What would be your thoughts on allowing a wizard in a specialised Arcane Tradition (like Conjuration etc) have an improved version of the Savant feature? What I could never understand is why a specialist in a school of magic cannot learn some iconic spells of that school just because they're more common to other classes. For example: why can't an Enchantment-specialist learn Command? Why can't a Necromancer learn Speak With Dead (which, historically, is the most defining necromancy spell - since necromancy by origin wasn't raising the dead it was just communing with them to learn secrets)?
I would imagine a change like the following:
"Beginning when you select this school at 2nd level, the gold and time you must spend to copy an abjuration spell from the wizard spell list into your spellbook is halved. Additionally, you can copy spells of this school from other spell lists but the time and gold required for copying these spells is not halved."
You can always extend exceptions, like healing for Evocation or Resurrection for Necromancy if you want to avoid stepping on the cleric/druid toes - although the Divine Soul subclass for Sorcerer freely lets you without this becoming imbalanced, so is it really that bad if a wizard did?
In games we often separate "divine" and "arcane" magic, but in D&D 5th edition this distinction doesn't actually exist and all of magic is connected and ruled by the same goddess. So, there's no lore-breaking either.
Would this be an accepting house-rule for Wizards to use?
I would allow that as a house rule for a specialist wizard, yeah, I personally don't see that as too game breaking. Though, you might have to consider some of the higher level possibilities first to make sure they are not going to abuse something like swift quiver from ranger or other class specific iconic spells that would come much faster class level wise for a wizard than the class like ranger would normally get. Bards get around this with magical secrets, so this basically has the potential to make a level 2 class feature the same power level (and any time use) as that feature.
I don't know about how balanced it would be. That's beyond my experience level. However, I am curious how a wizard would find a bunch of cleric, druid, ranger, or paladin spells written down in the first place. My understanding is that most of them just appeal to deities for spells, so there is no reason to write spells down. Also, if it takes an Arcana check to even create magical scrolls, that removes most non-Intelligence-heavy classes from making more than a couple due to the cost and high likelihood of failure. If you care about lore, then you would probably want to also create a justification for finding non-Wizard-spell scrolls when this is the case.
I did wonder about this when I made my Fire Genasi Divination Wizard to realise that there are really very few Divination spells for a Wizard. It was disappointing and it would be nice to be able to learn some of the Cleric or Druid ones.
The concept of class spell lists, for the most part, makes no sense. in the case of a tightly themed caster like a Druid, maybe (and how I think clerics SHOULD work, but I digress), but it makes no sense to me that a wizard can do basically anything EXCEPT heal.
In terms of power balance, this probably isn't too impacting. Wizards already have the largest spell list of any class, so what new spells this would make available probably won't overshadow a Wizard's existing choices, nor would it change the number of spells you can prepare each day anyhow.
You mention things like resurrection and healing, and that's probably a bigger concern. There are thematic areas belonging to each class, and although a character who straddles those lines can be interesting, it can also step on the toes of a player who sticks to the thematic cores of, say, a druid or a paladin. This also diminishes the features of a Theurgist Wizard or a Bard with Magical Secrets by giving away part of what makes them special.
Now if none of the above is particularly concerning to you, then by all means.
I mean, if the players at your table are fine with Wizards being able to learn anything, then obviously it's fine and go ahead and do it.
I was wondering, as a point of clarification - A Wizard would only be able to learn these spells from spell scrolls or training, and not from the 2 they get each level, correct?
Personally, I think that's fine. But, again, I think it depends on how the group feels about it.
The concept of class spell lists, for the most part, makes no sense. in the case of a tightly themed caster like a Druid, maybe (and how I think clerics SHOULD work, but I digress), but it makes no sense to me that a wizard can do basically anything EXCEPT heal.
Well, according to the lore, the spell lists are different because their source is different. Deities are a real entities in D&D lore, not just myth. Remember that spontaneous casting also did not used to be a thing that Wizards could do. They had to memorize what spells they could cast for the day from their spellbook and could only cast those spells a number of times that they had memorized them. 5th edition changed that so that now most casters choose their between-long rest spells in a similar way. This also incidentally made Sorcerers less distinctive b/c that used to be their appeal: cast Wizardly spells in any combination.
The concept of class spell lists, for the most part, makes no sense. in the case of a tightly themed caster like a Druid, maybe (and how I think clerics SHOULD work, but I digress), but it makes no sense to me that a wizard can do basically anything EXCEPT heal.
Well, according to the lore, the spell lists are different because their source is different. Deities are a real entities in D&D lore, not just myth. Remember that spontaneous casting also did not used to be a thing that Wizards could do. They had to memorize what spells they could cast for the day from their spellbook and could only cast those spells a number of times that they had memorized them. 5th edition changed that so that now most casters choose their between-long rest spells in a similar way. This also incidentally made Sorcerers less distinctive b/c that used to be their appeal: cast Wizardly spells in any combination.
Not to mention Sorcerers are still saddled with a very tight limit on the number of spells that they can actually know, and the total pool of sorcery points is a tad low. I don't think anything is particularly wrong with Sorcerer, but use that as a comparison when considering the relative value of Wizard's current state. Wizards are more than fine in their current state.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The concept of class spell lists, for the most part, makes no sense. in the case of a tightly themed caster like a Druid, maybe (and how I think clerics SHOULD work, but I digress), but it makes no sense to me that a wizard can do basically anything EXCEPT heal.
Well, according to the lore, the spell lists are different because their source is different.
The thing is, I can see no reason why a wizard couldn't do the same thing in a different way. I can make soup on the stove or in a microwave, but either way, I'm still making soup. And, if healing is supposed to be a non-arcane thing, why can bards do it?
I think I would treat this as a no, however, I would work with a player/DM to craft a magic item that could cast the spell. ring of command, potion of speak with dead. that sort of thing.
I don't know about how balanced it would be. That's beyond my experience level. However, I am curious how a wizard would find a bunch of cleric, druid, ranger, or paladin spells written down in the first place. My understanding is that most of them just appeal to deities for spells, so there is no reason to write spells down. Also, if it takes an Arcana check to even create magical scrolls, that removes most non-Intelligence-heavy classes from making more than a couple due to the cost and high likelihood of failure. If you care about lore, then you would probably want to also create a justification for finding non-Wizard-spell scrolls when this is the case.
An Arcana check is an optional rule presented in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. In the Dungeon Master's Guide there is no check and it does not rely on any specific skill: any character can make a scroll by spending time and gold in downtime to craft it. All spellcasters can craft and benefit from scrolls to expand what spells they have available without using up preparation limits or spell slots.
Also, any character can obtain Arcana proficiency through background, training or other means. And there is an optional rule DMs can use to let you use a different ability modifier but still benefit from proficiency: like a Strength (Intimidation) check or Wisdom (Arcana) check, letting the spellcaster use their spellcasting ability.
So, yes, there would quite feasibly be scrolls of a variety of cleric and druid spells.
If that doesn't strike your fancy then maybe let the wizard choose the spells as part of the 2-free-per-level spells they get on level up? I just mention it being part of the savant feature as a way to balance it. Perhaps the player can choose to get one non-wizard spell instead of the 2 wizard ones when they level up?
What way do you think would be a balanced way to introduce this?
I would allow that as a house rule for a specialist wizard, yeah, I personally don't see that as too game breaking. Though, you might have to consider some of the higher level possibilities first to make sure they are not going to abuse something like swift quiver from ranger or other class specific iconic spells that would come much faster class level wise for a wizard than the class like ranger would normally get. Bards get around this with magical secrets, so this basically has the potential to make a level 2 class feature the same power level (and any time use) as that feature.
Rangers get their spells later to balance their many class and subclass features. Even without spells rangers have a lot to offer. My party's dread ambusher ranger keeps forgetting they even have spells beyond hunter's mark because they're too busy slashing away as a damage-dealing nightmare. And the hunter's mark spell itself isn't a big thing either, since in combat it is overshadowed by Hex which is similar and warlocks gets to start with that at level 1, as can any variant human taking magic initiate warlock. Bard's magical secrets is more powerful than what I'm suggesting, as they would not be limited to any specific school of magic.
In terms of power balance, this probably isn't too impacting. Wizards already have the largest spell list of any class, so what new spells this would make available probably won't overshadow a Wizard's existing choices, nor would it change the number of spells you can prepare each day anyhow.
You mention things like resurrection and healing, and that's probably a bigger concern. There are thematic areas belonging to each class, and although a character who straddles those lines can be interesting, it can also step on the toes of a player who sticks to the thematic cores of, say, a druid or a paladin. This also diminishes the features of a Theurgist Wizard or a Bard with Magical Secrets by giving away part of what makes them special.
Now if none of the above is particularly concerning to you, then by all means.
I mention resurrection and healing only to say this proposed feature may restrict them: as in, cannot be learned by the Wizard for precisely the reason you're advising: to not step on the toes of other classes based around them. I don't know about Theurgist wizards: they're not an official class and of no concern to me in this instance. As for Paladin, I doubt a Wizard being able to use Command or Speak With Dead or even Find Greater Steed would diminish the Paladin's core purpose of megaton-holy-bombing enemies twice a turn with divine smites alongside the many other features that make them a mary-sue-bane-to-all-DMs class. They're fine. You could let the wizard get access to all spells of any class and the Paladin would be still the annoying smite-athon Paladin I loathe oh so much (double-critted my dragon with divine smites and ends the entire boss battle on quite literally the first turn like an annoying motherfu---... *sighs* Moving on...). Bard's magical secrets lets them take spells from any spell class, of any school, without any cost or downside (and Lore bards gets extras that don't even count against spells known!) while what I'm suggesting for a Wizard still involves some cost to using it and is limited to a specific school and with restrictions in place in some cases like healing or resurrection). I fail to see how it diminishes the Bard's magical secrets which still remains superior. A bard's spell list is much less than a wizards to counterbalance the many features it has and this makes magical secrets more impactful. For the wizard what I suggest is adding a few extra spell choices that are more appropriate for their tradition: because seriously, there's been some oversights in that department. Clerics, Warlocks, Paladins, Druids all get subclass extra spells frequently from the wizard spell list that they get to add for free - is it really that unbalanced for the wizard to do something similar at a cost?
I mean, if the players at your table are fine with Wizards being able to learn anything, then obviously it's fine and go ahead and do it.
I was wondering, as a point of clarification - A Wizard would only be able to learn these spells from spell scrolls or training, and not from the 2 they get each level, correct?
Personally, I think that's fine. But, again, I think it depends on how the group feels about it.
I'm not suggesting Wizards learn anything. I'm suggesting Wizards who have become specialists, experts, in a particular type of magic should be able to learn more spells in that type (school) and even then for some there may be restrictions as appropriate.
I was intending for this to be a scroll thing to have some cost to it for balance purposes but I'm interested in other ideas on this.
I already know my own group wouldn't give a shit - it's not a gamebreaking thing and don't care at all about which class gets to cast which spell so that's not a thing. I just want to discuss this more with the community as a whole and see what everyone's opinions are about it, and to wonder if I'm alone in this slight annoyance of not getting to make a truly thematic wizard without having to compromise due to odd decisions made by designers.
Wizards are more than fine in their current state.
I do agree for the most part. I love playing wizards. But I just cannot fathom why my necromancer cannot cast the most defining Necromancy spell in existence: Speak With Dead, it is very literally the definition of Necromancy (by origin of the term). Or why can't my divination wizard, find an object (Locate Object) or check their course of action (Augury) or help with navigation like Find The Path? It seems most of a Wizard's divination is them being voyeurs, and all the other interesting Divination cannot be learned by Diviners... And so on. It just annoys a little when making a character who is a specialist - somebody who has dedicated their academic careers or even their whole lives into a specific field of study is outshined in that field by the hippie treehuggers and preachers, many of which get to cast Wizard spells though through their class/subclass features.
My intention is not to make a wizard "better", just see how we can get the thematic specialists actually be, ya know, specialists in the chosen school of magic in a way that remains balanced.
It seems to me that you're arguing that wizards should be able to learn literally any spell by proper choice of focus. After all, a Wizard could choose any school of magic for their arcane tradition, and you're claiming that means they should be able to learn any spell of any class in that school, so a wizard would literally be able to learn any spell in the game.
I don't think that's gamebreaking - Wizards already have a wide range of spells, and making that a little wider probably doesn't change much balance-wise. But I do think it's less thematic, not more. Right now different classes have different enough spell lists that each can do something the others can't. It definitely "feels" quite different when you're fighting alongside different types of spellcasters. I don't think "Wizard focusing on divination" necessarily means they should be able to cast other classes' divination spells (or necromancy, or evocation, or the other schools). As you said - "divination" for wizards isn't the same as "divination" for clerics and so on and so forth.
The question for "why can't your necromancer cast Speak with Dead" or "why can't my Diviner cast Augury" is the same as the answer to the general question "Why do different classes have different spell lists?"
If someone at my table really really wanted some out-of-class spell I'd probably have that as a quest reward or something, I wouldn't have anything against it, but I wouldn't make that a default.
Rangers get their spells later to balance their many class and subclass features. Even without spells rangers have a lot to offer. My party's dread ambusher ranger keeps forgetting they even have spells beyond hunter's mark because they're too busy slashing away as a damage-dealing nightmare. And the hunter's mark spell itself isn't a big thing either, since in combat it is overshadowed by Hex which is similar and warlocks gets to start with that at level 1, as can any variant human taking magic initiate warlock. Bard's magical secrets is more powerful than what I'm suggesting, as they would not be limited to any specific school of magic.
In terms of power balance, this probably isn't too impacting. Wizards already have the largest spell list of any class, so what new spells this would make available probably won't overshadow a Wizard's existing choices, nor would it change the number of spells you can prepare each day anyhow.
You mention things like resurrection and healing, and that's probably a bigger concern. There are thematic areas belonging to each class, and although a character who straddles those lines can be interesting, it can also step on the toes of a player who sticks to the thematic cores of, say, a druid or a paladin. This also diminishes the features of a Theurgist Wizard or a Bard with Magical Secrets by giving away part of what makes them special.
Now if none of the above is particularly concerning to you, then by all means.
I mention resurrection and healing only to say this proposed feature may restrict them: as in, cannot be learned by the Wizard for precisely the reason you're advising: to not step on the toes of other classes based around them. I don't know about Theurgist wizards: they're not an official class and of no concern to me in this instance. As for Paladin, I doubt a Wizard being able to use Command or Speak With Dead or even Find Greater Steed would diminish the Paladin's core purpose of megaton-holy-bombing enemies twice a turn with divine smites alongside the many other features that make them a mary-sue-bane-to-all-DMs class. They're fine. You could let the wizard get access to all spells of any class and the Paladin would be still the annoying smite-athon Paladin I loathe oh so much (double-critted my dragon with divine smites and ends the entire boss battle on quite literally the first turn like an annoying motherfu---... *sighs* Moving on...). Bard's magical secrets lets them take spells from any spell class, of any school, without any cost or downside (and Lore bards gets extras that don't even count against spells known!) while what I'm suggesting for a Wizard still involves some cost to using it and is limited to a specific school and with restrictions in place in some cases like healing or resurrection). I fail to see how it diminishes the Bard's magical secrets which still remains superior. A bard's spell list is much less than a wizards to counterbalance the many features it has and this makes magical secrets more impactful. For the wizard what I suggest is adding a few extra spell choices that are more appropriate for their tradition: because seriously, there's been some oversights in that department. Clerics, Warlocks, Paladins, Druids all get subclass extra spells frequently from the wizard spell list that they get to add for free - is it really that unbalanced for the wizard to do something similar at a cost?
I'm not suggesting Wizards learn anything. I'm suggesting Wizards who have become specialists, experts, in a particular type of magic should be able to learn more spells in that type (school) and even then for some there may be restrictions as appropriate.
I was intending for this to be a scroll thing to have some cost to it for balance purposes but I'm interested in other ideas on this.
I already know my own group wouldn't give a shit - it's not a gamebreaking thing and don't care at all about which class gets to cast which spell so that's not a thing. I just want to discuss this more with the community as a whole and see what everyone's opinions are about it, and to wonder if I'm alone in this slight annoyance of not getting to make a truly thematic wizard without having to compromise due to odd decisions made by designers.
Wizards are more than fine in their current state.
I do agree for the most part. I love playing wizards. But I just cannot fathom why my necromancer cannot cast the most defining Necromancy spell in existence: Speak With Dead, it is very literally the definition of Necromancy (by origin of the term). Or why can't my divination wizard, find an object (Locate Object) or check their course of action (Augury) or help with navigation like Find The Path? It seems most of a Wizard's divination is them being voyeurs, and all the other interesting Divination cannot be learned by Diviners... And so on. It just annoys a little when making a character who is a specialist - somebody who has dedicated their academic careers or even their whole lives into a specific field of study is outshined in that field by the hippie treehuggers and preachers, many of which get to cast Wizard spells though through their class/subclass features.
My intention is not to make a wizard "better", just see how we can get the thematic specialists actually be, ya know, specialists in the chosen school of magic in a way that remains balanced.
Oh. Right. Now that you bring up the Ranger, I would be a kind of bothered if Wizards could just learn any Ranger spell or any Paladin spell. Especially if those Wizards happen to be Bladesingers or War Mages. Both those sub-classes get some really sweet concentration goodies that PHB Ranger probably should have received to balance their emphasis on concentration spells+gishiness (sorry, made that word up).
Now, if you were to restrict it to a Divination Wizard getting divination school spells from the Cleric list or Conjuration Wizards getting spells from the Druid list, I would be okay with that provided that A) your GM makes their scrolls available to you (and like I said, I don't know too many Rangers or Paladins that would bother making scrolls due to how they learn them and their general non-bookishness) and B) it should cost extra gold to be able to do so, between 1.5 to 2X the normal cost. Or instead of B, I would also be okay with C) take at least 1 level in the class you want to get spells from to indicate you have some modicum of training in that class's spells.
I agree with you on theme spells to some degree. Necromancer Wizards definitely should have gotten Speak with Dead automatically. Diviner's should have gotten one or two of the Cleric divination spells. If I were DM, I would just handwave that to be okay. I think this did not happen with the Wizard sub-classes b/c, to most players, they have hands down, the most flexible spell list of all the classes. They have control spells, direct damage spells, info-gathering spells, and a few buffs/debuffs.
From an RP perspective (especially with the examples you gave for Necromancer and Divination specialists) I totally agree. I just think some care should be given to the consideration of the entire list of spells in each case from a mechanics side of things for each of the specialist schools to see what they might get access to that they wouldn't normally and when.
On the whole the change as a concept is pretty solid and thematic, and I'd likely allow it in my games.
What would be your thoughts on allowing a wizard in a specialised Arcane Tradition (like Conjuration etc) have an improved version of the Savant feature? What I could never understand is why a specialist in a school of magic cannot learn some iconic spells of that school just because they're more common to other classes. For example: why can't an Enchantment-specialist learn Command? Why can't a Necromancer learn Speak With Dead (which, historically, is the most defining necromancy spell - since necromancy by origin wasn't raising the dead it was just communing with them to learn secrets)?
I would imagine a change like the following:
"Beginning when you select this school at 2nd level, the gold and time you must spend to copy an abjuration spell from the wizard spell list into your spellbook is halved. Additionally, you can copy spells of this school from other spell lists but the time and gold required for copying these spells is not halved."
You can always extend exceptions, like healing for Evocation or Resurrection for Necromancy if you want to avoid stepping on the cleric/druid toes - although the Divine Soul subclass for Sorcerer freely lets you without this becoming imbalanced, so is it really that bad if a wizard did?
In games we often separate "divine" and "arcane" magic, but in D&D 5th edition this distinction doesn't actually exist and all of magic is connected and ruled by the same goddess. So, there's no lore-breaking either.
Would this be an accepting house-rule for Wizards to use?
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I would allow that as a house rule for a specialist wizard, yeah, I personally don't see that as too game breaking. Though, you might have to consider some of the higher level possibilities first to make sure they are not going to abuse something like swift quiver from ranger or other class specific iconic spells that would come much faster class level wise for a wizard than the class like ranger would normally get. Bards get around this with magical secrets, so this basically has the potential to make a level 2 class feature the same power level (and any time use) as that feature.
I would change the feature so you can copy any spell but no spells are halved in gold and time ( even wizard spells).
I don't know about how balanced it would be. That's beyond my experience level. However, I am curious how a wizard would find a bunch of cleric, druid, ranger, or paladin spells written down in the first place. My understanding is that most of them just appeal to deities for spells, so there is no reason to write spells down. Also, if it takes an Arcana check to even create magical scrolls, that removes most non-Intelligence-heavy classes from making more than a couple due to the cost and high likelihood of failure. If you care about lore, then you would probably want to also create a justification for finding non-Wizard-spell scrolls when this is the case.
I did wonder about this when I made my Fire Genasi Divination Wizard to realise that there are really very few Divination spells for a Wizard. It was disappointing and it would be nice to be able to learn some of the Cleric or Druid ones.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The concept of class spell lists, for the most part, makes no sense. in the case of a tightly themed caster like a Druid, maybe (and how I think clerics SHOULD work, but I digress), but it makes no sense to me that a wizard can do basically anything EXCEPT heal.
In terms of power balance, this probably isn't too impacting. Wizards already have the largest spell list of any class, so what new spells this would make available probably won't overshadow a Wizard's existing choices, nor would it change the number of spells you can prepare each day anyhow.
You mention things like resurrection and healing, and that's probably a bigger concern. There are thematic areas belonging to each class, and although a character who straddles those lines can be interesting, it can also step on the toes of a player who sticks to the thematic cores of, say, a druid or a paladin. This also diminishes the features of a Theurgist Wizard or a Bard with Magical Secrets by giving away part of what makes them special.
Now if none of the above is particularly concerning to you, then by all means.
I mean, if the players at your table are fine with Wizards being able to learn anything, then obviously it's fine and go ahead and do it.
I was wondering, as a point of clarification - A Wizard would only be able to learn these spells from spell scrolls or training, and not from the 2 they get each level, correct?
Personally, I think that's fine. But, again, I think it depends on how the group feels about it.
Well, according to the lore, the spell lists are different because their source is different. Deities are a real entities in D&D lore, not just myth. Remember that spontaneous casting also did not used to be a thing that Wizards could do. They had to memorize what spells they could cast for the day from their spellbook and could only cast those spells a number of times that they had memorized them. 5th edition changed that so that now most casters choose their between-long rest spells in a similar way. This also incidentally made Sorcerers less distinctive b/c that used to be their appeal: cast Wizardly spells in any combination.
Not to mention Sorcerers are still saddled with a very tight limit on the number of spells that they can actually know, and the total pool of sorcery points is a tad low. I don't think anything is particularly wrong with Sorcerer, but use that as a comparison when considering the relative value of Wizard's current state. Wizards are more than fine in their current state.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The thing is, I can see no reason why a wizard couldn't do the same thing in a different way. I can make soup on the stove or in a microwave, but either way, I'm still making soup. And, if healing is supposed to be a non-arcane thing, why can bards do it?
Also, two words: White Mage.
I think I would treat this as a no, however, I would work with a player/DM to craft a magic item that could cast the spell. ring of command, potion of speak with dead. that sort of thing.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
An Arcana check is an optional rule presented in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. In the Dungeon Master's Guide there is no check and it does not rely on any specific skill: any character can make a scroll by spending time and gold in downtime to craft it. All spellcasters can craft and benefit from scrolls to expand what spells they have available without using up preparation limits or spell slots.
Also, any character can obtain Arcana proficiency through background, training or other means. And there is an optional rule DMs can use to let you use a different ability modifier but still benefit from proficiency: like a Strength (Intimidation) check or Wisdom (Arcana) check, letting the spellcaster use their spellcasting ability.
So, yes, there would quite feasibly be scrolls of a variety of cleric and druid spells.
If that doesn't strike your fancy then maybe let the wizard choose the spells as part of the 2-free-per-level spells they get on level up? I just mention it being part of the savant feature as a way to balance it. Perhaps the player can choose to get one non-wizard spell instead of the 2 wizard ones when they level up?
What way do you think would be a balanced way to introduce this?
Rangers get their spells later to balance their many class and subclass features. Even without spells rangers have a lot to offer. My party's dread ambusher ranger keeps forgetting they even have spells beyond hunter's mark because they're too busy slashing away as a damage-dealing nightmare. And the hunter's mark spell itself isn't a big thing either, since in combat it is overshadowed by Hex which is similar and warlocks gets to start with that at level 1, as can any variant human taking magic initiate warlock. Bard's magical secrets is more powerful than what I'm suggesting, as they would not be limited to any specific school of magic.
I mention resurrection and healing only to say this proposed feature may restrict them: as in, cannot be learned by the Wizard for precisely the reason you're advising: to not step on the toes of other classes based around them. I don't know about Theurgist wizards: they're not an official class and of no concern to me in this instance. As for Paladin, I doubt a Wizard being able to use Command or Speak With Dead or even Find Greater Steed would diminish the Paladin's core purpose of megaton-holy-bombing enemies twice a turn with divine smites alongside the many other features that make them a mary-sue-bane-to-all-DMs class. They're fine. You could let the wizard get access to all spells of any class and the Paladin would be still the annoying smite-athon Paladin I loathe oh so much (double-critted my dragon with divine smites and ends the entire boss battle on quite literally the first turn like an annoying motherfu---... *sighs* Moving on...). Bard's magical secrets lets them take spells from any spell class, of any school, without any cost or downside (and Lore bards gets extras that don't even count against spells known!) while what I'm suggesting for a Wizard still involves some cost to using it and is limited to a specific school and with restrictions in place in some cases like healing or resurrection). I fail to see how it diminishes the Bard's magical secrets which still remains superior. A bard's spell list is much less than a wizards to counterbalance the many features it has and this makes magical secrets more impactful. For the wizard what I suggest is adding a few extra spell choices that are more appropriate for their tradition: because seriously, there's been some oversights in that department. Clerics, Warlocks, Paladins, Druids all get subclass extra spells frequently from the wizard spell list that they get to add for free - is it really that unbalanced for the wizard to do something similar at a cost?
I'm not suggesting Wizards learn anything. I'm suggesting Wizards who have become specialists, experts, in a particular type of magic should be able to learn more spells in that type (school) and even then for some there may be restrictions as appropriate.
I was intending for this to be a scroll thing to have some cost to it for balance purposes but I'm interested in other ideas on this.
I already know my own group wouldn't give a shit - it's not a gamebreaking thing and don't care at all about which class gets to cast which spell so that's not a thing. I just want to discuss this more with the community as a whole and see what everyone's opinions are about it, and to wonder if I'm alone in this slight annoyance of not getting to make a truly thematic wizard without having to compromise due to odd decisions made by designers.
I do agree for the most part. I love playing wizards. But I just cannot fathom why my necromancer cannot cast the most defining Necromancy spell in existence: Speak With Dead, it is very literally the definition of Necromancy (by origin of the term). Or why can't my divination wizard, find an object (Locate Object) or check their course of action (Augury) or help with navigation like Find The Path? It seems most of a Wizard's divination is them being voyeurs, and all the other interesting Divination cannot be learned by Diviners... And so on. It just annoys a little when making a character who is a specialist - somebody who has dedicated their academic careers or even their whole lives into a specific field of study is outshined in that field by the hippie treehuggers and preachers, many of which get to cast Wizard spells though through their class/subclass features.
My intention is not to make a wizard "better", just see how we can get the thematic specialists actually be, ya know, specialists in the chosen school of magic in a way that remains balanced.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
It seems to me that you're arguing that wizards should be able to learn literally any spell by proper choice of focus. After all, a Wizard could choose any school of magic for their arcane tradition, and you're claiming that means they should be able to learn any spell of any class in that school, so a wizard would literally be able to learn any spell in the game.
I don't think that's gamebreaking - Wizards already have a wide range of spells, and making that a little wider probably doesn't change much balance-wise. But I do think it's less thematic, not more. Right now different classes have different enough spell lists that each can do something the others can't. It definitely "feels" quite different when you're fighting alongside different types of spellcasters. I don't think "Wizard focusing on divination" necessarily means they should be able to cast other classes' divination spells (or necromancy, or evocation, or the other schools). As you said - "divination" for wizards isn't the same as "divination" for clerics and so on and so forth.
The question for "why can't your necromancer cast Speak with Dead" or "why can't my Diviner cast Augury" is the same as the answer to the general question "Why do different classes have different spell lists?"
If someone at my table really really wanted some out-of-class spell I'd probably have that as a quest reward or something, I wouldn't have anything against it, but I wouldn't make that a default.
Oh. Right. Now that you bring up the Ranger, I would be a kind of bothered if Wizards could just learn any Ranger spell or any Paladin spell. Especially if those Wizards happen to be Bladesingers or War Mages. Both those sub-classes get some really sweet concentration goodies that PHB Ranger probably should have received to balance their emphasis on concentration spells+gishiness (sorry, made that word up).
Now, if you were to restrict it to a Divination Wizard getting divination school spells from the Cleric list or Conjuration Wizards getting spells from the Druid list, I would be okay with that provided that A) your GM makes their scrolls available to you (and like I said, I don't know too many Rangers or Paladins that would bother making scrolls due to how they learn them and their general non-bookishness) and B) it should cost extra gold to be able to do so, between 1.5 to 2X the normal cost. Or instead of B, I would also be okay with C) take at least 1 level in the class you want to get spells from to indicate you have some modicum of training in that class's spells.
I agree with you on theme spells to some degree. Necromancer Wizards definitely should have gotten Speak with Dead automatically. Diviner's should have gotten one or two of the Cleric divination spells. If I were DM, I would just handwave that to be okay. I think this did not happen with the Wizard sub-classes b/c, to most players, they have hands down, the most flexible spell list of all the classes. They have control spells, direct damage spells, info-gathering spells, and a few buffs/debuffs.
From an RP perspective (especially with the examples you gave for Necromancer and Divination specialists) I totally agree. I just think some care should be given to the consideration of the entire list of spells in each case from a mechanics side of things for each of the specialist schools to see what they might get access to that they wouldn't normally and when.
On the whole the change as a concept is pretty solid and thematic, and I'd likely allow it in my games.
Take away some spells from the Wizard spell list and I'll allow it. Wizards already have a huge advantage over other casters with their list.
Watch out! It's the Fiddle Diddler!