D&D 5E Memorized Spells and Spell Slots

[Johnny Champion]

Anytime I encounter players drifting into an unanticpated play style, driven by rules that are new to me, I wonder if others see this as well. So I throw this out to any who can either set me straight or provide their opinion.

In a series of consecutive tough encounters, our only mage in the party ended up almost entirely emptying his spell slots with magic missiles. He can cast it as a first level spell or get increased d4+1 if he uses higher spell slots. All within the rules and the use of MM was very effective in the 3-4 encounters he faced.

It made me wonder if D&D Next unlinking memorized spells and spell slots was a good idea after all. At first I liked the concept, but as I saw it unfold, I wish he was compelled to employ his other spells in more inventive ways. He was totally reliant on this one spell.

Have others encountered the same problem?

 

[Dausuul]

My experience playing a mid-level Next mage (5th to 10th) was that I used a variety of spells. However, because I had a limited number of spells prepared, I was always looking for opportunities to make one spell do double duty. For instance, magic missile was the only direct-damage spell I prepared in levels 1-2; I didn't want to waste a prepared spell on scorching ray when a heightened magic missile would do the job. That freed me up to prepare another utility spell. Levitate, invisibility, and dimension door saw a lot of action. Likewise, fireball was my go-to damage spell for levels 3+.

It was more like playing a sorceror than a wizard, except I got to swap out my spells known every morning. Since I prefer the sorceror, that was fine by me, but I could see how wizard fans might object.

 

[steeldragons]

I can't speak to the rules...nor am I acquainted with the player...

But my first question would be, is this the player? Does the mage's player just want to "blast stuff", for lack of a better way of putting it. If so, then what other spells he has [unless they blast foes] are unlikely to be used.

A player with a background in video games is likely to have this mentality...whereas one with more of an experience rooted in RPGs will look at what's at his disposal and use a diversity of spells accordingly. Or even, just a simple matter of their conception of a magic-using character. If they want to just flip out their wand and "shoot stuff" versus analyzing a situation and using other [non-shooty] spells creatively.

On the flip side...from teh DM's point of view, if the player was presented with a "combat encounter after combat encounter" type of adventure then maybe he was just doing what he expected/thought best for a combat. In which case, the player was making (possibly) appropriate choices. I, personally, would have been looking at my other spells and trying to think of ways to use them, creatively, in combat. But that's me. But if I didn't have any or couldn't figure out something creative/weird to do with them, "blasting for damage" is a definite fall-back/default action to take.

So, sorry. Dunno. There are a bunch of variables here that the OP doesn't address/might be taken into account.

 

[Johnny Champion]

I can't speak to the rules...nor am I acquainted with the player...

But my first question would be, is this the player? Does the mage's player just want to "blast stuff", for lack of a better way of putting it. If so, then what other spells he has [unless they blast foes] are unlikely to be used.

A player with a background in video games is likely to have this mentality...whereas one with more of an experience rooted in RPGs will look at what's at his disposal and use a diversity of spells accordingly. Or even, just a simple matter of their conception of a magic-using character. If they want to just flip out their wand and "shoot stuff" versus analyzing a situation and using other [non-shooty] spells creatively.

On the flip side...from teh DM's point of view, if the player was presented with a "combat encounter after combat encounter" type of adventure then maybe he was just doing what he expected/thought best for a combat. In which case, the player was making (possibly) appropriate choices. I, personally, would have been looking at my other spells and trying to think of ways to use them, creatively, in combat. But that's me. But if I didn't have any or couldn't figure out something creative/weird to do with them, "blasting for damage" is a definite fall-back/default action to take.

So, sorry. Dunno. There are a bunch of variables here that the OP doesn't address/might be taken into account.

I am the DM and yes, the player was confronted with several tough combat encounters. From a survivability standpoint, utilizing MM was the most effective use of his spell slots. The party was battling fire immune/resistant monsters which may have removed some of his spells from consideration.

I guess the question for me comes down to: Does the flexibility of spell slots vs memorized spells lead to certain spells being cast much more frequently, and thus making a PC more one-dimensional? From my opinion, an old schooler, it led to less roll playing and a less interesting combat.

Plus I hate seeing all those d4s shaking in his hand, knowing that my demon lord with high AC has taken his 3rd magic missile barrage!

 

[Dausuul]

I am the DM and yes, the player was confronted with several tough combat encounters. From a survivability standpoint, utilizing MM was the most effective use of his spell slots. The party was battling fire immune/resistant monsters which may have removed some of his spells from consideration.

I guess the question for me comes down to: Does the flexibility of spell slots vs memorized spells lead to certain spells being cast much more frequently, and thus making a PC more one-dimensional? From my opinion, an old schooler, it led to less roll playing and a less interesting combat.

Under the 5E quasi-Vancian regime, the same stimulus is much more likely to get the same response. A 5E wizard whose only non-fire combat spell is magic missile, faced with multiple combats against fire-immune foes, is going to use magic missile over and over, where a fully-Vancian wizard would soon run out of magic missiles and have to scrounge for ways of using those seemingly-useless fire spells.

On the other hand, a 5E mage has a narrower array of prepared spells, and is therefore less likely to have The Perfect Spell for a given situation. A fully-Vancian wizard might prepare one fireball and one lightning bolt, whereas the quasi-Vancian one is likely to prepare fireball alone. Facing a group of fire-immunes, the quasi-Vancian wizard has to improvise a bit, where the fully-Vancian one can just bust out the amber rod and the scrap of fur.

And on a third hand, while the 5E mage is less likely to prepare a variety of similar spells, s/he is more likely to prepare oddball utility spells that might or might not see use. As the Jester points out below, feather fall is actually worthwhile to prepare at levels where your 1st-level slots still have significant value.

It's a tradeoff. Generally, though, I'd say if you want more interesting behavior from the wizard, you need to throw a variety of encounters at him/her. Even a fully-Vancian wizard will soon settle into predictable patterns if you don't change things up.

 

[the Jester]

I am the DM and yes, the player was confronted with several tough combat encounters. From a survivability standpoint, utilizing MM was the most effective use of his spell slots. The party was battling fire immune/resistant monsters which may have removed some of his spells from consideration.

I guess the question for me comes down to: Does the flexibility of spell slots vs memorized spells lead to certain spells being cast much more frequently, and thus making a PC more one-dimensional? From my opinion, an old schooler, it led to less roll playing and a less interesting combat.

Isn't this just the same as the wizard prepping magic missile for all his first-level spells in older editions?

I definitely noticed the same thing when running some playtest material a few packets back, but it may have also been due to a combat-heavy session. Even so, I definitely prefer the flexibility inherent in the 5e system to the old "magic missile x 3, flaming sphere x3, fireball x2, fly" stuff. You still might not use something like feather fall, but the slot's not wasted since you can use it for something else.

Whereas in the old days a wizard with four spells of one level might only have two prepped (with multiple copies), now she'll always have four prepped.

I haven't run/played enough 5e to be absolutely certain, but I really do think I prefer the new system.

FTR I'm old-skool too (I started on mostly 1e with a dash of BECMI).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm okay with the new rules, but I'd really like to see wizards given bonus spells based on school--just like the majority of divine casters get. They really feel like they have way too few spells prepared.

Too few spells to prepare means taking the most versatile spells. Since I like to prepare various "utility" spells, I'd be unlikely to have very many attack spells--which means in a combat encounter where, as you said, his best tactical choice was blasting, it would likely be the same spell blasting over and over again. If they allowed me to prepare more spells, I'd have more opportunity to shake things up and try different spells.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not sure about flexibility and such but I do think I'd prefer a more traditional vancian wizard. It's not that this wizard is unplayable for me. I just would prefer a more traditional approach. Maybe in an eventual module.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I'm okay with the new rules, but I'd really like to see wizards given bonus spells based on school--just like the majority of divine casters get.

I could get behind this.

Or what if they allowed wizards to freely cast one spell in place of others that they have memorized that day--similar to how clerics can spontaneously cast cure or harm spells in 3E. For example, the wizard in the example could cast Magic Missile instead of any other first level spell he had memorized.

How that one spell is determined is open to argument. If wizards had schools (or spell spheres or something else), the spell(s) could be determined by that, just like 3E cleric's domains.

And the schools could be "spheres," like domains, or actual, physical schools, such as "Tenser's College of Magic." So the lists of substitute schools would be bounded only by one's imagination (and DM approval).

Pathfinder does something somewhat similar with the Bonded Item element, taken instead of a familiar.

 

[Gadget]

It does seem to be an emergent play issue that wizards will prepare less variety of 'attack' spells under the new paradigm. Why waste two slots on what is essentially doing the same thing, when you can have more variety and utility at your disposal? This can be both a good and a bad thing. It is bad in that, as a player, you will prepare less variety in blast spells: why prepare both magic missile and scorching ray when magic missile will get the job done and is less likely to be resisted, even if there are situations where scorching ray would be better. It is good in that wizards will tend to prepare more of a variety of utility magic that they otherwise wouldn't have 'wasted' a slot on in a pure Vancian model: That Comprehend Languages preparation is not wasted if you do not end up needing it today, you'll just use the potential slot on an enhanced MM if your day ends up being more combat heavy than anticipated. But if the situation does come up where you need that comprehend Languages spell, well, there you go.

It seems that this will lead to wizard players making sure they have a broad spectrum of spells prepared to 'cover the bases': attack, defense, utility, travel, etc. then just using the ones that meet the situations that come up in play over and over again. The more esoteric spells may be less used in favor of their more broadly applicable brethren.