Learning new spells, outside of leveling up: for my inexperienced DM

[TaiLiu]

Counterpoint: A wizard doesn't NEED to find new spells, ever. Even with just 2/level, they are better off than a sorcerer or warlock. Finding new spells is nice, sure, but it's certainly not necessary.

The archetype being the search for magical knowledge.

I don't think these two propositions are contradictory! A Wizard can search for magical knowledge while obtaining only two spells a level. Presumably that's how you get those two spells at all.

I've played Wizards a couple of times with a couple of different DMs in very different campaigns. My feeling is that the game makes spell scribing both needlessly costly and unnecessary. Didn't feel like my Wizard was more powerful or more interesting after scribing extra spells. But I've never reached Tier 3 play—maybe having lots of spell options there is worthwhile.

[Sigreid]

I don't think these two propositions are contradictory! A Wizard can search for magical knowledge while obtaining only two spells a level. Presumably that's how you get those two spells at all.

I've played Wizards a couple of times with a couple of different DMs in very different campaigns. My feeling is that the game makes spell scribing both needlessly costly and unnecessary. Didn't feel like my Wizard was more powerful or more interesting after scribing extra spells. But I've never reached Tier 3 play—maybe having lots of spell options there is worthwhile.

Arguably a DM who never drops a scroll or book opportunity has decided to deny one of the key class features. That can be OK, but I think the DM should be up front about that at the start before you commit to wizard.

[JackPhoenix]

Arguably a DM who never drops a scroll or book opportunity has decided to deny one of the key class features. That can be OK, but I think the DM should be up front about that at the start before you commit to wizard.

There's no class feature that says wizard has to find any usable spell scrolls, ever.

[Jervis]

*Slides into the conversation*
Can I take a moment to tell you about our lord and savior the Sha’ir? That aside there isn’t as much DM guidance as you would expect. Just let him know that you can turn wizard list scrolls into new spells and take spells from enemy Wizard’s books. Also maybe let him know the price guidelines for wizards charging you to let you copy their spells, should he wish to provide the opportunity.

[Sigreid]

There's no class feature that says wizard has to find any usable spell scrolls, ever.

There's a class feature that says you can copy a spell. If the DM knows he intends to not provide the opportunity to use that future, IMO, he should put that out up front.

[MrStabby]

Arguably a DM who never drops a scroll or book opportunity has decided to deny one of the key class features. That can be OK, but I think the DM should be up front about that at the start before you commit to wizard.

Its a class feature. It doesn't follow its a key class feature. I mean I understand where you are coming from, but I think there needs to be more of a case made than "it appears on a list" to be considered "key". That said, sometimes I don't consider Thieves Cant for Rogues or Druids being able to speak druidic as "key" features either, but they are cool.


Generally though, I wouldn't worry about number of spells so much as quality. 90% of everything is crap, and if wizard spells are an exception it is only because then number is closer to 95%. For a spell to make any difference in play it must be worth preparing and it must be worth the investment of the spell slot at the time. A player will often take spells like misty step and leave spells like Dust Devil behind when they level up, and even if you were to give this to someone for free the odds of them preparing the spell is pretty low, and the odds of them casting it if they do also pretty damn miserable.

My advice for a new DM would be to do something like look at one of the wizard guides on this site and look at the ratings there. Top rated spells are a big deal and are really high powered loot, anything slightly lower than top is probably relatively safe to have in abundance and anything lower is just padding. This, and an expectation that there are no scrolls/spellbooks that you find that have the highest spell level spells you can cast in them (i.e. if you are a level 8 wizard you may find level 3 spells but you won't find level 4 spells) should see the game fine.

[JackPhoenix]

There's a class feature that says you can copy a spell. If the DM knows he intends to not provide the opportunity to use that future, IMO, he should put that out up front.

Why should he? What if the GM runs a module and there just aren't any wizard spell scrolls available? What if the GM uses the crappy "spellcasters" from MotM that don't have spellbooks? What if the GM uses random tables to generate treasures and just never rolls a wizard scroll? Does the GM need to inform the player who wants to play a druid there won't be opportunities to use Druidic too? Or that there won't be any effects that would try to cause a monk to age magically? Because those are also class features.

[Sigreid]

Why should he? What if the GM runs a module and there just aren't any wizard spell scrolls available? What if the GM uses the crappy "spellcasters" from MotM that don't have spellbooks? What if the GM uses random tables to generate treasures and just never rolls a wizard scroll? Does the GM need to inform the player who wants to play a druid there won't be opportunities to use Druidic too? Or that there won't be any effects that would try to cause a monk to age magically? Because those are also class features.

My statement is specifically in regard to a DM that has the opinion that wizards get enough spells when levelling up and knows he has NO intention of making any additional spells available and already knows he will not ever make a scroll or book available that can be copied. Not at all talking about it just doesn't come up, but the conscious decision at the start that it's not a thing.

[ff7hero]

Wrong edition. (Unless the DM sets up ye olde magicke shoppe)

Or is using the Xanathar's Magic Item shopping rules, which are clunky as all get out but do exist.

[Jervis]

Or is using the Xanathar's Magic Item shopping rules, which are clunky as all get out but do exist.

Has anyone made good magic item pricing and creation rules for 5e? I’ve been considering just using 3.5 rules and tweaking the scaling to account for magic items being rarer but that sounds like a headache

[Tanarii]

I hope this is written in some official manual(s). But if not, I'm open to unofficial (sites/blogs/articles/videos) resources too.

Being so inexperienced, my DM fears everything that can unbalance the gameplay. So I really need a (semi-)authoritative source explaining that wizards work in this way.

DMG 135-149 has treasure tables. Scrolls are a found consumable magic item you can obtain through adventuring. You won't get many that way though, unless the DM is generous and chooses to make almost all found spell scrolls contain spells from the Wizard spell list, as opposed to ones not on the Wizard class spell list.

Xanathar's p126, optional rules for finding an purchasing magic items during downtime. This is probably your best bet, if you can convince the DM to use them. It takes considerable downtime though, and you probably want to invest in the Persuasion skill. Or task someone else in the party with obtaining scrolls for you.

[ff7hero]

Has anyone made good magic item pricing and creation rules for 5e? I’ve been considering just using 3.5 rules and tweaking the scaling to account for magic items being rarer but that sounds like a headache

There's Sane Magic Items and some other similar projects that have more recent content. None of them are perfect, but they provide a good starting point.

[JackPhoenix]

There's Sane Magic Items and some other similar projects that have more recent content. None of them are perfect, but they provide a good starting point.

He said good. "Sane" Magic Items Prices is just 3.5 magic item price table, which wasn't sane then, and it didn't get any better since.

[yisopo]

Thank you everyone for the precious inputs. Thanks to them, I was able to talk with my DM and I think it will be good for my wizard. I will see in the next months.

Anyway, I really would prefer a different mechanics for wizards, maybe just 5 spells when levelling up and nothing else...

[clash]

Thank you everyone for the precious inputs. Thanks to them, I was able to talk with my DM and I will be good for my wizard. I will see in the next months.

Anyway, I really would prefer a different mechanics for wizards, maybe just 5 spells when levelling up and nothing else...

2 per level is the balance point as far as I'm concerned. Without any scrolls to copy you still get over 40 as compared to the next arcane class with the most aka bard sitting at 26 with magical secrets included. Any scrolls you get are bonuses above the class balance point which is why they cost time and money to copy. 5 per level would be completely redicoulous and removes and remaining notion of theme the wizard still has.

[yisopo]

2 per level is the balance point as far as I'm concerned. Without any scrolls to copy you still get over 40 as compared to the next arcane class with the most aka bard sitting at 26 with magical secrets included. Any scrolls you get are bonuses above the class balance point which is why they cost time and money to copy. 5 per level would be completely redicoulous and removes and remaining notion of theme the wizard still has.

I don't think comparing wizards with bards in this way would be useful. Otherwise, why not comparing wizards with clerics or druids?

[clash]

I don't think comparing wizards with bards in this way would be useful. Otherwise, why not comparing wizards with clerics or druids?

Wizards have an extremely versatile spell list with nearly all of the strongest spells in the game on their list and a spell to solve basically any problem. I compared them to bards add another arcane caster with incredible versatility and limited access to any work in the game. They also can ritual cast from their spellbook without preparing the spell making the spells known more valuable than for cleric or druid. They are both fair comparisons but given the above I think wizard should draw from a list of considering less than the cleric without heavy investment. Since the cleric pulls from a list of 113 give or take sourcebooks having a wizard with 100 spells in their book with no investment seems much to close to the clerics to account for the power disparity. I think 40 is reasonable given the spellbook theme of investment to gain more. If you really wanted more automatically rather than ditching the spellbook copying I would suggest building in a "find one or 2 spells to copy per level" automatically in addition to the spells learned. Keeps the theme but takes the onus off of the dm.

[yisopo]

Wizards have an extremely versatile spell list with nearly all of the strongest spells in the game on their list and a spell to solve basically any problem. I compared them to bards add another arcane caster with incredible versatility and limited access to any work in the game. They also can ritual cast from their spellbook without preparing the spell making the spells known more valuable than for cleric or druid. They are both fair comparisons but given the above I think wizard should draw from a list of considering less than the cleric without heavy investment. Since the cleric pulls from a list of 113 give or take sourcebooks having a wizard with 100 spells in their book with no investment seems much to close to the clerics to account for the power disparity. I think 40 is reasonable given the spellbook theme of investment to gain more. If you really wanted more automatically rather than ditching the spellbook copying I would suggest building in a "find one or 2 spells to copy per level" automatically in addition to the spells learned. Keeps the theme but takes the onus off of the dm.

But how many players play till level 20?

A level-10 wizard would know only 24 spells, whereas a level-10 druid knows 70/80 spells. But it is not only this. The biggest advantage is the number of known spell at their max level. At level 9, a wizard may know only 2 level-5 spells, whereas a druid knows around 15 of them. This is huge.

It is true that wizard has ritual casting and a more versatile spellset than druid and cleric. But druid can shapeshift and cleric can heal, tank and fight with weapons...

5 spells per level is too much? Maybe. 3 or 4 spells per level is better? What I'm saying is I would prefer to avoid DM choosing the number of spells a wizard have.

[Tanarii]

2 per level is the balance point as far as I'm concerned. Without any scrolls to copy you still get over 40 as compared to the next arcane class with the most aka bard sitting at 26 with magical secrets included. Any scrolls you get are bonuses above the class balance point which is why they cost time and money to copy. 5 per level would be completely redicoulous and removes and remaining notion of theme the wizard still has.

Agreed. 2 spells per level automatically is the baseline of what's needed. Arguably even a little high.

Found scrolls are gravy, and besides they're (by DMG default) both not all that common and not guaranteed to be a spell on the Wizard spell list. But they're balanced somewhat by coming out of the party's pile of consumables they are finding. Basically, the Wizard (and party as a whole) is giving up some other consumable for it,

The Xanathars rules for purchasing scrolls are a fairly large boost to a Wizard, if there's significant downtime in the campaign, but it's likewise balanced somewhat by the gold being used to purchase them not going to other magic items the Wizard could be purchasing using the same rules. It's an flat upgrade compared to gold not being usable for magic items, but somewhat internally balanced within the rule.

[Thrudd]

But how many players play till level 20?

A level-10 wizard would know only 24 spells, whereas a level-10 druid knows 70/80 spells. But it is not only this. The biggest advantage is the number of known spell at their max level. At level 9, a wizard may know only 2 level-5 spells, whereas a druid knows around 15 of them. This is huge.

It is true that wizard has ritual casting and a more versatile spellset than druid and cleric. But druid can shapeshift and cleric can heal, tank and fight with weapons...

5 spells per level is too much? Maybe. 3 or 4 spells per level is better? What I'm saying is I would prefer to avoid DM choosing the number of spells a wizard have.

I'd be ok giving a wizard 1 or 2 extra random spells per level, following appropriate down time, from a cultivated subset of "utility" spells. The list would be those spells with generally more niche uses, maybe those agreed on as "lower tier" choices. The random element represents the idea that the wizard can't completely control what they were able to find in libraries or cajole other wizards to let them copy, and also contributes to the feel of wizards as collectors of obscure knowledge. I'm undecided on whether the random spell should always be of the highest level available to the wizard, or any spell level available. This would be in lieu of allowing wizards to purchase scrolls. If purchasing scrolls was allowed, I would randomly decide what spells were available to the wizard during any given downtime period, and make sure they had the opportunity to get enough gold to afford at least one scroll at each level.

[KorvinStarmast]

Has anyone made good magic item pricing and creation rules for 5e? I’ve been considering just using 3.5 rules and tweaking the scaling to account for magic items being rarer but that sounds like a headache

The Xanathar's creation rules are good enough if you want to have enough down time to do that.

Thank you everyone for the precious inputs. Thanks to them, I was able to talk with my DM and I think it will be good for my wizard. I will see in the next months.

Have fun!

[TaiLiu]

Arguably a DM who never drops a scroll or book opportunity has decided to deny one of the key class features. That can be OK, but I think the DM should be up front about that at the start before you commit to wizard.

I guess I've never really considered it a key class feature when I played Wizards. It sounds like it is for you. So it would make sense to check with the DM.

Its a class feature. It doesn't follow its a key class feature.

Right! It's a cool thing that Wizards can do. But the Wizard can do many cool things.

[Sigreid]

I guess I've never really considered it a key class feature when I played Wizards. It sounds like it is for you. So it would make sense to check with the DM.


Right! It's a cool thing that Wizards can do. But the Wizard can do many cool things.

When I make a wizard, the acquisition of spells/magic knowledge is often or you could say usually their key motivation for adventuring. So, if that isn't a thing in a campaign, yes, I think that should be stated up front. It doesn't mean spells have to drop like raindrops from the sky just like every session, or every second of any session has to center around my character.

[Segev]

I'd be ok giving a wizard 1 or 2 extra random spells per level, following appropriate down time, from a cultivated subset of "utility" spells. The list would be those spells with generally more niche uses, maybe those agreed on as "lower tier" choices. The random element represents the idea that the wizard can't completely control what they were able to find in libraries or cajole other wizards to let them copy, and also contributes to the feel of wizards as collectors of obscure knowledge. I'm undecided on whether the random spell should always be of the highest level available to the wizard, or any spell level available. This would be in lieu of allowing wizards to purchase scrolls. If purchasing scrolls was allowed, I would randomly decide what spells were available to the wizard during any given downtime period, and make sure they had the opportunity to get enough gold to afford at least one scroll at each level.

I mean, as a DM, that'd be one way to just use the rules that already exist for wizards. Pick or randomly determine what spells they can find.

Heck, again, XGE's downtime rules have rules for research and for buying magic items. Buying a spell is no harder than buying a scroll, and if you want to make it easier, you can.

[Thrudd]

I mean, as a DM, that'd be one way to just use the rules that already exist for wizards. Pick or randomly determine what spells they can find.

Heck, again, XGE's downtime rules have rules for research and for buying magic items. Buying a spell is no harder than buying a scroll, and if you want to make it easier, you can.

Yeah, I guess it's a suggestion for the DM concerned about too much power for the wizard, offering an idea how they might apply and modify the existing rules. The part about dividing the spells into a list of the most universally useful/powerful and those with more niche utility is not in the books, nor have I seen any tables in the books that give you an easy way to randomly select spells that will be found- that's something the DM would need to create (I imagine a lot of people have already done so).

[TaiLiu]

So, if that isn't a thing in a campaign, yes, I think that should be stated up front.

Maybe. But since it's such an important motivation, I'm saying that you ought to check with the DM about that instead of assuming that's what you can do.

[Sigreid]

Maybe. But since it's such an important motivation, I'm saying that you ought to check with the DM about that instead of assuming that's what you can do.

In practice I don't need to as I've been with the same group for decades. I still would say that it's a reasonable basic game assumption so I'd expect a DM that is going to stray away from that should mention it when he is describing the setting/what the game is about.

[Rukelnikov]

Related to these last comments, do you think if a DM plans not to give magic items that they should state that in session zero?

[Sigreid]

Related to these last comments, do you think if a DM plans not to give magic items that they should state that in session zero?

As in no magic items ever? Yep. I do.

[Psyren]

As in no magic items ever? Yep. I do.

As would I, since they're running contrary to the game assumption clearly stated on DMG 37.