How Many Spells Does a Wizard Need?

[Umbran]

As we all know (/snark), Gandalf knew only three spells: speak with moths, continual light, and force charm (or was that Obi Wan?). The rest of his magic required his epic-level staff (just ask Wormtongue). So why do some wizards need 10-pound spellbooks? Isn't three spells, plus a staff, enough magic?

Are you talking in literature, or in games? Because they aren't the same.

 

[Umbran]

Fireball solves all problems. Or at least it replaces your old problems with "holy crap, we're stuck in a burning building again."

Welcome to the Jason Mendoza School of Wizardry.

"I'm telling you, Molotov cocktails work. Any time I had a problem, and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem." - Jason Medoza, The Good Place.

 

[GMMichael]

As I said I’m playing a new wizard character and I haven’t learnt any spells yet. I can see magic radiances though, understand much about the world. I have lots of Int based skills and am pretty nifty with a staff. I feel like I can hold my own with the rest of the party.

I wouldn't call a character who can't cast spells (or their equivalents) a wizard. Apprentice, maybe.

Are you talking in literature, or in games? Because they aren't the same.

I'm thinking more about games. Because we gamers hold wizards to a general standard, while authors just write whatever they want.

 

[TheSword]

I wouldn't call a character who can't cast spells (or their equivalents) a wizard. Apprentice, maybe.

I go back to the Wizards of the Unseen University. In particular Rincewind, whose great skill is in languages.

What about a wizard that loses the ability to cast spells? Either because of curse, disability, or environment? Are they still a wizard?

I guess my point is that D&D has created a particular paradigm of wizards. Pathfinder/4e/5e accentuated that by adding cantrips that meant all wizards need do is cast spells. Every action, some form of spell. It created the idea that wizards have to be constantly casting spells or they aren’t wizards.

For 3e and prior those early level wizards were lucky if they cast 2 or 3 spells a day. Most of their actions and involvement in the adventure were not spells. It was everything else they brought to the table.

I’m not disputing that wizard characters would want to cast lots of spells. Just not that it is essential or a need.

 

[GrimCo]

Depending on how open ended spells are.

In D&D they are very strictly defined in scope of how and what they do. They are very specific.

For instance: Mirror image

5e version Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory

In Cairn, this is whole description of spell
An illusory duplicate of yourself appears and is under your control.

Less defined spells they are, less of them you need, cause you can do more with them.

 

[GMMichael]

What about a wizard that loses the ability to cast spells? Either because of curse, disability, or environment? Are they still a wizard?

I’m not disputing that wizard characters would want to cast lots of spells. Just not that it is essential or a need.

I wrote the OP actually thinking about how many different spells a wizard should know, but this is a close tie-in.

Is a non-casting wizard still a wizard? Not by definition. One is likely to get kicked out of Hogwarts for not being able to cast spells. The potential to cast future spells matters; if a first-level, three-slot caster runs out of spells for the day, she's still a wizard.

Depending on how open ended spells are. . .

Less defined spells they are, less of them you need, cause you can do more with them.

Truth, but I guess the next question is: how many different usages of one spell does a wizard make?

For some reason, this got me thinking a little more meta. If spells are super-flexible, maybe it's more interesting to look at how many rules mechanisms a wizard can affect. For example, if a PC knows only "raise self hit points," would you call that PC a wizard? Or does he sound like more of a paladin? Cleric? Does a wizard also need to know "reduce opponent hit points?"

As the mind wanders, TheSword leads me to wondering if a "wizard" isn't about how many spells (usages) are available. It's more about just having the potential to learn more.

 

[GrimCo]

More open ended spells are usually found in games with lighter mechanics. I gave example of Cairn, which is very rules light game. You don't have mechanical limitations on said spell. It does what it says it does. Player's imagination and DMs approval is only limiting factor.

On the same notion, in Mage:the Ascension, spheres are very broad. There are limits (one of them is Paradox and vulgar use of magic) but with creative wording of how you do stuff, you can do lot of cool stuff even with 1 or 2 dot spheres.

 

[Faolyn]

How many spells? Well, it depends on how broad and flexible those spells are. If you have a system like SWADE, where you can take a spell and add on all sorts of enhancements and limitations each time you cast to really mold the spell to your liking, then you need only a couple. If you're talking D&D, where probably 97% of all the spells have a single, fixed outcome and (by RAW) can't really be used for anything other than that outcome, you need a bunch.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

As we all know (/snark), Gandalf knew only three spells: speak with moths, continual light, and force charm (or was that Obi Wan?). The rest of his magic required his epic-level staff (just ask Wormtongue). So why do some wizards need 10-pound spellbooks? Isn't three spells, plus a staff, enough magic?

This is such a great question.

IMHO.... "As many as the plot needs".

I have run almost every system ever made. And the 100% consistent thing I notice about any game with magic/psionics/mystic etc = The players use what the challenges call for

No more
No less


From Mage to D&D to Conan to Aberrant and so on and on... If all the players do is talk, socialize, persuade, and intrigue = not a single "fireball" was ever cast or even desired by any player. The rules could have never had a "fireball" spell, and the players would never have noticed.


Players will use a tool if its useful, and if they only have one tool, then they will use it whenever they can force it to apply. So when creating spells for your game, first think about "Ok, but what is this 'caster' most often doing?" and then follow it up with "Yeah, but do I want a spell to help them do that?"

With this game we hacked = Demon the Fallen (free link) , there are 'spells' and 'powers'. And instead of writing down details. We made keywords and let the dice determine how much they could accomplish.

This solved the problem of "how many spells" , buttttt it put a LOT of improv creative narrative on the player every time they used a power... so...

 

[Celebrim]

As we all know (/snark), Gandalf knew only three spells:

Gandalf casts at the least affect normal fires, light, hold portal, knock, shatter, lightning bolt, fireball, produce flame, pyrotechnics, 'Gandalf's minute meteors' (as Melf's spell of the same name), invisibility, and phantasmal forces. He also probably knows a number of other spells related to light, shadow, smoke, illusion, and sound not directly disclosed by the text, but all presumably of 3rd level or less.

It's possible that some of the flashier fire magic comes from the minor artifact ring he's wearing.

As for your question, "about that". A wizard should know about a dozen spells per tier of play.