Would You Give Wizards Unlimited Lower Level Spells?

[Zaukrie]

When I saw the thread, I was hoping it was an answer for lower level wizards. I don't really feel that high level wizards need more flexibility or power.

 

[the black knight]

Unlimited fireballs? Sure, why not? What's the worst that could happen?

 

[rgard]

This post is inspired from the posts stating how spellcasters should have abilities ranging from X/day to unlimited/day.

What if, say, once a Wizard reaches level 21, he can cast unlimited 1st-level spells? At level 23, he can cast unlimited 2nd-level spells, and so on?

Basically, once a Wizard is of high enough level, he can cast his lowest level spells an unlimited number of times a day.

21st-level is just arbitrary. But I was just musing over the idea of giving spellcasters unlimited spell slots once they reach a certain level, or once they hit the maximum number of spell slots for that spell level.

What do you think?

I'd just expand the spells per day chart beyond 20th level. More at higher levels.

 

[Stalker0]

Reserve Feats don't fix the problem; a fighter doesn't spend feats so he can fight all the time, nor a rogue so he can use skills.

Running out of spells isn't a problem, its a feature

 

[rgard]

Unlimited fireballs? Sure, why not? What's the worst that could happen?

"There are some who call me... Tim."

 

[DaveMage]

I like the idea of unlimited 0-level spells, but not too much beyond that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Depends on how much resource management you like.

I've never known a wizard or sorcerer to run so low on spells that they risk running out of low-level, ineffective spells. Wands and scrolls, particularly, are great helps, as are staves at higher levels. This makes them *effectively* unlimited, since 50 castings is many more than most wizards will need for several months of game time, and even when they need a replacement, it's fairly cheap and readily available by the RAW.

So I'd say the game is already balanced with respect to making Sorcerers and Wizards (and Clerics and Druids) able to cast low-level spells basically an infinite number of times. Reserve feats further support this, as does the Warlock design. Running out of spells isn't even something that happens, unless your game is unusually grueling.

If your game's one of those average-paced games, the wizards will gain nothing and loose nothing other than cosmetic changes if you give them infinite spells of lower levels.

If your game's more gruelling or marathon-paced, the spellcasters may grow ever-so-slightly in power, knowing that they can't run out of their core spells, they'll be more likely to sling them around. If you want wizards to be casting more dubiously effective spells, this is the way to go.

having played a wizard in a party that includes a warlock,

...and if you didn't buy a wand of magic missiles, a wand of fireball, or another spells/day-boosting item (and assuming your game was RAW), that's your own dangnab fault.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Only if I also reduced their wealth significantly. Right now, a Wizard can get effectively unlimited lower-level spells with Craft Wand.

Cheers, -- N

Good point.

 

[GreatLemur]

I've long wanted to try giving wizards unlimited cantrips. I don't feel they need more "power"; I just want them to seem more "magical". Besides, good use of cantrips should be quite intimidating against some opponents. I've always felt the details of how magic works should be a mystery to nigh everyone in the game world except casters. Even a minor working of magic should mark the caster as someone not to trifle with.

Perhaps some cantrips would need to be promoted to 1st level in that case. Perhaps not.

Yeah, I like the idea of unlimited cantrips, too. Some 0-level spells definitely aren't appropriate for this kind of use, and Wizards sure as hell wouldn't be able to start off knowing all 0-level spells as they do now (which always seemed like a dumb idea, anyway), but I think it could work. I've never thought it was at all reasonable to make casters actually expend a slot for read magic. And unlimited access to things like light, arcane mark, and ray of frost seems pretty harmless.

I think the biggest problem with unlimited casting would be that every such spell would become a new class feature for players to keep track of. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain I'd want to pare the list down a lot. A Wizard who can detect poison at will could ruin a lot of traps. I guess a Wizard who can always detect magic might cause similar problems, but honestly, doesn't it seem like every Wizard ought to be able to do that?

I dunno, really. I'm on the fence about this. Maybe unlimited cantrips should only be for Sorcerers, whose much shorter list of known 0-levels would mitigate any bad effects quite a lot.

 

[Kwitchit]

I've long wanted to try giving wizards unlimited cantrips. I don't feel they need more "power"; I just want them to seem more "magical". Besides, good use of cantrips should be quite intimidating against some opponents. I've always felt the details of how magic works should be a mystery to nigh everyone in the game world except casters. Even a minor working of magic should mark the caster as someone not to trifle with.

Perhaps some cantrips would need to be promoted to 1st level in that case. Perhaps not.

I agree with that. After all, I can't see unlimited use of any cantrip being overpowered- or even anything more than flavorful. Most of the offensive ones are less effective than firing a crossbow, and the buffs and debuffs don't stack. The oly one that I could see as being a problem is Daze, but it's a fair trade (takes both the wizard and the victim out of the fight), and the victim could make his save.