I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
As a party progresses from first to 20th level if the spellcasters are meant to be inherently more powerful then what will happen is that players who are not playing spellcasters will tend to get their characters killed and will change to spellcasters.
You will end up at 20th level with 95% of your players playing spellcasters that's a loss of diversity in the party and more importantly, it's a loss of diversity in the role-playing. That's a bad thing.
And the only argument to do that is so that you get a longer stroke on your ego *********ion
In the 5 campaigns I've been in that have seen level 20, I've been the only spellcaster in the group for 3 of them, and in all of them more than half the party were martial classes.
So, going to have to disagree with your view from personal experience. I've yet to be in any campaign for any edition (or any TTRPG either) where anybody was remotely concerned with "i Am Powerful!! Rarrh" - it's always been "ooh, this looks interesting, I'm gonna play as this". So, while I know there are powergamers out there I have yet to really play with any, so it seems you've just had some bad luck with players, I guess?
Why is anyone even concerned about comparing a wizard to a fighter or how balanced they are? It's irrelevant to the entire conversation of just how many spells wizards should find since the game is a cooperative game and not a PVP competition. The fighters job is to beat things with a stick and do lots of damage while the wizard is the Utility jack-of-all-trades spell caster. Neither role is more important than the other, just different and should complement each other. The game is meant to be about having fun and not who is more powerful.
I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
Why do you think that Clerics have a weaker spell list than wizards? Clerics don't have a weaker spell list, they just have a spell list intended for different roles than the wizards which it fills wonderfully. That doesn't make them weaker, just different.
Keeping the different player's characters balanced with one another( and the party as a whole balanced with the encounters the GM wants to run) is the one and only reason why characters should get anything
Keeping the different player's characters balanced with one another( and the party as a whole damaged with the encounters the GM wants to run) is the one and only reason why characters should get anything
I think we have different views on balance.
My 20th level Wizard has often been outshined in combat by Barbs, Fighter and even a Monk. I shined better out of combat. "You hit things, I'll cover our transport, safe space to sleep and basically everything else." It was a beneficial arrangement.
I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
Why do you think that Clerics have a weaker spell list than wizards? Clerics don't have a weaker spell list, they just have a spell list intended for different roles than the wizards which it fills wonderfully. That doesn't make them weaker, just different.
Wizards have (to whatever extent) better spells than clerics. Something has to balance with the clerics armour proficiency and higher hit points. Wizard subclasses are generally strong though. That's the way they were written. It's still a DM's choice whether to give access to further spells.
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
Why do you think that Clerics have a weaker spell list than wizards? Clerics don't have a weaker spell list, they just have a spell list intended for different roles than the wizards which it fills wonderfully. That doesn't make them weaker, just different.
Wizards have (to whatever extent) better spells than clerics. Something has to balance with the clerics armour proficiency and higher hit points. Wizard subclasses are generally strong though. That's the way they were written. It's still a DM's choice whether to give access to further spells.
I do admit that there is a strong argument for this and actually agree with it for the most part, but I still think that their spell list is just different in it's purpose but not actually worse. Each spell list is made to fit a different play style with its strengths and weakness. The clerics while it has some weakness in spots also has strengths that meshes with their other class features that the wizards spell list can't touch. Both important and useful, just different.
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
An illusionist can create something that appears thin air.
A wizard can stop time
a wizard can cast a spell that causes everything in a country mile to be affected by fear
they can create entire planes of existence
they can create duplicates of anything as long as they have a piece of hair or skin sample
hell yeah, wizard spells are five times more powerful than clerical spells
I have no idea what you are trying to say there Wren. Are you trying to say that wizards with lots of spells are more powerful than martial characters (again)? If you think so then how do you feel about clerics? Check cybermind’s table - at L20 the cleric preps 35 spells out of over 200 known, the wizard preps 25 out of only 44 known by the “no scrolls etc “ rule. To simply make him lose to the cleric’s potential versatility he needs to learn between 93 and 160 spells to give them the same variability. That is between 4 and 9 spells from scrolls each level just to pace druids and clerics in breadth of choice. If clerics are balanced against fighters with 35 prepped spells out of 200 known then wizards with 44 known and 25 prepped are way behind - far weaker not stronger.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
Why do you think that Clerics have a weaker spell list than wizards? Clerics don't have a weaker spell list, they just have a spell list intended for different roles than the wizards which it fills wonderfully. That doesn't make them weaker, just different.
Wizards have (to whatever extent) better spells than clerics. Something has to balance with the clerics armour proficiency and higher hit points. Wizard subclasses are generally strong though. That's the way they were written. It's still a DM's choice whether to give access to further spells.
I do admit that there is a strong argument for this and actually agree with it for the most part, but I still think that their spell list is just different in it's purpose but not actually worse. Each spell list is made to fit a different play style with its strengths and weakness. The clerics while it has some weakness in spots also has strengths that meshes with their other class features that the wizards spell list can't touch. Both important and useful, just different.
I'm not really qualified to personally comment. YouTube's Dungeon Dudes are content producers who have expressed a lot of views on class and subclass comparisons. They view wizards as strong.
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
An illusionist can create something that appears thin air.
A wizard can stop time
a wizard can cast a spell check because everything in a country mile to be affected by fear
they can create entire planes of existence
they can create duplicates of anything as long as they have a piece of hair or skin sample
hell yeah, wizard spells are five times more powerful than clerical spells
My cleric, having cast Anti Magic Field, gives your Wizard a big hug.
Seriously though, i agree that wizard spells are more powerful, but five times?
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
An illusionist can create something that appears thin air.
A wizard can stop time
a wizard can cast a spell that causes everything in a country mile to be affected by fear
they can create entire planes of existence
they can create duplicates of anything as long as they have a piece of hair or skin sample
hell yeah, wizard spells are five times more powerful than clerical spells
And Clerics can heal entire armies at a time, bring people dead for hundreds of years back to life, or shake the very earth itself. So what? What are you expecting level 9 spells to do? It's not like all those spells you mentioned have no counter or weakness to them. No one is denying that wizards have good spells (still not 5x more powerful), but cherry-picking the best of their level 9 spells, which they don't even get access to until level 17, shouldn't mean that they should have their spell availability and class features neutered for their entire lifetime.
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
An illusionist can create something that appears thin air.
A wizard can stop time
a wizard can cast a spell that causes everything in a country mile to be affected by fear
they can create entire planes of existence
they can create duplicates of anything as long as they have a piece of hair or skin sample
hell yeah, wizard spells are five times more powerful than clerical spells
And Clerics can heal entire armies at a time, bring people dead for hundreds of years back to life, or shake the very earth itself. So what? What are you expecting level 9 spells to do? It's not like all those spells you mentioned have no counter or weakness to them. No one is denying that wizards have good spells (still not 5x more powerful), but cherry-picking the best of their level 9 spells, which they don't even get access to until level 17, shouldn't mean that they should have their spell availability and class features neutered for their entire lifetime.
Several of the examples that I posted are not ninth level spells I think you know that and you're just trying to be argumentative
Cleric’s can heal 700 Hp, raise the dead, resurrect folks etc, can wizards? As other folks have said they are different, not weaker or more powerful but focused into different things and different ways of thinking. Both are powerful - roughly equal but from very different places and very different goals.
Cleric’s can heal 700 Hp, raise the dead, resurrect folks etc, can wizards? As other folks have said they are different, not weaker or more powerful but focused into different things and different ways of thinking. Both are powerful - roughly equal but from very different places and very different goals.
Yes, Wizards can do all of that. And they can do all of that while casting just one spell that's not even 9th level
Cleric’s can heal 700 Hp, raise the dead, resurrect folks etc, can wizards? As other folks have said they are different, not weaker or more powerful but focused into different things and different ways of thinking. Both are powerful - roughly equal but from very different places and very different goals.
Yes, Wizards can do all of that. And they can do all of that while casting just one spell.
Ah, Wish. Something they do once and all this is over. But Clerics raise dead multiple times, heal lots more. And they can replicate 9th level or lower Cleric/Domain spells once a week for free with no downsides or costs (and being from a God bypasses Antimagic Fields and cannot be counterspelled).
Oh, whoops, there goes another false comparison from you. Oh dear.
Ah yes, the wish spell, duplicating the effects of any classes spells of L8- but not the L9 spells which is why we stuck with those for cleric, so how does a L17-20 cleric deal with wish? Why divine intervention of course at which point the deity or it’s avatar shows up and tells the wizard “I don’t think so” care to try me? Let’s stop trying to compare potatoes an grapefruits. The point isn’t which is more powerful but that the “Jack of All Trades” spellcaster - the wizard - can’t be that with just the free 6+2/L spells. To be that they have to have lots more spells to choose from to prepare and even more to scribe onto scrolls to carry around to use when needed but are not needed enough to ever prep. Prepping is for battle and surveillance spells mostly, rituals are never prepped since the wizard can do them from the spellbook, but many spells are fantastic in a particular situation but not worth prepping unless you know in advance you will HAVE TO have it, but you might discover you need it in the middle of an adventure and can’t wait to prep it tomorrow so a scroll of it is what you bring along. Since wizards are fairly common and most wizards should be operating this way if you defeat one and get their stuff you should get a trove of such spells even if they have their spellbook rigged for self destruct.
Clerics have weaker spells than Wizards. You have to compare the entire class I guess another entire class,the gestalt.
I'm struggling trying to understand why some of you think it makes sense to compare just the number of spells a cleric has versus the number of spells a wizard has without considering the relative strength of the spells each of them has or their class abilities
Wizards are less fun with fewer spells.
Don't struggle. Relax. Have a warm beverage.
Clerics have great spells!
In the 5 campaigns I've been in that have seen level 20, I've been the only spellcaster in the group for 3 of them, and in all of them more than half the party were martial classes.
So, going to have to disagree with your view from personal experience. I've yet to be in any campaign for any edition (or any TTRPG either) where anybody was remotely concerned with "i Am Powerful!! Rarrh" - it's always been "ooh, this looks interesting, I'm gonna play as this". So, while I know there are powergamers out there I have yet to really play with any, so it seems you've just had some bad luck with players, I guess?
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
Why is anyone even concerned about comparing a wizard to a fighter or how balanced they are? It's irrelevant to the entire conversation of just how many spells wizards should find since the game is a cooperative game and not a PVP competition. The fighters job is to beat things with a stick and do lots of damage while the wizard is the Utility jack-of-all-trades spell caster. Neither role is more important than the other, just different and should complement each other. The game is meant to be about having fun and not who is more powerful.
Why do you think that Clerics have a weaker spell list than wizards? Clerics don't have a weaker spell list, they just have a spell list intended for different roles than the wizards which it fills wonderfully. That doesn't make them weaker, just different.
Keeping the different player's characters balanced with one another( and the party as a whole balanced with the encounters the GM wants to run) is the one and only reason why characters should get anything
I think we have different views on balance.
My 20th level Wizard has often been outshined in combat by Barbs, Fighter and even a Monk. I shined better out of combat. "You hit things, I'll cover our transport, safe space to sleep and basically everything else." It was a beneficial arrangement.
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
Wizards have (to whatever extent) better spells than clerics.
Something has to balance with the clerics armour proficiency and higher hit points.
Wizard subclasses are generally strong though. That's the way they were written.
It's still a DM's choice whether to give access to further spells.
Do you really think that wizard spells are 5x more powerful than cleric spells so that 44 known spells is equal 209 known to choose from? Even if you feel they more powerful, wizards are typically supposed to have the variety of spells for every occasion, how does only having a choice of 44 spells vs the cleric’s 209 spells or the Druid’s 137 spells give them that variety? Without finding scrolls or acquiring access to spellbooks a wizard is never going to be more than a book bound sorceror.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I do admit that there is a strong argument for this and actually agree with it for the most part, but I still think that their spell list is just different in it's purpose but not actually worse. Each spell list is made to fit a different play style with its strengths and weakness. The clerics while it has some weakness in spots also has strengths that meshes with their other class features that the wizards spell list can't touch. Both important and useful, just different.
An illusionist can create something that appears thin air.
A wizard can stop time
a wizard can cast a spell that causes everything in a country mile to be affected by fear
they can create entire planes of existence
they can create duplicates of anything as long as they have a piece of hair or skin sample
hell yeah, wizard spells are five times more powerful than clerical spells
I'm not really qualified to personally comment. YouTube's Dungeon Dudes are content producers who have expressed a lot of views on class and subclass comparisons. They view wizards as strong.
My cleric, having cast Anti Magic Field, gives your Wizard a big hug.
Seriously though, i agree that wizard spells are more powerful, but five times?
And Clerics can heal entire armies at a time, bring people dead for hundreds of years back to life, or shake the very earth itself. So what? What are you expecting level 9 spells to do? It's not like all those spells you mentioned have no counter or weakness to them. No one is denying that wizards have good spells (still not 5x more powerful), but cherry-picking the best of their level 9 spells, which they don't even get access to until level 17, shouldn't mean that they should have their spell availability and class features neutered for their entire lifetime.
Several of the examples that I posted are not ninth level spells I think you know that and you're just trying to be argumentative
Also, A Wizard can create any effect Cleric can.
Cleric’s can heal 700 Hp, raise the dead, resurrect folks etc, can wizards? As other folks have said they are different, not weaker or more powerful but focused into different things and different ways of thinking. Both are powerful - roughly equal but from very different places and very different goals.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yes, Wizards can do all of that. And they can do all of that while casting just one spell that's not even 9th level
Ah, Wish. Something they do once and all this is over. But Clerics raise dead multiple times, heal lots more. And they can replicate 9th level or lower Cleric/Domain spells once a week for free with no downsides or costs (and being from a God bypasses Antimagic Fields and cannot be counterspelled).
Oh, whoops, there goes another false comparison from you. Oh dear.
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
Ah yes, the wish spell, duplicating the effects of any classes spells of L8- but not the L9 spells which is why we stuck with those for cleric, so how does a L17-20 cleric deal with wish? Why divine intervention of course at which point the deity or it’s avatar shows up and tells the wizard “I don’t think so” care to try me? Let’s stop trying to compare potatoes an grapefruits. The point isn’t which is more powerful but that the “Jack of All Trades” spellcaster - the wizard - can’t be that with just the free 6+2/L spells. To be that they have to have lots more spells to choose from to prepare and even more to scribe onto scrolls to carry around to use when needed but are not needed enough to ever prep. Prepping is for battle and surveillance spells mostly, rituals are never prepped since the wizard can do them from the spellbook, but many spells are fantastic in a particular situation but not worth prepping unless you know in advance you will HAVE TO have it, but you might discover you need it in the middle of an adventure and can’t wait to prep it tomorrow so a scroll of it is what you bring along. Since wizards are fairly common and most wizards should be operating this way if you defeat one and get their stuff you should get a trove of such spells even if they have their spellbook rigged for self destruct.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No I wasn't talking about Wish. I was talking about Simulacrum.