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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I agree with this. While it may be true that there's "no such thing as an ineffectual character" it just sounds patronizing, with an implication of "you are playing wrong", in the face of a player who feels relatively ineffectual. It's analogous to telling a poor person that poverty is just a state of mind and they should stop comparing themselves to rich people.

 

[kalil]

How are you compensating fighters for the lack of plate armor?

 

[steeldragons]

I agree with this. While it may be true that there's "no such thing as an ineffectual character" it just sounds patronizing, with an implication of "you are playing wrong", in the face of a player who feels relatively ineffectual. It's analogous to telling a poor person that poverty is just a state of mind and they should stop comparing themselves to rich people.

If the "patron" fits...

And no. It is not "analogous" to what you suggest. One is a game of make-believe magic pixies and one is an all-too-real socioeconomic issue with actual life and death consequences.

Telling the former to, in effect, "suck it up/get over it" most certainly does not have the same connotations as telling the same to the latter.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Ditto! The history of D&D is full of characters who did nothing but one thing i.e. swing one weapon to kill monsters, without complaining of being "ineffective".

Rather than the amount of options, a character might be ineffective if all her options have too low chance of success or yield too small effects. A Wizard with just 5 spells (at all, not per level) might already have more options than other PCs.

Someone who whines that 10 spells per level are necessary for effectiveness smells of wanting a spell for everything. To make sure he can step on everyones' toes and win the game?

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the "patron" fits...

And no. It is not "analogous" to what you suggest. One is a game of make-believe magic pixies and one is an all-too-real socioeconomic issue with actual life and death consequences.

Telling the former to, in effect, "suck it up/get over it" most certainly does not have the same connotations as telling the same to the latter.

Analogous != Identical

And analogies don't require similar scale.

"Huh, the headlights on that soccer ball reminds me of how the sun makes phases of the moon."
"Duuuude...they aren't at all the same! The moon is like...YUGE...and the sun is a lot brighter than headlights..."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Someone who whines that 10 spells per level are necessary for effectiveness smells of wanting a spell for everything. To make sure he can step on everyones' toes and win the game?

How so? He would be unlikely to even use the vast majority of those spells. I agree that it's whining, but granting his request likely wouldn't make much difference because he'd rarely change his known spells list.

 

[David Boute]

How are you compensating fighters for the lack of plate armor?

I'm not. But you raise a good point, that I hadn't really thought about.

More and more, I'm starting to think that the houserule to add an extra spell is a bad idea. I was worried about intra party balance,but this thread has convinced me that this won't be an issue. Plus, and this is also important, it removes the feeling of accomplishment when the player get the spells.

Telling the player, who is also an IRL friend of mine, this will be ... interesting.

 

[steeldragons]

...

Nevermind. Why bother.

 

[Ahglock]

I'm not. But you raise a good point, that I hadn't really thought about.

More and more, I'm starting to think that the houserule to add an extra spell is a bad idea. I was worried about intra party balance,but this thread has convinced me that this won't be an issue. Plus, and this is also important, it removes the feeling of accomplishment when the player get the spells.

Telling the player, who is also an IRL friend of mine, this will be ... interesting.

It will be interesting to see if you have strength based fighters. If you are dex based you aren't giving up anything as you'd never wear plate anyways.

 

[David Boute]

It will be interesting to see if you have strength based fighters. If you are dex based you aren't giving up anything as you'd never wear plate anyways.

My best guess is that Strength-based warriors will probably turn to barbarian instead of fighter. On the other hand, I doubt that 1 point of AC will matter that much.
The best case scenario is that Strength-based fighters (or clerics, for that matter) won't dump Dexterity like they can do now.