D&D 5E How many spells does a wizard *need*

[david.boute]

Thanks guys. I started this thread thinking I was being stingy, but turns out I'm actually quite generous.

I'm resetting the 9 1st level spells back to 6. That should be enough.
I'll add in that the third spell needs to be paid for.
For all the rest he's going to have to cut up monsters and bribe Npc's (or vice versa)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would rell him that he may do private research during downtime and learn new spells.

First he has to find material components of the spell he wants to learn. Then he has to spend 1 day per apell level in downtime and spend the resources to write a spell into his book. At the end of the day he makes an intelligence arcana check against a DC of 8+spell level. If he succeds: spell learnt.
Notice that this is not a lot worse than the standard rule. Instead of finding the spell he needs components.
And the DC is not very hard actually. A standard wizard will make the check most of the time. At level 1 it is against DC 9 with a +5 bonus most probably. (80%) At level 17 it is against DC 17 with a bonus of +11. So still 70%. And a lot easier for low level spells.

Only problem are spells without material components. I would either make the check harder... maybe at disadvantage or make up components that would fit with the spell.

 

[Herobizkit]

This does give you two unforeseen RP advantages.

1) as mentioned earlier, having non-standard spellbooks as a reward/challenge for the wizard to actually USE his spells upon. You can give snippets of a lost culture via the lore/artifacts he discovers.

2) You could surprise him with some 'pet' 3.5 spells that aren't in the 5e rulebook; conversion is trivial to unnecessary from 3.x/Pathfinder to 5e.

c) As an aside, sprinkle some charged items (wands et al) in place of spellbooks. Re-fluff them as lost technology or what have you.

 

[Ashrym]

While technically true and I think a wizard gets by fine with base spells that's a bit misleading IMO. Known spell classes retrain out of spells. So a lot of spells that a wizard will probably never prep also are being counted as his larger known list while the bard retrains out so spells that lost their effectiveness for whatever reason no longer count against his.

That's not really an issue when the PHB spells per level give twice as many spells and the wizard can simply focus on spells that scale well or retain value at higher levels. Typically, finding scrolls and spell books is isn't common and contains duplicates or junk. Scribing spells tends to be over rated compared to simply choosing good spells while leveling.

Wizards start with a lot more spells known than other arcane casters by a lot and the only thing close is a lore bard earlier in the game. When arcane casters get over 10th level or so they slow down in learning higher new spells. A wizard continues learning spells at the same pace however, so knows more higher level spells. The only option for other arcane casters is to manage with knowing fewer high level spells even with the option of giving up lower level spell versatility.

The end result is the wizard has about twice the spells known as a bard or warlock and three times that of a sorcerer. The limited spells known of a sorcerer are closer to what is "needed" for an arcane spell caster. Everything after that is more geared to utility and versatility. When the PHB gives 44 spells known in a spell book compared to the lore bard's 24 spells known or a focused warlock similar to a lore bard via invocations it's clear that wizards get more than enough.

Players who don't think their wizards have enough spells need some more experience with similar classes. ;-)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Remember. Even finding spells isn't always helpful. Spell books tend to have the same spells you already have, and also have spells you would never want.

And also the really nasty spells that the enemy wizard cast at you.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The question is if you are penalizing the wizard class more than others (ie, is there a lack of loot useful to warriors also?), and then if you are, are you okay with that? And do your players know that wizards are being penalized more than others?

 

[david.boute]

The question is if you are penalizing the wizard class more than others (ie, is there a lack of loot useful to warriors also?), and then if you are, are you okay with that? And do your players know that wizards are being penalized more than others?

The rest of the players will also suffer adverse effects, because (at least initially) everything 'civilized' will be scarce. They get to bring some equipment with them on the journey to the colony, but that's it.

No metal, no libraries, no magic services, no food, ... The colony will have to find, barter, beg, work or fight for all those things. That means that the warrior types won't have access to full plates, for instance.

The encumbrance rules variant will be used and food, drink and ammunition will be tracked.

I'm also doing the exploration as a hexcrawl, with movement points. Setting up camp will be necessary in order to do a long rest in the jungle, which will cost movement points. So they probably won't get a long rest at the end of each day. (But I'll provide an opportunity to rest in a cave or so every 8 to 10 encounters)

All the limitations will only last for so long. Once the colony (the PC's) discovers mines, ruins, tribes, ... they gain access to certain luxuries.

And sorta back on point: this was the starting point of the thread, how much can I limit the wizard while still keeping him functional? Turns out: quite a lot.

 

[Li Shenron]

The player argues that he needs at least 10 to 12 spells for each spell level to be effective as a wizard, and not be a glorified sorcerer without metamagic.

I'd follow [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION] advice. The Wizard works fine without any additional spell scribed into the spellbook.

And I'd tell your player there are no such thing as ineffective characters, only ineffective players.

 

[Aenghus]

I'd follow [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION] advice. The Wizard works fine without any additional spell scribed into the spellbook.

And I'd tell your player there are no such thing as ineffective characters, only ineffective players.

The final statement is far too absolutist for me personally. While it's true that players should make the most of their character, random chance and the vagaries of the plot can make a particular PC very ineffective a significant proportion of the time, and sometimes for extended periods. People play RPGs for different reasons, those who want to have their PCs succeed at least some of the time may prefer a more effective PC.

The corollary is if the player isn't enjoying the game because of arbitrary limitations on his or her PC s/he should consider walking away and finding a game s/he likes more. Total referee indifference to player feelings is an excellent reason for doing so.

 

[steeldragons]

No more than 4-5 spells, really. Not even "per spell level", but for their entire career.

For a wizard to be effective in D&D, I say 4:
1. Offensive, pure damage dealing, to subdue or kill (possibly secondary effects, like setting things on fire or freezing things). Burning Hands, [the classic] Magic Missile, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm...any one will do.
2. Offensive, to incapacitate. Maybe with minor damage dealing, but essentially to "capture" not kill. Sleep, Charm Person, Web, Hold Person all come to mind.
3. Defensive. I personally prefer your comic book-esque "energy shields/force fields" kind of stuff, your Shield, your Resilient Sphere, etc... But in D&D this could also be any number of illusions: Mirror Image, Invisibility; ceremonial type magic: Protection from Evil, Magic Circle, Banishment; the "Wall" spells; etc...
4. The 4th slot is the one that fluctuates. In 5e, this would be changing from day to day, or used as rituals when the need arises. Utility and divinatory stuff. Your Unseen Servant, Floating Disc, Comprehending Languages, Detecting Magic, Knock/Wizard Lock, Water Breathing...whatever comes up. But, generally speaking, you shouldn't really need to delve into your spellbook/"known list" more than once or twice per day.

Optionally, there are 5.
5. Movement related. Pull Levitate/Fly out of the "utility" spell slot. But, in D&D 5e, you also have your Jump and Longstrider, Misty Step, and, naturally, Dimension Door and Teleport at higher levels. But Levitate/Flight is just vastly utilitarian in any number of exploration and combat situations. Enough so, I think, it could be it's own 5th spell per day.

So, yeah. 1. Offensive. 2. Non-lethal Offense. 3. Defensive. 4. Movement, and 5. Utility "open" slot that can change depending on the situation/day.

If magic is supposed to be more rare and difficult to come by, how on earth would you justify getting/giving 10-12 spells per spell level?! That just sounds like greedy entitled nonsense on the player's part. Even your original number was overly generous, to my mind.