I am still fairly new to D&D overall. I recognize that mechanical differences exist between prepared and learned spellcasting. How did to two styles of spellcasting develop throughout the different editions? What advantages and disadvantages does each style provide? How much does it matter for balance purposes if a given spellcaster switched spellcasting styles?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I'm not sure how you are asking your question will get the sort of discussion I think you are looking for. When you say "prepared" and "learned" do you really mean the delineation between how Wizards research, learn, and prepare spells and more spontaneous forms of magic like Sorcerers who gain spells via an internal magic intrinsic to themselves? Or do you mean prepared magic in the way that Clerics sort of prepare their spells by praying? Also there are oddities like Warlocks to account for that are sort of a mix between Wizards and Sorcerers who are granted spells by their patrons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I'm not sure how you are asking your question will get the sort of discussion I think you are looking for. When you say "prepared" and "learned" do you really mean the delineation between how Wizards research, learn, and prepare spells and more spontaneous forms of magic like Sorcerers who gain spells via an internal magic intrinsic to themselves? Or do you mean prepared magic in the way that Clerics sort of prepare their spells by praying? Also there are oddities like Warlocks to account for that are sort of a mix between Wizards and Sorcerers who are granted spells by their patrons.
Prepared: cleric, druid, paladin, and (maybe) wizard
Learned: bard, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock.
Mechanical distinction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
How did to two styles of spellcasting develop throughout the different editions?
A simplified history:
Before 3rd edition, spell casting classes either had access to an entire list of spells available to their class (cleric and druid) and each day prepared what they would use, or had a list of spells they had learned (wizard) and could only prepare from those instead of any spell available to their class. And each had to prepared multiple times if meant to be cast multiple times, and some of the classes that exist now (sorcerer, warlock) didn't actually exist back then.
3rd edition added the Sorcerer class which traded having a wide variety of learned spells to prepare from (as the wizard does) for a very narrow, but mutable (they could trade out one spell for another after a particular level) variety of learned spells, and the ability to prepare more numerous castings.
4th edition took an entirely different approach, and while each of the spell casting classes had differences in style (like wizards having a couple of spells that they could choose between to have ready for the day), they all basically followed a pattern of their spells being available to use either at-will, once per encounter, or once each day, rather than however many times they had prepared them.
And now 5th edition has mixed some of those elements together.
What advantages and disadvantages does each style provide?
That's an entirely nebulous and subjective thing that I don't have the time to ramble about at the moment (though I may come back and ramble about it later). The short version is that I think the 5th edition approach is most practical in general.
How much does it matter for balance purposes if a given spellcaster switched spellcasting styles?
Probably not that much, except in certain places - such as that the 5th edition sorcerer class is meant to not feel completely superior to the wizard class, and could end up feeling completely superior if given the wizard's spellbook rules or the cleric/druid/paladin prepare anything from your class spell list rules without taking something else away from them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am still fairly new to D&D overall. I recognize that mechanical differences exist between prepared and learned spellcasting. How did to two styles of spellcasting develop throughout the different editions? What advantages and disadvantages does each style provide? How much does it matter for balance purposes if a given spellcaster switched spellcasting styles?
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I'm not sure how you are asking your question will get the sort of discussion I think you are looking for. When you say "prepared" and "learned" do you really mean the delineation between how Wizards research, learn, and prepare spells and more spontaneous forms of magic like Sorcerers who gain spells via an internal magic intrinsic to themselves? Or do you mean prepared magic in the way that Clerics sort of prepare their spells by praying? Also there are oddities like Warlocks to account for that are sort of a mix between Wizards and Sorcerers who are granted spells by their patrons.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
A simplified history:
Before 3rd edition, spell casting classes either had access to an entire list of spells available to their class (cleric and druid) and each day prepared what they would use, or had a list of spells they had learned (wizard) and could only prepare from those instead of any spell available to their class. And each had to prepared multiple times if meant to be cast multiple times, and some of the classes that exist now (sorcerer, warlock) didn't actually exist back then.
3rd edition added the Sorcerer class which traded having a wide variety of learned spells to prepare from (as the wizard does) for a very narrow, but mutable (they could trade out one spell for another after a particular level) variety of learned spells, and the ability to prepare more numerous castings.
4th edition took an entirely different approach, and while each of the spell casting classes had differences in style (like wizards having a couple of spells that they could choose between to have ready for the day), they all basically followed a pattern of their spells being available to use either at-will, once per encounter, or once each day, rather than however many times they had prepared them.
And now 5th edition has mixed some of those elements together.
That's an entirely nebulous and subjective thing that I don't have the time to ramble about at the moment (though I may come back and ramble about it later). The short version is that I think the 5th edition approach is most practical in general.