9 daily spells

Do wizards need more than 9 big spells per day? With at wills and the potency of daily spells we have seen so far is it necessary for a wizard to cast more than one or two big spells per fight? Would it not provide for a better resource management if you actually had to manage resources instead of possessing enough spells to cast all day long past level 6?

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

Quoting myself from another topic because it's relevant:

I do like the idea of just chopping off lower level spell slots for Wizards, so they only get say their two highest levels of spell slots. Having around 6-10 spells per day is probably the sweet spot.

I've suggested this before, but one thing they could do to comprimise between 4e and 3e is have those 6-10 slots, which are divided up among their highest levels of spells... but allow wizards to prepare lower level spells in those higher level slots, as at-wills or encounter powers. So when you have access to 5th level spells, you can either have a 5th level spell once per day, or a 3rd level 1/encounter, or a 1st level spell at will.

This allows the Wizard the option of taking more flexibility at the expense of raw power. He could invest all of his spell slots into encounter spells, letting him cast a decent spell every round of most combats,  or he could keep them as dailies, using one or two powerful spells, followed up by using the at will cantrips. (Or at the highest levels he might want to have a generically useful 1st-3rd level spell as an at-will, just to have a more powerful spammable option when he's cast his dailies).


Honestly the biggest problem I have with this is it still potentially leaves the 5 minute work day in full effect. While the Wizard could cast 1-2 daily spells then switch to at-wills, there's nothing really to stop him from unleashing 10 daily spells, then deciding to rest. Sure there's plot contrivances the DM can use to discourage it, but it would be nice to have something tangible preventing it. (Maybe using daily spells exhausts you, dropping save DCs/caster levels with each daily cast until a short rest can be taken. So you could spam all your dailies, but it would be much less effective than spreading them out)

 
Nope.  They don't even need more than 6 imo- and that seems like a lot to me.

Imagine a normal adventuring day,

using 2 utilities (non ritual)
4 blasties (one per big encounter)
4 Minor Spells
2 extra minor spells via feat

4 big encounters in a day seems normal to me.  More than that and I'd figure the team would really be getting overloaded- and stretched beyond their resources.



9/day means they have more than the above- which I'd rather see them get better at-wills than that many spells/day
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Nope.  They don't even need more than 6 imo- and that seems like a lot to me.

Imagine a normal adventuring day,

using 2 utilities (non ritual)
4 blasties (one per big encounter)
4 Minor Spells
2 extra minor spells via feat

4 big encounters in a day seems normal to me.  More than that and I'd figure the team would really be getting overloaded- and stretched beyond their resources.



9/day means they have more than the above- which I'd rather see them get better at-wills than that many spells/day

25 minutes of battle in one day seems too much for a party of adventureres to you?
There was a poll going around that said the typical group only had 3-5 encounters per day. 1-2 was more common than 6+ by a large margin. Additionally unless you have access to cheap healing (wands of cure light wounds) HP would often run out way before the 5 encounter mark in pre 4e games.
 25 minutes of battle in one day seems too much for you to a party of adventureres?



"big encounters"

and I think the idea of spells/day should really encompass big deal spells- not things the wizard is slinging mutliple times per fight.

Burning hands changes encounters dramatically. So does sleep.

If the wizard has too many ways to neutralize encounters, you have to keep throwing more and more at the team to start making them sweat.

Also as I said- after 4 big battles the team should really feel low on resouces.  Not saying I would force them to retreat, or even design things to only have 4 big battles (in which i'd have more smaller ones- like traps and optional enemies and minor enemies)

I want them to feel drained if they're going onto big battle number 5.  Which is a big part of why I don't run higher level content.  I don't see them getting scared, and thus not rejoicing when they go beyond their limits and win.

I'd like to start doing higher level content, but only if it's not going to take 3 sessions  to bring the players to where they're actually starting to think "maybe we should run away".

Hell I just ran the grey oozes last week and LOVED the terror as the players were slowly coming to realize they weren't prepared for this fight.  That will make it that much more awesome when they encounter some again and are ready for them. 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Do wizards need more than 9 big spells per day? With at wills and the potency of daily spells we have seen so far is it necessary for a wizard to cast more than one or two big spells per fight? Would it not provide for a better resource management if you actually had to manage resources instead of possessing enough spells to cast all day long past level 6?

Ideally, with spells as powerful as sleep in his repetoir, the wizard should have to think hard about using even one such spell in each encounter.  Remember, 5e encounters seem to be pegged at being smaller, much faster, and somewhat more frequent than 4e encounters, which were clearly intened to average around 4 per day.  A single spell could prettymuch wrap up a 5e encounter by itself.  If there are going to be 5 or 6 of them a 'day' the wizard could resonaby be capped at 3 or 4 major spells /day, depending on cantrips, at-wills, and perhaps some sort of 'lesser' (lower level) spells for the rest.  It looks like the playtest wizard is just going to keep getting more and more spells of every level as he levels up, but maybe that's not what they have in mind.   Maybe an 18th level wizard will get 3 9th level spells and 4 8th-level-or-lower spells, and that's it?

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

It makes sense if all you're using magic for is blasting things, although at that point you might be better off as a warlock or sorcerer.

If you want to play a swiss army knife / utility caster then it's bullcrap. Preparing Feather Fall in a 7th level slot would suck just as hard as needing Feather Fall and not having it. Focusing on a bunch of little things is what I WANT to do. Cutting out lower level spell slots with no more compensation than "just use higher level spell slots" would kill the point of the Wizard class for me.

If you're going to fajangle vancian so hard it's not Vancian, why not just go all the way and design something that's not Vancian? Managing all those spell slots is the whole point. If you're going to cut it down that much then just go and bring back the 4e wizard back, pseudo Vancian won't piss me off any less.


Also, why is it your solution for cutting down on big spells is to remove the little ones? Spells don't scale with caster level, the little ones shouldn't be room cleaners. If they are, it's a spell problem, not a problem with Vancian. 

Do wizards need more than 9 big spells per day? With at wills and the potency of daily spells we have seen so far is it necessary for a wizard to cast more than one or two big spells per fight? Would it not provide for a better resource management if you actually had to manage resources instead of possessing enough spells to cast all day long past level 6?



No. I think that we should make all spells at-will, reduce the damage and allow the victims many save rolls to break their helpless condition so that these spells would be acceptable to cast once per turn.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels.

Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



Burning hands.  15' cone.

50 orcs.

WTF am I reading?



"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



Burning hands.  15' cone.

50 orcs.

WTF am I reading?

Well, orc Nurseries are made of wood... Did I go too far?

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



Burning hands.  15' cone.

50 orcs.

WTF am I reading?

Well, orc Nurseries are made of wood... Did I go too far?




At least they aren't arguing wood doesn't burn. Tongue Out

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

No. I think that we should make all spells at-will, reduce the damage and allow the victims many save rolls to break their helpless condition so that these spells would be acceptable to cast once per turn.



Honesty I really like this suggestion, but I think it's too extreme of a change for the DND Wizard.  optionally you could choose to spend your "daily" powers to ramp the spell up to a more powerful version. (this might even be doable since you'd only be making minor spells and allowing them to ramp up into existing spells)

Ember > Burning Hands
Slow > Sleep

etc.

If this would fly I think we'd have the most fun (to me) wizard yet.  But, again, I doubt they'd do it.  they're trying to please the pro-vancian crowd.  Shame there can't just be a comprimise and allow multiple versions and still let it be a wizard. 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Do wizards need more than 9 big spells per day? With at wills and the potency of daily spells we have seen so far is it necessary for a wizard to cast more than one or two big spells per fight? Would it not provide for a better resource management if you actually had to manage resources instead of possessing enough spells to cast all day long past level 6?



I do not see this kind of limitation being applied to 5E. While I agree it would be a nice way to limit the wizard and still make him feel his daily limits.

For this to work the wizard would need to have his 9 daily powers at lv one and watch them grow increasingly more powerful as he gains levels. Maybe his at-wills will also scale slowly. This does change everyones perception of what the wizard is. A dangerous design move.

When 4E came out there is something I missed about the old spell slot system. The idea of 9th level spells was gone. and It is kinda nice to see it come back in a system other than Pathfinder.

What I hope the designers do is make sure the lower level spells kinda become not impressive at higher levels. With the HP limit these low lv dailies will not be the wizards big stick. He still may on have a half dozen encounter changing spells at his command. It may even be "Cleaner" to have low level spells become at-wills at a certain level. Maybe only the Wizards top 3 levels of spells will have daily limits and the rest just become at wills. If they are balanced to eventually be used at-will then they cannot make a lv6 spell deal immediate reapeatable death.
I recall reading somewhere that to reduce "spell bloat" (i.e. wizards having too many spells) you would "lose" lower level spell slots as you got to higher levels, but could memorize spells in a higher level spell slot, which would make them more powerful (not increase the frequency with which you could use them).  I could be misremembering, though.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Take 4th edition.

Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.

Now you have the proper number of abilities.

More than that is too many. 
Take 4th edition.

Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.

Now you have the proper number of abilities.

More than that is too many. 



Instead of having every conceivable option in the world available (improvising)?  Really?  You can't be serious.  Even if I were inclined to more codified 'manuevers' over the attack+manuever=modifier, that would be too few.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Take 4th edition.

Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.

Now you have the proper number of abilities.

More than that is too many. 

Lay out in detail what you have in mind?

@Lawful:

It really depends on other factors. 9 could be a viable option but there are a lot of ifs. You would for instance need other ways to access utility magic at higher levels than spells. You would need to introduce magical feats that give you persistent/encounter spells (like a mage armor or levitate feat). You would also need to introduce feats that give you more advanced at-will or encounter based combat magic because casting one spell per encounter and then use magic missile the rest of the time will get old quickly.

My personal preference is around 14 though. That's roughly equivalent to a level 7 caster in the previous editions. That's enough spell slots to have a mix of combat and non-combat magic. 9 spell slots is a level 5 caster in the previous editions. That's not really enough spell slots to have a decent mix of combat and non-combat spells.
A single spell could prettymuch wrap up a 5e encounter by itself.

I'm thinking stucturing the encounter right should prevent that: Enemies from multiple directions, cover, or that arrive in waves should prevent most one spell kills.
A single spell could prettymuch wrap up a 5e encounter by itself.

I'm thinking stucturing the encounter right should prevent that: Enemies from multiple directions, cover, or that arrive in waves should prevent most one spell kills.



That's a DM VS Wizard approach. I'd much rather not have to do that. 

@Lawolf

Burning hands does 2d4+mod / half if dex save and the orc in the bestiary has 11 HP. Only a one hit if the orcs are super unlucky. Either way, aren't monsters supposed to stay relevant with bounded accuracy, then the value of leveling is a boost to damage and HP? They're still relevant, but they're also still easier. Really, I'd have to see how higher level PCs / encounters are to gauge if burning hands and sleep would be too potent compared to maneuvers, schemes, and other class abilities.

Invisibility and Fly are utility spells, so of course they're always useful. Rather they're TOO useful is kind of a debate for another thread. (Mythic vs down to earth.) IMO, if an encounter breaks because of one of these, then something was planned poorly.

As for rituals, you do realize that when I say I want to play a utility caster, I mean I want to play it for the utility part of casting? One of my favorite classes in 3.5 was Mystic Theurge because I had so many spells and I used most of them for utility. Rituals are not an answer to that kind of role. Saying, "Why aren't rituals fine for utility and you can just have a few spells for combat?" to a utility caster is like saying, "Why don't you just spend your money on magic items and use your class features for defending the wizard like you're supposed to?" to a fighter. (If magic items needed a continuous flow of money to keep working.) Idea, how about I play the character I want to play, micro managing dozens of spell slots and all?


I usually like to offer more suggestions than "no," but I'm not quite sure what this thread is trying to accomplish. You say burning hands would still be viable at later levels, and some people are talking about using higher spell slots to make that very spell at will. We need a more specific goal for this thread than "fix wizard casting."

That's a DM VS Wizard approach. I'd much rather not have to do that. 

I don't think of attacking from cover and multiple directions as an anti-wizard thing as much as something intelligent creatures should employ, just as in the real world. Arranging enemies in fireball drop formation actual feels to me more like the DM trying to do the wizard (or the cleric with area attacks, or the fighter with 1e style sweeping attacks) a personal favor...
I think how cantrips actually work will determine how many Daily spells casters should have.  If cantrips are going to scale with level, unlike spells as I understand them, then I would have even less spell slots.

The wizard balanced over 20 level issue remains.  They are weak at low levels (less so with At-Will cantrips) and strong at high levels.  Part of that is clearly spell slots!

I think the overreaction would be to say wizards get X spell slots for their career.  How exactly they progress to different spell levels is a lesser point to having a static number of them.

Maybe something better would be to start them with a lot more at 1st level and then very gradually increase number of slots to a much smaller number than 36.  I'd also like to see them "bubble" up the spell levels.  If higher level Fireballs require higher level spell slots, then I want more higher level spell slots.
It is not the depth of effects that a wizard can produce (# of spells) that really creates the balence issue.
It is the breath. If wizards were limited to a very narrow type of magic this issue becomes manageable.
Using the old 3.5 spell schools for example, if an wizard is a invoker, he/she should not be able to cast spells of any other school, ever. 

remove the incredible versitility, remove the balence issue.
The versatility is what makes having lots of spell slots cool.  So if you remove one, you can drop those low level spell slots entirely.
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



No.  Because whatever you think a utility spell is?  It's probably something that I've needed to cast in the midst of a combat at some point.  And will need to do so again....

I'll use Knock as an example. 
Once upon atime, in a dungeon far far away, our characters ran into an Aztec vampiric monk(? never did find out what it was actually).  But whatever it was it was kicking our ****. 
The best course of action was to flee.  And so we fled.  But that involved us:
 1)getting this locked door opened.  NOW.  As in a round ago type of now.  Not the waiting 10 rounds or whatever it is for a 4e ritual to go into effect now. 
Good thing I had knock prepped (no, I didn't have a scroll or wand of it handy.  yes, if exploring I usually do have stuff like this prepped)
2) Sealing it behind us.  No spell for that handy at that moment, but one of the others had some Sovreign Glue....
I know, you're thinking "but what about the rogue?  Couldn't they just pick it"  Answer: Yes, he probably could've.  Except that he was too busy being DEAD....

If 1/2 my spells were limited to working in a 4e style?  It'd have been a TPK instead of just Jim rolling up a new character.

I've also cast Tensers Floating disc offensively.  Let's see you 4e "Wizards" do that.

So why do you want me to only be able to cast the obvious deal damage/go boom/combat effect type of magic at speed?


But I've got a better idea than sharing stories of how I can & should be able to use "utility" spells at combat speed.

All of you who dislike my preffered casting style (Vancian)?  Lobby the developers for multiple casting methods instead of trying to make it so that I can't enjoy the game my way.   

 
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



Burning hands.  15' cone.

50 orcs.

WTF am I reading?






The hyperboly of someone who knows nothing about what they're talking about.

Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?



Same reason people want the fighter to have more options.  Options are good.

I will point out though that most people don't get to ever use all 36+ spell slots.  I've seen far more campaigns end long before that lv of play.  
And alot of those slots you're crying about are made up of 4 1st lv spells, 4 2nd lv spells, 4 3rd lv spells....  And alot of those spells simply don't do much to many of the enemies at high lvs.  Sure, there's some that remain good enough, but ever fewer.
That doesn't mean that I should lose access to them though!    
You know what is amusing bout your example. It kind of proves my point. The wizard is the star of the show. He has an answer to every problem. The group just needs to rely on team wizard anytime they they get into a jam. (although I am still unsure as to why you didn't just use an iWin spell against said vampire monk but that is besides the point).

Let us look at your example web more closely. There was a locked door that your group needed to get trough. I am assuming the door was too strong for the fighter to break down right? Now even I the rogue was alive an the rogue wanted to get you guys out it would have resulted in a TPK. It is a full round action to open a lock. Depending on the lock the rogue will still have a 20-50% chance to fail at opening it. So the rogue must spend 1 turn getting tithe door and 1-3 turns opening it. All the while said monster would continue thrashing on your group. As soon as you open the door, te rogue must spend another full round or two locking it. The vampire monk could easily open it and continue attacking during this time. So really all your example shows is that casters save the day. Imagine if your group had no wizard. Straight TPK.

Now I am all for casters having a wide breadth of options but having the "iWin this challenge" available for everything seems cheap to me. Where is the challenge? There really is no resource management or difficulty when you have 20+ spells each one of solving any problem you may come across.

Now a solution that I think might work is scrolls. Have scrolls be pre-cast rituals that expend an un-used spell slot. You have a scroll of the knock ritual that you may cast with just one action...but the scroll uses one of your 9 daily spell slots. Trading a combat spell for a utility will come at a significant cost, but if you need that utility then and there it is worth it. It makes the caster actually have to manage resources instead of having so many level 2 spell slots that they can knock 10 doors a day.
Now a solution that I think might work is scrolls. Have scrolls be pre-cast rituals that expend an un-used spell slot. You have a scroll of the knock ritual that you may cast with just one action...but the scroll uses one of your 9 daily spell slots. Trading a combat spell for a utility will come at a significant cost, but if you need that utility then and there it is worth it. It makes the caster actually have to manage resources instead of having so many level 2 spell slots that they can knock 10 doors a day.

So... Scrolls would just be a half-assed implementation of spontaneous casting?

@lawolf
I appreciate you putting out a lot of ideas for discussion.  

One issue for me is this idea of compromise.  I don't think compromise will always work.  The key thing is that the compromised game has got to be one that I'd prefer to an existing game.  The same holds true for you.   I'm just not sure a compromise meets that criteria.  I think it would be better to have classes that are modular and we pick and choose the ones we want for our playstyle.  

Because honestly I don't think I'd prefer a 9 power wizard.   One houserule I thought about for 4e was just give all utility powers instead of choosing.  When you were at a level to get a utility power you just got them all.   4e just had too few options for a wizard.   Now we have TD suggesting even fewer.  So modules might be our best bet.  


 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

@Emerikol: I am not advocating less spells known. Let the wizard learn them all. That is their shtick after all. But limiting daily spells is necessary for the game to work.

Hyoyhetical: Let's say you have a fighter and a wizard. Both are built for pure combat because that is all their players care about. Now if the wizard had 20+ spells he could cast a daily every round of every encounter. That means his daily spells are effectively all at-will abilities. So this means that by the time the wizrd has 20 spells, the fighter must have at will abilities at least as good as the wizards daily spells. This hypothetical situation points out why daily spells begin to break down once you have enough of them.

An alternative is to have separate pools of combat and utility spells where combat are extremely limited (maybe even encounter based) while utility can be cast as standard actions and are daily. But that seems somewhat strange to have to separate spell slots depending on use.
You know what is amusing bout your example. It kind of proves my point. The wizard is the star of the show. He has an answer to every problem. The group just needs to rely on team wizard anytime they they get into a jam. (although I am still unsure as to why you didn't just use an iWin spell against said vampire monk but that is besides the point). Let us look at your example web more closely. There was a locked door that your group needed to get trough. I am assuming the door was too strong for the fighter to break down right? Now even I the rogue was alive an the rogue wanted to get you guys out it would have resulted in a TPK. It is a full round action to open a lock. Depending on the lock the rogue will still have a 20-50% chance to fail at opening it. So the rogue must spend 1 turn getting tithe door and 1-3 turns opening it. All the while said monster would continue thrashing on your group. As soon as you open the door, te rogue must spend another full round or two locking it. The vampire monk could easily open it and continue attacking during this time. So really all your example shows is that casters save the day. Imagine if your group had no wizard. Straight TPK.



It sounds like no matter what I cast you'd hold it against me....
.If I'd been able to deal with the monster in one fell blow you'd certainly complain that my combat spell was too effective.  That I'd just cast an iWin.
.If I do something that directly aids another players combat effectiveness you'd complain I wasn't doing damage/casting an iWin.
.If you could ever saw how I roll spell damage?  You'd definitly complain that I was choosing to use the wrong types of spells! Laughing(the difference is that you'd be right this time)
.If I use my remaining spells in the most effective way the moment demands/presents?  You still complain.   

I am assuming the door was too strong for the fighter to break down right?.



Don't know.  One of the fighty types could've probably broken it down.  But as I recall they were rather busy doing their job - you know, fighting....


(although I am still unsure as to why you didn't just use an iWin spell against said vampire monk but that is besides the point).



1st, no such spell exists.  
(if it did?  and if I had had it?  I'd a cast it!)

2nd, the creature saved against the best thing I threw at it & was just plain imune to my other remaining best (combat) options (my guess is because it was undead - like I said, we never did learn what it was - and I was poorly equipped against undead).  

3rd, you play the game you're in that night with the options you have.  Not with the hypothetical limits you could have picked, in a perfect scenario, if you were several/many lvs higher, & had different gear.... 


So really all your example shows is that casters save the day. Imagine if your group had no wizard. Straight TPK.



No wizard, hell.  Imagine if I'd simply used the spell earlier in the evening! 
One of the fighter types wouldn't have been on the front line because he'd have been trying to get that door open!  Me, my low HPs & my poor AC?  We've no illusion of how that round or two would have gone!

As for the saving the day part?  Very observant. 
And I was able to save the day because I wasn't hobbled by having a "utility" spell rendered useless by a rules system that was too focused on combat.  
  One houserule I thought about for 4e was just give all utility powers instead of choosing.  When you were at a level to get a utility power you just got them all.   4e just had too few options for a wizard.   Now we have TD suggesting even fewer.  So modules might be our best bet.  


 




That's not a houserule, actually. You get all of them and can use your spellbook to swap which ones you have perpared (That goes for dailies as well). Vancian was alive and well in 4e.
  One houserule I thought about for 4e was just give all utility powers instead of choosing.  When you were at a level to get a utility power you just got them all.   4e just had too few options for a wizard.   Now we have TD suggesting even fewer.  So modules might be our best bet.  


 




That's not a houserule, actually. You get all of them and can use your spellbook to swap which ones you have perpared (That goes for dailies as well). Vancian was alive and well in 4e.



Was being able to cast each one every day a houserule?  When I said "give" I didn't mean in their spellbook.  I meant to cast each day.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.



It sounds like no matter what I cast you'd hold it against me....
.If I'd been able to deal with the monster in one fell blow you'd certainly complain that my combat spell was too effective.  That I'd just cast an iWin.
.If I do something that directly aids another players combat effectiveness you'd complain I wasn't doing damage/casting an iWin.
.If you could ever saw how I roll spell damage?  You'd definitly complain that I was choosing to use the wrong types of spells! Laughing(the difference is that you'd be right this time)
.If I use my remaining spells in the most effective way the moment demands/presents?  You still complain.   



I doubt he holds anything against you. More likeley he just doesn't like the I win button that is the Vanican caster.
once a caster has enough spell slots theres literally no situation he isn't prepared for and it gets worse when you compound that with wands and scrolls. If magic works anything like It looks in the playtest and we end up with 4 slots a level that will come back in a huge way.
If I recall vancian systems correctly, at level 20,

• The 2e Wizard gets about 37 spell slots
• The 3e Wizard gets about 40 spell slots



Translating this directly into 5e, the level-20 Wizard will get 2 spell slots per level.

Now, hopefully, the “spell level” will be the same thing as the class level. So, at level 13, the Wizard can learn and prepare level 13 spells (not level 7).

Therefore, the spell slots can be whatever the class level is when the hero gets them. If the hero wants a more powerful effect, the hero can prepare the spell in a higher level spell slot. So, every level is useful.


 
Personally, I think 1 spell slot per level seems sufficient, so by level-20 the Wizard will have twenty spells, one of each level. But whatever. As long as atwills are there, and the ability to prepare a spell during a short rest is possible, and all spells during a 1-hour rest, I can manage.
@CCS: I want a game where teamwork a cooperation are important. Where every player has a chance to shine. Where some challenges require quick thinking and a cunning plan. I do not want a game that revolves around what spells the wizard happened to memorize that morning. Casting "solve problem" isn't really quick thinking or teamwork inspiring.

As for Godwizards here is a mini guide: (took 2 minutes to make so I missed a lot)

Never allow your opponent to save. If you do bump your save DC to unbeatable levels trough magic items and feats. Same for spell resistance. If you go for meta magic cheese do so on ray spells. Scrolls are your friend. Keep utility spells on scrolls and only memorize combat spells.

Due to wonky CR EL system you can spend exp and be higher level than the party. Immediately after leveling spend exp and go down a level. You will gain more exp than the rest of the group next adventure.

Level 13: Forcecage wins fights.
Level 9+: wall spells win fights (try surrounding a foe or dropping one on them)
Level 7+: scorching ray cheese for no save 500+ damage. Enervation or ray of stupidity cheese also work to no save auto kill. Black tentacles can win fights. Gargantuan fiendish centipedes also work wonders (use as blocking terrain and try grappling enemies of medium size)
Level 5+: daylight kills vampires. Slow can destroy monsters. Huge fiendish centipedes are fun. Deep slumber = 10 HD of dead enemies.
3+: solid fog, and web slow down or disable large groups of enemies.
1+: color spray, sleep, or my personal favorite grease.

Note most spells can bypass spell resistance or do not have saving throws.

Grease (because it deserves it's own section): now against low Dex foes it can effectively disable them as they need to make balance checks. Against high Dex goes it removes Dex bonus to AC and slows and means every time they take damage they must balance or fall prone.

A good strategy is cast grease on a foe then use a melee monster/fighter to keep the for locked down. Fiendish dire wolves are good here because of improved trip alrhough any huge size creature works well here. Enemies provoke an OA if they stand. Or if they are hit the must balance or fall prone. And every turn they must balance or fall prone. Basically perma lockdown.
A single spell could prettymuch wrap up a 5e encounter by itself.

I'm thinking stucturing the encounter right should prevent that: Enemies from multiple directions, cover, or that arrive in waves should prevent most one spell kills.

That's a DM VS Wizard approach. I'd much rather not have to do that. 

Nod.  While the DM can probably fix any issue in any system, doing so restricts his options.  Just going Vancian already does that - 'slow pacing' with single-encounter and no-encounter days becomes untennable - but balancing spells on the assumption that the DM will compensate if they're overpowered is just piling more on.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Sign In to post comments