Li Shenron
Legend
Personally I would have wanted less known spells for Clerics and Rangers, a lot less known spells for Paladins, and more known spells for Sorcerers. I think the others are fine as is.
D&D 5E We need more spells known
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
A big problem over decades and editions is how long each player takes to run their character during combat. The absolute worst of these by a fair margin can be spellcasters. Checking spells for specifics, working out bad saves of foes. Checking various ranges and area of effects. Trying to work out not just what is best in this situation, but also the least force needed to keep as much possible available for the next encounter.
Spells known is, in addition to a balance point about how many options casters have vs. non-casters, but also a mechanism to keep the number of choices to consider to a minimum.
I am strongly against increasing number of spells known. Yes, it hurts - but that's because you have SO MANY COOL THINGS that you want them all at your fingertips all the time.
Spells known is, in addition to a balance point about how many options casters have vs. non-casters, but also a mechanism to keep the number of choices to consider to a minimum.
I am strongly against increasing number of spells known. Yes, it hurts - but that's because you have SO MANY COOL THINGS that you want them all at your fingertips all the time.
Jester David
Hero
Re: champion fight. Working just fine at my table. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it's not meant to be. Fans of the champion really don't want major combat complexity.
Re: spells known. You already pick the "best" spells for your level with your first or second choice.
Getting more spells know its picking through your 3rd or 4th choices of spells. In practice, while wizards know a lot more spells, most generally find a list of spells they like to prepare and stick with those.
But if you want your sorcerers to have more spells know... give them more spells known. *bam* done! Start with one extra every other level and see how that works. Or do some extra work and associate some with bloodlines.
I am one of those odd people that thinks sorcerers are just fine in 5e, even awesome. I didn't like them at all when I first saw them in 3e (they just looked like boring wizards with an excuse not to use vancian spell preparation, there was no bloodline feature even, remember?), and at first had to get used to what having metamagics really meant for the class. Playing with the spell slots*, customizing parameters for unexpected results, manipulating the rules everybody else has to follow... a lot of fun. If you increase their number of spells known, I don't think there will be concerns about balance**. But it feels to me they actually lose part of what makes them distinct from wizards, if they get too many spells. And I think the fun of exploring metamagics may become trivialized when one can just cast another spell when they need to overcome some difficulty, instead of messing around with the limited set plus metamagics.
I really don't understand why paladins get so many spells prepared, but I don't care either. Paladins have, by far, the most boring spell list ever. Save very few exceptions, their spells can be grouped in only three categories - self buffs, healing and smiting. Virtually all self buffs and smiting require concentration, which makes them highly incompatible (if someone wants to use smiting spells, they are automatically prevented from using self buffs, for instance). Worse still, the people I play with that actually care to play paladins only worry about using the smite feature of the class (the most wasteful use of spell slots ever), and they even keep trying to fish crits for moooaar damage. Surely, they maximize damage output, but in the most sub-optimal way possible. In the end, it doesn't matter, even when they don't waste all those beautiful spell slots on dumb smites, they could have all paladin spells available and would still be doing very limited things anyway.
The ranger is a completely different beast. They are cool battlefield controllers, their spell list is interesting, diversified, allows for quite varied combat strategies and contributes nicely to the exploration pillar. As such, to limit their spells known is relevant to keep them not too versatile.
Warlocks are kinda fun. At first they have a limited spell selection. Then, they have all those invocations that expand their spell list, but that you can only use once per day. I think it is fair. If a warlock decides to heavily invest on those invocations, they become very versatile. With spell slots recovering at every short rest, if they could always use all their standard spells plus all the spells learned through invocations, this might be too good. Just imagine a warlock being able to recover polymorph at every short rest. Suddenly they become too strong on the exploration pillar.
Clerics, druids and bards already have plenty of spells. Wizards can actually have all the spells in their list, if they care to go after them (research, grimoire looting, spell scrolls), so they have the potential to have more than anybody else, which I think is just what it should be. In fact, I don't even allow my wizard, eldritch knight, arcane trickster and bard players to just pop spells out of thin air. We have this agreement at our table they should be actively seeking in game for that knowledge (which I will, of course, let available in game for them), and the number of spells per level for the wizard is really just a guideline for when the player is doing only the minimum effort.
So, all in all, I do not see the need for more spells known, but if it really bothers you, I do not see much problem either, in most cases.
* Of course, if you are already playing with spell points, this advantage of the sorcerer over other spellcasters is lost.
** There is always a chance you might end up with the right tools for the job even when you have a limited set, or you might not have the right tool even with a very large and diverse set (just check out paladins).
I really don't understand why paladins get so many spells prepared, but I don't care either. Paladins have, by far, the most boring spell list ever. Save very few exceptions, their spells can be grouped in only three categories - self buffs, healing and smiting. Virtually all self buffs and smiting require concentration, which makes them highly incompatible (if someone wants to use smiting spells, they are automatically prevented from using self buffs, for instance). Worse still, the people I play with that actually care to play paladins only worry about using the smite feature of the class (the most wasteful use of spell slots ever), and they even keep trying to fish crits for moooaar damage. Surely, they maximize damage output, but in the most sub-optimal way possible. In the end, it doesn't matter, even when they don't waste all those beautiful spell slots on dumb smites, they could have all paladin spells available and would still be doing very limited things anyway.
The ranger is a completely different beast. They are cool battlefield controllers, their spell list is interesting, diversified, allows for quite varied combat strategies and contributes nicely to the exploration pillar. As such, to limit their spells known is relevant to keep them not too versatile.
Warlocks are kinda fun. At first they have a limited spell selection. Then, they have all those invocations that expand their spell list, but that you can only use once per day. I think it is fair. If a warlock decides to heavily invest on those invocations, they become very versatile. With spell slots recovering at every short rest, if they could always use all their standard spells plus all the spells learned through invocations, this might be too good. Just imagine a warlock being able to recover polymorph at every short rest. Suddenly they become too strong on the exploration pillar.
Clerics, druids and bards already have plenty of spells. Wizards can actually have all the spells in their list, if they care to go after them (research, grimoire looting, spell scrolls), so they have the potential to have more than anybody else, which I think is just what it should be. In fact, I don't even allow my wizard, eldritch knight, arcane trickster and bard players to just pop spells out of thin air. We have this agreement at our table they should be actively seeking in game for that knowledge (which I will, of course, let available in game for them), and the number of spells per level for the wizard is really just a guideline for when the player is doing only the minimum effort.
So, all in all, I do not see the need for more spells known, but if it really bothers you, I do not see much problem either, in most cases.
* Of course, if you are already playing with spell points, this advantage of the sorcerer over other spellcasters is lost.
** There is always a chance you might end up with the right tools for the job even when you have a limited set, or you might not have the right tool even with a very large and diverse set (just check out paladins).
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Probably because they're not good enough at what they actually do. At any table where Remarkable Athlete stacks with proficiency instead of being almost entirely redundant, I would play a Champion and enjoy it, despite the complete lack of spells known. Without that though there's not enough difference between the Champion and the base Fighter chassis, so the opportunity cost dominates.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Seriously, though, the Wizard would not be a great template to base multiple classes upon, it's rather extreme. The Warlock's general class structure would be a better candidate, IMHO.
Maximizing meaningful choices is a key component of balance - the other being /viable/ choices. Lack of either imbalances that aspect of the game (classes, in this case).
Arbitrary structural & mechanical differences in design don't always add meaningful choices - they often add less viable ('trap') choices or impact the viability of existing ones - and they do always add complexity. Different 'Fluff' and different choices/combinations applied to a smaller, more consistent set of mechanics, can also add meaningful choices, without impacting viability, and while holding the line on overall complexity.
I think that (bolded) is a viable solution, you got right there. It's an easy variant to implement - it's how most players, coming from 3.5 & earlier, expect prep to work, anyway.
Maybe.
Last edited:
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
That seems 100% A-OK to me. Druids already get to do this, twice per short rest, at no invocation cost, and without losing their human-level intelligence. Wizard Transmuters get this too (i.e. short rest Polymorph, not the superior druidic Wildshape), at 10th level. Even a bard can cast Polymorph often enough to keep up with the hypothetical warlock-with-Polymorph-as-spell-known.
I don't think making Sculptor of Flesh just straight up add Polymorph to your spells known makes the warlock too strong. Feels just right for my table. The only reason I haven't officially made that change is parsimony, but if I had a warlock player who wanted it I would make that change without hesitation.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
It takes more evidence to prove something non-viable than has been presented in the OP of this thread. You can't just count up the spells known of various spellcasters; you have to compare total packages and show that one of the packages is dominated by the others--which will be controversial.
Tony Vargas
Legend
I was speaking more generally on the tangent issues (and importance) of meaningful and viable choices, rather than this specific case, but OK, back on topic...
Sure you can, they're objective measures.
I don't see a lot of potential for controversy: the prepped casters, sans spontaneous slot-casting & cantrips, were solidly Tier 1 in 3.x, and the spontaneous ones looking up at them from Tier 2 (mind you, out of six Tiers). While we might argue that the gulf between a hypothetical Tier 1 and Tier 5 in 5e is narrowed because specific spells aren't as wildly overpowered individually, the things spontaneous casters had going for them relative to prepped in 3.x are prettymuch gone in 5e, with very little to replace them. That gap remains or has widened.
But, ultimately, it's a not-too-compelling question of which privileged class is more privileged, though, so...
...meh, having casters who prep do so into slots instead of using slots spontaneously would seem to be a simple variant that'd to go a long ways towards evening things up.
Edit:And/or give the prepped casters fewer prepped spells, for instance, by having features that give them specific spells prepped all the time count against their limit instead of being over-and-above it.
Last edited:
MonkeezOnFire
Adventurer
This is an important point. Some of the full spellcasting classes have things going for them outside of spellcasting. The bard I think is a good example of this with a myriad of support features, better skill usage, the option to pick up weapon and armor proficiency. A handful of their spell choices are even made from any spell list in the game which makes them worth a lot more than a standard spell choice. I think this is why a lot of people feel that the bard is currently in a good place despite having a relatively low number of spells known.
Similar Threads
