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

[S'mon]

IME Wizard is very powerful even if they never find spells in play, and certainly don't need extra to be viable. OTOH it won't break the game to give them 3 per level either.

 

[schnee]

If lower level spells couldn't be pumped up to be more powerful by using higher level slots, I could see giving more of them over time. Some utility spells just don't get used at all because they're really situational, and hit point damage seems to solve problems well enough that it's just not worth it to memorize something that could be more fun.

But, alas... that creates another thing to complain about - i.e. 'I'm out of 1st level spells, I have a ton of 2nd level slots left, why can't I get the *value* of that 2nd level slot when I cast a 1st level spell". I got into that very discussion a while ago.

There is always an angle to argue for more.

 

[thethain]

You know, you could have a second wizard in your party, then you effectively get 4 spells per level, as they can each copy each others homework (if time and money allow)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wow, this only took one post to derail into "caster supremacy wotc hates martials!"

Caster supremacy is hardly off-topic when the topic is making a full caster class even more versatile. And it does go all the way back to the earliest days of the game, heck, when you hear anecdotes from the playtesting of the original D&D, it seems like everyone was playing magic-users.

Which is why, the second half of that is kinda silly. "WotC hates martials?" Really? Let's look at the TSR vs WotC track record:

TSR, from 1974 through 1997, came up with what for martial (which in the TSR years, was prettymuch just the fighter) classes?
Weapon Specialization.
Two decades, that was the best they could do.
TSR went from just the magic user, to the magic-user & illusionist, to the Mage and 8 different specialist who all got 9th level spells, and from the Cleric, to the Cleric & Druid, to myriad different specialty priests who all got 9th level spells.

WotC, OTOH, from 2000-present:
Invented Feats and lavished them on the 3.0 fighter. OK, that didn't help the fighter emerge from Tier 5, but it was still /something/.
Added new 'martial classes,' like the Knight and Warblade, and finally, in 4e, the Warlord.
Speaking of 4e, it actually came the closest D&D ever did to balancing martial & caster classes. If there was a period where Caster Supremacy was least plausible, it had to be between the release of the 4e PH1 and Essentials. OK, it was only about 2 years, but it was on WotC's watch.

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

I don't think that's a big issue, 2 spells known/level is plenty, it's the most the wizard has ever gotten automatically (heck, in the early days, you just got a few starting spells and were on your own from then on). And, while the Cleric & Druid, the other two 'prep'-based neo-Vancian casters, have complete access to their smaller lists, the remaining full casters have far fewer known spells.

The Sorcerer, for instance...

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.

Sorcerers know 15 to the wizard's 44.

...wishes he had it so good.

 

[machineelf]

A lot of this argument about how wizards are stronger than martial classes is based on the presupposition that all classes should be as equally balanced as possible. Personally I reject that pressupposition.

In my ideal world, wizards are puny and weak at low levels, but fearsome and powerful at the highest levels. I like that, to be honest.

Back in the early days of D&D perfect class balance was not sought after. That mindset came later with online MMO's like World of Warcraft that had features like pvp arenas and such. They felt the need to balance classes for that reason.

That's why, as someone said above, that 4th edition was the most balanced across classes -- because they we're following a design philosophy based on online MMO's.

That in turn caused tabletop RPG players to believe all classes should be equally balanced.

Now, I don't want one single class to be drastically more powerful. But some imbalance is OK in my book. When a high level wizard walks into a tavern, you should be in awe of their magic power. But they only got to that point by enduring level after level of being a weakling where the fighters shined.

To me 5th edition gets it very close to right. A wizard at high levels can do amazing things. But they can also burn through their magic eventually, and they are fragile against attacks. A fighter may not be as powerful in one round, but they can go round after round of dishing out damage and absorbing a lot as well. That kind of "balance" is OK.

Naturally this is just my opinion and opinions vary.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

A lot of this argument about how wizards are stronger than martial classes is based on the presupposition that all classes should be as equally balanced as possible.

It's not /based/ on that presumption, it's based on the actual capabilities of the classes, themselves. That it's a bug rather than a feature is based on the presumption that a game should be balanced (which isn't unreasonable) - and, in the context of 5e, that the DM shouldn't have to exert himself to achieve said balance (which probably is unreasonable, IMHO).

That last bit's the problem. 5e is designed to Empower DMs, not make DMing paint-by-numbers simple.

In my ideal world, wizards are puny and weak at low levels, but fearsome and powerful at the highest levels. I like that, to be honest.

Thank you for your honesty.

Back in the early days of D&D perfect class balance was not sought after.

I can't agree. 1e AD&D was full of baroque mechanisms that attempted to impose balance on the classes, and admonishments to the DM to be careful messing with those mechanisms. Sure, those attempts were mostly unsuccessful, and only theoretically worked over many levels, but they were there.

That mindset came later with online MMO's like World of Warcraft that had features like pvp arenas and such. They felt the need to balance classes for that reason.

MMOs didn't need game balance because they had PvP, they needed game balance because they were games, that a lot of people actually played, would stop playing if they got bored/frustrated, and couldn't fix with a binder full of house rules.

Besides, 3.x was well-suited to PvP & arena play, and wasn't balanced at all, indeed, it was intentionally imbalanced with built-in rewards for system mastery.
Conversely, 4e, which sucked for PvP, was the best- most-nearly-balanced version of D&D.

So, no MMO implies PvP implies a need for balance is nonsense.

Games in general - RPG, MMO, CCG, board, or otherwise - need balance to avoid sucking. Even 5e needs balance, it just depends on the DM to provide enough of it for his particular table.

some imbalance is OK in my book. When a high level wizard walks into a tavern, you should be in awe of their magic power. But they only got to that point by enduring level after level of being a weakling where the fighters shined.

Ironically, that's the theoretical balance classic D&D was going for. The tremendous magical power of the high-level wizard was balanced by his having sucked out loud at lower levels.

To me 5th edition gets it very close to right. A wizard at high levels can do amazing things. But they can also burn through their magic eventually, and they are fragile against attacks.

Meh. Low level 5e wizards can also do amazing things - unlike 1e magic-users, more than 1/day. And, like 3.x wizards, 5e wizards they can do adequate things all day long, just with combat-effective, even flashy, at-will cantrips instead of light crossbows. At the other extreme, 5e limits wizards to relatively few very high-level spell slots/day. So it's not like wizards go through the low-level hazing magic-users did back in the day. Nor are they really all that fragile. They got a HD upgrade, can sport a decent AC, and don't provoke AoOs when casting.

A fighter may not be as powerful in one round, but they can go round after round of dishing out damage and absorbing a lot as well.

As long as the combat lasts, that is - and 5e has been carefully tuned for fast combat. And, a fighter /can/ Action Surge to contribute some pretty staggering DPR in one particular round.

 

[machineelf]

It's not /based/ on that presumption, it's based on the actual capabilities of the classes, themselves. That it's a bug rather than a feature is based on the presumption that a game should be balanced (which isn't unreasonable) - and, in the context of 5e, that the DM shouldn't have to exert himself to achieve said balance (which probably is unreasonable, IMHO).

You just said it's not based on the presumption of needed balance ... then said needed balance is a presumption that is not unreasonable. So color me confused.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You just said it's not based on the presumption of needed balance ... then said needed balance is a presumption that is not unreasonable. So color me confused.

The observation that classes in D&D aren't balanced is not based on the presumption that balance is needed. The classes are what they are whether you consider balance desirable or undesirable.

 

[schnee]

A lot of this argument about how wizards are stronger than martial classes is based on the presupposition that all classes should be as equally balanced as possible. Personally I reject that pressupposition.

In my ideal world, wizards are puny and weak at low levels, but fearsome and powerful at the highest levels. I like that, to be honest.

Wizard player spotted.

Back in the early days of D&D perfect class balance was not sought after. That mindset came later with online MMO's like World of Warcraft that had features like pvp arenas and such. They felt the need to balance classes for that reason.

That's why, as someone said above, that 4th edition was the most balanced across classes -- because they we're following a design philosophy based on online MMO's.

Nah, what was also happening was a newer generation of gamers were coming in that had all sorts of other RPGs under their belts - ones that were balanced - and started asking questions.

They aimed for those younger players, in an effort to grow the base - and the grognards that can't handle anything new went crazy.

 

[machineelf]

Wizard player spotted.

You would be largely wrong, sir. I DM 95% of the time. When I play, I like to play a variety. I just don't believe that all classes need to be perfectly balanced in combat. Some classes do certain things better than other things. And I think wizards should be super weak and fragile for awhile in early levels.