 1, jack of all trades and song of rest at 2, expertise at 3, font of inspiration at 5, countercharm (ugh) at 6, expertise again at 10, and superior inspiration at 20. (That's leaving out magical secrets since that's just more spells.)
Bards are kind of a special exception, and I suspect it's in part because a lot of those are non-combat (e.g. Expertise) or are weak enough to be considered near-ribbons. You probably should count Magical Secrets, as it is a unique class feature that bards get. It may tie into their spellcasting, but I don't think their spellcasting has been nerfed to balance out Magical Secrets.


Compare with, I don't know, fighters, who get a fighting style and second wind at 1, action surge at 2, and then... nothing but extra attacks, Indomitable, and a couple extra ASIs. Not THAT much less design space for bards IMHO.
Fighter is kind of a bad example. Extra Attack is a signature feature of theirs; they get twice as many attacks as any other martial class. It would be like treating half casters and full casters as being the same. Fighters also get additional ASIs, which are a fighter feature. Together, these create the illusion of the fighter not having a lot of features, when in reality this is what those features were spent on. Look at any other martial class and you'll see that they get a lot more features. By my count, barbarian gets 9 levels worth of base class features, 7 if you exclude Relentless and Persistent Rage (as being mere upgrades to the existing Rage feature, not full features in their own right). That's double what a typical caster has. Monk gets 12. Although it can be a little fuzzy determining what counts as a "levels worth" of features (e.g. does it count if it's the level they get Extra Attack, an ASI, or subclass features?).

Under the system as-is, it seems like it's necessary to write up unique spells for homebrew caster classes as a means of giving them a unique identity and fulfilling the concept that inspired their creation. I think we could do to have more spells that were unique to specific classes (like how paladin gets a lot of unique spells); you don't have to get them, but you're the only one who can. For example, I'm considering something like a Communicate via Flames spell for my witch class that replicates that scene from Goblet of Fire where Sirius appears to Harry in the fireplace to talk to him. Sending exists, but this would feel unique and different, with its own advantages and restrictions compared to Sending.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, I don't think this is a reason not to come up with new caster classes There are already too many. We don't need another one, and for my money, artificer is not value added. (That's a matter of taste, obviously).

Sorcerers are in a lot of ways redundant, unless you dump bards. (But if you make bards half casters that over subscription of full casters is mitigated somewhat). And I'll spare you my mini rant on what a mess 3.X designers created by making the sorcerer in the first place, and making Cha a casting stat in the second place.

All you need is the magic user / Wizard class, and then build sub classes to taste. There is a lot of design space left there, but when I look at what WoTC has done with it, I get all sad faced.

Caveat: What I like about warlock is that it has a unique mechanic but the SR implementation creates its share of obstacles in implementation (unfortunately). So they do have a "separate mechanics" class, sort of, and they already created the rest trap out of it. The customization, between invocations and pact boons and patrons is IMO a strong point of that class. (If only there was a rule that patrons were jealous, and dipping created penalties. :smalltongue: But that's contra to the general theme of the game so I'll not wax poetic on that).

Thankfully, for my warlock, I am able to engage with my DM and I don't get short changed in that regard.

[Kane0]

Dont forget culling actual casting is an option. You dont necessarily have to drop the casting progression (because then you arent a full caster) but you can reduce the spell list, spells known/prepared and things like ritual casting to open up more space for other things.

For example, perhaps nearly all Witch spells rely on concentration, or are nearly all rituals save for a select few inefficient attack and healing spells while lacking buffs and control beyond debuffs (like aforementioned bane).

You can also mess with factors like spell components, maybe the witch being unable to use common foci items instead requiring a pouch, familiar or immobile object like a cauldron. It could be flavor for the most part but potentially a big deal (like an artificer caught without their tools).

[sithlordnergal]

So, while I do fully understand your thoughts on casters, and I somewhat agree with you as well, I don't actually think Witches would be well suited towards being full casters. I'd make a Witch a half caster, and give them a heavy focus on debuffs, charms, and consumable creation. Give them class abilities similar to things like the Archfey's Fey Presence, but make it better, or the Enchanter's Hypnotic Gaze or Instinctive Charm. Give them the ability to quickly craft certain potions, scrolls, and magical ammunition during a short rest period. Heck, make an Infusion-esque list, only instead of magical items you're able to swiftly brew up potions and poisons, scribe scrolls, and temporarily enchant ammo. Also, if you go the potion/poison brewing route, give them a subclass that lets them ignore the immunity to Poison damage and the Poisoned condition...

I can remember the DMG suggesting a homebrew Witch class in 3.5. It was effectively a Half Caster that did similar things that I mentioned above.

[sethdmichaels]

Also a 100% yes write new spell lists, and spells, for your Spellcasters. I am personally a huge fan of small spell lists and then including "bonus spells" in all the Subclasses.


this is why i think all the sorcerer subclasses should have expanded spell lists - to make picking your subclass thematically meaningful and suggestive of a playstyle. i also wish that wizards had more guidance in getting spells themed around their subclass; as it is, there's not very much differentiating one wizard from another.

[KorvinStarmast]

this is why i think all the sorcerer subclasses should have expanded spell lists - to make picking your subclass thematically meaningful and suggestive of a playstyle. i also wish that wizards had more guidance in getting spells themed around their subclass; as it is, there's not very much differentiating one wizard from another. The dev team did not take the extra step (and a time consuming one, I suspect) in balancing out the eight schools of magic between each other as they chose to (1) keep 8 schools and then (2) based Wizard sub classes on those 8 schools. Which leaves it as you said, a generalist (which does allow a lot of flexibility to the wizard's player, and I suspect that this is intentional).

[Xihirli]

Fighters get meaningful subclass features at most, if not all levels where they get features. Very few full casters get more than one meaningful subclass feature period. And wizards, being the poster child for this issue, get one meaningful feature total for most cases. No, arcane recovery isn't a meaningful feature unless the monk capstone is one.

I mean...
There's a difference between minor resource recovery at level one and minor resource recovery at level 20.

[stoutstien]

I mean...
There's a difference between minor resource recovery at level one and minor resource recovery at level 20.

Your correct. The lv 1 option scales and gives the player the flexibility when to use it where the the capstone is only useful if you are completely empty and has a fixed value.

[Bphill561]

I agree with you that spell casting pretty much eats up all the class ability "space" and it makes it challenging to design a new spell casting class, but WoTC pretty much agrees with you and has no solution. At the end of the 3.5 life cycle, they made classes just as several above had suggested with more class abilities and a restricted and focused spell list (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, etc.). They were largely unsuccessful in convincing players to play those classes over general clerics and wizards due to spell selection alone (although PrC's played into that as well). Even the PrC's which just added more power to cleric and wizards on top of spell casting, were often ignored if they had too many levels (often even 1 lost level) that did not advance their spell casting.

On top of that, for a class ability to be on par with spell casting, it has to be highly flexible. Currently my sorcerer getting 3rd level spells gets to pick what kind of third level spell they have which can range widely in function. They even get to trade it out next level if they don't like it, or even sooner for a cleric (pick new spell next day) or wizard (find new spell/spend money). And all these spell levels build on each other with upcasting and more spell progression. So what one size fits all option are you going to add to a new spell casting class that will draw peoples attention? Not sure, and the last thing you want is to add something more powerful than spell casting as spell casting is already the most powerful class ability in the game. Plus WotC seems to cut any new mechanics presented in unearthed arcania, so they seem to think they complicate the game or are unwanted by players. Most likely a radical shift would be needed to rebalance magic verse everything else to allow more class abilities on casters, but I don't see that being popular (I am looking at you 4th edition).



Sorcerers are in a lot of ways redundant, unless you dump bards. (But if you make bards half casters that over subscription of full casters is mitigated somewhat). And I'll spare you my mini rant on what a mess 3.X designers created by making the sorcerer in the first place, and making Cha a casting stat in the second place.

I am fine with sorcerers, but I agree they are mainly redundant. If psionics were really suppose to be a thing in 3.5, they should have made psionics a third kind of magic with it's own spell list and let them cast off of Cha. They could even stick with the point system if they wanted too. Overall it seemed like a waste if 80% of the psionics were the psionic version of arcane/divine spell x and being a different system.

I only mentioned it because I like the psi die from unearthed arcania that got axed, an example of a new mechanic that was deemed unnecessary.

[Amechra]

It makes me wonder if having 9 discrete levels of spells was really necessary, and if much would really change if it was reworked to only have 5 spell levels.

Got it in one, in my opinion.

Recently, I've started to think that the system as a whole would work more smoothly if casting capped out at 5th level spells... without spacing them out further for full casters. In other words, your Wizard or Cleric would be casting their max level spells by 9th level, and you'd have a good 12 levels to enjoy whatever other cool features you'd get at higher levels. Heck, if you stuck with the current spell list, it'd neatly cut away most of the problematic spells — if you really want Simulacrum or whatever, make it a class feature.

[Rynjin]

Designing a plethora of different, unique full casters is definitely possible. Pathfinder does it quite easily, as none of the 9 full casters really feel redundant (save perhaps Psychic as "occult Sorcerer") with any of the others.

The issue lies in 5e having a general dearth of class features for EVERY class, and a general limitation on giving players very much choice when it comes to building characters to boot.

You can't make it so Witch is distinct from Wizard because they get a Hex (a unique, at-will power) every 2 levels and, of course, a different spell list when getting a Hex (almost all of which are pretty good, and meaningfully change the Witch's day-to-day playstyle) every two levels would feel like overkill compared to some classes which only get 2-3 meaningful class features over 20 levels anyway.

To give Warlock that kind of flexibility they had to neuter its spellcasting to the point it barely qualifies as a full caster at all, after all.

[ZRN]

Bards are kind of a special exception, and I suspect it's in part because a lot of those are non-combat (e.g. Expertise) or are weak enough to be considered near-ribbons. You probably should count Magical Secrets, as it is a unique class feature that bards get. It may tie into their spellcasting, but I don't think their spellcasting has been nerfed to balance out Magical Secrets.

...

Fighter is kind of a bad example. Extra Attack is a signature feature of theirs; they get twice as many attacks as any other martial class. It would be like treating half casters and full casters as being the same. Fighters also get additional ASIs, which are a fighter feature. Together, these create the illusion of the fighter not having a lot of features, when in reality this is what those features were spent on.

This was kind of my point: the full caster with the most non-spellcasting features is close to on par with the martial character with the "least" unique features. The way they did this for bards was to carefully restrict the spells available (outside Magical Secrets) AND spells known so that the bard can't reliably count on his spells to do everything for him.


Under the system as-is, it seems like it's necessary to write up unique spells for homebrew caster classes as a means of giving them a unique identity and fulfilling the concept that inspired their creation.

If the goal was to create a unique full-caster class, I agree you'll probably want at least a few custom spells, but I think the first step could be to cull the existing spell list as much as possible, and stick with a "spells known" (instead of "spells prepared") caster so there's a significant trade-off in selecting spells. As the bard demonstrates, this gives you enough design space to add some significant non-spell class abilities.

[Bjarkmundur]

Dont forget culling actual casting is an option. You dont necessarily have to drop the casting progression (because then you arent a full caster) but you can reduce the spell list, spells known/prepared and things like ritual casting to open up more space for other things.

For example, perhaps nearly all Witch spells rely on concentration, or are nearly all rituals save for a select few inefficient attack and healing spells while lacking buffs and control beyond debuffs (like aforementioned bane).

You can also mess with factors like spell components, maybe the witch being unable to use common foci items instead requiring a pouch, familiar or immobile object like a cauldron. It could be flavor for the most part but potentially a big deal (like an artificer caught without their tools).

Right, so that way you can carve some space out for cooler class features. I really like this idea, to Include a flaw in the Spellcasting on purpose to make it have less impact on balance, but still allows you to cast appropriate-level spells. Like, there is nothing that says you can't just reduce the number of spell slots, without hurting the progression. Or have a completely new casting style like the warlock does. I am also REALLY a fan of the Paladin idea of "you can use spell slots to cast spells, or fuel a class feature." It always felt really good to me. The alchemist has a similar thing, and I really wish a ranger and the bard had something similar.

I'm really curious what it would look like, to have 1/2 or even 1/3 the number of slots, a small number of prepared spells but a full spell-level progression. It actually sounds super fun.

[Kane0]

I'm really curious what it would look like, to have 1/2 or even 1/3 the number of slots, a small number of prepared spells but a full spell-level progression. It actually sounds super fun.

Sounds like every spell level would be a mystic arcanum

[stoutstien]

Sounds like every spell level would be a mystic arcanum

Hmmm. Could take that concept and also add on a few spells that you can cast at will per spell level and you have the beginnings of a pretty interesting idea. So for the ops witch you could start with having hex and witch bolt that can be cast at will and a lv one mystic arcanum style spell.

[Rilmani]

Got it in one, in my opinion.

Recently, I've started to think that the system as a whole would work more smoothly if casting capped out at 5th level spells... without spacing them out further for full casters. In other words, your Wizard or Cleric would be casting their max level spells by 9th level, and you'd have a good 12 levels to enjoy whatever other cool features you'd get at higher levels. Heck, if you stuck with the current spell list, it'd neatly cut away most of the problematic spells — if you really want Simulacrum or whatever, make it a class feature.

Check out Paizo's Starfinder spellcasting (and their weapons, classes, stamina system, resolve points...). Spells cap out at 6th level (if there are exceptions, I think they're as rare as artifacts).

[Tanarii]

Give your full spellcasting homebrew a very restricted spell list, preferably thematic, without any top picks from spells of that spell level. Then you've got plenty of room to add minor, possibly even major, features at each level.

I mean, imagine if your spells were only divinations, lesser/greater restoration, and maybe bless & Aid and some other decent buffs. No healing. You'd have plenty of room to add some fairly strong features instead.

You could even do it on a level by level basis, curating the spell list carefully at the level you want to add a feature. Just watch out for upcasting of previous levels strong spells if you go that route.

[Snails]

Yep. I've been shouting this from a soapbox for years lol. Not only does spells and spell casting eat up probably twice as much space as a need it became the go to move to make a class feel magical. It's so prevalent that it has no identity.

Indeed. GENERALIST Wizard completely dominates the space, and we have 6 samey flavors of GENERALIST.

IMNSHO the 3.5 Psions showed us that we can hybridize the system and get the best of both worlds. There is a general list of powers that all Psions have access to and cover the standard bases. And there is a small list for each specialty that is a notch better.

The generalist idea so dominates that most full casters get a lot of the samey flavor when it comes to their favorite spell. I would say that that there a few modest successes, e.g. the Tempest Cleric tends to cast spells pretty differently from other clerics.

[Amechra]

Check out Paizo's Starfinder spellcasting (and their weapons, classes, stamina system, resolve points...). Spells cap out at 6th level (if there are exceptions, I think they're as rare as artifacts).

No thanks — those weapon tables are an affront to all that is holy. :smalltongue:

[False God]

I agree. I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

Spellcasters should get fewer spells, ones more thematically appropriate to their intent and class and subclass abilities that reinforce that.

Spellscasters should, IMO, look more like the elemental monk (but ya know, better balanced).

Sure, there'd still be a "basic wizard" class like the Champion Fighter, but it would feel like the Champion Fighter of casters. Straight-forward, simple, with access to general magic anyone can get, but no access to unique spells and abilities that make the other (sub)classes special.

[dafrca]

Sure, there'd still be a "basic wizard" class like the Champion Fighter, but it would feel like the Champion Fighter of casters. Straight-forward, simple, with access to general magic anyone can get, but no access to unique spells and abilities that make the other (sub)classes special.

I admit this does make me wonder what spells woudl go on the "Basic Wizard" list and what spells you think should not be on that list. I like the basic concept but how the lists read would make a difference to me. :smallsmile:

[Dork_Forge]

I agree that the Wizard in particular needs more mechanical identity, but have to argue that less/no features on odd levels is certainly a feature. Having to choose and learn a new level of spell at the same time as learning new features would be absolutely awful to new players to a class, and ongoingly awful to some players that just aren't as mechanically minded.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree that the Wizard in particular needs more mechanical identity, but have to argue that less/no features on odd levels is certainly a feature. Having to choose and learn a new level of spell at the same time as learning new features would be absolutely awful to new players to a class, and ongoingly awful to some players that just aren't as mechanically minded.

Oof yeah, teaching some classes to newbies can be tough. I also think that if any Class should be unapologetic about the amount of reading they put onto the player, it's the wizard :/

While this is going on we're complaing about how the sorcerer learns too few spells xD

[dmhelp]

You can make the prepared spell classes feel less generalized if you only let them prepare up to their ability mod in spells (from book for wiz or any on list for cle/dru). Then give them something sorcerer like in known spells (capping at 15). That is what i did for my revised wizard experiment (combined sor/war/wiz into one class so you could combine features from all 3 classes and use whatever subclass you wanted).

[False God]

I admit this does make me wonder what spells woudl go on the "Basic Wizard" list and what spells you think should not be on that list. I like the basic concept but how the lists read would make a difference to me. :smallsmile:

Oh yeah I agree, and I don't have the spell list handy so I can't really give any good examples. To be honest I'd probably go for deciding which specialty subclasses get which unique spells, and work backward from there, leaving the "generalist" wizard with access to whats left.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh yeah I agree, and I don't have the spell list handy so I can't really give any good examples. To be honest I'd probably go for deciding which specialty subclasses get which unique spells, and work backward from there, leaving the "generalist" wizard with access to whats left.

I have a partial design for something along slightly different lines that achieves most of the benefit--

Basically many of the "utility" spells (ie non-combat, including transport and resurrection/condition-removal, but not healing), amounting to roughly half of the wizard list (with some from other lists as well) are now no longer spells. They don't appear on anyone's list and cannot be cast from slots. Instead, they're Incantations--kinda like rituals, except with a mandatory longer cast time and (in some cases) another cost, but learnable by anyone who discovers them (either for sale, as a quest reward, by class feature, or as treasure), subject to level limits. All of the "tiered" ones (lesser vs greater, raise dead vs resurrection vs true resurrection) are tiered both by level and by cost--it's the same incantation, but if you're higher level and choose to pay the higher cost, you can do any of the versions.

What I haven't nailed down are the costs and the exact set of spells--ideally this would keep people from spamming them or at least make it exorbitant to spam them, while still keeping them useful.

Yes, this is sorta-4e-style, but I don't want the costs to be necessarily monetary. You might have "requires 4 people with the incantation to cast" or "can only be cast on a holy day" or "can only be cast in a space dedicated to a god of <X>" or "imposes exhaustion on the casters if they do it more than X times per day" as costs. Some of the costs would be expensive consumed components, but not all of them.

Ritual casting would need to be reworked to something like "you learn X incantations from <subset>" and/or "you cast <subset> of incantations faster/better/stronger/cheaper", based on what's appropriate for the class.

I'd say that doing this would be a start. The next step would be to give appropriate class features to the classes now missing them.

[Hael]

I agree. I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

Spellcasters should get fewer spells, ones more thematically appropriate to their intent and class and subclass abilities that reinforce that.



Agreed. I think the wizard should be an exception though, and should have access to their huge list. But I don't think they should be given auto learns every level (or maybe that can be subclass specific, like an evoker can learn 1 evocation spell per new spell lvl). I think instead their spell selection should be more in the DMs hand like in 2e, where picking up enemy spellbooks or doing quests for powerful spells was a large part of the adventuring hook. So instead of getting magic items, a mage might pick up a spell.

That lets the DM tailor a mages power somewhat.

As an aside, its actually rather fun playing spellcasters who don't have the perfect lvl appropriate spells all the time and makes gameplay a little more unusual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. I think the wizard should be an exception though, and should have access to their huge list. But I don't think they should be given auto learns every level (or maybe that can be subclass specific, like an evoker can learn 1 evocation spell per new spell lvl). I think instead their spell selection should be more in the DMs hand like in 2e, where picking up enemy spellbooks or doing quests for powerful spells was a large part of the adventuring hook. So instead of getting magic items, a mage might pick up a spell.

That lets the DM tailor a mages power somewhat.

As an aside, its actually rather fun playing spellcasters who don't have the perfect lvl appropriate spells all the time and makes gameplay a little more unusual.

Wizards are most in need of culling. Because their huge list makes them unmanageable and boring, and giving it by RNG/fiat is not incredibly fun for anyone and puts stress on the DM to feed the wizard the right spells, reproducing the problem.

[Doug Lampert]

Wizards are most in need of culling. Because their huge list makes them unmanageable and boring, and giving it by RNG/fiat is not incredibly fun for anyone and puts stress on the DM to feed the wizard the right spells, reproducing the problem.

Agreed. Random spells simply does not make sense in a huge range of settings, and in most of the settings that I can come up with where it does make sense, it doesn't make sense that ANYONE is training all these new PC wizards! Just say no to random spells.

If some class (call it wizards) is a full caster with access to a silly big list and a single character can prepare any of a huge subsection of that list, then that class NEEDS some sort of weakness. Spells are simply too strong in D&D for full access to virtually all of them to be easily ballanced.

Personally, I'd probably strip all the current class features other than casting itself, give three levels of strong and flavorful subclass features, and state that subclass feature levels DO NOT COUNT toward spell-casting. The resultant wizard is something like a 5/6th spell-caster effectively. He still gets 9ths (as a capstone at level 20). He still gets subclasses (there can even be a "generalist" that has "more casting" as his subclass feature and does count as a full caster), but he's a bit delayed behind the specialized casters who get to be better in their specialties than the wizard is at duplicating their specialties.

[Kane0]

If you shift just one spell from each spell level 1-5 from the class list into subclass lists of just the PHB wizard schools that makes for 40 spells moved. Doing the same for the non-PHB schools is another 25.

So that would be of a total of 65 out of some 225 moved from class to subclass, or 130 out of 225 if you do two spells of each level 1-5 instead of one.

Edit: of course doing that can be really difficult at certain spell levels (like 4th) due to lack of spells within certain schools.

[False God]

Agreed. I think the wizard should be an exception though, and should have access to their huge list. But I don't think they should be given auto learns every level (or maybe that can be subclass specific, like an evoker can learn 1 evocation spell per new spell lvl). I think instead their spell selection should be more in the DMs hand like in 2e, where picking up enemy spellbooks or doing quests for powerful spells was a large part of the adventuring hook. So instead of getting magic items, a mage might pick up a spell.

That lets the DM tailor a mages power somewhat.

As an aside, its actually rather fun playing spellcasters who don't have the perfect lvl appropriate spells all the time and makes gameplay a little more unusual.

Disagree strongly. DM's are terrible at managing what spells a caster can have and at providing downtime for them to actually create spells themselves. That's why the "2 per level" mechanic exists, it assumes that you've been finding spells, that you've been working out new ones. It comes across oddly because of the way levels work, like BOOM! you suddenly learned a spell! But the reality is that spell is the expression of your "experience points" from the last level up.

Further, it is exactly wizard's access to a "huge list" that creates a problem. There's no room for creative class design when any Jerry Snotter can just cast whatever he feels like.

At a very base, Wizards Schools should be reversed.

For people interested in my more detailed thoughts from above, start reading here:

Instead of "Choose one or 2 banned schools", you choose one or two schools you have access to. Each school should work like a domain, it provides a unique spell at each level, along with unique skills and effects. All those other schools? You can't cast from them at all.

Immediately we have 8 subclasses!(or however many there are) Even if it's "choose two" we have half that right from the get-go. Each one tailored to the specific thing of the magic type. Noone beats the protection wizard's defenses, noone beats the evocation wizard's blasting, noone beats the transmutation wizard's magical sculpting.

And then of course we have the "generalist". Sure, maybe he can make a wall of stone, and everyone learns Fireball, he's always got some solutions to a problem, but he doesn't always have good solutions. He's the guy you go to in a pinch. He's not the General Contractor who can do everything well, he's the handyman of wizards who can do a lot of things, with some proficiency.

But if you want a plumber, hire a plumber. If you want an electrician, hire an electrician. They may not be able to each other's jobs, but that leaves more room in both the game and in the party. Which is good.

[Bjarkmundur]

I have no longer any idea what this thread is about :/

[Kane0]

I have no longer any idea what this thread is about :/

Nerfing wizards apparently.

Again

[Amnestic]

Nerfing wizards apparently.

Again

I think it's more "giving wizards a class identity beyond 'know every spell'."

[Tanarii]

Nerfing wizards apparently.
Nah. Nerfing Wizards would be reintroducing OAs when casting spells and having any successful hit disrupt the spell. :smallamused:

[Kane0]

Aha sorry on mobile, i couldnt bluetext.

[False God]

Nah. Nerfing Wizards would be reintroducing OAs when casting spells and having any successful hit disrupt the spell. :smallamused:

AND lose the spell and slot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

AND lose the spell and slot.


Nah. Nerfing Wizards would be reintroducing OAs when casting spells and having any successful hit disrupt the spell. :smallamused:

PRs approved. Merge and push to production as hotfix. (Should this be blue? You decide. But I'm on mobile, so...)

[Amechra]

Eh, Wizards get access to Protection From Mechanical Nerfs on their spell list. They'll be fine.

I think a lot of the design space issues for full casters ultimately come from the magic system being designed for Wizards first and everyone else second. The current set-up pushes you towards being a generalist, which isn't what the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Warlock want to be. It doesn't help that the spell list has to pull triple duty — spells can be ribbons (Prestidigitation, Ceremony, and Skywriting come to mind), adventuring tools (combat spells and general utility), or plot magic (because Gygax looked at a scenario like "a bunch of cultists are performing a ritual to summon a demon — stop them" and went "that ritual should be a spell, and players should theoretically be able to use it", and every edition of D&D followed suit.)

Also... take a look at how many spells Clerics get:



Level
Prepared
Spells
Subclass
Spells
Subclass
Percentage



1
4
2
33.3%


3
6
4
40.0%


5
9
6
40.0%


7
11
8
42.1%


9
14
10
41.7%


11
16
10
38.5%


13
18
10
35.7%


15
20
10
33.3%


17
22
10
31.3%


19
24
10
29.4%



A Tier 3 Cleric is going to have access to 26+ leveled spells at any given time, and less than half of those spells are specific to the deity that they supposedly draw their powers from.

[Hael]

Disagree strongly. DM's are terrible at managing what spells a caster can have and at providing downtime for them to actually create spells themselves. That's why the "2 per level" mechanic exists, it assumes that you've been finding spells, that you've been working out new ones. It comes across oddly because of the way levels work, like BOOM! you suddenly learned a spell! But the reality is that spell is the expression of your "experience points" from the last level up.

Further, it is exactly wizard's access to a "huge list" that creates a problem. There's no room for creative class design when any Jerry Snotter can just cast whatever he feels like.
.

Any Jerry Snotter can cast whatever they feel like, precisely b/c they have every spell b/c of the terrible 2 per level mechanic! You know perfectly well that what happens in practice is that wizards get one or two spell books, basically prioritize scribing the best spells and round out everything they don't have with the 2 per level thing. What this leads to is almost the exact.. same.. spell selection and spell preparation that almost every wizard has in every single 5e game.

As far as the huge list. I like the idea of having wizards with a lot of degrees of freedom making their characters. In 2e, the design could restrict the size of the list by judicious use of spell schools and opposition schools, and that made sense as there was a trade off between power and versatility. That same tradeoff idea basically leads to the design space for the current sorcerer, who trades off spell selection and preparation with increased power per spell.

So i'm fine with both ends of the spectrum, and in general I think sorcerers and bards should have limited choices. What i'm not fine with, is instant, trivial access to everything. Roguelikes are fun, precisely b/c of the random elements. 5e needs more of that, otherwise you end up with the basically solved gameplay that currently exists.

[Tanarii]

You know perfectly well that what happens in practice is that wizards get one or two spell books, basically prioritize scribing the best spells and round out everything they don't have with the 2 per level thing. What this leads to is almost the exact.. same.. spell selection and spell preparation that almost every wizard has in every single 5e game.
I'm not a fan of Wizards getting any free spells on level up. But what you're describing, PCs finding spellbooks full of spells, as opposed to relatively rare randomly generated scrolls as part of treasure hoard tables, is a problem with the DM (or AL module) unnecessarily powering up Wizards.

Edit: It would appear we're in violent agreement. Yes, removing the two free spells per level would go a long way to fixing Wizards if DMs are handing out lots of spells. But agreed that it'd be better to remove the two free spells per level make finding spells a Wizard's loot goal again, and have finding spells easier than the random tables currently do.

[False God]

Any Jerry Snotter can cast whatever they feel like, precisely b/c they have every spell b/c of the terrible 2 per level mechanic! You know perfectly well that what happens in practice is that wizards get one or two spell books, basically prioritize scribing the best spells and round out everything they don't have with the 2 per level thing. What this leads to is almost the exact.. same.. spell selection and spell preparation that almost every wizard has in every single 5e game.

As far as the huge list. I like the idea of having wizards with a lot of degrees of freedom making their characters. In 2e, the design could restrict the size of the list by judicious use of spell schools and opposition schools, and that made sense as there was a trade off between power and versatility. That same tradeoff idea basically leads to the design space for the current sorcerer, who trades off spell selection and preparation with increased power per spell.

So i'm fine with both ends of the spectrum, and in general I think sorcerers and bards should have limited choices. What i'm not fine with, is instant, trivial access to everything. Roguelikes are fun, precisely b/c of the random elements. 5e needs more of that, otherwise you end up with the basically solved gameplay that currently exists.

Which is exactly why I proposed restricting casters. It doesn't matter how many spellbooks you have or how many spells you get per level if there are only about 20 spells you can ever learn.

Your system doesn't actually fix anything. It just turns spells into loot. Which makes the Wizard similar to the Fighter in that they're only as good as the gear that drops. Using RNG to generate loot could be great or terrible, but a DM trying to "figure out" what spell-loot to hand out is already a problem now. Why would an entire class designed around on hoping the DM has a good sense of how powerful a spell is and how skilled a Wizard player is be any better?


I'm not a fan of Wizards getting any free spells on level up. But what you're describing, PCs finding spellbooks full of spells, as opposed to relatively rare randomly generated scrolls as part of treasure hoard tables, is a problem with the DM (or AL module) unnecessarily powering up Wizards.

Further, no class abilities should rely on DM permission. They already control the entire game, they already control if you get XP, they already control if you get downtime to create spells, they already control if you find spellbooks.

Why on earth would we want a system where the DM has veto power over your class features?
-I mean yeah, technically they do but my experience is that games where the DM suddenly announces you don't get anything this level because *reasons* tend to go south pretty quickly.

[dafrca]

... PCs finding spellbooks full of spells, as opposed to relatively rare randomly generated scrolls as part of treasure hoard tables, is a problem with the DM (or AL module) unnecessarily powering up Wizards.

I must have been playing with all the wrong GMs because I do not remember ever finding spell books full of spells. :smallfrown:

And I do agree something could change, I just think doing all of what is being suggested in this thread might be going too far. Picking and choosing the reductions though makes sense to me.