Wizards (and all casters tbh) are already waaayyyy more powerful than martial classes. Giving all casters access to *even more* of their spells at a time inherently *would* make them more powerful.
More spells equals more power. We do not need more power. It's that simple.
My interpretation of the preparation of spells has never been that the wizard forgets them in between. Instead, you need to "hang" them - you prepare them by going through some very complex and careful ritual, setting up the structure of the spell, all ready to go, leaving out only the last key words, item, etc, to feed the power available into this pre-prepared structure. A wizard only has a certain amount of power to invest in those structures, and can only keep a number of "balls in the air" at once, so with increased power and practice they can have more spells, and more power, ready to go. My model has always been the Pattern- or Logrus- based sorcery from Roger Zelazny's Amber series. Late in the series Merlin gets an item that lets him construct spell structures on the fly, but before that he has to spend hours setting them up. Once the structure's there, just say the word, feed in the requisite power, and go. The analogy isn't to a musician who knows many tunes, but to a workman setting up a delicate piece of machinery: e.g. you have to set up the drill press just so, but once it's there you can flip the switch as long as you have power and punch holes in things. However, your workbench only has so much space, so if you want a bandsaw instead...better get out the manual and make sure it's set up right first, or bad things might happen when you flip the switch. You don't forget how to use the drill press when you set up the bandsaw, obviously, it's just not set up just then.
My interpretation of the preparation of spells has never been that the wizard forgets them in between. Instead, you need to "hang" them - you prepare them by going through some very complex and careful ritual, setting up the structure of the spell, all ready to go, leaving out only the last key words, item, etc, to feed the power available into this pre-prepared structure. A wizard only has a certain amount of power to invest in those structures, and can only keep a number of "balls in the air" at once, so with increased power and practice they can have more spells, and more power, ready to go. My model has always been the Pattern- or Logrus- based sorcery from Roger Zelazny's Amber series. Late in the series Merlin gets an item that lets him construct spell structures on the fly, but before that he has to spend hours setting them up. Once the structure's there, just say the word, feed in the requisite power, and go. The analogy isn't to a musician who knows many tunes, but to a workman setting up a delicate piece of machinery: e.g. you have to set up the drill press just so, but once it's there you can flip the switch as long as you have power and punch holes in things. However, your workbench only has so much space, so if you want a bandsaw instead...better get out the manual and make sure it's set up right first, or bad things might happen when you flip the switch. You don't forget how to use the drill press when you set up the bandsaw, obviously, it's just not set up just then.
Exactly this. OP is effectively arguing that the workman should have an infinitely large workbench.
My interpretation of the preparation of spells has never been that the wizard forgets them in between. Instead, you need to "hang" them - you prepare them by going through some very complex and careful ritual, setting up the structure of the spell, all ready to go, leaving out only the last key words, item, etc, to feed the power available into this pre-prepared structure. A wizard only has a certain amount of power to invest in those structures, and can only keep a number of "balls in the air" at once, so with increased power and practice they can have more spells, and more power, ready to go. My model has always been the Pattern- or Logrus- based sorcery from Roger Zelazny's Amber series. Late in the series Merlin gets an item that lets him construct spell structures on the fly, but before that he has to spend hours setting them up. Once the structure's there, just say the word, feed in the requisite power, and go. The analogy isn't to a musician who knows many tunes, but to a workman setting up a delicate piece of machinery: e.g. you have to set up the drill press just so, but once it's there you can flip the switch as long as you have power and punch holes in things. However, your workbench only has so much space, so if you want a bandsaw instead...better get out the manual and make sure it's set up right first, or bad things might happen when you flip the switch. You don't forget how to use the drill press when you set up the bandsaw, obviously, it's just not set up just then.
Yeah, I see that this could be one way magic is interpreted, but it's certainly not stated as such within game.
Again, everyone keeps going back to POWER. It's like a broken record on so many threads. I think back to a thread that went like 10-12 pages of responses about whether a level 20 Wizard would beat a level 20 Druid. This has nothing to do with D&D. There is a fascination with combat stats on these threads that is so prevalent posters don't even see it.
I have no idea the OPs intentions in posting about this, but it seems he was interested in at least some utility spells and weaker spells that were situational.
I have no interest in making casters more POWERFUL in combat, but just more able to be creative outside of it. It's funny people react so strongly to this as if it would break the game if a Druid could use Talk With Animals more often. Or a Bard use a level 1 charm simply at the price of a spell slot without having to compromise this ability if there are other spells they assume might be useful that day, so they wouldn't prep charm.
By the time the caster is a higher level, these are not game changers, they're fun makers. Most have some way of doing many of these anyway, through a magical item, but not necessarily the full range of their possible abilities.
The martial classes often have many skills, abilities and characters traits that are similar to some low level spells outside of combat. A lot also can do magic, and could benefit from not having to prep low level spells as well.
As a DM I try to give out more specific magic items to do some of these things but I also find players forget their items more than they forget their spells, so I'm just saying in my world it makes sense, and would add to our games, to have more low level utility spells available.
I don't buy this "prep the structure" stuff. It's just a game mechanic to put a constraint onto combat. I get that. I support that. It's outside of combat things can be a bit more fluid.
I used to be a chess player. In chess, you learn openings. Not just one, but lots of them.
And how many of those chess openings involved manipulating the Weave to remake reality as you see fit through the use of magical formulas, complex glyphs and sigils, obscure arcane languages, and gods knows what else is involved in casting magic?
It works the way it works; what is being proposed is far too powerful from a mechanical perspective, for a class that is already arguably the most powerful in the game, especially at higher levels.
The argument was that no one would be able to remember this many things. So how is a 45 minute lunch break going to get you to the point where you can suddenly change out your entire spell list if desired? ;)
The OP is about Wizards. I'm extending to say MAGIC. For everyone. For Rangers, for fighters, for monks. Whoever can use a spell and gets slots and has a spell list. They should be limited by their slots, not the spells they are able to perform effectively after a rest.
From a mechanical perspective a Barbarian raging is also hard to handle. As a DM I find a lot of classes have great abilities, and this isn't designed to prioritize magic as the only or best way to do something. It's to increase creativity and fun. Does it really change the game so much if the caster use speak with animals, or disguise self or sets an Alarm whenever they want or need to for the party?
As a DM I'm not thinking of combat or even the unlocking of doors. It could be deciphering text or interacting with an environment, but I want players to have the idea that they can try something unusual, or timely, or strange. It's a lot easier to do that if you have the tools you wouldn't normally prepare available.
playing with magic is like playing with a nuclear explosion, the wizard already has all the formulea in his book, but being the genuis he is, he only needs 45 minutes to look over his book over, he knows that if he tries playing with that sort of stuff without it fresh in his mind, terrible things might happen, so he keeps a repitiore of three or four smaller things hes a master of, in his mind so he can use them (cantrips and even higher level features), this has different variations with each casting class that prepares but its pretty much the same reasons base wise
it would be a horrid idea for just power purposes as well, you say your just talking about fun stuff and not power, but in reality even with all this "fun stuff" it does change the scale of power even outside of combat, casters are very good at utility, limiting them helps make the game more fair for others
I used to be a chess player. In chess, you learn openings. Not just one, but lots of them.
And how many of those chess openings involved manipulating the Weave to remake reality as you see fit through the use of magical formulas, complex glyphs and sigils, obscure arcane languages, and gods knows what else is involved in casting magic?
It works the way it works; what is being proposed is far too powerful from a mechanical perspective, for a class that is already arguably the most powerful in the game, especially at higher levels.
The argument was that no one would be able to remember this many things. So how is a 45 minute lunch break going to get you to the point where you can suddenly change out your entire spell list if desired? ;)
The OP is about Wizards. I'm extending to say MAGIC. For everyone. For Rangers, for fighters, for monks. Whoever can use a spell and gets slots and has a spell list. They should be limited by their slots, not the spells they are able to perform effectively after a rest.
From a mechanical perspective a Barbarian raging is also hard to handle. As a DM I find a lot of classes have great abilities, and this isn't designed to prioritize magic as the only or best way to do something. It's to increase creativity and fun. Does it really change the game so much if the caster use speak with animals, or disguise self or sets an Alarm whenever they want or need to for the party?
As a DM I'm not thinking of combat or even the unlocking of doors. It could be deciphering text or interacting with an environment, but I want players to have the idea that they can try something unusual, or timely, or strange. It's a lot easier to do that if you have the tools you wouldn't normally prepare available.
playing with magic is like playing with a nuclear explosion, the wizard already has all the formulea in his book, but being the genuis he is, he only needs 45 minutes to look over his book over, he knows that if he tries playing with that sort of stuff without it fresh in his mind, terrible things might happen, so he keeps a repitiore of three or four smaller things hes a master of, in his mind so he can use them (cantrips and even higher level features), this has different variations with each casting class that prepares but its pretty much the same reasons base wise
it would be a horrid idea for just power purposes as well, you say your just talking about fun stuff and not power, but in reality even with all this "fun stuff" it does change the scale of power even outside of combat, casters are very good at utility, limiting them helps make the game more fair for others
Excuse my being pretentious but: *you're
This is exactly what I'm saying. OP seems to believe that only combat abilities are useful, and that anything else is just flavour, or having fun. Obstacles exist outside of combat, and giving the Wizard access to more of their spells would allow them to completely evade said obstacles by just declaring "I cast x spell".
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
As a DM I find it frustrating when clues are laid, lore is actively there for players to receive, and they don't have the right tools available to access it. Intimidation and coersion are sometimes useful, but it's hard to pass your check if you don't speak the right language. There are so many clever ways to play the game, and I want players to have some limits of course. I just don't want limits to take away opportunities for good fun, broader more intriguing adventures!
As a DM I find it frustrating when clues are laid, lore is actively there for players to receive, and they don't have the right tools available to access it. Intimidation and coersion are sometimes useful, but it's hard to pass your check if you don't speak the right language. There are so many clever ways to play the game, and I want players to have some limits of course. I just don't want limits to take away opportunities for good fun, broader more intriguing adventures!
I don't think anybody is arguing that player freedom is a bad thing, but many of the changes proposed in this thread would be far too powerful for Wizards specifically or spellcasters in general, both of whom are already arguably heavily favoured by the current edition. What you as a DM want to do with a house-rule is up to you, but it should be balanced so that non-casters aren't being further disadvantaged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Yet I offer examples continually of how this kind of system could help the game. (And no one bothers to offer that DMs actually do a bit of this anyway through the use of magical items, scrolls, etc, which also don't just go to casters). There's no discussion, just reiterations of too much power for casters, and now power includes utility too!
Don't you think this works itself out at the table, and the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/anyone isn't going to waste a level 1-2 slot on something unless no one else is known to be able to do the thing in question?
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
There are all kinds of games. I like rules to a point, but like all DMs those are fluid and determined by the situation. If magic is explosive, and the Wizard does know feather fall, and has a chance to make it work regardless of being unprepped, why not have a mechanism for that? Like do it, roll to see how well it works/roll on Wild Magic Table/take 1d6 force damage as a result of it going wrong. That sounds fun to me.
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Yet I offer examples continually of how this kind of system could help the game. (And no one bothers to offer that DMs actually do a bit of this anyway through the use of magical items, scrolls, etc, which also don't just go to casters). There's no discussion, just reiterations of too much power for casters, and now power includes utility too!
Don't you think this works itself out at the table, and the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/anyone isn't going to waste a level 1-2 slot on something unless no one else is known to be able to do the thing in question?
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
There are all kinds of games. I like rules to a point, but like all DMs those are fluid and determined by the situation. If magic is explosive, and the Wizard does know feather fall, and has a chance to make it work regardless of being unprepped, why not have a mechanism for that? Like do it, roll to see how well it works/roll on Wild Magic Table/take 1d6 force damage as a result of it going wrong. That sounds fun to me.
I mean, but we have offered examples and reasons as to why its just broken, and you keep just saying were only focused on combat when were not, its almost like your entirely ignoring us because you think your idea is the best and we should all listen to you
but sure, if you want examples, lets go ahead and give it, lets go for a rogue, and a party of 2-3 additional casters, lets give the rogue pass without trace, from the wizard spell list, invisibility from the other spell list lets say a bards, and silence from the lets say a druid, and maybe the rogue has a ring of spell storing that lets him cast an additional spell, or has a background that gives him guidance and the bard gives bardic inspiration, that stealth check that your going to ask that rogue to roll, that probably has a more common dc of lets say 17, has become pointless, as with expertise even a low level rogue with that is rolling right around a 17 with a nat 1 oh! and and the druids and wizards spells were unprepared!
I can go on and on with scenarios, but essentially yes, they give an insane boost in power to players in rp and combat that either require a massive dc change, something else to oppose them, or just a harder foe to fight if we add in combat. so no, we shouldnt let casters cast spells that they have unprepared
My interpretation of the preparation of spells has never been that the wizard forgets them in between. Instead, you need to "hang" them - you prepare them by going through some very complex and careful ritual, setting up the structure of the spell, all ready to go, leaving out only the last key words, item, etc, to feed the power available into this pre-prepared structure. A wizard only has a certain amount of power to invest in those structures, and can only keep a number of "balls in the air" at once, so with increased power and practice they can have more spells, and more power, ready to go. My model has always been the Pattern- or Logrus- based sorcery from Roger Zelazny's Amber series. Late in the series Merlin gets an item that lets him construct spell structures on the fly, but before that he has to spend hours setting them up. Once the structure's there, just say the word, feed in the requisite power, and go. The analogy isn't to a musician who knows many tunes, but to a workman setting up a delicate piece of machinery: e.g. you have to set up the drill press just so, but once it's there you can flip the switch as long as you have power and punch holes in things. However, your workbench only has so much space, so if you want a bandsaw instead...better get out the manual and make sure it's set up right first, or bad things might happen when you flip the switch. You don't forget how to use the drill press when you set up the bandsaw, obviously, it's just not set up just then.
also, it depends on the setting, but yeah, this is another good example too
As a DM I find it frustrating when clues are laid, lore is actively there for players to receive, and they don't have the right tools available to access it. Intimidation and coersion are sometimes useful, but it's hard to pass your check if you don't speak the right language. There are so many clever ways to play the game, and I want players to have some limits of course. I just don't want limits to take away opportunities for good fun, broader more intriguing adventures!
I think you just need to change the way you leave clues out so they are more accessible or truly optional. Plenty of characters don't have magic at all and they should be able to move the plot forward.
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Actually, plenty has been said but you keep denying that those things are relevant. Whether you like it or not, the power of a wizard is directly tied to its versatility, and this would be a huge power up. Magic can already do most things that martials are supposed to be good at - but better - and the times where the wizard doesn't have the perfect solution is a chance for the other 4-5 people in the party to shine. Your proposal would negatively impact the party dynamic.
Additionally, roleplaying is about choices. Choices that matter. Choosing spells is an important choice. It gets you into the headspace of the character and their place in the story. It's a bummer when you didn't prepare the right thing and a thrill when you do - that is you as a player feeling what you as your character would feel. Your proposal will negatively impact an opportunity for a player to make roleplaying choices that matter.
And as stated before, limitations tend to increase creativity. Would MacGyver have been interesting if he always had exactly the tools he needed? If you ask people for stories about their favorite time a spell helped out, they won't tell you about a situation where the wizard had the perfect spell for the occasion. They will tell you about a time that they had to use some crazy logic or teamwork to make a spell that shouldn't have worked at all somehow indirectly solve the problem. Half of those stories would not have ever come about if not for prepared spell limitations. Your proposal will negatively impact the creative use of spells.
Furthermore, spellcasters already often suffer from option paralysis. There's just too many options. Some people avoid druid and cleric just because they can't handle choosing from the entire class spell list every day. Now you want a wizard to be doing that all day long. Every scene the party would have to wait 8 minutes as the wizard checks their spell list to see if they have a spell relevant to the situation. Your proposal will negatively impact the flow of the game.
I'm sure you will sweep all of these aside as you have every other bit of criticism in this thread. I'd just ask you to consider that when your responses are overwhelmingly against the idea and you still see nothing wrong with it - and in fact don't even seem to register any criticism as valid at all - maybe you need to step back from the idea and get a bit more perspective. Or just accept that it's not what most people want but no one is stopping you from doing it in your game.
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Yet I offer examples continually of how this kind of system could help the game. (And no one bothers to offer that DMs actually do a bit of this anyway through the use of magical items, scrolls, etc, which also don't just go to casters). There's no discussion, just reiterations of too much power for casters, and now power includes utility too!
Don't you think this works itself out at the table, and the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/anyone isn't going to waste a level 1-2 slot on something unless no one else is known to be able to do the thing in question?
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
There are all kinds of games. I like rules to a point, but like all DMs those are fluid and determined by the situation. If magic is explosive, and the Wizard does know feather fall, and has a chance to make it work regardless of being unprepped, why not have a mechanism for that? Like do it, roll to see how well it works/roll on Wild Magic Table/take 1d6 force damage as a result of it going wrong. That sounds fun to me.
I mean, but we have offered examples and reasons as to why its just broken, and you keep just saying were only focused on combat when were not, its almost like your entirely ignoring us because you think your idea is the best and we should all listen to you
but sure, if you want examples, lets go ahead and give it, lets go for a rogue, and a party of 2-3 additional casters, lets give the rogue pass without trace, from the wizard spell list, invisibility from the other spell list lets say a bards, and silence from the lets say a druid, and maybe the rogue has a ring of spell storing that lets him cast an additional spell, or has a background that gives him guidance and the bard gives bardic inspiration, that stealth check that your going to ask that rogue to roll, that probably has a more common dc of lets say 17, has become pointless, as with expertise even a low level rogue with that is rolling right around a 17 with a nat 1 oh! and and the druids and wizards spells were unprepared!
I can go on and on with scenarios, but essentially yes, they give an insane boost in power to players in rp and combat that either require a massive dc change, something else to oppose them, or just a harder foe to fight if we add in combat. so no, we shouldnt let casters cast spells that they have unprepared
Okay. Now this is discussion around actualities.
So all of those casters are going to waste a spell slot so the rogue can do what a rogue already does well? I doubt that. All they need is pass without trace, and that is for the entire party if everyone is close anyway. Save Silence for your clanky Dwarf if he rolls low.
The stacking going on here is silly, and no party I've played in or with would stack that much unnecessarily for a stealth check. Those are pretty commonly prepped spells anyway, so it's not like a party with 2-3 casters is unlikely to have those prepped after about level 7. I'm talking about the things that don't get prepped much at all.
As stated earlier it isn't clear when and how this would work, but I was proposing it would only happen after a certain level (maybe level 7), so these would be low level spells (Cantrips, level 1). At that point it means versatility but some limitations from expending spell slots.
I'm obviously not convincing you this is a good idea, or even worthy of actual debate. You've decided. I haven't, and I'm open to ideas.
As a DM I find it frustrating when clues are laid, lore is actively there for players to receive, and they don't have the right tools available to access it. Intimidation and coersion are sometimes useful, but it's hard to pass your check if you don't speak the right language. There are so many clever ways to play the game, and I want players to have some limits of course. I just don't want limits to take away opportunities for good fun, broader more intriguing adventures!
I think you just need to change the way you leave clues out so they are more accessible or truly optional. Plenty of characters don't have magic at all and they should be able to move the plot forward.
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Actually, plenty has been said but you keep denying that those things are relevant. Whether you like it or not, the power of a wizard is directly tied to its versatility, and this would be a huge power up. Magic can already do most things that martials are supposed to be good at - but better - and the times where the wizard doesn't have the perfect solution is a chance for the other 4-5 people in the party to shine. Your proposal would negatively impact the party dynamic.
Additionally, roleplaying is about choices. Choices that matter. Choosing spells is an important choice. It gets you into the headspace of the character and their place in the story. It's a bummer when you didn't prepare the right thing and a thrill when you do - that is you as a player feeling what you as your character would feel. Your proposal will negatively impact an opportunity for a player to make roleplaying choices that matter.
And as stated before, limitations tend to increase creativity. Would MacGyver have been interesting if he always had exactly the tools he needed? If you ask people for stories about their favorite time a spell helped out, they won't tell you about a situation where the wizard had the perfect spell for the occasion. They will tell you about a time that they had to use some crazy logic or teamwork to make a spell that shouldn't have worked at all somehow indirectly solve the problem. Half of those stories would not have ever come about if not for prepared spell limitations. Your proposal will negatively impact the creative use of spells.
Furthermore, spellcasters already often suffer from option paralysis. There's just too many options. Some people avoid druid and cleric just because they can't handle choosing from the entire class spell list every day. Now you want a wizard to be doing that all day long. Every scene the party would have to wait 8 minutes as the wizard checks their spell list to see if they have a spell relevant to the situation. Your proposal will negatively impact the flow of the game.
I'm sure you will sweep all of these aside as you have every other bit of criticism in this thread. I'd just ask you to consider that when your responses are overwhelmingly against the idea and you still see nothing wrong with it - and in fact don't even seem to register any criticism as valid at all - maybe you need to step back from the idea and get a bit more perspective. Or just accept that it's not what most people want but no one is stopping you from doing it in your game.
It's quite easy to respond without first (oh, and last too) telling me what I'm doing and what I'm not! I just like the discussion. I'm learning. How about you?
Role-playing and exploration are about choices that matter. I've just found when playing, whether as a character or as a DM, that there is a very limited number of the range of spells available that are actually utilized. That is where this is coming from. I'm also not talking about low levels, where characters are and should be very limited, or high levels, where they have so many spells and slots available that accessing all level 1 spells wouldn't likely change much. It's that middle level area where I have seen so many opportunities squandered because no one has the ability in question.
I'm a long time game player, and I know and believe in the ability of constraints to produce creative solutions. I'm also an art, design and film teacher by profession. I get it.
The use of a spell like Grease, or Illusory script, is likely not going to break the game. These are the kinds of things I'm imagining, There really aren't a lot of spells (even on the Wizard's list) that would be more available. It's not like I'm saying everyone gets the full level 5 spell list without having to prep.
If I'm still writing it has nothing to do with sweeping anything under. It's called a discussion. ;)
Everyone here has explained how this is a bad idea, and given examples, and yet you seem to insist on ignoring us in favour of declaring otherwise. You say that you're open to ideas yet all I've seen thus far is you arguing your case and ignoring others.
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Yet I offer examples continually of how this kind of system could help the game. (And no one bothers to offer that DMs actually do a bit of this anyway through the use of magical items, scrolls, etc, which also don't just go to casters). There's no discussion, just reiterations of too much power for casters, and now power includes utility too!
Don't you think this works itself out at the table, and the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/anyone isn't going to waste a level 1-2 slot on something unless no one else is known to be able to do the thing in question?
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
There are all kinds of games. I like rules to a point, but like all DMs those are fluid and determined by the situation. If magic is explosive, and the Wizard does know feather fall, and has a chance to make it work regardless of being unprepped, why not have a mechanism for that? Like do it, roll to see how well it works/roll on Wild Magic Table/take 1d6 force damage as a result of it going wrong. That sounds fun to me.
I mean, but we have offered examples and reasons as to why its just broken, and you keep just saying were only focused on combat when were not, its almost like your entirely ignoring us because you think your idea is the best and we should all listen to you
but sure, if you want examples, lets go ahead and give it, lets go for a rogue, and a party of 2-3 additional casters, lets give the rogue pass without trace, from the wizard spell list, invisibility from the other spell list lets say a bards, and silence from the lets say a druid, and maybe the rogue has a ring of spell storing that lets him cast an additional spell, or has a background that gives him guidance and the bard gives bardic inspiration, that stealth check that your going to ask that rogue to roll, that probably has a more common dc of lets say 17, has become pointless, as with expertise even a low level rogue with that is rolling right around a 17 with a nat 1 oh! and and the druids and wizards spells were unprepared!
I can go on and on with scenarios, but essentially yes, they give an insane boost in power to players in rp and combat that either require a massive dc change, something else to oppose them, or just a harder foe to fight if we add in combat. so no, we shouldnt let casters cast spells that they have unprepared
Okay. Now this is discussion around actualities.
So all of those casters are going to waste a spell slot so the rogue can do what a rogue already does well? I doubt that. All they need is pass without trace, and that is for the entire party if everyone is close anyway. Save Silence for your clanky Dwarf if he rolls low.
The stacking going on here is silly, and no party I've played in or with would stack that much unnecessarily for a stealth check. Those are pretty commonly prepped spells anyway, so it's not like a party with 2-3 casters is unlikely to have those prepped after about level 7. I'm talking about the things that don't get prepped much at all.
As stated earlier it isn't clear when and how this would work, but I was proposing it would only happen after a certain level (maybe level 7), so these would be low level spells (Cantrips, level 1). At that point it means versatility but some limitations from expending spell slots.
I'm obviously not convincing you this is a good idea, or even worthy of actual debate. You've decided. I haven't, and I'm open to ideas.
it doesnt matter what your talking about being prepped much, when youve stated multiple times that what you want is for them to be able to cast is unprepared spells after a certian level, and #2, as soon as this rule goes into effect, your going to have pcs flying to get around obstacles, stacking on effects to avoid challenges, or just overall not needing to do much challenges to them because of this, but sure, lets go with low level spells that are first level, even that is busted as heck outside combat and if you want a whole nother set of scenarios i can give you that, at the very least three come into my head now
the reason its not a discussion by the way, isnt because im not open to new ideas,hell, I have several ideas that i implement in my own games for casters because I know my group and what i can handle, and I take their ideas into consideration, and have for the last 15 years ive run games, no the reason its not a discussion, is because you have at least three people right now telling you its a horrible idea, giving you examples that actually work and instead of listening to us, and giving solid examples of your own, your stuck on your idea being the best saying that this is a discussion, when its not.
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
Yes.
If you're a DM and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, don't make huge pits (or maybe even don't make rope-slipperiness checks). If you're a player and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, prepare feather fall. It's so damn simple. If neither the DM nor the players opted out of the possibility of falling, then falling will make you go down, gain velocity, and perhaps even hit something at said velocity.
Actively choosing to have the spell and then having it pay off is leagues better than your version of "risk," which is, "oh no, you fell! -1 spell slot. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."
I also find it funny that 7/8 of my questions, providing MANY reasons that your idea is not good, have gone unaddressed (and the one that was was done so very poorly). And yet "nobody has put any points forward." Come on, dude.
Edit: the questions are on post #16, in case you want to actually have a discussion.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Everyone here has explained how this is a bad idea, and given examples, and yet you seem to insist on ignoring us in favour of declaring otherwise. You say that you're open to ideas yet all I've seen thus far is you arguing your case and ignoring others.
You spend so much time telling me I'm wrong you don't actually engage in possibilities, look at the range of spells actually there, or think outside of how a party could abuse something like this idea. Parties can abuse just about anything, if that is what they want to do.
You also have not responded to any of the ideas about methods of implementing repercussions for using unprepped spells. This may be a bad idea, and I get that it may be, but lets talk about it rather than simply discounting based on your years of experience.
I'll go backwards and propose a system.
--------------------------------------
After level 7 all classes who use any magic do not need to prep cantrips. After level 9 all classes do not need to prep level 1 spells (but are still limited by spell slots in how they use them).
If a characters casts an unprepped cantrip or spell they must roll on the Wild Magic Table for an effect.
In combat a character is also limited by a normal action economy, so would likely not risk the Wild Magic roll in battle to use an unprepped level 1 spell unless they're chaotic or desperate!
--------------------------------------
I'm looking at the spells list for level 1 Wizard spells. Here is a list.
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
Yes.
If you're a DM and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, don't make huge pits (or maybe even don't make rope-slipperiness checks). If you're a player and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, prepare feather fall. It's so damn simple. If neither the DM nor the players opted out of the possibility of falling, then falling will make you go down, gain velocity, and perhaps even hit something at said velocity.
Actively choosing to have the spell and then having it pay off is leagues better than your version of "risk," which is, "oh no, you fell! -1 spell slot. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."
I also find it funny that 7/8 of my questions, providing MANY reasons that your idea is not good, have gone unaddressed (and the one that was was done so very poorly). And yet "nobody has put any points forward." Come on, dude.
Edit: the questions are on post #16, in case you want to actually have a discussion.
Please try to be less offended by others' ideas if you want a discussion about specifics. Your tone seems condescending, which I'm guessing is intentional.
I don't make all of the adventures my parties play. Sure I adapt them, but it's kind of impossible to avoid all chasms, mountain ledges, high bridges, or other falling hazards as a DM. My version of risk is that it's actually still fun for a party to have real death risks and be able to get out of them while increasing tension. So Feather fall is used (and my version also stated that this might require a Wild Magic roll or other consequence in addition to the used spell slot), that might mean the Caster runs out of spell slots earlier, takes some effect from Wild Magic, and has a lasting impact form this save.
Alright. Post #16
Don't you think it's silly for a wizard to know the entire, incredibly complex contents of their 50 page spellbook at all times, without ever practicing to remember them?
As I stated above, no. I'll go back to chess as an example of what human minds can do. This book, Standard Chess Openings, is 768 pages long. Most Master level players would literally know the entire contents, plus many other standard endings, as well as how to direct the course of a game in a certain direction based on the openings and how they translate to middle game play.
Don't you think it's silly to expect players to remember hundreds of spells and when they're most useful, off the top of their head?
A lot of professions, (law, medicine, history, mathematics, physics, engineering, etc) have similar levels of wrote knowledge in usable form within a mental toolbox. Details must of course be referenced for unusual situations, (equivalent of new or higher level spells), but for common problems information is known and accessible.
Don't you think it's silly to restrict major creative choices in characters because you can't be bothered to think ahead?
This question says "you can't be bothered to ..." which is both condescending and irrelevant. No one can prep for all unknowns, and I'm not restricting, but hoping to open, both creative and useful, appropriate choices.
Don't you think it's silly for a Grave Cleric, sworn to fight against the forces of undeath, to have animate dead ready to go at any time?
No. They don't have to use those spells!
Or a Death Cleric, who killed their entire village to pursue the secrets of lichdom, to have mass cure wounds locked 'n' loaded just in case all their friends scrape their knees?
No. They don't have to use those spells!
Don't you think it might be a little bit ridiculous to make all of the already most versatile classes be swiss army knives in comparison to everybody else?
Some of the spells that would be available could buff/help other party members do what they do in fun ways. So no. It's certainly not ridiculous, and if a party is working together, it should be able to help the party.
Don't you find it just a slight bit humorous for spellcasting ability to have such a small bearing actual ability to cast spells?
Why would spellcasting ability "have such a small bearing?" The character can't cast more spells per rest than usual, would need need whatever they need (voice, somantic, material) to cast spells, and actually would have a consequence (Wild Magic roll) for casting an unprepped spell).
Don't you think it would be a bit strange to believe that limited spell slots, and nothing else, is enough to balance having 50-100 spells on hand at all times?
It's not 50-100 spells. I listed the non-combat level 1Wizard spells above and it's a grand total of 16, (of which the Wizard would still be able to prep about a 1/4 if they chose not to prep combat spells at level 1).
Other characters would also benefit, as anyone could use this feature if they also can cast spells, have a list and slots. So if we want to examine power balance, (if that is the term that applies, although we're talking about out of combat "power"), it would be both distributed and able to be used for all characters in the party as buffs, aides, saves, etc.
This thread is going around in circles.
Wizards (and all casters tbh) are already waaayyyy more powerful than martial classes. Giving all casters access to *even more* of their spells at a time inherently *would* make them more powerful.
More spells equals more power. We do not need more power. It's that simple.
[REDACTED]
My interpretation of the preparation of spells has never been that the wizard forgets them in between. Instead, you need to "hang" them - you prepare them by going through some very complex and careful ritual, setting up the structure of the spell, all ready to go, leaving out only the last key words, item, etc, to feed the power available into this pre-prepared structure. A wizard only has a certain amount of power to invest in those structures, and can only keep a number of "balls in the air" at once, so with increased power and practice they can have more spells, and more power, ready to go. My model has always been the Pattern- or Logrus- based sorcery from Roger Zelazny's Amber series. Late in the series Merlin gets an item that lets him construct spell structures on the fly, but before that he has to spend hours setting them up. Once the structure's there, just say the word, feed in the requisite power, and go. The analogy isn't to a musician who knows many tunes, but to a workman setting up a delicate piece of machinery: e.g. you have to set up the drill press just so, but once it's there you can flip the switch as long as you have power and punch holes in things. However, your workbench only has so much space, so if you want a bandsaw instead...better get out the manual and make sure it's set up right first, or bad things might happen when you flip the switch. You don't forget how to use the drill press when you set up the bandsaw, obviously, it's just not set up just then.
Exactly this. OP is effectively arguing that the workman should have an infinitely large workbench.
[REDACTED]
Yeah, I see that this could be one way magic is interpreted, but it's certainly not stated as such within game.
Again, everyone keeps going back to POWER. It's like a broken record on so many threads. I think back to a thread that went like 10-12 pages of responses about whether a level 20 Wizard would beat a level 20 Druid. This has nothing to do with D&D. There is a fascination with combat stats on these threads that is so prevalent posters don't even see it.
I have no idea the OPs intentions in posting about this, but it seems he was interested in at least some utility spells and weaker spells that were situational.
I have no interest in making casters more POWERFUL in combat, but just more able to be creative outside of it. It's funny people react so strongly to this as if it would break the game if a Druid could use Talk With Animals more often. Or a Bard use a level 1 charm simply at the price of a spell slot without having to compromise this ability if there are other spells they assume might be useful that day, so they wouldn't prep charm.
By the time the caster is a higher level, these are not game changers, they're fun makers. Most have some way of doing many of these anyway, through a magical item, but not necessarily the full range of their possible abilities.
The martial classes often have many skills, abilities and characters traits that are similar to some low level spells outside of combat. A lot also can do magic, and could benefit from not having to prep low level spells as well.
As a DM I try to give out more specific magic items to do some of these things but I also find players forget their items more than they forget their spells, so I'm just saying in my world it makes sense, and would add to our games, to have more low level utility spells available.
I don't buy this "prep the structure" stuff. It's just a game mechanic to put a constraint onto combat. I get that. I support that. It's outside of combat things can be a bit more fluid.
playing with magic is like playing with a nuclear explosion, the wizard already has all the formulea in his book, but being the genuis he is, he only needs 45 minutes to look over his book over, he knows that if he tries playing with that sort of stuff without it fresh in his mind, terrible things might happen, so he keeps a repitiore of three or four smaller things hes a master of, in his mind so he can use them (cantrips and even higher level features), this has different variations with each casting class that prepares but its pretty much the same reasons base wise
it would be a horrid idea for just power purposes as well, you say your just talking about fun stuff and not power, but in reality even with all this "fun stuff" it does change the scale of power even outside of combat, casters are very good at utility, limiting them helps make the game more fair for others
Excuse my being pretentious but: *you're
This is exactly what I'm saying. OP seems to believe that only combat abilities are useful, and that anything else is just flavour, or having fun. Obstacles exist outside of combat, and giving the Wizard access to more of their spells would allow them to completely evade said obstacles by just declaring "I cast x spell".
[REDACTED]
50 gold pieces says his response to this is gonna be something along the lines of "if we limit casters with spell slots and nothing else, everything will be fine, right?"
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
As a DM I find it frustrating when clues are laid, lore is actively there for players to receive, and they don't have the right tools available to access it. Intimidation and coersion are sometimes useful, but it's hard to pass your check if you don't speak the right language. There are so many clever ways to play the game, and I want players to have some limits of course. I just don't want limits to take away opportunities for good fun, broader more intriguing adventures!
I don't think anybody is arguing that player freedom is a bad thing, but many of the changes proposed in this thread would be far too powerful for Wizards specifically or spellcasters in general, both of whom are already arguably heavily favoured by the current edition. What you as a DM want to do with a house-rule is up to you, but it should be balanced so that non-casters aren't being further disadvantaged.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's so interesting how no one offers any examples of how this would ruin the game, or potential games, or any situation. ;)
Yet I offer examples continually of how this kind of system could help the game. (And no one bothers to offer that DMs actually do a bit of this anyway through the use of magical items, scrolls, etc, which also don't just go to casters). There's no discussion, just reiterations of too much power for casters, and now power includes utility too!
Don't you think this works itself out at the table, and the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/anyone isn't going to waste a level 1-2 slot on something unless no one else is known to be able to do the thing in question?
"We can make it, I've got a rope. Oh shit, my hands slipped! This is a long way down guys?" (Missed check). Should we let them die if no one was able to prepare feather fall or fly?
There are all kinds of games. I like rules to a point, but like all DMs those are fluid and determined by the situation. If magic is explosive, and the Wizard does know feather fall, and has a chance to make it work regardless of being unprepped, why not have a mechanism for that? Like do it, roll to see how well it works/roll on Wild Magic Table/take 1d6 force damage as a result of it going wrong. That sounds fun to me.
I mean, but we have offered examples and reasons as to why its just broken, and you keep just saying were only focused on combat when were not, its almost like your entirely ignoring us because you think your idea is the best and we should all listen to you
but sure, if you want examples, lets go ahead and give it, lets go for a rogue, and a party of 2-3 additional casters, lets give the rogue pass without trace, from the wizard spell list, invisibility from the other spell list lets say a bards, and silence from the lets say a druid, and maybe the rogue has a ring of spell storing that lets him cast an additional spell, or has a background that gives him guidance and the bard gives bardic inspiration, that stealth check that your going to ask that rogue to roll, that probably has a more common dc of lets say 17, has become pointless, as with expertise even a low level rogue with that is rolling right around a 17 with a nat 1
oh! and and the druids and wizards spells were unprepared!
I can go on and on with scenarios, but essentially yes, they give an insane boost in power to players in rp and combat that either require a massive dc change, something else to oppose them, or just a harder foe to fight if we add in combat. so no, we shouldnt let casters cast spells that they have unprepared
also, it depends on the setting, but yeah, this is another good example too
I think you just need to change the way you leave clues out so they are more accessible or truly optional. Plenty of characters don't have magic at all and they should be able to move the plot forward.
Actually, plenty has been said but you keep denying that those things are relevant. Whether you like it or not, the power of a wizard is directly tied to its versatility, and this would be a huge power up. Magic can already do most things that martials are supposed to be good at - but better - and the times where the wizard doesn't have the perfect solution is a chance for the other 4-5 people in the party to shine. Your proposal would negatively impact the party dynamic.
Additionally, roleplaying is about choices. Choices that matter. Choosing spells is an important choice. It gets you into the headspace of the character and their place in the story. It's a bummer when you didn't prepare the right thing and a thrill when you do - that is you as a player feeling what you as your character would feel. Your proposal will negatively impact an opportunity for a player to make roleplaying choices that matter.
And as stated before, limitations tend to increase creativity. Would MacGyver have been interesting if he always had exactly the tools he needed? If you ask people for stories about their favorite time a spell helped out, they won't tell you about a situation where the wizard had the perfect spell for the occasion. They will tell you about a time that they had to use some crazy logic or teamwork to make a spell that shouldn't have worked at all somehow indirectly solve the problem. Half of those stories would not have ever come about if not for prepared spell limitations. Your proposal will negatively impact the creative use of spells.
Furthermore, spellcasters already often suffer from option paralysis. There's just too many options. Some people avoid druid and cleric just because they can't handle choosing from the entire class spell list every day. Now you want a wizard to be doing that all day long. Every scene the party would have to wait 8 minutes as the wizard checks their spell list to see if they have a spell relevant to the situation. Your proposal will negatively impact the flow of the game.
I'm sure you will sweep all of these aside as you have every other bit of criticism in this thread. I'd just ask you to consider that when your responses are overwhelmingly against the idea and you still see nothing wrong with it - and in fact don't even seem to register any criticism as valid at all - maybe you need to step back from the idea and get a bit more perspective. Or just accept that it's not what most people want but no one is stopping you from doing it in your game.
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
Okay. Now this is discussion around actualities.
So all of those casters are going to waste a spell slot so the rogue can do what a rogue already does well? I doubt that. All they need is pass without trace, and that is for the entire party if everyone is close anyway. Save Silence for your clanky Dwarf if he rolls low.
The stacking going on here is silly, and no party I've played in or with would stack that much unnecessarily for a stealth check. Those are pretty commonly prepped spells anyway, so it's not like a party with 2-3 casters is unlikely to have those prepped after about level 7. I'm talking about the things that don't get prepped much at all.
As stated earlier it isn't clear when and how this would work, but I was proposing it would only happen after a certain level (maybe level 7), so these would be low level spells (Cantrips, level 1). At that point it means versatility but some limitations from expending spell slots.
I'm obviously not convincing you this is a good idea, or even worthy of actual debate. You've decided. I haven't, and I'm open to ideas.
It's quite easy to respond without first (oh, and last too) telling me what I'm doing and what I'm not! I just like the discussion. I'm learning. How about you?
Role-playing and exploration are about choices that matter. I've just found when playing, whether as a character or as a DM, that there is a very limited number of the range of spells available that are actually utilized. That is where this is coming from. I'm also not talking about low levels, where characters are and should be very limited, or high levels, where they have so many spells and slots available that accessing all level 1 spells wouldn't likely change much. It's that middle level area where I have seen so many opportunities squandered because no one has the ability in question.
I'm a long time game player, and I know and believe in the ability of constraints to produce creative solutions. I'm also an art, design and film teacher by profession. I get it.
The use of a spell like Grease, or Illusory script, is likely not going to break the game. These are the kinds of things I'm imagining, There really aren't a lot of spells (even on the Wizard's list) that would be more available. It's not like I'm saying everyone gets the full level 5 spell list without having to prep.
If I'm still writing it has nothing to do with sweeping anything under. It's called a discussion. ;)
Everyone here has explained how this is a bad idea, and given examples, and yet you seem to insist on ignoring us in favour of declaring otherwise. You say that you're open to ideas yet all I've seen thus far is you arguing your case and ignoring others.
[REDACTED]
it doesnt matter what your talking about being prepped much, when youve stated multiple times that what you want is for them to be able to cast is unprepared spells after a certian level, and #2, as soon as this rule goes into effect, your going to have pcs flying to get around obstacles, stacking on effects to avoid challenges, or just overall not needing to do much challenges to them because of this, but sure, lets go with low level spells that are first level, even that is busted as heck outside combat and if you want a whole nother set of scenarios i can give you that, at the very least three come into my head now
the reason its not a discussion by the way, isnt because im not open to new ideas,hell, I have several ideas that i implement in my own games for casters because I know my group and what i can handle, and I take their ideas into consideration, and have for the last 15 years ive run games, no the reason its not a discussion, is because you have at least three people right now telling you its a horrible idea, giving you examples that actually work and instead of listening to us, and giving solid examples of your own, your stuck on your idea being the best saying that this is a discussion, when its not.
Yes.
If you're a DM and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, don't make huge pits (or maybe even don't make rope-slipperiness checks). If you're a player and you don't want a chance for a player to fall to their death, prepare feather fall. It's so damn simple. If neither the DM nor the players opted out of the possibility of falling, then falling will make you go down, gain velocity, and perhaps even hit something at said velocity.
Actively choosing to have the spell and then having it pay off is leagues better than your version of "risk," which is, "oh no, you fell! -1 spell slot. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."
I also find it funny that 7/8 of my questions, providing MANY reasons that your idea is not good, have gone unaddressed (and the one that was was done so very poorly). And yet "nobody has put any points forward." Come on, dude.
Edit: the questions are on post #16, in case you want to actually have a discussion.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You spend so much time telling me I'm wrong you don't actually engage in possibilities, look at the range of spells actually there, or think outside of how a party could abuse something like this idea. Parties can abuse just about anything, if that is what they want to do.
You also have not responded to any of the ideas about methods of implementing repercussions for using unprepped spells. This may be a bad idea, and I get that it may be, but lets talk about it rather than simply discounting based on your years of experience.
I'll go backwards and propose a system.
--------------------------------------
After level 7 all classes who use any magic do not need to prep cantrips. After level 9 all classes do not need to prep level 1 spells (but are still limited by spell slots in how they use them).
If a characters casts an unprepped cantrip or spell they must roll on the Wild Magic Table for an effect.
In combat a character is also limited by a normal action economy, so would likely not risk the Wild Magic roll in battle to use an unprepped level 1 spell unless they're chaotic or desperate!
--------------------------------------
I'm looking at the spells list for level 1 Wizard spells. Here is a list.
Alarm, Cause Fear, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Distort Value, Feather Fall, Floating Disk, Fog Cloud, Grease, Identify, Illusory Script, Jump, Longstrider, Silent Image, Unseen Servant
So these are going to break the game? (Remember about 1/4 of them could be prepped anyway by level 9).
Please try to be less offended by others' ideas if you want a discussion about specifics. Your tone seems condescending, which I'm guessing is intentional.
I don't make all of the adventures my parties play. Sure I adapt them, but it's kind of impossible to avoid all chasms, mountain ledges, high bridges, or other falling hazards as a DM. My version of risk is that it's actually still fun for a party to have real death risks and be able to get out of them while increasing tension. So Feather fall is used (and my version also stated that this might require a Wild Magic roll or other consequence in addition to the used spell slot), that might mean the Caster runs out of spell slots earlier, takes some effect from Wild Magic, and has a lasting impact form this save.
Alright. Post #16
As I stated above, no. I'll go back to chess as an example of what human minds can do. This book, Standard Chess Openings, is 768 pages long. Most Master level players would literally know the entire contents, plus many other standard endings, as well as how to direct the course of a game in a certain direction based on the openings and how they translate to middle game play.
A lot of professions, (law, medicine, history, mathematics, physics, engineering, etc) have similar levels of wrote knowledge in usable form within a mental toolbox. Details must of course be referenced for unusual situations, (equivalent of new or higher level spells), but for common problems information is known and accessible.
This question says "you can't be bothered to ..." which is both condescending and irrelevant. No one can prep for all unknowns, and I'm not restricting, but hoping to open, both creative and useful, appropriate choices.
No. They don't have to use those spells!
No. They don't have to use those spells!
Some of the spells that would be available could buff/help other party members do what they do in fun ways. So no. It's certainly not ridiculous, and if a party is working together, it should be able to help the party.
Why would spellcasting ability "have such a small bearing?" The character can't cast more spells per rest than usual, would need need whatever they need (voice, somantic, material) to cast spells, and actually would have a consequence (Wild Magic roll) for casting an unprepped spell).
It's not 50-100 spells. I listed the non-combat level 1Wizard spells above and it's a grand total of 16, (of which the Wizard would still be able to prep about a 1/4 if they chose not to prep combat spells at level 1).
Other characters would also benefit, as anyone could use this feature if they also can cast spells, have a list and slots. So if we want to examine power balance, (if that is the term that applies, although we're talking about out of combat "power"), it would be both distributed and able to be used for all characters in the party as buffs, aides, saves, etc.