Spell Lists: Really Necessary?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

[Flickerdart]

Do we really need casters to be more powerful?

[Demons_eye]

Maybe. Then we could have batzila

[Defiant]

but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

Wizards without cure spells grossly unbalance the game in their favour. You can thus extrapolate my answer to your question.

[Glyphic]

I would argue that a cleric with wizard spells would be superior to a wizard with cleric spells. By alot.

[SurlySeraph]

Let's compare Wizards and Clerics.
Their spell progression is similar, except that Clerics get more spells per day.
Clerics have access to all spells on the Cleric spell list; Wizards automatically gain 2 spells per level but have to learn any other spells they want by other means.
Wizards have half BAB; Clerics have 3/4 BAB.
Clerics have a greater range of class skills than Wizards do, though they don't have as many Knowledge skills.
Wizards have d4 HD; Clerics have d8s.
Wizards have one good save; Clerics have two.
Wizards get Summon Familiar and Scribe Scroll; Clerics get Turn Undead.
Bearing all this in mind, Clerics look far more powerful than Wizards. And yet, most people will tell you that Wizards are more powerful than Clerics. How can that be, when the Cleric is superior to the Wizard in damn near every class feature? It's because the Wizard has a far better spell list than the Cleric does. And if you gave the Cleric - or, worse, the Druid - full access to the Wizard spell list, you would have a class more broken than anything else in DnD.

[ericgrau]

Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

Clerics or druids with access to wizard spells would severely unbalance the game. What you can do with divine spells tends to be much less. Letting wizards cast divine spells is less troublesome but yes, the additional versatility would really add too much power. Often when one does have access to spells on the list of the other, the spell is 1 level higher.

Other lists fit other niches. The ranger spells are quite handy for dealing with the wilderness. Paladins have buffs. Both of those are unique enough that it would add too much versatility to give the ranger spells to druids or the pally spells to clerics. Bards have all the low level spells from both arcane & divine that are still useful even with higher level characters.

[Kroy]

Are suggesting giving the most powerful class in the game the ability to cast cure spells?

[Kantolin]

In actuality, I don't believe giving wizards an expanded spell list would break them too much further. Part of the reason wizards are so powerful is that their spell list is already top-notch - expanding it would improve them, but not astonishingly so.

Now, Clerics and particularly Druids have a variety of bonuses to make up for the fact that wizards have a better spell list - HP and BAB for both, then domain abilities and turning for the cleric, while the druid sports an animal companion, wild shape, and a plethora of neat things.

Thus, giving the Cleric or the Druid wizard spells straight-forward will make them quite a bit more powerful than normal, and would make sorcerors and wizards nigh-worthless.

Although I'm not sure whether or not that would make the cleric or druid more useful than each other, which could be interesting.

Some other classes (Duskblades) are also limited by their spell lists, but you mentioned warmages so I'll just lump them in.

Edit: Whoop, you said 'divine casters' as an exception. Well huh... um, who exactly are you suggesting? If you mean giving the Wu Jen and Wizard the same spells, I don't think that would unbalance very much. If you generally mean giving arcanists divine spells, see my response above - wouldn't be all that nasty, but would improve them mechanically. Do remember people: Cure spells (particularly in optimized play) tend to be kind of meh, so them getting cure spells means they can use wands, so woo. :P

[Superglucose]

Giving clerics the Wizard spell list means:

they are wizards. Sans arcane spell failure, with a host of special abilities (domain powers, turn undead), heavy armor proficiency, d8HD, good fort, and medium BAB.

They are the best class in the game, + everything that could be considered a weakness of Wizards.

But if we exclude divine casters...

Wizards are really good. Giving them more options (Blasphemy comes to mind) seems like it'd make them even worse.

[Gralamin]

Planar Shepard Batman's you say...

[JaxGaret]

It would serve to make all casters a fair bit stronger.

If you really want to play a caster with access to all spells lists, just play an Archivist or Artificer. No need for houserules.

[Neithan]

If you want to make all spells available for all classes, I would use a system without classes at all where every character is completely customizeable.

[Epinephrine]

GURPS magic works well without an artificial divide between curative and other magic, but it's a point-based system.

There's no reason that curative magic couldn't be arcane in nature, in the right game world - but in terms of balance, giving wizards access to cure spells would be too much without some way to reduce their power.

If you really want to do it, I'm sure you can homebrew up a wizard variant for which it would be appropriate. Just remember that you'll be taking a hit on your spell effectiveness if you want it to remain balanced.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Aside from classes that have access to their entire spell lists (divine casters, beguilers, warmages, etc.), do you think that spell lists are really necessary to maintain balance? Spell lists maintain class archetypes...kinda usually. But I'm not talking about archetypes; I'm talking about balance. Sure there are a few problem spells like True Strike, but do you think things like wizards with cure spells would unbalance the game?

TS

No. The game is already unbalanced in favor of spellcasters. This would just make things ten times worse.

[Tengu_temp]

Spellcasters from the generic classes variant can cast spells from all lists. They are spontaneous casters of course. Since generic classes are more versatile, but weaker than normal DND classes, I assume it wouldn't hurt if you gave sorcerers the ability to cast spells from all lists. It might make them more worthwhile in comparison to wizards, in fact, and makes sense fluff-wise (why would inborn power be limited to effects people can learn by studying magic?).

Of course, sorcerers are already more powerful than most non-casters... just weaker than most other casters.

[JaxGaret]

GURPS magic works well without an artificial divide between curative and other magic, but it's a point-based system.

There's no reason that curative magic couldn't be arcane in nature, in the right game world - but in terms of balance, giving wizards access to cure spells would be too much without some way to reduce their power.

If you really want to do it, I'm sure you can homebrew up a wizard variant for which it would be appropriate. Just remember that you'll be taking a hit on your spell effectiveness if you want it to remain balanced.

Arcane casters can already take Arcane Disciple (Healing) to grab a good number of the curative spells if they want to. There's other domains that have the restorative spells. There might even be a hybrid domain that has a smattering of both.

They only get them 1/day each though.

[Starsinger]

Spellcasters from the generic classes variant can cast spells from all lists. They are spontaneous casters of course. Since generic classes are more versatile, but weaker than normal DND classes, I assume it wouldn't hurt if you gave sorcerers the ability to cast spells from all lists. It might make them more worthwhile in comparison to wizards, in fact, and makes sense fluff-wise (why would inborn power be limited to effects people can learn by studying magic?).

Of course, sorcerers are already more powerful than most non-casters... just weaker than most other casters.

I like this idea.

[Mercenary Pen]

I'd suggest that, if you were to give arcane casters the ability to use Cure spells, you'd also need to give them some sort of spontaneous casting- whether that be spontaneous cure spells (which might actually reduce the wizard's impact on the game by forcing him into the Cleric's healbot duties), or possibly in the case of Wizards, spontaneous casting of spells based on their specialist school...

I make no guarantees as to the balancing effects of either approach, but if you're going to do this, you might as well go the whole hog, as it were.

[Tengu_temp]

I like this idea.

But you like everything that boosts charisma-based classes.

[Starsinger]

But you like everything that boosts charisma-based classes.

That as it may be, Sorcerers are not "Wizard's stupid cousins" and I think they should have their own spell list.

[Talya]

By RAW, sorcerers already have access to spells outside their official spell list.

These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

It's less problematic for sorcerers, as they don't really gain versatility by adding more spell choices...they're still limited by total spells known.

[Starsinger]

By RAW, sorcerers already have access to spells outside their official spell list.

These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

It's less problematic for sorcerers, as they don't really gain versatility by adding more spell choices...they're still limited by total spells known.

Which also goes against Sorcerer fluff. "I can study and learn an innate spell."

[Voyager_I]

...do you really need to ask what would happen to balance if you opened up spell lists? Batman in Full Plate with DMM Persisted Druid Buffs?

[JaxGaret]

Batman in Full Plate with DMM Persisted Druid Buffs?

IT'S BATZILLA

Run for your puny lives!

[tarbrush]

Surely druid gone whatever-it-is-that-gives-you-turning is the way forward here. Truely now, he is a giant bear that casts spells. Possibly accompanied by another giant bear that does psionics if you use that awaken powers spell that I've also forgotten the name of on your animal companion. And some other giant bears that both of the previous two bears have summoned.

In fact potentially two giant bears riding other, gianter bears that the giant bears have summoned. That can fly.

Oh man I have to try this, just once.

[Mike_G]

I'm gonna swim against the tide here and say that adding cure spells, not all Cleric spells, just the healing spells, wouldn't really overpower Wizards all that much. You could even allow it if they spend a feat for access to healing spells, or even just let them use the Extra Spell feat for each Divine spell. That provides a cost for the ability.

Add to that the fact that if they were the Designated Healer, Wizards would need to keep some slots open for healing, Restoration, etc, which would actually weaken them a bit. Or at least they'd need to spend on wands and scrolls of those spells.

I have a Beguiler who functions as the party healer via UMD, because nobody wanted to play a Cleric, and it weakens me if anything. If we had a Cleric, I could spend my hard earned loo--well, ok, my loot-- on better stuff for just me, instead of CLW wands and Scrolls of Restoration, Cure disease, etc. In fact, I more or less function as the everything else for a party of melee types. Monk, Fighter, Barbarian, Warlock, Beguiler. Except for doing damage, I think it's all me.

My personal favorite idea, which won't please everybody, is to eliminate the Cleric class, and open the spell lists to Wizards and Sorcerers. Clerics are too generic to represent priests of all gods with one set of class features. I customize the "cleric" of a given god to that god. Some gods are served by Paladins, some by Wizards, some by Monks, some by Experts. The god of Thieves shouldn't have clerics in plate with 2 skill points per level and Turn Undead. In my world, he doesn't. "Priest of X" is generally a Prestige class, where you gain the spell domains and features appropriate to that god.

In that case, healing magic has to come from somewhere, so we roll it into the arcane casters.

[Fax Celestis]

In that case, healing magic has to come from somewhere, so we roll it into the arcane casters.

...you mean like the bard, who already has them?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thanks everyone. I didn't start this topic so much to gauge any particular house rule, just to get an interesting discussion going and find out how people view the purpose of spell lists.

Edit: Whoop, you said 'divine casters' as an exception. Well huh... um, who exactly are you suggesting?

Well this hypothetical situation would involve giving arcanists access to all spell lists, and possibly giving divine casters the same benefit, provided that divine casters were also limited to a list of spells known. For example, clerics and druids might be limited to 2 spells per level like the wizard except they can't add more via research or looted spell books.

My personal favorite idea, which won't please everybody, is to eliminate the Cleric class, and open the spell lists to Wizards and Sorcerers. Clerics are too generic to represent priests of all gods with one set of class features. I customize the "cleric" of a given god to that god. Some gods are served by Paladins, some by Wizards, some by Monks, some by Experts. The god of Thieves shouldn't have clerics in plate with 2 skill points per level and Turn Undead. In my world, he doesn't. "Priest of X" is generally a Prestige class, where you gain the spell domains and features appropriate to that god.

I love this idea, and had a DM who did something similar once. He didn't eliminate the cleric class, but modified it on a player-to-player basis. I played a priest of Orcus [god of war in his world] with full BAB and a warcry ability, while another player got to play what was basically a cleric-bard hybrid. So much more interesting than clerics for everyone!

TS

[Mike_G]

...you mean like the bard, who already has them?

Cause, yeah, everybody wants to drag a Bard along, sure.

There's a reason there was much rejoicing when they ate Sir Robin's minstrels.