Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9015498" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I'm not going to argue that a spellcaster shouldn't have a range of spells.  But when the spells a given Wizard can have available at any given moment is harshly limited, and that Wizard often has to choose what spells they want prepared before they precisely know what the day's adventure is going to be like, what goes on their list?  Armor or Tenser's Floating Disc?  Invisibility or Rope Trick?  Fireball or Leomund's Tiny Invincible Battle Bunker?  Hallucinatory Terrain or Fire Shield?The more options wizards have, the more this can actually lead to decision paralysis.  And even if the "silver bullet" spell exists, does the wizard have it?  Because again, there's an opportunity cost to the Wizard's spell acquisition, and so, quite often, a given Wizard only has a spell because the DM made it available to them, including the money and downtime to scribe it into their spellbook.On the flipside, if the player insists on taking niche spells, sure, I can contrive scenarios to make them useful.  But that's not going to happen every adventure.  So I'll also contrive to let them find spells that would be more broadly useful.Though I find this funny, since over the years, I've had a lot of DM's tell me that I'm bad for ensuring player choices remain viable.  Like ensuring the Fighter who likes Pikes keeps finding magical Pikes instead of forcing them into the hard choice of having to use a magic Warhammer because that's the only magic weapon they found, lol.</blockquote>

Verification