removing the bonus spells for every lvl?

[notjer]

A DM I know says that is very balanced to take away the 2 spells a wizard would get in every lvl... Wizard spells can be strong but still... the rule make the druid and cleric to the best casters? (even a sorcere is nearly better ) or what?

I dont really know but this sounds a kind of unfair? I dont have much experience about DnD...

 

[Scharlata]

A DM I know says that is very balanced to take away the 2 spells a wizard would get in every lvl... Wizard spells can be strong but still... the rule make the druid and cleric to the best casters? (even a sorcere is nearly better ) or what?

I dont really know but this sounds a kind of unfair? I dont have much experience about DnD...

Hi!

Please tell your DM that the core classes in the PHB are balanced as they are...

Taking away whatever "2 spells" are meant is no good an idea - even if you/your DM mean/s the two spells that a wizard gains at every level for his/her spellbook.

Kind regards

 

[dcollins]

A DM I know says that is very balanced to take away the 2 spells a wizard would get in every lvl... I dont really know but this sounds a kind of unfair?

Depends on what your DM is doing in exchange for those standard 2 free spells. If he is (a) placing more treasure scroll spells that the wizard can put in his book, and/or (b) reducing the cost to scribe wizard spells in a spellbook, then I might agree that it would be balanced.

 

[welby]

Taking away those spells makes it dificult for a wizard to use his main advantage over a sorcerer - the ability to cast several different spells. My old DM never let me have scrolls as treasure or the time to scribe scrolls, and our sorcerer actually had more spells that he knew than my wizard.

Needless to say, I was not pleased.

 

[shilsen]

Ask your DM why he thinks that a druid or cleric getting access to every spell on their spell lists at every odd level is okay in view of his restriction on wizards.

 

[Bauglir]

I see this quite often as it happens. Many DMs tend to like to keep the pace going in their adventures, and this generally results in the wizard not getting the weeks/months of downtime required to scribe spells, research new spells, craft items and do other wizardly things, simply because there's always something pressing to do.

This is one of the reasons I quite like the sorcerer class, even though many seem to find it weak.

 

[mikebr99]

I know I'd be a Druid in his campaign...


Mike

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Druid and cleric, are already the strongest classes in the game. Taking away the free spells from wizards makes them even better in comparison. (Though, really, the most balance comparison is the sorceror who shares the same spell list as the wizard).

If your DM takes aways the free spells for levelling, he needs to make a lot of scrolls and spellbooks available and reduce the (exorbitant) cost for scribing spells (in money, but even more importantly, in time). Even then, I don't think I would bother playing a wizard in a campaign where my ability to do the ONLY thing I'm any good at (casting spells) is entirely dependent upon the whim of the DM granting me spells. A sorceror is comparable to a wizard normally and wouldn't suffer from DM dependence.

 

[apsuman]

A DM I know says that is very balanced to take away the 2 spells a wizard would get in every lvl... Wizard spells can be strong but still... the rule make the druid and cleric to the best casters? (even a sorcere is nearly better ) or what?

I dont really know but this sounds a kind of unfair? I dont have much experience about DnD...

Well, for starters let get it straight that the sorcerer is better

Other than that, it really nerfs the wizard. By the book even if he gives the wizard more scrolls with a wide variety of spells, unless he also gives him downtime in game to scribe those scrolls into his spellbook then he is, by the book, in a bad way.

 

[fba827]

Depends on what your DM is doing in exchange for those standard 2 free spells. If he is (a) placing more treasure scroll spells that the wizard can put in his book, and/or (b) reducing the cost to scribe wizard spells in a spellbook, then I might agree that it would be balanced.

I was going to type exactly what dcollins already said...
(*exactly* - how eerie is that?)