I have been playing my first wizard (currently lvl 5) for a few months now and I failed not to notice that I can only cast 1 lvl 1-9 spell as action and cant really do much with my bonus action. I know how to use them, that is not a question, but rather: do you think wizards should be able to cast 2 spells in a round (not concentration ones, of course)? This could be done via a new Feat, or via a slightly modified Arcane Tradition.
Maybe in other words: do you think it would cause unbalanced gameplay if wizards could cast 2 spells?
For these questions I'd even consider limitations like 1 leveled action spell and 1 cantrip (even if the cantrip is 1 action), or heck, even more limitations like you need to choose 1 cantrip after a long rest and that is the only one you can cast.
There are 2 reasons I am asking this:
1. Sometimes (mehh, all the time) I feel during combat that when it is my turn I do one simple thing, roll damage, then move on. I dont feel I have the variety of things I can do in a turn. Yes, I know wizards should not be the main actors in a fight, at least not in low levels, but still.
2. It seems like melee classes can attack 2-3 times, have the chance to use light weapons with their mastery (not applied to legacy, but still) and even things like Action Surge (yes, once per short/long rest) and overall their damage seems pretty decent, where wizards - especially after burning their higher level spell slots - are getting weaker.
Yes, I know wizards do aoe with certain spells, so it is hard to keep the balance. So, I understand the rules, I am just curious if more experienced players think this way or they think at higher levels it does not bother you that much?
To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this. But based on my short time using this rule as a DM in our games, players have been using certain Magic Items to compensate (including Spell Scrolls from time to time). So not a real issue at this moment.
But I can't say yet whether the new species (and their traits), along with the updated classes (and their new features) that let characters cast prepared spells without using spell slots, are helping too, since we're still using the 2014 species (a.k.a. races), classes and feats.
We also use the legacy version, at least where my wizard is. I have a fighter in a campaign with the 2024 rules, but I did not check spell casting there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
Wizards can cast 2 spells in a round. They just can’t cast 2 spells using a spell slot on their turn, not a round (2024 rules).
Misty step + cantrip for example, is fair game. Or misty step (from fey touched feat, so it doesn’t use a slot) + any spell is also fair game. Counterspell on someone else’s turn if they’ve already cast a leveled spell on their turn is fine.
FWIW, my wizard has been getting a lot of use of their bonus action ever since they got Bigby’s hand.
While martials get more attacks, wizards get stronger and stronger spells, and their cantrip damage scales right along with those extra martial attacks.
And to answer what I think is the larger question. No, wizards do not need to be able to cast multiple leveled spells on their turn. They are plenty useful and strong enough as is.
In addition, it would also be stepping on the toes of sorcerers who, with quickened spell, are able to do this. A wizard's main differentiating point as a full arcane caster is versatility. Have one set of spells for the day, then the next, completely swap it out for a brand new list (I'm sure no one actually swaps EVERY spell, but you get the idea).
What I do think is that the new rule is easier to explain or adjudicate. Essentially, it's not about the type of action used to cast the spell (regular, Bonus Action, or Reaction), but about the number of spell slots you can expend in a turn: only one.
In addition, it would also be stepping on the toes of sorcerers who, with quickened spell, are able to do this. [...]
Just to add that quickening a spell and casting another level 1+ spell, even when using a Magic Item, wouldn't be allowed on the current turn:
Quickened Spell
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action, you can spend 2 Sorcery Points to change the casting time to a Bonus Action for this casting. You can’t modify a spell in this way if you’ve already cast a level 1+ spell on the current turn, nor can you cast a level 1+ spell on this turn after modifying a spell in this way.
I have been playing my first wizard (currently lvl 5) for a few months now and I failed not to notice that I can only cast 1 lvl 1-9 spell as action and cant really do much with my bonus action. I know how to use them, that is not a question, but rather: do you think wizards should be able to cast 2 spells in a round (not concentration ones, of course)? This could be done via a new Feat, or via a slightly modified Arcane Tradition.
Having things to do with ones bonus action is somewhat of a dilemma for most full casters tbh. And while I would sometimes like to cast multiple spells that really isn't balanced in the long run.
IMO this is much more of a perceived "issue" than a real one, i.e your turn is over quickly because you do few things but the things you do still effect the battle to a similar amount as the other party members. Some spells gives you things to do with a BA on later turns and some Feats also gives BA options, having a few such options can quickly solve the "issue" for you. Multiclassing can also help but that comes with other drawbacks.
Maybe in other words: do you think it would cause unbalanced gameplay if wizards could cast 2 spells?
For these questions I'd even consider limitations like 1 leveled action spell and 1 cantrip (even if the cantrip is 1 action), or heck, even more limitations like you need to choose 1 cantrip after a long rest and that is the only one you can cast.
There are 2 reasons I am asking this:
Yes, I know wizards do aoe with certain spells, so it is hard to keep the balance. So, I understand the rules, I am just curious if more experienced players think this way or they think at higher levels it does not bother you that much?
Having seen the power wizards wield in both the 2014 and 2024 rulesets, I do think it would imbalance things a lot if wizards could cast more spells in a turn.
Part of the issue is that there are a lot of shenanigans multiclassing allows for (in both editions).
Ultimately, players with wizards benefit from planning out their spell progression a lot. In 2014, most sorcerers don't get a huge selection, warlocks even more so.
At a basic level, it helps to pore through the available spells you have and figure out a go-to spell you'll enjoy concentrating on. At low levels, using 2014 rules, if you just want to feel like you're doing more, spells like Flaming Sphere last a while, let you re-attack with it as a bonus action, and then you use your Action to cast a cantrip or even a leveled spell. I feel like more examples will just be things you've thought of, tho, so I'll just say this:
There are tons of good resources on youtube and forums that can get into the weeds on effective spells for wizards (Treantmonk on Youtube is very accessible and informative, for example). I read a guide on Giant in the Playground a while back that totally changed how I viewed wizards and their usefulness in the game (tl:dr: dealing damage is their most boring, least strategic use; go for battlefield control). But there's too much to sum up. It's definitely out there.
Wizards are there to break the rules of the game. Wall off a wizard's minions so you can take it on while it's unprotected; get everyone over the flaming pit by casting spider climb - crawling over - and securing a rope to the other side; using divination magic to see the ambush on the other side of the door; frightening or stunning a whole bunch of the mob so they can't all attack your party at once. Those are all "cheat codes" wizards get. And, yeah, there are a variety of combos to do a bunch of damage too (they generally work better in theory than in game, but, hey, it's fun to play however you want to play).
These are really good insights and I also agree, but my main point was not the "how to use the wizard", rather than "how to change the rules so wizards could do a bit more in one turn". One rule change could be to lower the spell damages, but allow the multiple spell casting (similarly to how fighters get more and more actions at certain levels). I'd rather see twice as much spell slots, but lowered (halved?) dmg, if I could add a bit more variety to the things I do in a round. Maybe even spell dc should be lowered by a point or two for this to even out the additional actions a wizard could do. Not sure. I was just wondering. :) Thanks everyone for the inputs!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
These are really good insights and I also agree, but my main point was not the "how to use the wizard", rather than "how to change the rules so wizards could do a bit more in one turn". One rule change could be to lower the spell damages, but allow the multiple spell casting (similarly to how fighters get more and more actions at certain levels). I'd rather see twice as much spell slots, but lowered (halved?) dmg, if I could add a bit more variety to the things I do in a round. Maybe even spell dc should be lowered by a point or two for this to even out the additional actions a wizard could do. Not sure. I was just wondering. :) Thanks everyone for the inputs!
I think that this is the wrong way to do. Spellcasters doesn't need to be able to cast more spells, they could do with more non-spellcasting things to do though (especially things that they can do with their Bonus Action).
These are really good insights and I also agree, but my main point was not the "how to use the wizard", rather than "how to change the rules so wizards could do a bit more in one turn". One rule change could be to lower the spell damages, but allow the multiple spell casting (similarly to how fighters get more and more actions at certain levels). I'd rather see twice as much spell slots, but lowered (halved?) dmg, if I could add a bit more variety to the things I do in a round. Maybe even spell dc should be lowered by a point or two for this to even out the additional actions a wizard could do. Not sure. I was just wondering. :) Thanks everyone for the inputs!
I see what you're getting at, now; interesting question!
I guess those are ways to go about it. My initial reaction is that it sounds like it will make wizards start to feel like monks. By that, I mean, monks _can_ punch a lot each round, but because (especially in 2014 rules) they're so fragile and on the lower damage side of things, they _have_ to punch a lot just to keep up with the other martials. In the same way, if wizard spells were less effective (either in damage or ease of spell DC), they would be forced into doing a specific combos of spells just to keep up. Maybe not. That's just my knee-jerk suspicion.
It's also hard for me to relate to your experience, because I play wizards often and love all the options I have--and enjoy the power they already wield. By comparison, I feel like warriors (especially in the 2014 rules) knew how to do one thing and had to do it over and over again. And had no answer for when enemies were at all dynamic. They may be doing more single-target damage, but I get bored with them very quickly!
Wizards, even relatively low leveled, can have a pretty big amount of options available and used in a single turn; they don't need to cast 2 leveled spells per turn. What kind of spells are you casting that you feel you're not getting enough in return?
Bad example maybe for a level 5, but I DM a game that is on the precipice of 20th level - the wizard can have ~3 spells going at a minimum (Mirror Image, Crown of Stars, plus whatever spell he's casting on his turn). It takes a few rounds of setup, but he's a powerhouse.
I will relent that it's a bad example - wizards are pretty much early game squishies that grow into late game monsters. My advice is either to change up the spells you're accessing/casting, or hold out for a few more levels and see if your complaint sticks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
These are really good insights and I also agree, but my main point was not the "how to use the wizard", rather than "how to change the rules so wizards could do a bit more in one turn". One rule change could be to lower the spell damages, but allow the multiple spell casting (similarly to how fighters get more and more actions at certain levels). I'd rather see twice as much spell slots, but lowered (halved?) dmg, if I could add a bit more variety to the things I do in a round. Maybe even spell dc should be lowered by a point or two for this to even out the additional actions a wizard could do. Not sure. I was just wondering. :) Thanks everyone for the inputs!
Spells can take longer than martial attacks to play through, for example each attack requires an attack roll and possibly a damage roll. Casting fireball requires a damage roll and maybe 8 saving throws, though I realise you would normally only roll the damage dice. This means that the wizards turn is quite likely to take as long as the fighters.
There are spells that enable you to do more on your turn. For example you could cast a summon spell, you would then be deciding what the summon does as well as yourself.
You do have options that enable you to do more on your tur
What exactly do you mean by "they could do with more non-spellcasting things to do"? Btw, my examples were not suggestions, I was only thinking out loud. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
I have not played high level wizards yet, I am ~1500 xp to lvl 6, so still fairly new to the wizards, plus this is my 3rd 5e character, so I would not consider myself an expert in the rules (even though I have read both the player's - and dm's handbooks).
And it is not the impact that I lack, but rather the variety within a fight. I think my damage is always in the top end of the group, when needed I can cc a bit and buff our tank, that are good things considering my char is an evoker. It's simply the "I do this....aaaaand that's my turn"-thing that bothers me. Outside of fights I have no issues, though I need to mention that we do RP-heavy campaign, and not the typical min-maxing (or stat-padidng?) approach, so my spell selection is not always "optimal", but rather true to the character's way of thinking and background.
That is the deliberate design of wizards, if you don't enjoy it I'd suggest swapping to a Bard or a Sorcerer instead. Because it is a deliberate game balanced design that Wizards get the biggest variety of spells available - thus have the most choices of what to cast in and outside of combat, but only get to cast one per turn. Whereas Sorcerer has fewer choices of what spells they can cast but can modify them in a variety of ways, and Bards get less variety of spells but also have Bardic Inspiration to do additional things on their turn. TL:DR Wizards have the most variety turn-to-turn, but Sorcerers and Bards have more variety within one turn.
The other option is to multi-class and trade absolute spellpower for more variety of things of lower power. For instance 3 levels into Battlesmith Artificer would get you a companion that uses your Bonus Action. (Or completely swap to Artificer, and sacrifice full caster progression for a powerful reliable option for your Bonus Action).
Lots of spells cannot be "depowered" - e.g. Haste - to rebalance a wizard for casting multiple spells per turn. You'd have to sacrifice full spellcaster progression to do that - for instance Artillerist Artificer might suit what you want as their usual turn looks like: Action - enhanced cantrip, BA - Eldritch Cannon.
Another option is to swap subclasses / spell selections. Evoker guides people towards the big flashy damage dealing spells which again are balanced to be the only thing you do on a turn. Whereas Conjuration focuses on the summoning spells that much more often give you additional things to do on your turn. Alternatively you may have simply selected the boring blast-y spells, rather than the concentration-based spells that deal less damage but give you additional things to do on your turn - e.g. Flaming Sphere or Melfs Minute Meteors vs Fireball.
Lastly, there are some Feats which can give you extra things to do on your turn - Telekinetic is the first that comes to mind - but there's also the Draconic Gifts from Fizban's, and the caster-focused feats from Dragonlance.
i cant remember where i read it, but i saw a while back a homebrew rule that allowed a wizard to do this with conditions. they have to make a con save with the dc 10+level of highest spell cast, if they fail it fizzles, if they pass it casts. i like this because its like, trying to will your body to push through the strain and cast the 2nd one. another variant might be fail they take damage
Hi,
I have been playing my first wizard (currently lvl 5) for a few months now and I failed not to notice that I can only cast 1 lvl 1-9 spell as action and cant really do much with my bonus action. I know how to use them, that is not a question, but rather: do you think wizards should be able to cast 2 spells in a round (not concentration ones, of course)? This could be done via a new Feat, or via a slightly modified Arcane Tradition.
Maybe in other words: do you think it would cause unbalanced gameplay if wizards could cast 2 spells?
For these questions I'd even consider limitations like 1 leveled action spell and 1 cantrip (even if the cantrip is 1 action), or heck, even more limitations like you need to choose 1 cantrip after a long rest and that is the only one you can cast.
There are 2 reasons I am asking this:
1. Sometimes (mehh, all the time) I feel during combat that when it is my turn I do one simple thing, roll damage, then move on. I dont feel I have the variety of things I can do in a turn. Yes, I know wizards should not be the main actors in a fight, at least not in low levels, but still.
2. It seems like melee classes can attack 2-3 times, have the chance to use light weapons with their mastery (not applied to legacy, but still) and even things like Action Surge (yes, once per short/long rest) and overall their damage seems pretty decent, where wizards - especially after burning their higher level spell slots - are getting weaker.
Yes, I know wizards do aoe with certain spells, so it is hard to keep the balance. So, I understand the rules, I am just curious if more experienced players think this way or they think at higher levels it does not bother you that much?
Cheers!
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this. But based on my short time using this rule as a DM in our games, players have been using certain Magic Items to compensate (including Spell Scrolls from time to time). So not a real issue at this moment.
But I can't say yet whether the new species (and their traits), along with the updated classes (and their new features) that let characters cast prepared spells without using spell slots, are helping too, since we're still using the 2014 species (a.k.a. races), classes and feats.
We also use the legacy version, at least where my wizard is. I have a fighter in a campaign with the 2024 rules, but I did not check spell casting there.
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
Wizards can cast 2 spells in a round. They just can’t cast 2 spells using a spell slot on their turn, not a round (2024 rules).
Misty step + cantrip for example, is fair game. Or misty step (from fey touched feat, so it doesn’t use a slot) + any spell is also fair game. Counterspell on someone else’s turn if they’ve already cast a leveled spell on their turn is fine.
FWIW, my wizard has been getting a lot of use of their bonus action ever since they got Bigby’s hand.
While martials get more attacks, wizards get stronger and stronger spells, and their cantrip damage scales right along with those extra martial attacks.
And to answer what I think is the larger question. No, wizards do not need to be able to cast multiple leveled spells on their turn. They are plenty useful and strong enough as is.
In addition, it would also be stepping on the toes of sorcerers who, with quickened spell, are able to do this. A wizard's main differentiating point as a full arcane caster is versatility. Have one set of spells for the day, then the next, completely swap it out for a brand new list (I'm sure no one actually swaps EVERY spell, but you get the idea).
What I do think is that the new rule is easier to explain or adjudicate. Essentially, it's not about the type of action used to cast the spell (regular, Bonus Action, or Reaction), but about the number of spell slots you can expend in a turn: only one.
Just to add that quickening a spell and casting another level 1+ spell, even when using a Magic Item, wouldn't be allowed on the current turn:
Having things to do with ones bonus action is somewhat of a dilemma for most full casters tbh. And while I would sometimes like to cast multiple spells that really isn't balanced in the long run.
IMO this is much more of a perceived "issue" than a real one, i.e your turn is over quickly because you do few things but the things you do still effect the battle to a similar amount as the other party members.
Some spells gives you things to do with a BA on later turns and some Feats also gives BA options, having a few such options can quickly solve the "issue" for you. Multiclassing can also help but that comes with other drawbacks.
Having seen the power wizards wield in both the 2014 and 2024 rulesets, I do think it would imbalance things a lot if wizards could cast more spells in a turn.
Part of the issue is that there are a lot of shenanigans multiclassing allows for (in both editions).
Ultimately, players with wizards benefit from planning out their spell progression a lot. In 2014, most sorcerers don't get a huge selection, warlocks even more so.
At a basic level, it helps to pore through the available spells you have and figure out a go-to spell you'll enjoy concentrating on. At low levels, using 2014 rules, if you just want to feel like you're doing more, spells like Flaming Sphere last a while, let you re-attack with it as a bonus action, and then you use your Action to cast a cantrip or even a leveled spell. I feel like more examples will just be things you've thought of, tho, so I'll just say this:
There are tons of good resources on youtube and forums that can get into the weeds on effective spells for wizards (Treantmonk on Youtube is very accessible and informative, for example). I read a guide on Giant in the Playground a while back that totally changed how I viewed wizards and their usefulness in the game (tl:dr: dealing damage is their most boring, least strategic use; go for battlefield control). But there's too much to sum up. It's definitely out there.
Wizards are there to break the rules of the game. Wall off a wizard's minions so you can take it on while it's unprotected; get everyone over the flaming pit by casting spider climb - crawling over - and securing a rope to the other side; using divination magic to see the ambush on the other side of the door; frightening or stunning a whole bunch of the mob so they can't all attack your party at once. Those are all "cheat codes" wizards get. And, yeah, there are a variety of combos to do a bunch of damage too (they generally work better in theory than in game, but, hey, it's fun to play however you want to play).
These are really good insights and I also agree, but my main point was not the "how to use the wizard", rather than "how to change the rules so wizards could do a bit more in one turn". One rule change could be to lower the spell damages, but allow the multiple spell casting (similarly to how fighters get more and more actions at certain levels). I'd rather see twice as much spell slots, but lowered (halved?) dmg, if I could add a bit more variety to the things I do in a round. Maybe even spell dc should be lowered by a point or two for this to even out the additional actions a wizard could do. Not sure. I was just wondering. :) Thanks everyone for the inputs!
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
I think that this is the wrong way to do. Spellcasters doesn't need to be able to cast more spells, they could do with more non-spellcasting things to do though (especially things that they can do with their Bonus Action).
I see what you're getting at, now; interesting question!
I guess those are ways to go about it. My initial reaction is that it sounds like it will make wizards start to feel like monks. By that, I mean, monks _can_ punch a lot each round, but because (especially in 2014 rules) they're so fragile and on the lower damage side of things, they _have_ to punch a lot just to keep up with the other martials. In the same way, if wizard spells were less effective (either in damage or ease of spell DC), they would be forced into doing a specific combos of spells just to keep up. Maybe not. That's just my knee-jerk suspicion.
It's also hard for me to relate to your experience, because I play wizards often and love all the options I have--and enjoy the power they already wield. By comparison, I feel like warriors (especially in the 2014 rules) knew how to do one thing and had to do it over and over again. And had no answer for when enemies were at all dynamic. They may be doing more single-target damage, but I get bored with them very quickly!
Wizards, even relatively low leveled, can have a pretty big amount of options available and used in a single turn; they don't need to cast 2 leveled spells per turn. What kind of spells are you casting that you feel you're not getting enough in return?
Bad example maybe for a level 5, but I DM a game that is on the precipice of 20th level - the wizard can have ~3 spells going at a minimum (Mirror Image, Crown of Stars, plus whatever spell he's casting on his turn). It takes a few rounds of setup, but he's a powerhouse.
I will relent that it's a bad example - wizards are pretty much early game squishies that grow into late game monsters. My advice is either to change up the spells you're accessing/casting, or hold out for a few more levels and see if your complaint sticks.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Spells can take longer than martial attacks to play through, for example each attack requires an attack roll and possibly a damage roll. Casting fireball requires a damage roll and maybe 8 saving throws, though I realise you would normally only roll the damage dice. This means that the wizards turn is quite likely to take as long as the fighters.
There are spells that enable you to do more on your turn. For example you could cast a summon spell, you would then be deciding what the summon does as well as yourself.
You do have options that enable you to do more on your tur
What exactly do you mean by "they could do with more non-spellcasting things to do"? Btw, my examples were not suggestions, I was only thinking out loud. :)
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
I have not played high level wizards yet, I am ~1500 xp to lvl 6, so still fairly new to the wizards, plus this is my 3rd 5e character, so I would not consider myself an expert in the rules (even though I have read both the player's - and dm's handbooks).
And it is not the impact that I lack, but rather the variety within a fight. I think my damage is always in the top end of the group, when needed I can cc a bit and buff our tank, that are good things considering my char is an evoker. It's simply the "I do this....aaaaand that's my turn"-thing that bothers me. Outside of fights I have no issues, though I need to mention that we do RP-heavy campaign, and not the typical min-maxing (or stat-padidng?) approach, so my spell selection is not always "optimal", but rather true to the character's way of thinking and background.
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
Yes, that's true. Maybe the things that bothers me is more in certain subclasses of wizards, but not all.
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"
That is the deliberate design of wizards, if you don't enjoy it I'd suggest swapping to a Bard or a Sorcerer instead. Because it is a deliberate game balanced design that Wizards get the biggest variety of spells available - thus have the most choices of what to cast in and outside of combat, but only get to cast one per turn. Whereas Sorcerer has fewer choices of what spells they can cast but can modify them in a variety of ways, and Bards get less variety of spells but also have Bardic Inspiration to do additional things on their turn.
TL:DR Wizards have the most variety turn-to-turn, but Sorcerers and Bards have more variety within one turn.
The other option is to multi-class and trade absolute spellpower for more variety of things of lower power. For instance 3 levels into Battlesmith Artificer would get you a companion that uses your Bonus Action. (Or completely swap to Artificer, and sacrifice full caster progression for a powerful reliable option for your Bonus Action).
Lots of spells cannot be "depowered" - e.g. Haste - to rebalance a wizard for casting multiple spells per turn. You'd have to sacrifice full spellcaster progression to do that - for instance Artillerist Artificer might suit what you want as their usual turn looks like: Action - enhanced cantrip, BA - Eldritch Cannon.
Another option is to swap subclasses / spell selections. Evoker guides people towards the big flashy damage dealing spells which again are balanced to be the only thing you do on a turn. Whereas Conjuration focuses on the summoning spells that much more often give you additional things to do on your turn. Alternatively you may have simply selected the boring blast-y spells, rather than the concentration-based spells that deal less damage but give you additional things to do on your turn - e.g. Flaming Sphere or Melfs Minute Meteors vs Fireball.
Lastly, there are some Feats which can give you extra things to do on your turn - Telekinetic is the first that comes to mind - but there's also the Draconic Gifts from Fizban's, and the caster-focused feats from Dragonlance.
i cant remember where i read it, but i saw a while back a homebrew rule that allowed a wizard to do this with conditions. they have to make a con save with the dc 10+level of highest spell cast, if they fail it fizzles, if they pass it casts. i like this because its like, trying to will your body to push through the strain and cast the 2nd one. another variant might be fail they take damage
Thanks for your insights, but my question was not about subclassing, changing spells and such.
"Everything that has a beginning will come to an end!"