This might be out there, but I wasn’t sure. Hopefully I can put my multiple thought-processes into a coherent post.
The bard ability to choose a spell list made me want to go and model up some Bards using spells of different lists. This made me measure the lists against each other and as we all know, the Arcane list is quite a bit more expansive than the other two.
But Why? Well, that sent me down a mental rabbit hole of multiple connections of how Clerics and Druids work vs how Wizards work and something occurred to me.
If Bards (and maybe Sorcerers) can choose their spell list, then the spell lists need to be more equal. If the spell lists are made more equal then Wizards are the only ones losing out because of their spell book mechanic.
The problem there is….The spell book mechanic isn’t really that good and feels often like a square peg in a round hole. It requires the DM to make spells available and is one of the only things in the game that directly connects to Gold.
What’s more, if I handed a Wizard at level 1 a spell book with every Arcane Spell in the game available, (assuming they cant ritual cast spells that they don’t have spell slots for of course) would that have any negative impact on my game? Nope, cant think of a single one, after all if the wizard having access to any one specific spell can break your game, then that’s more a problem of your game than the class since there was always the possibility that the Wizard could have chosen that spell at the previous level up. [Schroedingers spell list =) ]
So if the Wizard simply gets access to the full Arcane spell list and can ritual cast any ritual spell from that list, then that would open the design space to more evenly balance the Primal and Divine spell lists, putting them on equal footing while truly embracing the Wizard as the master of the Arcane, without requiring DM buy, in using their Ritual Casting of non-prepared spells.
Am I crazy here? I feel like I’m either onto something or so far off base I cant see straight.
Why would you want to make the Arcane spell list equal with Divine and Primal though? I don't see the need.
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)
Divine can deal damage, heal, and resurrect, Arcane can deal damage, but cannot heal nor resurrect. Primal also have its own things. That’s why for other things the Arcane one is better, as it lose some options, needs to gain anothers to compensate. Cannot see any imbalance there.
All the spells are available for the Wizard using its 2 spells learnt per level, as can choose any without limitation according the rules. The lack of some could be for those that the Wizard want to scribe into its spellbook from a source.
Why would you want to make the Arcane spell list equal with Divine and Primal though? I don't see the need.
I think its more that I want to grant Wizards the same level of access to their spell list that Clerics and Druids have, as these are the three spell casters are the only ones that have prepared spell lists, full spell casting progression, and unfettered access to their respective spell lists. But Cleric and Druid are not locked up behind this Spellbook mechanic. I just don't see any value to forcing the player and DM to jump through hoops.
Think of it this way, if the Cleric and Druid have better access to their spell list than the wizard because they dont have to scribe or find spells, then the wizards spell list needs to be better to offset the added difficulty in gaining access to spells, right? So Cleric and Druid spell lists have to be artificially held back to give the wizard the illusion of power. If you took away that illusion and gave them unfettered access to the spell list without the scribing spell mechanic in the way, then You'd have no reason to hold back the Druid and the Cleric spell lists. I'm of course not suggesting that they be identical or have the same capabilities, but I am 1000% sure that there is a design disparity between Arcane and the others is related to the wizard having to find and scribe spells.
Thought of another way, if you had a Cleric, a Druid, and a Wizard in the party and you as the DM handed a Spell book with every Arcane spell pre-scribed in the game for the Wizard to simply use as their spell book, would the cleric and druid player feel like the wizard got too much? I think they would, because the Spell lists are not created equal right? Thus the only real way to balance it all out would be, in my little thought experiment, to even out the spell lists and remove the scribe spell limiter from the wizards.
Thus Clerics and Druids would get access to a bunch of new spells they can load during a long rest, the Wizard gets unfettered access to their spell list and everyone is pretty happy.
Then you look at the half casters, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock*. Each has the same 'prepared per day' mechanic of the 3 full casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but at half the progression.
Then you look at the 'Innate casters', Bard and Sorcerer, who have the same spell progression as full casters but only change spells at level up and only one at a time. But in theory they could choose their spell list the way the Bard in UA6 does. (yes, I'm assuming the Sorcerer gets that treatment, but I think its a strong possibility considering the Divine Soul Sorcerer was already a thing)
Like I said, my brain was looking at a whole lot of interconnections all at once so hopefully I'm making myself clear.
*I put this here as I really wasnt sure if the Warlock got a long rest spell change as part of their redesign, they dont, the artificer does though. I think I'd like to see the warlock get a long rest prepared spell mechanic as part of their redesign if Artificer isnt in the 2024 PHB.
If you think giving a Wizard a spellbook with every spell possible in it is broken, then maybe don't do that. There. Boom. Balanced. I don't see the need to go through all the trouble of reducing the Arcane spell list so much. And anyways, the way spellbooks work is cool, I don't see why you'd want to take that away just so that a DM can give a maxed out spellbook to any Wizard they want.
I still really don't see the problem you're trying to solve here.
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)
Why would you want to make the Arcane spell list equal with Divine and Primal though? I don't see the need.
I think its more that I want to grant Wizards the same level of access to their spell list that Clerics and Druids have, as these are the three spell casters are the only ones that have prepared spell lists, full spell casting progression, and unfettered access to their respective spell lists. But Cleric and Druid are not locked up behind this Spellbook mechanic. I just don't see any value to forcing the player and DM to jump through hoops.
Think of it this way, if the Cleric and Druid have better access to their spell list than the wizard because they dont have to scribe or find spells, then the wizards spell list needs to be better to offset the added difficulty in gaining access to spells, right? So Cleric and Druid spell lists have to be artificially held back to give the wizard the illusion of power. If you took away that illusion and gave them unfettered access to the spell list without the scribing spell mechanic in the way, then You'd have no reason to hold back the Druid and the Cleric spell lists. I'm of course not suggesting that they be identical or have the same capabilities, but I am 1000% sure that there is a design disparity between Arcane and the others is related to the wizard having to find and scribe spells.
Thought of another way, if you had a Cleric, a Druid, and a Wizard in the party and you as the DM handed a Spell book with every Arcane spell pre-scribed in the game for the Wizard to simply use as their spell book, would the cleric and druid player feel like the wizard got too much? I think they would, because the Spell lists are not created equal right? Thus the only real way to balance it all out would be, in my little thought experiment, to even out the spell lists and remove the scribe spell limiter from the wizards.
Thus Clerics and Druids would get access to a bunch of new spells they can load during a long rest, the Wizard gets unfettered access to their spell list and everyone is pretty happy.
Then you look at the half casters, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock*. Each has the same 'prepared per day' mechanic of the 3 full casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but at half the progression.
Then you look at the 'Innate casters', Bard and Sorcerer, who have the same spell progression as full casters but only change spells at level up and only one at a time. But in theory they could choose their spell list the way the Bard in UA6 does. (yes, I'm assuming the Sorcerer gets that treatment, but I think its a strong possibility considering the Divine Soul Sorcerer was already a thing)
Like I said, my brain was looking at a whole lot of interconnections all at once so hopefully I'm making myself clear.
*I put this here as I really wasnt sure if the Warlock got a long rest spell change as part of their redesign, they dont, the artificer does though. I think I'd like to see the warlock get a long rest prepared spell mechanic as part of their redesign if Artificer isnt in the 2024 PHB.
Go play 4e and tell me how special and unique each class feels. That is what your thought experiment is pushing toward.
If you think giving a Wizard a spellbook with every spell possible in it is broken, then maybe don't do that. There. Boom. Balanced. I don't see the need to go through all the trouble of reducing the Arcane spell list so much. And anyways, the way spellbooks work is cool, I don't see why you'd want to take that away just so that a DM can give a maxed out spellbook to any Wizard they want.
I still really don't see the problem you're trying to solve here.
That’s quite literally the opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’m saying giving them the full spell book is not broken but the cleric and druid lists might need a little expansion if classes are going to be choosing between them and have it be a valid choice.
as for 4e, can you elaborate? I never played it, though based on what little I’be seen it didn’t seem as bad as people seem to claim
If you think giving a Wizard a spellbook with every spell possible in it is broken, then maybe don't do that. There. Boom. Balanced. I don't see the need to go through all the trouble of reducing the Arcane spell list so much. And anyways, the way spellbooks work is cool, I don't see why you'd want to take that away just so that a DM can give a maxed out spellbook to any Wizard they want.
I still really don't see the problem you're trying to solve here.
That’s quite literally the opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’m saying giving them the full spell book is not broken but the cleric and druid lists might need a little expansion if classes are going to be choosing between them and have it be a valid choice.
So you're saying that giving them access to every spell isn't broken, but you still want to change other things in the game so that it's balanced. If it isn't a balance issue, then why are you trying to change things in the game to compensate for it? Surely if it's not broken, you should just be able to make the change and leave it?
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)
If you think giving a Wizard a spellbook with every spell possible in it is broken, then maybe don't do that. There. Boom. Balanced. I don't see the need to go through all the trouble of reducing the Arcane spell list so much. And anyways, the way spellbooks work is cool, I don't see why you'd want to take that away just so that a DM can give a maxed out spellbook to any Wizard they want.
I still really don't see the problem you're trying to solve here.
That’s quite literally the opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’m saying giving them the full spell book is not broken but the cleric and druid lists might need a little expansion if classes are going to be choosing between them and have it be a valid choice.
So you're saying that giving them access to every spell isn't broken, but you still want to change other things in the game so that it's balanced. If it isn't a balance issue, then why are you trying to change things in the game to compensate for it? Surely if it's not broken, you should just be able to make the change and leave it?
Right. Keep in mind that there is an inherent and fundamental difference between 'broken' and 'unbalanced'. Broken means non-functional, unbalanced means that one option in a list is superior to the others.
I'm saying that no spell choice or combination of spells in the Arcane list can possibly break a game. So limiting the Wizard to maintain game balance on a per spell basis makes no sense. Additionally giving a book with every Arcane Spell published would not break the game in any way since almost any possible combination of spells to do so were always a possibility.
But I'm also saying that the spell lists are most definitely not balanced to each other. just a quick sorting on DNDbeyond shows 18 pages of spells for Wizards, 8 for Druids, and 6 for Clerics. Even at a rough glance its obvious something is wrong there. Based on other choices in the design, the idea appears to be because the Arcane list is NOT available in the same way as the Druids and Clerics it has to be inflated with additional spells or (and personally I think this is more likely) Druid and Cleric lists have to be denied access to certain spells to artificially elevate the arcane list.
And all of that is just fine. Until someone can choose which list they want to use (Bard UA6). Now you shine a light on the spell lists as a feature without the surrounding classes, forcing them to be looked at on their own merits and compared to each other.
So let's assume that we want the Bard choice to be 'balanced', then the three spell schools would have to be at least somewhat comparable. Druid and Cleric at 8 and 6 pages respectively are close enough that I wouldnt really care, you'd be playing in the margins at that point. But 18 pages vs 8? At that point though I'd be looking to either prune down the Arcane list (based solely on redundancy of spells or trap choices, you know with that many pages there's bound to be some duds) but an increase in spell lists for the Druid and Cleric to 'balance' the choice. Sure Arcane can have more spells, but within reason. More than double is just wild.
Now assuming that was done, what about the Wizard? Still locked up with that Arcane spell list that's hidden behind the DMs loot tables and availability of massive amounts of gold. None of that sounds very useful, so drop it. The spell book mechanic can stick around, just not the Scribing to learn new spells part in it's current form.
See how its all interconnected?
Now of course, this is not me poo-pooing on the change to the bard to choose the spell list at level 1, I love it. In fact I want to see it applied to Sorcerer as well. As a concept it's just brilliant. But like I said, those choices seem unbalanced to me, and while SOME unbalance is to be expected and I'm sure the internet will have tons of debate over the 'superior list' (to me the answer is "whichever one fits your character concept best") right now would be the time to really have a sit down and hash it all out while the hood was open.
I'm saying that no spell choice or combination of spells in the Arcane list can possibly break a game. So limiting the Wizard to maintain game balance on a per spell basis makes no sense. Additionally giving a book with every Arcane Spell published would not break the game in any way since almost any possible combination of spells to do so were always a possibility.
It depends what you mean by "break the game". If the DM is experienced and designs encounters carefully then sure they can counter / avoid / compensate for almost any spell or feature in the game (the combination of Simulacrum + Wish still breaks the game no matter what). However, that is not a fair standard, IMO, because not every DM is experienced and not every DM has 3-4 hours to carefully design each encounter.
My standard for "break the game" is to consider whether a DM could randomly pick 3-4 monsters of an appropriate CR based on the party's level and have that encounter still be fun, engaging, and fill the expected amount of game-time for a party with 4 characters where one of the characters has access to that spell / feature / ability.
By my definition there are definitely spells that "break the game" currently in play at the moment. Hypnotic Pattern, Banishment, Simulacrum, Forcecage, Conjure Woodland Beings (pixies), Conjure Animals (raptors), Prismatic Wall, Wall of Force, and Dimension Door are the ones that spring to mind as "broken" by my definition.
I don't think that the choice for Bard spell list is going to be as obvious as you do. Arcane has a big list with some good spells, sure, but if you go with that you're missing out on all of the healing and party buffs of the other lists. Bards aren't prepared casters (if I remember correctly), so it doesn't matter how many spells are on the list; it only matters how many spells are worth taking. The Arcane list has plenty of spells that are worth taking, but so do the Divine and Primal lists. It's also worth noting that the choice only matters up until level 10, which means only spells of level 5 and below factor into the equation.
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)
In 4e all PCs mechanically did the same things based on groups and the only real difference was flavor text. 4e was almost perfectly balance, but that meant playing different classes felt the same.
Also I disagree that giving a wizard access to all arcane spells isn’t game breaking. It is because the arcane list has far more utility spells compared to divine and primal list. It has far less concentration dependent damaging spells as well. The arcane list also has the best variety of damage types.
The reason the Arcane spell list is so vast is because that's what Wizards do. They don't have very much functionality that isn't conferred by their spell list.
Divine and Primal are for Clerics and Druids respectively, both of which give significant features beyond their spell lists, which means they have to be more limited in those options.
The "balance" such as it is, is that Clerics and Druids (and their half caster brethren Paladins and (now) Rangers) can change their spells after a long rest, so while they have fewer options they can access them when they need to. It appears in playtest 6 that Paladins and Rangers are limited to changing 1 spell after each long rest, while Clerics and Druids can change everything.
Meanwhile Arcane casters are mostly known casters, having a much larger pool of spells, but less access to them. Wizards are made stronger by being something of one and something of the other, being able to add spells to their spellbook, and then choose which ones to take after a long rest. Other Arcane casters, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard are locked into their chosen spells with little ability to modify them at will.
That does mean that they are also less forgiving for people who don't read their spells, because you can get stuck with some real stinkers. Fortunately most DMs are lenient enough to allow you to get rid of spells that really aren't doing anything for you.
Wizards have a far larger spell list because spells are their "specialty". Clerics are the perfect blend of magic AND melee. Druids are nature magic specific and wildshape masters more than "magical" experts.
Bards are SUPPOSED to be jack of all trades (and masters of none, but that is quickly eroding into "master of all")
Warlocks are supposed to have big power in a limited number of spells to represent that they get a sample of power from a much stronger being.
Sorcerers have a few key spells tehy might know, but they're really good at manipulating the essence of magic itself.
Then there's paladins and rangers and so on and everyone's got at least some sort of casting but whatever.
The number of spells offered to each class is supposed to somewhat reflect this.
If a wizard were given a "spellbook" to choose spells to choose from on a daily basis (basically the player got to prepare spells like the other classes rather than just have a list of spells known to choose from), i don't think it would be game breaking. In fact I don't see that as a bad idea. The "spells known" seems like an unreasonable restriction to dull down a casting class that isn't most people's first choice due to low HP, low AC and just a lot of bad disadvantages for the hope that at level 20 you can do some truly broken things (which the broken things are what need to go. No more wish. No more Power Word Kill. No more true polymorph, no more clone. No instadeath. no cheat your way into a win. Then give the wizard a d8like the rest of us poor saps and even if he still keeps the low AC you can give him some more of the powerful "not broken" stuff to use..).
I think collecting spells for your spellbook can be a fun part of playing a wizard. It can really lean into the feeling of playing a magical researcher. (Similarly, keeping track of all the beasts you encounter for wild shape can be a fun part of playing a druild. It can really make you feel like a magical naturalist.) I'd hand-wave the scribing costs, but I'd keep scrolls expensive or difficult to come by.
In my experience, players of any class don't change up their list of prepared spells much anyway. Although the rules set limits to when certain classes can change spells or cantrips, if a spell or cantrip isn't working for a player, I just let them change it. No sense forcing a player to carry a spell they're not happy with.
Clearly I'm not adequately explaining my thought process, so feel free to let this thread die.
I think you are doing a decent job. Others seem to be intentionally ignoring it say you are just plain wrong. The hyperbolic example of the full spellbook was a little more than they wanted to think about. The idea of having any and all available ritual spells might not actually have a huge impact in some games. Depends on how often the group can wait for 10 minutes or an hour. If the DM does not want to allow them to open the ye Olde Swiss army book, they increase the pressure. But not every DM works the same, nor do they have the same pacing to their games.
As for the denial of spells to Primal and divine spell lists to help elevate the arcane list, you are likely correct. Most spells that don't immediately scream divine or Primal just get tossed in the arcane pile. Because arcane is MEANT to cover everything that the other two don't. Its like the junk heap of spells, it's got some real gems, and also many super duper situational, or I just want this for fun spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Your thought process was to make the spell lists more equal so that Bards have a less obvious choice, no?
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)
Clearly I'm not adequately explaining my thought process, so feel free to let this thread die.
I think you are doing a decent job. Others seem to be intentionally ignoring it say you are just plain wrong. The hyperbolic example of the full spellbook was a little more than they wanted to think about. The idea of having any and all available ritual spells might not actually have a huge impact in some games. Depends on how often the group can wait for 10 minutes or an hour. If the DM does not want to allow them to open the ye Olde Swiss army book, they increase the pressure. But not every DM works the same, nor do they have the same pacing to their games.
As for the denial of spells to Primal and divine spell lists to help elevate the arcane list, you are likely correct. Most spells that don't immediately scream divine or Primal just get tossed in the arcane pile. Because arcane is MEANT to cover everything that the other two don't. Its like the junk heap of spells, it's got some real gems, and also many super duper situational, or I just want this for fun spells.
Thank you. The thing with the Spell book is that a wizard can choose 2 Arcane spells to put in per level. So any possible combination that might scare the DM is already present and available in a theoretical sense. This is why i say it doesnt actually matter if they have minimal spells or all the spells, they might have had the spell regardless.
Your thought process was to make the spell lists more equal so that Bards have a less obvious choice, no?
Exactly, But also, what are the downstream consequences of that action? Like I said, up until now the spell list was a feature balanced among other features that make up the entire class. Clerics are a lot more than their divine spells for instance. But that Wizard spell book mechanic just feels like such a red sock in the white wash at that point. Sure it's downstream from the initial change by 2 or 3 steps, but it just pulled my attention immediately.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This might be out there, but I wasn’t sure. Hopefully I can put my multiple thought-processes into a coherent post.
The bard ability to choose a spell list made me want to go and model up some Bards using spells of different lists. This made me measure the lists against each other and as we all know, the Arcane list is quite a bit more expansive than the other two.
But Why? Well, that sent me down a mental rabbit hole of multiple connections of how Clerics and Druids work vs how Wizards work and something occurred to me.
If Bards (and maybe Sorcerers) can choose their spell list, then the spell lists need to be more equal. If the spell lists are made more equal then Wizards are the only ones losing out because of their spell book mechanic.
The problem there is….The spell book mechanic isn’t really that good and feels often like a square peg in a round hole. It requires the DM to make spells available and is one of the only things in the game that directly connects to Gold.
What’s more, if I handed a Wizard at level 1 a spell book with every Arcane Spell in the game available, (assuming they cant ritual cast spells that they don’t have spell slots for of course) would that have any negative impact on my game? Nope, cant think of a single one, after all if the wizard having access to any one specific spell can break your game, then that’s more a problem of your game than the class since there was always the possibility that the Wizard could have chosen that spell at the previous level up. [Schroedingers spell list =) ]
So if the Wizard simply gets access to the full Arcane spell list and can ritual cast any ritual spell from that list, then that would open the design space to more evenly balance the Primal and Divine spell lists, putting them on equal footing while truly embracing the Wizard as the master of the Arcane, without requiring DM buy, in using their Ritual Casting of non-prepared spells.
Am I crazy here? I feel like I’m either onto something or so far off base I cant see straight.
Why would you want to make the Arcane spell list equal with Divine and Primal though? I don't see the need.
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)
Divine can deal damage, heal, and resurrect, Arcane can deal damage, but cannot heal nor resurrect. Primal also have its own things. That’s why for other things the Arcane one is better, as it lose some options, needs to gain anothers to compensate. Cannot see any imbalance there.
All the spells are available for the Wizard using its 2 spells learnt per level, as can choose any without limitation according the rules. The lack of some could be for those that the Wizard want to scribe into its spellbook from a source.
I think its more that I want to grant Wizards the same level of access to their spell list that Clerics and Druids have, as these are the three spell casters are the only ones that have prepared spell lists, full spell casting progression, and unfettered access to their respective spell lists. But Cleric and Druid are not locked up behind this Spellbook mechanic. I just don't see any value to forcing the player and DM to jump through hoops.
Think of it this way, if the Cleric and Druid have better access to their spell list than the wizard because they dont have to scribe or find spells, then the wizards spell list needs to be better to offset the added difficulty in gaining access to spells, right? So Cleric and Druid spell lists have to be artificially held back to give the wizard the illusion of power. If you took away that illusion and gave them unfettered access to the spell list without the scribing spell mechanic in the way, then You'd have no reason to hold back the Druid and the Cleric spell lists. I'm of course not suggesting that they be identical or have the same capabilities, but I am 1000% sure that there is a design disparity between Arcane and the others is related to the wizard having to find and scribe spells.
Thought of another way, if you had a Cleric, a Druid, and a Wizard in the party and you as the DM handed a Spell book with every Arcane spell pre-scribed in the game for the Wizard to simply use as their spell book, would the cleric and druid player feel like the wizard got too much? I think they would, because the Spell lists are not created equal right? Thus the only real way to balance it all out would be, in my little thought experiment, to even out the spell lists and remove the scribe spell limiter from the wizards.
Thus Clerics and Druids would get access to a bunch of new spells they can load during a long rest, the Wizard gets unfettered access to their spell list and everyone is pretty happy.
Then you look at the half casters, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock*. Each has the same 'prepared per day' mechanic of the 3 full casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) but at half the progression.
Then you look at the 'Innate casters', Bard and Sorcerer, who have the same spell progression as full casters but only change spells at level up and only one at a time. But in theory they could choose their spell list the way the Bard in UA6 does. (yes, I'm assuming the Sorcerer gets that treatment, but I think its a strong possibility considering the Divine Soul Sorcerer was already a thing)
Like I said, my brain was looking at a whole lot of interconnections all at once so hopefully I'm making myself clear.
*I put this here as I really wasnt sure if the Warlock got a long rest spell change as part of their redesign, they dont, the artificer does though. I think I'd like to see the warlock get a long rest prepared spell mechanic as part of their redesign if Artificer isnt in the 2024 PHB.
If you think giving a Wizard a spellbook with every spell possible in it is broken, then maybe don't do that. There. Boom. Balanced. I don't see the need to go through all the trouble of reducing the Arcane spell list so much. And anyways, the way spellbooks work is cool, I don't see why you'd want to take that away just so that a DM can give a maxed out spellbook to any Wizard they want.
I still really don't see the problem you're trying to solve here.
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)
Go play 4e and tell me how special and unique each class feels. That is what your thought experiment is pushing toward.
That’s quite literally the opposite of what I’m suggesting. I’m saying giving them the full spell book is not broken but the cleric and druid lists might need a little expansion if classes are going to be choosing between them and have it be a valid choice.
as for 4e, can you elaborate? I never played it, though based on what little I’be seen it didn’t seem as bad as people seem to claim
So you're saying that giving them access to every spell isn't broken, but you still want to change other things in the game so that it's balanced. If it isn't a balance issue, then why are you trying to change things in the game to compensate for it? Surely if it's not broken, you should just be able to make the change and leave it?
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)
Right. Keep in mind that there is an inherent and fundamental difference between 'broken' and 'unbalanced'. Broken means non-functional, unbalanced means that one option in a list is superior to the others.
I'm saying that no spell choice or combination of spells in the Arcane list can possibly break a game. So limiting the Wizard to maintain game balance on a per spell basis makes no sense. Additionally giving a book with every Arcane Spell published would not break the game in any way since almost any possible combination of spells to do so were always a possibility.
But I'm also saying that the spell lists are most definitely not balanced to each other. just a quick sorting on DNDbeyond shows 18 pages of spells for Wizards, 8 for Druids, and 6 for Clerics. Even at a rough glance its obvious something is wrong there. Based on other choices in the design, the idea appears to be because the Arcane list is NOT available in the same way as the Druids and Clerics it has to be inflated with additional spells or (and personally I think this is more likely) Druid and Cleric lists have to be denied access to certain spells to artificially elevate the arcane list.
And all of that is just fine. Until someone can choose which list they want to use (Bard UA6). Now you shine a light on the spell lists as a feature without the surrounding classes, forcing them to be looked at on their own merits and compared to each other.
So let's assume that we want the Bard choice to be 'balanced', then the three spell schools would have to be at least somewhat comparable. Druid and Cleric at 8 and 6 pages respectively are close enough that I wouldnt really care, you'd be playing in the margins at that point. But 18 pages vs 8? At that point though I'd be looking to either prune down the Arcane list (based solely on redundancy of spells or trap choices, you know with that many pages there's bound to be some duds) but an increase in spell lists for the Druid and Cleric to 'balance' the choice. Sure Arcane can have more spells, but within reason. More than double is just wild.
Now assuming that was done, what about the Wizard? Still locked up with that Arcane spell list that's hidden behind the DMs loot tables and availability of massive amounts of gold. None of that sounds very useful, so drop it. The spell book mechanic can stick around, just not the Scribing to learn new spells part in it's current form.
See how its all interconnected?
Now of course, this is not me poo-pooing on the change to the bard to choose the spell list at level 1, I love it. In fact I want to see it applied to Sorcerer as well. As a concept it's just brilliant. But like I said, those choices seem unbalanced to me, and while SOME unbalance is to be expected and I'm sure the internet will have tons of debate over the 'superior list' (to me the answer is "whichever one fits your character concept best") right now would be the time to really have a sit down and hash it all out while the hood was open.
Also, thank you for the engagement.
It depends what you mean by "break the game". If the DM is experienced and designs encounters carefully then sure they can counter / avoid / compensate for almost any spell or feature in the game (the combination of Simulacrum + Wish still breaks the game no matter what). However, that is not a fair standard, IMO, because not every DM is experienced and not every DM has 3-4 hours to carefully design each encounter.
My standard for "break the game" is to consider whether a DM could randomly pick 3-4 monsters of an appropriate CR based on the party's level and have that encounter still be fun, engaging, and fill the expected amount of game-time for a party with 4 characters where one of the characters has access to that spell / feature / ability.
By my definition there are definitely spells that "break the game" currently in play at the moment. Hypnotic Pattern, Banishment, Simulacrum, Forcecage, Conjure Woodland Beings (pixies), Conjure Animals (raptors), Prismatic Wall, Wall of Force, and Dimension Door are the ones that spring to mind as "broken" by my definition.
I don't think that the choice for Bard spell list is going to be as obvious as you do. Arcane has a big list with some good spells, sure, but if you go with that you're missing out on all of the healing and party buffs of the other lists. Bards aren't prepared casters (if I remember correctly), so it doesn't matter how many spells are on the list; it only matters how many spells are worth taking. The Arcane list has plenty of spells that are worth taking, but so do the Divine and Primal lists. It's also worth noting that the choice only matters up until level 10, which means only spells of level 5 and below factor into the equation.
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)
In 4e all PCs mechanically did the same things based on groups and the only real difference was flavor text. 4e was almost perfectly balance, but that meant playing different classes felt the same.
Also I disagree that giving a wizard access to all arcane spells isn’t game breaking. It is because the arcane list has far more utility spells compared to divine and primal list. It has far less concentration dependent damaging spells as well. The arcane list also has the best variety of damage types.
The reason the Arcane spell list is so vast is because that's what Wizards do. They don't have very much functionality that isn't conferred by their spell list.
Divine and Primal are for Clerics and Druids respectively, both of which give significant features beyond their spell lists, which means they have to be more limited in those options.
The "balance" such as it is, is that Clerics and Druids (and their half caster brethren Paladins and (now) Rangers) can change their spells after a long rest, so while they have fewer options they can access them when they need to. It appears in playtest 6 that Paladins and Rangers are limited to changing 1 spell after each long rest, while Clerics and Druids can change everything.
Meanwhile Arcane casters are mostly known casters, having a much larger pool of spells, but less access to them. Wizards are made stronger by being something of one and something of the other, being able to add spells to their spellbook, and then choose which ones to take after a long rest. Other Arcane casters, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard are locked into their chosen spells with little ability to modify them at will.
That does mean that they are also less forgiving for people who don't read their spells, because you can get stuck with some real stinkers. Fortunately most DMs are lenient enough to allow you to get rid of spells that really aren't doing anything for you.
The idea presented is kind of incoherent.
Wizards have a far larger spell list because spells are their "specialty". Clerics are the perfect blend of magic AND melee. Druids are nature magic specific and wildshape masters more than "magical" experts.
Bards are SUPPOSED to be jack of all trades (and masters of none, but that is quickly eroding into "master of all")
Warlocks are supposed to have big power in a limited number of spells to represent that they get a sample of power from a much stronger being.
Sorcerers have a few key spells tehy might know, but they're really good at manipulating the essence of magic itself.
Then there's paladins and rangers and so on and everyone's got at least some sort of casting but whatever.
The number of spells offered to each class is supposed to somewhat reflect this.
If a wizard were given a "spellbook" to choose spells to choose from on a daily basis (basically the player got to prepare spells like the other classes rather than just have a list of spells known to choose from), i don't think it would be game breaking. In fact I don't see that as a bad idea. The "spells known" seems like an unreasonable restriction to dull down a casting class that isn't most people's first choice due to low HP, low AC and just a lot of bad disadvantages for the hope that at level 20 you can do some truly broken things (which the broken things are what need to go. No more wish. No more Power Word Kill. No more true polymorph, no more clone. No instadeath. no cheat your way into a win. Then give the wizard a d8like the rest of us poor saps and even if he still keeps the low AC you can give him some more of the powerful "not broken" stuff to use..).
Disregard - Duplicate post
I think collecting spells for your spellbook can be a fun part of playing a wizard. It can really lean into the feeling of playing a magical researcher. (Similarly, keeping track of all the beasts you encounter for wild shape can be a fun part of playing a druild. It can really make you feel like a magical naturalist.) I'd hand-wave the scribing costs, but I'd keep scrolls expensive or difficult to come by.
In my experience, players of any class don't change up their list of prepared spells much anyway. Although the rules set limits to when certain classes can change spells or cantrips, if a spell or cantrip isn't working for a player, I just let them change it. No sense forcing a player to carry a spell they're not happy with.
Clearly I'm not adequately explaining my thought process, so feel free to let this thread die.
I think you are doing a decent job. Others seem to be intentionally ignoring it say you are just plain wrong. The hyperbolic example of the full spellbook was a little more than they wanted to think about. The idea of having any and all available ritual spells might not actually have a huge impact in some games. Depends on how often the group can wait for 10 minutes or an hour. If the DM does not want to allow them to open the ye Olde Swiss army book, they increase the pressure. But not every DM works the same, nor do they have the same pacing to their games.
As for the denial of spells to Primal and divine spell lists to help elevate the arcane list, you are likely correct. Most spells that don't immediately scream divine or Primal just get tossed in the arcane pile. Because arcane is MEANT to cover everything that the other two don't. Its like the junk heap of spells, it's got some real gems, and also many super duper situational, or I just want this for fun spells.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Your thought process was to make the spell lists more equal so that Bards have a less obvious choice, no?
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)
Thank you. The thing with the Spell book is that a wizard can choose 2 Arcane spells to put in per level. So any possible combination that might scare the DM is already present and available in a theoretical sense. This is why i say it doesnt actually matter if they have minimal spells or all the spells, they might have had the spell regardless.
Quote from Quar1on >>
Exactly, But also, what are the downstream consequences of that action? Like I said, up until now the spell list was a feature balanced among other features that make up the entire class. Clerics are a lot more than their divine spells for instance. But that Wizard spell book mechanic just feels like such a red sock in the white wash at that point. Sure it's downstream from the initial change by 2 or 3 steps, but it just pulled my attention immediately.