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.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No I wasn't talking about Wish. I was talking about Simulacrum.
So your argument now is that wizards are much more powerful and don't need access to all their class features and additional spells at lower levels because they can cast a 7th level spell (Simulacrum) to create an imitation of a cleric level 17 or higher that can cast 9th level spells? An extremely powerful cleric that the wizards has to keep within touch range for the 12 hours casting time of the spell?
What is the point of all this? It sounds like you are trying to fix a problem you see with wizards at levels the vast majority of players never eve see in play by stripping its core features and abilities from it the rest of its life cycle?
If you aren't going to hand out scrolls for wizards to scribe into their books at 50 gp per spell level, will you restrict Clerics to NOT having access to the entire set of cleric spells to prepare after each long rest? Clerics and druids have a much bigger selection from level 1 than wizards will ever be able to afford to collect.
ou wanna pick a low-level wizard spell that illustrates how powerful they are? Sleep can instantly end an encounter.
Heavily depends on the encounters. By that measure so can Command or Inflict Wounds. What's your point?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Again you're thinking "encounter = combat" which is false. Not all encounters involve battle.
You're not alone. Using Command to make the guard flee triggering Opp Attacks or making them drop prone so all your allies can whack them with advantage while also halving their movement (since getting up from prone takes half move). You can indeed be capable of ending combat in a single round thanks to the spell - having done so before. Don't forget the Cleric also gets Bane to make enemies more vulnerable to your Commands. Command remains effective all the way through with ways (like Bane) to make it more so.
Sleep may seem better - but it applies more weakly - especially if trying to get more enemies, and becomes utterly useless later on. The roll averages 22, and any successes detract from that pool. Even most low enemies, particularly the CR 1s you'll most likely face, typically have higher than this. Some being outright immune as their average HP being too high than what you can actually roll. So, useful? Certainly! - Overpowered enough to warrant removing base class features and nerfing several subclasses? Not even remotely close.
I could agree with you on Simulacrum, but that's one broken spell which you could just ban that spell. Better that than removing a core feature.
Situational DM-heavy scenarios are not going to win your case, just so you know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Wren, we are not worried about the relative power of a wizard spell - we are worried that taking away the found spells (scrolls, spellbooks etc) nerfs the wizard so that he becomes basically a book bound sorceror - he has a very limited set of spells to chose from in preparing for each day rather than a wide selection to both choose to prep and to chose to create his own scrolls to have available on an as need basis. At max a sorceror knows 21 spells including cantrips and has 22 slots, your 2/L only wizard is slightly better - 49 spells known including cantrips 25 prepared and 22 slots, the cleric has 209 known spells + cantrips, 35 prepped and 22 slots, even druids have 137 known +cantrips, 25/35 prepped and 22 slots. If a wizard is going to be all he can be with a spell available for any occasion he has to get more than 2 spells/level. To match the Druid he needs to get @4.5 spells, to match the cleric in range of variety he needs to get at least 9 additional spells, to be better than either he needs to get at least 10 additional new spells (from scrolls/spellbooks/etc every level.for those that were wondering how many new spells a wizard should get there is an answer.
The wizard should be creating his own unique spells for the 2 free spells/level and be finding 9-11 spells they don’t already have via other sources each level.
... I could agree with you on Simulacrum, but that's one broken spell which you could just ban that spell. Better that than removing a core feature. ...
The spell's requirements will often ban itself. Failing that, dispel magic might be used as a pretty good ban. Casting Simulacrum on too many targets could ban a player. A simulacrum cleric could be a glass ahem canon. :D Simulacrums increase the party power increasing the cr ratings DMs used. Then the simulacrums are dispelled and the party dies. Players turn on wizard player banning such future grandstanding 'wizardry'.
The party defeats the big boss. The wizard sings, "do you want [me] to build a snowman", it will only take 12 hours. "No!" Characters I role-play with can get bored when my casters ritual cast for 10 minutes. They'd be even less interested in the wizard casting simulacrum just to make the wizard more powerful.
... I could agree with you on Simulacrum, but that's one broken spell which you could just ban that spell. Better that than removing a core feature. ...
The spell's requirements will often ban itself. Failing that, dispel magic might be used as a pretty good ban. Casting Simulacrum on too many targets could ban a player. A simulacrum cleric could be a glass ahem canon. :D Simulacrums increase the party power increasing the cr ratings DMs used. Then the simulacrums are dispelled and the party dies. Players turn on wizard player banning such future grandstanding 'wizardry'.
The party defeats the big boss. The wizard sings, "do you want [me] to build a snowman", it will only take 12 hours. "No!" Characters I role-play with can get bored when my casters ritual cast for 10 minutes. They'd be even less interested in the wizard casting simulacrum just to make the wizard more powerful.
1.) as per the spell dispel magic, "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range." anyone dispelling the simulacrum would have to know at that time that it is a spell there's almost no way to know that
2.) after defeating the big bad boss, the wizard should be taking skin and hair samples. Then, he should be creating a Simulacrum between adventures
Thank-you for your correction regarding dispel magic which was a major objection.
Simulacrum CASTING TIME 12 Hours RANGE/AREA Touch "You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell. ..."
A big bad boss left unguarded may get away. "An illusory duplicate of [a dead] beast or humanoid" may not be of great help.
2) so the wizard goes around mutilating the bodies of defeated dead foes - pretty (not).
3) cleric’s spells come thru it’s deity, and a good DM will play that deity going “hrmmmm, there are now 2 of him on opposite sides ( or hrmmmm, yes she is here with me must be a simulacrum so no spells!) True seeing - ahhh simulacrum gets no spells” so now you have body with half HP, what ever armor and weapons you’ve given it as pretty much freebies for the party. So no duplicating spells. Deities generally don’t like folks stealing their powers (spells) and can do stuff about it.
Clerics get armour, better hit dice and interchangeable spell options. Sorcerers get con saving throws and nifty metamagic options. Wizard get some nerdy specs and an ability to learn spells.
I agree that wizards have powerful spell options - and, personally, it's not something I have any great care about.
I like the idea that wizards can become powerful. I also think it's likely that this will happen in a gaming context of characters in a party that will, hopefully, mutually support each other.
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own. when you as a player want to run your wizard nerfed by only getting two spells per level and not taking the scrolls and such provided then trying to overplay your spells to make up for it you won’t get too much satisfaction and the party will mostly ignore you. You can play but you probably won’t have much fun and will move on.
for everyone else that has been asking about how many new/novel spells a wizard should be finding each level Cybermind’s table gives us an estimate - somewhere between 4 and 12 each level depending on how overwhelmed with decision making and how much time you put in between adventures for them to copy the scroll/spell into their spellbook (destroying the scroll in the process I believe) and then to make at least 1 new copy to bring along. You should also be setting your treasure hauls by this possibly so the mage has the funds to actually do all this copying and scribing.
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own.
And you are more than welcome to do so there should be diversity across tables I think that is a huge boon toD&D
trying to overplay your spells to make up for it
there is nothing to support your claim that I'm overplaying any spells
Great, I'm glad that's all finished with. edit: spoke too soon.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
it sounds like you're saying that to keep things balanced nothing should be restricted.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain). I'm not sure about any restrictions that should be added though, for sure, something might come up.
THe benefit of only getting 2 spells/level and no scrolls is that you don’t have to spend all that money scribing spells into your spellbook 😁, you do still have to spend money and time scribing scrolls but if your like a lot of tables I’ve seen you just jump from one adventure to the next with no down time, no scribing and of course no spending so you have hoards of cash stored up that your not spending.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain).
Sorry, this is still not parsing for me. Are you asserting that it may be possible to keep Wizards balanced without restricting them
I was thinking 'yes', but that was before better considering your question. On route, I got as far as to write "At least to my working definition of "balanced" in relation to gaming with wizards, yes."
But that's not true of the wider definition of the term.
It may balance a RAW potential for spell option acquisition with either a RAW potential for spell option loss or a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss. That's all.
It may, on average, work towards balancing a wizard's gain or loss of spell options. This might help keep wizards balanced. Dependent on perspectives taken on the level at which wizards are unbalanced, perhaps this would make it "possible to keep Wizards 'balanced'", perhaps not.
5e is a game where some subclasses, like some of those of rangers, are comparatively weak while some classes and various of their subclasses, like those of wizards, are comparatively strong. I think we both agree on that. Then we add in the issue of ranges of spell options in relation to the powerful spells of wizards.
A starter spellbook can RAW evolve in-game to contain spells numbering 6 + 2 per additional level after level 1, If a wizard "loses" their spellbook (an arguably odd choice of words) or if it is destroyed or if this valuable item is stolen, then the wizard is reduced to spells that were then prepared, int modifier + level, basically less. If a wizard can use the wizard Copying a Spell into the Book feature
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
then the wizard can gain a lot more, and that's before the wizard invents any of their own spells on top.
Whether any of this would or could make wizards balanced is debatable.
The balance it gives is to facilitate a potential loss of spell options to act as the other side of a coin from the wizard's RAW potential to gain spell options. In-game it may all depend on the way the coin flips and on actions a player may take to rig the odds.
In RAW "reasonable precautions" can include that "many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place". Ye gods. They wrote "spellbooks" plural. Reasonable precautions might include not sleeping on the street etc. while wearing your wizard robes and sticking a bit more closely to your more durable party colleagues. Perhaps you have that alarm spell for a reason.
Personally, my motivation for keeping this realism in the game wouldn't necessarily be to balance things with wizards generally but to retain a further element of risk for characters, especially as they attain high character levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
A spell that Arcana Clerics can do? Yes. What about it?
(Changing subject again, as you were specifically arguing about replicating resurrection spells and healing, but whatever)
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
So your argument now is that wizards are much more powerful and don't need access to all their class features and additional spells at lower levels because they can cast a 7th level spell (Simulacrum) to create an imitation of a cleric level 17 or higher that can cast 9th level spells? An extremely powerful cleric that the wizards has to keep within touch range for the 12 hours casting time of the spell?
What is the point of all this? It sounds like you are trying to fix a problem you see with wizards at levels the vast majority of players never eve see in play by stripping its core features and abilities from it the rest of its life cycle?
If you aren't going to hand out scrolls for wizards to scribe into their books at 50 gp per spell level, will you restrict Clerics to NOT having access to the entire set of cleric spells to prepare after each long rest? Clerics and druids have a much bigger selection from level 1 than wizards will ever be able to afford to collect.
The irony!
Heavily depends on the encounters. By that measure so can Command or Inflict Wounds. What's your point?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Again you're thinking "encounter = combat" which is false. Not all encounters involve battle.
You're not alone. Using Command to make the guard flee triggering Opp Attacks or making them drop prone so all your allies can whack them with advantage while also halving their movement (since getting up from prone takes half move). You can indeed be capable of ending combat in a single round thanks to the spell - having done so before. Don't forget the Cleric also gets Bane to make enemies more vulnerable to your Commands. Command remains effective all the way through with ways (like Bane) to make it more so.
Sleep may seem better - but it applies more weakly - especially if trying to get more enemies, and becomes utterly useless later on. The roll averages 22, and any successes detract from that pool. Even most low enemies, particularly the CR 1s you'll most likely face, typically have higher than this. Some being outright immune as their average HP being too high than what you can actually roll. So, useful? Certainly! - Overpowered enough to warrant removing base class features and nerfing several subclasses? Not even remotely close.
I could agree with you on Simulacrum, but that's one broken spell which you could just ban that spell. Better that than removing a core feature.
Situational DM-heavy scenarios are not going to win your case, just so you know.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Wren, we are not worried about the relative power of a wizard spell - we are worried that taking away the found spells (scrolls, spellbooks etc) nerfs the wizard so that he becomes basically a book bound sorceror - he has a very limited set of spells to chose from in preparing for each day rather than a wide selection to both choose to prep and to chose to create his own scrolls to have available on an as need basis. At max a sorceror knows 21 spells including cantrips and has 22 slots, your 2/L only wizard is slightly better - 49 spells known including cantrips 25 prepared and 22 slots, the cleric has 209 known spells + cantrips, 35 prepped and 22 slots, even druids have 137 known +cantrips, 25/35 prepped and 22 slots. If a wizard is going to be all he can be with a spell available for any occasion he has to get more than 2 spells/level. To match the Druid he needs to get @4.5 spells, to match the cleric in range of variety he needs to get at least 9 additional spells, to be better than either he needs to get at least 10 additional new spells (from scrolls/spellbooks/etc every level.for those that were wondering how many new spells a wizard should get there is an answer.
The wizard should be creating his own unique spells for the 2 free spells/level and be finding 9-11 spells they don’t already have via other sources each level.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The spell's requirements will often ban itself. Failing that, dispel magic might be used as a pretty good ban. Casting Simulacrum on too many targets could ban a player. A simulacrum cleric could be a glass ahem canon. :D
Simulacrums increase the party power increasing the cr ratings DMs used. Then the simulacrums are dispelled and the party dies. Players turn on wizard player banning such future grandstanding 'wizardry'.
The party defeats the big boss. The wizard sings, "do you want [me] to build a snowman", it will only take 12 hours. "No!" Characters I role-play with can get bored when my casters ritual cast for 10 minutes. They'd be even less interested in the wizard casting simulacrum just to make the wizard more powerful.
A first-level party of 5 wizards or 5 clerics?
A 20th level party with 5 wizards or composed with a variety of character classes?
Thank-you for your correction regarding dispel magic which was a major objection.
Simulacrum
CASTING TIME
12 Hours
RANGE/AREA
Touch
"You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell. ..."
A big bad boss left unguarded may get away. "An illusory duplicate of [a dead] beast or humanoid" may not be of great help.
1) detect magic/true sight, dispel magic
2) so the wizard goes around mutilating the bodies of defeated dead foes - pretty (not).
3) cleric’s spells come thru it’s deity, and a good DM will play that deity going “hrmmmm, there are now 2 of him on opposite sides ( or hrmmmm, yes she is here with me must be a simulacrum so no spells!) True seeing - ahhh simulacrum gets no spells” so now you have body with half HP, what ever armor and weapons you’ve given it as pretty much freebies for the party. So no duplicating spells. Deities generally don’t like folks stealing their powers (spells) and can do stuff about it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Clerics get armour, better hit dice and interchangeable spell options.
Sorcerers get con saving throws and nifty metamagic options.
Wizard get some nerdy specs and an ability to learn spells.
I agree that wizards have powerful spell options - and, personally, it's not something I have any great care about.
I like the idea that wizards can become powerful. I also think it's likely that this will happen in a gaming context of characters in a party that will, hopefully, mutually support each other.
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own.
when you as a player want to run your wizard nerfed by only getting two spells per level and not taking the scrolls and such provided then trying to overplay your spells to make up for it you won’t get too much satisfaction and the party will mostly ignore you. You can play but you probably won’t have much fun and will move on.
for everyone else that has been asking about how many new/novel spells a wizard should be finding each level Cybermind’s table gives us an estimate - somewhere between 4 and 12 each level depending on how overwhelmed with decision making and how much time you put in between adventures for them to copy the scroll/spell into their spellbook (destroying the scroll in the process I believe) and then to make at least 1 new copy to bring along. You should also be setting your treasure hauls by this possibly so the mage has the funds to actually do all this copying and scribing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Great, I'm glad that's all finished with.
edit: spoke too soon.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain).
I'm not sure about any restrictions that should be added though, for sure, something might come up.
THe benefit of only getting 2 spells/level and no scrolls is that you don’t have to spend all that money scribing spells into your spellbook 😁, you do still have to spend money and time scribing scrolls but if your like a lot of tables I’ve seen you just jump from one adventure to the next with no down time, no scribing and of course no spending so you have hoards of cash stored up that your not spending.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I was thinking 'yes', but that was before better considering your question.
On route, I got as far as to write "At least to my working definition of "balanced" in relation to gaming with wizards, yes."
But that's not true of the wider definition of the term.
It may balance a RAW potential for spell option acquisition with either a RAW potential for spell option loss or a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss. That's all.
It may, on average, work towards balancing a wizard's gain or loss of spell options. This might help keep wizards balanced. Dependent on perspectives taken on the level at which wizards are unbalanced, perhaps this would make it "possible to keep Wizards 'balanced'", perhaps not.
5e is a game where some subclasses, like some of those of rangers, are comparatively weak while some classes and various of their subclasses, like those of wizards, are comparatively strong. I think we both agree on that.
Then we add in the issue of ranges of spell options in relation to the powerful spells of wizards.
A starter spellbook can RAW evolve in-game to contain spells numbering 6 + 2 per additional level after level 1,
If a wizard "loses" their spellbook (an arguably odd choice of words) or if it is destroyed or if this valuable item is stolen, then the wizard is reduced to spells that were then prepared, int modifier + level, basically less.
If a wizard can use the wizard Copying a Spell into the Book feature
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
then the wizard can gain a lot more, and that's before the wizard invents any of their own spells on top.
Whether any of this would or could make wizards balanced is debatable.
The balance it gives is to facilitate a potential loss of spell options to act as the other side of a coin from the wizard's RAW potential to gain spell options. In-game it may all depend on the way the coin flips and on actions a player may take to rig the odds.
In RAW "reasonable precautions" can include that "many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place". Ye gods. They wrote "spellbooks" plural. Reasonable precautions might include not sleeping on the street etc. while wearing your wizard robes and sticking a bit more closely to your more durable party colleagues. Perhaps you have that alarm spell for a reason.
Personally, my motivation for keeping this realism in the game wouldn't necessarily be to balance things with wizards generally but to retain a further element of risk for characters, especially as they attain high character levels.