D&D 5E Does the wizard need more spells learned per level?

[jgsugden]

People assuming the wizard takes 4 of every level after 1st level spells have likely not actually played a wizard. Sure, that is likely true of 2nd to 5th Level spells, but you don't need an army of high level spells when you only have one spell slot of those levels.

My wizard's progressions have both been very similar. You start with one or two combat spells and a few rituals in your first level spell book. Then, through about level 6 you pick towo new spells of the highest level you can cast. Meanwhile, you find a few more spells to add to your spellbook - sometimes deciding not to spend the gold to put them in your book. Rituals are great because you can cast them without slots, but there are a lot of non-rituals that may not ever make the cut, so why learn them from an efficiency standpoint?

Level 7 is the first time you get to a point where you only have one slot of your highest level spells. For the first time you might not decide to take two spells of a level where you can only cast one at a time. Afterall, you can only prepare 10 or 11 total spells. Do you want two of those to be 4th level? I found it hard to justify preparing two 4th level spells. At 8th level you get two extra prepared slots (if you raise int) and it becomes easier to justify preparing 2 or 3 4th level spells, but you may already have a good selection through found spells.

At 9th you get that first 5th level spell, but you're only going to get two 5th slots until you hit 18th level. You have eve. Less incentive to take 2 spells of 5th level at 9th level. However, there are some good 5th level rituals, so maybe both of your free spells are 5th level. However, from there on up, you're balancing the number of slots you have versus the numerous of spells you can prepare to help decide what to take, and you start thinking more and more but fleshing out low level conditional spells.

Unless Yu also change the numerous of spell slots or the number of prepared spells a wizard gets, the 2 spells per level is really fine.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, they take those top several as their picks because they DON'T want to rely upon having to find them somewhere/somehow....

They don't ever have to find them. Magic is obscenely powerful without a single one of those "best" spells. People feeling the need to have the same few dozen spells is part of the problem, at least in my games where I don't like seeing Wizard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7....1000000 all with the same spell list. If you like playing the wizard clone wars, great. Have fun! It's not needed in any way, shape or form, though, so there's no need to get more than 2 spells per level as the OP suggests.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Keep in mind that the wizard is sort of supposed to find spell scrolls and other wizards' spell books, and be able to copy those spells into his/her own spellbook.

Wizards also gain spells via spellbooks found, scrolls found and bought, and spells learned from other wizards.

Read the title, didn't bother reading the post, eh?

If you're playing in a world where the players aren't going to run into many other wizards to get spells from, and aren't going to get scrolls in treasure, THEN I could accept an argument that wizards should get another way to learn spells.

If you're not getting many spell books or scrolls from play as a wizard, talk to your DM.

If anything, spells learned per level should probably be adjusted on the basis of how forthcoming the DM is with scrolls and other spellcaster's books to copy from.

My point is, as I stated, that a class shouldn't be reliant on DM fiat to be balanced. The Wild Sorcerer is the only other example I can think of where a core class component is so heavily reliant on DM interpretation and effort. I could play a champion fighter in a no magic campaign and be exactly the same in terms of class-based power as I would in a high magic campaign. Class balance shouldn't be at the DM's whim, or rely on them to contrive a resource solely for a player. If you're playing in a campaign without a wizard and find you don't ever find spellbooks, and then a wizard player joins and suddenly you're finding spellbooks, that's a contrivance I'd rather do without.

The wizard is basically the best at all of the above.

The wizard is the best at utility and versatility if they get spellbooks to compliment their level choices. The sorcerer, cleric, warlock and bard, have in-built utility. The sorcerer's utility comes from metamagic and extra spell slots, and the warlock's from invocations, for instance. The wizard relies on spell selection for that.

The sorcerer's mechanics are crazy weak compared to the disparity in spells, and the warlock gets even fewer - essentially living off of a single cantrip.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The sorcerer is by far the better blaster and can outpace the wizard on spell slots and instantaneous utility through metamagic. The warlock has their invocations that give them insane levels of utility, like detect magic at will for instance. If a wizard wants detect magic then they have to either choose that and lose out on damage/defence, or risk never finding it in a scroll/spellbook.

Far be it from me to speculate on the intentions of the OP...

Yes, heaven forbid that I'd want a constructive conversation about an issue I have an interest in.

People assuming the wizard takes 4 of every level after 1st level spells have likely not actually played a wizard.

I've played several wizards, thank you very much. I think it's you who is doing the assuming here.

 

[cbwjm]

I think 2 spells/level is fine for the wizard, that gives them plenty of options to choose from and, although I know you don't like it, there is still the option to add more through found scrolls and spellbooks. I feel that 5e is actually fairly generous (so was 3e, wizards also gained 2 spells/level) as when I started, you had a few spells in your spellbook and then you had to find any others that you wanted, no automatic spells each level.

I also don't believe that wizards are going to be carbon copies of each other with their spell selection, I've played two wizards one was a diviner based on Jace Beleren from Magic the Gathering and the other was a bladesinger, both had very different spell lists and I highly doubt that I'm the only wizard player in the world who doesn't choose different spells to suit the type of wizard I'm playing.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, heaven forbid that I'd want a constructive conversation about an issue I have an interest in.

First off my apologies. Given the fact that every discussion of class balance becomes an edition-war "caster supremacy" "but what about martials" argument, and because so many threads have just popped up about how to improve non-casters, a thread popping up about how terribly wizards have it seemed a little too much like an attempt at trolling to me. I'm sincerely sorry for casting aspersions on your motives.

My point is, as I stated, that a class shouldn't be reliant on DM fiat to be balanced. The Wild Sorcerer is the only other example I can think of where a core class component is so heavily reliant on DM interpretation and effort. I could play a champion fighter in a no magic campaign and be exactly the same in terms of class-based power as I would in a high magic campaign. Class balance shouldn't be at the DM's whim, or rely on them to contrive a resource solely for a player. If you're playing in a campaign without a wizard and find you don't ever find spellbooks, and then a wizard player joins and suddenly you're finding spellbooks, that's a contrivance I'd rather do without.

Considering the DM is, in essence, the actual game designer (not just the rules designer), there's absolutely no way to remove DM fiat from any balancing equation. Even when running a published adventure the DM has to account to diversions and improvisations and players otherwise coloring outside the lines. Spellbook-casters (Wizards, Mages, Magic-users, Illusionists, etc.) have always been at the whim of the DM, in every edition of D&D, from not only spell research to finding scrolls/books to copy from (even in 3.5, the DM didn't have to allow magic shops in their setting if they didn't want them), to protecting the book from theft and/or damage.

5e just finally made DM empowerment in regards to game balance a core assumption in the rules design. You point out the Wild Magic Sorcerer as the only example where DM effort is required to balance, but may I also present to you: any class whose mechanics refresh on a short or long rest? So basically... every class? Except maybe the Champion?

In 5e, the DM controls the game balance. They do it through control of resources (magic items, scrolls for wizards), through encounter design (ratio of combat vs other pillars, the nature and makeup of those encounters), through adventure design (how many opportunities are present for a good short rest, how lenient the DM is in not interrupting short or long rests), and through the impact of class features (wild surges and spellbooks, but also the relevance of paladin oaths or cleric divine powers/institutions). And it's a baked in part of the game that essentially every class feels. The impact of my Battlemaster's Pushing Attack
is directly proportional to the number of pits and ledges my DM designs combats around.

 

[Azzy]

I'm gonna go with, "No".

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

First off my apologies. Given the fact that every discussion of class balance becomes an edition-war "caster supremacy" "but what about martials" argument, and because so many threads have just popped up about how to improve non-casters, a thread popping up about how terribly wizards have it seemed a little too much like an attempt at trolling to me. I'm sincerely sorry for casting aspersions on your motives.

I've played a few wizards in a few games of various levels (highest was 11th) now and the one thing that has always come up was a lack of spell choice, and therefore character versatility. I'm currently about to start in a new game and I really want to play a wizard, but the thought of once again hardly ever finding scrolls and missing out on spellbooks, is putting me off.

Some of those games were AL where I missed out on spellbooks because of the DM's rush to finish in a time limit and skipping content, or because the area was too powerful (there's literally one Al module which is 5-10 and if you play it at anything less than 10th level, you won't get even a chance at the spellbook), or because we didn't happen to go down corridor 1 and instead went down corridor 2. Some of those (non AL) games the DM just forgot or didn't consider it and I really didn't like the idea of them contriving a resource just because I asked, so I didn't ask.

Considering the DM is, in essence, the actual game designer (not just the rules designer), there's absolutely no way to remove DM fiat from any balancing equation.

All things in balance. The DM, IMO, should remain as neutral as possible. I prefer almost entirely random treasure rolling, with the exception of story-based or player sought items. By player sought I mean, if they want something bad enough, then they can go seek it out in the game world via quest and research and maybe even creation. Otherwise, they get what the story would logically have, or whatever I roll randomly. So maybe that's colouring my perception, but as I said above, I also dislike DM's I play with to insert an item solely because my character needs it. I'd rather things happen organically.

 

[Maxperson]

Read the title, didn't bother reading the post, eh?

You're smartassery here is rejected. I read the title. I read the post. It doesn't change my answer in the slightest. You can still get spells from scrolls. You can still get spells from spellbooks, and no, you don't need it to appear randomly on some table for the DM to have one in the game. You can still go to other wizards and pay to get spells from them.

Not only do wizards most certainly NOT need more than 2 spells per level, 2 spells per level is already too high. I gave you the reasons for that in my first post.

Quite frankly, if you don't like responses to your questions that don't match what you are looking for, you should just not post here in the first place. This is an open forum and all opinions will happen, whether they match your desires or not.

 

[machineelf]

Read the title, didn't bother reading the post, eh?

You're defensive. I read your post. Admittedly I read the first half, posted, then read the second half. But didn't feel like changing my response because I Still think you're wrong. If your argument is that published adventures don't give enough scroll and spell book drops, then add some, like I said. There is nothing wrong with the mechanics or number of spells per level as written.

If you want to make all your non wizard players mad, then go ahead and add more spells to the wizard. But don't expect a lot of people here to agree with you if that's what you are seeking.



Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think the rules should encourage PC wizards to be seeking out scrolls and spell-trades for story reasons. I'd give them fewer spells per level if I didn't think it might create game issues or hurt feelings.

What I'd like to see is a broader variety of wizard load-outs, but that's just probably me and my players. Wizards should feel different from each other on their spells alone, don't you think?