Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
We need more spells known
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Barolo" data-source="post: 7080752" data-attributes="member: 61932"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>* Of course, if you are already playing with spell points, this advantage of the sorcerer over other spellcasters is lost.</p><p>** 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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Barolo, post: 7080752, member: 61932"] 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
We need more spells known
Top