Unpopular opinions go here

[Micah Sweet]

They'd need to combine more spells, like they did with Bigby's hand. Or even completely rework spells altogether, so that you learn the "throw fire" spell, so with a 1st-level slot, it acts like burning hands; with a 2nd-level slot, it acts like Aganazzar's scorcher; with a 3rd-level slot it acts like fireball, and so on. This would make a lot of sense, lore-wise, since lots of fantasy fiction assumes that their spellcasters progress in a manner like this. You could probably cut the spell list in half or more by doing this.

And/or they could go back to "chance to learn spell," thus ensuring that not everyone will end up with the spell list.

I miss chance to learn spell.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, negotiation under threat of death isn't negotiation. It is coercion.
Run, die, or allow yourself to be coerced...

Fair. Coercive plot hooks/missions are hardly a new thing for D&D. Geas/Quest was in the classic game for a reason.

 

[Faolyn]

I miss chance to learn spell.

Me too. Not the maximum number of spells you could learn, but the chance to learn them.

It'd be super-easy to implement in 5e. DC 10 + the spell's level.

 

[Reynard]

Me too. Not the maximum number of spells you could learn, but the chance to learn them.

It'd be super-easy to implement in 5e. DC 10 + the spell's level.

Presuming proficiency applies, it is an almost trivial check even for higher level spells. I'm not sure that would solve the problem.

 

[Umbran]

Last I saw posted here, 50 million was historical and 30 million was a current estimate.

When I just did a little searching around, I didn't see anyone suggesting 30 million. I saw one estimate of $13.7 million, for what that's worth.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Me too. Not the maximum number of spells you could learn, but the chance to learn them.

It'd be super-easy to implement in 5e. DC 10 + the spell's level.

True. You just have to get past the general rule that players always resist any houserule that objectively makes their PCs less powerful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Presuming proficiency applies, it is an almost trivial check even for higher level spells. I'm not sure that would solve the problem.

No need for proficiency to apply then. Treat it like a death save.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And/or they could go back to "chance to learn spell," thus ensuring that not everyone will end up with the spell list.

Of course that also easily turned into producing blatant winners and losers among mages.

 

[Reynard]

No need for proficiency to apply then. Treat it like a death save.

"What do you mean my wizard isn't proficient in learning magic?!?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course that also easily turned into producing blatant winners and losers among mages.

Them's the breaks, I say.