You could always give them magic initiate and have that be their feat for the next time they get an ASI. Basically give it to them early.
I would just give them Magic Initiate for free. If they have to spend an asi on it, then it isn't really a reward.
That's an option, and magic initiate isn't OP. Would work as a thematic transition of how you got initiate though, instead of just taking it. Either way would be fine, just would make other party members probably want an extra ASI so there's that to contend with.
You could always give them magic initiate and have that be their feat for the next time they get an ASI. Basically give it to them early.
I would just give them Magic Initiate for free. If they have to spend an asi on it, then it isn't really a reward.
That's an option, and magic initiate isn't OP. Would work as a thematic transition of how you got initiate though, instead of just taking it. Either way would be fine, just would make other party members probably want an extra ASI so there's that to contend with.
Some PCs get badassed magic items, some get a free feat/half feat. Seems balanced enough to me. Besides, feats are perfect boons for a DM to grant. I know a DM who disallows feats instead of ASIs, PCs can only gain them as boons in his campaign. To each their own.
You could always give them magic initiate and have that be their feat for the next time they get an ASI. Basically give it to them early.
I would just give them Magic Initiate for free. If they have to spend an asi on it, then it isn't really a reward.
That's an option, and magic initiate isn't OP. Would work as a thematic transition of how you got initiate though, instead of just taking it. Either way would be fine, just would make other party members probably want an extra ASI so there's that to contend with.
Some PCs get badassed magic items, some get a free feat/half feat. Seems balanced enough to me. Besides, feats are perfect boons for a DM to grant. I know a DM who disallows feats instead of ASIs, PCs can only gain them as boons in his campaign. To each their own.
All are fine, just as long as it balances with everyone else. I have been in games where some characters get more than their fair and it's not a good thing. If those characters get a free feat, then you'll have to figure something out to balance out with the rest of the party is all.
Honestly, I think that a +1 weapon is probably equal to magic initiate. If the DM gave them a choice of feats, then it would be a lot better.
Oof, a +1 should not even be close. I have a Bard that has magic initiate warlock for eldritch blast and hex. Hex alone is +1d6 to damage and EB is 1-10 damage at level 1, scaling up to 4d10. For combat it's his bread and butter as Bard's have crap for damage cantrips (and yes I know it's only once a day for hex, but timed correctly it wrecks). I'd say a minimum rare or higher magic item to compensate.
The OP did say that the Wiz had originally been offering magic items. It was only the two ‘slingers that asked for knowledge instead. A 1ce/LR 1st-level spell that uses an off Ability Score for them instead of a Wand of Fireballs or something seems reasonable to me. Even if the DM grants the whole Feat with the two cantrips too seems reasonable, especially since they would also use Int instead of Cha.
totally fine to have them learn one spell it will not upset balance in any way. Remember that the rules are there to serve as guidelines not to restrain the game. Do whatever is going to lead to the most fun at the table.
I think Warlocks & Sorcerers can learn new magic spells on Temples, instead of Wizards towers.
Is this correct ??
Nope. Warlocks and Sorcerers gain spells by leveling up, simple as that.
As for the whole "is it balanced or not" debate, that's really not what OP asked. RAW, what the players asked can't be done unless taking a feat or multiclassing. However, as usual, rule = applies.
I think Warlocks & Sorcerers can learn new magic spells on Temples, instead of Wizards towers.
Is this correct ??
Nope. Warlocks and Sorcerers gain spells by leveling up, simple as that.
As for the whole "is it balanced or not" debate, that's really not what OP asked. RAW, what the players asked can't be done unless taking a feat or multiclassing. However, as usual, rule = applies.
@LostWhileFishing so if the ONLY way for warlocks and sorcerers to learn new spells is by leveling up, then maybe it is literally impossible for a wizard to teach them new spells. I may have to revise my position. (Of course the DM could always change that rule.)
A major class of magic items are basically just free uses of spells such as Wand of Web.
That seems the best way to handle it IMO. It's scoped only to the spell you want them to have and the charges you allow, so it doesn't have to be a benefit as major as a free feat.
If there is a precedent set that your characters can just sit with a wizard for a while and learn more spells, why wouldn't they keep doing that? Or learning spells another way? Especially for a warlock it seems better than being bound to a patron for your power. Even if the players don't exploit it, it just uncovers this part of the story that doesn't make sense.
Have the wizard try to teach them a spell. Make them roll Arcana for it, and then no matter what narrate how they fail (or, if they rolled well, say they seem to be making good progress but don't get it yet) and make them roll again, then narrate how the wizard can't seem to teach them anything, the wizard says "this is why I studied this stuff for 100 years, you guys just took the easy way to power and I just can't do this" and just gives them a "Wand Of (whatever spell it was)".
(Only do this if you're confident that, the way your players are, they won't get frustrated and annoyed at you before you get to the punchline.)
It generally makes sense for the Sorcerer to be allowed to try, if and only if the spell in question appears on the Sorcerer spell list. It will ultimately be the same spell, and the Sorcerer is already capable of learning the spell when they level up. The question is just how long it would take for the Wizard and Sorcerer working together to "translate" the methodology, which would likely require a lot of trial and error, and probably material components.
The Warlock, on the other hand, doesn't make so much sense for them to be allowed to learn from the Wizard. The entire point of the Warlock is that the ability to use magic is not inherent to the person themselves, but comes as a gift from their patron. It's entirely possible that the individual doesn't have any proclivity or natural talent for the use of magic in any form, and the patron is literally doing everything for them when they cast the spell. It depends specifically on the backstory of the individual character, which we don't have enough insight into here. The point here being that if they were going to learn how to use magic on their own, they probably would have just become a Wizard, rather than a Warlock, in the first place.
For the Sorcerer, I'd go with the free Magic Initiate feat, where as for the Warlock I'd give them a Wand or Orb or whatever that casts the spell they want.
Why not simply say that he teaches them a spell that is on their class spell list, and that they get it when they level up and gain new spells? I always have my players gain spells in game like that - They take an enemy wizard spell book or a scroll or whatever and it contains the spells that they obtain when they reach a new level.
Why not simply say that he teaches them a spell that is on their class spell list, and that they get it when they level up and gain new spells? I always have my players gain spells in game like that - They take an enemy wizard spell book or a scroll or whatever and it contains the spells that they obtain when they reach a new level.
If they are a Wizard yes, sorcerer or warlock no. The limitations of those classes are the amount of spells the can cast. If they had access to all the spells a Wizard does then nobody would be a Wizard and worry about scribing spells and not have access to eldritch invocations or meta magic. Every class has a yes but and you have to keep the buts. I'm sure everyone can agree it's all about the but.
Why not simply say that he teaches them a spell that is on their class spell list, and that they get it when they level up and gain new spells? I always have my players gain spells in game like that - They take an enemy wizard spell book or a scroll or whatever and it contains the spells that they obtain when they reach a new level.
If they are a Wizard yes, sorcerer or warlock no. The limitations of those classes are the amount of spells the can cast. If they had access to all the spells a Wizard does then nobody would be a Wizard and worry about scribing spells and not have access to eldritch invocations or meta magic. Every class has a yes but and you have to keep the buts. I'm sure everyone can agree it's all about the but.
You raise a very good point. I guess I didn’t about all the implications when I gave my initial response.
That's why I explicitly said that the Wizard would teach the Sorcerer and Warlock a spell that was on THEIR CLASS spell list, and that they would get to use it when they level up and get a new spell known.....
That way they are not getting access to a spell that they would not normally have or getting an extra spell that they would not normally have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's an option, and magic initiate isn't OP. Would work as a thematic transition of how you got initiate though, instead of just taking it. Either way would be fine, just would make other party members probably want an extra ASI so there's that to contend with.
Some PCs get badassed magic items, some get a free feat/half feat. Seems balanced enough to me. Besides, feats are perfect boons for a DM to grant. I know a DM who disallows feats instead of ASIs, PCs can only gain them as boons in his campaign. To each their own.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
All are fine, just as long as it balances with everyone else. I have been in games where some characters get more than their fair and it's not a good thing. If those characters get a free feat, then you'll have to figure something out to balance out with the rest of the party is all.
Honestly, I think that a +1 weapon is probably equal to magic initiate. If the DM gave them a choice of feats, then it would be a lot better.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Oof, a +1 should not even be close. I have a Bard that has magic initiate warlock for eldritch blast and hex. Hex alone is +1d6 to damage and EB is 1-10 damage at level 1, scaling up to 4d10. For combat it's his bread and butter as Bard's have crap for damage cantrips (and yes I know it's only once a day for hex, but timed correctly it wrecks). I'd say a minimum rare or higher magic item to compensate.
The OP did say that the Wiz had originally been offering magic items. It was only the two ‘slingers that asked for knowledge instead. A 1ce/LR 1st-level spell that uses an off Ability Score for them instead of a Wand of Fireballs or something seems reasonable to me. Even if the DM grants the whole Feat with the two cantrips too seems reasonable, especially since they would also use Int instead of Cha.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think Warlocks & Sorcerers can learn new magic spells on Temples, instead of Wizards towers.
Is this correct ??
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
totally fine to have them learn one spell it will not upset balance in any way. Remember that the rules are there to serve as guidelines not to restrain the game. Do whatever is going to lead to the most fun at the table.
Nope. Warlocks and Sorcerers gain spells by leveling up, simple as that.
As for the whole "is it balanced or not" debate, that's really not what OP asked. RAW, what the players asked can't be done unless taking a feat or multiclassing. However, as usual, rule = applies.
@LostWhileFishing so if the ONLY way for warlocks and sorcerers to learn new spells is by leveling up, then maybe it is literally impossible for a wizard to teach them new spells. I may have to revise my position. (Of course the DM could always change that rule.)
You could give both characters the Ritual Caster feat, letting them choose which class to take it in and ignoring the ability score requirements.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don’t know if anyone else mentioned it but could just allow it as a once per day (long rest) cast, kind of like a racial spell.
or go old school and have them roll a percentage dice with a chance of failure. How it was done for magic-users (wizards) in 1E.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
He originally offered magic items.
They wanted access to a spell he knows.
A major class of magic items are basically just free uses of spells such as Wand of Web.
That seems the best way to handle it IMO. It's scoped only to the spell you want them to have and the charges you allow, so it doesn't have to be a benefit as major as a free feat.
If there is a precedent set that your characters can just sit with a wizard for a while and learn more spells, why wouldn't they keep doing that? Or learning spells another way? Especially for a warlock it seems better than being bound to a patron for your power. Even if the players don't exploit it, it just uncovers this part of the story that doesn't make sense.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You could even play with it it a bit.
Have the wizard try to teach them a spell. Make them roll Arcana for it, and then no matter what narrate how they fail (or, if they rolled well, say they seem to be making good progress but don't get it yet) and make them roll again, then narrate how the wizard can't seem to teach them anything, the wizard says "this is why I studied this stuff for 100 years, you guys just took the easy way to power and I just can't do this" and just gives them a "Wand Of (whatever spell it was)".
(Only do this if you're confident that, the way your players are, they won't get frustrated and annoyed at you before you get to the punchline.)
Throwing in my 2 cents to this.
It generally makes sense for the Sorcerer to be allowed to try, if and only if the spell in question appears on the Sorcerer spell list. It will ultimately be the same spell, and the Sorcerer is already capable of learning the spell when they level up. The question is just how long it would take for the Wizard and Sorcerer working together to "translate" the methodology, which would likely require a lot of trial and error, and probably material components.
The Warlock, on the other hand, doesn't make so much sense for them to be allowed to learn from the Wizard. The entire point of the Warlock is that the ability to use magic is not inherent to the person themselves, but comes as a gift from their patron. It's entirely possible that the individual doesn't have any proclivity or natural talent for the use of magic in any form, and the patron is literally doing everything for them when they cast the spell. It depends specifically on the backstory of the individual character, which we don't have enough insight into here. The point here being that if they were going to learn how to use magic on their own, they probably would have just become a Wizard, rather than a Warlock, in the first place.
For the Sorcerer, I'd go with the free Magic Initiate feat, where as for the Warlock I'd give them a Wand or Orb or whatever that casts the spell they want.
Why not simply say that he teaches them a spell that is on their class spell list, and that they get it when they level up and gain new spells? I always have my players gain spells in game like that - They take an enemy wizard spell book or a scroll or whatever and it contains the spells that they obtain when they reach a new level.
If they are a Wizard yes, sorcerer or warlock no. The limitations of those classes are the amount of spells the can cast. If they had access to all the spells a Wizard does then nobody would be a Wizard and worry about scribing spells and not have access to eldritch invocations or meta magic. Every class has a yes but and you have to keep the buts. I'm sure everyone can agree it's all about the but.
You raise a very good point. I guess I didn’t about all the implications when I gave my initial response.
* didn’t think about
That's why I explicitly said that the Wizard would teach the Sorcerer and Warlock a spell that was on THEIR CLASS spell list, and that they would get to use it when they level up and get a new spell known.....
That way they are not getting access to a spell that they would not normally have or getting an extra spell that they would not normally have.