Design Question - Wizards' Spells

So, in most of my campaigns, I remove a few spells from the campaign - various teleport spells (including Blink), and spell that grants flight, and pretty much most spells that allow easy overland travel. None of my players have ever had a problem with this, and it's a rule I think I'll be keeping in my games for a long time - it reinforces the world I want to play in.

My brother is thinking of building his own world, and we were talking about how I remove a few spells. He was thinking of removing quite a few spells, but was worried about game balance. His argument went sort of like this:

If you were to remove a wide group of spells (let's say an entire school), you are limiting the wizard's overall power.

My argument against that was that, so long as you are removing the schools/spells from ALL arcane spell lists (and removing their divine equivalents), you do not change the power level of the game. While the game might be different if all arcane casters cannot cast most evocation spells, it does not truly hinder game balance. After all, thereotically all 3rd level spells are roughly the same strength, right?

With the wide variety of spells available in the game, does removing one (or more) schools weaken the wizard class too much? If arcane casters could only cast from, say, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Divination, would they really be WEAKER than their unlimited counterparts, or just different in focus?

It would certainly affect specialists almost immediately -- Conjuration as a school becomes a lot less attractive once teleports are gone, for instance.

And not all schools are created equal: I'd say that Necromancy, Enchantment and Divination does produce a weaker wizard/sorcerer than usual, but not to the point that they're helpless.

I'm doing something similar -- some spells just don't exist, while others are "forbidden knowledge." I'm hoping that opens up some roleplaying possibilities.

If I go into your toolbox, grab a few items, is it equivalent to what it was before? Aren't most of those wrenches equal? Or does the removal of tools reduce your ability to handle certain situations and thus diminish the value of the toolset?

I think some capabilities are rather fundamental to the overall state of the class. For example, mage armor is a pretty standard defense for low (or high) level casters and monks. The newer classes with specialty lists that don't include mage armor all seem to have light armor. Similarly, many casters are going to use Dimension Door to escape grapples, especially at higher levels when monsters can get nigh unbeatable grapple checks. Some spells don't have clear replacements, ergo losing them is a hit. On the other hand, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are mostly substitutes.

Victim said:

If I go into your toolbox, grab a few items, is it equivalent to what it was before? Aren't most of those wrenches equal? Or does the removal of tools reduce your ability to handle certain situations and thus diminish the value of the toolset?

I think some capabilities are rather fundamental to the overall state of the class. For example, mage armor is a pretty standard defense for low (or high) level casters and monks. The newer classes with specialty lists that don't include mage armor all seem to have light armor. Similarly, many casters are going to use Dimension Door to escape grapples, especially at higher levels when monsters can get nigh unbeatable grapple checks. Some spells don't have clear replacements, ergo losing them is a hit. On the other hand, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are mostly substitutes.

Click to expand...

The wrench analogy is nice, but I don't know if it really applies.

For starters, I don't see how Dimension Door is used to escape grapples - how do you cast spells in a grapple to begin with? as for the loss of spells like Shield - it could be a hit, but there are other spells out there that can be used defensively (obscuring mist, for example).

I just think that D&D has reached the point where there are so many spells that if you were to remove many of the main ones from the game, there would still be enough spells out there to fulfill the important roles. If there were no illusions, evocations, or transmutations in a game, I still think a mage would find some novel ways to create phantasmal images, direct-damage effects, or change a foe in some way. At the same time, the flavour of the game would change - and in an interesting way.

The Jakandor setting, for 2e, sort of did this. A lot of the "old magic" had been lost, and it was the goal of the Wizard-Civilization of the Charonti to rediscover it. Fireball was gone, but Lightning bolt wasn't. Fly didn't exist, but there were other options. While it wasn't written into the rules, it almost seemed like it was expected for theGM To introduce spells from "non-core" sources to make the magic of the Charonti seem new from the "standard" D&D rules, even though the magic system was exactly the same.

Anyways, that's my viewpoint on it. I don't think a mage becomes any weaker when you take away a large subset of his spells. Maybe a little less generalized, but I don't really see that a problem.

Wik said:

For starters, I don't see how Dimension Door is used to escape grapples - how do you cast spells in a grapple to begin with?

Click to expand...

You make a DC 24 concentration check (for a 4th-level spell). Dimension door is one of those spells that has only a Verbal component to it for precisely that reason. It's a life-saver, literally, at higher levels.

Wik said:

For starters, I don't see how Dimension Door is used to escape grapples - how do you cast spells in a grapple to begin with?

Click to expand...

Dimension Door has only a verbal component so quite easily as long as you make your concentration check (20 + spell level=DC 24).

Wik said:

as for the loss of spells like Shield - it could be a hit, but there are other spells out there that can be used defensively (obscuring mist, for example).

I just think that D&D has reached the point where there are so many spells that if you were to remove many of the main ones from the game, there would still be enough spells out there to fulfill the important roles...
Anyways, that's my viewpoint on it. I don't think a mage becomes any weaker when you take away a large subset of his spells. Maybe a little less generalized, but I don't really see that a problem.

Click to expand...

OK here's another analogy for you. You have a variety of different surgeons all able to perform different operations. As the wizard, you are the hospital employing these surgeons. If now you cut out all the cardiac surgeons and lets say the maternity section, is your hospital able to provide the same level of service as another hospital. NO. Of course not. Likewise with a wizard. If you cut out some of the schools at their disposal you reduce their power and effectiveness. It provides a big black hole in either their offensive power, defensive power or adventuring utility.

Another analogy. Let's take gears in a car. Hey why do we need 1st and 3rd again, let's get rid of them huh! Car will still run won't it?

As for getting rid of teleport, fly and all the other spells that allow PCs to get around the specific wall that you the DM are trying to drive them through, that is a matter of personal gaming preference. Perhaps for a different gaming experience you should allow them to have access to such things. Believe it or not, your game will not fall apart as a result.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Wik said:

While the game might be different if all arcane casters cannot cast most evocation spells, it does not truly hinder game balance. After all, thereotically all 3rd level spells are roughly the same strength, right?

With the wide variety of spells available in the game, does removing one (or more) schools weaken the wizard class too much? If arcane casters could only cast from, say, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Divination, would they really be WEAKER than their unlimited counterparts, or just different in focus?

Click to expand...

Removing evocation would certainly remove much of the ability of arcane casters to function as long range artillery. I don't know about making the overall class weaker but it can definitely make certain character concepts within that class unplayable or significantly weaker. If that suits your purposes (i.e. - I want to eliminate blaster mages from the game) then you shouldn't have any problems, but I would warn players off of creating characters based on those archetypes.

Ourph said:

Removing evocation would certainly remove much of the ability of arcane casters to function as long range artillery. I don't know about making the overall class weaker but it can definitely make certain character concepts within that class unplayable or significantly weaker. If that suits your purposes (i.e. - I want to eliminate blaster mages from the game) then you shouldn't have any problems, but I would warn players off of creating characters based on those archetypes.

Click to expand...

See, that's what I'm thinking. By removing schools from the game, you can make specific ROLES of the wizard, but I fail to see how the class overall is truly weakened.

I mean, I've played conjurer wizards who never cast a single necromancy, invocation,divination, or transmutation spell once... and I think that character was by far the most powerful in the group. I've played enchanters who were great... while I wasn't specifically limiting my spell access, I chose tofocus on a specific role and did great.

By removing a wide selection of spells from the game, I think it just plays a little with the expected role of the wizard in the party, but doesn't do much to actually weaken the character class.

***

In regards to the DImension Door Fiasco - my bad. I don't like teleport spells (no one in my group does), so we don't really use spells like that.

Sword & Sorcery's Excalibur book tackles these sorts of changes to wizards. They don't want blasters, but they also don't want players to be absolutely screwed when they need/want those spells, so they make them expensive to cast. They also inflate the spell choices in the preferred spell schools that fit the Arthurian flavor more.

It's a great book and would be worth looking at just to see everything they do with a similar situation.