Spellcasters, Why Do You Need So Many Spells?

[Amechra]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A more salient question, I wonder about, is why are spells so threatening to some?

Part of what, I find appealing about playing aspellcaster, is one can contemplate about the future, and select one’s tools accordingly.

There is something about using a timely Rope Trick spell to save the party from certain death, that I find slightly more satisfying, then Action Surging for a flurry of attacks.

It comes down to aesthetic preference, and frankly I do not think I, or anyone else needs to justify anything about enjoying access to spells.

[OldTrees1]

every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up.

How much is "a handful + a spattering"?

Given infinite spells known, I too would only have a handful I cast regularly and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up.

1st level spells (5+8):
Handful: (Burning Hands or Thunderwave), Detect Magic, Mage Armor, Shield, Silent Image
Smattering: Alarm, Comprehend Languages, Feather Fall, Find Familiar, Grease, Identify, Magic Missile, Sleep

3rd level spells (4+3):
Handful: Fear, Fireball, Fly, Stinking Cloud
Smattering: (Dispel Magic or Counterspell), Leomund's Tiny Hut, Sending

6th level spells (2+1):
Handful: Chain Lightning, Mass Suggestion
Smattering: True Seeing

The vast majority of the "smattering" is low level spells. Even a large portion of the "handful" are low level spells that get replaced with high level spells. (Although amnesia feels bad, so why not just have both?)

So if the demand for spells known starts high, grows slowly, and the growth is decelerating, what about the supply? The supply for spells known starts low and grows linearly.

Now this would be different if we were talking about a mage with substantial non spellcasting magic. Compare a Tier 1 Warlock vs a Tier 1 Sorcerer. The Warlock gets invocations that help deemphasize the spells known.


Of course if the classes had strong themes, narrower spell lists, and features worth using regularly, then the demand for spells known would decrease. A 5E Dread Necromancer* might only pick up:
1st: Alarm, Detect Magic, Identify, Find Familiar, Ray of Sickness
2nd: Blindness/Deafness, Locate Object
3rd: Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, Dispel Magic, Fear, Glyph of Warding, Summon Undead
4th: Otiluke's Resilient Sphere

*3E specialist mage class. They focused on Necromancy and had features beyond spellcasting.

[Telok]

Warlocks & sorcerers get a decent number of known spells for themed casters. Wizards get a reasonable number prepared for a "wise/smart mystic sage" archetype. Clerics... well I think they're a bit of a mess and need to be split into a more unarmored priest & a half way between paladin & the priest but thats a different issue.

The real issues are theming & that there are a couple "best" spells for d&d combat at each level. Sorcerer spell list isn't actually themed. They'd need a very small general list, like 2 or 3 spells a level, and all others given by subclass. Warlock spell list is almost sorta themed as it leans heavy into "edgy" and "darker" spells plus more blasting, which gets yo be an issue if you try to play a nice & good celestial support & party buff warlock. Wizard & cleric have no truely difficult choices in spell selection. All their best spells are in the general lists, Mr. Evil Dark Necro cleric has no problems picking up all the heals & "good nice guy" spells, the best wizard blasts don't require giving up anything or choosing them over the best defense & utility spells.

Really the general spell lists should all be the second tier & common basic utility spells. Everthing else should be siloed into ths subclasses to keep the theme for that subclass.

[Eldariel]

Nowadays, a Wizard wants the following just from a defense and reaction perspective:
- Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Counterspell

That doesn't actually leave that many spells for other uses; you'll take Web and Hypnotic Pattern as standouts and then stuff like Misty Step, Invisibility, Levitate/Fly, Fireball maybe, Summon Greater Demon/Polymorph, etc. You'll be stacked on spells prepared quite soon covering the usual utility functions and enough options to contribute in combats.

[strangebloke]

Lots of magic you prepare as a cleric or druid is utility magic that's innocuous and useful but not really amazing. It's fun to try to guess whether say 'purify food and water' will be useful in a given day or not.

wizards and sorcerers rely heavily on Bread and Butter spells to get stuff done, so their list of prepared spells is smaller than it appears.

[Pex]

A wizard or sorcerer doesn't have to take Mage armor and Shield. They're good spells, but spellcasters can make do without them. Spellcasters can take advantage of cover as anyone else. They can hide behind walls, boulders, be around the corner, trees, etc. just as a rogue would like. They don't hide as a bonus action so can't benefit from advantage on attack rolls, but that's not necessary. It's enough to move behind total cover not to be attacked at all, pop out and cast, then go back into total cover. Other times the bad guys don't have range attacks or the range strikers use saving throw effects anyway a spellcaster's AC won't matter.

[Kane0]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

I find that even a strictly themed caster commonly has their shtick split into multiple piecemeal spells. Like a fire mage will want say fire bolt and control flames, burning hands and continual flame, pyrotechnics and scorching ray, fireball and wall of fire. A telekinesis sorcerer will want say mage hand and catapult, earthbind and knock, fly and pulse wave, bigbys hand and telekinesis.
It would be much easier to just have one or two bundles that package these together, but also i think splitting magic into ten distinct tiers also plays a role in this, trying to fill up all that space. Contrast with something like ye olde 3.5 warlock invocations or the UA mystic which use half or fewer tiers of magic and you see a lot less redundancy even considering the generally reduced level of support to those alternate subsystems.

I also find that about a dozen spells is around the sweet spot, plus or minus an extra half dozen for high and low levels respectively. More than that just doesnt get used often enough to justify or branches out in directions that doesnt make much sense for the character beyond 'a little bit if everything, just in case because i can'

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

If you're playing a very narrow themed character, you don't need more. My Warlock is a dedicated Illusionist with a side bit of Flame spells (Efreeti Lock). I have 25 spells and actively use them all and still end up using my Limited Wish for other random things. The actual character concept, if I wanted to drop the Efreeti Aspect, would only need 9.

But that's that character. I have a Wizard around level 12 who has 40 spells in her book and I use them all. The whole point is she's a sage type who knows the answers to things if she has time to find them.

My honest question is, why wouldn't you use or want options if you have them?

[Keltest]

If you're playing a very narrow themed character, you don't need more. My Warlock is a dedicated Illusionist with a side bit of Flame spells (Efreeti Lock). I have 25 spells and actively use them all and still end up using my Limited Wish for other random things. The actual character concept, if I wanted to drop the Efreeti Aspect, would only need 9.

But that's that character. I have a Wizard around level 12 who has 40 spells in her book and I use them all. The whole point is she's a sage type who knows the answers to things if she has time to find them.

My honest question is, why wouldn't you use or want options if you have them?

I feel like theres a pretty substantial difference between "having more options is better than fewer options, no matter how niche they get" and "I need to have all these options to function as a basic character." which is what the thread seems to be about.

Case in point, Eldariel's post. Why does a wizard need all those spells? Theyre nice to have certainly, but are you incapable of performing your basic job, whatever it is, without them? Unless your job is "run in, provoke people to attack you, then deny them from doing so", youre probably fine with one or two of those spells at worst, and can go without them entirely at best.

[Psyren]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

1) A lot of spells benefit not just the caster, but the party as a whole. Rituals in particular tend to fall into this bucket, and for the spells-known casters like Sorcerer, Warlock and Ranger, those take up valuable space in their repertoire. With too few spells known (as the pre-Tasha sorcerers have), trying to squeeze some of these in alongside your main loadout can be a pain, and result in the caster having to choose between being suboptimal or selfish.

2) Many spells are niche or very situational in this edition, but unlike prior editions you don't necessarily have the option of relying on consumables or hirelings to provide them. If you are the only or primary caster in the party, not picking such spells may mean they are just not available when needed. This can leave you bereft of key options like Remove Curse, Identify or even Feather Fall at inopportune times.

TL;DR - if you limit caster repertoires too much, on top of just not feeling as fun to play, you can actually hurt the non-casters too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For combat? You absolutely don't need many spells. Something to deal steady damage (cantrips, Spiritual Weapon, etc), something to deal burst damage (Shatter, Fireball, etc), something to use your concentration slot (Flaming Sphere, Hex, etc), and maybe a non-concentration defense or two (Shield, Counterspell, etc). Look at Warlocks; two first level spells and a cantrip will see you clear through to level 20. Having a few reliable tools that you use over and over again is certainly a valid playstyle, and well-represented in D&D--we call them martial characters. "Lots of options" is the single most important element that distinguishes spellcasters.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick look over my current Wizard's character sheet and counted around 30 spells that I use on a fairly regular basis.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I feel like theres a pretty substantial difference between "having more options is better than fewer options, no matter how niche they get" and "I need to have all these options to function as a basic character." which is what the thread seems to be about.

Case in point, Eldariel's post. Why does a wizard need all those spells? Theyre nice to have certainly, but are you incapable of performing your basic job, whatever it is, without them? Unless your job is "run in, provoke people to attack you, then deny them from doing so", youre probably fine with one or two of those spells at worst, and can go without them entirely at best.

Grod beat me to it, but your statement seems to imply all that maters is functioning in combat or as a "Basic Character"

Just looking at a a character I have active right now.

LyraN is a new character, Level 1 Forge Cleric, Level 1 Artificer. While I have character and RP reasons for the Multiclass I could have roleplayed the character as a Pure Artificer. But, the extra spell options are why I ultimately chose the Divide. She's meant to function as a Support and Tank, holding a front line and being a repository of information on anything magical or weird we come across.

Currently she has the followin:
Cantrips: Booming Blade, Guidance, Mending, Prestidigitation, Spare the Dying.
First Level: Absorb Elements, Alarm, Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Detect Magic, Identify, Searing Smite, Sanctuary

Now, I use every one of those. And if I had to strip away things to still function as the character is meant to function I could lose Booming Blade and Sanctuary.

You might argue Guidance, Mending, Prestidigitation aren't needed. But then why not be a Rogue instead?

Looking at the First Levels: You could argue Absorb could be dropped, except She's meant to be able to Tank damage, so if I can't magically do so why not be a Barbarian?

Essentially, removing any of these spells just puts the question "Why did you bother with a Caster instead of something else?"

[Keltest]

Grod beat me to it, but your statement seems to imply all that maters is functioning in combat or as a "Basic Character"

Just looking at a a character I have active right now.

LyraN is a new character, Level 1 Forge Cleric, Level 1 Artificer. While I have character and RP reasons for the Multiclass I could have roleplayed the character as a Pure Artificer. But, the extra spell options are why I ultimately chose the Divide. She's meant to function as a Support and Tank, holding a front line and being a repository of information on anything magical or weird we come across.

Currently she has the followin:
Cantrips: Booming Blade, Guidance, Mending, Prestidigitation, Spare the Dying.
First Level: Absorb Elements, Alarm, Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Detect Magic, Identify, Searing Smite, Sanctuary

Now, I use every one of those. And if I had to strip away things to still function as the character is meant to function I could lose Booming Blade and Sanctuary.

You might argue Guidance, Mending, Prestidigitation aren't needed. But then why not be a Rogue instead?

Looking at the First Levels: You could argue Absorb could be dropped, except She's meant to be able to Tank damage, so if I can't magically do so why not be a Barbarian?

Essentially, removing any of these spells just puts the question "Why did you bother with a Caster instead of something else?"

Why bother with a barbarian instead of a fighter? All youre doing is hitting stuff with a weapon.

Sometimes the particulars matter. You dont have to only be combat-oriented as a caster, though I would suggest that wizards' role should ideally be as a force multiplier by default. But wizards, clerics and their imitators are the only times I ever see anybody argue that they have some sort of fundamental right and need to have options beyond their specific niche in the group. Even the bard doesnt get these kind of arguments, and theyre literally designed around having options when you build them!

Or to put another way, while "I like options" is a valid opinion, it doesnt really answer the question of why its essential to the class identity as opposed to just being a Nice Thing.

[GalacticAxekick]

I really do just cast that many spells.

If the game is being run well, I as a player should be facing a wide variety of problems, and no handful of spells will be able to tackle them all. All of my different spells are sure to come up, and I'm probably going to have moments where I wish I had learned/prepared another spell.

EDIT: This said, my table rarely runs games past 10th level, so no one ever has more than about 15 spells. I can't tell you what higher level play looks like in terms of how often each spell is used.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff. Because there are so many different situations. That's why. One wants to be prepared.

[Willowhelm]

Chefs, why do you need so many knives?

I could get by with a single knife in my kitchen. Instead I have over a dozen “kitchen knives” for different purposes (not included the two dozen in the cutlery draw for eating at the table).

Golfers, why do you have so many clubs?

People, why do you have so many shoes/bags/shirts/electronic devices/belongings?

You can get by with the bare minimum and make things work, or you can have variety and “the right tool for the job” for different situations.

[adb82]

A wizard or a spellcaster can use a variety of spells, being able to adapt himself to many (near every) situation. If we talk just about the role he have to cover in combat im agree with you that you don't need that many spells, but this is not only a combat game. Disguise self make the spellcaster be roguelike, as it make pass without trace, Tenser transformation make it deal a tons of damage, flying in some circustances can save your life, feather fall the same, counterspell is probably the strongest spell in the books even if its situational, see invisibility, true sight, all the rituals like comprehend lenguages, detect magic, alarm, are all utilities for the party, as same as many spells like lehomund tiny hut, gift of alacrity, rope trick, passwall, teleportation circle, teleport and many others, without talking about cantrips like Guidance, and i only mentioned situational spells (neither near to mention all of them lol)...believe me, even you get all the spells possible you'll never gonna cover every situation and thats why spellcasters wants more spells, becouse they are (especially the wizard) the guy that always have to find a solution to everything, in combat as out of it, the guy that make the party "work" together (especially wizard and sorcerer), mostly its a support and thats what a support character should do, regardless the spells that he gonna use during combat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there are a few things going (speaking as someone who wishes there were a lot fewer spells out there):

1. Spells tend to be narrow in application. Or at least should be (IMO). More like Hawkeye's trick arrows than a swiss army knife. So versatility comes in having a lot of different arrows in your quiver.
2. Spellcasters (especially wizards, but also others) have an inflated sense of "what they should be able to do". The whole concept of a Batman wizard is a symptom of this--the idea that you can solve any situation by casting just the right spell is bad (IMO) for the game. The game would be much better off if spellcasters had to rely on non-spellcasters for a lot of things, just as the reverse is true. No one should be able to solve every situation. Everyone should have to rely on others in most, if not all, situations. That's what teamwork is all about.
3. FOMO. There's a cognitive bias that says "If I'd just had <spell X>, I could have...".

Relative contributions? Dunno. But I think the game would be a lot healthier if more classes were more like the bard or sorcerer (relatively wide versatility at creation, but specialized once built) and less like the wizard or the cleric (wide and flexible from day to day). And if they'd realize that not all magic needs to be spells and transform a lot of the "utility" magic into things that anyone can learn to do (basically make rituals not spells at all, a la 4e's Rituals, but better).

<unpopular opinion>
No full-caster needs to be (or should be) as good in melee as a fighter. They should always be squishier and less effective. Just like an Eldritch Knight is only 1/3 of a caster, a gish who is a full-caster should only be 1/3 as good as a fighter. If you want fighting prowess, you should have to give up substantial casting--not just "oh, I have to use spells for X", but "I can't cast spells above X".
</>

[Pixel_Kitsune]

<unpopular opinion>
No full-caster needs to be (or should be) as good in melee as a fighter. They should always be squishier and less effective. Just like an Eldritch Knight is only 1/3 of a caster, a gish who is a full-caster should only be 1/3 as good as a fighter. If you want fighting prowess, you should have to give up substantial casting--not just "oh, I have to use spells for X", but "I can't cast spells above X".
</>

Curious to talk to this point further.

What constitutes giving up substantial casting?

Do you feel Hexblades, Blade-Singers, Moon Druids, Valor or Blade Bards are out of line? or are their reductions in focus, HP and such enough of a sacrifice?

[Chaos Jackal]

You don't need so many spells if all you wanna do is kill stuff in combat semi-adequately. But if that's all I wanted to do, I wouldn't be playing a spellcaster.

As a spellcaster, you can take many tasks upon yourself and you can excel at them. But you can't do so if you don't have enough spells.

Why do I need so many spells? Because I want my character to do a lot of things and do them well. That's why I play a caster. That's why I want both shield and silvery barbs. That's why I want to be invisible, and teleport, and fly, and create cover, and blow up enemies, and disable them. Those are all things that are likely to come up daily and they're already taking up a good deal of the proposed dozen or so. And then there's all the things that will not come up daily but will come up often enough. And that dozen ain't cutting it.

I have more staple spells on my wizard than a similar-level sorcerer has spells known. I use those staples pretty much every day. I've a few more that are tailored to each day's needs specifically. And still I often find I could've really used a couple additional prepared spells. Oh, and my wizard is currently lv6. Just imagine when I have more spell levels available. I've even trimmed my list of needs and it's quite long anyway.

Were I a sorcerer, I wouldn't even have all of the staples I use daily on my wizard, let alone all the useful pieces that make the difference every individual day. Making that difference is why I need so many spells.

[MrStabby]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

Ok so having an attempt at this:

1) Resistances and immunities
You want hypnotic pattern but worry about immunity so you need a backup. You want fireball but worry about fire immunity so you need backup. For martial characters, once you get a magic weapon you don't need any backup for whn your main plan of hitting things with a sword doesn't work (I guess there is the plan of javalins for things you can't reach). Any individual element of a portfolio of spells is likely to run into a reason for failure - legendary resistance, strong saves in that stat, conditon immunity so the other elements are needed to cover the high liklihood that it won't work.

2) Spells tend to scale badly.
Upcasting spells is a thing, but if you want fire damage then learning fireball is worth it over burning hands, rather than jut upcastin burning hands. Mass cure wounds over upcast cure wounds and so on. There are so many different spells that do kind of the same thing but to different degree. If you want to play a character with consistent strengths over all levels you will need higher level versions of low level functions.

3) Theme is as much about what you can do as what you do do
If you play a cleric you might feal you should be able to bless, to heal to remove curses and dispell magic, to be able to use divinaton, to have protective magics, to banish enemies, to hallow ground and so on. Sure you might not be casing hallow on a week by week basis but having hallow lets you play a character able to play hallow and it plays strongly into the class fantasy of a cleric.

4) Some spells are a substitute for class features.
Mage armour is a substitute for armour proficiency. Spiritual weapon is a substitute for Extra Attack. Longstider is a substitute for monkbarbarian fast movement. Fireball is a substitute for... whirlwind attack? If you look at the density of good class features on casters they tend to to be a lot lighter than the density of good class features on martials, as a number of spells kind of double as class features rather than being proactive and unique solutions to problems.

[animorte]

-snippidy snip-
This was full of mostly wonderful points. I’m giving my upvote!

I personally also don’t think there’s any reason whatsoever for any one character to be able to do everything. Sure, if you’ve got Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, etc. it’s rewarding to get creative.

For those of you that think you always need to be the one to have all the answers, you’re just greedy.

I also prefer spell casting classes because of what they’re capable of, but above that I prefer the casters that need to work with their allies and get creative to find the answer. As opposed to looking at your list and pressing the “win” button.

——————————

Here’s a balance proposal: rework prepared casting. Make everybody spells-known, but allow our current prepared casters to have a small sideboard (instead of the entire spell list) that they can short rest to swap a certain amount based on Mod, Prof, or Level. Then they can switch out as many as they want from that sideboard to the primary list after a long rest.

This would still technically allow them twice as many spells known, but not the ability to always do more than everybody all the time. The only reason for that would be if you were running an adventure with only one or two PCs.

[Tanarii]

Do you feel Hexblades, Blade-Singers, Moon Druids, Valor or Blade Bards are out of line? or are their reductions in focus, HP and such enough of a sacrifice?Yes, haven't seen them in play much, Yes, and they're both tip top of the line if not over it.

[Corran]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.
I'd like to see a few more spells for sorcerers, kind like the most recent subclasses did it. Because with the current spell picks it's very tight to accomodate all of the following: thematic spells, sort of must have spells, spells that combine with metamagic, and probably one or two spells your want to try out or make sense for this particular character for some personality/background reason.

Take for example a draconic sorcerer, say at level 5. I would like to immitate some draconic powers so spells like see invisibility, dragon's breath, scorching ray, fear and fly would be nice to have, or at least some of them. Then I'd want something like shield and misty step at the very least (thankfully no need for mage armor); mirror image I could maybe do without and absorb elements could be delayed a bit more perhaps. Then I have to pick metamagic. I could pick something like careful and empowered (fireball will replace dragon's breath before too long), and be covered for the most part. But what if I wanted twinned to combine with the haste spell. Or what if I want subtle, to combine with the likes of suggestion and counterspell. Lastly, what if my character is poor at flying and I want something like feather fall, or what if I want to try out, I dunno, enhance ability, because it sounds fun and I never tried that spell before.

It would not be impossible to think all of this and make some tough choices that will make me reasonably happy with my first sorcerer. But it gets old after a while. I think that a list of 5-10 extra thematic spells would go a long way to lift some of the weight for me, by allowing me some more freedom over my character's spells known, thus making it more difficult for me to get bored of the class because it's hard differentiating my characters to a larger degree.


With warlocks I dont have an issue. Maybe it's because of how pact magic works, but I never felt an urgent need for more spells known (though I wouldn't say no to morr, to be honest). Maybe I just have not played enough warlocks (just a few) to notice any issues.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Yes, haven't seen them in play much, Yes, and they're both tip top of the line if not over it.

By both were you addressing the Hexblade and Bladesinger or two them in general or did you mean all 4? Again, just clarifying.

Could you share what leads those views? Hexblade I do think MIGHT border on the high end just because it lets you be SAD. But it's still only in Med armor and has d8 HD.

For the Bard, would you say the Valor or Blade bards rank over playing a real Martial or playing a Lore bard depending on which way you're wanting to go?

[Kane0]

Chefs, why do you need so many knives?

I could get by with a single knife in my kitchen. Instead I have over a dozen “kitchen knives” for different purposes (not included the two dozen in the cutlery draw for eating at the table).


Ironically, chefs usually only use like three good knives most if not all of the time. Dont let the big fancy knife blocks fool you.

[adb82]

I think there are a few things going (speaking as someone who wishes there were a lot fewer spells out there):

1. Spells tend to be narrow in application. Or at least should be (IMO). More like Hawkeye's trick arrows than a swiss army knife. So versatility comes in having a lot of different arrows in your quiver.
2. Spellcasters (especially wizards, but also others) have an inflated sense of "what they should be able to do". The whole concept of a Batman wizard is a symptom of this--the idea that you can solve any situation by casting just the right spell is bad (IMO) for the game. The game would be much better off if spellcasters had to rely on non-spellcasters for a lot of things, just as the reverse is true. No one should be able to solve every situation. Everyone should have to rely on others in most, if not all, situations. That's what teamwork is all about.
3. FOMO. There's a cognitive bias that says "If I'd just had <spell X>, I could have...".

Relative contributions? Dunno. But I think the game would be a lot healthier if more classes were more like the bard or sorcerer (relatively wide versatility at creation, but specialized once built) and less like the wizard or the cleric (wide and flexible from day to day). And if they'd realize that not all magic needs to be spells and transform a lot of the "utility" magic into things that anyone can learn to do (basically make rituals not spells at all, a la 4e's Rituals, but better).

<unpopular opinion>
No full-caster needs to be (or should be) as good in melee as a fighter. They should always be squishier and less effective. Just like an Eldritch Knight is only 1/3 of a caster, a gish who is a full-caster should only be 1/3 as good as a fighter. If you want fighting prowess, you should have to give up substantial casting--not just "oh, I have to use spells for X", but "I can't cast spells above X".
</>

But there is no way to handle "every situation" indeed becouse you can't choose all the spells, so a spellcaster choose his spells (and than prepare a part of it) for try to handle more situation he can, becouse that's his role, a support to the party and that's mean not only in combat.
There is no full spellcaster that in combat is better than a fighter with the right feats, neither near, and btw the paladin is an half caster, so it's slots are 1/2, not 1/3 as the eldricht knight, so, unless you have problem even with the paladin itself i dont see your point, multiclassing is an optional rule and in my opinion very fun, but if you don't like gishes for any reason that i honestly wouldn't understand, as i don't see any gishes as good as a fighter is in melee except maybe couple multiclassing build that are anyway just near to the fighter damage output and they need to spend resources while a fighter is almost resourceless, just dont play with this rule.
PS sorcerer and bard have specific features that replace the lack of spells known, wizard is more generalist, but he can't anyway handle everything and, at same time, sorcerer and bard are much easier to multiclass, while the wizard is not easy to mix. If you gonna add more features to the wizard, even making he get less spells, you open it to a tons of multiclass that would make you hate spellcasters much more lol, becouse for sure its features gonna match some other classes features + it have the wizard spell selection, so im not sure you would really like if they would decide to make the wizard more similar to the sorcerer and bard.

[MoiMagnus]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

IME, the main things that make Sorcerer and Warlock having "not enough spells" are :
(1) Rituals. Especially if you're on a table where either the other players or the GM expect you to have them. If there are other spellcasters on the team, this is not that much of an issue.
(2) Bad spells. You can't afford to take spells you know you'll never use during sessions just because you think your character would love to know them. And the other way around, if you made a mistake and took a spells completely useless to your playstyle, you really feel it unless your GM allows you to change it.
(3) "Weird situations" in which restrictions like spellcasting components (VSM), range, target restrictions (humanoid/...), etc make that most of your spells just can't be cast for the duration of a fight if not a full day. This is obviously GM dependent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Curious to talk to this point further.

What constitutes giving up substantial casting?

Do you feel Hexblades, Blade-Singers, Moon Druids, Valor or Blade Bards are out of line? or are their reductions in focus, HP and such enough of a sacrifice?

I would say that if you want to be able to have equivalent armor class, weapon proficiencies, and/or attacks as a half caster, you need to cast like a half-caster. As in no spells/slots at all above 5th. And if you want more than a single Extra Attack, you should be no better than a 1/3 caster at casting.

So if you want to be a full-caster, you should have no more than limited weapon proficiencies and armor and get your extra attack much later. Not just 1 level (like valor/swords bards), but more like T3. And no blade-trips--those were a mistake from day 1.

Moon druids are somewhat of a special case until very late (when they can cast in wildshape form) and I'm inclined to give them a pass because at any point in time they're either a martial or a caster, not both. And dropping form to cast has substantial costs (again, until 20th level).


1) But there is no way to handle "every situation" indeed becouse you can't choose all the spells, so a spellcaster choose his spells (and than prepare a part of it) for try to handle more situation he can, becouse that's his role, a support to the party and that's mean not only in combat.

2) There is no full spellcaster that in combat is better than a fighter with the right feats, neither near, and btw the paladin is an half caster, so it's slots are 1/2, not 1/3 as the eldricht knight, so, unless you have problem even with the paladin itself i dont see your point, multiclassing is an optional rule and in my opinion very fun, but if you don't like gishes for any reason that i honestly wouldn't understand, as i don't see any gishes as good as a fighter is in melee except maybe couple multiclassing build, just dont play with this rule. At the same time, if you think that a spellcaster in melee should just deal just 1d6 + str and nothing else, than maybe is better you take a look on the older editions of D&D.

3) PS sorcerer and bard have specific features that replace the lack of spells known, wizard is more generalist, but he can't anyway handle everything and, at same time, sorcerer and bard are much easier to multiclass, while the wizard is not easy to mix. If you gonna add more features to the wizard, even making he get less spells, you open it to a tons of multiclass that would make you hate spellcasters much more lol, becouse for sure its features gonna match some other classes features + it have the wizard spell selection, so im not sure you would really like if they would decide to make the wizard more similar to the sorcerer and bard.

(linebreaks and numbers added for clarity)
1) Right. But the feeling that you should be able to is way too common. And drives the "have to have more spells prepared/known" mania.[1]

2) Bladesinger. Hexblade. Or any of the melee multiclass builds that are so common. As tanky or tankier than a fighter, with equal or better damage, and way more utility. Heck, even Swords bard is too close for comfort. Moon bards until they get their "cast in wildshape" feature are fine, since they can either cast or fight at any given time, not both. Paladins are not full casters. So a paladin has already sacrificed substantial casting capability to be able to melee as well as a fighter. And even then, it's "almost" as well--fewer attacks, among other things. Paladins are within the "normal" range. Bladesingers and hexblades are very much not IMO. The appropriate level of fighting for a full-caster is more like a Blade-lock without further specialization. Has weapon, can use it, but that's about it. Personally, no full caster should ever get anything akin to Extra Attack. Full stop. Yes, that includes being able to quicken a blade-trip. I think the blade cantrips were a mistake.

3) The whole point there is to cut the wizard list down to something like the sorcerer list and make them spells known (or at least not nearly as flexible). And move most of that utility elsewhere. Or, my preferred option, ditch the wizard class entirely as beyond fixing. Again, an unpopular opinion.

[1] Opinion: Wizards (especially) can handle way too many situations (relative to everyone else). And yes, here I'm worried about wizards and wizards only. Everyone else has substantial limitations. Wizards have too many spells, too many of which are just broken "do just about anything" ones.

[MrStabby]

Moon druids are somewhat of a special case until very late (when they can cast in wildshape form) and I'm inclined to give them a pass because at any point in time they're either a martial or a caster, not both. And dropping form to cast has substantial costs (again, until 20th level).



(linebreaks and numbers added for clarity)
1) Right. But the feeling that you should be able to is way too common. And drives the "have to have more spells prepared/known" mania.[1]

2) Bladesinger. Hexblade. Or any of the melee multiclass builds that are so common. As tanky or tankier than a fighter, with equal or better damage, and way more utility. Heck, even Swords bard is too close for comfort. Moon bards until they get their "cast in wildshape" feature are fine, since they can either cast or fight at any given time, not both. Paladins are not full casters. So a paladin has already sacrificed substantial casting capability to be able to melee as well as a fighter. And even then, it's "almost" as well--fewer attacks, among other things. Paladins are within the "normal" range. Bladesingers and hexblades are very much not IMO. The appropriate level of fighting for a full-caster is more like a Blade-lock without further specialization. Has weapon, can use it, but that's about it. Personally, no full caster should ever get anything akin to Extra Attack. Full stop. Yes, that includes being able to quicken a blade-trip. I think the blade cantrips were a mistake.

3) The whole point there is to cut the wizard list down to something like the sorcerer list and make them spells known (or at least not nearly as flexible). And move most of that utility elsewhere. Or, my preferred option, ditch the wizard class entirely as beyond fixing. Again, an unpopular opinion.

[1] Opinion: Wizards (especially) can handle way too many situations (relative to everyone else). And yes, here I'm worried about wizards and wizards only. Everyone else has substantial limitations. Wizards have too many spells, too many of which are just broken "do just about anything" ones.

I think you are being a bit generous here. The moon druid is simultaniously both a caster and a fighter in the sense it can benefit from spells it cast and be wildshaped at the same time. It can drop something like an entangle spell and then wildshape and maintain concentration. Given the fraction of the class-power that comse specifically from concentration spells that it can benefit from whilst being a powerful fighter as well I think it would well fall into the other category.

I would also be inclined to consider the Paladin to also be erring on the side of too much casting. The spells are fine, but lay on hands is mimicing spells (ineed one ability mimics multiple spells), detect evil and good seems like a load of free spells as well. Same for cleansing touch. More controversially you might think of the Aura of Protection also being a spell like ability - kind of like circle of power is. Add to this a very generous way of getting spells - huge diversity due to the oath spells, getting to swap them out every day, having a lot of spells prepared, access to the whole list (in contrast to say the wizard that can only swap a subset), paladin specific class spells (many more powerful than other spells of the same spell level). Whilst the spellcasting itself might only be a half caster, the level of Magic is certainly pushing what I feel your system would support for a normal martial character.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you are being a bit generous here. The moon druid is simultaniously both a caster and a fighter in the sense it can benefit from spells it cast and be wildshaped at the same time. It can drop something like an entangle spell and then wildshape and maintain concentration. Given the fraction of the class-power that comse specifically from concentration spells that it can benefit from whilst being a powerful fighter as well I think it would well fall into the other category.

I would also be inclined to consider the Paladin to also be erring on the side of too much casting. The spells are fine, but lay on hands is mimicing spells (ineed one ability mimics multiple spells), detect evil and good seems like a load of free spells as well. Same for cleansing touch. More controversially you might think of the Aura of Protection also being a spell like ability - kind of like circle of power is. Add to this a very generous way of getting spells - huge diversity due to the oath spells, getting to swap them out every day, having a lot of spells prepared, access to the whole list (in contrast to say the wizard that can only swap a subset), paladin specific class spells (many more powerful than other spells of the same spell level). Whilst the spellcasting itself might only be a half caster, the level of Magic is certainly pushing what I feel your system would support for a normal martial character.

Moon druids are pushing it, but meh. Their forms fall off really hard past level 3 or so (until elemental forms, and then still).

I'm not worried about magic. One other (strongly unpopular) opinion I have is that everyone should be magic. Just not cast spells. Spells are, IMO, but the tiniest fraction of all magic.

Paladins could stand to be a bit weaker, but it's marginal.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I would say that if you want to be able to have equivalent armor class, weapon proficiencies, and/or attacks as a half caster, you need to cast like a half-caster. As in no spells/slots at all above 5th. And if you want more than a single Extra Attack, you should be no better than a 1/3 caster at casting.

So if you want to be a full-caster, you should have no more than limited weapon proficiencies and armor and get your extra attack much later. Not just 1 level (like valor/swords bards), but more like T3. And no blade-trips--those were a mistake from day 1.

Moon druids are somewhat of a special case until very late (when they can cast in wildshape form) and I'm inclined to give them a pass because at any point in time they're either a martial or a caster, not both. And dropping form to cast has substantial costs (again, until 20th level).

Alright, but I have questions there. (like how to use terms like "Alright, but" without it potentially coming off confrontational vs conversational. :) )

If we're calling only 1 extra attack as something for a Half Caster, does that mean you support Barbarians have 3 or 4? Curious there since the design philosophy seems more that Extra attack is 2 and Fighters are a special case.

What do you define as Limited Weapon and Armor? Is Medium limited, or would it be only light? For weapons, the Bladesinger getting one is alright or no? The Hexblade is a weird case, since their Martial Weapons only matter if they don't take Blade pact.

Curious why you feel the Blade trips (I'm assuming you mean Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade?) problematic? With only two exceptions, one taking a bonus action and both designed around doing exactly what they're doing, you're choosing that Cantrip instead of extra melee attacks and it's damage doesn't really do more than stay even with normal Cantrips, sometimes a bit higher or lower.

[adb82]

I would say that if you want to be able to have equivalent armor class, weapon proficiencies, and/or attacks as a half caster, you need to cast like a half-caster. As in no spells/slots at all above 5th. And if you want more than a single Extra Attack, you should be no better than a 1/3 caster at casting.

So if you want to be a full-caster, you should have no more than limited weapon proficiencies and armor and get your extra attack much later. Not just 1 level (like valor/swords bards), but more like T3. And no blade-trips--those were a mistake from day 1.

Moon druids are somewhat of a special case until very late (when they can cast in wildshape form) and I'm inclined to give them a pass because at any point in time they're either a martial or a caster, not both. And dropping form to cast has substantial costs (again, until 20th level).



(linebreaks and numbers added for clarity)
1) Right. But the feeling that you should be able to is way too common. And drives the "have to have more spells prepared/known" mania.[1]

2) Bladesinger. Hexblade. Or any of the melee multiclass builds that are so common. As tanky or tankier than a fighter, with equal or better damage, and way more utility. Heck, even Swords bard is too close for comfort. Moon bards until they get their "cast in wildshape" feature are fine, since they can either cast or fight at any given time, not both. Paladins are not full casters. So a paladin has already sacrificed substantial casting capability to be able to melee as well as a fighter. And even then, it's "almost" as well--fewer attacks, among other things. Paladins are within the "normal" range. Bladesingers and hexblades are very much not IMO. The appropriate level of fighting for a full-caster is more like a Blade-lock without further specialization. Has weapon, can use it, but that's about it. Personally, no full caster should ever get anything akin to Extra Attack. Full stop. Yes, that includes being able to quicken a blade-trip. I think the blade cantrips were a mistake.

3) The whole point there is to cut the wizard list down to something like the sorcerer list and make them spells known (or at least not nearly as flexible). And move most of that utility elsewhere. Or, my preferred option, ditch the wizard class entirely as beyond fixing. Again, an unpopular opinion.

[1] Opinion: Wizards (especially) can handle way too many situations (relative to everyone else). And yes, here I'm worried about wizards and wizards only. Everyone else has substantial limitations. Wizards have too many spells, too many of which are just broken "do just about anything" ones.

1) no more than how is common "i need a better amor/sword" for the fighters, everyone want more than what they have.

2) a bladesinger lv 11in combat, for get even just near to the damage that a fighter battlemaster with the crossbow expert and sharpeshooter feats (i used ranged feats only becouse you can get archery as fighting style that is better than defence and GWM, but it work anyway also in this way) gonna deal (but he will be behind anyway, there is no way he can beat 4/5 attacks with +10 + 5 to damage + possible reaction attack as the fighter get lots of feats + manuvers + action surge, nothing is neither near to this), have to use one of his 5th lv spell for probably animate object + he must use his concentration, that mean he can't do his real work with magic that its to support the party and he have to activate bladesong which cost a bonus action and it's just proficiency bonus a day. The fighter keep doing more damage even without using action surge and manuvers, keep having an AC higher becouse the bladesinger AC grow only in Bladesong and so on. Hexblade deal even less damage and have even less AC than Bladesinger. Also Paladin and Bladesinger have both fewer attacks than fighter, well, every class have fewer attacks than fighter, and you are right when you say that paladin in melee is almost strong as a fighter, but in my opinion you are much less right when you think that Bladesinger can be near them in melee without sacrificing much more of it's power. What i mean is, the bladesinger must to spend all his resources for anyway deal lower melee damage than a fighter and while he could use his slots and spells for support the party being much more "strong" in the economy of the game, for deal melee damage he lose his original role and anyway he deal less damage than a fighter.

3) Honestly, to me it just seem like you don't like magic users even just effective to swing a sword (especially if its a wizard swinging that sword lol), regardless if they are stronger or not than a fighter in melee, about this i can only say that for sure the wizard is the strongest class of the game, but that's happen only to hight levels, becouse a wizard lv 2 or 3 is kinda useless with his few slots and not so powerfull spell, and even later he always have to be careful on the number of slots, while for sure from tier 3 they shine more than other classes, as the monk probabily shine more in tier 1 and 2 and other classes will shine in other part of the game, but they don't need to be fixed just for it in my opinion. What i would fix is the war magic of the eldrict knight, it have a terrible synergy with extra attack x2 and basically after lv 11 you dont need to use it anymore if you are not dex based or sword and board.

ps about the first part of your post, i totally disagree, no one ask the eldricht knight to use light armor or simple weapons just becouse he can use magic, that would be just no sense, as same i think it would be no sense ask a spellcaster to lose magic for use armors or weapons granted from the subclass. Also i think we are now playing the more balanced edition of D&D ever, in all previews editions the magic users were much more powerful than in 5e compared with martial archetypes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

2) a bladesinger lv 11in combat, for get even just near to the damage that a fighter battlemaster with the crossbow expert and sharpeshooter feats gonna deal (but he will not get as same damage anyway), have to use one of his 5th lv spell for probably animate object that i neither consider melee + he must use his concentration, that mean he can't do his real work with magic that its to support the party and he have to activate bladesong which cost a bonus action and it's just proficiency bonus a day. The fighter keep doing more damage even without using action surge and manuvers, keep having an AC higher becouse the bladesinger AC grow only in Bladesong and so on. Hexblade deal even less damage and have even less AC than Bladesinger. Also Paladin and Bladesinger have both fewer attacks than fighter, well, every class have fewer attacks than fighter, and you are right when you say that paladin in melee is almost strong as a fighter, but in my opinion you are much less right when you think that Bladesinger can be near them in melee without sacrificing much more of it's power.
I've been playing a Bladesinger from 7th to 15th now, and she's easily the strongest character in the party.

The variant of Extra Attack they get in Tasha's is frankly insane, so she hits like a truck without any spell expenditure.
My AC has usually been on par with the sword-and-board Paladin before Bladesong or any defensive spells (Mage Armor + Bracers of Armor). With those things, there was a looong stretch of game where only crits could touch me.
My endurance is amazing because I can fight at full efficiency with nothing but a few 1st level slots (Shield + Hex). I don't even touch Bladesong for a lot of encounters, even now that I have a ton of uses.
My utility is off-the-charts even by Wizard standards, because I can afford to burn most of my high-level spell slots on things like upcast Enhance Abilities, Stone Shape, and Passwall (to name a few of my favorites).
I only needed two feats (Tough and War Caster) to pull things off. And while I did start with good stat rolls, I also burned a level on Warlock and a feat on Eldritch Adept for story reasons.

And that's not even counting standard Wizard force-multipliers like Contingency and Planar Binding.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alright, but I have questions there. (like how to use terms like "Alright, but" without it potentially coming off confrontational vs conversational. :) )

If we're calling only 1 extra attack as something for a Half Caster, does that mean you support Barbarians have 3 or 4? Curious there since the design philosophy seems more that Extra attack is 2 and Fighters are a special case.

What do you define as Limited Weapon and Armor? Is Medium limited, or would it be only light? For weapons, the Bladesinger getting one is alright or no? The Hexblade is a weird case, since their Martial Weapons only matter if they don't take Blade pact.

Curious why you feel the Blade trips (I'm assuming you mean Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade?) problematic? With only two exceptions, one taking a bonus action and both designed around doing exactly what they're doing, you're choosing that Cantrip instead of extra melee attacks and it's damage doesn't really do more than stay even with normal Cantrips, sometimes a bit higher or lower.

I would have no issue with Barbarians getting Extra Attack (2) or something functionally equivalent (such as rolling Frenzy, minus the exhaustion, into the base class).

Limited weapons and armor--no martial weapons, light armor at most. And ideally no armor. I'm in favor of a houserule such as "each class specifies what spells you can cast in which armor and you can't gain it any other way." And that includes "armor replacement" features. [1]

Bladetrips were a mistake because they promote the idea that casters should be good with weapons. And it's pretty easy to buff them (sorcadins stacking smite on top of quickened blade-trips, bladesingers getting to cast one and attack regularly, etc).

Note--all of these are things I'd change if I were in charge of rewriting things from the ground up. Which I'm not. I just find it absurd that a fighter or rogue has to give up his entire subclass (which, in the case of the fighters, gives quite a lot) for 1/3 casting, while a bladesinger gives up the drab droplets that are the wizard subclasses and is still a full caster, just as good at casting most of the "good" spells as just about anybody else. And gets a heck of a lot more than 1/3 of a fighter in return. And a 1-level dip into hexblade (which was already on the menu for a lot of CHA-types) plus a blade-trip gives a sorcerer or lore bard most of the tools needed to fight in melee. And a 1 level dip into cleric gives heavy armor and martial weapons to a wizard, letting them spike their AC higher than just about anybody and, with a blade-trip, get much of the melee power of a barbarian (say). While still keeping all the things that make wizards powerful. The opportunity costs just aren't balanced.

My priority, were I rewriting things, however, would be to gut the spell lists of everyone, mostly by moving much of the "utility" magic to "not-spell magic" (like rituals that don't actually need you to be a caster).

[1] if you can't tell, I don't like multiclassing because it completely promotes cherry-picking features. Among many other reasons.

[Witty Username]

I personally think sorcerer has about the right number of spells, for an experienced caster player. Less experienced players with casters, from my observations, tend to need more spells for buffer reasons, or have frustration with the spells they picked when they didn't work as they expected (which is more an appeal to let sorcerers change out their spells if the player brings it up)
I think the current number of spells is about right, sorcerers pre Tasha's are the line I would say, lower than that and issues are likely to be had.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I personally think sorcerer has about the right number of spells, for an experienced caster player. Less experienced players with casters, from my observations, tend to need more spells for buffer reasons, or have frustration with the spells they picked when they didn't work as they expected (which is more an appeal to let sorcerers change out their spells if the player brings it up)
I think the current number of spells is about right, sorcerers pre Tasha's are the line I would say, lower than that and issues are likely to be had.

I basically agree, although I think for newer players being able to switch them out easier is more important than having more of them. They also have about the right size spell list (not the right spells, necessarily, but the right size list) IMO.

[KorvinStarmast]

I basically agree, although I think for newer players being able to switch them out easier is more important than having more of them. They also have about the right size spell list (not the right spells, necessarily, but the right size list) IMO. Buyer's remorse is a thing.

[Kane0]

I personally think sorcerer has about the right number of spells, for an experienced caster player.
I think the current number of spells is about right, sorcerers pre Tasha's are the line I would say, lower than that and issues are likely to be had.

Yep, seconded. Ive got a clockwork soul up to level 10 now and ive intentionally given up one of the two free spells at each spell level.

[Tanarii]

By both were you addressing the Hexblade and Bladesinger or two them in general or did you mean all 4? Again, just clarifying.

Could you share what leads those views? Hexblade I do think MIGHT border on the high end just because it lets you be SAD. But it's still only in Med armor and has d8 HD.Hexblade is flat out broken OP. It was the only Xan subclass I didn't add to my campaign after play testing.

Bladesinger I'm not familiar with, I never intended to include it and never play tested it.

Wildshape in general and Moon Druids in particular is very bad for the same reason as Polymorph. Neither should give the hit points of the creature transformed into. I consider Moon Druids OP, but they are a support primary, so an argument could be made that with their low AC and offense that they need a bit to bring them up to Cleric snuff. I just think Moon Druid hit points take it too far.


For the Bard, would you say the Valor or Blade bards rank over playing a real Martial or playing a Lore bard depending on which way you're wanting to go?No for the former because that's not the point. They're still a full spellcasting caster. They get what's probably a bit too much Martial added on. The only reason they aren't definitely over the line is they same as the argument for the Moon Druid, they're support. The line is different from a Warlock, Wizard or Sorcerer.

And either is superior to Lore Bard, unless you're going to take Moderately Armored for your Lore Bard anyway.

------

Also don't even get me started on the abomination that are SCAGtrips. Whomever wrote and/or approved publishing those clearly didn't think it through.

[Angelalex242]

The oddest thing about blade spells in particular is: Why don't Rangers and Paladins have those? Paladins have smites instead, of course, but there's still poor screwed over Rangers to think about.

[Eldariel]

And either is superior to Lore Bard, unless you're going to take Moderately Armored for your Lore Bard anyway.

No, Lore Bard is clearly the strongest Core Bard (and arguably the strongest Bard) regardless of armor proficiencies - armor just isn't that big of a deal unless the party doesn't know basic tactics or they're playing solo. Being able to just make enemy attacks miss not only on self but on the whole party, plus make enemies fail key checks like Initiative, and getting Conjure Animals or Animate Dead over not getting either is way better than any amount of AC. Though yes, that might be another problem: that casters get tons of powerful abilities while warriors get...what, small bonuses to attacking?

I do agree with the premise that warrior casters are way too easy to make in this system though. But that's not so much down to casters getting too much warrior (though yeah, it being trivial to wear heavy armor takes away one big warriory thing) but warriors getting so little warrior on top of their base warrior shell that there's no real comparison. Fundamentally warrior classes just don't get nearly as many features as casters: casters keep getting better at being casters every single level while warriors...get like five-six features relevant to hitting things with a stick over 20 levels. Which means they always just use basic attacks and are at two attacks on level 5 and level 11 and level 20 (Fighter being the singular exception but having to wait until level 11 to pick up past what casters get is pretty lousy).

[Schwann145]

There's two problems at work here, as I see it.

Firstly, the D&D developers have a serious problem with laziness and/or sacred cow worship when it comes to spells and spell lists.
I've been saying for years that the spells in D&D need a pretty massive overhaul. Some spells need to be rearranged by school (ie: cure spells in Necro school, which took a long time to right for some reason), some lists need to be cropped or expanded (ie: divine casters need lists based on their worship, not a catch all of everything, and so on), classes need far more identity in their spell list than actually exists (ie: specialists should be focused primarily on their specialty, not free to abandon it for more preferable spells of other specialties on a whim), etc and so on.
Fixing spells goes a long way towards fixing the feeling like you don't know/have enough spells.

Secondly, gamers are gonna game.
Meaning, in modern D&D (and especially in online discourse like you'll find here), there is a very real need players seem to have to cover all possible bases on every character. Each party is assumed to be a group of individuals who all have as few, if any, weaknesses as possible.
When you're building a spellcaster to have no weaknesses, that dictates which spells you learn. You need your AC boost, your Elemental protections, your single target attacks, your AoE attacks, your battlefield control, your utility and movement...
The spells basically pick themselves. You even alluded to it in the OP by suggesting you already know which spells you're likely to have, give or take a few.
So more spells means more ability to break away from the "must haves" and pick up more "because it looks neat" options that you might not otherwise choose. Niche spells.

Now, all that said...

The first problem will always be a problem. Because we saw what happened in 4th Edition. When you touch the nerd's stuff, they rage. And rage they did, right into Paizo's arms for the better half of a decade.
WotC wants to sell their product, and the best way to do that is not shaking anything up. So even though spells really need shaking up, they absolutely won't do it.

The second problem probably isn't actually as much of a problem as it seems. In the real world, at individual gaming tables, you probably won't see the same amount of power-gaming, min/maxing, and focus on "character optimization" as you see online, on discussion boards like this one. In the real world players make nonoptimal, but fun/interesting, character choices all the time including taking niche spells over stronger, more generally useful, ones.



tl;dr? Because I want to both be useful to the party and play with significantly less useful, but still fun, options on the regular. This requires access to more spells.

[Kane0]

I've been saying for years that the spells in D&D need a pretty massive overhaul. Some spells need to be rearranged by school (ie: cure spells in Necro school, which took a long time to right for some reason), some lists need to be cropped or expanded (ie: divine casters need lists based on their worship, not a catch all of everything, and so on), classes need far more identity in their spell list than actually exists (ie: specialists should be focused primarily on their specialty, not free to abandon it for more preferable spells of other specialties on a whim), etc and so on.
Fixing spells goes a long way towards fixing the feeling like you don't know/have enough spells.


Its a big job, but like half a dozen people have expressed this in this thread alone so if we put our collective heads together i'm sure we can get it done in a homebrew thread.

[GalacticAxekick]

I've been saying for years that the spells in D&D need a pretty massive overhaul. Some spells need to be rearranged by school (ie: cure spells in Necro school, which took a long time to right for some reason), some lists need to be cropped or expanded (ie: divine casters need lists based on their worship, not a catch all of everything, and so on), classes need far more identity in their spell list than actually exists (ie: specialists should be focused primarily on their specialty, not free to abandon it for more preferable spells of other specialties on a whim), etc and so on.


Its a big job, but like half a dozen people have expressed this in this thread alone so if we put our collective heads together i'm sure we can get it done in a homebrew thread.

Already on it! In my signature you can see that I've updated and expanded 5e's Divination and Illusion spells and the subclasses that rely on them. Next I want to do the same for the remaining 6 schools of magic, and overhaul each of the full caster classes in the following ways:
The Wizard will no longer learn 2 spells per level. It will learn 1 spell per level, and if that spell is from your school of specialty, you may learn an additional from your school on top of it. This is your incentive to specialize in your school.
The Sorcerer will have a unique spell list for each subclass, representing the powers innate for that sorcerous origin. The Sorcerer will also gain a large number of new subclasses, including new bloodlines (Fey, Fiendish, Celestial), revised elemental subclasses (for Fire, Water, Earth, Wind), and the Revenant Soul (which will allow you to play as a ghost)
The Cleric will lose all of its armor proficiencies and gain only a handful of simple weapon proficiencies, putting it on par with the Wizard and Sorcerer and focusing its theme of godly power (instead of martial prowess). It will also gain subclass-specific spell lists.

[kingcheesepants]

I am one of those people who likes to play casters most of the time (and wizards are in fact my favorite) and I also like having tons and tons of spells, the more the better. Do I need these spells? No not really. But it's fun. It's fun to have a ton of different options, it's fun to try out different combinations, it's fun to use niche spells that you might have never seen in use before, and it's fun to have just the right tool for the job. I also get a mule loaded up with a ton of miscellaneous adventuring gear (ropes, pitons, block and tackle, candles, bells, mirrors, string, ball bearings, chalk, oil, nets, caltrops, etc etc) for much the same reasons. Namely I like having options and I like to be able to do different things and be creative. Spells are one of the most straightforward ways to do that.

Maybe it isn't super well balanced and maybe occasionally I obviate a problem that was supposed to be a whole encounter but you know what? That's okay. The goal of the game is to have fun and as long as everyone has a good attitude we're all having fun when the wizard can pull a weird spell out of his back pocket and make a difficult encounter easy. It isn't going to happen all the time and I guarantee you there will be another chance for the fighter and the rouge to do something cool and get to shine. Don't be afraid of the players being able to be powerful and beat your encounters with a spell. Really, It'll be alright.

Oh and some people (including myself on occasion) just like collecting spells and just want to have them all even if they never use or even prepare some of them. Basically for the same reasons a person collects anything, just to have it. I have both DM'd for and played as wizards for whom assembling a complete spellbook was basically their whole deal. Just wanting all the spells and adventuring in order to find scrolls and spellbooks and the money to buy such. Fun characters and good team players and having such a simple character motivation made for easy adventure hooks as well.

[adb82]

I've been playing a Bladesinger from 7th to 15th now, and she's easily the strongest character in the party.

The variant of Extra Attack they get in Tasha's is frankly insane, so she hits like a truck without any spell expenditure.
My AC has usually been on par with the sword-and-board Paladin before Bladesong or any defensive spells (Mage Armor + Bracers of Armor). With those things, there was a looong stretch of game where only crits could touch me.
My endurance is amazing because I can fight at full efficiency with nothing but a few 1st level slots (Shield + Hex). I don't even touch Bladesong for a lot of encounters, even now that I have a ton of uses.
My utility is off-the-charts even by Wizard standards, because I can afford to burn most of my high-level spell slots on things like upcast Enhance Abilities, Stone Shape, and Passwall (to name a few of my favorites).
I only needed two feats (Tough and War Caster) to pull things off. And while I did start with good stat rolls, I also burned a level on Warlock and a feat on Eldritch Adept for story reasons.

And that's not even counting standard Wizard force-multipliers like Contingency and Planar Binding.

Absolutely true, but while the Bladesinger have 2 attacks (one with Booming Blade) and while he add + dex to all of them, the fighter have 3 attacks and he probabky add 10 + str to all of them.
You AC is pair with a paladin before any spell and bladesong? Even considering 20 dex, without of course a shield and a light armor as you said you gonna use mage armor later on and it dont stack with light armors, i dont get how you get to 20 base AC, and even using a light amor without magic objects you are not pair with a Paladin. Hex is not a wizard spell, but anyway it don't change the equilibrium so much as it add only 1d6 to the 2 attacks (one with BB), while the fighter is anyway dealing 3 attacks at +15 to damage each.
This said, i still don't get how you say this is stronger in melee than a fighter, but probably we just have different views about it.

[da newt]

"So, please, justify why you need so much stuff."

This request / subject is flawed. Full casters don't "need" that many spells known, but they do "WANT" as many spells available / known as possible. DnD would still function if all caster classes were designed like Warlocks (less spells known, limited slots, more at will invocation type stuff) - it would simplify game play but not everyone wants to simplify/limit their PCs to the point of only a handful of abilities/tools/spells that they can use. If all casters were limited to knowing one spell per PC level, full casters would still be viable but less interesting / effective.

[Kane0]

Absolutely true, but while the Bladesinger have 2 attacks (one with Booming Blade) and while he add + dex to all of them, the fighter have 3 attacks and he probabky add 10 + str to all of them.
Hex is not a wizard spell, but anyway it don't change the equilibrium so much as it add only 1d6 to the 2 attacks (one with BB), while the fighter is anyway dealing 3 attacks at +15 to damage each.


BB + two longswords averages 30 (28 if bladesinging) before the 13.5 from triggering BB, three greatswords averages 36. Thats fairly close. If you want to add the +10 to each hit you have to factor the -5 to accuracy too, and thats not considering the bladesinger also being a full caster.

[Selion]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

It depends on your party role, if you focus in a specific context (such as, self buff, crowd control, illusions, enchantment...) 12 spells known are enough to take a attack option and use the other spells to complement your play style.


If you are an utility caster, the generic problem solver, i would say that 25 leveled spells are not even enough, you should be ready to: giving flight to the fighter, dispel maliscious spells, counterspell, counter invisibility, counter scrying, read any language, produce secure shelter for the night, providing fast travel means...

[Dork_Forge]

To put it bluntly: there is a design bias towards casters.



Absolutely true, but while the Bladesinger have 2 attacks (one with Booming Blade) and while he add + dex to all of them, the fighter have 3 attacks and he probabky add 10 + str to all of them.
You AC is pair with a paladin before any spell and bladesong? Even considering 20 dex, without of course a shield and a light armor as you said you gonna use mage armor later on and it dont stack with light armors, i dont get how you get to 20 base AC, and even using a light amor without magic objects you are not pair with a Paladin. Hex is not a wizard spell, but anyway it don't change the equilibrium so much as it add only 1d6 to the 2 attacks (one with BB), while the fighter is anyway dealing 3 attacks at +15 to damage each.
This said, i still don't get how you say this is stronger in melee than a fighter, but probably we just have different views about it.

I think their AC refers to Mage Armor (13)+max Dex(5)+unarmored bracers(2)=20, I think some will consider Mage Armor 'base AC' whilst other will not, personally I'm the latter unless you're burning three slots a day.

If you're questioning where Hex came from Grod said they dipped Warlock.


BB + two longswords averages 30 (28 if bladesinging) before the 13.5 from triggering BB, three greatswords averages 36. Thats fairly close. If you want to add the +10 to each hit you have to factor the -5 to accuracy too, and thats not considering the bladesinger also being a full caster.

It looks like you're considering two-handing a longsword, but with a max Dex they're probably just using a rapier at best, so 28 vs 36 assuming BB isn't triggered. The gap isn't huge, but it's big enough that saying that it's as good as the Paladin is a stretch at best, especially when the Paladin has plenty of levers to pull to increase it further (Divine Smite, Divine Favor etc.)

I would be curious if the BS had to neglect their Int to max their Dex though, maxing both whilst grabbing two feats and dipping Warlock would be an insanely good stat array to roll.

[animorte]

It depends on your party role, if you focus in a specific context (such as, self buff, crowd control, illusions, enchantment...) 12 spells known are enough to take a attack option and use the other spells to complement your play style.


If you are an utility caster, the generic problem solver, i would say that 25 leveled spells are not even enough, you should be ready to: giving flight to the fighter, dispel maliscious spells, counterspell, counter invisibility, counter scrying, read any language, produce secure shelter for the night, providing fast travel means...

Even with this taken into account there are specific non-utility focused builds that would still find a precise thematic application for certain utility spells. So just claiming “overall utility” as your core goal is still extremely vague and unrealistic.

An example: Tons of mobility focus as your goal with haste, misty step, dimension door, teleport, expeditious retreat, even slow and hold person, ray of frost, etc… not to mention storm sorcerer, swarmkeeper ranger, scout rogue, repelling blast… Some of which is useful in combat and others have purpose out of combat, most of it still utility.

Just like damage, utility can easily be focused into more precise expectations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To put it bluntly: there is a design bias towards casters.


Exactly. It's way easier to print and assemble spells than it is anything else. Because each spell stands almost completely alone, not requiring anything else, all using a common resource and system. And no fictional limits--the magic system is "shrug, dunno, it can do anything?" without fundamental boundaries. And there's the fatal conceit that magic mostly means spells, which means that if you want more different magic, you need more spells.

[samcifer]

I'm glad spellcasters have so much variety on what they can do. I've played martial characters and find them very boring to play. Casters have way more variety on what they can do in battle. If you're not a very imaginative player, being a martial character makes combat extremely limited. I've even tried a battle Master sharpshooter and the maneuvers were rarely useful. I just ended up sharpshooting up to 4 times per turn (7 when I action surged) not anything else).

[Dork_Forge]

Exactly. It's way easier to print and assemble spells than it is anything else. Because each spell stands almost completely alone, not requiring anything else, all using a common resource and system. And no fictional limits--the magic system is "shrug, dunno, it can do anything?" without fundamental boundaries. And there's the fatal conceit that magic mostly means spells, which means that if you want more different magic, you need more spells.

The Mystic was them actually trying to be different, not just reusing spells. Sad to see them move away from that so heavily.

I think Bard/Sorcerer (ish, they could do with two more) are the right number of spells known imo.

[adb82]

BB + two longswords averages 30 (28 if bladesinging) before the 13.5 from triggering BB, three greatswords averages 36. Thats fairly close. If you want to add the +10 to each hit you have to factor the -5 to accuracy too, and thats not considering the bladesinger also being a full caster.

BB at lv 11 deal 2d8 + the weapon, you can't use longswords with dex, maybe a rapier can work better, so the first attack with BB deal 3d8 + dex, while the second attack deal 1d8 + dex, so right, around 30 damage if he hit all (assuming he have 20 dex). A fighter with a Crossbow and the archery fighting style hit at +6 assuming the -5 penalty (while the bladesinger hit at +9) but he make 4 attacks for 4d6 + 60 (assuming he have 20 dex, shapeshooter and the crossbow expert feat), plus he can still use manouvers and/or action surge and he probably have an easy reaction attack via feat that mean again 1d6 + 15, as the fighter gets many feats, and he can anyway decide to apply the penalty only to some of his 5 attacks lol. Even if the bladesinger hit with +3 (or +5 if you dont use archery fighting style) compared to the the fighter it's neither near to his damage output, and adding elven accuracy to the bladesinger it don't change so much. For my opinion, without smite, there is no way to stay pair with damage to anything that can apply that +10 to his attacks damage, expecially if the character we are talking about can make 4/5 attacks in a round plus maybe having manuvers that recharge for short rest for advantage every turn (at least at hight levels) and additional damage.

[NaughtyTiger]

A more salient question, I wonder about, is why are spells so threatening to some?

Part of what, I find appealing about playing aspellcaster, is one can contemplate about the future, and select one’s tools accordingly.

You don't have to compromise or guess about the future.
You don't need to research ahead, does the bad guy lair have cold defenses or immune to fire...
because you can have fire and cold and lighting ready to go.

You don't need to roleplay or be creative.
you have a mechanical solution to all the problems a DM can throw at you.

That is the problem with spellcasters.

[animorte]

You don't need to roleplay or be creative.
you have a mechanical solution to all the problems a DM can throw at you.

Wait, you’re trying to say that we’re expected to actually role-play during a role-playing game? I love it!

Honestly, those of you whose idea of fun is always having the right button to press at the right time, have at it. That’s not always for me. But fun is ultimately the goal.

[Selion]

I'm glad spellcasters have so much variety on what they can do. I've played martial characters and find them very boring to play. Casters have way more variety on what they can do in battle. If you're not a very imaginative player, being a martial character makes combat extremely limited. I've even tried a battle Master sharpshooter and the maneuvers were rarely useful. I just ended up sharpshooting up to 4 times per turn (7 when I action surged) not anything else).

This is IMHO a problem of 5e, even taking in account additional material, there is not specific martial equipment for fighters to implement fighting styles, a halberd is equal to a pike, a shield is equal to a buckler.

It's ok that in core rules there are just basic weapons, but they could have introduced weapons with special abilities in subsequent manuals

[Pooky the Imp]

In terms of needing a lot of spells, I think a big factor is that an awful lot of spells are incredibly niche.

Pick a character with fire powers in a comic book or tv show or whatever. Regardless of their specific limits, they can generally use their fire in all sorts of ways - from throwing out bolts or rays of it to creating a burst around them to blowing a cone of fire in front of them to throwing out explosive detonations to just playing around and doing tricks with it, etc.

Now imagine a D&D character with fire powers. Each one of the above effects would require a different spell to achieve it. Because for some reason a sorcerer who can shoot a burning ray of fire can't just widen the effect to create something akin to Burning Hands.

This means any sort of themed caster needs a pile of different spells to actually feel like a themed caster, as opposed to a glorified archer.

The weird thing is that, while most spells work like the above, you then have massive toolbox ones like Polymorph. Unlike damage spells, it auto-scales with level (you're not locked to a maximum challenge rating and have to take Greater- or Uber-Polymorph as you level up to access such), and you can use it as a buff, a debuff, or an out-of-combat utility spell.



The Mystic was them actually trying to be different, not just reusing spells. Sad to see them move away from that so heavily.

Absolutely. I much preferred the Mystic style of disciplines to the traditional D&D spells. Especially for innate casters, it just feels so much more appropriate.



Exactly. It's way easier to print and assemble spells than it is anything else. Because each spell stands almost completely alone, not requiring anything else, all using a common resource and system. And no fictional limits--the magic system is "shrug, dunno, it can do anything?" without fundamental boundaries.

Yeah, the lack of any real restrictions is very noticeable. I think it's a shame as magic systems are often defined as much by what they can't do as what they can.


And there's the fatal conceit that magic mostly means spells, which means that if you want more different magic, you need more spells.

I miss the 'Spell-Like Ability (Sp), Supernatural Ability (Su), and Extraordinary Ability (Ex)' system from 3.5. As it stands, we seem to have far too much of the former and no attempt to even distinguish the latter two.

[Psyren]

Is there a link to the Mystic?

[Witty Username]

Is there a link to the Mystic?

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAMystic3.pdf

[Angelalex242]

Is it really so different?

If Wizards got access to all their spells like clerics and druids, nothing actually breaks as far as balance goes.

[Sigreid]

Need is a strong word, but here's a list of why I like it.

- Finding new spells is a great motivator for adventure
- Learning spells is a fun thing to spend your gold on
- It lets me change my power set to best support the party regardless of the challenges the DM has tossed at us. This should not be taken to mean replace the party, just provide the best support
- It lest me swap out my playstyle without having to grab another character
- Master all wizard spells is a fun nearly unobtainable goal
- Gives me a nice tool kit to do completely non-combat things without feeling like I've sacrificed needed combat potential
- Since I can change my loadout, I won't wind up feeling like I'm useless because I made a bad choice

Still not sure why people on this forum keep going after wizards just because it's not their preferred playstyle. Barbarian isn't my preferred playstyle, doesn't mean I want to mess it over.

[Dork_Forge]

Still not sure why people on this forum keep going after wizards just because it's not their preferred playstyle. Barbarian isn't my preferred playstyle, doesn't mean I want to mess it over.

I'll posit three reasons for this:

- Wizards are the most glaring example of caster support, their list is the most bloated and gets the most updating, and they have probably the second most subclasses next to Cleric (off the top of my head).

-Some of the most problematic spells in the game belong to their list (simulacrum, Force Cage, Fireball etc.)

- Schrodinger's Wizard is a very real problem in online discussion,whilst it can occasionally be Shrodinger's Druid or Cleric, that's less common and is at least grounded in them being able to change their entire load out. It's hard to throw a stick and not hit a caster superiority argument that's not largely anchored in Shrodinger's Wizard and perfect tactics.

[Selion]

Is it really so different?

If Wizards got access to all their spells like clerics and druids, nothing actually breaks as far as balance goes.

Yeah, but the gotta catch em all mini-game is super fun, i prefer having the thrill of obtaining the spellbook of the BBEG necromancer

[Blatant Beast]

- Schrodinger's Wizard is a very real problem in online discussion,whilst it can occasionally be Shrodinger's Druid or Cleric, that's less common and is at least grounded in them being able to change their entire load out. It's hard to throw a stick and not hit a caster superiority argument that's not largely anchored in Shrodinger's Wizard and perfect tactics.

Dumbass Assumptions are an issue in any D&D internet conversation.
If the worst thing that happens to you today is a Schrodinger’s Wizard debate, that is a relatively mild day.

It seems to me, that being 7 years in to 5e D&D the new trend is Wizard Hate coupled with overall system hate.

Eladriel and Phoenix Phyfe, seem like reasonable, interesting people…yet both seem tired of 5e. Same thing happened in 3e…by the end..many 3e threads were people kevetching about the flaws in the system.

Plus Ca Change….

[MrStabby]

Need is a strong word, but here's a list of why I like it.

- Finding new spells is a great motivator for adventure
- Learning spells is a fun thing to spend your gold on
- It lets me change my power set to best support the party regardless of the challenges the DM has tossed at us. This should not be taken to mean replace the party, just provide the best support
- It lest me swap out my playstyle without having to grab another character
- Master all wizard spells is a fun nearly unobtainable goal
- Gives me a nice tool kit to do completely non-combat things without feeling like I've sacrificed needed combat potential
- Since I can change my loadout, I won't wind up feeling like I'm useless because I made a bad choice

Still not sure why people on this forum keep going after wizards just because it's not their preferred playstyle. Barbarian isn't my preferred playstyle, doesn't mean I want to mess it over.

I think in some sense, wizard is fine. In another its really badly designed.

An optimised wizard is something that can cause trouble and isn't thematically strong. Just take whatever spells are best, irrespective of theme, use spells to cover any interesting weaknesses and get one of the best subclasses. Yawn.

An unoptimised wizard that focusses on a theme and a character rather then about what is the most in-game effective set of spells has a great and unique playstyle and can be really flavorful.

Now arguably the same could be said for manny classes but I would posit that the wizard gets a lo more support for the former than for the latter.

[Sigreid]

I think in some sense, wizard is fine. In another its really badly designed.

An optimised wizard is something that can cause trouble and isn't thematically strong. Just take whatever spells are best, irrespective of theme, use spells to cover any interesting weaknesses and get one of the best subclasses. Yawn.

An unoptimised wizard that focusses on a theme and a character rather then about what is the most in-game effective set of spells has a great and unique playstyle and can be really flavorful.

Now arguably the same could be said for manny classes but I would posit that the wizard gets a lo more support for the former than for the latter.

I personally don't care about characters having a theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I personally don't care about characters having a theme.

Whereas for me, a grab bag of mechanics isn't a character at all, it's a bad board game piece. I can come up with ways to make bad (mechanically) characters work in the system and fiction. But a chess piece just doesn't work for anything except seeing how big of numbers you can put up. And that's not something D&D does well at all, might as well play a video game.

[Sigreid]

Whereas for me, a grab bag of mechanics isn't a character at all, it's a bad board game piece. I can come up with ways to make bad (mechanically) characters work in the system and fiction. But a chess piece just doesn't work for anything except seeing how big of numbers you can put up. And that's not something D&D does well at all, might as well play a video game.

Maybe it would have been better if I had put it as I don't need the thematic forced by the class. Most players I've played with will build there character to their own theme/preference/purpose.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe it would have been better if I had put it as I don't need the thematic forced by the class. Most players I've played with will build there character to their own theme/preference/purpose.
Yes, that would have been better. But as I figure it, why have classes if they don't channel characters thematically? That's the entire point of such things, to impose archetypes and channel characters towards fulfilling said archetypes. If you want build a bear, play a point buy system. That's their strength. At the cost of lacking archetypal hooks. And trying to make a class system do point buy just makes it do nothing well. Both can work, but implementing one on the other just ends up being bad.

[Sigreid]

Yes, that would have been better. But as I figure it, why have classes if they don't channel characters thematically? That's the entire point of such things, to impose archetypes and channel characters towards fulfilling said archetypes. If you want build a bear, play a point buy system. That's their strength. At the cost of lacking archetypal hooks. And trying to make a class system do point buy just makes it do nothing well. Both can work, but implementing one on the other just ends up being bad.

IMO the purpose of classes is to draw a box around power levels so you can make different things comparable in practice.

[stoutstien]

Yes, that would have been better. But as I figure it, why have classes if they don't channel characters thematically? That's the entire point of such things, to impose archetypes and channel characters towards fulfilling said archetypes. If you want build a bear, play a point buy system. That's their strength. At the cost of lacking archetypal hooks. And trying to make a class system do point buy just makes it do nothing well. Both can work, but implementing one on the other just ends up being bad.

It is kinda sad the build a bear class(warlock) has 10x the thematic presence as the banner arcane caster.

[Keltest]

It is kinda sad the build a bear class(warlock) has 10x the thematic presence as the banner arcane caster.

Eh, thats gonna be true of pretty much every specialist class compared to a generalist. Rangers and barbarians have more thematic presence than the fighter, druids have more thematic presence than clerics, bards have more thematic presence than druids. Having an extremely loose inherent theme is a feature, not a bug. Fighters can be knights, mercenaries, soldiers, farmers who picked up a weapon, etc... Barbarians pay the price for their thematic presence by having fewer thematic options.

[sithlordnergal]

Bladesinger. Hexblade. Or any of the melee multiclass builds that are so common. As tanky or tankier than a fighter, with equal or better damage, and way more utility. Heck, even Swords bard is too close for comfort. Moon bards until they get their "cast in wildshape" feature are fine, since they can either cast or fight at any given time, not both. Paladins are not full casters. So a paladin has already sacrificed substantial casting capability to be able to melee as well as a fighter. And even then, it's "almost" as well--fewer attacks, among other things. Paladins are within the "normal" range. Bladesingers and hexblades are very much not IMO. The appropriate level of fighting for a full-caster is more like a Blade-lock without further specialization. Has weapon, can use it, but that's about it. Personally, no full caster should ever get anything akin to Extra Attack. Full stop. Yes, that includes being able to quicken a blade-trip. I think the blade cantrips were a mistake.


I'm curious why you feel Bladesingers and Hexblades are better at melee combat then a more dedicated class. They really aren't better at martial combat then, say, a Fighter or Barbarian. Fighters have far more At-Will damage due to having more attacks, better armor, Fighting Styles, and their subclasses are just better at melee combat then a Hexblade, Bladesinger, or any of the Bard Gish subclasses. Meanwhile Barbarians are simply tankier then any of them thanks to their Rage and high HP. I don't care how high your AC is, a Wizard's HP is still a Wizard's HP, and they're gonna go down a lot faster then the Barbarian. Most full caster Gish options are more akin to the old PHB Ranger when it comes to their Multiattack. Yeah, they have it, but they can't make effective use of it.

In order to do so, those classes need something like the Paladin's Smite ability to keep up with their martial attacks. Unless you have a way to add damage to one or both of those attacks, you're better off just sticking to Casting at all times. And while Hexblades do have Eldritch Smite, and Bards get Psychic Blades or Flourish, both of those are things that use a resource that only comes back on a Short Rest. Meaning they shouldn't be using them all the time. Its similar to Wizards and their spell slots, they shouldn't really be casting a leveled spell every single encounter, or they risk just running out of spell slots. If players do have too many Short Rest resources, give fewer Short Rests.

I fully agree that multiclass gishes are better then single classed martial classes though. But then again, that's kinda the point of a multiclass. You're giving up something in exchange for having a wider array of abilities or proficiencies to pull from. Its a trade off. Now is every trade off fair? No. Lets face it, Fighter 1 / Wizard X is simply better then Wizard x or Fighter x, except in low levels. You're giving up peanuts to gain a lot of power. But that's only a multiclass issue, and one that's solved by saying "No multiclassing allowed". If you do allow multiclassing, then don't go complaining when the multiclass character is able to do more then the single class, since that's the entire point of multiclassing.


Now, if your complaint is that the Gishes are able to have an Extra Attack on par with the PHB Ranger on top of the versatility that full casting brings, then instead of weakening Gishes and Casters, might I suggest buffing the martial classes? Cause I do agree that martials lack out of combat utility and versatility. Its great that bounded accuracy exists, but it had the consequence of a Wizard with a 8 Strength being able to do Athletics Checks somewhat decently. Not amazingly well, but still ok enough to survive without a dedicated Strength Build nine times out of ten.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rangers and martials are about at the right power level, as implied by the rest of the system (ie adventures and monsters). It's the others that are too strong. Buff-only makes things spiral and shatters systems. Things that are too low (none) need to come up, things that are too high (full casters in general, but especially multi class builds in the main) need to come down.

Basically, multi classing breaks things that (mostly) work without it. Multi class should always lower your power substantially -- no multi build should be better than a specialist at anything; instead they're broader. But right now, a sorcadin is better at smiting than a paladin, while being a better caster and just about as durable.

[MrStabby]

It is kinda sad the build a bear class(warlock) has 10x the thematic presence as the banner arcane caster.

I kind of disagree. The warlock has a lot of clashes between theme and mechanics, though I accept I might be thinking of different things to yourself and a lot of this is subjective.

The "cast from highest level spell slot" mechanic does differentiate them but it does weird things to character continuity. Your favourite spell at level X suddenly stops being cast at level X+1. Whilst classes like sorcerer can swap some out, it is usually a more gradual affair with spells being dropped after being cast less and less frequently.

I also think the warlock spell lis is heavily slanted towards spells that fit a narrow range of warlock themes. Shadows of moil on a celestial warlock just doesn't seem that thematic, and so for a number of other spells.

I also think the big offender is Eldritch blast. Basically you have three options (and I accept this is a bit of an exageration, but I think it captures my point): play a hexblade, play a warlock that leans heavily on eldritch blast, play an underpowered character. Some like the celestial warlock get some limited support for other cantips that make them still worse than eldritch blast whilst also consuming a class ability (though I guess you need less invocation investment). Subjectively, I just don't see a fey themed warlock's main strength being blasting with bolts of force damage. Warlock seems to have a very thematic core but it has a lot of themes tagged on to it that don't really mesh with the core theme.

I think much of this would actually be relatively easy to fix - smaller spell list, larger pact spell list, some limited casting of lower level spells and different support for different cantrips to bring them on par with eldritch blast.



Eh, thats gonna be true of pretty much every specialist class compared to a generalist. Rangers and barbarians have more thematic presence than the fighter, druids have more thematic presence than clerics, bards have more thematic presence than druids. Having an extremely loose inherent theme is a feature, not a bug. Fighters can be knights, mercenaries, soldiers, farmers who picked up a weapon, etc... Barbarians pay the price for their thematic presence by having fewer thematic options.

But wizards are, to a large extent framed by beng specialist. Your abjurer, enchanter, illusionist etc.. Its just the mechanics don't add up to the sales pitch.

[sithlordnergal]

Rangers and martials are about at the right power level, as implied by the rest of the system (ie adventures and monsters). It's the others that are too strong. Buff-only makes things spiral and shatters systems. Things that are too low (none) need to come up, things that are too high (full casters in general, but especially multi class builds in the main) need to come down.

Basically, multi classing breaks things that (mostly) work without it. Multi class should always lower your power substantially -- no multi build should be better than a specialist at anything; instead they're broader. But right now, a sorcadin is better at smiting than a paladin, while being a better caster and just about as durable.

I would say with the buffs from Tasha's Rangers are finally at the right level. Before, they were well below the power level. I find most Monsters are closer to the power level of classes like Paladins, Bards, and better then the lower power classes like how Ranger was. And while buffs can break the system, as long as you're just applying them to the classes that are too low, like the Ranger was, then its fine. As for nerfs, I've yet to find a class that is so powerful that it needs to be nerfed. Heck, the only spell I've found that needed a nerf is Simulacrum, and even then the only nerf it needs is to prevent multiple Simulacrums at once.

As for multiclassing, I'm half torn about agreeing with you. It should give you more bredth, but I don't think it should substantially lower your power. It should be a lot more even then it is, but you shouldn't nerf it too much. I could get behind having the best armor a full caster can use be Medium Armor, unless you're a specific Cleric. As for things like Soradins, I actually think you're mixing up what's being specialized. A straight Paladin isn't specialized for smiting, Smiting is a side benefit for pure Paladins, they're specialized for party support more than anything else, and no Soradin will ever reach that level of party support. Meanwhile Soradins are generally made to be specialized at Smiting.

[Selion]

I'll posit three reasons for this:

- Wizards are the most glaring example of caster support, their list is the most bloated and gets the most updating, and they have probably the second most subclasses next to Cleric (off the top of my head).

-Some of the most problematic spells in the game belong to their list (simulacrum, Force Cage, Fireball etc.)

- Schrodinger's Wizard is a very real problem in online discussion,whilst it can occasionally be Shrodinger's Druid or Cleric, that's less common and is at least grounded in them being able to change their entire load out. It's hard to throw a stick and not hit a caster superiority argument that's not largely anchored in Shrodinger's Wizard and perfect tactics.

If some spells are problematic fix spells, don't fix class features, it's common sense.
Furthermore, the few times I reached mid-high levels in actual games (in various systems) the encounter-killer has always been the ranger/fighter ranged machine gun, despite online discussions.
I've often played the wizard, and my main role was that when something greatly unexpected happened the entire group looked at me, I was not the main actor, I was the failsafe button.
90% of the times I just sitted in the back keeping my valuable spell slots and buffing the group

[kingcheesepants]

You don't have to compromise or guess about the future.
You don't need to research ahead, does the bad guy lair have cold defenses or immune to fire...
because you can have fire and cold and lighting ready to go.

You don't need to roleplay or be creative.
you have a mechanical solution to all the problems a DM can throw at you.

That is the problem with spellcasters.

This is almost exactly the opposite of my experience with casters. Few casters prepare fire and lightning and cold damage all at the same time. That would be ridiculously ineffective and it would mean a good portion of our preparations are used up in damage spells (and you'd still be unable to hurt fiends) and not the cool control and utility stuff. It's more not less important for someone with lots of spells to do research and think and guess about the future exactly because they can't bring everything and they have to compromise.

If you're a sorcerer with 12 spells you don't have to think about it because you don't have a choice but if you're a wizard with 50 spells you gotta figure out if hypnotic pattern is going to be worthwhile or if it should be shelved cause everything will be immune to charms. Or whether to take fireball or something else for damage cause maybe you'll be fighting fiends and fireball will be a wasted slot. Maybe you have exactly the spell you need for a hazard or a puzzle or RP encounter but if you don't actually guess correctly about what you'll need and don't bother prepping it you won't get any benefit from that spell.

Speaking of having the right spells, what about the 90% of the time when the spell you picked isn't a perfect match for the problem at hand, in those cases guess what you'll have to be creative and try to wiggle the spell around so that it works anyways. And then there are things like illusions or polymorph, spells which by their very nature require you to be creative with them and enable all sorts of off the wall shenanigans that wouldn't otherwise be available to the party.

As for roleplaying, that's a player by player thing and isn't related to spells one way or the other. Some barbarian players do a lot of RP and come up with creative solutions and some are extremely one note and answer all problems with extraordinary amounts of violence. Both are valid playstyles. Some wizards love to role play and use their spells in inventive ways and some basically sit in the back and wait for combat to start and just cast the obvious utility spells when they're relevant. I have my preferred style but not everyone has to do things the same way. And in either case it's the players not the spells that are doing the heavy lifting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would say with the buffs from Tasha's Rangers are finally at the right level. Before, they were well below the power level. I find most Monsters are closer to the power level of classes like Paladins, Bards, and better then the lower power classes like how Ranger was. And while buffs can break the system, as long as you're just applying them to the classes that are too low, like the Ranger was, then its fine. As for nerfs, I've yet to find a class that is so powerful that it needs to be nerfed. Heck, the only spell I've found that needed a nerf is Simulacrum, and even then the only nerf it needs is to prevent multiple Simulacrums at once.

As for multiclassing, I'm half torn about agreeing with you. It should give you more bredth, but I don't think it should substantially lower your power. It should be a lot more even then it is, but you shouldn't nerf it too much. I could get behind having the best armor a full caster can use be Medium Armor, unless you're a specific Cleric. As for things like Soradins, I actually think you're mixing up what's being specialized. A straight Paladin isn't specialized for smiting, Smiting is a side benefit for pure Paladins, they're specialized for party support more than anything else, and no Soradin will ever reach that level of party support. Meanwhile Soradins are generally made to be specialized at Smiting.

From previous posts, I know you tend to run
a) a (relatively-speaking) few combats per day
b) against mostly solos or small groups
c) of very high (relative to level) CR.

Yes, in that very out of spec environment, rangers are too weak. But you're operating miles from the guidance provided by the books. Look at the regular adventure paths--that's the benchmark. And the real benchmark against which things are balanced for the guidance is effectively a basic rules party without significant magic items or optimization. You can finish a book module entirely with a party of
a) dwarf life cleric
b) halfling thief rogue
c) human (or dwarf) champion SnB fighter
d) high elf evocation wizard without magic missile cheese.
And with fairly "dumb" tactics and without any kind of serious optimization beyond "put your big score into your main attack stat, don't have negative con mod, and use weapons/armor that you have proficiency in".

A sorcadin can actually do better at most party support than a pure paladin, due to having many more slots and a wider array of spells. Especially a divine-soul sorcadin. Paladins don't actually have that great party support other than their aura...which a lot of sorcadin builds pick up. What paladins are is single-target murder machines. So when a 2-level dip does that better...while also being better at AoE and utility...that's an issue.

----

And as to someone who said that I was tired of 5e: that's not so. I like 5e. Or at least where 5e was. It's diverged as time's gone on, mostly due to power-creep and the ongoing reinfection by the 3e "power is all that matters/mechanics uber alles" mentality. Sure, I've got things I'm not enthused about, but if you look at the games I run and play in...they're pretty darn vanilla mechanically. A fair amount of homebrew content (abilities, classes, items, and especially monsters), but mostly using stock rules. Because my gripes are just that--minor things that I wish were slightly different, as a matter of personal taste. But that I don't have the energy, time, or really even motivation to modify, because they're overall not that much of a pain.

I mean...I've got lots of "pie-in-the-sky" things in progress--
a) a complete overhaul of spell lists, removing the idea of class spell lists in favor of thematic micro-lists that you put together (with some lists coming from classes and others free choice)
b) a complete overhaul of how races and backgrounds work
c) a (separate from a) overhaul of magic, removing ~100 spells from the game and turning them into 4e-esque Incantations that anyone can learn
d) more homebrew than one can shake a stick at.
e) a "weapon talent" alternate progression path (alternate in that you get these "talents" at certain points along your progression, but you don't give up ASIs or anything for them).
f) an overhaul of multiclassing ("emulation/specialization" pathways for each class that sit alongside your prime class, not replacing levels).

But I doubt many of them will see play very much. Because that would require prodding the warthog to stop kneeling. And ain't nobody's got time for that when things work...ok...as they are.

[stoutstien]

Eh, thats gonna be true of pretty much every specialist class compared to a generalist. Rangers and barbarians have more thematic presence than the fighter, druids have more thematic presence than clerics, bards have more thematic presence than druids. Having an extremely loose inherent theme is a feature, not a bug. Fighters can be knights, mercenaries, soldiers, farmers who picked up a weapon, etc... Barbarians pay the price for their thematic presence by having fewer thematic options.

But wizards have the window dressing to be the specialist and the warlock edging towards generalist....

[sithlordnergal]

From previous posts, I know you tend to run
a) a (relatively-speaking) few combats per day
b) against mostly solos or small groups
c) of very high (relative to level) CR.

Yes, in that very out of spec environment, rangers are too weak. But you're operating miles from the guidance provided by the books. Look at the regular adventure paths--that's the benchmark. And the real benchmark against which things are balanced for the guidance is effectively a basic rules party without significant magic items or optimization. You can finish a book module entirely with a party of
a) dwarf life cleric
b) halfling thief rogue
c) human (or dwarf) champion SnB fighter
d) high elf evocation wizard without magic missile cheese.
And with fairly "dumb" tactics and without any kind of serious optimization beyond "put your big score into your main attack stat, don't have negative con mod, and use weapons/armor that you have proficiency in".

A sorcadin can actually do better at most party support than a pure paladin, due to having many more slots and a wider array of spells. Especially a divine-soul sorcadin. Paladins don't actually have that great party support other than their aura...which a lot of sorcadin builds pick up. What paladins are is single-target murder machines. So when a 2-level dip does that better...while also being better at AoE and utility...that's an issue.


You are correct that I run relatively few combats per day since I removed random encounters, and I do tend to use higher CR creatures relative to the party, but I've run and played a few hardcovers. I can't see a party like that doing super well in things like Tomb of Annihilation, Out of the Abyss, or Dungeon of the Mad Mage. They'd probably do alright in something straightforward, like Storm King's Thunder, but not much else. Most parties like that really shouldn't be able to easily get through a module unless the DM is really weakening things for them.

I also disagree that Paladins are mainly single target murder machines. Cleansing Touch and Lay on Hands are really good for your basic party Support, and the different auras they get are massive party buffs. Even more so when they reach 18th level and increase the aura size to 30ft. And don't forget their spells. They basically get all the best low level party buff spells, and their high level buff spells are just as good. Now, Divine Soul Paladin can do a good job with adding in Cleric buff spells, but even Divine Souls are going to be limited simply due to their limited number of spells they have.

[Pex]

Rangers and martials are about at the right power level, as implied by the rest of the system (ie adventures and monsters). It's the others that are too strong. Buff-only makes things spiral and shatters systems. Things that are too low (none) need to come up, things that are too high (full casters in general, but especially multi class builds in the main) need to come down.

Basically, multi classing breaks things that (mostly) work without it. Multi class should always lower your power substantially -- no multi build should be better than a specialist at anything; instead they're broader. But right now, a sorcadin is better at smiting than a paladin, while being a better caster and just about as durable.

Or maybe they're too weak and buffing them is the right thing to do. It's your tolerance level of PC power that's being tested. They are and have been improving the martial lot. The paladin is liked well enough. New fighter subclasses are well received - Rune Knight, Psi Warrior. Barbarian, Monk. If any are better than the PHB I call that a feature. It's wait and see for 2024 whether they'll change the PHB subclasses. Rangers are on the weak side, but Ghost Walker is praised. Horizon Walker and Swarmkeeper have their fans.

As for spellcasters, people applaud the new Sorcerers. They only lament PHB Sorcerers not getting their own bloodline spells. Here's to hoping 5.5E fixes that. The only ones complaining about Twilight Clerics are Forum posters. New Warlock Patrons are loved. People are liking new wizard spells.

The issue with multiclassing, as it is, is one of preference. Some higher level abilities aren't worth the wait. It's nice when a feature that uses a die roll the die value increases, but if you've been happy with a d6 or d8 for a while now having it become a d10 as your only new thing isn't attractive as a new ability from another class. Make high level abilities worth having. Give something new instead of scaling what you already have. Scaling is good and should exist, but it shouldn't be the only thing. Right now the only thing that holds multiclassing back is the delayed gratification of ASI/Feats. Some people aren't going to care. They are not wrong to feel that way.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Why? No, seriously — every time I've played a spellcaster, I ended up with a handful of spells I cast regularly, and a smattering of other spells that would sometimes show up. I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it.

So, please, justify why you need so much stuff.

Part of me OP agrees with you to a point. But let's face it, only having a small group of spells like the 12 you mentioned makes thing boring fast. Players want variety. Yes you do have players who only select a standard pool of spells but you also have players that do choose the off beat ones as well. Point is so long as everyone has different preferences of play they want variety. And really you can't compartmentalize this unless you change the spell system entirely.

[Angelalex242]

Paladin is my favorite class, and easily the strongest class that doesn't get 9th level spells. They're probably the only class that can stay relevant in a team with Schrodinger's Wizard/Cleric/Druid.

But yes, Paladins excel at single target murder, and act as buff machines to conserve resources before you get to the boss you must murder.

[animorte]

Point is so long as everyone has different preferences of play they want variety. And really you can't compartmentalize this unless you change the spell system entirely.

I disagree. Everyone having different preferences can just as easily be decided by better class features, more distinct subclasses. Which is essentially the exact compartmentalization you’re referring to. Spell preference and selection is a given.

[Selion]

Or maybe they're too weak and buffing them is the right thing to do. It's your tolerance level of PC power that's being tested. They are and have been improving the martial lot. The paladin is liked well enough. New fighter subclasses are well received - Rune Knight, Psi Warrior. Barbarian, Monk. If any are better than the PHB I call that a feature. It's wait and see for 2024 whether they'll change the PHB subclasses. Rangers are on the weak side, but Ghost Walker is praised. Horizon Walker and Swarmkeeper have their fans.

As for spellcasters, people applaud the new Sorcerers. They only lament PHB Sorcerers not getting their own bloodline spells. Here's to hoping 5.5E fixes that. The only ones complaining about Twilight Clerics are Forum posters. New Warlock Patrons are loved. People are liking new wizard spells.

The issue with multiclassing, as it is, is one of preference. Some higher level abilities aren't worth the wait. It's nice when a feature that uses a die roll the die value increases, but if you've been happy with a d6 or d8 for a while now having it become a d10 as your only new thing isn't attractive as a new ability from another class. Make high level abilities worth having. Give something new instead of scaling what you already have. Scaling is good and should exist, but it shouldn't be the only thing. Right now the only thing that holds multiclassing back is the delayed gratification of ASI/Feats. Some people aren't going to care. They are not wrong to feel that way.

Change the hexblade, transferring the cha-to hit/dmg to third level pact of the blade, and a lot of multiclass issues are already solved.

I'm currently playing a 2 fighter/wizard x, which could be seen as a abuse of front loaded mechanics, I'm finding the trade with spellcasting delayed by 2 levels quite fair. TBH i think i'd perform better as a full caster in most situations (unless you take in account bull*** like force cage-sickening radiance combos, that in most tables would be unwelcomed and in my experience don't represent actual play)

Another great mix is the (in)famous sorc-adin, because class features mix so well together (in a beautiful way IMO), but by the time the mix comes in line with full power (level 11) i don't think it's so over the top in respect to other single classes.

[Keravath]

A wizard or sorcerer doesn't have to take Mage armor and Shield. They're good spells, but spellcasters can make do without them. Spellcasters can take advantage of cover as anyone else. They can hide behind walls, boulders, be around the corner, trees, etc. just as a rogue would like. They don't hide as a bonus action so can't benefit from advantage on attack rolls, but that's not necessary. It's enough to move behind total cover not to be attacked at all, pop out and cast, then go back into total cover. Other times the bad guys don't have range attacks or the range strikers use saving throw effects anyway a spellcaster's AC won't matter.

I've found that using cover will reduce the risk but if the greatest threat is the creature cowering behind the wall then intelligent opponents seek to attack them. If your DM allows your character to effectively use cover to escape from being attacked all the time then I'd have to say the DM is being "kind".

I've had intelligent opponents specifically hunt my spellcasting characters because they can be a big threat. In those games, I have found having defensive spells is essential. (I also find adding a level of cleric for the armor and shield to be pretty essential too since even with better armor and the shield spell, they still end up getting hit from time to time - though this does free up Mage Armor).

Besides that ... shield, absorb elements, counterspell, dispel magic, fly, detect magic, possibly invisibility, rope trick ... there are a lot of utility/defensive spells out there that many spellcasters would like to have prepared ... but each one reduces the flexibility and capability of offensive spells - fireball, hypnotic pattern, fear, slow, chain lightning, wall of force, wall of fire?, banishment, blindness/deafness.

To the OP, casters want so many spells because there are so many circumstances in which specific spells become useful and if that spell isn't prepared then you either lack an ideal offense or defense - in which case you have to make due with whatever you do have prepared.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is IMHO a problem of 5e, even taking in account additional material, there is not specific martial equipment for fighters to implement fighting styles, a halberd is equal to a pike, a shield is equal to a buckler.

It's ok that in core rules there are just basic weapons, but they could have introduced weapons with special abilities in subsequent manuals

What a great point.
They introduced special weapons for bad guys that the martials drooled over (i am thinking of the hook spears from OotA)




This is almost exactly the opposite of my experience with casters. Few casters prepare fire and lightning and cold damage all at the same time.
...

If you're a sorcerer with 12 spells you don't have to think about it because you don't have a choice but if you're a wizard with 50 spells you gotta figure out if hypnotic pattern is going to be worthwhile or if it should be shelved cause everything will be immune to charms. Or whether to take fireball or something else for damage cause maybe you'll be fighting fiends and fireball will be a wasted slot. Maybe you have exactly the spell you need for a hazard or a puzzle or RP encounter but if you don't actually guess correctly about what you'll need and don't bother prepping it you won't get any benefit from that spell.


Level 1 chromatic orb provides more damage flexibility than most martials see in their entire career.


If 12+ spells prepared and 5+ cantrips counts as "you don't have a choice" and can't make an extremely flexible buildout, but look over at the fighter, monk, barbarian and think, yeah, they have an appropriate amount of tools in their belt, then I don't know what to say

[bkwrm79]

The norm for a full caster is to have between 4 and 25 leveled spells available to them, depending on their level, with people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

Warlocks get Mystic Arcanum and at-will powers from Invocations. I think they're fine (any issues have to do with getting enough short rests, not number of spells known).

It's specifically with Sorcerers that the limitation goes too far. They need a few more. Not necessarily as many as in Tasha's, but a few more.

They need to cover theme, combat effectiveness (including more than one damage type), some sort of non-combat utility, spells good in lower-level slots and some cool higher level spells as well, spells that take advantage of several different metamagic options. That's really tough to do on 15 spells, easier with around 20.

[animorte]

If 12+ spells prepared and 5+ cantrips counts as "you don't have a choice" and can't make an extremely flexible buildout, but look over at the fighter, monk, barbarian and think, yeah, they have an appropriate amount of tools in their belt, then I don't know what to say

This is kind of the point I've been thinking as well. People can bring about the idea of, "Martials have better AC and HP." Casters still have ways to bump theirs easily. Not to mention the greater access to whatever number of control and mobility spells (also battlefield positioning in general) to avoid being in the line of fire to begin with.

[Tanarii]

The biggest offenders for "too many spells" are specifically Wizards, especially if the DM gives more sources than DMG treasure Hoard found scrolls. (Personally I'd be happy if the found wizard spell scroll rate were much higher, and Wizards got 0 free spells when leveling up.) Their spell list is chock full of powerful spells, and Int+level spells memorized is a lot of spells, even before he ability to swap them out easily. Too much versatility to go with their power.

Sorcerers and Warlocks are just about right for Arcane Casters. It's a little bit tight on Sorcs, but that's fine, they're supposed to be falling back on blasting cantrips, and converting slots into SP to power them up. And warlocks limitation is slots per short rest, by Tier 2 they're already using spells Known on "just in case" combat option spells, or utility spells they can use in conjunction with how easy it is for them to get slots back.

Druids and Clerics spell lists are intentionally limited in scope/power, so it's okay for them to have a lot of versatility on hand.

Bards are so weak they really need that extra versatility to go with that little bit of spell list oomph. Lore Bards in particular already spend too much time sitting in the back strumming their instrument going "I'm helping" in their best Ralph Wiggam voice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To the OP, casters want so many spells because there are so many circumstances in which specific spells become useful and if that spell isn't prepared then you either lack an ideal offense or defense - in which case you have to make due with whatever you do have prepared.

Personally, the default should be "make due with whatever you have prepared" and "lack an ideal offense or defense". Having that ideal should be a happy accident or a case of extremely thorough preparation and planning and should take substantial teamwork to enable.

No one is entitled to having a win button in any circumstance. And the fact that casters can have them in [I]many circumstances and thus feel entitled to have them is exactly what I was talking about with the false sense of entitlement to be able to handle any circumstance.

In fact, I'd say that win buttons are bad for the game. Especially ones that can just be pushed. It's fine if the party works together to corner the enemy in the perfect place and situation to make something situational end the issue. But just casting one of many spells should never solve any meaningful situation. If it can, either the spell is too powerful or (more often) the situations weren't actually meaningful challenges.

[Selion]

This is kind of the point I've been thinking as well. People can bring about the idea of, "Martials have better AC and HP." Casters still have ways to bump theirs easily. Not to mention the greater access to whatever number of control and mobility spells (also battlefield positioning in general) to avoid being in the line of fire to begin with.

I don't agree, at the same amount of optimization, a fighter deliver a lot more consistent single target dmg than any spellcaster.
When this doesn't happen is when you take in account specific spells, like animate objects (only the version with 10 tiny objects) and polymorph.

BTW, this happens a couple of times per day, while a martial dmg is at will, and there's no way a caster could simultaneously deal dmg, perform crowd control, giving utility and so on.

What i agree with is that, having so many options, a wizard has a higher optimization ceiling in respect to martial, so the best wizard is probably better than the best fighter, just because of the sheer amount of selection they got.
There are indeed some problematic spells, animate objects and polymorph, like i already said, and of course wall of force/force cage, which are very close to an auto-win button! If you play with people who regularly select this kind of spells i understand your point, but it's a problem of these spells, not of class mechanics.

I don't think that restraining player options for one class is a good idea to balance other classes, just give more options to martials! (and pls do something for rogues in combat, outside weird combos their dmg is lackluster, they should have something to crit fish in their basic kit)

[Sigreid]

I don't agree, at the same amount of optimization, a fighter deliver a lot more consistent single target dmg than any spellcaster.
When this doesn't happen is when you take in account specific spells, like animate objects (only the version with 10 tiny objects) and polymorph.

BTW, this happens a couple of times per day, while a martial dmg is at will, and there's no way a caster could simultaneously deal dmg, perform crowd control, giving utility and so on.

What i agree with is that, having so many options, a wizard has a higher optimization ceiling in respect to martial, so the best wizard is probably better than the best fighter, just because of the sheer amount of selection they got.
There are indeed some problematic spells, animate objects and polymorph, like i already said, and of course wall of force/force cage, which are very close to an auto-win button! If you play with people who regularly select this kind of spells i understand your point, but it's a problem of these spells, not of class mechanics.

I don't think that restraining player options for one class is a good idea to balance other classes, just give more options to martials! (and pls do something for rogues in combat, outside weird combos their dmg is lackluster, they should have something to crit fish in their basic kit)

Not to mention there are far more critters completely immune or resistant to fire than a sword. And most of those resistant to a sword can have that resistance overcome with a magic sword. Any magic sword regardless of what the magic is. Even if the magic is purely cosmetic.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is kind of the point I've been thinking as well. People can bring about the idea of, "Martials have better AC and HP." Casters still have ways to bump theirs easily. Not to mention the greater access to whatever number of control and mobility spells (also battlefield positioning in general) to avoid being in the line of fire to begin with.

I don't agree, at the same amount of optimization, a fighter deliver a lot more consistent single target dmg than any spellcaster.
When this doesn't happen is when you take in account specific spells, like animate objects (only the version with 10 tiny objects) and polymorph.

BTW, this happens a couple of times per day, while a martial dmg is at will, and there's no way a caster could simultaneously deal dmg, perform crowd control, giving utility and so on.


You emphasized animorte's point beautifully.
Animorte said that casters can bump armor, hp, mobility, control, and still do more to stop baddies than a fighter, several times per day.
"Yeah, but fighters do more damage over time in certain cases" is not a good argument for casters need more spells.




Not to mention there are far more critters completely immune or resistant to fire than a sword. And most of those resistant to a sword can have that resistance overcome with a magic sword. Any magic sword regardless of what the magic is. Even if the magic is purely cosmetic.

Did you know that casters can do more than cast fireball? Like, there are level 1 spells that can do any of 5 damage types at will.

[Sigreid]

Did you know that casters can do more than cast fireball? Like, there are level 1 spells that can do any of 5 damage types at will.

Yes, but I'm also aware that it is fairly easy to not have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared.

Edit: and when you're out of spell slots, you probably don't have 5 different damage types on your cantrips.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, but I'm also aware that it is fairly easy to not have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared.

chromatic orb, chaos bolt, dragons breath, elemental bane.
moreover force, necro, radiant, psychic are rarely resistant/immune.
pick a spells known for one of those and 1 for dragons breath, and you have combat covered.

it is actually fairly hard not to have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared


Edit: and when you're out of spell slots, you probably don't have 5 different damage types on your cantrips.
at level 10, you have 5 cantrips, you can literally have 5 different damage types on your cantrips


now, on to the question: why is it so wrong not to have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared?

[MrStabby]

This is IMHO a problem of 5e, even taking in account additional material, there is not specific martial equipment for fighters to implement fighting styles, a halberd is equal to a pike, a shield is equal to a buckler.

It's ok that in core rules there are just basic weapons, but they could have introduced weapons with special abilities in subsequent manuals

They did introduce such weapons. They are in the DMG under the magic items section. That said, the literal presence of a multitude of specialist weapons that have many differences between them doesn't undermine a point about being able to make meaningful choices about such things. It is cool to be able to take feats like Shield Master that let you opt in (at a cost) to doing more with equipment and I do believe that the coolest weapons tend to be othe ones with the Special property. There is a lot of scope for more cool non-magical weapons.

[kingcheesepants]

Level 1 chromatic orb provides more damage flexibility than most martials see in their entire career.


If 12+ spells prepared and 5+ cantrips counts as "you don't have a choice" and can't make an extremely flexible buildout, but look over at the fighter, monk, barbarian and think, yeah, they have an appropriate amount of tools in their belt, then I don't know what to say

By ignoring the second half of what I said you removed the entire context and missed my point entirety. I wasn't comparing a caster with 12 spells to a martial I was comparing a spells known caster to a prepped caster. This thread is about why certain players feel the need to have a ton of spells. I was making the point that when you are a prepped caster you need to pick which of your spells you prepare for the day. That's the choice that Wizards/Clerics etc make that Bards/Sorcerers etc don't. If I have a wizard with 50 spells I can still only bring 13 of them and that means I need to do research and think about what I might be facing. A sorcerer on the other hand is not making a choice because they always bring their whole loadout. You had complained that casters don't have to think about what they're facing but I am saying that casters (specifically prepared casters) have to think about what they're facing more than anyone else.

[animorte]

- I don't agree, at the same amount of optimization, a fighter deliver a lot more consistent single target dmg than any spellcaster.
- BTW, this happens a couple of times per day, while a martial dmg is at will, and there's no way a caster could simultaneously deal dmg, perform crowd control, giving utility and so on.
- What i agree with is that, having so many options, a wizard has a higher optimization ceiling in respect to martial, so the best wizard is probably better than the best fighter, just because of the sheer amount of selection they got.
- I don't think that restraining player options for one class is a good idea to balance other classes, just give more options to martials!
- Repelling/Agonizing/Eldritch Blast would like to have a word with you. Force damage (rarely resisted), no-save push, single or multiple targets, 120 ft. range, cantrip. Looks like some consistent damage/control to me. There are plenty other decent cantrips with varying damage and utility/control effects, also some that require a save instead of attack roll. Don't underestimate that versatility.
- A bit of overall contradiction in that martials can optimize better and still somehow not be optimized as well as casters. Damage alone is a lot less valuable than having the other options available. Unless PCs rarely find themselves in creative battle scenarios (i.e. just standing in a boxing ring throwing punches).


You emphasized animorte's point beautifully.
Animorte said that casters can bump armor, hp, mobility, control, and still do more to stop baddies than a fighter, several times per day.
"Yeah, but fighters do more damage over time in certain cases" is not a good argument for casters need more spells.
This again, thank you.
Some examples of martials being able to keep up with casters is Battle Master (limited number of dice) with creative methods of control and utility. Monk (limited amount of ki) with stunning strike and whatever else the chosen subclass provides for their niche. So and and so forth.


Yes, but I'm also aware that it is fairly easy to not have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared.
Isn't this a similar argument as typical martials being useless (or sub-optimal) when facing inaccessible ranged enemies?

[NaughtyTiger]

By ignoring the second half of what I said you removed the entire context and missed my point entirety.
I didn't ignore it. It doesn't matter to me.

this thread is NOT about prepped vs known. It's that 12 spells known is too many.

"I legitimately don't see why you'd need more than, like, 12 spells known, and that's still kinda stretching it."


saying that casters (specifically prepared casters) have to think about what they're facing more than anyone else.
no, casters GET to think about what they're facing more than anyone else.

the cleric and the fighter should be necessary to cover the shortfalls of the wizard and vice-versa.
why does each caster NEED to be able to handle every situation with a spell by themselves?

[sambojin]

I'd probably put it the other way.

Why don't martial characters get at least a smattering of optional features they can choose each day, depending on what they want to excel at, or think they might have to do?

Because, there's no reason they don't.

(I tend to play as a druid, so I get sr class features and spells that cover most situations)

[Dork_Forge]

I'd probably put it the other way.

Why don't martial characters get at least a smattering of optional features they can choose each day, depending on what they want to excel at, or think they might have to do?

Because, there's no reason they don't.

(I tend to play as a druid, so I get sr class features and spells that cover most situations)

Besides being unnecessary, it doesn't really make sense to swap out your martial training daily, forgetting what you could do yesterday for 'reasons.'

[MrStabby]

Besides being unnecessary, it doesn't really make sense to swap out your martial training daily, forgetting what you could do yesterday for 'reasons.'

Honestly, I feel the same way about spells - but here we are.

[Kane0]

Besides being unnecessary, it doesn't really make sense to swap out your martial training daily, forgetting what you could do yesterday for 'reasons.'

sambojin didn't say 'forget', and there could be plenty of reasons to change up how a martial wants to function. The party might take on a job that requires a certain set of skills, loot some really good but different equipment, be forced by plot into unfavourable circumstances, etc.

I don't think the idea is like swapping around fighting style, but more like having all battlemaster maneuvers in a spellbook and picking a subset to make use of on any given day.

[Keltest]

sambojin didn't say 'forget', and there could be plenty of reasons to change up how a martial wants to function. The party might take on a job that requires a certain set of skills, loot some really good but different equipment, be forced by plot into unfavourable circumstances, etc.

I don't think the idea is like swapping around fighting style, but more like having all battlemaster maneuvers in a spellbook and picking a subset to make use of on any given day.

Unless they're literally magically forgetting them like with wizard spells, I think you'd have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of a fighter being unable to perform a maneuver that he did just fine yesterday.

[Sigreid]

Isn't this a similar argument as typical martials being useless (or sub-optimal) when facing inaccessible ranged enemies?

Maybe fore some, but I've never played a martial that wasn't capable with a ranged option (bow, crossbow, spear, javelin etc.) that they had on them at all times.

[Kane0]

Unless they're literally magically forgetting them like with wizard spells, I think you'd have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of a fighter being unable to perform a maneuver that he did just fine yesterday.

''You bulked up for Iron Mountain Defense today remember? You didn't also have time to detox and stretch for Snakebite Lash"

Edit: But yeah it's not going to appeal to everyone. Some people like Champions, others Battlemasters, others Bladesingers, others Hexblades. That's OK.

[Sigreid]

chromatic orb, chaos bolt, dragons breath, elemental bane.
moreover force, necro, radiant, psychic are rarely resistant/immune.
pick a spells known for one of those and 1 for dragons breath, and you have combat covered.

it is actually fairly hard not to have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared


at level 10, you have 5 cantrips, you can literally have 5 different damage types on your cantrips


now, on to the question: why is it so wrong not to have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared?

I for one don't usually take a bunch of damage cantrips. Or damage spells for that matter. There's better things to do than that.

[NaughtyTiger]

I for one don't usually take a bunch of damage cantrips. Or damage spells for that matter. There's better things to do than that.

you definitely weren't arguing that casters need all those spells for damage types.

and you definitely didn't answer the question..

[Witty Username]

I for one don't usually take a bunch of damage cantrips. Or damage spells for that matter. There's better things to do than that.

That is my habit too, I usually take 2 damage cantrips at most. Usually, 1 attack cantrip, 1 save cantrip of a different damage type. With my current wizard, I only have ray of frost.
--
As to the question, no one needs damage spells.

[animorte]

I don't think the idea is like swapping around fighting style, but more like having all battlemaster maneuvers in a spellbook and picking a subset to make use of on any given day.

I'd probably put it the other way.

Why don't martial characters get at least a smattering of optional features they can choose each day, depending on what they want to excel at, or think they might have to do?

Because, there's no reason they don't.
To both of those I say:
I think the part of this we should focus on is the access to all maneuvers, but a limited amount of uses (as is currently the circumstance anyway). This allows the Battlemaster specifically to choose between all the things they're capable of until they run out of superiority dice, otherwise known as running out of steam, getting worn out, having a cramp, being exhausted (not by the literal in-game term). You get my point.


the cleric and the fighter should be necessary to cover the shortfalls of the wizard and vice-versa.
why does each caster NEED to be able to handle every situation with a spell by themselves?
This 100% is what I feel like the point of all of this is. Why does that one PC always need to have the tool for the job?
1. Greed/spotlight
2. A general lack of trust to be able to rely on anybody else in your party for anything ever. But it's ok to sleep near them with somebody (not always you) on watch. Yeah, I know there's spells for that too.

[Sigreid]

you definitely weren't arguing that casters need all those spells for damage types.

and you definitely didn't answer the question..

Actually I was arguing for the swapping out of spells for damage types. I'm also in general against a given spell being a must have for arbitrary reasons.

[Kane0]

This 100% is what I feel like the point of all of this is. Why does that one PC always need to have the tool for the job?
1. Greed/spotlight
2. A general lack of trust to be able to rely on anybody else in your party for anything ever.

3. Others are unable to, so you have to do it or it doesn't get done.

Thankfully 5e doesn't hit this problem as much, but that's not saying it doesn't happen at all.

[Keltest]

3. Others are unable to, so you have to do it or it doesn't get done.

Thankfully 5e doesn't hit this problem as much, but that's not saying it doesn't happen at all.

I dont think this is a particularly valid reason in a team game. Everybody gets to play, and the idea that you should have a tool for every job just in case, or are actively not trusting people to be able to do their jobs, is antithetical to team play.

[animorte]

I dont think this is a particularly valid reason in a team game. Everybody gets to play, and the idea that you should have a tool for every job just in case, or are actively not trusting people to be able to do their jobs, is antithetical to team play.
Yup, that #3 somewhat looked like an extension of #2.


I'm also in general against a given spell being a must have for arbitrary reasons.
We see an awful lot of that. "What Wizard doesn't have Fireball? What Cleric doesn't have Spiritual Weapon? What Warlock doesn't have Eldritch Blast?"

The answer is usually: Well, you can't play the game if you're not optimized in the image of the majority. Dat sig tho

[Kane0]

I dont think this is a particularly valid reason in a team game. Everybody gets to play, and the idea that you should have a tool for every job just in case, or are actively not trusting people to be able to do their jobs, is antithetical to team play.

Absolutely, but when martials are stuck doing single target damage output and not much else then casters are left carrying the 'everything else' banner, and often get turned into punching bags because of it. If you take away tools from the casters that the martials never had in the first place, then nobody has those tools. I'm not saying that's what I want mind you, just observing a design challenge.

Maybe an anecdotal example might help.

In one group i'm playing a Genie Chainlock. She has what you might consider a typical broad spread of spells (fear, fireball/wall of fire, detect thoughts, invisibility, counter/dispel, teleportation, sending and banishment). It's fairly important I cover multiple bases because the only other party members are a Thief rogue and hunter ranger, so they have access to few if any of the things I do. Each of my spells was carefully picked because of the party composition with as much consideration given to my character's theme & backstory as I could squeeze in.

In another group i'm playing a clockwork sorc who has gone all in on telekinesis (catapult, feather fall, earthbind, knock, erupting earth, fly, haste, pulse wave, resilient sphere, bigby's hand). If it doesn't move things with my mind magic or make forcefields, i'm not doing it. This is fine because the party features a tomelock masquerading as a wizard, a conquest paladin, a soulknife rogue and a sidekick warrior plus a revolving door of redshirt tagalongs (usually basic mage statblocks). There are party members with access to those other things, and I have a relatively generous amount of options within my niche between blasts, buffs, BFC and utility.

So this mostly is just a variation of #2, but specifically pointing out that sometimes not trusting the party to have X is justified because none of them have access to it in the first place. If it were more widely distributed then that specific pressure is eased, but that runs into other design problems (how can you say homogeneity without accidentally summoning the 4e haters?)

[Sigreid]

Yup, that #3 somewhat looked like an extension of #2.


We see an awful lot of that. "What Wizard doesn't have Fireball? What Cleric doesn't have Spiritual Weapon? What Warlock doesn't have Eldritch Blast?"

The answer is usually: Well, you can't play the game if you're not optimized in the image of the majority. Dat sig tho

I've played all of those without those particular spells. Went fine.

[RandomPeasant]

I dont think this is a particularly valid reason in a team game. Everybody gets to play, and the idea that you should have a tool for every job just in case, or are actively not trusting people to be able to do their jobs, is antithetical to team play.

I would submit that in such a circumstance the fault is with the system that made it easy for a group to end up with no answer to certain problems, not the fault of the player for mitigating that risk. If you want caster players to be less over-prepared, the solution is to empower non-casters, not disempower casters.

[Kane0]

I would submit that in such a circumstance the fault is with the system that made it easy for a group to end up with no answer to certain problems, not the fault of the player for mitigating that risk. If you want caster players to be less over-prepared, the solution is to empower non-casters, not disempower casters.

Or both. I would be happy for pre-Tasha's sorcerers to be the the balance point for all full casters as well as diversifying other not-full casters to be on par with say, paladins.

[RandomPeasant]

Or both. I would be happy for pre-Tasha's sorcerers to be the the balance point for all full casters as well as diversifying other not-full casters to be on par with say, paladins.

As someone who started in 3e, I just cannot see how you look at 5e in the context of other editions of D&D and think "if we just nerf casters a little more, things will be fine". Casters got nerfed really a lot. We could stand to try something else.

[Kane0]

As someone who started in 3e, I just cannot see how you look at 5e in the context of other editions of D&D and think "if we just nerf casters a little more, things will be fine". Casters got nerfed really a lot. We could stand to try something else.

Because I can compartmentalize the editions, and remember 5e casters from 2014 and 2018 compared to now.

You don't have to choose between buffs and nerfs, you can have both.

[Dork_Forge]

Absolutely, but when martials are stuck doing single target damage output and not much else then casters are left carrying the 'everything else' banner, and often get turned into punching bags because of it. If you take away tools from the casters that the martials never had in the first place, then nobody has those tools. I'm not saying that's what I want mind you, just observing a design challenge.

In practice, martials can, in one form or another, address the vast majority of areas.


Maybe an anecdotal example might help.

In one group i'm playing a Genie Chainlock. She has what you might consider a typical broad spread of spells (fear, fireball/wall of fire, detect thoughts, invisibility, counter/dispel, teleportation, sending and banishment). It's fairly important I cover multiple bases because the only other party members are a Thief rogue and hunter ranger, so they have access to few if any of the things I do. Each of my spells was carefully picked because of the party composition with as much consideration given to my character's theme & backstory as I could squeeze in.

Whilst I understand covering areas that your party don't, this isn't a result of your party mates playing martials, it's a result of their choices within those martials as your coverage is a result of your choices as a caster. Some examples:

- A Soulknife provides coverage for group telepathy, invisibility, and teleporting.

- Obviously an Arcane Trickster can just grab a bunch of the same spells at a delayed pace

- Rangers have multiple avenues to AOE coverage through their spell list, and even more through subclass choices

A lot of what you're covering can also be covered by a variety of feats and racial choices, which slot wherever. Telepathy, Fey Touched, Eladrin, there's even answers to stuff like Coutnerspell with Paladin (though I don't see that as necessary unless you know you're in a mage-centric game).


As someone who started in 3e, I just cannot see how you look at 5e in the context of other editions of D&D and think "if we just nerf casters a little more, things will be fine". Casters got nerfed really a lot. We could stand to try something else.

Other things can, and probable between editions has, be tried. Just because casters have been nerfed doesn't mean that there isn't more fat there, or that they haven't gotten disproportionately fatter as 5E has progressed.

[Anymage]

As someone who started in 3e, I just cannot see how you look at 5e in the context of other editions of D&D and think "if we just nerf casters a little more, things will be fine". Casters got nerfed really a lot. We could stand to try something else.

The issue isn't necessarily that casters need to be made weaker. The issue is that casters - and here people usually mean wizards - have the ability to cover too many bases.

If characters are expected to have wuxia powers, bake that into the classes themselves and let barbarians hulk-jump long distances all on their own. Don't tie it to the fly spell, which asks the question of just how much you ask the caster to devote both a known/prepared slot and a daily spell slot to casting. After all, the caster can always use another spell and that raises questions of how much power a second caster can get if they don't have to devote those slots.

If characters are expected to be more grounded, superheroes often still pull off impressive feats while still having limited power sets. Magneto can manipulate ferrous metals on staggering scales, but can't stop time or heal a grievous injury. Asking casters to have more focused powersets can still let them have strong powers, it just means that they have strengths and weaknesses instead of being expected to cover a broad range of situations.

[Hytheter]

Regarding the comparative capabilities of martials and casters: my thinking is that martials should have access to features that are comparable to spells available at the same level. Casters have more spells than martials have features but limited castings; martials are less versatile but can do it more often, perhaps even all day.

If a caster can learn Fly at level 5, a martial should be able to fly at level 5. If a caster can learn Fear at level 5, a martial should be able to scare a bunch of mooks into turning tail and running away. If a caster can learn Fireball at level 5, a martial should be able to swing his axe around and hit everybody in a nice juicy radius.

The particulars will of course differ, but the basic use cases will be the same, with the difference being that the martial can only get one of those three abilities but can use it a whole bunch, while a caster has few spell slots but could could prepare all three at once.

[Tanarii]

I'd rather see arcane casters be more fragile and all full casters unable to hang all day.

Arcane caster lack of fragility has been discussed in many threads. Of course, it's FAR worse if you allow Multiclassing dips. But even baseline they're fairly tough.

The problem is for the standard "expected" adventuring day, which is 3 Deadly encounters or 6 Medium ones of 12 Easy*, casters from Tier 2 onwards can afford at least one spell per encounter. Some of them cap out at 2-1/2 per Medium or 1-1/3 per Easy encounter by level 10. That's a LOT of casting spells.

Personally my solution would be to recalibrate he expected length of an adventuring day to be about 1-1/2 the length, but I know many folks advocate even shorter. Given that, the number of spell slots per spell level needs to be dropped even more dramatically than 5e already has done so.


*which is where most non-combat encounters fall

[Keltest]

I'd rather see arcane casters be more fragile and all full casters unable to hang all day.

Arcane caster lack of fragility has been discussed in many threads. Of course, it's FAR worse if you allow Multiclassing dips. But even baseline they're fairly tough.

The problem is for the standard "expected" adventuring day, which is 3 Deadly encounters or 6 Medium ones of 12 Easy*, casters from Tier 2 onwards can afford at least one spell per encounter. Some of them cap out at 2-1/2 per Medium or 1-1/3 per Easy encounter by level 10. That's a LOT of casting spells.

Personally my solution would be to recalibrate he expected length of an adventuring day to be about 1-1/2 the length, but I know many folks advocate even shorter. Given that, the number of spell slots per spell level needs to be dropped even more dramatically than 5e already has done so.


*which is where most non-combat encounters fall

In my experience arcane casters actually arent all that resilient unless they really go out of their way to get feats for good armor and either roll for stats and get insane scores (which will make anybody disproportionately strong) or go out of their way to spend their ASIs on feats specifically to boost their AC/HP. My current group has a fair mix, and even with some bonus magic items specifically contributing to his defense, the party wizard/bard/sorcerer (he has been all 3 this campaign) still manages to get surrounded and killed the most of any player in this group, because he keeps trying to rely on his AC to protect him instead of just hiding up on the hill where people cant stab him.

To that end, I would argue that a primary caster's toughness will come mostly from the martials doing their job and being in the way of the enemy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience arcane casters actually arent all that resilient unless they really go out of their way to get feats for good armor and either roll for stats and get insane scores (which will make anybody disproportionately strong) or go out of their way to spend their ASIs on feats specifically to boost their AC/HP. My current group has a fair mix, and even with some bonus magic items specifically contributing to his defense, the party wizard/bard/sorcerer (he has been all 3 this campaign) still manages to get surrounded and killed the most of any player in this group, because he keeps trying to rely on his AC to protect him instead of just hiding up on the hill where people cant stab him.

This is totally random, but I've got a wizard in one of my groups that I just can't hit. Not because his AC was all that good (up until he took a level of Tempest Cleric...), but because for some reason I'd always roll like 8 (total) on the dice. I think my dice (electronic and real) hate me. Or love my players. They're good at saving throws, but attacks? Not so much. Then there was the spate of rolling either min or max damage on a d6--like 10 rolls in a row were either 1 or 6. Randomness is random, it seems.

Totally no relationship to your post, other than it reminded me of it.

[Keltest]

This is totally random, but I've got a wizard in one of my groups that I just can't hit. Not because his AC was all that good (up until he took a level of Tempest Cleric...), but because for some reason I'd always roll like 8 (total) on the dice. I think my dice (electronic and real) hate me. Or love my players. They're good at saving throws, but attacks? Not so much. Then there was the spate of rolling either min or max damage on a d6--like 10 rolls in a row were either 1 or 6. Randomness is random, it seems.

Totally no relationship to your post, other than it reminded me of it.

My dice are super swingy, and always at the worst times. I regularly get nat 1s for the monsters, and then I have rolled 3 nat 20s in a row... against targets that are paralyzed and in melee range, and thus are automatic crits anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My dice are super swingy, and always at the worst times. I regularly get nat 1s for the monsters, and then I have rolled 3 nat 20s in a row... against targets that are paralyzed and in melee range, and thus are automatic crits anyway.

The dice for our games (mine and others) seem to have a strong sense of dramatic timing. If they really need to be a 20...they will be. And other times...yeah. They're vicious and listening to us. "Just don't roll a 1" is something best not said, because the dice are listening. Never if it'd be really bad, just humiliating. And when the mutant and the pet drake are bickering about which one can claw things better, the dice tend to have a strong say.

[NaughtyTiger]

Absolutely, but when martials are stuck doing single target damage output and not much else then casters are left carrying the 'everything else' banner, and often get turned into punching bags because of it. If you take away tools from the casters that the martials never had in the first place, then nobody has those tools. I'm not saying that's what I want mind you, just observing a design challenge.

The players still have tools. even if your caster didn't rock the "everything else" banner... say, you had to work late. The party could carry on without your caster.
The only difference is that they would have to devise a plan to work around their gaps and be resourceful.
Instead of a design challenge, it becomes a game challenge.

Now, if casters weren't 'everything else + combat' by design, then the DM would still tailor the game to match the party and the party would still fill in gaps.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The players still have tools. even if your caster didn't rock the "everything else" banner... say, you had to work late. The party could carry on without your caster.
The only difference is that they would have to devise a plan to work around their gaps and be resourceful.
Instead of a design challenge, it becomes a game challenge.

Now, if casters weren't 'everything else + combat' by design, then the DM would still tailor the game to match the party and the party would still fill in gaps.

Yeah. Those roles only need spells to fill them because spells are the cheapest, easiest way to fill those and there are casters who can effortlessly (or nearly so) fill them while still doing other things. Change either of those dynamics and things get a lot more fun and fair for everyone. Except the poor casters who now don't get to do everything by themselves.

[Xervous]

Now why do casters need so many spells? Because it would stop being D&D at some point and loads of other systems have much better Few Powers rulesets.

If my whole array of spells are Quill Missiles, Warpfire, Enhance Perception, and Riotous Upheaval I might be better off hitting up DOTA or the freeform RP channel.

[Tanarii]

In my experience arcane casters actually arent all that resilient unless they really go out of their way to get feats for good armor and either roll for stats and get insane scores (which will make anybody disproportionately strong) or go out of their way to spend their ASIs on feats specifically to boost their AC/HP.
Fair. I just think they should be even more fragile. 1 HD size less would do it. But the main "problem" from my POV probably stems from it being very common for arcane nuke casters to make CON secondary. That changes the ratio of HPs from say 3/5 of a martial to (often) 5/7.

Otoh if I had my way arcane nuke casters would have less powerful cantrips and interruptible spells in melee. So maybe my views aren't the most in line on making arcane nuke casters even more fragile. :smallsmile:

[NaughtyTiger]

Now why do casters need so many spells? Because it would stop being D&D at some point and loads of other systems have much better Few Powers rulesets.

If my whole array of spells are Quill Missiles, Warpfire, Enhance Perception, and Riotous Upheaval I might be better off hitting up DOTA or the freeform RP channel.

this is a decent answer.
would it still be DnD if you had the same spells known/prepped, but fewer slots



Otoh if I had my way arcane nuke casters would have less powerful cantrips and interruptible spells in melee. So maybe my views aren't the most in line on making arcane nuke casters even more fragile. :smallsmile: this would reduce my whining about it a lot.

[Sigreid]

Fair. I just think they should be even more fragile. 1 HD size less would do it. But the main "problem" from my POV probably stems from it being very common for arcane nuke casters to make CON secondary. That changes the ratio of HPs from say 3/5 of a martial to (often) 5/7.

Otoh if I had my way arcane nuke casters would have less powerful cantrips and interruptible spells in melee. So maybe my views aren't the most in line on making arcane nuke casters even more fragile. :smallsmile:

You're describing a 1e mage.

[Dork_Forge]

this is a decent answer.
would it still be DnD if you had the same spells known/prepped, but fewer slots


Fundamental spellcasting has changed enough over the editions that I struggle to see how it could 'not be D&D' unless they cut staples whole-cloth from the game, like removing all components, iconic spells and so on.

I don't think the number of spells prepped/known contributes to 'it being D&D' at all really.

[Sigreid]

Fundamental spellcasting has changed enough over the editions that I struggle to see how it could 'not be D&D' unless they cut staples whole-cloth from the game, like removing all components, iconic spells and so on.

I don't think the number of spells prepped/known contributes to 'it being D&D' at all really.

I think as long as wizards memorize spells from a book and have spell slots it will feel like a d&d mage.

[Dork_Forge]

I think as long as wizards memorize spells from a book and have spell slots it will feel like a d&d mage.

I agree, but even 'spell slots' have changed significantly.

[Sigreid]

I agree, but even 'spell slots' have changed significantly.

Yes, but not to the point of being unrecognizable. They've really just been separated into prepared and energy packets to power them.

[cyberfunkr]

The key aspect is versatility.

The argument is that melee attackers can only do one thing; but they are very good at it. Spell casters on the other end need to cover everything else. And maybe some melee.

For me, when I build a spell caster (partial, half, full, doesn't matter) I build up a spreadsheet breaking up their spells into 17 different categories. Why? Because before I did, I would end up with Wizards that have 7 different AOE spells, but not a single melee attack. Or a Cleric that was 90% healing, but no utilities.

Instead, they are all spread out now. A couple of melee options, a couple of ranged options, a couple of saving throw based spells, a few AOE, etc.

If spell casters didn't have options, who would? Would the Barbarian make a safe bubble for everyone to take along rest? Will the Assassin summon a pack of wolves? Can we count on the Fighter to charm merchants and monster to avoid a fight?

So spell casters need so many spells, because they are tasked with so many jobs.

[Waazraath]

The key aspect is versatility.

The argument is that melee attackers can only do one thing; but they are very good at it. Spell casters on the other end need to cover everything else. And maybe some melee.

For me, when I build a spell caster (partial, half, full, doesn't matter) I build up a spreadsheet breaking up their spells into 17 different categories. Why? Because before I did, I would end up with Wizards that have 7 different AOE spells, but not a single melee attack. Or a Cleric that was 90% healing, but no utilities.

Instead, they are all spread out now. A couple of melee options, a couple of ranged options, a couple of saving throw based spells, a few AOE, etc.

If spell casters didn't have options, who would? Would the Barbarian make a safe bubble for everyone to take along rest? Will the Assassin summon a pack of wolves? Can we count on the Fighter to charm merchants and monster to avoid a fight?

So spell casters need so many spells, because they are tasked with so many jobs.


The thing is, what you describe here is m.i. exactly why people are complaining that the design of the game leads to all casters being more or less the same. Almost everybody wants to cover all bases and keep as much options open as possible. And that's why most Evokers look really a lot like Illusionists and Necromancers, and quite resemble a lot of Bards and Sorcerers and Warlocks as well. I totally understand the choice, from a mechanical point of view.

BUT. I think it is terrible game design (designers fault, not yours) because it rewards people for these generalist builds and does nothing to rewards focus and specialization. And that hurts the fluff / flavour, which is helped with strong and diverse archetypes.

I do think you underestimate how much non-casters can already do a lot of the versatile stuff. Dork_Forge already gave a number of good example. And this is despite the lazy design (and design flaw) of making lots of interesting class features 'just another spell' (like the paladin's mount) without any good reason whatsoever.

Furthermore, design time could be spend much better on more fighting styles, maneuvers, totems, runes, and other alternative class features for other classes than casters as well - and which could give even more versatility to the non-caster classes.

[animorte]

-snipperoo-
By design, why is it carelessly decided that casters should have all the access? This makes a lot of people feel as though they have no choice but to do everything. Martials could easily have more built in features to create similar utility.

[Waazraath]

By design, why is it carelessly decided that casters should have all the access? This makes a lot of people feel as though they have no choice but to do everything. Martials could easily have more built in features to create similar utility.

Yes, all very true. The answer two "why" is "tradtion" I think, but while not that good a reason in the first place, it's even less good than usual since older editions had smart ways of limiting access (AD&D clerical domains, 3.5's psionics, late 3.5's arcane classes like Beguiiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Warlock and Duskblade).

[CapnWildefyr]

Fair. I just think they should be even more fragile. 1 HD size less would do it. But the main "problem" from my POV probably stems from it being very common for arcane nuke casters to make CON secondary. That changes the ratio of HPs from say 3/5 of a martial to (often) 5/7.

Otoh if I had my way arcane nuke casters would have less powerful cantrips and interruptible spells in melee. So maybe my views aren't the most in line on making arcane nuke casters even more fragile. :smallsmile:

I would agree with a smaller HD, and also the interruptible spells. It makes it stink when you can't do anything round after round b/c your spells got interrupted, but a system where you have to con check if you took damage or are in combat just makes logical sense given magical lore. (It would also make sorcerers attractive -- a tangible difference between innate spellcasting vs learned) Better yet, use Wis or Dex for the check, maybe con if you took damage, dex if you're in combat (you have to maneuver to get a second of time and space)?


Yes, all very true. The answer two "why" is "tradtion" I think, but while not that good a reason in the first place, it's even less good than usual since older editions had smart ways of limiting access (AD&D clerical domains, 3.5's psionics, late 3.5's arcane classes like Beguiiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Warlock and Duskblade).

Not tradition, I think -- more like no reason to change it. So much of utility depends on the DM (how many ways does the DM let you solve an encounter).

More to the OP's question: Casters need a lot of spells because magic is specific. If you can meta your fireball into other energy forms, that helps, but otherwise magic can be defeated or have reduced effect based on opponents. And the specific nature of many spells limits their application. So casters, like everyone else, always want to be useful, so they want every spell under the sun -- a spell for all occasions. The bummer is that they've dumbed-down weapons and damage types so much that there is less reason for martials to switch between weapon types.

[Sigreid]

Yes, all very true. The answer two "why" is "tradtion" I think, but while not that good a reason in the first place, it's even less good than usual since older editions had smart ways of limiting access (AD&D clerical domains, 3.5's psionics, late 3.5's arcane classes like Beguiiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Warlock and Duskblade).

Eh, in AD&D there were a lot of magic items that wizards flat out couldn't use and those they could use mostly did what they already did, just some more times. Other classes had access to a lot of magic items that expanded their abilities considerably.

Of course this was back when casters also didn't get to have their full arsenal every morning so there is that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, but I'm also aware that it is fairly easy to not have a spell that does the damage type you need either known or prepared.

Edit: and when you're out of spell slots, you probably don't have 5 different damage types on your cantrips. Unless you are a Pact of the Tome Warlock. :smallwink:

My Celestial Pact of the Tome 'lock has: Force (EB) Lightning (Shocking Grasp) Radiant (Sacred Flame); Necrotic (Chill Touch) and Psychic (Mind Sliver).

:smallbiggrin:

[Keltest]

Really though, why do you need more than two or three damage types on a cantrip? How many monsters have immunity and/or resistance to both fire and cold damage, for example, or cold and acid, or pick your favorite combination of two that arent thunder and lightning, frankly.

[Dork_Forge]

Really though, why do you need more than two or three damage types on a cantrip? How many monsters have immunity and/or resistance to both fire and cold damage, for example, or cold and acid, or pick your favorite combination of two that arent thunder and lightning, frankly.

I get where you're coming from, but cold+fire are the hallmarks of the Fiend type along with poison, not saying you need five different types, just pointing out that it's very easy for a campaign to basically make a slew of types useless.

[Keltest]

I get where you're coming from, but cold+fire are the hallmarks of the Fiend type along with poison, not saying you need five different types, just pointing out that it's very easy for a campaign to basically make a slew of types useless.

I mean sure, that one specific combination isnt a great example, but there are a lot of damage types on cantrips.

[CapnWildefyr]

Eh, in AD&D there were a lot of magic items that wizards flat out couldn't use and those they could use mostly did what they already did, just some more times. Other classes had access to a lot of magic items that expanded their abilities considerably.

Of course this was back when casters also didn't get to have their full arsenal every morning so there is that.

But the thing was, you could be interrupted when casting. If you took damage, you couldn't cast that round. However, wands, staves, rods -- all those worked just fine. So you loaded up on misc and niche spells more, and blasted with your items. (Apologies if I melded AD&D with 2e a bit, haven't played either in so long... but you get the idea, items played a very important role by simply not being cast spells.) And since they were non-automatically-self-renewing resources, there was a strategy involved -- never truly knew when a wand might turn to dust.

[Sigreid]

But the thing was, you could be interrupted when casting. If you took damage, you couldn't cast that round. However, wands, staves, rods -- all those worked just fine. So you loaded up on misc and niche spells more, and blasted with your items. (Apologies if I melded AD&D with 2e a bit, haven't played either in so long... but you get the idea, items played a very important role by simply not being cast spells.) And since they were non-automatically-self-renewing resources, there was a strategy involved -- never truly knew when a wand might turn to dust.

Yep. I was just trying to get across that AD&D had the assumption that while the fighter was a killing machine, many of the non-bloodletting magical abilities were available to them, and often only to them via magic items the were expected to receive as they adventured.

[NaughtyTiger]

The argument is that melee attackers can only do one thing; but they are very good at it. Spell casters on the other end need to cover everything else. And maybe some melee.

doing "some melee" is just doing damage and a very limited version of control (reaction to address one opportunity attack)
melee attackers may be very good at damage and okay at control, but they aren't that much better than your average caster.

casters can do lots of damage and lots of control (simultaneously) and still "cover everything else".


If spell casters didn't have options, who would? Would the Barbarian make a safe bubble for everyone to take along rest? Will the Assassin summon a pack of wolves? Can we count on the Fighter to charm merchants and monster to avoid a fight?

The point is: does the game, the players, and the DM need a single PC to make the safe bubble, summon the minions, charm the merchants, and disable the monster?
No.
the roleplay has answers for all of that: party takes turns on watch, ranger befriends a wolf with animal handling, fighter has high persuasion, ...

[Eldariel]

the roleplay has answers for all of that: party takes turns on watch, ranger befriends a wolf with animal handling, fighter has high persuasion, ...

Roleplay has exactly zero answers to that; everyone can roleplay it but that doesn't do much unless you have the mechanics to back it up. All those solutions are mechanical and some are worse at it than others. Case in point, Fighter's contributions boil down to "have a tertiary stat and basic proficiency and pray you're a good choice to that end". That's precisely what needs changing: Fighters should actually be good at designing defensible fortified encampments and such (which would make perfect sense) so they could all contribute to that end. And the "8 hour invulnerable rest bubble" needs to die: it restricts enemies that can be used way too much. If it had like 100 HP that'd be more than enough warning already.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Roleplay has exactly zero answers to that; everyone can roleplay it but that doesn't do much unless you have the mechanics to back it up. All those solutions are mechanical and some are worse at it than others. Case in point, Fighter's contributions boil down to "have a tertiary stat and basic proficiency and pray you're a good choice to that end". That's precisely what needs changing: Fighters should actually be good at designing defensible fortified encampments and such (which would make perfect sense) so they could all contribute to that end. And the "8 hour invulnerable rest bubble" needs to die: it restricts enemies that can be used way too much. If it had like 100 HP that'd be more than enough warning already.

This isn't a video game. You don't need a mechanical button to press to do things. So no, the bold is not only wrong, it's (IMO) antithetical to what makes a TTRPG. Everything is possible via roleplay; some things have mechanical support. Mechanics come last, and matter least. They're helpers to make things easier, but the starting point is
a) DM describes the scene
b) player describes an intended action
c) DM decides what (if anything) happens (ie resolves the action), which may or may not refer to mechanics or dice rolls or any other rule
d) DM narrates what happens next.
AKA the most basic rule of D&D.

[Eldariel]

This isn't a video game. You don't need a mechanical button to press to do things. So no, the bold is not only wrong, it's (IMO) antithetical to what makes a TTRPG. Everything is possible via roleplay; some things have mechanical support. Mechanics come last, and matter least. They're helpers to make things easier, but the starting point is
a) DM describes the scene
b) player describes an intended action
c) DM decides what (if anything) happens (ie resolves the action), which may or may not refer to mechanics or dice rolls or any other rule
d) DM narrates what happens next.
AKA the most basic rule of D&D.

Sure, but anyone can do that. Your Fighter is no better than your Wizard or Bard; that gives you zero reason to have a Fighter. Unless Fighter is somehow superior at their expertise compared to alternatives, this doesn't vindicate including them in a party nor give them anything special to contribute.

[Keltest]

Sure, but anyone can do that. Your Fighter is no better than your Wizard or Bard; that gives you zero reason to have a Fighter. Unless Fighter is somehow superior at their expertise compared to alternatives, this doesn't vindicate including them in a party nor give them anything special to contribute.

Why do you need a special button to push to justify playing any given class? Can you not play a fighter because perhaps you simply like being a fighter for its own sake?

[Eldariel]

Why do you need a special button to push to justify playing any given class? Can you not play a fighter because perhaps you simply like being a fighter for its own sake?

What is "a fighter"? If you want to be a character who fights (that's every single class), you don't like being "a fighter", you like being a specific kind and style of character you envision a class named "fighter" supporting. Class names are system-side; you don't need to be Fighter the Class to be Fighter the Archetype (if there is such a thing). If you like being Fighter the Class, you're choosing the mechanical shell provided by the class to support the mechanical realization of the character you are envisioning. And currently, that mechanical shell doesn't in many aspects match much of what the archetype might be expected to be capable of: it has zero leadership ability in spite of great warriors being classically and even in modern literature often great military leaders or at least capable strategists.

There is no benefit to others' fighting skill or strategic or tactical decisions from being a Fighter the Class: you can roleplay that as much you want but none of that gains benefit from you being a Fighter; you could more efficiently do that sort of thing mechanically as a Rogue or a Bard or a Cleric or a Wizard since it'll almost certainly come down to the skill system and Fighter has no meaningful advantages there compared to the baseline.

[Psyren]

There is no benefit to others' fighting skill or strategic or tactical decisions from being a Fighter the Class: you can roleplay that as much you want but none of that gains benefit from you being a Fighter; you could more efficiently do that sort of thing mechanically as a Rogue or a Bard or a Cleric or a Wizard since it'll almost certainly come down to the skill system and Fighter has no meaningful advantages there compared to the baseline.

That's a maybe, not a given. If task X requires a roll, then yes, the Bard or Rogue is more likely to have features that make rolling better. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll have the better result, because the DM is also encouraged to consider (a) whether the character needs to roll at all and (b) what success and failure mean for that specific character. For some tasks the Fighter can reasonably be expected to have an edge there, especially if the DM wants an easy way to give Fighters nice things.

[Xervous]

That's a maybe, not a given. If task X requires a roll, then yes, the Bard or Rogue is more likely to have features that make rolling better. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll have the better result, because the DM is also encouraged to consider (a) whether the character needs to roll at all and (b) what success and failure mean for that specific character. For some tasks the Fighter can reasonably be expected to have an edge there, especially if the DM wants an easy way to give Fighters nice things.

Where does the GM get the idea that fighters should get nice things in the first place?

[Psyren]

Where does the GM get the idea that fighters should get nice things in the first place?

Anywhere outside this forum I hope :smallbiggrin:

[cyberfunkr]

The thing is, what you describe here is m.i. exactly why people are complaining that the design of the game leads to all casters being more or less the same. Almost everybody wants to cover all bases and keep as much options open as possible. And that's why most Evokers look really a lot like Illusionists and Necromancers, and quite resemble a lot of Bards and Sorcerers and Warlocks as well. I totally understand the choice, from a mechanical point of view.

BUT. I think it is terrible game design (designers fault, not yours) because it rewards people for these generalist builds and does nothing to rewards focus and specialization. And that hurts the fluff / flavour, which is helped with strong and diverse archetypes.

I do think you underestimate how much non-casters can already do a lot of the versatile stuff. Dork_Forge already gave a number of good example. And this is despite the lazy design (and design flaw) of making lots of interesting class features 'just another spell' (like the paladin's mount) without any good reason whatsoever.

Furthermore, design time could be spend much better on more fighting styles, maneuvers, totems, runes, and other alternative class features for other classes than casters as well - and which could give even more versatility to the non-caster classes.

I see your point, but I'm going to start with a rebuttal.

Character diversity is still completely possible. I have caster that, with the exception of green-flame blade and create bonfire (he liked sitting around a campfire telling stories so he got a spell to make a portable one), doesn't use any fire spells. He prefers earth/force based; so catapult, earth tremor, erupting earth, etc. Only reason was because I, as the creator, was tired of always picking the same spells. So I created a character that preferred the lessor known spells. He still has a lot of diversity, but isn't just another carbon-copy spellcaster. So you can create non-boilerplate spell casters.

But it's really hard to do so...

My clerics always end up with a load of healing spells, because that's all they have on their spell list. One I designed to be an in-your-face melee fighter, but since there are no cleric sub-classes that offer Extra Attacks, he maxes out his one attack and then is forced to get spiritual weapon so he can effectively use his bonus action to attack a second time (or else invest in feats to dual wield). Spiritual Weapon is also one of only a small handful of ranged spell attack options a base cleric gets. Most of them are saving throw based. Along the same lines, ALL bard spells (except for magic secrets) are saving throw based; they don't do attack rolls so they are kinda screwed against creatures with legendary resistance.

And yes, the fault is in the game design. Every class is designed to be played in a specific way. And the sub-classes, which *SHOULD* be helping make characters within the same class different, turn out to be more flavorful and not always mechanical in nature. What's the difference between an abjure wizard and an enchantment wizard? One gets a defensive shield and one can charm two people instead of one. That's not enough.

A warlock is a warlock is a warlock, unless they are a hexblade. A sorcerer is a sorcerer is a sorcerer; unless it's a divine soul (for the cleric spell options).

Hopefully in 5.5/6 edition, they open up the possibilities; more feats that are available for minor customization, sub-classes that are really different from each other, classes that allow more diversity.

[Eldariel]

That's a maybe, not a given. If task X requires a roll, then yes, the Bard or Rogue is more likely to have features that make rolling better. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll have the better result, because the DM is also encouraged to consider (a) whether the character needs to roll at all and (b) what success and failure mean for that specific character. For some tasks the Fighter can reasonably be expected to have an edge there, especially if the DM wants an easy way to give Fighters nice things.

Whatever the DM does, they could just as easily do it for any other class. The class itself in no ways contributes to it; which is the issue, it definitely should. It's absurd that a Thief Rogue who's spent all his life stealing stuff is suddenly a greater military genius than a Fighter just because the DM wants to use the skill system and he happens to have proficiency in History plus some Int leading to Reliable Talent kicking in and him hitting the high notes easily.

Of course, DM can arbitrarily give nice stuff to anyone but that's no longer go anything to do with the system; DM could just as easily do that with no system whatsoever or in whatever system. Make no mistake, I agree that DM should probably give some stuff to the Fighter here but OTOH it'd be really cool if there was some support for it from the gameside. Maybe would be less easily overlooked and could even contribute to making Fighters more rounded and useful in and out of combat.

[Psyren]

Whatever the DM does, they could just as easily do it for any other class. The class itself in no ways contributes to it; which is the issue, it definitely should. It's absurd that a Thief Rogue who's spent all his life stealing stuff is suddenly a greater military genius than a Fighter just because the DM wants to use the skill system and he happens to have proficiency in History plus some Int leading to Reliable Talent kicking in and him hitting the high notes easily.

Of course, DM can arbitrarily give nice stuff to anyone but that's no longer go anything to do with the system; DM could just as easily do that with no system whatsoever or in whatever system. Make no mistake, I agree that DM should probably give some stuff to the Fighter here but OTOH it'd be really cool if there was some support for it from the gameside. Maybe would be less easily overlooked and could even contribute to making Fighters more rounded and useful in and out of combat.

You say that's "no longer the system" but I say that IS the system. Or put another way, if you're holding out for Complete Scoundrel 5.0 where they print reams and reams of mechanical stuff and say "you need to be this much rogue to access these nice things" (or Complete Warrior for Fighter etc) instead of what you've already been given, then I don't think you're using the system you have to anywhere near its full potential. But I guess that's where DM's Guild can become a moneymaker for someone else.

Which honestly is fine, happy gaming and all that, but hopefully other folks reading this come away with the idea that skill/ability checks can do a lot more for martials than others might be allowing them to.

[Eldariel]

You say that's "no longer the system" but I say that IS the system.

Well, that's basically just freeform, which is fine as its own thing but kinda weird in an otherwise structured crunch-heavy system - there is no system there, really; it's just arbitrary DM calls with little structure or class relevance. You can make it work, certainly. By definition it is exactly what you make of it. But it is at odds with the rest of the system and leaves a bunch of classes in a strange limbo with nothing beyond potential arbitrary boons to show for their class fantasy.

[Psyren]

Well, that's basically just freeform,

Deciding a given character doesn't need to a roll for a given challenge does not magically obliterate the ruleset.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Deciding a given character doesn't need to a roll for a given challenge does not magically obliterate the ruleset.
Which is good, because that's the foundation of just about everything in 5e. Rolling is the exception, not the default.

[Dimers]

You say that's "no longer the system" but I say that IS the system.

If all DMs understood that PCs can do stuff without rolls -- without having buttons to push -- then that system would work. Not all DMs do. In my limited experience, not many do.

Which is the biggest reason why spellcasters need so many spells. It's because they want to be effective in the face of GMing influenced by a button-pushing paradigm. It's a reasonable reaction to the reality when the ideal isn't present.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

In response to the OP, I've seen both sides of this. In one campaign with 5 players, 4 of whom were casters, I played a Dragon Sorc and did Dragon Sorc things. I burned things, lots of things, really well. If something else needed to happen it was someone else's job and I didn't worry about it. In a current campaign with 3 players, A battlemaster, an evoker, and me: a Swords Palard, I'm trying to play every role imaginable. I'm healing, support, and control, and no matter how many spells I get, there always seems to be more I'd like.

[Telok]

If all DMs understood that PCs can do stuff without rolls -- without having buttons to push -- then that system would work. Not all DMs do. In my limited experience, not many do.

Which is the biggest reason why spellcasters need so many spells. It's because they want to be effective in the face of GMing influenced by a button-pushing paradigm. It's a reasonable reaction to the reality when the ideal isn't present.

Part of it may be that post y2k D&D has been pretty exclusively exception based design. If you don't have something saying you can do/try it, then you can't. You can't use your reaction for anything unless you have text saying you can use your reaction. You can't take two bonus actions with your action & bonus action because nothing says you can (the fluff about bonus actions being quicker or easier things is meaningless).

The weird thing is that in 5e the skill/attribute roll chunk is something between DM fiat, freeform rp, and permissive rules. Plus they just seem generally sloppily set out. So you get DMs trained on an exception based rule framework, some literally for decades, handed this chunk of suggestions and sort of told to "do what feels right" for everything that isn't combat & spells. Naturally they do what most humans do when faced with new & unknown situations under pressure, they fall back on their training. But D&D trained them on exception based design and there's no text, no button, saying they can just do something or what a "hard" jump check is.

Can you imagine someone baking a cake for the first time, using a recipie that stopped after mixing the batter with "then pour it in a big enough pan and bake it in a hot oven until it is done"? A recipie for a ruined cake, that is. And why I've never seen any PC able or allowed to jump further than their strength score. The rules are exception based and the exception for jumping is a blank spot waiting for every DM to write in their own house rule. After some failures from trying random amateur made up rules the DMs & players give up and use spells or magic items. Want to jump? Get a spell that says how far you can go.

[Psyren]

Part of it may be that post y2k D&D has been pretty exclusively exception based design. If you don't have something saying you can do/try it, then you can't. You can't use your reaction for anything unless you have text saying you can use your reaction. You can't take two bonus actions with your action & bonus action because nothing says you can (the fluff about bonus actions being quicker or easier things is meaningless).

The weird thing is that in 5e the skill/attribute roll chunk is something between DM fiat, freeform rp, and permissive rules. Plus they just seem generally sloppily set out. So you get DMs trained on an exception based rule framework, some literally for decades, handed this chunk of suggestions and sort of told to "do what feels right" for everything that isn't combat & spells. Naturally they do what most humans do when faced with new & unknown situations under pressure, they fall back on their training. But D&D trained them on exception based design and there's no text, no button, saying they can just do something or what a "hard" jump check is.

Can you imagine someone baking a cake for the first time, using a recipie that stopped after mixing the batter with "then pour it in a big enough pan and bake it in a hot oven until it is done"? A recipie for a ruined cake, that is. And why I've never seen any PC able or allowed to jump further than their strength score. The rules are exception based and the exception for jumping is a blank spot waiting for every DM to write in their own house rule. After some failures from trying random amateur made up rules the DMs & players give up and use spells or magic items. Want to jump? Get a spell that says how far you can go.

I agree that "decades of training" is hard to unlearn. It certainly was for me when 5e first came out 7 or so years ago, and I was stuck on an exception-based mindset back then. But that doesn't mean ripping off the bandaid isn't worthwhile. The books saying things like "You're not limited to the Actions in this chapter, you and your DM are free to make up new ones" and "these are just a few examples of the Contests you and your DM can come up with" and above all "Decide if they even need to roll for what they're attempting, and don't make them unless there's a meaningful consequence for failure" are all valuable principles for an edition to teach even if they don't align with older design. Perhaps especially because of that. I'm confident that most DMs will get it eventually; mine certainly do.

[Tanarii]

Where does the GM get the idea that fighters should get nice things in the first place?
In the ability check system, they don't. Fighters get no more or less from an ability check than any other character with the same bonus vs the same DC.

[sithlordnergal]

Which is good, because that's the foundation of just about everything in 5e. Rolling is the exception, not the default.

I would disagree, rolling is the default. Rolling is there to see if whatever the player is doing is successful or not. Now, if its a trivial check, there's no chance of a character failing, or if failing doesn't actually matter, then don't bother rolling. But more often then not, players should be rolling to see if they're successful at doing X or Y. Of course, that doesn't mean the DC is the same for every single character.

For example, if there's a Fighter who's background has to do with military tactics, a Rogue that grew up as a Street Urchin, and a Ranger that has Goblins as their Favored Enemy all rolling to figure out what kind of tactics this Goblin Tribe they're attacking is most likely going to use, the DC should be different for each character. I'd say DC 15 for the Rogue, 10 for the Fighter, and 5 for the Ranger due to their Favored Enemy ability. Its still going to be a roll, and who knows, the Fighter and Ranger might flub it while the Rogue remembers everything, but its a good way to show a PC's past/present expertise.

And more than that, you can give varying information, with the Rogue getting the bare basics, the Ranger getting the general idea of how Goblins act, and the Fighter getting info on how the area might be used against them in a tactical situation. But in the end, its still a dice roll, not an automatic success for any of them. Otherwise what's the difference between it and just free flow RPing?

[Dimers]

But that doesn't mean ripping off the bandaid isn't worthwhile.

Something being worthwhile doesn't mean it'll get done, of course. The world would be a much more awesome place if "worth doing" synched up with "done". The library where I work should get lots more funding, for instance. :smalltongue:

It's not my responsibility to change my DMs' paradigm*, which is fortunate because it's also not within my power. In my many games with GMs who still respond well to buttons, I'll continue to try to get buttons to push. Feats with absolute language, lots and lots of defined spells, advantage+Expertise combos, uses for bonus actions, etc. I want to Do More in games where Do is limited to what appears on the character sheet.

* Not saying you said that, Psyren -- just getting out there ahead of anyone who makes that assumption subconsciously.

[Eldariel]

Deciding a given character doesn't need to a roll for a given challenge does not magically obliterate the ruleset.

No, but anything Fighters get is necessarily in the "I feel like you can do this"-area: if they have to roll, there are no benefits to Fighterhood and if it's something you can't achieve even through skill rolling then obviously Fighterhood doesn't help you there. The part of the system where Fighters can get nice things is the one where there is no system: i.e. the one not at all governed by the rules. In other words, they can get nice things in spite of the rules, not thanks to them.

[Xervous]

Anywhere outside this forum I hope :smallbiggrin:

The point I was obliquely stabbing at was that the actual rulebooks don’t suggest extra care to be taken to ensure the fighter gets nice things. But that’s getting off topic.

[Waazraath]

snip

Agree to agree then :)

[Pex]

I would disagree, rolling is the default. Rolling is there to see if whatever the player is doing is successful or not. Now, if its a trivial check, there's no chance of a character failing, or if failing doesn't actually matter, then don't bother rolling. But more often then not, players should be rolling to see if they're successful at doing X or Y. Of course, that doesn't mean the DC is the same for every single character.

For example, if there's a Fighter who's background has to do with military tactics, a Rogue that grew up as a Street Urchin, and a Ranger that has Goblins as their Favored Enemy all rolling to figure out what kind of tactics this Goblin Tribe they're attacking is most likely going to use, the DC should be different for each character. I'd say DC 15 for the Rogue, 10 for the Fighter, and 5 for the Ranger due to their Favored Enemy ability. Its still going to be a roll, and who knows, the Fighter and Ranger might flub it while the Rogue remembers everything, but its a good way to show a PC's past/present expertise.

And more than that, you can give varying information, with the Rogue getting the bare basics, the Ranger getting the general idea of how Goblins act, and the Fighter getting info on how the area might be used against them in a tactical situation. But in the end, its still a dice roll, not an automatic success for any of them. Otherwise what's the difference between it and just free flow RPing?

Where as I have a differing philosophy in that the difficulty of a task is independent of the person doing it. The DC is X for everyone. Some have an easier time of making it depending on the game resources the player chose to put in it. Trying to infer a future action, this is a Wisdom (Insight) check. Because the fighter's military background is relevant he gets to roll with proficiency even if he's not proficient with Insight. The ranger has favored enemy goblin so he gets advantage. The rogue has no special relationship so he just gets a straight roll. What is X? That's unfortunately DM fiat, but whatever value I assign will be the same for everyone.

[Dork_Forge]

Personally I let players do a lot that isn't written down, it's the point of an RPG, but depending what it is I may apply costs, and will always need justification for what they want.

The Rogue may have Expertise in History, but unless they can justify effectively using that historical knowledge, or justify that that Expertise includes military history at all, they will be sitting back seat to the Fighter.

[Tanarii]

Where as I have a differing philosophy in that the difficulty of a task is independent of the person doing it. The DC is X for everyone. Some have an easier time of making it depending on the game resources the player chose to put in it. Trying to infer a future action, this is a Wisdom (Insight) check. Because the fighter's military background is relevant he gets to roll with proficiency even if he's not proficient with Insight. The ranger has favored enemy goblin so he gets advantage. The rogue has no special relationship so he just gets a straight roll. What is X? That's unfortunately DM fiat, but whatever value I assign will be the same for everyone.
Generally speaking, I agree.

However there's room for exceptions. To me, if a task has a DC that should be the same DC for everyone, and if someone gets/has to roll, all character use their bonus.

But IMO a given character may not get to roll / auto failure, get advantage/disadvantage, or not have to roll / auto success, based on their character specifics.

Example of doesn't get to roll / auto failure might be something like "despite having Int +2 bonus, my character wouldn't know anything about the history of this local region we're in". Whereas a doesn't have to roll / auto success might be "despite only having a Int +2 bonus, my character who was actually at this specific local historical event doesn't need to roll to know the general info about it".

This should be applied rarely with DM/Player discussion based on specific character details though. Not something like class-gating or background-gating or proficiency-gating.

Edit: But I do think if we all want to rehash this dead horse, we probably need to spawn a breakaway thread :smallamused:

[Hytheter]

The Rogue may have Expertise in History, but unless they can justify effectively using that historical knowledge, or justify that that Expertise includes military history at all, they will be sitting back seat to the Fighter.

Why on earth wouldn't expertise in history include military history? Given the extent to which warfare has shaped the course of history it would be impossible to call someone without knowledge of such an expert.

[Psyren]

The point I was obliquely stabbing at was that the actual rulebooks don’t suggest extra care to be taken to ensure the fighter gets nice things. But that’s getting off topic.

"Run the game in such a way that everyone at the table is engaged and gets to have fun" should be a common sense expectation. But in case it somehow wasn't, see DMG pg. 6.


In the ability check system, they don't. Fighters get no more or less from an ability check than any other character with the same bonus vs the same DC.

Not a strict numerical modifier perhaps - but the ability check rules also instruct you to consider training and talent (DMG 238), and a character's class represents/incorporates both of those qualities (PHB 45.)


Something being worthwhile doesn't mean it'll get done, of course. The world would be a much more awesome place if "worth doing" synched up with "done". The library where I work should get lots more funding, for instance. :smalltongue:

It's not my responsibility to change my DMs' paradigm*, which is fortunate because it's also not within my power. In my many games with GMs who still respond well to buttons, I'll continue to try to get buttons to push. Feats with absolute language, lots and lots of defined spells, advantage+Expertise combos, uses for bonus actions, etc. I want to Do More in games where Do is limited to what appears on the character sheet.

* Not saying you said that, Psyren -- just getting out there ahead of anyone who makes that assumption subconsciously.

And that's perfectly 100% fine, find your bliss/fun. But I will definitely oppose attempts to get a pile of additional "buttons" added to my D&D/the baseline. You are more than welcome to use DM's Guild or the Homebrew section for that if that's what you're after.


I would disagree, rolling is the default. Rolling is there to see if whatever the player is doing is successful or not. Now, if its a trivial check, there's no chance of a character failing, or if failing doesn't actually matter, then don't bother rolling. But more often then not, players should be rolling to see if they're successful at doing X or Y. Of course, that doesn't mean the DC is the same for every single character.

For example, if there's a Fighter who's background has to do with military tactics, a Rogue that grew up as a Street Urchin, and a Ranger that has Goblins as their Favored Enemy all rolling to figure out what kind of tactics this Goblin Tribe they're attacking is most likely going to use, the DC should be different for each character. I'd say DC 15 for the Rogue, 10 for the Fighter, and 5 for the Ranger due to their Favored Enemy ability. Its still going to be a roll, and who knows, the Fighter and Ranger might flub it while the Rogue remembers everything, but its a good way to show a PC's past/present expertise.

And more than that, you can give varying information, with the Rogue getting the bare basics, the Ranger getting the general idea of how Goblins act, and the Fighter getting info on how the area might be used against them in a tactical situation. But in the end, its still a dice roll, not an automatic success for any of them. Otherwise what's the difference between it and just free flow RPing?


Where as I have a differing philosophy in that the difficulty of a task is independent of the person doing it. The DC is X for everyone. Some have an easier time of making it depending on the game resources the player chose to put in it. Trying to infer a future action, this is a Wisdom (Insight) check. Because the fighter's military background is relevant he gets to roll with proficiency even if he's not proficient with Insight. The ranger has favored enemy goblin so he gets advantage. The rogue has no special relationship so he just gets a straight roll. What is X? That's unfortunately DM fiat, but whatever value I assign will be the same for everyone.

I think you've both missed the mark somewhat, though I'm slightly closer to sithlordnergal's thought process.

Rolling should not be the default, i.e. the first resolution mechanic/course of action that comes to the DM's mind. Calling for a roll should be a very thoughtful exercise, because you need to think of three things first:

1) Meaningful Consequence for failure
2) Reason they can't just retry/take 20
3) Difficulty Class

Only after ALL three have been considered should a roll be called for, so it cannot be a knee-jerk exercise.

Furthermore, I completely agree that the DC (once assigned) should be the same for everyone. Climbing a wall shouldn't be DC 15 for the barbarian but DC 20 for the wizard. But the consequences of success/failure, as well as the need to roll in the first place, don't have to be identical by actor. That in my view is the most common mistake DM's make that end up making martials feel like losers for not having "button" spells for every check. There are a lot of checks where martials shouldn't need a button, or at the very least where not having a button should be much less impactful for them.

[Dork_Forge]

Why on earth wouldn't expertise in history include military history? Given the extent to which warfare has shaped the course of history it would be impossible to call someone without knowledge of such an expert.

Various reasons:

- History is essentially basically everything that has happened. You can easily specialise in a wide range of various subjects within history without touching military history.

- Knowing some details about a war doesn't translate to knowing the tactics used, nor does it automatically allow you to translate that into a workable plan in the current situation

- The notion that you can't call someone an expert because they don't know about something doesn't discredit them as an expert, it discredits them as a generalist. A general practitioner knows a lot about many things, but they still refer people to specialists for a reason.

I don't view history prof/expertise as you automatically know all history, and I don't think that makes sense. If a player asks if they know something, I ask why their character would/their justification. If it fits, then they roll. If it makes sense for their justification to reasonable just know it, I'll tell them without a roll.

[Psyren]

I'm with Dork_Forge on this one. A rogue's expertise in history does not automatically make them better at every single historical question than someone whose vocation has a clearer overlap with historical events (i.e. wars) related to that vocation.

More to the point however, this is a great opportunity to let both characters shine. Let the rogue roll but allow the Fighter to Help them so they get advantage, and then tell them what they're both able to figure out by working together. For example, the rogue's expertise might mean he recalls specific details of those wars, but the Fighter's training allows him to put those details into context and derive meaning from them that can be applied to the party's current situation. It costs you nothing to do this as a DM and it not only increases everyone's engagement at the table, it gives you a way to provide even more valuable backstory about your world and campaign that the group may need while you have their rapt attention. It's win/win.

[animorte]

-snippage-
That was very nicely explained. +1


I'm with Dork_Forge on this one.
Myself as well.

[Pex]

Generally speaking, I agree.

However there's room for exceptions. To me, if a task has a DC that should be the same DC for everyone, and if someone gets/has to roll, all character use their bonus.

But IMO a given character may not get to roll / auto failure, get advantage/disadvantage, or not have to roll / auto success, based on their character specifics.

Example of doesn't get to roll / auto failure might be something like "despite having Int +2 bonus, my character wouldn't know anything about the history of this local region we're in". Whereas a doesn't have to roll / auto success might be "despite only having a Int +2 bonus, my character who was actually at this specific local historical event doesn't need to roll to know the general info about it".

This should be applied rarely with DM/Player discussion based on specific character details though. Not something like class-gating or background-gating or proficiency-gating.

Edit: But I do think if we all want to rehash this dead horse, we probably need to spawn a breakaway thread :smallamused:

I can agree with that and have done it as DM. Metagame I want to avoid piggybacking where just because I ask one player to roll a knowledge check doesn't mean everyone can roll. I believe in the reverse metagame where it's possible for a PC to know something a player has no clue his character should know something so he doesn't even know he deserves a roll. I'll prompt a player to give me a roll or just tell him if the subject is absolutely within his purview of knowledge, which happens once in a while. How is this different than assigning different DC to players? Maybe it's only a philosophical nuance. The difference is a matter of yes/no. If no, the PC could never know it or do there's no roll. However, once I accept even the chance a PC can know or do something, the DC remains static. I'll set the DC and not change it based on how much resources the player dedicated to it. Let the player enjoy the investment and be hard or easy for him based on his choices, not mine.

[Witty Username]

Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

[Kane0]

Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

I generally swap out one spell per spell level 1-5ish, as they lose their usefulness because of gaining levels. Maybe add an extra 1-3 to counter buyers remorse.

[Sigreid]

"Run the game in such a way that everyone at the table is engaged and gets to have fun" should be a common sense expectation. But in case it somehow wasn't, see DMG pg. 6.



Not a strict numerical modifier perhaps - but the ability check rules also instruct you to consider training and talent (DMG 238), and a character's class represents/incorporates both of those qualities (PHB 45.)



And that's perfectly 100% fine, find your bliss/fun. But I will definitely oppose attempts to get a pile of additional "buttons" added to my D&D/the baseline. You are more than welcome to use DM's Guild or the Homebrew section for that if that's what you're after.





I think you've both missed the mark somewhat, though I'm slightly closer to sithlordnergal's thought process.

Rolling should not be the default, i.e. the first resolution mechanic/course of action that comes to the DM's mind. Calling for a roll should be a very thoughtful exercise, because you need to think of three things first:

1) Meaningful Consequence for failure
2) Reason they can't just retry/take 20
3) Difficulty Class

Only after ALL three have been considered should a roll be called for, so it cannot be a knee-jerk exercise.

Furthermore, I completely agree that the DC (once assigned) should be the same for everyone. Climbing a wall shouldn't be DC 15 for the barbarian but DC 20 for the wizard. But the consequences of success/failure, as well as the need to roll in the first place, don't have to be identical by actor. That in my view is the most common mistake DM's make that end up making martials feel like losers for not having "button" spells for every check. There are a lot of checks where martials shouldn't need a button, or at the very least where not having a button should be much less impactful for them.

I'd add such a common task or knowledge that no roll is needed. To me, this may be influenced by class, background, homeland or other features. As an example, recognizing a particular symbol of Tyr may be an easy task overall, but the priest of Tyr don't gotta roll.

[Dork_Forge]

Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

I just change it to add one more spell at 1st and 5th level.

[Fynzmirs]

Tbh I'd love for casters to have much more limited spellslots, balanced by making spells slightly more powerful (for example some limitations on stacking buff spells could be removed if the casters were only allowed to cast like 3 spells a day.

[Corran]

Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?
I think around 5 extra spells picked between levels 1 and 9 would be great. With the restriction you are placing (ie no swapping spells on level up) I'd probably want them skewed towards the higher end a bit more, but without it would most likely be an extra spell per spell level for spell levels 1-5. Personally, I wouldn't mind if that list was fixed and theme appropriate even, as even so it would still take some burden off of me and give me more room to play around a little more with my choices. Not 100% sure if 5 is enough, but I am wary of saying more than that cause while I would like a little more room to play with my choices, at the same time I wouldn't want a very big list of available choices. It has to strike a very sensitive balance for me. Give me enough not to feel stuck and get noticeably increasingly bored when playing the class, but at the same time give me few enough so that I dont have to overanalyse when playing the game, so that I can have a very good idea of what I can do with my spell options at any given time without reading through my spell list, so that I can get to experiment more with my spells and learn to use them better/ more creatively than just using a more suitable one for the occasion out of a big list of options. This doesn't have to be the sorcerer, but if the sorcerer is the caster option that is supposed to cover this playstyle, that's the general idea of what I'd want out of it. More spells, but not too many more. Five is the number that comes arbitrarily to my head when thinking of that.

[Pex]

Tbh I'd love for casters to have much more limited spellslots, balanced by making spells slightly more powerful (for example some limitations on stacking buff spells could be removed if the casters were only allowed to cast like 3 spells a day.

Cast your 3 spells? Good. You don't get to play anymore today.

[NaughtyTiger]

Cast your 3 spells? Good. You don't get to play anymore today.

Melee martials throwing 4 javelins against flying targets? Good. You don't get to play anymore today

i mean, there are still cantrips.

[OldTrees1]

1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Mage Armor, Silent Image, Grease
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Invisibility, Misty Step, Web, Suggestion
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud, Melf's Minute Meteors
4th: Dimension Door, Wall of Fire
5th: Wall of Stone
6th: Plane Shift
7th: Draconic Transformation
8th: ----
9th: Meteor Swarm

A mobile artillery that hems in their targets and then burns them.

21 spells I would desire for an evocation maniac sorcerer.
If I could trade spells: (Thunderwave -> Flaming Sphere?, Grease -> Web, and Misty Step -> Dimension Door). So call it 18 spells?
15 spells known baseline for a sorcerer. (20 with a bloodline)

Notice how severely frontloaded those desired spells are. Consider 6th level
15 spells I would desire for an evocation maniac sorcerer. (13 with trades)
7 spells known baseline for a 6th level sorcerer. (10 with a bloodline)

If I were to rewrite spells known, based on my own selections, I would consider something that frontloads spells known.


Level
12345678910
11121314151617181920


Spells Known
356891112131415
16171818191920202020


At 6th/20th that is 11/20 spells known. That is still less than the 15/21 spells desired but it better reflects the increased desire for low level spells vs high level spells than the 7/15 for baseline 5E sorcerer.



Now the thread did get drawn into a "but what about martials?" argument. Martials should get good things too.
The thread also was drawn into a "but casters shouldn't be able to to everything" argument. Hopefully this example helps illustrate the spells known restricts thematic casters, it is not necessarily about the omnipotent casters.



Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

Hmm. From my thoughts, without trades, that would be 6 more spells known. However they should be frontloaded. Similar to what Corran said about +5 spells between 1st and 9th level.

[Psyren]

I'd add such a common task or knowledge that no roll is needed. To me, this may be influenced by class, background, homeland or other features. As an example, recognizing a particular symbol of Tyr may be an easy task overall, but the priest of Tyr don't gotta roll.

Indeed.


Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

A wizard might take spells they end up no longer using, but that doesn't matter because they aren't really sacrificing anything to learn those spells unless the GM is being stingy. So I see no reason why sorcerers shouldn't be able to swap spells while leveling when wizards can do it every day.

[Witty Username]

A wizard might take spells they end up no longer using, but that doesn't matter because they aren't really sacrificing anything to learn those spells unless the GM is being stingy. So I see no reason why sorcerers shouldn't be able to swap spells while leveling when wizards can do it every day.

I should be clear, this is not a proposal, but a thought experiment to discuss a point. Since for spells known casters the assumption is that they will cast more spells over their career than than the number of spells they know. For Wizards the design assumption is different, as the number of spells they learn leveling is going to be all the spells they use over their career. Note: design assumption, not play assumption, magic items are considered optional and the classes are (supposedly) designed with that in mind, so this is less about the wizard not being able to aquire more spells though play, and more their spells over level are designed to be functional in case they don't.
My theory is that the difference between wizard and sorcerer spells known can be partially explained by the wizard's inability to swap spells known, (not entirely, as wizards get something over 40 spells over the course of their career).

[bkwrm79]

Real quick, for people who play sorcerers more often than I do, How many spells do you thing you would need known to function, if the sorcerer couldn't swap spells on level up?

My line of thinking is that, at least as I am aware, sorcerer tends to swap spells as they level up to keep their list in top form for whatever Tier of play they reach. Wizard gets more spells yes but they don't get to swap spells, so they end up with oddities like taking spells that they will eventually stop using, or spells they plan to use at a later level but not currently in their career. I am just wondering if the numbers line up roughly.

I think ~5 more would make a real difference. And that's only half the extra spells the Tasha's Sorcs get.

That would also widen the spells known gap between 1/3 casters and the Sorcerer as a full caster - from 13/15, to 13/20. I think that makes sense too.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think ~5 more would make a real difference. And that's only half the extra spells the Tasha's Sorcs get.

That would also widen the spells known gap between 1/3 casters and the Sorcerer as a full caster - from 13/15, to 13/20. I think that makes sense too.

I'd agree, and this would make more room to enhance Sorcerers in some other way, like bumping the number of metamagics. An extra one in late tier 1 or early tier 2 would be appropriate and would lessen the need for the Metamagic Adept feat tax.
I continue to think that the 10 spell fix that was applied to Tasha's Sorc subclasses really missed the mark and only served to make them more like other full casters rather than leaning into what they already did well.

[Psyren]

I should be clear, this is not a proposal, but a thought experiment to discuss a point. Since for spells known casters the assumption is that they will cast more spells over their career than than the number of spells they know. For Wizards the design assumption is different, as the number of spells they learn leveling is going to be all the spells they use over their career. Note: design assumption, not play assumption, magic items are considered optional and the classes are (supposedly) designed with that in mind, so this is less about the wizard not being able to aquire more spells though play, and more their spells over level are designed to be functional in case they don't.
My theory is that the difference between wizard and sorcerer spells known can be partially explained by the wizard's inability to swap spells known, (not entirely, as wizards get something over 40 spells over the course of their career).

1) Magic items are "optional" but you're still expected to get some even at first tier (DMG 37), and furthermore, scrolls are explicitly included in that assumption.

2) While there are magical variants, normal spellbooks are not magic items either (PHB 150/153) so even in the rare no-magic-items game you still have decent odds of finding one as treasure.

3) Even sticking to your assumption of no spells other than the spells they get through leveling, Wizards still have the advantage of not needing to use their preparations on any of their rituals. This gives them much stronger utility in parties that might benefit from those otherwise niche effects, and much more incentive to pick them up - especially at 1st level where they get 6 1st-level spells to the Sorcerer's 2, and can thus much more easily afford picks like Alarm and Find Familiar. In fact, sorcerers aren't ritual casters themselves at all, and thus need a feat to fill that same role in the party.

[NaughtyTiger]

1
Now the thread did get drawn into a "but what about martials?" argument. Martials should get good things too.
The thread also was drawn into a "but casters shouldn't be able to to everything" argument. Hopefully this example helps illustrate the spells known restricts thematic casters, it is not necessarily about the omnipotent casters.


It isn't what about martials, though... if the omnipotent caster didn't exist, then the onus for beating a challenge would be on the players working together, instead of one character having to carry the load.

no, your example didn't show how it restricts thematic casters, that spell list is specifically a one-man team to wipe out all the enemies on the field.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It isn't what about martials, though... if the omnipotent caster didn't exist, then the onus for beating a challenge would be on the players working together, instead of one character having to carry the load.

no, your example didn't show how it restricts thematic casters, that spell list is specifically a one-man team to wipe out all the enemies on the field.

Exactly. The problem is the assumption that anyone should be able to "do it all themselves." They shouldn't. Full stop. The fact that they can do most things single-handedly is a substantial problem.

[OldTrees1]

It isn't what about martials, though... if the omnipotent caster didn't exist, then the onus for beating a challenge would be on the players working together, instead of one character having to carry the load.

no, your example didn't show how it restricts thematic casters, that spell list is specifically a one-man team to wipe out all the enemies on the field.

That is not one character carrying the load.
That is not a one-man team.

It is a character that mops up groups of minions after the rest of the team cracks open the defenses, while the rest of the team distracts/eliminates the big threat, and the rest of the team keeps the team alive and functional. It is not an answer to everything. That is the players working together.

The firebender on the team with the earthbender, waterbender, airbender, and sokka*.
*Sokka was more effective indirectly with plans and insights than you might remember, although martials should get more in combat too. In combat the majority of the teamwork was between the benders. However there was teamwork. A firebender is not a one-man team despite being a mobile artillery that can hem in the enemy.


So yes, I get your critique of the omnipotent caster. However it was irrelevant to my post. Even team members run into spell known limits within their role as part of the team that works together.

[ff7hero]

Sokka was more effective indirectly with plans and insights than you might remember, although martials should get more in combat too. In combat the majority of the teamwork was between the benders. However there was teamwork. A firebender is not a one-man team despite being a mobile artillery that can hem in the enemy.


Sokka was also plenty effective in combat. Just ask Sparky Sparky Boom Man.

Also Earthbending prodigy Toph would have not been able to bring down the Fire Nation Air Fleet without considerable aid from a pair of non-Benders.

Sorry, can't resist a chance to stan Sokka (and Suki).

[Dork_Forge]

Sokka was also plenty effective in combat. Just ask Sparky Sparky Boom Man.

Also Earthbending prodigy Toph would have not been able to bring down the Fire Nation Air Fleet without considerable aid from a pair of non-Benders.

Sorry, can't resist a chance to stan Sokka (and Suki).

To add to this, it's important to keep the show and Sokka in context:

He doesn't receive any real martial training until he learns humility and trains with the Kyoshi warriors, and he doesn't actually find himself and get to a point you'd really considered him 'fully trained' until he learns to become a swordsman. Whilst one could see this as him leveling up in D&D terms, it really isn't. A level 1 martial is proficient in their weapons and at least competent at what they do. Sokka starts as comic relief, not a competent warrior., but ends up a formidable force in combat able to fight soldiers with more experience and probably training than him. Oh, and they're grown adults and he's like 14?

[animorte]

I love the direction this thread has taken, being my favorite show and all.

I might have made a few characters, but here's the one in question: https://www.heroforge.com/load_config%3D32075460/

All the classes typically are proficient with their weapons, yes. Some classes gain additional weapons in a different way; some learn newer fighting styles/battle maneuvers; some become more proficient in their skills.

This is simple as:
- Fighting style at level 2.
- All martials and their extra attack.
- Deflect missiles.
- Stunning strike
- Cunning action.
- Fast movement/Unarmored movement
- Weapon bond/Pact of the Blade
- Favored enemy (fire bender)
- Land's stride
- ASI
- So so many ways that martials (or any characters in general) acquire new skills and features, combat or otherwise.

Not that all of these apply to him, but I think it IS logical to look at it as him leveling up, just not with a specific class that we have. Some obvious combination of various different martial classes.

Edit: Another note I would like to make is that all the benders in AtLA and LoK have some form of balance. A lot of the times we see Sokka complaining about not having the bending to be able to accomplish the mundane tasks everyone else can. But you'll notice not a lot of benders are useful without their bending, meaning that they don't always have every tool for the job, which is the issue for this thread. Chi blockers and Kyoshi warriors are a good example of having more levels in your class enough to directly combat benders. The majority of benders use their ability just to make a living.
Naturally there are exceptions: Jet tries to force the bending out of Zuko because there's no way a fire bender can also use weapons. Iroh escapes from prison using brute strength that nobody imagined possible from him, during the eclipse when fire benders can't bend. Nobody even knows Amon is a bender for a long time. Jinora has some pretty sweet spirit projection. Varrick is easily the most resourceful and imaginative non-bender, not to mention Zhu Li doing the hard work.

[NaughtyTiger]

That is not one character carrying the load.
That is not a one-man team.

It is a character that mops up groups of minions after the rest of the team cracks open the defenses, while the rest of the team distracts/eliminates the big threat, and the rest of the team keeps the team alive and functional. It is not an answer to everything. That is the players working together.

You say you made a character that can only AOE attack minions, and is incapable of damaging the big bad.
I am not seeing why you need so many spells that do the same thing, but I will take your word for it.

[Tanarii]

1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Mage Armor, Silent Image, Grease
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Invisibility, Misty Step, Web, Suggestion
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud, Melf's Minute Meteors
4th: Dimension Door, Wall of Fire
5th: Wall of Stone
6th: Plane Shift
7th: Draconic Transformation
8th: ----
9th: Meteor Swarm

A mobile artillery that hems in their targets and then burns them.

Given the stated build, we can easily cut this down to:
1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Grease
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Misty Step, Web
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Stinking Cloud
4th: Dimension Door, Wall of Fire
5th: Wall of Stone
6th: Plane Shift
7th: Draconic Transformation
8th: ----
9th: Meteor Swarm

Personally I'd drop either Flaming Sphere or Web for an 8th level spell. But if you think you'll use the slot for upcasting a low level spell a lot, it's make some sense not to, Also Grease is thematic, but not upcastable, so I'd question if a Tier 4 caster would ever actually use it in play, so it could probably be tossed for a non-thematic spell. Possibly the same for Web as well.

[OldTrees1]

Given the stated build, we can easily cut this down to:
1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Grease
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Misty Step, Web
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Stinking Cloud
4th: Dimension Door, Wall of Fire
5th: Wall of Stone
6th: Plane Shift
7th: Draconic Transformation
8th: ----
9th: Meteor Swarm

Personally I'd drop either Flaming Sphere or Web for an 8th level spell. But if you think you'll use the slot for upcasting a low level spell a lot, it's make some sense not to, Also Grease is thematic, but not upcastable, so I'd question if a Tier 4 caster would ever actually use it in play, so it could probably be tossed for a non-thematic spell. Possibly the same for Web as well.

I don't think that is "easily cut down" but it works.

To be fair Grease, Silent Image, Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud, Wall of Stone was the secondary theme (the hem them in theme). Since I was also answering Witty Username's hypothetical "no trade ins", I did not include the Grease -> Web trade. Looking back at it I think Silent Image -> Wall of Stone would be another trade in. Cutting Silent Image and Hypnotic Pattern Stinking Cloud hurts but works.

Flaming Sphere, Melf's Minute Meteors, Wall of Fire, Draconic Transformation on the other hand is the 2nd half of the primary theme. The 1st half being Thunderwave, Fireball, upcast Fireball, Meteor Swarm. Melf's Minute Meteors was the least beneficial in that suite. It makes the gap between Flaming Sphere and Wall of Fire more pronounced, but it make sense.

The tertiary theme was mobility through Fog Cloud, Mage Armor, Misty Step, Invisibility, Fly, Dimension Door, & Plane Shift. Cuts here hurt, but it is a tertiary theme. I would rather buff everyone instead.



However, if I still have you attention. Let's consider lower levels. For example 6th level
1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Silent Image
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Misty Step, Web
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Hypnotic Pattern
This was trimmed down enough for 20th (17th) level. However at 6th level a baseline Sorcerer only gets 7 of these 9. There is an issue with the higher demand for low level spells vs the linear growth in spells known.

I think it is reasonable to increase the low level spells known for Sorcerer. The bloodlines do add 5 spells known at these low levels. I think that was a good improvement for thematic casters. Also, WotC did have Sorcerer spells known increase twice as fast in Tier 1-2 as in Tier 3-4. (Credit where credit is due)



Of course the target I am aiming at for this Sorcerer is a target I would aim for with a martial too. A martial should be able to have primary/secondary/tertiary components to their strategy. A martial should be able to have flexibility within those components. This sorcerer is dual wielding blasts (Flame Sphere + Thunderwave) but has a few different ways to use the main hand (Thunderwave, Fireball, upcast Fireball) and a few ways to use the offhand (Flame Sphere, Wall of Fire, Draconic Transformation). I think martials should have a similar flexibility within their options. A dual wielding martial could have different off hand weapons that are qualitatively different, or have bonus actions for their off hand weapon beyond "attack, roll damage".

We want teamwork to be a part of the game. Having one-party characters is not helping. But having flexibility within your contribution is beneficial to finding teamwork synergies.

[Tanarii]

However, if I still have you attention. Let's consider lower levels. For example 6th level
1st: Thunderwave, Fog Cloud, Silent Image
2nd: Flaming Sphere, Misty Step, Web
3rd: Fireball, Fly, Hypnotic Pattern
This was trimmed down enough for 20th (17th) level. However at 6th level a baseline Sorcerer only gets 7 of these 9. There is an issue with the higher demand for low level spells vs the linear growth in spells known.
They only have 4/3/3 slots. Why do they need 3/3/3 spells known?

[OldTrees1]

They only have 4/3/3 slots. Why do they need 3/3/3 spells known?

They don't need (nobody needs anything) 3/3/3 spells know. They want these specific 1st-3rd spells to be able to do their niche using 1st-3rd level slots. Turns out that is 9 spells known*.

The point is, when you have extremely limited number of spells know, the desired spells clump at the lower level spells more than the spells known progression clumps at the lower levels. WotC predicted a 2:1 ratio for 1st-5th vs 6th-9th and I think a more frontloaded ratio would fit better. WotC then changed their mind and decided a 3:1 ratio (bloodline Sorcerers) made more sense going forward. The new Sorcerers get 10 spells at 6th when the old ones have 7.



* Direct answer to the 9, but don't get too buried in these weeds.
You can cast 10 1st level spells but only 3 3rd level spells. That incentivizes you to have a 1st level spell for each of your 3 themes. 5E had the misinformed idea of having power spikes at tiers instead of a continuous growth curve. So you want 3rd level spells for each of your 3 themes. Each theme has 2 sub themes, and it is easier to have 3 2nd level spells than it is to have another 3 of each 1st and 3rd. As you get to higher levels this effect diminishes for casters since some low level spells scale really well (either upcast, or without upcasting). However that is why the 9+ spells known were desired for a caster that has a 3 part theme and reached 6th level.

The 1st and 3rd is similar to the Fighter being able to Extra Attack with any of their weapons. Hit the power spike, upgrade all your areas. For casters (except warlock) upgrading all your areas includes a bit of keeping the old since casters (except warlock) keep the low level slots. Thus they need to use both high and low slots. The main difference is this caster has 3 options with 2 modes, which is an area we keep wanting martials to be better at. Imagine if the martials had more base attack options, but they didn't scale and could not be used with Extra Attack. That would be a mistake (and just like WotC).

[Tanarii]

The point is, when you have extremely limited number of spells know, the desired spells clump at the lower level spells more than the spells known progression clumps at the lower levels. WotC predicted a 2:1 ratio for 1st-5th vs 6th-9th and I think a more frontloaded ratio would fit better. WotC then changed their mind and decided a 3:1 ratio (bloodline Sorcerers) made more sense going forward. The new Sorcerers get 10 spells at 6th when the old ones have 7.
Okay, that makes some sense. Even if the assumption is an end state of 15 (2 per slot level 1-6 and 1 per slot level for 7-9), that doesn't mean it has to be 6 at 6th level and 10 at 9th character level.

Otoh, I'm fairly sure the original design concept is sorcerers are supposed to be limited to a few higher level spell specialities and primarily cantrip blasters.

[NaughtyTiger]

They only have 4/3/3 slots. Why do they need 3/3/3 spells known?

minor quibble. they have ∞/4/3/3 slots... and 5/3/3/3 spells known

[Amechra]

So, looking back over this thread (apologies for posting and running — I've been working on a big work project, and it's been absorbing my brain waves):

It occurs to me that part of my confusion is that I have mostly played D&D spellcasters in one of three situations:


One-shots, where situational spells don't come up very often.
In a campaign where each player ran two characters (I had a Storm Sorcerer and a Monk).
Zwerrit d'Humperdink, my Draconic Sorcerer // Fiend Bladelock.


Zack (the storm sorc) basically only had spells that were directly connected to either Lightning (because he was a son of Zeus) or being super charismatic (because he was a son of Zeus), which are both themes that only have a handful of spells. Meanwhile, Zwerrit was a weird experimental build where I only really used Shadow Blade, Invisibility, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield — he dual-wielded a Shadow Blade with his pact weapon, and was generally more of a swashbuckler-with-some-magic-tricks than someone whose identity was wrapped up in his spellcasting (if that makes sense).

Carry on, spellcasters! It appears that I'm just weird.

[Sindal]

I'll say from a sorceror point of view:

15 or so spells is certainly enough to be functional. At thr end of the day your still at the mercy of your spell slots.

But spells are very specific tools. I'd they don't say they do a thing, they don't.

You can be a mage that is capable of teleportation. But there's a small jump, a leap teleport and then a full on bus circle teleport. That's 3 different spells .

You can be completely fine with throwing out a fireball, but have no idea how to cast a humble firebolt.

With few choices, luxury or flavour choice spells are not encouraged and it can sometimrs feel like doing surgery picking spells that you'll get the most buck out of . I'd love to have detect magic but I just can't fit it in. There are many amazing lvl 3 spells and I'd likely only get 2.

[Tanarii]

One thing I find interesting is that it's the lowest limiting factor that causes complaints.

Warlock complains are always about slots, because they're flush with spells known, so many you start picking up "just in case" spells like a wizard on steroids.

Clerics and Druids and Paladins are the same. So so many spells prepared it can be hard to find spells to put in them, just throwing in spells because who knows, it might be useful.

And despite here being more casters (full or otherwise) with a glut of spells prepared, we get pages and pages of defense of he sorcerer needing not only their currently known spells, but additional known spells. Because they are always a complaint about spells known, because they're flush with slots, especially if you don't do a full adventuring day.

[Psyren]

minor quibble. they have ∞/4/3/3 slots... and 5/3/3/3 spells known

Minor quibble to your minor quibble, they have µ/4/3/3 slots + 5/3/3/3 spells known

[Keltest]

One thing I find interesting is that it's the lowest limiting factor that causes complaints.

Warlock complains are always about slots, because they're flush with spells known, so many you start picking up "just in case" spells like a wizard on steroids.

Clerics and Druids and Paladins are the same. So so many spells prepared it can be hard to find spells to put in them, just throwing in spells because who knows, it might be useful.

And despite here being more casters (full or otherwise) with a glut of spells prepared, we get pages and pages of defense of he sorcerer needing not only their currently known spells, but additional known spells. Because they are always a complaint about spells known, because they're flush with slots, especially if you don't do a full adventuring day.

Not sure whats interesting about that really. Who's going to complain about having too many of a resource? Besides the DM, of course.

[Telok]

Warlock complains are always about slots, because they're flush with spells known, so many you start picking up "just in case" spells like a wizard on steroids.

My warlock complaint isn't slots, its theming. Most of the warlock spells and all the 6+ level spells are just the usual slate of generic d&d wizarding effects. It makes it nearly impossible to maintain a theme or character consistency with some subclasses after 10th level. Like, 7th level warlock spells have no relevance to a party supporting celestial warlock so you just take force cage like most arcane casters end up with.

The general warlock spell list should be small, generic, and cap out at 5th or 6th level. The subclasses and pacts should supply the majority of warlock spell options, and all the 7-9 choices, should be set by subclass & pact to keep to a theme.

Also quite annoying is the ability to only change out one spell every 4 levels. Changing one when you pick up a new spell known or spell level woild be nicer. The nicest thing about warlocks is the ability to take 2 invocations and 2 spells to cover all your combat damage needs. Thus allowing you to spread out your options and take character relevant spells instead of dpending a bunch of spells known on keeping up with the damage treadmill.

[Pex]

One thing I find interesting is that it's the lowest limiting factor that causes complaints.

Warlock complains are always about slots, because they're flush with spells known, so many you start picking up "just in case" spells like a wizard on steroids.

Clerics and Druids and Paladins are the same. So so many spells prepared it can be hard to find spells to put in them, just throwing in spells because who knows, it might be useful.

And despite here being more casters (full or otherwise) with a glut of spells prepared, we get pages and pages of defense of he sorcerer needing not only their currently known spells, but additional known spells. Because they are always a complaint about spells known, because they're flush with slots, especially if you don't do a full adventuring day.

I think that's the point. They have enough spells available they can afford to have a few spells for "just in case". A sorcerer has so few. a spell you never cast or only cast one a campaign is a waste.

[Tanarii]

I think that's the point. They have enough spells available they can afford to have a few spells for "just in case". A sorcerer has so few. a spell you never cast or only cast one a campaign is a waste.
Point being the sorcerer is the one being discussed, when answers to the question posed by the thread title should really be framed around Clerics and Wizards. And warlocks, although that'd probably devolve into discussion about how many slots they get, :smallamused:

[OldTrees1]

Point being the sorcerer is the one being discussed, when answers to the question posed by the thread title should really be framed around Clerics and Wizards. And warlocks, although that'd probably devolve into discussion about how many slots they get, :smallamused:
Well, the OP highlighted Sorcerers and Warlocks. (see next quote)
And the OP came from a background where they play in one-shots, a sorcerer with a very very narrow theme, or a swashbuckler. The unusual context had different typical outcomes.


people complaining about how Sorcerers and Warlocks get "too few spells" (they have between 2 and 15).

However you are right that people complaining about Warlocks get "too few spells" has not been elaborated on enough yet. In post 3 (see next quote) I went over one reason I don't expect Warlocks to run into the same issue despite having roughly* the same spells know.

* A 10th-18th level Warlock has -1 spell known vs a Sorcerer. That seems a bit odd to start a 10th since Pact Magic gets 5th level spells.


Now this would be different if we were talking about a mage with substantial non spellcasting magic. Compare a Tier 1 Warlock vs a Tier 1 Sorcerer. The Warlock gets invocations that help deemphasize the spells known.

So I wonder, is there anyone here that could explain why they feel Warlock gets "too few spells"?

Is it about low level Warlock? The 3rd-4th level warlock gets 4-5 spells know. Sure they only have bursts of 2 slots but given time they can cast many times per day.
Is it about mid level Warlock? The 7th-10th level warlock gets 8-10 spells known but the automatic upcasting of their 2 slots might bias them to learning new higher level spells in comparison to Sorcerer having increased demand for low level spells.
Is is about the high level Warlock's Mystic Arcanum?

[ff7hero]

Clerics and Druids and Paladins are the same. So so many spells prepared it can be hard to find spells to put in them, just throwing in spells because who knows, it might be useful.


Having played all of these classes, I still never feel like I have enough spells prepared. Even with my 22 Wisdom Druid 1/Cleric 19, there were spells I wanted to prepare that I couldn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having played all of these classes, I still never feel like I have enough spells prepared. Even with my 22 Wisdom Druid 1/Cleric 19, there were spells I wanted to prepare that I couldn't.

I find that to be a good, healthy thing. Choices and opportunity cost are good. Being comfortably able to handle anything with what you've got is a bad sign for game health. There shuttle, imo, always be the "man, I wish I had just a bit more of X" feeling. Basically, limits that don't regularly actually bite are limits that aren't doing their job. Spell casters shield have more real limits. Slots and preparation are the two biggest limits they have, so both should regularly be a challenge.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So, looking back over this thread (apologies for posting and running — I've been working on a big work project, and it's been absorbing my brain waves):

It occurs to me that part of my confusion is that I have mostly played D&D spellcasters in one of three situations:


One-shots, where situational spells don't come up very often.
In a campaign where each player ran two characters (I had a Storm Sorcerer and a Monk).
Zwerrit d'Humperdink, my Draconic Sorcerer // Fiend Bladelock.


Zack (the storm sorc) basically only had spells that were directly connected to either Lightning (because he was a son of Zeus) or being super charismatic (because he was a son of Zeus), which are both themes that only have a handful of spells. Meanwhile, Zwerrit was a weird experimental build where I only really used Shadow Blade, Invisibility, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield — he dual-wielded a Shadow Blade with his pact weapon, and was generally more of a swashbuckler-with-some-magic-tricks than someone whose identity was wrapped up in his spellcasting (if that makes sense).

Carry on, spellcasters! It appears that I'm just weird.

I don't think you are weird. I really like the way you described your casters. (I tend to try to provide examples when I post on here). I connect with your characters being themed around a certain set of spells, and I think there's role playing and mechanical value in having characters that don't do everything.

[animorte]

I don't think you are weird. I really like the way you described your casters. (I tend to try to provide examples when I post on here). I connect with your characters being themed around a certain set of spells, and I think there's role playing and mechanical value in having characters that don't do everything.

I apply some of this focus as well to some of my characters, the limited choice to fill a particular concept.

Sometimes I understand when people aren't as comfortable doing that. When it had been a couple years since I was really able to play, I had all of these ideas in my head that I really wanted to do, but didn't have the time. I chose something that was more of a generalist because I just missed everything about the game and wanted to take part in everything. After I saw the future of being able to play a lot more and got that out my system after a few sessions, I calmed down and began reverting back to this more focused (and honestly more fun) playstyle.

[ff7hero]

I find that to be a good, healthy thing. Choices and opportunity cost are good. Being comfortably able to handle anything with what you've got is a bad sign for game health. There shuttle, imo, always be the "man, I wish I had just a bit more of X" feeling. Basically, limits that don't regularly actually bite are limits that aren't doing their job. Spell casters shield have more real limits. Slots and preparation are the two biggest limits they have, so both should regularly be a challenge.

I 100% agree. I was just responding to Tanarii's statement about Cleric/Druid/Paladin having too many prep slots.

[Pex]

I find that to be a good, healthy thing. Choices and opportunity cost are good. Being comfortably able to handle anything with what you've got is a bad sign for game health. There shuttle, imo, always be the "man, I wish I had just a bit more of X" feeling. Basically, limits that don't regularly actually bite are limits that aren't doing their job. Spell casters shield have more real limits. Slots and preparation are the two biggest limits they have, so both should regularly be a challenge.

Limits are fine, but they can be too much they're frustrating. 5E doesn't have that problem, though given talk sorcerers and warlocks are near it. Sorcerers don't absolutely need more spells known, but people are comfortable giving them a few more based on bloodline. People aren't upset Aberration and Clockwork sorcerers get more spells. They lament the sorcerers before them weren't updated to include them. With warlock the issue isn't the number of spell slots but the highly campaign dependent frequency of short rests to get them back. They prefer something more consistent. That these are not universal issues is why I'm not saying they're a problem of 5E design.

Mainly I find limitations becoming a frustrating problem to be in people's homebrew ideas for curtailing magic power. I find they overcompensate to the point of misery. It's beyond the subject of the thread, so there's no need to elaborate further.

[NaughtyTiger]

Limits are fine, but they can be too much they're frustrating. 5E doesn't have that problem, though given talk sorcerers and warlocks are near it. Sorcerers don't absolutely need more spells known, but people are comfortable giving them a few more based on bloodline. People aren't upset Aberration and Clockwork sorcerers get more spells. They lament the sorcerers before them weren't updated to include them.

"Limits are fine, but if other classes don't have them, they're frustrating."

Most Adventurers League games that I have played have 7 players.
If you have 7 PCs sitting at a table, someone always has the perfect solution to a given encounter.
The perfect solution means there is no challenge to overcome.

This is basically the same thing as having too many spells known/too many spell slots.
The perfect solution is already on a PCs character sheet.
And it ain't on the martial's sheet.

[Psyren]

I think Warlock being stuck with 2 slots for most of their career (the entirety of many campaigns, even) is too restrictive personally. I think every full caster should be able to function well as the only full caster in a party, and the warlock's slots make utility extremely hard to squeeze in. Getting their 3rd slot at 7 instead of 11 would be a big help for that imo without taking away from the Warlock's unique feel and limitations.

[Keltest]

I think Warlock being stuck with 2 slots for most of their career (the entirety of many campaigns, even) is too restrictive personally. I think every full caster should be able to function well as the only full caster in a party, and the warlock's slots make utility extremely hard to squeeze in. Getting their 3rd slot at 7 instead of 11 would be a big help for that imo without taking away from the Warlock's unique feel and limitations.

I think the mistake is looking at the warlock as a full caster. Treat them like an Eldritch Knight who uses a bow, or an Arcane Trickster. Thats about the role theyre going to be filling in the party. Everybody i've played with or spoken to who has tried to use the warlock as a substitute for a wizard or sorcerer has had a terrible time doing it.

[Psyren]

I think the mistake is looking at the warlock as a full caster. Treat them like an Eldritch Knight who uses a bow, or an Arcane Trickster. Thats about the role theyre going to be filling in the party. Everybody i've played with or spoken to who has tried to use the warlock as a substitute for a wizard or sorcerer has had a terrible time doing it.

Why give them 9th-level spells then? The theming/expectation from that is definitely that they could fill that role in a party. (And they can, but at the risk of being able to do nothing but cantrips/invocations in a fight, which isn't very fun.)

[Keltest]

Why give them 9th-level spells then? The theming/expectation from that is definitely that they could fill that role in a party. (And they can, but at the risk of being able to do nothing but cantrips/invocations in a fight, which isn't very fun.)

So that they arent literally fighters with eldritch blast instead of a sword, one would assume.

As you note, trying to run them that way requires them to devote all of their resources to that and leaves them absolutely nothing around for anything else. So while they may have the capacity to do so at certain levels of optimization, I question the idea that theyre designed with the expectation of them being able to do that by default.

[x3n0n]

Why give them 9th-level spells then? The theming/expectation from that is definitely that they could fill that role in a party. (And they can, but at the risk of being able to do nothing but cantrips/invocations in a fight, which isn't very fun.)

FWIW, it seems like Warlocks get a lot more versatile if you run them with DMG spell points instead of slots.

That is, one thing that has come up multiple times above is that 1st- and 2nd-level utility spells do the most for party support; having only 5th-level slots makes most of those spells unattractive.
The at-will invocations help with their particular niches, as does Book of Ancient Secrets.
Taking several levels of Sorcerer helps...but that's fraught with its own problems (like max sorcery points and delaying Warlock progression).

Spell points deal with all of that without forcing as many character construction changes.

[Telok]

I think the mistake is looking at the warlock as a full caster. Treat them like an Eldritch Knight who uses a bow, or an Arcane Trickster. Thats about the role theyre going to be filling in the party. Everybody i've played with or spoken to who has tried to use the warlock as a substitute for a wizard or sorcerer has had a terrible time doing it.

Nah, they're a proper full caster, they just aren't tied to the concept of "adventuring day" like the others are. In game where the players can choose short rests, or they at least aren't stupidly artificially restricted, and the warlock player can ration themselves to not nova every fight & have more than just combat spells is where they play quite well. You get a steady flow of spells all day, quite unlike other casters that tend to burst 3-6 spells at a time then stop until the next fight.

If you throw them into a game where you get something like set short rests as "once every 3 fights", the player only has combat spells, or they just can't not cast a leveled spell every round... there they suffer in relation to the daily resource casters. At that point you've turned them into magic archers because they have fewer spells than fights and they either effectively don't have access to noncombat spells or their spells are only non-combat and the fights are just EB spam all the time (which is faster but boring).

The warlock level 6+ spells are really badly done though. They're just a bog standard spell slot with bog standard wizard/sorcerer spells, no upcasting and a fancy name. So you see a lot of the same picks over and over.

[Psyren]

So that they arent literally fighters with eldritch blast instead of a sword, one would assume.

As you note, trying to run them that way requires them to devote all of their resources to that and leaves them absolutely nothing around for anything else. So while they may have the capacity to do so at certain levels of optimization, I question the idea that theyre designed with the expectation of them being able to do that by default.

I'm questioning the design itself. Obviously as they currently exist they're bad at being a group's utility caster - that's, you know, my point.


FWIW, it seems like Warlocks get a lot more versatile if you run them with DMG spell points instead of slots.

That is, one thing that has come up multiple times above is that 1st- and 2nd-level utility spells do the most for party support; having only 5th-level slots makes most of those spells unattractive.
The at-will invocations help with their particular niches, as does Book of Ancient Secrets.
Taking several levels of Sorcerer helps...but that's fraught with its own problems (like max sorcery points and delaying Warlock progression).

Spell points deal with all of that without forcing as many character construction changes.

I'll take a look at spell points (I've never used them) but honestly, if the solution is to run a totally different casting mechanism then that doesn't bode well for the class itself.


You get a steady flow of spells all day, quite unlike other casters that tend to burst 3-6 spells at a time then stop until the next fight.

~3 leveled spells per combat is pretty normal I'd say. Six is an outlier. How many rounds are your fights lasting?

[Keltest]

I'm questioning the design itself. Obviously as they currently exist they're bad at being a group's utility caster - that's, you know, my point.

Right, and my point is that theyre not supposed to be the group's dedicated utility caster, much the same as any of the half casters or 1/3 casters in the game. They can brute force an approximation, but trying to use them that way is mostly misusing them.

[x3n0n]

I'll take a look at spell points (I've never used them) but honestly, if the solution is to run a totally different casting mechanism then that doesn't bode well for the class itself.

DMG: DM's Workshop/Creating New Character Options/Modifying a Class/Variant: Spell Points.

Basically, each slot that a character "should" have is converted to a number of "spell points" corresponding to an extended Sorcerer: Font of Magic/Flexible Casting/Creating Spell Slots table (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13).
Then you simultaneously create/expend slots (up to the highest slot level that you "should" have access to) at time of casting by spending spell points.

That is, you have a certain amount of "casting juice" that you can spend in quanta corresponding to slot levels.

So a 9th-level Warlock that normally has two 5th-level slots instead has 14 spell points per short rest, which can be spent on any combination of 1/2/3/4/5-th level spells.

Mystic Arcanum is an open question--the most popular version I've heard is converting them to points like the slots, just not refreshing on short rest, but you could choose to keep them like PHB RAW instead.

[Telok]

~3 leveled spells per combat is pretty normal I'd say. Six is an outlier. How many rounds are your fights lasting?

I don't have my last 6 months stats available right now, get them for ya later. But estimating i'd say 6-8 rounds mostly. 7 pc group, tier 3, feats but nobody multiclassed except the celestial warlock at 13 went into celestial sorcerer, clerics (we got two) bought a shield guardian for about 60k gold because after we fixed up the flying castle a few levels ago there's been nothing to spend money on, everyone else has 20k-30k gold lying around. DM starts at deadly encounters and ramps up because anything less is a boring steamroll.

Yeah, just by party size & level we're at the upper end of what the system can numerically handle by the provided guidelines. Sorcerer runs out of spells at 3-4 fights, ranger never casts, barb crits a lot*, fighter is steady, two clerics do the standard cleric thing for 4-6 fights before running out of juice, aforementioned warlock.

Funny, the warlock is the utility caster in the group by dint of having basically 2 offensive spells+EB, a cure, a buff, and banishment. Plus not being afraid that a slot will not be available later on. Sorcerer only utilities teleport circle.

* seriously, dude is one of those massive statistical outliers. We expect 2 crits a short fight where he has advantage maybe 2/3. We expect 4-6 crits if he's hasted & has adv most of the time. This has gone on for years, with different dice & online. We comment if he only gets 1 crit in a fight.

[ff7hero]

Technically speaking, the Spell Points variant is only for Spellcasting classes. It's not a radical idea to apply it to Pact Magic, but it is (just barely) actual homebrew as opposed to using a variant.

Not that I'm opposed to that homebrew, just my two cents.

[x3n0n]

Technically speaking, the Spell Points variant is only for Spellcasting classes. It's not a radical idea to apply it to Pact Magic, but it is (just barely) actual homebrew as opposed to using a variant.

Not that I'm opposed to that homebrew, just my two cents.

True! I had forgotten that and then glossed over it while looking at the table.

I just remembered that "spell points for all, including Warlocks" was one of MaxWilson's house rules, and it seems to help with the utility casting issue in specific.

[ff7hero]

True! I had forgotten that and then glossed over it while looking at the table.

I just remembered that "spell points for all, including Warlocks" was one of MaxWilson's house rules, and it seems to help with the utility casting issue in specific.

Having played a Spell Points Warlock, it was quite nice. Although I mostly used it to be able to cast more Shields...

[Psyren]

Right, and my point is that theyre not supposed to be the group's dedicated utility caster, much the same as any of the half casters or 1/3 casters in the game. They can brute force an approximation, but trying to use them that way is mostly misusing them.

As currently designed it's arguable they're not supposed to be, but there's a clear disconnect between them and the other full casters. I'm not saying they need to be the best at it, just better than they are now. I'm willing to bet WotC will make some changes to the class in 5.5e along these very lines.


DMG: DM's Workshop/Creating New Character Options/Modifying a Class/Variant: Spell Points.

Basically, each slot that a character "should" have is converted to a number of "spell points" corresponding to an extended Sorcerer: Font of Magic/Flexible Casting/Creating Spell Slots table (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13).
Then you simultaneously create/expend slots (up to the highest slot level that you "should" have access to) at time of casting by spending spell points.

That is, you have a certain amount of "casting juice" that you can spend in quanta corresponding to slot levels.

So a 9th-level Warlock that normally has two 5th-level slots instead has 14 spell points per short rest, which can be spent on any combination of 1/2/3/4/5-th level spells.

Mystic Arcanum is an open question--the most popular version I've heard is converting them to points like the slots, just not refreshing on short rest, but you could choose to keep them like PHB RAW instead.

Thanks - I agree this would definitely help, by giving you more granularity between short rests instead of going full-bore with every limited pact cast.

[OldTrees1]

As currently designed it's arguable they're not supposed to be, but there's a clear disconnect between them and the other full casters. I'm not saying they need to be the best at it, just better than they are now. I'm willing to bet WotC will make some changes to the class in 5.5e along these very lines.

Warlock had/has/and should have a clear disconnect between them and other full casters. I think they should lean into the disconnect and focus on Warlocks having at-will utility with other limitations (utilities known or max level known). Misty Visions Invocation (1st level Silent Image at will) from 5E is comparable to Breath of the Night Invocation (1st level Fog Cloud at will) from 3E.

I think you are right and they will make some changes in 5.5


However I am biased. I see Misty Visions, Pact Magic, & Mirage Arcana as evidence WotC stapled three magic systems together just to be different from the obvious design. The obvious 5E design for Warlocks would have been at-will caster with curated halfcaster spell list. Eldritch Blast gives you space to delay other combat spells until they are balanced at-will. Out of combat spells would enter the list at the spell level balanced for at will casting (at-will Fly might be a 4th level spell at 13th level).

[Psyren]

However I am biased. I see Misty Visions, Pact Magic, & Mirage Arcana as evidence WotC stapled three magic systems together just to be different from the obvious design. The obvious 5E design for Warlocks would have been at-will caster with curated halfcaster spell list. Eldritch Blast gives you space to delay other combat spells until they are balanced at-will. Out of combat spells would enter the list at the spell level balanced for at will casting (at-will Fly might be a 4th level spell at 13th level).

Honestly I'd even prefer this, making them closer to an Artificer with Invocations instead of Infusions, and better cantrips instead of a partial martial focus. That would at least clearly signal to players that you probably want another full caster in the party. It would also make Warlock multiclasses and dips a little bit weaker and thus less prevalent than they are now.

However, I don't see them ever putting that genie(lock) back in the bottle now and taking away Warlock spells above 5th-level. So the next best thing is to move to the other end and lean into being a full caster more to avoid that disconnect biting a group in the posterior. And as I mentioned, the very simple way of doing that is getting their third pact slot earlier.

[Pex]

"Limits are fine, but if other classes don't have them, they're frustrating."

Most Adventurers League games that I have played have 7 players.
If you have 7 PCs sitting at a table, someone always has the perfect solution to a given encounter.
The perfect solution means there is no challenge to overcome.

This is basically the same thing as having too many spells known/too many spell slots.
The perfect solution is already on a PCs character sheet.
And it ain't on the martial's sheet.

Martials had limits of frustration in D&D past. They were removed. Move more than 5 ft, only one attack for you. Want more than one attack? Suffer penalties to hit.

It's not an either/or thing. Spellcasters not having limitations that make you hate playing one does not mean martials must suck. Having limitations is not the problem. The problem is what those limitations are. Whatever needs to be done to improve martials can be done. That does not mean spellcasters must suffer.