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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

As an older generation of gamer, I disagree: we'd been aware of and grousing about balance for decades. (But, yes, experiences with other RPGs may have contributed.)

A balanced game (and, especially a clearly-presented one), though, just provides a better first experience than an imbalanced one, and better repeated-play experiences, too. It's more likely to retain a new player that just picks it up and tries it out, than a badly broken or confusing game.

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

Those same grognards, though, are the prime ambassadors of the brand. Trying to decipher and play an RPG from a standing start isn't easy (no matter how clear/balanced/playable you try to make it), but sitting in on a well-run D&D game can be a positive first experience. Grognards though we may be, experienced DMs can deliver good sessions.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I drop spellbooks and spells in books all the time in my game. Sometimes from a defeated wizard and sometimes in a library or bookshelf. It is a necessary part of the game to have wizards finding spells.

 

[zaratan]

 

[cbwjm]

The only wizard in my group is me, and I've found a few scrolls while playing. Not sure if the scrolls will stick around long enough to put in my spellbook, but I've definitely had a few options thrown at me. When I was the DM though, I left a spellbook because it made sense that an enemy wizard would have his spellbook with him. Of course since no one had a wizard it just got palmed off to an NPC for gold and healing potions.

Something else I allow for a wizard character. If they find a spellbook, they do not have to copy those spells they don't know into their own spellbook. Instead they can learn to read the notations that the other wizard used and master the spellbook to prepare spells from it as if it was theirs. I think that's more interesting and it fits with some of the DnD novels I've read. They may still want to copy some spells at normal costs just to cut down on baggage but it isn't required.

 

[Dualazi]

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.

Coincidentally what you just stated is one of the big problems I have with 5e; everyone IS balanced for combat. Every class can contribute meaningfully to combat and it’s debatable whether or not the fighter is even the best at it. The problem is that the game was allegedly balanced across the three pillars, but having everyone be good at combat throws that out the window immediately. If a class has great exploration and social abilities/perks, then it follows that they should be pretty bad in the combat sector, but that isn’t the case in 5e.

In my opinion, it really has to be one way or the other. You either make each class have arenas they specialize in and others they suck in, or you give features that allow everyone to interact with the other areas of play. Right now you have classes that can do all three and others that can really only do one, and I find that unpleasant.

 

[machineelf]

Coincidentally what you just stated is one of the big problems I have with 5e; everyone IS balanced for combat. Every class can contribute meaningfully to combat and it’s debatable whether or not the fighter is even the best at it. The problem is that the game was allegedly balanced across the three pillars, but having everyone be good at combat throws that out the window immediately. If a class has great exploration and social abilities/perks, then it follows that they should be pretty bad in the combat sector, but that isn’t the case in 5e.

In my opinion, it really has to be one way or the other. You either make each class have arenas they specialize in and others they suck in, or you give features that allow everyone to interact with the other areas of play. Right now you have classes that can do all three and others that can really only do one, and I find that unpleasant.

I do not disagree with you. The most egregious, in my mind, is the rogue. I think rogues should be really good at picking locks and finding traps, and yes they should be able to do some good damage when they can backstab from time to time, but in general combat they should be a weaker class. Yet they pretty much rock in 5th edition. I still love a lot of what's going on in 5th edition, but I do agree with you, even it has problems with trying to balance for combat too much.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I do not disagree with you. The most egregious, in my mind, is the rogue. I think rogues should be really good at picking locks and finding traps, and yes they should be able to do some good damage when they can backstab from time to time, but in general combat they should be a weaker class. Yet they pretty much rock in 5th edition. I still love a lot of what's going on in 5th edition, but I do agree with you, even it has problems with trying to balance for combat too much.

Rogues are mid-tier damage dealers, at best. Don't know where you're getting the idea that they're kings of DPR.

In fact, a lot of the conversation I've seen so far in this thread seems to be coming from a gross misunderstanding of 5e and how it works both on paper and in game. I've only seen a couple of constructive posts and the rest have been dismissive and, somewhat, antagonistic. I guess it's run its course and there's no need to continue the discussion, at least not for me anyway.

 

[machineelf]

Rogues are mid-tier damage dealers, at best. Don't know where you're getting the idea that they're kings of DPR.

I didn't say they were kings of DPR and or that DPR is the only reason for my assessment. I said they are very strong combat class. That includes some bursts of high damage, yes, (see sneak attack with poison weapons, especially on crits), but it also is their ability to mitigate damage (uncanny dodge, evasion) and their ability to duck into a melee right and then slip away (disengage with cunning action).

Having said that, they are definitely above mid-tier in damage per fight, and I'm not sure what you're talking about. All they have to do is stay back with a bow and hit creatures that are fighting their teammates, giving them constant sneak attacks, which is a ton of extra damage. In my experience and the years that I've run 5th edition now, rogues are both the hardest class to put in harm's way, as well as the class that generally does the most damage. I would put monks more at mid-tier. Rogues are toward the top.

 

[schnee]

As an older generation of gamer, I disagree: we'd been aware of and grousing about balance for decades. (But, yes, experiences with other RPGs may have contributed.)

Yeah, there is truth to that, but you're only speaking of *some* of the people from that era, and I'd argue the ones that are the least impactful to people just getting in to the game. The louder ones are like the Sad Puppies of the Hugos - they'd rather poison the well to new blood than change.

Those same grognards, though, are the prime ambassadors of the brand. Trying to decipher and play an RPG from a standing start isn't easy (no matter how clear/balanced/playable you try to make it), but sitting in on a well-run D&D game can be a positive first experience. Grognards though we may be, experienced DMs can deliver good sessions.

Eh, I agree and disagree again, as one myself - I started with Blue Box in '77.

I'm seeing a heck of a lot of younger players picking up D&D again. My table is a good example - it's almost half women, people in late 20's to early 30's. They didn't need grognards - they have YouTube 'let's play' channels, web discussion forums, Twitch, and the like. Those are mostly run by young gamers.

The grognards who dismiss story games, insult 4.x with the 'video game' characterization, and other things like that are not good ambassadors. They scare people away, half with their insistence on things never changing from what they like, and half from their dismissive view of other games that have far different intents and mechanics.

 

[machineelf]

The grognards who dismiss story games, insult 4.x with the 'video game' characterization, and other things like that are not good ambassadors. They scare people away, half with their insistence on things never changing from what they like, and half from their dismissive view of other games that have far different intents and mechanics.

It's not just a characterization, when it comes to 4th edition and its similarity to the MMO video game genre. It's perfectly clear that was what they were going for, with its obvious use of tanks, DPS, control, and healing roles, as well as how they incorporated powers and the way they put emphasis on fighting tactics for all classes and heavy use of grid system.

The first time I played 4th edition, I thought, "oh interesting, this is similar to World of Warcraft, just in tabletop form." And I didn't read RPG message forums back then and I didn't know anything, so my opinion wasn't shaped by someone else. And everyone I know who has played both WoW and 4th edition seems to agree with that assessment.

And I am not trying to insult 4th edition, either. I loved WoW. I thought 4th edition was brilliantly created, for what it was. It just wasn't the type of table-top RPG I wanted to play.

And I am not really a Grognard. I liked the idea of D&D as a kid, but I really only got started in 4th edition. Then quickly realized it didn't sit well with me, and got into the 5th edition playtest.

It seems like every time a person makes the (legitimate) comparison of 4th edition to online MMO game design, some people seem to get annoyed and deny it for some reason.

And since 5th edition is selling well and is a step back toward the more classic D&D game design from 4th edition (which didn't sell as well), I don't really think anyone's being scared away, as you fear.