D&D 5E Does the wizard need more spells learned per level?

[Xeviat]

The default wizard gains two new spells to add to their spellbooks per level. It's my contention that this isn't enough for several reasons.

If you're playing in a world where the players aren't going to run into many other wizards to get spells from, and aren't going to get scrolls in treasure, THEN I could accept an argument that wizards should get another way to learn spells. Clerics and Druids know all their spells, but the Wizard list is more versatile. Also, wizards have super utility with Rituals.

The compromise I'd make if a player wizard was so restricted would be to let them research spells with down time. Otherwise, I don't believe they know too few spells naturally. Sorcerers know 15 to the wizard's 44.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[schnee]

B-b-b-but in 3.5, I kept all the martial characters as pets. They thought they mattered. It was so cute!

Why can't I have that back?

 

[thedjally]

The problem with the main assertion OP is putting forward is that the comparisons fall flat.

The wizard is basically the best at all of the above. The sorcerer's mechanics are crazy weak compared to the disparity in spells, and the warlock gets even fewer - essentially living off of a single cantrip. In both cases they are eclipsed at what "they" do by a wizard who also gets the versatility and utility of ritual casting.

The cleric / bard get different spells but only the lore bard is ever getting close to what the wizard can do, and that involves poaching the best spells from every class to, again, get anywhere near the utility offered by the sheer number of spells the wizard gets.

And I haven't even started on like portent....

 

[ccs]

Not only is it not too few, it's too many. Wizards also gain spells via spellbooks found, scrolls found and bought, and spells learned from other wizards. They don't actually need any spells per level, and I've found that the 2 spells per level ability results in wizards who are virtually clones of one another. Despite the fact that there are several spells of each level that are very good, there are usually just a few that are at the top and everyone takes them with their picks.

Yes, they take those top several as their picks because they DON'T want to rely upon having to find them somewhere/somehow....

 

[Warmaster Horus]

If you're not getting many spell books or scrolls from play as a wizard, talk to your DM. There should be suitable availability for those resources as a wizard advances.

 

[ccs]

The problem with the main assertion OP is putting forward is that the comparisons fall flat.

The wizard is basically the best at all of the above. The sorcerer's mechanics are crazy weak compared to the disparity in spells, and the warlock gets even fewer - essentially living off of a single cantrip. In both cases they are eclipsed at what "they" do by a wizard who also gets the versatility and utility of ritual casting.

Yep, my warlock (and other party members) would have been royally screwed many times if not for the cantrip light.
Oh, you were implying EB.... Yeah, I didn't choose that (it just doesn't fit the character I made) & I've never needed it (it's what having 1-2 barbarians & a TWF Battlemaster fighter as friends are for.

As a warlock I'm not "eclipsed" by my team mates. It's NOT a competition.... I'll bring ABC to the party, they'll bring XYZ (where XYZ are things I just don't have access to). It's called teamwork.

The cleric / bard get different spells but only the lore bard is ever getting close to what the wizard can do, and that involves poaching the best spells from every class to, again, get anywhere near the utility offered by the sheer number of spells the wizard gets.

And I haven't even started on like portent

Something tells me your playing clerics, bards, warlocks, & sorcerers wrong if you're finding them to be poor subs for a wizard.
They aren't. They are clerics, bards, warlocks, & sorcerers - and have spell lists & other class features that make them effective at being such.

 

[ccs]

The default wizard gains two new spells to add to their spellbooks per level. It's my contention that this isn't enough for several reasons.

The first reason is that the primary benefit of playing a wizard is spell versatility. The sorcerer focuses on attack/defence, the warlock focuses mostly on attack, and the bard and cleric are all about buffing/debuffing and throwing a bit of attack/defence in when they can. But the wizard is the one who can tailor themselves to the environment and always has that ritual or utility spell in their back pocket to overcome an obstacle or gain an advantage or learn something about the situation.

With the above argument in mind, I come to my second reason that the limit isn't enough because of the nature of gaining spells to add to a spellbook beyond that limit. Random treasure tends to have very few spell scrolls and never has spellbooks. Published campaigns often have very few spellbooks, if at all, and even if they do they tend to be very hard to get and/or easy to miss. That essentially puts your primary class benefit into the hand of fickle fate, or the generosity of the DM catering treasure to your requirements, both of which are not, as far as I'm concerned, satisfactory components of a core system aspect of a class.

The last reason is that if you go through the spell list and choose spells across 20 levels, the system encourages you to select 8 spells of 1st level, and then 4 spells of each level thereafter. Looking through the list, if you only choose utility spells, you're left severely wanting for attack/defence options, and vice versa. And if you compromise and choose a mix, you're essentially lessening one of the best aspects of being a wizard, that of utility spells. Even if you go against the formula I stated, you're still left in that conundrum of losing out on part of the reason to even choose to play a wizard, or being effective in combat.

And all that isn't even mentioning how your core ability is the dumpstat of this edition. I would argue that this limit should be increased to 3 per level instead of just 2. That mitigates all the above issues while still requiring some reliance on luck or DM fiat.

If you're the DM? Make it however you please.
If you're the player? Talk to the DM.
Otherwise I think the rules as are work just fine.

 

[Gradine]

Wow, this only took one post to derail into "caster supremacy wotc hates martials!" That has to be a record, if only because it's not possible to do it any more quickly.

That said, if there was a thread that was going to do that... Far be it from me to speculate on the intentions of the OP...

Seriously, wizards are fine. They're just fine. If anything, spells learned per level should probably be adjusted on the basis of how forthcoming the DM is with scrolls and other spellcaster's books to copy from. If the DM doesn't bother with any of that at all then yeah, maybe 3/level might be appropriate.

That's kind of the problem with white-room "wizard supremacy"; people forget that aside from those 2/level spells a wizard's spellbook is basically at the mercy of the DM; it's not like 3.X where a wizard could reasonably be assured to be able to purchase any damn spell they want. Of course, that 2/level is still better than the Sorcerer (and 5th gives them a much better spell list on top of that), which is the closest comparison class if balance is at all your goal.

 

[Mistwell]

Scrolls and spellbooks. I know you say they are rare, but I have not found that to be the case. Scrolls seem pretty common, and an enemy wizard is not that rare. You're also free to go hunt down an evil wizard

 

[Satyrn]

Wow, this only took one post to derail into "caster supremacy wotc hates martials!" That has to be a record, if only because it's not possible to do it any more quickly.

. . . although I'm not actually proud. I'm still just joking.