Wizards should not be able to learn all magic

So, basically, the Wizard is the DnD equivalent of a scientist, one who continually experiments to determine the nature of the universe. However, a scientist is never a "scientist." Scientists specialize in a field of science, like physics, or chemistry. You never hear about scientists who know everything there is to know about all branches of science. I think the same should be true of wizards.

At the beginning of their careers, Wizards should only be able to learn and prepare spells from 2 schools of magic at most. As they gain levels, perhaps they can pick up more schools of magic to learn from, but said wizard should never be able to prepare spells from all eight schools of magic unless they've reached level 20.

I think such a limitation should help balance wizards some, as well as diversify wizard builds. A wizard who studies divination is going to play much differently from an evocation specialist, and only the greatest of wizards will be able to blend these two schools along with some of the others. 

5e Handbooks I've done:

Animal Buddy: A Guide to the Ranger's Beast Companion

 

4e Handbookes I've done:

Heart of the Dragon: A Dragonborn's Handbook

Infernal Wrath: A Tiefling's Handbook

As much as I love this, I doubt it'll gain much traction. I've actually proposed it myself, but it's just too counter to D&D tradition for most peoples' liking, unfortunately, never mind that it's how most fantasy stories actually work.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Pretty much. Sorry, Ventor, but as much as I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion, and as much as I think it would be a change for the better, the floodgates have opened years ago. It's going to be a hard sell to convince a good number of fans that the game needs less of what they always had and want.
I like it.

That said though, I agree with Crimson_Concerto's deduction: it's doubtful to ever be the default handling of schools.

The school specialists in D&D will, most likely, just get added benefits to using spells from their school(s) and, again most likely, denied school(s) to offset the benefits.

You can just house-rule that all wizards are specialists. 
PC wizards typically are some of those greatest of wizards. 

You're also making the assumption that wizardry equals ALL sciences, instead of just one.
In our world, someone who's proficient with a certain science, can pick up another branch within the same relatively fast --- although it may be that the greatest heights in one particular aspect DO require time and dedication - not in exclusion of all else, just a lot of. Think pareto principle. 
Like C_C said, good idea but run counter to the plan.

School specialist should be a tradition and at release though.

Wizards only learning 1 spell per level helps. It's harder to Batman with only one guaranteed spell pick. Filling up the spellbook should be as heavily DM/Setting dependent as getting magic equipment.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

PC wizards typically are some of those greatest of wizards.

And at epic or near-epic levels, that's fine. It makes perfect sense that, at those levels, they could be some of those greatest of all wizards. However, it doesn't make much sense and causes a lot of issues at lower levels of play than that.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I agree completely.  I think this would go a long ways towards resolving the impression that wizards are demigods.


I also think that there is no chance of this ever happening.



On the other hand, an alternative approach would be to simply go back to the AD&D approach (or a variant thereof) which put limits on how many spells (regardless of school) a wizard could know (based on their intelligence).


Which would also help answer the question posed to me by the Wizard in my group last week:  "What does my wizard use Intelligence for anyway?" (aside from attack roll, of course).


Also it is worth nothing that the wizard only gets one spell per level on their own.   The rest of the spells are 100% in the DM's control and thus the wizard will only end up knowing all of the spells if the DM chooses to let them know all of the spells.  But that starts to cross into "good DM fallacy territory" - it would be better to have rules to govern this rather than DM fiat.

(I also think that there should be a restriction which states that the spells you get for going up a level lmust be in your school - for those such as Evocation and Illusion wizards which have a school).

Carl
All wizards should be specialist.

And have a primary school, secondary schools and tertiary schools.

Primary school is of course the school of specialization and it is learned at max learning rate, while others lag a few spell levels on any given level.

If there would be 10 level of spells and 8 schools of magic, you would have 1 primary school, 4 secondary and 3 tertiary(consider them prohibited schools from 3E) and the table would look like:



































































































































CL\spell levelprimary s.secondary s.tertiary s.
111-
211-
321-
421-
532-
6321
7421
8431
9531
10532
11642
12642
13742
14753
15853
16853
17963
18964
191064
201074

 



On the other hand, an alternative approach would be to simply go back to the AD&D approach (or a variant thereof) which put limits on how many spells (regardless of school) a wizard could know (based on their intelligence).




Now THIS is what we should be pushing for.

An actual restriction on the number of spells a Wizard knows.

...

Though we should also be thinking about Clerics, especially given the legacy of 3.X. 
As much as I love this, I doubt it'll gain much traction. I've actually proposed it myself, but it's just too counter to D&D tradition for most peoples' liking, unfortunately, never mind that it's how most fantasy stories actually work.



What? There was a limit on how many spells a Magic-User/Mage could use throughout the AD&D years. It was based on your Intelligence score. As I remember, 16 Int gave you a maximum of 11 spells of each level that you could ever have in your spellbooks. If anything, removing that restriction is the place where things broke with tradition. 

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

The reason wizards learn from the whole pool of spells is because classical academics didn't just learn one thing. A scholar would study all disciplines and they'd focus on one or two as their passion but not at the total expense of anything else. The modern sensibility that a physicist has a totally different education from a chemist and still another completely different education from a psychologist simply doesn't apply.


So the current model doesn't reflect that modern idea because it's not supposed to. It's supposed to reflect the image of a medieval scholar who has a point of focus but studies all areas at once. So an evoker is supposed to be most knowledgeable in the discipline of evocation. They're not supposed to only know evocation.


I'm not suggesting that D&D must be a medieval simulation but this is a medieval fantasy game and in this particular case I think it's worthwhile to let the design be informed by our understanding of what a medieval academic was.


Bearing that in mind, I don't think there's anything wrong with specialists and I posted really early on with traditions that I wanted them to be more invasive than we've seen so far. I'd love to have the wizard start with that generalist medieval academic and then have tradition push one particular discipline so their strongest options are consistently within their tradition.


Or even better (and more difficult), you could give them a series of special abilities which allow you to manipulate your magic in a way that flavours the entire spell list toward your tradition. So you don't have schools of magic, as such, and all the spells are available to all traditions equally but they function in such a way that they're unmistakably performed by a member of a given tradition.



EDIT: and yes the AD&D route is awesome and we should do that. I mean, the reality is even without a hard coded limit the game itself should limit how many spells a wizard can know at a time.

Yeah, those limits were FAR too high.

5 or 6 might actually work.

But, again, it's vanishingly likely that this could ever make it past the whines and screams of the pro-caster junta. 
this is a medieval fantasy game

I think that this is an unnecessarily limited view of what D&D should be.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Yeah, those limits were FAR too high.

5 or 6 might actually work.

But, again, it's vanishingly likely that this could ever make it past the whines and screams of the pro-caster junta. 



Four, plus one per two points of Int above ten. Though I agree that it's quite possible the complaints about breaking tradition/the spirit of D&D/wizards would split the heavens and bring down the apocalypse. 

Of course I'd like to go with a small pool of universal spells, everyone is a specialist with access to one school (I'd probably alter the schools a bit), and any spells outside the universal/your school could only be learnt through feats.  Which is frankly even more certain to be shot down by certain parties.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

To echo what others have said, I think this is a great idea but it will probably never happen.

Wizards have soooooo many spells to choose from at each level, but so few spells per day to use, this would really help make things more sensible. It would also make one's choice of specialty school alot more meaningful. I can imagine two wizards introducing themselves to each other "I'm a necromancer who dabbles in divination and illusion. "I'm a fire elementalist, and my secondary element is earth." It would effectively make the wizard class a collection of many unique classes, each sharing some common features but yet being totally different from each other at the same time.
Fighters should be able to learn all spells too.

I mean, if it's science, anyone can do it. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

So, basically, the Wizard is the DnD equivalent of a scientist, one who continually experiments to determine the nature of the universe. However, a scientist is never a "scientist." Scientists specialize in a field of science, like physics, or chemistry. You never hear about scientists who know everything there is to know about all branches of science. 




While that's true of most modern professionals in the sciences, it was pretty much the opposite during the inital establishment of the university system in the 16th through 19th centuries.  Students at university were expected to master arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and anatomy (as well as linguistics, rhetoric, logic and music).  There were no formal divisions between the disciplines in the student body.  Think of wizards as coming out of the 'liberal arts' tradition of the medieval academies (liberal meaning "broad"), rather than a modern graduate school which demands more specialization.

Certainly you could limit wizards to a particular school of magic in your home campaign.  But there's plenty of historic justification for the broad wizardly tradition.
Jack of all trades master of none.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Well, how many spells a wizard can learn isn't that big a deal until they start learning plot-breaking, encounter-bypassing, and/or save-or-die/lose spells.

I never liked the 'number of spells you can learn' mechanic; it never made much sense to me.

I agree that a wizard, out of the gates at 1st level, should have access to one (1) school of magic, along with a handful of Universal spells.  If he wants additional schools, he has to spend some character currency for them, whether it's feats, multiclassing, skill points, something.  However it works, doing so should cut the wizard off from the highest-level spells in all schools.  If you focus on just one school, you can hit 9th level spells.  If you branch into two, you top off at 8th.  Three, 7th.  Etc etc.
So, basically, the Wizard is the DnD equivalent of a scientist, one who continually experiments to determine the nature of the universe. However, a scientist is never a "scientist." Scientists specialize in a field of science, like physics, or chemistry. You never hear about scientists who know everything there is to know about all branches of science. 




While that's true of most modern professionals in the sciences, it was pretty much the opposite during the inital establishment of the university system in the 16th through 19th centuries.  Students at university were expected to master arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and anatomy (as well as linguistics, rhetoric, logic and music).  There were no formal divisions between the disciplines in the student body.  Think of wizards as coming out of the 'liberal arts' tradition of the medieval academies (liberal meaning "broad"), rather than a modern graduate school which demands more specialization.

Certainly you could limit wizards to a particular school of magic in your home campaign.  But there's plenty of historic justification for the broad wizardly tradition.



Of course, that's real world history, which is utterly and completely meaningless in a conversation about a)imaginary worlds and b) a game.

You can't use 'historic justification' in the same breath as mentioning imaginary spellcasters.
So, basically, the Wizard is the DnD equivalent of a scientist, one who continually experiments to determine the nature of the universe. However, a scientist is never a "scientist." Scientists specialize in a field of science, like physics, or chemistry. You never hear about scientists who know everything there is to know about all branches of science. I think the same should be true of wizards.

At the beginning of their careers, Wizards should only be able to learn and prepare spells from 2 schools of magic at most. As they gain levels, perhaps they can pick up more schools of magic to learn from, but said wizard should never be able to prepare spells from all eight schools of magic unless they've reached level 20.

I think such a limitation should help balance wizards some, as well as diversify wizard builds. A wizard who studies divination is going to play much differently from an evocation specialist, and only the greatest of wizards will be able to blend these two schools along with some of the others. 



A school of magic =/= a branch of science.  Arcane magic = a branch of science.  What you are proposing is that a chemist only be able to know 25% of what it takes to be a chemist.  Now, even within branches of science there are specialties.....and within arcane magic you can specialize in a school of magic.
I like it.

That said though, I agree with Crimson_Concerto's deduction: it's doubtful to ever be the default handling of schools.

The school specialists in D&D will, most likely, just get added benefits to using spells from their school(s) and, again most likely, denied school(s) to offset the benefits.

You can just house-rule that all wizards are specialists. 



I like it as a module. 
Of course, that's real world history, which is utterly and completely meaningless in a conversation about a)imaginary worlds and b) a game.
You can't use 'historic justification' in the same breath as mentioning imaginary spellcasters.



Since that's precisely what the OP did, yes I can.  I was replying to the concern that somehowhaving casters have access to all schools of magic was "unrealistic."

As for those of you who think Wish, etc., are "game breaking," you should look again at the most recently nerfed version of that spell in the playetst packet.  It can't do anything more effective than most decent combat spells any more.  Miserably weak.
I have no interest in making a wizard able to do only those things a regular human can do IRL with a decent shovel. 
This is actually a great idea. Specialization requirements would be fabulous. Let generalization in casters come at the cost of potentcy.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Wizards are limited in several ways already, particularly in which spells they know. As one of the posters noted above, it requires no effort if, at your table, you require that wizards need to choose from a more limited palette of spells when gaining levels or when acquiring them from scrolls, etc. However, as it stands, the wizard already has a limited array of spells from which to choose, and from that must choose even a more limited number to prepare. So long as the adventure/sandbox/whatever is varies, and wizards don't or shouldn't simply presume that every meaningful encounter either must or should be solved through combat, a wizard already has an incentive to have a variety of spells, rather than a narrow palette. So, I think at best a module on how to allow for some kind of specialization would be called for, but the core (i.e. basic and standard) rules should probably not limit the wizard's need to make strategic choices any further.

Wizards are limited in several ways already, particularly in which spells they know. As one of the posters noted above, it requires no effort if, at your table, you require that wizards need to choose from a more limited palette of spells when gaining levels or when acquiring them from scrolls, etc. However, as it stands, the wizard already has a limited array of spells from which to choose, and from that must choose even a more limited number to prepare. So long as the adventure/sandbox/whatever is varies, and wizards don't or shouldn't simply presume that every meaningful encounter either must or should be solved through combat, a wizard already has an incentive to have a variety of spells, rather than a narrow palette. So, I think at best a module on how to allow for some kind of specialization would be called for, but the core (i.e. basic and standard) rules should probably not limit the wizard's need to make strategic choices any further.

+1

Well put.

this is a medieval fantasy game

I think that this is an unnecessarily limited view of what D&D should be.

Is it? I don't see anyone arguing for modern concepts to be represented as part of the core game. Nobody's wanted gun rules to be core, for example, or bone or stone weapons to be core. Nobody commented on the medieval themes in the backgrounds or suggested we have bronze age or Roman terminology be used in the backgrounds. Nobody's asked for a gilded age statesman background either. All of the (very lengthy) discussions on weapon and armour names focus on medieval European names and even discard some of them because they're too far outside the region or period. Some concepts are rennaisance (swashbuckler et al) but not so late as to quash the notion of a medieval scholar since the specialist in an academic sense only really started to come about in the 18th century.

Fact is, we're all working from medieval fantasy as a starting point and things that take us into the paleolithic or modern age are being asked for as modules. Since this suggestion is a reflection of a modern scientist with a modern-style education and does not reflect the medieval fantasy starting point people use for D&D, this belongs in a module.


I'd be way into reading and trying the module and even using it in my games, but I don't think it's core. Certainly, there is a place for the medieval scholar concept in the wizard so even if this was adopted the generalist would still need to be there.

I think the game would be better served if the current "schools" were changed to skills. At character creation an arcane caster joins and order of magic. There could be 5, 10 however many orders you wanted. Each order having it's own style, implements, advantages and disadvantages. Some orders would empathize teaching one or more magical skills over another. Some may not teach certain magic skills at all. 

You might join the Order of Wizardry and be known as a wizard. Where you use words of power to cast spells. You always have to be able to speak your words of power. Wizards may use wands and/or staves to help direct the flow of their magic. 

Three students of the order of wizardry might learn many different things. One might strive to balance all magical skills, knowning all but being weak in all. Another might ignore conjuring and illusion to be a master of summoning. The last might work to be the greatest transmutation master the order ever produced. 

 
Four, plus one per two points of Int above ten.

6+intmod (1-11 spells/spLev).  Possibly 5+intmod (0-10), or just INT score (1-20).

Really, what should be done is to replace "generalist" wizard with Evoker, using whatever specialsit rules end up existing.  The reason this isn't ever done is because someone's "pet" spell would end up as dead weight in a "core" game or possibly even removed from the back of PHB.
I agree completely.  I think this would go a long ways towards resolving the impression that wizards are demigods.


I also think that there is no chance of this ever happening.



On the other hand, an alternative approach would be to simply go back to the AD&D approach (or a variant thereof) which put limits on how many spells (regardless of school) a wizard could know (based on their intelligence).


Which would also help answer the question posed to me by the Wizard in my group last week:  "What does my wizard use Intelligence for anyway?" (aside from attack roll, of course).


Also it is worth nothing that the wizard only gets one spell per level on their own.   The rest of the spells are 100% in the DM's control and thus the wizard will only end up knowing all of the spells if the DM chooses to let them know all of the spells.  But that starts to cross into "good DM fallacy territory" - it would be better to have rules to govern this rather than DM fiat.

(I also think that there should be a restriction which states that the spells you get for going up a level lmust be in your school - for those such as Evocation and Illusion wizards which have a school).

Carl



They also had to pass their "chance to know" roll as well, so even if below cap and they found a source to teach there was no guarantee they would ever know a particular spell. Then of course reagants and costs such as xp, constitution, and years off the life helped balance things. Balancing ideas that were discarded mostly in 2nd.
Well, how many spells a wizard can learn isn't that big a deal until they start learning plot-breaking, encounter-bypassing, and/or save-or-die/lose spells.

I never liked the 'number of spells you can learn' mechanic; it never made much sense to me.

I agree that a wizard, out of the gates at 1st level, should have access to one (1) school of magic, along with a handful of Universal spells.  If he wants additional schools, he has to spend some character currency for them, whether it's feats, multiclassing, skill points, something.  However it works, doing so should cut the wizard off from the highest-level spells in all schools.  If you focus on just one school, you can hit 9th level spells.  If you branch into two, you top off at 8th.  Three, 7th.  Etc etc.




If the players want to bypass an encounter it seems trivial to do so without magic by running or just not talking to the old dude in the tavern. There needs to be an assumption implicit or explicit (as hard as that may seem) that adventurers want to adventure.
I dont like the idea. While I understand the logic behind it the problem is that usually you have your combat schools and your non combat school. A wizard really needs to be able to do both. I think overall it will be limiting and result in wizards always having the same spell list i.e. the schools with invisibility and fireball.
6+intmod (1-11 spells/spLev).  Possibly 5+intmod (0-10), or just INT score (1-20).

Really, what should be done is to replace "generalist" wizard with Evoker, using whatever specialsit rules end up existing.  The reason this isn't ever done is because someone's "pet" spell would end up as dead weight in a "core" game or possibly even removed from the back of PHB.



I think I suggest something similar up thread. Some universal spells, schoosl specialities for all wizards, and if you want spells outside those get access through feats. Actually doing it that way might satisfy me enough that I wouldn't want a return to the traditional limit on maximum number of spells known.

They also had to pass their "chance to know" roll as well, so even if below cap and they found a source to teach there was no guarantee they would ever know a particular spell. Then of course reagants and costs such as xp, constitution, and years off the life helped balance things. Balancing ideas that were discarded mostly in 2nd.



I think you mean discarded in 3rd, because 2e certainly kept those.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

While I understand the logic behind it the problem is that usually you have your combat schools and your non combat school.

The solution seems obvious to me. Give the "combat schools" the kinds of non-combat options they should have had all along and the "non-combat schools" the kinds of combat options they should have had all along.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Yeah, those limits were FAR too high.

5 or 6 might actually work.

But, again, it's vanishingly likely that this could ever make it past the whines and screams of the pro-caster junta. 



Four, plus one per two points of Int above ten. Though I agree that it's quite possible the complaints about breaking tradition/the spirit of D&D/wizards would split the heavens and bring down the apocalypse. 

Of course I'd like to go with a small pool of universal spells, everyone is a specialist with access to one school (I'd probably alter the schools a bit), and any spells outside the universal/your school could only be learnt through feats.  Which is frankly even more certain to be shot down by certain parties.



Good call.

Four plus Int bonus max spells known per level.

With a feat available which makes Wizard/Cleric/Druid spells available to any character with a sufficiently high Int or Wis, but ONLY the bonus spells.

Now THOSE are rules I'd like to see.

...

But probably never will.       
Fighters should be able to learn all spells too.

I mean, if it's science, anyone can do it. 



Nothing is stoping them from taking one level in ftr then 19 in wiz but there is something stoping them from learning every spell and that is the DM who can limit scrolls. I have more of a problem with the Cleric who gets every spell by default.
So, basically, the Wizard is the DnD equivalent of a scientist, one who continually experiments to determine the nature of the universe. However, a scientist is never a "scientist." Scientists specialize in a field of science, like physics, or chemistry. You never hear about scientists who know everything there is to know about all branches of science. 




While that's true of most modern professionals in the sciences, it was pretty much the opposite during the inital establishment of the university system in the 16th through 19th centuries.  Students at university were expected to master arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and anatomy (as well as linguistics, rhetoric, logic and music).  There were no formal divisions between the disciplines in the student body.  Think of wizards as coming out of the 'liberal arts' tradition of the medieval academies (liberal meaning "broad"), rather than a modern graduate school which demands more specialization.

Certainly you could limit wizards to a particular school of magic in your home campaign.  But there's plenty of historic justification for the broad wizardly tradition.



Professordaddy hit it pretty much exactly on the nose.

And he did not even mention the Wizards genius level of Intelligence - just because a chemist has a 12 Int and does not know any physics, does not mean to say that a 18 Int scientist has that restriction.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Fighters should be able to learn all spells too.

I mean, if it's science, anyone can do it. 



Nothing is stoping them from taking one level in ftr then 19 in wiz but there is something stoping them from learning every spell and that is the DM who can limit scrolls. I have more of a problem with the Cleric who gets every spell by default.



While I see the "take a level of Wizard" concept, it's already been admitted that this will NOT work by the design team (seriously, check out their blog where they admit that THIS EXACT EXAMPLE won't work).

So I think that some kind of "dipping" style multiclass option could work better via Feat support.

...

You are absolutely 100% right that this is EVEN MORE of a problem with the Cleric class.

The whole "they get access to every possible spell ever all the time" approach needs to DIE IN A FIRE.        


While I see the "take a level of Wizard" concept, it's already been admitted that this will NOT work by the design team (seriously, check out their blog where they admit that THIS EXACT EXAMPLE won't work).

So I think that some kind of "dipping" style multiclass option could work better via Feat support.

...

You are absolutely 100% right that this is EVEN MORE of a problem with the Cleric class.

The whole "they get access to every possible spell ever all the time" approach needs to DIE IN A FIRE.        



So they went back on the 3e style multiclassing? That is good news for Paizo. But then again Feats and magic items are the only things I really like about Next. 


Double vibe. It is far worse with Clerics. You cant limit access like you can with spell books and scrolls and it ruins the personality of the domain.
I think they should bring back spheres for clerics. They could have a list of general spells that all clerics get, but beyond that they should only get whatever spells are in the specific spheres their god grants.
Sign In to post comments