Spellcasting levels: that huge a loss?

[Admiral Squish]

So, I look around these forums, and everyone seems to prize casting levels above all else. Is it really that important to cast as an 18th level wizard rather than a 20th in exchange for some cool abilities? If wizards are so overpowered as it is, why is it so horrible to just deal with what you've got for another level before going up again? Yeah, it limits your spell selection and you're advancing slower than yadda yadda yadda, but really: what's the big deal? Two levels. That's it. Nothing earth-shattering about it.

[Reel On, Love]

So, I look around these forums, and everyone seems to prize casting levels above all else. Is it really that important to cast as an 18th level wizard rather than a 20th in exchange for some cool abilities? If wizards are so overpowered as it is, why is it so horrible to just deal with what you've got for another level before going up again? Yeah, it limits your spell selection and you're advancing slower than yadda yadda yadda, but really: what's the big deal? Two levels. That's it. Nothing earth-shattering about it.

Yes, it is that important.

18th at 20th isn't *that* bad, but you're missing two 9th-level spell slots and an 8th-level... that's a big deal.
And that's at 20th. As you're advancing, you're constantly a spell level behind (and have fewer spell slots and high-level spell slots). That's an ever bigger deal.

Basically, getting [X]th-level spells faster is more powerful than pretty much anything else.

[Crow]

No it is not that important. What is important is that the character is fun to play. Don't listen to the Schrodinger's Wizard types. It's like arguing with a housecat.

[Skjaldbakka]

It is a big deal. A couple levels behind on a spellcaster is most likely several sessions behind. Several sessions of not having the spells that could solve the problem. From a power perspective, you are trading exponential growth (spellcasting progression) for linear growth (a cool power). From a versatility perspective, you are trading a cool power for several cool powers you can trade out.

Now, this mostly applies to an ongoing game. For a game that starts at high enough level to have your entire build in place, a few spell slots are possibly worth it. What isn't worth it is letting them slow down your progression.

Unless you are doing this to curb your own power, to help the rest of the team feel better, while not relegating yourself to the role of party buffer.

And namecalling doesn't help here. Schrodinger's Spell Selection has not been brought into play, and isn't relevant to the discussion.

In conclusion, more options are always better. Sacrificing spell progression for a static power that you can't change reduces the speed at which you gain new options.

[Dode]

So, I look around these forums, and everyone seems to prize casting levels above all else. Is it really that important to cast as an 18th level wizard rather than a 20th in exchange for some cool abilities? If wizards are so overpowered as it is, why is it so horrible to just deal with what you've got for another level before going up again? Yeah, it limits your spell selection and you're advancing slower than yadda yadda yadda, but really: what's the big deal? Two levels. That's it. Nothing earth-shattering about it.
Well compare some of those abilities to an ability like "Cast Time Stop or Wish 2/day" and what not, and you'll see our CO company's position on exchanging caster levels for cool abilities.

[Skjaldbakka]

If you are sacrificing 2 level 9 spell slots, then it isn't worth it. It becomes a debate if you are only sacrificing 1 9th level spell slot. If you are sacrificing several games worth of 'I wish I had Xth level spells by now', well- its hard to put a price on that.

[Sebastian]

Yes, it is that important.

18th at 20th isn't *that* bad, but you're missing two 9th-level spell slots and an 8th-level... that's a big deal.
And that's at 20th. As you're advancing, you're constantly a spell level behind (and have fewer spell slots and high-level spell slots). That's an ever bigger deal.

Basically, getting [X]th-level spells faster is more powerful than pretty much anything else.

also, less important maybe, but always something to consider, your spells are easier to dispel and you have an harder time dispelling or counterspelling enemies spells, and for you it is harder overcome monster's spell's resistance.

Yes, casting level is a big deal, it is also the main reason multiclassing with caster classes is usually not a viable option. But that is another thread.

[Reel On, Love]

No it is not that important. What is important is that the character is fun to play. Don't listen to the Schrodinger's Wizard types. It's like arguing with a housecat.

Ah, yes, Shroedinger's Wizard.
Because, you know, it's not like wizards prepare stuff like Gliterdust (at lower levels) or Overland Flight or Time Stop on a regular basis. Nope.


We're talking about the "big deal" of losing caster levels power-wise. "Just have FUN!" isn't relevant.

[Skjaldbakka]

Schoedinger's Wizard is a valid complaint. Not one relevant to this discussion, but very frequently the response to 'Plan to kill the wizard' is 'spell combo X'. Which results in the wizard always seeming to have the correct combination of spells to deal with each plan every day, in spite of any lack of overlap with spells that would be prepared normally.

That isn't relevant to a discussion of 'should I give up two levels of spellcasting progression or not,' however.

[Nebo_]

Don't listen to the Schrodinger's Wizard types. It's like arguing with a housecat.

Heh, that would have been pretty cool, if it had anything at all to do with the topic.

It's not so bad to end up with some lost caster levels, but as Ro,L said, advancing behind a normal wizard is crap.

[Tempest Fennac]

What exactly is Schrodinger's Wizard? I've never heard the term before.

[Skjaldbakka]

The theoretical wizard whose spells are not prepared until he knows what the plan of the rogue that is trying to kill him is. At which point he is loaded up with all the spells necessary to thwart said plan. Knowledge of said plan not being known until after it is put into action, of course.

At least, I think that term was coined in the rogue v. wizard thread.

[Nebo_]

What exactly is Schrodinger's Wizard? I've never heard the term before.

Like Schrodinger's Cat, which is both dead and alive until you look at it, Schrodinger's Wizard has every spell until you see his list.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for telling me. Shouldn't the Wizard be made to pick his/her spells as soon as the party wakes up while showing the DM the selection?

[Nebo_]

It's to do with wizard vs. X arguments. People always say 'Well the wizard could just cast this spell in this situation', and when faced with another situation they have just the right spells. The wizard always has the right spells at the right time.

[Reinboom]

Thanks for telling me. Shouldn't the Wizard be made to pick his/her spells as soon as the party wakes up while showing the DM the selection?

Two ways to reply to this:
1) Shroedinger's Wizard is an example of munchkinry, or, blatantly 'cheating' based on the above definition. It is not a real serious examination of the wizard, and it is just poking fun at a very specific sect of players (munchkins). As in, not serious.

2) No, the wizard should not be made to pick [all] his/her spells as soon as the party wakes up. Usually, a smarter high level wizard will leave a few slots open to fil later in the day, based on what they use - or in case of a specific use or puzzle they made need later.

===

On subject more:

I've been playing with the idea in my mind, as a DM, of:
Full spellcasters MUST lose 1 level of caster level by level 9. (either as their 9th level or before it)
An additional level at 14.

They gain 'Practiced Spellcaster' as a bonus feat as soon as they can cast 4th level spells.

Add or remove as based on campaign and DM.

Untested thus far. Still debating it with self.

[Tempest Fennac]

What would they get in exchange for that? I wouldn't even consider losing a Ccaster level unless I would get a huge bonus out of it due to how losing a level would mean losing out on my best class feature (to be fair, I'd still probably sooner have the spell levels). Would you be using PrCs to justify this caster level loss?

[Reinboom]

What would they get in exchange for that? I wouldn't even consider losing a Ccaster level unless I would get a huge bonus out of it due to how losing a level would mean losing out on my best class feature (to be fair, I'd still probably sooner have the spell levels). Would you be using PrCs to justify this caster level loss?

Part of the point of it is that they gain nothing significant.
And of course this considers PrCs. I've yet to play with a GM personally that has given a stronger restriction on PrCs than "please don't break my game or make your teammates useless."

The idea is a forced nerf upon full casters that also opens the game up to possibilities of casters actually taking unique classes and prestige class combinations that were thrown out before due to them losing a caster level or two.

[Greyen]

This may open a big can of worms.

But -

I disagree with you from a roleplay persective. If you character is capable and useful to the party short a caster level or two, the go ahead sacrifice them.

On a purely mechanical view there is nothing that can compete with a full caster level progression. I have read too many Wizard vs. X threads to even debate that.

D&D is about many different things to different people. If you and your group are more about enjoying the session, playing your characters as they are, then do what you like. If Your wizard decides to take a level of rogue/fighter/commoner for character reasons then do so. If not then don't.

If you and your group are more into the power level and what not of RAW characters then full progression casters would dominate the group. I personnally don't see the fun in competing with 2 other wizards, the druid/cleric to see who can defeat X with X/Y/Z 9th level spells.

my 2cp.

[Crow]

And namecalling doesn't help here. Schrodinger's Spell Selection has not been brought into play, and isn't relevant to the discussion.

I apolagize for the namecalling. Schrodinger's spell selection is not in question in this topic, I was making the comment regarding how the people who prize caster levels above all else are often the same invoking Schrodinger's Wizard elsewhere on this board.

One or two caster levels (preferably just one), are not going to gimp your character. Magic is broken as hell at just about any level, and the difference between having 8th level spells and 9th level spells isn't all that earth shattering when you look at just how powerful those spells are anyways. The extra slots aren't even as much of a handicap either because of the feat wizards get for free at 1st level.

Now a Sorcerer...He's a different story. Not only are you giving up spells per day, but spells known as well. On top of that, you already have a stunted spell progression.

But hey, just have fun. The only true way to be "underpowered" is if you don't have fun playing the character. It's OK to give up some power for a character that you will have fun playing.

[Skjaldbakka]

Fun is irrelevant to a question about build power. The question wasn't "will i be so totally gimped from losing two levels of spellcasting that I won't have fun?"

The question was "why is it so bad to lose two levels of spellcasting?".

"It isn't so bad because you'll still have fun" is not a valid answer to that question.

[Zincorium]

Greyen, that's throwing out a huge red herring. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said you shouldn't lose caster levels even if it hurts your enjoyment of the game.

But the question is, does taking caster levels instead of something else hurt your fun? If not, the loss is enough that you're probably better off not doing it.

That's the point.

'Character reasons', when directly opposed to common sense and mechanical reasons, and in every single instance I've ever been told about, tend to be about anything but good character development and expression of individuality. A wizard messing around with a sword in his off time is not obligated to take a level in fighter. They have prestige classes and feats specifically for characters like that (what the heck else is abjurant champion?).

Moreso, adventuring is dangerous. Even if a character no longer likes being a wizard so much, just switching career paths while things continue to get more dangerous (a trend they've no doubt noticed) should immediately strike them as very likely to get them killed. And playing a character who knowingly does something that will get them killed without a damn good reason should be discouraged.

[Skjaldbakka]

I have on many occasions done things with my build that were for the character's goals, and not part of my initial plans for them. Not in D&D though. The Class/Level dynamic is just not forgiving of that kind of thing. XP systems like BESM or WoD, where you straight up buy abilities with points are much more conducive to a sudden change of focus than D&D.

[Tempest Fennac]

I agree completely with Zincorium's comments due to how D&D is meant to be a RPing game, which I take to include making your character as effective as possible due to how real characters wouldn't think "I'm outperforming peopl who learnt to hit things with clubs rather then spending time larning how to alter reality, so I'll learn how to use swords to become less effective to make them feel better".

[Solo]

Schoedinger's Wizard is a valid complaint. Not one relevant to this discussion, but very frequently the response to 'Plan to kill the wizard' is 'spell combo X'. Which results in the wizard always seeming to have the correct combination of spells to deal with each plan every day, in spite of any lack of overlap with spells that would be prepared normally.


You could build a sorcerer, you know, the caster with a fixed spell list, who could cover most bases perfectly fine.

[Theodoxus]

The one thing that always gets me is 'but if you lose 2 levels of wizard, you'll be missing out on 2 9th level spells! omgwtfbbq!'

Yeah, and how many play a game where you go from 1st to 20th level and being behind 2 caster levels actually matters?

As much as Schrodingers Wizard comes into play, so does this mythical 1 to 20 game. We've all seen the polls, 3.5 is vastly, nay staunchly, set in the 3-8 level range. Hitting the teens is a very rare event in the majority of campaigns. Going epic is extremely rare.

So, in a typical campaign that goes from say, 6th to 10th, a wizard missing a couple caster levels to a prestige class isn't that tragic an event. I know, I'm playing in a campaign where our wizard did that. Sure, we ask how many more 4th level spells he has, and it's margianally annoying when he runs out (which only happens if the fights gone so poorly he's d-doored out) but we adapt our tactics. And we all have fun.

But hey, maybe we're atypical. Meh.

Theo

[Solo]

The point isn't about fun, it's about whether spellcasting levels are a huge loss.

The answer, of course, is yes, they are. There are very few things that can make up for losing them.

End of debate. I see no reason for this thread to go on longer.

[GutterRunner]

I agree completely with Zincorium's comments due to how D&D is meant to be a RPing game, which I take to include making your character as effective as possible due to how real characters wouldn't think "I'm outperforming peopl who learnt to hit things with clubs rather then spending time larning how to alter reality, so I'll learn how to use swords to become less effective to make them feel better".

I guess you don't play Lawful or Good characters, because that would limit the choices your character can make, and then might make you less powerful. Also you'll notice that when that guy with a club isn't a round, you gain power more quickly, so you should ask him to stop hanging around with you, and get rid of him if he persists.

If you're trying to make an optimised build (to be the best at a particular thing you can be) losing caster levels will almost always be a bad choice. If you want to have fun playing a game without meta-gaming your ass off, try whatever build you feel like. I've heard on these boards that Gishes (fighter-wizards and similar) are quite fun.

Edit: And the OP says people are prizing caster levels over all else. "All else" would include fun, so I see it as relevant. And choosing caster levels over fun would be stupid.

[Solo]

Why choose when you can have both?

[Tempest Fennac]

Actually, without the guy with the club, the Wizard would be more vurnerable to attacks, so s/he wouldn't become more powerful. How would my approach not work for a Lawful or Good character anyway, and how wold it get less choices? (Keep in mind how the choice I was refering to here was dropping caster levels for levels in a different class, which would work out to be less powerful then a straight Wizard for the benefit of other characters).

[Zincorium]

I guess you don't play Lawful or Good characters, because that would limit the choices your character can make, and then might make you less powerful. Also you'll notice that when that guy with a club isn't a round, you gain power more quickly, so you should ask him to stop hanging around with you, and get rid of him if he persists.

Right, because calling me a powergamer automatically makes you right, and forces me to leave the thread in shame. Er, no, no it doesn't.

Your character, if they're intelligent, should not make stupid decisions because it is out of character. If you want to make stupid decisions, don't give yourself intelligence as one of your highest scores.

Being a lawful or good character means you'll risk harm for a good cause, there's nothing unreasonable about that (and I had a caveat 'for a damn good reason' in my earlier statement for exactly this reason).

Experience is a totally abstract idea, acting to give yourself more is metagaming. Additionally, the wizard will know that they're safer after they've run out of spells if someone else is around to cover them.

Not that any of this is relevant, because you're putting up and kicking down strawmen rather than anything involving my example.


If you're trying to make an optimised build (to be the best at a particular thing you can be) losing caster levels will almost always be a bad choice. If you want to have fun playing a game without meta-gaming your ass off, try whatever build you feel like. I've heard on these boards that Gishes (fighter-wizards and similar) are quite fun.

Edit: And the OP says people are prizing caster levels over all else. "All else" would include fun, so I see it as relevant. And choosing caster levels over fun would be stupid.

So when I say 'lose the caster levels if it makes the difference between having fun and not', I'm wrong.

But when you say it, you're right.

Can you blame me for being ticked off at this? Playing Gishes is a fun thing. Playing bards is fun.

Getting wrongly accused of being a munchkin by someone who is restating parts of what I said and acting like they're an original comment?

Not fun.

[GutterRunner]

Well, the wizard could use improved invisibility, fly, freedom of movement and all that jazz to avoid being affected by melee as much. I percieve there's a general belief that a group of Wizard, Wizard and Cleric/Druid, should be equally or more capabale of defeating any given challenge than a group of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

And my point about being Lawful or Good being less powerful was basically: With these alignemtns there are certain things you're not allowed to do, which may be the most efficent way of overcoming a problem. If you need an item from an old sage a LG character would probably do the task he asks you to do in order to borrow the item. But a Neutral or Evil character could just kill the sage and take ALL of his items. That obviously makes you more powerful, you've avoided wasting time and gotten more stuff out of it too. You were using an in character postion of what ended up getting you the most power for the sake of you're own survivability I believe, and I assumed that would extend behond the choice of what class(es) you took.

To Solo, fun is inherently subjective, so ofcourse someone can have fun playing a full caster, but someone else might not. Perhaps they really like the image of being a Knight in full plate armour crushing his foes, or a sneaky rogue that relies only on his natural wits to get by. Perhaps they've got bored of trimuphing over every encounter as a caster for the past 4 years and would like to try something different. Perhaps the whole group would like to see what it's like with no casters at all in a group.

[AmberVael]

Actually, without the guy with the club, the Wizard would be more vurnerable to attacks, so s/he wouldn't become more powerful.

That's why you have Summon Monster.
Or Fly.
Or some kind of magic armor spell.
Or displacement.
Or a cloud spell.
Or *Insert random protective/summon spell here*

This isn't a Schrodinger argument, just one that assumes you're a smart wizard/sorcerer. If you aren't a wizard prepared to survive on your own, what on earth are you doing still alive? You could protect yourself in any variety of ways- you're sure to have at least three spells of this nature to use (more at higher levels), to keep yourself safe. You really don't need a guy with a stick to stay safe (After level 4 or so). Granted, the man with a stick will be really handy and allow you to use your spells in better ways if he's there, but you CAN survive without him.

More on topic.
Yes. They're a big loss- at lower levels more than higher ones (Assuming we're talking about getting to the point where the loss of two levels =/= loss of 9th level spells as high level). At low levels, that extra spell level and few spells known will make a huge difference in your capabilities- and what are you losing them for? Fighter levels? Rogue levels? A funny PrC?
If you've planned for this eventuality (maybe a gish, or a specific PrC) then you can probably work it out to still be a good, viable character, but you ARE losing power to do it.
Think about the trade offs with each level.
Losing 3rd level spells: No haste? No fly? Dispel Magic? Not even a fun fireball? Sure, you won't be getting them all, but even one of those can change the game drastically.
Losing 4th level spells: Improved Invisibility. Mm mm good. Or how about dimension door to teleport through walls and escape grapples? Scrying? Charm monster? Bestow Curse? Animate Dead? Oh, here's a good bit of cheese: Polymorph. Think on those. Are they really worth losing?
Even second level spells are bad to miss out on- Web, Glitterdust, See Invisibility, Alter Self, any of the +4 stat buffs...
You miss out on a lot when losing a spell level.

[Tempest Fennac]

The problem with storing lots of protective spells is that if you're storing them, it means you can't store other spells which could also be useful. Considering how that arguement applies to all classes, I fail to see how it's more of a problem for Wizards, GutterRunner.

[Person_Man]

From a purely objective point of view, yes, caster levels are the most important thing in D&D. Nothing is more powerful then access to higher level spells. And most class features that you can get from a PrC can be emulated by a spell, making the loss of caster level(s) pointless. I would also add that as a long time veteran of D&D, I find many non-caster-ish builds boring because they lack flexibility. Many lack anything more interesting to do then "I hit it with my X."

From a subjective point of view, no, its not that important. Your power level as a PC is only important relative to the power level of your party. A nerfed Wizard will still be more powerful then an optimized Barbarian. So in reality its only important if you're playing in a powerful party, or if your DM does a poor job of balancing encounters to the power level of your particular group, in which case you need magic to avoid death. Both cases are pretty common, but your D&D experience obviously may vary.

[GutterRunner]

Right, because calling me a powergamer automatically makes you right, and forces me to leave the thread in shame. Er, no, no it doesn't.

...

Getting wrongly accused of being a munchkin by someone who is restating parts of what I said and acting like they're an original comment?

Not fun.

Well I wasn't directly replying to you Zincorium, and re-reading you're post I believe I agree with you. We've both said 'lose the caster levels if it makes the difference between having fun and not' more or less, and I don't think I said that you were wrong when you said it.

I constructed the post I wrote with the first paragraph being my extension of what Tempest Fennac said, with the hope of showing the view that "my character would do/learn whatever gave him the most power" possibly leading to bad circumstances. The second paragraph was my general feeling on the subject - do what you feel is most fun, don't lose caster levels if you want the most power. And my edit was in response to Solo who said this thread didn't cover fun and I thought it did.

I wasn't trying to insult you or steal your ideas. I thought I was making a reasonable post about the topic, probbably with something of a strawman in the first paragraph I admit. But I guess I suck horribly at posting. and I'm being sincre here - I'm going to try to learn how to post without insulting people before posting in a new thread again.

[Charity]

And my point about being Lawful or Good being less powerful was basically: With these alignemtns there are certain things you're not allowed to do, which may be the most efficent way of overcoming a problem. If you need an item from an old sage a LG character would probably do the task he asks you to do in order to borrow the item. But a Neutral or Evil character could just kill the sage and take ALL of his items. That obviously makes you more powerful, you've avoided wasting time and gotten more stuff out of it too. You were using an in character postion of what ended up getting you the most power for the sake of you're own survivability I believe, and I assumed that would extend behond the choice of what class(es) you took.

With the exception of Clerics there is no inherent power bonus for one alignment over another. In you scenario an evil character profits, in another equally likely scenario a good character may profit similarly. A powerful NPC casts know alignment to see whom he can trust, ooh look that wizard is LG I shall give him a big bucket of bonus magic items to help him fight for my cause, he profits and without having whatever passes for a law enforcement agency after him for murder.


I wasn't trying to insult you or steal your ideas. I thought I was making a reasonable post about the topic, probbably with something of a strawman in the first paragraph I admit. But I guess I suck horribly at posting. and I'm being sincre here - I'm going to try to learn how to post without insulting people before posting in a new thread again.

Please do not be discouraged from posting, thats certainly not my intent nor any of the others here I'm sure. Careful attention needs to be payed to both what you're posting and where you're posting it... oh and try not to speak in absolutes, they always comes back to bite you, yes that was irony for those of you whom care.
as you can see below...

[Tempest Fennac]

I never said anything about fun (to be fair, I'd consider it to be less un due to liking to make my builds as powerful as possible (I agree with vael here), but a lot of people probably wouldn't be that botherd about it).

[AmberVael]

With the exception of Clerics there is no inherent power bonus for one alignment over another.
Well... for the most part. A being of True Neutral alignment DOES gain benefits- or rather, just doesn't suffer penalties. Think of all the alignment based smites, weapons, and spells, and you'll realize someone who is true neutral is less likely to suffer from them, which is thus an advantage.
Granted, it's not really a huge one.
Nitpicking done. :smallwink:

[Charity]

Bah I knew someone would call me on that one... fair enough Vael, but you know what I mean. :smalltongue:

[AmberVael]

Bah I knew someone would call me on that one... fair enough Veal, but you know what I mean. :smalltongue:

I am not a young cow! :smalltongue:
Yes, I do know what you mean. But I have to be a crazy picky stickler or I'll lose my reputation. :smallamused:

[Indon]

If wizards are so overpowered as it is, why is it so horrible to just deal with what you've got for another level before going up again?

Well, for those interested in making powerful characters, caster levels have massive potential.

But if you just want to be a contributing member of the party, no, you don't need that much at all. You could probably contribute just fine to a party (assuming other players are not optimizing to the degree where caster levels are sacred and such for them) without casting a spell higher than 3'rd level, at least so long as your party isn't epic where having 10'th level spell slots is suddenly pretty vital to having any decent level of effectiveness.

[Charity]

I am not a young cow! :smalltongue:
Yes, I do know what you mean. But I have to be a crazy picky stickler or I'll lose my reputation. :smallamused:

Dunno what your talking about *whistles innocently*

Although I have heard you don't get out much.. :smallwink:

[AmberVael]

Although I have heard you don't get out much.. :smallwink:
LIEZ! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, aside from optimization, I have to agree with the others. You can still have a useful character without going full OMG BATMAN WIZARD. I think there are a lot of very cool prestige classes that require you to lose caster levels that are too often neglected just for that reason.

[valadil]

At level 20 the difference between a character with 18CL and 20CL is negligible. Where lost levels really hurt is on the way up to 20. Being behind in spells sucks. I'm currently playing a fairly optimized sorcerer. There's an evocation wizard in the party. At odd levels, when he has spells one level higher than mine, I feel like I'm not pulling my weight in combats. It isn't so much that you lose CL, but that you lose higher level spells.

[Ramza00]

The theoretical wizard whose spells are not prepared until he knows what the plan of the rogue that is trying to kill him is. At which point he is loaded up with all the spells necessary to thwart said plan. Knowledge of said plan not being known until after it is put into action, of course.

At least, I think that term was coined in the rogue v. wizard thread.


It's to do with wizard vs. X arguments. People always say 'Well the wizard could just cast this spell in this situation', and when faced with another situation they have just the right spells. The wizard always has the right spells at the right time.

1 level of Hathran and the Acorn of Far Travel, and suddenly the wizard can cast all his spells spontaneously :smallwink: