Houserule ponderings. Spellcasters are all "wizards" (read the post)

[Arkhios]

I've been thinking about using a houserule I devised myself.

In this houserule, all spellcasters get treated as if they were all effectively wizards, with varying caster levels as normal, in regards to their spell repertoire, and have a spellbook of one type or another, but keep using their respective spellcasting abilities as before.

At 1st level, or when they get their spellcasting (or pact magic) ability, all classes learn a certain number of spells (6 or 3, or depending on the class) from their respective class spell list.
At every level after their first spellcasting level, each class learns a number of new spells (2 or 1, or depending on their class) from their respective class spell lists, representing individual experiment, growth, prayers, research, or whatever best suits their class.

If a class or subclass lists specific spells, those spells must be learned first. For example, Clerics and Warlocks must first learn the spells from their Domain or Patron, respectively (even if they're normally optional), before they can learn the remaining from their respective class spell lists. Same is repeated at every level their class or subclass grants new additional spells from a specific list.

HOWEVER, all classes can learn any spells from any spell list via spell scrolls and add them to their individual spellbooks. A scroll is destroyed afterwards.

So, basically, one could have a druid that knows the Hex spell just because they found a Spell Scroll containing Hex and copied the spell to their spellbook.

.
.
.

Personally, I don't think this breaks anything. If anything, this might be a good thing to encourage players stay single-classed.


But, what do you think about it. Maybe there is some pitfalls that I didn't think of?

[Bobthewizard]

Why?

As I look at that rule, I think there would be no reason to play a wizard or sorcerer, or maybe even bard or warlock. You could (eventually) access all the same spells with armor, d8 hit dice, and better class abilities by playing a cleric. Do you want every cleric to have the shield spell at no real cost? In fact, I would make a party of clerics.

[Arkhios]

Why?

As I look at that rule, I think there would be no reason to play a wizard or sorcerer, or maybe even bard or warlock. You could (eventually) access all the same spells with armor, d8 hit dice, and better class abilities by playing a cleric. Do you want every cleric to have the shield spell at no real cost? In fact, I would make a party of clerics.

Theoretically, yes, you could have a cleric that would (eventually) get access to all spells in the game. However, if you have only a limited access to spell scrolls, you'd still have to learn spells from your class and subclass first, essentially making no difference other than maybe a bit more narrow list of spells known by default. Your class would still have better access to spells that are in your class spell list, and only limited access to spells that are not in it. So a wizard could more readily learn wizard only spells and less readily cleric spells and vice versa.

In a white room, sure, you could make a party of clerics and have them all learn every possible spell from scrolls. But that's far from reality (at least it should be, anyway). How easily do you expect to get your hands on spell scrolls in general? As I remember it, magic items (including consumables) are supposed to be relatively rare in 5th edition, and not available at some kind of setting-wide Magic Supermarket, everything always available as long as you have the coin.

As for why, I feel you could just as well ask "why not". I'm merely curious how this would play out, and whether it would actualize the fears you laid out. Clerics aren't omnipotent. In truth, I personally don't think cleric is even the best or the most interesting class to play based on their class features other than spells, and spells aren't everything.

[KorvinStarmast]

Theoretically, yes, you could have a cleric that would (eventually) get access to all spells in the game. However, if you have only a limited access to spell scrolls, you'd still have to learn spells from your class and subclass first, essentially making no difference other than maybe a bit more narrow list of spells known by default. Your class would still have better access to spells that are in your class spell list, and only limited access to spells that are not in it. So a wizard could more readily learn wizard only spells and less readily cleric spells and vice versa.

In a white room, sure, you could make a party of clerics and have them all learn every possible spell from scrolls. But that's far from reality (at least it should be, anyway). How easily do you expect to get your hands on spell scrolls in general? As I remember it, magic items (including consumables) are supposed to be relatively rare in 5th edition, and not available at some kind of setting-wide Magic Supermarket, everything always available as long as you have the coin.

As for why, I feel you could just as well ask "why not". I'm merely curious how this would play out, and whether it would actualize the fears you laid out. Clerics aren't omnipotent. In truth, I personally don't think cleric is even the best or the most interesting class to play based on their class features other than spells, and spells aren't everything. The only way to make this work is an overhaul of the spell lists. How much work are you willing to do? How do you mandate which spells are the ones that have to be learned first by which domain?

Clerics get free spells from their domain now: are you going to require those to be removed, no free domain spells, and then they have to learn them first?

You could take the approach similar to what Daniel Collins did at delta's D&D hot spot (https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/)for the original game: he got rid of the cleric class. (Which took the game from Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric to Fighting Man, Magic User).

[Sigreid]

If I wanted to do all full casters are wizards, I'd just toss the other classes and combine the spell lists into the wizard list. If I were feeling ambitious I might create a few new wizard subclasses such as Bard school, healing school etc. But in the end, they'd still be wizards.

[kazaryu]

The only way to make this work is an overhaul of the spell lists. why? you shouldn't just make a statement like this without explaining. the spell lists already exist as they are, and this homebrew wouldn't change that...


I've been thinking about using a houserule I devised myself.

In this houserule, all spellcasters get treated as if they were all effectively wizards, with varying caster levels as normal, in regards to their spell repertoire, and have a spellbook of one type or another, but keep using their respective spellcasting abilities as before.

At 1st level, or when they get their spellcasting (or pact magic) ability, all classes learn a certain number of spells (6 or 3, or depedending on the class, not sure yet) spells from their respective class spell list.

If a class or subclass lists specific spells, those spells must be learned first. For example, Clerics and Warlocks must first learn the spells from their Domain or Patron, respectively (even if they're normally optional), before they can learn the remaining from their respective class spell lists. Same is repeated at every level their class or subclass grants new additional spells from specific list.

HOWEVER, all classes can learn any spells from any spell list via spell scrolls and add them to their individual spellbooks.

So, basically, one could have a druid that knows the Hex spell just because they found a Spell Scroll containing Hex and copied the spell to their spellbook.

.
.
.

Personally, I don't think this breaks anything. If anything, this might be a good thing to encourage players stay single-classed.


But, what do you think about it. Maybe there is some pitfalls that I didn't think of?

depending on how you do spell scribing, part members could share all of their spells with the other caster party members via scrolls. not neccesarily broken, but something to keep in mind. for example the paladin could grant everyone the ability to cast find steed a wizard could let everyone cast find familiar (this is of course assuming that spell scrolls aren't free and unlimited meaning that they couldn't just go buy those anyway. Again, idk if this is a problem, but it is a potential feature of such a system.

off the top of my head i can't think of anything particularly broken about this. with *maybe* the exception of a tempest cleric having an easier time accessing higher damage lightning/thunder spells than call lightning to get even more work out of their destructive wrath channel divinity...or like...the wizard could scribe a fireball scroll to give to the metamagic (transmute) adept cleric, enabling them to cast maximized fireballs muliple times per day...but ultimately that combo is just damage, so how gamebreaking it is really up to you. powerful, for sure. but i mean, this is pretty objectively a buff to all casters anyway so...you should expect them to be more powerful.

[Willie the Duck]

Theoretically, yes, you could have a cleric that would (eventually) get access to all spells in the game. However, if you have only a limited access to spell scrolls, you'd still have to learn spells from your class and subclass first, essentially making no difference other than maybe a bit more narrow list of spells known by default. Your class would still have better access to spells that are in your class spell list, and only limited access to spells that are not in it. So a wizard could more readily learn wizard only spells and less readily cleric spells and vice versa.

In a white room, sure, you could make a party of clerics and have them all learn every possible spell from scrolls. But that's far from reality (at least it should be, anyway). How easily do you expect to get your hands on spell scrolls in general? As I remember it, magic items (including consumables) are supposed to be relatively rare in 5th edition, and not available at some kind of setting-wide Magic Supermarket, everything always available as long as you have the coin.

As for why, I feel you could just as well ask "why not". I'm merely curious how this would play out, and whether it would actualize the fears you laid out. Clerics aren't omnipotent. In truth, I personally don't think cleric is even the best or the most interesting class to play based on their class features other than spells, and spells aren't everything.

How I see it playing out is that there would be a party of clerics, druids, and bards (the last two for those other class features such as expertise and wild shape), and then one guy who plays the abjurer (I'm assuming wizards have to learn from their preferred school first. If not, any wizard will work and thus I'd guess bladesinger or Chronurgist). That character learns Absorb Elements and Shield (and if wizards aren't school-specific, Find Familiar), swaps them to the party for Bless, Goodberry, Healing Word, etc., and now the whole party is riding high with optimal spell lineups for everyone. If the spells have to be swapped via making scrolls rather than copying from each others' spellbooks, that will slow down the process (particularly depending on which method you use for crafting scrolls), but with both the DMG rules and the XGtE rules, there are sweet spots where the time and money to craft scroll of level X will be small compared to the effect. For instance, level 3 spells on scroll are uncommon, and uncommon magic items start seeming reasonably priced right around levels 5-6, so getting the entire party decked out with Counterspell, Fireball, and Spirit Guardians right when those spells are their most potent is relatively doable.

All of this is predicated on the DM allowing this/not incurring prohibitive cost, but honestly, it's the first thing I expect any reasonable group of success-oriented* non-whiteroom players to do. *if your group doesn't do optimal things that are off-theme, it will happen less. However, these are the same people that don't really need wizards to be able to cast cures or clerics to cast arcane spells, etc.

If I were to do something similar in theme, I might try a game where:

All classes use spellbooks/wizard-esque memorization (and ritual casting rules)
Their automatic spells as they level come from their domains, subclasses, specialty schools, etc.
There be a lot more scrolls and enemy spellbooks to loot for expanding their repertoire (and try to balance the thus-found treasure so as not to overly dis/favor one class)
Occasionally include a found spell that crosses traditional class structure. So the odd druid spellbook with Spiderclimb as a spell (for the druid who wants to get to tall places, but is really squeemish about shapechanging), or a wizard scroll of Bless (from a wizard who really liked helping out and did the exhaustive spell research to reverse engineer the spell effects for arcane casting).



Otherwise, I think Korvin has the right of it -- if balance and playability are at all concerns, giving a spellcaster class access to any given spell (even if some are hard to find) probably needs to be a built&balanced from ground up endeavor.

[Arkhios]

why? you shouldn't just make a statement like this without explaining. the spell lists already exist as they are, and this homebrew wouldn't change that...



depending on how you do spell scribing, part members could share all of their spells with the other caster party members via scrolls. not neccesarily broken, but something to keep in mind. for example the paladin could grant everyone the ability to cast find steed a wizard could let everyone cast find familiar (this is of course assuming that spell scrolls aren't free and unlimited meaning that they couldn't just go buy those anyway. Again, idk if this is a problem, but it is a potential feature of such a system.

off the top of my head i can't think of anything particularly broken about this. with *maybe* the exception of a tempest cleric having an easier time accessing higher damage lightning/thunder spells than call lightning to get even more work out of their destructive wrath channel divinity...or like...the wizard could scribe a fireball scroll to give to the metamagic (transmute) adept cleric, enabling them to cast maximized fireballs muliple times per day...but ultimately that combo is just damage, so how gamebreaking it is really up to you. powerful, for sure. but i mean, this is pretty objectively a buff to all casters anyway so...you should expect them to be more powerful.

The primary campaign for which I intended this, is basically Skyrim but with D&D 5E rules (adjusted somewhat). What we know as Spell Scrolls by default are/will be known as Spell Tomes instead, and function only as a way to learn new spells, not as a way to cast spells from. Spell Scrolls, on the other hand, would be purely for casting and not to learn a spell from. I might allow scribing Spell Tomes as a Downtime Activity that takes a relatively huge amount of time. Scribing Scrolls would certainly be much more common, however.

The change to how Spell Scrolls work is basically this: Any class that has the Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature would be able to cast a spell from a Scroll, using their own Spellcasting Ability wherever it matters, BUT the caster must have high enough Spellcasting Ability Score (10+spell level) in order to cast a spell from a Scroll.

[kazaryu]

The primary campaign for which I intended this, is basically Skyrim but with D&D 5E rules (adjusted somewhat). What we know as Spell Scrolls by default are/will be known as Spell Tomes instead, and function only as a way to learn new spells, not as a way to cast spells from. Spell Scrolls, on the other hand, would be purely for casting and not to learn a spell from. I might allow scribing Spell Tomes as a Downtime Activity that takes a relatively huge amount of time. Scribing Scrolls would certainly be much more common, however.

The change to how Spell Scrolls work is basically this: Any class that has the Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature would be able to cast a spell from a Scroll, using their own Spellcasting Ability wherever it matters, BUT the caster must have high enough Spellcasting Ability Score (10+spell level) in order to cast a spell from a Scroll.

then i don't really see any major problems with this.

[Tanarii]

If you're gonna do this go whole hog. New spells after first (character) level can ONLY be learned from spell scrolls or found spell books. No free spells for leveling up or Multiclassing.

But then make spell scrolls far more plentiful part of found treasure.

Edit: If you went this route you'd probably need to go through and change any cleric-domain-type bonus spells to be ones not already on the classes native list. Since they'd be migrating to warlock-pact-like extra spells instead.

[Arkhios]

If you're gonna do this go whole hog. New spells after first (character) level can ONLY be learned from spell scrolls or found spell books. No free spells for leveling up or Multiclassing.

But then make spell scrolls far more plentiful part of found treasure.

I thought about that, but decided against it in the end. However, I will have spell tomes and spell scrolls lying around a bit more often, so players should have more options even outside their normal lists than usual.

[LibraryOgre]

I've toyed with something similar a few times, though I tend to keep distinct spell lists as different "schools"... you're a druid, which means you have certain abilities (wild shape, for example), and have learned a certain kind of magic that is suited to certain effects (you use the druid spell list), but you still have to learn spells and maintain some sort of record of them.

I worked up a version for 1st edition. (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2020/01/druidillusionist-d.html) All spellcasters are illusionists or druids, with roughly similar powers. Druids focus on physical things, like the elements, while illusionists focus on the ephemeral. Every spell was available to both classes, but if it it was outside your bailiwick (a druid learning Friends, for example), it would be a level or two higher.

I think something similar would work with 5e; you change all classes to wizard-like spellbooks and spell preparation (rather than spells known by level, or having the complete list available). I would limit the ability to go outside of your "school" (i.e. basic class list), as that can be a special ability of some classes (though you might make it available as a feat).

[paladinn]

I think you'd end up with a generic "caster"/mage class.. a 5e version of the 3e spellcaster generic class. Which would not be a bad thing. Light armor, simple weapons. All the current "full" caster classes would be subclasses. If you want to wear heavy armor, MC into fighter.

Class abilities like wildshape, channel divinity/ turn undead, etc. would need to be repackaged and available as spells. But this is very doable, and has been done in Pathfinder and other simulacra.

I actually like the idea. And given all the current overlap of spells between arcane/divine/"primal" and between classes in 5e, it wouldn't be game-breaking. I've done something like this for my C&C game and it's pretty cool.

[RSP]

depending on how you do spell scribing, part members could share all of their spells with the other caster party members via scrolls.

Not even requiring a scroll: you can copy spells straight from another spellbook.

[Hawk7915]

I am usually happy to do this on a case-by-case level for my players, and it doesn't break the game.

Moon Druid who worships Bahamut wants a little radiant magic? Sure, you can take Sacred Flame and Guiding Bolt.
Order Cleric wants to be a little more "Paladin-y"? Go Crusader's Mantle up, partner.
Spores Druid disappointed in their spell list, especially Animate Dead? Yeah, I'm fine for you to take other super situational vaguely spore-y stuff like Lesser Restoration and Feign Death instead.

I can do that without it being a whole world-building thing, but I also don't know that it necessarily "breaks" anything...as long as you also keep scrolls appropriately limited. I'd think 1st level scrolls are available in urban places at a modest cost, 2nd level a bit rarer, 3rd-4th extremely rare, and 5th+ requiring a significant quest to acquire.

Only break I can think of is making sure to watch out for spells that are clearly intended to be used at 13th+ from Paladins and Rangers - Find Greater Steed, Swift Quiver, etc. Even that's minor, and easily regulated.

And I disagree that this makes everyone just roll Cleric. Cleric is certainly better with a better end-game spell list theoretically...but Wizards paying less to scribe spells into their book matters a lot more when they can poach Cleric spells with it, and Metamagic is still super cool and powerful for Sorcerers, and Bards still get the best skill list in the game and some super cool subclasses. It probably does hedge folks from playing the "weaker" Druid subclasses but Moon, Star, and Spore are still strong and do unique, neat things.

[kazaryu]

Not even requiring a scroll: you can copy spells straight from another spellbook.

true, wasn't thinking about that. but OP also based on OP's clarification it seems they intend to not allow this anyway. so it ends up not being a concern

[Arkhios]

Not even requiring a scroll: you can copy spells straight from another spellbook.

Now that's something I didn't take into account. Thanks!


Sharing knowledge between colleagues is one thing, but sharing knowledge between "complete strangers" is something else.

In other words, I might let characters that share a same class also share spells from their mutual class list, but not the spells they've learned through their random findings.

After all, two characters of same class might not know the exact same spells, even from their respective mutual class.

Besides, different classes still have different methods to spellcasting, so it wouldn't make sense if a wizard could learn spells from a bard just like that.

Letting two clerics share their knowledge of cleric spells is no different from the standard: two wizards sharing their knowledge of their individual wizard spells, and thus wouldn't make a difference.

[tKUUNK]

hmmm. I'd shy away from letting them teach one another spells. But only because I like the thought of them needing to make strategic decisions like, "which of us would benefit the party most by knowing Counterspell? How about Healing Word? We only have one scroll".

OR make the process of teaching each other spells take some time. So at least there's still the strategic decision of "okay, who should learn this spell next?"

Strange idea by the way. I like it after getting over my initial "why the heck..."

[Arkhios]

hmmm. I'd shy away from letting them teach one another spells. But only because I like the thought of them needing to make strategic decisions like, "which of us would benefit the party most by knowing Counterspell? How about Healing Word? We only have one scroll".

OR make the process of teaching each other spells take some time. So at least there's still the strategic decision of "okay, who should learn this spell next?"

Strange idea by the way. I like it after getting over my initial "why the heck..."

I'm leaning towards letting them teach spells to one another, but yeah, it could be more reasonable as a downtime activity rather than doing it "on the fly".

also, thanks! I had a feeling this would cause a lot of "why the hecks", judging from the first reply to this thread. That's a big relief.

[RSP]

I'm leaning towards letting them teach spells to one another, but yeah, it could be more reasonable as a downtime activity rather than doing it "on the fly".

also, thanks! I had a feeling this would cause a lot of "why the hecks", judging from the first reply to this thread. That's a big relief.
In theory, you’d need two party members’ spell books to scribe a spell, so all four couldn’t do it at once, however, the 5e rules make adventuring past 8 hours tough, and you only need 8 hours to rest. So each day, the group could scribe 16 hours of spells between them, assuming they have the gold.

“For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.”

[Theodoxus]

I went the opposite direction, removing Wizard as a class, but allowed Wizardry as a first level feat that any caster could take, turning them into full Vancian caster requiring a spellbook and they had to memorize the actual spells they were going to cast for the day.

The benefit for doing that was gaining 1.5 times as many spell slots as other casters. The idea being that it took less processing power to 'slot' a specific spell than keeping open a generic slot that could fit any need from your prepared spells.

The other benefit was for Known casters, who could then learn more spells than typical. Wizardry was a boon to Sorcerers specifically, though not many players took the option.

[paladinn]

I went the opposite direction, removing Wizard as a class, but allowed Wizardry as a first level feat that any caster could take, turning them into full Vancian caster requiring a spellbook and they had to memorize the actual spells they were going to cast for the day.

The benefit for doing that was gaining 1.5 times as many spell slots as other casters. The idea being that it took less processing power to 'slot' a specific spell than keeping open a generic slot that could fit any need from your prepared spells.

The other benefit was for Known casters, who could then learn more spells than typical. Wizardry was a boon to Sorcerers specifically, though not many players took the option.

This isn't bad really. I think it'd be easier to make "wizardry" a kit.

How did this work out for you?

[Arkhios]

I went the opposite direction, removing Wizard as a class, but allowed Wizardry as a first level feat that any caster could take, turning them into full Vancian caster requiring a spellbook and they had to memorize the actual spells they were going to cast for the day.

The benefit for doing that was gaining 1.5 times as many spell slots as other casters. The idea being that it took less processing power to 'slot' a specific spell than keeping open a generic slot that could fit any need from your prepared spells.

The other benefit was for Known casters, who could then learn more spells than typical. Wizardry was a boon to Sorcerers specifically, though not many players took the option.

Removing classes is not something I'd do very lightly, especially now that I have already ran few sessions, with one cleric, one druid, and one sorcerer in tow. It would be difficult to justify changes that big now. Changing how spells are gained is luckily a lot easier.


With that said, I might still steal that idea of yours. I just might have to change the name a bit.

[Theodoxus]

This isn't bad really. I think it'd be easier to make "wizardry" a kit.

How did this work out for you?

I found it worked quite well. Wizardry ended up being a chain feat, with each additional feat granting a Wizard's subclass options, so Abjurers and Enchanters and Diviners [oh my!] still existed, and the individual player could determine just how much and when of a specific subclass they wanted to inhabit via feats.

At the time, I had taken ideas from playgrounders to massively expand the number of feats available, and breaking all feats down to 'half feats', but without the ASI. Feats were then granted at every odd level, while ASIs remained separate at every 4th level. So, taking Wizardry, allowed the Sorcerer-Wizard to use their 3rd level feat to grab Wizardry: Evocation (2), to gain the Evocation Savant and Sculpt Spells abilities; at 7th level, they could grab Wizardry: Evocation (6) to gain the Potent Cantrip ability, etc. I dabbled with the idea of allowing multiple Wizard subclasses via feats, but no one was interested... but given the general increase in power overall with 10 feats, I don't think allowing multiple subclasses would greatly alter the overall power of the class option.


Removing classes is not something I'd do very lightly, especially now that I have already ran few sessions, with one cleric, one druid, and one sorcerer in tow. It would be difficult to justify changes that big now. Changing how spells are gained is luckily a lot easier.


With that said, I might still steal that idea of yours. I just might have to change the name a bit.

Hmm... how many Wizards have your players run into? I would tend to agree if there was one in the party - it'd be a very large retcon, but if their experience is solely reading about Wizards in the PHB...

I'll be honest, I started the campaign session zero explaining the massive changes and got group buy in to make them. Everyone understood it was far closer to a playtest than your standard 5E game - so it's definitely not something to take lightly.

[Arkhios]

Hmm... how many Wizards have your players run into? I would tend to agree if there was one in the party - it'd be a very large retcon, but if their experience is solely reading about Wizards in the PHB...

I'll be honest, I started the campaign session zero explaining the massive changes and got group buy in to make them. Everyone understood it was far closer to a playtest than your standard 5E game - so it's definitely not something to take lightly.

It's less about them having encountered wizards and more about the (funny/stupid) idea I had, to incorporate the number of classes into the setting lore (as I mentioned before, the setting is Skyrim, and in Elder Scrolls there are 13 constellations, which play a remarkable role in the lore as "birth signs"; all of which just happen to match with the number of classes and with the classes themselves very well. In other words, each class represents one birth sign or constellation, and the class the (player) character has started with should* align with their birth sign).
*I'll leave it open for discussion; if a player can come up with a plausible explanation why their starting class would be something else, I'm willing to listen. :smallcool:

I made it clear (or I think I did) from the start that this is a pro-playtest game; for example, I include the OneD&D playtest material as much as I see fitting, and let my players decide whether they want to use the OneD&D playtest version of their class or the original. Also, this is quite a big undertaking from my part because I try to make this as a coherent whole package, for later use within closed circle, if someone else wanted to use these rules I've made. In a way, it is a Playtest of my own designs as well.

Anyway, I have no intention to cut classes, at least for the time being. Perhaps in the next iteration, with a different group.