How often do you let wizards add to their spellbook?

[MadBear]

The martial vs caster debate reminded me of an interesting conversation I was having with my students D&D club. The various DM's rarely hand out spells/scrolls as rewards/things to be found in their adventures, and do not often have them available in their various shops. That experience closely mimics my own, where unless the wizard is going out of their way to find a specific spell (outside of the ones they learn while leveling up) they don't have an abundance of random utility spells to use in all scenarios.

This means while it is possible for a wizard to have every conceivable spell for a given scenario, the reality is that they rarely have every single spell they need for a given situation/problem. This is relevant in the sense that they while a white-room theorizing of what a wizard can do doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in play.

But that's my experience with my group (and the groups I've played with since the 90's) and 4-5 other student lead groups. I'd be curious to hear your groups experience.

[Tanarii]

IMC it was generally as often as they found a Wizard spell on a spell scroll in a hoard.

There were a few PCs that took the time to research where they could find some and form a party to hunt them down. But I didn't just have generic Spellbooks lying around for easy looting.

IMO that's one of the balancing factors on Wizards. Yes, they can add spells to their spellbooks. But they shouldn't assume more than the 2 per level.

[J-H]

As a DM, I had at least 4 clusters of wizard scrolls in Castle Dracula (Castlevania). One was early (3rd/starting level) with a few staples like Sleep and Shatter. Another around 6th level, then a BUNCH in the library (around level 8-10 depending on their route) and then a few more in other places.

I think there were a total of between 15 and 25 wizard scrolls.

I had no wizard in the party, so now we're in the sequel campaign (where they've already found 6+ scrolls of 7th level and above), and the new guy is making a 16th level wizard, so he's going to have a lot to choose from.

The wizard spellbook is a defining class feature. To not let them use it and benefit from it at least every 2-3 levels, is to deny the wizard's player a class feature.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The wizard spellbook is a defining class feature. To not let them use it and benefit from it at least every 2-3 levels, is to deny the wizard's player a class feature.

While I don't disagree fully, I'll note that there are a lot of "defining class features" that get denied this way. Ranger's entire first level often just doesn't see play in any way.

And wizards still get the benefit of being able to swap spells and cast rituals without being prepared. It's only the "copy new spells in" part that's getting cut.

Edit: and this may be harsh, but I have very limited sympathy for wizard complaints in general. It's the rich guy whining about how he had to pay extra for the fancy option on his new sports car. Wizards could survive a significant nerf without dropping below the middle of the pack. Even without any found spells, they're still pulling from the biggest list (by a factor of 2 or 3) and have the biggest freely-chosen list to prepare from (clerics have bigger ones, but only because they have their entire spell list + some fixed ones). And the wizard list is also hands down the best list--all the broken or strong spells are there, and they get the most spells every time a new book is printed.

[Sigreid]

I'm the one that usually does the wizard thing in my group. I have been known to actively hunt other wizards for their books. So, not willie nillie laying around. When you do that after a few books you're maybe going to get one or two new spells for your effort as there are definitely spells that are obvious go to spells for any wizard serious about their casting so the more books you've raided, the less likely a given book has anything new in it.

[PhantomSoul]

While I don't disagree fully, I'll note that there are a lot of "defining class features" that get denied this way. Ranger's entire first level often just doesn't see play in any way.

And wizards still get the benefit of being able to swap spells and cast rituals without being prepared. It's only the "copy new spells in" part that's getting cut.

And, as you level, the ever-increasing discrepancy between the number of spells in your spellbook (even if only from level-up spells) and those you can prepare means you are a spellbook user even if spellbooks or spells aren't otherwise regular/present drops. Plus your version of ritual casting reminds you of it!

[False God]

I don't give out a lot of magic loot, mostly gold/jewels/valuables, but I provide downtime for spell research.

[Sparky McDibben]

I'm toying with a new rule for full casters in my Strixhaven-ripoff game - no automatic spells per level. You want spells, you need to find spells. The caveats to this are 1) there are a ton of spells you can find (whether by trading for them among other students, taking them out of a creature's hoard, or even backtracking to someone's stash), and 2) gold piece costs for transcribing those spells are waived (because you're at a magic university, so they'd better have a ton of supplies on hand; besides, I want my players to worry about the 500 gp-per-semester tuition). I'd allow spell research during the semester, and just leverage Colville's rules for spell research from Strongholds and Followers.

[Leon]

Never played a wizard long enough for it to have been a issue but did Play a Archivist once that i had to give up on because despite the theme of what my character was and the organization he was a member of the DMs didn't reward any divine scrolls that were not cure based nor let me research spells at all and in the same time frame we just so happened to find three whole wizards spell books (Dual DMs and the one of them played a wizard...)

One would hope that when a Wizard has sufficient time and has collected a selection of new things that they be given a chance to add them, its a core feature of the class.

[MrStabby]

The frequency I let things be added varies.

I usually like quite a lot of low level spells. It's a good feeling to add spells to the book for a wizard and is nice from both a mechanical and RP perspective.

Also, there isn't that big a boost in power. A wizard that is 9th level and that has the best 4 fist level spells in their spell book is not really that much less powerful than that same wizard with every first level wizard spell in their spell book. Are you really going to have a materially different spell selection day by day? Or will you still be taking shield, mage armor, tashas hideous laughter and there isn't a big effect?

The exception is maybe ritual casting, where there are some benefits but as DM you are providing the opportunities to use these.

For higher levels... I am a little more cautious. Less good spells are easily added with not much worry about balance but circumventing the hard decisions at level up is not, I feel a good idea.

[Kane0]

Quite often available via scrolls they can purchase or trade for, say once per 3-4 levels depending on what they can afford
Quite rare there is just a stray spellbook they can pilfer, say once per campaign

[Angelalex242]

Money isn't much of a limiting factor as you level.

At low levels, it's the heavy armor guys that are all saving their money for plate armor.

But once the Paladin, Fighter, and Cleric are all packing their full plate...

They don't really need money anymore, and they're happy to let their wizard friends pay to scribe as many spells as he can reasonably access at the local wizard tower.

[kingcheesepants]

In games that I run I'm usually pretty generous with items. I think it's more fun for everyone to have cool stuff. I usually give out a handful of random items and then a few items that are tailored to the characters.

If there are wizards in the party this would certainly include scrolls or access to libraries or other wizard's spellbooks, whether that's finding the wizard BBEG's spellbook or having a friendly NPC archmage let them copy spells. This will happen with about the same rate that the rest of the party gets magic items of similar value.

The DMG guide to rarity for scrolls is I'd say pretty spot on. So a 1st level scroll is common, 2-3 uncommon,4-5 rare, 6-8 very rare and 9 is legendary. If everyone else is getting an uncommon item than the wizard will probably be finding a scroll of phantom steed or whatever. And just like the paladin can search for a legendary item like a holy avenger the wizard can search for a legendary item like a scroll of true polymorph and getting it would take about the same amount of effort.

In games that I've played if I'm playing a wizard I make it clear to the DM that I want as many spells as possible and collecting spells is a big part of being a wizard to me and typically they are more than happy to accommodate that request by making sure that I get new spells with roughly the same amount of effort as the other characters getting their magic swords and whatnot.

[Chronos]

A wizard shouldn't be guaranteed access to all the spells they want, but they should still get some as rewards when it's appropriate. The two most obvious are contact with friendly wizards or wizard organizations, who should allow trade or purchase of spellbook access, and defeated enemy wizards. One problem that comes up, though, especially with the latter, is that a lot of enemy wizards are listed as "their spellbook contains the spells they have prepared", which is an awfully sparse spellbook. Worse, a lot of NPCs are based on the standard NPC statblocks like Mage or Archmage, so they all end up with identical spellbooks. And many of those spells are likely to be the same ones that the PC also already picked up on level-up.

When I'm DMing, and include an enemy wizard, I always try to customize their spell loadouts given what is known about them from the source, and to add a number of other spells (including at least a few rituals) that they would have in their spellbooks even if not prepared. And most friendly wizards will be willing to make trades, especially if the PC wizard has a few unusual spells that the NPC doesn't already have and would be particularly interested in.

[Tanarii]

The exception is maybe ritual casting, where there are some benefits but as DM you are providing the opportunities to use these.
Indeed. Hoard scrolls being an infrequent find (and they are) negatively impacted Tome locks far more than Wizards. I was cognizant of that when deciding what spells to place on randomly generated spells. Tome locks do get the advantage that they can use a scroll of any class's rituals though, not just Wizards.

Same applies to Ritual Caster feat. If scrolls are hard to find per the DMG hoards, and worse if the DM randomly generates spells instead of picking (neither is specified by the DMG), it would be very difficult to get a fair amount of value out of the feat.

---------

despite seeing scroll availability as a natural check on Wizard power, I'm not conceptually opposed to them being just as available for purchase as any other magic item. I like the Xan magic item purchase rules for example, and I think using them in a campaign with downtime and extra money would be 'fair'. Treasure is there to be used, and IIRC it's roughly about 1/5-1/6 of the parties magic items if they were to spend ALL their cash on them.

It's the idea of players looting spellbooks, especially specially placed ones, on top of relatively balanced treasure and magic item rewards that I think unbalances Wizards. Or specially placed extra scrolls. The party should be aware part of their rewards is going to the Wizard, and the Wizard should be aware part of their share of the reward is the found spells.

In other words, someone else might get the Ring of Protection +1 while you get the Scroll of Arcane Eye.

[MrStabby]

Indeed. Hoard scrolls being an infrequent find (and they are) negatively impacted Tome locks far more than Wizards. I was cognizant of that when deciding what spells to place on randomly generated spells. Tome locks do get the advantage that they can use a scroll of any class's rituals though, not just Wizards.

Same applies to Ritual Caster feat. If scrolls are hard to find per the DMG hoards, and worse if the DM randomly generates spells instead of picking (neither is specified by the DMG), it would be very difficult to get a fair amount of value out of the feat.

---------

despite seeing scroll availability as a natural check on Wizard power, I'm not conceptually opposed to them being just as available for purchase as any other magic item. I like the Xan magic item purchase rules for example, and I think using them in a campaign with downtime and extra money would be 'fair'. Treasure is there to be used, and IIRC it's roughly about 1/5-1/6 of the parties magic items if they were to spend ALL their cash on them.

It's the idea of players looting spellbooks, especially specially placed ones, on top of relatively balanced treasure and magic item rewards that I think unbalances Wizards. Or specially placed extra scrolls. The party should be aware part of their rewards is going to the Wizard, and the Wizard should be aware part of their share of the reward is the found spells.

In other words, someone else might get the Ring of Protection +1 while you get the Scroll of Arcane Eye.

Certainly not totally disagreeing, but treating scrolls as a wizards share of the loot can also be a bit dangerous. For some of my characters I would be happy with this, for others... not so much.

Having had characters much more focussed, like my enchanter wizard that was very light on non-enchantment spells, throwing a plethora of non thematic spells at them would result in loot that wouldn't even be added to the spell book let alone cast.

Giving players spells that they didnt chose is sometimes nice, but if the cost to players is them not getting other items that better match their wants and character it might not be popular.

The particularly awkward part is that the character that has hamstrung themselves by following a tight theme is going to be the one more in need of a power boost but also the one that benefits least from new spells.

[Toadkiller]

I try to hand some out along with magic items when it feels right. I would, however, make it so even if they got a spell book it didn’t add a whole bunch of spells. Some they already had and some of the others might not be the best. Maybe one gem of a spell.

[Tanarii]

My view on loot is it's random and may not even be usable, and handled by some kind of share system, partly because of the pick up group nature of the campaign. If a Wizard chooses not to add a random scroll found that they could use into their spellbook, then it gets sold for gold and split with the party just like any other item the party doesn't want. Or someone else picks it up for a henchman, or to trade to another character, as their share of the loot. A Wizard doesn't have to take it as their share of the loot. The point is it's loot like any other, and taking it for your spellbook should come out of your share of the loot.

If a one party for one adventure arc campaign table wants to handle magic items by some other system, like best person to use and it doesn't come out of a share of cash, that's their prerogative. But IMO it should still come out of loot found from the DMs placing perspective. A rare consumable magic item is still a rare consumable magic item, usable by the party (by capability or choice) or not.

[Telok]

I've never seen a scroll in loot, for sale, or as a reward this edition. Also npc "wizards" never have any spellbooks.

[Athan Artilliam]

I dont even let them get their level up spells for free. If you dont beg, borrow, or loot a spellbook from somewhere you dont get new spells. Also, a God/the Universe/your own moral self righteousness/etc might not grant you divine spells either. Spells should be treated like Magic Items in a lot of ways.

[JNAProductions]

I dont even let them get their level up spells for free. If you dont beg, borrow, or loot a spellbook from somewhere you dont get new spells. Also, a God/the Universe/your own moral self righteousness/etc might not grant you divine spells either. Spells should be treated like Magic Items in a lot of ways.

You tell players that before they make their PCs, right?

Because that's a hell of a nerf to anyone that casts.

[Athan Artilliam]

You tell players that before they make their PCs, right?

Because that's a hell of a nerf to anyone that casts.

It's not a nerf. Spellcasters are plenty strong on their own merits. It's like a Fighter who doesnt have a magic sword or magic armor. How is it any different?

[Kane0]

It's not a nerf. Spellcasters are plenty strong on their own merits. It's like a Fighter who doesnt have a magic sword or magic armor. How is it any different?

No a spellcaster that cant learn any spells is more like a fighter that cant get their hands on any weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No a spellcaster that cant learn any spells is more like a fighter that cant get their hands on any weapons.

Yeah. I'm a notorious wizard hater and that's a bit much even for me.

[Athan Artilliam]

No a spellcaster that cant learn any spells is more like a fighter that cant get their hands on any weapons.

A fighter can buy weapons, a mage can buy spells. Plus they have their cantrips just like fighters can grab some sort of weapon, even a piece of wood for a Club or Staff or Spear

[JNAProductions]

It's not a nerf. Spellcasters are plenty strong on their own merits. It's like a Fighter who doesnt have a magic sword or magic armor. How is it any different?

For a Wizard? They start with six spells, assuming you didn't change that. Six 1st-level spells.
I'll assume an extreme example and say they've found not one spell-what do they do at level 5? Level 11? Level 17?

For a Cleric, or other divine caster? You're saying "At any moment, I can just cut off major chunks of your class features," with that rule.

What do you think a Cleric should do at level 11 without their casting?

And you'll note that a Fighter is perfectly capable of fighting without a magic weapon-hell, with the Unarmed Fighting Style, they don't even need a weapon! But a Wizard or other caster without spells... What do they do?

[Athan Artilliam]

For a Wizard? They start with six spells, assuming you didn't change that. Six 1st-level spells.
I'll assume an extreme example and say they've found not one spell-what do they do at level 5? Level 11? Level 17?

For a Cleric, or other divine caster? You're saying "At any moment, I can just cut off major chunks of your class features," with that rule.

What do you think a Cleric should do at level 11 without their casting?

And you'll note that a Fighter is perfectly capable of fighting without a magic weapon-hell, with the Unarmed Fighting Style, they don't even need a weapon! But a Wizard or other caster without spells... What do they do?

But they DO have their spells. A wizard starts with 6 spells. They have cantrips!!! Those cant even be disarmed. A fighter has a sword, a sword can get lost or broken. And yes, if a Cleric isnt making donations to their cause or furthering it in any way then yeah, their connection to the divine might fade. The God /whatever might even grant them spells that are more beneficial to the circumstances at hand rather than what they wanted.

Like I said, with luck, gold, time & a little roleplay, they DO get a chance to add more spells to their book

[Psyren]

So, without obtaining any scrolls or enemy spellbooks to learn from, a Wizard still ends up with a total of 49 "spells known" over the course of their career. (3 cantrips and 6 1st-level spells at 1st-level, then 2 more cantrips + 38 leveled spells just from leveling.) That's plenty, so there's no need to bash GMs who don't include scrolls or spellbooks as treasure in their campaigns.

With that said, I have no problem with making spellbooks available to wizards through enemy spellcasters, libraries and shops. Scrolls work decently well as treasure too but I'm not going to prioritize them being wizard spells above the other casters in the party (though of course there is a decent chance of overlap.)

[JNAProductions]

But they DO have their spells. A wizard starts with 6 spells. They have cantrips!!! Those cant even be disarmed. A fighter has a sword, a sword can get lost or broken. And yes, if a Cleric isnt making donations to their cause or furthering it in any way then yeah, their connection to the divine might fade. The God /whatever might even grant them spells that are more beneficial to the circumstances at hand rather than what they wanted.

Like I said, with luck, gold, time & a little roleplay, they DO get a chance to add more spells to their book

As a player, I like to have control of my character.
As a DM, I don’t like to puppeteer the PCs.

And you didn’t say whether or not you tell players in advance.

Edit: You also didn't say what a caster should do without spells.

And while you can't disarm a caster of their cantrips, you can, you know, grab their focus and/or component pouch. They KNOW the spell, but can't cast it without that. (For most cantrips, at least. Don't know any they lack a Material component off-hand.)

[Athan Artilliam]

As a player, I like to have control of my character.
As a DM, I don’t like to puppeteer the PCs.

And you didn’t say whether or not you tell players in advance.

Edit: You also didn't say what a caster should do without spells.

And while you can't disarm a caster of their cantrips, you can, you know, grab their focus and/or component pouch. They KNOW the spell, but can't cast it without that. (For most cantrips, at least. Don't know any they lack a Material component off-hand.)

They cast the spells that they DO have? That's what a wizard does.

My players have full control of their characters actions. I'm not a puppeteer. If they dont want to seek knowledge they dont have to. Martials dont have to seek legendary sword or loot either. I've had adventures where none of the players were interested in personal loot.

A component pouch/holy symbol/whatever is a bit harder to check at the door, or to disarm in combat.

I'm not trying to bash other playstyles, it's just the way I run some of my games.

[Kane0]

A fighter can buy weapons, a mage can buy spells. Plus they have their cantrips just like fighters can grab some sort of weapon, even a piece of wood for a Club or Staff or Spear

Oh right, maybe your initial post was just a bit unclear then. What about bards and sorcerers?

[Athan Artilliam]

Oh right, maybe your initial post was just a bit unclear then. What about bards and sorcerers?

They can fill their Known Spell slot with whatever they find/buy/research. Sorcerers do get their bloodline bonus spells no charge. Warlock work like divine casters to an extent

[JNAProductions]

Do you tell your players about this change before they make their PCs?

[Kane0]

They can fill their Known Spell slot with whatever they find/buy/research. Sorcerers do get their bloodline bonus spells no charge. Warlock work like divine casters to an extent

What are the costs?

Edit: and how much income do you typically provide to characters?

[Athan Artilliam]

What are the costs?

Edit: and how much income do you typically provide to characters?

Similar to wizards, though cheaper if thematically appropriate like a "scroll" that is actually written as sheet music, & a sorcerer can get theirs for "free" if taught by something from their bloodline.

[AvatarVecna]

The martial vs caster debate reminded me of an interesting conversation I was having with my students D&D club. The various DM's rarely hand out spells/scrolls as rewards/things to be found in their adventures, and do not often have them available in their various shops. That experience closely mimics my own, where unless the wizard is going out of their way to find a specific spell (outside of the ones they learn while leveling up) they don't have an abundance of random utility spells to use in all scenarios.

This means while it is possible for a wizard to have every conceivable spell for a given scenario, the reality is that they rarely have every single spell they need for a given situation/problem. This is relevant in the sense that they while a white-room theorizing of what a wizard can do doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in play.

But that's my experience with my group (and the groups I've played with since the 90's) and 4-5 other student lead groups. I'd be curious to hear your groups experience.

My experience has matched up with the theory pretty well in most campaigns. Outside of Dragon Heist (which has built in wealth-sinks to make players worry about what they spend their money on), most adventurers tend to make a lot of money but not actually have anything to spend it on.

A copy of every toolset, so you can at least attempt any tool check that comes up? 597 gp.

Full Plate Armor? 1500 gp.

Your very own pirate ship? 10000 gp.

A small castle, a wizard's keep, or a temple? 50000 gp.

A large castle or a palace? 500000 gp. And there's no real steps between those two - land options range from 5k to 50k, and then there's a 500k option.




Common
Uncommon
Rare
Very Rare
Legendary


Crafting (DMG)
100 gp
4 days
500 gp
20 days
5000 gp
200 days
50000 gp
2000 days
500000 gp
20000 days


Buying (XGtE)
120-1170 gp
7-77 days
200-1700 gp
7-77 days
2100-21100 gp
7-77 days
20100-51100 gp
7-77 days
50100-301100 gp
7-77 days


Crafting
50 gp
7 days
200 gp
14 days
2000 gp
70 days
20000 gp
175 days
100000 gp
350 days



And also you only have so many attunement slots for magic items. So only so much money is being spent on items, even if you can get a whole bunch of uncommon/rare that don't need attunement.

And then we come to spellbooks. There are 52 1st, 68 2nd, 58 3rd, 46 4th, 42 5th, 37 6th, 24 7th, 19 8th, and 18 9th lvl wizard spells. That is, according to wikidot, which has some repeats (where a UA spell made it to print slightly different). Scribing every single one of those spells would cost 73000 gp. Not accounting for free level-up spells. Or subclass discounts. Or repeated UA spells. Or source limitations. If we're talking core only, the price jumps down to 41850 gp (once again, not including free level-up spells or subclass discounts). Free level-up spells is going to knock off anywhere from 2200 gp to 11000 gp. Subclass discounts are a bit harder to predict, obviously, but one can assume it'll knock off a decent chunk as well.

"Every single wizard spell in the game" is 73k. A couple extra spells at every spell level is 4500. If the fighter is dropping 1500 on full plate by level 5, what's the wizard spending their 1500 on? Realistically, up to five spells each of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level. It'll take about 30 hours to scribe them all, but that's not all that bad. It's not like the wizard has anything else to spend money on.

This is an issue with 5e's setup: basically nobody but the wizard has adventuring gear they can buy. Getting all the mundane gear you could possibly want to carry around with you will run 3k at the absolute most and that's if you're getting an awful lot of extra rope and arrows and stuff, and if half of it is full plate armor. When the adventure throws tens of thousand of gold pieces at each party member, most of the party is just gonna be hoarding it, or turning it into land or vehicles just for the novelty of it. The wizard is really the only one who always has another adventuring thing to buy, and that thing is "more spells in spellbook". Another 9th lvl spell costs 450 gp. It's cheaper than rare magic items, and most uncommon items...and that's assuming the DM is letting you buy magic items at all. But even if they are...that's a hard choice to make.

If the campaign doesn't have built-in money-sinks the way Dragon Heist does, the wizard is always going to be like "I may as well buy another spell for my spellbook". Or at least, that's been my experience on either side of the screen across about a half-dozen campaigns of various length: there's always a wizard, and they're always scribing, because there's basically nothing else to do with their money.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've never seen a scroll in loot, for sale, or as a reward this edition.
Have you played any published adventures? They are plentiful in Salt Marsh. They are findable in forge of fury and in Sunless Citadel. Our DM had a few scrolls here and there for finding in our first campaign.

Also npc "wizards" never have any spellbooks. They have at every table where I have played. Is your DM anti-Player?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you played any published adventures? They are plentiful in Salt Marsh. They are findable in forge of fury and in Sunless Citadel. Our DM had a few scrolls here and there for finding in our first campaign.
They have at every table where I have played. Is your DM anti-Player?

And one of the most common entries on the dmg tables is spell scrolls. Not necessarily wizard ones, but even so, the wizard list is huge so they're likely to be usable.

[heavyfuel]

An important thing to start off: Caster ≠ Wizard. In a casters vs martials debate, a Wizard is only 1/6th of the "caster" part.

With pedantry out of the way, I usually hand out scrolls as a reward if they make sense. If I place an enemy spellcaster for the players to fight, and this spellcaster has at least 3rd level slots, they will sometimes have one or two scrolls on their person that they might use on the players. If killed before they have the chance to use said scrolls, the party gets to keep them.

Scrolls also sometimes found their way into random loot, because, well, it's random. You might get a +1 Battleaxe (even if no one in the party uses battleaxes), and you might get a scroll of fireball (even if no one in the party can use the scroll).

Plus, "going out of their way" for a scroll shouldn't be that hard, unless it's a very niche spell. I assume most major cities will have a few scrolls of the most "popular" spells. It's not hard to find something like a Scroll of Fly in a place like Neverwinter.

[Tanarii]

Your very own pirate ship? 10000 gp.

A small castle, a wizard's keep, or a temple? 50000 gp.

A large castle or a palace? 500000 gp. And there's no real steps between those two - land options range from 5k to 50k, and then there's a 500k option.
And these three examples are priced so a party can pool their resources and afford them early to mid Tier 2, early to mid Tier 3, and mid Tier 4. Which seems about right to me.

[AvatarVecna]

And these three examples are priced so a party can pool their resources and afford them early to mid Tier 2, early to mid Tier 3, and mid Tier 4. Which seems about right to me.

Oh, for sure! I'm not saying they're not fairly priced, or that it's just for one person to buy. It's more that there's this enormous middle-ground where there's not much to buy. And when the party funds are at like...300k and they don't have enough for a castle, the wizard's share is gonna be like 50k-60k. That's enough for basically every spell in the game. He could buy his own wizard's keep, or the perfect spellbook, or hold out another couple adventures and help the team buy a palace. But with the other players, all they've got left to do with that gold is hoard it and wait to see something big worth buying (or to accumulate enough for that palace). But the wizard will constantly be tempted to nickel and dime his way broke. It's only 250 gp for another 5th lvl spell...10 hours, well I'm an elf that's like a day of downtime with hours to spare! Hrmmmm...

[kingcheesepants]

I dont even let them get their level up spells for free. If you dont beg, borrow, or loot a spellbook from somewhere you dont get new spells. Also, a God/the Universe/your own moral self righteousness/etc might not grant you divine spells either. Spells should be treated like Magic Items in a lot of ways.

This is the most anti-player thing I think I've ever seen. Do you make every character do extra work to get their class features or just casters? Like when they hit level 5 does the fighter have to go find some trainer in order to get extra attack? When the rouge should be getting reliable talent does he have to go on some extra quest to do so? Does the barbarian have to go to some ritual thing every time he levels up in order to get more rage uses?

[Athan Artilliam]

Do you tell your players about this change before they make their PCs?

I fail to see how that is relevant. Do you tell your players that they are/aren't going to get magic items? Or encounter/not encounter X enemy? I do, though, to answer your question. Sorry I missed it the first go around, that's what Session 0 is all about.


This is the most anti-player thing I think I've ever seen. Do you make every character do extra work to get their class features or just casters? Like when they hit level 5 does the fighter have to go find some trainer in order to get extra attack? When the rouge should be getting reliable talent does he have to go on some extra quest to do so? Does the barbarian have to go to some ritual thing every time he levels up in order to get more rage uses?

Nope. Martials get all of their class features just like Wizards get all of their class features. The only difference is that I treat Spells like Items. None of my players complain & some even like it. How am I being "anti-player? It's a simple house rule & it's not even that impactful. Do you never let your casters learn more spells?

[kingcheesepants]

INope. Martials get all of their class features just like Wizards get all of their class features. The only difference is that I treat Spells like Items. None of my players complain & some even like it. How am I being "anti-player? It's a simple house rule & it's not even that impactful. Do you never let your casters learn more spells?

Being anti-player comes from making people playing casters need to jump through extra hoops in order to use all their abilities. Under normal circumstances casters don't need to do anything besides leveling up in order to get their spells but in your game they need to do extra things. Now these things might be immersive roleplaying and not super difficult to do and therefore your players might not mind or even enjoy it. However it does strike me as unfair to make players who chose to play a magic class need to do extra work in order to make full use of their abilities whereas martial players just get them as per usual. I can't say that I'd be into the idea of needing to do extra work to be able to use my spells but I think I wouldn't mind it so much if it was equal across the board rather than targeting the 2/3 of the classes with spells.

As to your question only wizards can learn more spells in addition to what they get at level up, and when I have wizards in my games they absolutely get more spells.

[Athan Artilliam]

snip

Casters are plenty strong as is so I guess I dont understand how you think it "weakens" them. It's not like the game doesnt have rules for a Paladin/Cleric falling. I'm not one to make a Paladin fall, their one of my favorite classes. But the option exists in the game to "shut off" their class abilities.

How does a fighter feel when he needs a magic weapon to pierce DR? Or when a wizard flies off with a spell? Are they not "shut down"?

[JNAProductions]

Casters are plenty strong as is so I guess I dont understand how you think it "weakens" them. It's not like the game doesnt have rules for a Paladin/Cleric falling. I'm not one to make a Paladin fall, their one of my favorite classes. But the option exists in the game to "shut off" their class abilities.

How does a fighter feel when he needs a magic weapon to pierce DR? Or when a wizard flies off with a spell? Are they not "shut down"?

There’s a difference between “The enemy is hardier/stronger/more cunning than you anticipated, and you get bopped because of it,” and “You don’t get the base features your class is supposed to.”

[Psyren]

I don't like the houserule either (and would never use it) but I can at least understand where it's coming from.

Applying to casters that know their whole list like clerics and druids would be beyond silly though.

[Kane0]

This is the most anti-player thing I think I've ever seen. Do you make every character do extra work to get their class features or just casters? Like when they hit level 5 does the fighter have to go find some trainer in order to get extra attack? When the rouge should be getting reliable talent does he have to go on some extra quest to do so? Does the barbarian have to go to some ritual thing every time he levels up in order to get more rage uses?

Its an older style of play, a more gritty swords and sorcery approach. D&D largely doesnt follow the same these days but its still valid.

[PhantomSoul]

Its an older style of play, a more gritty swords and sorcery approach. D&D largely doesnt follow the same these days but its still valid.

And there's some nice romanticism to it; adventuring being in a sort of feedback loop of discovery seems nice at times. Exploring for your Druid to get new wildshapes, your Wizard to learn new spells, for the Bard to get new spells/songs, perhaps the Sorcerer finds a mentor/tutor, the Fighter or Monk gets new styles (maybe not going so far back that the actual levels are titles/ranks... but maybe!), the Paladin actually holy warriors and the Cleric might really expand their faith/beliefs...

[Athan Artilliam]

I don't like the houserule either (and would never use it) but I can at least understand where it's coming from.

Applying to casters that know their whole list like clerics and druids would be beyond silly though.

I don't make divine casters learn spells the same way. They have just might find their prayers not answered if they don't devote money to their cause.


There’s a difference between “The enemy is hardier/stronger/more cunning than you anticipated, and you get bopped because of it,” and “You don’t get the base features your class is supposed to.”

Is a fighter without his weapon/armor "not able to use class features"?
What about rogues in games that never feature traps?
There are a multitude of situations where a party NEEDS magic to have a solution or it will be an ugly slog at best. These times a martial without a friendly caster or magic items cannot function. So it makes sense to use spells like magic items


Its an older style of play, a more gritty swords and sorcery approach. D&D largely doesnt follow the same these days but its still valid.


And there's some nice romanticism to it; adventuring being in a sort of feedback loop of discovery seems nice at times. Exploring for your Druid to get new wildshapes, your Wizard to learn new spells, for the Bard to get new spells/songs, perhaps the Sorcerer finds a mentor/tutor, the Fighter or Monk gets new styles (maybe not going so far back that the actual levels are titles/ranks... but maybe!), the Paladin actually holy warriors and the Cleric might really expand their faith/beliefs...
Thanks! That's exactly why I do it!

[Tanarii]

Its an older style of play, a more gritty swords and sorcery approach. D&D largely doesnt follow the same these days but its still valid.
I like the idea of discovery of spells being the only way Wizards can learn spells, old school, too. But I can totally see how someone could feel it's 'taking away' class features in 5e. Because it is. Not assuming extra found spells is a different thing from removing the 2 free per level given by the class.

I don't think anything is anti-player if the players buy in though. :smallamused:

[Telok]

Have you played any published adventures? They are plentiful in Salt Marsh. They are findable in forge of fury and in Sunless Citadel. Our DM had a few scrolls here and there for finding in our first campaign.
They have at every table where I have played. Is your DM anti-Player?

Only official adventure I personally played in was the underdark demon invasion one where the game collapsed because the dm thought the book gave them what they needed to run it. Thats one of the dms who rage-quit and only runs d&d for young teens now.

The npc "wizards" aren't listed as having spellbooks, so apparently they don't? I don't know, I don't care that much.

[TyGuy]

In a level 1-9 campaign over about 30 sessions I probably seeded an estimated 14 +/- 4.
We had two wizards and I wanted them to have lots of ritual options. I also run heavily off narrative. So when they defeated an illusionist, the wizards looted its spellbook that had all the spells from the statblock.

[Kane0]

Only official adventure I personally played in was the underdark demon invasion one where the game collapsed because the dm thought the book gave them what they needed to run it. Thats one of the dms who rage-quit and only runs d&d for young teens now.

The npc "wizards" aren't listed as having spellbooks, so apparently they don't? I don't know, I don't care that much.

Out of the Abyss? Wizards caught without their spellbook can keep the spells they had prepared from the day before, they just cant make any changes without their book.
NPCs tend not to follow the same rules, like sidekick spellcasters even if they use the wizard list.

[Toadkiller]

A fighter can buy weapons, a mage can buy spells. Plus they have their cantrips just like fighters can grab some sort of weapon, even a piece of wood for a Club or Staff or Spear

I think many folks don’t have neighborhood magic shops in their games. So there would have to be a place to buy spells for that to work. I kind of prefer it that way to having a shop with “wizard, bard, sorcerer, etc”. sections like a record shop for spells. But others like other things.

[Angelalex242]

I don't make divine casters learn spells the same way. They have just might find their prayers not answered if they don't devote money to their cause.



Is a fighter without his weapon/armor "not able to use class features"?
What about rogues in games that never feature traps?
There are a multitude of situations where a party NEEDS magic to have a solution or it will be an ugly slog at best. These times a martial without a friendly caster or magic items cannot function. So it makes sense to use spells like magic items




Thanks! That's exactly why I do it!

{Scrubbed} Definitely not playing at the table of you {Scrubbed}

[Athan Artilliam]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Definitely not playing at the table of you or anyone like you. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You were paying me?
I never asked you to play at my table btw.

[Witty Username]

I wouldn't worry to much, copying scrolls into a book requires days of downtime. Well like two 3rd level spells is a day and a half If you enjoy sleep.
Most games don't have enough downtime to be worrisome.

And if it gets out of hand, burn their book.

[Chronos]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "You open the treasure chest and find <roll on loot tables>". Most loot is there for a reason, and usually the reason is that the enemy you're looting it from can use it. If you're fighting an enemy spellcasters, they might have scrolls or wands or the like. If they're wizards, they probably have a spellbook (which is probably either on them, or in their home, and you're often fighting them in their home anyway). If you're fighting a powerful martial enemy, they might have magic weapons or armor. Sometimes, an enemy will have something they can't use because they themselves looted it off of someone else, and haven't had a chance to offload it yet, but that's the exception, not the rule.

And I'm totally baffled by Athan Artilliam's position, here. Casters are plenty strong, because they have spells, so it doesn't weaken them at all to take away the very thing that makes them strong, and there's no need to tell the players about this, because they shouldn't expect to be able to play the class they chose to play? How long has anyone ever willingly stayed in one of your games?

[heavyfuel]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "You open the treasure chest and find <roll on loot tables>". Most loot is there for a reason, and usually the reason is that the enemy you're looting it from can use it. If you're fighting an enemy spellcasters, they might have scrolls or wands or the like. If they're wizards, they probably have a spellbook (which is probably either on them, or in their home, and you're often fighting them in their home anyway). If you're fighting a powerful martial enemy, they might have magic weapons or armor. Sometimes, an enemy will have something they can't use because they themselves looted it off of someone else, and haven't had a chance to offload it yet, but that's the exception, not the rule.

[...] How long has anyone ever willingly stayed in one of your games?

I generally agree with you, but sometimes the party finds a corpse in a dungeon and I'll be damned if I'm going to create a background for a dead NPC. I throw in some random loot and let the party figure it out. The corpse had a magical studded leather armor and a greatsword? I guess this dead adventurer must have rolled really well for Str and Dex scores at character creation, huh?

But yeah, enemies having loot that makes sense for them to have/use is usually by far the better approach.

As for the last question, I assume the answer is going to be longer than you hope it is. DMs are rarer than players because most people just aren't interested in putting the time and effort it takes to DM a game. So if you are a player who doesn't know many D&D players, you might settle for a bad DM because you either don't know any better, or because that's the only group available for you to play.

[Athan Artilliam]

And I'm totally baffled by Athan Artilliam's position, here. Casters are plenty strong, because they have spells, so it doesn't weaken them at all to take away the very thing that makes them strong, and there's no need to tell the players about this, because they shouldn't expect to be able to play the class they chose to play? How long has anyone ever willingly stayed in one of your games?

Spells are very strong. I dole out Spells in a similar manner as I do magic items. It also allows spellcasters to roleplay researching, trading favors, buying with treasure, seeking lost tomes, etc. I DO tell my players about any changes from the book I make, I dont know why you think I dont? I have some old high school friends who've stayed since we first cracked open a book decades ago & I've had people completely green who have become integral to the group. The few people who have left are those that left for life reasons & a few who left for being kinda toxic. As I've said, I've gotten no complaints, a few of my players prefer it. If you've ever played the older editions you'd know that this isnt even a new idea, it used to be the norm.

[MoiMagnus]

In the last few campaign I've played in, casters were already heavily favoured by the playstyle, so the GM didn't felt the need to care about giving more spells to the Wizard. The answer was:

Never seen a spellbook as loot.
When taking some downtime in a civilised place, pretty much every spell was available to be bought if the player said that their character was searching for it during downtime (contrary to magic items, where what was available was randomized and/or arbitrary).

[JNAProductions]

Spells are very strong. I dole out Spells in a similar manner as I do magic items. It also allows spellcasters to roleplay researching, trading favors, buying with treasure, seeking lost tomes, etc. I DO tell my players about any changes from the book I make, I dont know why you think I dont? I have some old high school friends who've stayed since we first cracked open a book decades ago & I've had people completely green who have become integral to the group. The few people who have left are those that left for life reasons & a few who left for being kinda toxic. As I've said, I've gotten no complaints, a few of my players prefer it. If you've ever played the older editions you'd know that this isnt even a new idea, it used to be the norm.

3rd edition was released in 2000.
It hasn’t been the norm for two decades now-not in D&D at least.

[PhantomSoul]

3rd edition was released in 2000.
It hasn’t been the norm for two decades now-not in D&D at least.

Doesn't change that it was the norm and, regardless, remains a possible style of play!

[Athan Artilliam]

3rd edition was released in 2000.
It hasn’t been the norm for two decades now-not in D&D at least.

So? how is that relevant? Horses used to be the best form of transportation. That was a quite a while ago but it's still true

[JNAProductions]

So? how is that relevant? Horses used to be the best form of transportation. That was a quite a while ago but it's still true

It’s an appeal to tradition, but that tradition hasn’t even been in use (for this system) for over two decades.

I sincerely hope your table has fun with your nerfs, but it isn’t for me.

[Athan Artilliam]

It’s an appeal to tradition, but that tradition hasn’t even been in use (for this system) for over two decades.

I sincerely hope your table has fun with your nerfs, but it isn’t for me.

I never invited you to my table. I only brought up "tradition" as you put it because so many people couldn't comprehend why I was doing it, or were arguing that it shouldn't be that way. It's not an "appeal" I'm not trying to exert my will on others, this isn't a logic debate. I am only sharing what I do, which was what this thread asked.

[Scots Dragon]

So? how is that relevant? Horses used to be the best form of transportation. That was a quite a while ago but it's still true

In AD&D, scrolls made up a solid 15% of magic item treasure, which were 70% likely to contain wizard spells, and 1% of dropped items would be books and tomes. Nearly all magic-using enemies in modules would have listed spellbooks containing spells that could be scribed or memorised by magic-users.

[Athan Artilliam]

In AD&D, scrolls made up a solid 15% of magic item treasure, which were 70% likely to contain wizard spells, and 1% of dropped items would be books and tomes. Nearly all magic-using enemies in modules would have listed spellbooks containing spells that could be scribed or memorised by magic-users.

Right. How this factoid relevant?

[MrStabby]

Right. How this factoid relevant?

Well if people are talking about tradition, then I guess tradition is relevant.

If people are talking about what was needed to secure spells in previous editions, then context about the factors that made it easy or hard are very relevant.

[olskool]

I go "old school" (just like my name) on the learning of spells with a 5e twist to them. I give Wizards 1D3 spells of each Level awarded by the spell table to research at each new level gained after 1st Level. So a 4th Level Wizard would roll 1D3 for cantrips, 1D3 for 1st, and 1D3 for 2nd Level spells to record in their book. 1st Level Wizards get 1D3 Cantrips and 1D3 1st Level spells at the start AUTOMATICALLY (no proficiency roll needed, see later in this post).

To ACTUALLY LEARN TO USE THAT SPELL and thus be able to copy it into their book, the Wizard must roll an ARCANA proficiency check with a DC of [10 + The Spell's Level (treating cantrips as 0 level)]. They may add all the normal bonuses (INT and Proficiency) to their roll. A FAILED ROLL means that spell cannot be copied into the Wizard's book at this time. The Wizard must gain another Level before they can try to copy it again. I also do this proficiency roll with all found Spell Books and Scrolls. Copying a magic scroll destroys it unless the Wizard saves versus INT to preserve the scroll's magic aura. This way, a Wizard won't always have every spell that they want at the first Level it becomes available... either because it didn't come up in the DM's roll (I randomize spells received), or the PC failed to properly copy it into their book.

Also, note that I require ALL magic users to roll a Proficiency check (using the appropriate Attribute & Proficiency bonuses) to cast a spell as well. My DC is still [10 + Spell Level] for the casting DC. I just think that wielding magic needs to be as uncertain during the game as swinging a sword or opening a lock is.

[MrStabby]

Also, note that I require ALL magic users to roll a Proficiency check (using the appropriate Attribute & Proficiency bonuses) to cast a spell as well. My DC is still [10 + Spell Level] for the casting DC. I just think that wielding magic needs to be as uncertain during the game as swinging a sword or opening a lock is.

Is this requirement for uncertainty on ALL spells or just those that don't already require attack rolls or saves?

[Sparky McDibben]

I fail to see how that is relevant. Do you tell your players that they are/aren't going to get magic items? Or encounter/not encounter X enemy? I do, though, to answer your question. Sorry I missed it the first go around, that's what Session 0 is all about.

I mean, that is exactly what Session Zero is for, to your point, right? If someone's making a fire mage, and we're running Descent into Avernus, I'm going to pull that player aside and tell them, "Hey, you know most devils and demons are immune to fire, right?" And if necessary, we'll work it into the campaign as a potential feat or special ability that they can learn, albeit locked behind an adventure. So I think it's very much relevant to the players. I tell my players anything that will a) differ from the baseline of a vanilla-fantasy D&D campaign, and b) will impact or trivialize their abilities, so they can make an informed decision.

I don't know about "anti-player" as a label, because it frames the conversation as an inherently zero-sum game. But I do think that making sweeping changes to the rules and expectations of a game and not telling the players beforehand is kind of a d*ck move.

To be clear, I actually like the change you're proposing - it answers one of my key questions about D&D. Where do the players get their new powers? Like in the narrative of the game, you can straight up have a tough fight with a bunch of goblins, go to sleep (and level up in the mechanics layer of the game to level 5, learn fireball), and then have the exact same fight with a bunch of goblins and mop the floor with them.


Nope. Martials get all of their class features just like Wizards get all of their class features. The only difference is that I treat Spells like Items. None of my players complain & some even like it. How am I being "anti-player? It's a simple house rule & it's not even that impactful. Do you never let your casters learn more spells?

I disagree with this - if we're going to treat spells as rewards, we should treat everything outside of your core class abilities as rewards, too. You want to learn the Actor feat? Well, there's a bard in town who can teach it to you for [10 - (max of INT or CHA) weeks] and 500 gp. Knock yourself out. You want to learn Survival proficiency? Well, there's an old ranger that the party pissed off three levels ago sitting out there; you might try it with him, for the low, low cost of 1,000 gp. Or you could ask the friendly old druid, who will only charge you a favor. Want to curry favor with the local lord, raising your Reputation with them to 10? That'll cost time, money, and possibly an adventure.

Now, I actually like this game style, and I've had this idea floating around in my head for a while. So it's not that I'm disagreeing, it's that I'm saying we need to go further and apply the same thought process to every class. This actually makes sorcerers better than wizards, honestly; the whole pitch is that you learn fewer spells, but you have less bullsh*t to work through (key assumptions I should list here: you get your sorcerer spell list (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX7CNpYAmrk) for free, but all other sorcerer spells require [spell level - CHA score] weeks of research, which is basically you going out into a field and throwing energy around until you've mastered a spell; if the required time is less than 1, you're able to develop the spell in 1 day).

[Athan Artilliam]

I mean, that is exactly what Session Zero is for, to your point, right? If someone's making a fire mage, and we're running Descent into Avernus, I'm going to pull that player aside and tell them, "Hey, you know most devils and demons are immune to fire, right?" And if necessary, we'll work it into the campaign as a potential feat or special ability that they can learn, albeit locked behind an adventure. So I think it's very much relevant to the players. I tell my players anything that will a) differ from the baseline of a vanilla-fantasy D&D campaign, and b) will impact or trivialize their abilities, so they can make an informed decision.

I don't know about "anti-player" as a label, because it frames the conversation as an inherently zero-sum game. But I do think that making sweeping changes to the rules and expectations of a game and not telling the players beforehand is kind of a d*ck move.

To be clear, I actually like the change you're proposing - it answers one of my key questions about D&D. Where do the players get their new powers? Like in the narrative of the game, you can straight up have a tough fight with a bunch of goblins, go to sleep (and level up in the mechanics layer of the game to level 5, learn fireball), and then have the exact same fight with a bunch of goblins and mop the floor with them.



I disagree with this - if we're going to treat spells as rewards, we should treat everything outside of your core class abilities as rewards, too. You want to learn the Actor feat? Well, there's a bard in town who can teach it to you for [10 - (max of INT or CHA) weeks] and 500 gp. Knock yourself out. You want to learn Survival proficiency? Well, there's an old ranger that the party pissed off three levels ago sitting out there; you might try it with him, for the low, low cost of 1,000 gp. Or you could ask the friendly old druid, who will only charge you a favor. Want to curry favor with the local lord, raising your Reputation with them to 10? That'll cost time, money, and possibly an adventure.

Now, I actually like this game style, and I've had this idea floating around in my head for a while. So it's not that I'm disagreeing, it's that I'm saying we need to go further and apply the same thought process to every class. This actually makes sorcerers better than wizards, honestly; the whole pitch is that you learn fewer spells, but you have less bullsh*t to work through (key assumptions I should list here: you get your sorcerer spell list (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX7CNpYAmrk) for free, but all other sorcerer spells require [spell level - CHA score] weeks of research, which is basically you going out into a field and throwing energy around until you've mastered a spell; if the required time is less than 1, you're able to develop the spell in 1 day).

I meant "why is me telling my players pertinent to the conversation about my style of game", like, asking if I tell my players about my house rule just feels like a weird question. Of course I tell my players.

I don't charge fighters for stuff like Second Wind or whatever. Feats are another animal. Mostly as long as you can justify it & you've been role-playing getting it, then I don't charge the same way. Feats largely don't have such a studious nature to them (Actor is a great example of one though)

[ender241]

I meant "why is me telling my players pertinent to the conversation about my style of game", like, asking if I tell my players about my house rule just feels like a weird question. Of course I tell my players.

I think the reason people were concerned with this is because throughout this thread you've not made it very clear (until now) that you even think of it as a house rule. You repeatedly compared it to magic item distribution and monster types the players might expect to face. There is nothing in RAW that says players have to receive magic items or that they will only face certain monsters. A wizard's spells learned on level up is clear RAW. If you acknowledged up front that this was a house rule that takes the key feature of the wizard out of the hands of the player, instead of arguing the contrary, I expect you would have faced a lot less criticism and questions.

[Athan Artilliam]

I think the reason people were concerned with this is because throughout this thread you've not made it very clear (until now) that you even think of it as a house rule.

But I did. I even apologized for not being clear about it. Even so, what happens at my table doesnt matter to anyone else

[JNAProductions]

But I did. I even apologized for not being clear about it. Even so, what happens at my table doesnt matter to anyone else

I don't remember an apology. If you did and I missed it, my own apology for that.

But I do remember asking, pretty much right off the bat, "Do you tell your players about your nerfs in advance?" and then not getting an answer for quite a few posts.

[Athan Artilliam]

I don't remember an apology. If you did and I missed it, my own apology for that.

But I do remember asking, pretty much right off the bat, "Do you tell your players about your nerfs in advance?" and then not getting an answer for quite a few posts.
Here, right after you posted reasking.

I fail to see how that is relevant. Do you tell your players that they are/aren't going to get magic items? Or encounter/not encounter X enemy? I do, though, to answer your question. Sorry I missed it the first go around, that's what Session 0 is all about.



Nope. Martials get all of their class features just like Wizards get all of their class features. The only difference is that I treat Spells like Items. None of my players complain & some even like it. How am I being "anti-player? It's a simple house rule & it's not even that impactful. Do you never let your casters learn more spells?

[JNAProductions]

Yup, that's me being blind. Okay, my bad.

[ender241]

But I did. I even apologized for not being clear about it. Even so, what happens at my table doesnt matter to anyone else

A topic discussed at session 0 is not necessarily a house rule. While it's nice to know if I can expect magic items or not, or if the campaign will be heavy in one particular monster type, it's in no way necessary to have this information up front. Because whatever the DM decides regarding those kind of items falls within RAW. Fundamentally altering a core class feature is an entirely different animal. Stop conflating the two and call it a house rule up front (not just a session 0 topic / or just "how you run the table"), and you will face considerablly less backlash. Plenty of people will still disagree with your approach, but at least it will be clear that you understand you're operating very much outside RAW.

[Athan Artilliam]

A topic discussed at session 0 is not necessarily a house rule. While it's nice to know if I can expect magic items or not, or if the campaign will be heavy in one particular monster type, it's in no way necessary to have this information up front. Because whatever the DM decides regarding those kind of items falls within RAW. Fundamentally altering a core class feature is an entirely different animal. Stop conflating the two and call it a house rule up front (not just a session 0 topic / or just "how you run the table"), and you will face considerablly less backlash. Plenty of people will still disagree with your approach, but at least it will be clear that you understand you're operating very much outside RAW.

In 5e not even Feats & Items are a given. It is as much a decision to include them as it is to mess with any other rule.

[ender241]

In 5e not even Feats & Items are a given.

But that's exactly my point. Magic items are optional per RAW. Feats are optional per RAW. Wizard and Sorcerer spells learned are not optional. RAW they get them when they level up. Stop equating your house rules with optional rules.


It is as much a decision to include them as it is to mess with any other rule.

No. You can not include magic items and feats and still be following RAW. Removing spells learned is not RAW.

[Athan Artilliam]

But that's exactly my point. Magic items are optional per RAW. Feats are optional per RAW. Wizard and Sorcerer spells learned are not optional. RAW they get them when they level up. Stop equating your house rules with optional rules.

No


No. You can not include magic items and feats and still be following RAW. Removing spells learned is not RAW.
Yes I can. I wrote an optional rule saying so.

[ender241]

No

Lol what? I was honestly trying to give you advice for how to present your ideas without facing a ton of criticism. But by all means, continue.


Yes I can. I wrote an optional rule saying so.

You can... what exactly?

Do you know what RAW means? It's not your rules, it's the published 5e rules...

[olskool]

Is this requirement for uncertainty on ALL spells or just those that don't already require attack rolls or saves?

I use the "skill" or"Proficiency check" for all spell castings. If the casting fails, nothing is lost. If the casting succeeds, the spell is active and the spell slot is expended. The caster may STILL have to roll a "To Hit" or the target may still get a Saving Throw, but that's ok with my group given the power of magic in D&D and the prevalence of it in 5e. I do allow a caster to "hold" a spell that has been successfully cast by expending their REACTION and making a Proficiency Check using their casting Attribute against a DC of [10 + Spell Level]. So a Wizard COULD hold onto a Magic Missile and unleash it at a later time. The holding test is done every round and is best done with lower-level spells to keep the DC low.

[Kane0]

I use the "skill" or"Proficiency check" for all spell castings. If the casting fails, nothing is lost. If the casting succeeds, the spell is active and the spell slot is expended. The caster may STILL have to roll a "To Hit" or the target may still get a Saving Throw, but that's ok with my group given the power of magic in D&D and the prevalence of it in 5e. I do allow a caster to "hold" a spell that has been successfully cast by expending their REACTION and making a Proficiency Check using their casting Attribute against a DC of [10 + Spell Level]. So a Wizard COULD hold onto a Magic Missile and unleash it at a later time. The holding test is done every round and is best done with lower-level spells to keep the DC low.

So what about rituals?

[MrStabby]

I use the "skill" or"Proficiency check" for all spell castings. If the casting fails, nothing is lost.

So on a failure tey get their action, spell slot and any material components back? That could be worse I suppose.

[rel]

Between finding scrolls or other wizards, getting back to civilisation to buy scribing components and finding enough downtime to do the work an aspiring wizard is certainly limited in the early game. With things evening out by about level 10

It also depends on the campaign, if you're on a time limit or often adventuring in the wilds you're probably only getting 1 extra spell per level. A sandbox game with lot's of downtime will obviously see more.

That being said, if the world seems allergic to scrolls, you can always roll a cleric and know all the spells.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't think anything is anti-player if the players buy in though. :smallamused:
Buy in is the key component. Pretty much any change works well so long as your players see them as challenges instead of pointless (or worse punitive) constraints.


I fail to see how that is relevant. Do you tell your players that they are/aren't going to get magic items? Or encounter/not encounter X enemy? I do, though, to answer your question. Sorry I missed it the first go around, that's what Session 0 is all about.

I meant "why is me telling my players pertinent to the conversation about my style of game", like, asking if I tell my players about my house rule just feels like a weird question. Of course I tell my players.

It's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand. It is the determining factor to whether people will judge what you are doing favorably or not. If the players know what they are getting into, and (by continuing with the campaign) accept the framework, than this is just a personal flavoring of how one wants to play the game (and certainly something those of us who started with AD&D or basic/classic would find familiar). If not, it sounds like pulling expected norms of gameplay (including actual bits of rules text) out from under people.

This is a tempest in a teapot. People found out you were being reasonable well after they'd already gotten a negative impression. We can be done with it and move on.

[Burley]

To answer the title question: I let wizards do it during downtime, following cost and time rules for adding spells to a spellbook, outlined in the Wizard class.
When they level up and get to add two spells of their choice, those are assumed to be spells they've been researching/practicing between levels. All other spells must be found externally (scrolls, other Wizards' spellbooks, ancient tomes) and copied in, with possible hinderances (being interrupted while working, deciphering spells in another's spellbook).
At higher levels, when level-ups are further apart and wealth is at the "could buy a kingdom" level, downtime can be used to research new spells, requiring weeks of research and a number of successful [Arcana] checks commensurate with the spell's level. (I assume that your high-level downtime is also much longer than low-level downtime. It just seems that way in all my games and in real-play podcasts.) Spells from scrolls and spellbooks are much rarer at higher levels, because there's not as many 13th level Wizards floating around as there are 3rd level Wizards. These higher levels are when spells should be getting brand names, like "Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion" or "Burley's Prismatic Spray," because the wizards are creating the spells themselves.

[Athan Artilliam]

Lol what? I was honestly trying to give you advice for how to present your ideas without facing a ton of criticism. But by all means, continue.



You can... what exactly?

Do you know what RAW means? It's not your rules, it's the published 5e rules...

Thank you for being so helpful & telling me what to do.

I wrote a house rule. For any discussion of rules interaction at my table it is RAW. To be fair, I am not going to argue this rule outside of my table because it doesnt exist outside of my table.


Buy in is the key component. Pretty much any change works well so long as your players see them as challenges instead of pointless (or worse punitive) constraints.




It's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand. It is the determining factor to whether people will judge what you are doing favorably or not. If the players know what they are getting into, and (by continuing with the campaign) accept the framework, than this is just a personal flavoring of how one wants to play the game (and certainly something those of us who started with AD&D or basic/classic would find familiar). If not, it sounds like pulling expected norms of gameplay (including actual bits of rules text) out from under people.

This is a tempest in a teapot. People found out you were being reasonable well after they'd already gotten a negative impression. We can be done with it and move on.

I guess my issue is I dont care about what the playground thinks of me for having a house rule, nor do I think the playground should care what happens at my table. This was a thread about how people treat spellbooks & scrolls & such, so I shared. Reactionaries started acting like I was being evil for no reason of trying to tell me I was "wrong". It doesnt matter to the discussion of the thread if my players are in the know or not. I even cleared it up, that YES my players know about it & they LIKE it. I would rather talk about mechanics & options than to drag this off topic subject on more. If anyone wants to ask HOW I use my rule I will gladly answer

[KorvinStarmast]

Casters are plenty strong as is so I guess I dont understand how you think it "weakens" them. It's not like the game doesnt have rules for a Paladin/Cleric falling. What edition are you playing, again? As far as I can tell, 5e doesn't have that rule (as 3.x and previous did) other than it being within the DM's purview to discern that they are eligible for being an Oathbreaker.
But the option exists in the game to "shut off" their class abilities. DMG ref page would be useful here.

How does a fighter feel when he needs a magic weapon to pierce DR? Do you mean a silvered weapon? The fighter feels disempowered but he's got team mates, hopefully, who can damage or scare off the foe. Or they throw the werewolf over a cliff.

Or when a wizard flies off with a spell? Are they not "shut down"? Not sure what you mean by that. you can shoot a flying wizard with a long bow. Range out to 600 feet, disadvantage does not start until `150'. Fly isn't that fast. Damage might force a drop in concentration. :smallconfused:

Its an older style of play, a more gritty swords and sorcery approach. D&D largely doesn't follow the same these days but its still valid. I've been with the game since 1975, I am familiar with that mode of play. If everyone knows that this is the mode of play up front, it turns adventuring into a pursuit that has a very powreful reason: I gotta go and find arcane lore/tomes/scrolls! No more ivory tower wizards. :smallsmile:

I don't make divine casters learn spells the same way. They have just might find their prayers not answered if they don't devote money to their cause. As long as everyone knows how this varies from the RAW up front, I doubt it causes any problems.

Is a fighter without his weapon/armor "not able to use class features"? Yes, until he or she finds some. See the start to Out of the Abyss as an example.

What about rogues in games that never feature traps? They have other features, but I don't think I've ever played a game of D&D without any traps. Some games have more than others.

There are a multitude of situations where a party NEEDS magic to have a solution or it will be an ugly slog at best. These times a martial without a friendly caster or magic items cannot function. Yes, swords and sorcery.

So it makes sense to use spells like magic itemsNo, that does not necessarily follow, it's simply your opinion.
NPCs tend not to follow the same rules, like sidekick spellcasters even if they use the wizard list. Some of the treasure in published modules/adventures explicitly spell out that there is a spell book among the loot. (IIRC one of the Candlekeep adventures specifies that, the level 6 one, I need to check to make sure memory is not playing tricks on me).

But yeah, enemies having loot that makes sense for them to have/use is usually by far the better approach. Agree. They use the loot.

Spells are very strong. I dole out Spells in a similar manner as I do magic items. That's the nerf people are talking about. RAW every cleric has access to every spell that their are level eligible for. So does Every Paladin and Every Druid.
I will argue that for Warlocks their spells come from their patron, they don't need to find them, but that's perhaps not completely the case as we read through the entire class description.
In AD&D, scrolls made up a solid 15% of magic item treasure, which were 70% likely to contain wizard spells, and 1% of dropped items would be books and tomes. Nearly all magic-using enemies in modules would have listed spellbooks containing spells that could be scribed or memorised by magic-users. That is because NPCs and PCs were formed using the same rules. 5e doesn't adhere to that.

In 5e not even Feats & Items are a given. Feats are optional rules, swords and sorcery, which you adamantly proclaim is your motif, has magical items ... placed at the DMs discretion...based on the level of rarity that suits your world building.
It is as much a decision to include them as it is to mess with any other rule. Not true. Optional feats are clearly listed as optional, whereas the class features are not so delineated. (I could swear that somewhere in the MM is a discussion on magic tomes, but my hardcovers are elsewhere at the mo).

[Athan Artilliam]

What edition are you playing, again? As far as I can tell, 5e doesn't have that rule (as 3.x and previous did) other than it being within the DM's purview to discern that they are eligible for being an Oathbreaker.


This is the 5e subthread. It should appear at the top of the webpage.


Do you mean a silvered weapon? The fighter feels disempowered but he's got team mates, hopefully, who can damage or scare off the foe. Or they throw the werewolf over a cliff.


Just as a wizard has other allies to help in these trying times



Not sure what you mean by that. you can shoot a flying wizard with a long bow. Range out to 600 feet, disadvantage does not start until `150'. Fly isn't that fast. Damage might force a drop in concentration. :smallconfused:



What if they are in a chasm or pit? The entire game is not all about combat or combat options





As long as everyone knows how this varies from the RAW up front, I doubt it causes any problems.


I refuse to keep talking about this



Yes, until he or she finds some. See the start to Out of the Abyss as an example.


Same for a caster finding spells then. Thanks for understanding




They have other features, but I don't think I've ever played a game of D&D without any traps. Some games have more than others.



I have


Yes, swords and sorcery.



No.



No, that does not necessarily follow, it's simply your opinion.



Yes, this is an opinion. My opinion is that it makes sense.




That's the nerf people are talking about. RAW every cleric has access to every spell that their are level eligible for. So does Every Paladin and Every Druid.
I will argue that for Warlocks their spells come from their patron, they don't need to find them, but that's perhaps not completely the case as we read through the entire class description.


Okay? RAW with my rules a cleric has access to their entire spell list too. Only Arcane casters must find, buy or research spells. Clerics must spend time & money on their cause or find their connection to magic diminishing. I already mentioned that.




Feats are optional rules, swords and sorcery, which you adamantly proclaim is your motif, has magical items ... placed at the DMs discretion...based on the level of rarity that suits your world building.



I have never said Sword & Sorcery was my motif.



Not true. Optional feats are clearly listed as optional, whereas the class features are not so delineated. (I could swear that somewhere in the MM is a discussion on magic tomes, but my hardcovers are elsewhere at the mo).

Unless I write an Optional Rule saying otherwise.

[Burley]

Not getting into the argument, but I'd like to comment on the argument:

You're on the internet, fighting with strangers over the rules to a game that exists in our imaginations. It's not worth all this back-and-forth, nor the passive-aggressive piecemealing of each other's posts. It's a shame that one poster got jumped on for answering the OPs question and, as I'm consistently reminded, this is a place where people will argue about dumb crap that doesn't matter or affect them at all. But, we can be better, can't we?

So, for the sake everybody here who just wants to talk about wizards writing in magic books, can we just be cool?


Edit: I'm not playing moderator here. I'm playing "forum member who is tired of petty argument marshmallows in his fantasy discussion cereal."

[Psyren]

I concur Burley.

More to the point I'm not seeing where restricting scrolls and tomes hurts the Wizard much if at all. A wizard with "only" 44 leveled spells known is still going to be one of the most powerful classes in the game (if not the most.)

Restricting other spellcasters certainly hurts them - Sorcerers for instance get a measly maximum of 15 leveled spells known, while Warlocks get the same number plus their four Arcana for a total of 19, so why anyone would want to reduce that further is beyond me - and all you'll really accomplish by doing that is encourage those casters to be as selfish as possible with their spell selection for those times when they'll be expected to contribute individually. If I only have a maximum of 9 spells known in most campaigns for instance, I'm just not going to want many of those to be party utility or group buffs. That doesn't seem like it would foster an atmosphere of teamwork to me.

[Willie the Duck]

More to the point I'm not seeing where restricting scrolls and tomes hurts the Wizard much if at all. A wizard with "only" 44 leveled spells known is still going to be one of the most powerful classes in the game (if not the most.)
Given that you get to cherry pick the spells you most want every level, it's hard to see a specific need for more. That said, I'm sympathetic to the argument that could be made, "so then why do we still have this spellbook and finding scrolls mechanic?" It certainly made more sense back when you didn't choose spells at level-up, as they were a primary form of treasure for the Magic User/Mage.


Restricting other spellcasters certainly hurts them - Sorcerers for instance get a measly maximum of 15 leveled spells known, while Warlocks get the same number plus their four Arcana for a total of 19, so why anyone would want to reduce that further is beyond me - and all you'll really accomplish by doing that is encourage those casters to be as selfish as possible with their spell selection for those times when they'll be expected to contribute individually. If I only have a maximum of 9 spells known in most campaigns for instance, I'm just not going to want many of those to be party utility or group buffs. That doesn't seem like it would foster an atmosphere of teamwork to me.

Given how rarely sorcerers and warlocks (and rangers) are considered overpowered (outside of some kind of shenanigans, in which case I'd rather houserule those away than spell selection), I'd certainly not limit their selection. Certainly if their spells-known slots are still capped and them taking a poor-but-available spell might later restrict their ability to take a newer one later, I would find that double penalizing someone for taking a not-wizard/cleric/paladin.

[Psyren]

Given how rarely sorcerers and warlocks (and rangers) are considered overpowered (outside of some kind of shenanigans, in which case I'd rather houserule those away than spell selection), I'd certainly not limit their selection. Certainly if their spells-known slots are still capped and them taking a poor-but-available spell might later restrict their ability to take a newer one later, I would find that double penalizing someone for taking a not-wizard/cleric/paladin.

Agreed.


Given that you get to cherry pick the spells you most want every level, it's hard to see a specific need for more. That said, I'm sympathetic to the argument that could be made, "so then why do we still have this spellbook and finding scrolls mechanic?" It certainly made more sense back when you didn't choose spells at level-up, as they were a primary form of treasure for the Magic User/Mage.

I could see a middle ground here. Say, something like "the free wizard spells from level up can only be widespread ones, i.e. PHB only, and possibly up to a level cap (say, 7th*.)" That way the Wizard has a strong incentive to go spelunking for more spells, but you can build a perfectly functional one without finding any at all. And for grittier campaigns you can lower that cap, down to 5th or even 4th.

Personally though I don't see an issue with letting them learn whatever free spells they want*, nor with inserting scrolls or spellbooks into a treasure pile.

*except Simulacrum

[PhantomSoul]

I could see a middle ground here. Say, something like "the free wizard spells from level up can only be widespread ones, i.e. PHB only, and possibly up to a level cap (say, 7th*.)" That way the Wizard has a strong incentive to go spelunking for more spells, but you can build a perfectly functional one without finding any at all. And for grittier campaigns you can lower that cap, down to 5th or even 4th.

Personally though I don't see an issue with letting them learn whatever free spells they want*, nor with inserting scrolls or spellbooks into a treasure pile.

*except Simulacrum

Agreed (included on simulacrum!) A core/generalist list vs. an expanded list (and/or, if spells were better balanced, learning a within-school spell and needing to quest for out-of-school spells, perhaps with generalist spells counting as being on everyone's list) could work great, and I think a nice middle ground could simply be gaining one spell instead of two on level-up.

[KorvinStarmast]

RAW with my rules a cleric has access to their entire spell list too. Only Arcane casters must find, buy or research spells. Clerics must spend time & money on their cause or find their connection to magic diminishing. I already mentioned that. But you did not make that clear, possibly a writing style issue, so thanks for clarifying.

I have never said Sword & Sorcery was my motif. I'll come back and edit the ref later.
ETA: arrgh, the hazards of multiquote. That was another poster, not you, sorry about that misattribution. :smallfrown:

That said, I'm sympathetic to the argument that could be made, "so then why do we still have this spellbook and finding scrolls mechanic?" Because scrolls are still findable treasure on the treasure tables, I suspect. (At least in part).
It certainly made more sense back when you didn't choose spells at level-up, as they were a primary form of treasure for the Magic User/Mage. And as I noted above, a reason to go adventuring.

Given how rarely sorcerers and warlocks (and rangers) are considered overpowered {snip} I'd certainly not limit their selection. Certainly if their spells-known slots are still capped and them taking a poor-but-available spell might later restrict their ability to take a newer one later, I would find that double penalizing someone for taking a not-wizard/cleric/paladin. Agree, but, for the Warlock the class description really does lean into the "goes seeking for arcane/eldritch lore and knowledge" so it makes thematic sense for the Warlock (and in particular the pact of the tome warlocks).

[Psyren]

Warlock is an odd case. They're folks who go seeking dangerous lore, sure, but the Patron can be viewed as both the endpoint of that search and the beginning. A warlock who wakes up in the morning to find new spells in their heads/tomes is just as valid as one who wakes up with a massive and ineffable urge to go poke their noses into Undermountain, it all depends on what level of danger/difficulty the DM wants for them.


Agreed (included on simulacrum!) A core/generalist list vs. an expanded list (and/or, if spells were better balanced, learning a within-school spell and needing to quest for out-of-school spells, perhaps with generalist spells counting as being on everyone's list) could work great, and I think a nice middle ground could simply be gaining one spell instead of two on level-up.

You could split that difference too - mandating that one of the two free spells must come from their specialization, with non-school wizards like Scribes either forced to universal or given freedom to select (or both, alternating.)

One free spell per level meanwhile would drop them to 25 total - on par with Bards, and still better off than most Sorcerers/Warlocks.

[Athan Artilliam]

But you did not make that clear, possibly a writing style issue, so thanks for clarifying.
I'll come back and edit the ref later.


My very first post on page 1. Very clearly posted, also elaborated on once or twice following.

Get back to me on that Sword & Sorcery thing


Warlock is an odd case. They're folks who go seeking dangerous lore, sure, but the Patron can be viewed as both the endpoint of that search and the beginning. A warlock who wakes up in the morning to find new spells in their heads/tomes is just as valid as one who wakes up with a massive and ineffable urge to go poke their noses into Undermountain, it all depends on what level of danger/difficulty the DM wants for them.


You could angle is "I demand you go I to the Forest of Adventure & do X, if you want my knowledge. As well as Y amount of gold/things that cost gold, as Tribute

[KorvinStarmast]

I use the "skill" or"Proficiency check" for all spell castings.
While I mostly like that at the conceptual level, IMO it is a bit too "fiddly" in terms of adding additional die rolls and overcomplicates the game (particularly for newbies). For old hands, rolling two different colored dice and having one always be the "did the spell go off" roll (different from the attack roll) is probably doable. I will say that it will reduce the attractiveness of using some spells, like Sacred Flame ... just out of curiosity, do you require the roll from a spell cast using an item (example being the Web spell from a wand of web) or are those guaranteed to work?

Get back to me on that Sword & Sorcery thing I edited in my findings in the post you responded to. Looks like I was referring to another poster - which is yet another hazard of using multi-quote. I edited in what I found and acknowledge the misattribution. :smallfrown:

Still waiting for you to support your reference on the falling of paladins and clerics, which I do not believe is in 5e but if you can cite where it is, that would be useful. (But this is a bit of topic drift, since the OP's theme is wizards and spell books etc). I will probably check the hardcovers later but they are not to hand.

[MadBear]

So I'm definitely seeing that there is a divide in how others handle this (which is to be expected honestly). I don't see it as a nerf to rarely give out additional spells, but I can see how some might see it that way. Mostly, I don't run a world where you can just go buy scrolls and magic items, and most of the spells I tend to give out, tend to be niche, or the ones specifically tailored to the wizard using them. (an ice mage, with a spellbook containing only ice themed spells).

[Athan Artilliam]

snip

Forgive me for really not wanting to put in the effort. It's in the PHB in a little sidebar about breaking Oaths. If you can't prove me wrong then at least give me the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for the apology

[PhantomSoul]

Forgive me for really not wanting to put in the effort. It's in the PHB in a little sidebar about breaking Oaths. If you can't prove me wrong then at least give me the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for the apology


B R EA K I N G YO U R OAT H
A paladin tries to hold to the h ighest standards of conduct,
but even the most virtuous paladin i s fa l l i ble. Someti mes
the right path proves too demandi ng, sometimes a situation
cal ls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of
emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A palad i n who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution
from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another
paladin of the same order. The paladin m i ght spend an alln
ight vigil i n prayer as a sign of pen itence, or u n dertake a
fast or s i m i l a r act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and
forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
I f a paladi n willfu l l y violates h i s or her oath and shows no
sign of repentance, the conseq uences can be more serious.
At the D M 's d iscretion, a n i m pen itent palad i n m ight be
forced to abandon this class and adopt a nother, or perhaps
to take the Oath breaker palad i n option that appears in the
Dungeon Master's Guide.
(PHB 86, but with 10+ characters)

[Psyren]

So I'm definitely seeing that there is a divide in how others handle this (which is to be expected honestly). I don't see it as a nerf to rarely give out additional spells, but I can see how some might see it that way. Mostly, I don't run a world where you can just go buy scrolls and magic items, and most of the spells I tend to give out, tend to be niche, or the ones specifically tailored to the wizard using them. (an ice mage, with a spellbook containing only ice themed spells).

It's definitely not a nerf, or at least not much of one. As mentioned, 44 leveled spells and 5 cantrips known is vastly more than most "spells known" casters get to begin with. And even when compared to "know entire list" casters like clerics and druids, often their lists contain glaring gaps and other drawbacks* that the wizard's list does not.

*aside from healing

[MadBear]

It's definitely not a nerf, or at least not much of one. As mentioned, 44 leveled spells and 5 cantrips known is vastly more than most "spells known" casters get to begin with. And even when compared to "know entire list" casters like clerics and druids, often their lists contain glaring gaps and other drawbacks* that the wizard's list does not.

*aside from healing

Exactly. There's a reason that the wizard spell list is generally stronger. They have overall better spells but worse other abilities. Meanwhile a cleric is rocking full plate, can deal extra damage on an attack, at the cost of a slightly worse spell list (or a druid is turning into an elemental with similar effect).

That's not to say I'm against giving extra spells to wizards, but I've never found them to be in need of having every single spell to be extremely effective.

[Willie the Duck]

Personally though I don't see an issue with letting them learn whatever free spells they want*, nor with inserting scrolls or spellbooks into a treasure pile.
It's two equally reasonable gamestyles. Either that really cool spell is a perk for levelling up, or an awesome find in the treasure pile. Both work well.

Really where things don't work well is when stuff that was added to the game well past when 'spells as treasure' vaguely went away, such as capped spells known, massively expanding spell lists with new books (such that the clerics and those who don't have to find their spells keep expanding their effective ability base) or the warlock in general.


Warlock is an odd case. They're folks who go seeking dangerous lore, sure, but the Patron can be viewed as both the endpoint of that search and the beginning. A warlock who wakes up in the morning to find new spells in their heads/tomes is just as valid as one who wakes up with a massive and ineffable urge to go poke their noses into Undermountain, it all depends on what level of danger/difficulty the DM wants for them.

Warlocks in general are an odd case. There is so much about them that seems not particularly grounded in their lore, so much as the role the filled in 3e ('simple caster, take #2') and some expansion/revision on that that didn't draw them specifically closer to their theme. I would love to play with something called a warlock which does what you mention, but not with the class architecture we've been given. Honestly, something built on the Cleric frame but with differing Domain Spells every morning or the like would be how I'd start that experiment.

[KorvinStarmast]

Warlocks in general are an odd case. There is so much about them that seems not particularly grounded in their lore, so much as the role the filled in 3e ('simple caster, take #2') and some expansion/revision on that that didn't draw them specifically closer to their theme. I would love to play with something called a warlock which does what you mention, but not with the class architecture we've been given. Honestly, something built on the Cleric frame but with differing Domain Spells every morning or the like would be how I'd start that experiment. As I trim the bits and pieces to fit my home world, the only arcane casters are Warlocks. (While I had consideried sorcerers, so far I have not decided pro unless maybe Wild Magic ... maybe).

No wizards due to the centuries-long witch hunt/purge that was a reaction to various wizards and artificers unleashing, through their carelessness, a variety of magical calamaties on the world. In most regions where there is civilization "wanted dead or alive" is the status of wizards. (A few NPC mages/archmages will exist but will be, for the sake of survival, hard to find).
As I run through this reskinning I am finding a variety of other spells that I need to insert into the Warlock lists/bonus lists. It's a slightly bigger task than I had originally anticipated, but I am getting there.

Bards are being converted into a half caster. That project got stillborn a while back due to me thinking I had free time over Christmas break that Mrs. Starmast decided I did not have. :smallfrown:

[PhantomSoul]

As I trim the bits and pieces to fit my home world, the only arcane casters are Warlocks. (While I am still considering sorcerers, so far I have not decided pro).
No wizards due to the centuries long witch hunt/purge that was a reaction to wizards and artificers unleashing, through their carelessness, a variety of magical calamaties on the world. In most regions where there is civilization "wanted dead or alive" is the status of wizards. (A few NPC mages/archmages will exist but will be, for the sake of survival, hard to find).
As I run through this reskinning I am finding a variety of other spells that I need to insert into the Warlock lists/bonus lists. It's a slightly bigger task than I had originally anticipated, but I am getting there.

(Strange, GitP is saying you're quoting me... but I didn't write that and clicking the link brings you to a post by me that doesn't say that... I wonder if it's a bug and the linked post before mine was deleted?)

In any case, it definitely makes sense to have class availability adapted to lore! (Maybe I'm biased; my setting has points in history where various classes would be unplayable and it's marked in my notes in case we play a "historical" one-shot or something.) Cool that you're adapting the lists in adjustment, though!

[Athan Artilliam]

you can make anything quoted by another since its reliant on simple text. They probably tried to multiquote & botched the editing

Just remember to put some text below

[Aalbatr0ss]

Interesting discussion...

Responding to original question, when DMing for more experienced players, I will roll a few random scrolls from time to time and add them to big loot.

In the only game I'm running for less experienced (younger) players, I am giving them more access to scrolls from time to time. They are playing like new players and taking all blast spells, and I have used this to give them a chance to play around with other spells besides straight damage. It gives them a chance to play around with some of the less obvious spells and learn. I'm also running a pretty high-magic game.

[KorvinStarmast]

(Strange, GitP is saying you're quoting me... but I didn't write that and clicking the link brings you to a post by me that doesn't say that... I wonder if it's a bug and the linked post before mine was deleted?) It's a gooned up multiquote by me, sorry about that. :smallfrown: I think that it's actually me quoting Willie the Duck.

In any case, it definitely makes sense to have class availability adapted to lore! (Maybe I'm biased; my setting has points in history where various classes would be unplayable and it's marked in my notes in case we play a "historical" one-shot or something.) Cool that you're adapting the lists in adjustment, though! Yes. D&D bloats with every edition, and I am beginning to find my own limit as a DM, tolerance-wise.

[Lokishade]

Responding to the initial question of this thread...

I didn't have the opportunity to consider that. My players are fond of Sorcerers.

But if one of them ever wants to play a Wizard, I'll rarely give them new spells to copy. I'll only give a few of them out of the hoard of a boss they fought at level 3, about two from the restricted section of the library of a big city and exactly one from that eccentric hoarder of knick-knacks who doesn't realize he has magic items in his backyard.

And then, at around level 6, I'll throw a Wizard enemy whose spellbook will hold all the nasty spells I will use against them. And the Wizard player will most certainly have the spellbook if he's careful not to destroy it in the fight. I'm not one to come up with BS explanations on how the enemy can use things but not the players. That +2 sword that was used against you is not ID locked and that spellbook is definitely crackable.

tl;dr
I don't plan on spreading the free spells evenly. They will be scarce and rare. But on occasion, I'll give the Wizard a gold mine.

[PhantomSoul]

It's a gooned up multiquote by me, sorry about that. :smallfrown: I think that it's actually me quoting Willie the Duck.

Makes sense... I was just confused at reading what were apparently my words (thoughts overlapping with mine, and yet comparisons I was shocked at [me] having made)!

[Aalbatr0ss]

Responding to the initial question of this thread...

I didn't have the opportunity to consider that. My players are fond of Sorcerers.

But if one of them ever wants to play a Wizard, I'll rarely give them new spells to copy. I'll only give a few of them out of the hoard of a boss they fought at level 3, about two from the restricted section of the library of a big city and exactly one from that eccentric hoarder of knick-knacks who doesn't realize he has magic items in his backyard.

And then, at around level 6, I'll throw a Wizard enemy whose spellbook will hold all the nasty spells I will use against them. And the Wizard player will most certainly have the spellbook if he's careful not to destroy it in the fight. I'm not one to come up with BS explanations on how the enemy can use things but not the players. That +2 sword that was used against you is not ID locked and that spellbook is definitely crackable.

tl;dr
I don't plan on spreading the free spells evenly. They will be scarce and rare. But on occasion, I'll give the Wizard a gold mine.

You know... finding a really powerful spellbook that actually is ID locked could be a pretty good kickoff for a quest with the right party. I'll put this on the list...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. D&D bloats with every edition, and I am beginning to find my own limit as a DM, tolerance-wise.

Same. I'm finding myself diverging more and more, carving my own path. The core mechanics are (relatively) solid, but I'm not a fan of a lot of the new content.

[MoiMagnus]

In any case, it definitely makes sense to have class availability adapted to lore! (Maybe I'm biased; my setting has points in history where various classes would be unplayable and it's marked in my notes in case we play a "historical" one-shot or something.) Cool that you're adapting the lists in adjustment, though!

I'd note that removing a class is two decision at once to cut down a class: you remove the lore, and the mechanics. You can always remove a class from the lore while reskinning it for the mechanics side to be compatible with the lore.

Especially the Wizard in 5e. This class is so bland that a "wizard by the rules" could be in universe a warlock, a sorcerer, a cleric, or whatever, it wouldn't change much. At most, you need to axe the "learning new spells from looted spellbooks" part (and change the spellcasting ability score if you want to), and it's just a spellcaster that specialise in one of the 8 schools of magic and has nice abilities linked to those schools of magic.

(Admittedly, some classes like Druids are a little more difficult to reskin)

If you also wish to reduce the different kinds of spellcasters mechanically, it's fine to kill 2 birds with one rock. But the lore shouldn't be the only reason why you axe a class both mechanically and lore-wise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd note that removing a class is two decision at once to cut down a class: you remove the lore, and the mechanics. You can always remove a class from the lore while reskinning it for the mechanics side to be compatible with the lore.

Especially the Wizard in 5e. This class is so bland that a "wizard by the rules" could be in universe a warlock, a sorcerer, a cleric, or whatever, it wouldn't change much. At most, you need to axe the "learning new spells from looted spellbooks" part (and change the spellcasting ability score if you want to), and it's just a spellcaster that specialise in one of the 8 schools of magic and has nice abilities linked to those schools of magic.

(Admittedly, some classes like Druids are a little more difficult to reskin)

If you also wish to reduce the different kinds of spellcasters mechanically, it's fine to kill 2 birds with one rock. But the lore shouldn't be the only reason why you axe a class both mechanically and lore-wise.

Why not? Sometimes the simplest thing is the best thing. And cutting it out entirely causes a lot fewer issues (or has less risk of issues) than trying to disentangle the two. "Lore" rules are rules just the same as anything mechanical.

And I'd say that wizards, in particular, are the worst designed class in the game precisely because they're so bland and content free. No class fiction at all other than "I cast all the spells. And only care about spells. Is it about spells? Then I'm interested. Otherwise? Forget it." /rant.

[PhantomSoul]

Why not? Sometimes the simplest thing is the best thing. And cutting it out entirely causes a lot fewer issues (or has less risk of issues) than trying to disentangle the two. "Lore" rules are rules just the same as anything mechanical.

On top of that, the players have associations with the class; if the class is in but reflavoured, it could still be an association. If you want the setting (or historical period, in this case) to feel distinct through mechanics and narrative, removing something that has built-in associations helps. For example, in a time when the only source of magic is pacts, having only the warlock as a spellcasting class gets the effect and means players won't just see the setting (same parenthetical) as being identical but with different window dressing.

[olskool]

So what about rituals?

The only difference for Rituals is that they REQUIRE the presence of the Wizard's Spellbook (containing the spell being used/cast as a ritual) and take one TURN to cast. For those unfamiliar with old AD&D, the Turn is a holdover we like to use from AD&D.

1 Round is 6 seconds.
10 Rounds is 1 Minute.
10 Minutes is 1 TURN.
6 Turns are 1 Hour.

[Scots Dragon]

Back in the Day™ a round was a minute long, so it was ten rounds to a turn.

[KorvinStarmast]

Back in the Day™ a round was a minute long, so it was ten rounds to a turn. And things had fewer hit points, back in the day. One of the things that I liked about WoTC's mods was that a round is quicker which makes combat fast and furious. For me it's a verisimilitude thing, but it also goes hand in hand with the HP numbers going up.

[Burley]

And I'd say that wizards, in particular, are the worst designed class in the game precisely because they're so bland and content free. No class fiction at all other than "I cast all the spells. And only care about spells. Is it about spells? Then I'm interested. Otherwise? Forget it." /rant.

I disagree with this. Wizards are, in my opinion, the most relatable class: An intelligent person who reads book after book to gain esoteric knowledge, relating to magic and fantastic worlds. Sound familiar?

Wizard seems bland because the other classes seem unfamiliar to us. We have to write up reasons why Barbarians and Warlocks are interesting, because we're not frothing-mouthed soul-sellers.
Wizards are doing the exact thing that we're doing when we play this game, right? We should be able to connect with the Wizard's need to explore lore and have discussions and debates with other Wizards and be excited when we come across a new tome because it's all about dragons and there's a new spell in it. Wizards are bland, maybe, because you don't need to stretch your imagination to understand their motivations.
Maybe it's bland because you only care about casting all the spells and only care about the spells and, if it is spells, you're interested. If it's otherwise, forget it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Pildion]

I try to make sure the Wizard will get 2 scrolls a spell level, ether via loot or allow them to buy them. The spell book \ Ritual casting is a big part of being a Wizard, I want to make sure they can use it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree with this. Wizards are, in my opinion, the most relatable class: An intelligent person who reads book after book to gain esoteric knowledge, relating to magic and fantastic worlds. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, the "goes on expeditions to discover old lore and knowledge" is the original Magic User thematic that has been somewhat ignored in WoTC's template. In 5e that aspect of arcane casting has been placed into the Warlock's lap, which is unfortunate. Ivory Tower Wizards are hardly adventurers. :smallyuk:


Wizards are doing the exact thing that we're doing when we play this game, right? We should be able to connect with the Wizard's need to explore lore and have discussions and debates with other Wizards and be excited when we come across a new tome because it's all about dragons and there's a new spell in it. Wizards are bland, maybe, because you don't need to stretch your imagination to understand their motivations. Nicely put.

[Burley]

Ivory Tower Wizards are hardly adventurers. :smallyuk:
Well, why are we playing adventurers that aren't adventurers? Or, if we are, isn't that interesting enough? Why is it boring to play a character who is completely out of their element, sleeping on the dirty ground and eating, what is this, "bean soup?" A scholar on the road, attempting to put their thesis into practice, facing the harsh realities of adventure. Why is that boring, when a Fighter who has always been on the road looking for adventure is interesting?
Academia doesn't happen in a vacuum and Wizards can only learn so much in a library. Wizards who spend their whole lives in a library are NPCs and are not what I go to the classes chapter to read about.
I'd also argue that Warlocks take short-cuts in their eldritch dealings, while Wizards put in the work. Both are interesting for their own paths.


Nicely put.
I know. :smallamused: One of the benefits of proofreading your posts: You look much more of smart than you axshally is.

[DigoDragon]

As GM, I figure I allow a pretty good number of chances for a wizard to add to their spell book. Scrolls are plentiful to find in Dungeons and decently-sized towns; I would guess that wizards in my past campaigns learn an average of 2-3 additional spells per wizard level above what they normally get for free. This is after factoring Spellcraft checks and downtime to buy the supplies and get writing.


The GM of my Saturday group is much more strict on letting me find scrolls/books. My kobold wizard is averaging about 1 additional spell picked up each wizard level, but I don't feel it's a nerf; I specialize in battlefield control and so far I don't find that I need more than 2-3 spells each level to do that job competently.

[Chronos]

In some contexts in 2nd edition, a turn was a round, and in some contexts, a turn was 10 rounds, and it was never quite entirely clear which context was which. That was one of many messes in the 2nd edition rules.

[Witty Username]

I'd note that removing a class is two decision at once to cut down a class: you remove the lore, and the mechanics. You can always remove a class from the lore while reskinning it for the mechanics side to be compatible with the lore.

Especially the Wizard in 5e. This class is so bland that a "wizard by the rules" could be in universe a warlock, a sorcerer, a cleric, or whatever, it wouldn't change much. At most, you need to axe the "learning new spells from looted spellbooks" part (and change the spellcasting ability score if you want to), and it's just a spellcaster that specialise in one of the 8 schools of magic and has nice abilities linked to those schools of magic.

(Admittedly, some classes like Druids are a little more difficult to reskin)

If you also wish to reduce the different kinds of spellcasters mechanically, it's fine to kill 2 birds with one rock. But the lore shouldn't be the only reason why you axe a class both mechanically and lore-wise.


Why not? Sometimes the simplest thing is the best thing. And cutting it out entirely causes a lot fewer issues (or has less risk of issues) than trying to disentangle the two. "Lore" rules are rules just the same as anything mechanical.

And I'd say that wizards, in particular, are the worst designed class in the game precisely because they're so bland and content free. No class fiction at all other than "I cast all the spells. And only care about spells. Is it about spells? Then I'm interested. Otherwise? Forget it." /rant.

I am at a bit of a loss with this line of discussion. Mostly because I find wizard is versatile but not bland.I would as far to say they have most interesting fluff to me. They are the casters that are required to understand magic, they are in fluff the gatherers, compilers and inventors of magic. And the mechanics actually supported that. Also, wizards are more self directed than other casters, meaning they need individual values and goals and magic should directly relate to that in some way. I realize saying it that sounds like a pretty basic but most other casters don't really have that connection, sorcerers are somewhat disconnected to their magic since it is inhereted rather than a conscious choice and warlocks, clerics, and druids all have external sources of their magic which muddy the issue. Only bards have magic that is as personalized, and they are more restrictive on base concept. In short, most character have magic, the wizard is the one that must have a reason they study it.

[MoiMagnus]

I am at a bit of a loss with this line of discussion. Mostly because I find wizard is versatile but not bland.I would as far to say they have most interesting fluff to me. They are the casters that are required to understand magic, they are in fluff the gatherers, compilers and inventors of magic. And the mechanics actually supported that. Also, wizards are more self directed than other casters, meaning they need individual values and goals and magic should directly relate to that in some way. I realize saying it that sounds like a pretty basic but most other casters don't really have that connection, sorcerers are somewhat disconnected to their magic since it is inhereted rather than a conscious choice and warlocks, clerics, and druids all have external sources of their magic which muddy the issue. Only bards have magic that is as personalized, and they are more restrictive on base concept. In short, most character have magic, the wizard is the one that must have a reason they study it.

Maybe "bland" was not the best word to say what I meant. What I meant was "extremely easy to reskin".

The point of the wizard is that they study magic, but it doesn't matter from where they get their power. They could be priests studying ancient divine magic, they could have inherited their power from their lineage and try to expand it through research, etc. The only thing that kind of limit their lore is the spellbook class ability.

But they're not the only class like that. Clerics are very easy to reskin too. You could make a "cleric" which is a battlemage of the imperial army, and say that your canalisation is the power you get from special tatoos for example, and the only ability that you would have issue reskinning is the divine intervention (the d100 roll for a miracle).

[Burley]

Maybe "bland" was not the best word to say what I meant. What I meant was "extremely easy to reskin".

The point of the wizard is that they study magic, but it doesn't matter from where they get their power. They could be priests studying ancient divine magic, they could have inherited their power from their lineage and try to expand it through research, etc. The only thing that kind of limit their lore is the spellbook class ability.

But they're not the only class like that. Clerics are very easy to reskin too. You could make a "cleric" which is a battlemage of the imperial army, and say that your canalisation is the power you get from special tatoos for example, and the only ability that you would have issue reskinning is the divine intervention (the d100 roll for a miracle).

I think you're being reductive. You're purposely ignoring existing lore and tropes of the class to say "can be reskinned." Of course, every class can be "reskinned!" That's exactly what backstories and character concepts are and a Wizard's spellbook ability isn't a ball-and-chain holding them back. The spellbook is a mutable ability that gives the Player/Character control over their abilities.
A Sorcerer gains new spells only when they level and that's so immersion breaking. A cleric or druid having complete access to every spell every morning is equally uninteresting, in my opinion. A Wizard can add spells whenever they find new ones, though. They're limited by what they've learned, but have limitless potential to learn. That's what the spellbook represents, both mechanically and in lore.

[Witty Username]

Maybe "bland" was not the best word to say what I meant. What I meant was "extremely easy to reskin".

The point of the wizard is that they study magic, but it doesn't matter from where they get their power. They could be priests studying ancient divine magic, they could have inherited their power from their lineage and try to expand it through research, etc. The only thing that kind of limit their lore is the spellbook class ability.

But they're not the only class like that. Clerics are very easy to reskin too. You could make a "cleric" which is a battlemage of the imperial army, and say that your canalisation is the power you get from special tatoos for example, and the only ability that you would have issue reskinning is the divine intervention (the d100 roll for a miracle).
Eh, I personally feel it is poor logic to recommend cutting the wizard over.
In terms of cutting it makes more sense to cut the sorcerer, less interesting mechanically, more noob trap issues due to spells known, and there lore amounts to stupid wizard for the most part.
The wizard doesn't really have any serious balance issues by the time one gets to optimized play, in unoptimized play it will outperform sorcerer due to poor picks on spells known (see noob trap, above) but that is an easy to solve issue on the DMs part (let the sorcerer reconfigure if they picked badly).

This reveals to me more of my opinion of the topic at hand.

If a wizard is a new player, and needs some help spell scrolls can and should be provided to help them explore options, learn, and sort out mistakes.
If a wizard is an optimizer use less, as they don't need the help.

[Psyren]

I think the wizard specializations are more clearly defined than ever. A Conjurer's features feel very different in play than an Enchanter's or Necromancer's, etc. Neither 3.5 nor even Pathfinder managed that.



If a wizard is a new player, and needs some help spell scrolls can and should be provided to help them explore options, learn, and sort out mistakes.
If a wizard is an optimizer use less, as they don't need the help.

I agree with this. Got a new player playing a training wheels Wizard (Evoker or maybe Diviner) and all they're doing is grabbing blasting spells, you can stick some control and buff/debuffs in the treasure pile to make them curious about that side of their kit. And in-universe they should want to experiment, they're smart.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eh, I personally feel it is poor logic to recommend cutting the wizard over. In terms of cutting it makes more sense to cut the sorcerer, less interesting mechanically, more noob trap issues due to spells known, and there lore amounts to stupid wizard for the most part. I'll buy some shares in this stock.

If a wizard is a new player, and needs some help spell scrolls can and should be provided to help them explore options, learn, and sort out mistakes.

If a wizard is an optimizer use less, as they don't need the help. *golf clap* :smallsmile:

[MrStabby]

The GM of my Saturday group is much more strict on letting me find scrolls/books. My kobold wizard is averaging about 1 additional spell picked up each wizard level, but I don't feel it's a nerf; I specialize in battlefield control and so far I don't find that I need more than 2-3 spells each level to do that job competently.

Wow. One spell per wizard level found actually seems pretty generous based on my history. One spell per level that you actually want and might actually use seems absurdly generous.

I think that my history is more like one spell per four wizard levels that I might want and about one spell per two wizard levels on average... apart from one campaign where we murderified two wizards and took their books.